/k/ - Easy Weapons!!!!!!

wepon

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


"The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war." - Otamin


Military aviation general Strelok 10/15/2022 (Sat) 19:28:01 No.42643
Making a comparison list in my wiki sandbox based on old deleted lists. What did I forget? Fourth-generation light combat aircraft compared − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − Aircraft − A-37B Alpha Jet L-159 G-4 Hawk 200 BAC 167 FA-50 JL-9 L-15B AT-3 Yak-130 M-346 MB-339 MB-326 AMX Attack jet aircrafts compared − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − Aircraft − A-4E A-6E EA-6B A-7E YA-7F Harrier GR7 AV-8A YA-9A A-10 Su-25 Yak-38 Buccaneer Étendard IV Interdictors compared − − − − - - - Aircraft − Tornado IDS/ECR MiG-27 Su-24 F-111 EF-111A F-117A Third-generation jet fighters compared − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − Aircraft − F-1 SEPECAT Jaguar Mirage F1 Mirage III Mirage 5 IAI Kfir Atlas Cheetah MiG-21 J-7 J-8 Q-5 MiG-23 MiG-25 Su-15 Su-17/-20/-22 J 35 JA 37 F-104S F-105 F-4 F-5E/F F-8 XF8U-3 YF-12 Fourth-generation jet fighters compared − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − Aircraft − Tornado ADV Typhoon Rafale Mirage 2000 Mirage 4000 IAI Lavi JAS 39C/D Gripen JAS 39E/F Gripen NG HAL Tejas F-CK-1 Ching-kuo CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder JH-7 J-10 J-11/J-15/J-16 Su-27/30/33/35 Su-27IB/32/34 MiG-29/35 MiG-31 Yak-141 Freestyle Sea Harrier FA.2 AV-8B Harrier II Plus F-2 F-14 Tomcat F-15 Eagle F-15E Strike Eagle F-15 S/MTD F-16 Fighting Falcon F-16XL YF-17 F/A-18 Hornet F/A-18E/F Super Hornet F-20 Tigershark X-29 X-31 Fifth generation jet fighters compared − - − − − − − Aircraft − Su-47 Su-57 MiG-1.44/1.42 J-20 X-2 F-22A YF-22 YF-23 X-32 F-35 FC-31
>>42643 I cannot help with anyone, but let me ask my favourite question: would have it been too much for the technology of the time to develop fighters that are armed with 20mm autocannons in the late 1930s?
>>42684 I am nearly illiterate about pre-cold war planes but I'm pretty confident there were planes with 20mm autocannons at the beginning of WW2.
Open file (462.59 KB 900x600 ClipboardImage.png)
Open file (857.19 KB 981x600 ClipboardImage.png)
>>42684 >would have it been too much for the technology of the time to develop fighters that are armed with 20mm autocannons in the late 1930s? What are you talking about? The late 1930s was the time when autocannons first became a mainstream armament on fighters, though they were also used in small numbers on biplane fighters in WWI. As an example the Bf 110 was introduced with twin 20mm MG/FF cannons as part of its standard armament in 1937, and the first Bf 109s with cannons entered service in 1939. Past 1940 the only major power that hadn't outfitted the majority of its fighters with cannons was the Jewnited States of Amerilards because they somehow failed to manufacture autocannons that could fit in the wings or engine of a single-engine fighter without jamming or otherwise falling apart, and all that in spite of having a production loicense from the UK for the proven Hispano-Suiza HS.404 autocannon that worked fine in the Spitfire Mk.IIb and elsewhere.
Open file (8.82 KB 983x127 37mmHo204.jpg)
Open file (9.86 KB 174x721 37x145Ho204.jpg)
>>42704 >>42780 I forgot to clarify: a fighter with an armament of only 20mm autocannons. I imagine there would be problems with the ammo capacity and the overall RoF, but I'm not sure how severe would those be. >Past 1940 the only major power that hadn't outfitted the majority of its fighters with cannons was the Jewnited States of Amerilards Funnily enough, it was the Japs who showed them how this could have been solved simply by upscaling the Browning machine gun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-5_cannon And then they kept upscaling it until they had a 37mm autocannon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-155_cannon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-204_cannon
>>42785 >ammo capacity Weight and drum magazine constraints prevented cannon-only planes from entering service prior to 1942-ish, though most of those early models were extremely sophisticated Soviet refits of old stock like the I-153 biplane and the I-16. >RoF The RoF of early WW2 20mm autocannons was workable if not great, what they suffered from were questionable ballistic profiles owing to low shell velocity and cannon/munition design deficiencies which were corrected over the course of the war.
