|
Pimpmust posted:Do they simulate stuff like ECM, faulty missiles and the like that may allow planes to get through even if someone "fires" 1-2 missiles at them? They aren't using GAR-1s anymore, but a lock = a kill isn't necessarily true still. I could have sworn I typed a reply to this earlier. Weird. Anyway, nearly every sim thing nowadays is a complex monte carlo setup where you have a ton of input variables and then a probability gets spit out. It isn't perfect but it also isn't really possible to model physics and whatnot for thousands of rounds and players all simultaneously. In general it works pretty well and gives useful results but it can also lead to some amusing though improbable outcomes, especially when you're using prototype or conceptual systems. It can also be badly skewed if your input variables are wrong: at one experiment (UNNAMED CONTRACTOR) submitted ridiculously advantageous variables for a laser-based system and it wound up being something like a death star laser mounted on a Humvee that just rolled around zapping everything. The (UNNAMED CONTRACTOR) guys were all high-fiving and poo poo because they were so impressed with their fabricated thing but ultimately it wound up practically invalidating the experiment and costing the government quite a bit of money. They were not invited back the following year.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
In one sim, there was a looping sim track of a low/slow target being used to send SOF behind friendly lines. Some dumb bug in the system wouldn't allow friendly sim aircraft to fly low enough to VID it. Rather than acknowledging that it was a dumb sim-ism and having the white cell just tell us what the thing was, we had to watch as drat near an entire battalion's worth of SOF guys were flown in on a neverending stream of aircraft that we could have obliterated without any issue. The landing point where they were setting down the SOF was so close, in-sim, to our location that in real life we could have just had soldiers outside the control station VID the damned thing. Inflexible rules are awesome 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
This video is making the rounds even though it's a-year-old. I apologize in advance if it is already been posted. I looked before I posted that it may have been a few pages back and I forgot. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IWJeqrvoF6M
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:This video is making the rounds even though it's a-year-old. I apologize in advance if it is already been posted. I looked before I posted that it may have been a few pages back and I forgot. I joined pretty late in the thread, and yes, it has been posted before. Still pretty funny though. What's more funny is people who keep insisting that USA has lost air superiority to planes that don't exist yet, and more hilariously that Su-27 is the height of development in the current 4/4+ generation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:I joined pretty late in the thread, and yes, it has been posted before. Still pretty funny though. Air superiority arguments were so awesome when it was a thing. But I feel sometimes it has lost its luster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Quick question since Bush Sr unilaterally withdrew all non strategic nuclear weaponry how hard is it for an aircraft carrier and it's to be nuke certified, say to store nukes for dual use planes or is it just accepted that if a B61 is getting used it's coming from an airfield? Of course if you can't answer cause OPSEC don't worry. Just wondering how naval non strategic nuclear warfare could still work or if it's essentially been written off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
bewbies posted:at one experiment (UNNAMED CONTRACTOR) submitted ridiculously advantageous variables for a laser-based system and it wound up being something like a death star laser mounted on a Humvee that just rolled around zapping everything. The (UNNAMED CONTRACTOR) guys were all high-fiving and poo poo because they were so impressed with their fabricated thing but ultimately it wound up practically invalidating the experiment and costing the government quite a bit of money. They were not invited back the following year. (UNNAMED CONTRACTOR) = GroverCorp
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It depends. I've never seen an exercise that didn't at least take into account kinematics, so taking a really dirty shot at questionable ranges, you'd see fighters fire a pair of AMRAAMs, and when jets maneuver such that they would kinematically defeat the missile, they get to live. Similarly, don't fire one piddly aim-9 into a 4 engine plane and call it a day. I don't think I've ever seen an exercise where they simulate faulty munitions outside of large-scale tabletop type missions, where you're talking on a scale where a 3% failure rate or something actually matters. You'll see a lot of live ECM, though that's typically targeted at the systems actually out there rather than at notional missiles. This matches what I've seen except for rounding pK up, but that makes sense for missions that don't have telemetry like NACTS or ACMI pods recording everything. Without the pods, somebody actually flying is usually assessing the shots real time, so simplified rules are used. But with the data in a debrief, it gets more involved. OhYeah posted:
