*hugs*UnkleRukus wrote:
You are one dumb fucking troll.Lotta_Drool wrote:
ouch! I hope he doesn't derail this thread.UnkleRukus wrote:
lol, good one chief. So is it on topic if i call you a spineless fuckup of an Irish drunkard?
OT: Since some of the design has been allegedly stolen via cyberespionage, I wouldn't doubt that it has thrust vectoring.
Hug my cock plz
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Yummy^
Thin wings are not that implausible, look at Lockheed's F-104. The stealth designs are all similar because simply, it's the best technology we came up with, and it effin works. Basic shapes are limited to diamond type, blended body/wing, no right angles, etc. The question is whether or not they have an effective RAM, of which i have no clue. Can't really tell if it has thrust vectoring, wouldn't think so with canards, i mean come on the human pilot is the limiting factor for G tolerance. Modern fighters can withstand much more than our bodies.
Also it's about time the world showed up with some contenders in this arena. F-22 is what, ~25 yrs old?
Thin wings are not that implausible, look at Lockheed's F-104. The stealth designs are all similar because simply, it's the best technology we came up with, and it effin works. Basic shapes are limited to diamond type, blended body/wing, no right angles, etc. The question is whether or not they have an effective RAM, of which i have no clue. Can't really tell if it has thrust vectoring, wouldn't think so with canards, i mean come on the human pilot is the limiting factor for G tolerance. Modern fighters can withstand much more than our bodies.
Also it's about time the world showed up with some contenders in this arena. F-22 is what, ~25 yrs old?
5...mcjagdflieger wrote:
Yummy^
Thin wings are not that implausible, look at Lockheed's F-104. The stealth designs are all similar because simply, it's the best technology we came up with, and it effin works. Basic shapes are limited to diamond type, blended body/wing, no right angles, etc. The question is whether or not they have an effective RAM, of which i have no clue. Can't really tell if it has thrust vectoring, wouldn't think so with canards, i mean come on the human pilot is the limiting factor for G tolerance. Modern fighters can withstand much more than our bodies.
Also it's about time the world showed up with some contenders in this arena. F-22 is what, ~25 yrs old?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes but the initial design is around 20 years old.JohnG@lt wrote:
5...mcjagdflieger wrote:
Yummy^
Thin wings are not that implausible, look at Lockheed's F-104. The stealth designs are all similar because simply, it's the best technology we came up with, and it effin works. Basic shapes are limited to diamond type, blended body/wing, no right angles, etc. The question is whether or not they have an effective RAM, of which i have no clue. Can't really tell if it has thrust vectoring, wouldn't think so with canards, i mean come on the human pilot is the limiting factor for G tolerance. Modern fighters can withstand much more than our bodies.
Also it's about time the world showed up with some contenders in this arena. F-22 is what, ~25 yrs old?
I was reading about the f-22 and its developement in the early 90'sJohnG@lt wrote:
5...mcjagdflieger wrote:
Yummy^
Thin wings are not that implausible, look at Lockheed's F-104. The stealth designs are all similar because simply, it's the best technology we came up with, and it effin works. Basic shapes are limited to diamond type, blended body/wing, no right angles, etc. The question is whether or not they have an effective RAM, of which i have no clue. Can't really tell if it has thrust vectoring, wouldn't think so with canards, i mean come on the human pilot is the limiting factor for G tolerance. Modern fighters can withstand much more than our bodies.
Also it's about time the world showed up with some contenders in this arena. F-22 is what, ~25 yrs old?
Tu Stultus Es
It's been around for a while ya.
Right but it's only been in service for five. The development cycle for all military weapons is like 15-20 years.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
still pretty much the same technology.
Tu Stultus Es
Well there's quite a few exceptions to that, do they even use timelimits in design?JohnG@lt wrote:
Right but it's only been in service for five. The development cycle for all military weapons is like 15-20 years.
inane little opines
Sort of off topic but here we go:
back when i was in the army 2008 my platoon had a lieutenant who helped develop this wiki link.
He said that BAE put the prototype (only change compared to the finalized product was the .50 cal protector) on display at some weapons fair or something in France , and that a general from a "large country in the orient" (he didn't say china outright, but it was pretty obvious with all the other hints he dropped) had rushed the piece with a few carloads of photographers and taken photos of all they could before anyone could stop them, basically everything could be seen without disassembling it, even the cockpit etc.
About 6 months afterwards the chinese had made a replica, but it was more than 10000 kilos lighter than the original, the barrel and most of the carriage broke when test firing because it was too weak.
Either they've just taken the looks of the f22 or tried to build a complete copy, either way it's probably not a good job.
back when i was in the army 2008 my platoon had a lieutenant who helped develop this wiki link.
