|
There was an effort post a while ago about how the A-10 would not do that well against modern AA. It probably wouldn't hurt to replace it with a cost-effective, multi-role plane. Laser VTOL stealth fighter would not be my first choice.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. Please? If I'm wrong I like to learn, I don't want to end up as some of the other people here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
I suspect that the true replacement for the A-10 will be a UAV. That job is now such a high-risk endeavor that drones will be the only way in the future.NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:There was an effort post a while ago about how the A-10 would not do that well against modern AA. It probably wouldn't hurt to replace it with a cost-effective, multi-role plane. I don't really see the US getting into a shooting war with anything using a modern AA network. The current 'War on Terror' is pretty biased towards those countries that can't field such a thing. quote:Laser VTOL stealth fighter would not be my first choice. Lasers aren't even that great against ground targets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Lasers aren't even that great against ground targets. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Why is the NASAMS in use specifically around the DC area? I mean, it's kind of cool that they're using a system from teeny lil' us to protect the airspace around the capitol and the white house, but why not just use Patriot which is well-known, pervasive, well battle-tested and indigenous? Patriot costs more, has a MUCH larger footprint, requires far more manning, would be way more obvious to the public, is desperately needed for other missions, and is a sector coverage weapon rather than a 360 degree coverage weapon. NASAMS is just a cheaper alternative with a capable missile, albeit a much shorter range and a less lethal missile than Patriot. You can pretty effectively shove a bunch of small(ish) sensors and launchers that support NASAMS all over the capitol region, either in clear areas or even on rooftops. You can't exactly do that with a Patriot battery. There are also plenty of Avengers in the capitol region, which have an even smaller footprint than NASAMS. A modern (Config 3+) Patriot system can fire PAC-2 family missiles and PAC-3 family missiles concurrently. It just requires a PAC-3 capable launcher and interceptors to fire both at once. The PAC-3 launchers (ELES), are backwards compatible with PAC-2. While PAC-3s are hit-to-kill versus TBMs, they have a lethality enhancer for use against air breathing threats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I don't really see the US getting into a shooting war with anything using a modern AA network. The current 'War on Terror' is pretty biased towards those countries that can't field such a thing. Well, I don't either. But it's possible we could see such a conflict sometime during the aircraft's service life, and I'm fine with the military replacing it's aging airframes with new tech. Something like a modern day equivalent to the F-16 would have been great. A capable, flexible plane that doesn't break the bank. Instead, we got a boondoggle that sounds like a six year old designed it. "It's gonna be stealthy, so no one can see it! And, and it's gonna carry bombs, and lasers, and take off like a helicopter!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
The problem is that the first bit of "A capable, flexible plane that doesn't break the bank." tends to lead into the second bit, the boondoggle. One-size-fits-all is great on paper, but there's no reason why we don't use specialized airframes for what we need. vvvv Index funds. Anything else is foolish. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I don't really see the US getting into a shooting war with anything using a modern AA network. The current 'War on Terror' is pretty biased towards those countries that can't field such a thing. Seeing as this is the Cold War thread and all, it's worth pointing out that we don't get into fights with people who might give us a rough time by ensuring as few countries as possible think they could give us a rough time. History isn't kind to rich and powerful civilizations that let their defense go to poo poo. Also procurement programs aren't just about the threats of today, they're about the threats 15-30+ years out. If you think you can accurately predict the geopolitical threats of the 2040s then I hope you're playing the stock markets too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Patriot costs more, has a MUCH larger footprint, requires far more manning, would be way more obvious to the public, is desperately needed for other missions, and is a sector coverage weapon rather than a 360 degree coverage weapon. NASAMS is just a cheaper alternative with a capable missile, albeit a much shorter range and a less lethal missile than Patriot. You can pretty effectively shove a bunch of small(ish) sensors and launchers that support NASAMS all over the capitol region, either in clear areas or even on rooftops. You can't exactly do that with a Patriot battery. There are also plenty of Avengers in the capitol region, which have an even smaller footprint than NASAMS. Also field tests with PAC-3s found they handled poorly in the powerful updrafts caused by the constant and massive exhalations of hot gas in the DC metro area
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
On the subject of procurement, how badly is our (  ) procurement process messed up by people looking to make a buck? Is it a very serious problem, or is it blown out of proportion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Also field tests with PAC-3s found they handled poorly in the powerful updrafts caused by the constant and massive exhalations of hot gas in the DC metro area Source? But really, unless you NEED 16 interceptors per launcher or you're going for IFC shots, you should just use PAC-2s against ABTs anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:On the subject of procurement, how badly is our ( They are the gears upon which the MIC turns its money-printing press, oiled by congresscritters seeking to get votes by bringing those jobs to their districts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Source? It was a joke about politicians being windbags
