Because tank fags get one, us jetfags should get one, so I'm going to start a weekly jet fighter based general thread, which will be known as /JHG/.
In these threads you may talk about current developments and general knowledge about jet fighters. Please keep it civil; slavaboos, chinkaboos, ameriboos and eurotrash please keep your dick waving to a minimum and just talk about jet aircraft.
Starting off I'll talk about the latest iteration of F-15:
> Saudis put billions of $ into defense contract
>Do we want F-35s or upgraded F-15s?
>We want upgraded F-15s!
What do we get? We get the F-15SA. This iteration brings the F-15 to 4++ standard:
>BAE Digital Electronic Warfare System
>Sniper XR with Boeing Tiger Eyes A/A IRST capability
>Touchscreen displays in cockpit
>HUD projected directly onto canopy
DEWS alone makes this a force to be reckoned with. When used in conjunction with the AESA radar, it will apparently show engagement range information of anything searching/spiking the eagle. Also allows 50% more expendable chaff and flares to be carried due to new carriage positions in the tail. The new space comes as a result of the implementation of a fly by wire control system, also enhancing the aircraft's control and maneuverability. It also allows enemy radar to be jammed without affecting it's own radar and RWR (though I don't think this was ever an issue).
In my personal opinion, it's a real shame the USAF doesn't buy some of these.
>tfw 2015 can't come fast enough
Last I heard, July was the earliest delivery date.
Brazil made the right choice when ordering a Gen 4++ Fighter.
>Turn around time 10 min.
>Cold weather resistance.(Fucking A Brazil needs that shit.)
>Not being a hanger queen
>Can be fitted with weapons that can actually sink a battleship (RBS-15).
>Equal or greater dogfighter than the F-35.
>Being a little bitch with a tight-ass.
It is the gift that keeps on giving.
>Look. I SAID LOOK
The grapes must have been just a little too high for poor little old Brazil.
I would like to see your precious hanger slut do this.
Or those grapes were just too far away.
F-35 has allways been a pretty cool guy.
And that 9 months from now, a proper delivery of Murrica's finest child of aerial technology ^^
Operating off of a wet surface?
Operate from a road. The F-35 would probably inhale som dust and kick the bucket. Water is about all it could handle. I can see that the Jews will get out-Jewed already by Sheckelstein-Martin
>implying they don't do FOD sweeps for any jet taking off
This bait is stale, I demand a higher quality.
That standard ARM
Bumping with an Eagle from my hometown
They certainly are very sexy.
Just look at all that equipment under there, so lewd...
Have a badass fictional swing-wing.
Sometimes I feel like I should leave my trip on for threads like these.
Any particular reason the euros love the D? What advantages do delta-wings have that make them so attractive to euro airforces?
Structurally sound, efficient lift generation and generally accepting to lots of hardpoints.
Also cheaper to make a plane with one set of wings than a set of wings and control surfaces.
>the Pratt F-135 on the F-35 is far superior.
You do know that the Gripen is half the weight of the F-35? So if we just look at the engine specs they will be canceled out. The Gripen has the same TTW-ratio with a smaller engine. So that point is moot.
>Whereever Gripen can take off I'm sure F-35 can as well.
And with F-35 only made to operate from carriers and airbases i think not. It is totaly dependante on the expanssive facillaties that the US has to offer and a 50 man work team.
The Gripen can be serviced in a Swedish back wood road with 10 guys. Even if the F-135 was modifed in the same way as the GE 404 the Gripen uses, it would be useless without the support structure it requires.
post cancelled projects that you wanted to be of operational service
Quit the dick waving. One is a 4+ the other is a 5th gen.
In the meantime have some F -15E turn and burn
Enlighten me. I can't promise i won't laugh but you can try.
Not as good as yours, i'm sure.
Hey dude, what's new?
That depends on what you want.
F-16 has longer range, can carry a heavier payload.
JAS-39 is lighter and carries less ordenace. Should handle a little better than the F-16. But it's main advantage is in logistics. With a turn around time on 10 min, and the ability to start with 500m, you can keep up a high mission rate and operate after the initial strike on your airbase.
