|
Armyman25 posted:Have you checked out the F-35 thread in GiP? I don't go around GiP much. Worth a read I take it?
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wouldn't mounting external stores on it like that effectively gently caress its low-profile radar signature straight to hell, though? I mean, what's the point in having a next-gen stealth fighter if you're just going to load a bunch of last-gen weapons on hardpoints on the outside and gently caress up its radar profile? You're right, but those F-15s won't be around forever. In 20 years there might be a need for such beast, plus that model is probably just a feasibility study thing where the engineers are seeing what sort of effects it would have on the F-22 if it was carrying a pile of external weapons. So they have that data on file if ever they need it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I don't go around GiP much. Worth a read I take it? The forum's fine, but I think Armyman is looking for recruits in his ongoing "fold the Marines into the Army" talking point crusade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:58
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wouldn't mounting external stores on it like that effectively gently caress its low-profile radar signature straight to hell, though? I mean, what's the point in having a next-gen stealth fighter if you're just going to load a bunch of last-gen weapons on hardpoints on the outside and gently caress up its radar profile? Time to invest in stealth/low-profile weapons and external stores. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:The forum's fine, but I think Armyman is looking for recruits in his ongoing "fold the Marines into the Army" talking point crusade. Ah, OK. Yeah, I just generally sort of stay out of there on the grounds that I don't have too much to offer, having never served in any kind of military or police capacity, and I spend enough time reading forums that I can contribute to that I don't think I need to be reading forums that I can't really contribute to in any meaningful way. Only exception to this is a very small handful of way, way upper-level milsurp forums I lurk in, and my constant hovering at the edge of H-Net moderated conversations, but both of those cover topics I find inherently interesting and theoretically COULD contribute to if it wasn't for the fact that in all those settings I'm very much the dumb rear end scrub and I'm smart enough to keep my trap shut when people who Seriously Know Their poo poo are talking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:Time to invest in stealth/low-profile weapons and external stores.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:Emirati F-16Es (and F) I know it's from a little while ago, but we have the Emirati Block-60 F-16's stop by our base every month or two. And those things have to be some of the ugliest fighters I've ever seen. That opinion was reinforced when a couple F-22's showed up about a week later to perform some demonstrations. As iyaayas can attest to, the Raptor is a gorgeous aircraft, especially watching it in person. Now I can't say anything about maintaining them, but goddamn is that a pretty airplane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 18:03
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I don't go around GiP much. Worth a read I take it? Lot's of iyaayas postings and back and forth about US strategic doctrine, vis a vi the Marines and their need for organic CAS.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wouldn't mounting external stores on it like that effectively gently caress its low-profile radar signature straight to hell, though? I mean, what's the point in having a next-gen stealth fighter if you're just going to load a bunch of last-gen weapons on hardpoints on the outside and gently caress up its radar profile? The F-22 currently regularly carries external fuel tanks...since it was (originally, in the long long ago, the before time) designed for combat over Western Europe against the godless Commie hordes, range wasn't really taken into account when designing the aircraft. The general order of priority was LO/"stealth" (I hate using "stealth"), then performance, then weapons payload (compare the Raptor's missile capacity to the Flanker's...you'll see the difference in emphasis), and then fuel capacity (again, compare the Raptor to the Flanker). What this means in a mission area like doing intercepts over the Bering Strait or operating out of Kadena/Andersen over (insert Asian regional hotspot here) is that it is incredibly short legged. The general idea is that they carry the tanks for as long as possible and then punch them and the pylons when they need to regain the LO signature before entering a hostile zone. Additionally, the fact that carrying external tanks completely fucks with the LO signature could be a good thing in certain situations. The Raptor is a "kick in the door" aircraft where it will pretty much only be utilized in actual combat on the first couple of days of a war, to take out the bad guy's air force and to help take down his IADS...we don't fly B-2s over Afghanistan or Iraq today, we won't be flying the Raptor much once we rule the skies over the bad guy's airspace. This means that non-LO external carriage of stores is pretty much a no go for the Raptor, since it doesn't line