Just imagine teasing those subtle curves with your caressing fingertips, while she's just waiting for your "fuel" to fill her up. God I bet inserting into that jussy feels amazing.
More like Boeing keeps dropping the ball. Seriously, do they have a single active program that *isn't* messed up, except for their legacy MD programs (F-15, F-18, AH-64)?
And it will get canceled on cost grounds even faster than the F-22 was. Turns out you need a functioning manufacturing sector in order to field modern equipment. Cope, seethe, dilate.
Nope, I'm an american engineer who used to work in the aerospace industry. Shit is fricked, my dude. >inb4 le ebin kansas oblast forced reddit maymay xD
>Nope, I'm an american engineer who used to work in the aerospace industry. Shit is fricked, my dude.
Its way worse than you think, check out the design studies NASA did in the 60s and compare it to today, Elon Musks hotrotted conventional space rockets have nothing on projects like ROMBUS that would have launched 450 metric tons into orbit per launch.
It has supercruise, moron. There was literally one glitch ever early on and you've been clinging to it like the desperate little monkey you are to cope with the fact that the sky is rightful US clay.
The F-35 needs to use afterburner to go supersonic, which is the very definition of NOT being supercruise. It also has problems with its afterburner, which is just the cherry on top.
2 years ago
Anonymous
How many times do you need to get btfo on this exact thing?
2 years ago
Anonymous
F-22 also needs afterburner to go supersonic. It just doesn't need afterburner to *stay* supersonic.
The difference is, F-22 can get to ~Mach 1.5 and then shut off its afterburner and maintain that speed using only military thrust until it runs out of fuel. F-35 can get up to the same speed, but when it shuts off its afterburner, it slowly begins to decelerate until it falls back below the speed of sound (supposedly, about a hundred miles later).
So, yes, F-22 is superior at the interception and air superiority roles. F-15s are better than F-16s at those roles, too.
>It's a meme
It's nice to have something that's a bit more capable in A2A to provide cover for the F-35s Getting rid of them entirely is a mistake until the day NGAD is in full serial production and there's a decent build up of airframes.
>And it will get canceled on cost grounds even faster than the F-22 was
Nope. F-22 wasn't even particularly expensive, that was more public perception. Adjust for inflation and flyaway cost was the same or less than the F-14 and F-15. And if you go back and look at historical articles, both of those had the exact same stuff said about them as the F-22 and F-35 lol. The F-16 was made because of concerns the F-22 was "too expensive" but a big reason the F-22 ended up costing more was precisely because they made fewer of them. Economies of scale matter even for advanced fighters.
The REAL reason for that was simply because peer war was entirely off the US radar at that point. It was the End Of History, and the new enemies were global terrorists and small scale shit like that. Russia was assumed to be rational and no longer a geopolitical threat even if hopes about them modernizing and become a civilized country were fading, China had yet to have Xi appear on the scene and start to head back down the Mao path, didn't need a high performance ASF vs the middle east.
NGAD though is coming in response to "oh shit, peer power war is back on the table". It's not going anywhere.
F-22 is a failure because it's only good for AA. F-35 may be minimally worse at pure AA but it's simply better to have multiroles capable of any mission.
The F-14 and F-15 were "only good for AA" to the same degree too (technically F-22 could be equipped with SDBs or the like if we really had felt like it). But they were built vs a very genuine threatening near-peer opponent. F-14 was considered a boondoggle for a long time precisely because the war it was built to fight never came (just as everyone hoped it wouldn't). Unironically Top Gun totally changed the public's perception of it. F-15 did see combat though so looks a lot better, but still not what it was designed to do. It's always hard to try to guess at "deterrent value" since by definition deterrents are meant to deter and hopefully never have to prove themselves, yet still have to work if they are needed. But at least for those aircraft the potential need was very concrete.
F-22 just didn't have that mission, so was much harder to justify. No peer opponent where serious air superiority might be useful. Unless you consider the F-14 a "failure" too though (and you'd have more arguments for that) eh, and I wouldn't agree either way.
NGAD has a rising China with a building powerful air force and navy as the context. Back to the hotter parts of the Cold War.