He said that BAE put the prototype (only change compared to the finalized product was the .50 cal protector) on display at some weapons fair or something in France , and that a general from a "large country in the orient" (he didn't say china outright, but it was pretty obvious with all the other hints he dropped) had rushed the piece with a few carloads of photographers and taken photos of all they could before anyone could stop them, basically everything could be seen without disassembling it, even the cockpit etc.
About 6 months afterwards the chinese had made a replica, but it was more than 10000 kilos lighter than the original, the barrel and most of the carriage broke when test firing because it was too weak.
Either they've just taken the looks of the f22 or tried to build a complete copy, either way it's probably not a good job.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/07 … nge-fleet/
We need freakin' laser beams on our shit now.
What scares me is that they could produce it for soooooooo much less.While the Pentagon downplays China’s rollout this week of what appears to be a jet fighter designed using sophisticated stealth technology, military experts are warning that the aircraft – reportedly capable of besting America’s F-22 in speed and maneuverability – could pose the greatest threat yet to U.S. air superiority.
Decorated Navy fighter pilot Matthew “Whiz” Buckley, a Top Gun graduate of the Navy Fighter Weapons School who flew 44 combat missions over Iraq, says, “It’s probably leaps and bounds above where we are, and that’s terrifying.”
“As a former Navy fighter pilot, going up against something that’s stealthy, highly maneuverable and with electronic systems more capable than mine -- that’ll keep me up at night,” said Buckley, now chief strategy officer at Fox3 Options LLC.
Buckley said photos posted online of the radar-evading Chengdu J-20 jet fighter lead him to believe the aircraft has great stealth capabilities, based on what appears to be a bumpy exterior possibly housing stealth technology, and the lack of external components, such as a gas tank and missiles.
“It was built to reduce radar signatures. You can tell it has some serious stealth technology,” he said. “My F-18 looks like an 18-wheeler on radar. That thing might not even show up.”
The U.S. military's current top-of-the-line fighter is Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor, the world's only operational fifth generation fighter. In 2009, Congress capped production of F-22s at 18, relying on the cheaper F-35. Congress does not appear to be reconsidering the cap, which experts call the only real challenger to China’s J-20.
Richard Fisher, a senior fellow on Asian Military Affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a Washington-based security think tank, says Chinese officials have said that their program is aimed at competing with the F-22 Raptor.
“From what we can see, I conclude that this aircraft does have great potential to be superior in some respects to the American F-22, and could be decisively superior to the F-35,” said Fisher.
Fisher in particular pointed to the Chengdu J-20’s stealth technology and ability to super cruise, or fly supersonically without using fuel-guzzling afterburners. He said it has super maneuverability due to its thrust-vectored engines that allow for sharp turns.
And while the J-20's engine is still in development, Fisher said it's supposed to deliver 15 to 18 tons of thrust, more powerful than the F-22.
“This fighter will likely start entering service in serious numbers by the end of this decade. The Chinese can accelerate this event by purchasing new Russian engines and settling for a lesser capability,” Fisher said.
Experts say it’s hard to say exactly what the J-20’s capabilities are, especially in a fire fight -- but offered a dire prediction: “With China having a fifth generation fighter, the U.S. will lose F-22s faster than previous estimates.”
As for the J-20 pilots, Fisher said the Chinese Air Force has over 500 fourth generation fighters and is making pilot training a priority.
.
“China's air training capabilities have increased greatly over the last decade, to include multiple levels of aircraft, better simulators, and more realistic air combat exercises. They will be able to train pilots for their fifth generation combat force,” Fisher said.
Buckley says the U.S. has moved in the opposite direction, dramatically reducing flight-time training for its fighter pilots, choosing instead to use cheaper flight stimulators.
Limiting F-22 production could prove a grave mistake, Fisher said.
Referring to the J-20 photos -- and a new video of the fighter taxiing on a runway -- Fisher said: “There is now every justification for us to be building modernized version of F-22 and to consider capability enhancements for the F-35 that preserve its competitiveness into next decade."
The next generation joint strike fighter is supposed to be the F-35, Buckley said, which is built for use by all services and must encompass the specific and different needs of the Navy, Air Force, Marines.
“When you try to make a jack of all trades, you have tradeoffs,” Buckley said. “It’s obvious that the Chinese are throwing money and technology to making something the best, and here we’re worried that one is going to bankrupt the country.”
“We used be No. 1 at having the leading technology. ... Now, we’re kind of in catch-up mode, where we’ve never really been before.”
We need freakin' laser beams on our shit now.
