Oh look, X is awash with a story about the F-35 again.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
Hey look, it's exactly the kind of person I was talking about: pseudo-intellectuals who don't know fuck-all but like to pretend they do.
Those "drones" you're talking about are single-use, extremely low-mass, and are powered by a fucking solid-fuel rocket and batteries. Coincidentally they're also unsophisticated, short-ranged, single-purpose designs.
Hey baby-rapist, would you like to explain to us why we don't just fire AIM-9s into combat from hundreds of miles away and let them fly themselves to the AOR to engage targets? Is that another riddle that you've solved, "hey why do you carry these on board this really big aircraft to bring them closer to battle"?
So you're alleging the problems of drone warfare have been solved? Since when, the AIM-7 days? Because an AIM-7 is, in your eyes, a 'drone'? Pack it up boys, Cato The Nobody pointed out we've had "drone warfare" since Vietnam!
You know what they also don't have? Wings that provide lift. These missiles have no use for wings. Aircraft do. Would you like to offer your brilliant engineering insights on how the concept of 'lift' is antiquated? Do you even know why we use wings?
aS uSuAl
You don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. What is the maximum g-load of an F-15E with GBU-31s loaded, and why is it under the standard structural limitation of 9gs? You don't think they thought "hey it'd be nice to maintain the full envelope of performance even with weapons loaded"?
You think they just didn't have the 'willingness' to design a bomb that doesn't physically tear itself off the BRU rack?
Yeah sure, they just didn't have the "willingness". Nobody thought that maybe when your interdictor is g-limited from the fuel and weapons on board, that that could make the aircraft more vulnerable, and they should design it to withstand 50gs.
Good thing you're here to tell them to just design aircraft better. Shucks I guess all those rivets that I've personally seen popped out after an over-g were just because someone somewhere didn't want to design it better.
Which defense company do you work for, again?
This is how we can tell you're low iq, because you're already coping and seething this hard. Faggot.
They don't have the range. They're also heatseekers, VS the aim 174/260 missiles (as the latest and greatest) which are going to basically do just that.
Which are still required to fly on a host aircraft into combat, because they need something to get them into their limited range, and they need something to tell them where and what to shoot.
Damn almost like you need something with significantly more endurance than a missile, which means it'll need a turbojet engine instead of a rocket motor.
And that thing needs to have stuff like a radar system much larger and more powerful than in a little tiny missile, so it can see many hundreds of miles away, instead of just squinting through a straw at nearby targets.
And that thing needs to have constant power instead of operating off of a single-use battery that can only power the on-board systems for a few minutes since radar systems are immensely power-hungry, so it'll need a big generator and power management system.
And that thing should also have a lot of other doodads to help coordinate attacks with others around it, like datalink systems. And just in case, we'll need to be able to communicate and issue controls to that platform so it can change missions, or fly elsewhere.
And there's no point in making this a disposable system so let's make it able to fly back and land on a runway.
Wow all of this adds up and sounds like it's really heavy, we'll need to add wings to provide lift, and space for fuel for the engine, and then we'll need to build a really big structure to carry all of this.
Boy all that added mass and the aerodynamic requirement for that thing called "lift" really did a number on its ability to pull high-g maneuvers, because when this platform tries a high-g turn, the wings act like a giant fucking airbrake, sapping all your energy, speed, and control.
...
Congratulations you just invented the fighter aircraft. Welcome to the world of sub-10gs.
I'm sure you know better though.
Daisy chain drones through data link, and launch missiles from non stealthy missile trucks 200 miles away.
Done.
Weird how you don't need an f35 for that.
This is an unbelievably retarded idea that you clearly have not actually considered all the problems with. You're the soyjak in the meme.
This is "guy who builds houses thinks he can design weapons platforms" logic. Which is easy to do when you don't actually have to come up with ideas that work at all.
Drones with data link? What drones? How did they get there? What are they powered by? How are they designed? And literally how the fuck do you stop that all from being fried the second an electronic attack aircraft arrives in the area?
