Post some underappreciated warbirds. Love me some Voodoo.
>>62511338It was well appreciated as influence to turn the Demon into the Phantom
I'd say underappreciated. Seibah gets all the Korean War fame, but Panther did a lot, especially ground attack.
>>62511400Banshee, too.
>>62511338it looks really good
the thud is also cool
Marys and Balties did a lot of heavy lifting in N. Africa and the Med.
>>62511338It does look very good. Also admirable is the audacity of its payload - air to air nuclear missiles to knock out incoming soviet bombers iirc.
>>62511437really does look like a proto-phantom from this angle
>>62511400I prefer the swept wing version
Didn't get up to a whole lot in its service life compared to some but there's something about the concept and the design that's still just really cool to me. I like flying it out on CAS in War Thunder.
>>62511668Benis butt.
>>62511447>look at my many fuel tanks
>>62512183Viets use drop-tanks to make canoes.
>>62511411my warthinder early jet of choice.Yea I don't do too good, but it is fun being able to turn on a dime one time and surprise a motherfucker before all your energy goes.
>>62512315Just imagine what it could've done with swept wings.
b-57 canberra uncle flew this in vietnam as a wing commander (not sure of the actual name/rank)his callsign got changed to "Magnet" during the war since every time he went up his plane would get hit by AAcant imagine his back seaters liked that too much
Skylancer, the sky rays big brother
>>62512280Wym banshee has insane energy retentionDid you forget to take off the drop tanks?
>>62512234You can tell whoever made the canoes took pride in their work, even when scavenging stuff.
>>62512603I mean, for a lot of communities on the river a canoe can be life or death, even in the 21st Century.
>>62512234Those flat parts at the end would actually be ideal for clamping a trolling motor.
>>62512729>I FERR NEED FO SPEEDhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7OkhLu53UQ
>>62512535also first US plane to drop bombs on vietnam
>>62511338
One of the earliest successful combat capable VTOL
I think its one of the prettiest jets ever made.
Su-15, my beloved
what could have been...
>>62514485>>62514480Still have those fold-outs.
>>62514055Despite it being something of a disappointment I love the Su-7.
>>6251133850s-early 60s era jets are so cool, so many were designed in such a short period of time due to rapidly advancing tech. Still blows my mind how fast the development cycles were then.
>>62514480>>62514485Holy shit what's the name of that book again? My big brother had that, fucking loved it as a kid.
>>62511368YVAN?
The the F-101A has a fairly impressive thrust to weight ratio for the day with 1.18 empty TWR, the F-4E by comparison is 1.07.Equipped with the cannons it may surprisingly have been among the best dog fighters of it's time.
>>62514352>Less famous warplanes>Posts Crusader Seriously?
>>62511576live this look
>>62514389Domestic industry? Not under USA's watch! Now, to be fair, Italy still kept going for a bit, but never went beyond the sound barrier (shit built under license doesn't count).
>>62514055>>62514625For me it's the whole family from the Su-7A to the Su-11 including all the prototype steps in between, something about being the last steps in the dead end design of flying tube jet interceptors.The Su-15 is ok too i guess.
>>62516762Absolutely beautiful.
>>62514793Something like The Complete World Warplane Encyclopedia. I'll have to find my tab on my pc where I was looking up listing for other copies.
>>62511338Hawk. One of the best trainer before the likes of T-50/M346/Yak-130 came along
>>62520174Agreed.
>>62514625>Despite it being something of a disappointmentWhy?Was it worse than Mig-21?
>>62521564Think of an F-105 but worse in every way, that's what the Su-7 was. Giving it swing-wings and a newer engine did unfuck it a bit, but it was still never the most impressive of machines. I do enjoy its aesthetic regardless.
>>62513677>Never carried any weapons and two prototypes one which crashedSuccessful and combat don't fit there.
>>62512535British Electric, they used these in Rhodesian air force too.
>>62511338I love the huge wing and twin engines as a counterpoint to the tiny wing and single engine of the 104.
>>62511460>Twatt
You think you seen it all? nope.Junkers Ju 287.
