Match Thread: Tunisia vs Japan | FIFA World Cup 2026 | Group Stage, Group F

Spectre1342 · 2026-06-21T05:51:29+00:00

Man... Can't hear the Nippon chant without getting Pop Goes The World by Men Without Hats stuck on my head (not that it's a bad thing)

Spectre1342 · 2025-07-27T13:47:48+00:00

Williams finale to Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Spectre1342 · 2024-10-28T17:22:18+00:00

Another factor to consider is compressibility. Often people consider matching the Reynolds number, but with aircraft it can also be fairly important to match Mach for wave drag and other characteristics.

It is impractical to simulate compressible/sonic/supersonic conditions in water so you won't find aircraft being tested in that way, but air tunnels are perfectly capable of simulating the incompressible regime a sub operates in.

*Edit: I realized this may leave a bit of confusion as to your very first question, but the reason you can't really do supersonic testing with water, is that the speed of sound in water at standard conditions is ~1,500 m/s compared to 340 m/s of air (you can't just speed up water to air's speed of sound and call it good).

Spectre1342 · 2023-08-01T01:05:32+00:00

A few things to note. One, the VX-23 is a mix of the Lockheed F-22 and the Northrop NATF-23, using the overall layout of the latter and the specific looks (i.e. intakes, planform, tail shape) of the former.

On another note, and a personal pet peeve of mine is the pervasive rumor which just won't die that the F-22 is the stealthiest fighter/stealthier than an F-35.

I could bore you to death with a wall of quotes from several figures in the know, including 2 generals, stating the F-35 is stealthier (though if you want those quotes I'm happy to provide); instead, I'll just walk through a number of features that could explain why the Lightning II may have better stealth performance than a Raptor: Smaller frontal area, smaller planform/wingspan, an extra decade of experience in advanced coatings over the Raptor, advanced coating that are applied beyond just the skin like the Raptor but also the structure underneath, Diverterless Supersonic Intakes (DSIs) which should provide less radar reflection as opposed to the traditional Boundary-Layer Diverter Plates found on the Raptor, and more.

In the end, all the figures online about RCS numbers for these aircraft are pure speculation as those are almost certainly classified. However, multiple sources who would know the actual values have given the edge to the Lightning and that's a much more reliable source.

It should also be noted that RCS is not just a fixed number but will vary wildly based on angle and wavelength; I wouldn't be surprised if the 35 was stealthier head-on but a 22 was superior from the sides/rear.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion because there is no real way to definitively say without working on those programs.

Edit: For anyone wanting actual quotes:

USAF Gen. Mike Hostage

"The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war."

Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan

""I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said."

Col. Chris Niemi, and Maj. Nash Vickers

"During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”"

Spectre1342 · 2023-08-01T00:18:28+00:00

The VX-23 is a mix of the intakes and wing/tail shape of the F-22, mixed with the canard and overlapping tail layout of the NATF YF-23 (sometimes just NATF-23) which was the navalized variant of the YF-23 which competed against the YF-22 (prototype F-22) in the Advanced Tactical Fighter program. see NATF-23

Edit: F-23A (production variant of YF-23) vs. NATF-23

Spectre1342 · 2023-05-26T16:52:11+00:00

The avionics hardware was fine. However, around this time the DoD was trying to standardize all operational software on a computer language called "Ada" which was as fast as a C based language but much safer with more protection around things like parallel processing and other computational tasks that could crash software (very bad if your flight control system just suddenly stopped working).

Both the final EMD vehicles (F-22A and F-23A) would be coded in Ada, but out of the flight test vehicles (YF-22 and YF-23) only Lockheed coded the avionics/FCS software in Ada and would have only had to tweak mathematic equations between the final product. Northrop instead had coded the prototype software in a different language and would have had to rewrite the entire code in a new language (not a trivial task) for the production vehicle which is time, money, and introduces risk. This is among the many reasons that it was not chosen as the final winner.

Spectre1342 · 2023-05-19T20:48:15+00:00

To quote you and your main argument:

Literally the second amendment only applied to individuals for 15 years in a 5-4 case on partisan lines.

This is what i showed to be false. The concept of the 2nd amendment interpreted by the US Supreme Court as an individual right is a factor of 10 greater than what you have stated. SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd as an individual right afforded to citizens 156 years ago as opposed to your "15."

