|
It seems we've read the same books 
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Space on a ship is at a premium, there's no sense installing poo poo before you actually need it. There's also no money until you need it, and often not even then. I'll throw this out there, AWACS is only now getting an upgrade to its mission computer's processing capabilities (around 1998 the reel-to-reel memory was replaced by a hard drive the emulates a reel-to-reel system). The processor being replaced was designed in 1963. And yet it's still unclear if the entire fleet will be upgraded. Between the mission system upgrades and the flight deck upgrades (glass cockpit!), there's the potential for SIX E-3 variants on the ramp at the same time...with only about 30 airframes total. Getting funding is a bitch if you're not a flashy program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'll throw this out there, AWACS is only now getting an upgrade to its mission computer's processing capabilities (around 1998 the reel-to-reel memory was replaced by a hard drive the emulates a reel-to-reel system). The processor being replaced was designed in 1963. And yet it's still unclear if the entire fleet will be upgraded. Between the mission system upgrades and the flight deck upgrades (glass cockpit!), there's the potential for SIX E-3 variants on the ramp at the same time...with only about 30 airframes total. Getting funding is a bitch if you're not a flashy program. Doesn't that sound a bit penny-wise/pound-foolish? Like, you'd save more money having a common stock of parts, and only needing to train personnel for one version of the specific E-3 mission and airframe, than you'd save only upgrading a certain subset of the airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Doesn't that sound a bit penny-wise/pound-foolish? Like, you'd save more money having a common stock of parts, and only needing to train personnel for one version of the specific E-3 mission and airframe, than you'd save only upgrading a certain subset of the airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
We should just buy MiGs. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:We should just buy MiGs. License the Eurofighter and rebuild Skyraiders 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Just do what we all know is going to happen anyways. Develop UAV technology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
LP97S posted:License the Eurofighter and rebuild Skyraiders Glide-wings on Gavins
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Glide-wings on Gavins Seriously, the services could save so much money, and protect so many soldiers, by switching to the Gavins as the base chassis for every single vehicle, aircraft and ship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Doesn't that sound a bit penny-wise/pound-foolish? Like, you'd save more money having a common stock of parts, and only needing to train personnel for one version of the specific E-3 mission and airframe, than you'd save only upgrading a certain subset of the airplanes. Welcome to every day in the US Armed Forces. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Two aircraft that take an eternity to get anywhere and require an extremely permissive environment. Hooray! Hey, compared to the Pred the Reaper is a speed demon. Of course when you're comparing yourself to an aircraft that cruises slower than someone speeding a bit on the interstate, yeah I'd hope you seem pretty fast. Godholio posted:there's the potential for SIX E-3 variants on the ramp at the same time...with only about 30 airframes total. Hahahahahaha...because AWACS mx didn't hate life enough already. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Just do what we all know is going to happen anyways. Develop UAV technology. It's happening, there's just some missions that aren't quite ready for RPAs yet. Also we have yet to crack the "how do you (reliably and effectively) employ a remotely piloted/only semi-autonomous vehicle in a denied/degraded environment" question, along with it's corollary which is "just how much autonomy are we comfortable giving armed unmanned warplanes?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
LP97S posted:License the Eurofighter and rebuild Skyraiders Skyraider UAV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Skyraider UAV. No bullshit, that is basically the Reaper. Here's a performance breakdown, Skyraider then Reaper: Max Speed: 280 kts, 260 kts Cruising Speed: 170 kts, 170 kts Range: 1100 nm, 1000 nm Ordnance Payload: 8,000 lbs, 3,000 lbs The only real differences are in loiter time/endurance, maneuverability, and payload. Reaper's endurance is way better than the Skyraider's (obviously). The maneuverability and payload thing isn't that big of a deal because thanks to PGMs the Reaper can perform the same mission set from medium altitude with fewer and smaller munitions that are more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Sure, but can the Reaper do a goofy loop?