Are swing wings an obsolete technology?
>>65075766Pretty much. Computers and fly by wire made the extra complexity, weight, and maintenance of such systems obsolete.
>>65075813How do computers and fly by wire change the efficiency of different wing angles?The design concept never was worth it but they were had to be made and used to find that out for certain.
>>65075766Are there any trainers with swing wings? Many trainers can already just load a different flight model for different characteristics, why not give it swing wing for even more possibilities?
>>65075834You can design an aircraft so aerodynamically unstable that only a computer can keep it flying straight. Which means its highly maneuverable at most speeds and coupled with thrust vectoring it makes swing wings unneeded.
Are those missile pylons swiveling? Why? Can't they attack off bore?
>>65075766Yes, they look cool but swing wings are the folding headlamps of their day.
>>65075849Why do people like you post about aircraft when you know so little about them? Swing wings for reducing stall speed to allow aircraft to take off with higher loads than they otherwise could and do low speed loitering patrols without running out of fuel, something which FBW and thrust vectoring don't really help with at all.Honestly, the last few days has felt like someone introduced a new bot to /k/ airplane threads that knows far too little about aircraft to not make all its posts utterly shit. Like, same bot in an F15 thread claiming that the OG F15 was a twin seater so there could be a radar operator because 70s radar was complicated. Surely no human posting in an aviation thread could have that little domain knowledge about aircraft - sure - right?
>>65075851IIRC, it has more to do with efficiency at speed than maneuverability (spread out for high lift at take off and landing, tucked in for low drag while cruising or with afterburner). It's just that we found out that the benefits aren't worth the weight and complexity.
>>65075766>Are swing wings an obsolete technology?Yes. Juice ain't worth the squeeze. It's a lot of weight and mechanical complexity and maintenance challenge that also fucks stealth hard. Computers enabling control of something with low or even negative stability negated a lot of the benefits like >>65075849 anon says.The fit has only ever gotten worse as the decades have gone by, hard to even come up in theory with any reason it'd ever be worth it now. Certainly something really cool about a transforming aircraft though, won't deny that.
>>65075863No he's right. You're saying another reason but that wasn't the main one. Like shit anon>Swing wings for reducing stall speed to allow aircraft to take off with higher loads than they otherwise couldExcept they add so much fucking weight that this isn't actually very useful.>low speed loitering patrolsDedicated CAS and copters could do it better, cheaper, in more numbers. Nowadays obviously all of that is drones.Nobody has designed even one single new variable sweep design since the Tu-160 in fucking 1980. The final American one was the B-1 in 1974. If you think they have advantages why do you think it's been abandoned by the US for over 50 years now?
>>65075766No but nobody wants to build the kind that actually work well because of the aesthetics.
>>65075869>It's just that we found out that the benefits aren't worth the weight and complexity.I think it's more that priorities changed.Swing wings aren't very stealthy even though they're aerodynamically advantageous, and no one built any high capability aircraft that weren't stealth after the teen series. B1B is still in service and unsurpassed by B2 and B21 in most non-stealth regards, F111 was always a heavily and deliberately compromised design because of the McNamara TFX shenaninganisation but still surpasses F15E in many regards, and F14 was replaced by a lower capability multirole mix because very distance fleet defence from massed bombers stopped being a force structure requirement.It's true that cost, complexity, weight and maintenance were huge factors, but I think stealth and changing requirements were the real killers.
>>65075885>Dedicated CAS and copters could do it better, cheaper, in more numbers. Nowadays obviously all of that is drones.The swing wings were not for CAS "patrols" you ignorant fuck, they were for fleet defence patrols at 200nm from a CBG at 10 degrees AOA to pound bombers, and taking off with eye watering loads of bombs that fast jets without variable geometry can only dream of. They don't add more weight than is useful, there is an enormous net gain, you gigantic fucking normie pseud.Picrel. An F15E can can take off with and carry one quarter this bomb load, largely because it can't generate enough lift to take off with more from any reasonable runway. And the F111 was a massively compromised design that had loads of unnecessary weight and silly aerodynamics choices, produced 25 years before the F15E.
>mach 2.6It's so fucking over from boscali just bend over and take the PALAcock
>>65075935I'm not really trying to disagree with you on your larger point, but I just wanted to jump in and say:The F111 is a significantly bigger bird (wingspan and mass) than the F15E. A better (but still incomplete) comparison would be the F15EX which is still smaller but can nearly carry as much (poundage). The US pretty much gave up on the heavy strike fight/light bomber role so no matter which modern plane you pick you're gonna have a hard time one way or another. Maybe go abroad and compare to Su-34?
>>65076002Why bother going so fast if you're just trucking ALBMs?
>>65075766swing wings kill any hope for stealth, so until a counter to low-observability is comprehensively spread we probably won't see any attempts at a return to reduce the complexity and weight of swing-wing systems.
