It's ok anon, congress thinks that free market competition is the best solution for low volume arms supply so Boeing will get the next fighter project so they stay alive.
If two manufacturers keep taking turns it really helps keep the market competitive and efficient.
lol, it was fixed as frick. They went and ignored every single advantage that yf-23 had, from stealth, payload, and speed, and just went what about muh manoeuvrability?! Even though everyone at the time knew well that it was already meme spec.
Better plane lost.
Yep, that's why I hate when governments force "the free market" into industries that can't sustain a free market.
If they chose the better plane each time within 20 years there would be one company left because not many companies can build them and it's a terrible investment to found a company that can and pray you get a contract.
I wish we would go back to nationalized arms production with internal competition for designs, that way you aren't forced to pick the worse one just to keep the thing afloat.
You don't win competitions by exceeding requirements. You squeak over the line while undercutting the competition. That's contracting 101.
Besides, one look at the YF-23's actual abomination of an internal weapons bay is proof apparent that there's no such thing as a benevolent god.
I thought maneuverability was important in order to make a plane survivable in the modern battlefield. What good is having fancy radars able to detect incoming missiles over the horizon if you can’t avoid them?
The real meta is EW and not being detected in the first place. A missile will always be able to outmaneuver a manned aircraft unless you're at the very limits of its range.
>The real meta is EW and not being detected in the first place.
For sure, but it feels like if your 5th / 6th generation fighter that costed you an arm and a leg to get you want it to try and have some if any chance to survive, seeing how damn expensive the things are.
Though I guess interceptors and decoys can do that too. I bet we’ll see plenty of innovation in interceptor / decoy drones in future fighters which should in theory make maneuverability less important overall.
Like I said, if you do it right the enemy will never be able to launch a missile at your fancy plane, whether it's because they can't see it at all or can't get a clear lock. Meanwhile you'll be slinging missiles at extreme ranges while being fed targeting data from dozens of different sources.
>I thought maneuverability was important in order to make a plane survivable in the modern battlefield. What good is having fancy radars able to detect incoming missiles over the horizon if you can’t avoid them?
manueverability dont mean shit,
you fire a BVR from as far out, high up and fast as you can, you turn and run
eventually, missile delivery should be a suicide drone
I wish corporate was still here in WA instead of Chiraq so I could fricking steal and crash a MAX into them.
There are still good engineers at Boeing but those chucklefricks ruin fricking everything.
>Wait until we see some actual designs/pictures of NGAD and F/A-XX before you sink into total despair.
its the same thing as the OP, but without tail-fins,and even more triangle shape
did you know the Navy said they'd adopt the YF-22 if it were chosen over the YF-23 because it appeared more suitable to navalisation and then didn't, skewing the vote for no reason? I just thought that was interesting.
Have faith, it may yet return, with a tail hook.
If I was in charge:
Blackwidow + -cat (Grumman naval fighter)=
Black cat
It will be bad luck for the enemy.
inb4 I'm gay for mentioning this
>Have faith, it may yet return, with a tail hook.
highly, highly doubt carrier-compatible planes will be a part of any NGAD design, carriers simply will not be able to be anywhere even remotely near a conflict zone to be useable, same with aerial refuelers, which will either become disposable, other fighters (like F-18 refuellers) or some kind of stealth drone, but in any case, AWACS,carriers and refuellers are basically game-over for any pacific theatre action
the NGAD has to be like a J20,but with more range, and more+large internal missile bays
Which is fricking moronic. There's literally no need for the Navy to have its own version of an NGAD program. That's just trying to smother the Air Force out of existence when it'll never happen.
>Which is fricking moronic. There's literally no need for the Navy to have its own version of an NGAD program. That's just trying to smother the Air Force out of existence when it'll never happen.
yah, the whole "Taiwan question" really illustrates how "over" the era of carrier spam is
Carriers wont be able to operate within a thousand miles of the theatre, if not more, same with AWACS and air-refuel
"Next Gen Fighters" will literally be 'on their own' , LONG range, within their little flight group, whatever shape that ends up taking.
