|
A Mig 31 doing Mach 3+ escorting a Bear 
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOcGdoaLNO0 God drat Japan rules
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
slidebite posted:A Mig 31 doing Mach 3+ escorting a Bear Well, that's really what the Flankers are for. The MiG is there to tag along until Distance X from the Americans, then climb and accelerate at the AWACS/tanker/whatever fat kid is up. If C2 or the mission lead is doing their job, that fat kid is turning away...a soft kill. If not, the MiG is there to get rid of it one way or the other. In the meantime, the defensive assets are drawn into a cut-off intercept, which isn't the easiest thing in the world at high speed. If the MiG gets past them, it's game over. And realistically, he doesn't have to be at top speed to make a tailchase impossible for the Americans to win. So BAM, he just killed AWACS. Now he probably turns north and tries to get around the chase planes. Oh, poo poo, what about those bombers?!? Bear launches its ALCMs, clean sweep for Russia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Oh god this is making me feel very funny  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on2XpSBqfes Give me more HD airshow videos please. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Well, that's really what the Flankers are for. The MiG is there to tag along until Distance X from the Americans, then climb and accelerate at the AWACS/tanker/whatever fat kid is up. If C2 or the mission lead is doing their job, that fat kid is turning away...a soft kill. If not, the MiG is there to get rid of it one way or the other. In the meantime, the defensive assets are drawn into a cut-off intercept, which isn't the easiest thing in the world at high speed. If the MiG gets past them, it's game over. And realistically, he doesn't have to be at top speed to make a tailchase impossible for the Americans to win. So BAM, he just killed AWACS. Now he probably turns north and tries to get around the chase planes. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
slidebite posted:A Mig 31 doing Mach 3+ escorting a Bear More likely Tu-160 these days, over Alaska at least, we still get the bear-Js over the north sea, but that's different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Oh god, Those poor stupid Americans and their inferior aircraft don't have a chance Its pretty hard if not impossible to defend against high speed aircraft if they don't have to go over a specific point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its pretty hard if not impossible to defend against high speed aircraft if they don't have to go over a specific point. Exercises with proper SAMs and fighters together are pretty fun for dealing with high, fast flyers. It's fun being able to tell the fighters to basically ignore everything at medium to high altitude hauling rear end as long as they keep murdering the low flyers, winding their way toward the SAMs behind terrain. And going back to an older conversation, the idea of a Reaper trying to drag to defend is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:they'll find a way to pin it on AWACS like they did with the Blackhawk shootdown despite a loving VID.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Whoa, hello. Insert [would you like to know more.jpg] here... Just another example of the USAF killing US Army folk. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/os98004.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Whoa, hello. Insert [would you like to know more.jpg] here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident#Wang.27s_court-martial
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its pretty hard if not impossible to defend against high speed aircraft if they don't have to go over a specific point. If only there was some way to see the fighter while it was still far away and then sending, I don't know, a stick of dynamite in its direction when it closer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Ola posted:If only there was some way to see the fighter while it was still far away and then sending, I don't know, a stick of dynamite in its direction when it closer. Mach 3 aircraft at 50k ft vs mach 4 missile from 0ft is not particularly friendly from a kinetic energy standpoint. Now, if the aircraft has to approach the SAM site thats a different story and why mach 3 bombers are a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Mach 3 aircraft at 50k ft vs mach 4 missile from 0ft is not particularly friendly from a kinetic energy standpoint. Now, if the aircraft has to approach the SAM site thats a different story and why mach 3 bombers are a terrible idea. Exactly. Which is why we need mach 6 bombers. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Which planes can launch ordnance at mach? F-22?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Exactly. They're called ICBMs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Mach 3 aircraft at 50k ft vs mach 4 missile from 0ft is not particularly friendly from a kinetic energy standpoint. Now, if the aircraft has to approach the SAM site thats a different story and why mach 3 bombers are a terrible idea. Mach 3 aircraft at 50k ft vs mach 4 missile launched from mach 0.85 aircraft at 50k, with head-on aspect, will work very well. If the bad guys are flying towards the good guys to shoot the good guys, obviously the aspect is favorable for the good guys to shoot back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Ola posted:Mach 3 aircraft at 50k ft vs mach 4 missile launched from mach 0.85 aircraft at 50k, with head-on aspect, will work very well. If the bad guys are flying towards the good guys to shoot the good guys, obviously the aspect is favorable for the good guys to shoot back. The bad guy escorts are flying towards the good guy interceptors to lure them away from the bombers. The fighters don't need to get through, in fact they'd prefer to drag you all the way back to Russia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The bad guy escorts are flying towards the good guy interceptors to lure them away from the bombers. The fighters don't need to get through, in fact they'd prefer to drag you all the way back to Russia. But what if the good guy interceptors are flying towards the bombers still? bombers>----escort>---------------<interceptors Or will the parameters of the scenario suddenly narrow so that the original point can remain? What-ifs would be more fun if they were more related to reality and how randomly and chaotically things usually take place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Then the second element cleans up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Then the second element cleans up. Doh! Rabbit from a hat! An unbeatable tactic it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