The T/Ws are .1 different. Unfortunately for the Gripen, that .1 puts the F-35 above 1.
Further, the just looking at T/W doesn't tell the full story. While it can provide similar thrust to weight, you have to remember the F-35 flies clean when it matters, whereas the Gripen gets extra drag from the pylons and payload.
>Believing a traditionally bladed engine will be more resistant to debris than one that uses titanium blisks
>Not realizing the F-35B has a far shorter STO runway requirement than the Gripen (581ft vs 2,000ft)
>Not realizing the F-35B can land vertically whereas the Gripen needs a cleared runway to land, lengthening its runway requirement
Be more of a retard.
>And with F-35 only made to operate from carriers and airbases i think not. It is totaly dependante on the expanssive facillaties that the US has to offer and a 50 man work team.
The Gripen can be serviced in a Swedish back wood road with 10 guys. Even if the F-135 was modifed in the same way as the GE 404 the Gripen uses, it would be useless without the support structure it requires.
Except the Gripen has no vertical thrust capability you retard, and the F404 wasn't designed for dirt runways at all. The F-35's titanium engine blades are likely more resistant to debris than the F404's.
>Look at these maintenance numbers I pulled out of my ass!
Wow, be dumber
First of all, you just straight pulled those maintenance numbers out of your ass. I guarantee that you can't source them. Second of all, the F404 was designed for carrier operations (it was designed for the F-18), and hasn't been modified in any way for use on dirt roads. The harder blades of the F135 give it an edge against debris.
I'm not a pro on the electronic warfare subject, but from my understanding the EA-18G does pretty much the same mission, just with two crew members and more capacity for modernization. Also the Growler actually has an air to air radar, and the capability of launching AIM-120s. It can technically drop all the same ordnance that Super Hornets can as well, though it would never be used that way.
What is the support structure it requires compared to the gripen? If anything the F-35 is easier to maintain due to its self diagnoses system and logistics software that automatically sends alerts for what parts it will need so it can be repaired quicker?
"The program's maintenance concept is for any F-35 to be maintained in any F-35 maintenance facility and that all F-35 parts in all bases will be globally tracked and shared as needed. The aircraft has been designed for ease of maintenance, with 95% of all field replaceable parts "one deep" where nothing else has to be removed to get to the part in question. For instance the ejection seat can be replaced without removing the canopy, the use of low-maintenance electro-hydrostatic actuators instead of hydraulic systems and an all-composite skin without the fragile coatings found on earlier stealth aircraft.The F-35 has received good reviews from pilots and maintainers, suggesting it is performing better than its predecessors did at a similar stage of development. "
All I want is more F-22's. Maybe 300 or so. With F-35 tier avionics. Is that so much to ask?
Have you ever worked on a jet engine? You keep spouting the "in a Sweedish wood with 10 guys" nonsense but I don't think you actually understand how difficult that would be for any aircraft. Not to mention, those repairs probably won't last long.
Not the pod, something else. I could just be misremembering, I'm running on 3 hours of sleep.
>Ctrl-F "BAS 90"
>Then kill yoursell
>Ctrl-F "Operational characteristics"
>Then kill yourself.
Spoon feeding is tiresome.
>tfw no rafales in canuckistan
And thank fuck for that.
Love that game
> we Comona now
That was mine too before I switched to pic related three days ago.
>Let me back off half of my claims and claim to be spoon feeding you!
>Forgot about when I said the F-35B needed a longer runway and made up some bullshit about the Gripen being more resistant to debris
Now, let's actually look at what you posted
Excellent, you pulled up some fucking blogs that don't cite any sources! This is surely incontrovertible evidence that your claims are correct!
You also didn't address your "50 man maintenance team" bulllshit number either.
But please, backpedal some more
>not posting the superior croatian paintjob
What's wrong with Rafales anon?
I love early cold war jets. They're so cool
Bottom of the page. Where it says *Sources.
>Blue Text that can be clicked? Must be decoration.
Really now? You did not even bother to klick on any of them? You sure disproved that site!
