nacradriver

F-35 Daily Thread - this one homebuilt

Recommended Posts

So simple even a cave man kids @ Scaled Composits can do it..

 

image.thumb.png.81dee76c06e4f5307b81dee33fac9372.png

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Scaled composites is Northrop Grumman. Not exactly cave men. 

It is now.  That looks pretty dull compared to the Rutan designs.

Rutan960_640.jpg

0*AKZZSyOjMbawXDW_.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

Has that thing flown yet?

Not yet.  Still doing taxi and engine testing as far as I know.

It did get the front wheel off the ground in January.

stratolaunch-taxi-jan19.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Not yet.  Still doing taxi and engine testing as far as I know.

It did get the front wheel off the ground in January.

Is that Paul Allen's response to Musk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2019 at 7:08 AM, nacradriver said:

So simple even a cave man kids @ Scaled Composits can do it..

 

image.thumb.png.81dee76c06e4f5307b81dee33fac9372.png

image.png

Why is this in PA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Except what the USAF really wants is NGAD, a 6th generation aircraft.  History says they will sell their grandmothers for a new toy.  

Isn't that what grandmothers are for??  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snip from the article link:

Quote

 

The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight.”

“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” Brown said.

Hence the need for a new low-end fighter to pick up the slack in day-to-day operations. Today, the Air Force’s roughly 1,000 F-16s meet that need. But the flying branch hasn’t bought a new F-16 from Lockheed since 2001. The F-16s are old.

The USAF already have what the previous article says they're looking for:  https://www.airforcemag.com/article/joining-up-on-the-f-15ex/

And the F-35 is not a Ferrari.  At best, it is a Honda Ridgeline with the reliability and price tag of an old classic Jaguar.  It's not particularly fast, it doesn't particularly haul a lot, it's not a particularly comfortable ride, It's loud AF, and you need a $peciali$t $hop on call everytime you drive it to fix what broke.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

The military doesn’t really want an affordable lightweight fighter.    They fully intend to morph it into another superduper dud.   Cool looking simulated weapons platforms impress the ladies and justify the maintenance contracts.   As long as they can spend twice as much as the competition, weapons that work a half as well are adequate for parity.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lark said:

The military doesn’t really want an affordable lightweight fighter.    They fully intend to morph it into another superduper dud.   Cool looking simulated weapons platforms impress the ladies and justify the maintenance contracts.   As long as they can spend twice as much as the competition, weapons that work a half as well are adequate for parity.   

I'm not sure that is totally accurate.  I DO think the top USAF's leaders think a lightweight affordable fighter is a good thing and want it for the right reasons.  The problem is once the Staffs, the SPO's, the contractors, The congressional special interests and the rest get their hands on the design - the mission creep is inevitable.  There is a lot of "Hey, if we just add this one new little capability - it will be SOOO much better".  And then it picks up mass like a dirty snowball rolling downhill.  

Also, the reality is that very specialized war machines get used a lot less than ones that are a jack of all trades.  So there is a sense that if something is not used much, it doesn't get the funding that the ones who are doing all the day to day work does.  Nor the visibility for the commanders of those units.  So there is always a tug of war between what makes true sense and what helps someone's careers.  For instance, there is very little need or mission set for the F-22 in today's endless low level wars.  The combatant commanders are screaming for more F-15Es and A-10s day to day.  Not F-35s or F-22s.  So even the F-22 mafia lobbied for a bomb dropping capability so as not to be left out of the fight.  However, if a head to head dust up with China popped up in the SCS, we will be very glad we have those later assets.  I would have ZERO desire to go up against a double digit+ SAM in a 4th Gen fighter.  F**K that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I'm not sure that is totally accurate.  I DO think the top USAF's leaders think a lightweight affordable fighter is a good thing and want it for the right reasons.  The problem is once the Staffs, the SPO's, the contractors, The congressional special interests and the rest get their hands on the design - the mission creep is inevitable.  There is a lot of "Hey, if we just add this one new little capability - it will be SOOO much better".  And then it picks up mass like a dirty snowball rolling downhill.  