>>62521796moarrrsoviets continued development til 1949, reached 950 km/h.there was even a cute parasitic interceptor planned
The French had some underrated planes before the era of the flying triangles stealing all the glory
https://youtu.be/MYgQLko0Ki4?si=R-ceBFWKT7JNVotY&t=333
>>62520174>M346/Yak-130I wonder what the actual quality of the Yak130 is. when Leonardo and Yakovlev separated on that project they had agreed to Leonardo only selling to NATO countries and Yakovlev selling to everyone else. Yet in recent years 5 or 6 non Nato countries have either bought or asked to buy the M346 and there hasn't been a new sale of the yak since 2016 IIRC
>>62522499Nato equipment is just too good. Buy the m346 and you a package. buy the yak and you get only a plane.
Fuck Japan for not upgrading pic related and keeping them around.> We will never get a big budget Top Gun 2 quality air war movie with F1s and Ching Kuos teamed up to fight Chink Flankers and J20s.Why live?
>>62521743Dafugg?
>>62524963stealth demonstrator by northrop i believe
>>62511338How is it that the Americans used to shit out dozens of different types of planes in the span of years, now they can't get one to fucking work over a decade? I'd expect having advanced tech makes things easier not harder.
>>62525107What?
>>62524963Northrop Tacit Blue. Built for DARPA's Battlefield Surveillance Aircraft-Experimental (BSAX) program. It was designed to loiter over the Fulda Gap, targeting Soviet formations in case of an invasion of Europe. Northrop showed their teeth in the Have Blue run off, and it led to Tacit Blue. The stealth was great, but the main feature was the Low Probability Intercept (LPI) radar. Installed on the giant flat side of the Tacit Blue, it would use all kinds of techniques to obfuscate the Soviet's ability to triangulate its emissions during targeting. That tech went into the B-2, F-22, F-35, JSTARS, etc. It could also be used as a passive receiver. They did tests using radar satellite as the transmitter, and Tacit Blue as the receiver, allowing it to build it's SAR images. I think it is much, much more revolutionary and historically important than the F-117 that gets all the glory.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw2YzngO6eMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAPw5FEpYBwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT7H5IBTMkA
>>62525176>PS1 jet isn't real; it can't hurt you.
>>62525107They were simple back then. Take a look at the F-106 and Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE). It was extremely expensive and complicated. That was a wake-up call for what fighters would be in the future.
>>62525176Northrop's challenger to LM's Have Blue, which led the USAF to giving Northrop the ISR counterpart contract.
>>62525253>ISR counterpart contract.what is that?
>>62525176>flying poptart
>>62525269Can you be more specific? I don't want to go don't a huge hole if you just are asking what the contract was. It was for Tacit Blue, a platform to see the full battlefield so offensive assets could BTFO Soviet armor columns. If you mean HOW the mission would be executed, I will go into surface level details of the tech involved?
>>62525570Didn't mean to sage
>>62525570Unless I went potato and read it incorrectly, you said that the Tacit Blue, the challenger to Have Blue, led to the AF giving NG the ISR counterpart contract. I looked it up, and didn't find any info on it. Was the ISR contract a succeeding program, or just the one that Have Blue and Tacit Blue were competing for?
>>62514055Su-15 is very well known >here
>>62525613>Unless I went potato and read it incorrectly, you said that the Tacit Blue, the challenger to Have Blue, led to the AF giving NG the ISR counterpart contract.No, XST was the competitor to Have Blue. The USAF was impressed with Northrop's proposal, so, they asked them if they could build a VLO platform for their PAVE MOVER LPI radar system. This led to the design and testing of Tacit Blue. You can see Tacit Blue's heritage in the B-2 bomber, which happens to use a pair of LPIs with GMTI and SAR capabilities for targeting.>I looked it up, and didn't find any info on it.It falls under the DARPA Assault Breaker program. A program to use sophisticated radar techniques and technology to have a view of where every Soviet asset and soldier are at all times, tracking them in real-time relaying that information to F-16s equipped with Martin Marietta T-16, Vought T-22 ground or air launched SRBMs with sub-munitions or loitering UAVs. The radar (TACIT BLUE, J-STAR, RQ-4) would find, identify, track, and target the Soviet formations. M-270s and fighter/bombers would fire their advanced munitions and the radar would guide them in for them to kill the targets. ATACMS had BATs and LOCAAS sub-munitions.https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/assault-breakerGood thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/assault-breaker.1360/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235114019_Transformation_and_Transition_DARPA's_Role_in_Fostering_an_Emerging_Revolution_in_Military_Affairs_Volume_2-_Detailed_Assessments/downloadhttps://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Assault-Breaker.html>Was the ISR contract a succeeding program, or just the one that Have Blue and Tacit Blue were competing for?Yeah, it led to J-STARS, B-2, RQ-4, F-35, etc.