Open file (1.90 MB 1200x900 ClipboardImage.png)
To what degree can modern day IR cameras serve as a limited radar "replacement" on aircraft and land or ship-based AA systems? Stealth being a meme aside there's no way to ever truly "hide" the emissions of an active radar on a 5th generation fighter even if said fighter had the RCS of a Chinese benis, and there's also no way not to make a plane glow brightly on infrared because jet engines and aerodynamic friction.
>>42910 IMO FLIRs, even if they are a halfmeasure, are the most obvious answer to stealth tech. I suspect that the U.S.' autistic obsession of neglecting the technology, to the point that Europe and even Russia have surpassed them by over a decade in the field, is because they fear that IR-sensors to equivalent technological level to the rest of the US military technology could seriously compromise stealth planes' air dominance if it leaked through exports to allies.
Why was there a big outrage over the F35 last decade but as of now has apparently vanished? You never hear about the F35 anymore besides crashes. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/10/20/air-force-f-35-fighter-jet-crashes-in-utah-pilot-safely-ejects/ Is the F35 really incompetent and ineffective? Is it a liability? Was it worth the cost? Why or why not? Why did the Airforce stop building F22 jets and embarked on the F35 program? If the F22 is so much better than the F35, why build the F35 at all? Why not keep building F22s and use an older jet for air-ground targets?
>>42920 >incompetent and ineffective? Well it uses touchscreens for controls which have pilots hitting the wrong 'button' 1/5 the time. Stealth ability is gutted by wing mounted weapons because the the bay's ability to hold weapons is uncertain. Fuel is corrosive due to additives to allow it to be used as coolant and needs temp controlled storage. The airframe can only handle <3 g's making carrier launches damaging and thrust vectoring worthless. VTOL capability melts flights decks unless reinforced. >Is it a liability? With the number of crashes and excessive fuel storage requirements, I would say yes. >Why stop building f-22's? Corruption I bet. The tooling was destroyed so it's final. >Why? It was supposed to be a F-16 replacement but everything got fucked up. Scope creep was the big issue, just kept adding capabilities until it became a giant mess. It is also likely that the airforce siphoned off funds for a new jet; they've already publicly disclosed they're working on one.
>>42927 So the airforce is already trying to replace the f35?
Open file (58.81 KB 900x600 ngad2.jpg)
Open file (51.66 KB 1200x675 ngad1.jpg)
>>42928 Yes, the program is Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD). It started in 2014, 3 or 4 years into F-35 development. The damning reports of the F-35 were published in 2016 so the issues were known earlier than that. So the airforce either knew the F-35 was garbage from or they wanted more funding for NGAD then what they got. Either way it's clear the airforce's main attention is not on F-35. https://archive.ph/nwRcR - 2019, airforce wants NGAD fast tracked https://archive.ph/8vLEI - 2022, working prototype https://archive.ph/e9TAB - 2022, the project never officially entered engineering and manufacturing development stage despite a working prototype The F-35 is effectively dead, it's still stuck in development and could be replaced in a few years. Note the images are just mockups, the plane is still a secret as far as design goes.
>>42930 So then, would you say an F35 is a PS Vita of modern engineering?
Open file (679.14 KB 640x647 visible disgust.png)
>>42930 >It started in 2014, 3 or 4 years into F-35 development. Strelok, the JSF program began in 1992 and the first prototypes flew in 2000. >>42951 <comparing the F-35 to the PS Vita A more apt comparison would be the 3DO, CD-i and game.com if we're talking about the first batch of F-35s to enter service back in 2015, whose most famous feature was an ejection seat with a 100% chance of neck injury and a 23% chance of death upon ejecting.
>>42930 >F35 is effectively dead Until they officially announce production is over, that is simply not going to happen. And they still are producing the accursed thing replace their aged fleet. As for the NGAD it would be a miracle alone if it managed to be anything more then an idea 10 years from now. And rushing things too badly will no doubt just lead to another f35-tier fuckup where the plane is a jack of all trades shitshow that cannot effectively accomplish any mission. Then just like the F35 "data fusion" or overpriced flying data server is all it will be capable of.
>>43060 >As for the NGAD it would be a miracle alone if it managed to be anything more then an idea 10 years from now. They should just upgrade and rebrand F-22 into NGAD-22, re tool, collect that fat R&D check and call it a day. There, I just saved them trillions of dollars and three broken necks. Now they can invest the money into something fun like an ekroplan battleship
>>43077 They should just authorize the production of the YF-23, which is superior to the F-22 for today's FLIR-focused aerial battlefield. NorGru has confirmed the tooling for it still exists and all of the important systems from it that are obsolete are upgradable to current standards because the thing uses F-15/F-16 avionics and computers. Just give it the F-15EX upgrades and call it a day.
>>43092 >F-15EX I'm still mad they omitted canards and TVC.
Open file (105.42 KB 1024x631 1b1.jpeg)
Open file (339.26 KB 900x675 F-15S_in_flight(1).jpg)
Open file (31.88 KB 164x185 F-15S.png)
Open file (34.41 KB 564x383 f-15smtd front.jpg)
>>43127 You and I. bro, forever.
There was a post from an American on 8/k/ a long time ago in which he said that modern radars use different wavelengths to the WWII ones. He said it was due to the need for greater resolution to guide missiles etc. which came at the cost of inferior detection. He speculated that a computer programme could one day be made that would combine the information from different wavelengths to get the benefits across them and that this would lead to the end of stealth. Any thoughts on this? Any advice for further reading?
>>43323 Intuitively, it would lead to the end of stealth as a passive system maybe, but the person trying to be sneeki breeki just needs to dampen (slow down) or stop the frequency to deny the radar since radars still rely on echolocation principles. It just means stealth will increasingly become "smart dampening" systems more geared towards misinforming the enemy about your location rather than denying it outright in most cases. Such a system still requires someone autistic enough to code it and someone autistic enough to fund it, and there's no such thing as a perfect program.
>>43323 It will not mean the end of stealth, it will mean the revival of passive guidance missiles. You can hardly fit multiple appropriately sized antennae for composite bands on a fighter sized plane it would be impossible to fit them on an anti-air missile.
>>43353 >passive guidance So long-range IR missiles that depend on redundant flexible datalinks between allied aircraft/SAM sites/ships/fellow missiles should the plane they were launched from die before the missile can acquire lock on target by itself?
>>43371 Yes.
>>43371 That's pretty much how things work already, most active-radar AAMs/SAMs have detection ranges in the neighborhood of 10-15 miles and rely on datalinks or SARH for anything past that.
Could divebomber drones work?
>>44117 It can be and essentially suicide drones are both the plane and torpedo portion. Being the payload is great since it is fine if a cheap suicide drone hits the target or not, simply for the fact that it can cost much more to shoot it down. A much more expensive, dedicated attack drone that has to survive the trip loses the advantage masses of cheap drones have. Especially since it has to put itself in harm's way to drop in altitude to hit the target then while being attacked get out.
>>44117 Sure, but like >>44131 pointed out drones lose a lot of their advantages like that. The closest proxy I can think of for the best of both worlds would be a "mothership" drone that releases swarms of suicide drones at very high altitude directly above the target so that suicide drone clusters have the best chance of avoiding non-advanced AA. Think something like the ayylien mothership from that bonus mission in Star Fox 64.
>>44140 That makes me want a FASCAM-style indirect fire munition that scatters drones instead of mines

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?