Also, the reality is that very specialized war machines get used a lot less than ones that are a jack of all trades.  So there is a sense that if something is not used much, it doesn't get the funding that the ones who are doing all the day to day work does.  Nor the visibility for the commanders of those units.  So there is always a tug of war between what makes true sense and what helps someone's careers.  For instance, there is very little need or mission set for the F-22 in today's endless low level wars.  The combatant commanders are screaming for more F-15Es and A-10s day to day.  Not F-35s or F-22s.  So even the F-22 mafia lobbied for a bomb dropping capability so as not to be left out of the fight.  However, if a head to head dust up with China popped up in the SCS, we will be very glad we have those later assets.  I would have ZERO desire to go up against a double digit+ SAM in a 4th Gen fighter.  F**K that!

I understand your point of view.   It has some truth, especially Congressional complicity,  

Also, the reality is that very specialized war machines get used a lot less than ones that are a jack of all trades.  So there is a sense that if something is not used much, it doesn't get the funding that the ones who are doing all the day to day work does.

 I’d argue the opposite.  It’s like getaway car being an Oldsmobile Dynamic 88 because the McLaren is in the shop.   Platforms that get used all the time are like the B52.   They don’t get much money, get used forever, but are reliable (by military standards.   I saw a report a few years back giving the B-52 a 65% likelyhood of being mission capable?   Is that the right term?     The B2 was around 35%.  Lufthansa was 98% for not only being operable but actually leaving on time, for comparison).     The specialized platforms like stealth planes get rare use but are crazy expensive.  If we decide to invade Iraq we can plan in advance to get most of the stealth planes flying at the same time.     If another power sets the timetable they can’t be counted on.   

The Mark 14 torpedo syndrome still exists.   Make a weapon too expensive to test, too important for routine use and too secret for independent evaluation.   Whole careers and semiretired consulting gigs can be built around it,   Of course the wrong people die if it’s ever needed, but why worry about rare events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MV5BMTI4NjkxNjQyN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzQ1

Funny as hell and the following clip illustrates Jeff's point perfectly.  

Warning:  11mins long but worth it.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

I understand your point of view.   It has some truth, especially Congressional complicity,  

Also, the reality is that very specialized war machines get used a lot less than ones that are a jack of all trades.  So there is a sense that if something is not used much, it doesn't get the funding that the ones who are doing all the day to day work does.

 I’d argue the opposite.  It’s like getaway car being an Oldsmobile Dynamic 88 because the McLaren is in the shop.   Platforms that get used all the time are like the B52.   They don’t get much money, get used forever, but are reliable (by military standards.   I saw a report a few years back giving the B-52 a 65% likelyhood of being mission capable?   Is that the right term?     The B2 was around 35%.  Lufthansa was 98% for not only being operable but actually leaving on time, for comparison).     The specialized platforms like stealth planes get rare use but are crazy expensive.  If we decide to invade Iraq we can plan in advance to get most of the stealth planes flying at the same time.     If another power sets the timetable they can’t be counted on.   

 

The answer is obviously to have Lufthansa run the US Air Force.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, benwynn said:
15 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Because he would recognize an objective reality?

That's hilarious.

I was just thinking it'd be fun to see him refute the story, insisting UP is DOWN.  Especially if it involves numbers - data pre-processing complete.

He might even toss in a "rhetorical flourish".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lark said:

I’d argue the opposite.  It’s like getaway car being an Oldsmobile Dynamic 88 because the McLaren is in the shop.   Platforms that get used all the time are like the B52.   They don’t get much money, get used forever, but are reliable (by military standards.   I saw a report a few years back giving the B-52 a 65% likelyhood of being mission capable?   Is that the right term?     The B2 was around 35%.  Lufthansa was 98% for not only being operable but actually leaving on time, for comparison).     The specialized platforms like stealth planes get rare use but are crazy expensive.  If we decide to invade Iraq we can plan in advance to get most of the stealth planes flying at the same time.     If another power sets the timetable they can’t be counted on.