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Call me back when a Reaper drops a toilet on-target for effect, otherwise I don't want to hear it. Godholio I was going to ask if anyone in the USAF has ever bothered to ask "hey maybe we should get those 767-based AWACS planes" but then I realized that would be a cruel thing to say to you. Hell, did they ever even re-engine them with something that isn't 60s vintage? Anywhere else I'd say "at what point do you just start over" but with the AF I assume that point is "two years after the last original AWACS crashes into a mountain we might start the process to write an initial pre-proposal planning proposal to consider thinking about the possibility of pursuing the proposal to get a new airframe" Psion fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Psion posted:Godholio I was going to ask if anyone in the USAF has ever bothered to ask "hey maybe we should get those 767-based AWACS planes" but then I realized that would be a cruel thing to say to you. Hell, did they ever even re-engine them with something that isn't 60s vintage? Actually the E-767 that Japan bought uses the EXACT same mission systems that ours have. So there's no benefit there, except for the joys of having more space, range, and fuel economy. And actually the 707 airframe isn't the problem, it's the ancient hardware. AWACS desperately needs this computer upgrade, and I actually would've ranked new radios above a new cockpit (radios were supposed to be part of this upgrade, but naturally were cut to save $). The radar is surprisingly capable for being such an old design. We could do better with a new rotating AESA antenna in the dome, but I'm actually not sure the added capability would be worth the cost. As far as engines...no, they're still running TF33s and they have SO MANY spare cores from the reengined and retired KC-135s, C-141s, and B-52s that they'll never invest in anything newer no matter how much it improves range, fuel economy, and noise pollution. A replacement for the E-3 isn't even being discussed at ACC/A3. Personally, I see the replacement for the E-3 going one of two ways, based solely on initial cost estimates: something based loosely on the E-737 (Wedgetail and its family), but with the mission crew on the ground; or a completely unmanned aircraft of similar size. As far as the mission crew goes, if there's modern technology on the aircraft there's no reason to to put them in the airplane (right now, roughly 5 members of an AWACS crew are equipment techs solely there to power up/troubleshoot/tear apart/restart/power down the hardware). The controllers and surveillance team don't need to be on board, realistically. Put them in a trailer, save a poo poo-ton of space, now pick an airframe based on range/loiter capability and the ability to generate enough power to run whatever radar you throw on it. I don't think we could get by with buying a Wedgetail copy...it's radar and other systems are capable, but frankly to do what we use the E-3 for, we'd need 3-4x as many 737s as 707s, and that just ain't gonna happen. Edit: The last discussion of an E-3 replacement was actually based on the 767...it was called the E-10 and it would've combined AWACS and JSTARS into one airframe doing both missions simultaneously. That idea was wisely killed off several years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
It's been discussed a few times that the Air Force and it's nuclear forces have had some big issues and mission rot since the end of the cold war. Now the Army got out of the nuke game (well in terms of actually deployed) after George H.W. Bush withdrew all the tactical nuclear weapons in the early 1990s and no one ever let the Marines have nukes, leaving only the Navy. Has the Navy had the same issues that the Air Force has had in transitioning their Strategic or strategic support service after the Cold War? I know the Navy took over the Looking Glass role (which the Air Force had for nearly 4 decades) with the move to E-6Bs, along with the TACAMO role they already serve (Air Force still runs Nightwatch), which may have been budget consolidation, but it could have been issue with the Air Force too. I just never hear of the Navy having issues with the SSBNs like I do with the Air Force and the Missiles and Bombers crews.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
The EC-135s used for Looking Glass were also loving ancient and required a lot of cash to modernize and keep up with the surviving 135 fleet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
That's why I wondered when you said the main problem with the E-3 isn't the airframe. Aren't they also all old and beat to poo poo? I know most of an E-3 flight track consists of turning in a circle for hours on end but I'd still think the airframes would fatigue eventually  Then again the B-52 is scheduled to stay in service to what, 2040? so hell if I know. Space wizardry. Or cruel torture of enlisted maintenance guys. Probably that second one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: The last discussion of an E-3 replacement was actually based on the 767...it was called the E-10 and it would've combined AWACS and JSTARS into one airframe doing both missions simultaneously. That idea was wisely killed off several years ago. To expand on this, Boeing built one 767 frame to use as a prototype, I think the project might have gotten canned before they actually did anything with it. No airline had ordered it but it was eventually sold as a white tail 767-400ER to Bahrain. Not sure if they're ever going to use it either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Two aircraft that take an eternity to get anywhere and require an extremely permissive environment. Hooray! quote:You should've posted a TACP and a Bone.  By pretty much any metric the Bone is an awful CAS aircraft.gfanikf posted:It's been discussed a few times that the Air Force and it's nuclear forces have had some big issues and mission rot since the end of the cold war. Now the Army got out of the nuke game (well in terms of actually deployed) after George H.W. Bush withdrew all the tactical nuclear weapons in the early 1990s and no one ever let the Marines have nukes, leaving only the Navy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Godholio posted:A replacement for the E-3 isn't even being discussed at ACC/A3. Personally, I see the replacement for the E-3 going one of two ways, based solely on initial cost estimates: something based loosely on the E-737 (Wedgetail and its family), but with the mission crew on the ground; or a completely unmanned aircraft of similar size. As far as the mission crew goes, if there's modern technology on the aircraft there's no reason to to put them in the airplane (right now, roughly 5 members of an AWACS crew are equipment techs solely there to power up/troubleshoot/tear apart/restart/power down the hardware). The controllers and surveillance team don't need to be on board, realistically. Put them in a trailer, save a poo poo-ton of space, now pick an airframe based on range/loiter capability and the ability to generate enough power to run whatever radar you throw on it. I don't think we could get by with buying a Wedgetail copy...it's radar and other systems are capable, but frankly to do what we use the E-3 for, we'd need 3-4x as many 737s as 707s, and that just ain't gonna happen. Solution seems obvious to me 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