I designed guns in a notebook when I was a kid. Literally none of the guns would ever be operable, didn't make any sense, and weren't designed with any semblance of understanding of the engineering involved with designing a real gun.
"My one sentence explanation to design the future of air war" is your version of my notebook, but you're presumably an adult, which...
Lmao no. Cato is a literally broken retard and he's wrong.
A missile does not and cannot serve the same purpose as an airplane. Missiles are inherently short lived things. Wings give planes maneuverability and efficiency. You cannot make a missile that flies around an AO for 6 hours before deciding what to strike, because it needs a ton of energy to keep moving in the air, and has to stay fast for fuel efficiency. Wings enable you to stay aloft at lower speeds with less power. They are also a structural vulnerability at higher speeds because of g loading, compared to missiles that are just tubes, but that is in no way a "solved problem". You cannot SOLVE pressure from existing, or the requirements of wings to be thin and wide, thus structurally weaker than a cylinder, to provide lift and be efficient.
Nothing that retard said is correct, and responding with hostility to a deranged nuisance faggot doesn't make PBTS wrong.
Comment Reported for: Rule 3 - Harassment
This is not sufficient enough of an insult to be a rule violation
And that crybaby faggot is still throwing reports around because I reply to a comment in the same chain as him.
For context, I BTFO'd whiny anti-christian anti-american catothecuckold so hard that he spammed so many reports that this absentee mod decided he needed a special rule disallowing me from replying to him, just to clear up his report queue.
Because cato is too much of a little bitch to hit the block button. Despite being part of the brigade that constantly cries about mods not letting him sperg out without limits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZALA_Lancet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
So you are stuck on the propulsion? LOL.
Every one of the missiles I mentioned has wings, and anything moving through an airstream has can create lift by increasing its drag. Just look at the crossrange on a Falcon 9 booster or Soyuz capsule.
Guess what, that is exactly what Russia and Ukraine are doing, with the Saker Scout and equivalents.
Why the hell are you taking GBU-31's on a CAP mission? If your g-loads matter then it's because you are doing Air Superiority missions. G-load doesn't matter for CAS and SEAD.
The planes are designed with the pilot in mind. The munitions are designed with the plane in mind. You change the platform by removing the pilot, then you change the requirements. If the munition has to stay attached during a 30 g maneuver, then the munition will be designed for such. I'd say this isn't rocket science, but it actually is in this case, so I understand why smoothbrains like you can't figure it out.
The real reason that fighting aircraft are not designed for 30 g maneuvers is because even that won't save the aircraft from the 60g AIM-9X launched within 10nm. This is why single use loitering munition drones are being used, since defense doesn't work, so you might as well make them cheaper and more replaceable.
I do invite you to do combat missions in an aircraft over Ukraine for which ever side you prefer, the sooner and the more missions the better.
Literally what the fuck are you talking about? You're trying to make a point that a 'fighter drone' can be immensely maneuverable and high-speed and when I point out all the limitations you come back with what are ostensibly just RC planes that are outlandishly slow and unmaneuverable.
Notice that all the 'drones' you linked, when they needed them to have long-range, all went with wings and high-endurance engines... not solid rocket motors and fins that spend most of their time gliding to the target, like a missile does.
The Army doesn't even consider the Switchblade to be a drone, and the Shahed has more in common with a cruise missile.
I can't help it that you smoked so much pot that you can't remember what you typed even two hours ago.
You claimed that missiles and drones are some how different because one uses a rocket motor, and the other uses anything but a rocket motor, which is an insane argument.
You claimed that aircraft cannot go over 9g which is flatearther level retarded. I gave examples of machines that can go over 9g.
The hilarious thing is you are stuck, not fighting the last war, but fighting the Korean War. If you are having to pull max g's against any sort of short range air to air missile, then you have already fucked up and lost, and the defenses against BVR missiles don't require max g's.