This is why I find the B21 so puzzling
how could anyone possibly think a sub-sonic penetration bomber would be viable in (current year) no matter what its electronic suite is?
and at $xxxxxxxxxmillions per/cost of an air-defense missile, it seems truly ludicrous
>Which is fricking moronic. There's literally no need for the Navy to have its own version of an NGAD program. That's just trying to smother the Air Force out of existence when it'll never happen.
yah, the whole "Taiwan question" really illustrates how "over" the era of carrier spam is
Carriers wont be able to operate within a thousand miles of the theatre, if not more, same with AWACS and air-refuel
"Next Gen Fighters" will literally be 'on their own' , LONG range, within their little flight group, whatever shape that ends up taking.
This is why I find the B21 so puzzling
how could anyone possibly think a sub-sonic penetration bomber would be viable in (current year) no matter what its electronic suite is?
and at $xxxxxxxxxmillions per/cost of an air-defense missile, it seems truly ludicrous
>Carriers wont be able to operate within a thousand miles of the theatre, if not more
This is why the Navy wants their own fancy new long range stealth plane
>This is why the Navy wants their own fancy new long range stealth plane
which begs the question, what does it operate from exactly?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Aircraft carriers >1000km from the theatre
11 months ago
Anonymous
nahhhhhh, carriers are going to be a thousand miles out, or more. a that point, I have no clue what naval plane, incapable of using mid-air refuel could possibly deliver any meaningful payload at that range
11 months ago
Anonymous
>a that point, I have no clue what naval plane, incapable of using mid-air refuel could possibly deliver any meaningful payload at that range
A fancy new one designed for long range strikes using standoff munitions? The Navy is also planning on having a bunch of stealth tanker drones which would likely work in concert with F/A-XX
11 months ago
Anonymous
>The Navy is also planning on having a bunch of stealth tanker drones which would likely work in concert with F/A-XX
that sounds suicidal in a hot theatre, where BVR missiles and cued networks abound
naval launched planes, that arent drones seem foolish.
and the NGAD plane will be ultra long-range, because it MUST be. therefore, Carrier based planes wouldnt even matter at that point
11 months ago
Anonymous
I feel like you're missing the part where I'm saying the Navy is working on their own, unrelated NGAD. It's not the same NGAD that the Air Force is getting, it's an entirely different program that has the same name. If the Air Force will be able to use their shiny new long range plane then I don't see any reason they Navy wouldn't be able to use theirs.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I feel like you're missing the part where I'm saying the Navy is working on their own, unrelated NGAD. It's not the same NGAD that the Air Force is getting, it's an entirely different program that has the same name. If the Air Force will be able to use their shiny new long range plane then I don't see any reason they Navy wouldn't be able to use theirs.
I fully understand everything you are saying, what I am saying is, if the carrier is operating from 1000miles out, the combat radius of said (lol) naval launched aircraft would be ludicrous, to the extent it may as well operate from Guam, if that was even possible, or some friendly ground-base far, far away
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I fully understand everything you are saying, what I am saying is, if the carrier is operating from 1000miles out, the combat radius of said (lol) naval launched aircraft would be ludicrous, to the extent it may as well operate from Guam, if that was even possible, or some friendly ground-base far, far away
Not him but suppression of airfields is a thing, which is what makes carriers advantageous, especially if they can launch from the literal middle of nowhere in the pacific, 1000 miles out.
It is a ludicrous advantage.
The USAF and the USN however, very much prefer to have a ludicrous advantage.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Not him but suppression of airfields is a thing, which is what makes carriers advantageous, especially if they can launch from the literal middle of nowhere in the pacific, 1000 miles out. >It is a ludicrous advantage. >The USAF and the USN however, very much prefer to have a ludicrous advantage.
its imaginary stats on a spreadsheet
there is no combat aircraft that takes off from a carrier, has over a 1000mile combat radius without re-fuel or awacs dependence
its a totally not real, theoretical advantage
11 months ago
Anonymous
>there is no combat aircraft that takes off from a carrier, has over a 1000mile combat radius without re-fuel or awacs dependence
We're literally talking about the Navy's NGAD program. No shit it doesn't exist yet.