boy are those plucky Russian pilots gonna be surprised when they get back to base and find it irradiated
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Ola posted:But what if the good guy interceptors are flying towards the bombers still? These are based on very real scenarios. There are reasons it takes 18 months or so of training to build an ABM, and frankly most of them still suck until they've seen this stuff for "real" at a Red Flag. As mentioned, kinematics against a high fast flyer are a bitch. The defender has a pretty narrow wedge from which to approach to have a decent shot. Experienced controllers still manage to gently caress it up. We had a competition one year that was a lane defense scenario and included some HFF defense. 2 of the 5 crews were shot down by it, including the training squadron's crew, which was made up of very good instructor controllers. Edit: whether the fighters go after the HFF or the bombers depends on a bunch of poo poo. One of them may very well be skipped to prosecute the other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Raptors taken off the shelf and actually used in Syria, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:HFF defense Brain isn't assigning words to this acronym today for some reason... High & Fast Fucks? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Brain isn't assigning words to this acronym today for some reason... High Fast Flyer. e: as opposed to high fast trucks, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:boy are those plucky Russian pilots gonna be surprised when they get back to base and find it irradiated The entire point of the intercepts is to keep anything (on either side) from getting irradiated. If it gets to where you have to counterfire, you've lost. hobbesmaster posted:Its pretty hard if not impossible to defend against high speed aircraft if they don't have to go over a specific point. Insert picture of Canadian Mounty crying over framed illustration of Avro Arrow here
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Brain isn't assigning words to this acronym today for some reason... That one's been used as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The entire point of the intercepts is to keep anything (on either side) from getting irradiated. If it gets to where you have to counterfire, you've lost. Are you implying that we'd be sending up intercepts for ICBMs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me in very simple terms why they're trying so hard with the F-35 if the F-22 is supposedly still pretty much unbeatable?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Because the f-35 was supposed to be cheaper and replace a lot of different aging fighters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Also because we need to export planes so countries will be dependent upon us for parts. Since the F-22 was too good and thus prohibited from export, we have to offer SOMETHING to our
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Also because we need to export planes so countries will be dependent upon us for parts. Since the F-22 was too good and thus prohibited from export, we have to offer SOMETHING to our I still think the decision not to allow limited exports to solid allies like Canada and Australia was a colossal gently caress-up on our part, as not only are those countries never going to attack us, but the additional orders would have helped drive down the price per unit and therefore allowed us to get more of them. Congress is the dumbest animal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
The F-22 would be a super easy sell in Canada these days as it ticks all the boxes without the downsides of the F-35 (especially the single engine bugaboo). Between an F-22 or any of the other options (super hornet, rafale, Typhoon) it'd be an absolute no brainer. Completely a different class of animal. Oh well 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Can someone explain to me in very simple terms why they're trying so hard with the F-35 if the F-22 is supposedly still pretty much unbeatable? Basically, look at the Air Force's fighter community since the 70s. You had air superiority F-15s and multirole F-16s. The F-15 has been one of the most dominating aircraft in history. The only time an F-15 was shot down by another fighter, it was shot down by...his loving wingman popping off a missile right behind him. The F-15 is expensive, huge, and had advanced systems like radar and avionics, powerful engines capable of accelerating in a straight-up climb or maintaining Mach 2+ speeds for extended periods of time as long as there was fuel. It had tremendous range, maneuverability, and basically every measure of performance. It loomed enormous over EVERYTHING that existed when it rolled out. It was specifically designed to counter the new Soviet superfighter, the MiG-25. All we knew was that the thing was made of expensive materials, it was huge, and it was loving fast. Defense planners' nightmares completed the picture and McDonnell-Douglas responded with a fighter that could counter the worst of all horrors...of course the MiG-25 turned out to be very limited and outside a very narrow mission set it was kind of a piece of poo poo. The F-16 was the significantly cheaper, significantly inferior redheaded stepchild. Intended to be a daytime fairweather interceptor with no bells or whistles, the Air Force proved to be smarter than the idiot Fighter Mafia and expanded the F-16's capabilities to the point that it's primary mission is as a strike aircraft. It's almost as fast as the F-15, is highly maneuverable, and can carry a potent air-to-air loadout or a surprisingly large amount of air-to-ground ordnance. The radar is pretty capable, but well behind the F-15. It also doesn't have much in the way of a combat radius due the limited internal fuel stores...it's pretty small, which also equates to a much smaller RCS compared to the F-15. In the air-to-air arena it is clearly inferior, but hey it spends a lot of its time hauling bombs. The F-22 was intended to replace the F-15. And it does this extremely well. As tall as the F-15 towered over it's contemporaries in the 70s and 80s, the F-22 steals the Eagle's lunch money and