|
bewbies posted:There are tons of examples, even across different countries. Most things to do with small arms (ammo, magazines, etc), light and medium mortars, the gamut of light tactical vehicles, MRAP/Stryker, tank main guns, etc. Parts commonality is an amazing idea and streamlines logistics which is what I and what you're describing. Multi-role is whole 'nother beast entirely. Having a multi-role aircraft is goddamn stupid because there's a big difference between the requirements of a bomber, and a fighter and not a whole lot of overlap. The idea of a troop carrying gunship is a neat idea but it's fundamentally flawed as there's no design overlap between the 2 other than "it flies" unless you plan on stacking people like hellfires on the hardpoints with harrier man pods.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:True, but at least we have HMMWVs, five tons, and LMTVs to fulfill those missions. It seems like the current trend in aircraft procurement is to make the HMMWV replacement fill the shoes of HMMWVs, LMTVs, five tons, HEMTTs, LVTP-7s, CUCVs, LCACs, and the friggin' Gama Goat. I'd add the Junkers 290 (long range heavy transport/very long range Maritime recon plane) and the B-24 (bomber, maritime patrol/ASW/transport plane) Zeroisanumber posted:Especially after you shat yourself in terror. I HAVE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THIS CONVERSATION  So the Nazis for airdropping agents behind the lines developed a two-person air-drop canister. Imagine being in the belly of a Ju 188 for an hour or two right next to those very un-muffled exhausts, dropped via parachute, and kept from injury by being suspended in the capsule by rubber cords. You could only see where you were when you hit the ground and undid the top cover.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
So what happens if the lines get caught in a tree and you open the hatch? Instant death?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:So what happens if the lines get caught in a tree and you open the hatch? Instant death? I'm assuming so, yes I've been doing some reading for a infodump post in the AI thread. On the eastern front, the Germans dropped a lot of agents, but most of these were Slavs (IE untermenchen) who were only trained for the specific task assigned them. 90% casualty rates on these missions was the set goal; even if you came back alive, if you were no longer useful as a intelligence asset, you were often executed by the Gestapo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
I think it's worth noting that in the case of the FVL concept the army is more interested in stuff like parts and engine commonality then the entire airframe. It probably is a goal in some form, but this current JMR program is a lead in to the real FVL that's still a ways off. IIRC that program is looking for 3-5 different airframes to fill separate roles and weight classes, from scouting to heavy lift. There's no denying that it has a lot of potential for disaster, but it's not F-35 levels of multirole idiocy, at least not specifically. They at least acknowledge you can't make a apache airframe magically do the job of a chinook, but you might be able to share stuff like engines and rotor assemblies along the way. So really, the Huey/Cobra isn't a bad comparison at all, just on a much larger (and likely catastrophic) scale. I should probably add the footnote that this is how I inferred it when reading and it might be for more batshit crazy then I put forth here. Mazz fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Yeah, but that view. One of the complaints was that around half of the passenger pods didn't have viewports or portholes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
I thought this was kinda cool, I think it is the Ford being built and the Enterprise being broken up side by side. NEED MORE CARRIERS Mazz posted:I think it's worth noting that in the case of the FVL concept the army is more interested in stuff like parts and engine commonality then the entire airframe. It probably is a goal in some form, but this current JMR program is a lead in to the real FVL that's still a ways off. IIRC that program is looking for 3-5 different airframes to fill separate roles and weight classes, from scouting to heavy lift. This is the concept I've seen. Specifically, 4 airframes: light attack/scout, attack, utility, and heavy lift. All using the same engines, transmissions, avionics where possible, etc. I think that they've abandoned the attack/utility combination but I'm not sure. bewbies fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Bolow posted:Parts commonality is an amazing idea and streamlines logistics which is what I and what you're describing. Multi-role is whole 'nother beast entirely. Having a multi-role aircraft is goddamn stupid because there's a big difference between the requirements of a bomber, and a fighter and not a whole lot of overlap. The idea of a troop carrying gunship is a neat idea but it's fundamentally flawed as there's no design overlap between the 2 other than "it flies" unless you plan on stacking people like hellfires on the hardpoints with harrier man pods. bewbies posted:This is the concept I've seen. Specifically, 4 airframes: light attack/scout, attack, utility, and heavy lift. All using the same engines, transmissions, avionics where possible, etc. I think that they've abandoned the attack/utility combination but I'm not sure. i think the idea came from remembering the success of the huey gunships in vietnam alongside the modern-day DAPs, and the very short-sighted thinking that we don't need a platform that was designed