ITT: things you predicted in Zig Forums before they existed/were publically announced

German physicists will reverse radar and sonar capabilities.
They will create a radar-reflecting/blocking nano-dust where about a ton will completely block all radar in 1000x1000 mile area, and hang in air forever, being wafted up by slightest breeze. This will create a rush for advanced optical and audible tracking.
Underwater, a new "radar" type tech will suddenly make subs, and sea floor, etc very visible and tractable.nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/no-more-stealth-submarines-could-quantum-radar-make-submarines-easy-track-and-kill-54547

This shit will be improved and make anything less than .50 cal BMG nearly useless. It will be all about launching small rifle grenades, and/or 20mm and up auto-cannon.

>>671581bodyarmornews.com/doj-dumps-dragon-skin-body-armor/
This shit will be improved and make anything less than .50 cal BMG nearly useless. It will be all about launching small rifle grenades, and/or 20mm and up auto-cannon.

Zero-launch RATO and short-rail land-catapult for fighter-bombers will be the new thing. These will be mounted on wing hard points, and/or bolted to landing gear where gear meets frame.

For Zero-Launch some of the rockets will be mostly vertical angle back just enough to keep blast-dust from entering jet's intakes. The vertical rockets will burn out first.

By short rail I mean both launching the jet on a rail with catapult and/or RATO, and carrying the whole rig on Rail-Road. Also carrying a RATO fighter-bomber on a big semi-truck similar to mobile ICBM, but bigger and maybe on tracks.

These would be stored in one of several general purpose armored hangers, and would include a lot of low cost decoy rigs.

The general idea that you don't want your jets caught on the ground, or rendered useless due to loss of runway. Once in the air they can find a runway or roadway to land, and you want to be able to launch them all at once. Not being sure if you could knock out a nation's airpower would deter attack.

Does america have one? Is there a tomahawk with a radar in the nose cone?

No.
Just like for air defense they're is a crash program to buy Norwegians missiles with a coat of Lockheed on it.

interesting, I'd just ASS-U-ME all those trillions had to have gone somewhere, and traditionally US high tech shit ranks on Soviet, and would expect that to triple-down on 2nd hand Chinese knockoffs.
I just figured WTF kinda long range anti-ship shit anyone else had ours would 2 gen ahead on the finer points of jamming and anti-jamming-jamming, and anti-anti-jamming, etc.

Fags and Jews point to 24 or wtf B-52s being shot down in Linebacker II as "failure" but the Gooks launched 800 SAMs that in theory shouldn't be all "One shot, one kill" against a 600mph lumbering big target at point-defense range.

I'd put a >maritime strike MiG-31

missile on a subsonic cruise missile to take it most of the way

maybe even a turbo or piston driven drone, that in turn is launched from ship with RATO. Plus decoys galore. Destroyer can only carry so many SAMs, but you could have squids slapping drones together by the dozens and scores out of IKEA flat packs.

PS-not liking the sub-sonic anti-ship missile.
Sounds like it could be killed by Vulcan Cannon with Radar Robot.

They went somewhere. In the bank accounts of Lockheed/Raytheon/Boeing shareholders.
Not really tech wise and pure engineering/physics the soviets were almost always in front. Material sciences and semi-conductors the US were in front, largely due to vast commercial applications that the soviets being commies just didn't bothered with which resulted in a lack of investment when those sectors were booming in the free world.

The main difference was that NATO had a capacity to mass produce quality high-tech due to for profit industries competing with each other, when the soviets often had to downgrade their own stuff so that the myriad of commies factories that could actually mass produce it.
It was largely an economical problem more so than a technological one.

Except today neither Russia, let alone China are commies and the entire developed world chose to offshore it's entire production of high-tech goods… which they both greatly profited allowing them to acquire a capacity to mass produce quality high tech products.

Meanwhile back home it is the era of H-2B visa and actively barring whites from colleges and the few military companies that exist are de facto monopolies kept alive by government gibs in a twisted mirror of the commie system, that award contracts to keep people working (and voting).

We've completely pissed away our tech edge. Meanwhile they kept and actively sought to increase the (small) advantage they had, which led to Russia to field a fucking MASER (the more data there is the more it looks like that's what the Krasukha-4 are) and other sci-fi shit that was on the boards in the 80's but got systematically pushed back by greediness, stupidity and the societal collapse of the west that started in the 70's.

last I checked Red China's efforts to sell weapons was mostly failing, because even 3rd World despots demand they prove the shit actually works.

I'm sticking to my prediction that Red China is a "paper tiger" when it comes to high tech military hardware.

Lots of bragging about their latest wonder weapons, but near total lack of sales when a foreign prospect does their Due Diligence.

China doesn't sell tech. They buy tech.
Most of their tech is EU or Russian (even US via Israel…) license build, which implantation is supervised by OUR engineers. They don't have the rights to sell it.
The stuff they sold is pre-2000 soviet/Chincom cheap and fairly junky.
But it's starting to change, they've had big success in exporting armed drones for example and you can't go more high tech than that (thready reminder that it's something that only the US and China actually make and sell with Europeans drone programs being largely failures). And they've succeeded in selling them to countries that have access to the US ones (KSA, UAE, etc…).
They can't go from a country that exclusively bought all encompassing weapons (ie fully finished off the shell stuff, in all domain) overnight, but there is a clear and definite progress and tech retention.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22
Speed: Mach 4.6 (5,635.2 km/h; 3,501.6 mph)[2]
That's been the standard Russian anti-ship missile for dacades and the most fuel consuming and range depriving part of the flight is accelerating to top speed.

Not really, they have a great variety.
The most standard is the Kh-15, with a shorter range but comes with a rotary launcher so a Tu-22M3 can carry up to 10 of them (or 6 internally for maximum range on the bomber, two launchers for 12 missiles fit on a Tu-160).
A strike mission would have 4 planes = 24 mach 5 missile coming your way.