F-15 is easy to convert for ground attack missions. F-22 is not because of missile bay. F-14 was canned the moment other navy planes got decent at air combat.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>moron anon won't take the hint
Oh well
2 years ago
Anonymous
F 22 can into external mounted weapons morono
2 years ago
Anonymous
They literally never fly with them moron. It makes the entire stealth thing pointless.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There are stealth weapon pods that can be attached to it wings, moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
In testing. Also they are for missiles not bombs. Holy frick stop talking about things you know shit about. F-22 is trash at ground strikes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They would have done it more frequently if they actually built the fleet out to 1,000 planes. Either way, your original point was deboonked.
2 years ago
Anonymous
These pods look insanly draggy. This has to be from a game.
2 years ago
Anonymous
enclosed weapons pods are a real thing but that is from ace combat, drag isn't that big of a concern at all though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That pic is from a videogame but it actually exists in real life.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>CFT on a Super Bug
How fat do they plane on making this thing?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They literally never fly with them moron. It makes the entire stealth thing pointless.
Same applies to F-35. And the F-22 bay can fit 8 amramm or SDB, the F-35 only 4.
2 years ago
Anonymous
F-35 now fit 6 AMRAAMs. Their bays also allow larger bombs. And F-35 has ground attack software and sensors while F-22 would need pods if you want any kind of precision strike.
>NGAD has a rising China with a building powerful air force and navy as the context. Back to the hotter parts of the Cold War.
Dumb question, but is it expected that there will be a hot war against China or its allies? I know the cold war is over but isn't the possibility of escalation to nuclear exchange still a threat? Asking this genuinely. I guess for proxy wars or the like it would be useful?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ukraine has proven that in near peer conflict on territory at the outside intersection of two spheres of influence (desired by both, needed by neither) can progress at a pace where nuclear weapons are always an unjustifiably disproportionate escalation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But doesn't Ukraine's lack of membership in NATO or the EU kind of provide the wiggle room needed in that situation? I can't think of many countries that fit the bill of >are a peer or near peer to the US military >aren't nuclear-armed
Such that a new generation of fighter jet would be necessary to deal with them.
>It's going to be even bigger game changer than F-22 was.
I don't think it'll change that much actually, I don't think there's anyone that's currently on par with the US aircraft, there's China but they're not there yet and we'll have to see if they ever will, and stuff like Tempest is made for allied countries, so it's not a threat.
>Hard to believe this thing is less than a decade away. It's going to be even bigger game changer than F-22 was.
The F-22 is on its way out because a readyness rate of less than 50% approaching 40%. The replacement is the F-15 silent eagle. I dont think anything will come out of this project, it will fizzle and implode like so many other ambitious american R&D projects before.
The Silent Eagle is a meme. Boeing never did any proper RCS testing on it and the one example built was little more than a flying mock up.
NGAD will supplement then supplant the F22. A few F15 Eagle IIs are being built as missile trucks for F35 and to replace the aging F15Cs still in USAF inventories.
I'm sure it will be awesome but it looks like ass. After making fun of euros for their dorritos for so long I don't know if I can handle a tailess burger flavored dorrito.
>Isn't it weird how how none of the statist MIC shills are even American?
It seems that such work has been outsourced to low paid britbongers. Oh, how the mighty have fallen, from the empire where the sun never sets to New Pajeetistan on the Atlantic.
idk, but it's probably license-built by Lockheed Martin in the US with some extra modifications
it's similar for the reverse, the Chinooks Germany ordered will be license-produced by Airbus for Boeing (or Airbus will do maintenance, not sure, in any case there's a deal between the two companies)
idk, but it's probably license-built by Lockheed Martin in the US with some extra modifications
it's similar for the reverse, the Chinooks Germany ordered will be license-produced by Airbus for Boeing (or Airbus will do maintenance, not sure, in any case there's a deal between the two companies)
now that I think about it again, I doubt it's gonna be license produced, doing whole new manufacturing lines would probably be far too expensive
I guess they'll just order special versions and the respective native company will cover maintenance in the future
[...]
now that I think about it again, I doubt it's gonna be license produced, doing whole new manufacturing lines would probably be far too expensive
I guess they'll just order special versions and the respective native company will cover maintenance in the future
MRTT for Euro customers are made by taking a basic b***h a330 airframe, flying it to an Airbus Military hangar in Getafe and modifying it there.