>>62525913GMTI allows you to see every slow moving target on the ground, map them, and track them in real-time. SAR allows you to target through any weather day or night.https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA546916.pdfThe RQ-4 does part of that job, now. Well, publically;^)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv0NT71pMOc
>>62512543
>>62516762
the canuck purely for aesthetics
>>62527503Le Super Sabre
>>62526785The Skyray was too cute for this gay Earth, I wish she saw combat.Anyway for my contribution to the thread here is a CAC Boomerang
>>62527142Wish we had an airworthy one.
>>62528300Wdym? The belgians used the Mk V
>>62511338here's mine: the Westland Whirlwind, the o.g. "heavy fighter" of the RAFfor one brief moment the heaviest armed motherfucking flying, with FOUR Hispano 20mm cannons, which worked perfectly fine thank you very much as they were placed in the nose instead of the wingsunfortunately the intent of the Whirlwind was to use the Rolls-Royce Peregrine engine, freeing up resources of other engines such as Merlins, Taurus, etc but the Peregrine was a failure and the Whirlwind was not viable as a fighterfurthermore, the "heavy fighter" concept died a quick death, mainly disproven by the Bf110, and by the time Westland considered re-engining the Whirlwind the likes of the Beaufighter and Mosquito were readythe Whirlwind did however work well as a ground attack aircraft, so the RAF made that cannon fit the go-to for ground attackthis is therefore arguably the conceptual grand-daddy of the A-10BRRRRTing before it was coolfurthermore, the tail design was a noted success and would be revived in none other than the Gloster Meteor>>62511668>there's something about the concept and the design that's still just really coolthe Buccaneer had absolute state of the art avionics for its time which is what kept it in service for as long as it was
I kinda wish they did develop the YF-17 it's it's own fighter aircraft rather than spinning it into the heavier F/A-18. A light twin engine 4th gen fighter would be a pretty cool option between the the lightweight, single engine F-16 and the twin engine heavy F-15.
>>62514055A real danger to airliners and MiG-15s carrying cosmonauts.Still a neat interceptor though!>>62520219hawt
The AMX AMX will always seem like a plane looking for a role, and instead, does a bunch of stuff in a half-assed fashion
>>62528622the AMX Ghibli?cheap subsonic CAS plane like the Alphajet, and the A-10 before the Americans overengineered itit would be an excellent counter-insurgency jet except the Italian Air Force didn't want to play in the sandbox
>>62528363Airshows. Just like showing WWII warbirds but with a Clunk instead.
>>62529055Oh you mean now? Yea I agree, I wish they'd kept some, but as evidenced by the arrow, Canada really loves shredding and disposing of anything cool they've built.
my ideal companion for the f-14
>>62528522That's about what the F-18L would've been, basically an F-18 without the shit required for carrier operations, like arrestor hooks, folding wings, and so forth. Bureaucratic shit-flinging between Northrop and McDD prevented it from getting off the ground.
>>62520219Funny how the yanks continued to produce what is essentially a mk60 hawk design when BAE themselves already introduced a brand new hawk mk120 with redesigned wings and fuselage
>>62530479What's the use case for redesigned wings and fuselage?
>>62521650Kek
>>62511400Ted Williams smoked Norks with this.
>>62525176Funny how all the popsci video say f117 nighthawk has that tesselated shape because computers were weak back then, but Tacit Blue clearly has a nice smooth shape and I see many design elements in common with modern stealth planes such as f-22 and b-21 raider
>>62525913no way they could see foot soldiers with radar
>>62514975The tail design made it really iffy to fly at certain speeds and angles. It was best suited for high speed slashing attacks.
>>62535090Tacit Blue is a later design with the knowledge gained from designing the nighthawk.
>>62514793Found it. Aircraft of the World The Complete Guide. This is the cover for the mailing list binder version. There's also a print book that is actually compete under a slightly different name.
I was looking at this frecce tricolori phamplet and it says their flight lead previously flew F16s. Since when did the italians have them? I tought the only F16s stationed in Italy were our AF?
>>62538685>F-16 squadron name "nigger carnival"
>>62536276why such a drastic design change
>>62530435>Bureaucratic shit-flinging between Northrop and McDD prevented it from getting off the ground.Northrop autism failed in securing sales. Why GD and MDC succeeded in getting sales? Tech transfers and local assembly/production. Northrop was that anal about tech transfers that they weren't willing to let customers do their major overhauls by themselves. For politicians and actual people, that means defense spending in your own economy. It doesn't really matter if F-17 was actually better plane than F-16 or F-18L was more suitable than naval variant over grown F-5 for many of export customers.
>>62530435>>62539810the end of the Cold War meant there was no need for an F-18Lthe regular F-18 saw plenty of land-based customers anyway, e.g. Canada and Australia, and as we can see, the F-16 airframe could be eked out for decades and decades with upgradesthe niche for an F-18L just isn't there
>>62521697
>>62528622
>>62539855>the niche for an F-18L just isn't thereIn theory it would have been lighter and bit simpler, that leads to slightly improved performance and cheaper maintenance. Arguably only F-18C/D customers that benefit from naval features are Finland and Switzerland, as both countries do highway operations.The reason F-17 and F-18L never had niche is because Northrop sales team incompetence and due to lack of local content, both planes were far more expensive than competition to the clients.
>>62528673>Italian Air Force didn't want to play in the sandboxGive me one reason why the italians would've wanted to use the AMX in the sandbox instead of their Typhoons and Tornados or F-35? Mission Survivability comes before operational costs.
the gnat, smol, cute, deadly
>>62540141
>>62540145
>>62514389Oh. Im' hoping that is a really bad photo because that thing looks about as maneuverable as a Sycamore seed.
>>62527503>Huh, i guess the Super Sabre is kind of underrate- wait a minute.
>>62538972Moore's Law
>>62512183reddit post. reddit humor.
>>62539864That's just a mockup, right?
>>62512535Got to see these during the eclipse. Was fucking cool to see the two planes wing abreast chasing the blackened sun across the sky.
>>62540933Sheer. Fucking. Aesthetics.
>>62525107They weren't stealth and the electronics were much simpler. They were still advanced for the time, but you didn't have to design the plane around them. >>62525221Based SAGE knower.
>>62525107>>62541594Designing a plane that can fly well isn't that hard. Even back then there were enough best practices and conventions that a reasonable team of engineers with a wind tunnel will get you something that works. What makes modern projects so complicated is everything except the airframe. Its the complex sensors and computers and networking it all together to do cool shit. The F-35's airframe was figured out long before the plane was ready for service.
>>62539919I don't think any operational MANPAD launch from the jihadis was ever recorded
>>62542298Didn't the afghans have stingers by the boatload?
>>62542314>Stingersnot at all, it was a carefully-controlled program that recorded how many Stingers were given, how many were shot out, and only a handful of Stingers were unaccounted for by the end of the warthe Afghan army would have had access to far more Iglas and in fact tons more Soviet weaponry but anti-American propaganda will never mention that part: it's always "evil Americans" and "CIA" who "armed and trained" Osama and the Taliban, do not mention the fact that the entire fucking Afghan Army was SOVIETno, do not mention the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and its FOURTEEN fucking DIVISIONS of SOVIET troops; no, the military training of Osama and the Taliban are certainly from the Americansanyway where was I?oh yeahI was talking about the GWOTthe AMX Ghibli would have been perfect for that but the Italian Air Force didn't deploy
>>62539864I hate that thing, its even more unhinged than the iranian stealth jet but somehow gets a passIt has never been built, it has never been tested, they didnt even had a wind tunnel modelThey just threw whatever shit they can find like its gonna have a gau-8 avenger cannon and two turbofan engines and its gonna have a 10 second turning time and gonna carry 4000kgs of munitions and gonna have stealth and we would have definitely made the best plane on earth if they funded it, they just didnt fund it, just ignore that all the stats are made up and all we have is a balsawood mockupIranians actually had balls to put an engine and avionics on to their vaporwave hypercraft
>>62539913>highway operationsall NATO countries practised that and you could do that with just about any aircraft, it's not a special Scandi superpower>due to lack of local contentthe US don't need it and the prospective customers wouldn't buy an aircraft that the US isn't producing
>>62542339>the AMX Ghibli would have been perfect for that but the Italian Air Force didn't deployIt would go against their post WW2 constitution. They can only partecipate in peace missions and can only enter war if attacked first. Same reason their parliament shot down the proposal to build 2 strategic bombers in 2002.
>>62542387>Same reason their parliament shot down the proposal to build 2 strategic bombers in 2002Aw man, it would have been cool to see more strat-bombers in the world, there isn’t a whole lot designs flying around these days.
>>62537071Hey, I know that dude!
>>62542382>all NATO countries practised that and you could do that with just about any aircraft, it's not a special Scandi superpowerDude, all your photos are from 80's. Some countries still practice doing that. No it isn't super power, it very much manpower issue, Swedes didn't do a single highway operations exercise on their own for 15 years because manpower issue after they got rid of conscription.>the US don't need it and the prospective customers wouldn't buy an aircraft that the US isn't producingMCD and Boeing after it seem to like having export sales, unlike Northrop in 70's and 80's. The difference between F-16 and F-17 was local production, General Dynamics even fucking guaranteed participation with some % in future export sales for original four European F-16 users. Local content means tech transfers, it means local employment, retard. It means at least some of the tax money spend on the planes stays in your own economy. Aircraft are basically built by hand, its extremely labor intensive process. It also means that you get capability to maintain your aircraft by yourself. It is absolute aircraft readiness and supply security issue.
>>62545321>all your photos are from 80'swhich is why I said, practise((D))>Some countries still practice doing thatI know>The difference between F-16 and F-17 wasthe F-16 is used extensively by the USA, dipshit>Local content means tech transfersnot necessarily>it means local employmentI k now> It also means that you get capability to maintain your aircraft by yourselfI know>It is absolute aircraft readiness and supply security issuewrongyou're still dependent on the source actuallyeven if you get full tech and license transfers minor countries have nowhere near the resource and tech base to build their own fighters economicallyall of this pales in comparison to the point that NOBODY ELSE WAS USING THE F-18L, MORONyou severely underestimate what a huge factor it is for fighter exports that either the USA, or that at least one major NATO defence economy is a committed user of the fighter in question. to this day the Gripen still struggles because only Sweden and Brazil support it (they are not "major NATO defence economies), and the FA-50 only managed its sales success because of tacit American support and cheap Korean manufacturingfighters and fighter development are hugely expensive and no minor nation will go out on a limb to buy an unproven design that nobody uses, not when there are several combat-tested alternatives in productionyou're smoking crack and so would any F-18L salesman to think otherwise
>>62542387>their parliament shot down the proposal to build 2 strategic bombers in 2002Isn't that around the time pineapple pizza was created?
>>62528622Once you realize this is just a Harrier with the vtol ripped out, you’ll never unsee it.
>>62522499Sorry if it is a dumb question, but what is the purpose of 2 engines in a trainer aircraft?
>>62542387Considering how they performed before, and how some politicians are prone to use nationalism and militarism to gain cheap consensus and then try to project power outwards to deflect from their ineptitude, it was a smart decision. Being watchdogs of the Mediterranean is probably the mission most fit for Italy.Speaking of the AMX: wasn't it retired recently?
Soko j-22 orao , attack plane made in yugoslavia
>>62546495It was also in use by romania
>>62546495Whats intresting it used agm-65 it saw action in the 90s yugo wars
>>62546110>Considering how they performed beforeit would have been an opportunity to sharpen their skills>Being watchdogs of the Mediterranean is probably the mission most fit for Italy.sighyeah
>>62546110>Speaking of the AMX: wasn't it retired recently?Yeah, last 5 were retired in april.
>>62514352why did the Crusader not mount missiles under the wings??
The Avia B-534 was one of the last fighter biplanes. Built in Czechoslovakia and distributed to axis minors by the Germans, they engaged B24s over Bulgaria in 1944.
>>62529935"John Konrad, Vought's chief test pilot, later stated that the Crusader III could fly circles around the Phantom II. Combat thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W ratio) was almost unity (0.97), while early F4H was only at 0.87. However, the pilot in the XF8U-3 was easily overwhelmed with the workload required to fly the intercept and fire Sparrows which required constant radar illumination from the firing aircraft, while the Phantom II had a radar intercept officer to share the workload.""In addition, with the perception that the 'age of the gun' was over, the Phantom's considerably larger payload and the ability to perform air-to-ground as well as air-to-air missions, won over Vought's fast but single-purposed fighter. For similar reasons, the Phantom would replace the Navy's F-8 Crusader as the primary daylight air superiority fighter in the Vietnam War, although it was originally introduced as a missile-armed interceptor to complement day fighters like the Crusader."
>>62538972Because what they learned was that the 117 was ass.
>>62550161How so?
wouldn't say she's underappreciated but i adore the pby catalina
>>62550834Catalina is my planefu.>pretty on the outside>nice big nacelles>tight on the inside
https://theaviationist.com/2010/12/07/amx-over-afghanistan-on-board-video/
https://www.twz.com/air/italy-says-arrivederci-to-its-little-amx-attack-jets
I have a question for planefagsif you damage an enemy plane and he lands at a neutral airfield, and the plane gets 'impounded' by said neutral countrydoes it count as a victory
>>62552441good questionthe Luftwaffe would probably call that 1 killthe RAF, being kind of anal, would probably call that 1/2 a kill
>>62552441Any plane out of the fight is a victory.>>62550738The nighthawk is completely devoted to pure stealth shaping and barely a whisper of consideration for aerodynamics because more primitive stealth materials needed the shaping to do the heavy lifting. This makes it fly like a shaky brick.
>>62542381Yes.
>>62520174>>62522499>>62522542Is the M346 even any good? I thought the Poles were unhappy with theirs. It's built by Italians… it can't be good.
>>62534900Ted Williams is on ice is in Arizona. Maybe he'll live to smoke more in WW3.
>>62552694It's cheap and can fire an AIM-9X. It's not nothing.
>>62552786>can fire an AIM-9Xso can a fucking Cessna
>>62552837wat
>>62552786What I heard, like most Italian things, is that it has reliability issues. >>62552837208 is sexy.
>>62525176>JSTARSI wonder when us retiring that those with absolutely no replacement past "uhh satellites lmao" will bite us in the ass
>>62552900The B-21 is the replacement. They were bragging about "battlespace management" capabilities at the reveal presentation.
>>62552441Most likely would, or at least get written down as a probable, since in most cases the victorious aircraft wouldn't stick around to see its victim do the landing. Might be easier to verify these days with all the radar tracking and satellite observation keeping better track of combatant aircraft, but air combat is not a common phenomenon anymore.
>>62552694>It's built by Italians… it can't be good.The early sales records says otherwise. Same as the history of their aerospace, Weapon manufacturing (Beretta, Benelli, OTO Melara, Tanfoglio, Leonardo etc) sensors industry and shipbuilding industry (we are buying 5,6B$ of their frigates)>I thought the Poles were unhappy with theirs.At first there were some software issues in their On-Board Combat Simulator as it couldn't interface with F-16 armaments. But the issue has been since resolved.In a recent interview by an Italian TV program their head of defence when asked why Poland is buying armaments from all over the world instead of relying on their NATO partners; he said that Poland has a desperate need to quickly bring up to date their military so right now they are buying stuff from whoever can deliver it first (hint at why they recently bought the FA-50 trainer, another really capable new gen jet trainer that instead doesn't come with any full on simulation package to train with NATO equipments. (Leonardo also couldn't deliver that many planes in such a short amount of time as they had to deliver to the other clients first.
>>62552848>like most Italian things, is that it has reliability issues.reddit meme on the same level of "italy switched sides" during the world wars
>>62553346>FA-50>really capable new gen jet trainer LMAO. The only trainer worth buying is the t7 and the hawk
If only they had put a better engine in it.
>>62553406I drive an Alfa Romeo, bud. It ain't a meme. >>62553346You mention a serious problem with Italian manufacturing: Italians are slow to produce. It takes way too fucking long to build anything. Inefficiency abounds.
>>62554725>StellantisNo shit sherlock. And I sadly drive a volkswagen that already left me stranded 3 times in just 4 years. International automotive industry ≠Aerospace industry. The MB326 and 339 are the perfect example.And let's not start talking about american cars. If you were to judge american planes and armaments via Ford would it be fair?>slow to produce.True, but it's not due to inefficiency but a lack of money and manforce.
>>62511338>181 replies in >No mention of the greatest """attackers""" to ever set sailDisgraceful.
>>62554725>fucking long to build anything. Inefficiency abounds.Is that why almost all european F35 are assembled and maintained in Italy?
>>62552694>It's built by Italians… it can't be good.
>>62554968shill me on it
>>62554725My gtv never let me down
>>62554931>VWGermans over engineer everything. The KISS principle has yet to reach their shores.
>>62556670as a nephew of a career German engineer, this is 100% true
>>62556670>>62556698It gets even worse now that they are using cheap plastic shit parts, so they fail early and are a pain in the ass to replace while still being expensive to buy.
>>62556819Their hubris will be their downfall. Not just VW, Germany and Germans in general.
The Chinese fighter jet everybody forgets about!
>>62557792You have to know about something first to forget about it. I don't think the average person really cares that much. They would've bought the F-20 Tigershark, but Reagan wanted to improve relations with the PRC; which forced the ROC to build that. I would've rather had 100 Tigersharks flying around.
>>62556819can confirm, my professional auto-mechanic buddy has stopped working on VW engines due to "too much plastic in engine" and customer complaints. A mechanic can fix it but something else will crumble soon enough and customer doesn't understand.I still like how VW will DRIVE real good and got something Japs and American lack.
>>62558610VW has killed all of their sedans except the Jetta. Enjoy your MomUV or bad Tesla clone.
>>62554075>Less famous airplanes >Mirage F1 (the sole fighter that managed to shot down the F-14 Tomcat)Fucking tourists I swear
>>62559665SUV and moms are a match made in hell
>>62557792looks like a mashup of the f5, f18, rafale and f16. Did the chinks ever manage to make a plane they didn't copy?
>>62554968nice pic.on the last jets thread anon posted several A-5A and RA-5C picsat the time it was developed and entered service (fairly rapidly late 50s--early 60s) it was one of the most advanced aircraft ever.
>>62554968>>62555027>>62559825>A-5 VigilanteHere is the thread >>62475721start at (last pic is an A-5A) >>62494936
>>62521699>dose cheeksBaby had glutes for days
F-105...lots of stories from it from Vietnam, but nowadays seems mostly ignored. The proto Strike Eagl
>>62559776It's from Other China
>>62554931>MB326Mah nigga. My country built them under license from italy. We used them a lot against the fappers and they even manage to shoot down 4 su24 in namibia.
>>62554725>Italians are slow to producedude. we have no fucking money. Our economy is a joke.
>>62511400Seibah overshadowed her own children. Maybe the Fury is Mordred?
>>62561211>six rocket pods on Navy SeibahWhew lads, blue board!
>>62554725>You mention a serious problem with Italian manufacturing: Italians are slow to produce.>It takes way too fucking long to build anything. Inefficiency abounds.you could put any euro nation into that paragraph and literally nothing would change
>>62561618Rocket pods and nose intakes are so kino.
>>625140552:0 kill ratio against unarmed civilian airliners
>>62562430Egypt used Miggers for ground attack in Yemen, usually basic bombs and rocket pods. Wonder how good they were.
>>62528605>MiG-15s carrying cosmonauts.His death was an inside job
>>62550834Could be the oldest airframe thats still doing actual work, 89 years after its first flight
>>62554725it's not inefficiency, idiot, it's economies of scaleEuropean countries are small, and therefore field and buy commensurately smaller military forceshence a tank or fighter production facility might only be required to produce twenty units a yearin that situation, it's cheaper overall to build them one by one rather than in a production line setup, which is optimised to produce large quantities but is highly inefficient at building small quantities another reason why it "takes longer" is because it's cheaper, again, to build small quantities over a long period rather than to build a big batch quickly and then stop productionit also helps preserve institutional knowledge through skills transfer to new hires
>>62542373>somehow gets a passrule of omg that shit looks sick bruh
>>62514653Lots of great looking planes but they became obsolete really quickly. You’ll notice how many aviation companies existed in this time frame compared to the 80’s and 90’s. All of those short development periods led to these companies dumping tons of money into R&D and securing only enough profits from a government contract to exist for a year before being eaten by a larger firm. Aircraft industry has always been incredibly cutthroat and competitive.
>>62511338>ctrl+f "P-80">no mention of the comfiest early cold war jet/k/ I am disappoint.
>>62564432>early cold warYou mean late WWII. And nobody mentioned it because this is the lesser known aircraft thread.
>>62512234Grumman used to train their machinists on canoes before they let them work on airplanes, then somone got the bright idea to sell the canoes, too.
>>62564719Yeah, we've got a 15' aluminum Grumman. Family heirloom.
>>62564407Man, imagine being the heaviest carrierborne bomber in history and being relegated to doing literally everything other than bombing for the vast majority of your service life.Being a jet of the 50s means being fated to early obsolescence.
P-61 Black Widow
>>62565107You think that sucks, try being any of the prototype superprops that were immediately rendered irrelevant by the war's end and the advent of jets. The absolute apogee of piston engine performance, all for naught.
