Rank
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 10,771
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
Raptor looks sleek and balance
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where did you get this? First time I've seen a six-plane formation.
Raptor looks sleek and balance
Agree, but just looks like so. F-22 design is almost 2 decades ago. J-20 and F-35 benefit the latest technology, RCS is smaller compared with F-22.Raptor looks sleek and balance
The SR-71 is 53 yrs old. And no one has anything equivalent.F-22 design is almost 2 decades ago.
Really...??? You have any hard data to back that up?J-20 and F-35 benefit the latest technology, RCS is smaller compared with F-22.
The SR-71 is 53 yrs old. And no one has anything equivalent.
No, no one has F-22 data neither. But it doesn't matter. Because if China can't beat F-22 which was designed 20 years ago, what's the point of J-20 project?The SR-71 is 53 yrs old. And no one has anything equivalent.
Really...??? You have any hard data to back that up?
No, no one has F-22 data neither. But it doesn't matter. Because if China can't beat F-22 which was designed 20 years ago, what's the point of J-20 project?
If USA can't design a fighter better than F-22, why not keep producing F-22?
RCS control is all about material technology and shape for now. No magic. You don't even need supercomputing to get a better design than F-22. A supercomputer ranking 500 nowadays is way much faster than ranking 1 20 years ago.
No one will copy SR-71. Satellites can do much better job without any risk, why bother?
And who really defined 'current modern' warfare? Your China?Current modern warfare need no such dinosaur. Why bother building one?
We do.No, no one has F-22 data neither.
You have the simplistic notion that newer must be better. History of engineering of any field is filled with examples where that notion is not typical. And aviation is the most dangerous field to experiment. The B-52 is older than many of its pilots and today, there is no equivalent. Same for the venerable C-130.But it doesn't matter. Because if China can't beat F-22 which was designed 20 years ago, what's the point of J-20 project?
Who says we cannot?If USA can't design a fighter better than F-22, why not keep producing F-22?
No one said it is 'magic'. The use of the word 'magic' means you really have no understanding of the idea of 'stealth' in the first place.RCS control is all about material technology and shape for now. No magic.
Wrong. But in truth, it is technically feasible to design an F-22 equivalent with the slide rule. Just will take you about 50 yrs.You don't even need supercomputing to get a better design than F-22.
Fine. But that still does not negate the need for a supercomputer level capability to produce an F-117 equivalent, let alone the F-22. If what you argued is so casual, we would be seeing the F-22 equivalent flying all over. Yet we do not.A supercomputer ranking 500 nowadays is way much faster than ranking 1 20 years ago.
There are limitations to satellites. Look them up.No one will copy SR-71. Satellites can do much better job without any risk, why bother?
No, no one has F-22 data neither. But it doesn't matter. Because if China can't beat F-22 which was designed 20 years ago, what's the point of J-20 project?
If USA can't design a fighter better than F-22, why not keep producing F-22?
RCS control is all about material technology and shape for now. No magic. You don't even need supercomputing to get a better design than F-22. A supercomputer ranking 500 nowadays is way much faster than ranking 1 20 years ago.
No one will copy SR-71. Satellites can do much better job without any risk, why bother?
And who really defined 'current modern' warfare? Your China?
We do.
You have the simplistic notion that newer must be better. History of engineering of any field is filled with examples where that notion is not typical. And aviation is the most dangerous field to experiment. The B-52 is older than many of its pilots and today, there is no equivalent. Same for the venerable C-130.
Who says we cannot?
No one said it is 'magic'. The use of the word 'magic' means you really have no understanding of the idea of 'stealth' in the first place.
Wrong. But in truth, it is technically feasible to design an F-22 equivalent with the slide rule. Just will take you about 50 yrs.
Fine. But that still does not negate the need for a supercomputer level capability to produce an F-117 equivalent, let alone the F-22. If what you argued is so casual, we would be seeing the F-22 equivalent flying all over. Yet we do not.
There are limitations to satellites. Look them up.
Overall, looks like you really do not know what you are talking about.