And where did i talk about F-35B needing a longer run way? I said that it can't operate outside an airbase or carrier. There is more to it being able to take off and land. We have to also think about the poor jets coating. Would not want too hurt that stealth. So road base is a nono.
>Table 4.9. NGB-Determined Total Maintenance Military Manpower Requirements for
Combat-Coded F-35 Squadrons of 18 PAA and 24 PAA
>Total for 18 PAA, 440 personel
>Total for 24 PAA, 566 personel
>21 to 23 resp. per plane
Not quite as shitty for a trillion doller plane.
I don't think there is a sexier aircraft on the market than the F-16 Block 60.
Just for you <3
>Swedish defense plans include a concept known as "BAS 90", which envisions dispersal of aircraft in groups of four to six to "road bases" organized around specially reinforced lengths of highway, with associated dispersal areas. This scheme dictates the Gripen's short-field capabilities. The Gripen can take off and land in less than 600 meters (2,000 feet). Once deployed to a road base, the Gripens are serviced by a ground crew of six, including one highly trained specialist and five minimally trained conscripts. A service team can refuel and rearm a Gripen in ten minutes. The Gripen features an auxiliary power unit (APU) to reduce its dependence on ground systems, and the fighter's onboard digital systems include "built-in self-test" capabilities that can download diagnostic data to a tech's laptop computer. Service doors to critical systems are at head level or lower, allowing easy access by technicians. Flygvapnet experience shows that the Gripen requires 40% less maintenance work-hours and only half the fuel of the Viggen.
So the Gripen can be refueled/rearmed by a crew of six from specific stretches of highway that have been reinforced. Nothing mentioned about actually performing repairs.
>Engine can be changed on road by 5 people in less than one hour.
With specialized equipment sure, not just some guys hiding in the woods waiting for a Gripen to land next to them.
>Trillion dollar plane
This bullshit again.
$1.015 trillion is the estimate for research, development, evaluation, testing, operation, support, and upgrades for 55 years. That's also supposed to be adjusted for inflation to 2065 dollars.
The per-plane unit cost is $83.4-$105 million depending on the variant
Though not exclusively jets, you guys will probably like these threads:
I'm actually starting to run out of ideas for threads. I'm working on a Curtiss thread now (filled with an appropriate amount of Wright Brothers-bashing), but after that, I'm mostly out of major manufacturers.
yeah I'm trying to come up with more history ones to do. Depending on if I can find good sources, I'll try to go onto other wars as well.
If I can find some really good detailed stuff, I'll do a thread on the Battle of Bekaa Valley.
Post Mach airflow optimisation and naturally unstable designs. basicly the inherantly unstable nature of the design means they are much easier to pitch into maneuvers, a stable design, at some point suffers airframe locking, where the stability of the design cannot be overwhelmed by flight controls, this results in a drastic loss of maneuverability
tldr: Delta was designed for high speeds and maneuvers favored over payload
straight wings have much higher stabilty, and load bearing performance along with sub mach speeds being favored
Unthinkably expensive to the point that it's beyond a joke now, unreliable production line and most of all, would require us to completely replace ALL of our munitions stockpiles because the fucking thing can only use French adapted munitions and nothing we use already.
The cost would be beyond astronomical. Farcical.
TFW no B1B module for DCS
TFW no bombs or targeting in FSX
I'll bite the bait anyways
It's down to 90 mil currently and we aren't even in full production
>tfw every pane thread is the same
>Lockheed shills come to preach about muh plane of the future
>Autists bitch about the Lightning II even though their opinions are worthless.
>Everyone else has to put up with the shitposting
Can we all agree that arguing about the Lightning II is pointless? It's not like The armed forces care about what we say.
We could talk about about other planes.
We could talk about famous air battles.
We could talk about failed projects.
We could talk about the future of planes.
We could talk about their armament.
Right now all we do is try to find out just how much the whole F-35 project costs.
That's just this thread so far anon. In the infinite that are the other F-35 threads that we have had, at least 90% discussed the other aspects of them. It's just that the most notorious/misunderstood part of the F-35 is it's cost, and that brings the shit posters out of the wood work.
