|
Insane Totoro posted:Okay well riddle me this about logistics. Then why not just build intercontinental drones that don't even require a logistics endpoint in enemy territory? With drones, when have we ever needed this hypothetical ability to drop off some light attack aircraft on some dirt strip in the middle of nowhere/possible contested ground? You don't need to operate out of some highway strip inside contested territory, the more realistic scenario is taking over some disused civil airstrip nearby and being able to run a small but effective CAS/NTISR operation without having to import or build a ton of infrastructure. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jun 13, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Okay well riddle me this about logistics. Then why not just build intercontinental drones that don't even require a logistics endpoint in enemy territory? With drones, when have we ever needed this hypothetical ability to drop off some light attack aircraft on some dirt strip in the middle of nowhere/possible contested ground? As has been posted, for reactive CAS, you need something there quick, which either means something very fast, requiring tons of fuel/money, or something rather close, meaning FOBs. Now, for ISR, this is a real idea being bandied about. The Army spy blimp in test is an example, and there are plenty of white papers out there about some theoretical high altitude, solar-powered ISR platform that can cruise about for months on end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Koesj posted:That sounds hella expensive. Nowadays they place a lot of value on the idea of pilots not getting blown up, so even if remotely operating a drone that takes off from Diego Garcia and flies to Afghanistan (or wherever) and back costs a mint the fact that the president won't have to explain why we're missing a pilot if someone manages to hit the aircraft with AA fire probably makes up for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Nowadays they place a lot of value on the idea of pilots not getting blown up,  Want to take a guess at how many pilots died supporting OEF in the last year?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
No, really, they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
In May we had a plane crash and kill three crew, but no taxpayer is going to get in the grill of anyone involved in delaying the procurement of a new tanker. A Marine flying squadron commander was killed by infiltrators in September. I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of helo shootdowns and crashes. Fact is, soldiers, or pilots, dying on the other side of the planet is pretty much a non-event for most Americans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In May we had a plane crash and kill three crew, but no taxpayer is going to get in the grill of anyone involved in delaying the procurement of a new tanker. A Marine flying squadron commander was killed by infiltrators in September. I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of helo shootdowns and crashes. Fact is, soldiers, or pilots, dying on the other side of the planet is pretty much a non-event for most Americans. Fine, the US tends to not notice losses, but pilot losses are a much bigger deal than ground force losses. I can't go into details due to opsec, but US SAM systems' TTPs and software/hardware development changed in a fundamental way as a result of a period of time wherein the Army shot down 2 friendly aircraft, and a USAF F-16 shot up a SAM battery. Meanwhile, air power has roughly a fuckload more frats on ground forces than vice versa. If we'd reacted as severely to a flight of F-15s killing 26 service members as we did to Patriot killing 3 aviators, no fighter would be able to fire a shot without Obama calling them up personally to authorize the shot. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident seriously, you don't want to play the game where you pretend for one second that the US doesn't deem aircraft special compared to the vast and great majority of our forces, ground troops, getting killed. Dead Reckoning posted:A Marine flying squadron commander was killed by infiltrators in September. Not special because he was shot to death on the ground. If he'd been shot down in mountains of Afghanistan, it would be a big deal. I'm not even joking, I'm just depressed... mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In May we had a plane crash and kill three crew, but no taxpayer is going to get in the grill of anyone involved in delaying the procurement of a new tanker. A Marine flying squadron commander was killed by infiltrators in September. I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of helo shootdowns and crashes. Fact is, soldiers, or pilots, dying on the other side of the planet is pretty much a non-event for most Americans. It's a non-event now because it happens so seldom. Additionally, a decade of war has somewhat inured the American populace to deaths in those two wars. However, look at the hullabaloo around Cliff Acree and Guy Hunter or the Black Hawk in Mogadishu or, more recently, the rescue of the F-15 pilot in Libya. Also, being killed by hostile fire (or worse, captured and executed) is perceived very differently to deaths by accidents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Short of scorched earth its also a hell of a lot harder to prevent infantry deaths. At some point some guy is going to be kicking in a door in Falujah or whatnot and that is not a healthy occupation to be in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Short of scorched earth its also a hell of a lot harder to prevent infantry deaths. At some point some guy is going to be kicking in a door in Falujah or whatnot and that is not a healthy occupation to be in. Sure. But I'm not even talking about a guy getting shot up while room clearing. I'm talking about the colossal blowback* from ground-to-air frats versus the relatively mild blowback from air-to-ground frats. *To be fair, Aegis shooting a goddamned airliner down is unforgivable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Nowadays they place a lot of value on the idea of pilots not getting blown up, so even if remotely operating a drone that takes off from Diego Garcia and flies to Afghanistan (or wherever) and back costs a mint the fact that the president won't have to explain why we're missing a pilot if someone manages to hit the aircraft with AA fire probably makes up for that. Yeah sure, I never said anything to the contrary Do you dispute that an intercontinental drone would be an expensive way to waste a couple of dudes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Loiter. Well, if Battlefield 3 has taught me anything, it's that the F-35 is a superior CAS aircraft because it can hover in midair while the pilot picks off enemy infantry and lightly armored targets with the cannon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:They are no poo poo working on this for the F-35, but I'm guessing that it isn't going to happen due to heat/miniaturization/technology obstacles. Shame laser weapons are never gonna happen unless maybe in the super far off future, though, huh? http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?id=1065977923 quote:Navy League 2013: USN to deploy solid-state laser weapon on board USS Ponce in 2014  e: shameless plug for the GiP future weapons thread grover fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
