/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9833634
>2018
>enagaging in aerial combat
I thought predator drones smoking jihadis was the the only aerial stuff going on.
>can't even hover
Harrier bruv

>>9833650
It can hover, land vertically, take off vertically, and transition from forward flight to vertical flight and back.
It's also easier to pilot than the harrier's older vtol system.

>>9833634
>Dogfights themselves are completely outdated tactics that were invented in world war I and haven't been used in real combat for decades.
*war itself is outdated*. If that was ever used against its intended target, which is another world power, it would end in nuclear exchange near instantly anyways. But it looks cool, I guess.

>>9833661
Wow that's amazing. My new favorite plane. This is what I love about America.
USA USA USA

>>9833672
Its intended targets are other aircraft, boats or land vehicles, or ground installations. i.e. muhammad's camp out in the desert or whatever.

>>9833634
basically all indicators right now are pointing to the F35 exiting its clusterfuck phase and entering the asskicking portion of its life (ie. the next 30 years).

Even at an expected lifetime cost of $1.5 trillion through 2070, that's just $30B a year for massive fifth gen stealth fighter capabilities for 50 years. Literally a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend on entitlements and welfare.

>>9833676
oh no it gets better. this thing can command drones to swarm around it and shoot other planes and shit.

>>9833683
exactly, thank you.

who the fuck needs mach 2 anyways, ffs.

>>9833634
Dogfights haven't been used in decades because the only opponents America has fought against in that time span have been third world countries with obsolete 60s tehnology.

>>9833686
That's some next shit.
I wanna see that in an airshow or something.
Every year I go see the airshow.

>>9833686
Sounds kick ass, but Im wary of its effectiveness. Given the distances and speeds involved it doesnt seem like it would offer anything other then psychological protection.

>>9833634
>flying deathtrap

Nope.

>>9833707
While that's a valid reason, dogfights have no practical application when considering the performance of modern jet fighters.

When you can accelerate from the speed of a car on a highway to over 1000 kilometers per hour in a matter of minutes, spinning around your opponent is pretty pointless (because at that speed you can't turn quickly anyways).
.
Even before that though, the whole point of the F-35 being a stealth fighter is that something like a Su-35 wouldn't even be able to detect it until the F-35 has a missile lock, and probably not after that point either.

>>9833634
>>9833672
>>9833707
>>9833726
>dogfights are outdated
Oh look, it's Vietnam all over again.

>>9833741
What did he mean by this?

>Delays during the development stage caused Lockheed to deliver more than 108 aircraft
>with Block 2B software. Each fighter requires 150-160 modifications to be raised to
>the combat-rated Block 3 standard. Without being retrofitted, these aircraft would become
>“Concurrency Orphans” — airplanes left behind in the acquisition cycle after the services
>purchased them in haste before finishing the development process.
actual cost = 50% more than reported by Pentagon/LockMart

This thread is surprisingly ignorant about the F-22. Lockheed went to a new JSF because they wanted to sell the progress of the F-22 to the rest of the world. Oh, and the F-22 would obliterate the F-35 in any mode of combat at any time. The F-35 is set to safely sell to ignorant apes to kill unarmed ignorant apes.

>>9833744
He meant you're too new to know about dogfights.

>>9833744
That was literally the same line they used going to into the Vietnam war, and they found they were seriously underequipped for air to air engagements, taking heavy losses to older Soviet-made equipment capable of dogfighting. Aircraft performance in terms of top speed and maneuverability hasn't changed significantly since that era either. If anything, modern aircraft like the F-35 are slower because they aren't designed for high speed bomber interception. The F-4 could do Mach 2.2, but the F-35 is stuck at Mach 1.6.

>>9833753
>This thread is about the F-35
FTFY

>>9833752
>Deputy Defense Secretary Shanahan (former Boeing Senior VP) acknowledged he wasn't technically correct.
...meaning he's fulla shit, as always.

>>9833760
forgot the link :
https://www.investors.com/news/lockheeds-f-35-full-rate-production-no-2-pentagon-official/

>>9833752
• underperforming
• overbudget
• behind schedule
What could possibly go wrong?