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:It was a joke about politicians being windbags 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:The point is that the modern battlefield doesn't necessarily include modern air defense systems. Yeah you don't build your military to deploy to a permissive environment.  Also, today's high-end IADS pieces become tomorrow's Russian/Chinese cash grab. Vietnam didn't build those SA-2s, and Yugoslavia didn't invent the SA-3.NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:On the subject of procurement, how badly is our ( Personally I think it's vastly UNDERpublicized. Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Seeing as this is the Cold War thread and all, it's worth pointing out that we don't get into fights with people who might give us a rough time by ensuring as few countries as possible think they could give us a rough time. History isn't kind to rich and powerful civilizations that let their defense go to poo poo. Definitely true, but as I said before the future of this sort of stuff is going to be UCAVs, especially in a high-loss area like CAS. You might still have piloted planes are interceptors and air-superiority, but for bomb trucks and strike platforms there really isn't any advantage anymore to having people in the sky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Eventually I think it'll go that route. But hell, where we're at now Marines don't even like non-Marines to provide their CAS...you think Reapers or whatever the replacement's gonna be is any more acceptable? Or hell...do you really think it's that CAPABLE?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why the hell is the AGM-130 so expensive? Isn't it just a GBU-15 with a strap-on rocket kit, just like the GBU-15 is just a Mk84 with a strap-on LGB kit? GBU-15 is command link controlled EO/IIR, not laser. That basically explains the expense. Both it and the AGM-130 were intended for use with only the very highest priority of targets...like poo poo that is almost on the level of "we blow this up, we shorten the war by 6 months or maybe we just end it right then and there." Taerkar posted:I don't really see the US getting into a shooting war with anything using a modern AA network. The current 'War on Terror' is pretty biased towards those countries that can't field such a thing. I've said this before, but it's not about what are we realistically going to get into a shooting war with in the next 2 years, it's about long term thinking, in two ways. First, our increasingly complex weapons mean that their procurement cycle takes incredibly long to fulfill. There is a reason that the USAF started thinking about its sixth-gen F-22 replacement a few years back. Geopolitics can change quite quickly...20 years ago the PLAN was a coastal defense force incapable of deploying more than a couple hundred nm from China's shores and the backbone of the PLAAF was the MiG-21. Second, and more importantly, keeping the ability to deter near-peer adversaries is very, very important, especially given our nation's role in guaranteeing the global commons. To paraphrase Joe Sestak, we need to have a force that makes the Admirals commanding the PLAN East and South Sea Fleets wake up every day and go "today's not the day." Yes, I understand that there is a LOT more to that than just raw military power, and I fully support efforts in those endeavors (DoS is chronically and criminally underfunded, as just one example). However, if you don't think military force is a part of that equation, you're an idiot...and it's important to point out that military force plays a role in setting the conditions that make those other efforts easier. In other words diplomatic and economic efforts to keep good relations with other countries in East and Southeast Asia are a lot easier and effective if we have a credible military force that those countries know is interested in defending access to the commons as opposed to the alternative. Godholio posted:Personally I think it's vastly UNDERpublicized. Darleen Druyun was just the tip of the iceberg and the only reason she got caught was because her actions were SO brazen. e: It's going to be a little while before RPAs can do anything (air to air, air to ground, or otherwise) in a contested environment. \/  I suspect you know exactly the piece that refreshed that quote in my memory. \/
iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
I loving hated it when Sestak's quote came up in the increasingly inane ASB vs. Offshore Control debate. At this point I hope someone fire Bryan McGrath into the sun. Not because of his opinions, which are refreshingly straightforward albeit positively jingoistic, but because he's p. much aching for the US military to actively shape foreign policy towards his preferred state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I've said this before, but it's not about what are we realistically going to get into a shooting war with in the next 2 years, it's about long term thinking, in two ways. And that's fine, but it irritates me when people (not you) say "the modern battlefield" and actually mean a hypothetical future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:And that's fine, but it irritates me when people (not you) say "the modern battlefield" and actually mean a hypothetical future. Uh pretty sure the modern battlefield is a bombed out third world america ruled by Mexico, also some awesome tactical doggies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
On the topic of the Su-30, there were also the rules of engagement from the Cope India 2004 exercise to consider. -Each engagement involved 4 F-15Cs on defense versus 12 Indian aircraft (Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, Mig29s, Mig27s) attacking. In only one engagement did they switch roles with 12 IAF defending and 4 US attacking. -BVR weapons were limited to a 20nm range. -The F-15s more or less simulated the use of SARH missiles as they had to continue to illuminate targets after "firing" the AMRAAM. In contrast the IAF specifically set out to practice the use of the AA-12 and Mica using proper active-seeker tactics. Keep in mind this was the IAF's wargame and the US was there to be the OpFor the IAF wanted. It makes a lot more sense why the F-15Cs playing the OpFor for the IAF were on the losing end so often. A lot of people really don't seem to grasp that exercises are often meant as training tools, not to match up military ships/jets/whatever for glorious and honorable single combat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Lemmie tell you about Millennium Challenge 2002...
