DDG-X

I don't care what you think - this is a cool looking design. It looks mean AF

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's not the final design, hull designs are still being considered and they haven't ruled out the Tumblehome design from the Zumwalt.

    I still think the current proposal looks decent though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Was there any inherent instability issues with Zumwalts tumblehome design? Legitimately curious why it’s not a more commonly used hull design and what are the pros and cons of it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Tumblehome is actually very stable.
        The instability came from every retard nation putting several thousand tons of turrets + random shit on top of their tumblehome predreadnoughts.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          oui.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's stable at slow speeds. The original ships that crossed the ocean from Europe were tumblehome. The issue is that it's not stable when sailing at speed, which it needs to be able to do when escorting a carrier.

        Basically if the aft portion of the ship goes to high in the water because of the combination of a wave and the ship's own inertia then there's nothing holding the ship upright. And no, the carrier can't just slow down to let the destroyer catch up.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Tumblehomes are very stable - up to a point of course - they have their use cases.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        As long as you don't overload that shit with missiles or guns Tumblehome is stable.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Tumblehomes are very stable - up to a point of course - they have their use cases.

          Sounds like tumblehomes are better suited for frigates then, why bother using the hull for a (technically) higher weight class of a destroyer

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            According to the Zumwalt's captain, the ship is amazingly stable in rough seas.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              it all comes down to the scale, length, width, beam AND weight (and the weight distribution).
              The newest US frigate is like 7200 tons, not exactly dainty.

              Ah ok, so basically as long as you scale it properly you can have larger tumblehome designs that maintain stability. If that’s the case, maybe that’s why they implemented it for the Zumwalt? If the vessel is more inherently stable it might be easier to automate certain controls lessening workload and manpower to sail her? Admittedly I’m talking out my ass so just a guess

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The one sole disadvantage of tumblehomes is that if they DO lose their stability, they instantly capsize. They don't float on their sides, it's either topside up, or keel-up, no in-betweens.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Tumblehomes also sink faster if they flood because their hull sides slope inwards, so they have less reserve buyoancy than regular hulls.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it all comes down to the scale, length, width, beam AND weight (and the weight distribution).
            The newest US frigate is like 7200 tons, not exactly dainty.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            According to the Zumwalt's captain, the ship is amazingly stable in rough seas.

            The tumblehome design has less stability in one very specific circumstance; not catastrophic ass over tea-kettle, just less stability than "conventional" designs. In trade off its much more stable in other more common scenarios and it helps great with stealth. I really struggle to understand why this is such a persistent story besides the MIC media needing something to write articles about (same as the f-35 supposedly being such an issue). Hell, ship designers have even said that the problem could probably be largely eliminated in future designs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        One con is that it is very space-inefficient. You need a much larger tumblehome hull in order to match the useful internal volume of a V-hull.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >those lasers
      bump them up to 1MW and make that a two-gun turret and this would be pretty cool

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's very Type 055 and I sort of dislike it for that alone, taking more cues from the Zumwalt would be nice. Or something equally unique looking. I don't want every ship across the world to look the same.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean, a modern destoryer has a fairly fixed layout, hanger + deck on the back, missiles in the mid-section, and then the main structure for bridge, integrated mast, and exhaust. Then forward area for missiles and primary gun.

        You can do some slight alterations, like changing the hull shape to resemble the Zumwalt, but your layout stays mostly the same.

        At least the DDG(X) looks like it'll also be capable of firing the LRHW (Hypersonic glide missile), like the Zumwalt-class and Virginia-class.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The special thing about Zumwalt is the VLS being arranged around the deck perimeter. I don't know if the Navy is happy with that, but it leaves the center space for larger tubes and other facilities.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It's very Type 055

        So it's very Arleigh Burke.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >FXR (no illumination)
      redpill me please

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166776/anspq-9b-radar-set/

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        FXR is the Future X-Band Radar project.

        AFAIK when they say no illumination it means they're providing a target lock without the use of a continuous radar wave (illumination) which can alert the target that you have a radar lock and they're being targeted.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it means they're providing a target lock without the use of a continuous radar wave
          Yeah, I get the implication; any idea how's that possible?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They're doing tests on the system a few miles from my house, but I have no clue how it's doing target tracking without illumination.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              that's funny considering that technology is old. look at it this way, it's one-time-pad for burst radar emissions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They're doing tests on the system a few miles from my house, but I have no clue how it's doing target tracking without illumination.

            Maybe they combine it with this
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_search_and_track

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I don't see how that would work on a boat when it's supposed to be able to provide targeting information for targets beyond the horizon.

              For an airborne platform that can sit up at 30k+ feet, sure you've got all the altitude in the world to give you a nice birds eye view of any incoming targets, but when you're sitting on the water in a boat? Even at mast height, you're not going to have any targeting beyond the horizon.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They probably already do with shipboard EO/IR sensors. Nah, this'll be something much smarter

              It's a downgraded Zumwalt, just like the F-35 is a downgraded F-22 and the B-21 is a downgraded B-2. US military capability is collapsing in slow motion because we handed our entire manufacturing base to china.

              I am demooooralized, CNY 0.50 has been deposited in your account.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah bro, just keep doing exactly what you're doing without instituting any policy reforms. Wouldn't want to question the total infallibility of current policymakers.

                >just like the F-35 is a downgraded F-22
                Are you retarded?

                The US has always done a high/low fighter mix.

                F-22 is High
                F-35 is Low

                Previously F-15 was High
                F-16 was Low
                Also the Zumwalt is a failed project, the two main guns have no ammo and they're being replaced with missiles. So how the fuck can you claim the DDG(X) is just a downgraded Zumwalt when it's all around better than the zumwalt? More missiles, better radar, etc.

                Except they canceled the "high" and replaced it with the "low".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Except they canceled the "high" and replaced it with the "low".
                No, they didn't.

                The high is just much higher and more expensive, they bought over 150 of them, that isn't being "cancelled" you dumb moron gay, every SINGLE year for the past 20 years they've spent HUNDREDS of millions, up to $1B+ every SINGLE year, on upgrading F-22s with the latest new shit.

                Further, NGAD is the 6th gen "high" fighter that is currently being worked on, it hasn't been "cancelled" either.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Except they canceled the "high" and replaced it with the "low".

                They went retro, the F-22 replaced the F-15 which replaced the F-22 as the F-15 silent eagle. Epic fail. The F-35 is a design failure at the conceptual stage.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's called passive radar. Instead of shooting off your own radio waves and listening to the return signal, you just use the background radio waves that naturally bounce around as your illumination. The radar obviously has an active mode as well which is much more accurate. The reason you can get away with passive radar nowadays is because datalinks can share data between different ships and airplanes, so getting a fuzzy radar return of an enemy plane or missile is okay because so much information is coming from different radars that you don't need every radar to try to get perfect information.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              This is how their advanced sonar works. Your quiet submarine actually looks like a blinding, glaringly obvious void in the volume of aquatic background noise. it's like that movie the Core, they track the void created by your lack of signature. Once the position is verified using multilateration from multliple sources it's all over. you would have to replicate background noise perfectly to hide now, no matter the medium.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Two different things:
            1) Interrupted Continuous Wave. Basically, a phased-array radar emulates a continuous wave radar for a fraction of each second, long enough to keep the SARH seeker locked on to the target. Still in development, I believe.
            2) Autonomous Guidance. Active Radar Homing, Passive Radar Homing, and Infrared Homing. The USN is pushing these technologies hard, because they're all very mature technologies that US manufacturers have gotten very good at. The current version of the Standard missile (SM-2MR Blk 3B) has a "backup" IR guidance to support the primary SARH seeker. The next version of SM-2MR (Blk 3C) will drop the SARH seeker altogether and use the SM-6s AMRAAM-derived active radar seeker. ESSM is likewise transitioning from Blk 1's SARH to Blk 2's ARH. And RAM has never been SARH, of course.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it means they're providing a target lock without the use of a continuous radar wave
          Yeah, I get the implication; any idea how's that possible?

