Why are all "next gen" planes just tailess doritos?
>>64408616That's what works.
>>64408616management believes in random bullshit they saw or heard or think is good and that's what gets made
Why are you so butthurt, chink?
>>64408636
>>64408636You are insane but not wrong
>>64408616By your logic the B-2 is a sixth gen aircraft. This means the US has had operational sixth gen aircraft for almost 50 years at this point.
>>64408636>This is why you see EVs being pushed so hard.You sure it's not because they have fewer parts, run quieter, lower dependence on foreign oil, don't emit exhaust gasses, and have lots of torque?Systems like OnStar were able to remotely disable your vehicle decades before Tesla was a thing.
>>64408616For the same reason all F-1 cars look the same. Or why so many species evolve into a crab. Or why every new rifle is just another AR-15/18.The chinese settled on those designs because they can at most, copy the old NASA study on stealth, but stealth aircrafts will always gravitate towards being a literal flat triangle as technology progresses, because that is the shape that is most optimal for reducing your RCS.>>64408713>>64408652least insecure americans.
>>64408730Second one isn't insecure because the classifications we are coming up with are so arbitrary
>>64408715Yes. It’s because the AI has taken control and is working on making driving illegal for humans.
>>64408616Stealth and high speed aerodynamics. Stealth means you want to limit concave surfaces and that pushes you towards minimalism. At the same time, you want a shape that generates lift and capable of standing up to supersonic speeds. That means delta wings and lifting body fuselage. Combined, you get the Incredibly Flying Dorito(Trademark pending)
>>64408616Radar
yeah
>>64408619Does it?
>>64408619yeah
>>64408616because the Nazis were 100% correct and eventually we will return to the Flying Wedge/Boomerang for everything
>>64408730He has a point with the B-2, but the B-2 doesn't have A2A capabilities
>>64408636Least schizo flat earth poster
>>64408636Pretty much. fuck i wish you were wrong.
>>64408708the weight of his knowlege made him so.
>>64408616because the doctrine for these planes seems to be trending towards extreme stealth BVR, however, i think ditching any vertical stabilizer in the hopes of maximizing stealth ignores several BVR combat realities:>less control surfaces worsens maneuvering performance>speed worsens maneuvering>being unable to turn hot/cold in BVR will kill you against any TWS-launch capable aircraft>being able to turn hot/cold allows for better fire and forget, especially if you use HARMs>shape and materials matters much more for stealth than the raw elimination of surfaces at current RCS signatures>good alignment of surfaces can functionally eliminate the impact that added surfaces has on your RCSthere's going to be aircraft with a turning radius the size of maine trying to perform BVR turns and getting splashed because they couldn't go cold fast enough or defend incoming missiles well enough.
>>64408616To maximize stealthThe laws of physics are what they are
>>64409238>>shape and materials matters much more for stealth than the raw elimination of surfaces at current RCS signatures>>good alignment of surfaces can functionally eliminate the impact that added surfaces has on your RCSvertical stabilizers increase crossection for long wavelength early warning/search radar much more than for tracking radar. Dorito planes limit warning time for enemy defenses, which is why stealth bombers are tailless
>>64409319Which is fine for bombers that never have to pull more than 3gs but for supersonic fighters it's pretty risky.
>>64409319bombing should not be the primary design goal of a fighter aircraft. it's something the fighter should be able to do, and ideally is still great at doing, but we have stealth bombers for a reason. trying to make your fighter a stealth bomber makes it worse at what it's primary role should be, and if you need your stealth fighters to also do ALL of your stealth bombing, you have a doctrinal/equipment failure. giving up control surfaces cedes any chance of winning or surviving a poor BVR engagement.
>>64409717>bombing should not be the primary design goal of a fighter aircraftI didn't imply at any point that bombing is a primary design goal of flying wing designs (though they're excellent at it). Their main strength is decreasing enemy advance warning time, which is an incredibly good feature for regular fighters too. It means that enemy fighters might not know they're even being engaged until an AIM-120 materializes in front of them at mach 1.5, it means that your strike packages might be able to complete their missions before your enemy can scramble jets, it makes SEAD/DEAD less dangerous and makes it harder to track the CSG if you don't have satellites. There's no reason why you wouldn't want to sacrifice a little bit of authority on your control surfaces for this much of a capability jump
>>64408616Stelf
>>64409749>a little bit of authority on your control surfaceskeep chugging that copium faggot
>>64408730>For the same reason all F-1 cars look the same.Rules and regulations? HMM, I didn't know there were rules and regulations as to how you can design your own country's planes. Funny how the Soviets, Swedes, Songs, Germans, etc could create their own signature designs, but, for some reason China's always have to look exactly like the US' designs... Almost like design convergence is a cope for their obvious copying.
>>64409779nigger, you're the one arguing that every single American, European and Chinese fighter manufacturer out there has no idea what they're doing. I'm not the one coping here
>>64409146And the J-36 hasn't proved it does, either. Hell, we don't even know what its weapons bay looks like, or what it.can carry. Nor do we know what radar and other sensors are on it.
>>64408616>Why are all "next gen" planes just tailess doritos?marketing, the potato chip industry has Lockheed and Northrop by the balls.
>>64408616I've actually been wondering about this for awhile now. As stealth advances will these fighters even be able to get BVR missile locks on eachother. Obviously they'll be able to clear the sky's of 4th gens, but can two 5th or 6th gen fightera engage in BVR fighting or do they have to get close. Like in a F35 vs F35 do they have to dog fight do to stealth and EW?
>>64409781The J20 was their unique fighter design.Otherwise, basically all late Soviet/Russian and American jets (the only two other countries capable of designing a good independent fighter) look very similar. The average person would barely be able to tell you that a SU-57 and a F22 are different planes.
