|
I never got the indignation some people have thrown towards the shuttle being a military mandated waste. I mean, yeah, it was, but NASA's whole existence was based on furthering military technology first and foremost. I just think that some of the younger people that post here nowadays grew up thinking NASA was a great science program that the military shouldered in on, but if it wasn't for Cold War budgets being what they were, most of the great space accomplishments never would have happened. Could you imagine getting to the moon in under ten years from the mission statement, in peacetime? That Kennedy quote still gives me shivers when I hear it because of what a giant "gently caress you" it was to common sense. Costs and repercussions be damned, he said we're gonna land on that loving rock and by god we're gonna do exactly that! I've also always wondered what role his assassination played....was there a sense of necessity afterwards, like a win one for the Gipper moment within NASA?
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I've also always wondered what role his assassination played....was there a sense of necessity afterwards, like a win one for the Gipper moment within NASA? "He's dead, let's just fake it!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:
We did do that during peacetime, at least from a budgetary standpoint. Yes there was an uptick for our spending during Vietnam, but it was nothing compared to the three years that we were actively involved in Korea and less than a blip compared to what our spending reached during WW2. gently caress, it was less than the general military budget uptick that happened just because Regan was in office. Although you're 100% right about NASA basically being military aerospace R&D and the entire Apollo program just being us cock-slapping Brezhnev in the face a few times because we could. Kennedy really could have just tl;dr'd his moon speech down to grabbing his crotch and dropping a deuce on a soviet flag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Well, yeah, technically it was peacetime, but I mean out of the context of the Cold War, say, like in the 90's when the US was the lone superpower. Without that competition from the Soviets and the underlying need for parity in ICBM's and prestige on the world stage, NASA doesn't exist. Hell, that's kinda what happened to NASA in the 90's anyway. Blistex posted:"He's dead, let's just fake it!" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Could you imagine getting to the moon in under ten years from the mission statement, in peacetime? That Kennedy quote still gives me shivers when I hear it because of what a giant "gently caress you" it was to common sense. Costs and repercussions be damned, he said we're gonna land on that loving rock and by god we're gonna do exactly that! Yes, and there was a very real fear that they weren't going to make it by the decade (chiefly due to delays resulting from the Apollo I fire) and that was going to be horribly crushing for morale, both within the space program and for the country at large (with the attendant loss of support on Capitol Hill). In fact, that fear/desire to live up to his charge along with the delays in the LM program is what drove the decision to say "gently caress LEO, let's go to the moon way ahead of schedule" for Apollo 8. Different environment, Cold War mentality, yadda yadda yadda, but I can't imagine a politician today picking a balls out insane goal and giving a speech that literally says "we are going to do this thing not because it is easy, but because it is hard." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g25G1M4EXrQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Both Bush and Obama have said kinda/sorta similar things with regards to Mars and an asteroid respectively, and people were just like "suuuuure you are". It would be great if we actually could do poo poo like that again, though I guess the private sector is the way to go at this point in history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Both Bush and Obama have said kinda/sorta similar things with regards to Mars and an asteroid respectively, and people were just like "suuuuure you are". The IBM Stellarsphere and "The Moon," brought to you by Boeing-Lockheed-Martin-Raytheon-Northrop-Grumman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Jesus, talk about a huge subject. I read a fairly cool book recently about the Eastern Pakistani kinda-sorta genocide by the western Pakistanis when there were such things. Nixon and Kissinger explicitly turned a blind eye because the then-strongman of Pakistan, Yahya Khan, was Nixon's chosen go-between to Beijing. Also, people that know more about military stuff than I do, given how critical, expensive, and rare AWACS planes are to American war plans why didn't the Soviets just build a big fuckoff ARM that would seek on an AWACS radar? Even if it forced them to shut down wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having a big expensive radar on wings anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
AWACS has something like a ~250 mile RADAR range. You'd need a mother of a missile to get through that and all the planes an AWACS has to vector in the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
I think the MiG-31 was intended to go after AWACS if it got the chance and the Soviets did develop huge-rear end AAMs for the purpose. I don't know if it actually could.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
DonkeyHotay posted:Also, people that know more about military stuff than I do, given how critical, expensive, and rare AWACS planes are to American war plans why didn't the Soviets just build a big fuckoff ARM that would seek on an AWACS radar? Even if it forced them to shut down wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having a big expensive radar on wings anyway? Most people trot this out, but I don't think anyone has a goddamned idea if it can do what it says it can do. From an engineering POV though, I feel like it's "easier" to develop a giant, land-based missile designed to hit (relatively) slow moving things that emit a ton of RF energy than it is some other counter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Since we're kind of on radar/spaceflight chat, this is my favorite thing from the era. The Russians were loving crazy sometimes. Shame it was scrapped. e- also, the E-3 Sentry isn't really "rare", they made 68 of them. 32 for the US alone, and most of the others going to NATO nations anyway. It was a major target for sure, but by the time the USSR could have neutralized them as a threat there'd be, uh, more pressing issues at hand. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
This video has one of my favorite uses of Allahu Akbar. When you gotta take cover, you spit that phrase out fast. No one dies, as far as I know. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b36_1395944414
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
How desperate is Assad that he's using Fulcrums as CAS? I mean, I know they are capable of it, I just figured he'd be holding those in reserve in case he needs to fend off strikes from an outside party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
DonkeyHotay posted:I read a fairly cool book recently about the Eastern Pakistani kinda-sorta genocide by the western Pakistanis when there were such things. Nixon and Kissinger explicitly turned a blind eye because the then-strongman of Pakistan, Yahya Khan, was Nixon's chosen go-between to Beijing. The Pakistanis ran a systemic campaign of rape as well, raping upwards of 200,000 women in the 9 months of war. It's part of the reason why India joined on the Bangladeshi side. Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:How desperate is Assad that he's using Fulcrums as CAS? I mean, I know they are capable of it, I just figured he'd be holding those in reserve in case he needs to fend off strikes from an outside party. He's been dropping 55 gallon oil drums full of explosive out of helicopters for a while now. Fulcrums as CAS is comparatively mild. Honestly, he's probably less desperate than he was because he's in a much stronger position than he was a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:He's been dropping 55 gallon oil drums full of explosive out of helicopters for a while now. Fulcrums as CAS is comparatively mild. Honestly, he's probably less desperate than he was because he's in a much stronger position than he was a year ago. He's been losing helicopters to the rebels when they drop those barrel bombs, too, I just figured his commanders would be much less keen on the thought of losing his front line fighters like that. Cost effectiveness being what it is, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Since we're kind of on radar/spaceflight chat, this is my favorite thing from the era. A little history on this vessel for you guys. Declassified Soviet files posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
So the Soviets used their top-of-the-line intelligence/spy ship to...bum pay-by-channel satellite TV? Or was that just a test for ACTUAL satcom monitoring capabilities? EDIT: Oh, drat. Now I get it, it's a joke. Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Happy April Fools Day, Davin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Nice try, but the Soviets had bigger priorities on 4/27/86.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Happy April Fools Day, Davin. Shut up, it's still March 31st where I live, okay?! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
April 1st on the internet is the worst.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I think the MiG-31 was intended to go after AWACS if it got the chance and the Soviets did develop huge-rear end AAMs for the purpose. I don't know if it actually could. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29 Oh wait. Someone already posted it. Ha. -_- mlmp08 posted:This video has one of my favorite uses of Allahu Akbar. When you gotta take cover, you spit that phrase out fast. No one dies, as far as I know. Awww, he just wanted to give them 30mm kisses. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
DonkeyHotay posted:I read a fairly cool book recently about the Eastern Pakistani kinda-sorta genocide by the western Pakistanis when there were such things. Nixon and Kissinger explicitly turned a blind eye because the then-strongman of Pakistan, Yahya Khan, was Nixon's chosen go-between to Beijing. Bass's The Blood Telegram? That book is excellent and you all should read it. Although I think you're giving Nixon and Kissinger too much credit, because they had other options than Yahya. They "chose" Yahya because Nixon was best buddies with him. They convinced themselves that was why they had to turn a blind eye to the genocide, but in reality it was because they had a visceral hatred for India and because they both thought Indira Gandhi was a bitch. Also lots of casual racism towards the Bengalis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I think the MiG-31 was intended to go after AWACS if it got the chance and the Soviets did develop huge-rear end AAMs for the purpose. I don't know if it actually could. It requires a number of fuckups by the AWACS crew. If I'm on a crew where there's a legit "HVAA killer" threat, I'm assigning a dedicated controller to look for it. VikingSkull posted:e- also, the E-3 Sentry isn't really "rare", they made 68 of them. 32 for the US alone, and most of the others going to NATO nations anyway. It was a major target for sure, but by the time the USSR could have neutralized them as a threat there'd be, uh, more pressing issues at hand. NATO, France, and Saudi aren't going to send their E-3s into a US-led war. Afghanistan was a fluke for PR/funding. They brought so little to bear that the US E-3 contingent maintained full strength. Right now the US has I think 27 operational E-3s, and seven are slated for the boneyard in the administrations latest budget request. I'll put it this way: in 2010 that might have shut down the training pipeline. It certainly would have cut the amount of students that could get through by more than half. In any meaningful sense, these planes are rare...which is exacerbated by the ops tempo which has beaten the poo poo out of them. Godholio fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
How difficult would they be to replace, should we ever find money for it? Would it (in theory) be just finding a radar and an airliner and matching them up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:How difficult would they be to replace, should we ever find money for it? Would it (in theory) be just finding a radar and an airliner and matching them up? I'm sure that Godholio is going to be able to cite a million regulations, regulatory bodies, oversight comities, specifications, abilities, crazy test requirements, and congressmen that need to be paid off for a replacement to even be considered, but long story short, the idea of taking a 787 and showing it full of USAF hardware and having a working AWACS in less than 10 years is probably somewhere in the realm of science fiction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:How difficult would they be to replace, should we ever find money for it? Would it (in theory) be just finding a radar and an airliner and matching them up? In peacetime getting an E-3 replacement is just a question of money, and priorities with that money. In a war with non-trivial AWACS losses the war would be over one way or another (most likely with us all radioactive ash) before plans could even be drawn up. Somewhat related: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_24_2014_p24-674336.xml&guid=2014-03-24 quote:Meanwhile, the Air Force is also planning to mothball seven, or half, of its EC-130 electronic attack aircraft in fiscal 2013, saving $315.8 million. Air Force Maj. Gen. Jim Jones, director of operations, plans and requirements, says that the service “can't afford to program to a no-risk force, [and further investment in stealth] is a piece of that. . . . All of these capabilities add up to a more survivable capability.” When questioned about whether the Air Force would backfill the lost EC-130s with some other capability, Jones declines to provide information, acknowledging that this is likely an “unsatisfying” answer. This could point to a capability being developed in the classified world. I don't know diddly about this stuff and obviously no one should tempt OPSEC WIZARD but if you're talking AWACS then thinking of the tech's relation to both stealth and ECM / jamming jump to mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Why cant VHF-radar do fire control?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Despite the name VHF is actually the lowest band used for radar, with predictable performance compromises.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
meatbag posted:Why cant VHF-radar do fire control? VHF has a longer wavelength than most radars (VHF is in the MHz range, X-Band radar is in the 10 GHz range or thereabouts), the longer your wavelength the worst your resolution will be. Fire control needs high precision, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
meatbag posted:Why cant VHF-radar do fire control? VHF radars are basically huge early warning arrays. Not the small/agile beam AESAs...etc. that you need to do fire control. The goal of a VHF is to spew as much RF into your sector/area whatever and see if anything is flying around that you don't know about. Then you would scramble interceptors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
meatbag posted:Why cant VHF-radar do fire control? low wavelength = low resolution = "There's a plane kind of over thisaway somewhere" instead of the "there's a plane at coordinates x,y,z moving at velocity vector v" that you need to put a missile in its path. This is for HF radar, but: quote:The resolution of any radar depends on the width of the beam and the range to the target. For example a radar with a ½ degree beam width and a target at 120 km (75 mi) range will show the target as 1 km (0.62 mi) wide. Because of the long ranges at which OTH radars are used, the resolution is typically measured in tens of kilometres. This makes the backscatter system almost useless for target engagement, although this sort of accuracy is more than adequate for the early warning role. In order to achieve a beamwidth of ½ degree at HF, an antenna array several kilometres long is required. e:f,b
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:VHF radars are basically huge early warning arrays. Not the small/agile beam AESAs...etc. that you need to do fire control. The goal of a VHF is to spew as much RF into your sector/area whatever and see if anything is flying around that you don't know about. Then you would scramble interceptors. So the whole "VHF can see stealth planes! omg!! wtf DoD!!!" is largely overblown, since even a VHF set can see a stealth plane, shorter-wavelength missile fire radars still won't be able to see the target?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:So the whole "VHF can see stealth planes! omg!! wtf DoD!!!" is largely overblown, since even a VHF set can see a stealth plane, shorter-wavelength missile fire radars still won't be able to see the target? Knowing *something* is there, that-a-way makes it a lot easier to find the golfball, or whatever RCS comparison they use for modern day stealth plane. You have an idea what direction to point the radars in, and you know there's something to be found. Radar operators aren't 100% 24/7, Joe Schmo's gonna get a lot more efficient if you tell him "Hey, look North East, there's a stealth plane around there", as opposed to "Stare at this radar screen for the next six hours and let me know if you see a plane."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:How difficult would they be to replace, should we ever find money for it? Would it (in theory) be just finding a radar and an airliner and matching them up? I'm sure Boeing would be extremely happy to take a few billion to go dig up the plans and push out some more E-767s, which is (I believe) the same kit just on a 767 airframe instead of a 707. Psion fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
If you removed bureaucracy and the pathological need for everyone to try to get their dick wet and get a piece of the pie when it comes to procurement, you could probably have ultra-modern AWACS based on commercial airframes cruising around relatively "quickly". In a stroke of genius, in this scenario, the USAF would write some checks to the big airlines to borrow their top technical guys to transfer over all the tribal knowledge learned in maintaining said jet(s) for decades on end at an absolutely insane pace (relative to military ops), and buy COTS whenever possible. (And not the kind of COTS where it's the same thing with the price multiplied by 100 when they see 'USAF' on the PO)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
movax posted:If you removed bureaucracy and the pathological need for everyone to try to get their dick wet and get a piece of the pie when it comes to procurement, you could probably have ultra-modern AWACS based on commercial airframes cruising around relatively "quickly". I have a sneaking suspicion part of the reason the Virginia procurement is going so well is that it's essentially impossible to farm submarine construction out beyond the two places already involved. Even the major components really only have single locations where anyone makes the stuff. So the worst arguments is over which senator's state (or which senator) gets their name slapped on the next hull.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
In an ideal world, Boeing and their AESA partner should just sell a conversion "kit" (if structurally possible) where you take any given Boeing 767/777 passenger airliner, fly it into depot, and fly out a fully formed AWACS a few months later. Just "borrow" one from your national flag carrier, and you too can have glorious American AWACS capability  And pay the consulting firm staffed by ex-USAF AWACS folks to train up your staff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 17:41
|
|