|
grover posted:Fascinating paper on SEAD here: http://web.mit.edu/ssp/publications/conf_reports/3coteorPAD3.pdf I think the latest update to the HARM was supposed to give it capabilities against the good old "switch off the RADAR" trick, too.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:One of the goals of the Tet Offensive was to bleed to the Viet Cong dry. A well-used gambit, see also the Soviet slowdown before taking Warsaw once the resistance had been cut down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:I think the latest update to the HARM was supposed to give it capabilities against the good old "switch off the RADAR" trick, too. Pretty much anyone with money wants ARMs or ARM carriers that can pinpoint radars before launch or during launch accurately enough to land the ARM within the lethal zone of the radar so that turning off the radar won't help. Of course, you can also just fire a combination of ARMs and conventional strikes and unless you have a system capable of shooting down ARMs, the radar gets nailed. Obviously, this requires more resources. edit: then, of course, there are always the radar with anti-ARM decoys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:I think the latest update to the HARM was supposed to give it capabilities against the good old "switch off the RADAR" trick, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
grover posted:No ARM can lock and kill a radar that's only active for a few seconds and then turned off; the internal sensor just doesn't have the fidelity to pinpoint a target from so far away. It's more useful in the terminal phase, when the missile is closer. The best modern ARMs can hope for is a carrier that locks on to an active radar, does a maneuver to triangulate and get accurate coordinates, then launches. If the radar starts blinking or ceases radiate entirely due to visible separation, it won't matter at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
Are the ALARMs and other missiles that parachute down while waiting for the radar to get switched on effective? I always thought that was a pretty neat idea. Plus a Tornado with a full load of them looks pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
I still don't know how my ten year old self got this poo poo to work with that big-rear end manual and all but there I was lobbing ALARMs in loiter mode to pre-clear attack runs on an airfield 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
priznat posted:Are the ALARMs and other missiles that parachute down while waiting for the radar to get switched on effective? I always thought that was a pretty neat idea. Plus a Tornado with a full load of them looks pretty cool. The MW-1 and JP 233 bomblet dispensers are pretty awesome too; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLqCxCLKfGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGmDqH4c-8
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 11:56
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Well, yeah, I suppose we can get super technical here if we'd like. I'm not going to defend the state of history education in the US. In fact, I think it's absolutely terrible and fails spectacularly to actually teach students skills that they will need to be successful at the university level, both in terms of general skills and those specific to history classes. I am really coming to loathe AP classes in particular. Ironically enough I think it can be argued that, presuming a good school district with solid teachers, students are better served (in terms of education, not transcripts or college admissions) with regular non-AP history classes. That said, you have to realize just how much needs to be abstracted or flat out ignored for the sake of time in any kind of introductory history class. The last time I saw a syllabus for a high school US history class I think it had one week dedicated to all of the Roosevelt years, plus the end of WW2, which covers a TON of important material. I'd be surprised if most US history classes even gave Vietnam a single day by itself. When designing these survey classes the big question you have to ask yourself is "what major theme or pattern am I emphasizing here? What is the big take-away lesson that they need to absorb based on this event?" For WW2, for example, in a class on US history it will probably be something about the US moving away from Isolationism as a foreign policy and towards engagement with the world, our development into being a true superpower, the roots of the Cold War, and the deep impact that the war had on American culture and general attitudes towards our role in the world. Throw in the most basic of descriptions of how the war itself unfolded (Allies take it on the nose up until '43 or so, Nazis/Japanese collapse through '44-45, probably mention Stalingrad, D-Day, and a quick over-view of Island Hopping in the Pacific) and you're done. Yes this is a very minimal amount of specific knowledge on the subject, but from a pedagogical point of view it's vastly more important that the students understand that WW2 is what defined America's foreign policy and role in the world, both politically and militarily, for the next 44 years (and arguably up until today as well) than their having any actual knowledge of the battles, etc. With regards to Vietnam and things like "they just teach that we lost Tet" - the key thing a student needs to pick up from Tet is that, regardless of how badly it destroyed the VC and how little they gained, it was a massive offensive precisely at the moment that the President was telling the nation that the war was all but won and it kicked off the worst of the anti-war protests in a major way. In fact, the domestic political impacts of the Vietnam War and their continuing legacy in American politics, especially compared to the post-WW2 political scene, is pretty much THE big issue that students need to walk out of a lecture on Vietnam with a grasp of. tl;dr - when you're talking survey courses a lot of nuance and detail must fall by the wayside in order to get a teachable course in the time you have. Teaching that Tet was a victory for the Vietnamese would be unconscionable in a course specifically on the Vietnam War, where you would probably use a full week to examine the issue and all its finer points, but summing it up as "it was a huge offensive that marked a turning point in the war because it devastated American domestic support for it" is perfectly acceptable in a more general course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Oh, for an example of how underestimating air defense systems has played out very poorly for a major power recently aside from Serbia, look to the conflict in South Ossetia. Russia got embarrassed. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35951 The above analysis is from Russia, but, not the government. On the one hand, it acknowledges more losses than Russia and in a very reasonable way. On the other, it handwaves away Russia's inaccuracy using the "fog of war" excuse rather than just saying Russia is lying to cover for its mistakes. It's also striking just how much friendly fire they report. Not clear if that's symptomatic of just awful C2 and TTPs or if Russians would rather claim friendly fire than give credit to enemy forces. Still, there's just no way to spin losing a TU-22M3. That poo poo is massively embarrassing. Losing some SU-25s is kind of expected given their missions. Ultimately, it turns out Russian tank columns are an effective CEAD weapon  C is for Capture.edit: ugh goddammit that link has all these brackets in it that totally gently caress up parsing and bit.ly and I loving give up. copy paste that poo poo. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jun 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Oh, for an example of how underestimating air defense systems has played out very poorly for a major power recently aside from Serbia, look to the conflict in South Ossetia. Russia got embarrassed. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35951 They didn't just underestimate air defenses, Russia also entirely failed to maintain any semblance of air superiority. The 9 Su-25's Georgia had were able to operate unimpeded by Russian aircraft for the duration of the war. The majority of them survived the war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:They didn't just underestimate air defenses, Russia also entirely failed to maintain any semblance of air superiority. The 9 Su-25's Georgia had were able to operate unimpeded by Russian aircraft for the duration of the war. The majority of them survived the war. Yes, but "unimpeded" is a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yes, but "unimpeded" is a stretch. They conducted combat missions throughout and all losses were from ground based air defenses. That's not really suggesting any kind of air superiority on the Russian's part. Especially considering the small size of the country, there being very few Georgian combat aircraft/airbases to begin with, and a complete lack of Georgian air-to-air/long range surface-to-air capabilities. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jun 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:They conducted combat missions throughout and all losses were from ground based air defenses. That's not really suggesting any kind of air superiority on the Russian's part. Air superiority is not restricted to losses from enemy air. It applies to any enemy means to stop you from conducting air ops. "That degree of dominance in the air battle by one force that permits the conduct of its operations at a given time and place without prohibitive interference from air and missile threats." (JP 3-01) edit: I agree that Russia never had air superiority. I just don't think the Georgians could operate unimpeded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Air superiority is not restricted to losses from enemy air. It applies to any enemy means to stop you from conducting air ops. That's true that air superiority is not limited to aircraft, but I only said "able to operate unimpeded by Russian aircraft". Obviously they were somewhat impeded by air defenses, as they had 3 shot down (at least 1 was potentially friendly fire, too!).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
oh, oops, reading comprehension 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Still, there's just no way to spin losing a TU-22M3. That poo poo is massively embarrassing. Losing some SU-25s is kind of expected given their missions. Mother of God  I had no idea thing went that badly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
On the topic of drugging military pilots, this is the one I'm aware of that's actually legal for you to own* Modafinil Buy some and play some flight simulators all weekend while pooping into your trashcan for the ultimate in SIMULATION. *I'm not a lawyer, check your local laws
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:On the topic of drugging military pilots, this is the one I'm aware of that's actually legal for you to own* What was the F16 jock who killed 4 Canadians hopped up on?