fucks its girlfriend while making it sit there and watch. Its tactical performance actually does live up to the hype. I'm not sure if I'm the only one here who's worked with them in that regard (from AWACS) but they are sick loving good at what they do. I've controlled them against F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, and T-38s. The problem is that there were about 800 F-15Cs that needed to be replaced. The Air Force built a legitimate case to buy 381 F-22s to do so. This was after several cuts already, and this was the minimum number needed to meet the DOD's stated requirements. The F-35 was the replacement for the F-16 (also the legacy F-18 Hornet, A-10, AV-8 Harrier, and god knows what else). It was going to be the smaller, lighter, cheaper, multirole counterpart to the big, heavy, expensive, air dominance F-22 (they literally renamed air superiority because of how good the F-22 was shaping up to be). It was going to carry a bunch of bombs, some missiles, have amazing passive sensors, be almost as stealthy as the F-22 by piggybacking off the R&D, and have multiple variants to allow for use by the Marines (to replace the Harrier and Hornet) and naval carrier ops (replacing the Hornet and older Super Hornets), as well as meet the needs for a bunch of other countries. Unfortunately, due to about a thousand loving issues, it's a mess. The need to shoehorn STOVL capability into the platform has helped drive costs through the loving roof, the decision to enter production while still in testing is making things worse, a bunch of the sensors still don't work right, etc. Plus the standard growing pains of any advanced aircraft, which is where I place the recent engine fires. Hell, the F-14 testbed crashed on its second loving flight, so it's not like this is the only program to have issues. But these issues are all really loving expensive because, thanks to the brilliant idea to tie this jet's construction to almost every state, no Congressman is willing to really do anything about it because it'll cost his state jobs. Same goes for foreign partners, since a bunch of them have a hand in manufacturing as well. In addition to the political argument to continue pursuing the F-35, there's the military argument: we have put all of our eggs into one loving basket. Rather than pay for 381 F-22s, Secretary Gates cut the order roughly in half. It's worth mentioning here that the first couple dozen Raptors cannot be fully upgraded into combat-ready status. There were physical changes that cannot be implemented. So these jets are locked into test and training roles. Because of that, the Air Force will be replacing the ~750 F-15Cs with 149 F-22s. I'm sure you can see how this becomes a bit concerning. As a result some of the F-15 fleet is currently being upgraded just to keep them reasonably competitive so they can stay in service. With luck they'll stop disintegrating mid-flight. Gates is on record as saying the 187 F-22 buy (a few have crashed, and this includes the non-combat airframes) should be good enough through 2025. The problem with that is that based on the F-15's service life (which by 2025 will be more than 50 years), the F-22 can expect at least 20 years of service beyond 2025. It took 24 years from the beginning of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program until the F-22A entered service. There's no indication the next generation of fighter will be designed any faster...that's completely counter to the trend. And we haven't started it yet. So we're already 24+ years away from a replacement which I guess Gates assumes will be purchased in sufficient numbers. Oh, instead of producing a military capable of meeting the stated DOD requirements, he just cut the requirements to make the budget fit better and said that the F-35 will be affordable enough to fill the gap in airpower. But now an F-35 costs somewhere around 80% of an F-22, and now THESE purchases have been getting cut, so this is really working out well. The Navy doesn't really want to rely on the Super Hornet because it's basically 1980s tech. The Marines are flying the Harriers until they turn into dust. They should've been replaced 15 years ago, honestly. And a new F-16 is no longer the cheap alternative it once was. So, the F-35...because there's no other choice available. Godholio fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Now you understand, in some small way, what the Avro Arrow means to Canadian warplane nerds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Now you understand, in some small way, what the Avro Arrow means to Canadian warplane nerds.  Arrow
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
The awful CBC docudrama on the Arrow starring Dan Aykroyd beat any Avro-stalgia out of this here canuck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I still think the decision not to allow limited exports to solid allies like Canada and Australia was a colossal gently caress-up on our part, as not only are those countries never going to attack us, but the additional orders would have helped drive down the price per unit and therefore allowed us to get more of them. That's not the way the funding actually works. Yes, people trot out 'but we bought fewer, so instead of $x per airframe it's $x+y'. But that extra distributed cost is sunken cost R&D and design work and was paid in full regardless; the real cost of the planes themselves is a good bit less than $x. There are arguments about how other countries buying Raptors could help, but it would not have made the 188th airframe cheaper than the 187th. Even the argument that more airframes spreads the cost of spare parts, crew training etc. around falls flat because different countries don't and can't share 100%. Also, as stated, it was Gates's idea to cut the buy, not Congress's. You can argue that Congress should have overridden it instead of just going along, or perhaps more effectively that Congress shouldn't have mucked up the finances so badly to make it necessary, but that's how it went.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
priznat posted:The awful CBC docudrama on the Arrow starring Dan Aykroyd beat any Avro-stalgia out of this here canuck. "THIS PLANE WILL BE ABLE TO CURE CANCER AND AIDS EVEN THOUGH THE SECOND ONE DOESN'T EXIST YET!" Also, while we're at it, let's trivialize all the fine Canadian wimmin engineers who worked on the fukkin' thing by conglomeratin' all of 'em inta one attractive middle-aged looker, eh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 11:35
|
|