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:On the topic of the Su-30, there were also the rules of engagement from the Cope India 2004 exercise to consider. The USAF agreed to Cope India with the intent of using it as propaganda after the fact. There was little doubt that the Indians would come out ahead, and the future of the F-22 was still very much under debate at the time. Granted, the Indians showed more prowess than anticipated, but they were always going to win. The exercise, like most air-to-air training events are designed this way, with restrictions similar to your list. For example, today's "threat of the day" is the MiG-21, so the red air pilots will simulate MiG-21s with lovely radar and weapons. Tomorrow might be Su-30, so watch out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Just to add a tiny bit to the Sukhoi-chat, at the Paris Air Show this year Russia's defense export conglomerate was playing up a new(?) Su-35 for export customers. From what I remember it's not the same as previous Su-35s to wear the name, being actually more of a development of the Su-30 variants for India, Malaysia, and others, but that could be a complete misinterpretation on my part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Well at least that's pretty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:Well, I don't either. But it's possible we could see such a conflict sometime during the aircraft's service life, and I'm fine with the military replacing it's aging airframes with new tech. Something like a modern day equivalent to the F-16 would have been great. A capable, flexible plane that doesn't break the bank. Name me the last time that anyone designed a multirole aircraft that went on to be a huge success. Go ahead, I'll wait here. ... Back? So soon? Now, go and look at all of the really, REALLY successful designs of the last 75 years. A-4, F-4, F-16, F-15, hell, the goddamned JU-88. What do they all have in common? They were designed to a very specific mission, and to excel at it. The A-4 was built to carry a pilot and a nuclear bomb, and thats it. Turns out it's a great light attack aircraft, and maneuverable enough to serve as a fighter aggressor aircraft. The F-4 was a fleet defence interceptor that just happened to be an excellent multi-role strike fighter. The F-15, same, despite being developed with "Not a pound for air to ground." The F-16 was developed as a pure daytime air superiority fighter to tangle with MiG-29s. Turns out to be possibly the worlds best light multirole fighter. But not a single one of these was designed by a committee, and asked to do everything for everyone. Funny how that works, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah I'm familiar with the Cope India 04 stuff but earlier you stated quote:I mean, at this point it'd be silly to drop a bunch of cash on ground-based air defense platforms when we've got an Air Force that really doesn't have much competition in that game. Which is decidedly not the thing we're hearing from guys trumping up the usual dangers of (future) 'near-peer competitors' - albeit primarily the $8.36t gorilla in the room. Now I don't really think the US should invest more in ADA, seeing as the days of fighting big land wars might just be over for some time, but drones and long range strike might just proliferate down the chain a bit further than they have already. MrYenko posted:The F-16 was developed as a pure daytime air superiority fighter to tangle with MiG-29s. -21s and -23s really, LPFI didn't get concrete design work done until 1974, so after the YF-16 had already flown, and the -29 reached 'IOC' (or whatever weird metric they used in the VVS) only in 1984. F-16s were already being fielded by the bucketload at that point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Name me the last time that anyone designed a multirole aircraft that went on to be a huge success. Go ahead, I'll wait here. A-1 Skyraider?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:A-1 Skyraider? Sandy 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Name me the last time that anyone designed a multirole aircraft that went on to be a huge success. Go ahead, I'll wait here. In general, were the Swedish jet developments less insane than the US ones? There was a lot less money to throw around so it seems plausible that they had to be a bit more focused, although I don't know any of the gory details behind Tunnan/Lansen/Draken/Viggen/Gripen... What about all the other Euro fights?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:But not a single one of these was designed by a committee, and asked to do everything for everyone. Funny how that works, isn't it? When I think multirole, I usually think 'fighter-bomber'. If we can turn planes into successful multirole planes, there is no reason why we can't design one from the ground up. It can be done, it just probably won't be, because of the dreaded committees and the way the process works. How much of the F-35 trainwreck has to do with committees?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Procurement is (also) generally hosed because every business person ever sees the government as a customer and immediately sees giant fuckin' dollar signs. Even factoring in late 'penalties' and such, it's so goddamned easy to pump up your stock price / make investors happy / etc. SSA is heating up with the current space fence falling all over itself, there's a few firms jockeying to pick up the pieces there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Lemmie tell you about Millennium Challenge 2002... I thought the media details would never end and being General Petraeus driver sucked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:So, the F-35? Actually it was more of a reference to the fact that the Air Force absolutely sucks at CAS, they should stick to dogfights and carpet bombing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:When I think multirole, I usually think 'fighter-bomber'. If we can turn planes into successful multirole planes, there is no reason why we can't design one from the ground up. It can be done, it just probably won't be, because of the dreaded committees and the way the process works. Almost all of it, IMO. The F-35A is not a disaster, nor is the C.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Imagine what the disaster would look like had we gotten the X-32 instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Imagine what the disaster would look like had we gotten the X-32 instead. It's like a plane that has a neckbeard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
It's  with wings!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Thwomp posted:Imagine what the disaster would look like had we gotten the X-32 instead. Had a solid rocket booster at the end of the wings, and you've got a Kerbal Space Program model, right there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 18:26
|
|