>>64409749you are ignoring both RWR and AWACS presence that would inform a fighter that they are being engaged/at risk of being engaged. the reason you wouldn't sacrifice that authority is to gamble that your opponent will not have any EW/Radar technologies or successes that you do not expect. to sacrifice your ability to maneuver and hoping simply to not get caught as your plane is dead weight if it is is a fools errand. canard designs and those with stabilizers which are closer to the wing such as the YF-23's design are far more likely to retain good flight characteristics while enjoying some of the benefit of reducing advance warning time, however, just stealth is not a one-size-fits-all solution for reducing that warning time. EW plays as important, if not an almost outsized role in combination with such design considerations.as a tangentially-related aside: i wholly believe at this point the J-36 is not a fighter, and is instead designed to be a drone-tender or F-117-like bomber craft. those treating it as a fighter i believe are misinformed, and using it to inform the ideas of what a sixth-gen fighter will be used for or look like are engaging in the wrong discussions. it seems that the J-36 is there to provide that low-early warning strike package capability you're thinking of, not to engage other fighters or to gain air superiority.
>>64409866Why do chinkshills insist it's a fighter then? Not directed at you; every time you point out it's a strike platform they genuinely tweak out and start spamming that video of it diving.
>>64408616None of those are next gen. I doubt they're even 4th gen.
>>64409886i think because the idea that they're a generation ahead in fighter aircraft is more appealing than the idea that they're trying to replicate a strike concept we retired some time ago without clear replacement. it's a capability we believed wasn't necessary, and might not be with what other tools we have, but may be required for their possible aims regarding taiwan and india. it's a concept that has it's place, i don't believe that it's place is attempting to intercept other aircraft however, instead i believe it exists to provide similar SEAD/DEAD and deep strike capability. it actually may be one of their better projects if it is intended to be a temu F-117, as it will give them good experience and industry in development of their own stealth craft, and would make sense given their local aims and opponents. if it's meant to be an intercept craft like this seemingly unofficial patch would claim, it would reveal an interesting paranoia, one that i don't think is particularly founded at this time.
>>64409841>Soviet/RussianIt's just variants of the Su-27. F-22/F-35 are entirely different designs than F-15/16>>64409791I agree. they're still in the concept phase of development. They're showing it now as 'we leapfrogged the U.S.' propaganda
>>64409965>. I doubt they're even 4th gen.What constitutes 4th gen?
>>64408829No, every country developing high stealth fighters just want to meme on you specifically to make you feel like everyone else must be retarded, but really it's all just an elaborate joke against you.
>>64410217They can fly and they're not chinese.
>>64408616Bvr so it needs to be extra long to house extra long missiles.Seamless control surfaces for better stealth.room for a toilet, fridge, and fuel because it needs to have a long range.Bonus is having a larger radar
>>64410292A bigger bonus is having a fuckhuge computer capable of doing tons of local processing for data fusion sensors and AI drone control shit.And excess power generation to devote to potential future directed energy systems (either electronic warefare shit but also potentially anti-missile defense laser)
>>64409886People don't say that its 'just a strike platform', they say that its a useless boat that will stall out any time it tips up or down because the top intake will be starved. Which is what triggers the replies. Chinese sources are big on it being a 'heavy fighter' or 'heavy multirole', while the J-50 is their light-weight and more maneuverable jet.
>>64410303So AWAC + stealth bomber
>>64409146Yet. They haven't tried installing a rotary SM6 launcher in the weapons bay as far as I know, fed targeting data from F-22s and 35s, and soon UAV.>the future is stealth bomber missile trucks flying from the CONUS and wiping out entire squadrons from BVR before returning home
So what are the odds of the chink paper planes actually being what the chinks and the fake leaks claim they are? They're notorious for lying about everything, due to their retarded face culture and massive inferiority complex, so why speculate about specs from a lying nation that won't be known, unless a western nation or an ally get their hands on one, which would require a war, some kind of "international incident", or the US actually releasing the data they got from one of their chink spies?Anyone can make some fiberglass mockup and make it fly.
>>64410324Pretty much
>>64408616All hail doritoplane. Return to arrowhead. The sacred delta.
>>64408616Alien wreckage doesn't have tails, so the think-tanks demand we copy that shit
Implessive
>>64410361>They're notorious for lying about everything, due to their retarded face culture and massive inferiority complex, so why speculate about specs from a lying nation that won't be known,It's kind of odd you say this, when they're extremely secretive and basically disclose nothing. Sure they may make up some shit in SCMP or the Global Times, but they never officially acknowledge anything, including this '6th gen' fighter jet program.
>>64409866I think the J-36 was designed to sacrifice dogfighting capabilities (if you're in a dogfight you're already fucked) for a greater chance to sneak into contested airspace and strike the enemy before fucking off. If you're in a missile slinging shitfest you don't need to maneuver much anyways, turn the nose at the enemy and shoot a missile then turn away on full afterburner praying the incoming missiles have lost their kinetic energy.Chinks have already realized this and didn't even bother to put a gun on the J-20.
>>64408715>lower dependence on foreign oilmoot benefit since the EV market is subservient to china for access to lithium and cobalt
>>64408616Why not make it so the tails can lie flat during some sort of stealth mode? The mechanism shouldn't be as complicated as the F-14 swing wing since it will just be for the small tails.
>>64408636o shi-
>>64410571>but they never officially acknowledge anythingThey're the ones leaking it, retard. They want people to know, while pretending it's secret.
>>64408616convergent evolutioneventually they will look like crabs
>>64410729Yeah I know that. Even in their leaks, they're not giving in specs or capabilities. All this is speculation.
>>64410612The industry is moving towards LFP batteries which don't contain Cobalt. Lithium isn't controlled by China
>>64410361What have the Chinese lied about regarding their military efforts? They haven't even made any claims about these planes.
>>64408616YES
>>64409146The B-21 however, does.
>>64408616stabilizers have relatively large RCS especially in UHF range
>b2 is now considered next gen>even though its first official flight was in 1989Well, alright then!
>>64409841>The J20 was their unique fighter design.lollmao evenIt's the outcome of the MiG 1.44 fucking the F-22 and having an abomination of a baby (the J-20). Nothing the chinks have every made is an indigenous, unique design.>Otherwise, basically all late Soviet/Russian and American jets (the only two other countries capable of designing a good independent fighter) look very similar.The SU-27 and its variants look nothing like the F-15, nor does the MiG-29 look like the F-16 and F-18 Hornet.