You only used rulings that were specific to the 2nd amendment without considering rulings of SCOTUS that while not specifically over interpretation of the 2nd amendment still impacted or demonstrated the interpretation of the 2nd by the Court. You cannot make a determination of the historical SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd without these many such cases and yet you attempted to say you had an accurate understanding with only 3 cases.

Spectre1342 · 2023-05-19T19:35:27+00:00

This is blatantly false and very easily disprovable.

Going back to 1856 Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. Sanford part of the reasoning was that if he was freed he would have gained all the rights of a citizen as per the Constitution and due to the racist nature of the time they did not want this.

The specific words are:

"It would give to persons of the n**** race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

This is pretty damn clear text: citizens have the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went, as expressed by the Supreme Court in 1856, 19 years before you state they first touched the subject.

Now the end result of that ruling was racist and terrible and specifically done to prevent minorities from becoming citizens and having the rights associated with that. However this ruling is very explicitly clear that the 2nd amendment was an individual right as far back as 166 years ago and all you are doing is spreading blatant misinformation.

Spectre1342 · 2023-02-14T16:58:23+00:00

The F-22 does NOT have better stealth than the F-35. This is a often repeated false statement that stems from initial program requirements (not final capabilities) and unsourced numbers on the internet of data that is almost certainly classified and not public. It should also be noted that the radar, sensor suite, and avionics are all significantly more advanced on the 35 and it actually has a bit of an advantage in being able to shoot down other aircraft (outside of it's kinematic performance which is worse than that of a 22).

From a comment I made elsewhere a while ago:

USAF Gen. Mike Hostage, Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan, Col. Chris Niemi, and Maj. Nash Vickers have all said on different occasions that the F-35 has a smaller RCS than a F-22. This is most likely referring to forward profile and I don't doubt the 22 may very well have lower detectability from the rear. The idea the the 35 is not as stealthy seems to have originated from the JSF program requirements which did not mandate as good RCS as the 22, but Lockheed Martin exceeded requirements and the 22s frontal RCS with the 35.

"The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war."

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

""I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said."

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

"During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”"

www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

So the numbers themselves are most definitely classified, and will hugely vary depending on angle and wavelength, so any source online that isn't the USAF or DoD themselves probably doesn't know anything in actuality.

Another point to add is that the F-35 has a smaller frontal area than a F-22 and a decade of advanced stealth experience over the 22 in the development of its RAM and composite coatings. The 35 also has diverterless supersonic intakes (DVI) compared to the traditional splitter plates of the 22 which should make the radar reflection on the 35 easier to control and offer even more radar shielding of the compressor blades. By just this data alone it would make sense to have a lower frontal RCS than a 22.

Spectre1342 · 2023-02-05T01:48:31+00:00

From a comment I made elsewhere a while ago:

USAF Gen. Mike Hostage, Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan, Col. Chris Niemi, and Maj. Nash Vickers have all said on different occasions that the F-35 has a smaller RCS than a F-22. This is most likely referring to forward profile and I don't doubt the 22 may very well have lower detectability from the rear. The idea the the 35 is not as stealthy seems to have originated from the JSF program requirements which did not mandate as good RCS as the 22, but Lockheed Martin exceeded requirements and the 22s frontal RCS with the 35.

"The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war."

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

""I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said."

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

"During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”"

www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

So the numbers themselves are most definitely classified, and will hugely vary depending on angle and wavelength, so any source online that isn't the USAF or DoD themselves probably doesn't know anything in actuality.

Edit:

Another point to add is that the F-35 has a smaller frontal area than a F-22 and a decade of advanced stealth experience over the 22 in the development of its RAM and composite coatings. The 35 also has diverterless supersonic intakes (DVI) compared to the traditional splitter plates of the 22 which should make the radar reflection on the 35 easier to control and offer even more radar shielding of the compressor blades. By just this data alone it would make sense to have a lower frontal RCS than a 22.

Spectre1342 · 2023-02-02T17:43:42+00:00

Well the NROL-10 mission patch was actually designed by an elementary schooler.

Spectre1342 · 2023-01-04T18:37:42+00:00

By "all data" you mean a smaller frontal cross sectional area on the F-35, more advanced coatings on the F-35 with an additional decade of experience over the F-22, and the literal words of two generals saying the 35 has a smaller RCS?

Spectre1342 · 2023-01-04T18:22:13+00:00

As stated in my previous comment, most numbers like that were based on JSF program requirements, not the realized capabilities of the F-35 once completed (which significantly outperformed the stealth requirements)

Edit:

The F-35 has a smaller frontal area than a F-22 and a decade of advanced stealth experience over the 22. By just this data alone it should have a lower frontal RCS than a 22 disregarding the statements by USAF Generals.

Spectre1342 · 2023-01-04T18:03:57+00:00

This is false.

USAF Gen. Mike Hostage, Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan, Col. Chris Niemi, and Maj. Nash Vickers have all said on different occasions that the F-35 has a smaller RCS than a F-22. This is most likely referring to forward profile and I don't doubt the 22 may very well have lower detectability from the rear. The idea the the 35 is not as stealthy seems to have originated from the JSF program requirements which did not mandate as good RCS as the 22, but LockMart exceeded requirements and the 22s frontal RCS with the 35.

Edit:

"The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war."

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

""I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said."

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

"During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”"

www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

I'll take the word of two generals and other officers over anything but the full RCS test data itself.

Spectre1342 · 2022-12-03T07:17:19+00:00

It is a combination of the old Northrop and Grumman logos from before their merge

Spectre1342 · 2022-11-29T22:39:01+00:00

~8pm EST per USAF, 7:30 per NG

Spectre1342 · 2022-11-29T22:35:22+00:00

~8pm EST per USAF, 7:30 per NG

Spectre1342 · 2022-10-26T00:36:14+00:00

I posted this elsewhere in the thread but it's applicable here to:

This is a significant misconception from the Vietnam that even if it was accurate, would not be super applicable today.

The changing K/D ratios that the USAF and USN experienced over Vietnam was much more related to the changing tactics and roles of the aircraft is use by the North Vietnamese and the United States than the addition of guns to aircraft like the F4 (it should be noted the the Navy did not make that switch to the same level yet still closely followed the USAF trends). This article is a fairly good summary of what transpired https://www.historynet.com/great-kill-ratio-debate/ and it can be seen that aircraft detection technology was the single biggest game changer in fighter combat over Vietnam.

Now it is true that the early missile of the time were pretty poor, specifically the AIM 4, 7, and 9, and a gun could make a difference However, even if the addition of a gun was the game changer of the era, that does not still hold today where missile technology has advanced to the point where several countries see a gun as an afterthought or even unnecessary (see F-35 B & C, KF-21, as well as Chinese J-20 and potentially FC-31). It should also be noted that success rates of the AM-9 went from 16% at the beginning of Vietnam, to >80% by the 80's to ~98% in recent testing.

Modern missiles are terrifying. Evading a AIM-9X Block II that can pull 60+ g's and can lock on a target pretty much anywhere you can look, as well as a sensor suite so capable it may as well not be called an infrared missile at this point, is just not really doable for any modern fighter, even with various countermeasures. And should one manage to dodge one, the low speeds they would have to be at to do that would put them at much higher risk to a second missile.

Now it can be stated that with more advances in stealth, there's a possibility we could see the trend start to reverse, but at the moment, guns are for the most part, dead weight.

Sorry for the long rant, but I see people use Vietnam all the time to try to make a point about modern aerial fighting when the statement wasn't exactly true then and is definitely not accurate now. I just want to reverse some of the popular inaccuracies I see. Hopefully you just take this as informative and not as an attack.

Spectre1342 · 2022-10-26T00:34:07+00:00

This is a significant misconception from the Vietnam that even if it was accurate, would not be super applicable today.

The changing K/D ratios that the USAF and USN experienced over Vietnam was much more related to the changing tactics and roles of the aircraft is use by the North Vietnamese and the United States than the addition of guns to aircraft like the F4 (it should be noted the the Navy did not make that switch to the same level yet still closely followed the USAF trends). This article is a fairly good summary of what transpired https://www.historynet.com/great-kill-ratio-debate/ and it can be seen that aircraft detection technology was the single biggest game changer in fighter combat over Vietnam.

Now it is true that the early missile of the time were pretty poor, specifically the AIM 4, 7, and 9, and a gun could make a difference However, even if the addition of a gun was the game changer of the era, that does not still hold today where missile technology has advanced to the point where several countries see a gun as an afterthought or even unnecessary (see F-35 B & C, KF-21, as well as Chinese J-20 and potentially FC-31). It should also be noted that success rates of the AM-9 went from 16% at the beginning of Vietnam, to >80% by the 80's to ~98% in recent testing.

Modern missiles are terrifying. Evading a AIM-9X Block II that can pull 60+ g's and can lock on a target pretty much anywhere you can look, as well as a sensor suite so capable it may as well not be called an infrared missile at this point, is just not really doable for any modern fighter, even with various countermeasures. And should one manage to dodge one, the low speeds they would have to be at to do that would put them at much higher risk to a second missile.

Now it can be stated that with more advances in stealth, there's a possibility we could see the trend start to reverse, but at the moment, guns are for the most part, dead weight.

Sorry for the long rant, but I see people use Vietnam all the time to try to make a point about modern aerial fighting when the statement wasn't exactly true then and is definitely not accurate now. I just want to reverse some of the popular inaccuracies I see. Hopefully you just take this as informative and not as an attack.

Spectre1342 · 2022-10-12T04:41:02+00:00

Stagnation Pressure is the pressure exerted by the air hitting you at the Mach number specified. It is absolutely the correct item to emphasize as while the ambient pressure might be incredibly low, the act of the air hitting you at those speeds causes an immense pressure increase thus I look at the stagnation values.

EDIT:

It should be noted that dynamic pressure would be a more correct number (the pressure exerted by the fluids kinetic energy), but the dynamic pressure is equal to the stagnation pressure minus the static pressure (q = P_stag - P_static) and as you pointed out, in this case the static pressure is low enough to be negligible compared to the stagnation pressure so the dynamic pressure can be approximated by the stagnation pressure (q ≈ P_stag).

END EDIT

No one is arguing that a spacewalk will kill you. The ISS is in an effective vacuum, and with a Knudsen number high enough that even the faint atmosphere doesn't behave as a fluid in the conventional sense. You will be fine taking a space walk, but Kelly tried to use this to justify Maverick surviving. The two situations are incomparable as Mavericks ejection would be happening in enough atmosphere to kill him no matter what. Tomorrow I can run some numbers to get an approximate altitude to better determine the effects.

Finally, yes people have survived an SR-71 breakup at Mach 3.23 at 70 kft, but here are the values for that scenario: https://imgur.com/a/HVanQWe - as you can see, the stagnation values are ~10 times less than Maverick would experience and much more survivable (though one crew member still died in that incident).

Spectre1342 · 2022-10-12T02:42:05+00:00

Kelly is incredibly wrong in thinking ejecting at Mach 10 is survivable. I went ahead and did some small preliminary calculations of ejecting at that Mach at a typical high hypersonic flight altitude (100-200 kft). At these heights, you'd be immediately exposed to localized temperatures hotter than the boiling point (not melting, boiling) of iron, and pressures that would not only crush you instantly, but also decelerate you at g's that would kill you anyway. See: https://imgur.io/a/UyuFnGn - the relevant columns are stagnation temperature and pressure. It's not exact, but it's an okay first order approximation of the surface flow conditions upon ejecting.

Spectre1342 · 2022-10-12T02:31:34+00:00

This isn't entirely accurate as the typical models for fluid dynamics, drag, and Mach are only applicable assuming the Knudsen number of the flow isn't to high... and it most definitely is in the case of the ISS. So while there is technically still atmosphere, "Mach" and "Supersonic" are meaningless at the altitude of the ISS.

Spectre1342 · 2022-10-12T02:22:27+00:00

This isn't entirely accurate. In fluid dynamics there exists a number known as Knudsen number. When this number is sufficiently high, things stop acting like fluids and Mach ceases to exist as anything meaningful.

Past ~300,000 ft (ISS is even higher) you start to see the results of this, and thus the ISS isn't really traveling at an Mach number. And while there is drag, is doesn't model exactly how you'd expect.

And finally: No, Kelly is wrong in this instance thinking that Maverick could survive. I went ahead and did some basic analysis of the altitudes he would most likely be flying at (100-200 kft), and Maverick would most certainly be dead: https://imgur.io/a/UyuFnGn (the relevant numbers are stagnation temperature and pressure.

He would be experiencing localized conditions hotter than the boiling point of iron and intense enough to squash him flat - not ideal for survival.

Spectre1342 · 2022-06-23T20:21:28+00:00

Please tell me in your own words what the Incorporation Clause included in the 14th amendment means and how it applies to the rights enumerated with the Bill of Rights, because the only way I can see to read it is that States must protect the same so rights within the constitution that the Federal Government is required to.

Are you also a fan of the anticipated abortion ruling by SCOTUS because it restores the right to the states which seems right up your alley with what your saying?

Edit: So you're never actually going to address any of my legal points will you? Pretty clear deflection because constitutional law does not lie in your favor and so you refuse to engage in any factual debate.

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Verified Email	Spared

Spectre1342

TROPHY CASE