>tfw one year until service selection
>tfw last year, everyone in our unit who wanted to go aviation go it
>this year, only 1 person got aviation
>tfw friend w/ same major, a 2.95GPA, and shit PT scores got nuke drafted
>tfw I really dont want to get nuke drafted too
>only hope is to purposefully fail the nuke interview
All I want is to fly the f35. Is that too much to ask?
F-22 is pretty sexy.
>dat wedge shape
>All I want to do is get into one of the most selective roles in the military
..yes, its quite a bit.
But if you have shit PT scores, get working on it. You won't get in period if you're not competitive.
I just love the way the Fullback looks, along with the other Flanker variants.
Thats more India's fault than France's. Basically the Indians want to license produce the Rafale, which was the plan all along, but they also want to be able to charge France for any defective Indian built Rafales and also keep in mind that India's aircraft manufacturing skills are shit.
Sure it's a Lavi clone but that doesnt mean its not sexy
I fucking love this plane. I'm hoping to join the USAF to fly in may when I graduate college and am heartbroken that in all likelihood I will never get to fly this and that it will probably be fully decommissioned soon like another favorite the F14
At least you can be secure in the knowledge that if you were actually in a real fight you wouldn't be the first to die horribly or stay on the ground until everything is done anyway
Buddy of mine just graduated UPT. He wanted A-10s really badly, was in T-38 track, I believe top of his class... he got first assignment instructor pilot, going to be flying the T-6. Only fighters that dropped of his whole class was an F-15C and F-15E. Shit sucks.
I prefer the B variant. The DS inlet shape realy make it look so much better. That OLS station is the finishing touch.
It kinda reminds me of a single engined Flanker.
Do you claim to speak for whole of /k/?
The treadhead general has been working just fine. More specific stuff can warrant its own thread, but a bunch of buffs hanging out in their threads where people can come to ask questions is pretty nice. Hell, that's how I learned about planes, just lurked long enough in threads until I knew the ropes.
The Viggen, now there was a damn nice fighter, same age and avionics as the F-14 but no Tom Cruise to ride it into the danger zone! Also one of those weird "3.5+" generation fighters
I don't mind this thread specifically but any general inevitably becomes shit. People feel they have to 'keep up the trend' of making new threads and it becomes a cycle of the same shitty arguments over and over.
I just got in town a month ago and feel like I would kill myself if I was told I had to stay here any longer than I already do. There's nothing to do here and a huge percentage of girls in this state are fugly. I'm sensing a year and a half dry run.
Lockheed was saying the jet currently cost 83 million in 2013 when it was just a projected cost. The F-35.com was used to support the craft being 83 million just a few threads ago. Funny how quick these things are forgotten by you lightning fags.
I love biting bait.
The $90 mil is the current figure. The price, once full production starts, is expected to be the $80 mil figure you've seen. Once again, look farther up in the thread for the benefits of full rate production.
The JSF was originally supposed to cost as much as the fighters it's replacing. But that has obviously been wrong, projections aren't done deals but LHM advertised it as such. It's dishonesty in marketing and their latest report is just as elite to suspicion as all the other projects they went over budget on.
So what will her NATO reporting name be?
Has to begin with an 'f' because it's a fighter.
The 80 mil figure seems to be accurate based on current cost with production gearing factored in.
And the killer about the JSF program was the program itself. The cost for all the research and development is high, and beyond what people thought it would be. However, that is normal for these brand spanking new developments. We learned that with the F-22. We learned it with the Zumwalts. If you don't expect these programs to go overbudget, you are insane.
>The JSF was originally supposed to cost as much as the fighters it's replacing.
By all means please provide citations.
What is funny is that at ~90mil, it is cheaper than current Eurocanards.
>The new space comes as a result of the implementation of a fly by wire control system, also enhancing the aircraft's control and maneuverability.
Not so much. Yes, it's FBW and all, but the only way to really make good on that is by shifting the CG aft of the aerodynamic center (which they clearly didn't do). As far as flight controls go, it's got about as much in common with an Airbus as with an F-16.
to a certain extent, they where designed to be optimal for lift while maintaining the planform stealth, essentially the surface sweep is a compromise to avoid having multiple surfaces showing from the same angle to radar.
is correct to some extent but it depends on the plane, the F-22's leading edge sweep is for the same reason as a delta sweep, the F-35's is more to do with stealth. The reason for this is the F-22 is designed for large scale post mach.