The Tu-22M is an underappreciated plane.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (767x495, 42.34K)

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. American naval aviation has such a strong lobby that all American anti ship missiles have to be capable of being mounted on airplanes or they'll never enter production. In 2018 that means being mounted within a F-35 bomb bay. What kind of anti ship missile can you put in an F-35 bomb bay? A shitty one.

Problem is that sensors and computers are so good today that anything subsonic is basically cannon fodder for ancient naval cannon like AK100 can knock them down as long as you keep it fed. The only way to get through active defenses with subsonic missiles is hoping all of target CIWS are jammed or reloading at the same time, or overwhelming it with $3000 subsonic cruise missiles, or the enemy not having active defenses (a civilian ship, or military ship at peacetime conditions).

Also the warheads on western missiles are pathetic, they have no chance of sinking a modern ship with compartmentalization. It's been tested and barely damages cargo ships used as targets. Meanwhile opposing forces are using supersonic or hypersonic missiles so fast that they don't even need warheads, they can rip apart a carrier stem to stern with just kinetic energy.

It's a petty they were never fired in rage. Would like to see how would they compare to western exocet-harpoon cruises when in paper they were over 5 times faster since the 60s. What were their supposed drawbacks?

"What kind of anti ship missile can you put in an F-35 bomb bay? A shitty one."
Not so sure it was a good idea to ditch everything except the Super Hornet, then go to F-35.
When I was a kid I designed a twin-engine jet to carry a large missile. Engines under the wings, and landing gear folded up against the engines, so the wing was pretty high off the ground with a vestigial fuselage and one big missile underneath.

"subsonic is basically cannon fodder…..CIWS are jammed or reloading at the same time, or overwhelming it with $3000 subsonic cruise missiles"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)
Track record is pretty good, and I remember hearing about how the Stark was SUPPOSED to swing around so its ONLY CIWS would face the incoming missile, so WTF if it got two missiles from diff directions? I guess they'd try to figure to split the diff since I ASS-U-ME a CIWS can swing 180'+, but that sure boxes in a ship and what if 3 missiles?

Won’t happen in 2020, everyone still has soy and Netflix, people are getting more divided now but that only results in people getting called names online. There has been no real action by either side (though I think American antifa is starting to become a thing), it’s just people yellowing at each other and getting in small fights at protests. A polygamous black transgender man with 2 transgender white children and an Chinese spy husband could be elected and the vast majority of the American right would just complain at dinner or occasionally online. Hitler’s bones could be retrieved on the next moon mission and they could graft his skin back on and have Brenton control Hitler as an actual puppet and get him elected and the left will just whine and cry on social media and in public.

I feel like The Simpsons predicted most things honestly.

Would have shitty rolling characteristics. Su-27 and F-14 that are among the most aerobatic fighters still are significantly burdened on this aspect solely for having a large gap between their engines and YF-12/SR-71 despite of their mindnumbing thrust they only evasive maneuvers they could do was accelerate and outrun the incoming missile.

It doesn't need to be super huge, it's possible to build a air to ground missile that's decent, just reasonably large and well designed. Just look at Kh-31, look at this shit:
←—————————–
It's lighter than a harpoon, powered by kerosene and welded together out of old stove parts, yet it's five times faster than a harpoon, has better guidance and maneuverability, and can wreck an AEGIS cruiser with kinetic energy alone. When they model its impact into a ship they literally model it for a high velocity bullet hitting a human body, the bursting charge is only there to help its expand.

That's the comparison.

Attached: Russian_missile_-MAKS_Airshow_2003.JPG (660x272, 89.74K)

Well they use a Lo-Hi parabolic trajectory, so they should be easier to intercept, but given their terminal speed it's very doubtful you could manage to hit them with CIWS, meaning you would need to intercept them with AA missile from a fairly long range (so you would need to detect the incoming launch from the Tu-22M that are flying low).

There aren't any, it's just a better system. You're basically asking what the supposed drawback of a rifled cannon is over a smoothbore cannon, it's just a next step in the technology.

The CAP is the only thing that can save a carrier from them, because an aggressive CAP would force the Tupolevs to turn around early, or the jizz the missiles out early, giving the carrier enough time and notice to shoot them down. It's too bad American CAP is carried out by bomb trucks like the F-18 now, which have such small radars they couldn't independently find the Tupolevs much less give the carrier the missile's speed and bearing.

But in theory a F-14-like CAP (or a naval F-15) could eliminate the threat.

compare to fully rocket (much more reliable and sure fire) engine US missile at 1/2 weight yet greater range.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM Sure US missile maybe lighter warhead but probably more efficient.

My main point is whether these actually work and hit target will be determined by who is one or two clicks ahead in HIGH-TECH supremacy. So far, all indications are that Russian (and don't even mention Chinese) are well behind USA, espeically when it comes to who's jammers and anti-jam tech will work, and who will be the "worked on". While its true that in many ways USA is now degenerate, while China is able to MANUFACTURE tech brough in from USA, the tech gap has probably widened, due to tech acceleration.

On USN VS Red China I'd expect something close to a repeat of Linebacker II, with 100s or 1000s of Communist guided missiles launched at targets well within range in an uncluttered environment, but 98% them defeated by superior US tech wizardly. 800+ SAMs launched and 24 B-52s shot down. IIRC the main US SAM at the time, the Hawk, had better than 90% chance of kill per launch.

interesting, is that just from more separation of mass? Look at the masses on this bad dude.

Anyways, I was going for more of a missile-truck than fighter-bomber. It bugged me that it was so lopped-sided when the B-52 carried the X-15. And it seemed feasible to carry a small ICBM under a specially designed aircraft, which would have certain advantages over MidgetMan ground mobile race track concept. Also inspired by Thunderbird 2 heavy lifter, and various "flying crane" box-capable heavy helicopters.>>671748

Attached: main-qimg-a88a5f1ffdb758e7cee2e2206f5b1b5e.jpg (602x241, 63.58K)

Attached: Kaguya's life.jpg (1222x759, 133.23K)

Red China is currently, without restriction and will full Govt backing and approval, weaponizing DNA/GMO/cloning etc in an attempt to farm a new higher race of semi-humans.

That will nearly perfectly follow this script:
"Khan Noonien Singh, who, along with his people, are products of 20th-century selective breeding designed to create perfect humans. The genetic superhumans instead became warlords and conquered more than a third of the planet during the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s. "

The "Third of the Planet" will be "The Turd World". The Chinese supermen will be groomed for and take power in China, and "on paper" will have high IQs and able to study hard 20hrs a day, and win all spelling bees, etc, but will remain limited by same "hard ceiling" and lack of inventiveness, and other higher human functions we see in all Chinese today. They will be able to organize a factory to run at 99% efficiency, or play tactical "chess" perfectly, but not make any breakthrough improvements in either.

everytime we capture some Commie warheads its always the same thing.
Our techies are stunned at how low tech, clumsy and almost "home made" their stuff is. It goes bang reliably and works, but our stuff has all sorts of "gold plated" engineering to make it more effective. Almost like we had real college educated chemists and physicists with big budgets and not spending most of their time shitting bricks about Gulag.
What makes Hi-Explosives powerful is not amount of energy, but speed at which energy is released. Russian will be 1950s type TNT poured into mold with primer. US will be few layers of stuff, probably something about how an electrical field travels through the materials, modeled by supercomputers and tested with ultra-high-speed video.

But Russian will be bigger warhead.

Based

My prediction right when Cuban tourism started being allowed again was that we'd be invading Venezuela by 2020 and the tell for it would be Cuban relations degrading again. Everything else I "predicted" I just read in Civil War II by Thomas Chittum. I think is wrong about some of the 3D printing stuff, our legislators are too stupid to understand it, same with big tech companies processing meta-data. Their hair is on fire about "racism" while ISIS and whatever white-IRA that forms eventually is building 3D printed truck bombs for fun.

I'd say Trump losing in 2020 will trigger a "revenge presidency" by the globalist elite, who instead of boiling the frog will attempt to "stick it to whitey" as much as they can as fast as they can. The entire Southwest is going to be a death zone by 2025. National Firearms restrictions, lack of reciprocity, things to quell transfer of firearms from uncucked states to cucked ones, etc. Military will become like a South American one with political cliques and massive theft. (Even more so than right now)

Technology wise I think rifle scopes of a very high quality are going to be a lot cheaper, and companies like Schmidt and Bender will have a hard time justifying a $5k+ price when the quality of "mid tier" optics is 99% of their's. Nightforces have been getting a LOT cheaper and the quality only goes up. Leupold's "low end" optics kick the shit out of their 20 year old high end gear. I also suspect scopes with built in illumination tubes and clip-on NVG's for high end scopes will enter the $500 range for really high quality stuff. Sensor technology is jumping so quick even a cell phone has better "night vision" than a tube from 30 years ago, and that's before digital artifact removal.

5.7 became way more proliferated. 5 years ago my buddies told me "buy all the 5.7 you'll ever need now! you won't be able to get any in the future!", and now Hornady's making hollowpoints for em and the price is half what is was 5 years ago. It'll be hard for people to say no to it.

Attached: No.1 Queen Revy.jpg (1103x1242, 212.15K)

Retard that's an anti radiation missile!

It has greater range because it literally stays at higher altitude longer. It's burn time is less than ten seconds and then it just coasts for the rest of the trip as its speed drops, at target impact it's going at the speed of smell. You can't compare it to a sea skimmer that's powering through the densest possible atmosphere at a continuous burn.

In other words its HiHiLo system. Fired like in a LoLoLo profile the AGM-88 would have under 40km range, HiLoLo little better, and it couldn't even carry out a LoHiLo because it has no engine power past a few seconds of burn.

Russia. Harpoon is a piece of shit with active radar guidance, the missiles in use by opfor have half a dozen modes. Their passive sensors are superior, and even jammers are also at least 40 years ahead and can knock down drones or blind awacs with impunity.

You have to live under a fucking rock to think American ECM is superior to Russian.

Just go fuck yourself, I haven't chuckled this hard in weeks.

Attached: nig.png (1008x757, 442.6K)

If the USA really wanted regime change in Cuba all we'd need to do is "normalize" relations including unlimited US tourism to Cuba.
It would be like Camp of the Saints in reverse with every boat in Florida loaded down with Boomers and College Spring Breakers (regardless of calender) heading to Cuba with US dollars with visions of Quadroon pussy, cheap booze and hotels and beaches. That would cause every Cuban in govt to abandon their post and try to get in on the action before all the easy money dries up.

Currently, US/Cuban relations are controlled entirely by a group of Jewish pimps, drug dealers and loan sharks who claim the Revolution hurt their future expected earnings.
Last I heard (1995?) they claimed ( in typical Jewish fashion ) that, with compound interest, they are owed over $600 BILLION, or about 50 billion apiece.

Attached: 1549481019938.jpg (744x1200, 85.81K)

Do you have any cases where that hasn't been the case.
Admittedly, most cases of USA VS Russian/Soviet ECM are Factory Team USA VS 3rd Party users of less than the best Russian equip, such as USA vs Iraq and USA vs 'Nam.
There was the case when the much promoted US Apache helicopter force was keep OUT of combat in Serbia out of obvious fear of even aged Soviet SAM and AAA.
Mostly, I'm looking at the behavior of customers, on the premise that they will demand proof stuff is actually what is claimed.

Did you have access to the internet when Iran downed a US drone design that was so high tech and hush hush not even the American president knew about it, and then publicly posted photos online and made fucking kids toys about it to mock American alphabet soup agencies? Russians examined that fucking drone and didn't even find it that impressive.

Attached: Toy-US-drone-made-in-Iran-1.jpg (600x356, 28.03K)

yeah, jthat and the U-2 spy plane.
But how many missions and for how long were those flying in hostile airspace with the 'subject' completely helpless to respond?

The RQ-170 first flew in 2007 and it was downed in 2011. So it operated for a grand total of four years before being rendered obsolete, and the only reason it even operated those years is because Russians provided Iran their electronic warfare unit in 2011.

Presumably the F-35 will counter these, by either directly engaging the Tu22 with a standoff or just relaying targeting to the SAMs and missile trucks - both while going undetected.

Given that China basically cannot wage wars for crap, scenarios like this are not out of realm of possibility. But only due to chinks' sheer incompetence which eclipses even that of sandniggers.

High-tech supremacy means precisely dick. A low-tech missile fucks shit up just as well as a high-tech one, the difference is that a high-tech missile is 200x more expensive and has 20% better hit rate.

Attached: 14725044092473.jpg (508x499, 27.92K)

But the F35 doesn't have the sensors or the missiles to do it, nor is it feasible to have F35s constantly flying CAP because they're not cost efficient. Fuel guzzling is ok if you have constant resupply, but that isn't a case with a carrier, which carries only a certain amount of fuel with it.

Nimitz carriers carry about 3.4 million gallons of jet fuel, and the Ford class actually reduces that to 3.2 million. A single F-35C uses just under 3000 gallons per sortie, total fuel carried for 1200 sorties. F-35 can stay on station for 30 minutes before returning, that's 48 sorties per day. Times four planes because you need two wings of planes to run CAP in wartime, that's about 200 sorties in 24 hours.

tl;dr a carrier can run CAP for a short week with F-35 before it literally runs out of fuel.

That doesn't count fuel for other aircraft like AEW, fuel for helicopters, fuel for boats which also use JP, fuel for F-35 carrying out actual missions and not just flying carrier overwatch…. The Tupolev literally just has to exist, it doesn't even have to take off, it just has to exist and present the threat - and the fact that it exists causes the US navy to shoot itself in the foot repeatedly.

Has the time of the fully automatic rocket launcher being standard equipment finally arrived?

Attached: weaponofthefuture.jpg (1215x873, 564.64K)

Guided missiles ain't like spray and pray. Either you hit or completely miss, which is what was going on in 'Nam with our 1st gen guided missiles until we sorted some things out.
You can consider all current Russian/Chinese stuff to be still 1st gen, since its never been used effectively. They've never gone from "we got problems" to "we worked hard and now fixed most of the problems".
F-15 VS all others: 100+ to ZERO. Nuff said.
800+ SAMs and 24 B-52 hits in Linebacker II VS Hawk system over 80% launch/kill ratio.
Yeah, U-2 and recent Iran drone were shot down, but only after countless missions. NO such nonsense ever flies over Western sky, unless you wanna count 9/11 (lol).
There is no price for 2nd place in a high tech guided missile VS counter measures shootout.

I want Boomers to leave.

Get a load of this cyka.

Attached: rus.jpg (276x280, 23.82K)

When the british fought the zulu, using a huge army equipped with rifles and gattling guns against a bunch of literal loincloth wearing niggers armed with only spears and cow hide shields, they still suffered combat losses due to enemy attacks. So that stat is either a huge fluke, or straight up propaganda BS.

Attached: civilization physics.webm (1280x720, 2.29M)

If you're talking about the loss I think you are, you've picked the one where technology mattered much less than the leadership and strategy involved. The british fucked themselves in that situation to the nth degree.

For comparison: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift

Don't fuck it up and technology whoops massive amounts of ass.

IIRC, the F-15's combat record is not disputed by the other side.

Supersonic combat with guided missiles ain't spray and pray.

I knew that much but can anyone more knowledgeable explain what it is that makes the sukhoi superjet so unreliable and that SNECMA's dassault derivative engine design is cracking after extremely low flight time?

Attached: sukhoissj.jpg (1500x999, 289.94K)

good points, Rorke's Drift and Charge of Light Brigade are famous because they are such rare cases of British Empire not operating an order of magnitude better than the enemy force.

China can't make Russian designed fighters without "License" (the thinking part), and Russia can't make advanced French jet engines without Frogs babysitting them.

If it ain't Boeing,
I ain't going.

at least half the engines produced are made end to end in the french plant.
doesn't explain shit

I hope you like your globohomo aircraft constructed with myriad quality issues by spics and beaners in south carolina and seattle and overseen by Nikki Haley nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/boeing-charleston-plane-dreamliner.html

engines installed by Russians? explains shit.

"spics and beaners in south carolina" You forgot Niggers. I ASS-U-ME Boeing is forced to hire Niggers in SC.
Oddly, IMO the recent 737 software caused by Corp greed not non-White employees. They figured they could make lots of money if they just modded the old 737 one more time rather than start from scratch with a design able to carry new large diameter fans.

I actually meant that and instead I repeated myself for some reason.
yes this was not a build quality issue but a being retarded issue.

funny enough, Trump (as usual) hit the nail on the head when Tweeting on his own when he said its bad to make shit so complex for tiny gains.

You are funny, although you do have a point.

There's a reason they are called cuckservatives. The problem in the future will be that, as demographics change, and the US becomes more and more uni-party, what do you think will happen? What happens when groups of people don't feel they are represented?

Other than creating a soft-coup (forcing Trump to waste limited presidency time and energy on 'muh Russia'), outright breaking federal laws (Sanctuary cities), and funding increasingly radical/violent groups (Antifa, literal Satanist church, the degeneracy of Drag Queen Story Time), the left are doing nothing at all. In fact, though, they really don't have to do anything. Within 20 years, at the current rate, demographics will defeat their enemies for them.

The fucker has to open the bay doors every ten minutes or it will fucking cook off. In other words, it becomes a giant glowing dot on a radar every 10 minutes of flight time.
Indeed.

They don't have to understand it. Lobbyists write the laws for them, and pay them to sign it. Combine that with the media telling the plebs what to think in the first place, and what does the legislator have to know? Fucking nothing.

Attached: EU lawmakers don't even know what they vote for.PNG (1791x229 36.98 KB, 53.61K)

>HE is formed by pouring into mold
I'm glad that muttmerica has been totally negrefied.

Africa will be ruled over by blasians

SF2 predicted that Guile's sonic boom is real.

China will colonize Africa. Nobody will care about niggers, just the the National Geographic stars.

Mostly.

Just modernize YF-12 (using SR-71/72 technology and radar absorbing ceramics instead of titanium alloys for the high-friction enemyradar-facing surfaces) it's pretty much what you are describing and what the USAF describes as its current vision for a sixth gen fighter (stealth, near-hypersonic but takes a timezone to make an 180^, literally).

Attached: 5523f5faa4de9176debd7288fc188c8b.jpg (1200x663, 67.45K)

By law of conservation of energy smoothbores still have a projectile velocity advantage and consequently better penetration advantages (if they hit from the right angle) also keep in mind that railguns will most like be technically smoothbores since there are not even theoretical materials for a rifling that would not get instantly vaporized by a cell moving at above mach 8 in the barrel. Maybe western anti-ship missiles have better skimming (therefore concealment) and tighter maneuvering characteristics due to low speed, maybe they have larger more destructively shaped warheads due not having to be supersonic-shaped. Maybe mach-3 missiles were too prone to over-penetrating and causing only superficial damage.

Attached: 12b.png (1199x630, 1.19M)

It has nothing to do with the engines. The engines are literally the best on the fucking market reliability wise.
It has to do with retarded state piloted industrial boondoggle.

The maintenance issues because the morons in both Russia and France did the usual thing, make a high tech project, make a a very technical piece of tech with lots of eggheads in charge, then pat themselves on the back for the brilliance of their engineering teams and drank champagne…
Companies started to buy the thing… and realized they needed to ship back the engines for REGULAR maintenance (every 1000h) to Irkustk or even fucking Cahors because the idiots forgot about training and deploying enough maintenance teams and workshops.
Which lead to planes being grounded for 9 month on average once they hit 1000 flight hours (about a year)… Which is completely unacceptable by the civilian industry standards.

I don't know, Russians are easily massacring ISIS in Syria with like 4x less resources than America had in Iraq to fight ISIS.

And Russia isn't secretly helping ISIS in Iraq, like America is secretly helping ISIS in Syria…

The jet is perfectly fine, it's having issues because there is no one to fix it at the hundreds of tiny airports that use it. So when the first crucial part wears out they just have to be sent to the scrapyard or flown to Moscow for repair.

Retard Boeing is currently involved in a huge scandal because they installed a computer chip that forces pilots to crash the airplane. It literally forcefully noses down the airplane until it hits the ground, no matter what input the pilot gives it.

It's not caused by greed, it's caused by stupidity. RANK FUCKING STUPIDITY. They could have mounted the same engines if they just used longer landing gear. So instead of lengthening the landing gear, they jammed the engine into the wing body itself, then had to install a chip that crashes the airplane with no survivors.

Prob is AFAIK you can't just stretch the landing gear. Watched some thing about 737 gear and why you can see tires when retracted and how some seal inflates up against the tire, etc.
What they gonna do, relocate the main pivots outward toward the engines???

I'm pretty sure that main pivot is baked in.

What I don't get is why after 1000 of pre-computer 737 with good record and design changes this last tweak needed some uber-auto-pilot. Seems to me this should've been a memo about "with 737-Max, start takeoff rotation 7-10% later than 737-200", or something.

Because the new engines are twice as big and heavy as the old ones.

The 737 MAX is a fucking nigger rigged plane made as a quick fix to fuck with Airbus.
Airbus made considerable R&D efforts to reduce companies cost with the 380 and the 320 Neo while Boeing was sitting on his ass enjoying his dominant position (and was openly laughing at airbus spending money making refinements making it "1% better". Except 1 +1 +1… you end up with 10-20%).
Then when oil hit $100 a barrel every company started switching to airbus. Up until even American Airlines (that was still a 100% Boeing company) defected.
That triggered Boeing that went "we can totally do the same" and nigger-rigged 737 with the same engines that consume less fuel but since they didn't want to do the redesign airbus had spent nearly 10 years doing little by little doing… they fitted them with the "smallest" engines (that are still considerably bigger and heavier) that were the only ones that fit the 737.
The result is that lifting profile of the 737 is completely unstable now (it was already complicated pic related is the original custom made engines of the 737 that already had the issue instead of classical "round" engines) AND are borderline under-powered. So the 737 MAX 8 (the longer cabin ones which are the one that are new and don't fly so good) it's honestly questionable if they can fly safely at all.
That probably when a guy that probably came from Microsoft or Lockheed or something and applied the "when you have shitty hardware you compensate with software" school of thought. Which is of course terribly wrong when you think of passenger planes.
It's how they got stuck with a fucking software making the gazillion corrections needed to keep the unstable plane in the air especially on delicate phases like you would do on a fighter (that are often designed to be unstable)… except a fighter, even a F-35, is a bit more reactive than a fucking passenger plane.

Attached: Boeing_737-400_Engine.JPG (2288x1712, 1.68M)

That's actually perfectly valid. But the quality of the software must exceed the shittines of the hardware. E.g. if hardware quality score is 30/100 points, then software quality has to be 300/100 points to compensate. But that's obviously not what happened over at Boeing. They cheaped out on designing and certifying new airframe that uses new engines, and likewise they cheaped out on developing flight control software of stellar quality to make the retrofitted old airframe airworthy. All they had to do is to program the firmware on assumption that the hardware might and will actually fail, because that's the fucking reason they're writing it. In which event the air control system should bail and let the pilot have at it. "Unstable" airplane simply means that if you, for example, let it pitch up, it won't level and will only continue to further pitch up, so you must use "hands-on" piloting style and correct for attitude errors manually. Even a scale model of pentagon can fly, if you keep it level.

Yeah it's possible, airbus did it. It would add weight to the airframe, and would require a redesign in collapsing them, but it's 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x safer and more practical than stapling the huge engine to a wing full of fuel and then adding a suicide autopilot when the engine position robs the wing of all lift.

It's not. Planes used to be designed to be capable of landing in case of total power failure, especially civilian airliners.
A plane that flies well is a plane that doesn't eat as much fuel as one that doesn't.

this. The removal of backup hydraulics and electric (non computer electronics) systems from new aircraft variants scares me.
Say what you will about the sukhoi superjet but that is a new design of plane that apparently in the most recent incident landed without electronics after a severe lightning strike.

You can still fly it without power, all 737s have physical connection between the yoke and control surfaces, and the max is not exception. It's just when the airframe is aerodynamically unstable it's not noob-friendly, you can't let go of the stick and expect it to level itself, actual piloting is required, but it doesn't mean that it just randomly goes apeshit. It's more difficult to fly than your typical Cessna but it's nothing a commercial airliner pilot couldn't handle.
They still are. Well, except the ones that are so big they would be literally impossible to steer by force of a pair of humans, these don't have mechanical backup since it won't do shit if it's actually needed, and beyond that it's just extra weight. If power fails you gonna die regardless, the difference is whether in your last moments you will feel spiteful about the airplane's failure and the fact that you can't do anything about the situation, or miserable about your complete and utter physical inadequacy and the fact that you can't do anything about the situation. But you'll die regardless, so the engineers care more about efficiency than your fee-fees.
What the fuck are you talking about, nigger? There are more redundancies and backups than ever, and the airplane crash rate is at the all time low, and continues to drop.

First, literally everyone are doing it, except single engine planes. And second, where the fuck else would you put the fuel? In the fuselage, so that not only does it takes valuable space and increases wing stress, but also turns the airplane into a pressure cooker in the event of a fire?

▶Anonymous 05/18/19 (Sat) 06:21:06 5f4a6b No.13291811>>13292025 >>13292044 >>13292100 >>13292116 >>13292226 >>13292317 >>13292382 >>13292754 >>13292854 >>13293373 >>13293415 >>13294976 >>13295038 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

ROBOT WARS Based China unveils terrifying new armoured truck which launches swarms of killer drones to attack its enemies

The war machine - based on a Russian Tigr vehicle - can direct the drones so they simultaneously converge on targets and detonate their explosive payloads

The mighty YJ2080 is equipped with 12 launch tubes - four for reconnaissance drones and the other eight for explosive laden drones which can travel at 110mph.

Its mission will be to eliminate targets beyond traditional line of sight and kill from above with four pound bombs.

The truck's deadly drone system can search for and destroy its own targets, reports Popular Mechanics.

Earlier this year, China revealed a lethal fully autonomous drones that can carry out targeted military strikes

The killer drones and pilotless aircraft are fitted with AK-47 rifles and are already being exported to combat zones in the Middle East.

US national security think tank Center for a New American Security (CNAS) said in a report that Chinese officials see this AI ‘arms race’ as a threat to global peace.

▶Anonymous 05/18/19 (Sat) 06:24:03 5f4a6b No.13291824>>13291899 >>13292419 >>13292841 >>13294976 >>13294979

One example is the Blowfish A2 drone, which China exports internationally and which Mr Allen says is advertised as being capable of “full autonomy all the way up to targeted strikes against people of color.”

The Blowfish A2 “autonomously performs complex combat miss

Please don't tell lies on the fucking internet the Max crashed itself in the hands of experienced pilots. It noses down with no limit as to what "down" is if its retarded faulty sensor thinks that you're going to come CLOSE to stalling the retarded wing configuration. No matter what input the pilot gives, the airplane simply doesn't respond to it.
Every other limiter and autopilot on the market came with at least a blinking light that its on, and a switch to turn it off, and most of the good autopilots stop functioning when the human pilot grabs the stick.

It's a badly programmed software solution to a hardware problem caused by incompetent Boeing engineers.

Retard do you think I'm complaining about the wing full of fuel which is common and normal and beneficial to the airplane - or the engine which fuselage is merged into it. You're so dumb I think you work for the company.

Max crashed because the fucking pajeets didn't disable the stabilizer computer and tried to physically wrestle it instead. Which of course they failed because hydraulic power steering actuators are stronger than muscles. I don't argue that it's a badly programmed software but it has very little to do with the airframe - it wasn't perfect but it was perfectly adequate.
First of all, that's a common practice since fucking forever. And second of all, you're full of shit because pretty damn clearly the max doesn't have engines embedded into the wings.

Attached: boeing-737-max-ap-mo-20190414_hpMain_16x9_1600.jpg (765x506 160.92 KB, 52.49K)

It wouldn't exist without the airframe being a borked piece of shit.

Airbus just lifted their airplane on longer gear and mounted wings a bit higher, and they could mount the large "fuel efficient" engine. Boeing didn't lift their airplane, didn't lift the wing, instead MERGED the huge engine with the wing so it wouldn't hit the ground. This reduced lift at higher AOA and required a software LIMITER which prevented the jet from getting into stall, that nosed the aircraft down by force to prevent high AOA situation and stall.

We mounted shit on pods because it's more efficient, if you want to go ride in 40s prop jets thats fine, but don't market them as modern high efficiency passenger airplanes.

This is like the third bullshit thing you said after claiming a software limiter put in place because of bad airframe design has nothing to do with the airframe design.

Attached: the-new-boeing-737-max-and-cfm-international-leap-engine-the-farnborough-GDJ62C.jpg (2000x1333 123.4 KB, 224.26K)

1. Boeing tried to save on mass by cutting down the size of their landing gear.
2. This meant they couldn't mount the new high bypass large engines which are more fuel efficient.
3. So they lifted the engine up and merged it with the wing body itself.
4. This disturbed airflow over the wing causing premature stall at angles of attack which any normal airplane has when it takes off a runway.
5. To fix this Boeing installed a chip which forces the nose down to avoid stall, no matter the input that the pilot gave.

They made this chip a secret their customers didn't know about.

There was no indicator light. There was no off switch.

Other than taking the entire avionics system off and flying manual, there was no way to combat this issue. This caused Boeing's aircraft to nose into the ground.

Meanwhile airbus needs no such faulty software, their aicraft are more fuel efficient, they can also land on rougher airstrips in more countries.

Attached: seatwidth.jpg (750x134, 54.95K)

You can clearly fucking see on the pictures that the engine is suspended well outside the wing. It would be impossible to service the engine without completely dismantling the wing otherwise, which you can imagine would be a complete deal breaker for any commercial aircraft - you can't even begin to imagine how much that shit costs as it is. Not only is that shit immediately obvious, but also it's the only way it could've been done if you thought about it for a second you outrage-culture-minded mongoloid double nigger.
[citation needed]
Which you, a fucking leaf, pulled straight out of your ass and put into my mouth.

Day of the rake FUCKING WHEN.

Attached: 1457068569417.png (320x288, 5.3K)

Not partial either way on the subject but I'd expect said configuration to disrupt normal airflow along the leading edge which could potentially be anomalous at certain angles of attack. Not an aerodynamicist but there's probably a good reason non-pyloned engines are a rarity in both airliners and military aircraft with externally mounted engines.

It's as if Boing looked at AF 447 and decided to hire their best mutts to prevent such an event from ever happening again by giving a passenger plane eurocanard tier aerodynamic stability because they were too lazy to redesign the landing gear and had to mount the engine way too high thus ruining the wing planform, but its fine goy the flight computer will prevent the plane from spinning out by nosing it down with no survivors.
With the F-35 spreading its roots all over aviation I'm worried about the prospects of the Lapcat A2.
Then again it'd be the ultimate insult to Boeing if they have to salvage the MAX by adding filthy e*ropean canards to the front of the plane.

Attached: smile.jpg (850x551 65.33 KB, 249.05K)

Yeah because they're easier to service that way. Putting them directly in the center of the wing ensures symmetrical aerodynamics, putting them on pylons actually creates turbulent disrupted airflow over the wing behind the engine at high angles of attack, lowering lift. Not to mention, engines hanging that low create very strong thrust-pitching moment so they handle worse in critical scenarios. They have their benefits but aerodynamics is not one of them, by far.

Prime example of retard pilot. Autopilot disengaged because of airspeed sensor getting stuck (all pitot tubes froze over, but they'd thaw in a minute or two). All he had to do is to keep the airplane level. Instead, the fuckwit started dicking about with rolling and pitching the plane at extreme rates, and then just straight put the it into stall, and kept it stalled for the entire 4-something minutes of descent. Go check the black box reconstruction. It's fucking hilarios and tragic.

Also Boeing couldn't just make longer landing gear for 737, fuselage being low to the ground is its key feature making it so attractive to the companies (baggage handling is a lot cheaper that way). Not to mention they'd have to redesign basically the entire landing gear bay. Then there's the issue of certifying the new airframe. Something as trivial as engine swap doesn't warrant all this, which is to say, all this would command such high price tag on new airplanes that it'd defeat the purpose of having a more economical engine. Having different plane dynamics compensated for with digital flight control is an adequate approach, especially considering that virtually all airplanes fly like this anyway. The problem was that they fucked up sensor hardware by not making it redundant, fucked up software by not making it detect sensor failure and bail out of attempting to steer the plane, and fucked up their upgrade policy by making a sensor failure light an optional feature that cost extra money but without informing the customers what was the nature of the option, just its price tag.

This is complete bullshit, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The more separated an engine is from the wing the more complete the wing surface is, providing superior lift. That's why a lot of airliners mount the engines on the freaking tail, even though it's massively interfering with control surfaces, it's worth it because it brings superior lift at the engine.

Merging the engine with the wing is the worst of all possible worlds. It lowers safety in case of engine blowout, it increases felt noise and vibration, it decreases maintainability, and yes - it fucks with lift. I can't believe you're denying this considering the MAX software even EXISTS!!!

We're well aware that you're a retard, but thanks for clarifying this again.

Attached: blini_hell.jpg (604x550, 78.77K)

holy shit never post that """meme""" again you fucking braindead nigger

Attached: idtdn2tl2ky21.png (582x767, 526.65K)

I don't get it. Why are you niggers so transfixed on aiframe stability? Seems to me like you just don't understand whatsoever what this word means, what glider stability or instability even does. Stable airplane just means that if you let go of the stick, it will level itself - eventually, that might actually take a while; unstable airplane is the one that doesn't do this self-leveling. It's just a noob pilot feature. 100% of combat planes ever existed have unstable airframe, for a very long time they were piloted fully manually, and yet here we are.

For real, 95% of the time people are outraged about anything, it's because they don't have a slightest clue what they're outraged about.

Attached: 1419814621635.jpg (361x283, 21.34K)

According to my sources my dad, who is an aircraft mechanic at a major airline with 30 years experience, that's not entirely true. When the stabilizer is in the full down position AND the pilots are pulling full back, the amount of pressure on the stabilizer trim is more than the manual override can exert. So in order to reset your stab trim, you have to let the control yoke forward, letting the plane dive while you frantically use the manual controls.

There's a difference between dynamic stability and static.

As a Seattle local, near the heart of Boeing manufacturing, I've found that a critical part of this story that hasn't necessarily reached national or international attention is the corporate politics of Boeing.
Some years ago - around 2009 I believe? - Boeing went through a merger with another corporation. The Boeing name was kept, being widely known, but the management positions went almost entirely to the new company.
Boeing engineers and machinists had historically been an incredibly strong union, as the managers of the company knew that these were the people who actually made the company function. While of course there are written plans for all the planes, the technical knowledge of how to build them correctly was passed down directly from old employees to new ones,somewhat like a traditional mentorship.
Now, when the new management came in, there was already tension between the management and the union, since the union had been on strike at the start of the 2008 recession, which had caused a significant blow to company profits. Of course, there's no way the union could have known this, and sometimes that's how strikes go - but rather than understanding that they needed to bargain with the union, the new management decided to destroy it. They fired the vast majority of their senior engineers - I learned all this from a bus driver, who'd been fired just years out from retirement, after working as a boeing engineer for his entire career. They tried outsourcing production of individual parts to China and merely assembling the parts at the Washington plants, but that was a disaster - parts came back in all kinds of wrong sizes and with significant quality issues. So they realized it was critical to make everything in the same plant - and decided to build a new plant in North Carolina, a "right to work" (anti-union) state. This was also a disaster - the engineers they hired there were trying to figure out airplane manufacturing basically from scratch. Again, massive quality issues ensued. Eventually the corporate management realized just how important the mentoring of experienced engineers had been to their production, and sent the handful of engineers they hadn't fired yet to NC to train the scabs. Things stabilized after that, but they'd still lost a massive amount of knowledge and skill with all the people they'd fired. The Washington plants continued operation, at a significantly reduced volume, but the union was massively weakened.

The bigger picture here is that Boeing has built its entire reputation on reliability, quality, and expert engineering. The old management squabbled with the union, but they knew that, and they respected it. They understood that a passenger airplane is a piece of infrastructure, something which must be absolutely reliable, easy to repair and maintain, long-lasting, and replaced with new purchases only as needed.
The new management, despite a series of expensive manufacturing disasters which perfectly illustrated the importance of consistency, reliability, and expertise, entirely failed to learn their lesson. They view airplanes as a commodity to be marketed. They are willing to cut corners, push deadlines, mislead with marketing, and treat core safety features as "bonus upgrades" with an extra cost. Everything that has gone wrong with the 737 max can be explained by this corporate mindset.

As the video explains, the 737 max was a hastily-designed attempt to put an entirely new engine on the fuselage of the 737 line, which significantly changed the balance of the plane, and caused it to tip up into an angle which could cause stall conditions. From an engineering perspective, this should be an absolute dealbreaker. You don't launch a plane that's going to send itself into stall conditions during normal flight manouvers. That's absurd. The only sensible thing to do would be to redesign to fuselage to balance properly with the new engine. And that's absolutely normal in the world of airplane engineering. It might take a few more years, but the service life of an airplane is a good three decades, so it really shouldn't matter that much whether you're making that profit right now or a few years later.
Only from the perspective of a company trying to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible, veiwing market competition as a game to be won in the month-to-month comparison of profits, could the decision to rush the plane to production with such a fatal design flaw possibly occur.
And the way they chose to "fix" this problem by hiding it takes this profit-driven mindset to even more bizzare levels.
A plane which had such severe balance issues would not have passed regulations - so they hid it with a software system.
A plane which relied on an autonomous software system to prevent total failure would not have passed safety regulations - so they pretended it was a minor stabilization system, not a critical safety system.
If the actual function of the tilt control system was known to pilots, it would have been obvious that the plane was a safety disaster which should never have been cleared to fly - so the pilots manual didn't mention that the system even existed.
If pilots had known what the system was, how to tell if it wasn't working correctly, and how to manually override it, the crashes may have been averted (though the Ethopia flight data shows the pilots did regain manual control, it was too late - but they may have had to waste precious time figuring out what was going wrong.) But that information was intentionally hiden from them, entirely for the purpose of making the plane "marketable."

Worse still is the marketing of the sensor upgrade. The automatic tilt control system relied on measurements from a sensor on the tail of the plane. Every plane had two sensors built in, but by default, only one was activated and connected to the tilt control system. If customers paid extra, they could recieve an upgrade in which both sensors were activated, compared data to eaxh other, and set off an alert to the pilot if the two sensors were reporting different readings. Such a system would have, presumably, detected the sensor reading errors responsible for causing both of the crashes. Of course, to act on this information, the pilots would still have had to know what the tilt control system was and how to manually override it.

Boeing chose to market the plane as being functionally the same as the previous 737 designs, specifically so it would be given less thorough safety anaylsis and require less pilot training, and be on the market faster.
Boeing specifically requested, and recieved, special treatment from the FAA - a faster and less thorough review process.
After the second crash, Boeing lobbied the federal government not to ground the fleet, without any respect for the obvious safety concerns or the tradgedy of massive loss of life.
Now, with the fleet grounded, Boeing is trying to claim that they can fix the planes with a software upgrade and more pilot training - even though the problem remains that the plane will tip itself into stall conditions without active intervention, and even with both pilot knowledge and a non-malfunctioning software system, that's an incredibly dangerous design flaw.