|
azflyboy posted:You're forgetting that the F-22 generated lots of jobs for lobbyists and millions in campaign contributions/bribes for members of Congress, which is the most important mission any major defense project will ever undertake. Well someone is making money upgrading A-10As to A-10Cs and building new wing sets.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Or the C-5 that carries poo poo from point A to point B or shoves it out in the sky between A or B. Ahem, the C-5 is both cargo carrying and a mobile ICBM platform integral to our nuclear umbrella responsibilities and a crucial part of our national defense  e- put dual Avengers in a chin turret, make an A-5, multiple MOAB's inside for CAS Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
An AC-5 would be absolutely magical. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
With a belly launched Predator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
And a Starbucks. What? They'll have room.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:You're forgetting that the F-22 generated lots of jobs for lobbyists and millions in campaign contributions/bribes for members of Congress, which is the most important mission any major defense project will ever undertake. Yeah, but the F-22 actually has a primary mission that it's pretty good at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Yes but people can get dizzy off Bud Light and it's still being manufactured.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Saga posted:Including the RAF, a major operator. So presumably the problem is they can't afford to pay anyone to put it back together rather than that there are no retired Phantom techs anywhere in the midlands. Yes, between the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm there are bound to be lots of people who could do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Just (at night) saw a bunch of V-22s fly by, low, over my neighborhood in NYC. The green-light tipped rotors are pretty otherworldly in person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Time for fighter drones. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/24/225846750/watch-first-pilotless-f-16-fighter-jet
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Time for fighter drones. ...except, they're not. Everyone is freaking the gently caress out about "robot F-16s will kill us all  ", when in reality they're just targets with basically no capabilities beyond some basic maneuvering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
^ Using the same tech we've been using since the '60s to do the same drat thing. There's a big difference between flying that thing 60 miles from its ground station over the coast of Florida and doing a much more complicated version of the same thing from a couple thousand miles away with an enemy trying to jam/spoof your data link.Advent Horizon posted:Yes but people can get dizzy off Bud Light and it's still being manufactured. If that had anything to do with the F-22 production being curtailed, you'd have a point. But let's all remember, the F-22 was killed off because of the affordable F-35's ability to back it up in the air-to-air role. That same F-35 that now costs about 80% of an F-22.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Godholio posted:^ Using the same tech we've been using since the '60s to do the same drat thing. There's a big difference between flying that thing 60 miles from its ground station over the coast of Florida and doing a much more complicated version of the same thing from a couple thousand miles away with an enemy trying to jam/spoof your data link. Was F-22 tooling destroyed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
No. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/us-fighter-usa-lockheed-idUSTRE7BC09T20111213
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
*ahem* Airborne laser are overrated. There, I summoned Grover.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
They had per-unit cost coming down pretty hard and spiral development only ever got started because of the order decrease right? Man, procurement...
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Re: the A-10, I was thinking we could get much better footage these days than those old GAU-8 weapon tests on Youtube, and that gave me an idea... The A-10 could have the Best Retirement Party Ever. In addition to all the usual ceremonies the Air Force would do, they could do this: First, the AF park a bunch of old tanks and hardware in the desert, for a proper demonstration. Also out in the desert is... ... a bunch of random poo poo the Internet bids to have shot up for charity - a big kiddie pool full of jello! 1000 Microsoft Surfaces all showing a picture of Ballmer! On the Jello! A Ford Pinto with a full tank of gas! - sponsors can put up items for charity bidding, people can offer their own for enough dosh. Plaster it all with webcams and gopros, and then... use up all the remaining ammo in glorious hi-def slo mo. Cams on and in the planes too of course, with the flight controllers, the whole experience. Live TV, tons of footage posted to a Youtube channel, DVD's, merch, etc, all for good causes. Sell all the expended brass for charity too. Plenty of opportunity to talk about the real mission and whatnot, and how the goofy stuff is just for charities. When it's all done, a formation flies off into the sunset... After a show like that, no one will ever, ever forget that aircraft.  What would you all want out on the range, and what would you bid to have it pummeled with 30 Mike?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:*ahem* how many sheets of drywall can a laser burn through in a second? I imagine it depends on whether or not its load-bearing
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
IPCRESS posted:No. Well, that's some relief I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Schindler's Fist posted:Re: the A-10, I was thinking we could get much better footage these days than those old GAU-8 weapon tests on Youtube, and that gave me an idea... This sounds like a way more hardcore version of that Letterman bit where random objects were flattened with a steamroller.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:*ahem* Is it even possible to mount the guts for an effective airborne laser in the F-35's gaping fail-hole? Seriously, is that technology even going to be available before the the airframes expire? Or are we going to have to install spooling extension cords on all F-35's to actually power their "PEW-PEW" weaponry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Is it even possible to mount the guts for an effective airborne laser in the F-35's gaping fail-hole? Seriously, is that technology even going to be available before the the airframes expire? Or are we going to have to install spooling extension cords on all F-35's to actually power their "PEW-PEW" weaponry. Look, Northrop Grumman says that an F-35 pilot only needs to point at the red dots representing the bad guys on the helmet mounted display then the laser will kill it. Would Northrop Grumman over state the capabilities of a defense weapon system in any way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Is it even possible to mount the guts for an effective airborne laser in the F-35's gaping fail-hole? Seriously, is that technology even going to be available before the the airframes expire? Or are we going to have to install spooling extension cords on all F-35's to actually power their "PEW-PEW" weaponry. Actually I'd be surprised if there's not some kind of actual airframe testing within the next 5-10 years. The tech has come a long way in the past few years. But that's still 5-10 years to start testing, then probably 3-5 before a purchase order is made, then 25 to actually build/install the hardware in the F-35, then we'll be retiring the aircraft because they're too expensive to maintain and replacing them with 68 six-gen fighter-bomber-cargo-tankers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Actually I'd be surprised if there's not some kind of actual airframe testing within the next 5-10 years. The tech has come a long way in the past few years. But that's still 5-10 years to start testing, then probably 3-5 before a purchase order is made, then 25 to actually build/install the hardware in the F-35, then we'll be retiring the aircraft because they're too expensive to maintain and replacing them with 68 six-gen fighter-bomber-cargo-tankers. Now by airframe testing, do you mean they put a toy phaser in the hole and assume that someone is going to make an actual working one soon?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Actually I'd be surprised if there's not some kind of actual airframe testing within the next 5-10 years. The tech has come a long way in the past few years. But that's still 5-10 years to start testing, then probably 3-5 before a purchase order is made, then 25 to actually build/install the hardware in the F-35, then we'll be retiring the aircraft because they're too expensive to maintain and replacing them with 68 six-gen fighter-bomber-cargo-tankers. Is that you, Dale Brown?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Koesj posted:They had per-unit cost coming down pretty hard and spiral development only ever got started because of the order decrease right? Man, procurement... Yup. Also some aspects of spiral development that got indefinitely postponed/all but canceled were only cut because of...the F-35. hobbesmaster posted:Look, Northrop Grumman says that an F-35 pilot only needs to point at the red dots representing the bad guys on the helmet mounted display then the laser will kill it. Would Northrop Grumman over state the capabilities of a defense weapon system in any way? "DAS will render maneuvering irrelevant." -NG c. 2008.