To be fair, they are different metrics. Airlines measure dispatch reliability. Did a scheduled aircraft make the flight?  For lots of dumb reasons, the military measures mission capability 24x7 with the exception of scheduled depot visits. That means routine scheduled maintenance, replacement of a simple failed component and any corrective or preventative maintenance or inspections come off the readiness clock. In addition, airlines are keenly aware of the cost of an out of service aircraft. Basically, how much revenue is lost if the flight gets cancelled. That means they measure spares costs against lost revenue. Despite a number of efforts to incorporate a similar metric in the military, it hasn’t been done. 
 

Basically, if your boat left the dock and hit the starting line for every scheduled race, you have 100% availability in airline terms. In military terms, 3 months on the hard in winter for a bottom job and other annual maintenance take your starting readiness down to 75% even though you didn’t plan to sail the boat during that 3 months. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

To be fair, they are different metrics. Airlines measure dispatch reliability. Did a scheduled aircraft make the flight?  For lots of dumb reasons, the military measures mission capability 24x7 with the exception of scheduled depot visits. That means routine scheduled maintenance, replacement of a simple failed component and any corrective or preventative maintenance or inspections come off the readiness clock. In addition, airlines are keenly aware of the cost of an out of service aircraft. Basically, how much revenue is lost if the flight gets cancelled. That means they measure spares costs against lost revenue. Despite a number of efforts to incorporate a similar metric in the military, it hasn’t been done. 
 

Basically, if your boat left the dock and hit the starting line for every scheduled race, you have 100% availability in airline terms. In military terms, 3 months on the hard in winter for a bottom job and other annual maintenance take your starting readiness down to 75% even though you didn’t plan to sail the boat during that 3 months. 

Sounds like the boys at the Pentagon don't believe that they're in charge of scheduling the next war?!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sounds like the boys at the Pentagon don't believe that they're in charge of scheduling the next war?!

- DSK

Nah. The system was put in place to track down to subsystem reliability and down to the individual part numbers.  Add in the mentality that it takes a lot longer to build an airplane than to buy replacement pats and aircraft numbers are based on a wartime tempo of operations while spare parts are bought to annual operating budgets.  Aircraft not operationally ready are not "required" to meet training levels of operations and in theory, you buy extra parts when you go to war to increase readiness.  

Its a screwed up system without someone to drive a change in how they measure it.  When I was in O-6 Command, one of my assigned reservists was also head of maintenance for a major US airline.  We spent a fair amount of time trying to educate the then CNO on what the numbers really meant.  The frustrating part is the acceptance of parking an expensive airplane to save a few $$ in parts.  Back in the mid 90's I did a lot of readiness research and a friend operated a 747 depot in Australia.  at that point, a 747SP generated $180k per day in revenue.  Each airplane he completed went to its hopm,e base for a "C Check", cleaning and catering and was on the flight schedule the following day.  If it needed overtime or a part flown in express to complete the depot on time, it happened.  Airlines run that close and look at revenue per airplane per day.  Military (everybody, not just the US) look at it differently based on having enough airplanes for a surge and accepting lower readiness otherwise.  The inability of very complex new airplanes to meet even reduced readiness goals is a whole different topic.  

As a lot of retired aviation maintenance officers say, I made a pretty good career fixing things some contractor said would never break.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Nah. The system was put in place to track down to subsystem reliability and down to the individual part numbers.  Add in the mentality that it takes a lot longer to build an airplane than to buy replacement pats and aircraft numbers are based on a wartime tempo of operations while spare parts are bought to annual operating budgets.  Aircraft not operationally ready are not "required" to meet training levels of operations and in theory, you buy extra parts when you go to war to increase readiness.  

Its a screwed up system without someone to drive a change in how they measure it.  When I was in O-6 Command, one of my assigned reservists was also head of maintenance for a major US airline.  We spent a fair amount of time trying to educate the then CNO on what the numbers really meant.  The frustrating part is the acceptance of parking an expensive airplane to save a few $$ in parts.  Back in the mid 90's I did a lot of readiness research and a friend operated a 747 depot in Australia.  at that point, a 747SP generated $180k per day in revenue.  Each airplane he completed went to its hopm,e base for a "C Check", cleaning and catering and was on the flight schedule the following day.  If it needed overtime or a part flown in express to complete the depot on time, it happened.  Airlines run that close and look at revenue per airplane per day.  Military (everybody, not just the US) look at it differently based on having enough airplanes for a surge and accepting lower readiness otherwise.  The inability of very complex new airplanes to meet even reduced readiness goals is a whole different topic.  