          illumination for older SARH missiles was never provided by SPQ-9B

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wow that's a great looking ship! I wonder where they took design cues from?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You mean it's a Burke with an integrated mast, I wonder where China got that idea from.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Though it's obviously a knockoff Burke overall, I always thought the rear missile farm and hangar reminescent of the Slava class.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's the impression I get too. The hull is Slava but the weapons arrangement is Burke.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Let's steal designs from Russia and USA guys.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty subpar positions for the two 600kW lasers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ...how so?

        They're CIWS, nothing else.

        They replace the two side-mounted RAM launchers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ignoring the massive blind spots.

          see picture, for actual 360 coverage including large overlap of the two CIWS.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your primary defense is your missiles, it's a missile boat.

            The lasers are ONLY for CIWS, which means they ONLY need to work when a missile has already penetrated your first layers of interceptors.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Such a nice looking ship even if calling her a frigate is pretty absurd. More like a large Coast Guard cutter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The lasers basically cover everywhere except straight ahead and dead aft, and the ship can be positioned accordingly

            It was a good thread until you got here.

            Yeah, it was.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The lasers basically cover everywhere except straight ahead and dead aft, and the ship can be positioned accordingly

              anti-ship missiles already have a database how to engage specific ship types.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes, and I'm sure they'll all turn sideways to attack from the bow or stern when the captain turns his ship to unmask the lasers

                that's not what the databases are for

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >yes, and I'm sure they'll all turn sideways to attack from the bow or stern when the captain turns his ship to unmask the lasers

                The ship would be already hit if the captain tries to turn anything.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Are you forgetting that this is CIWS?

                They're a last resort OH FUCK WE'RE GONNA DIE weapon.

                Your primary defense are missiles.

                ESSMs are quad packed in VLS cells, and the DDG(X) will have 120+ VLS cells.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why

                do

                you

                post

                like

                this?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because i'm almost 38 and i've been typing like this since the late 1990s on tech forums

                get over it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >le epig gaslighting mene xD
                go back

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >i_hug_that_feel[1].png
                lol, tourists

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, just an old man that doesn't have a PrepHole folder anymore.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because

                It

                Makes

                You

                Seethe

                Now

                Dilate

                gay

                chud

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                imagine

                getting mad

                over text spacing

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're telling me that a missile is going to have VISUAL sight on a ship, figure out that it's coming in from the wrong aspect, turn to come in from the stern, and then go in for the kill at hypersonic speed, and in all this time a literal fucking LASER can't touch it?

                try reading that again and identify where you done fucked up

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ?t=88

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lasers have very limited range

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                For now

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                a 600kW laser will still have a fair bit of range.

                For example, the Navy had a 30kW laser in 2014 that had an effective range of ~1 mile.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, but also don't forget about the rule of inverse-squares

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, line of sight is also needed, which means you're gonna be limited to ~20-40 miles anyway (depending on where it's mounted on the ship).

                You can't magically shoot a laser beyond the horizon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I wasn't the anon you were talking to. I was just popping in to warn about the direct comparison of energy outputs to indicate range.

                Do you honestly believe anyone who questions the current party line is personally out to get you? Do you think policymakers don't make mistakes? Do you think that the government should be shielded from criticism? It sure looks like the answer is yes. You just want to circlejerk about <NEW MIC PRODUCT> without anyone questioning the narrative.

                I'm really not interested in whatever flamewar you are trying to goad me into.

                Please clarify the intent behind:
                >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >umm, sweaty, did you just say something bad about my heckin F-35erino????
                >state your intentions right now!!!!!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you so afraid to be accountable for the things you have said? I'm only trying to understand your position.

                Please clarify the intent behind:
                >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >umm, sweaty, the F-35 is stunning and brave
                >it is literally the first aircraft without any flaws whatsoever
                >saying bad things about the F-35 is literally hate speech and disinformation invented by putler himself

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Please clarify the intent behind:
                >>The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself
                it can't outrun mach 4 missiles anymore than a SU aerofoil can. that's the point. you can argue about planes all you want but the situation is the same. you are in a war of stealth because of the range of your missile systems + range of aircraft + range of detection.

                therefore a weapon system with a huge range of detection would completely negate all aerofoil research whatsoever. staying hidden BVR and spamming missiles won't help if your missiles get shot down once they enter visual range by systems you don't undertsand because Forward Technology is a tinfoil hat conspiracy in your countries. that really limits the engineers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                read the thread

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >>The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

                The ram paint peels off due to the hull getting heated up from compressed air. Now the F-35 isnt as stealthy as it was before. Oops.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That happens after HOURS of that kind of load, see

                > An F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or for 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

                > The time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes.

                > By abiding by those time restrictions, the U.S. military ensures the F-35 lasts the entirety of its planned service life and that the fleet isn’t overly taxed during normal training and operations, Flynn said.

                You can just slow down for 3 minutes back to military speed and then you're allowed to do supersonic again.

                Also, the F-35A doesn't have any time constraints on speed, just the B and C, which are a small fraction of the total number of F-35s ordered.

                F-35B and C amount for ~800-900 of the expected ~3000-3300 total orders. The VAST majority are F-35A.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >>The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

                The ram paint peels off due to the hull getting heated up from compressed air. Now the F-35 isnt as stealthy as it was before. Oops.

                Oh yeah, and for international customers there are only ~125 F-35Bs ordered, the rest are all F-35As (and no F-35Cs)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What country could conceivably use the C? I can think of France and they specifically built their own "5th gen" (its 4.5 really) so they didn't have to buy from us.

                How many could use the B? A dozen max?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well that's not really the point. The point is the concern-posting about the C/B model performance deficiencies is irrelevant for two-thirds of all F-35s that will ever be made, and beyond that almost completely irrelevant for anyone except the handful of nations that bought the F-35B. (UK, Japan, Italy)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Well that's not really the point.
                Its what I asked.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't really care.

                Again, the point is no one gives a fuck about the C and B not being as high performance as the A when almost everyone in the world except the US operates the A version.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Again, the point is no one gives a fuck about the C and B not being as high performance as the A when almost everyone in the world except the US operates the A version.
                I know. I am asking a different question because I am tired of people feeding the obvious troll.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Only the Royal Navy. Provision is made to refit the QE with cats when she goes in for her first major midlife do. I think the Japs or Koreans are at least two generations of aircraft carrier away from a carrier with catapults, if it's even on the cards.

                >>“Nobody is going to do [that] tactically,” he said. “There’s not a combat scenario where that is going to happen.”

                This is pure bullshit, in a defense scenario you will have to take off, dash to intercept point, launch missiles, fly home or fly to tanker, then do another dash to catch incoming cruise missiles, land, refuel, rearm, change pilot, dash again, launch, dash, dash on and on and on. He is disingenous because he refers to the use case "bomb various kinds of primitive third worlders without anti air or an airforce". Then you can do fine just cruising subsonic all the way. The F-35 is fine for colonial policing but not for a real war against a peer enemy. And if its fine for colonial policing only, then why is it so expensive and stealthy?

