|
Insane Totoro posted:gently caress that might be a better weapon than a nuke. Just fly a drone over your opponent's industrial centers and shut them all the gently caress down. You do? Because you're exactly right.
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
LGD posted:Ok but you're already presupposing that you're getting hit with enough explosives/kinetic energy to cause a pretty severe amount of damage. At that point how much sense does it really make to worry about the threat of an EMP versus everything there just getting blown up? They're overthinking the problem. Modern militaries are run via networks of systems. It's impossible to shield everything, and anything that gets taken down impacts the overall effectiveness of the system. Example: A well-designed integrated air defense system (IADS) is a scary loving thought, even to the USAF. China has an excellent one. Iraq in 1990 had one of the best, probably only behind Moscow. The US didn't bomb every missile launcher or radar site, we took out the C2 network that controlled it and cross-cued radar data. The sites were force to operate independently which drops their efficiency SIGNIFICANTLY. This type of weapon applies the same logic to the entirety of the military and beyond.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Good thing you don't have to attack datacenters to shut things down. Relay stations, power substations, cell towers...all you need is enough power.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Not what I was talking about, just the general concept. There's an Antonov An-12 under there somewhere. There's also the KJ-2000, built on an Il-76 platform. Strangely the wiki page doesn't mention it's lackluster safety record. One crashed with a significant portion of the design team aboard several years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
Alpine Mustache posted:probably just unpainted, except for maybe the radome. Radome paint is different from the rest of the paint, it's not stripped or applied at the same time. I can't tell if that one's painted or not. Edit: But yes, the rest of the aircraft is unpainted.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Fair warning, iyaayas01 is the AD guy here and can speak better to this than I can. It's not just a case of immature technology. For a semiactive missile you have to guide the missile all the way in...with an active missile you have to guide it to a short enough range that the onboard radar can acquire the target. Long-wave radars have inherent, unconquerable shortcomings in this area. The SAAB program is probably a better option from a physics standpoint, but it's tactically almost useless. Why? Because it's a huge target for Day 1. It's easily locatable and can only be defended by conventional systems; once it's out of the way, the LO aircraft are back to standard ops against the systems they were designed to defeat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 08:33
|
|
|
grover posted:I just don't see how this could possibly work in practice. A stealth missile or aircraft is such an insignificantly small target than the shadow is going to be merely penumbra at best and probably damned near undetectable over noise outside of the lab. Not to mention that at the ranges this thing would work at, that conventional long-wave would work just as well (or better) at spotting low-RCS targets. It's detectable if you have the right equipment. But yeah "in practice" is the problem. It's basically a tripwire system, not an early-warning and CERTAINLY not target acquisition/tracking. It's the equivalent of knowing somebody just broke in through your window and they're inside the house, but you're blindfolded with earplugs in. It doesn't help you accomplish anything besides tell you that you're about to get hosed up. WEREWAIF posted:
The Russians have been playing the "hey I'm right outside your airspace moving at high speed and you can't do anything about it" game more in the past few years than they did at any point during the Cold War.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Fun thing about the UN is that nobody really cares what they say unless they agree.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:This was one of the more interesting bits that I saw in one of the stories that came out after the whole Red Eagles thing got declassified, someone was talking about some of the exploitation tests they did in conjunction with the program and how they would utilize Soviet flares against captive carry seeker heads of U.S. missiles and discovered that several of the U.S. missiles flat out didn't work. The guy that was being interviewed was like, "I'm using the AIM-9P as an example because it's out of the inventory and I can talk about it; there's a lot of other stuff that we discovered that about that I can't talk about because it's still in the inventory." I imagine the L/M models are gradually vanishing as X production continues. We gotta take care of those QF-4s somehow, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Raptors can't use the x yet can they? It's high in the upgrade plan, if it hasn't already started (I doubt it has). Edit: I'm actually talking about an AMRAAM capability, not AIM-9X. Godholio fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:AFAIK it hasn't quite yet. They're doing Increment 3.1 right now, the most significant of which is the introduction of SDB and SAR mapping capability (the first squadron just did a Combat Hammer in August so I've got to think they're right at declaring IOC if not already there), and AIM-9X and AIM-120D are supposed to be part of Increment 3.2...but the schedule has slipped (again) and they broke 3.2 up into several subincrements. So right now there's an upgrade to give a very basic rudimentary AIM-120D capability sometime this FY, FY2015 is when it's supposed to get AIM-9X, and then not until FY2018 (riiiiight) for full capability for both advanced air to air missiles. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm pretty sure its actually the AMRAAM (120C variants, at least) that does that, not the Sidewinder. I didn't realize the 120D was that far along. I gave up on following its progress a few years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Does the CIA put markings on all of their drones/other random spy equipment around the globe? I don't want to I don't think the CIA would bother using Scan Eagles. Edit: As Cyrano says below, these are not on the high end of surveillance drones. Godholio fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 04:29
|
|
too much here but I don't think it's out of the question that someone US government agency and not .mil folk were operating a drone in Iran that was captured.
|
Pretty good article on the Iran/drone incident a couple of weeks ago. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iran-threatens-aerial-freedom-of-navigation-in-the-gulf#.UL-vEnORE-E.facebook
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
If you think that's stressful you should check out the other Skyhook. But no, the speed bleeds off pretty quickly without being jarring, which is what would cause problems.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
The GAU-22 is unrelated to the Vulcan...it's a descendent of the Avenger though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21074699 That article says nothing whatsoever. They haven't dug anything up yet, that's all that's known at this point. A-No Spitfires have been recovered B-? C-No airplanes are there There's no B presented, unless it's the PR guy's statement, who doesn't actually know anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Can anyone explain to me the joke [Two Soviet Army Colonels are drinking in Paris, one of them asks the other: "Who won the air war?"]? The joke is that the air war was completely irrelevant. You're right that without air superiority it would've been more difficult to say the least.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Wouldn't airpower have been able to severely impede Soviet supply lines? The reason it's a joke is that it's inaccurate. Airpower would absolutely have been relevant. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:I remember reading a book on the '73 Yom Kippur war where both sides blew through what was projected to be months worth of ammunition in a matter of days. Which is funny because NATO did the same loving thing last year.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:But isn't that sort of the persistent bad habit in modern warfare? "I bet we can accomplish X% of our mission just using organic assets! No problem!" Fixed, and not in a sarcastic way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
grover posted:No, A-10s still aren't flying tanks and bullets still put holes in them. They just happen to be a little more resilient to gunfire than Apaches. They also happen to fly low and slow and are extremely vulnerable to modern surface-to-air missiles. They are significantly less vulnerable to MANPADS than anything else at that altitude.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
grover posted:Thanks, Phanatic! Only in specific circumstances. There are a lot of examples where pods weren't available or good enough to locate a target. There's a long way to go before what you're saying is true enough to abandon low and slow. And guess what happens when you're out of JDAMs: you go low, you go slow, or you go home. And that's not the situation that the F-16 or F-35 wants to be in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Others have covered it pretty well, but the incident we're all referencing is a deep strike raid by a battalion strength force of Apaches (31 launched, one crashed right after takeoff so 30 were part of the raiding force) on the Iraqi Medina Division, the Republican Guard's top unit. The Wikipedia write up that someone linked to is pretty good, but the short version is it was an absolute disaster. Out of 30 helos, 1 was shot down by small arms fire, all but one of the remaining 29 suffered serious damage, 2 of the 29 were written off, and it took a month for the unit to be combat effective again. I've seen a Harrier get a "kill" on an Aggressor F-16 at a Nellis Red Flag.. The Viper picked up the lead aircraft of the low-ingressing strikers and never noticed the trailers 5-10 miles back. He rolled in right between them and the Harrier got a perfect IR target. Valid for kill.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Airman is a dumb moto magazine, but they do some really cool stuff visually, both with stills and video. That video really strikes me as perfect for the Air Force. The audio is what it claims to be, the video shows what it really is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
gently caress YES. That's gonna own.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
The ones in Florida are at a training squadron so yeah they'll never be in a war effort.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Groda posted:The first C-5 I saw was after getting diverted to Steward ANGB from Newark Int'l after five landing attempts that had my neighbors thinking that they were going to die. The C-5s are based at Stewart, and off-station transition training (low approaches and touch-n-goes) is actually required for pilot proficiency. I think it's more likely they were doing that than missing landings and diverting to their home base.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Ha. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I totally misinterpreted that as a C-5 making multiple attempts then diverting to Stewart.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Well, they kinda sucked. They've been highly involved in recent operations so no.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Came out less than a decade before the b-2 So you're using a snapshop of the B-1 from the 80s to trash it? We've been using one heavy bomber operationally multiple times daily for several years now, and it ain't the B-52. iyaayas01 posted:They are maintenance pigs, though. They can join the club. I got tired of having to explain to the CCO and CAOC director why we were cancelled for the nth day in a row.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Might. You don't retire a leg of the triad on a "might."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Good thing we're not spending money on keeping pointless tactical nukes in Europe or maintaining an entire nuclear infrastructure spanning over 6 USAF installations to support keeping 450 ICBMs on alert, ICBMs with less than half the total number of warheads (and well less than half the throw weight) than the D5s on the Ohios! You know better than that...the system doesn't work this way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
^ Yeah, and I shouldn't have gotten RIF'd based on an OPR with a #1 strat. Thank god I did, though.grover posted:
Not all INS systems are that bad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Not anymore than Lockheed does in delivering a plane that doesn't kill it's pilots. That's completely irrelevant and a horrible attempt at drawing a parallel. You should be embarrassed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Citizen Z posted:The guy that heads the museum it is General Stafford, former Apollo Astronaut and AF test pilot. He commanded the Apollo Soyuz linkup mission, and him and his Commie buddy from it exchange knick-nacks. If you're ever driving along I-40 in Western OK, stop in Weatherford and spend the $5 to go check it out. It's a neat little place. They need to put up a loving sign somewhere. I've driven through Weatherford dozens of times and never knew it was there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
The Wedgetail is a nice piece of kit. I've got several buddies teaching the Turks how to use theirs up in Seattle. The contract started before I got off active duty so I missed out, sadly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Other than it being a hilarious loadout, the biggest thing I see is that they have an AGM-88 way farther out on the wing than I think I've ever seen one mounted, and they're a lot heavier than AMRAAMs. It looks like it could carry some hilarious 12x2xG loadout. You're very much on the right track.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Aircraft are generally engineered to have very specific Design Eye Positions, or ranges of positions. Many aircraft are even equipped with eye position indication, so that the pilot can get himself in the position intended by the manufacturer for optimum sight lines out of the aircraft. It is my understanding that military aircraft have tighter tolerances, because of the reliance on HUDs, however, the F-35s HMD might negate that a bit. However, there is still ZERO chance the design eye position was not looked at, or not taken seriously during cockpit design; Your comparison with an S2000 is laughable at best. So are the complaints about the headrest. If there's a visibility problem, it's from the bulkhead. From the pictures I can find, I'm not convinced there IS a meaningful visibility problem...it's next to impossible to look directly behind you in an F-15 or F-16 anyway, even with the lower dorsal spine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:
Yeah that's probably max resolution. If you want it bigger, scale it up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
Novalogic's F-22 Raptor was a loving blast. I also enjoyed Strike Commander a ton.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2013 05:48
|
|