|
Colonial Air Force posted:How much of a deterrent though, since we know where they all are? It isn't going to prevent a first strike from South Korea or the US (if, for some reason, they decided to do so) because it'd be the first target. This is a key point in that no matter what NK's artillery capability actually is, it depends 100% on being able to launch an attack without warning. I have a pretty low opinion of modern US intelligence but one has to imagine the SKs are pretty focussed on surveilling NK solidly, and no serious attack is going to be launched without days or realistically weeks of really obvious troop and equipment movement.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
And don't forget the gap in the Combined Forces (US/ROK) elint capabilities and those of the DPRK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:North Korea doesn't park its artillery right in the barbed wire. Drawing a line from the DMZ to Seoul doesn't tell you anything useful. I'm well aware of that. As far as I'm informed though, it should still hit enough of Seoul to be a real problem. But, as I said before, this is really academic because why on earth would they start a loving war. Colonial Air Force posted:How much of a deterrent though, since we know where they all are? It isn't going to prevent a first strike from South Korea or the US (if, for some reason, they decided to do so) because it'd be the first target. Also this, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
I just added "flew a B-17 and did a flyover of a veteran's hospital" to my repertoire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Re-integrating North Korea into the world/regional economy at this point would be like the reunification of Germany times 100 at this point. Unless there was some kind of massive, world wide program to help bear the costs (and it's not like that's gonnna happen lol, look at how badly the world has hosed up the Ebola epidemic in west Africa), neither china nor ROK could possibly bear the costs alone. You're talking 10s if not 100s of billions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:How much of a deterrent though, since we know where they all are? It isn't going to prevent a first strike from South Korea or the US (if, for some reason, they decided to do so) because it'd be the first target. The first target with what, exactly? Do you expect the U.S. would launch a WWII sized armada of bombers, or are we just going to deploy every big gun we've got?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The first target with what, exactly? Do you expect the U.S. would launch a WWII sized armada of bombers, or are we just going to deploy every big gun we've got? One SSGN should be good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The first target with what, exactly? Do you expect the U.S. would launch a WWII sized armada of bombers, or are we just going to deploy every big gun we've got? A coordinated strike isn't really all that outside of our playbook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
MonkeyNutZ posted:It's edited in the sense that the cockpit is at least three different photos, the ship is a different photo, and the three guys on the deck are pasted in. While the AV-8B or whatever it's supposed to be is no doubt a bit different, having sat in the prototype Harrier at Brooklands, the cockpit in that image doesn't look anything like high enough off the deck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:If only the Sprint missile had ever gone into service What the hell was the fuel? Wiki says it was a solid rocket so probably not the horrendous poo poo from Ignition!, which was all about liquid fuels, but probably no better?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Phy posted:What the hell was the fuel? Wiki says it was a solid rocket so probably not the horrendous poo poo from Ignition!, which was all about liquid fuels, but probably no better? Apparently, perchlorate + nitrocellulose with a small about of aluminum powder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Solid rocket fuel is pretty safe stuff; it's pretty much rubber with oxidizer mixed into it. You don't want it to light on fire but it won't violently explode on its own volition, or try to dissolve the techs working with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:A coordinated strike isn't really all that outside of our playbook. It's a bit outside the playbook in terms of the number of hardened sites you would have to hit with reasonable concurrence, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
 Iran's new drone...? Something with wings anyway. Looks like one of those little flying boats though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Drones don't usually have cockpits, I do love the engine sitting way up on the back looking like an afterthought. Cowlings? Pft ha!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
A Handed Missus posted:
New about 4 years ago. Like if North Korea had ekranoplans
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
rscott posted:Re-integrating North Korea into the world/regional economy at this point would be like the reunification of Germany times 100 at this point. Unless there was some kind of massive, world wide program to help bear the costs (and it's not like that's gonnna happen lol, look at how badly the world has hosed up the Ebola epidemic in west Africa), neither china nor ROK could possibly bear the costs alone. You're talking 10s if not 100s of billions of dollars. Not necessarily. Wages and standards of living have increased throughout China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other places nearby... There are plenty of industries that would love to have access to a workforce of 25 million people that have been trained from birth to obey authority and who consider eating rice to be a luxury reserved for holidays and special occasions. There are already western countries that outsource to North Korea, like the French animation industry. Due to federal laws, the producers of The Simpsons are not allowed to take advantage of that cheap NK labor and have to pay SK wages. A free North Korea is going to be a virtual plantation for the economies of Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, and anyone else interested in cheap labor near major East Asian ports.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
