|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Not to get off on a It's impossible to say, since we can't predict how many stupid worthless wars we'll get into. But I predict the next one that gets shot down will be another "golden BB" that we hand over on a silver platter, like the F-117.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 06:20
|
|
circlejerk or anything, but I was thinking about this the other day as I was reading about Super Bowl prop bets. What do you think is a good over/under on the number of years before the US loses a jet aircraft as a result of air-to-air combat? Not that they aren't capable of being shot down today, but just in looking at the geopolitical picture and the insane US lead in airpower, how long until a US jet aircraft is destroyed in air combat? 10 years? 25?
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Scott Speicher might have been shot down by a MiG-25 in '91: Do UAVs count?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Do UAVs count? now where's that video of the Georgian UAV catching a missile...
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Gates says "gently caress your 381, you're gonna get 187 and like it, we'll make up the difference with F-35s and btw be on the look out for a change to the two major war construct because we're gonna change it to 1+, also I fired your last leadership for butting heads with me on this so think long and hard about how much of a stink you want to cause here." In his new memoir, Gates says he fired Wynne and Moseley because of the mismanagement of the nuclear force in particular. That's especially hilarious because the degradation of the AF nuclear forces has been so thorough it it couldn't have been more effective if it was on purpose, and Gates shares a bit of the responsibility for it because he basically told the AF and Navy that all their long term plans not directly related to helping out in Iraq and Afghanistan could go eat poo poo. The Air Force has a whole portfolio of missions way beyond flying CAS over Afghanistan, and when we're fighting tooth and nail to keep the tools and training we need for missions like "gain and maintain air superiority" that enable everything else the US Military does, you can imagine how much attention was being paid to things like nuclear deterrence and our space programs. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Is there any scenario in which a Raptor would mount AMRAAMs on the wings? I always was curious as to why F-22 would need to do this if they could link this information back to F-15s. I always looked at the F-22 as just being an invisible spotter in this regard, especially since the F-15 can carry a shitload of AMRAAM in just a missile truck loadout. I don't have any idea how feasible that is, but it just seems like the most useful structure for the drastically few F-22 we ended up getting, especially in a numbers game with China over the Pacific. Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I Always was curious as to why F22 would need to do this if they could link this information back to F-15s. I always looked at the F-22 as just being an invisible spotter in this regard, especially since the F-15 can carry a shitload of AMRAAM in just a missile truck loadout. You don't always need to be virtually invisible. It's easier to launch 2 F-22s than 2 F-22s and 2 or 4 F-15s. F-22s can't transmit over Link-16 yet. Edit: I just read the rest of that. I don't think F-15s carry as many missiles as you think they do, and every fighter in the world is limited in how many they can actually support in-flight at a time. There's little reason to use the Raptor as a spotter like you suggest, because we have a dedicated platform that can do it about a thousand times better...AWACS. F-22s can guide other fighters in, but they're extremely limited in a: range b: pointing in the right direction c: no datalink transmit d: time they can dedicate to helping the other fighters. In a pinch, if there's no AWACS or CRC an F-22 can do it, and they do it well considering their constraints, but in general it's a huge waste. Godholio fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Ah, I was under the impression 22s can share target data between them, so the lead could have the radar info and feed it to the AMRAAMS of the flight. Figured it'd only be ideal to carry over to 15s as well, assuming those 15 could be several kilometers behind. Kind of let you project the 15s AMRAAM farther ahead through the 22 as a designator. That's the reason I left the AWACS out too. I'll take your word on that though, I've never looked into it in any detail. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
I've always been a bit mystified why the Soviets never came up with a single-engined gen 4 fighter like the F-16 or Gripen (or their Yugoslavian/Israeli counterparts). Seems like it would be right up their alley. Anyone know if there was some secret single-engined contender for that sweet light-weight fighter contract out there that isn't the piece of poo poo Yak? (Not the 141, also it was twin-engined I think)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Ah, I was under the impression 22s can share target data between them, so the lead could have the radar info and feed it to the AMRAAMS of the flight. Figured it'd only be ideal to carry over to 15s as well, assuming those 15 could be several kilometers behind. Kind of let you project the 15s AMRAAM farther ahead through the 22 as a designator. That's the reason I left the AWACS out too. I think their focus is sharing data between other F-22s, but they lack ability to share with other types of airframes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:I've always been a bit mystified why the Soviets never came up with a single-engined gen 4 fighter like the F-16 or Gripen (or their Yugoslavian/Israeli counterparts). Their equivalent of the F-16 was the Mig-29. The Su-27 is the counterpart of the F-15. I guess they liked 2 engines over 1. The Fulcrum is pretty small. Edit: Mixed up Fulcrum with Flanker. Zhanism fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Psion posted:As I understand it the engagement envelope for stuff like a Stinger, especially against fixed-wing, is extremely narrow and/or dependent on the route the target is taking (oblique angles probably bad) and a lot of operator judgment and the like. Good points, though I was thinking more like the "Strela on a stick" approach and not worrying about actively targeting the missile. Just set it up with a little solar panel to trickle charge and turn the sensors on periodically, and let it wait until something flies over in exactly the right engagement envelope when it's awake. Maybe this week, maybe next week, maybe as the tree it's under loses its leaves and exposes the sensor to what had been considered cleared airspace. It would need a very robust sensor suite, and only launch if the microphone, visible imaging camera, and dual-band IR all agree that it is indeed the adversary's air cavalry and not a migrating duck carrying a hot water bottle. The aim of such a system wouldn't be to deny airspace, but to harass, interdict, and attrit until they decide to go home. Zhanism posted:Their equivalent of the F-16 was the Mig-29. The Su-27 is the counterpart of the F-15. I guess they liked 2 engines over 1. The Flanker is pretty small. Maybe the MiG-23 soured the Soviets on single engine designs. Besides, if I had to routinely fly over the Kola peninsula, the Carpathians, or Siberia, I'd want two engines too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:Good points, though I was thinking more like the "Strela on a stick" approach and not worrying about actively targeting the missile. Just set it up with a little solar panel to trickle charge and turn the sensors on periodically, and let it wait until something flies over in exactly the right engagement envelope when it's awake. Maybe this week, maybe next week, maybe as the tree it's under loses its leaves and exposes the sensor to what had been considered cleared airspace. It would need a very robust sensor suite, and only launch if the microphone, visible imaging camera, and dual-band IR all agree that it is indeed the adversary's air cavalry and not a migrating duck carrying a hot water bottle. The aim of such a system wouldn't be to deny airspace, but to harass, interdict, and attrit until they decide to go home. Starting to get a bit expensive for insurgents, there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Starting to get a bit expensive for insurgents, there. The insurgent solution is "give it to your biggest idiot and tell him to get a block away before firing"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
After a long time lurkingPimpmust posted:I've always been a bit mystified why the Soviets never came up with a single-engined gen 4 fighter like the F-16 or Gripen (or their Yugoslavian/Israeli counterparts). This made me a reference in an old air power-ish journal in the late 80s/early 90s about a new Soviet single engine aircraft that was speculated to put Vipers to shame. The illustration (presumably a complete fiction) was similar to what is now the J-10. Then nothing more mentioned. Some googling around has revealed MiG-33/Project 33 but that was cancelled without a prototype and the designation applied elsewhere. It does seem the closest you can get to late cold war, single engine Russian designs are what was picked by the Chinese et. al. (in so far as what's on the internet anyway.) The wiki posted:Around 1980, the Mikoyan OKB design bureau began working on a very light “strike fighter” that was intended to be a direct competitor to the F-16 Fighting Falcon. This new Mikoyan design, designated Izdeliye 33 (Izd 33) (and variously translated as “Article 33”, “Project 33”, “Product 33”, or “Project R-33”), was of conventional layout and similar in appearance to the F-16. It was powered by a single Klimov RD-33 afterburning turbofan engine – the same engine used by the twin-engined MiG-29. While extensive wind-tunnel testing was conducted on the design, no prototypes were built since the Soviet Air Force (VVS) dropped its support for concept about 1986. The program was one of several victims of the VVS’ changing operational needs, financial constraints, and a growing preference for multirole designs. Erghh fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Zhanism posted:Their equivalent of the F-16 was the Mig-29. The Su-27 is the counterpart of the F-15. I guess they liked 2 engines over 1. The Flanker is pretty small. The Flanker is the Su-27, I thought, and I was under the impression that those were pretty big. The MiG-29 is the Fulcrum (which is one of the cooler NATO reporting names, IMO.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The Flanker is the Su-27, I thought, and I was under the impression that those were pretty big. The MiG-29 is the Fulcrum (which is one of the cooler NATO reporting names, IMO.) Yes you are correct on all counts. The Flanker's wingspan and length are both greater than the F-15's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Yes you are correct on all counts. The Flanker's wingspan and length are both greater than the F-15's. They had one at the Paris Air Show when I was there, I couldn't really tell how big it was because there wasn't a whole lot to compare it to nearby besides some ESA rockets and a Lockheed Constellation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The Flanker is the Su-27, I thought, and I was under the impression that those were pretty big. The MiG-29 is the Fulcrum (which is one of the cooler NATO reporting names, IMO.) No you are right. I was suppose to type Fulcrum Mig-29. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
This is potentially a very stupid question and totally misguided, so feel free to laugh at me. My completely novice perspective on things like HUDs and computers in general leads to me looking at modern fighter jet/attack heli cockpits and instrument panels and thinking "drat, that's some MS DOS analog poo poo." Is it totally juvenile to think that with the advancements we've made in the past two decades with regard to personal computers, processor power, and general ease-of-use UI for electronics, we could have mostly digital/visual, simpler, and minimalist (where it can be) instrument panels and such in our fixed-wing aircraft and helis? I'm not talking turning everything into a touchscreen like there is on newer cars, but something approaching that. Or are the utility and reliability of mechanical on/off switches and dials too much greater than some kind of interactive "modern" instrument interface? Does it have to do with sticking with what we know will work absolutely in a high-stress situation and has a lower chance of "shorting out?" Is it military-industrial inertia in the face of new technology? Is it nothing at all related to these things? Genuinely curious here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:I think their focus is sharing data between other F-22s, but they lack ability to share with other types of airframes. This is correct. Link-16 transmit was removed out of fear that the transmission would compromise the sender's location. People who aren't retarded rallied and it's supposed to be added in one of the spiral updates if they get funded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
DrPop posted:My completely novice perspective on things like HUDs and computers in general leads to me looking at modern fighter jet/attack heli cockpits and instrument panels and thinking "drat, that's some MS DOS analog poo poo." I might not be remembering this right, but years ago I remember reading that the CPU driving the entire avionics suite of an original Hornet is basically a 486. Perhaps they upgraded to Pentiums for the Super Hornet. also touchscreens are not a flat improvement in user interface/user experience, real buttons and devices for life. I can't say anything about pilot workload but I can sure rant a whole lot about touch interfaces! Here's a good place to start, written by someone I agree with: http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/ Tactile feedback is amazing and hugely important - I can only imagine it's that much more important when it's life or death you hit the right switch in a fraction of a second in the middle of an 8G turn. Better use of digital displays surrounded by real buttons is probably a good medium but that's firmly into the theorycrafting zone for me. Also probably something something maintenance something something reliability. Psion fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
DrPop posted:This is potentially a very stupid question and totally misguided, so feel free to laugh at me. This might answer some questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cockpit
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
quote:The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II features a "panoramic cockpit display" touchscreen that replaces most of the switches and toggles found in an aircraft cockpit. F-35AILURE 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
When was the last time a top of the line current generation fighter or tank (i.e. not an export monkey model) with a fully trained crew fought a similar level equipped/trained opponent ? Korean war with Soviet crewed planes ? For tanks again maybe Korea or even going back to WW2 ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
DrPop posted:This is potentially a very stupid question and totally misguided, so feel free to laugh at me. You have to keep a few things in mind when you talk about avionics. First, reliability is king, both for safety and economics. If a laptop dies, you have to take it to get repaired, and you might lose some work. If your avionics die, you might find yourself in a bad way right quick and in a hurry. Also, certified avionics are several orders of magnitude more expensive than uncertified electronics. A failed display will cost several hundred dollars just for the mechanic to remove and replace, and that's before you get it sent out for overhaul at a repair station. (An FAA certified repair station is required for certified equipment, like avionics. More $$$.) All of this boils down to the market trending to older, more reliable equipment. Lastly, certification is a staggeringly long, expensive process. From the day you start the certification process, to the day you receive that piece of paper can be as long as five years, sometimes more. You need to not only certify the equipment itself, but the production process, and the procedures and equipment required for the repair stations to overhaul your component. Every procedure, manual, parts catalogue, and tool has to be approved, and then published. The military is even worse than that. They have so many tests, both technical and procedural, that you end up with a "bleeding edge" fighter that has fifteen year-old avionics. All of that said, touchscreens and modern display technology are beginning to enter the world of certified avionics with the Garmin G3000 and G5000 suites. Avidyne has non-integrated touchscreen GPS/FMS hardware out, and Honeywell is about to release their own integrated suite as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Baconroll posted:When was the last time a top of the line current generation fighter or tank (i.e. not an export monkey model) with a fully trained crew fought a similar level equipped/trained opponent ? Maybe Taiwan/China back in the '50s. Those battles are how the Soviets got their hands on a Sidewinder to copy. For tanks, I would say 1967, but IIRC the Israelis were actually equipped with lovely old tanks mostly and the Arabs had relatively new ones stripped from Soviet units. So I don't know if that counts as an even match-up. e: actually yeah the tanks look about even for the Six Day War, although the Israelis had up-gunned theirs. And they weren't the latest models on either side; I think by then the T-62 had entered service, and obviously Shermans were out of date. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Baconroll posted:When was the last time a top of the line current generation fighter or tank (i.e. not an export monkey model) with a fully trained crew fought a similar level equipped/trained opponent ? Mig 21s vs. F-4s in Vietnam I would think. Harriers vs. A-4s in the Falklands may also work
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Mig 21s vs. F-4s in Vietnam I would think. This one most likely, though there was still a basic lack of training on the Vietnamese side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Wait, no, Eritrean Su-27s vs. Ethiopian Mig-29s in 1999. More info than you would ever need in a terrible layout here
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
DrPop posted:My completely novice perspective on things like HUDs and computers in general leads to me looking at modern fighter jet/attack heli cockpits and instrument panels and thinking "drat, that's some MS DOS analog poo poo." Is it totally juvenile to think that with the advancements we've made in the past two decades with regard to personal computers, processor power, and general ease-of-use UI for electronics, we could have mostly digital/visual, simpler, and minimalist (where it can be) instrument panels and such in our fixed-wing aircraft and helis? I'm not talking turning everything into a touchscreen like there is on newer cars, but something approaching that. Maybe you disagree, but this sure looks like Star Wars poo poo to me: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Maybe you disagree, but this sure looks like Star Wars poo poo to me: It does, but Star Wars came out 37 years ago
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:It does, but Star Wars came out 37 years ago Bang.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Baconroll posted:When was the last time a top of the line current generation fighter or tank (i.e. not an export monkey model) with a fully trained crew fought a similar level equipped/trained opponent ? Hainan Island incident 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You don't always need to be virtually invisible. From my time playing flight sims, I was under the impression that the AMRAAM had a major advantage over earlier SARH missiles like the Sparrow because it was fire and forget, which wouldn't require attention from the pilot or a connection to the plane after launch. That leaves them free to turn away, launch more missiles, or even fire the missile in a long range lock-on-after-launch trajectory. Then you only need a spotter to know where the target roughly is and the missile can find its way into an Iranian airliner on its own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I always was curious as to why F-22 would need to do this if they could link this information back to F-15s. I always looked at the F-22 as just being an invisible spotter in this regard, especially since the F-15 can carry a shitload of AMRAAM in just a missile truck loadout. Without getting too classified-y that's pretty much exactly how they're being used in experiments right now. It has less to do with the F-22's performance or stealth and more to do with its unbelievable sensor suite. Basically, F-22's are on high altitude CAPs back behind the forward-most CAPs (which are -18s in this scenario); the F-22s contributed to detection and combat ID while the older fighters do the shooting. Longer term we should be looking at everybody being on some manner of integrated fire control which, at least in theory, should allow a ship like the F-22 to guide a big nasty surface-launched interceptor like the SM-6 onto either its organic sensor picture or onto an integrated air picture. This will require services to work together though which can always be dicey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:From my time playing flight sims, I was under the impression that the AMRAAM had a major advantage over earlier SARH missiles like the Sparrow because it was fire and forget, which wouldn't require attention from the pilot or a connection to the plane after launch. That leaves them free to turn away, launch more missiles, or even fire the missile in a long range lock-on-after-launch trajectory. Then you only need a spotter to know where the target roughly is and the missile can find its way into an Iranian airliner on its own. That's not entirely true. I'm sure someone with more experience will expand on this, but essentially, the AMRAAM's radar isn't powerful enough to track a target until it's much closer than the fighter that launched it. So until it gets closer it flies an inertial path to the point where the launching aircraft thinks the intercept will be. If you immediately cease tracking and turn away after launch, and the other aircraft changes course or something, the missile will miss since it's target is no longer where it should be when the missile activates its radar. So you still have to support the AMRAAM a little bit like a SARH missile by continuing to track the target and sending course corrections to the missile. If you can track the target all the way the missile will be looking directly at the target when it activates. I imagine the mid course guidance doesn't have to come from your own plane, though. As long as you have the proper datalinks and yadda yadda. VKing fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Without getting too classified-y that's pretty much exactly how they're being used in experiments right now. It has less to do with the F-22's performance or stealth and more to do with its unbelievable sensor suite. Basically, F-22's are on high altitude CAPs back behind the forward-most CAPs (which are -18s in this scenario); the F-22s contributed to detection and combat ID while the older fighters do the shooting. What seems especially potent is the 2-ship (or 4-ship) dispersed formation, where one aircraft is radiating, and the others stay silent, stealthy and undetected until BAM, amraams come out of loving nowhere and the target dies, never even having seen the raptor that killed him. In summary, Navy Secretary John Lehman posted:[the F-22s] are safe from cyberattack. No one in China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that runs them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
grover posted:The F-22's AN/APG-77 is supposed to have whiz-bang frequency hopping 1000 times per second that makes it extremely difficult to jam, or even to detect, so an F-22 radiating might not even be the beacon it seems. Glad to see we learned something from the Soviets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
VKing posted:That's not entirely true. Pretty much this. All the numbers associated are classified, obviously. It makes sense if you think about the size/power difference between an aircraft radar and one that'll fit in the nose of an AMRAAM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Glad to see we learned something from the Soviets. Or like this, although that probably had a MTBF measured in picoseconds or something. Pimpmust posted:I've always been a bit mystified why the Soviets never came up with a single-engined gen 4 fighter like the F-16 or Gripen (or their Yugoslavian/Israeli counterparts). At the point where they still had the means and will to come up with something, say from the mid 70s to the mid 80s, you had the aerodynamic concept for PFI ruling the roost: twin engine, twin tail, big LERX, wings blending into the fuselage, body lift, etc. It's probably the same thing that happened with MiG-21 and Su-7/9, or to a lesser degree MiG-23 and Su-24, where powerful central institutes could dictate how stuff should work and look coming from an optimization or operational concept standpoint, stuff like that. I don't have anything backing me up here but I sure can imagine how TsAGI - or the dudes who came up with the carousel autoloader, their missile maffia, etc. - pretty much had the design parameters for planes/tanks/ships on lockdown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 02:02
|
|