Irans new stealth plane

[ptwonline]

I'd say the f-22 fills every air-to-air role (as far as the air force is concerned. It's too large for the navy). It's practically invisible, and it's damn near impossible to kill. On top of that, it's got munitions to throw at you for days.

Too bad the US won't sell it to anyone else.

The F-35 was supposed to be the fighter that the US and her allies could all buy without the US having to sacrifice performance edge by selling F-22s. Moreover it was supposed to be economical because so many nations would buy in. But the jet was made so complex and there have been so many problems getting it to work that costs have skyrocketed, nullifying one of the main original goals of the program (affordability). Instead if has become a horrifically expensive corporate welfare program.

[Elegiac]

So sad people missed the link showing that it can't actualy fly and they just photoshopped it. :<

I'l post it again anyway, http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...213-2ebwb.html

Figures. It's similar to that HMAS Torrens thing with Hezbollah.

[Reeve]

This is true. The main function of stealth aircraft, however, is taking out SAM sites for the conventional aircraft like the A-10s and B-52s.

So what do we use to take out SAM sites then? The F/A-18 isn't stealth, and the F-22 is air superiority, right? Seems like that would be a niche the F-35 tries to fill, along with being a carrier-capable stealth fighter.

[Elegiac]

So what do we use to take out SAM sites then? The F/A-18 isn't stealth, and the F-22 is air superiority, right? Seems like that would be a niche the F-35 tries to fill, along with being a carrier-capable stealth fighter.

The F-22 is a stealth aircraft.

[Reeve]

The F-22 is a stealth aircraft.

I didn't know the F-22 had ground strike capability though. I thought it was all air superiority.

[Eroginous]

That cockpit brings this to mind for some reason:



Let's compare:

F-35 cockpit:



This... thing's cockpit:

ROFL is that a cassette player in the middle of the instrument panel?

Sigh.... I don't think I'm supposed to be afraid of 80s technology.

[Elegiac]

I didn't know the F-22 had ground strike capability though. I thought it was all air superiority.

Its primary design is geared air-superiority, but it is also a capable ground attack aircraft. For taking out SAM sites, which do not require a lot of ordnance, it works very well.

[Reeve]

Its primary design is geared air-superiority, but it is also a capable ground attack aircraft. For taking out SAM sites, which do not require a lot of ordnance, it works very well.

Cool. Then screw the F-35, right?

[Deleted]

So what do we use to take out SAM sites then? The F/A-18 isn't stealth, and the F-22 is air superiority, right? Seems like that would be a niche the F-35 tries to fill, along with being a carrier-capable stealth fighter.

For the price of developing the F-35, they could have developed both an air superiority fighter and a ground attack bomber, both using the same stealth technology the F-35 has. Instead we have a fighter that excels at neither of these things, is massively over budget and will cost a lot more to buy than previously expected.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...ort-edits.html


References to the fact the F-35 was selected without competition were also deleted, as was mention that the price tag per aircraft could climb to US $138 million, not the US $75 million touted by the government.

Not only did the development run massively over budget, taking much longer than expected, price of individual planes are expected to cost twice what was originally promised.

[Elegiac]

Cool. Then screw the F-35, right?

Pretty much. Overpriced and terrible piece of junk that it is.

---------- Post added 2013-02-13 at 09:35 AM ----------

For the price of developing the F-35, they could have developed both an air superiority fighter and a ground attack bomber, both using the same stealth technology the F-35 has. Instead we have a fighter that excels at neither of these things, is massively over budget and will cost a lot more to buy than previously expected.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...ort-edits.html


References to the fact the F-35 was selected without competition were also deleted, as was mention that the price tag per aircraft could climb to US $138 million, not the US $75 million touted by the government.

Not only did the development run massively over budget, taking much longer than expected, price of individual planes are expected to cost twice what was originally promised.

They already have a fantastic ground attack and anti-armor aircraft though...even if it is a Cold War design. -laughs-

[Reg]

I always liked the look of the B2. It's fancy. But pretty sure that's just air to ground. I must say, I know pretty much nothing about military aircraft lol

[smelltheglove]

I always liked the look of the B2. It's fancy. But pretty sure that's just air to ground. I must say, I know pretty much nothing about military aircraft lol

i always liked the look of the blackbird. useless for combat, but damn was that thing sexy

[Reeve]

I have a question about the cannon. The M61 Vulcan Cannon says it has a rate of fire of 6,000 rounds per minute, and the F-22 holds 480 rounds of ammo. At that rate of fire, it would only give you 4.8 seconds of firing before you'd go out of ammo. How does that work in a dogfight situation?

[Kalyyn]

I didn't know the F-22 had ground strike capability though. I thought it was all air superiority.

The F-22 is the best at air superiority. But it's also decent at everything else.

[Reeve]

I always liked the look of the B2. It's fancy. But pretty sure that's just air to ground. I must say, I know pretty much nothing about military aircraft lol

Yeah me neither, which is why I'm asking so many questions in this thread.

[xylophone]

ROFL is that a cassette player in the middle of the instrument panel?

Sigh.... I don't think I'm supposed to be afraid of 80s technology.

I saw an image somewhere that someone took every visible component in that cockpit and linked to the item on radioshack or something.

[Kalyyn]

I have a question about the cannon. The M61 Vulcan Cannon says it has a rate of fire of 6,000 rounds per minute, and the F-22 holds 480 rounds of ammo. At that rate of fire, it would only give you 4.8 seconds of firing before you'd go out of ammo. How does that work in a dogfight situation?

Well dogfighting is really a very rare thing anymore. Basically the way air-to-air combat works now is that you locate an enemy, and then you make a single pass at him. You unload everything on him in that pass. That 4.8 seconds of continuous fire should be 3 seconds more than you actually need. In addition, your vulcan cannon is meant to be a compliment to your missile battery, not a stand-alone weapon. You fire a missile, squeeze the trigger for a fraction of a second on your vulcan, and then repeat as necessary.

[xylophone]

I have a question about the cannon. The M61 Vulcan Cannon says it has a rate of fire of 6,000 rounds per minute, and the F-22 holds 480 rounds of ammo. At that rate of fire, it would only give you 4.8 seconds of firing before you'd go out of ammo. How does that work in a dogfight situation?

I'm no expert, but I don't believe the cannon on a air-to-air fighter is a primary weapon. Though I do know they only fire very short bursts, the BRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTT on the A-10 I know can only be fired for something like 3 seconds at a time before the barrels begin to melt.

[Elegiac]

I'm no expert, but I don't believe the cannon on a air-to-air fighter is a primary weapon. Though I do know they only fire very short bursts, the BRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTT on the A-10 I know can only be fired for something like 3 seconds at a time before the barrels begin to melt.

More than enough to demolish a few tanks, as we saw in the Gulf War.

[xylophone]

More than enough to demolish a few tanks, as we saw in the Gulf War.

Oh don't get me wrong, I love me some flying gun.