RocketTurtle

BDarmory works with 1.0.4

Gotta agree there. You have me beat.

Scientology.

You can keep her. She only has one engine.

God damn I love the F-15. The pinnacle of 4th gen aircraft design. Unrelated, but I was thinking about how awesome it would be if Russia and America were allies, and designed a fifth gen fighter together. It'd be awesome.

Makes sense. I however, am not very familiar with radar jamming systems. Do they actually work, without needing an entire aircraft dedicated to jamming radar? And also, isn't the F-22's stealth compromised if it's not flying straight at the enemy, in supercruise, and isn't pulling any maneuvers?

Yeah the 109's were average when it came to roll rate, nothing special. And I'm not trying to bash your design, it's quite aerodynamic, I just don't think it would work too well in real life. And an idea for a mod, if anyone would know how to write it. Something that could calculate the radar cross section of a plane, so we could also give stealth points. I'm not sure how this could be done though. EDIT 666 POSTS I CAN'T POST ANOTHER POST

That one's new. But in all seriousness, I agree.

I remember you mentioning your design had bad e-retention, did you not? Sorry then, lol.

Yes, drones are the future, but I'm mostly wondering which types of designs will be better in the long run. The F-22 is stealthy, but for how much longer? Radar jamming, and radar detection are improving, but so is stealth... if you get what I'm saying.

Problem is, your design has crappy E-retention, which in extremely important for BnZ. Your designs are fast, but nobody dogfights at mach 4+. And maneuverability is, and always will be important. Good luck dodging a sidewinder in a flying truck.

I don't think it's the same. The K-77M uses a bunch of sensors facing all different directions. I honestly don't know that much about it, just that it should be very difficult to counter. Yeah, UCAV's are the future, but I'm mostly talking about the relation between stealth and radar related technologies. I just didn't want to overcomplicate the title.

It just seems like another over complicated and completely impractical theory some bored engineer came up with. I love it.

I feel like launching weapons would be a problem.

What's the point? By the time it's development IR detection tech would probably be able to detect a conventional aircraft from 50+ miles. I can't imagine how bad it would be with that thing, lol.

The F-22 did have its production cancelled, but the upgrades are still coming. Plus, in the event of a major conflict, they would probably continue production. But what you're saying does make sense. Even if the F-22 had continued production, I still don't know how well it would age. The PAK FA was built with stealth as a second thought. Not quite as good as the F-22, but it leaves more room for improvement once the stealth is obsolete in the near future due to radar jamming, better radar, and all sorts of radar related jazz. - - - Updated - - - I don't think it was only that, IIRC the YF-23 was never able to fire its weapons for the evaluation, plus I think the Pentagon was wiling to sacrifice some stealth, which may become obsolete quickly for reasons previously stated, for improved maneuverability.

I see what you mean, but analog instruments can malfunction too... I guess a few wouldn't have hurt though.

Well, all the problem, except the cost have been fixed with the F-22, but I get where you're coming from. I guess I'm looking at it from a pure technical standpoint, rather than the political side of things. Just wondering whether people think the PAK FA or 22 will age better.

I see where you're coming from, but that's not the focus of what I wrote. I'm asking which airframe you think will be valid the longest. I mean, do you think Russian jamming/radar tech will be the deciding factor against the F-22? The problem with the F-22's stealth is that unlike electronics, you can't really change the stealth of a plane. - - - Updated - - - Meh. It doesn't have very good curves, and it's a bit wide in the middle.

That, my friend, would be the sexiest SOUNDING plane.

I've been thinking a lot about what the future has to offer for air combat, more specifically stealth, radar, and whatnot. Also, mainly focusing on the F-22, and the PAK FA, as they encompass fifth generation designs philosophies. They both show the different ways of thinking for each country. They are very similar aircraft, however the F-22 is a much more western designs. Stealth focused, meant to be the first to strike, with maneuverability important, but not the main concern. And the PAK FA, a very Russian design. Extremely maneuverable, meant to avoid missiles, and get into a WVR dogfight. The time being, the PAK FA looks much more promising. BVR missiles have an atrocious hit rate, single digit percentages. With countermeasures and a decently maneuverable plane, there's no hope in hell it'll get hit. So currently, the PAK FA has the advantage. However... The Russian are developing a new missile; the K-77M. Now this missile supposedly has an AESA radar fitted to the nose, and should have a near 360 degree view of the battlefield. Modern missiles are easy to evade if the aircraft being fired upon maneuvers at the last second, out of the missiles field of view. With this new radar, the missile should supposedly never miss. Now this may sound good for Russia, however Western countries will likely be close behind in developing a similar missile... And suddenly the PAK FA's only defense is gone. No longer can it outmaneuver an opponents missiles. But there's another factor. Radar jamming. While the F-22 may hide from radar, the PAK FA may just get rid of their opponents radar altogether. So yeah, I just wanted to let my thoughts out. What do you guys think? Do you think the multibillion dollar F-22 will hold up in the future, or is the PAK FA's more contemporary approach better for the long run? Oh, and here. Have a completely unrelated picture of the sexiest plane to see the face of this earth.

Well maneuverability doesn't matter much for this challenge, so normally I'd say speed, however my plane can only pull 7.5 G's, and it disassembles itself if you turn above Mach 1... so...

Thanks. I guess I'll probably make a stock and a B9 version. But a lower wave drag area would make the plane faster, no? Maneuverability is extremely important still. Despite all the "experts" saying that fights will be fought BVR, these BVR missiles can't keep up with the advancement of jamming and countermeasure technology. BVR missiles have hit rates in single digit percentages. And when jets are flying at Mach 2 towards each other, it goes from BVR to visual range in a matter of minutes. Let's say, hypothetically the F22 engages with an Su-35. The F22 fires its long range armament, however the 35 dodges the missiles with ease. Or maybe, the 35 uses its radar jamming tech. Whatever it is, it will turn into a within visual range fight quickly, and then maneuverability really matters.

Thanks. I know the stock wings suck, but I wanted to keep the craft stock. But thanks for the changes. I'll test out the plane now. Also, the wave drag area is almost 1 m^2. Is there any way I can bring this closer to the .5-ish it was before? Edit: I just flew it, and it's still not quite there yet. It can only pull 7 ish G's... I think I'm just really bad at this, lol.

Not sure I can even consider this design mine any more. Thanks! Edit: Also, I have no idea what that red statistic means, but how do I make it, well, green? Edit #2: Also, when I try to make turns, it stalls, and one wing drops. I feel like this designs needs a major overhaul... are the wings too small? It also isn't exactly a plane I'd want to take into combat above mach 1.