this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2025
151 points (98.7% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
7265 readers
602 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Context https://breakingdefense.com/2025/03/boeing-wins-sixth-gen-fighter-ngad-air-force-lockheed-loss-trump-hegseth/
lol I’m low-key curious if orangeboi was like “all those Russian planes have the little front wings, ours should have that too”. Because for a stealth platform, canards are a pretty dumb idea. And last I heard, the NGAD program was exploring boundary-layer stuff in lieu of a lot of the control surfaces.
What's the problem with canards and stealth?
If you’re going for max stealth (which the NGAD was), you want to absolutely minimize the amount of control surfaces, because those have joints and expose less stealth-optimized parts of the airframe when the surfaces move.
Note that the B-2 and B-21 look largely identical in terms of basic design - this is essentially carcinization in the stealth aircraft domain. It’s the best general layout for minimizing radar returns. Also, combine that with the fact that ACM is actually, finally, beginning to become conceptually obsolete (as a result of extremely capable missiles, unmanned drones that can probably pull 30Gs indefinitely, and directed energy weapons). So these days, in the cutting edge of the air combat domain that the US expects it would actually have to throw down within, maneuverability has stopped mattering quite so much. TL;DR ‘nards on the new stealth fighter is a genuinely pretty dumb idea.
Note that this whole statement is completely predicated on the existence and functioning of an absolute shitload of other support systems and infrastructure, and we’re tearing a lot of that shit up, so who fucking knows what’s gonna happen.
I think that's also why the f35 and j35 look alike. Well maybe. But if you have a design brief where the two planes do the same thing, it's not surprising they'd look alike
Well, also, there was a MASSIVE data leak/espionage op run by the CCP where they got a ton of the design files for the F-35.
Breaks in continuity of the skin will cause issues. Canards are huge breaks, you go from air to a conductive surface back to air.
Could be retractable? Ie, only used during high angle of attack/landing/takeoff. In stealth cruise or normal maneuvering, maybe they retract.
Wouldn't the break be the same/similar as a moving tail on the F22? Does it's position in the front make a difference?
The canards are probably visible for 270 degrees by a ground radar, the tail probably around 90.
Does radar get line of sight blocked like that? I thought it was more based on the overall shape, not just the visible sections.
Yes, if you imagine the vehicle as covered in a mirror, areas where you could see yourself will have the highest return. Shape is the most important thing with stealth.
Hence why chines are superior.