|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:Hoping iyaayas01 will weigh in on this with his informed opinion... I wouldn't expect it to be as simple as just reworking the dispenser, you're probably talking about some significant structural mods to the Apache airframe, which means additional weight on a type of aircraft that's already notoriously weight-limited. And if you're doing structure mods, you're talking about a flight test program, and there is essentially zero budget for rotary-wing R&D. And...for what benefit? Even if the Apache's got enough power to double its Hellfire loadout from 16 to 32, what capability does that give you to justify the cost? How many times do you want to fire Hellfires and wind up saying "poo poo, if I'd just had 17, I'd have completed this mission"? Basically, who cares that the Mi-28 can carry 8 Spirals on a single pylon?
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:
Yes, but how is he going to win his sperg argument on which attack chopper is better?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Flikken posted:Yes, but how is he going to win his sperg argument on which attack chopper is better? Um, it's clearly the Ka-52, which had a bitchin' video game 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
kill me now posted:That looks like he was about 25-50m away from the tank which would probably be pretty close to its arming distance. Point being that the minimum range is pretty short, the T-72 in the previous video probably ate an RPG from an alleyway like that one did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 06:15
|
|
Warbadger posted:Point being that the minimum range is pretty short, the T-72 in the previous video probably ate an RPG from an alleyway like that one did. http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=875 Internet says somewhere between 10-50M.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I wouldn't expect it to be as simple as just reworking the dispenser, you're probably talking about some significant structural mods to the Apache airframe, which means additional weight on a type of aircraft that's already notoriously weight-limited. And if you're doing structure mods, you're talking about a flight test program, and there is essentially zero budget for rotary-wing R&D. And...for what benefit? Even if the Apache's got enough power to double its Hellfire loadout from 16 to 32, what capability does that give you to justify the cost? How many times do you want to fire Hellfires and wind up saying "poo poo, if I'd just had 17, I'd have completed this mission"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Point being that the minimum range is pretty short, the T-72 in the previous video probably ate an RPG from an alleyway like that one did. This has also given me a new appreciation of exactly how suicidal things like sticky-bombs were. If you really fail, you have a large grenade glued to you. If you kind-of fail, you have a tank full of angry people with coaxial machine guns alerted to your presence. If you, through some miracle, succeed, you fail due to being right next to a tank that is exploding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:This has also given me a new appreciation of exactly how suicidal things like sticky-bombs were. If you really fail, you have a large grenade glued to you. If you kind-of fail, you have a tank full of angry people with coaxial machine guns alerted to your presence. If you, through some miracle, succeed, you fail due to being right next to a tank that is exploding. Bonus points are awarded to that design for: 1. Being made of glass 2. Being issued mainly to Home Guard units.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:Speaking of helicopter launched missiles, I noticed that the Mi-28 carries its missiles in tubes on the pylon, while the Apache obviously just carries the missiles themselves on the pylon. I was wondering: is there a significant reason as to why you'd use one method over the other, or is it just a case of "that's how they designed it". My assumption is sealed units are easier to handle in rough field conditions / require less work in the field / or whatever, but I can't say anything specifically to the Ataka-V. I did a quick perusal of ATGMs and I see a lot of older ones were rail-launched (off a helicopter, BMP-1, whatever) and the new ones are sealed tube style - I'm thinking rough condition reliability. e: for clarity, I mean Russian/Soviet ATGMs, both air and surface launched. Psion fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I wouldn't expect it to be as simple as just reworking the dispenser, you're probably talking about some significant structural mods to the Apache airframe, which means additional weight on a type of aircraft that's already notoriously weight-limited. And if you're doing structure mods, you're talking about a flight test program, and there is essentially zero budget for rotary-wing R&D. And...for what benefit? Even if the Apache's got enough power to double its Hellfire loadout from 16 to 32, what capability does that give you to justify the cost? Increasing effective range for sea based applications is the first practical benefit I can think of. Utilize inboard pylons for fuel tanks and use the outer for an enlarged weapons station. Yes, I realize the USN or USMC don't operate Apaches, but the UK does and they sea base them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M6wuZ_2Kfo Giving a combo launcher improves options on load outs for hot/high limitations, where its the one or the other. 2 Hellfires and Hydra on a single pylon may just be something worthwhile. And seriously, why would you need more than 4 in most hot high war zones? They'll probably be thermobaric Hellfires anyway and with a stack of Hydra it would suit a CAS profile quite effectively I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Combo launcher might have a problem with the Hydra's spinning exhausts for which the Hellfire seeker might not be adequately protected. They had to put the APKWS seekers on the extending fins to avoid this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
The link says the seekers are mounted differently to allow reuse of existing hydra warheads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:The link says the seekers are mounted differently to allow reuse of existing hydra warheads. That too, I can't find the design choices .ppt I read earlier this year where they explicitly mentioned seeker head damage from earlier missile launches. e: here's another one: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007gun_missile/GMWedPM2/FranciscovichPresentation.pdf It was just a minor point concerning combo launchers though. Koesj fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jun 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
How did the S-tank fire while on the move? Or was this not an option? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fARGfVA7Mm8
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:How did the S-tank fire while on the move? Or was this not an option? At the end of that video it says that the S-tank cannot fire on the move.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
apseudonym posted:At the end of that video it says that the S-tank cannot fire on the move. Yeah I should've watched that entire video before posting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