                >land, refuel, rearm, change pilot
                Which will be ample time to cool down

                >programme [...]
                You're not even American. You work for the British 77th Brigade. Your just is to post these MIC propaganda threads on PrepHole.

                Or maybe I'm someone really close to you who knows all about your strange obsessions and I'm here to fuck with your mind
                Imagine the possibilities! 😉

                >Again, the point is no one gives a fuck about the C and B not being as high performance as the A when almost everyone in the world except the US operates the A version.
                I know. I am asking a different question because I am tired of people feeding the obvious troll.

                It's not an actual problem.

                Again, READ THE NEXT LINE YOU DUMB moron gay

                > in wartime, Flynn said, pilots will do whatever is needed “to survive and to be effective” — even if that means disregarding time restrictions and pushing the plane to its maximum performance.

                Don't get too upset over the troll.
                I bet Kherson's not doing too well.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Provision is made to refit the QE with cats when she goes in for her first major midlife do.
                Can I see this? This is the first I am hearing about it? Are they gonna remove the ramps?
                You didn't list France, is that because I already did or because you don't think its even technically possible?
                >I think the Japs or Koreans are at least two generations of aircraft carrier away from a carrier with catapults
                I believe the Japs could do it on their next boat if they wanted to (they won't because they are psuedo-pacifist unless something major happens). I don't think the Koreans could, not because they are crafty fucks but because they just don't have the carrier or even blue-water navy experience.

                >quit feeding him

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                read the thread

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would you be sailing directly at an enemy missile? Closing to ramming range with the ship that launched the missile isn't how naval warfare is done nowadays. You try to create confusion about where you are while maintaining a good bead on where the enemy is through multiple systems.

            Admittedly it's stupid that the ship can't fire CIWS behind it despite the fact that it has two guns on the aft of the ship, though. Hopefully they fix that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >600kW
          >CIWS

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >und I need a solid state lehzer in ze 600 kilowatt range
            what a time to be alive

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't work in bad weather or dust or smoke
            >easily blocked by trivial counter measures like rotation, thicker skin, ablative materials, etc
            >power drops like a stone at longer ranges

            Lasers are overrated

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Too little point defense, no 2ndary artillery (which itself can be used as point defense and small target offense).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the primary defense is missiles, it's got lots of missiles.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the primary defense is missiles, it's got lots of missiles.

          I am sure that an ESSM works wonderful against an Ali Baba in a suicide boat. And I am sure ESSM works wonderful against small missile spam - f.ex 122 mm rocket with a simple optical/IR homing warhead. Everything american designed is superduper against the narrow use cases it is specified for. If anything outside these use cases occur, its like a fish on dry land.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No idea why the 150kW laser is listed as Future Capability, considering that they're putting HELIOS on Burkes right now.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        HELIOS is 60kW, upgradable to 120kW in the future.

        150kW isn't HELIOS.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        As

        HELIOS is 60kW, upgradable to 120kW in the future.

        150kW isn't HELIOS.

        says, HELIOS is 60kW currently, the 150kW laser will likely have a similar role though obviously with a higher power ceiling.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Irrelevant, China navy is better now, the make more ship and better ship and crew by strong men.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Someone got that gif of the chinks hammering a poorly fitted hatch shut while water just floods inside?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's a downgraded Zumwalt, just like the F-35 is a downgraded F-22 and the B-21 is a downgraded B-2. US military capability is collapsing in slow motion because we handed our entire manufacturing base to china.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >just like the F-35 is a downgraded F-22
      Are you retarded?

      The US has always done a high/low fighter mix.

      F-22 is High
      F-35 is Low

      Previously F-15 was High
      F-16 was Low
      Also the Zumwalt is a failed project, the two main guns have no ammo and they're being replaced with missiles. So how the fuck can you claim the DDG(X) is just a downgraded Zumwalt when it's all around better than the zumwalt? More missiles, better radar, etc.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      F-22 was a downgraded F-117 anyway, and B-2 was just MIC bullshit, after all we're still using the B-52 just fine. we've been in decline since they retired the Nighthawk. FACTS.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        epig mene xD

        The F-35 and B-21's only advantages are using newer electronics available from the year they were built. In every other way they have objectively less capability than the aircraft that they are replacing. The same appears to be true of DDG(X), and we will also probably see NGAD get canceled and get replaced with a cheaper monkey model.

        Don't forget Virginias are just downgraded Seawolfs

        Good catch.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The F-35 and B-21's only advantages are using newer electronics available from the year they were built. In every other way they have objectively less capability than the aircraft that they are replacing.
          The F-16, F/A-18, and Mig-29 are far less capable than the F-35.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The F-35's main opponent is going to be the J-20 over Taiwan.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              And at the rate things are going, it'll be able to handle that job just fine until the NGAD planes show up. Do you know anything about the J-20? It won't be a problem.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >In every other way they have objectively less capability than the aircraft that they are replacing.

          This is an old trend, the A-12 that was supposed to replace the A-6 got cancelled and the actual replacement ended up being the F-18, which has far less range and carry capability than the A-6, which was a dedicated bomber/attack aircraft. America has turned into a judaicized byzantinesque corruptocracy over the last 100 years.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >F-22 was a downgraded F-117 anyway
        A designated air superiority fighter is a downgraded strike aircraft

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's worse than that, I'm afraid. The F-15 is objectively superior to the F-117. Stealth was a mistake. But even the F-15 was a downgrade of the true King of the skies, the F-4. Don't trust the experts, trust me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Su-57 syndrome? bro, the Russians literally can't even build Su-57s to spec. The US hasn't been 'downgrading' its acquisitions because the hardware can't be built, but because it costs too much for the capabilities offered and quantities needed.

            >Except they canceled the "high" and replaced it with the "low".
            No, they didn't.

            The high is just much higher and more expensive, they bought over 150 of them, that isn't being "cancelled" you dumb moron gay, every SINGLE year for the past 20 years they've spent HUNDREDS of millions, up to $1B+ every SINGLE year, on upgrading F-22s with the latest new shit.

            Further, NGAD is the 6th gen "high" fighter that is currently being worked on, it hasn't been "cancelled" either.

            The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself.
            >but we don't NEEEEEED our frontline fighter to be able to exceed mach 1

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It's a single-engine plane with a fuck ton of payload capacity, shut the fuck up you moron.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It doesn’t damage itself, it will damage the RAM paint. Won’t be an issue in the future with ceramic based RAM coatings.

                >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself
                And?

                imagine being such a blind pro-government shill that you unironically argue in favor of a plane that has 1950-tier performance being better than the fifth generation mach 2+ air superiority fighter that it replaced.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The fact you think speed or aerodynamic performance has any relevance in modern air combat just shows how much of an outdated retarded you are.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I haven't argued anything. I asked you a question. What is the implication of this statement:
                >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

                Here comes the cope. It's a fucking F-86 with modern missiles strapped to it. Other aircraft can literally just fly away and not be bothered by it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Except other planes wont even know it's there until they have a missile screaming up their ass at Mach 3+.

