>>65075766
Pretty much. Computers and fly by wire made the extra complexity, weight, and maintenance of such systems obsolete.

>>65075813
How do computers and fly by wire change the efficiency of different wing angles?
The design concept never was worth it but they were had to be made and used to find that out for certain.

>>65075766
Are there any trainers with swing wings? Many trainers can already just load a different flight model for different characteristics, why not give it swing wing for even more possibilities?

>>65075834
You can design an aircraft so aerodynamically unstable that only a computer can keep it flying straight. Which means its highly maneuverable at most speeds and coupled with thrust vectoring it makes swing wings unneeded.

Are those missile pylons swiveling? Why? Can't they attack off bore?

File: 68678776.gif (415.2 KB)

415.2 KB GIF

>>65075766
Yes, they look cool but swing wings are the folding headlamps of their day.

>>65075849
Why do people like you post about aircraft when you know so little about them? Swing wings for reducing stall speed to allow aircraft to take off with higher loads than they otherwise could and do low speed loitering patrols without running out of fuel, something which FBW and thrust vectoring don't really help with at all.

Honestly, the last few days has felt like someone introduced a new bot to /k/ airplane threads that knows far too little about aircraft to not make all its posts utterly shit. Like, same bot in an F15 thread claiming that the OG F15 was a twin seater so there could be a radar operator because 70s radar was complicated. Surely no human posting in an aviation thread could have that little domain knowledge about aircraft - sure - right?

>>65075851
IIRC, it has more to do with efficiency at speed than maneuverability (spread out for high lift at take off and landing, tucked in for low drag while cruising or with afterburner). It's just that we found out that the benefits aren't worth the weight and complexity.

>>65075766
>Are swing wings an obsolete technology?
Yes. Juice ain't worth the squeeze. It's a lot of weight and mechanical complexity and maintenance challenge that also fucks stealth hard. Computers enabling control of something with low or even negative stability negated a lot of the benefits like >>65075849 anon says.

The fit has only ever gotten worse as the decades have gone by, hard to even come up in theory with any reason it'd ever be worth it now. Certainly something really cool about a transforming aircraft though, won't deny that.

>>65075863
No he's right. You're saying another reason but that wasn't the main one. Like shit anon
>Swing wings for reducing stall speed to allow aircraft to take off with higher loads than they otherwise could
Except they add so much fucking weight that this isn't actually very useful.
>low speed loitering patrols
Dedicated CAS and copters could do it better, cheaper, in more numbers. Nowadays obviously all of that is drones.

Nobody has designed even one single new variable sweep design since the Tu-160 in fucking 1980. The final American one was the B-1 in 1974. If you think they have advantages why do you think it's been abandoned by the US for over 50 years now?

File: NASA_AD-1_in_flight.jpg (349.3 KB)

349.3 KB JPG

>>65075766
No but nobody wants to build the kind that actually work well because of the aesthetics.

>>65075869
>It's just that we found out that the benefits aren't worth the weight and complexity.
I think it's more that priorities changed.

Swing wings aren't very stealthy even though they're aerodynamically advantageous, and no one built any high capability aircraft that weren't stealth after the teen series. B1B is still in service and unsurpassed by B2 and B21 in most non-stealth regards, F111 was always a heavily and deliberately compromised design because of the McNamara TFX shenaninganisation but still surpasses F15E in many regards, and F14 was replaced by a lower capability multirole mix because very distance fleet defence from massed bombers stopped being a force structure requirement.

It's true that cost, complexity, weight and maintenance were huge factors, but I think stealth and changing requirements were the real killers.

File: spastic.png (274.8 KB)

274.8 KB PNG

>>65075885
>Dedicated CAS and copters could do it better, cheaper, in more numbers. Nowadays obviously all of that is drones.
The swing wings were not for CAS "patrols" you ignorant fuck, they were for fleet defence patrols at 200nm from a CBG at 10 degrees AOA to pound bombers, and taking off with eye watering loads of bombs that fast jets without variable geometry can only dream of. They don't add more weight than is useful, there is an enormous net gain, you gigantic fucking normie pseud.

Picrel. An F15E can can take off with and carry one quarter this bomb load, largely because it can't generate enough lift to take off with more from any reasonable runway. And the F111 was a massively compromised design that had loads of unnecessary weight and silly aerodynamics choices, produced 25 years before the F15E.