and built as a tank killer anymore. the problem is, what really separates the attack birds is the sensor suite. you can accomplish a lot with pair of DAPs, but they'll never match the fidelity of an AH-64E hunter-killer team in terms of sensor coverage because they just weren't designed from the ground up to be able to. and neither would the FVL mixed role platform. since we're on the subject of the parts commonality, can anyone explain why exactly marine air continues to use and develop the superhuey/cobra airframes? especially given their parent organization uses SH-60s for the utility role and sea apaches have been a thing for decades now? is it a space issue on the LHAs or something? full disclosure, we here in army aviation are completely dreading FVL considering just how horrific army acquisitions have gone for the last 15+ years. see LUH, ARH, AAS, etc, the list goes on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Is there anything particularly wrong with continuing to buy new H-60s, AH-64s, and CH-47s anyway? There seems to have been tons of success periodically slapping new rotors, engines, etc. on them and upgrading them piecemeal like each year's new model of Corolla.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Is there anything particularly wrong with continuing to buy new H-60s, H-64s, and H-47s anyway? There seems to have been tons of success periodically slapping new rotors, engines, etc. on them and upgrading them piecemeal like each year's new model of Corolla. The new -47s are brand-new construction. The frames are milled from solid billets of aluminum. It's way more than just new engines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
The whole problem is that the existing helos are too slow. There really isn't anything you can do to the existing frames to make them faster without radical redesign. This isn't like backfitting 5th-gen avionics to a 4th-gen fighter. The Osprey has drat near double the top speed of the H-60 or -47, and when you're trying to get reinforcements to an active battle, or evaccing critically wounded, the value of that speed differential is absolutely enormous. The obvious problem is that the Army doesn't want to pay more for a much more capable frame than it does for an existing Blackhawk (which has already had all its sunken costs covered ages ago) which is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Phanatic, when you go buy the new model corolla, I hope they're giving you a whole new construction car and not just taping on some upgrades our swapping out the engine. Cause if so, you're getting hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Is there anything particularly wrong with continuing to buy new H-60s, AH-64s, and CH-47s anyway? There seems to have been tons of success periodically slapping new rotors, engines, etc. on them and upgrading them piecemeal like each year's new model of Corolla. There's nothing wrong with it as such, there's just a lot of new technologies out there (compound and tilt rotor) that offer some colossal performance increases. Still, the army would have been fine just grinding along with its 70s tech, except there's a major emerging need to get army rotary wing better integrated into joint airspace control and get them participating in air defense networks and stuff. The current systems can't do that without significant upgrades to sensors and network equipment, which has started to tilt the C-BA seems in favor new systems versus upgrading the old ones. bewbies fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The new -47s are brand-new construction. The frames are milled from solid billets of aluminum. It's way more than just new engines. I'm sure you mean the individual frame members start as big old billets but I'm going to imagine that each Chinook starts as a semi-trailer sized block of aluminum that gets tossed into one honkin huge CNC machine. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Arrath posted:I'm sure you mean the individual frame members start as big old billets but I'm going to imagine that each Chinook starts as a semi-trailer sized block of aluminum that gets tossed into one honkin huge CNC machine. I was thinking the same thing, that sounds awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Something like this: It's a...CnC machine :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Something like this: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
brains posted:since we're on the subject of the parts commonality, can anyone explain why exactly marine air continues to use and develop the superhuey/cobra airframes? especially given their parent organization uses SH-60s for the utility role and sea apaches have been a thing for decades now? is it a space issue on the LHAs or something? Parts commonality probably has a big deal to do with them continuing to develop the Huey and Cobra. There's not a whole hell of a lot of space on LHA's in the first place and having to tie more of that up with 2 entire different ground crews and parts is in fact a big deal. The UH-1Y and AH-1Z are still pretty drat good for what they do. The UH-1Y carries slightly less than a UH-60 and goes a bit faster and the AH-1Z is flat out superior to the D model Apaches, E's are a bit better however. The Blackhawks, Huey's and Cobras all share the same engine oddly enough. The T700 gets a whole shitload of mileage
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
drat is that a lot of revisions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Alaan posted:drat is that a lot of revisions. They skipped some letters. P-38 bombing pathfinder, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Pretty much, yeah. Weren't F-22s delivering A2G ordnance in combat 2 weeks ago today? Yup. But nobody in their right mind would consider it a truly multirole fighter in the vein of the F-16 or F/A-18.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Pretty much, yeah. Weren't F-22s delivering A2G ordnance in combat 2 weeks ago today? It wasn't designed as a multi-role, in any way shape or form. It was intended to carry 6 AMRAAMs and a couple of what, at the time, were probably intended to be ASRAAMs but turned into AIM-9s because of the shitshow that was Western WVR missile procurement in the '90s. That was it (also a Vulcan). The A2G capability was slapped on after the Cold War ended and they went "poo poo Congress isn't going to let us buy a strictly air dominance fighter now, better pretend it can do A2G too." Thus all the designation shenanigans with "F/A-22." Also, this was why it could originally only carry 2xGBU-32 as opposed to 2,000 lbs weapons...the main bay was quite literally designed solely for AMRAAMs and the largest A2G munition it could fit in (with a couple inches to spare) was a 1,000 lbs Mk 83 class weapon. With the introduction of the SDB (which meant it could actually carry a usable A2G payload) and a couple of avionics upgrades it actually turned into a pretty decent night 0/kick in the door strike aircraft, but that was most definitely not part of its originally designed mission.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
The Ah-1 looks so much cooler than the Apache.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:The Ah-1 looks so much cooler than the Apache.    CH-53s are big, man 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Phanatic, when you go buy the new model corolla, I hope they're giving you a whole new construction car and not just taping on some upgrades our swapping out the engine. Cause if so, you're getting hosed. The early F-models were reconstructed airframes, as well as the E-models and the early G-models. First new-build Gs just came off the line the other week, and I've done flight testing on a G that still had an A-model pylon on the back. Crew chief brought a video camera up with him so he could prove to the stress engineers how badly it was twisting around while the pilot was inputting frequency sweeps. The new-build Fs and Gs are entirely new airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
My point was that I don't think Mortabis was ignorant of the new construction, but rather asking why an entirely new design was warranted when we could instead build new, improved versions of proven designs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It wasn't designed as a multi-role, in any way shape or form. It was intended to carry 6 AMRAAMs and a couple of what, at the time, were probably intended to be ASRAAMs but turned into AIM-9s because of the shitshow that was Western WVR missile procurement in the '90s. That was it (also a Vulcan). The A2G capability was slapped on after the Cold War ended and they went "poo poo Congress isn't going to let us buy a strictly air dominance fighter now, better pretend it can do A2G too." Thus all the designation shenanigans with "F/A-22." Also, this was why it could originally only carry 2xGBU-32 as opposed to 2,000 lbs weapons...the main bay was quite literally designed solely for AMRAAMs and the largest A2G munition it could fit in (with a couple inches to spare) was a 1,000 lbs Mk 83 class weapon. Doesn't the performance to be a good fighter pretty much include the performance to be a decent light bomber if it can carry the payload and sensors for it? Or for that matter I can think of it going the other way some times, such as the A-4 having the performance to be a light fighter for the smaller carriers the USN was running early postwar and carrying some anti-air stuff in some fits. Am I right that the real problems with multi-role planes are when you start trying to make two things without overlapping performance envelopes work together?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:P-38 bombing pathfinder, right? Yes! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Doesn't the performance to be a good fighter pretty much include the performance to be a decent light bomber if it can carry the payload and sensors for it? Or for that matter I can think of it going the other way some times, such as the A-4 having the performance to be a light fighter for the smaller carriers the USN was running early postwar and carrying some anti-air stuff in some fits. How did the Skyhawk end up working out so well, anyways? I know good fighters make good attackers, but it's hard for me to envision it working in reverse. Also, since we're talking about parts commonality, I hear that the A-7 Corsair II and the F-8 Crusader were both based on similar designs, and they were both quite successful. Anybody have any more information on them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