                It doesn't matter how aerodynamic and performant your plane is if you have stealth and long-range missiles that can out-manoeuvre and out-run any jet.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Reminder that the F-35 has downgraded monkey model stealth. It's the least stealthy "stealth" aircraft in US inventory. It's unlikely to have to much of an advantage over foreign stealth fighters.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In reality it's classified and you have no idea exactly how stealthy it is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The ghost of Pierre Sprey is at it again

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Ghost of Sprey
                >appears out of nowhere to menace /k
                >disappears into the electronic aether
                >hundreds of confirmed kills on US weapons threads

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Kek, and AMRAAMs have a ~70-100 mile range at Mach 4+.

                So the F-35 makes it to within half the distance needed for maximum range, meaning the missile would still have plenty of fuel for terminal manoeuvring once the SU-35 did detect a missile inbound, basically ensuring a kill unless he gets lucky.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Quite the fantasy numbers there.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Anything regarding military stealth aircraft is "fantasy" numbers.

                It's ALL based on educated guesses and speculation.

                No one is going to risk decades of imprisonment to leak you the real numbers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Eh, we have some pretty narrow ranges by this point about the f117, but otherwise yeah, we don't know shit. You should see the flame wars in the DCS mod community.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://theaviationgeekclub.com/an-in-depth-analysis-of-why-the-sukhoi-su-35-is-the-most-overhyped-4th-generation-fighter-aircraft/

                Pure trash

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Kek, and AMRAAMs have a ~70-100 mile range at Mach 4+.

                So the F-35 makes it to within half the distance needed for maximum range, meaning the missile would still have plenty of fuel for terminal manoeuvring once the SU-35 did detect a missile inbound, basically ensuring a kill unless he gets lucky.

                Now do the J-20.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                US military aren't impressed by J-20 stealth, at least not enough to actually be worried about it.

                They've had plenty of chances to catch them by AWACS to get their radar profile, and I can guarantee we can see a J-20 before they can see an F-35.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's actually worse than the F-35.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Here comes the cope.
                I literally have expressed no opinions of any kind. I might have an f-22 and a j-20 stuffed up my ass currently for all you know. The only thing I have done is asked you to explain a word for word quoted statement that you made. Yet you continue to delfect. Please clarify the intent behind:
                >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I haven't argued anything. I asked you a question. What is the implication of this statement:
                >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                except it didn't replace the F-22.

                Jesus you are one dumb moron gay.

                Do you think NGAD replaces the F-35?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It was a good thread until you got here.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NOOOOOOOOOO THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SAFE SPACE WHERE WE PRAISE THE GOVERNMENT AND PRETEND THAT TOTAL POLICY FAILURES AREN'T HAPPENING ;_;

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, it was supposed to be a thread about a ship. You don't even have the material to whine about the ship and derail the thread so you resort to the F-35.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It doesn’t damage itself, it will damage the RAM paint. Won’t be an issue in the future with ceramic based RAM coatings.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself
              And?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself.

              Is this the latest inferiority complex cope/lie?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That's a new strange form of lie based cope.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Here comes the cope.
                I literally have expressed no opinions of any kind. I might have an f-22 and a j-20 stuffed up my ass currently for all you know. The only thing I have done is asked you to explain a word for word quoted statement that you made. Yet you continue to delfect. Please clarify the intent behind:
                >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

                Umm, FACT CHECK, sweaty: the F-35 is a subsonic aircraft (and that's a good thing!)
                https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Please clarify the intent behind:
                >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself
                Why you hiding?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know anon, why DID lockmart choose to design an aircraft that exceed the speed of sound? Or is this ESL and you're trying to ask something completely different?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                *that can't

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So you gonna answer his question or what?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How should I know, anon? My best guess is that lockmart designed a subsonic aircraft because all of actually competent cold war boomers had retired. That, also compounded with the retarded idea of wanting a single aircraft to do literally everything, with zero specialization, and also what appears to be design-by-comittee.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >How should I know, anon?
                So are you gonna answer his question or not?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                *that can't

                I am asking you to explain a statement you have made.
                >Or is this ESL
                Ironic considering its you having the communication issues.

                Please clarify the intent behind:
                >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but anon, what did you MEAN deep down in your heart??
                Gee, I dunno anon, possibly to support my original point in

                It's a downgraded Zumwalt, just like the F-35 is a downgraded F-22 and the B-21 is a downgraded B-2. US military capability is collapsing in slow motion because we handed our entire manufacturing base to china.

                . I suggest we spend the next several posts to discuss my inner thoughts and motivations.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Am I to take this passive aggressiveness as you being unwilling to stand by points you have made to support your argument? Or am I supposed to genuinely engage with it so you can just mock me and there be no constructive communication inm the thread?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Do you honestly believe anyone who questions the current party line is personally out to get you? Do you think policymakers don't make mistakes? Do you think that the government should be shielded from criticism? It sure looks like the answer is yes. You just want to circlejerk about <NEW MIC PRODUCT> without anyone questioning the narrative.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              [...]
              [...]
              imagine being such a blind pro-government shill that you unironically argue in favor of a plane that has 1950-tier performance being better than the fifth generation mach 2+ air superiority fighter that it replaced.

              Do you have a single source that isn't RT or half a decade out of date

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >NOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT THE F-35!!!!
                >RUSSIAN SHILL!!!!
                https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/
                https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/flying-supersonic-speeds-causing-f-35-big-problems-193966
                https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a32304032/f-35-supersonic-flight/
                https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/f35-stealth-technology-deficiency/

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So the B & C models had a fixable flaw that was deemed not important enough to fix. Neat. A model seemingly can do whatever the fuck it wants

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's not even a flaw. A problem occurred literally once and it could never again be replicated ie they went to supersonic and it never happened ever again, so they left it at that and got on with the rest of the programme

                it's not a major concern - unlike the other flaws of the F-35 which were rectified - because they weren't going to go supersonic very often anyway

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >A problem occurred literally once and it could never again be replicated ie they went to supersonic and it never happened ever again, so they left it at that and got on with the rest of the programme
                You literally just made that up, and all of the other sources seem to disagree with you.
                >programme
                Oh, a yuropoor lol. Silly me for ever thinking I would argue with a real person in one of these MIC circlejerk threads.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >seem to
                Ah, less sure of yourself now, are you?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I remember hearing they managed to do it again with the B model, but I can't remember where. Might just be my memory combining two articles together

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                likely the shockwave caused enough deformation that the parts were not harmonically balanced in a way that would produce enough oscillation to create the shockwave a second time. the defect was bent out of the way by the event, preventing the defect in material from causing the event again.

                this is hard to pin down in machines with thousands of blades and pins each with their own harmonics and centers of percussion. if it went away i would forget about it as well after a mass balance test.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The problem seems to be with the coating bubbling after such prolonged use

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it's the skin? i figured for the engine.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >fixable flaw
                >not important enough to fix
                >stuck at subsonic speeds
                >in 2022
                noe this is some next level cope

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                your a retard repeating cope from a very butthurt dude who has made it his job to shit on the F35

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It will be able to once the new ceramic RAM is introduced

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                2 more weeks until the new RAM coating is released, trust the plan: diversity hires in control

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It’s already been demonstrated outside of the lab lol. What do you think the silver coated F-22’s were doing?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              This meme is based on a single incident that nobody was ever able to replicate or determine the exact cause of.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Designated air superiority fighter on age of multirole fighters. Whole design concept of F-22 became obsolete moment the cold war ended and endless hordes of slightly obsolete MiG's ceased to be the main threat scenario. Only good thing to come out of F-22 is small diameter bomb, the weapon that was developed solely because F-22 can't carry both air to ground and air to air munitions at same time with reasonable payload.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        US military went downhill when it started bringing in the F104. US military strength follows the flight curve of the F104. Facts.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >F-35
          >barely 3,300 units, massive flaws will certainly result in death spiral
          >F-86 Sabre
          >9,860 units
          >world's most numerous Western jet
          We have to go back!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but it's kill ratio is horrible, only 8:1

            The F-16 is 76:1 and I think the 1 air-to-air loss was friendly fire.