>Which is fricking moronic. There's literally no need for the Navy to have its own version of an NGAD program
totally agree, nothing launched from a carrier is going to have the payload/range to justify its existence, outside of becoming drone-spammers like starcraft (which would be cool)
no "fighter/bomber" size planes, launched from a carrier, are relevant against a peer enemy, running defense from their own land.
people fail to realize US weapons, and US jets are designed for first strikes against weaker "shaped" opponents, and thus must operate from carriers, or friendly-bases in foreign countries, which will be extremely vulnerable, if not completely un-useable in an actual regional conflict
Is there anyway NGAD is not just Lockheed again? They have only gotten worse since the F-35 production mess, but they're clearly still the glowie darling.
>It isn't 2008 anymore, grandpa.
the F35 is a complete disaster, with fricking a thousand mainstream, MIC written articles, and congressional resolutions against it
holy frick, at least have an honest conversation about shit
>only having an F22
Why would I want anything else?
F22 literally cannot fire HOBS missiles, or the main BVR missiles the US hopes to integrate, it has no helmet, and only one forward facing AESA radar...there is a reason it was canceled 10 years ago, and only like a dozen combat rated F-22's still exist
They sorted out actually delivering planes back then. Now Lockheed is scamming again by holding back replacement parts and knowledge on maintenance from the military so they have to call in Lockheed engineers to do repair work.
__23__ >faster >longer range >lower radar cross-section
__22__ >more armament carrying capability >more agile >and cheaper (probably the #1 reason it was chosen) >along with Lockheed Martin having a better reputation than McDonald Douglas when it came to time and cost overruns
from a non-esthetic pov sounds like an equal trade-off
canards... hit different... no cap...
Only thirdies use canards
moron who don't understand stealth or aerodynamics
a KA-52 troll thread died for this.
Good
It's ok anon, congress thinks that free market competition is the best solution for low volume arms supply so Boeing will get the next fighter project so they stay alive.
If two manufacturers keep taking turns it really helps keep the market competitive and efficient.
>free market competition
>competition
lol, it was fixed as frick. They went and ignored every single advantage that yf-23 had, from stealth, payload, and speed, and just went what about muh manoeuvrability?! Even though everyone at the time knew well that it was already meme spec.
Better plane lost.
Yep, that's why I hate when governments force "the free market" into industries that can't sustain a free market.
If they chose the better plane each time within 20 years there would be one company left because not many companies can build them and it's a terrible investment to found a company that can and pray you get a contract.
I wish we would go back to nationalized arms production with internal competition for designs, that way you aren't forced to pick the worse one just to keep the thing afloat.
You don't win competitions by exceeding requirements. You squeak over the line while undercutting the competition. That's contracting 101.
Besides, one look at the YF-23's actual abomination of an internal weapons bay is proof apparent that there's no such thing as a benevolent god.
I thought maneuverability was important in order to make a plane survivable in the modern battlefield. What good is having fancy radars able to detect incoming missiles over the horizon if you can’t avoid them?
The real meta is EW and not being detected in the first place. A missile will always be able to outmaneuver a manned aircraft unless you're at the very limits of its range.
>The real meta is EW and not being detected in the first place.
For sure, but it feels like if your 5th / 6th generation fighter that costed you an arm and a leg to get you want it to try and have some if any chance to survive, seeing how damn expensive the things are.
Though I guess interceptors and decoys can do that too. I bet we’ll see plenty of innovation in interceptor / decoy drones in future fighters which should in theory make maneuverability less important overall.
Like I said, if you do it right the enemy will never be able to launch a missile at your fancy plane, whether it's because they can't see it at all or can't get a clear lock. Meanwhile you'll be slinging missiles at extreme ranges while being fed targeting data from dozens of different sources.
>I thought maneuverability was important in order to make a plane survivable in the modern battlefield. What good is having fancy radars able to detect incoming missiles over the horizon if you can’t avoid them?
manueverability dont mean shit,
you fire a BVR from as far out, high up and fast as you can, you turn and run
eventually, missile delivery should be a suicide drone
>eventually, missile delivery should be a suicide drone
>multi-stage intercontinental A2A missiles
stop I'm gonna cum
No, boing is going the way of Macdonald Douglas, funny, the same people who gutted MD for personal profit are doing the same to boing.