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Flanker posted:What was the F16 jock who killed 4 Canadians hopped up on? Some drug called "being in the Air Force" I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Ultimately, it turns out Russian tank columns are an effective CEAD weapon The most effective form of air defense is a tank parked on the runway. Also, "Two Soviet generals meet in Paris. One asks the other, 'By the way, who won the air war?'" But yeah, SEAD/DEAD is still really hard just dealing with someone relatively underequipped like the Serbs, even with the latest in SEAD technology/tactics. Imagine that against someone who is actually proficient and equipped with top of the line threat systems (S-300/-400, SA-19/SA-22, etc.) And yes, getting a Tu-22M3 shot down... The thing to remember when we're discussing the Serbian "don't always effectively engage but survive to emit another day" strategy vs the Iraqi "sit here emitting until a HARM comes down my throat" approach is that while the Serb approach may not be an effective way to regularly shoot down enemy aircraft, keeping the systems alive means that the opposing force has to devote full-up SEAD/DEAD forces to support every single strike (as opposed to destroying them and calling it good), raising the cost and complexity of the conflict, something that is in the favor of the defense who is trying to outlast the opposing forces. Also it allows you to have those air defense forces available to effectively engage when the opposing forces pull an O'Grady or F-117 shootdown and decide to lose their goddamned minds. \/ Yup, CSAR is VERY resource and time intensive. \/ iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Jul 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Yeah. And plus, if you keep your forces alive at all and manage to down an aircraft, you either get to go capture the crew or force the enemy to mount one very complex, risky, expensive operation to recover the crew. Just look at the forces we used to ensure we could get to O'Grady: "Two CH-53 Sea Stallions with 51 Marines from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, lifted off the USS Kearsarge to rescue the pilot. The two helicopters were accompanied by two Marine AH-1W SuperCobra helicopter gunships and a pair of Marine AV-8B Harrier jump jets. These six aircraft had support from identical sets of replacement helicopters and jump jets as well as two Navy EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare planes, two Marine F/A-18D Hornets, a pair of anti-tank Air Force A-10 Warthogs and a NATO AWACS radar plane.[3]"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 02:52
|
|
Flanker posted:What was the F16 jock who killed 4 Canadians hopped up on? It's listed in the wiki article I posted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident Dextroamphetamine 10mg to stay up. Supposedly Ambien (zolpidem) and Restoril (temazepam) to sleep. I remember reading about severe cases of upper/downer abuse among ground troops in Vietnam. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jul 1, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
I had a Modafinil prescription for a while, it made me feel like I was "propped up" awake since the real underlying issue wasn't being treated (and nobody at the time knew what it was). It does do a fairly good job of making sure you won't go to sleep though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
No idea Flanker.mlmp08 posted:Yeah. And plus, if you keep your forces alive at all and manage to down an aircraft, you either get to go capture the crew or force the enemy to mount one very complex, risky, expensive operation to recover the crew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I had a Modafinil prescription for a while, it made me feel like I was "propped up" awake since the real underlying issue wasn't being treated (and nobody at the time knew what it was). It does do a fairly good job of making sure you won't go to sleep though. I love the stuff for international travel. The whole point is that it isn't an amphetamine, and you shouldn't feel euphoric, wired, or tooth-grindy. You also don't get the hosed up sleep deprivation unreality and flitting shadows in your peripheral vision. You just aren't sleepy. Story goes if you keep your dose up, you can keep on being not sleepy and middle-of-the-day productive for a week or more. But that the people running the long-term tests lost their nerve after a week before any side effects showed up. You do have to pay back the sleep you skip, but not in the with-interest style you get with caffine-fueled allnighters. You just work/fly/travel/read for 24 hours, then go to sleep at local 9pm with your alarm set for local 9am, and you are good to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
Interesting article about the ATF competition that produced the F-22. Overview at Flightglobal Direct link to the PDF I haven't read it yet but it's fairly long (~70 pages).
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Pilots are assholes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qhc2lXCT9c
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
For causing microphone blowout? Or doing low passes at an airshow? :p
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Psion posted:For causing microphone blowout? Or doing low passes at an airshow? :p For blowing the windows out of their supreme court building and causing serious hearing damage to everyone present. edit: If I were told there would be a sonic boom flyover and I was invited, I'd totally go (with ear pro). If I was expecting a standard flyover and received a sonic boom which damaged my ears, I'd be pretty pissed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
oh shiiiiiiit that's what I get for watching it at 360p in the default tiny size. Didn't even see the windows go. I figured it was just a DSLR's terrible mic getting blown out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
360p is as high as it goes for that video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
That'll blow off some bikinis!  Similar thing happened in 1969 at the regatta in Kelowna (small city on Lake Okanagan), the Blue Angels were performing and juuuust nudged over the sound barrier and blew out a shitload of windows along main street. My dad was there at the time, said it was nuts. He was walking along with a new acquaintance who had just escaped from Czechoslovakia pre-Soviet invasion who freaked the gently caress out (understandably). I think the Blue Angels had just transitioned to F-4Js so there were some kinks to work out in the routine there 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
priznat posted:That'll blow off some bikinis! Here's an old CBC reel about that very event!