            The only declassified F-35 Air to air kills are against UAVs, but that still gives it a 2:0 kill ratio.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Why did you post this? Please tell us.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The F-86 is in no way a good aircraft and will never be better than the F-35.

                Simple as

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Wow, why so evasive?? Answer the question!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's the next item on the script the 77th Lockheed Brigade gave me. I know, doesn't quite make sense to me either. Still, ours but to.

                Hang in there love, I'm going for a biscuit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Stop dodging the question! Why did you post that????

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don't forget Virginias are just downgraded Seawolfs

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Seawolfs are just downgraded 688s

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The margin of the performance downgrades appears to be relatively minimal, while the cost savings are prodigious. Given the quality of our enemies' training and equipment, these downgrades are fiscally prudent and no present no strategic burden whatsoever.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're trying to rationalize the US beginning to acquire a case of Su-57 syndrome, because "le experts are always right xD".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Su-57 syndrome? bro, the Russians literally can't even build Su-57s to spec. The US hasn't been 'downgrading' its acquisitions because the hardware can't be built, but because it costs too much for the capabilities offered and quantities needed.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the Russians literally can't even build Su-57s to spec
          or at all.
          >So how many operational SU-57's does Russia actually have? The short answer is between three and 15, depending on how we count

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Destroyers and cruisers are obsolete, they should just be mounting weapons on modified bulk cargo ships

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I want battleships lined with 1MW lasers and CIWS for missile and drone defense, while raining 20" shells 200 miles inland

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Lasers are worthless memes, sheer tonnage thrown is what matters for CIWS
        Need to go back to ww2 gun layouts

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >lasers don't work because they don't weigh anything

          is this what I'm supposed to be taking away from your post?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Any sort of ablative material means the laser will take way too long to kill the inbound missile

            CIWS has never worked either, they don't even expect it to work, so why would you think laser CIWS would work

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Because lasers travel at the speed of light and can ablate away any ablative shielding the missile might have.

              Further, if you have the right angle on the missile you can just shoot the laser into the exhaust and likely overheat the nozzle and fuck up it's thrust control.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                lasers also dont need ammo, just some power and coolant.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Ablative materials weight a lot and induce a large amount of drag because they increase the missile's size. And no, everyone expects CIWS to work, you're just a gay who is upset that it's acknowledged that it won't work 100% of the time.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The Oerlikon GDF, the gun used in the MGS (well, the navalized GDM version anyway), has shot down a fair number of flying shit in yookrain. So it stands to reason that the MGS would perform reasonably adequately.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >No active stabilisers
    Why do you yanks do this?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >dong

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I want more Star Destroyers!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry, that's lost technology. Best I can do are gender neutral latrines.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      At least they made 3 of them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Zumwalt is a downgrade of a Knox anyway

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So uh why isn't she nuclear powered?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because they're all a bunch of gays

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Probably comes more down to price and availability of small naval reactors.

        We need what we can build for our subs at the moment. We don't have spare production capacity to pump out dozens for a destroyer class that is expected to have 40-50 ships in the class.

        Not to mention a single S9G ~200MW submarine reactor alone is like $100-150M.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Not to mention a single S9G ~200MW submarine reactor alone is like $100-150M.

          These small submarine reactors are now hyped as "small modular reactors" for civilian use. Why? Because Europe/USA has lost the ability to make large reactor vessels.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What do you consider a large reactor vessel?

            The A1B in the GRF-Class carrier is ~700MW and smaller than the A4W (550MW) used in the Nimitz-class.

            700MW is a pretty big reactor. Hell, my entire state produces most of their electricity from 2 850MW reactors.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              anon, get with the thread theme please; 700MW is clearly a byzantine downgrade of an 850MW reactor

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The A1B in the GRF-Class carrier is ~700MW and smaller than the A4W (550MW) used in the Nimitz-class.

              700 thermal megawatt isnt large, thats a 250 megawatt electrical power reactor, which is what these "small modular reactors" are supposed to produce.

              Modern civilian reactors are 1200-1800 megawatt electrical, corresponding to ~ 4000-5000 megawatt thermal.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Totally different technology. Small sub reactors are traditional PWRs with highly-enriched cores (as in, bomb-grade) in order to shrink their size and weight and still provide the 30yr+ lifespan. Small modular reactors are civilian designs that are intended to be mass-produced on a production line and shipped by road to a power plant, thus making them *cheaper* to install and operate than a traditional reactor.

            Two totally different technologies with totally different purposes; the only things they have in common are that they are a) fission reactors, and b) smaller than traditional commercial reactors.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Does it need to be?
      It'd add a billion dollars to the upfront costs, significant manpower to the operational costs, and prevent DDGX from docking in most non-US ports around the world - that might actually curtail its practical operational reach rather than extend

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not that anon, but nuclear would make sense eventually once moving to laser weaponry.
        Maybe a nuclear variant for carrier escort roles would make sense.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it's about longevity scale. they have reactors that fit in torpedo fuselage and missile fuselage the issue is that it will only drive/fly for months or few years at best. nuclear only makes sense when you can push the reactor to 20 years or more between overhauls refueling et cetera. they can make them small enough that they are single use engines, that's not exactly what you want out of micro reactors though. the smaller the nuclear system the more frequently it needs fuel.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >nuclear only makes sense when you can push the reactor to 20 years or more between overhauls refueling
            Virginia SSNs are now rated for 30 years and they're about the same size as a Burke

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              i mean the size of the reactor. there is no point in putting one in a plane if it needs maintenance after 6 months in the air. the smaller reactors need longevity to fulfill their design roles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, so did I. S9G reactors are rated at 30-plus years, and drive a submarine about the size of a Burke. They don't actually expect to refuel them in the life of the ship now. So it's not technologically impossible to fit a DDGX with a reactor.

                The reasons not to are more operational and budgetary.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There aren't enough nuclear techs to manage them. They're all tied up in carriers or subs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Congress isn't willing to pay for the massive number of additional nuclear technicians and engineers that would be needed; there are few enough of them to go around as is.

      What we really need is a new reactor design that requires minimal staffing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        S1B reactor is under development for the Columbia-class and the SSN(X) project is almost assuredly getting a new reactor design as well.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Congress is being retarded with the SSN(X) and want the navy to use LEU instead of HEU, the navy replied back saying that it would take over a decade to develop an LEU reactor and it could impact the mission capabilities of the class and diminish risk lifetime deployment time due to needing to refuel more often.

