|
Well if you're doing that, why not upgrade some of the other stuff too? It all goes through the same incredibly long cert process doesn't it? Might as well upgrade everything you can. F-22 Super Raptor: Totally Not An Entirely New Airframe, We Promise.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Couldn't you do something like the Super Hornet, where you make an F-22 "B" that's mostly new? I'm sure there's a whole list of minor (and maybe not so minor) changes the engineers would like to go back and make with the help of hindsight. You would, but then you have to re-certify it which takes forever. Still probably cheaper than designing from scratch, but there will inevitably problems introduced. Especially in the software. Software is a bitch like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:47
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
OhYeah posted:Does anyone else here get sexually excited about the thought of a SR-71 based fighter or bomber?  
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Digital computers _surely_ must mean there's a possibility of doing this somehow less painfully. I don't expect poo poo like /usr/lib/aim9x.so.1 or /etc/oxygensupply.conf to be in the exact same place or of the same format as 15 years ago, but with a bit of tinkering at least the code should be portable to newer silicon? poo poo like that is done all the time. It's not like swapping a motherboard and CPU in a desktop. You have to test these things under obscene conditions and integrate them with all the systems they'll have to work with flawlessly for the next few decades. Radar, engine and flight controls, cockpit management, environmental, RWR, datalinks, every possible weapon, and the dozens of other systems. There are no generic drivers to make this poo poo work. Is it all possible? Of course! The E-3 is still using the same processor as the test bed in 1971 (which is still flying and actually my favorite in the fleet), but the Air Force modernized part of the computer in the late 90s by replacing the reel-to-reel memory with a hard drive that emulates one. But it takes a long loving time to test and integrate, and that's far more important than the financial cost. Let's think about this for a second: what is the scenario where the US, in the current political/economic climate, decides it's worth hundreds of millions of dollars to restart the F-22 production line? loving war. We're not going to build them unless we expect to actually use them. As mentioned, training a green pilot takes a couple of years. I don't know the specifics but the F-15 to F-22 difference training to swap a pilot into the new plane is probably only a couple of months by the book...in a pinch I'm confident it could be done in less than one, but then you're stripping pilots from the other airframes. And then there's the actual aircraft production. It would take months to get the tooling set up even if most of it was actually mothballed. The subcontractors have to set up their own production lines and being supplying the assembly plants with parts before anything gets going. During the 15 years of F-22 production, they peaked at about two per month. On a war footing that could certainly improve, but realistically? You're not getting more than a handful every month at best. And you're already a year or more into the fight. Saving the tooling was a PR move and little more. Godholio fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:There is just no loving way that's true. Hauldren Collider posted:That's all true for any aircraft. We're talking the costs to restart the raptor run. If we need more planes, and the choice is a new airframe or more raptors, do you seriously think the raptor would be more expensive than a clean sheet design? It is. Re-starting a production line is going to take (well I hope anyway) someone demanding that the logistics are figured out, which means working out a cost that simply isn't just the price of a Raptor off the line. Opening the line for 50-100 more Raptors will be much more expensive (like cosmically so because manufacturing a limited run is more costly than manufacturing a lot). Hopefully some smart guy is gonna ask, "Why would we open up the line for a Raptor that's costing us 400 million or whatever versus investing that cash into a new program being built with new, modern tech?" So the Raptor at its flyaway cost today is pretty good. At a much higher flyaway cost it doesn't seem so appealing. In fact, it's a waste of money. bloops fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Denzine posted:F-22 Super Raptor: Totally Not An Entirely New Airframe, We Promise. We should have stuck with "Rapier". F-22E Super Rapier: Now with more rapey.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:We're not going to build them unless we expect to actually use them. As mentioned, training a green pilot takes a couple of years. I don't know the specifics but the F-15 to F-22 difference training to swap a pilot into the new plane is probably only a couple of months by the book...in a pinch I'm confident it could be done in less than one, but then you're stripping pilots from the other airframes. And then there's the actual aircraft production. It would take months to get the tooling set up even if most of it was actually mothballed. The subcontractors have to set up their own production lines and being supplying the assembly plants with parts before anything gets going. During the 15 years of F-22 production, they peaked at about two per month. On a war footing that could certainly improve, but realistically? You're not getting more than a handful every month at best. And you're already a year or more into the fight. Which raises the question of what kind of fight are we in when stealth air dominance fighters are needed a year into the goddamn thing and it's going so poorly that the USAF is running out of Raptors. Per Wiki, the flyaway cost of an F-22 in FY 2009 was $150 million. I'll be generous and say a limited run of 50 is $225 million. $11.2 billion right there for 50 new jets. Yea, it's cheap. bloops fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Realistically, in almost any conflict with an air-to-air aspect, we're going to be overstressing the aircraft (and crews, and maintainers) simply because there aren't enough to employ properly. Depot mx is going to be pushed back, bandaid fixes on the flightline are going to be used instead of proper procedures. They're going to get hammered on flight hours. That's going to take its toll quickly. 380 Raptors would've been a goddamned bargain compared to what we'll pay if they ever prove to be actually needed on the front line. Edit: VVV That's very true. It'll probably actually be used for that. Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Saving the tooling was a PR move and little more. It'll be useful if they ever need to SLEP them, or re-wing them, or any other major structural replacement/modification program. Outside of that, I agree with you; New-build F-22s ain't gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
So I hear you guys like bunkers. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30160201