>>65075766imma designing a jet with vert-fins that retract into slots, like a jack knife, for low speed or intense maneuvers.when retracted would add an extra layer of stuff to protect engines from hits from abeamdo jets today even have an automated feature to try to rotate at max speed to try and take any missile blasts from abead, presenting the smallest target area???you track the incoming missile and AI starts fast rotation to gain R-speed so when the missile is near the jet is rotating very fast to always present abeam.also canard wings in front that do the samestay tuned.
Stealth is completely useless in nuclear option and it's annoying
>>65076131brainlet mong
>>65075935>25 years beforeF-111 was designed in the early 1960s, F-15 in 1969the E version, first demonstrator prototype flown July 1980 as a modified TF-15 prototype was simply a 2-seater with different electronic/weapons systemsBoth are 1960s designs and technology
>>65076298Either RADAR is dead in which case it doesn't matter, or it's alive and it actively hurts you because it makes ARH take longer to pitbullThere is no advantage
>>65076305stealth is for opening up different routes that would otherwise have you spotted on radar, it's not a magic cloakbrainlet mong
>>65076312Yeah it doesn't do that though because effectively infinite range vs effectively infinite range * 0.75 makes zero difference
>>65076317I don't get if the maps are too tight or radar is that OP even IRL. Also, unlike the player, R9 batteries, ships, and CIWS seem to have infinite ammo. Attrition doesn't seem a factor in NO, DEAD is best done with AGM-48 trucks, and ships are immune to everything, especially AShM.Also, TBM make flying redundant: you take off, spam as soon as gear is up, turn around, land, repeat. Idk, maybe one day there will be continent sized maps where you need to fly to get in range, and where radar can have gaps in coverage.
>>65076451>>65076317>>65076131Are you literally retarded? Stealth is so strong that you can stratonuke a defended airbase with a stealth multirole without even SEADing first. TBMing doesn't work against even slightly competent players because you can perfectly intercept them with light IR missiles. AShM-300s are fine against botes, although AGM-99s aren't. I have so many questions about these posts.Are you taking external stores on your Ifrit and Vortex sorties or something? Do you not know how to turn your radar off? I genuinely don't understand where this sentiment that stealth is weak could be coming from. Even AWACS and fixed radars only get tracks on clean stealth multiroles from, like, 17nm max absolute, I don't understand where this sentiment is coming from. Stealth is so strong that it can almost ruin the game more than half the time because it's so easy to delete airbases.
>>65076740I know game mechanics well, my suspicion is a failure on community made maps: I remember unisntalling one because there was a cluster of AD so dense and layered it was impossible to get through. That being said, I don't play multiplayer, as I usuall play NO on the Deck, so maybe that's part of the reason. With a coordinated effort some stuff gets more balanced.
>>65075766>supersonic darkreach with the jamming abilities of a medusa and the air to air abilities of an ifritI don't get it. The UFO was an april fool's joke and even that looks reasonable compared to this monstrosity.
>>65076740>17nmI swear I get hit with shit while flying no externals with radar off from 50km away. Just got used to flying in cover or under 10m RALT. How do I get good? I only play PvE because I don't have the time to get good enough against aeroplanosexual furry NEETs.
>>65076451>and ships are immune to everything, especially AShMARADs are the one thing they aren't immune to. Take a medusa with the default loadout, fire all six missiles at a destroyer while jamming its radar. One of them will get through and destroy its radar, then you can hit it with AShMs.
>Are swing wings an obsolete technology?No, they are cool and useful, the issue is that making and servicing them is a pain the in the ass
How do we feel about the Littoral Flight Deck?
>>65077397Might be more impactful if I could fly rotorcraft worth a damn.
>>65077397How will you every deploy 2800nm away through 28ft seas? Coastal patrol is for the coasties.
>>65077397that underbelly is designed to be flown under
>>65077412Even the Vortex can launch from them, its pretty good.
>>65077397Takes way to long to land on given how small and active the maps are. I know aircraft are basically disposable in game but it still bugs me when I can't get back home. Wish the game would add a beartrap system for helicopter landings.
>>65075766>only aircraft in game where I’ve ever accidentally detached a wingSpeed is overrated anyway. Agility and low observably > speed every day.…also can we get a 4 engine ifrit?
>>65076451> R9 batteries, ships, and CIWS seem to have infinite ammoLand batteries have an ammo truck near them that replenishes them, if you blow up the truck they run dry really quickly. That said if you blow up the truck the ammo explosion almost always kills the battery anyway. Ships have got really deep but not infinite missile magazines (check the encyclopedia) and can be resupplied by an ibis/tara (the AI now does this as of 0.33)As far as ASHMs go you need to be careful which direction you launch them from. Their terrain hugging is very cautious and they’re slow to come back down so even a small hill can force them to climb up to a few hundred meters, exposing them to radar. Having a Medusa jamming is hugely beneficial so that the ships won’t pick up the missiles until they’re in optical track range - just a kilometer or two. Also Shards lack forward PD, so attacking them nose-on can yield good results. Glide & gravity bombs are also hugely useful because they have 0 IR signature and are immune to IRMs, the only counter is Radar missiles (which should already be jammed by a Medusa or Alky) or ballistic CIWS (which are too short range to defeat a saturation attack)
>>65075889Too ugly to pass approval.
