|
Nebakenezzer posted:When third world nations develop comprehensive laser-based defense systems, we'll worry about it. Nothing we can't repeatedly bomb into oblivion with a low flying B-1B Godholio posted:The laser idea is a lot more likely, but I'd be surprised if that happens either. The short answer is "because the AF is poo poo at justifying any kind of future-need to get funding for long-term projects." See: F-22, AIM-120D (which is finally out, but years late), AWACS Block 40/45, and about a thousand other upgrade or acquisitions programs that might not have been complete wastes of money. I've wondered, since LAIRCM can directly blind IR missiles, why not make it possible for it to pulse a second laser or have the ability to boost the power to the laser and burn it out or even destroy it?
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
Geizkragen posted:Well the USMC was never down with the Growler for the same reason they are still overworking the poo poo out of their maintainers while rocking dogged out A-Ds and Harriers: they have a mental block for all things E-G related and buying a single Super Hornet airframe would be an admission of their poor planning and subsequent reliance on Navy airframes, parts and EW support. THE MAGTF IS A SELF CONTAINED ENTITY CAPABLE OF OPERATING COMPLETELY AUTONOMOUSLY! But you guys don't have any strategic lift or force projecti-- THE MAGTF IS A SELF CONTAINED ENTITY CAPABLE OF OPERATING COMPLETELY AUTONOMOUSLY! Godholio posted:Air-to-air missiles would require an air-to-air radar Well, you could always hang some Sidewinders on it and jury rig some wiring so the pilot can uncage the seeker and hear the growl...after all, the Brits did it with Nimrods.  And since we brought up the BUFF I'm chuckling thinking about the story you (pretty sure it was you) told earlier about a BUFF laying a huge chaff corridor right at FL300 during a Red Flag. NightGyr posted:What about just loading it with jamming / EW antennas, and not worrying about the missiles? Maybe a few HARMs to lob in the direction of hostile radars, which it should have a receiver for. I'm sure our resident EW guy can speak more to this if he so desires, but just firing off HARMs in the general direction of a hostile radar is going to be pretty inefficient, especially if you're more interested in DEAD as opposed to SEAD...there's a reason the Wild Weasel F-16s are fitted with the Harm Targeting System. Godholio posted:F-22, AIM-120D (which is finally out, but years late) Neither of which are yet compatible with the other, so good job with that one AF. CommieGIR posted:I've wondered, since LAIRCM can directly blind IR missiles, why not make it possible for it to pulse a second laser or have the ability to boost the power to the laser and burn it out or even destroy it? You're talking a pretty serious increase in power to go from blinding to destroying, which is the current limitation...but that's basically the end game goal as far as laser weapons are concerned. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Oh I know, hence why I hypothesized a second laser would be required.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Why? You're adding complexity to a system that is probably a maintenance hassle already and gaining little. iyaayas01 posted:I'm sure our resident EW guy can speak more to this if he so desires, but just firing off HARMs in the general direction of a hostile radar is going to be pretty inefficient, especially if you're more interested in DEAD as opposed to SEAD...there's a reason the Wild Weasel F-16s are fitted with the Harm Targeting System. Inefficient, but common practice. Preemptive HARM shots are definitely on the table. DEAD is better than SEAD, but SEAD is safer. Yeah the B-52 chaff story was me. Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Why? You're adding complexity to a system that is probably a maintenance hassle already and gaining little. From being around them, they are actually fairly maintenance friendly. In fact the program cards cause most of the issues they run into, the hardware is fairly reliable compared to the old IRCM system. Now, if you want to take off the laser transmitter, that is a pain in the but, but they didn't have to change it nearly as often on C-130s as the propellers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh I know, hence why I hypothesized a second laser would be required. Input power requirements go up exponentially with output, though, and the amount of energy required to burn out even hardened electronic parts is orders of magnitude less than that required to melt aluminum and destroy the missile itself. Not saying it isn't possible, but there's a reason that the YAL-1 is built out of a 747.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:From being around them, they are actually fairly maintenance friendly. In fact the program cards cause most of the issues they run into, the hardware is fairly reliable compared to the old IRCM system. Fair enough. I have only tangential knowledge of older systems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
