>The F-35 can just... Intercept cruise missiles.
Is it joever for thirdie chimpouts on developed countries? Why does AmeriTech rule so supreme?
>The F-35 can just...
>The F-35 can just... Intercept cruise missiles.
Is it joever for thirdie chimpouts on developed countries? Why does AmeriTech rule so supreme?
Cause the US invented the airplane.
>make up imaginary rules what defines a plane until you are the first one to reach that goal
FREEEEEDOM FUCK YEAH
>imaginary rules
I know "powered controlled flight" seems arbitrary if you're from a country where flights are rarely controlled and sometimes lose power at random, but for normal people countries flying actual airplanes "powered controlled flight" is the barrier to entry
>Its only a plane if it can fly 0.5 miles, no 1 mile, no 1.5 mile, no 1.8 mile, no 2 mile, no 2.154234213423452345234234 miles, fuck thank god our competitior ran out of money trying to make planes reaching those goal now we make our first design copying them
Holy fuck are you seriously trying to retcon the Wright brothers?
They most likely werent considering they were writing articles with mental gymnastics about why Whiteheads first flight wasnt acutally a "flight" prior to their first flight
No it's as this anon said.
It's very easy to rile em up with it too
The Wright brothers were literally the first Musk, they neither were the first nor did they have the best tech, but they simply were running a massive marketing campaign with dumb money so the average murrican would believe they have a jupiter sized brain
t. Brazilian
i mean musk does have the best tech though, you can cope about it if you want, you're not wrong that he's massively autistic and often acts like a retard, but too many people go hyperbolic and project that onto his products.
>musk does have the best tech though
Mostly in spite of him though. He is a source of capital for actual engineers and people at his companies have to corral his ego away from fucking with engineering constantly because when he gets control (see: twitter) he fucks it up horribly every time. Most of the worst fuck ups out of Tesla, SpaceX, etc, are all his fault.
it's a plane if it can fly (stay in the air and control where it's going)
jumping is not flying. everything that came before was a technological dead end, and would still be a technological dead end if you threw it off a cliff to make it go further.
>Closest thing to “powered, controlled flight” before them is a stinky Frenchoid with an admittedly impressive little steam engine in a janky Assassin’s Creed looking shitbox that had no proper control surfaces whatsoever and MAYBE might have lifted off the ground for like 20 feet or a bunch of claims of “guys this would have totally worked if I had built a full-scale model/if my test machine wasn’t secured to a guide track or whatever”
Americans conquered the air, you fucking broke-dick Europeasants, and you will cope and seethe for eternity.
French figured out rigid airship first however.
>be heavier than air
>fly
wow, what imaginative rules
thirdie genocide fucking when? nobody before the Wright brothers even understood what the fuck an airfoil was. Which means nobody knew how to make a wing OR a propeller.
>a propeller
Its insane just how much of modern propeller science has barely changed since the Wright brothers basically wrote the entire manual on making props. Reading about their process and self invented tools and measurement devices is awesome.
>the Wright brothers basically wrote the entire manual on making props
Yeah because HMS Dreadnought just didn't exist. It was totally two guys in bumfuck nowhere.
Shut the fuck up Brazil.
Germany invented the flight
>Wright Brothers
>German
?
That ain't even true if we include manned LTA, then it was the French, or maybe pre-historic Peruvians if you believe some rando Brazilian priest.
>hiram maxim
>german
Brazilians claim they were the ones who invented the airplane because the Wright Brothers' design needed a catapult while Santos-Dumont's didn't.
Hues are also the only other group innovating in air tech, so it checks out.
if anyone else did they sure as hell did not put much effort into documenting it
>tfw having to use German names to describe aerodynamic concepts
>the country that invests more in its military than some countries have as a total national budget produces jets that shit all over everything
Wow who saw that coming
this year's requested air force budget was 20 billion dollars more than the annual GDP of Greece
Good lord
That doesn't say much. Greece is a small country notorious for not having money.
>claim to have invented western civilization
>barely civilized
To be fair, they were city-states. Modern Greece is a construct.
My own mother said the exact. same. thing.
>”Western civilization came from this?!”
lmao and that was in the 70s. It has gotten much worse by now if I understand correctly.
Thats what living under Turks for hundreds of years does to you
Keep in mind Greece was already backwater due to wars and terrible governments before the Romans conquered them in the first century BC. Tgings only got poorer and shittier with only occasional nose ups when the Byzantines rolled a decent emperor
>higher life expectancy than usa
it is not an achievement to funnel your money into bombing thirdies to the detriment of your own people and delight of israel
>live longer
>in Greece
wow.
amazing.
i am truly envious.