>>62553346There's something about jet trainers that makes my dick erect.>m346IIRC Austria is also evaluating whether to buy them. They retired their old SAAB 105s a few years ago and since then they sent their pilots to train at the italian int flight school in Deci on the m346 so it would make sense.
>>62511338Bump
It's a boat! It's a plane! it's ekranoplan!
>>62511338How underappreciated?
>>62566269
Pretty much anything Polish, their fighters P.11 and P.7 are the most famous but even those aren't really stars. They had a neat light/recon bomber with the PZL.23.
>>62566269There's one at the Pima Air and Space Museum with a giant Radar on the bottom
>>62566429>>62566704God, I love this pergnanted guppy.
>>62521656https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1NRLFso6Qyou can hear the adrenaline
>>62565275>feels your pain
>>62569221Tigercat at least got as far as actually entering service.
Yes, yes very nice... however;
>>62574557>F-89>Battle of Palmdaleflight status: expelled from the Jedi Order!
>>62511447Thuds are rad as fuck>>62540141>>62540145>>62540175it cute
there is a surprising lack of "uuuugh what coulda shoulda been" F-20 and YF-23 faggots in this thread and I find that very pleasant
>>62574633Slight detail but I like the ones Mk. VI and beyond more where the tailplane was angled.
>>62514485
Another underrated Brit plane, Fairey Firefly. Much of what the Fleet Air Arm operated could fit this thread (Outside of Swordfish and Seafires.)
Actually prefer the earlier variants for this one. Dat scoop.
The A-20 was a good stop gap night fighter
>>62575147Actually a pretty decent carrier attack aircraft despite looking weird as heck
>>62575456I've heard a few things about the Barracuda that they didn't handle all that well or provided poor visibility. Still look interesting in a way only British planes can.
They took this from you.
>>62575875QRD? Is it a variant of YF-23?
>>62575097Merlin powered ones were a "bit" shite. A nightfighter with radar made a difference.
>>62575892https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23#Naval_variant
>>62575456Meh.
>>62511338No picture, but I like the YO-3, Gulfstream HALO, English Electric Canberra, HAL Marut and SOKO G-4 Super Galeb and Orao/IAR-93 Vulture.
>>62575314Actually that is a P-70.
I, for one, like the Roland C.II Walfisch, I know it looks ungainly by modern standards, but I like its fish-like fuselage.
>>62575875>canardsThank you to whoever took this from me.
P6M Seamaster. Imagine if these things had survived long enough to be amphibious cruise missile trucks and got a cargo version for supporting shore ops.
>>62583975Retard, if this survived so would the Convair Tradewind (the Tradewind being a cheaper project overall, so less likely to have been cancelled), swing-nose freighter, which would have been the cargo plane of choice (think of a floating bastard hybrid of a C-133 and a C-130).
>>62585034The Tradewind was a really bad design.>underpowered, unreliable engines>designed to offload to shore while afloat instead of designing it to deliberately beach itself for ground stability because ????>too small to compete with the C-130
>>62585269>designed to offload to shore while afloat instead of designing it to deliberately beach itself for ground stability because ????Weight savings because of the engines. How would you propose a cargo Seamaster to beach itself? Additionally, more powerful turboprops could have been made (consider the aircraft being powered by two XT57s, one of which produces the same amount of SHP as three T40s that were used on the Tradewind). Now of course, weight and balance would need to be resolved and new propellers would need to be developed, but having only two engines could help expand the diameter of the propellers (which would increase efficiency and have a lower tip speed), but only if they are moved outboard (being careful not to be so far away from the center that an engine failure might be catastrophic).I am sorry for my half-assed response and not answering all of your points. I am sleepy, so off to bed for me.
>>62512594NTA, but back when i used to play it, you couldn't take them off. But i love them all the same, it just looks so good
>>62564432I dont like the way it looks
>Mirage 4kOpinions?
>>62585599Mirage F1G
>>62585603B-58 Hustler
>>62585616Kawasaki P-1
>>62585622HF-24 Marut>First high performance Indian jet, designed by Kurt Tank
>>62585603>Mirage F1GSee the G8 : >>62559990
>>62585599>Mirage 4000kinoa step in development to Rafale
>>62585667>firstand only lmao
>>62585688Neato
>>62511437>>62522714what are those?
>>62588703F-101 and F-1.
>>62575875The NATF swing wing F-22 is cooler, though obviously less practical