>>9833766
H-how do I bulletpost?

>>9833755
They were wrong to say that in the Vietnam war. Today, though, speed and maneuverability hasn't changed significantly, but radar detection, stealth, and missile capability sure has, which are the actual factors that contribute to the antiquity of dogfighting.

Some things to keep in mind:
1. to maneuver in a dogfight your speed must be relatively low
2. to dogfight, you must be in visual range
3. a missile will always maneuver better than a plane

Enjoy your ten seconds of extremely impressive aerial maneuvering until a much more agile missile vaporizes you from a target that you haven't even detected in visual range yet.

>>9833768
Lrn2alt-key
http://technoworld007.blogspot.com/2013/06/windows-alt-key-numeric-codes-of-all.html

>>9833776
>your speed must be relatively low
>a missile will always maneuver better than a plane
Lrn2dogfight, ground-pounder

>>9833788
>i'm literally a pilot
>nice try

Best maneuvering speed for any aircraft is in fact nowhere near top speed and missiles are a fraction of the mass of an airplane, so yeah. Both those things are true.

>>9833797
Modern aerial combat is not what it used to be, Grandpa.

>>9833828
That is exactly my point by proposing that dogfighting is obsolete, sonny.

>>9833835
That gif gave me cancer.

>Spending trllions of dollars on this hyper advanced fighter plane
>Will spend trillions more on an obscene amount of upkeep and cost++++++
>Literally the only use it will ever see is dropping 50m dollar missiles on 5 brown cunts with AK47s in a mud hut
>It won't matter if it does see it's intended use against another major power because atomic warheads will follow shortly

Your country is a fucking joke. For this kind of money you could have set up a colony on fucking Mars and just buy some cheap shit drones to continue to explode brown people.

No worries though, I'm sure the various defense contractors are laughing their way to the bank.

>>9833755
Air to Air Missiles were shit in the Vietnam war. This is no longer the case. Modern Air to air missiles can also be launched over the shoulder and their seekers are both more reliable and have a larger FOV. A pilot's goal in a dogfight is to line up a shot on the other pilot while also keeping the other pilot from lining up on him. With modern short range air to air missiles there's not much of a need to maneuver in order to line up that shot. You only need to get in range and you can fire without any need to maneuver to get him in your gun sight. (This of course goes both ways, two modern fighters engaging in a "dogfight" would fly within visual range of each other, the pilots would look at each other, fire and then both die while futily trying to break the lock of the missile the other guy fired)

>>9833788
An air to air missile can easily pull 10x the Gs a fleshy meatbag pilot can handle. You will not out turn a missile. At best you can try to escape the FOV of the seeker but even that's a tall order.

>>9833776
>3. a missile will always maneuver better than a plane
Countermeasures have also improved considerably. Bullets can't be interfered with in the same way.
I will agree that with current doctrine if you get into a dogfight you have made a tactical mistake, but you don't want your pilots to be dead just because they got lured into a dogfight.

>>9833939
>An air to air missile can't anticipate the action of a pilot
FTFY

>>9833835
>dogfighting is obsolete
says you, Grandpa

>>9833797
>maneuvering speed
Modern dogfighting is no longer about maneuvering, Grandpa.
It's about getting in fast, acquiring a target fast, shooting (or launching) fast,
and getting the fuck out fast. The keyword is always "FAST", Grandpa.

>>9833935
>>Literally the only use it will ever see is dropping 50m dollar missiles on 5 brown cunts with AK47s in a mud hut
That's old news, do you think the conflict hypothesis for the next 30-40 years comprise only brown cunts in mud huts?

Damn you're a brainlet.

>>9833634

> We're having an f35 thread on /sci/

Ivan get the popcorn

>>9833634
Idk why you would take the public opinion on a state of the art strike fighter seriously. The % of them who have the requisite skills and knowledge to talk about it productively is effectively 0.

>>9833634
It is because this plane is slower than an F-18 super hornet, it cannot carry a very large payload compared to many other fighter jets.

>>9833939
>Air to Air Missiles were shit in the Vietnam war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder
Try doing some research before talking out of your ass.