I wish corporate was still here in WA instead of Chiraq so I could fricking steal and crash a MAX into them.
There are still good engineers at Boeing but those chucklefricks ruin fricking everything.
imagine needing a J20 ( but USA) and only having an F22 to work off of lol
and anyway, no way NGAD has vertical tail-planes right?
>only having an F22
Why would I want anything else?
>Why would I want anything else?
>Stealth (visual)
putting canards on the yiffer is a fricking travesty
Wait until we see some actual designs/pictures of NGAD and F/A-XX before you sink into total despair.
>Wait until we see some actual designs/pictures of NGAD and F/A-XX before you sink into total despair.
its the same thing as the OP, but without tail-fins,and even more triangle shape
That's what I'm saying. We weren't robbed, they were probably just saving it for later.
>We weren't robbed
*yet
the flying triangle era has only just begun
were in the
>"everything looks like the f35
phase now, but the J20/flying triangle long-distance missile truck era is upon us
F-22 bros we were robbed
>t. OP if the F-23 won
Yup, I hate contrarians. They don't ACTUALLY give a shit about the subject, they just like whatever wasn't the thing that was actually chosen.
TCD (Total Contrarian Death)
Mark my words, the F-23 will return to this world and squash the Lockheedcucks out of existence for their heresy astaghfirullah
make it bigger, like J20 size and make those tail-planes fold flat, and youre basically the NGAD
the new meta is essentially Mig-31's, but with "stealthy" features, networking, internal weapon storage, and huge fuel tanks
NGL that is an outrageously beautiful piece of technology
No idea whether it was any good tho
did you know the Navy said they'd adopt the YF-22 if it were chosen over the YF-23 because it appeared more suitable to navalisation and then didn't, skewing the vote for no reason? I just thought that was interesting.
>'nards
Have faith, it may yet return, with a tail hook.
If I was in charge:
Blackwidow + -cat (Grumman naval fighter)=
Black cat
It will be bad luck for the enemy.
inb4 I'm gay for mentioning this
>Have faith, it may yet return, with a tail hook.
highly, highly doubt carrier-compatible planes will be a part of any NGAD design, carriers simply will not be able to be anywhere even remotely near a conflict zone to be useable, same with aerial refuelers, which will either become disposable, other fighters (like F-18 refuellers) or some kind of stealth drone, but in any case, AWACS,carriers and refuellers are basically game-over for any pacific theatre action
the NGAD has to be like a J20,but with more range, and more+large internal missile bays
The Navy has their own NGAD program, they're just calling it F/A-XX to avoid confusion.
Which is fricking moronic. There's literally no need for the Navy to have its own version of an NGAD program. That's just trying to smother the Air Force out of existence when it'll never happen.
>Which is fricking moronic. There's literally no need for the Navy to have its own version of an NGAD program. That's just trying to smother the Air Force out of existence when it'll never happen.
yah, the whole "Taiwan question" really illustrates how "over" the era of carrier spam is
Carriers wont be able to operate within a thousand miles of the theatre, if not more, same with AWACS and air-refuel
"Next Gen Fighters" will literally be 'on their own' , LONG range, within their little flight group, whatever shape that ends up taking.
This is why I find the B21 so puzzling
how could anyone possibly think a sub-sonic penetration bomber would be viable in (current year) no matter what its electronic suite is?
and at $xxxxxxxxxmillions per/cost of an air-defense missile, it seems truly ludicrous
>Carriers wont be able to operate within a thousand miles of the theatre, if not more
This is why the Navy wants their own fancy new long range stealth plane
>This is why the Navy wants their own fancy new long range stealth plane
which begs the question, what does it operate from exactly?