200 billion*** you mean. Greece isn’t a small island or war-torn subsaharan African country, Anon. $20 billion is a bit… miniscule.
Greece GDP = 215 billion so close enough
Learn to read ESL. Anon is saying the request was 20 billion "more", not that the amount total was 20 billion.
they requested only 20 billion this year?
excuse me i have been told by multiple indians, chinese, russians, liberals and conservatives that the F-35 was a huge waste, piece of shit worthless airplane.
Ignore all those guys, listen to Pierre Sprey on IntelReformerG for all the news Locksneed is trying to bury.
POGO isn't conservative.
meh. it does have it's uses, but it's held back in it's stovl variant and it would probably be more suitable for the pacific theater if it had 30% more range.
As I recall the development was pretty inefficient and weird. Weren't they like building a fuckton of them long before they were done testing shit?
Fighter jets have been able to intercept cruise missiles for decades.
then what is all fuss about?
First AA kill for F-35
no, F-35s have shot down drones before
it's different when jooz do it, you anti-semite nazi bigot!1!1
>then what is all fuss about?
propaganda, we're being bathed in propaganda. somehow IDF convinced the US military that the biggest piece of assistance they need is flooding the internet with propaganda. rn PrepHole is a primary distribution point for it because the SF army comms dudes they called in to help were trolls here, so its a good place to watch for that.
PrepHole has been inundated with Pajeets who both love Russia and Israel.
The insane cope we see for Russia is equally translated to Israel by these street shitters, who think War is a Bollywood movie.
The F-22 got blue balled of an aerial kill, again.
>Be the ultimate air superiority fighter currently
>Only get to pop a balloon
Yeah I don't get what all this excitement is about. One of the reasons why Ukraine wants F-16 is to shoot down cruise missiles.
>The aircraft's first role will likely be supporting air defense by intercepting cruise missiles. Given Russia's low monthly capacity for missile strikes on Ukraine, only a few F-16s are necessary to intercept cruise missiles that enter Ukrainian airspace—providing needed relief to Ukraine's overtaxed SAMs. Some commentators have highlighted the F-16's ability to deploy cruise missiles and other munitions for strikes and interdiction such as the Storm Shadow missiles. However, those weapons are scarce, and F-16s provide only limited additional capacity unless Ukraine receives a large influx of air-to-ground munitions.
https://www.rand.org/blog/2023/10/f-16s-are-no-magic-bullet-for-ukraine-but-they-are.html
Spitfires were regularly shooting down V-2's in WW2
V1s you mean, V2s are ballistic missiles that no one had the technology to intercept at the time.
Yeah disregard my retardation, you are correct. I've been awake a long time
NTA but common mistake to make
You should sleep my friend. Nothing ages you prematurely or sickens you quicker than lack of sleep.
Preaching to the choir, brother. Class all evening and then 3rd shift all night/early morning. End is almost in sight, though
And it worked in Germany's favour since V-1 were more expendable than Spitfires. Note how they had to tip them over because blowing them up was too dangerous.
V-2 were a huge waste of resources with conventional warheads.
>Worked in Germany's favour
Remind me: who won that war? I am ever so forgetful.
>Germany lost the war so all of their military technology is invalid
Why are you a troon, anon?
Yeah it definitely worked in Germany's favor to get the Allies to expend fuel and man-hours that they had in excess compared to the manufacture, fueling, and infrastructure needs of the V-1 for a country increasingly tight on resources, tooling, and labor.
Every aircraft devoted to defence wasn't available elsewhere and V-1 was considerably cheaper to use than bombers.
Every V-1 can only be used once while an interceptor force is still there and will keep shooting them down.
Exactly, the interceptors are tied down for a long while as long as there is a credible threat.
The war would have ended quicker had the British ignored the little damage the V-1 caused and deployed the interceptors elsewhere.
>deployed the interceptors elsewhere
Like where, dipshit
What the fuck were Spitfires supposed to be doing against a mostly destroyed and ineffective Luftwaffe? They didn't have the range to go escorting bombers, the Americans did that. They were deployed intercepting the only credible air threat existed at the time, which were the V-1s.
>V-1 was considerably cheaper to use than bombers
Because German bombers would have also been intercepted and shot down with no real effect. V1s were a massive mistake that only served to really piss off the English. They were "reprisal weapons" in the sense that such a bitch move invited massive reprisals.