People who say that are retarded, but the real problem is 20-30 years from now, when the next generation fighter MIGHT be as far along as the YF-22 circa 1991. The reason curtailing F-22 purchases so severely was such a bad idea is because the US is now locked in place with what we've got for at least 35 years...designing the next one will take at least that long. In the meantime, China is cranking out new designs every couple of years. None of them are likely to be very good yet, but they're not stupid and they will learn. And in 25 years they're probably going to be flooding the market with cheap fighters that will outclass the F-15Cs that the USAF will still be flying. Then there's Russia...the T-50 isn't their end goal. My opinion is that it's a Flanker based tech demonstrator so they can gain some experience in several areas to boost the real Flanker replacement which will probably fly in a decade or so. That will be a legit threat, but will cost too much to proliferate too widely. Unlike China dumping the 21st century's MiG-21 everywhere. These programs aren't intended to work for 10 years like they were in the 1950s and 60s. The nature of the business has shifted to where they can reasonably be expected to serve for half a loving century, and the refusal to see that by the people responsible for putting pen to paper to buy and use them is criminally negligent. gently caress you, Bob Gates. Godholio fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Did lasercorp hire General Riper as a consultant?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:These programs aren't intended to work for 10 years like they were in the 1950s and 60s. The nature of the business has shifted to where they can reasonably be expected to serve for half a loving century, and the refusal to see that by the people responsible for putting pen to paper to buy and use them is criminally negligent. gently caress you, Bob Gates. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Bob McNamara is the one to blame for setting us on this utterly inflexible path. Gates, and now Hagel, are dealing with an almost impossible task: making massive, long term decisions knowing that technology (and necessarily, strategy) will change significantly during the life of the program. I mean, to use the F-22 example you pointed out earlier: the South China Sea Smackdown would involve a joint effort by the Air Force and the Navy. So the Air Force knows it has F-22 to offer to that situation, but at this juncture the Navy has no idea. The deadline for coming up with a requirement for DDG 51 flight III (DDG 123) isn't even until next year, same with Small Surface Combatant. Even at that, we don't know what that'll look like. DDG 123 frankly may not resemble DDG 51 in function - so where does that leave F-22? I don't know, and I don't think anyone does. I think Gates opted for some flexibility on the F-22 purchase. For both the Navy and the Air Force, acquisition is strategy, and sinking money into a "full" fleet of F-22s would have solidified our strategy for, like you said, half a century. As for F-35, I have no loving idea. gfanikf posted:Quick question since Bush Sr unilaterally withdrew all non strategic nuclear weaponry how hard is it for an aircraft carrier and it's to be nuke certified, say to store nukes for dual use planes or is it just accepted that if a B61 is getting used it's coming from an airfield? Of course if you can't answer cause OPSEC don't worry. Just wondering how naval non strategic nuclear warfare could still work or if it's essentially been written off. This kind of information is going to be very classified for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Do they simulate stuff like ECM, faulty missiles and the like that may allow planes to get through even if someone "fires" 1-2 missiles at them? They aren't using GAR-1s anymore, but a lock = a kill isn't necessarily true still. I would assume that all depends on the rules of engagement for each particular scenario. Real life training missions are tightly scripted to allow pilots to practice and evaluate specific tactics against likely adversaries. Usually the "enemy" is being flown by instructor pilots flying pre-briefed tactics or a particular setup to get the most training value. So if the scenario you're practicing involves using ECM or ECCM, then yes they will be employed or simulated. If you're practicing a 2 vs. many engagement, then each opponent plane may have multiple "lives" to make up for not being able to send up 200 fighters. A military force-on-force exercise is not the same as going online in your flight simulator hoping to rack the highest score. Sending a bunch of jets into the sky with that goal is just an expensive waste of fuel. It won't teach you anything worthwhile because the simple fact that you're not over North Korea and if you die like a bitch you won't be locked in a concrete cell and have your toe nails pulled out, alters the tactics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Surely it's not more short-legged than their Hornets are now? Obviously it has nothing on the varks they used to have, but still. It is significantly more short legged than the super bug and this has been pointed out multiple times. Yet our government continues to bull headedly plunge more money into this turkey whilst ripping it out of our generally good welfare and medical services. Australia should ditch the F-35 and go for the Rafale   
