|
BlueFootedBoobie posted:So if they're only buying the two-seater F-15EX, but the plan is to use them at least in part to replace worn out C models, how is that going to work out? From what understand the F-15D/F-16D will fly "real" missions with the second seat unoccupied. I guess thats what they'd do unless they need to be mudhens? All the currently built F-15s are derived from the F-15E, so there was never going to be an F-15CX.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
does that mean i could ride along and NOT TOUCH ANYTHING
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:does that mean i could ride along and NOT TOUCH ANYTHING Here’s your 20 minute block of instruction on ejection, EPAWSS, and the Legion IRST, have fun!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
bewbies posted:does that mean i could ride along and NOT TOUCH ANYTHING https://worldwarwings.com/passenger-f-14-gets-confused-grabs-handle-inverted/
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:From what understand the F-15D/F-16D will fly "real" missions with the second seat unoccupied. I guess thats what they'd do unless they need to be mudhens? That all makes sense I guess. Looks the performance hit for the extra seat is pretty minimal. bewbies posted:does that mean i could ride along and NOT TOUCH ANYTHING Just avoid pulling Le Ejection Handle. Edit: That F-14 story is nuts, but I was also thinking of this. BlueFootedBoobie fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Jul 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Boeing got a 22.6 billion contract this week for an indefinite number of F-15EX. Expected minimum of 144 to cover current fleet, up to 200 total. So we are paying 160 to 115 million per airframe for the f-15ex
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
I haven’t been keeping up with the RCAF purchase but could the F-15EX get tacked on as a contender as well? I mean it’s gonna be the F-35 regardless but still, make it look like there was a competition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
wargames posted:So we are paying 160 to 115 million per airframe for the f-15ex Not really. That order is for the initial buy (not 144 aircraft) and includes stuff like spare engines, parts, and maintenance support and so on. Unit flyaway cost is estimated 85-90 million.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
I thought the F-15EX was single-seat? Are single-seat F-15s not made at all anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:There are vital US military assets in GEO, adversaries are going to want to counteract them. China has for instance tested direct ascent ASAT missiles against GEO altitudes. One of the reasons the Space Force exists is to deal with ASAT threats, which are increasingly numerous and not going away. The test the Chinese did was not against a GEO target, it was LEO satellite in a polar SSO orbit. No one has done any ASAT testing above LEO to my knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I thought the F-15EX was single-seat? Are single-seat F-15s not made at all anymore? Current production are all technically strike eagle variants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle#Variants Also from there it looks like the single seat variant was going to be called the F-15X and the two seater the F-15EX. The USAF ordered the F-15EX. I guess if theres actually a big buy of the next generation fighter (lol) then the F-15EX can be used as bomb truck? The longevity of the F-15 is pretty amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Lou Takki posted:The test the Chinese did was not against a GEO target, it was LEO satellite in a polar SSO orbit. No one has done any ASAT testing above LEO to my knowledge. They have tested more than one type of ASAT. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014-04/report-china-may-new-asat-weapon They hucked a modified road mobile ICBM up to GEO and back in a direct ascent launch. They haven’t hit anything up there because Jesus Christ that’s a loving nightmare. The debris from that LEO test they did would be nothing compared to loving up GEO with debris. That kind of debris will be there for millions of years, and never go away. But yeah, China definitely has its eyes on being able to hold our strategic space assets at risk, from LEO to GEO. That means everything is at risk. The U.S. doesn’t have any acknowledged ASAT weapons that can get to MEO or GEO. That doesn’t mean we don’t have those capabilities but if we do it’s been kept black somehow. My thinking is we straight don’t have MEO to GEO ASAT capabilities, but I don’t know that for sure TBQH.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Current production are all technically strike eagle variants. I have a feeling that if planes have to go manned, they'd now rather have the provision for two-seaters. I seem to remember reading F-15E and two-seater Rhino drivers saying the second set of eyes and brain helped overall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
priznat posted:I haven’t been keeping up with the RCAF purchase but could the F-15EX get tacked on as a contender as well? I mean it’s gonna be the F-35 regardless but still, make it look like there was a competition. Boeing. Plus they decided not to have any sort of real life testing, having a new aircraft in the competition would underline that
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Boeing. Yeah that was in my head but also wasn’t the superhornet in there too or did that get booted as well? Having the 15EX being a 2 seater would probably cause issues with a personnel shortage too 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Current production are all technically strike eagle variants. I think the single-seat version was called F-15CX? https://www.airforcemag.com/boeing-buoyed-by-house-appropriators-push-for-f-15ex/ I don't see much reference to it elsewhere, and it looks like the Air Force was never interested in it, so 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Yeah honestly if you have LEO ASAT capable missiles GEO isn't too far off anyways in terms of Delta V. I hadn't realized they did that GEO intercept test, good to know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
So as far as ASAT goes, How hard would it be to actually HIT something in GEO once these things get deployed in anger? From purely physical standpoint the equation of 3-dimensional space * GEO velocities * ICBM CEP * vacuum where blast wave as a means to cause damage doesnt exist * the target size seems to equal a hell of a shot to actually achieve a Kill, even with a nuclear warhead. Did I miss something that would make it easier, or would the actual scenario just literally be ”orbit denial by mass employment of high-velocity debris saturation”?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I thought the F-15EX was single-seat? Are single-seat F-15s not made at all anymore? Not since 1986. The current plan is for the ANG to get all the EXs. The best C models will go to the active duty inventory, and continue getting upgrades until the next F-15 replacement comes online. Hopefully EPAWSS comes back, I think it was cut from the budget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Well, we know The Rat’s vote. https://twitter.com/armystrang/status/1283825317455568903?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
CIGNX posted:I think the single-seat version was called F-15CX? Did they at least include the ring?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LMartinezABC/status/1283854271222616064 Now to wait and see what happens to her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:So as far as ASAT goes, How hard would it be to actually HIT something in GEO once these things get deployed in anger? From purely physical standpoint the equation of 3-dimensional space * GEO velocities * ICBM CEP * vacuum where blast wave as a means to cause damage doesnt exist * the target size seems to equal a hell of a shot to actually achieve a Kill, even with a nuclear warhead. I don't think it would be much harder than hitting targets in LEO as long as you can throw the kill vehicle up to the right trajectory. ASAT weapons (or at least, ABM weapons that have been repurposed into ASAT demonstrators) don't use warheads, they're precise enough to guide directly into the target and use pure MV² to destroy it. Space is big but, especially for GEO, you've got plenty of time to work out the numbers in advance. Cooked Auto posted:https://twitter.com/LMartinezABC/status/1283854271222616064 Next week BREAKING: Navy reports infestation of murder hornets discovered aboard USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
Fire is the murderhornet’s only known predator so that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:So as far as ASAT goes, How hard would it be to actually HIT something in GEO once these things get deployed in anger? From purely physical standpoint the equation of 3-dimensional space * GEO velocities * ICBM CEP * vacuum where blast wave as a means to cause damage doesnt exist * the target size seems to equal a hell of a shot to actually achieve a Kill, even with a nuclear warhead. Current anti-ballistic fucklers can hit/fuckle a small warhead reentry vehicle coming into the atmosphere from quasi-orbital speed. For a GEO direct-ascent profile you can calculate it so you approach the target at a very small velocity using mid course corrections. The mach 20 interceptors will just waltz at mach 1 into your GEO assets and 99.9% hit it. Optional but desirable: nuke warheads because it's the end of world and you might as well use them. efb by milliseconds: 1 MT nuke on one of these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM approaching your GEO bus at 10 feet/sec while 2001 music plays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZoSYsNADtY karoshi fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jul 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:https://twitter.com/LMartinezABC/status/1283854271222616064 Queue the CO being relieved in 3...2...1....
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Technically every GEO bird with fuel still onboard is a GEO ASAT.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
Doesn't putting an ASAT into orbit just make it target #1 for every other ASAT on the planet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:So as far as ASAT goes, How hard would it be to actually HIT something in GEO once these things get deployed in anger? From purely physical standpoint the equation of 3-dimensional space * GEO velocities * ICBM CEP * vacuum where blast wave as a means to cause damage doesnt exist * the target size seems to equal a hell of a shot to actually achieve a Kill, even with a nuclear warhead. Easy peasy. GEO closing velocities are slow, the target orbits are exceptionally well known, the targets are almost always sunlit, and the kill vehicles have seeker packages and terminal guidance. In almost all respects it's an order of magnitude easier than ballistic missile defense. In fact even the debris problem is much less serious than popularly believed. True, the debris never comes down. But the low velocities mean each debris piece sweeps out much less volume per time, and orbital perturbations such as lunar gravity fairly quickly cause debris to drift out of the belt into the relative vastness of MEO and cislunar space. Kessler and friends cause much more trouble in LEO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:So as far as ASAT goes, How hard would it be to actually HIT something in GEO once these things get deployed in anger? From purely physical standpoint the equation of 3-dimensional space * GEO velocities * ICBM CEP * vacuum where blast wave as a means to cause damage doesnt exist * the target size seems to equal a hell of a shot to actually achieve a Kill, even with a nuclear warhead. A nuke in space emits a massive wave of X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons (well they do that on the ground to but they don't spread as far) with effects far beyond just EMP. You get all kinds of massive currents through electronics, lattice displacement effect, plasma discharges, thermal effects and more. Unless you have designed in mitigation it's unlikely your equipment will survive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Murgos posted:A nuke in space emits a massive wave of X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons (well they do that on the ground to but they don't spread as far) with effects far beyond just EMP. You get all kinds of massive currents through electronics, lattice displacement effect, plasma discharges, thermal effects and more. On the other hand space is a big place, the energy drops