benito posted:Not necessarily. Wages and standards of living have increased throughout China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other places nearby... There are plenty of industries that would love to have access to a workforce of 25 million people that have been trained from birth to obey authority and who consider eating rice to be a luxury reserved for holidays and special occasions. There are already western countries that outsource to North Korea, like the French animation industry. Due to federal laws, the producers of The Simpsons are not allowed to take advantage of that cheap NK labor and have to pay SK wages. E: I think you're thinking about this wrong but this is the AI Aero thread and this seems way beyond the scope
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
benito posted:Not necessarily. Wages and standards of living have increased throughout China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other places nearby... There are plenty of industries that would love to have access to a workforce of 25 million people that have been trained from birth to obey authority and who consider eating rice to be a luxury reserved for holidays and special occasions. There are already western countries that outsource to North Korea, like the French animation industry. Due to federal laws, the producers of The Simpsons are not allowed to take advantage of that cheap NK labor and have to pay SK wages. I thought they paid the North Koreans with Choco Pies http://www.cnbc.com/id/101046954
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Solid rocket fuel is pretty safe stuff; it's pretty much rubber with oxidizer mixed into it. You don't want it to light on fire but it won't violently explode on its own volition, or try to dissolve the techs working with it. Depends. An earlier mix for Sprint was nitrocellulose + nitroglycerin + binder. Using primary explosives as your rocket fuel can get some great performance but primary explosives aren't the most stable things around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
A Handed Missus posted:
gently caress yes. Disneyland is finally upgrading the Astro Orbiter!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
"Beaufighters from 144 & 254 Sqdns RAF, 455 Sqdn RAAF & 489 Sqdn RNZAF attacking German 'M' class minesweepers escorting a convoy off the Dutch coast, NW of Borkum. Thirteen aircraft can be seen in the photograph, which was taken over the tail of a Beaufighter of 455 Sqdn" "A salvo of eight rocket projectiles being fired over the North Sea by Bristol Beaufighter TF Mark X, NE543 'UB-E', of No. 455 Squadron RAAF"  "Another Australian oddball. A Beaufighter modified to take Wright Cyclones. A one-off by DAP as they thought they might run out of Hercules engines down under."  "A Spitfire LF VIII of 451 Squadron RAAF with USN blimp K-112 of Airship Patrol Squadron 14 at French naval air base, Cuers-Pierrefeu, near Toulon, France, Sep 1944." 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
 Another reminder that a UCAV that is even close to as capable as a manned fighter is going to be as big and expensive as a manned fighter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
The idea of a "cheap, disposable fighter aircraft, where survivability of the pilot is not an issue" forgets that it is not the pilot that costs $25million+. That or we need to start building drone versions of the F-5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:That or we need to start building drone versions of the F-5. I wonder what a drone version of Topgun would look like. Not even sure what the plot would be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
KingPave posted:I wonder what a drone version of Topgun would look like. Not even sure what the plot would be. [val_kilmer.exe clacks relays]
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:it is not the pilot that costs $25million+. The belief is generally held that human lives shouldn't be given a price. That's why losing a $100 million drone is better than losing a $100 million fighter. Cheap drones I can only see working as decoys accompanying expensive drones or manned fighters. The cheap drones by themselves will not achieve anything (no advanced avionics, no AESA radars or other powerful sensors, no weapon stations, etc.), but if they can take one for the team instead of the actual combat aircraft that costs at least 10 times as much, then it's a win?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The belief is generally held that human lives shouldn't be given a price. That's why losing a $100 million drone is better than losing a $100 million fighter. No, I understand that completely, a life saved is immeasurable. There is just a school of thought amongst certain "drone advocates" that believes removing the human element will drastically reduce costs to the point that you could just crank out hundreds of drones in place of one manned fighter to the point that you just overwhelm you enemy with sheer numbers. Basically, the idea is if you took an F-22 and built it without the pilot, the cost savings would mean a squadron, or even an entire wing of unmanned fighters with the same capabilities as the F-22. To be fair, most of these people are sophomore aerospace engineers, or people from other STEM degrees with little working knowledge of aircraft systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:No, I understand that completely, a life saved is immeasurable. There is just a school of thought amongst certain "drone advocates" that believes removing the human element will drastically reduce costs to the point that you could just crank out hundreds of drones in place of one manned fighter to the point that you just overwhelm you enemy with sheer numbers. Basically, the idea is if you took an F-22 and built it without the pilot, the cost savings would mean a squadron, or even an entire wing of unmanned fighters with the same capabilities as the F-22. That's actually not the case. In many countries the government attributes a monetary value to a life (I think a blend of potential earnings/impact on the economy/cost to the country). In Australia it's somewhere along 3million per under 25, with value decreasing after that. I am surprised that many countries seem to be going for ultra-high-tech drones with epic stealth capabilities rather than say more predator drones with some missiles tacked on (though from my understanding those predators still cost a crapload).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Cheap drones I can only see working as decoys accompanying expensive drones or manned fighters. The cheap drones by themselves will not achieve anything (no advanced avionics, no AESA radars or other powerful sensors, no weapon stations, etc.), but if they can take one for the team instead of the actual combat aircraft that costs at least 10 times as much, then it's a win? They've been used like this for over a decade: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pilotless-warriors-soar-to-success/
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:I am surprised that many countries seem to be going for ultra-high-tech drones with epic stealth capabilities rather than say more predator drones with some missiles tacked on (though from my understanding those predators still cost a crapload). Because you can't have a 2-tier system, someone wants a drone to strike muslim weddings in the middle east, but then it has to be over engineered to be able to combat the entire might of the soviet union.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
drunkill posted:"Beaufighters from 144 & 254 Sqdns RAF, 455 Sqdn RAAF & 489 Sqdn RNZAF attacking German 'M' class minesweepers escorting a convoy off the Dutch coast, NW of Borkum. Thirteen aircraft can be seen in the photograph, which was taken over the tail of a Beaufighter of 455 Sqdn" Lovely photos! What's that keyhole-shaped object on the left?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Lovely photos! What's that keyhole-shaped object on the left? Looks like barrage balloons. Can see another one to the extreme left of it as well. Also, sorry about not posting my Reno and Hill AFB photos. Had drywall work when I got home from holidays which took my time and now playing catch up at the office. Will try to have something up in the next few days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
The point is that with a drone you can send it up, leave it on station, and pretty much only have to replace it there when it runs out of ammo, breaks, or is blown up. (This assumes inflight refueling of some form.) With a human pilot you're constantly transiting to and from the op area because you can only keep the guy in the air so long, and realistically on station even less. So a manned platform requires more planes to cover a low-intensity op area than an unmanned one, and more fuel moving those planes back and forth, all of which is expense. It's not that the avionics, airframe, engine etc are going to be cheaper, because very little of that exists solely to support the life of the pilot in the first place. And like it or not the predicted 'acceptable loss chance' that may be the go/no go for a given mission are absolutely going to be different between a manned/unmanned mission, at least in anything short of Armageddon, regardless of the theoretical dollar cost. Remember that a Block IV TLAM, a drone that's rather deliberately disposable, costs close to $2m a pop, we've launched at least 47 of them this week already with not a single one retrieved, yet a crash of something like an F-18 that probably cost a lot less would be politically an entire world of a different deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
drunkill posted:"A Spitfire LF VIII of 451 Squadron RAAF with USN blimp K-112 of Airship Patrol Squadron 14 at French naval air base, Cuers-Pierrefeu, near Toulon, France, Sep 1944." I didn't realize that the USN lighter-than-air program lasted that long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I didn't realize that the USN lighter-than-air program lasted that long. USN blimps were so successful as sub-hunters during WW2 that it lasted into the 1960s - and it might have lasted even longer than that if ruiner-of-all-things-aeronautical SecDef Robert S. McNamara hadn't axed the Navy's new ASW blimps to "find money for the Vietnam War"  quote:
slidebite posted:Also, sorry about not posting my Reno and Hill AFB photos. Had drywall work when I got home from holidays which took my time and now playing catch up at the office. Will try to have something up in the next few days. Meh, don't worry about it - my infodump posting is shamefully behind. I'm very sorry about that; being gainfully employed (especially in a place with staffing problems) has its drawbacks. In addition, on British airships I've been waiting for two books to show up. In the meantime, I thought I'd also do a smaller subject but I decided I had to read a certain journal article first, and have been nagging my university friends to get it for me. Help would be appreciated if you can hook a brother up with PDF files off of jstor or some such
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
KingPave posted:I wonder what a drone version of Topgun would look like. Not even sure what the plot would be. Well they're making a loving sequel so you might find out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I saw my first 737 with the new winglets this weekend at the airshow. Alaska landed a 737-800, and Horizon did some fly-by's of the Q400. The heritage flight was also pretty cool at the show this year. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
mhsneon posted:I saw my first 737 with the new winglets this weekend at the airshow. Alaska landed a 737-800, and Horizon did some fly-by's of the Q400. I've seen a few of those, but I'm in Westjet Central where the 737s run thicker than cod in the Grand Banks (before the invention of the factory trawler)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
mhsneon posted:
Huh, a Mustang that isn't in D-day stripes, isn't quite in Red Tails livery, and doesn't seem to be in racing paint.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:40
|
|