>>64408829>Does it?That's classified.
>>64411488woah there partner the j-20 is the direct descendant of the j-9 program which predates your russian vaporware by over 20 years
>>64411616>Says the CCPWe all know how honest they are!
>>64411627nig-144 was introduced in 2000, j-20 was introduced in 2007 and then chosen for production in 2008. besides, they don't even look similar (j-20 looks better than the russian trannyware)>Says the CCPsays the english wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20
>>64410571>>64411194The Chinese lie about everything, all the time. Everything they say is a lie, no exceptions. Don't pretend like Chinks don't use the internet to spread disinformation and bullshit, either - nobody who isn't Chink has anything good to say about China, and there are people on the internet that actually have the balls to claim that China isn't a backwards mouthbreathing shithole that needs to die in a fire so humanity can continue on to better days without them. Those are the Chinks.
>>64408616I don’t see a single sixth gen in your pic tho.
>china already producing 6th gen fighters and unmanned choppers>the west paralyzed because they lost their trade war and resorting to shitty renders
>>64408616>>64409238>>64409717>>64410632The Germans were right about both flying wing and AMTs: https://youtu.be/oTUsjtD7HIQ?
>>64410590so it's not a fighter. it's a knockoff F-117.
>>64411645>nig-144 was introduced in 2000It started design (MiG 1.42 MFI) in the early 1980s.>says the english wikipediaYou mean the English Wiki infested with chinks constantly editing anything out that hurts the feelings of the Chinese peopre? The same Wiki that uses literal CCP state propaganda news outlets as sources? lol lmao even.
>>64411488get a new script 1488, the Mig 1.44 story was an early 2000s fanfic invented created after someone posted things with the appearance of picrel and mentioned that shenyang was developing it, later changed to chengdu because the retarded shills rushed their fanfic before getting enough info
>>64411819>china already producing 6th gen fightersMay I see them? And what, exactly, makes them 6th gen? May I see the proofs of what makes them 6th gen?>and unmanned choppersThe US has been doing that since the early 2000s>>64411847>StinkoffWe don't watch that slop here
>>64411847appears to be a smaller competitor to the J-36, possibly something that could fulfill the drone role if the J-36 turns out to be primarily a drone tender, however, it has all the same failings as trying to make the J-36 poor in BVR. the casualty rate of it would be horrendous, and if you're putting both it and the J-36 in the air at once i expect most of the J-50's are not expected to make it home. fundamentally neither plane addresses the PLAAF's fundamental gaps in capability currently, and instead are more of 'win more' tools against their regional neighbors rather than showing planning or appetite for near-peer conflict. the J-50 does at least have the benefit of not likely having as horrendous a top-profile return.
>>64411862>>64411860The MiG 1.42/1.44/I-90 MFI program started in 1982-83. Cope all you want.
>>64411488>>644118841.44 was supposed to have plasma stealth. You also have no idea how engineering works.
>>64411876Retard hasn't heard about AMTs: >>64411823
>>64411901its worse than a canard and if that's the control surface that you're using to try and give the plane back some authority for BVR it's a copetip.
>>64411847Yet, another, copy of a US design.
>>64411890>1.44 was supposed to have plasma stealth.And?>You also have no idea how engineering works.Is that when you blatantly copy Russian, US, and Israeli designs and try to gaslight people into believing that you came up with that design by evolutionary convergence? Yeah, I know all about Chinese cope "engineering". Literal glorified Xerox machines larping as sentient humans.>>64411901You mean the AMTs the copied from the NASA/USAF Innovative Control Effectors (ICE) study done by Lockheed Martin?>ICE:https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADB212813.pdfhttps://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADB232172.pdfhttps://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADB212361.pdf
>>64411909WOOOOOOWWWWWW! They added another seat to their Mig 1.44 fucks an F-22 chimera!>>64411916Another copy?China even stole the CMT tech from NASA/Boeing for the J-36 and J-50, and copied their designs from a mid 90s study done by McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) for NASA.If you're wondering where China got the design for the J-36 from, look no further than a 1994 NASA study done by McDonnell Douglas.https://web.archive.org/web/20100520190158/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950005539_1995105539.pdfSame with their J-50, though, they added the all-moving tips from the NASA/USAF Innovative Control Effectors (ICE) study done by Lockheed Martin.China stole the Continuous Moldline Technology (CMT) tech NASA developed for the Fighter Lift and Control (FLAC)/Subsonic High Alpha Research Concept (SHARC) and slapped it on the drag rudders claiming they invented it, it's revolutionary, and not for NASA in the late 1990s. KEKEven the Chinsects know they stole it: https://www.zhangqiaokeyan.com/ntis-science-report_nasa_thesis/02071203239.htmlBoeing patent (patented in China, too, by Boeing): https://patents.google.com/patent/US8814100B2/enPage 37: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA415970.pdfhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999SPIE.3674..391P/abstracthttps://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/nasa-ames-usaf-wright-laboratory-flac-sharc.373/
>>64411937
>>64411942
>>64411948
>>64411933You’re fucking retarded.
>>64411963BLOO BLOO BLOO! Cry more you coping faggot.
>>64408616Chuds in big wing refuse to produce radar transparent tails for planes, they want everyone to confirm to wing supremacist ideology and won't stop until their hateful beliefs have infiltrated every mission set.
>>64411992You have to be especially retarded to think Lavi and J10 came from the same lineage. Just look at the wing coupling differences.Fucking retard.
>>64410590>If you're in a missile fight you don't need to maneuver This is one of the largest misconceptions that people have latches onto with the (justified) questioning of what the fuck supermaneuverability was about, but it's going too far backward. Aircraft still need to give many fucks about energy retention and generation to efficiently create and evade engagement envelopes for those missiles. This does require a fair bit of maneuverability, being a missile sled is a direct disadvantage against an aircraft that can pick the range, aspect, or both characteristics of the fight. Big slow thick fighters are naturally pigeonholed into interceptor roles where their job is to haul ass to a weapons release point, but that's an incredibly optimistic and naive approach for any sort of air warfare.