As a lot of retired aviation maintenance officers say, I made a pretty good career fixing things some contractor said would never break.  

When loading an airplane, AOG cargo goes in before everything else. AOG = Aircraft On Ground. If a plane at XXX needed a part to fly, it was going no matter what we had to kick off the airplane to get it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I was just thinking it'd be fun to see him refute the story, insisting UP is DOWN.  Especially if it involves numbers - data pre-processing complete.

He might even toss in a "rhetorical flourish".

True.  That was always good for a laugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Nah. The system was put in place to track down to subsystem reliability and down to the individual part numbers.  Add in the mentality that it takes a lot longer to build an airplane than to buy replacement pats and aircraft numbers are based on a wartime tempo of operations while spare parts are bought to annual operating budgets.  Aircraft not operationally ready are not "required" to meet training levels of operations and in theory, you buy extra parts when you go to war to increase readiness.  

Its a screwed up system without someone to drive a change in how they measure it.  When I was in O-6 Command, one of my assigned reservists was also head of maintenance for a major US airline.  We spent a fair amount of time trying to educate the then CNO on what the numbers really meant.  The frustrating part is the acceptance of parking an expensive airplane to save a few $$ in parts.  Back in the mid 90's I did a lot of readiness research and a friend operated a 747 depot in Australia.  at that point, a 747SP generated $180k per day in revenue.  Each airplane he completed went to its hopm,e base for a "C Check", cleaning and catering and was on the flight schedule the following day.  If it needed overtime or a part flown in express to complete the depot on time, it happened.  Airlines run that close and look at revenue per airplane per day.  Military (everybody, not just the US) look at it differently based on having enough airplanes for a surge and accepting lower readiness otherwise.  The inability of very complex new airplanes to meet even reduced readiness goals is a whole different topic.  

As a lot of retired aviation maintenance officers say, I made a pretty good career fixing things some contractor said would never break.  

Excellent explanation, thanks. As you probably guessed, my comment was (mostly) in jest.

Keeping warships ready is also a big struggle, except they are supposed to carry a load of spares & tools & technicians around with them.

The last (and best) company I worked for, re industrial technology, had an unofficial motto: "we fix what the low bidder f#%%ed up"

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't gonna design and built a new f-16 for anywhere near the f-16 price.

If it's stealth, it's gonna be expensive as hell.  If it isn't, then make it in bulk, cause it's gonna get shot down.

Seems to me the answer is a low number of stealth aircraft, and a whole shitload of unmanned inexpensive drones that can be folded up and shoved wholesale onto cargo planes or aircraft carriers.

But even more than that is the question - who the hell are we going to go to war with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the maintenance of the stealth coatings is so expensive, don't coat them until you have a war :)

Forgot to add - if you are doing war games/exercises the other team has to pretend not to see you on their radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Burning Man said:

  I would have ZERO desire to go up against a double digit+ SAM in a 4th Gen fighter.  F**K that!

For the aviation challenged, what does that mean??  Worked on the f35 program, but CPU side(yea yea yea, it was more of a support and troubleshooting gig not development) so I am semi familiar, but would love a sentence or 2 from a guy that actually flew the things.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shaggy said:

For the aviation challenged, what does that mean??  Worked on the f35 program, but CPU side(yea yea yea, it was more of a support and troubleshooting gig not development) so I am semi familiar, but would love a sentence or 2 from a guy that actually flew the things.  

TLDR; Newer SAMs (higher model numbers) can shoot down 4th gen fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Innocent, Steam,   Thanks.   I get the difference in goals and was a bit sarcastic when I suggested Lufthansa,   Scheduled races and winter layup was a thought provoking example.   In defense of LARK and HYDROPHILIC, they are laid up in ordinary or out of commission,    This doesn’t really tarnish their readiness statistics.   :huh:   This argument also illustrates a difference in mindset though between a defensive force and an aggressor.   The US can always postpone this year’s invasion a week or two while waiting on Defender, followed by a late night,   I suspect there was a different mindset during the ‘eternal vigilance’ era of the Cold War.    Add a generation of career officers that spent their formative period based on some island whey they scavenged parts from one plane to get another in the air, I suspect there was less fawning over super weapons and more demand for working weapons,   The modern US military has little apparent need for defense against a major attack.   Attacks against them include a speedboat defeating a ‘large surface combatant’ and four guys with box cutters forcing the evacuation of US military headquarters.    
 