          But congress then decided to make the navy due studies and shit to make sure it wasn't possible and froze all FY23 budget funds for anything BUT those studies.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit the autistfag is actually countertrolling the troll. Based neurodivergent anon

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    55770888
    Please clarify the intent behind:
    >The F-35 can't even go supersonic for more than 60 seconds without damaging itself

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The 77th brigade can suck my 12" dick. You will never be American, you will be purged from the military for being ethnically british, and you will do it with a smile on your face.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Let's just wrap this up, shall we?

    https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/05/22/the-inside-story-of-two-supersonic-flights-that-changed-how-america-operates-the-f-35/
    >“I was flying out at 700 knots in the C model up and down the East Coast of the state of Maryland and Delaware — that’s where we fly at Pax River — and then out over the ocean, firing missiles at almost 1.6 Mach as we cleared out the weapons for the airplane. That’s extreme speed, and that’s repeated flights in those environments,” said Flynn, who has flown more than 800 hours in all three F-35 variants.

    >“Make a run at 700 knots, make another run at 700 knots, go to an aerial refueling tanker, get fuel for myself … and then race out again and again and again. Repeat this cycle for four- and five-hour missions,” he added.

    >Similarly, the flights for the B model involved aggressive maneuvering at the edge of the aircraft’s flight envelope for hours at a time.

    >“Nobody is going to do [that] tactically,” he said. “There’s not a combat scenario where that is going to happen.”

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You forgot to drop your british spelling earlier, shill. Why are you so preoccupied with reputation management of american military equipment if you're not even american? Reminder that it's oublic knowledge that the 77th Brigade was assigned to running information warfare ops on this website, and that our countries have a mutual agreement where we each do info warfare ops against each others' populations.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Did you know I actually had to look up 77th Brigade? The last I thought they were the 1st ISR Brigade.

        Whatever. I'm not here to entertain your deluded fantasies. Good evening.

        Aka peacetime constraints to reduce wear n tear
        90% of the reason drones are cheaper is that they aren't being abused by pilots

        I don't know why you entertain him either.

        I remember hearing they managed to do it again with the B model, but I can't remember where. Might just be my memory combining two articles together

        You're probably remembering that it was twice, as stated in the above article; ie once with the B model and once with the C model. So I suppose I slipped up a little there - it's not "literally once" - but then again, it is technically once PER MODEL, so maybe not.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why are supposedly organic british posters so obsessed with posting propaganda about US military equipment, and shouting down anyone who disagrees?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are supposedly organic US posters so obsessed with posting doomer propaganda about US military equipment, and shouting down anyone who disagrees?

            Indeed, the world wonders

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > An F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or for 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

      > The time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes.

      > By abiding by those time restrictions, the U.S. military ensures the F-35 lasts the entirety of its planned service life and that the fleet isn’t overly taxed during normal training and operations, Flynn said.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Aka peacetime constraints to reduce wear n tear
        90% of the reason drones are cheaper is that they aren't being abused by pilots

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why do you care so much about shouting down people who say bad things about american equipment if you're not american?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do you care so much about shouting down people who say bad things about american equipment if you're not american?

            Guess which fighter the britshits have chosen to replace their old ones? Thats right... its the... F-35!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Literally the very next fucking sentence
        >But in wartime, Flynn said, pilots will do whatever is needed “to survive and to be effective” — even if that means disregarding time restrictions and pushing the plane to its maximum performance.
        Literally what

        Aka peacetime constraints to reduce wear n tear
        90% of the reason drones are cheaper is that they aren't being abused by pilots

        said and what you transparently try to steer away from

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          To be clear, all I was doing was providing additional context, I am not the poster you think I am and I attached no opinion on my post.

          I personally think the F-35 is a fantastic platform and by far the best operational 5th gen plane that can be exported.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > An F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or for 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

      > The time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes.

      > By abiding by those time restrictions, the U.S. military ensures the F-35 lasts the entirety of its planned service life and that the fleet isn’t overly taxed during normal training and operations, Flynn said.

      yeah but that whole base did training at 1.6 for hours on end. the idea that the plane won't work after it sustains that 'damage' is silly, it just is less efficient and has more drag and lest thrust. this also happens in normal automotive race cars if you push the engine too hard. this isn't an f35 problem it's a normal machine problem called Duty Cycle iirc. the f35 doesn't turn into a piece of shit when it exceeds it's duty cycle, i would be surprised if it looses more than 3% of it's top end performance in any metric except max takeoff weight. that will change through heavy use without maintenance.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it's the skin? i figured for the engine.

        Lads...
        >Those limits were imposed after two separate tests in 2011 where the "B" model incurred “bubbling [and] blistering” of its stealth coating and the "C" model suffered “thermal damage” to the tailboom and horizontal tail

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>“Nobody is going to do [that] tactically,” he said. “There’s not a combat scenario where that is going to happen.”

      This is very obvious bullshit. Its the enemy that decides if you need to do a supersonic dash, not you.

      And its worse than you think

      "Still, the documents obtained by Defense News stated that F-35C supersonic intercept missions may be impossible. Simulator testing showed that restricting supersonic flight at full afterburner to a maximum of 50 seconds could prevent the C model from reaching the 1.44 Mach endpoint for weapon launches, according to the F-35 integrated test team at Patuxent River.

      To cut down the risk of damage to the jet, the Pentagon imposed time limits on how long F-35B and F-35C pilots can spend at supersonic speeds in full afterburner. An F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or for 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

      The time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes."

      F-35 max airspeed is apparently mach 1.44. Holy shit, this is Mig-19/F-100 super sabre tier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Again, in ANY real combat scenario you fly as fast as you need to fly. There are no time limits in combat.

        And again, speed doesn't mean shit when the F-35 is supposed to be 50+ miles from the target at minimum firing BVRAAMs before the F-35 is even seen on radar.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He said, disingenuously cutting out the previous paragraphs which put the sentence in context:
          >“Make a run at 700 knots, make another run at 700 knots, go to an aerial refueling tanker, get fuel for myself … and then race out again and again and again. Repeat this cycle for four- and five-hour missions,” he added.
          >Similarly, the flights for the B model involved aggressive maneuvering at the edge of the aircraft’s flight envelope for hours at a time.
          >“Nobody is going to do [that] tactically,” he said. “There’s not a combat scenario where that is going to happen.”

          >Why are supposedly organic US posters so obsessed with posting doomer propaganda about US military equipment, and shouting down anyone who disagrees?

          Indeed, the world wonders

          dumb shill

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no answer

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not even him. Get the fuck out. You literally work for the british military to post propaganda online.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not even him
                >repeating old points
                >replying old posts
                >still obsessed with brits
                lol
                lmao even, what

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >programme

                It's not even a flaw. A problem occurred literally once and it could never again be replicated ie they went to supersonic and it never happened ever again, so they left it at that and got on with the rest of the programme

                it's not a major concern - unlike the other flaws of the F-35 which were rectified - because they weren't going to go supersonic very often anyway
                You're not even American. You work for the British 77th Brigade. Your just is to post these MIC propaganda threads on PrepHole.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                *your job

                fuck phoneposting

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You're not even American. You work for the British 77th Brigade. Your just is to post these MIC propaganda threads on PrepHole.

                I think that fag might be a civilian psyops operator (there are such too) working for Lockheeb-ShartMartin

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He slipped up with a british spelling earlier in the thread though. The 77th is known to do reciprocal psyops with the US, especially on PrepHole.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                not that anon, but I've got my spell check library set to British English, so it'll sometimes change American spellings to Commonwealth spellings.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                lolno

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yup

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                [...]

                .png
                LOL. NO.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You can deny it all you want, but it's true.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Do you even understand how the filenames work here?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, I don't use PrepHole without 3rd party extensions, one of those extensions allows for any file I upload to have a randomized file name.