>>64411890>>64411933>1.44 was supposed to have plasma stealth.That was Russian fantasy cope made up by 14-year-olds on the AboveTopSecret forums. There is literally no such thing as plasma stealth.
>>64411937>>64411942>>64411948>>64411951You've made another PPT?
>>64411777This is just babble. The Chinese government hasn't said anything about these planes and you couldn't even point out an example of them lying about a different piece of military equipment.
>>64411942>>64411948These are the most generic patents and 'stealth dorito' plane shapes imaginable, you fucking moron.
>>64412017>You have to be especially retarded to think Lavi and J10 came from the same lineage.It literally did, and to prove it, here's a picture of the J-10 designer, Song Wecong, in Israel meeting with the design team of the Lavi to buy the design data for the Lavi so they can make the J-10. The only reason the J-10 is longer than the Lavi is that the J-10 used the Russian Salyut AL-31FN that had to be much larger to get similar thrust levels compared to the smaller, more power dense Pratt & Whitney PW1120 that powered the Lavi. Even the cockpit layout is a copy of the Lavi.>Just look at the wing coupling differencesWhat differences? They're both identical delta winged close-coupled canard fighters. Please, explain, in detail, these differences, because they look identical, and use the identical layouts to me. Please enlighten me, oh wise one.
>>64412197Cockpits of the J-10 and the Lavi are identical, too. But, I'm sure that's just a coincidence, too...
>>64412197>Song WecongYou got the name wrong and that picture is so low res fucking Bigfoot could be on that design team and he'd blend right in.
>>64412103They're not patents, retard: it's a design study. A design study Chiner just happened to copy from.>>64412032Yeah, just like Chiner has made another copy. KEK.
>>64412206You did nothing to dispute how absolutely generic those designs are. Stop posting.
>>64411992>>64412197Lavi was a sino-israeli venture that came from the J-9's aerodynamic studies which is why there are Chinese engineers in your second picture. Calling it a copy when 90% of the work was done by China is retarded (and a sign of insecurity)
>>64411937so they read your research papers and got useful data from it, why you mad?
>americans accusing other of copying when the f-35 entire propulsion system is a blatant ripoff from the yak-141
>>64411823How does the plane yaw?
>>64412254>All-moving wingtips, or "tiperons" on a flying wing, can be used for yaw control by deflecting them to create an aerodynamic drag and lift imbalance, much like a rudder. While a traditional rudder is on the tail, all-moving wingtips on a flying wing aircraft provide this yaw authority by creating a differential braking effect and yawing moment, especially in tailless aircraft where there is no vertical tail for traditional rudder control.
>>64412240While the basic concept is similar the swivel nozzle on the F-35B is a far better design. On the Yak-141 when the engine is pointed to the rear there is still an S bend in the pipe which slows down the airflow meaning less thrust. On the F-35 there is no kink meaning more thrust.https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/ipzoka/yak141_engine/(Video of Yak-141 engine rotating)
>>64412260>Spin wingtip trying to run right>Aircraft starts rolling insteadAll of those things are going to crash trying to land in a crosswind.
>>64412276
>>64412282>Wingtips are spinning>Plane isn't actually doing anything but fly straight and levelHmmm...
>>64412028No, Russians were really trying to push the plasma stealth bullshit, and were researching it hard. The US did some work into it too, during the A-12/SR-71 program, with the Kempster A program. Which were basically ion cannons placed close to the intake ducts pointing forward to shield the frontal return from the engine nacelles that generated ion clouds to absorb the radar energy before it can reflect back to the radar. They also added a cesium based additive to the JP-7 fuel in the A-12/SR-71 to, again, create an ion cloud to shield the exhaust plume and turbine rotors/blades against radar from the rear. It was supposed to help with limiting the exhausts IR radiation, too. It was called A-50, or "Panther Piss". I don't really like linking TWZ, but, the info is accurate and all there without me having to go through my docs to find the books and CIA/NRO documents that talk about these efforts, and I really don't feel like doing that right now.https://www.twz.com/32722/cias-predecessor-to-the-sr-71-blackbird-tested-electron-guns-to-hide-from-radarshttps://www.twz.com/29787/the-sr-71-blackbirds-predecessor-created-plasma-stealth-by-burning-cesium-laced-fuelThe Soviets were also working on seeding the wake behind their ICBM RVs with sodium to do a similar role as Panther Piss did for the A-12/SR-71. This comes from a declassified report on Soviet stealth efforts and technologies during the '80s that I have somewhere on my comp, just don't feel like digging it out.THOUGH, stealth plasma can work, but, most of the time it's actually going to increase your RCS substantially, and only reduce it a little when it does actually work.
>>64409781Can you not read a full sentence?
>>64412205>You got the name wrongEXCUSE ME for making a mistake on a subhuman's name! Wencong.>and that picture is so low res fucking Bigfoot could be on that design team and he'd blend right in.Sorry, I'll have to go back in time with my time machine and give them a 500 megapixel camera just for you. Though, you'd still find a way to cope about Chiner copying the Lavi to make the J-10.>>64412209Keep coping. All Chiner can do is copy.>>64412227>Lavi was a sino-israeli venture that came from the J-9's aerodynamic studies which is why there are Chinese engineers in your second picture.No it wasn't. The US helped with funding, access to data on the F-16 and various other platforms, and technology transfer and data. China had nothing to do with the Lavi until it was canceled, and they bought the design and data from Israel.>Calling it a copy when 90% of the work was done by China is retarded (and a sign of insecurity)Literally 0% of the work was done by chinks. They couldn't even design their own fighter, which is why they had to use Soviet copies, and have the US company Grumman design one for them. Blatantly lying is a sign of insecurity and coping. Anything to save face, though, huh?
>For the same reason all F-1 cars look the same.>>64412331Is that not a full sentence? Retard.
>>64411951>>64411948>>64411942>>64411937>>64411933so why did the chinese come up with actual flying examples before the US did?