They'll just send a bare civilian airframe to LM and they'll add all the military hardware
>It's weird seeing what appears to be a common air liner servicing a UFO. You might expect even tankers to look more futurey by now.
Tankers and airliners face largely the same design requirements: Good amount of space and weight capacity, beyond that as efficient as possible to maintain and fly. And the reason modern airliners all look more or less the same is that that's the optimal configuration for doing that. You get exotic-looking planes when there's some requirement that means a plain-jane design won't do. Needs to be stealthy, needs to do mach 3, etc.
I was expecting it to be larger.
They're all just converted airliner frames.
Lmao why did they put spikes on it? This designed by a 12 year old? Might as well put some flame decal on it as well lmao
>doesn't know what a pitot tube is
ngmi
Cute
Still just an uninformed artistic render. It'll be interesting to see how close they really are whenever we publicly see NGAD some day.
>whenever we publicly see NGAD some day
>we
you mean our great grandchildren.
>magic turbineless twin engine
looks like a retrofitted DC-10 death trap
Hmmm seems too good to be real
Just imagine teasing those subtle curves with your caressing fingertips, while she's just waiting for your "fuel" to fill her up. God I bet inserting into that jussy feels amazing.
>lusting after underaged plane
Pedo alert … MODS
BURN BABY BURN
STRUNG OUT ON A WIRE
HEART IN A CAGE
YOU'RE SO FULL OF DESIRE
new wagie cagie dropped
SEX
Another day, another victory for Airbus and for France
the MRTT conversion is made in Madrid tho.
asi es jefe
Be grateful that we're delegating you a minor role
Most of the Airbus military planes are made in Spain tho, the a400m is made in Seville along with the C295 in CASAs old facilities.
More like Boeing keeps dropping the ball. Seriously, do they have a single active program that *isn't* messed up, except for their legacy MD programs (F-15, F-18, AH-64)?
Hard to believe this thing is less than a decade away. It's going to be even bigger game changer than F-22 was.
And it will get canceled on cost grounds even faster than the F-22 was. Turns out you need a functioning manufacturing sector in order to field modern equipment. Cope, seethe, dilate.
>T. Someone whese nation has not produced more than 1000 stealth fighters
Nope, I'm an american engineer who used to work in the aerospace industry. Shit is fricked, my dude.
>inb4 le ebin kansas oblast forced reddit maymay xD
Armatard used to pretend to be a US veteran who was "just concerned" too you disingenuous moron.
>Nope, I'm an american engineer who used to work in the aerospace industry. Shit is fricked, my dude.
Its way worse than you think, check out the design studies NASA did in the 60s and compare it to today, Elon Musks hotrotted conventional space rockets have nothing on projects like ROMBUS that would have launched 450 metric tons into orbit per launch.
How many F-35s do you belive the US manufacturers a year? Don't look it up.
The F-35 is a cheap monkey model F-22 that shouldn't even qualify as a proper 5th gen, seeing as how it lacks supercruise.
we're going to war with china, not russia
So replace those real dilapidated planes with cardboard ones.
You're right in the point you are making but you physically hurt me when you post this.
Don't remind me, anon.
It has supercruise, moron. There was literally one glitch ever early on and you've been clinging to it like the desperate little monkey you are to cope with the fact that the sky is rightful US clay.
The F-35 needs to use afterburner to go supersonic, which is the very definition of NOT being supercruise. It also has problems with its afterburner, which is just the cherry on top.
How many times do you need to get btfo on this exact thing?
F-22 also needs afterburner to go supersonic. It just doesn't need afterburner to *stay* supersonic.
The difference is, F-22 can get to ~Mach 1.5 and then shut off its afterburner and maintain that speed using only military thrust until it runs out of fuel. F-35 can get up to the same speed, but when it shuts off its afterburner, it slowly begins to decelerate until it falls back below the speed of sound (supposedly, about a hundred miles later).
So, yes, F-22 is superior at the interception and air superiority roles. F-15s are better than F-16s at those roles, too.
>It has supercruise, moron
Up to a whopping mach 1.3 and only for less than 60 seconds. Then its melting time.
The F-22 is a meme plane for boomers and reformers, F-35 is better in every way that counts.
based, supersonic flight is overrated anyway
Seethe vatnik
>It's a meme
It's nice to have something that's a bit more capable in A2A to provide cover for the F-35s Getting rid of them entirely is a mistake until the day NGAD is in full serial production and there's a decent build up of airframes.