                ANY file no matter what file name, will get renamed when I upload it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He slipped up with a british spelling earlier in the thread though. The 77th is known to do reciprocal psyops with the US, especially on PrepHole.

                >heaven forbid there actually be a Brit civvy interested in a weapon system both the US and the UK field
                >no it must be the British Army!
                >or Lockheed Martin!
                I can smell the basement-dwelling paranoia from here

                https://i.imgur.com/kAXjouW.png

                Yup

                Leave it lol

                >Provision is made to refit the QE with cats when she goes in for her first major midlife do.
                Can I see this? This is the first I am hearing about it? Are they gonna remove the ramps?
                You didn't list France, is that because I already did or because you don't think its even technically possible?
                >I think the Japs or Koreans are at least two generations of aircraft carrier away from a carrier with catapults
                I believe the Japs could do it on their next boat if they wanted to (they won't because they are psuedo-pacifist unless something major happens). I don't think the Koreans could, not because they are crafty fucks but because they just don't have the carrier or even blue-water navy experience.

                >quit feeding him

                >quit feeding him
                I really should, shouldn't I?
                >Can I see this?
                https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-confirm-aircraft-carriers-may-be-fitted-with-catapults/
                >Are they gonna remove the ramps?
                depends on how EMALS works out and if the 35C is really worth it
                it's within the realm of possibility, but not very likely
                unless something crazy happens like the planets align and it turns out 1) a catapult on QE is really cheap, 2) the 35Bs can be given to the RAF, and 3) the 35Cs are really that much better to justify the switch
                >France
                is committed to their own MIC as you said, quite correctly; they will most likely operate Rafale M and then their future fighter and pass on the 35C

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-confirm-aircraft-carriers-may-be-fitted-with-catapults/
                Thanks. Will read.
                >I really should, shouldn't I?
                Yes, an autist actually managed to run him off earlier by just politely asking the same question over and over but he came back and people are feeding him again.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What was your intention behind this post? Explain it to me or else you're a shill.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                To thank that anon who provided me will useful info and to impart to him my knowledge of what had happened in this thread.
                Phew, that was really tough to answer!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you keep evading the question? What are you hiding??

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think this guy is fully mind broken lol

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >replies: 363
                >posters: 36
                Says the retarded samefagging brit who is being paid to pull bullshit propaganda out of his ass. If you're not already a paki, you're about to be fired and replaced with one so your unit can hit DEI quotas.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                *264 replies, copy paste fucked up

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Says the retarded samefagging "american patriot" who is being paid to pull bullshit propaganda out of his ass
                the F-35 just works, sweaty

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Unlike you shills, I actually want my country to have a competent military, but that means our current politicians and military leadership need to be accountable. You just want to make sure the current political elite have their asses covered, but I want to bring back American manufacturing, do an F-22B production run starting immediately, restart Zumwalt flight II production, and de-politicize our military, starting with shills like you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why the FUCK would we spend the next 5 years bringing F-22 production back when the NGAD should be entering production in ~5-8 years?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The F-22 and Zumwalt restart should have happened in March 2020 after it became clear China had released a bioweapon. NGAD won't even begin enter service until the most generous estimates for how much time we have until China invades Taiwan. Fucking off yourself, shill. You're just here to shill for the current establishment and you don't actually care about weapons.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                are you the same retard that's been whining about how China is going to invade taiwan this year or next year?

                They don't have the military build-up to sustain any sort of major pacific action. They're at LEAST 10 years away from doing anything to taiwan.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Chinks don't care and will use makeshift transports based on cargo ship hulls according to Americans.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >makeshift
                civvy transports, to be accurate

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In anycase winnie the pooh is really the same kind of dumb autocrat as putin and wants to use the ship version of technicals as military warships.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What a fucking idiot. The 2026 invasion "leak" (which is still before NGAD will be operational, BTW) was always meant to lull the US into thinking we have more time. The joint chiefs are only now waking up to how that was a bunch of bullshit. You got played, and if they catch us by surprise, it will he the fault of shills like you who told us to unconditionally "trust the experts" and never question the bad decisions they're making.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but I'm thinking the kick it off in either 2025 or 2029. I don't think Xi is going to want to wait a decade or more; he's already really old and could die before then.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he's already really old and could die before then.
                That's what Poots thought as well, look where it got him.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I just don't see how it's successful with their current military. They've NEVER done an amphibious assault. They've NEVER done an airborne assault. So how the fuck are they going to take taiwan quickly?

                I guess if they time things PERFECTLY and can commit EVERYTHING at their disposal to a blitzkrieg type of attack they might have a chance, but I don't see how they can arrange for that level of force mobilization without the US knowing about it weeks or months in advanced and reacting accordingly.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's so close they can literally launch shore based attacks.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Shooting at taiwan doesn't make it your land.

                How does china take and hold taiwan quickly with no obvious prolonged massive military buildup?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >disable the island's defenses with shore based attacks
                >simultaneously rally your forces while the long range attacks are under way
                >no warning needed

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                lmao, yeah i'm sure the US 7th fleet, South Korea, and Japan will see no problem with this and just let it happen unimpeded.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This isn't a fanfic where the good guys always win, gay. If we prevail, it's still going to be at an extremely heavy cost because we're not equipped to face a near peer opponent anymore.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Shut the fuck up, our shit is still the best shit out there, our people are still the best trained out there, and we have the logistical capability to support a prolonged war anywhere in the world.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >where the good guys always win
                Who said anything about us being the "good guys?"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >disable the island's defenses with shore based attacks
                >simultaneously rally your forces while the long range attacks are under way
                >no warning needed

                You realize those "shore based attacks" aren't just field arty? Its a limited number of long range missiles that are slow to replenish and stand a not insignificant chance of being mitigated.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's going to be shore based missiles and air power. China is the one country left that still has enough of an industrial base left where replenishment is a non-issue.

                Shut the fuck up, our shit is still the best shit out there, our people are still the best trained out there, and we have the logistical capability to support a prolonged war anywhere in the world.

                Modern (possibly hypersonic) guided missiles and J-20s vs. circa 1980 Burkes and F-35s is not necessarily going to go well. There are going to be losses.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >where replenishment is a non-issue
                Look out everybody, armchair "expert" coming through!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They are literally the manufacturing hub for the entire world. You don't know shit.

                t. engineer

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >manufacturing
                Assembly. They don't make fancy stuff, so much as they assemble it from parts manufactured elsewhere. What they do make from scratch is mostly commodities, where they were able to use mercantile strategies (e.g., dumping--lots and lots of dumping) to force most other players out of the global markets. So, steel, rare earths, etc.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                replenishment is a non-issue
                >Look out everybody, armchair "expert" coming through!