You should probably add CANCELLED FOR BEING STUPID in all caps on top of the ABL in that thread. edit: IFC/CEC will be pretty cool when it works. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Also, being killed by hostile fire (or worse, captured and executed) is perceived very differently to deaths by accidents. Yes and no. Anti-war / anti-Bush groups made a point of including warzone accidents to pump up their ~~grim statistics~~. While the life of a guy squashed when his humvee rolled into a ditch isn't any less sacred than the guy killed storming a sniper nest to save his platoon, it really distorted public opnion on what baseline military casualty rates are like, even in peacetime, and it muddies the line between deaths resulting from tactical / srategic / policy errors and ones from basically safety violations. There's a big difference between an "accident" where a truck hits a guy at night wearing insufficient reflective belts and an "accident" where someone shoots a missile at friendly troops. That attack with the Harriers destroyed / commander killed didn't get anywhere near the press it deserved, but that was for political reasons. atomicthumbs posted:Well, if Battlefield 3 has taught me anything, it's that the F-35 is a superior CAS aircraft because it can hover in midair while the pilot picks off enemy infantry and lightly armored targets with the cannon. Don't forget a skilled pilot can fly low and clip individual infantry with the wingtips
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
grover posted:e: shameless plug for the GiP future weapons thread If it's in an air to air role, how does it stack up against missiles in terms of range? What are the costs involved in deploying each unit? How much of a pain in the rear end is it to keep something like that up and running under combat conditions? If the lasers still have big problems with dissipating heat, will that stress the aircraft in hot conditions? If a laser creates such a hilarious amount of heat, won't that make the aircraft a giant thermal target? Will the laser work in the rain? Doesn't the US military have a huge problem with aging aircraft and warships? Will we be able to replace/refit these ships while funding these projects and putting them into production?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
At least with the "In hot conditions" remember air temps get pretty loving chilly with some altitude. So heat may be an issue, but more from the plane itself/dissipation of the system than environmental. Edit: With a theoretical F-35 laser.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:If it's in an air to air role, how does it stack up against missiles in terms of range? What are the costs involved in deploying each unit? I think it's main advantage is that its intercept speed is for all intents and purposes infinite. No need for complicated computations of mid-flight course correction by electronics robust enough to fly at mach 4 and pull huge G forces. Just keep it pointed at the target and eventually that target will burst into flames.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:If it's in an air to air role, how does it stack up against missiles in terms of range? What are the costs involved in deploying each unit? Another laser weapon would be far more effective to counter a laser-armed F-35.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
grover posted:Range is limited to about 5 miles in surface-to-air/air-to-surface, but essentially unlimited in an air-to-air role. The first-gen F-35 laser is expected to have a duty cycle of about 10% (two 3-second shots, followed by a 3-second shot every 30 seconds) due to cooling, which is the main limitation. Vs IR missiles, it would only take a fraction of a second to destroy the seeker head. For medium/long-range like AMRAAM or R-37, a saturation attack thick enough such that the F-35 can't shoot them all down in time may still prove effective. At least until the laser technology improves. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that "phonebooth sized central cavity" the place you keep bombs and AtA missiles so as not to gently caress the RCS?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 12:33
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that "phonebooth sized central cavity" the place you keep bombs and AtA missiles so as not to gently caress the RCS? No, its where the lift fan goes on the B.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 12:39
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that "phonebooth sized central cavity" the place you keep bombs and AtA missiles so as not to gently caress the RCS? No, it's not, it's where you keep the lift fan on the VTOL version. The weapons bays are outboard of this. e: goddammit veins
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
gently caress it, put a GAU-8 in there. It's not like it'd make things worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that "phonebooth sized central cavity" the place you keep bombs and AtA missiles so as not to gently caress the RCS?   vs 
grover fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
grover posted:*snip* Won't that render the plane's engine less efficient in conventional flight due to the wasted energy? And with regards to the GAU-8 comment the joke there was the more I read about the F-35 the more it seems like the military aviation equivalent of the Homermobile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Won't that render the plane's engine less efficient in conventional flight due to the wasted energy? And with regards to the GAU-8 comment the joke there was the more I read about the F-35 the more it seems like the military aviation equivalent of the Homermobile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