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Execu-speak posted:It is significantly more short legged than the super bug and this has been pointed out multiple times. This guy here either is intentionally lying or is wildly misinformed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:This guy here either is intentionally lying or is wildly misinformed. Everything I can find on the internet puts the F-35 range at around 2200km and the Super Hornet at around 3300km?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Execu-speak posted:Everything I can find on the internet puts the F-35 range at around 2200km and the Super Hornet at around 3300km?! lol, no one gives a poo poo about ferry range during combat, except for the minor detail of sending airplanes to theater. What you want is combat radius, even though that's still a dubious number without much regard for payload, flight profile, etc. That said, a superbug can take off with external tanks without significantly upping its RCS, whereas an F-35 gives up a major strength by carrying external stores.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Execu-speak posted:Everything I can find on the internet puts the F-35 range at around 2200km and the Super Hornet at around 3300km?! That's for a ferry configured Super Bug carrying nothing but a couple of bags. Run the numbers again with a useful air to ground combat payload, the numbers are closer to 700-800 km radius (so 1400-1600 km total "range"). Compare that to the F-35 that has, on internal fuel, a combat radius somewhere around 1,000 km. Obviously the exact numbers depend on the specifics of the combat payload (A2A vs A2G mix of munitions, 500 vs 1,000 vs 2,000 lbs class weapons, etc) as well as the flight profile (hi-lo-hi vs loitering at altitude the whole mission, shoot 'n' scoot stand-off strike vs loitering for CAS, etc) but those numbers are broadly accurate. The Super Bug is mediocre at a lot of things and is great at coming in on time and on budget, but range is most definitely not its strong suit. Canted out pylons are a bitch. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That said, a superbug can take off with external tanks without significantly upping its RCS, whereas an F-35 gives up a major strength by carrying external stores. The F-35A has a lot more internal fuel though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The F-35A has a lot more internal fuel though. Yes, I know. What does that have to do with what I wrote?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
That is a ferry range for the super hornet with nothing but 3x 330 gal external tanks and (roughly) the range for a F-35 with no external stores and a combat load of 2x air to air missiles and 2x 1000lbs bombs running off of its internal fuel. The F-35A's ferry range with 4x 370 gal external tanks is 7000 km. What really matters is radius with a combat load, though. edit: gently caress beaten. Give me time to look things up and sip my scotch and coke!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:
Drat, I figured that might be the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Can the F-35 take off with a full combat load and a useful fuel amount? Can the F-35 take off with a full combat load? Can the F-35 take off?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:the range for a F-35 with no external stores and a combat load of 2x air to air missiles and 2x 1000lbs bombs running off of its internal fuel. When the balloon goes up what good is a plane that only carries 2 missiles and 2 bombs? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That said, a superbug can take off with external tanks without significantly upping its RCS, whereas an F-35 gives up a major strength by carrying external stores. You've worded this like it's an advantage for the Super Hornet, when to me it reads like +1 for the F-35 -- if you want a low RCS, there's nothing the Super Hornet can do, but if it doesn't matter for whatever they're tasked for then you can load either one up with whatever external stores you please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
The Lightning II can also land right there on the battlefield and get refueled by marines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:26
|
|
Wooper posted:The Lightning II can also land right there on the battlefield and get refueled by marines. Also when the laser gets installed you're not gonna need any more a2a munitions.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
I just realized that basically like 40% of the US defense budget has been devoted to keeping the Marines happy to the detriment of every other arm, just so the Marines can prepare for a future war that is basically stdh.txt. All those future scifi movies where the Marines are the principle arm of action in space warfare kind of make sense now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:When the balloon goes up what good is a plane that only carries 2 missiles and 2 bombs? What good is a plane that can't get anywhere near the enemy with a modern SAM system? A F-35A internal loadout of 8x SDB-IIs are slated for 2021. That is 8x advanced guided glide bombs along with 2x AMRAAM all internal; with a guesstimated combat radius of 1300km+. The SDB-IIs can glide for 45nm+ under ideal conditions. The F-35A's problem isn't in its attack role. Its in its high cost and what happens if it gets into a dogfight. The F-35A, for the record, costs less than a Rafale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Oh, the SDB-IIs are LO too. Which is important when attacking SAM sites that can shoot down the very bombs that are being dropping towards them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