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Haha, awesome. I seem to recall my dad mentioning the US Navy ponied up dough to compensate store owners. Not sure if they were on the hook for the whole 250k though, in 1969 that would be some big bucks. Kelowna becomes the first central BC town to have its own F-4J interceptor. Try something funny you Alberta bitches 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Saw a vid a while ago of an RAAF F-111 doing the same thing, though I think it was on an exercise and the windows it blew out were all on a military building. The guys recording it just about poo poo themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
hannibal posted:Interesting article about the ATF competition that produced the F-22. It's more of a who's who and Lockheed-centric story of proposal management than an in-depth analysis of the ATF program as a whole. Scrolling through the Mitchell Reports I came across this gem which among other things has a graph of inventoried aircraft from 1950 till 2009. Very cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 11:53
|
|
|
So I was going through and getting caught up on Arms Control Wonk (something people with an interest in this thread should be reading), and holy poo poo, Jeff Lewis put up a post last month that is like this thread distilled down into one blog post. I give you...a 1981 Center for Defense Information publication of a Pentagon study for 30 (yes, 30!) different basing modes for ICBMs. They discuss, among other things, scattering missiles across the open ocean in floating waterproof capsules, putting them on dirigibles on constant airborne alert (ICBMs on blimps), and finally, putting them on "Ground Effect Machines." Yes, the Pentagon considered developing gigantic hovercraft, loading them up with nuclear tipped ICBMs, and then turning them loose on alert in the Southwest U.S. Like I said, this thread distilled down into one blog post. Make sure to click on each individual page and read in large view to get the full impact, haha. e: Although in all honesty this piece was clearly less about serious consideration and more "hey, look, we considered 29 other alternatives, and the shelter scheme is the one that works. Coincidentally enough, that's the one we want to go with. Who knew?!?" e2: Holy poo poo, make sure to check out the "quicksand" one. "Negatives: Feasibility after suffering a nuclear attack (untestable)." 
iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Jul 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
Crossposting from the AI airplane thread, cause most of this is cold war stuff. I went back to the local air and space museum, and had the time to go inside today. 2 things I noticed: the interior displays were vastly improved since the last time I was there and they were doing poo poo tons of restoration/preservation to the planes outside. First, look at this plane as seen in August 2011.  DSC_0088.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr And today:  DSC_0692.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Before:  DSC_0100.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr After:  DSC_0694.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Before:  DSC_0097.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr During (they were working on stripping this guy down and building it back up)  DSC_0698.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr And tons more than that. Basically everything was having the cockpits and other parts sealed off from the elements, all new paint on the landing gears, holes patched up. It was wonderful. Now onto other stuff. BONE  DSC_0587.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr DAT rear end  DSC_0597.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr This was one of the engines used in the B-1A program. Only 23 built (this isn't a replica).  DSC_0631.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr F-111 porn.  DSC_0717.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0713.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Forget the model.  DSC_0599.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr b83 nuclear weapon. The sign claimed that you can fit one of these on an F-22, but I dunno how. It was big. Would be hilarious to see though.  DSC_0602.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Genie Air to Air nuclear weapon.  DSC_0603.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr BDU-38 practice bomb, designed to mimic the flightpath of a nuke.  DSC_0604.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr I imagine an F-22 carrying that B83 from earlier would look something like a B-52 carrying a pair of these. AGM-28 Hound Dog. Thing was massive.  DSC_0627.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Finally, a Texan (I think) parked in front of the prop off of a B-36. B-36 were loving huge.  DSC_0628.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
You know, as much as I love the pig, I'll always be mad that Australia basically drove the final nail in this thing's coffin by going with the F-111 instead. The best part is that they were complaining about the TSR.2 having teething troubles, being late, and being hugely overbudget. Guess what happened when the RAAF adopted the F-111? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 09:47
|
|