>>64412341I meant post, but it's the same, you're a frogposting retard who read a single sentence of a post, flew into a reddit fedora fueled rage and immediately tried to "akhutallly". Yes, the laws of physics surrounding radar waves and RCS can be compared to F-1 rules and regulations, as unless you follow them you can't compete in those races. It's the same way unless you follow the rules of how radar waves scatter and interact with objects you will never be able to develop a stealth aircraft. And regarding your previous post>Funny how the Soviets, Swedes, Songs, Germans, etc could create their own signature designsPlease show me a single stealth plane that doesn't follow conventional RCS reducing design criterias like angled surfaces, serrations etc
>>64412366>so why did the chinese come up with actual flying examples before the US did?They didn't. The US has been flying 6th gen X-planes for at least 5 years. The US is just finally starting to not show the world literally every new platform it has, and not release tons of design and testing data to go along with it, as China will just copy it. The US is finally playing smart like they did during the Cold War, which is why chinks are so desperate to get any little bit of info they can on the US' 6th gen programs.
>>64412366>>64412468Copypasta-ing some shit I wrote in a thread that died:China desperately wants at least an idea of what the F-47 looks like so they can model defenses against it or more likely copy the next gen template to make their own, but the the US has been tighter than a nun's ass about everything surrounding this plane.This info would have especially been a quantum leap for them when the NGAD program started in 2014 and chink tech aerospace was still well in infancy, and that still extends to today.Starting in the beginning of 2022 when NGAD was bought to the spotlight as the USAF's next gen fighter with some $5b in contracts being doled out for competitors to work on the engine which made the plane's progress since it's 2019 demonstrator flights very concrete.Interestingly enough 3 years later we get 3-4 cobbled together demonstrators being 'leaked' ie. flown slowly over population centers and parked in open hangars. This is followed by a flood of chinkspam claiming that every single sighting is 'China's 6th gen' saying that they're flying before the NGAD, the NGAD doesn't exist, etc...One thing that chinksects forgot is that burgers don't have a face culture hardwired into their psyche, so this literally means nothing to the government or people actually involved in the program. There is nothing to 'clap back' when the program has been secret from the get go.
>>64410081>it's a capability we believed wasn't necessary, and might not be with what other tools we haveTotally agree, with the maturation of MUM-T and the doctrine at least for our side switching to distributed operations, it's not needed where current platforms like the Raider already meets requirements.>if it's meant to be an intercept craft like this seemingly unofficial patch would claim, it would reveal an interesting paranoia, one that i don't think is particularly founded at this time.Is that patch real? It looks retarded compared to picrel cause the geography is all messed up. Plus they already have the J-20 for that unless they're going all in with internally carried PL-17 with the J-36.Anyway thanks for the effortpost anon
>>64412525Forgot to attach picrel
>>64412376>I meant post, but it's the sameNo it's not. That would be like me calling a thread a post and saying they mean the same thing.>you're a frogposting retard who read a single sentence of a post, flew into a reddit fedora fueled rage and immediately tried to "akhutallly".Suck my fat dick like a pacifier, and stop crying, you petulant child.>Yes, the laws of physics surrounding radar waves and RCS can be compared to F-1 rules and regulations, as unless you follow them you can't compete in those races. It's the same way unless you follow the rules of how radar waves scatter and interact with objects you will never be able to develop a stealth aircraft.You faggots use the same cope for why the J-10 is a Lavi copy, the KJ-600 is an E-2D copy, the CH-4 is a Predator copy, etc, etc, etc. All copies, nothing original.
>>64412544>Please show me a single stealth plane that doesn't follow conventional RCS reducing design criterias like angled surfaces, serrations etcI wasn't just talking about stealth, as even China's 3rd and 4th gens are direct copies of Soviet or US designs. Funny how there's more variety and differences within US programs than between US and Chinese stealth platforms. For example, the YF-22 and YF-23 are constrained by the same design and mission parameters under the ATF program, yet look nothing alike. They use different fuselage designs, wing designs, tail designs, intake designs, and exhaust designs. Same for the JSF program: the XF-35 looks nothing like the XF-32, yet, they're competing against each other under the same mission criteria constraints. Even the McDonnell-Douglas/BAE/Northrop JSF design looked individualistic enough as to not be confused with the XF-35 or XF-32. Then you have the Boeing Quite Bird, Boeing Bird of Prey, Boeing X-36, Boeing TAFA, Boeing Model 988, Lockheed Martin ICE, Lockheed Martin ESAVE, Boeing MRF-24X, Northrop MRF-54E all looking different enough as to not be confused with each other, and all of them are stealth designs. Hell, even Project Gusto's (that gave us the A-12/SR-71) competitors looked nothing alike, even though the mission parameters were identical for both - and yes, stealth was part of those constraints. Lockheed's A-12 looked nothing like Convair's King FISH. Physics and mission constraints are the problem: the problem is blatant copying by China, and then the cope that follows when someone points out the obvious copying.2/2
>>64412470Good post.
>>64412547>Physics and mission constraints are the problemAren't*
>>64412544>No it's not. That would be like me calling a thread a post and saying they mean the same thing.Nope, you're just being disingenuous because you got called out for your retardation. >Suck my fat dick like a pacifier, and stop crying, you petulant child.not an argument, kid.>You faggots use the same cope for why the J-10 is a Lavi copy, the KJ-600 is an E-2D copy, the CH-4 is a Predator copy, etc, etc, etc. All copies, nothing original.Feel free to show me where I said that. Which is funny considering if you had bothered to read my post you would've noticed I literally called out the chinks for only being able to copy.>>64412547>I wasn't just talking about stealth!>moving the goalpostI accept your defeat.
>>64412680>Nope, you're just being disingenuous because you got called out for your retardation. A sentence isn't a post, and only an idiot that barely knows English would call a post a sentence.>not an argument, kid.Cope, sweaty.>Which is funny considering if you had bothered to read my post you would've noticed I literally called out the chinks for only being able to copy.No, your post is the usual brainlet tier chinsect and CCP fanboy cope of, "Well, ackshually, design convergence". Whic I addressed and proved to be nothing but face-saving cope for obvious copying. You can do your "I agree (say minor bad thing about china) but (insert brainlet tier copium to excuse their obvious copying)" all you want, I'm just not going to let it fly.1/2
>>64412544>pictureThe Yak-130 first flight was in 2004, not 1996. The 1996 one refers to the joint developed prototype with Aermacchi, the AEM/YAK-130.
