What probably is the best aircraft ever

[SubjectProphet]

Sorry, but I really don't think now's the time to discuss the aircraft anymore with only one detail released. Might edit it if the military gives more details on it's design and structure. Edited April 16, 2012 by SubjectProphet

[Werne]

Soooo...… anyone else thinking "wow?"

 

Not really, I think it's just a big waste of money. In Afghan, I've seen our guys using modified Maljutka missiles to take down enemy aircrafts (MIGs specifically) by guiding the missile close to the aircraft and exploding it remotely. The same principle can be applied to turn that amazing jet into an overpriced piece of junk so I can't see much use for it. I can't see any advantage in aerial combat either, if a rocket can't hit him, 1500 rounds per minute from an aircraft cannon sure as hell can.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Werne

[Vindekarr]

Soooo...… anyone else thinking "wow?"

 

Not really, I think it's just a big waste of money. In Afghan, I've seen our guys using modified Maljutka missiles to take down enemy aircrafts (MIGs specifically) by guiding the missile close to the aircraft and exploding it remotely. The same principle can be applied to turn that amazing jet into an overpriced piece of junk so I can't see much use for it. I can't see any advantage in aerial combat either, if a rocket can't hit him, 1500 rounds per minute from an aircraft cannon sure as hell can.

 

I agree completely-America's last few "amazing" aircraft prototypes have been a whole lot of showy tech for rather limited results. Take the Raptor for example-most expensive fighter jet in history, beaten repeatedly by Q-5 Fantans simulations because it's actualy not all that great as a fighter. The Raptor needs fuel to fly, and while it's got it's big fancy "undetectable" stealth system, it's not that amazing as a dogfighter, and it's extremely mediocre top speed means that if it finds itself facing a fellow stealth fighter, it'll be in trouble. Several times in simulations Raptor teams have been taken out by simply luring the raptors away, and then eliminating their tanker plane before the raptors can amble back.

 

And what about the oh-so "wonderful" "cutting edge" JSF35 Lightning II. A plane so cutting edge it's been delayed by about a decade because it's cutting edge systems are so omnipotent, we mortals can't even get them to run. It's ludicrously expensive, not all that good a performer(small payload, slow, not especialy manueverable) and worst of all, it's been proven hideously unreliable.

 

Or the B-2 Spirit. Sure, it's stealthy as they come, but it's also worth billions per plane, and can only carry a tiny payload. It rocks for stealth, but epicaly fails as a bomber.

 

Now, why don't we cancel the Spirit and the A51, and the Lightning-II and put the roughly 100-ish billion into designing a cheap, highly effective, and fundamentaly expendable drone aircraft?.

 

nEUROn for example. That is how you do experimental aircraft. The nEUROn, despite it's goofy name, is a drone fighter. It's trump-card is that it's a very, very clever drone, BUT, when two or more neurons are in a squadron, they data-link, sharing all telemetry, sensor info, and processing power, literaly networking their processors to become twice as smart and pooling data to become twice as aware. It also "thinks" as all # of neurons at once, meaning you essentialy get a hive-mind effect.. This multiplier increases as more Neurons are added. It's pretty damn lethal as an aircraft, but it's also terrifyingly clever, and has all the engineered psychosis of a drone aswell. And it's also cheaper per unit than a JSF35, so what more does one need?

Edited April 15, 2012 by Vindekarr

[Syco21]

They'd have to get close enough first, I'd like to think this aircraft would be equipped with missiles of it's own.

 

Never the less, a plane that splits in half and continues flying? Citation please.

 

And finally, if an actual jet, then yeah what Werne said. It'll be a sitting duck for any missile equipped with a proximity detonator. That splitting in half trick won't be so awesome when the missile just flies into the middle of the two halves and explodes.

[antonkr]

I think every aircraft not titled "F-35" deserves the title of being 'best'

[Syco21]

Looks like Vindekar has fallen victim to the liberal media BS. The B-2 doesn't actually cost $1B aircraft. It's much cheaper, that figure includes the R&D costs and would have a 10th or less if the B-2 wasn't canceled. Yeah, that's right, it has already been canceled because congress doesn't know how to read a budget report. Same thing with the F-22.

[SubjectProphet]

Well, I'm happy that this thread turned into people saying that the aircraft units that save my life are useless and completely weak. The only time you can judge a military device is if you've seen it in person, not off of views from online and you're personal views when you haven't seen it in action irl.

 

 

I'd also like to say this: I'd be expecting the two halves to split pretty damn far if they want the jet to work. America's military isn't stupid.

[HeyYou]

Most of our air to air missiles have a proximity fuse. And for air to air kills, more often than not, the missile does NOT hit the target, it explodes in close proximity, and shreds it with shrapnel. All ya gotta do is get close, just like horseshoes, hand grenades, and atom bombs.

[Thor.]

:whistling:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq52-7VqfU8

 

LOL

[Vindekarr]

Looks like Vindekar has fallen victim to the liberal media BS. The B-2 doesn't actually cost $1B aircraft. It's much cheaper, that figure includes the R&D costs and would have a 10th or less if the B-2 wasn't canceled. Yeah, that's right, it has already been canceled because congress doesn't know how to read a budget report. Same thing with the F-22.

 

And for good reasons my friend.

 

It's not the most expensive plane that wins wars, it's the one that does it's job the best. The combat advantage the F-22 enjoys comes mostly from it's combat range, and that can be negated worryingly easily-the US has lost a few F-22s already to various issues. I don't think aircraft will even be piloted for much longer. Humans aren't really that well evolved for flying-we're holding aircraft back with our slow reflexes and low G-force tolerances, so we either need cyborg pilots, or drones, to continue advancing combat aircraft, and I know what's more likely. Training a pilot costs several hundred K USD, wheras with drones, all you really need to do is develop one, then mass-produce it. And you can't interrogate a shot-down drone, nor can it rebel against you for moral reasons.

 

The last few American military vehicles have, in my eyes, and with the critical exception of the Cobra, Viper, Apache, and Hercules, been pretty crummy. I mean, just look at the F-35. Ten countries pouring their best people and hundreds of millions of $ onto it and the damn thing's as reliable as an '80s Jaguar and still inferior to a swarm of Sukhois or Fantans. Or the F/A 18. The vaunted "super-hornet" which is inferior to an SU-35 in virtualy every statistic, yet costs twice as much. Or the downright aweful F-117, a plane with such a fundamental, crippling fatal flaw in it's computer system that F-117s literaly used to simply fall from the sky like dead, 17,000,000.00 bats.

 

Best aircraft ever? I think you have to go back a fair bit in time to find that. And it's certainly not american-the asskicking America has historicaly gotten in jet-age military conflicts attests to that. I think probably the best aircraft ever was the Mitsubishi A6M "zero". agile, devestatingly well-armed, extremely cheap and lightning fast, it was a devestating weapon in the early stages of WWII, and for a time it was literaly unmatched. Time passed it by, but in it's heyday, the Zero was dominant in a way few if any aircraft ever have been.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Vindekarr