Oh, and Intel has built IC fabs in China that can produce 65nm chips. We have been totally fucked by our fucktard government exporting jobs and technology. meh.
I said this to my Dad when i saw it head on .. then I saw the length and said whoa..Hurricane2k9 wrote:
F-22 ripoff
Xbone Stormsurgezz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_LightningM.O.A.B wrote:
It's been around for a while ya.
Remembered this game from the mid-90's. Love it.
you are such an idiot.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Oh, and Intel has built IC fabs in China that can produce 65nm chips. We have been totally fucked by our fucktard government exporting jobs and technology. meh.
don't argue with the closeted man, Cybargs. it ain't worth your time . . .Cybargs wrote:
you are such an idiot.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Oh, and Intel has built IC fabs in China that can produce 65nm chips. We have been totally fucked by our fucktard government exporting jobs and technology. meh.
Foxnews went ape-shit over this one. Saying the U.S. has never been behind on military technology before and that this is a major game changer, etc.
So you guys think this is an F22 knock-off that the U.S. can easily manage?
So you guys think this is an F22 knock-off that the U.S. can easily manage?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I think it's a figment of our imagination to think we are going to be chasing Chinese ghost fighters..
I posted this about a year and a half ago.
I posted this about a year and a half ago.
We just cant afford to get into a financial pissing match with the Chinese now with military technology. Where we put our money right now is very important. .. we need more minivans (workhorse aircraft) and less Ferrari's.Meanwhile, the Air Force twiddles its thumbs and dreams of war with China. Its leaders would even revive the Soviet Union, if they could. Just to have something to do.
If you go into the Pentagon these days, you'll find only half of the building is at war. The Army and Marine staffs (the latter in the Navy Annex) put in brutal hours and barely see their families. The Navy, at least, is grappling with the changed strategic environment. Meanwhile, the Air Force staff haunts the Pentagon espresso bar and lobbies for more money.
The Air Force hasn't forgotten how to fight. But it only wants to fight the other services.
Recently, the blue-suiters have been floating one of the most disgraceful propositions I've ever encountered in Washington (and that's saying something).
I heard the con directly from one of the Air Force generals who tried to sell me on the worthless F/A-22. The poison goes like this: "The Air Force and Navy can dominate their battle space. Why can't the Army and Marines?"
Let me translate that: At a time when soldiers and Marines are fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Air Force shamefully implies that our ground forces are incompetent, hinting that, if the Air Force ran the world, we'd get better results.
How low can a service go? Not a single Air Force fighter pilot has lost his life in combat in Iraq. But the Air Force is willing to slander those who do our nation's fighting and dying.
As for the vile proposition itself, well, it's easy to "dominate your battle space" if you don't have anyone to battle. Our fighter-jock Air Force doesn't have an enemy (Air Force special-ops and transport crews, as well as ground-liaison personnel, serve magnificently — but the generals regard them as second-class citizens).
While courage is certainly required, Air Force and Navy combat challenges are engineering problems, matters of physics and geometry. Our Army and Marines, by contrast, face brutally human, knife-fight conflicts that require human solutions.
The Air Force is about metal. The Marines and Army deal in flesh and blood — in problems that don't have clear or easy solutions.
Hey, if the Air Force knows of a simple, by-the-numbers way to win the War on Terror, combat insurgents in urban terrain and help battered populations rebuild their countries, the generals in blue ought to share the wisdom. (They've certainly been paid enough for it.)
But the Air Force doesn't have any solutions. Just institutional greed. Their strategy? Trash our troops. Lie about capabilities and costs. Belittle the genuine dangers facing our country, while creating imaginary threats. Keep the F/A-22 buy alive, no matter what it takes.
A little while ago I wrote that our Air Force needed to be saved from itself. Now I'm no longer sure salvation's possible.
.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Can't dominate the world without a navy.
Are we disbanding it .. er?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Talking about China's lack of Naval capabilities. That's the hardest one to catch up militarily imo.Kmar wrote:
Are we disbanding it .. er?
Absolutely ... they are doing it the way I been pushing for us to do things. Smarter.Cybargs wrote:
Talking about China's lack of Naval capabilities. That's the hardest one to catch up militarily imo.Kmar wrote:
Are we disbanding it .. er?
Read this http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … -look-like
Xbone Stormsurgezz
TL:DRKmar wrote:
Absolutely ... they are doing it the way I been pushing for us to do things. Smarter.Cybargs wrote:
Talking about China's lack of Naval capabilities. That's the hardest one to catch up militarily imo.Kmar wrote:
Are we disbanding it .. er?
Read this http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … -look-like
Who "wins"?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
You should read it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz