|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The real problem behind the development of the F-35 is that when you get down to it, nearly every program requirement attached to it is incompatible with another requirement. They want it to be a bomb truck to replace the F-16 and F-18, but they also want it to be stealthy-which can't work unless you have huge internal weapon bays to store the radar-reflective weapons inside the radar-absorbent body, Why don't we just make stealth missiles and bombs? v  v
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Why don't we just make stealth missiles and bombs? v We do! Tomahawk cruise missiles are nearly undetectable in flight. We use planes (or drones) when we think we have a narrow window, and we need to pick just the right time to strike. Once a Tomahawk is fired, it may not be possible to change course or abort the mission--so, we still use planes so that if the target is moving around we can hit them, or choose not to bomb at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:We do! Tomahawk cruise missiles are nearly undetectable in flight. We use planes (or drones) when we think we have a narrow window, and we need to pick just the right time to strike. Once a Tomahawk is fired, it may not be possible to change course or abort the mission--so, we still use planes so that if the target is moving around we can hit them, or choose not to bomb at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Because someone with a big enough radio transmitter could keep you from controlling your airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
There's also the fact that even by US military expenditure standards, Tomahawks are pretty expensive are are limited by the fact that they can only be launched from ships. Traditional iron bombs are relatively cheap, comparatively speaking, with GPS bolt-ons can hit targets in support of infantry relatively quickly and easily. Really, I don't think it's necessarily fair to judge the F-35 as it is now-most aircraft have teething problems, and given the absolutely insane program requirements it's lucky the drat thing flies at all (And let's be honest, the F-35 isn't even historically bad considering that it hasn't even killed over a hundred German pilots or a three-star general). Most aircraft that are built explicitly to be multi-role are usually pretty bad, and it's ironically because of the focus on cost-savings and building multi-role ships and aircraft that we get such lemons like the F-35 and LCS ships. Raskolnikov38 posted:The get-lockmart-a-million-dollars-to-replace-the-stealth-coating*-after-a-technician-opens-a-panel-for-maintenance role. It's not bullshit-Properly done stealth aircraft like the F-22 and the B-2 are world-class aircraft and have a huge number of advantages over traditional aircraft. It's just when stealth is applied to other aircraft that don't necessarily need it like the F-35 that it turns into a bit of a racket.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Because someone with a big enough radio transmitter could keep you from controlling your airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Why do the Marines even need a hover jet when there's already Cobras, Apaches, and the Osprey? Is it just for the stealth element?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Great, now my mind is going over what that shrine to capitalism would look like, what would be its fetish objects and so on. The almighty dollar of course, but also something that represents blow and hookers I think. What kind of ritual action would be performed in front of it? Malcolm Gladwell would serve as docent and the interpretative tour would take the form of a TED talk. Mister Macys posted:Why do the Marines even need a hover jet when there's already Cobras, Apaches, and the Osprey? Is it just for the stealth element? They can't quit the Harrier no matter how hard they try.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Why do the Marines even need a hover jet when there's already Cobras, Apaches, and the Osprey? Is it just for the stealth element? The current aircraft the Marines are currently using, the AV-88 Harrier, is old as poo poo and any replacement needs to be VTOL capable so they can fly off of their Amphibious Assault Ships, which are mini-aircraft carriers in their own right. So in that regard, a replacement is actually warranted, though the question remains why the Marines need their own support fighters and can't just get the Navy to do it.* The problem is, creating an aircraft with VTOL capabilities requires a number of tradeoffs that typically make it unsuitable for front-line fighter aircraft, and trying to lump the new Marine aircraft in with the replacements for the F-16, F/A-18, and to an extent the F-14 has created the tremendous clusterfuck of an acquisitions program we all know and love. *Guadalcanal! Cactus Air Force!  is the best answer you're going to get in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:It's not bullshit-Properly done stealth aircraft like the F-22 and the B-2 are world-class aircraft and have a huge number of advantages over traditional aircraft. It's just when stealth is applied to other aircraft that don't necessarily need it like the F-35 that it turns into a bit of a racket. It is bullshit if you're going up against a top tier radar network that has multiple band coverage abilities unless the plane is huge like the b2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The current aircraft the Marines are currently using, the AV-88 Harrier, is old as poo poo and any replacement needs to be VTOL capable so they can fly off of their Amphibious Assault Ships, which are mini-aircraft carriers in their own right. So in that regard, a replacement is actually warranted, though the question remains why the Marines need their own support fighters and can't just get the Navy to do it.* The problem is, creating an aircraft with VTOL capabilities requires a number of tradeoffs that typically make it unsuitable for front-line fighter aircraft, and trying to lump the new Marine aircraft in with the replacements for the F-16, F/A-18, and to an extent the F-14 has created the tremendous clusterfuck of an acquisitions program we all know and love. Why don't they use helicopters for VTOL support like sane people? If you can fit a Sea King on a carrier, you should be able to fit purpose built gunships.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Why don't they use helicopters for VTOL support like sane people? Helicopters are short ranged, have a very low loiter time, and are incredibly vulnerable to ground fire-just see the Attack on Karbala. Jets like the F-35 are capable of carrying more ordnance into contested airspace than any helicopter, which is why the Marines want to replace their aging Harriers in the first place-which, unfortunately, got lumped into the aircraft the Air Force and the Navy wanted. Raskolnikov38 posted:It is bullshit if you're going up against a top tier radar network that has multiple band coverage abilities unless the plane is huge like the b2. But that's not the radar you're trying to defeat. The F-22 is a dogfighter, pure and simple, and if the enemy fighter can't see you until you're already in visual range that's a huge advantage. Sure, the NeoUSSR might be able to detect a flight of F-22s in the War of 20XX from the ground, but a fat lot of good that's going to do for the planes they send up to intercept them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Why don't we just make stealth missiles and bombs? v I'm absolutely sure that stealth cruise missiles are in our arsenal. We have stealth aircraft, stealth helicopters, stealth ships, stealth drones, I'm sure someone figured out they could make a buck by slapping some RAM on a Tomahawk. Chantilly Say posted:We do! Tomahawk cruise missiles are nearly undetectable in flight. Not undetectable enough, a close-in weapons system like Phalanx or Aegis can engage cruise missiles nowadays. Maybe the Tomahawk specifically is stealthy enough, but "engaging cruise missiles" (among other types) is basically the core design goal for a close-in weapons system. I'm sure that somewhere along the line a contractor has considered the possibility that we fight someone else who has a CIWS. oxbrain posted:Because someone with a big enough radio transmitter could keep you from controlling your airplanes. Nah, drones already have pretty decent onboard autopilots. Remember how Iran took one of our stealth recon drones down? They jammed the main control signal, the drone went into a fallback mode and tried to fly itself back to where the GPS said its base was. In that case, unfortunately, the Iranians were also jamming the GPS signal with a fake one that told the drone it was already at its base, so it went ahead and landed itself for the Iranians. Either it didn't have an Inertial Navigation System onboard, or the GPS was considered a "higher reliability" signal in the autopilot, or something like that. That's mostly a design fuckup, though, not a genuine lack of capability. TERCOM and INS guidance systems aren't very susceptible to jamming and they're onboard things like cruise missiles and most military aircraft, as a fallback in case GPS is jammed or the satellite constellation is destroyed. I assure you people have put plenty of thought into making their weapons go boom even if they're jammed. Not far in the future we're going to see drones that can "autonomously complete their mission", the autopilot will be capable of fighting the drone autonomously without human intervention. The technical capability is probably already here, and the US tends to take a "if we don't, somebody else will" stance on these kinds of things. Look at how something like a cruise missile behaves when jammed: it keeps going for its designated target. Over time it'll evolve into a more generalized autonomous attack capability. In most cases all the human is doing nowadays is giving final approval to pull the trigger anyway, and in some cases the weapons already operate automatically (again, eg CIWS systems automatically target and fire without human intervention). You don't really have a way for a human to determine, independent of their technology, whether a dot 90 miles away is really a warplane or not before they push the button. Our technology has long since left the mark 1 eyeball behind, and computers can be programmed with "rules of thumb" characteristics of civilian targets just as easily as a human pilot, potentially even better given that humans are unreliable. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Aug 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:In most cases all the human is doing nowadays is giving final approval to pull the trigger anyway, and in some cases the weapons already operate automatically (again, eg CIWS systems automatically target and fire without human intervention). You don't really have a way for a human to determine, independent of their technology, whether a dot 90 miles away is really a warplane or not before they push the button. Our technology has long since left the mark 1 eyeball behind, and computers can be programmed with "rules of thumb" characteristics of civilian targets just as easily as a human pilot, potentially even better given that humans are unreliable. Which headline sounds worse, "Pilot was overtired and high on USAF issued meth when he bombed the wedding procession." "Drone software cannot distinguish between playground and terrorist training camp because the movement patterns are similar."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Which headline sounds worse, I mean, neither sounds like something that's going to be coming out of a USAF press release, but #1 is Tarnak Farms and #2 is just signature strikes. Both already happen. The amount of force you can project with a given amount of money and manpower is/will be vastly greater, and humans just can't respond fast enough to deal with modern weapons systems. For example humans can't respond fast enough to approve targets for a CIWS, once the system is active it picks targets and fires all on its own. Drone fighters are going to do the same thing for fighter aircraft - they can make maneuvers and employ strategies (suicide to accomplish the objective, etc) that humans can't. It's basically the same thing a missile does, it'll just be a missile that's capable of doing a big complex mission and firing other weapons systems to do so, while returning to base afterwards. And we have lots of missile systems that keep going even if they lose the control signal. So drones are inevitable for a lot of reasons. And once someone starts making fighter drones, the balance of power will require other nations to have them too, to maintain tactical parity. Drones could even enable a "safe" reaction to the Tarnak Farm thing - it really doesn't matter if a drone is shot down, and in fact an enemy first-strike confirms that it's hostile. Not that that'll be how it's used. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Aug 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
I'll just leave this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Swr-vs9mqo
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Wow, no flag pin. Guess she hates America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Well, the A-10 is what happened when they strapped wings onto a Sherman tank, and that worked out fine. Well, yes, but the A-10 was designed to be a Sherman with wings strapped onto it, and nothing else. The F-35 wants to be a stealth-VTOL-air superiority-fighter bomber AND an A-10 (no, seriously, they want it to replace the A-10) plane all at once. Unless the F-35 is suddenly revealed to be a transformer, those are requirements that are literally impossible to satisfy all at once on the same chassis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:I'll just leave this here
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Nah, drones already have pretty decent onboard autopilots. Remember how Iran took one of our stealth recon drones down? They jammed the main control signal, the drone went into a fallback mode and tried to fly itself back to where the GPS said its base was. This is wrong on a whole lot of levels. If you accept Iranian propaganda in the first place you're making a gigantic mistake, so right off the bat take that into account. The rest is just....no. If you're jamming the global positioning satellite signal, people are going to notice. Is it possible? Yeah probably, just line up the same frequency and start pumping out the voltage. That's not something you can do without a whole lot of people noticing and knowing what's going on when suddenly GPS stops working across like an entire country or more. In the words of Mythbusters I'd say "Plausible" but you aren't going to do it on the down-low, everyone will know what's happening. Faking a GPS signal though? Not happening unless someone has a second, hidden constellation of satellites around the globe that nobody knows about because it's not just "a" GPS signal, it's a minimum of three satellite signals to triangulate your position in space and preferably as many as you can get for as much accuracy as possible. Right off the bat that's not something you're going to fake. Then to do it in a very specific manner to control a piece of hardware with fake locations on-the-fly in real time? Iran is, as usual in their propaganda, full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Yeah, you're wrong. The process for locally spoofing gps signals is pretty well understood. http://mobile.itnews.com.au/News/351659,students-hijack-luxury-yacht-with-gps-spoofing.aspx
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Azipod posted:Yeah, you're wrong. The process for locally spoofing gps signals is pretty well understood. The interesting thing about it is that theoretically the military has a thing built into the GPS system that should protect against this, just from the general description. You'd think that something with stealth tech on it would have had a secure GPS too. SumYungGui posted:Iran is, as usual in their propaganda, full of poo poo. There's actually not even any question they got the drone; the President asked for the drone back. quote:(CNN) -- President Barack Obama said Monday that the United States has asked Iran to return a U.S. drone aircraft that Iran claims it recently brought down in Iranian territory.  Doesn't mean they hacked the GPS, but it was a strong speculation at the time, along with possible Chinese involvement. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Aug 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Once you're in the air the GPS is merged with INS data so those methods would be much less effective against an aircraft. Hard for you to be subtle with something traveling 0.8 Mach or faster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:
You don't know how GPS receivers work. A good hint is that they only have one antenna and cannot point, so the position of the transmitter is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
False flag drone. Obama sent that hunk of plastic to Iran as a secret sign of his true Islamic faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:I'll just leave this here God this is so loving weird. It's like someone made a fake video of Sarah Palin taking the ice bucket challenge only they somehow got the real Sarah Palin to play as herself. Could it be she's... self-aware? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Republicans posted:God this is so loving weird. It's like someone made a fake video of Sarah Palin taking the ice bucket challenge only they somehow got the real Sarah Palin to play as herself. Pretty sure she saw the Patrick Stewart one and didn't get why it was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The interesting thing about it is that theoretically the military has a thing built into the GPS system that should protect against this, just from the general description. You'd think that something with stealth tech on it would have had a secure GPS too. From what I've read (and I'm not a military nerd at all) the drone itself doesn't have that much in the way of gee-whiz gadgetry and it's more the network that controls the drone that makes it so powerful. Anyone know better?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:I'll just leave this here
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
She used to be able to pull off the snark with a degree of authenticity but it's so unbelievably forced and contrived now that it's very painful to watch. It's really difficult to believe that people watch her and think that she's conveying any degree of natural emotion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
The overall tone of this article is still trying to be negative but look at that headline  http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014/08/24/millions-helped-by-obama-health-law-may-get-hit-by-reduced-tax-refunds-unless/
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
I think the Republicans broke the irony meter with this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-YapDAWLkQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:I think the Republicans broke the irony meter with this one. I'm such a nerd all I can think of is "Pfft, you'd be able to see the blast at least a few seconds before you could hear it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Who the hell would nuke Middle of Nowhere, USA?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Conservatives are stealing from a campaign ad used 50 years ago by a Democrat president? What? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:I think the Republicans broke the irony meter with this one. Iran is jihadist now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Iran is jihadist now? Do you need me to trundle out that revolting Ramirez cartoon with Iran as a sewer grate with cockroaches scurrying out of it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Iran is jihadist now? They're brown and wear funny hats don't they? Never mind that the funding for this organization is a toss up between Israel and Saudi Arabia
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
McDowell posted:They're brown and wear funny hats don't they? Never mind that the funding for this organization is a toss up between Israel and Saudi Arabia A lot of them aren't particularly brown looking even. Put them in western clothes and stick them in Italy and they'd blend right in. They are filthy Islamos though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Do you need me to trundle out that revolting Ramirez cartoon with Iran as a sewer grate with cockroaches scurrying out of it? You're lying. It's not a real Ramirez cartoon unless those cockroaches were labeled "debt".
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 17:46
|
|