What's the loadout for the both the F-22 and F-35 in Strike Capacity? If I recall the Raptor can't actually carry the B-61, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:What's the loadout for the both the F-22 and F-35 in Strike Capacity? Similar, thanks to SDBs*. F-22 can carry 8xSDB or 2xGBU-32 (1,000 lbs JDAM) + 2xAIM-120 and 2xAIM-9. F-35 can carry 8xSDBs or 2xGBU-31 (2,000 lbs JDAM) + 2xAIM-120. The disparity is because the F-22's main weapons bay was optimized for air to air missiles since it was originally designed to strictly be an A2A platform. When they tried to shoehorn in bombs after the design dimensions were set the biggest dimensions warhead that the bay could hold was the Mk 83 1,000 lbs. The JSF was designed from the ground up to have A2G capability, so its internal bays are big enough to hold 2,000 lbs class warheads. However, the F-22 has its separate AIM-9 side bays, which the F-35 lacks, hence the extra 2xAIM-9s on the Raptor. As far as big-rear end stand-off missiles, neither is carrying those internally but that's kind of the point of being LO**, you don't have to carry big honking cruise missiles to strike targets inside the rings before the IADS is completely taken down. *Using the term "SDB" as a generic one for SDB I and SDB II...the weapons themselves are pretty different in capability (SDB II can hit moving targets, SDB I can't). SDB I is integrated on the Raptor and will be integrated across the board on the F-35 soon after it hits IOC. The program of record for SDB II is currently threshold for F-15E, F-35B, and F-35C while objective is the rest of the air to ground capable MDS's, to include the Raptor and F-35A. So the II will be integrated earlier on the -B and -C before the -A and Raptor, but that's a programmatic/monetary/spiral development decision, not a system limitations based one. **Setting aside the fact that one is export quality and the other isn't. I'm far from a F-35 fan and I think the program has been a general disaster, but at this point in development Baloogan is right, it's going to make a pretty good strike fighter. The issue (setting aside the fiscal/budget discussion regarding what we've mortgaged to get to this point) is the fact that the F-35 is largely the future of US combat aviation thanks to the boneheaded decision to cap the F-22 buy, and a good strike fighter doesn't necessarily make a good air superiority fighter. e: Well setting aside the discussion that the Raptor isn't nuke certified, no, it wouldn't be able to physically hold a B61. The weapon is too long. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:What's the loadout for the both the F-22 and F-35 in Strike Capacity? If I recall the Raptor can't actually carry the B-61, right? All loadouts are internal only. F-22 2x GBU-32 (1000lb bomb) 2x AIM-9X 2x AIM-120D This was most likely the loadout during the recent F-22 strikes over Syria. The F-22 can carry 8x SDB-I, but it actually has performed strike missions so might as well talk about the weapons it most likely used. F-35A (2017) 2x GBU-31 (2000lb bomb) 2x AIM-120D F-35A (2019) 8x GBU-39 SDB-I 2x AIM-120D F-35A (2021) 8x GBU-53 SDB-II 2x AIM-120D
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
I've got a website with a bunch of stuff you guys might care about. F-35A (2017) F-35A (2019) F-35A (2021) F-22A USAF Order of Battle (Shows the current F-35A training/evaluation squadrons) Edit: Aussie F/A-18F Aussie OOB (Planned, 2017) Baloogan fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
What's the US intentions for future radar guided A2A weapons? Is it just AIM-120 variants for the foreseeable future or is there something else in the works?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:What's the US intentions for future radar guided A2A weapons? Is it just AIM-120 variants for the foreseeable future or is there something else in the works? A large upgrade in capability for the AIM-9X, just in case any of the Chinese/Russian 5th generation fighters pan out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:A large upgrade in capability for the AIM-9X, just in case any of the Chinese/Russian 5th generation fighters pan out. You forgot the Iranian stealth fighter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:All those future scifi movies where the Marines are the principle arm of action in space warfare kind of make sense now. Lets send a bajillion dollar warship to investigate a colony transmitter malfunction with a single understrength platoon that can't even man both of the dropships provided... 
Hunterhr fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:Lets send a bajillion dollar warship to investigate a colony transmitter malfunction with a single understrength platoon that can't even man both of the dropships provided... You can't occupy planets with orbiting ships, smartass. And what else are you gonna call soldiers carried around in ships? I mean besides seasick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:You can't occupy planets with orbiting ships, smartass. And what else are you gonna call soldiers carried around in ships? I mean besides seasick. Mobile Infantry, maybe? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:Don't hate the player, hate the game. Bob McNamara is the one to blame for setting us on this utterly inflexible path. Gates, and now Hagel, are dealing with an almost impossible task: making massive, long term decisions knowing that technology (and necessarily, strategy) will change significantly during the life of the program. I'll reiterate, gently caress Bob Gates. He specifically said the F-22 was slashed because it wasn't a COIN asset. Edit: I agree the Navy is getting hosed over too. The littoral push was a costly one, but at least you guys have a loving laser cannon. Good thing the Marines are getting an LO fighter that has to choose between being LO or doing its primary mission. Godholio fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Building 800+ F-22s would have cemented US doctrine for a half century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 07:35
|
|