Tipping them was just easy. They were slow, stable, caught early, and were disabled by a bump after you waited for it to fly over nothing, why waste ammo honestly, it was nothing to do with lack of ammo, more to do with maximising efficiency.
>Man hours (infinite) and fuel (had a lot)
lmao, absolute retard.
a flying thing designed to shoot down other flyign things shot down a flying thing?
>The F-35 can just... Intercept cruise missiles.
Every fighter can do this, cruise missiles are not very fast and fly in a straight line.
But I guess for thirdies without an airforce they appear to be some kind of a wunderwaffe.
Works in Ace Combat so it must be real.
But Brown-bros, I thought Israel was failing because one tank got blown up...
>hamas cruise missiles
literal 1940s technology probably moves slower than a snail
hamas doesn't have cruise missiles
it's an iranian cruise missile fired from yemen
Dude, a cruise missile flys in basically a straight line (or series of basically straight lines) at ~550mph. A MiG-15 built in 1949 could intercept one. Shit, a Gloster Meteor built in 1949 could intercept one. WWII piston engine fighters traveling about 100-150mph slower than either of those two 1st gen jets frequently shot down V-1s traveling about 100-150mph slower than modern cruise missiles. A Vietnam era B-52 could overtake a modern cruise missile, get in front of it, and have the tailgunner shoot it down. A C-17 could do the same thing, open its rear cargo door, and get a kinetic kill on a cruise missile with an Abrams tank pushed out the back. A pre-placed Navy SEAL in a HALO jump could disable a cruise missile by throwing a Gerber Mark II at it with like 85% of his strength. The peregrine falcon in a dive on an intercept vector could destroy a cruise missile engine. Any mylar party balloon floating around could collide with a cruise missile covering its GPS antenna or TERCOM radar rendering it unable to navigate like a cat with its head stuck in a bag. Speaking of TERCOM, a cunning enemy could easily excavate dozens of mountains and move the rocks and dirt to plains and valleys thus throwing a cruise missile wildy off course, and guerilla superhackers trained in hacking since they were toddlers could hack into GPS satellites which would then feed the cruise missile a series of erroneous coordinates causing it to turn around and blow up the launcher or even the President. An expansive array of millions of AI controlled mirrors could focus the energy of the sun into a massive beam melting the cruise missile mid-flight. Enormous hives of genetically modified killer bees placed upon a fleet of nuclear powered airships which would orbit tirelessly above the land could swarm a cruise missile bring it down by their shear weight. Not to mention that an anti-quantum anti-cruise missile cruise missile could mirror its anti-twin cruise missile exactly.....
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
Ways to shoot down a cruise missile that demonstrate that the F-35 shooting down a cruise missile isn't impressive. For example, a 1960s IR guided MANPAD fired by a legless, one-eyed deaf child in an old timey wheelchair could shoot down a cruise missile, either from the ground or from an 18th century hot air balloon. A cruise missile could be harpooned by an Airskimo from an ultralight carbon fiber composite wind sled pulled by a harnassed team of powerful eagles. I'm regular eagles would work just as well. A cruise missile can't fly through the molten hot magma of an erupting volcano, and multiple giant robotic boring machines could penetrate long magma barrels into the Earth below the anticipated path of any cruise missile which would be unplugged by explosives as the cruise missile approached, showering it with lava. Titanium boomerangs launched by primitive trebuchets could chop a cruise missile in half, even after an EMP or coronal mass ejection wiped out all modern technology. Cruise missiles have air breathing turbines, which may be disabled by technology that temporarily replaces all of the oxygen in the defended area, or by moving all of your vulnerable facilities to underwater bases deep below the ocean - the ocean can kill cruise missiles. A "rods of god" satellite could drop tungsten bricks from orbit with enough energy to essily kill a cruise missile, but if that brick was instead aimed at a kilometer long lever on the ground with another tungsten brick on the end, it could flip up a brick at a cruise missile with even greater speed and destructive power. Creating a program which gives machines human emotions could give an enemy cruise missile the ability to fall in love, but at speeds several orders of magnitude faster than humans. Then, you would launch your own, more attractive cruise missiles to draw the enemy cruise missile away from its mission or fill it with disruptive jealousy.