up with its mission set. However, since the F-35 is supposed to be a replacement for (among other aircraft) the F-16s and legacy F/A-18s, it's going to be flying well after the initial phases of the war...i.e., where LO isn't as big of a deal but combat persistence might be. So the F-35 is designed to be able to carry a considerable amount of external stores in a non-stealthy manner, since it can only currently carry 2x2,000 lbs Mk 84 bombs internally....which is the exact same amount as the Raptor (although the Raptor is limited to 1,000 lbs Mk 83s due to the shape/size of its main weapons bay). Not much for combat persistence, especially in a CAS situation where you typically need a large number of less powerful bombs (250-500 lbs range vs 1,000-2,000 lbs range). Anyway, that last bit was just to point out that with the F-35 there is actually a real reason for external carriage of stores even though it is designed to have a low LO signature...although whether this particular "one size fits all" approach to aircraft design is the best is an argument best left for another day. pkells posted:I know it's from a little while ago, but we have the Emirati Block-60 F-16's stop by our base every month or two. And those things have to be some of the ugliest fighters I've ever seen. That opinion was reinforced when a couple F-22's showed up about a week later to perform some demonstrations. As iyaayas can attest to, the Raptor is a gorgeous aircraft, especially watching it in person. Now I can't say anything about maintaining them, but goddamn is that a pretty airplane. They're ugly looking, but those Block 60s are some sweet aircraft...as I said somewhere previously (maybe in the F-35 GiP thread?) the Block 60s and the Gripen are the best thing going on the international fighter market today regarding bang vs buck, and the F-15K/SG makes a nice compliment for a deep strike fighter. If I was building an air force I'd pick up some Gripens or Block 60 Vipers for the foundation of my fighter force and then snag a few of either of those Mud Hen derivatives for some deep strike ability if I had the money (probably the SG since the -K has a Korean radar that is manufactured locally...nothing against them, I just prefer to do business with as few countries as possible if I'm building a fictional air force.) The Raptor airborne?  The Raptor on the ground being fixed?  It's really not that bad, but it can be a royal pain in the rear end sometimes...and I don't even deal directly with the jet itself on a regular basis. Armyman25 posted:Lot's of iyaayas postings and back and forth about US strategic doctrine, vis a vi the Marines and their need for organic CAS. Yeah, this thread, that thread, the Ringo thread over here, and the Air Force thread over there are pretty much the only ones I'm actively following while I'm TDY. I kind of gave up on my crusade in that thread to rid the Marines of STOVL because I've only got a limited amount of time each day to post (to be clear, that was my only contention...I have no problem with them operating fixed wing jets for CAS, I just don't agree with the need for STOVL capability.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
Crosspostin this, I saw this blogspot from last may about the Libyan SAM network, seemed kinda timely.. You know, just in case. *whistles* http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/05/libyan-sam-network.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The Raptor airborne? I have a friend who does MX on the Raptors at Elmendorf. Got a pretty sweet personal tour last time I was up. No pics, of course 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 02:53
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Sooo, the Marines need a carrier capable version of the A-10? If that is true I can get on board with it.(I know its not, but it should be damnit!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 03:01
|
|
I fully support development of the Cobra Rattler.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:I have a friend who does MX on the Raptors at Elmendorf. Got a pretty sweet personal tour last time I was up. No pics, of course Where's your friend work? One of the AMUs? Armyman25 posted:I fully support development of the Cobra Rattler. I would back this procurement program 100%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:Time to invest in stealth/low-profile weapons and external stores.  Stealthy weapons pod for a future "Silent Hornet"  With one of the few spine-mounted CFT systems that doesn't look like rear end coughf16cough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE3h8yImm4U Iyaayas01 posted:They're ugly looking, but those Block 60s are some sweet aircraft...as I said somewhere previously (maybe in the F-35 GiP thread?) the Block 60s and the Gripen are the best thing going on the international fighter market today regarding bang vs buck, and the F-15K/SG makes a nice compliment for a deep strike fighter. The K is a great jet and the SG even more so with the F-110's, but at this point if you are building a fictional airforce, there's no reason not to go F-15SE. Same front aspect stealth as the export F-35 with the CFT weapons pods, and longer range since the canted tails generate lift. Or you can swap the CFT weapons pods with normal E model CFT's and have full mud hen capability in under 2 hours. 
wkarma fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Mar 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Where's your friend work? One of the AMUs? pssshhh last thing a F-22 MX NCO needs is some butterbar snooping around  honestly though i don't know where he works exactly, we mostly hung out for motorsports nerdery
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
Forget all of you, those F-16E/Fs look bad rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 06:56
|
|
|
wkarma posted:The K is a great jet and the SG even more so with the F-110's, but at this point if you are building a fictional airforce, there's no reason not to go F-15SE. Same front aspect stealth as the export F-35 with the CFT weapons pods, and longer range since the canted tails generate lift. Or you can swap the CFT weapons pods with normal E model CFT's and have full mud hen capability in under 2 hours. Yeah, the SE is a pretty cool concept but I was restricting myself to aircraft that are currently in production...although I'll be shocked if the ROK and Israel don't eventually pick up some. SyHopeful posted:pssshhh last thing a F-22 MX NCO needs is some butterbar snooping around Haha, snooping around? If he works in one of the AMUs I've probably run into him before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
So my brother-in-law (USAF Combat Camera) got deployed to Afghanistan a little while back, and it seems that a couple weeks ago someone told him to hop in the back of a KC-135 and take pretty pictures of planes gassing up. I ain't complaining. Click for big. FEED ME.  Oh yeah, that's the stuff.  A'ight, that was fun but I got some scrubs to shoot.   F/A-18 gets some sloppy seconds.   ...aaand a Belgian F-16 shows up late. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 10:59
|
|
|
Those photos are great. I never really got why the USAF used the boom method while everyone else goes for probe and drogue. I know both have their advantages and disadvantages but it seems a little wasteful to have two entirely different aerial refueling systems being used in parallel, instead of just picking one. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 11:20
|
|
|
A teeny bit of continental air defense SAM info from the good old days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiiXxC9n8xE Back in the cold war, the US decided that having a SAM system all over the drat place was a good idea. Many cities and military installations had at least one if not several different SAM batteries around it. The missiles were stored in underground magazines and raised above ground to launch. The guidance and control area was some distance away from the launching site. The missile was command guided from the complex on the ground to the intercept point. After the Ajax started to get a bit long in the tooth, the army said, "storable liquid rocket motors SUX BALLZ! Plus, we can't strap a nuke on this teeny little bitch! Gimme bigger missile! Thus, the Nike Hercules was born. Strap 4 Nike Ajax boosters together, stick a much larger solid fueled booster on it, and put a nuclear weapon in there too, why not? This vid is a slide-show, but the images are quite nice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBv8P31i3dE Authoritative voiced announcer narrates Nike Hercules intercept. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpHE9O8ckno A bit of an overview of the Hercules system by some goofy NJ guys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOFfdq5m5V0 Folks quickly shifted away from fleets of bombers as the means of attacking a country and the ICBM came into being. The follow on missile to the Hercules was the Nike Zeus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgdlU6VJZE The Zeus evolved into the last continental wide proposed ABM system with the Spartan long range exoatmospheric interceptor and the Sprint as the close-in mop-up missile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACme4UG0tpg
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 13:46
|
|
|
  The Sprint missile was pretty awesome, and I mean awesome in its true sense. Blow off the silo doors with explosives, punch the missile out with more explosives, Sprint accelerates at 100G with first stage burnout only 1.2 seconds after launch. By some reports Sprint was supersonic before it left the launch silo and seconds later it's moving at mach 10+, the nosecone glowing incandescently hot at 3400°C from the air friction. The command signal transmitter had to be very powerful to penetrate the plasma sheath surrounding the missile. Intercept at altitude up to 30 kilometers took no more than 15 seconds, ending in the detonation of Sprint's enhanced radiation nuclear warhead. Oh and it was hardened against 25,000G shocks so it could resist the blast from nearby nuclear explosions. Sprint launch, watch the first stage disintegrating immediately after separation and the missile shell glowing incandescently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsnkmpJhzlo Spartan and Sprint ABM system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vq4mWyYl2Y But if Sprint isn't fast enough for you, there's always HIBEX. Designed as a last-ditch ABM missile, it was intended to intercept an RV at less than 6km altitude. At that point the incoming RV is moving at around 3km a second, so HIBEX was designed to launch in under a quarter of a second and accelerate at 400G to intercept in under 2 seconds. HIBEX 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:
Don't forget kids, for a high yield warhead, under 6km is getting close to airburst height. They were trying to hit the warhead teeny bits of a second prior to it detonating (by detonating a smaller nuke near it).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
Sprint and HIBEX both used Enhanced Radiation warheads, aka neutron bombs, to disable the warhead of the target. The massive neutron flux hits the fissile core of the incoming nuke which reacts and melts down (without detonating). Though the neutron flux also kills every living thing in a 5km radius, which is fine if you're in an armoured bunker, a little less fine if you're in the open. While the warhead was specifically designed to minimise collateral damage, we're talking relative measures here and any sort of nuke going off a couple of kilometers above your head is not going to be fun times. Here's an illustration of Sprint in its launch silo  Looks like a bullet in the chamber waiting to be fired. Or a beer can full of missile I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
wkarma posted:Same front aspect stealth as the export F-35 with the CFT weapons pods, and longer range since the canted tails generate lift. Does anyone know if the export F35 will actualy be downgraded? It's one of the many points of conflict in the procurement drama of replacing Dutch F-16's. Ive seen other Americans mention that it's downgraded while local supporters keep claiming we're getting the "real deal", regardless of that is the best fit for us. Context: we used to have 213 F-16's and now have only 24 left operational. While due to "LOL JSF budget" we can afford maybe 45 new F35's. Weapons procurement is such fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:Those photos are great. I never really got why the USAF used the boom method while everyone else goes for probe and drogue. I know both have their advantages and disadvantages but it seems a little wasteful to have two entirely different aerial refueling systems being used in parallel, instead of just picking one. My understanding is that the flying boom delivers more fuel, faster. Which is great when, say, the entire Air Force chain of command is basically nothing but heavy bomber guys who think that the B-52 is the most important thing ever. What's even better is that most of the early fighters capable of air-to-air refueling used the probe and drogue method. And the F-105 was able to do both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
Those nuclear ABMs would have kind of sucked for Canada because they'd probably be detonated overtop of us 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
priznat posted:Those nuclear ABMs would have kind of sucked for Canada because they'd probably be detonated overtop of us I fail to see the issue
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
McNally posted:My understanding is that the flying boom delivers more fuel, faster. Which is great when, say, the entire Air Force chain of command is basically nothing but heavy bomber guys who think that the B-52 is the most important thing ever. I thought it was because air force pilots were bottoms and love it when you stick it in. Maybe I was wrong. As for detonating nukes over Canada, the Spartan MIGHT have been blowded up over the sweet land of beavers and maple leafs, but it would have been exoatmospheric. The point defense missles would have been blown up over the US soil as they had such short range. I wonder if Canada was on the "gently caress YOU TOO!" list for Russia. Anyone know? Did they say "piss on it, we're going to hit every major military and civilian center in the US, may as well blow the poo poo out of Toronto as well!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
Flikken posted:I fail to see the issue As long as it's over Alberta it's all good. NosmoKing posted:As for detonating nukes over Canada, the Spartan MIGHT have been blowded up over the sweet land of beavers and maple leafs, but it would have been exoatmospheric. Previous to the ABMs, there were the Bomarc nuclear-tipped SAMs that were deployed in Canada. The idea being the US was going to deploy them and it would mean intercepts of Soviet bombers over Canada, and this way it would push the intercept location further north into unpopulated areas rather than being over Sudbury or whatever. They pretty much caused the cancellation of the near-mythically revered in Canada Avro Arrow. I'm pretty sure there were nukes targeted at various industrial areas of Canada as well (being in NATO and all), although for the most part it's all close enough to the border to get pretty nasty splash damage/fallout anyway. priznat fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Flikken posted:I fail to see the issue 70 foot tall radioactive Gtab's would overrun the US and rape all of your pets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
Flanker posted:70 foot tall radioactive Gtab's would overrun the US and rape all of your pets. I bet he would give great piggy back rides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:But if Sprint isn't fast enough for you, there's always HIBEX. Designed as a last-ditch ABM missile, it was intended to intercept an RV at less than 6km altitude. At that point the incoming RV is moving at around 3km a second, so HIBEX was designed to launch in under a quarter of a second and accelerate at 400G to intercept in under 2 seconds. That must have been a loving tiny footprint. We're talking extreme point defense here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That must have been a loving tiny footprint. We're talking extreme point defense here. IIRC, these were "DON'T DIG MY SILOS OUT OF THE GROUND!!!" styled defense weapons. They were designed to be sited right next to (or inside of) ICBM fields.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
McNally posted:My understanding is that the flying boom delivers more fuel, faster. Which is great when, say, the entire Air Force chain of command is basically nothing but heavy bomber guys who think that the B-52 is the most important thing ever. Beat me to it. To expand a bit, the AF experimented with both methods; there are pictures (that I'm too lazy to find on this lovely Army LSA internet connection) of B-29s using the probe and drogue system, but as McNally said the boom delivers a higher volume of fuel at a higher rate (something like 3x the flow rate of a probe and drogue system), which is what you want with large aircraft like bombers. Pretty much every AF fighter through the century series was set up to do probe and drogue with only the heavies using the flying boom. priznat posted:Those nuclear ABMs would have kind of sucked for Canada because they'd probably be detonated overtop of us As others have mentioned, that's a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
Wikipedia also mentions that the probe and drogue system is not so great for larger aircraft thanks to the fine maneuvering required to make the initial connection. Reasonably easy for fighters or helicopters, but kind of a pain in the rear end for bigass bombers and other such lumbering beasts of the air, especially if you're in a hurry. The boom, on the other hand, is more of a "just hold steady while we fly this thing into you" deal, which makes things a lot easier when your plane isn't exactly the most nimble thing in the sky. The probe and drogue has its advantages, though. It's a lot more flexible overall, and it lets you do neat things like multi-point refueling and buddy refueling. Speaking of buddy refueling, here are 2 A-3 Skywarriors and an A-4 Skyhawk in a daisy chain: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
I like to think that the Air Force brass picked the boom because it makes a better penis surrogate Does anyone have any books they can recommend me on the Air War in Vietnam? I don't exactly know what I'm looking for myself so I guess it's kind of hard to narrow it down; I just want to read about planes over 'nam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:I like to think that the Air Force brass picked the boom because it makes a better penis surrogate If this is the book I read in high school it was awesome. edit hey how about a link to what the gently caress I'm talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thud_Ridge Flanker fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Mar 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
Thud Ridge is good. So is When Thunder Rolled by Ed Rasimus. Also Palace Cobra by Ed Rasimus. The first book is about Rasimus' tour in F-105s and the second is his F-4 tour. Ed also helped Christina Olds put together Robin Olds' memoirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Insert name here posted:I like to think that the Air Force brass picked the boom because it makes a better penis surrogate Let's see here...Bury Us Upside Down is a great book about the Misty Fast FACs that flew some of the most dangerous missions of the war (doing FAC duty in F-100s in northern South Vietnam, right near the DMZ where there was a poo poo ton of AAA and quite a few SAMs). Among the notables the flew with this group were Bud Day, Dick Rutan, 2 future USAF Chiefs of Staff (although one was Manly man v-neck undershirt McPeak, so he doesn't really count), 7 future general officers, and a couple astronauts. Bunch of badasses. Here There Are Tigers is written by a guy that spent a year from '68-'69 flying FAC missions into Laos when the U.S. government denied there were U.S. forces operating in the country. I haven't read it but it's supposed to be pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 09:01
|
|