For the fighter pilots... Howe often do you fly in IMC? I swear I heard an F18 or something military (it was extremely loud and we have had many f18's flying in lately for some reason)this morning at KBKL (Cleveland). I am guessing they went missed on the ILS 24R as it was really snowing hard and viability could not have been much over 1sm. What kind of planing for weather are you doing before a mission? Do you have to plan alternates? What if you are flying off a carrier? What are the weather minimums? e. another question: what kind of anti-ice is available on the F18? I do not see leading edges having the typical anti-ice surfaces. gigButt fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Inefficient, but common practice. Preemptive HARM shots are definitely on the table. DEAD is better than SEAD, but SEAD is safer. Well its debatable as to which is one better, it really depends on the mission objectives. The Navy prefers suppression because an Air Wing strike is supposed to be an in and out affair. However the problem with the Air Force preference for the CJ tactics is that they have a great targeting system but once the HARM comes off the rails, its just a HARM, and as such its not that great of a weapon TBH. I have to paint with a broad brush because I cant get too specific. Its a bit of a soapbox issue for me and I've had numerous discussions with CJ guys about it during all the exercises I've done at Nellis. Is it inefficient? Yes but again you have to take the mission objectives into account. I did have a CG driver once tell me that he had trouble orbiting in an SA-6 MEZ. He was completely serious. That being said, once we were in Nellis and we didnt have CJ support for some reason. My squadron was flying ICAP-III Prowlers  and I basically used a plan that called for some of us using the "Navy way" and the other guys using basically CJ tactics. But it made sense in the scenario and it worked out pretty well. quote:Yeah the B-52 chaff story was me. The EA-6B can carry a bulk chaff pod. We've done a lot of testing with it. There was at least one occasion when it was dropped too high and took out a large chunk of center's radar. They weren't amused to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
^^^^ So how loving awesome are night carrier ops?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:^^^^ Day is fun. Night is uncomfortable at best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Day is fun. Night is uncomfortable at best. Ya but I bet a night carrier approach will wake you the hell up. I love night time pattern work. If I could type up a contract specifying that any and all pattern work must be done at night, I'd do it. AR at night is a fantastic way for me to go from docile to white knuckling the arm rest in an instant. Do you have any flying pics to share?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Ya but I bet a night carrier approach will wake you the hell up. I love night time pattern work. If I could type up a contract specifying that any and all pattern work must be done at night, I'd do it. AR at night is a fantastic way for me to go from docile to white knuckling the arm rest in an instant. Yes it will definitely do that. Especially once you throw in a little weather and rough seas. I actually dont have a lot in the way of pictures but I'll see what I can dig up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
Unfortunately it looks like the Antarctic crash was a direct impact http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861541
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
http://avherald.com/h?article=45cb7632&opt=0 Fedex dropped another md11...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:I did have a CG driver once tell me that he had trouble orbiting in an SA-6 MEZ. He was completely serious.  And here I thought military pilots were educated...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
There are plenty of situations where it might be called for or even planned for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There are plenty of situations where it might be called for or even planned for. This wasn't one of those. He literally meant any time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:This wasn't one of those. He literally meant any time. If it makes you feel any better, primary job performance is not emphasized on officers' annual reports in the AF so he's probably on his way to O-6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
They should have tried this, just for a laugh. They were scrapping them anyway, it's not like it matters if it goes horribly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:They should have tried this, just for a laugh. They were scrapping them anyway, it's not like it matters if it goes horribly wrong. They actually did it, so it could (no poo poo) fight Boeing jetliners. During the Falklands conflict, a Nimrod and an Argentinian military 707 crossed paths, but neither one could do anything but glower at the other guy. The Brits quickly knocked together a Sidewinder system and fitted it to the Nimrod, so if it ever happened again they would be ready.  Click for big, and they're clearly visible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:I just can't get over how unnecessary it was for that poor Mustang to get bent up. 1.3 Vso is 1.3Vso for a reason! Rather than the approach speed I'd say it is more that flared too high, dropped it down a long way, bounced up to quite a height panic shoved the stick forward then aft meaning that when he did get everything on the ground he was behind with the rudder and eventually ground looped. It's a high performance tailwheel, and in the flare he is not going to be seeing anything forwards. It's a long way from flying a training wheel aircraft. It's a shame to see classic metal bent a little, but I'd rather see them flying with the risk of damage than stationary. The guy made a few errors but it's something that we all can do, as long as he fixes it and keeps on flying I'd be happy. 1.3Vso is an easy basic starting point, but depending on aircraft it can be a bit much. I tend to use 1.1 for very short field work or 1.2 on normal approach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:They actually did it, so it could (no poo poo) fight Boeing jetliners. During the Falklands conflict, a Nimrod and an Argentinian military 707 crossed paths, but neither one could do anything but glower at the other guy. The Brits quickly knocked together a Sidewinder system and fitted it to the Nimrod, so if it ever happened again they would be ready. Were the Argentinians using the 707 like the Germans used the Fw 200 in World War 2?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:CJ tactics Could somebody translate these for me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
The MEZ is the missile engagement zone (the danger zone) around a surface-to-air missile battery, in this case an SA-6 Gainful. The CG driver (pilot) was complaining that he was having trouble hanging around in an area defended by antiaircraft missiles, basically. I don't know what CG means in this context -- I've only heard it to describe Coast Guard but that doesn't make sense to me. Does the Coast Guard actually take part in exercises where they're coming up against heavy-duty SAMs? No idea about CJ tactics. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
I've told this story before, but there were C-130s guys from a foreign air force that will remain unnamed who saw nothing wrong with holding at 10K ft AGL in a double digit MEZ. In a C-130. Yup. (In their defense there was a little more to it than that but still.) Nebakenezzer posted:Were the Argentinians using the 707 like the Germans used the Fw 200 in World War 2? Pretty much. They also used C-130s in the same manner, Sharkey Ward shot one down near the end of the conflict which upset some Argentinians. joat mon posted:Could somebody translate these for me? CJ refers to the F-16CJ, which is what the AF used to unofficially refer to the Block 50/52 F-16Cs; they had been modified to accept the Harm Targeting System and some were assigned to units that had Wild Weasel (SEAD/DEAD, Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses) as one of their primary missions, so it is also often used as short hand to refer to those specific Wild Weasel F-16s. CJ tactics is talking about DEAD vs SEAD...SEAD, like the name says, is suppression. All you are concerned about is making sure the enemy can't shoot at your aircraft while they're in bad guy territory; whether you accomplish that through jamming, lobbing enough HARMs at him that he turns his radar off and doesn't shoot, or actually destroying the air defenses is irrelevant. DEAD on the other hand is when you make a conscious effort to destroy the actual air defenses, so instead of the jamming/lobbing HARM combination described above, the DEAD aircraft will utilize PGMs to take out the air defenses, regardless of whether or not they are posing a direct threat to a friendly aircraft at the time. Like vulturesrow stated, there's a bit of a doctrinal difference (or at least preference) here between the Navy and AF, with the Navy leaning towards SEAD while the AF increasingly prefers DEAD. CG refers to the F-16CG, which is what the AF used to unofficially refer to the Block 40/42 F-16Cs; they initially wanted to call them F-16Gs because there were significant differences/upgrades with the avionics between the Block 40/42s and previous Blocks (mostly focused around enabling all weather/night attack) but rolling out a "new" aircraft designation wasn't politically palatable at the time. Now there's the F-16CMs, which are CGs and CJs that have gone through the CCIP (Common Configuration Implementation Program) upgrade. As the name implies CCIP was intended to get the USAF's Block 40/50 fleet all onto one common configuration. SA-6 MEZ was already explained, SA-6 is the NATO code for the 2K12 Kub SAM system, which is a low to medium level medium range Soviet SAM system...it's a bit dated (entered service in the '70s) and is usually pretty easily defeated by Western air forces, but it can still bite you in the rear end if you don't treat it with at least a bit of respect. Also it is quite mobile (unlike more advanced systems like Patriot or the double digit Russian S-300/S-400 series the whole system is contained on two self propelled vehicles) and can be set up/tore down in 15 minutes, so these days it's often used in shoot and scoot tactics, which can complicate SEAD/DEAD efforts. The Serbs did a pretty good job with this in the '90s (they only shot down dumbass Scott O'Grady with their SA-6s but the bulk of their force survived the wars despite having a pretty large amount of HARMs fired their direction, unlike static systems like the SA-2/3.) Also  at the Coast Guard orbiting in a SA-6 MEZ...that would be pretty hilarious.e: Space Gopher posted:They actually did it, so it could (no poo poo) fight Boeing jetliners. During the Falklands conflict, a Nimrod and an Argentinian military 707 crossed paths, but neither one could do anything but glower at the other guy. The Brits quickly knocked together a Sidewinder system and fitted it to the Nimrod, so if it ever happened again they would be ready. IIRC there was actually another incident after the Nimrods were fitted with Sidewinders where one encountered the 707, but despite pursuit was unable to get into Sidewinder range...I'm laughing at the idea of a Nimrod trying to "chase down" a 707, it'd be like watching two 75 year olds on walkers compete in a 400 meter dash. Also it wasn't just the Brits who hung Sidewinders on patrol aircraft: 
iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:They actually did it, so it could (no poo poo) fight Boeing jetliners. During the Falklands conflict, a Nimrod and an Argentinian military 707 crossed paths, but neither one could do anything but glower at the other guy. The Brits quickly knocked together a Sidewinder system and fitted it to the Nimrod, so if it ever happened again they would be ready. iyaayas01 posted:
Yep, and I'm pretty sure my dad still has some of those stickers from when he was on Nimrods in the late 80s. Talking of modifications made to Nimrods during the Falklands:  This is Nimrod MR.2 XV230, which broke up and crashed in Afghanistan in 2006, in part due to the bodged together nature of the air to air refueling system, installed in Nimrods during the Falklands. Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_XV230
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Check out the new heavy transport the Chinese just flew. Size is somewhere between an IL-76 and a C17.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 11:25
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Check out the new heavy transport the Chinese just flew. Size is somewhere between an IL-76 and a C17. Why did they paint it like a parrot?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 11:28
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Why did they paint it like a parrot? Composites are primed green I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 11:42
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Composites are primed green I think. it's probably all aluminum, the green bits are Alodine and the yellow bits are probably something similar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromate_conversion_coating).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Check out the new heavy transport the Chinese just flew. Size is somewhere between an IL-76 and a C17. Looks like they put an Il-76 under a shrink ray, but only for a little while. I wonder if they'll get any export sales in Southeast Asia or Africa, or if this is just for their own air force? edit: wait, it's bigger than an Il-76? Huh. The proportions make it look smaller.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
The green looks like BMS 10-11 type 1 to me and the yellow looks like alodine e: fixed rscott fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
What sort of engines are those? I've got no idea about what's what in that regard, but just from a visual perspective, they look old because of the narrower design. Is that a tech issue like it was for the Soviets, or something else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
I was going to ask the same thing. Those look pretty skinny and low-bypass for a modern heavy transport. I bet it's really loud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
China's about 30 years behind everyone else in engine design, so yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
They almost look like JT8s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:They almost look like JT8s. China did briefly have a McDonnell Douglas factory, a few MD-80s and I think one MD-90 were constructed there. And the former type used the JT8D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
They are Soloviev D-30KP-2's, same engines off their KJ-2000. So yeah, it's basically a morphed up Il-76 cause Russia raised the prices on Il-76 exports lately, but not their engines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 21:06
|
|