^They used to include AWACS in the long list of things the F-22 was going to be able to do. Laughable, but yeah it has a good radar for a fighter.Psion posted:That's why I wondered when you said the main problem with the E-3 isn't the airframe. Aren't they also all old and beat to poo poo? I know most of an E-3 flight track consists of turning in a circle for hours on end but I'd still think the airframes would fatigue eventually I assume so. But it seems like 9/10 mission cancellations/early RTBs were due to engine problems. Although there WAS a rash of landing gear problems in 2011-12 (this doesn't include the Nellis crash because that was the copilot's fault).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Solution seems obvious to me This is fantastic. Dead Reckoning posted:
but where else will we get our Liveleak videos of a simultaneous drop of 8 JDAMs? Think of the American people watching that video
Psion fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Psion posted:Space wizardry. Or cruel torture of enlisted maintenance guys. Probably that second one. One theory I've read is that older aircraft like the b52 and 707 based awacs have larger safety margins due to being designed before computational structural optimization was a thing. Makes sense to me. Modern aircraft try to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the structural weight, while older designs are comparatively over-designed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
just got back from the evergreen air museum in hillsboro with my grandpa jesus christ I forgot how loving huge the spruce goose is. I saw it when I was a kid, but man, that thing is gigantic their space museum was pretty cool too. helped fuel my KSP sperginess, plus the sr71 was in there and that thing owns
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
right arm posted:just got back from the evergreen air museum in hillsboro with my grandpa It's in McMinnville(?).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:It's in McMinnville(?). umm close enough?? (I'm running on like zero sleep)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Badassedness is a metric
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
right arm posted:umm close enough?? 30 miles, NBD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
all oregon cities look the same to me (because they're full of white people)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
right arm posted:just got back from the evergreen air museum in hillsboro with my grandpa Did you take gramps to the water park? Fun fact: that 747 on top is the one MCLAAAAAAANE blew up at the end of Die Hard 2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
haha no, I did ask him if he wanted to go, but he said he was concerned that he'd get lodged sideways in the tube and they'd have to cut him out of there that owns wrt to the 747. didn't even notice it was actually part of the park til I got on the other side of it and saw the slide tubes coming out of it a friend of mine works sales for evergreen (free passes for the museum woo) and she got to fly in one of their customers' planes today. super jealous
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The controllers and surveillance team don't need to be on board, realistically. Put them in a trailer, save a poo poo-ton of space, now pick an airframe based on range/loiter capability and the ability to generate enough power to run whatever radar you throw on it. 787. lolololololololright
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
I know this was a few pages back, but speaking of the Army/Air Force split: Robert Farley has a book coming out called "Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force"... America Does Not Need the Air Force accompanying ID post
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:787. Just compare the MTF for lithium-ion batteries exploding to TF33 engine failures, it might still be more reliable 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:I know the Navy took over the Looking Glass role (which the Air Force had for nearly 4 decades) with the move to E-6Bs, along with the TACAMO role they already serve (Air Force still runs Nightwatch), which may have been budget consolidation, but it could have been issue with the Air Force too. I just never hear of the Navy having issues with the SSBNs like I do with the Air Force and the Missiles and Bombers crews. I've heard that the air force units in charge of the land based ICBMs keep failing readiness tests. Is this what you were referring to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I've heard that the air force units in charge of the land based ICBMs keep failing readiness tests. Is this what you were referring to? Yep
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Yep also whoops we left live warheads on these cruise missiles on this transport flight
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:also whoops we left live warheads on these cruise missiles on this transport flight Yep along with shipping the nuke fuses to Taiwan. I forgot if that was AF or someone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 16:34
|
|