It's more that the A-7 was based on the F-8. If I remember right, the competition which ended up choosing the A-7 said all designs must be based on an existing airframe to reduce costs. Vought took the F-8 as their base platform, there you go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Psion posted:It's more that the A-7 was based on the F-8. If I remember right, the competition which ended up choosing the A-7 said all designs must be based on an existing airframe to reduce costs. Vought took the F-8 as their base platform, there you go. Bingo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Psion posted:It's more that the A-7 was based on the F-8. If I remember right, the competition which ended up choosing the A-7 said all designs must be based on an existing airframe to reduce costs. Vought took the F-8 as their base platform, there you go. Ah, so the Crusader-to-Corsair relationship is like the precursor to the Eagle-to-Strike Eagle/Mud Hen relationship? It sounds like the Phantom working decently in multirole as-is instead of producing a specialist air-to-ground version is the exception, not the rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Ah, so the Crusader-to-Corsair relationship is like the precursor to the Eagle-to-Strike Eagle/Mud Hen relationship? It sounds like the Phantom working decently in multirole as-is instead of producing a specialist air-to-ground version is the exception, not the rule. Phantom was designed as an interceptor, straight up, and just happened to turn into a pretty good multi-role fighter. Also was designed for one service and then was forced on the others, as opposed to being designed for multiple services from the ground up. Hence Mr. Yenko's question about coming up with an aircraft actually designed as a multi-role fighter that was decent at doing it. Plenty of pretty good multi-role planes, but almost all of them were initially designed with one role in mind as opposed to being designed from the ground up as multi-role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Hmm...was the MiG-29 designed as a multirole fighter or just as a light air superiority thing like the F-16? Just looking at the design of it, it seems a bit...big to be filling the F-16 type niche exclusively. Also would the MiG-23 be considered good? At least in modernized form?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:How did the Skyhawk end up working out so well, anyways? I know good fighters make good attackers, but it's hard for me to envision it working in reverse. It was a really small and light bomber that came from that magical time where a tiny light bomber that could tote a nuke seemed like a great idea. They mercilessly trimmed weight and size off of the thing to the point where they saved weight by making it small enough to not need folding wings, so it's got a surprisingly good thrust to weight ratio and wing loading. That combination, when fighters were tending to be fast but heavy things meant that on the smaller carriers like the WWII surplus ASW ships they couldn't get the fighters off of properly the Skyhawk was the best "fighter" they could get to run off less capable threats and provide daytime escort with. And then avionics shrunk enough they could fit stuff like F-16 avionics in it and load up some sidewinders. If anyone wants to elaborate on the state of the smaller carriers post WWII, I barely remember it from Friedman's US Carriers: Illustrated Design History (from a fantastic book series by the way) and I remember it being pretty interesting. The MiG-29 is about the same weight as the F/A-18 if I remember right, which was in the contest the F-16 came from, so I wouldn't be surprised if it were a bit less minimal lightweight fighter. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Does the Gripen count as a successful multirole design perhaps? It's not like it is combat proven or anything, but I get the impression that it's a decent enough little plane for the money and it was expressively intended to be multirole from the start. By your average Swede it is commonly referred as the JAS, which stands for Jakt/Attack/Spaning; fighter/attack/reconnaissance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Hmm...was the MiG-29 designed as a multirole fighter or just as a light air superiority thing like the F-16? Just looking at the design of it, it seems a bit...big to be filling the F-16 type niche exclusively. Also would the MiG-23 be considered good? At least in modernized form? This article answers things better than anyone could: http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403 The TL;DR of it is that the MiG-29 was a great airplane, but it was still designed with outmoded and obsolete fighter tactics in mind. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
That article has a good comment:Anton Solomonoff posted:How can you contrive to lie even in such articles. Would be better if the author wrote, as the MiG-29 destroyed the American aircraft in Vietnam. T-50 PAK FA is not far behind at 10 years from its counterpart F-22, and surpasses it. T-50 PAK FA is already fully constructed, the only issue is the engines of an aircraft who want to upgrade. Only much inferior to the T-50 PAK-FA, F-22's stealth technology, but here the author does not become a knowledge does not assess this fact. The fact that the Russian radar tracking aircraft not only for reflection, but also on exhausts to the atmosphere, heat trace, and so on, which makes stealth technology virtually worthless. At the same time, T-50, F-22 is superior in speed, T-50 to 2 times faster than its American counterpart, T-50 and is better equipped to 3.5 times more manoeuvrable than the F-22. Simply put, the T-50 in action can destroy 3 to 5 F-22 aircraft. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
You heard it here (there?) first, folks: the T-50 is a Mach 4, 30G fighter capable of tracking the F-22 in every scannable part of the EM spectrum while remaining invisible. God help us if they ever get the good engines for it. So bizarre they latched onto the MiG-29. That wasn't even the best fighter in their own inventory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Russians with incorrect opinions? Why, I never!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:59
|
|