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Time for fighter drones. This happens to all old fighters. We must have run out of Phantoms now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:This happens to all old fighters. We must have run out of Phantoms now. IIRC the last Phantom drone was shot down earlier this year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Actually I'd be surprised if there's not some kind of actual airframe testing within the next 5-10 years. The tech has come a long way in the past few years. But that's still 5-10 years to start testing, then probably 3-5 before a purchase order is made, then 25 to actually build/install the hardware in the F-35, then we'll be retiring the aircraft because they're too expensive to maintain and replacing them with 68 six-gen fighter-bomber-cargo-tankers. Then again even if airplane based lasers truly are the next big thing, wouldn't the F35 be outclassed by a purpose built laser plane? Dump all the fancy missile and maneuvering stuff and just fit the biggest , fastest, longest range laser.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:Then again even if airplane based lasers truly are the next big thing, wouldn't the F35 be outclassed by a purpose built laser plane? Dump all the fancy missile and maneuvering stuff and just fit the biggest , fastest, longest range laser. polished metal fuselages are the new new stealth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:Then again even if airplane based lasers truly are the next big thing, wouldn't the F35 be outclassed by a purpose built laser plane? Dump all the fancy missile and maneuvering stuff and just fit the biggest , fastest, longest range laser. Well, what grover and Lockheed Martin are excited about is since the F-35's engine has what amounts to a giant power take off for the F-35B's lift fan they can possibly put a giant generator there for the laser in the F-35A/C.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Now by airframe testing, do you mean they put a toy phaser in the hole and assume that someone is going to make an actual working one soon? Well, they do work. It's a matter of continuing to miniaturize them. AlexanderCA posted:Then again even if airplane based lasers truly are the next big thing, wouldn't the F35 be outclassed by a purpose built laser plane? Dump all the fancy missile and maneuvering stuff and just fit the biggest , fastest, longest range laser. Yup. But first you have to build something that shoots and flies, and it's a lot easier to work out the problems and build TTPs with an existing platform. They don't design a new airliner every time someone develops a new engine. Hell, look how awful the F-86 looked when they started grafting radars on the front. Linedance posted:polished metal fuselages are the new new stealth. Good luck. Sexy as gently caress, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
God drat that's hot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well, what grover and Lockheed Martin are excited about is since the F-35's engine has what amounts to a giant power take off for the F-35B's lift fan they can possibly put a giant generator there for the laser in the F-35A/C. And the -B couldn't install it thus proving again the F-35B is a useless piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Well, they do work. It's a matter of continuing to miniaturize them. So all the F-35 has to wait for is a laser package that can fit in its lovely crevice, that it can lift and actually fly more than a mile with, that has a range long enough that it's not destroyed by a missile or gunfire because it doesn't have time to react, and can shoot more than once and not catch on fire or cause the engine to stall. I wouldn't be holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Blistex posted:So all the F-35 has to wait for is a laser package that can fit in its lovely crevice, that it can lift and actually fly more than a mile with, that has a range long enough that it's not destroyed by a missile or gunfire because it doesn't have time to react, and can shoot more than once and not catch on fire or cause the engine to stall. You underestimate the power of politicians pursuing silly projects in an effort to create jobs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Chevron-cut engine fairings are so 90s futuristic it's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
I have a question that you folks can probably answer: I know that on prop planes, at least with rotary engines (from WWI games), that the planes tended to roll faster in the direction of the direction that the prop was spinning due to torque or what have you. I seem to remember reading that counter-rotating propellers, like on the P-38, eliminated this. I assume that this effect was present on regular piston engined planes as well? Anyway, using this as a baseline, do jets also experience this sort of effect? As such, do the engines on one side of a multi-engined jet spin one way while the opposite on the other side? What about jets with 3 engines? This all started bothering me when I was trying to fall asleep last night!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
All jets of the same model will rotate in the same direction; there are no "handed" engines. Some turboprops, such as on the A400M will have gearboxes to make a prop turn one direction or another in order to have contra-rotation, but the turbo machinery will be identical. Torque effects from a jet engine are negligible in the frame of the aircraft. Airflow entering the engine is straight, and although there are large amounts of swirl imparted to the air inside the engine, practically all of it is straightened out by the time the air exits the engine. Spinning assemblies ride on bearings which won't transmit torque loads to the airframe either. There will be slightly gyroscopic effects due to the rotating parts, but these are generally small as compared to the dynamic forces on the rest of the airframe. Understeer fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 07:36
|
|