To better explain, Don't think of post mach air as gas, think of how it reacts as fluid, specifically the comparison of hydraulics being incomprehensible, the nose of the plane creates a conical shock wave around the plane, the idea of wing sweeping is to keep the wing within that cone, the faster you go, the sharper the cone tip, the higher sweep you'd need.
craft designed for below mach number speeds do NOT handle well post Mach, the P-38 was an early example with great dive acceleration then as airflow on sections of the wing went post Mach they lost control authority and couldn't pull out, hence the retrofitted in field divebrakes.
For anyone who's also interested. Mach speed air incompressability is why most jet engines have either a shock cone or some sort of baffle to cause turbulence in the intake necelle. the engine needs to compress the air to steady levels to get reliable thrust.
You are correct, and they also destabilize the flight model even further.
The best explanation is really this, the centre of lift should always be close to the centre of mass, this puts the aircraft in a passive state, if the mass or lift are out of alignment, you lose some control authority to maintain level flight.
Example: Weight to far forward, your nose dips, controls must always be pulling up, this lowers the controls ability to pull up as sharply in emergencies,
This problem was the classic early delta problem.
The centre of lift was extreme rear just around the engine, this meant that flight performance suffered drastically with heavier loads, the weight of the radar far forward in the nose from the centre of lift acting the same way as a massive lever and any added weight de-stablised it, this is why there where few hardpoints and limited towards the rear of the planes
Canards bring the centre of lift Forward, making it possible to use more of the underside of the fuselage to mount heavier weapons, or more of them, while maintaining the lift/weight balance
At least contribute to the thread, instead of shitting It up with your opinions.
> weak steel
Confirmed for knowing literally nothing.
But Swedes are allways but blasted by refugee's giving them their daily dose of "cultural enrichment".
>Both the F-35A and B version are now cheaper then a Typhoon or Rafael
>An F-35B is now the same price as a Typhoon or Rafael
>Amazing AESA radar
B-But overpriced garbage!
>J-31 stealth fighter to appear at Zhuhai air show
Maybe they'll disclose the first export customer of this bird.
Why think about Frogfoot when you can think about Tornado?
closest slavshit to the A-10 in role - effectively a Shturmovik.
However, compared to the A-10, it
>has a lower payload
>less advanced avionics
>designed less with tank-busting in mind and more general air support
While the A-10 generally carries guided munitions, Frogfoots are more commonly loaded with unguided rocket pods.
Personally, I prefer the Il-102 instead
>same payload as A-10
>better performance than Su-25
I was just wondering if there was a game where us aviation /k/ommandos could do a red flag sort of thing. I was thinking maybe FSX, Xplane 10, ArmA II, ArmA III, or DCS. Anyone else have any ideas? I just think it would be a fun time.
I wasn't saying that the Su-25 couldn't use guided munitions - just that it was designed with a different CAS role in mind compared to the A-10.
I was trying to emphasize that it isn't just a Russian A-10, as their doctrine calls for something different. It's like with all slavshit - people always compare slavshit to western designs using western doctrine as a base. When comparing like that, then of course the western planes, designed around western doctrine, are going to be better. But most slavshit isn't designed for such roles.
Up until the Su-27, slavshit fighters were short range interceptors, guided through ground controlled intercept, and with much less operational flexibility than western fighters (which were designed with wider roles in mind).
not a clue. Just had the image saved
Oh wow, those poor raptors. F-22 is the shit and all, but they fucked up here.
>SU-35 uses superior 3D thrust vectoring to cobra
>guns and R-74M locks all over Raptors
>more shitposting about stealth ensues
Its from an exchange in 1992. Those Bears were temporary stationed at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.
Foton (from photon) or Fata (from fata morgana).
A russian nickname should be Chernobog IMHO.
