Why We Need A War - 5th Generation Fighters

[Anarchemitis]

Aircraft of these kinds probably would have very unspectacular dogfights because the nature of missiles these days have ranges beyond line of sight, even at 15,000ft. Major powers would also be unwilling to put such expensive toys in a location where they could be easily destroyed. One does not take decisions lightly regarding machines that quite literally are worth their weight in gold.

Also, I think you need to be able to make the distinction between "Need" and "Want".

 

[Irridium]

I don't think that fancy fighters are a good excuse for war.

[sub]Just my opinion.[/sub]

Mine as well. Dick fencing by countries showing off their toys while tens of thousands (if not millions) of soldiers die senseless deaths? We need less fancy military hardware, not more.

We should instead be having a competition about who can explore space first. That way in the course of developing feasible space-travel we'd also end up figuring out new ways to use fuel, grow/store food, and plenty of other technological developments that would benefit us.

Or we should at least work towards getting to Mars, as that would provide us with some of what I said. Plus traveling to other planets just sounds freaking awesome. And yes, I do know about the issues with it(mainly your chances of returning are very, very low), but the more we develop the tech tech the more feasible 2-way space trips get.

Or this could all just be ramblings of a 19 year-old with a dream to explore space. Either way, there are better ways to measure our dicks.

Why can't we have a "who can help the most needy countries" contest?

 

[Singularly Datarific]

the J-20 is a bomber
oh its partly based on the stolen F-35 plans but it's way to big to be a fighter
if they plan to use it for anything it'll be as a tactical first strike aircraft like the F-117

Agreed, it's fucking massive. It'll also probably break just after the years warranty is up, like everything else made in China! Check this page and keep scrolling.

http://bbs.rednet.cn/thread-24610276-1-1.html

Anyway, what about 4.5 gen aircraft such as the typhoon? Extremely low radar cross-section, brilliant avionics, more agile than anything mentioned in this thread so far........and far prettier. If you're going to war, may as well look good too!

If the various governments involved would just go ahead and post the results of years of Red Flag operations, all these questions could be answered without firing any weapons!

I dunno, the Russian and Chinese examples were pretty damn sexy...
Though I still agree the eurofighter is way nicer looking than the American jets.

 

[emeraldrafael]

quote from lead engineer on the f22 "vulnerable to rain"

*sigh* No jet can beat rain. Rain beats ALL Jets. Even the European ones. That is not a viable answer.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0906/invalid-argument-my-porche-is-gold-your-argument-is-invalid-demotivational-poster-1244039975.jpg

OT: I dont really know or care who is better. its not hte plane its the pilot. If it were always about the better plane, Japan would have won the war in the pacific through the air. Besides, all war is bad, and always leaves one country in massive debt while another doesnt get the monetary and capital gain to replace the cost of human lives and destruction caused/taken. But I would say the US is better cause their airforce is bigger, and numbers beat tech. Why do you think no one has launched a Land War with China, AND WON?

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

snip

*whistle*...Oh boy

 

[RA92]

snip

First, bear me out, I realise that this sounds really self-righteous and blown-out-of-proportion, but I think the point is important to make.

Again, it has nothing to do with you actually meaning it. It has to do with jokingly saying "these things kill people, let's have a war :-D", which is troubling in other ways. There is humour about war, and the overwhelming majority of major humour about war is about the ways in which it is BAD. Catch-22 is a book about war and it's funny, but it is by NO MEANS a book about how war is fun and hilarious. Even works with pro-war messages tend to restrict themselves to darker war humour or humour about the irony of a lot of it.

It's not a touchy subject, it's a subject that's pretty resilient, but still gets uncomfortable if you touch it in certain ways.

Nor does it have to do with the actual effect of the aircrafts' production. Agree or disagree on the idea of deterrence or on justification for armament, the point still stands that "yay war" is not a great attitude. Saying it so casually "as a joke" doesn't make it any better.

It's like standing in the middle of a party and saying "Hey, check out this new gun. I can't wait to find someone to try it out on." Except we're not talking about a guy with a gun and maybe a few lives, we're talking about potentially THOUSANDS of lives. Do you think that the thousands upon thousands of people living in places that actually see these things kill their neighbors think it's all okay because it's a joke?

It's okay to joke about serious things, but it isn't okay to pretend like they're not serious because you can joke about them.

Look, see my stab at a joke about Churchill? Why is it funny? Because in context of the economy and military state of that time (everything was in shambles after WW2), it was absurd. And so is the idea of a war involving USA, China and Russia. America's investments are ties up in China and vice versa, and the Russian economy is just pickng up after decades. It's common knowledge. I simply assumed everyone would be able to put it in context and see the humor (hell, even the Cold War wasn't crazy enough to wage a war just to see who has better hardware). I even put that goddamned emoticon!

But since sarcasm doesn't conveyed very well through text alone, I guess I should've ended it with a [/sarcasm]. Hate doing that; destroys even a remote semblence of subtlty.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

snip

First, bear me out, I realise that this sounds really self-righteous and blown-out-of-proportion, but I think the point is important to make.

Again, it has nothing to do with you actually meaning it. It has to do with jokingly saying "these things kill people, let's have a war :-D", which is troubling in other ways. There is humour about war, and the overwhelming majority of major humour about war is about the ways in which it is BAD. Catch-22 is a book about war and it's funny, but it is by NO MEANS a book about how war is fun and hilarious. Even works with pro-war messages tend to restrict themselves to darker war humour or humour about the irony of a lot of it.

It's not a touchy subject, it's a subject that's pretty resilient, but still gets uncomfortable if you touch it in certain ways.

Nor does it have to do with the actual effect of the aircrafts' production. Agree or disagree on the idea of deterrence or on justification for armament, the point still stands that "yay war" is not a great attitude. Saying it so casually "as a joke" doesn't make it any better.

It's like standing in the middle of a party and saying "Hey, check out this new gun. I can't wait to find someone to try it out on." Except we're not talking about a guy with a gun and maybe a few lives, we're talking about potentially THOUSANDS of lives. Do you think that the thousands upon thousands of people living in places that actually see these things kill their neighbors think it's all okay because it's a joke?

It's okay to joke about serious things, but it isn't okay to pretend like they're not serious because you can joke about them.

Look, see my stab at a joke about Churchill? Why is it funny? Because in context of the economy and military state of that time (everything was in shambles after WW2), it was absurd. And so is the idea of a war involving USA, China and Russia. America's investments are ties up in China and vice versa, and the Russian economy is just pickng up after decades. It's common knowledge. I simply assumed everyone would be able to put it in context and see the humor (hell, even the Cold War wasn't crazy enough to wage a war just to see who has better hardware). I even put that goddamned emoticon!

But since sarcasm doesn't conveyed very well through text alone, I guess I should've ended it with a [/sarcasm]. Hate doing that; destroys even a remote semblence of subtlty.

I'm not going to keep going after this post, but for the final time, I understand what you're saying. I'm not misunderstanding the joke, I'm not misunderstanding your reasoning, I'm not misunderstanding the likelihood of a war between the US, China, and Russian, I'm not misunderstanding your sarcasm, I'm not misunderstanding your humour. Assuming that people who disagree with you just don't understand you is a pointless game.

I'm not saying that it isn't a funny joke (I'm not among them, but I'm sure some people thought it was funny/cute (I don't mean cute in a demeaning way here either)) or that war isn't something that jokes can be made about. What I'm saying is that it was a joke in extremely poor taste and, moreover, that joking casually about killing people/things that kill people isn't good for society as a whole. My whole point was that this is not some subject that's "off limits", it just needs to be approached with some thought. My point about things like Catch-22 is that they're extremely funny, about war, but hold onto the idea that war is about killing people and is generally pretty unpleasant stuff. The same can be said for the overwhelming majority of well-known, well-received comedy about war.

I think that's probably as clear as I'm going to be able to make my point and I feel like we're sort of keeping this thread afloat with a somewhat off-topic argument, so I'm going to move on. I don't want to be dismissive or anything though, so if you want to respond, I'll certainly take a look or you can feel free to shoot a PM.

 

[FightThePower]

EDIT: Since it's not apparent to everyone, when I was asking for an all out war, I was being sarcastic.

Yeah....most people don't read the whole post, not when it's longer than one paragraph, they just go by the title.

 

[Private Custard]

Oh, and kudos on that shot of the Typhoon! How the hell didya take it? Definitely worth the 2 day wait (it's currently my wallpaper - the Typhoon is my favorite delta-wing fighter, looks real dramatic with the full payload!)

A lot of driving, followed by a lot of climbing, followed by a lot of waiting! I got video footage of all of the passes from the second day using a Kodak Zi6, bootstrapped onto my E3/50-500 combo!

Spoiler

 

[Atmos Duality]

Only 150 million each? Well! That's quite a steal compared to the B2, which is LITERALLY WORTH MORE THAN ITS WEIGHT IN GOLD.

 

[pubbing]

None of them - in nuclear fallout everyone is a looser. Something that ensures we *hopefully* will never see wars like WW1 and WW2 again.

Actually, hydrogen bomb bets nuclear.
By approximately 10/1

An H-Bomb is a nuclear bomb dumbass. The difference is nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission.

 

[JasonBurnout16]

Seeing as I don't have a clue which is best I'm going to judge it based on look.

The first one is prettier.

 

[Geekosaurus]

What about the Eurofighter?

 

[Geekosaurus]

Also:

For the uninitiated: 5th generation fighters are the most advanced aircrafts, designed to incorporate numerous technological advancements, including all-aspect stealth even when armed, Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR), high-performance air frames, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theater of war in order to achieve an advantage in situational awareness, and automatically connects you to Facebook.

 

[RA92]

I greatly dislike war and would desire that we not waste taxpayer money on this crap. Why don't we focus on simple things like providing food/water/shelter to each and every American citizen?

Shameful waste, yet another American ideal.
I'm seriously considering moving to Canada, since they don't waste their money on crap like this.

That's not even the worst aspect. The manufacturers use taxpayers' money for the development of these hardwares, thus socializing that cost, but privatizes all the profit.

 

[RA92]

What about the Eurofighter?

Technically, the EF2000 is 4.5 Gen... not that that stops it from being a tremendous fighter. Also you forgot something:

For the uninitiated: 5th generation fighters are the most advanced aircrafts, designed to incorporate numerous technological advancements, including all-aspect stealth even when armed, Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR), high-performance air frames, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theater of war in order to achieve an advantage in situational awareness, and automatically connects you to Facebook which is extremely useful as the advanced fighters use social networking to further their goal of overthrowing their mushy organic overlords.

 

[BonsaiK]

I ask you: hypothetically, if all these projects are completed without a hitch, which region d'ya think will end up having the upper hand in ariel combat?

Well it's a completely ridiculous scenario because the US and Russia and China are never going to go to war with each other, for blatantly obvious economic reasons which I'm not going to point out on this forum yet again.

Assuming the hypothetical scenario did happen though (and I stress time and time again, it won't - not now, not ever) then China would easily win because they've got far more efficient manufacturing than any other country so they'll simply be able to build more of the things. I could be wrong, but then it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong or right anyway because this scenario will never happen.

 

[Private Custard]

I ask you: hypothetically, if all these projects are completed without a hitch, which region d'ya think will end up having the upper hand in ariel combat?

Well it's a completely ridiculous scenario because the US and Russia and China are never going to go to war with each other, for blatantly obvious economic reasons which I'm not going to point out on this forum yet again.

Assuming the hypothetical scenario did happen though (and I stress time and time again, it won't - not now, not ever) then China would easily win because they've got far more efficient manufacturing than any other country so they'll simply be able to build more of the things. I could be wring, but then it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong or right anyway because this scenario will never happen.

This isn't 1918 though. You don't just fight in the air and keep throwing new aircraft and newly trained pilots up there to replace the ones lost. Destroying the enemies infrastructure is the first thing that's done nowadays. In that respect, I'd go with the U.S. as they've had more practise in recent years!

Never gonna happen though. Everyone's way too tied in to each others economies to risk it all with a world war. Money is all-powerful nowadays!

 

[BonsaiK]

I ask you: hypothetically, if all these projects are completed without a hitch, which region d'ya think will end up having the upper hand in ariel combat?

Well it's a completely ridiculous scenario because the US and Russia and China are never going to go to war with each other, for blatantly obvious economic reasons which I'm not going to point out on this forum yet again.

Assuming the hypothetical scenario did happen though (and I stress time and time again, it won't - not now, not ever) then China would easily win because they've got far more efficient manufacturing than any other country so they'll simply be able to build more of the things. I could be wring, but then it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong or right anyway because this scenario will never happen.

This isn't 1918 though. You don't just fight in the air and keep throwing new aircraft and newly trained pilots up there to replace the ones lost. Destroying the enemies infrastructure is the first thing that's done nowadays. In that respect, I'd go with the U.S. as they've had more practise in recent years!

Never gonna happen though. Everyone's way too tied in to each others economies to risk it all with a world war. Money is all-powerful nowadays!

I'd still go with the Chinese for exactly the point you raised, because their craft is a bomber, therefore more capable of destroying infrastructure. And if any country has the resources to just keep building aircraft and throwing newly-trained pilots up in the sky to bomb shit, it's China. But yeah I don't know why I'm even replying here because as you say this scenario won't happen in the life-time of anybody reading this right now.

 

[RA92]

I ask you: hypothetically, if all these projects are completed without a hitch, which region d'ya think will end up having the upper hand in ariel combat?

Well it's a completely ridiculous scenario because the US and Russia and China are never going to go to war with each other, for blatantly obvious economic reasons which I'm not going to point out on this forum yet again.

Assuming the hypothetical scenario did happen though (and I stress time and time again, it won't - not now, not ever) then China would easily win because they've got far more efficient manufacturing than any other country so they'll simply be able to build more of the things. I could be wrong, but then it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong or right anyway because this scenario will never happen.

You've been nija'd.

Look, see my stab at a joke about Churchill? Why is it funny? Because in context of the economy and military state of that time (everything was in shambles after WW2), it was absurd. And so is the idea of a war involving USA, China and Russia. America's investments are tied up in China and vice versa, and the Russian economy is just picking up after decades. It's common knowledge. I simply assumed everyone would be able to put it in context and see the humor (hell, even the Cold War wasn't crazy enough to wage a war just to see who has better hardware). I even put that goddamned emoticon!

Which is why I put in the 'hypothetically' bit. And trust me, building 'more of the things' will not help in ariel warfare if the Chinese can't get their aircrafts' RCS and IR signature down. Having more MiGs and MiLs than the Afghans didn't help the Russians win when the Mujahideen were armed with Stinger missiles.