off rapidly based on distance, the satellites are already hardened against all of those things (particularly those in higher orbits), and a small circuit such as that contained in a satellite isn't going to catch nearly as much of that energy as, say, a massive antenna the size of Hawaii. Yeah, if you're blowing up nukes next to satellites it's gonna be a bad day for them, but at that point why not just use a kill vehicle? Warbadger fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Eh, if someone wants to lob nukes at something in GEO they are going to get pretty close and they will use enough of them to guarantee a kill on the assets they want killed. The radiation effects guys can predict that much based on uh, 40-50 years of them planning to do just that. Edit: I'm not saying they wouldn't rather use kill vehicles today. I was just responding to the comment that was indicating that nukes were ineffective in space. "Prompt Dose" is something people care about. edit2: VVV Yes, but it's still 'many miles' of useful radius. It's just that satellites in GEO are kind of far apart. Murgos fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Eh, if someone wants to lob nukes at something in GEO they are going to get pretty close and they will use enough of them to guarantee a kill on the assets they want killed. The radiation effects guys can predict that much based on uh, 40-50 years of them planning to do just that. The downside being that you're lobbing nukes around to do a job you could have accomplished with a nimble little kill vehicle in the same amount of time. The point I'm making is more that you're talking targeting individual satellites with nukes, not setting one off and shutting everything down ala pop culture - which makes it a much less attractive/effective proposition. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The downside being that you're lobbing nukes around to do a job you could have accomplished with a nimble little kill vehicle in the same amount of time. The point I'm making is more that you're talking targeting individual satellites with nukes, not setting one off and shutting everything down ala pop culture - which makes it a much less attractive/effective proposition. Plus, there's much juicer targets for nuclear weapons on the ground. Space is a weird and wild place to fight, and there's little point to investing the money to lob a nuclear weapon at something that can more cheaply be killed by a grad student's term project.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:Plus, there's much juicer targets for nuclear weapons on the ground. Space is a weird and wild place to fight, and there's little point to investing the money to lob a nuclear weapon at something that can more cheaply be killed by a grad student's term project. Sure there is, if you're launching a wave of hundreds or thousands in a first strike, setting off a dozen in space to get EMP effects is worth it to get the rest through and disable defense capabilities. Really, cold war planning was much more about "why not a nuke" rather than "why a nuke"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
I like how MEO and GEO satellites are hilariously egregiously vulnerable to EW and probably cyber attacks y'all hotly debating nuking them. Sure i could throw this billion dollar weapon at it or I could just launch a few things into LEO that jam it. GPS satellites can be jammed in a small radius by some chinesium $5 hobby things that can be operated by new jersey truck drivers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:GPS satellites can be jammed in a small radius by some chinesium $5 hobby things that can be operated by new jersey truck drivers. No, they cannot. Receivers and local signals can be disrupted by such things. Sometimes the solution is as simple as digging a 1 foot hole, putting your receiver in the hole, and then you have signal again. GPS jamming is a real problem, but it's so often put out as "the satellite got jammed" when it's more that receivers get locally degraded by the highly local jammer. No $5 jammer is going to reach out to a GPS satellite and shut the whole thing down. A cowbell doesn't block a concert, but ringing a cowbell at the person next to you during a concert will disrupt them, sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I like how MEO and GEO satellites are hilariously egregiously vulnerable to EW and probably cyber attacks y'all hotly debating nuking them. Sure i could throw this billion dollar weapon at it or I could just launch a few things into LEO that jam it. I mean, I'm in the camp arguing that the military equivalent of an R/C car is the better option, but when you lay it out like this it reminds me that my argument is kinda moot because there is probably more money to be made in drawing up a contract for some convoluted nuclear delivery system than to give a grant to some math majors at MIT to calculate the intercept trajectories to an arbitrarily high tolerance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I like how MEO and GEO satellites are hilariously egregiously vulnerable to EW and probably cyber attacks y'all hotly debating nuking them. Sure i could throw this billion dollar weapon at it or I could just launch a few things into LEO that jam it. It wouldn't work that way seeing as it's receivers and not transmitters that are targeted for jamming, and we're not talking about monostatic radar sets. I could engineer a scenario where a space based EW payload could be delivered that is capable of messing with GPS-related capabilities, but it won't be a $5 project. e f b Guest2553 fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:No, they cannot. Receivers and local signals can be disrupted by such things. Sometimes the solution is as simple as digging a 1 foot hole, putting your receiver in the hole, and then you have signal again. GPS jamming is a real problem, but it's so often put out as "the satellite got jammed" when it's more that receivers get locally degraded by the highly local jammer. No $5 jammer is going to reach out to a GPS satellite and shut the whole thing down. I'm not claiming it would. I'm saying it doesn't need to and almost every solution to degrading/eliminating the satellite is better and easier and cheaper. The nuclear option for a GEO satellite is dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 02:32
|
|