Furthermore, all cruise missiles contain steel. So a magnet beam could pull a cruise missile into the ground, or two magnet beams could simply tear it in half like two humongus invisible fists. Three magnet beams could be cycled rapidly on and off in sequence turning a cruise missile into a remote controlled cruise missile debris tornado which could then suck up other cruise missiles making the cruise missile debris tornado even deadlier and deadlier in an endless feedback loop as long as the enemy continued to fire cruise missiles at you. And because it would be powered by magnet beams, it could be left spinning violently indefinitely. Once the enemy cruise missiles have been exhausted, the gigantic cruise missile debris tornado could be driven over the enemy's land and parked their, exploding everything until the magnet beams are turned off.
good show
>Jamie, pull that up.
I will simply shoot down cruise missiles with the power of Prayer.
😐
Can it fly in clouds?
The American Wright brothers flights in 1903 are recognized by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the standard-setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics, as "the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight".[
but...but some Europoors on a Mongolian basket weaving forum said they werent, clearly we should trust them right?!
both V1s and V2s were successfully intercepted in WW2
When and how was a V2 intercepted?
my bad, someone tried to intercept one but couldn't
How come Mover hates this plane so much?
>Mover
Never seen him mentioned on /k/ before. Any reason for that or is he just more obscure than I thought?
Also, does he actually hate the F-35?
Brazilians have a national delusion that a Brazilian invented the airplane, it unites both sides of the political spectrum and is pretty hilarious to witness. They will not accept any proof to the contrary; it's conspiracy-tier
What?
My favorite part is when they claim the wright flyer didn't actually work and that the only reason it flew was because of high winds in the outer banks (because that's totally how airspeed works).
>can just... Intercept cruise missiles.
you're literally 80 years late retard
@60047067
No it doesn't, and you knew that when you posted that to get replies.
NTA, while the 1905 Flyer didn't require a catapult, the Wrights didn't test it without one until 1908, two years after Santos-Dumont's flight. It's entirely likely the Wrights's earlier Flyers didn't necessarily require a catapult either, but it was always used regardless. Santos-Dumont was also initially credited with inventing powered flight for some time in Europe, as authorities there refused to accept the Wright Flyer until the brothers went to Europe and flew in person.
>Santos-Dumont was also initially credited with inventing powered flight for some time in Europe, as authorities there refused to accept the Wright Flyer until the brothers went to Europe and flew in person.
The burger really makes the euro seethe for some reason.
The Wright brothers achieved powered flight in 1903 while the catapult was, from every source I've read, completed in 1904. They did need high winds to achieve their 24mph takeoff considering they didn't have a proper landing strip for wheels and had only 80 feet of rail to take off from. The catapult was built so that they could achieve that takeoff speed consistently without waiting for high winds and shifting the rail in line with that wind.
>The F-35 can just... Intercept cruise missiles
This has been a thing since before cruise missiles could ever cruise
>Why does AmeriTech rule so supreme?
Because America makes stuff to cou ter the declared capabilities of its enemy, only to learn that it was a bluff after they've reduced some 3rd world army or another to a shell of its former self.
Ukrainians will get f 16s and just bump them out of the sky to save ammo. I'm being serious. They are being trained by Americans. American pilots at the very top are freaks of nature who have spent years building up their body and mind to handle and train. It's going to be cool to watch Ukrainians. Flying like 5 meters off the ground at 500 km an hour lil pop and drop like top gun 2: Maverick. Except this time it will be on random Russian 10-12 year olds and prisoners.
If I ruled the world
I'd free all my people
If I ruled the world
Cruise missiles have been getting intercepted for as long as they have existed.
?
>this entire thread is a dozen people telling OP that the British regularly intercepted V-1s, and one seething Brazilian.
lmao
Reminder that Santos-Dumont was trying to fly with canoe paddles until he learned of the Wright brother's prop design and switched to that.
Further reminder that he was not aware of adverse yaw and therefore didn't solve it, while the Wright brothers were the first to discover it AND solve it, proving they were the first to develop controlled flight. You literally can't have controlled flight unless you solve adverse yaw.
>All this brit cope
Is GCAP or FCAS failing (don't remember which is which but the German/French program seems like it'll fizzle out soon)
Explain to me why you think this is a feat?
A cruise missile is basically a slow tiny plane with little to no countermeasures. Why would this be harder to shoot down than an enemy plane that can shoot back, deploy countermeasures and maneuver to minimize exposure?
its not the first cruise missile f35i shot down another one was in 2021
current one was a turbojet one and the past one was a prop driven flying wing cruise missile
https://twitter.com/i/status/1583698093958057985