It is indeed a meme how hard this aircraft dunks on anything Russia has to offer (aka the repaint of Soviet designs)
You’re doing this in another thread you moron Black person?
ok moron
>And it will get canceled on cost grounds even faster than the F-22 was
Nope. F-22 wasn't even particularly expensive, that was more public perception. Adjust for inflation and flyaway cost was the same or less than the F-14 and F-15. And if you go back and look at historical articles, both of those had the exact same stuff said about them as the F-22 and F-35 lol. The F-16 was made because of concerns the F-22 was "too expensive" but a big reason the F-22 ended up costing more was precisely because they made fewer of them. Economies of scale matter even for advanced fighters.
The REAL reason for that was simply because peer war was entirely off the US radar at that point. It was the End Of History, and the new enemies were global terrorists and small scale shit like that. Russia was assumed to be rational and no longer a geopolitical threat even if hopes about them modernizing and become a civilized country were fading, China had yet to have Xi appear on the scene and start to head back down the Mao path, didn't need a high performance ASF vs the middle east.
NGAD though is coming in response to "oh shit, peer power war is back on the table". It's not going anywhere.
F-22 is a failure because it's only good for AA. F-35 may be minimally worse at pure AA but it's simply better to have multiroles capable of any mission.
The F-14 and F-15 were "only good for AA" to the same degree too (technically F-22 could be equipped with SDBs or the like if we really had felt like it). But they were built vs a very genuine threatening near-peer opponent. F-14 was considered a boondoggle for a long time precisely because the war it was built to fight never came (just as everyone hoped it wouldn't). Unironically Top Gun totally changed the public's perception of it. F-15 did see combat though so looks a lot better, but still not what it was designed to do. It's always hard to try to guess at "deterrent value" since by definition deterrents are meant to deter and hopefully never have to prove themselves, yet still have to work if they are needed. But at least for those aircraft the potential need was very concrete.
F-22 just didn't have that mission, so was much harder to justify. No peer opponent where serious air superiority might be useful. Unless you consider the F-14 a "failure" too though (and you'd have more arguments for that) eh, and I wouldn't agree either way.
NGAD has a rising China with a building powerful air force and navy as the context. Back to the hotter parts of the Cold War.
F-15 is easy to convert for ground attack missions. F-22 is not because of missile bay. F-14 was canned the moment other navy planes got decent at air combat.
>moron anon won't take the hint
Oh well
F 22 can into external mounted weapons morono
They literally never fly with them moron. It makes the entire stealth thing pointless.
There are stealth weapon pods that can be attached to it wings, moron.
In testing. Also they are for missiles not bombs. Holy frick stop talking about things you know shit about. F-22 is trash at ground strikes.
They would have done it more frequently if they actually built the fleet out to 1,000 planes. Either way, your original point was deboonked.
These pods look insanly draggy. This has to be from a game.
enclosed weapons pods are a real thing but that is from ace combat, drag isn't that big of a concern at all though.
That pic is from a videogame but it actually exists in real life.
>CFT on a Super Bug
How fat do they plane on making this thing?
>They literally never fly with them moron. It makes the entire stealth thing pointless.
Same applies to F-35. And the F-22 bay can fit 8 amramm or SDB, the F-35 only 4.
F-35 now fit 6 AMRAAMs. Their bays also allow larger bombs. And F-35 has ground attack software and sensors while F-22 would need pods if you want any kind of precision strike.
>F-14 was considered a boondoggle for a long time precisely because the war it was built to fight never came (just as everyone hoped it wouldn't)
Iranian F-14s curbstomped Iraqi Migs and Mirages so the F-14 did see war, just not in American hands.
>NGAD has a rising China with a building powerful air force and navy as the context. Back to the hotter parts of the Cold War.
Dumb question, but is it expected that there will be a hot war against China or its allies? I know the cold war is over but isn't the possibility of escalation to nuclear exchange still a threat? Asking this genuinely. I guess for proxy wars or the like it would be useful?
Ukraine has proven that in near peer conflict on territory at the outside intersection of two spheres of influence (desired by both, needed by neither) can progress at a pace where nuclear weapons are always an unjustifiably disproportionate escalation.
But doesn't Ukraine's lack of membership in NATO or the EU kind of provide the wiggle room needed in that situation? I can't think of many countries that fit the bill of
>are a peer or near peer to the US military
>aren't nuclear-armed
Such that a new generation of fighter jet would be necessary to deal with them.
We aren’t Russia. We can make planes that don’t use wood screws and build them consistently.
>It's going to be even bigger game changer than F-22 was.
I don't think it'll change that much actually, I don't think there's anyone that's currently on par with the US aircraft, there's China but they're not there yet and we'll have to see if they ever will, and stuff like Tempest is made for allied countries, so it's not a threat.
>Hard to believe this thing is less than a decade away. It's going to be even bigger game changer than F-22 was.
The F-22 is on its way out because a readyness rate of less than 50% approaching 40%. The replacement is the F-15 silent eagle. I dont think anything will come out of this project, it will fizzle and implode like so many other ambitious american R&D projects before.
The Silent Eagle is a meme. Boeing never did any proper RCS testing on it and the one example built was little more than a flying mock up.
NGAD will supplement then supplant the F22. A few F15 Eagle IIs are being built as missile trucks for F35 and to replace the aging F15Cs still in USAF inventories.
For a second there I thought you were talking about the KC-Y and I was completely baffled how a tanker plane could be so important.
Airbus chads can't stop winning
A-35
are those GBU-12s? fitting last 2 digits aswell.
is this guy a chink shill?
He's a (you) addict and yall keep enabling him
when will we got cool looking stealth tankers?
A gen after we get stealth AWACS (which I think is gonna be 6-6.5)
F-35 is already at the we have AWACS at home point, so I don't think it's all that far off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray
Nice. More worthless toys. More money wasted.
I'm sure it will be awesome but it looks like ass. After making fun of euros for their dorritos for so long I don't know if I can handle a tailess burger flavored dorrito.
Isn't it weird how how none of the statist MIC shills are even American?
>Isn't it weird how how none of the statist MIC shills are even American?
It seems that such work has been outsourced to low paid britbongers. Oh, how the mighty have fallen, from the empire where the sun never sets to New Pajeetistan on the Atlantic.
Xi sisters….
Putin bros….
This is f-fine….right???
>The virgin tailed aircraft
>The chad tailless delta aircraft
How does it work? They order a custom A330 MRTT and add the fancy gadgets in the US?
idk, but it's probably license-built by Lockheed Martin in the US with some extra modifications
it's similar for the reverse, the Chinooks Germany ordered will be license-produced by Airbus for Boeing (or Airbus will do maintenance, not sure, in any case there's a deal between the two companies)
now that I think about it again, I doubt it's gonna be license produced, doing whole new manufacturing lines would probably be far too expensive
I guess they'll just order special versions and the respective native company will cover maintenance in the future
There already is a large Airbus manufacturing line in Mobile, Alabama.
MRTT for Euro customers are made by taking a basic b***h a330 airframe, flying it to an Airbus Military hangar in Getafe and modifying it there.
They'll just send a bare civilian airframe to LM and they'll add all the military hardware
Doomdorito.
include me in the screenshot
f35 the reddit plane
>Lockheed's been reduced to slapping their logo on Airbus fuselages
TAKE ME BACK
I WANT TO GO BACK
Lockheed doesn't build tankers
Be glad they aren't choosing Boeing crap
Lockheed used to build passenger jets though, which they could've used to base their own tanker design off of in this competition.
I'm not really the type who seethes over European-American foreign relations on this board, but the KC-45 / KC-46 drama still makes me mad
It's weird seeing what appears to be a common air liner servicing a UFO. You might expect even tankers to look more futurey by now.
>It's weird seeing what appears to be a common air liner servicing a UFO. You might expect even tankers to look more futurey by now.
Tankers and airliners face largely the same design requirements: Good amount of space and weight capacity, beyond that as efficient as possible to maintain and fly. And the reason modern airliners all look more or less the same is that that's the optimal configuration for doing that. You get exotic-looking planes when there's some requirement that means a plain-jane design won't do. Needs to be stealthy, needs to do mach 3, etc.
It would be cool to see a flying wing tanker, but I assume the R&D investment does not make any sense.