Aircraft carriers >1000km from the theatre
nahhhhhh, carriers are going to be a thousand miles out, or more. a that point, I have no clue what naval plane, incapable of using mid-air refuel could possibly deliver any meaningful payload at that range
>a that point, I have no clue what naval plane, incapable of using mid-air refuel could possibly deliver any meaningful payload at that range
A fancy new one designed for long range strikes using standoff munitions? The Navy is also planning on having a bunch of stealth tanker drones which would likely work in concert with F/A-XX
>The Navy is also planning on having a bunch of stealth tanker drones which would likely work in concert with F/A-XX
that sounds suicidal in a hot theatre, where BVR missiles and cued networks abound
naval launched planes, that arent drones seem foolish.
and the NGAD plane will be ultra long-range, because it MUST be. therefore, Carrier based planes wouldnt even matter at that point
I feel like you're missing the part where I'm saying the Navy is working on their own, unrelated NGAD. It's not the same NGAD that the Air Force is getting, it's an entirely different program that has the same name. If the Air Force will be able to use their shiny new long range plane then I don't see any reason they Navy wouldn't be able to use theirs.
>I feel like you're missing the part where I'm saying the Navy is working on their own, unrelated NGAD. It's not the same NGAD that the Air Force is getting, it's an entirely different program that has the same name. If the Air Force will be able to use their shiny new long range plane then I don't see any reason they Navy wouldn't be able to use theirs.
I fully understand everything you are saying, what I am saying is, if the carrier is operating from 1000miles out, the combat radius of said (lol) naval launched aircraft would be ludicrous, to the extent it may as well operate from Guam, if that was even possible, or some friendly ground-base far, far away
>I fully understand everything you are saying, what I am saying is, if the carrier is operating from 1000miles out, the combat radius of said (lol) naval launched aircraft would be ludicrous, to the extent it may as well operate from Guam, if that was even possible, or some friendly ground-base far, far away
Not him but suppression of airfields is a thing, which is what makes carriers advantageous, especially if they can launch from the literal middle of nowhere in the pacific, 1000 miles out.
It is a ludicrous advantage.
The USAF and the USN however, very much prefer to have a ludicrous advantage.
>Not him but suppression of airfields is a thing, which is what makes carriers advantageous, especially if they can launch from the literal middle of nowhere in the pacific, 1000 miles out.
>It is a ludicrous advantage.
>The USAF and the USN however, very much prefer to have a ludicrous advantage.
its imaginary stats on a spreadsheet
there is no combat aircraft that takes off from a carrier, has over a 1000mile combat radius without re-fuel or awacs dependence
its a totally not real, theoretical advantage
>there is no combat aircraft that takes off from a carrier, has over a 1000mile combat radius without re-fuel or awacs dependence
We're literally talking about the Navy's NGAD program. No shit it doesn't exist yet.
>Which is fricking moronic. There's literally no need for the Navy to have its own version of an NGAD program
totally agree, nothing launched from a carrier is going to have the payload/range to justify its existence, outside of becoming drone-spammers like starcraft (which would be cool)
no "fighter/bomber" size planes, launched from a carrier, are relevant against a peer enemy, running defense from their own land.
people fail to realize US weapons, and US jets are designed for first strikes against weaker "shaped" opponents, and thus must operate from carriers, or friendly-bases in foreign countries, which will be extremely vulnerable, if not completely un-useable in an actual regional conflict
>@ Ken Scott
>Original The Fighter donut steel
Is there anyway NGAD is not just Lockheed again? They have only gotten worse since the F-35 production mess, but they're clearly still the glowie darling.
>F-35 production mess
It isn't 2008 anymore, grandpa.
>It isn't 2008 anymore, grandpa.
the F35 is a complete disaster, with fricking a thousand mainstream, MIC written articles, and congressional resolutions against it
holy frick, at least have an honest conversation about shit
F22 literally cannot fire HOBS missiles, or the main BVR missiles the US hopes to integrate, it has no helmet, and only one forward facing AESA radar...there is a reason it was canceled 10 years ago, and only like a dozen combat rated F-22's still exist
>t. whining reformer
and yet there are 900 of them flying.
They sorted out actually delivering planes back then. Now Lockheed is scamming again by holding back replacement parts and knowledge on maintenance from the military so they have to call in Lockheed engineers to do repair work.
__23__
>faster
>longer range
>lower radar cross-section
__22__
>more armament carrying capability
>more agile
>and cheaper (probably the #1 reason it was chosen)
>along with Lockheed Martin having a better reputation than McDonald Douglas when it came to time and cost overruns
from a non-esthetic pov sounds like an equal trade-off
>We