                China produces 3x more steel than USA and has at least 10x the shipbuilding capacity. Their plan is simply to swamp USN in top-of-the line modern hulls with modern combat systems while amerimutts truck along with rebuilt ships from the 1980s.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And what china isn't going to take any losses? This would be war. Both sides are going to suffer losses.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because... because they just won't okay!?
                Global homo bad, Grobohomo good!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Did you miss the part where China just had its chip industry kneecapped? It's about the only move Biden has made against China; they must not be paying Hunter enough.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, you're not an authoritarian leader that has cultivated a clique of yesmen advisors around yourself. Maybe you think you can do these things that you have never done before because the west does them easily and the west is soft?
                Also, they could invade Taiwan without actually invading the island of Taiwan itself: there are a bunch of smaller islands that are ruled by Taiwan that are closer and much less defended/populated.
                In the end, I don't really know, man. But Xi is gonna be like 80 by the end of the current decade, there is no way he risks his legacy on waiting till he is 85-90 in the hopes he doesn't randomly drop dead from something.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm just a patriot trying to MAGA
                That's what all the vatniks say
                You showed your hand long ago

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >NOOOOOOOOOO YOU'RE A VATNIK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DOWNSIZE THE MILITARY AND ITS CAPABILITIES!!!!!!!!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                shhhhh

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Again, in ANY real combat scenario you fly as fast as you need to fly. There are no time limits in combat.

          In a real combat situation, the F-35 will be required to do long high speed dashes several times per day. How many days of battle will pass before this overheating becomes a real world problem?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What nation could sustain multiple DAYS of air-to-air combat with 5th gen fighters?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Russia, they have 5th gen fighters of their own after all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In a real combat situation, the F-35 will be required to do long high speed dashes several times per day

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Somebody post that graphic about the amount of time fighters spent supersonic in combat in Vietnam.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He said, disingenuously cutting out the previous paragraphs which put the sentence in context:
        >“Make a run at 700 knots, make another run at 700 knots, go to an aerial refueling tanker, get fuel for myself … and then race out again and again and again. Repeat this cycle for four- and five-hour missions,” he added.
        >Similarly, the flights for the B model involved aggressive maneuvering at the edge of the aircraft’s flight envelope for hours at a time.
        >“Nobody is going to do [that] tactically,” he said. “There’s not a combat scenario where that is going to happen.”

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >>“Nobody is going to do [that] tactically,” he said. “There’s not a combat scenario where that is going to happen.”

          This is pure bullshit, in a defense scenario you will have to take off, dash to intercept point, launch missiles, fly home or fly to tanker, then do another dash to catch incoming cruise missiles, land, refuel, rearm, change pilot, dash again, launch, dash, dash on and on and on. He is disingenous because he refers to the use case "bomb various kinds of primitive third worlders without anti air or an airforce". Then you can do fine just cruising subsonic all the way. The F-35 is fine for colonial policing but not for a real war against a peer enemy. And if its fine for colonial policing only, then why is it so expensive and stealthy?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, READ THE NEXT LINE YOU DUMB moron gay

            > in wartime, Flynn said, pilots will do whatever is needed “to survive and to be effective” — even if that means disregarding time restrictions and pushing the plane to its maximum performance.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >> in wartime, Flynn said, pilots will do whatever is needed “to survive and to be effective” — even if that means disregarding time restrictions and pushing the plane to its maximum performance.

              And then they will have a plane with permanently degraded performance until it has been sent to a repair shop. But that wont happen, since its loss of stealth means that it eats a missile the next mission.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Again, what magic airforce are we fighting against that would require this level of action?

                It's a fantasy scenario that's unrealistic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Again, what magic airforce are we fighting against that would require this level of action?
                >It's a fantasy scenario that's unrealistic.

                Peoples Liberation Army Air Force would be the obvious #1 answer. How well would the F-35 do in a scenario where the enemy has F-22 equvivalents and lots of them? Answer is: very badly. The F-22 or its equvivalent can control the entire engagement because of its much higher speed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the enemy has F-22 equvivalents and lots of them
                ha
                haha
                hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

                are you serious here?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >j-20
                >F-22 equvivalents
                Seriously? You seriously are gonna try and fly that?
                >lots of them
                They taken like 15 years to get a 150 max of them into squadrons? That's 10 a year on average. Double that rate and there still will be 2 f-35s in the pacific alone for every j-20.
                >The F-22 or its equvivalent can control the entire engagement because of its much higher speed.
                This isn't vietnam, shit's changed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                J-20 isnt the only chink stealth aircraft. You forgot the J-31 which is more of a fighter. And chink industrial capacity is vastly larger than amerimuttistan's, and there will be not one single more F-22 built because the production line was scrapped. The F-35 will not be able to hold against J-20 and J-31, particulary their later editions.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are less J-20s and J-31s.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Fewer.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are only prototypes of the J-31. J-20 is their only readily available option.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You fags shitting up the thread know that this is during peace time and that they are planning on replacing these engines

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        More powerful engines will make it worse by producing more heat. It's not the engines, but the effect of their heat on the airframe.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The new engine isn't all that much faster, and it would only be for the C and A versions, not the B (since the new engine doesn't do the whole VTOL shit). Since the F-35A doesn't have time restrictions on it's supersonic flight, I don't see it being an issue with the new engine either.

          The real benefit for the new engine is the 25% greater fuel efficiency while cruising.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Only the A version will get this since the Navy declined to do re-engining. I think I may have heard that the air force might drop it too, but less sure on that one.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Source: I made it up

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              USAF hasn't decided yet. GE is lobbying hard for a re-engine, since they lost the competition last time around. P&W is focusing on the next-gen competitions, and offering minor upgrades to the F-135s in order to keep GE off their back. Money is likely to be the deal-breaker.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are you so preoccupied with reputation management of american military equipment if you're not even american?
    >I cannot conceive of why someone would do anything unless it directly benefited them or even the concept of honesty itself

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How is it honest to post counterfactual propaganda? You're not even american and you're bending over backwards to make up actual lies to protect the reputation of the US MIC.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Everyone else in the thread who disagrees with me is just one person

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like it, but I don't like the big blind spots for SeaRAM, and I'd want 2x autocannon for local defense and 4th July.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a preliminary concept design, it won't even start construction until ~2028.

      Also instead of contracting the design to some MIC marine corp, they're keeping the lead design in the hands of the Navy.

      > The DDG(X) hull design will incorporate lessons and elements from both the Arleigh Burke and Zumwalt designs. The vessels will be able to accommodate larger missile launch systems, improved survivability, and space, weight, power, and cooling margins for future growth. As the ships will be replacing the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, they will have air defense command and control facilities and accommodations for an admiral's staff

      Curious to see if they end up more Burke-like or Zumwalt-like.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    55771497
    Stay gone

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't care what you think - this is a cool looking design. It looks mean AF

    Problem is that they only exist on paper and the chinks have their equvivalent type 055 in mass production with 8 + 2 made so far. When this ship makes its maiden voyage the chinks will produce updated upgraded type 055. America has lost the cruiser race in the pacific.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the autist broke his brain

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >implying there was any to break

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >implying there was any to break

      WHY DID YOU POST THIS????? ANSWER MY ARBITRARY QUESTIONS!!!! SEE???? YOU WON'T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS HOW I LIKE SO I WIN THE ARGUMENT!!!!!
      >this is what it's like arguing with shills

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I changed my mind, keep feeding him. This breakdown is hilarious.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >haha troled! epic!!!! xD
      go back

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why does the boat have such a big chin?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We needed that Chad energy

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, I too sexually identify with the American FREMM.

    One thing though. Why is the Navy so apparently against integrated masts? Thermal issue running ultra high power radars?

    And another thing: missile containers. I wonder if it wouldn’t be a smart move to put everything into a Virginia payload module (VPM) and make it a universal system across the Navy, Marines and Army? So that whoever needs the firepower can transfer VPMs from other branches

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >two towers

    This 9/11 fetishism is getting out of hand

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *