|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I heard there's a lot going on in air defense artillery. The first thing in that video is a ADATS live fire. Neat.
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah. Being anti-nuclear (weapons or bombs, you're right that there isn't really a distinction in the way it's talked about) has become a generic kind of respectable, consensus, middle class opinion. It annoys me because that it should be none of those things. It’s just fueled by pseudoscience and fearmongering. Like sure Nukes are dangerous, but by pretty much every important metric they are the best answer outside of like giant solar fields in Arizona charging capacitors that don’t exist yet. Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jan 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
Kind of a shame there since there can’t be much of value in a F-16A/B manual. Thing barely had radar at that point. If it jumped to a Block 30+ I could see the issue though since those are still in active service.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2020 12:51
|
|
|
It's a little strange as that kind of thing was always for new destroyers, but it's a hell of a lot better than another president. There's not much rhyme or reason to the naming conventions at this point either way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Disagree, they should be states. Subs get states/cities for the most part
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:State names should be reserved for the most important vessels like they were with battleships. I’d argue the real backbone of the Navy has been the subs for a long time. At least in any offensive capacity.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 03:45
|
|
|
I wasn’t even strictly referring to boomers. The LAs and the Virginias would be by far those most dangerous element of the US surface fleet. Only like a quarter of the Burkes even have Harpoons; most don’t have any meaningful AShM at all unless you count the handful of SM-6. The Harpoon also isn’t a terribly impressive missile even launched from F-18s. This is part of the reason LRASM is a big deal the past 3-4 years. I feel like naming SSNs after states/cities is pretty justified in that sense. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Is there no modern value to that kind of acceleration shown with Sprint? Seems like nothing new is comparable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
F-35 doing something actually pretty neatquote:Lockheed Martin announced in a press release that two US Air Force F-35s were integrated with the US Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, providing an airborne sensor capability to successfully detect, track and intercept near simultaneous air-breathing threats in a test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. In December 2019, the F-35s were used as sensors during an IBCS live fire test against multiple airborne targets for the first time. Linking F-35s to IBCS via the Multifunction Advanced Data Link provided enhanced situational awareness and weapons-quality track data to engage airborne targets. The proof of concept demonstration reportedly used experimental equipment developed by Lockheed Martin, including the Harvest Lightning Ground Station and IBCS adaptation kit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Does this mean that F-35s can be used to direct SAMs? If so, I'd hate to be a pilot in the air flying by the network, would take a lot of nerves The big thing going forward is cooperative engagement capability I.e. multiple sensors, multiple shooters. As mentioned with SM-6 you could feed it data from other sources, in this case an F-35, outside the LoS of the SPY-1D on the Burke that actually fired it. As mlmp said it’s not super novel but for the F-35 to have the capability shouldn’t really be discounted because of it, especially as we transition to longer range SAMs or even big fuckoff AAMs should we go that route. It also leads into things like the AIM-120D or 120E being launched by weapons truck variant F-15s (or even B-1/21s) aimed by F-35s (or UCAVs) that aren’t actually shooting or transmitting themselves other than AESA pencil beams. You might not know an F-35 is tracking you if the AESA beam is frequency dancing/under the noise floor; via CEC the F-35 doesn’t have to give away its position with its own launch now either. Between aircraft has been a thing for a bit, fighter to ship or SAM less so AFAIK. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Given the specifics, nothing regarding a India-Pakistan nuclear war would be "limited". They've got enough ordnance and delivery vehicles between them to gently caress SE Asia for a millennium. My guess is some kind of heat resistant coating; they do get blasted by the rocket/booster exhaust of the other tubes on launch. Metal lids might’ve deformed a bit after awhile in testing. Non-slip makes sense too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2020 11:00
|
|
|
You need a heater in most Diesel truck engines don’t you? At least when it’s actually cold outside
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
They fixed none of the priority problems since the last report. Basically a non-story as said; 99% of the focus has been on getting ALIS to be not-poo poo, and ALIS is so irredeemably bad they are dumping it entirely and going with the Air Force’s own software, ODIN. It’s a little sad they accomplished so little in the year but frankly pretty par for the course.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
I think the best part of Raytheon man in China story is most likely he didn’t actively work with the Chinese government or else he would’ve never came back, but the Chinese likely copied his hard drive in his hotel room or at the airport anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
How effective are thermals/ EOIR in a hot, humid high foliage jungle?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Before or after you smear yourself in mud? Post mud, pre cutting your chest open with a Bowie knife
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Navy plans to put LRASM on P-8s
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Why does it seem so difficult to equip a plane with a new missile, is the LRASM too large for P-8s or does it require extensive testing how the missile behaves when dropped? I would think the hardpoints were standard, is the problem with data interfaces with the plane or does P-8 require new equipment to be able to provide required data for the missile? Someone else here can answer better than me from experience alone but it’s generally all of the above: Pylons have to be safe to support weapons on takeoff, in-flight and landing, interfaces to the weapon need to be wired/installed, avionics need to support the weapon in both target data and release, weapon release needs to to be safe/consistent (I.e. not slamming back into the aircraft). You can slap dumb bombs on a lot of things with less effort but the more complicated the weapon the more back-end work there is to do. LRASM is pretty fuckin’ complicated comparatively; they are $3M each. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Feb 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Talk about this high-tech high-dollar poo poo has me wondering... for $3M you could get that, or you could also buy a poo poo ton of cheap rear end little boats with a giant unguided rocket on all of em. Has the US (or western powers in general) toyed around with low-tech Iranian-style swarm tactics at all? The high cost of LRASM AFAIK is because it's actually pretty fuckin' complicated, as mentioned. It flies out 300 nmi, can autonomously identify, organize and track targets from onboard databases, can fly randomized patterns to its target location on terminal, conduct dynamic terrain and obstacle avoidance, has a passive radio frequency sensor and countermeasures suite, and does all of the target detection/tracking via IIR so it gives off no radar return. It is a drone; we just still call them missiles when they crash into poo poo. You could build speed boats or whatever to do that same thing but it's definitely not going to be that much cheaper because you still have get them to the target, which is A. likely moving, B. not very large and C. hundreds of miles away. I'd also argue a bunch of speedboats at 40 knots is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than a maneuverable missile at 700. I would prefer it was 1700 like the supersonic terminal stages of the Kalibr but hey, LockMart can always upcharge for that later  . Speedboats work for Iran because it's the Strait of Hormuz. Speed boats don't work that well in the middle of the South China Sea or Pacific Ocean. Also the drone swarm idea is not lost on the DoD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUdVxJH6yI Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Feb 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
I really don’t think they’re planning specifically around AA picket work; it could do that, sure, but it’s very short sighted look at adding a MW class laser to anything ever. What it does do is give the sub an offensive weapon against small surface craft and shore targets that don’t necessitate a heavier, more obvious weapon, along with some really novel capabilities against targets identified out of the scope. A 500kw laser could gently caress some poo poo up in short order, up to and including surface to surface missile locations on the cost, tons of the assets on the man made reefs in the South China Sea, etc. You also have no warning a laser is burning holes in poo poo compared to a Tomahawk being fired. It also turns out that the Virginia with its 30MW reactor and photonics masts are weirdly like the most capable asset we have in terms of lasers outside of modifying the Nimitz/Ford. Current DDs and CGs with their gas turbines straight up do not have the power storage/surge generation capability for very high energy lasers to my understanding, and are close to maxed out as it is.The Zumwalts are the only thing with the potential to carry HELs outside of future revisions to the Burkes and now the Virginias. You shouldn’t even factor Ticos into your thinking, they are on the cusp of getting retired as they’re getting old as gently caress. They’re basically forced to stick around as we don’t have a real CG(X) replacement nor enough Burkes to just take over the role. That being said, a modified Burke can easily do the job; They’re nearly the same size, Ticos just have better command facilities built in and another ~24 VLS. I think a modified San Antonio possibly got nominated for the CG(X) too but idk if that went anywhere. Mazz fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Feb 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Dumb armchair clancychat thought, if you kept the well decks on the hypothetical San Antonio CG(X)'s, could you use that to somehow UNREP VLS missiles? drive a boat with missiles up the ramp? You can’t load the tubes from below so you’d need a good way to get them to the deck and loaded from above. Basically their own dedicated elevator and crane near the VLS, with a pretty large surface to service 96+ tubes (or duplicated if the VLS are dispersed). It might be possible but probably a lot more effort than it’s worth. The strike length canisters (Tonahawk, SM-6) are very long. Mazz fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Feb 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