>>64412768>picrel So fucking sexy, can't wait for them to win the F/A-XX competition
>>64412768>I accept your defeat.>Ignores the other 99% of my post addressing the topic of stealth designsI accept your defeat and acknowledge your cope. You are forgiven, my son. Now, address the other 99% you conveniently didn't reply to. Here, I'll even repost it, just so you don't have to do any work:>>64412547>Funny how there's more variety and differences within US programs than between US and Chinese stealth platforms. For example, the YF-22 and YF-23 are constrained by the same design and mission parameters under the ATF program, yet look nothing alike. They use different fuselage designs, wing designs, tail designs, intake designs, and exhaust designs. Same for the JSF program: the XF-35 looks nothing like the XF-32, yet, they're competing against each other under the same mission criteria constraints. Even the McDonnell-Douglas/BAE/Northrop JSF design looked individualistic enough as to not be confused with the XF-35 or XF-32. Then you have the Boeing Quite Bird, Boeing Bird of Prey, Boeing X-36, Boeing TAFA, Boeing Model 988, Lockheed Martin ICE, Lockheed Martin ESAVE, Boeing MRF-24X, Northrop MRF-54E all looking different enough as to not be confused with each other, and all of them are stealth designs. Hell, even Project Gusto's (that gave us the A-12/SR-71) competitors looked nothing alike, even though the mission parameters were identical for both - and yes, stealth was part of those constraints. Lockheed's A-12 looked nothing like Convair's King FISH. Physics and mission constraints are the problem: the problem is blatant copying by China, and then the cope that follows when someone points out the obvious copying.2/2
>>64412770Same difference.
>>64412790yeah, to a vatnik
>>64412792How so? I'm not a vatnig, and I don't think there's a difference at all. Only a pastanigger would get so asshurt over a co-developed trainer.https://publications.sto.nato.int/publications/AGARD/AGARD-CP-602/11CHAP08.pdf
>>64412768>>64412776You're arguing like a very opinionated underaged kid. Please feel free to point out where in >For the same reason all F-1 cars look the same. Or why so many species evolve into a crab. Or why every new rifle is just another AR-15/18.The chinese settled on those designs because they can at most, copy the old NASA study on stealth, but stealth aircrafts will always gravitate towards being a literal flat triangle as technology progresses, because that is the shape that is most optimal for reducing your RCS.>The chinese settled on those designs because they can at most, copy the old NASA study on stealth>they can at most, copy the old NASA study on stealth>copyyou see me using "brainlet tier chinsect and CCP fanboy cope of "Well, ackshually, design convergence" I literally stated that the chinks can only copy, but you can't get away from the traditional stealth design choices due to physics and how radar waves scatter. Feel free to prove me wrong inbetween your (now late) summer homework.
>>64412790>>64412842Yeah, just like there is no difference between the F/A-18 and the F/A-18E/F.
>>64412842>britcuckwhat are you doing on /k/ when you can't even own a knoife?
>>64412850Not going in circles with you for the third time.>>64412864Please explain the detailed differences between the AEM/Yak-130 and the Yak-130.>>64412890I'm American, you retarded fuck.
>>64408616Tailless aircraft are better, except that you need some really weird control surfaces and some really complex computer-aided fly by wire bullshit to make it so you can steer them toward places other than the ground. But once you figure that shit out they are better.
>>64412197Dude you’re so fucking retarded you can’t even tell what close coupling is.
>>64412925>Not going in circles with you for the third time.I accept your defeat
>>64412958Both the Lavi and the J-10 are a short or close-couple canard design.>However, it should be noted that fighters with a canard layout are short coupled, with the foreplane just in front of and above the wing in order to exploit the favourable aerodynamic interference between the two lifting surfaces at large angles of attackhttps://repo.poltekbangsby.ac.id/id/eprint/84/1/Advanced%20Aircraft%20Design%20Conceptual%20Design%2C%20Analysis%20and%20Optimization%20of%20Subsonic%20Civil%20Airplanes%20by%20Egbert%20Torenbeek%28auth.%29%20%28z-lib.org%29.pdf
>>64413004Accept these big White nuts in your mouth.
>>64413073You’re fucking dumb and you’re fucking blind. Just look at the vertex generation of the lavi’s canards over the main wing.
>>64413088>You’re fucking dumb and you’re fucking blind.They are literally the same. Both short (close) coupled canard designs. Which is logical as the J-10 is a Lavi copy.>Just look at the vertex generation of the lavi’s canards over the main wing.Post some examples, then to show they're different (you can't as they're literally the same).
>>64413140Hell, even the J-10's cockpit is an identical copy of the Lavi's cockpit.>>64412204
>>64412925>Please explain the detailed differences between the AEM/Yak-130 and the Yak-130.Where do you want to start? Broadly from the YAK/AEM prototype to the Yak-130 the avionics, PDU, landing gear, slats, engine bypass doors, engines, (klimov rd-35 at first and Ivchenko Progress AI-222-25 later) engine positioning, vstabs, removal of the LERX strakes, fuel cell size and position the various materials and actuator use changed as well since they obviously had no longer access to western components etc. It would be easier for me to reccomend you a few books on the subject. In terms of performance the modern Yak-130 is the same or slightly worse than the prototype, but in everything else it's another aircraft althogether as it always is with prototypes and serial production units.
>>64408640>military procurement officers pretend to believe in random bullshit that contractors pitch them and in exchange for sinecures that's what gets made
>>64408616what's that bottom one?
