The US should do what it did during the 80s. Boost military funding so that the enemy gets caught up in the arms race. Then, let the enemy exhaust themselves in their version of Vietnam.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;36013402]The US should do what it did during the 80s. [b]Boost military funding[/b] so that the enemy gets caught up in the arms race. Then, let the enemy exhaust themselves in their version of Vietnam.[/QUOTE]
What? No, dude the guy who runs the DoD has actually said to congress "stop giving us so much money we literally cannot use this shit."
[QUOTE=cqbcat;36013402]The US should do what it did during the 80s. Boost military funding so that the enemy gets caught up in the arms race. Then, let the enemy exhaust themselves in their version of Vietnam.[/QUOTE]
That is an awful idea
[QUOTE=cqbcat;36013402]The US should do what it did during the 80s. Boost military funding so that the enemy gets caught up in the arms race. Then, let the enemy exhaust themselves in their version of Vietnam.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but, what [I]enemy[/I]?
China makes all your shit! You [I]couldn't[/I] go into war into them because you would get your shit fucked up [I]and[/I] you don't even want to do it.
The only real "enemies" USA has are Taliban and such groups, and you can't out-arm-race those.
You maybe were joking, and in that case, sorry, but I am afraid that you weren't.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;36013402]The US should do what it did during the 80s. Boost military funding so that the enemy gets caught up in the arms race. Then, let the enemy exhaust themselves in their version of Vietnam.[/QUOTE]
wait china is the enemy now?
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36012789]We should develop a missile that locks onto the sound of a jet engine, obviously you'd have to be pretty close and launch it in the general direction of where the enemy jets were, but there's no real defence against a weird as shit missile like that. Could just make it TV guided until it can get a lock on the source.
Problem China? Too noisy China?[/QUOTE]
Drop a freestyle and very noisy speaker looping a jet engine sound, insta win.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;36013402]The US should do what it did during the 80s. Boost military funding so that the enemy gets caught up in the arms race. Then, let the enemy exhaust themselves in their version of Vietnam.[/QUOTE]
Yes, lets waste all our money and make the entire country go bankrupt because evil Chinamen have another plane!
[QUOTE=Aide;36013166][img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wdCw5_0eEu4/TSfGTW7PCtI/AAAAAAAAAe8/h2IJdJoPrvY/s1600/J-20%2BJ-XX%2BChinese%2BStealth%2BFighter.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Not to detract from serious military discussions, but can anyone else see the man in a suit in both the F22 and the Chinese fighter designs?
[QUOTE=Mlisen14;36014627]Not to detract from serious military discussions, but can anyone else see the man in a suit in both the F22 and the Chinese fighter designs?[/QUOTE]
It's very clear in the J-20, the F-22A looks more like an uniformed person than a man in a suit.
T-50 = F-22 > J-20 > F-35
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36012789]We should develop a missile that locks onto the sound of a jet engine, obviously you'd have to be pretty close and launch it in the general direction of where the enemy jets were, but there's no real defence against a weird as shit missile like that. Could just make it TV guided until it can get a lock on the source.
Problem China? Too noisy China?[/QUOTE]
Make a disposable frequency generator, flare v2
[QUOTE=Aide;36013166][img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wdCw5_0eEu4/TSfGTW7PCtI/AAAAAAAAAe8/h2IJdJoPrvY/s1600/J-20%2BJ-XX%2BChinese%2BStealth%2BFighter.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Russia's plane look big as hell.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;36014789]Russia's plane look big as hell.[/QUOTE]Well, they gotta have room for the vodka brewery, we can't have sober russians flying now, can we?
[SUP][SUP][SUP]I'm the epitome of originality.[/SUP][/SUP][/SUP]
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;36014232]wait china is the enemy now?[/QUOTE]
According to President Mitt Romney, Yes. :v:
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;36012828]do you realize that if the jet traveled at speed of sound or higher the missile could never catch up, then?[/QUOTE]
I just imagined a super sonic dog fight in my head between a JSF-35 and this chinese bullshittery.
It was glorious.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;36014789]Russia's plane look big as hell.[/QUOTE]
Interestingly enough, it will likely be the most maneuverable of them.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;36014176]Sorry, but, what [I]enemy[/I]?
China makes all your shit! You [I]couldn't[/I] go into war into them because you would get your shit fucked up [I]and[/I] you don't even want to do it.
The only real "enemies" USA has are Taliban and such groups, and you can't out-arm-race those.
You maybe were joking, and in that case, sorry, but I am afraid that you weren't.[/QUOTE]
I'm not joking. I have a very cold warrior mindset and a negative opinion of passive aggressive China.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36012939]At that range they would just do what they do now and use heat seaking missiles and cannons.[/QUOTE]
Current airspace combat between modern fighters is usually done beyond visual range. So that makes radar and stealth incredibly important.
A sonic locked missile could never target an aircraft that was aproaching it at supersonic speeds. Because it would arrive before sound. It could technically catch up, if it were using a passive sensor, but I'd assume that's fairly imprecise in a medium like air, unlike water. Another problem is IFF
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36012842]Nah they both operate through different engines, so you find standardised frequencies and wavelengths of sound, and then see how they would shift through the doppler effect for the missiles flight velocity, so that should create a further noticable difference in sound. Just have it home in on the target wavelengths and frequencies once it's a certain distance away from the launching aircraft (although thanks to the doppler effect the sound of the launching aircraft should be very different from the target sound)
I dunno maybe it's just an unworkable idea, you'd need to be able to hear the jet from a fair distance away to allow for the missile to actually lock the target and then adjust to hit the target and you may only have about a kilometre or so to do that, maybe two and then theres the fact that it has to somehow hear the jet over the wind rushing past the missile itself.
It would essentially be sonar guided, but not in a dense medium like water so who knows if it would work.
[editline]19th May 2012[/editline]
I can't imagine most aerial combat happens at over the speed of sound, but honestly I'm not an expert, was just an idea that came to me and I was just throwing it to see if there were any functional issues with it.[/QUOTE]
I think you'd have problems with the sound bouncing off the ground and sending the missile somewhere other than the jet, but it's an interesting idea
[QUOTE=Aide;36013166][img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wdCw5_0eEu4/TSfGTW7PCtI/AAAAAAAAAe8/h2IJdJoPrvY/s1600/J-20%2BJ-XX%2BChinese%2BStealth%2BFighter.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
The actual thing has a delta wing though, so it doesn't look as cool
In before the CIA runs a sabotage op on this for "unknown" reasons.
I find it amusing that the immediate reaction by a lot of (presumably) Americans is that it must be terrible solely because it's Chinese.
This is the Chengdu J-20. It is based on [url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/security-experts-admit-china-stole-secret-fighter-jet-plans/story-fnb64oi6-1226296400154]stolen documents concerning the F-35[/url]. That is to say, it is essentially based in part on the American-built F-35. The Chinese aren't military pushovers, their air force especially is highly advanced with enough fighters purchased from Russia and locally built to present a serious threat to American interests.
Remember, we have no interest in all-out war with China- too much of our capital is invested there. The most likely conflict with China would be a resurgence of tensions between China and Taiwan, and in that scenario they would be fighting on home soil, with the aid of extensive missile defense networks and their indigenous electronic warfare systems.
They don't need to be able to win one-on-one J-20 vs F22. All they need to be able to do is hit an enemy carrier with an air-launched ASM, and then the fight is already over without the need to wipe out the entire American air force. There's a reason analysts are concerned about possible American involvement in the Taiwanese strait, and it's not that the Chinese will be total pushovers.
[editline]20th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36012842]Nah they both operate through different engines, so you find standardised frequencies and wavelengths of sound, and then see how they would shift through the doppler effect for the missiles flight velocity, so that should create a further noticable difference in sound. Just have it home in on the target wavelengths and frequencies once it's a certain distance away from the launching aircraft (although thanks to the doppler effect the sound of the launching aircraft should be very different from the target sound)
I dunno maybe it's just an unworkable idea, you'd need to be able to hear the jet from a fair distance away to allow for the missile to actually lock the target and then adjust to hit the target and you may only have about a kilometre or so to do that, maybe two and then theres the fact that it has to somehow hear the jet over the wind rushing past the missile itself.
It would essentially be sonar guided, but not in a dense medium like water so who knows if it would work.
I can't imagine most aerial combat happens at over the speed of sound, but honestly I'm not an expert, was just an idea that came to me and I was just throwing it to see if there were any functional issues with it.[/QUOTE]
The idea of the dogfight is completely obsolete. Modern fighters operate at just below transonic speeds for general use, and shift to supersonic for long cruise. Combat ranges at this sort of closure rate are measured in tens of miles, and an AMRAAM can, against the right target at the right time, hit an enemy a hundred miles away. Acoustic weapons are useless, since an enemy moving faster than sound will not be heard until he has already passed.
Note that heat-seeking missiles aren't used much anymore either, since even modern all-aspect IRMs have very short engagement ranges and are easy to spoof. Most missiles are radar-guided active-homing or semi-active-homing, depending on the country and launch platform. If the enemy can get a radar lock from eighty miles out, then your ten-mile Sidewinder, point-blank cannon, and theoretical acoustic missile are all equally ineffective.
[QUOTE=SexualShark;36023502]In before the CIA runs a sabotage op on this for "unknown" reasons.[/QUOTE]
It's China, they won't have to do anything, it sabotages its self.
I do find it kind of depressing that every time a thread/ news article concerning non-US defense development pops up, it's instantly dismissed with various degrees of slander rather than the acknowledgement of progress from other countries.
It's an accomplishment to develop this kind of tech with the limited budget and the complete ban on outsourcing parts due to US ITAR clearances.
now make chinese stealth armor
[QUOTE=catbarf;36023579]I find it amusing that the immediate reaction by a lot of (presumably) Americans is that it must be terrible solely because it's Chinese.
This is the Chengdu J-20. It is based on [url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/security-experts-admit-china-stole-secret-fighter-jet-plans/story-fnb64oi6-1226296400154]stolen documents concerning the F-35[/url]. That is to say, it is essentially based in part on the American-built F-35. The Chinese aren't military pushovers, their air force especially is highly advanced with enough fighters purchased from Russia and locally built to present a serious threat to American interests.
Remember, we have no interest in all-out war with China- too much of our capital is invested there. The most likely conflict with China would be a resurgence of tensions between China and Taiwan, and in that scenario they would be fighting on home soil, with the aid of extensive missile defense networks and their indigenous electronic warfare systems.
They don't need to be able to win one-on-one J-20 vs F22. All they need to be able to do is hit an enemy carrier with an air-launched ASM, and then the fight is already over without the need to wipe out the entire American air force. There's a reason analysts are concerned about possible American involvement in the Taiwanese strait, and it's not that the Chinese will be total pushovers.
[editline]20th May 2012[/editline]
The idea of the dogfight is completely obsolete. Modern fighters operate at just below transonic speeds for general use, and shift to supersonic for long cruise. Combat ranges at this sort of closure rate are measured in tens of miles, and an AMRAAM can, against the right target at the right time, hit an enemy a hundred miles away. Acoustic weapons are useless, since an enemy moving faster than sound will not be heard until he has already passed.
Note that heat-seeking missiles aren't used much anymore either, since even modern all-aspect IRMs have very short engagement ranges and are easy to spoof. Most missiles are radar-guided active-homing or semi-active-homing, depending on the country and launch platform. If the enemy can get a radar lock from eighty miles out, then your ten-mile Sidewinder, point-blank cannon, and theoretical acoustic missile are all equally ineffective.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, if the J-20 is based off the F-35 then the J-20 will be a piece of shit because the F-35 is a piece of shit.
Secondly, all this talk of fancy-dancy "beyond visual range" combat is bullshit. Just because something has the ability fire BVR does not mean that they do fire BVR. SAMs have ranges up in the hundreds of kms but never fire that far.
Same goes for aircraft. At the longer ranges, its incredibly easy for the plane being locked to lose the lock of the incoming missile. In addition to that, there is no way to tell between a civilian aircraft or a hostile aircraft at those ranges.
You get lots of friendly fire too. Even with IFF stuff, its not uncommon for unintended FF to occur.
A bit unrelated but an AGM-88 HARM (which seeks radio frequencies) actually shot down a B-52 bomber. How does a air to surface missile shoot down a plane? Well the B-52s had a turret in the back which was to be used as Point Defense, but the radio frequency that the turret gave out attracted the HARM and shot it down.
This is what happens with beyond visual range stuff. You shoot down shit that you don't want to, and its easy for pilots to just avoid them all together.
[QUOTE=catbarf;36023579]I find it amusing that the immediate reaction by a lot of (presumably) Americans is that it must be terrible solely because it's Chinese.
This is the Chengdu J-20. It is based on [url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/security-experts-admit-china-stole-secret-fighter-jet-plans/story-fnb64oi6-1226296400154]stolen documents concerning the F-35[/url]. That is to say, it is essentially based in part on the American-built F-35. The Chinese aren't military pushovers, their air force especially is highly advanced with enough fighters purchased from Russia and locally built to present a serious threat to American interests.
[/QUOTE]
The F-35, you mean that jet that was intentionally designed with limited stealth technologies because it is expected to leak? The same jet that is being exported? Really? What? Did we magically expect none would ever crash in enemy territory, despite collaborating with a fuckload of countries?
The F-22 and the F-35 are LEAGUES apart.
You can bash Americans all day long, but we make solid aircraft with the electronics, armaments, and logistical backing necessary to bring them to bear. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese can even begin to say the same. The Chinese might operate okay on a regional level, but we can still fight at a theater level and beyond.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36023930]The F-35, you mean that jet that was intentionally designed with limited stealth technologies because it is expected to leak? The same jet that is being exported? Really? What? Did we magically expect none would ever crash in enemy territory, despite collaborating with a fuckload of countries?
The F-22 and the F-35 are LEAGUES apart.
You can bash Americans all day long, but we make solid aircraft with the electronics, armaments, and logistical backing necessary to bring them to bear. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese can even begin to say the same. The Chinese might operate okay on a regional level, but we can still fight at a theater level and beyond.[/QUOTE]
Okay? I never said the J-20 was on the same level as an F-22, or that I'm not American, or that the F-35 was god tier of aircraft, or that anyone else in the world can match the US militarily. Literally not a single one of your responses is relevant to anything I said.
The point is, just because it's Chinese doesn't mean it's a useless piece of shit that will fall apart the instant it takes off, and even though China can't project force on a global scale they still have more than enough to cause us problems if we should get involved in a China-Taiwan conflict.
I'm sorry but who the fuck cares? there is never going to be a WW3 so who fucking cares?
[QUOTE=catbarf;36023579]This is the Chengdu J-20. It is based on [url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/security-experts-admit-china-stole-secret-fighter-jet-plans/story-fnb64oi6-1226296400154]stolen documents concerning the F-35[/url]. That is to say, it is essentially based in part on the American-built F-35.[/QUOTE]
Based on the F-35?
No worries people it'll be horrendously expensive, or, to reduce costs it's be made out of hopes, dreams and some bamboo.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