@Meat Wad I trust the integrity of a pilot more then a computer.    Even if there are no Chinese Easter Eggs, GPS isn’t knocked out and the government truly has a hack proof technology, I still feel safer with a human judgement then machine logic.   I doubt the military has better AI then PayPal or the other tech giants we love to hate.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

TLDR; Newer SAMs (higher model numbers) can shoot down 4th gen fighters.

So 4th Gen is what??  F16?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shaggy said:

So 4th Gen is what??  F16?

yep, for US also F-15, F/A-18. The most recent versions of those jets are sometimes referred to as 4.5 or 4+ gen due to various upgrades. 

F-22 and F-35 are 5th gen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5th gen go in, wipe out radar systems.

Then the ground war starts and A10's kill anything that moves.

 

Let the fancy stuff do what it has to do to let the real workhorses do their shit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

5th gen go in, wipe out radar systems.

Then the ground war starts and A10's kill anything that moves.

 

Let the fancy stuff do what it has to do to let the real workhorses do their shit.

 

Yeah, a friend of mine is a retired Marine that took care of an F-18 squadron, alongside a Navy squad on a carrier, and said the Navy planes are in much better shape than the Marine planes due to better funded maintenance.  I never understood why you would have two "forces" operating the same planes on the same ship but with differently managed crews.  Seems like the Navy should have the F-18's and the Marines should have something like an A-10 to support their ground forces.  

Note:  I am only the son of a military WW II grunt, and have never even been a boy scout (although I was in the Civil Air Patrol cadets) so I know absolutely nothing about military strategy or management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shaggy said:

For the aviation challenged, what does that mean??  Worked on the f35 program, but CPU side(yea yea yea, it was more of a support and troubleshooting gig not development) so I am semi familiar, but would love a sentence or 2 from a guy that actually flew the things.  

A "double digit SAM" is basically the newer Russian gen of Surface to Air Missiles such as the SA-10, 11, 20, 21, etc in NATO terminology.  S-300 variants (SA-10/20) and S-400 Variants (SA-21) are deadly (in theory) against 4th Gen stuff.  They can even fairly easily shoot down the missiles we might shoot at them to take their SAMs out.  

For whatever reason, the Russians make shit fighter aircraft compared to Western stuff.  But their SAMs and IADs stuff is world class.  Our hard dive into stealth was mostly driven by our desire to counter their IADs and SAMs more so than their current fighter technology.  Their advanced SAM tech really negated our Air Dominance until Stealth came along.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

5th gen go in, wipe out radar systems.

Then the ground war starts and A10's kill anything that moves.

 

Let the fancy stuff do what it has to do to let the real workhorses do their shit.

 

First you poke their eyes out, then you kick them in the balls.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Snip from the article link:

The USAF already have what the previous article says they're looking for:  https://www.airforcemag.com/article/joining-up-on-the-f-15ex/

And the F-35 is not a Ferrari.  At best, it is a Honda Ridgeline with the reliability and price tag of an old classic Jaguar.  It's not particularly fast, it doesn't particularly haul a lot, it's not a particularly comfortable ride, It's loud AF, and you need a $peciali$t $hop on call everytime you drive it to fix what broke.  

It's speed, reliability, price, payload, comfort and stealth don't really matter anyway. It's a weapon for a type of war that no longer exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shaggy said:

For the aviation challenged, what does that mean??  Worked on the f35 program, but CPU side(yea yea yea, it was more of a support and troubleshooting gig not development) so I am semi familiar, but would love a sentence or 2 from a guy that actually flew the things.  

Here's a good explano:  https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0601sams/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

A "double digit SAM" is basically the newer Russian gen of Surface to Air Missiles such as the SA-10, 11, 20, 21, etc in NATO terminology.  S-300 variants (SA-10/20) and S-400 Variants (SA-21) are deadly (in theory) against 4th Gen stuff.  They can even fairly easily shoot down the missiles we might shoot at them to take their SAMs out.  