File: mach fuck.jpg (538.7 KB)

538.7 KB JPG

>mach 2.6
It's so fucking over from boscali just bend over and take the PALAcock

>>65075935
I'm not really trying to disagree with you on your larger point, but I just wanted to jump in and say:
The F111 is a significantly bigger bird (wingspan and mass) than the F15E. A better (but still incomplete) comparison would be the F15EX which is still smaller but can nearly carry as much (poundage). The US pretty much gave up on the heavy strike fight/light bomber role so no matter which modern plane you pick you're gonna have a hard time one way or another. Maybe go abroad and compare to Su-34?

>>65076002
Why bother going so fast if you're just trucking ALBMs?

>>65075766
swing wings kill any hope for stealth, so until a counter to low-observability is comprehensively spread we probably won't see any attempts at a return to reduce the complexity and weight of swing-wing systems.

>>65075766
imma designing a jet with vert-fins that retract into slots, like a jack knife, for low speed or intense maneuvers.

when retracted would add an extra layer of stuff to protect engines from hits from abeam

do jets today even have an automated feature to try to rotate at max speed to try and take any missile blasts from abead, presenting the smallest target area???

you track the incoming missile and AI starts fast rotation to gain R-speed so when the missile is near the jet is rotating very fast to always present abeam.

also canard wings in front that do the same

stay tuned.

Stealth is completely useless in nuclear option and it's annoying

>>65076131
brainlet mong

>>65075935
>25 years before
F-111 was designed in the early 1960s, F-15 in 1969
the E version, first demonstrator prototype flown July 1980 as a modified TF-15 prototype was simply a 2-seater with different electronic/weapons systems
Both are 1960s designs and technology

>>65076298
Either RADAR is dead in which case it doesn't matter, or it's alive and it actively hurts you because it makes ARH take longer to pitbull
There is no advantage

>>65076305
stealth is for opening up different routes that would otherwise have you spotted on radar, it's not a magic cloak
brainlet mong

>>65076312
Yeah it doesn't do that though because effectively infinite range vs effectively infinite range * 0.75 makes zero difference

>>65076317
I don't get if the maps are too tight or radar is that OP even IRL. Also, unlike the player, R9 batteries, ships, and CIWS seem to have infinite ammo. Attrition doesn't seem a factor in NO, DEAD is best done with AGM-48 trucks, and ships are immune to everything, especially AShM.
Also, TBM make flying redundant: you take off, spam as soon as gear is up, turn around, land, repeat. Idk, maybe one day there will be continent sized maps where you need to fly to get in range, and where radar can have gaps in coverage.

>>65076451
>>65076317
>>65076131
Are you literally retarded? Stealth is so strong that you can stratonuke a defended airbase with a stealth multirole without even SEADing first. TBMing doesn't work against even slightly competent players because you can perfectly intercept them with light IR missiles. AShM-300s are fine against botes, although AGM-99s aren't. I have so many questions about these posts.

Are you taking external stores on your Ifrit and Vortex sorties or something? Do you not know how to turn your radar off? I genuinely don't understand where this sentiment that stealth is weak could be coming from. Even AWACS and fixed radars only get tracks on clean stealth multiroles from, like, 17nm max absolute, I don't understand where this sentiment is coming from. Stealth is so strong that it can almost ruin the game more than half the time because it's so easy to delete airbases.

>>65076740
I know game mechanics well, my suspicion is a failure on community made maps: I remember unisntalling one because there was a cluster of AD so dense and layered it was impossible to get through. That being said, I don't play multiplayer, as I usuall play NO on the Deck, so maybe that's part of the reason. With a coordinated effort some stuff gets more balanced.

>>65075766
>supersonic darkreach with the jamming abilities of a medusa and the air to air abilities of an ifrit
I don't get it. The UFO was an april fool's joke and even that looks reasonable compared to this monstrosity.

>>65076740
>17nm
I swear I get hit with shit while flying no externals with radar off from 50km away. Just got used to flying in cover or under 10m RALT. How do I get good? I only play PvE because I don't have the time to get good enough against aeroplanosexual furry NEETs.

>>65076451
>and ships are immune to everything, especially AShM
ARADs are the one thing they aren't immune to. Take a medusa with the default loadout, fire all six missiles at a destroyer while jamming its radar. One of them will get through and destroy its radar, then you can hit it with AShMs.

>Are swing wings an obsolete technology?
No, they are cool and useful, the issue is that making and servicing them is a pain the in the ass

File: lfd.jpg (370.8 KB)

370.8 KB JPG

How do we feel about the Littoral Flight Deck?

>>65077397
Might be more impactful if I could fly rotorcraft worth a damn.

>>65077397
How will you every deploy 2800nm away through 28ft seas? Coastal patrol is for the coasties.

>>65077397
that underbelly is designed to be flown under

>>65077412
Even the Vortex can launch from them, its pretty good.

>>65077397
Takes way to long to land on given how small and active the maps are. I know aircraft are basically disposable in game but it still bugs me when I can't get back home. Wish the game would add a beartrap system for helicopter landings.

>>65075766
>only aircraft in game where I’ve ever accidentally detached a wing
Speed is overrated anyway. Agility and low observably > speed every day.
…also can we get a 4 engine ifrit?

>>65076451
> R9 batteries, ships, and CIWS seem to have infinite ammo
Land batteries have an ammo truck near them that replenishes them, if you blow up the truck they run dry really quickly. That said if you blow up the truck the ammo explosion almost always kills the battery anyway. Ships have got really deep but not infinite missile magazines (check the encyclopedia) and can be resupplied by an ibis/tara (the AI now does this as of 0.33)
As far as ASHMs go you need to be careful which direction you launch them from. Their terrain hugging is very cautious and they’re slow to come back down so even a small hill can force them to climb up to a few hundred meters, exposing them to radar. Having a Medusa jamming is hugely beneficial so that the ships won’t pick up the missiles until they’re in optical track range - just a kilometer or two. Also Shards lack forward PD, so attacking them nose-on can yield good results. Glide & gravity bombs are also hugely useful because they have 0 IR signature and are immune to IRMs, the only counter is Radar missiles (which should already be jammed by a Medusa or Alky) or ballistic CIWS (which are too short range to defeat a saturation attack)

>>65075889
Too ugly to pass approval.

>>65077397
>Can't launch God's chosen airframe; the T/A-30, off of it
I hate it.

File: ad1.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>65075766
for militaries yeah, a headache maintenance-wise for niche purposes at best. using large, thin, low-loaded delta/trapezoid wings with high-lift devices get pretty close in performance

for civilian use we've got some intriguing possibilities, like picrel

>>65078137
the new 500ERs are great at peppering ships, if you get one to pop you can almost guarantee at least one subsystem on a ship is going offline be it radar, a turret, missiles ect. They do however suck at killing anything besides a corvette

>>65082537
I like how low RCS they are even when carried externally. You are still properly stealthed when you have two slung on a Vortex. Sea skim, drop GBMs, turn cold, watch them wreck the radar and CIWS, finish it off with a GBO-500.

>>65082551
i haven't tried low level attacks with them yet, im still stuck in my default anti stratolance maneuver of with a clean ifrit space climbing, flying directly over the target then going mach fuck and releasing bombs hopefully too close for intercept

>>65076451
>I don't get if the maps are too tight
Heartland is definitely too tight.
Ignus archipelago, now that's better. Even if you still don't need a full tank to traverse it.

Hopefully the new landlocked map that's coming will fix this.

>Also, unlike the player, R9 batteries, ships, and CIWS seem to have infinite ammo
The players does have infinite ammo, you are never bothered with stuff like "no we are not letting you use the entire coutrie stockpile of hypersonic missiles to take out a few trucks"

Unless you meant they don't need reload time, then yes. But players don't need much effort to do so either.

>and ships are immune to everything, especially AShM.
You can saturate a whole fleet using 250kg bombs.
It would be ridiculous if boat didn't protect themselves, all you need is quantity and it becomes a quality on its own.

The game also reward using the right ammo against the right anti-air system.

>>65076740
>AShM-300s are fine against botes, although AGM-99s aren'
To be fair, AGM-99 weren't because no aircraft used them in any numbers enough to go through defense.
The game just lack target that can be taken out without a spam.

>>65077397
>How do we feel about the Littoral Flight Deck?
Flat.
It's not ugly but I think there's more important boat to make.
PALA need their landing ships
We could use drones boats
We don't even have enough helicopter/dronecopter to make it useful.

>>65082943
>Fly helicopter for 15 minutes to target
>Expend 48 lynchpins, it hits the ammo truck and nothing else
>Ammo explosion doesn't event take any other vehicles with it
>IR lock on
>Radar lock on
>Attempt to fire missiles at the radar missile while dropping flares
>Blow up anyway due to enemy jet strafing you right in deez nuts
>Get saved 15 minutes flying back to rearm
We need supersonic helicopters.

>>65077397
I instinctively hate anything that has a laser on it.

>>65075889
This is what commercial airliners would do if Boeing had some fucking balls

>>65075813
That's a take.
In reality, fly by wire and computers are what made swing wings viable in the first place.
And improvements in material science could actually make them viable again, because they have large inherent benefits.

>>65075853
Actually those got killed by regulation.
Flapping up a light is neither hugely expensive or complex and there would have been customers willing to shill out the extra 100 bucks on a 30k car.

>>65075766
Not really. It's still the only way to make a high supersonic aircraft that can land on a runway of reasonable length, with a T/W of ~0.3

In other words, a bomber. The battle between speed and stealth is still not decided, and stealth has an all or nothing quality - either you avoid detection and are invincible, or don't and you are 100% dead.

Meanwhile flying fast affords a degree of protection that reduces the effectiveness of enemy air defences. Sure you can't get as close, but in the era of cruise missiles, you don't need to, but more importantly, you have a much better chance of guessing how close you can go before being shot down.

And cruise missiles and hypersonics benefit immensely from a fast launch platform, as they don't need to carry those otherwise massive boosters, further increasing effective payload.

So you can either have a fixed wing delta, or a swing-wing that weighs 20% more and costs 2x, but can carry 3x or more the supersonic payload.

>>65083043
that's the trouble with heli-warfare, it needs special small scale feature, stuff you can shoot at using your turrets, ideally without being shredded apart by anything with a turret

>>65083506
The battle between speed and stealth is still not decided, and speed has an all or nothing quality - either you're fast enough to avoid fire and are invincible, or you aren't and you are 100% dead.
Meanwhile being stealthy affords a degree of protection that reduces the effectiveness of enemy air defences. Sure they can still see you if you get close enough, but in the era of cruise missiles, you don't need to, but more importantly, you have a much better chance of not being shot at to begin with.

They're both sliding scales with different utility at different combinations, dummy.

>>65083043
If you're being threatened by a radar missile while flying a helicopter you need to rethink the sequence of events that lead you to that point.

>>65083927
>rethink
Every OP has an AAR, dumbass

>>65083252
Viable for what though? What mission critical modern jet aircraft needs it enough to sacrifice the extra weight, cost, and maintenance hours for it?

>>65084006
Or some guy who just went
>Fuck IRMs, just slap an ARAD on it

>>65077397
That thing makes no sense. It's a way of getting 2 helicopters a little further up the river. The ship is so big you couldn't get into very shallow, or very narrow sections of a river, so there's only so far the ship can go. So, you're getting the helicopters a little further in land. The helicopters could fly that distance with no problem. But this way, you do it slower, and put a whole ship at risk. There's no benefit to building that kind of ship.

>>65084814
I mean, it holds more than 2 helicopters. There is room for 8 vortexes/chicanes below decks and another 4 on top. Cheap projection of power if you are lording over minor third world colonies.

>>65075766
Yes. But they are still SEXO.

>>65083506
>stealth has an all or nothing quality - either you avoid detection and are invincible, or don't and you are 100% dead.
This is not how decibel reduction works.

File: f-16m.jpg (420.2 KB)

420.2 KB JPG

F-16 in the big 2070

>>65084948
The concept of a 100 year old fighter plane design in service is ridiculous. Why would you want an F-16 over a (probably cheaper) revoker?

>>65084982
Because the Revoker was only manufactured with a SINGLE underwing pylon for some reason

>>65083252
>And improvements in material science could actually make them viable again, because they have large inherent benefits.
At what cost?

Sure you COULD spend $10-20B trying to figure out super strong/lightweight/minimal maintenance swing wing joint structures, but that money could ALSO develop a whole new clean sheet CCA drone or a 6th gen adaptive cycle engine.

IDK about you, but I think the money is simply better spent elsewhere.