>>64412525as far as i can tell the patch may have appeared first on weibo with the text 'patch of J-36 fighting plane' from an account not affiliated with any official sort of agency or group. i believe it's more like a morale patch produced for sale, but i didn't find the listing anywhere unfortunately. it appears to be a response to the patch someone started selling which is supposedly a 420 FTS patch(its not). however, this patch made the rounds on a lot of chinese social media and really freaked people out, so maybe it's even a case of people just fabricating a story to feel better off of something blown way the fuck out of proportion and looking for any sign of hope.i did briefly wonder what you might have as other design considerations if the J-36 is a drone tender platform, the possibility of added radar equipment in the nose would perhaps explain some of the design shape we see, with the platform perhaps meant to act as a sort of forward-looking AWACS. however, there's no reason to even try and pretend to make it stealth then, as that would just open it to long-range HARMs, and a three-engine design would imply that speed is a serious consideration, and you don't want your AWACS or mothership to be charging into the kill envelope of enemy craft.
>>64413384H-20 supposedly
>>64413882Did they really spend 2 decades developing it just to change the design last second
>>64408616They look cool and sci-fi.
>>64412254the wingtips act as airbrakes to achieve guetto yaw
>>64411416>>64409146Both B-2 and B21 are also subsonic, when was the last "fighter jet" that was subsonic?
>>64413975
>>64414036Against a significantly inferior force. Top speed of the aircraft launching BVR missiles will have significant impact on top end range of the missile fired no? There is a reason why air superiority fighters have all been pretty fast, although past a certain point you reach diminishing return where you sacrifice too much for marginal improvement in speed.
>>64414069Ballistic range is proportional to the square of burnout speed.> (Vplatform + ΔV)^2ie:• ΔV = 1000 m/s, Vp = 300 m/s : 1.69*10^6• ΔV = 1000 m/s, Vp = 550 m/s (supercruise, or normal AB): 2.40 * 10^6Adding 250 m/s to the launch platform adds +40% of KE advantage that is proportional to ballistic range, for gliding trajectories like some modern lofting missiles it's still useful because it has more energy to keep gliding.But for the NEZ it matters even more because being slower than the target (trying to flee) reduces a lot the effective range.
Thats literally the most aerodynamic shape possible, the reason planes didnt look like this before is because they are impossible to manneuver without powerful computers + engies being afraid of moving parts(internal weapons)
correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the head of stealth engineering and chief scientist for the YF23/B2 a chinese-american?
>>64412470What makes you think that they haven't already stolen F47 blueprints
>>64408616they really are fake and ghey though :/ Nothing beautiful, creative, artistic or inspirational about them in any way. Just various black, melted bars of soap because "that's most efficient". All of """Modern Warfare""" is a total meme and racket. Clearly, the tech exists to take out any one, or anything, anytime, anywhere for practically no money, or risk, which makes anything beyond that theatre. LAME! If it's all just artifice, then lets bring back bi-planes, or some shit. People would genuinely get excited and want to join up. SOVL matters.
>>64415527>7 hours bumping your own nigger chink thread with asinie "question"Get a life chink dog
>>64409866My guess is that it's designed to work as an AWACS hunter. Might be well suited to engaging swarms of CCAs. Probably anti-fleet duties as well.
>>64415697??
>>64412285Not him but it's pretty clearly yawing to the left. The aircraft doesn't roll because both sides are deflecting in the same direction. Basically the same concept as the brake style controls on the B-2 and the J-36
>>64415700wouldn't make a lot of sense as trying to head-on an AWACS would be a terrible mistake and there's already long-range A2A available on their other platforms. we are not getting MMM's out of a stealth vehicle, there's simply not the weapons bay launch space. launching ASM's is something that any other platform can also already do for them, but might make sense with QUICKSINK-style bombs. this is a stupid idea still though because the enemy of course gets a say, and a US-CSG is going to be keeping a rolling CAP going that would pick up on one approaching to bomb range even if it had a sub F-22 RCS. the only thing this plane is going to be fighting and winning against is shit on the ground.
>>64415824>there's already long-range A2A available on their other platformsbut in theory this can hold more, launch them faster, and from closer without being detected>launching ASM's is something that any other platform can also already do for themagain, holds more, launches with more energy, and can get in closer>the only thing this plane is going to be fighting and winning against is shit on the groundI don't know, I think the other aircraft are more suited to SEAD
won't all this stealth tech eventually make air combat loop around and have planes dogfighting again?have we come full circle?
>>64411937>>64411942>>64411948>>64411951If pointing to old research papers of your side would be a valid argument to dismiss actual flying airplanes of the other side, then anybody could dismiss American stealth planes by pointing to the original Soviet stealth paper.This is obviously retarded.The drawers of aeronautics companies all around the world are full of concepts and ideas. What matter is who brings them into reality, not who came up with it 30 years ago and never did anything about it.
>>64415557Cause they'd be making copies that actually looked good if they did
>>64408616New footage just dropped. Is it one of those flying wing drones or the H-20?
i have yet to see how the US military plans to replace its aging fleet so it can actually combat china's fleet of much newer and younger aircraft
>>64416499Most likely a drone, since the H-20 would be much bigger
>>64416513the wings do be looking like those h-20 renderscamera tomfoolery might be playing us tricks
>>64416526Anon, are you actually retarded or just a chink shill?You can gauge everything in proportion to the engines. It's obviously a drone.
The real question is when are we gonna get more reverse sweep kino? I can only jack off to the X29 and SU47 for so many years.
>>64416534I can't even tell which are the engines
>>64416541Thanks for confirming your retardation status.
>>64416553okay mr smart
>>64416563My guy, a strategic bomber HAS to be larger or it'll have minimal range and payload, at which point it's no longer a strategic bomber. At that size it could at BEST be a stealthy strike fighter/bomber like the F-117. But it's far more likely a drone of some type.The H-20 is supposed to have a similar payload capacity as the B-21 (around 20,000-25,000lbs) which would necessitate a much larger aircraft.