Funny, there are no Flankers in that image. Only some poorly shooped in Fulcrums (The slightly canted vertical stabilizers are a dead give away).
I can't speak for the Gripen or Rafale, as my work is on the Typhoon.
However, an AESA radar is going through trails at this very moment. We already have MAWS integrated. HOTAS and HMD are already in service and being improved as we go forward.
DRFM will be integrated in the next modification timetable. ESM is already on-board and IRST is performed by the PIRATE system. We also have AIS & ACS since we're throwing out acronyms.
>PLAAF commander confirmed that the J-20 is in final testing stage
>introduction with preliminary uprated 155kn-class WS-10G engines in 2017
This means, J-20 wont have TVC until final A variant with WS-15 in 2019-20, but it will have all other features - EOTS, EODAS, long range GaN AESA, integrated EW, multirole capability etc.
And a potentially fuck huge range.
Then use the proper bait next time lol. If you only had said they were MiG-35's...
The first type 30 engines should be assembled in the course of 2015. Saturn has a ton of researching and developing to do because of the technology and performance parameters that have to be met.
jet powered biplane cropduster. The Belphegor.
Poland did some crazy shit
>nobody on /k/ will give Yukikaze a chance
You're missing out on glorious cockpit audio and engine noises from the JASDF's F-15Js as well as a few dogfights choreographed by pilots.
>be getting to play with the classified version of F-35 simulator at Lockheed factory soon
Really excited to see if the avionics/sensor fusion in the thing, since that is what sets it apart the most from other fighters
I was under the impression no other aircraft have a real EODAS yet and none can look around their entire aircraft just through their helmet like the F-35 can, though the J-20 looks like it has it in development. Also, F-35 radar and IRST should be better than anything else.
Yes. Defense contractors are falling behind other civilian firms, so we're no longer getting the far-and-away superior product. Considering that's the only possible justification to tolerate the ridiculous amount of money being given to Northrop and Boeing, which is corporate welfare at best, graft at worst.
Imagine what SpaceX could do with the kind of money we throw at defense contractors.
>>SU-35 uses superior 3D thrust vectoring to cobra
>SU-35 pilot remembers he's not on an airshow and his aircraft just lost its energy and momentum by performing a airshow move
>gets shot down easily
Some nifty 2160p vid of it all.
Reverse image search is your friend.
Honestly, the way I learned was from playing Lock On: Modern Air Combat back in the day. Modern version of it is Flaming Cliffs 3. Once you kinda figure out how air combat is generally done and you learn from the community, you can start understanding what people are talking about with modern munitions and such and learn more about how it is REALLY done. Then you know what to read about in specifications and even wikipedia gives you a lot more information that you can understand. And /k/ is actually very educational as well but can be full of shit so keep that in mind, unless citations are given. Main reason I go to /k/ is aircraft threads. teaches me a lot more about aircraft than being in the Air Force does lol
You could start by running through The Room of the Three Gargoyles. Push in the correct tongue, and the door might lead you down a stairway and across The Troubled Bridge. You could then race up to The Observatory, spin the sundial, and pass into The Treasure Room. There, you might open up the Treasure Chest and climb down through it, or try to enter The Shrine of the Silver Monkey. Assemble the statue there, and you may be headed for the Pirate's Cove. Spin the ship's wheel, and you can descend into The Dungeon. You could plow through the stone wall. Find the key, and it may unlock The Tomb of the Ancient Kings. Next, you might climb through into The Swamp. If you escape, you may have a chance enter The Room of Harmonic Convergence. Stand on the proper two steps, and the doors may open. If the rock slab is up, you could run through The Pit of Despair, and finally, make your way through the Cave of Sighs, and back to the Temple Gate. The choices are yours and yours alone. Good luck.
J-31 arrived at Zhuhai Airport.
that 3d cockpit looks lame.
Check out the PMDG's MD-11 and imagine 3d cockpit with like 80-90% buttons and knobs working
Reminder that the original B2A production order called for 160 aircraft.
F-35s are getting cheaper by the year anon, Rafales are doing the opposite.
The French military industrial complex fucked up the Rafale even more so than the American did with the F-35