I work in construction management and getting all parties to do their loving jobs on time and on target in a $1M interior renovation is a loving miracle, so I'll give credit where credit is due for a $4B aerospace program.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
Okay this embeds way too big so click here for F-35B thing Not that special but watching a hovering fixed wing adjust roll is very weird for some reason. EDIT: Yeah I forgot about this quote:For stabilization and control, there are also two roll posts under the wings that provide approximately 10 percent (up to 2,000 pounds each) of the downward thrust drawn from engine air flow. Mazz fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Feb 19, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
Tucanos can go low and visually ID things along with being flexible to the situation. You can do a handful of gun pods and strafe mud huts or you can dump LGBs from 15k. You can also base Turboprops essentially anywhere with a big enough stretch of land so you can do improvised field work closer to your locale. Curious if SOCOM plans of equipping squadrons and keeping them entirely in house or if it’s a allies training/development thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2020 14:03
|
|
|
The latest budget retires 44 A-10s but like the other ~250 are going to last through 2035 or so with the new wings? Something like that. Also OV-10s flying around in Afganistan playing airborne sniper team with APKWS is some poo poo. Mazz fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Feb 28, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2020 09:58
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:This is true of UAV's also, and they'll almost always have better time on station by vertue of not carrying a fleshbag. Id argue that’s not really the case or SOCOM wouldn’t have a bunch of turboprops around for all kinds of ISR, the OV-10s borrowed from NASA discussed earlier, or the follow up pending A-29 order. A couple dudes in a shipping container in Nevada isn’t really the same as a dude on the radio you can talk to directly overhead. It’s the biggest argument made for CAS in general. I would agree low-and-slow CAS is overstated in a modern near-peer, but that doesn’t apply here. SOCOM will likely be blowing up Toyota Hilux and firing rockets at dudes in windows in Asia/Africa till the heat death of the universe. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Predator with APKWS let alone gunpods, if that exist please post. Mazz fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Feb 28, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2020 12:20
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:Pulling out of the nuclear deal was a decision of the current administration. Bewbies can likely touch on this better but here’s the Army’s very own LPRF chart: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
That dark shirt on the deck was about 6 feet from getting a face full of arrestor wire
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So two things, thread. Clive Cussler has died. He's exploring the ocean in heaven now It was Russia’s doing, Putin told the rest of OPEC he’s not capping supply anymore as a response to US Energy policy and rising production.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
You also have those big fuckoff HVT AAMs Russia and China have continued to develop for shooting at tankers and AWACS. Only seen them on Su-27 derivatives but when you make a Su-27 look average sized you’re a big loving missile.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2020 12:32
|
|
|
RangerKarl posted:Great. EDIT: the link is faulty but look up the APG-77 or 81 and AESAs in general; I’m pretty sure you’re right in that more modern radars just handle that via software refinement that it’s not really a notable feature; the 77 can provide TWS of up to 10 targets each, the 77v1 might’ve improved on that but you won’t find a ton of hard capability info on the 77v1 or 81. This is 6 more than the internal weapons load of the 22 and it can also share this data between 22s or over Link-16, meaning a 4 ship can track 40. They also provide a whole bunch of modes the AWG-9 (and for some, even the APG-71) couldnt touch. Mazz fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Mar 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Sooooo. . . yeah. Take them with a grain of salt. Basically they're the book version of a History Channel show. I’m assuming more “Tales of the Gun” here than whatever poo poo they have now with this sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
Tias posted:Kinda serious question: Why haven't militaries either gone back to the UH-1 or at least used it as the platform for a new helicopter? I can only find two incidents of accidents with it, compared to the 20+ blackhawks and 50+ Mi-s that have gone boom The Marines have used variants of the UH-1 forever; the newest is the UH-1Y. It also pairs with the AH-1 in most configurations, most notably the UH-1Y and AH-1Z: quote:The UH-1Y and AH-1Z share a common tailboom, engines, rotor system, drivetrain, avionics architecture, software, controls, and displays for over 84% identical components. This is at least part of the reason the Marines have stuck with the 1Y and 1Z over swapping to Seahawk deriatives and navalized Apaches; that commonality is immensely valuable when sailing around on LHDs. (That, and the Marines having special snowflake gear as usual) For the most part though, up until the 1Y the UH-60 just outperformed the Huey in nearly every regard, especially in regards to older, single engine Huey variants. I don't think the price difference was enough to justify buying a shittier helicopter, unless you wanted to go second-hand, which a ton of nations did for a long time. There's still Hueys in service all over the place. Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Mar 31, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:Not-Comanche versus a weird flying box. Bell didn't have anything to do with the Comanche so that's really just a Comanche lookalike based on the commerical Bell 525, which they invested a ton into (and was directed towards the oil industry, RIP). It's a neat, novel fly-by-wire helicopter, but it's still pretty traditional in layout and capability other than the giant wings. The real reason LockMart/Sikorsky are likely to win is that they've based it off the S-97 Raider which is also very likely to win the attack portion of FVL via the SB-1 Defiant (and probably the medium lift if they don't split the contract w/ the V-280 tiltrotor). There's a bunch of parts commonality between those two along with the same exact cockpit, which is very significant in terms of crew training and manning across those units. The Raider is also, if I remember right, significantly faster then the Bell prototype because of the coaxial/pusher prop combo. Looking into it, the Invictus has a noted cruise speed of 210mph to the Raider's 250+. The point of FVL was a generational change in army rotary wing, and you only get those type of improvements through the big jumps like the coaxial-pushers or the tiltrotors. There's a reason all the other entries in FVL (and FARA) just kind of died without fanfare; they're not notable improvements over the Apaches/Blackhawks we have now. The big loser here though is definitely Boeing; FARA is set to replace like 40% of the Apaches in service, which took over for the Kiowa since LHX (Comanche) and the 2 following programs all failed to product a Kiowa replacement. Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Mar 31, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
The Kuznetsovs were never outlined as offensive carriers anyway, they were missile cruisers that could launch some fleet defense aircraft. They make more sense when put into that actual design context. The USSR of that time frame didn’t give a poo poo about blue water force projection, it was all sinking poo poo that came over into their playground. And that was primarily via huge rear end anti-ship missiles launched by surface combatants and ground based tactical aircraft. Oh and submarines to an extent. Of course that didn’t stop Putin’s Russia from sailing down into the Med and losing a bunch of airplanes with it, making it look like poo poo from pretty much every angle. Mazz fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Apr 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2020 06:52
|
|
|
I was going to say I thought the RAF sold all their Harriers to the marines then i noticed that’s from 1991
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I assume the eight is supposed to get through testing and evaluation until they can shake Congress down for the big buy. CIGNX posted:This article claims there are plans to eventually get 144 F-15EXs after the initial 8, but I don't see any sources for that number. Yeah, they'll never got congress to agree to a large buy because it overlaps too much with F-35 money in the near term; that being said (more) F-15s will start literally falling out of the sky soon and the F-35s were never meant to replace them so the USAF is just making that future buy more palatable to congress along with keeping the F-15 line active, refining requirements, etc. It's basically the USAF taking the opposite approach to the one taken with the F-35 in that they are slowly buying and outlining requirements for a already mature aircraft whose major technology inserts were paid for largely by someone else (debatable since I don't know how much of that money invested in the QA/SA/etc was originally US aid or whatever). An F-15EX with the outer two pylons active can carry 12 AMRAAMs. Mazz fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Apr 15, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
I don’t think a RSO could ever make it to a Blackbird and be a freakout risk, I feel like that would be noted well before the Mach 3 at 80,000ft part of his career but who knows.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Apr 17, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
To stay with the Grumman cat theme (sorry for size) https://i.imgur.com/d30BswU.mp4
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2020 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Murgos posted:That sounds fun. Care to explain what ineffective means in this case? The 57mm failed some accuracy tests or something, to the point they were putting the 30mm Mk46 on instead in some cases; I think the big one was the mounts on the Zumwalt and maybe some of the LCS. Anyways it’s still a 57mm Bofors, in use by a whole bunch of other nations, and I assume still extremely terrifying to get shot at by in a speedboat. There's also a good chance it was a bullshit explanation to cut some costs on the Zumwalt as the FFG(X), which was selected today, will have the 57mm Mk110 as it's primary mount, which is notable as the FREMM's already have the OTO Melara 76mm On that note: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33249/navy-picks-italian-shipbuilder-to-build-its-new-ffg-x-guided-missile-frigate I'm pretty shocked they actually made a good decision here; there are a whole bunch of FREMMs out there now and they are well regarded AFAIK. This is a good, low(er) risk pick that is all around pretty capable. Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:03 on May 1, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2020 03:42
|
|