For whatever reason, the Russians make shit fighter aircraft compared to Western stuff.  But their SAMs and IADs stuff is world class.  Our hard dive into stealth was mostly driven by our desire to counter their IADs and SAMs more so than their current fighter technology.  Their advanced SAM tech really negated our Air Dominance until Stealth came along.  

I think the hype around Russian sam's was to increase LM and Boeing's share price.

 

I'm not convinced they're as effective as made out to be. And they're vulnerable to attack anyway......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

WTF is that? Looks like mating dragonflies.

Jets and a pod with a window.  I'm guessing that it's a prototype, probably built by Burt Rutan, of a high altitude reconnaissance plane.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I'm not convinced they're as effective as made out to be. And they're vulnerable to attack anyway......

What do you base that on, out of curiosity?  And what are they vulnerable to attack by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

What do you base that on, out of curiosity?  And what are they vulnerable to attack by?

An f35 with a few harms?

A b52 with stand off weapons?

Or a swarm of drones if you prefer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

harms dont fire at missiles .. just the radars that detect the targets for the missiles and potentially guide them for some portion of their flight  .. ( most have self homing in the last stages )

a b52 standing any useful amount off is still within range

6 /7 gen autonomous fighters / aerial combat drones are well under way .. and possibly the real reason piloted fighting aircraft are being moved aside

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere out there, next to a Ridgeline, a weeping weirdo is tying himself to the barrel of his mini black powder cannon using his Mormon underwear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phill_nz said:

harms dont fire at missiles .. just the radars that detect the targets for the missiles and potentially guide them for some portion of their flight  .. ( most have self homing in the last stages )

a b52 standing any useful amount off is still within range

6 /7 gen autonomous fighters / aerial combat drones are well under way .. and possibly the real reason piloted fighting aircraft are being moved aside

 

 

 

Hows that sam going to work with its radar and tracking stations in bits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ishmael said:

WTF is that? Looks like mating dragonflies.

Scaled Composites/NG high altitude long endurance prototype. There were lots of HALE prototypes running around before the budget fights back in 2013/14. Most got cancelled as “proven doable” but no agency wanted to pay to build them. Primary use was for communications relay (cell tower over the battlefield, disaster zone, etc) or persistent surveillance. 
 

Competition was google’s  balloon based internet (now cancelled) or low earth orbit (not as vulnerable). Global Hawk, Triton are the current, expensive programs doing similar tasking. Lots of R&D money thrown at manned and unmanned ideas from 2002 to 2012 before customers started demanding mature tech, not ideas. I looked at 10 years of UAV business in 2010 and more than 50% of the “cool idea” startups/prototypes had failed as the tech and market moved on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Slick470 said:

yep, for US also F-15, F/A-18. The most recent versions of those jets are sometimes referred to as 4.5 or 4+ gen due to various upgrades. 

F-22 and F-35 are 5th gen. 

Got it.  Srsly thx. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:
22 hours ago, Burning Man said:

What do you base that on, out of curiosity?  And what are they vulnerable to attack by?

An f35 with a few harms?

A b52 with stand off weapons?

Or a swarm of drones if you prefer...

Uhhhh....  oh nevermind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Uhhhh....  oh nevermind.  

So you think any or all those options are not realistic?

 

Because the swarm of drones is happening soon....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Uhhhh....  oh nevermind.  

Actually, at what range would an f35 at 60 feet come up on the radar system? And how much time would the operators have to get off a shot when that f35 is doing 600 knots?

 

Actually, can it do 600 knots at 60 feet......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Actually, at what range would an f35 at 60 feet come up on the radar system? And how much time would the operators have to get off a shot when that f35 is doing 600 knots?

 

Actually, can it do 600 knots at 60 feet......

LOS would be about 9nm range at 60' AGL.  (9nm/600nm/hr)*(3600secs/hr)= 54secs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

LOS would be about 9nm range at 60' AGL.  (9nm/600nm/hr)*(3600secs/hr)= 54secs

Long enough to put down the cup of coffee before the bang, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now