All the MANPADS talk right after tankchatting had me thinking, has there ever been planned an active incoming-misssile defense system for [combat] aircraft? Shoot out a fast little fucker that disrupts or destroys the incoming missile up close?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
I hope to god that grover is right about all this because I want loving laser battles all pew pew like Ace Combat. If not, oh god our air power is screwed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:All the MANPADS talk right after tankchatting had me thinking, has there ever been planned an active incoming-misssile defense system for [combat] aircraft? Shoot out a fast little fucker that disrupts or destroys the incoming missile up close? There are countermeasures other than flares, like IR jammers that work with varying degrees of success. Some aircraft even have towed decoys, though IIRC, those are for RF countermeasures rather than IR. Grover is a really impossibly optimistic kind of guy about JSF, but for the sake of capabilities and money, I hope he's right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:All the MANPADS talk right after tankchatting had me thinking, has there ever been planned an active incoming-misssile defense system for [combat] aircraft? Shoot out a fast little fucker that disrupts or destroys the incoming missile up close?  American Airlines was most certainly not talking about putting that or other systems on airliners, either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:All the MANPADS talk right after tankchatting had me thinking, has there ever been planned an active incoming-misssile defense system for [combat] aircraft? Shoot out a fast little fucker that disrupts or destroys the incoming missile up close? MiG-31 Firefox had rearward-firing explosives to take out incoming missiles and pursuers, but the export potential was greatly limited since you could only fire the countermeasures if you thought in Russian
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I think it's main advantage is that its intercept speed is for all intents and purposes infinite. No need for complicated computations of mid-flight course correction by electronics robust enough to fly at mach 4 and pull huge G forces. Just keep it pointed at the target and eventually that target will burst into flames. That and there isn't much you can do to prevent a laser from hitting a plane. Once fired a missile can be detected in flight allowing tons of options to screw with it electronically, use decoys (flares/chaff), shoot at it, outrun or out-maneuvered it, etc. With a laser once you fire it there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do. It'll hit what it was pointed at and you can't even know it was fired until it already hit the target because the weapon travels just as fast as the fastest means of detection. With a laser the only real defenses are pro-active stuff like either flying something that can shrug off the hits, never getting close enough for the laser to be damaging, or avoiding getting targeted/shot at in the first place. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:With a laser once you fire it there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do. It'll hit what it was pointed at and you can't even know it was fired until it already hit the target because the weapon travels just as fast as the fastest means of detection. With a laser the only real defenses are pro-active stuff like either flying something that can shrug off the hits or avoiding getting targeted/shot at in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:That and there isn't much you can do to prevent a laser from hitting a plane. Once fired a missile can be detected in flight allowing tons of options to screw with it electronically, use decoys (flares/chaff), shoot at it, outrun or out-maneuvered it, etc. It could move in the amount of time it takes for the laser to be any effect, go through a cloud or smoke to cause blooming, easily outrun the 767 with the generator that's powering the laser on the F-35 with the comically made extension cord to power the drat laser. EDIT: You really think that a fighter that can't carry it's own gun on 2 of the 3 variants is going to be able to carry a laser powerful enough to avoid scattering through the atmosphere in a 35 kilometer range? LP97S fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
Any sort of damage to the air frame of a high-performance fighter would be very dangerous. Their skin isn't that thick to begin with and if you distort the way that air flows over it enough then it could possibly tear itself apart. Doubly so if you damage a support structure. Hell, the pilot(s) may not even know they're being attacked by a laser until things start to fail, if even then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:MiG-31 Firefox had rearward-firing explosives to take out incoming missiles and pursuers, but the export potential was greatly limited since you could only fire the countermeasures if you thought in Russian Wait what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
LP97S posted:It could move in the amount of time it takes for the laser to be any effect Keeping a laser beam projected on a moving target is a problem that was solved a long time ago. There are plenty of laser-guided bombs and missiles that are fully capable of attacking moving targets, even rapidly-moving, maneuvering targets. FrozenVent posted:Wait what? http://youtu.be/R0zzz3f9VpI Phanatic fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Wait what? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5DsLow4SVQ&t=81s
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Keeping a laser beam projected on a moving target is a problem that was solved a long time ago. There are plenty of laser-guided bombs and missiles that are fully capable of attacking moving targets, even rapidly-moving, maneuvering targets. Good point, but then I could just go into a cloud (those occur sometimes) where the laser fucks up and the F-35 can't chase me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
If the F-35A does, in 15 years time, become some LO laser-murder airplane, I will laugh even harder at the F-35B than I do now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:59
|
|