Someone also had a real good write up on the S-Tank somewhere along the way in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:How did the S-tank fire while on the move? Or was this not an option? It could shoot, it just couldn't hit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
Got buzzed by a B1B doing nearly 600 knots from a few hundred feet overhead a couple times today. It is felt as much as heard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Got buzzed by a B1B doing nearly 600 knots from a few hundred feet overhead a couple times today. It is felt as much as heard. My field training was at Ellesworth so we had B1's flying all over the place all the time. Very loud and very cool airplane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:My field training was at Ellesworth so we had B1's flying all over the place all the time. Very loud and very cool airplane. Yeah. I'd seen them fly several times before but had never been on the receiving end of nose-on, low altitude, high speed passes. The view of the engines pouring fire out the rear as it passed overhead and into the distance was pretty sick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Got buzzed by a B1B doing nearly 600 knots from a few hundred feet overhead a couple times today. It is felt as much as heard. The C-5s at Stewart were similar, just not as fast. Even one of those coming in at 200 can surprise you if you don't see it coming. Sadly, there's like 3 C-5s left there, and all they ever fly anymore is the C-17s. It's just not the same. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
My dad helped design the original B1-A back when it was still able to do supersonic flight like 60 feet above the ground. He helped design the tail. The mock-up had these wooden boxes that were supposed to represent all the computer components they hadn't installed yet. We somehow ended up with them and they've been serving as endtables and 1 person benches ever since. He's a materials scientist so most of his stories are about technical stuff on the plane. Initially the supersonic speed at low altitude was damaging the plane's exterior. They found out it was from insects striking the plane continuously. Actually, it wasn't the insects themselves causing the damage but the water in them that was doing the damage. At that speed there was about 1 insect impacting every square inch of the leading edges of the plane every second. Anyway, it eventually was fixed. I'm not sure if this next story is true or just a rumor he heard, it sounds fishy. The first version of the terrain following autopilot feature on the B1 had an altitude sensor in the front and the back of the plane. During tests a plane was flying over a cliff and almost crashed because the sensor in the front suddenly thought the plane was at way too high an altitude and the one in the back thought it was fine, the autopilot went into a nosedive accordingly. To fix this they linked both sensors to act together when determining altitude adjustments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Why do people always write the B-1's designation like that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Got buzzed by a B1B doing nearly 600 knots from a few hundred feet overhead a couple times today. It is felt as much as heard. I was once on a taxiway second in line for takeoff behind a B-1. We were maybe 300 feet away from full afterburners. Deafening silence takes on a whole new meaning in that situation, especially when you can feel your internal organs jiggling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Groda posted:Why do people always write the B-1's designation like that? Eh, I know better but screwed it up. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Eh, I know better but screwed it up. Your the worst 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
priznat posted:Your the worst No, you're the wurst.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Heh. A Syrian MiG-21 pilot just defected to Jordan. I guess it doesn't have the range to defect anywhere worth defecting to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I guess it doesn't have the range to defect anywhere worth defecting to. Jordan > Syria in a number of huge loving ways, especially right now with the whole "not embroiled in a big civil war" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Jordan > Syria in a number of huge loving ways, especially right now with the whole "not embroiled in a big civil war" thing. Sure, there aren't many places worse than Syria, but fleeing from Syria to Jordan to avoid the strife in Syria's a bit like fleeing from Austria to Czechoslovakia in 1938. Abdallah managed to curtail the violent clashes between protestors and supporters that started last year by promising actual reform instead of machine-gunning crowds of unarmed people, but if that reform doesn't actually develop some MiG pilots might need to start looking further afield for places to run to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
Probably a smart move, I don't know if a Syrian Mig-21 flying anywhere near the direction of Turkey or especially Israel would have much of a lifespan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
priznat posted:Probably a smart move, I don't know if a Syrian Mig-21 flying anywhere near the direction of Turkey or especially Israel would have much of a lifespan. Hey, there's always Iraq 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Hey, there's always Iraq Frying pan -> fire
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
priznat posted:Probably a smart move, I don't know if a Syrian Mig-21 flying anywhere near the direction of Turkey or especially Israel would have much of a lifespan. It would by no means be the first time an Arab pilot defected to Israel in a jet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Diamond They also received an Egyptian pilot with his Yak-11 in the 60s and a Syrian with his Mig-23 in the late 80s. They've got a good track record for not shooting down incoming defectors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
After the first one I imagine they have a standing operational policy for single aircraft entering their airspace.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
I'm thinking that disliking Israel and disliking Bashar Al-Assad's regime are not mutually exclusive positions, guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
The Israelis have world-class air defence and monitoring. If they don't down a lone Syrian bogey coming into their airspace, which may even reply when hailed and state its non-hostile intentions, it's because the moment they decide they don't like the trim of the pilot's mustache they can drop it in thirty seconds and they know they can. Unless they start suspecting a lone suicide mission on Tel Aviv with a gun-type fission weapon somebody hammered together
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I'm thinking that disliking Israel and disliking Bashar Al-Assad's regime are not mutually exclusive positions, guys. Who said they were?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Who said they were? It's sort of an assumption behind the people talking about the pilot defecting to Israel. It's fairly likely that he wanted to both get the hell out of Syria and stay the hell out of Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 23:29
|
|