>>9833753
To even compare the 2 you have to be ignorant.
Vatnik propaganda is easier to understand to idiots that think that fighters just go pew pew like it is London in 1940 than to learn why low observable aircrafts are a thing and how network centric warfare works

>>9833634
>terribly mismanaged project
>first major fighter designed and built at a time when internet is available to the general public

>>9833755
>taking heavy losses to older Soviet-made equipment capable of dogfighting
Because the Air Force had completely fucked up its training for two decades and had handed tactics to an egotistical desk jockey.
The Navy didn't have these problems, and the Air Force quickly worked them out after they started copying the Navy and the IAF.

>>9834526
>18000lbs
>Not large
I'm pretty sure that the US's only non-bomber that carries more is the F-15E

>>9835373
>tfw you will never be a crusader pilot gunning down migs over vietnam

>>9834514
Let's have some scenarios shall we?

>Symmetrical warfare against opposing powers

Nukes fly and everyone dies

>Asymmetrical warfare against weaker power

Aka brown people in mud huts


Really the only argument for this plane is giving the smackdown to third world dictators with 1970s soviet machinery and it's not like the current arsenal is incapable of doing that with negligible losses anyway. Keep feeding the MIC though, they love it.

>>9835494
>Nukes fly
yes
>everyone dies
no

the effectiveness of nuclear weapons has been purposefully exaggerated by the scientific community to keep everyone too scared shitless from ever using them. even in a 2000 warhead launch scenario where every missile lands, more people than you think are going to live. a lot of them are going to wish they hadn't, but they'll live. nukes give off mostly heat and any structure that isn't made out of literal sticks and paper has a pretty good chance of protecting its occupants.

with that being said, a good portion of those warheads probably wont make it. either from being shot down, going off course, or being straight up duds. there will be plenty of folks to slug it out after the apocalypse my dude.

>>9835519
It was obviously an exaggeration. Yeah sure there will be plenty of folks left to slug it out, however with infrastructure, power generation and distribution, production facilities,etc... being vaporised and EMPd to shit, waging an intercontinental war suddenly becomes pretty much impossible.

>>9835523
>however with infrastructure, power generation and distribution, production facilities,etc... being vaporised and EMPd to shit

why do you think the US military buys more equipment than it has personnel to use it?

>>9835529
And stores it in big stockpiles which will almost certainly be targeted?

>>9835519
>a lot of them are going to wish they hadn't
There were people during the height of the cold war that didn't bother with bomb shelters because they would rather go out nice and fast than try to survive the shitheap of a world that would come after. Always kind of creeped me out because it wasn't just a hypothetical, it was a constant percieved threat, and just having that kind of fatalism day in and day out.

>>9835535
can't hit everything and you sure as shit can't hit them all at once. go on google maps sometime and start counting those little national guard or army outposts. you probably drive by one in your neighborhood and never notice it. also, pic related. these guys do nothing but cruise around the ocean and stay moving "just in case" someone, somewhere needs some food, freedom, and up armored humvee's.

>>9833634
Maybe because it cost half a trillion US dollar and is totally useless in the age of drones and nuclear deterrence? No major powers will ever go to war against one another ever again and you don't need f-35s to bomb developing shitholes.

>>9833672
war ain't outdated, it just became ghost in the shell and no one noticed. information warfare is so much easier and cheaper than blowing shit up.

>>9835590
Proxy wars still exist.
Russia gives their jets to Syria and Iran, USA gives their jets to Israel, they blow each other up without nukes.

>>9833634
>8.2m lines of code

There's going to be massive quantities of bugs which will fuck up key systems. People will die, guaranteed.

>>9834532
Reading that article, 450 Sidewinders were fired in the Vietnam war and scored 80 kills.
That does sound kinda shit.

>>9835636
Nothing compared to a modern airliner.

>>9834532
You first. The sidewinder of today is not the sidewinder of the Vietnam war. During the Vietnam war the Sidewinder had less than a 20% success rate and, most importantly, it still required the launching aircraft to get behind the target aircraft.

>>9834061
The fact a missile can't anticipate a pilot's actions does not mean the pilot can maneuver fast enough to leave the seeker's field of view.

>>9833634
>It went overbudget and has been delayed
Answering your own question, except that you omitted "underperformed".

>>9833935
>defense contractors are laughing their way to the bank.
← this

>>9833634
Please stop conflating engineering with science. Military hardware wankery is not science. Please delete your thread. Thank you.

>>9833676
>>9833686

Duh. The Superbowl halftime show had a segment where drones coordinated a light show to spell out shit in the air. Same technology as far as coordinating drones in the air.

If they can do that so easily on public display, image what the military is capable of behind the scenes.

>>9835590
>No major powers will ever go to war against one another ever again
Imagine being this dumb

>>9833755
Due to its stealth capabilities, only top notch other planes can detect it, and due to its high-end radar and large-range missiles, it can detect and hit other planes, even stealth planes, from hundreds of kilometres away. But yes, it is not the best in dogfighting.

I mean, a pistol isn't good for a knife fight either, doesn't mean it's an inferior weapon.

>>9835763
Neither is theoretical physics since it doesn't follow the scientific method, but you don't see us complaining about it. :^)

>>9836637
Oh look, it's the same excuses they used in Vietnam. Back then they were banking on superior American radar to fire missiles beyond visual range as well. The problem is, sweetie, that as long as airplanes have to strike targets, they also have to fly to targets. When airplanes fly to targets, they get intercepted.

>>9836637
American long range air-to-air missiles have had a history of underperforming.

>>9836665
>>9837186
Both of you are operating under a mistaken assumption, that the reason dog fighting is dead is because of long range air to air missiles. This assumption is wrong. Dog fighting is dead because modern short range air to air missiles no longer require the attacking aircraft to get behind it's target, or even be flying towards its target at all.

The F-22 and F-35 fulfill the hi-low concept in the same manner as the F-15 and F-16. Suggesting that they're competing (other than Pentagon dick waving for money) is errant.

The F-22 should have had a larger production run, of 350 to 400 airframes, to truly replace the F-15C/D. But other than that, the F-22 and F-35 are complimentary. Many F-35 roles are merely evolutionary: the F-35A replaces the F-16 in European service for the SNOCAT role (support of nuclear operations with conventional air-tactics - essentially removing high-threat SAM systems like the S-300/S-400), the Navy is replacing one multi-role, do-everything platform (the Superhornet) with an improved do-everything platform (the F-35C), just as the F-22 is an evolutionary step over the F-15.

The F-35B, however, is especially transformative. Whereas the USMC operated the Harrier as a pure-attack platform under permissive airspace as a pure combined-arms platform, the F-35B gives the USMC a true first-day-of-war cability for non-permissive airspace. The number of hulls in NATO capable of true first-day-of-war operations will grow from 11 to 24 practically overnight, with possible capability being sought by Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

Excellent platform.

It's more designed by committee than the space shuttle, with all the same cost overruns and performance problems you'd expect.

>>9835519
>causing a global nuclear winter that starves 99% of humanity
>not catastrophic
wtf r u smoking

>>9837547
Interesting things to note about design-by-committee: the F-35 program evolved out of the JSF, and prior to that the CALF program. CALF was a collaboration between the US and Royal Navies to replace the Harrier - the F-35B was the *original* model, whereas the A and B models are the derivatives. In that sense, the concessions of removing a lift fan, rather than adding one, seem rather minor. This is especially true when you consider the F-135 was designed to deliver not just thrust, but shaft power, and there is a void available for shaft-driven accessories. As we move from ballistics to directed energy weapons, a void space available for shaft-power becomes *very* attractive from a future-proofing view.

>>9833634
>with stealth, advanced radar, and long range missiles
The F-35 will rarely be able to fly in a stealth configuration. Loading it for stealth drastically reduces its range and combat payload. Radar broadcasts your position, making you an instant target for hundreds of miles. Because only a few can be carried, long range missiles can only be used on confirmed high-value targets, such as other fighter jets. You can't use them on cheap enemy drones.

>the f-35 never even needs to enter a dogfight
The things that make a plane a good dogfighter make it good at surviving missiles and fighter drones. The F-35's top speed and altitude are appallingly low for a fighter.

The worst is that the price is out of control. That's not unique for the F-35, America's aerospace industry has lost all control over costs.

It's a high-unit-price, low-survivability mistake. Historians are going to ask "What the fuck were they thinking?!"

>>9837553
Taking electrical power off of a jet engine is far easier than putting in a gearbox to drive a fan at right angles. They don't need all that space for it.

>>9837579
>It's a high-unit-price, low-survivability mistake. Historians are going to ask "What the fuck were they thinking?!"
They really arent, its exactly in line with American military and economic policy. I really dont think you understand how complex and innovative the f22 and f35 are and subsequently the cost of development. Moreover the price is basically irrelevant because the performance they are delivering can be summarized as total air superiority which is the crux of modern American military operations.

>>9835741
>maneuver fast enough to leave the seeker's field of view
It's not about leaving the seeker's field of view, Grandpa. It's about avoiding detonation
until the seeker either runs out of fuel, or encounters terrain.
Lrn2aerial-combat would you please?

>>9833634
>I see F-22 fanboys talking about muh agility and speed and how the F-35 got smoked in dogfighting trials, but with stealth, advanced radar, and long range missiles the f-35 never even needs to enter a dogfight. Dogfights themselves are completely outdated tactics that were invented in world war I and haven't been used in real combat for decades.
Wasn't this the logic behind the F-4 Phantom not having a cannon?

>>9837499
>you are operating under a mistaken assumption, that the reason
>dog fighting is dead is because modern short range air to air missiles
>no longer require the attacking aircraft to get behind it's target
Pilots have been attacking aircraft in this manner since 1915,
and they have become rather good at it.
Short-range missiles do not obviate this skill.

>>9837579
>Loading it for stealth drastically reduces its range and combat payload

That doesn't matter so much, it can fly in stealth mode until air superiority is reached and then it can be loaded conventionally.

>Radar broadcasts your position

The Radar APG81 is the best there is and can not be detected easily.

>The F-35's top speed and altitude are appallingly low for a fighter.

Those top speeds and altitudes rarely to never get actually reached in operation, and if they do it is because Radar didnt work reliably, the APG81 is the most reliable radar there is.

>>9837579
>The worst is that the price is out of control. That's not unique for the F-35, America's aerospace industry has lost all control over costs


It is true it is very expensive, but it will cement America's air superiority for at least the next 50 years. It is also a small revolution in air combat in the sense that it is designed to take off work load from the pilot, so that mistakes happen rarer. As I said, it is supposed to secure air superiority for the next 50 years, so the Pentagon wanted a top notch product. The price went through the roof, but what is being delievered is actually amazing and will change air combat.

>>9833634
it's a technological marvel and in many ways more advanced than the F-22

anyone who says otherwise is a russian/chink shill

>>9837579
>Loading it for stealth drastically reduces its range >Implying keeping everything internal is going to give it less range than sticking shit on the outside

>Reduces combat payload
Reduced means 4 stations/5700 pounds internally, which is better than anything else. Keep in mind that even using external stations, it's going to have a smaller radar return than conventional aircraft with the same weaponry

> Radar broadcasts your position
This goes both ways, and frequency hopping helps with reducing detection. Also that's what AWACs are for.

>Because only a few can be carried, long range missiles can only be used on confirmed high-value targets, such as other fighter jets. You can't use them on cheap enemy drones
The USAF laughs at your concept of budgets

>Under 100 million a pop
>"Out of control"
>high-unit-price
To put it in perspective, that's cheaper than F-15s and yurocanards. It's even less than other countries are paying for new F-16s for a vastly more capable aircraft.

>low-survivability
Do tell how a stealth aircraft with a shitload of integrated sensors is somehow low survivability

>The F-35's top speed and altitude are appallingly low for a fighter.
Lmao just like the Harrier. It sure got its ass kicked by the Argentinians.
Good thing the overwhelming majority of dogfights happen at subsonic speeds, and that missiles have been the primary way of killing aircraft since Vietnam.


ur a faget