>>64416508>1245 F-35s produced with 160 more every year>F-16 stopped local procurement since 2005 cause the F-35>F-15EX production planned to cap at 150 because 4.5th gens make no more sense to produce with 6th gens in a couple years and the huge 5th gen inventory >8 B-21s in concurrent LRIP, with two articles delivered for advanced testing and at least 120 planned>NGAS stealth tanker drones entering production in 2026>All a manner of CCAs entering production in 2026>F-47 entering production in 2028>F/A-XX entering production in early 2030s>USN Hawkeye, Growler and Rhino inventory all full with the last few being delivered before production shuts down at 85, 155, and 415 each, in addition to 340 USN and Marine F-35s and countingMeanwhile China is still spamming their 4th gen Lavi and Flanker copies and only has something like 280 J-20s after 8 years of production and not even enough J-35s for a squadron.What?
>>64416578>>F-47 entering production in 2028>>F/A-XX entering production in early 2030sMay we see the flying prototypes?
>>64416584kys chinkshill >China desperately wants at least an idea of what the F-47 looks like so they can model defenses against it or more likely copy the next gen template to make their own, but the the US has been tighter than a nun's ass about everything surrounding this plane.This info would have especially been a quantum leap for them when the NGAD program started in 2014 and chink tech aerospace was still well in infancy, and that still extends to today.Starting in the beginning of 2022 when NGAD was bought to the spotlight as the USAF's next gen fighter with some $5b in contracts being doled out for competitors to work on the engine which made the plane's progress since it's 2019 demonstrator flights very concrete.Interestingly enough 3 years later we get 3-4 cobbled together demonstrators being 'leaked' ie. flown slowly over population centers and parked in open hangars. This is followed by a flood of chinkspam claiming that every single sighting is 'China's 6th gen' saying that they're flying before the NGAD, the NGAD doesn't exist, etc...One thing that chinksects forgot is that burgers don't have a face culture hardwired into their psyche, so this literally means nothing to the government or people actually involved in the program. There is nothing to 'clap back' when the program has been secret from the get go.So no, you may not see them.
>>64416578>F-16 stopped local procurement since 2005 cause the F-35The production line, while originally shut down in favor of F-35 production actually got moved to a new facility in South Carolina where they're still making new airframes. Lockheed expects global demand for the F-16 to continue into the early 2030s at a minimum.
>>64416618That's why I said *local procurement*, I know we're still exporting block 72s and doing upgrades for foreign block 52s
>>64416624And 608 upgrades for the USAF fleet.
>>64411507>mfw it turns out it doesnt work at all, and every nation just does the dorito because its the cheapest design that still "looks" feasible>every side is just sweating balls hoping no one calls each others bluff>everyone thinks the other sides stuff works>its just this giant stand off but every sides got nerf guns dressed up as real gunswould be funny
>>64416499>>64408616
>>64416589The clap back is when a hundred+ F-47 a year start rolling off the assembly line and the chinks are still trying to make two or three of whatever their "just as good" knockoff is a month.
>>64412470Trump is obsessed with face and appearing amazing. If the F47 isn't flying with his face plastered to the side over the White House every day, that is because it isn't any good.
>>64412547>unny how there's more variety and differences within US programs than between US and Chinese stealth platforms. For example, the YF-22 and YF-23 are constrained by the same design and mission parameters under the ATF program, yet look nothing alike.The YF23 sucked and failed. Why would the Chinese, with the benefit of hindsight, do anything associated with the abortion of the delta wing system? You're asking why the Chinese aren't chasing their tails on failed design cues in the past. This is like asking why the Americans didn't restart small arms development over when they came up with the M16. Obviously the Germans and Russians experimented with open bolt guns, belt feed guns, bullpups, full auto only, etc., but the US somehow magically arrived at a closed bolt intermediate select fire carbine, that happened to be a lot like the STG44 or the AK47? Of course, because we're not retards what we see is that the US saw what was retarded and then said, "we're not going to do that". You're asking why the Chinese aren't being morons and instead are focusing on what works and figuring out what works best from them after that point.
>>64416538Useless design.
>>64416005No. This isn't like war thunder where everyone suicidally dives balls deep into the no-escape zone to try to score some kills before their blue enemies can. It's more like a moba where everyone pussyfoots around the edges of the battle and zones each other until somebody fucks up.
>>64417583>The YF23 sucked and failed.False. It went faster, further and had better stealth than the F-22. It just wasn't 100% ready when they did flyoff against the F-22 that showed off maneuvers that weren't asked to do and NG was still recovering from their overruns from the B-2 program. Congress wanted to diversify manufacturing. The brass saw this leap from the following the F-15 philosophy and decided to go with the proven conventional control surface, maneuverable design instead of focusing on BVR, stealth focused design that was still very much so maneuverable.
>>64417615Yeah, it also gave you a free shave and a hot towel and had a motorized fleshlight in the cockpit to suck your dick.The plane wasn't any good. It was only good at flying in a straight line, but if you want that, you'd just make a stealth dorito like everyone is doing today.
>>64413499home on radar emissions is gonna have a dogshit pk against fast aircraft
>>64415994>hold moreinternal weapons bays are infamously limited in their carrying capacity. i would put money on this carrying less ordinance than an F-15>more energyat it's size, three engines are at best just offsetting it's size rather than enabling more of a supercruise launch than they should theoretically already have.>SEADcorrect, because it is a bomber. it might be the first stealth bomber we get out of a country other than the US.
>>64418054>internal weapons bays are infamously limited in their carrying capacitybut this thing is fuckhueg>>more energy>at it's size, three engines are at best just offsetting it's size rather than enabling more of a supercruise launch than they should theoretically already have.>>SEAD>correct, because it is a bomber. it might be the first stealth bomber we get out of a country other than the US.It's clearly designed to be supersonic. If it wasn't, it would have longer, straighter wings instead of the delta shape we've seen
Implessive!
>>64414150the most aerodynamic shape possible is a blimp you dumbass>>64414069>>64414128that has nothing to do what what the anon posted or why he posted it>>64412017>>64412227you have to be retarded to think we can't all see the exact design similarities that show a knocked-off design, and even more retarded to put up some make believe story about the j-9 after the fact.
>>64417218china is already producing ~100 J20s each year
>>64417615If it was that good, they'd have adapted it for the F35 project instead of making another F22 style jet.