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:So I hear you guys like bunkers. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30160201 quote:Hoxha's regime built up to 700,000 bunkers before he died in 1985.  Hoxha didn't mess around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:
It's pretty interesting, they are tiny little mushroom type things just scattered everywhere. http://www.wired.com/2013/03/david-galjaard-albanian-bunkers/
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
That laughable hoxa guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
This dude was responsible for a lot of nukes and also apparently had a very bad gambling problem... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fired-nuke-commander-now-linked-counterfeit-poker-chips/
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:The Rafale is a Super Hornet equivalent that is literally more expensive per unit than the F-35A managed to be. Isn't stealthy, isn't supermaneuverable, can't supercruise with an air to ground loadout. 100% external stores, which removes any pretension of being LO. Its first flight was in the 80s. Funny, they build a carrier for theirs. We turn ours into practice drones?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Saving the tooling was a PR move and little more. Like MrYenko said it was explicitly done to make the inevitable SLEP easier. We're going to be flying Raptors into the next century, they're going to get SLEP'd at least once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
priznat posted:Still hoping that there could be some deal swung to grab one of the Mistrals for Canada.. There's no way the RCN could support operating a carrier of any stripe. We built that capability during WW2 on the sly, then lost it thirty years later when we paid off Bonnie at the peak of her operational usefulness and right after a fairly major refit. We simply do not have the skill set to support naval aviation anymore, nor do we have the political will to support the expense required to bring it back... particularly when you look at how brutally underfunded our navy's been for the past decade and a half.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
But think of all the great fires we could hear about!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Saving the tooling was a PR move and little more. They could also crank up production if the political environment changes IE war with a technologically advanced country with a large air force seems likely. (Or if an ally 20 years down the road wanted them to for reasons.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
If they ever upgrade the Raptor, I hope they go Command & Conquer: Generals with it and call it the King Raptor. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
General Wiggles posted:If they ever upgrade the Raptor, I hope they go Command & Conquer: Generals with it and call it the King Raptor. If it's a big enough upgrade to warrant a name change, I'm hoping for F-22B Harpy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Lately I've been reading Tom Clancy: FIGHTER WING which is an In-depth look through the tactics, planes, and ordinance of the USAF, from the gulf-war era (and a little on the history of earlier conflicts.) No idea how reputable Tom Clancy is in the non-fiction department, but I'm finding it really interesting. It goes into fairly specific detail, even just on jet engine development of the last 50 years. Would recommend. (Non-fiction somehow doesn't ensure Clancy can't inject rapey undertones though)...
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Okay, I have a question about how fires play into any potential conflict. I'm going off this post in the Idiots thread:Wild T posted:
It seems like any real fight in a forest/grassland from early Summer to late Fall would cause at least one major fire, and probably a bunch. How would that affect troop movement, are there forestry trained people who look at a map and say 'this fire is probably going to move over here in the next X hours', etc? E: Not sure if that question belongs in this thread, but I guess it could apply in a theoretical Western Europe fight that hadn't gone nuclear yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:If it's a big enough upgrade to warrant a name change, I'm hoping for F-22B Harpy. F-22A Raptor --> F-22B Velociraptor. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:F-22A Raptor --> F-22B Velociraptor. F-22C Carrier edition with internal payload of a minisub full of bad dudes: Utahraptor. If Jurassic Park had made Velociraptors the right size, it would have made for a great comedy movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
E:mm
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:F-22A Raptor --> F-22B Velociraptor. YES
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Okay, I have a question about how fires play into any potential conflict. I'm going off this post in the Idiots thread: One of the Peninsular Campaign battles featured a grass fire caused by musketry that burned hundreds of wounded from both sides to death (Talavera, maybe), and the Battle of the Wilderness during the American Civil War did as well. It's definitely a thing that's happened in the past, but I don't know how armies deal with it. I suspect that meteorological technicians would play a role; they know which way the wind is blowing and so on. I do know, however, that in the RCN every sailor is now also a firefighter as a result of what happened in HMCS KOOTENAY in 1969.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
From irc:quote:wkarma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI4Qiccct40
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Fearless posted:I do know, however, that in the RCN every sailor is now also a firefighter as a result of what happened in HMCS KOOTENAY in 1969. You'd think everyone would have learned that lesson after WWII.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 00:55
|
|
Alaan posted:You'd think everyone would have learned that lesson after WWII. My understanding is that the US Navy has been absolutely psychotic about damage control since about '42 or so. Edit: anecdotal evidence from drinking in navy bars two decades ago may or may not be accurate Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:My understanding is that the US Navy has been absolutely psychotic about damage control since about '42 or so. if not then, certainly since 1967.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Fearless posted:There's no way the RCN could support operating a carrier of any stripe. We built that capability during WW2 on the sly, then lost it thirty years later when we paid off Bonnie at the peak of her operational usefulness and right after a fairly major refit. We simply do not have the skill set to support naval aviation anymore, nor do we have the political will to support the expense required to bring it back... particularly when you look at how brutally underfunded our navy's been for the past decade and a half. Well, I don't think the intent was to become a fully fledged helicopter carrier, rather to use it as a floating ops centre with the capability of having a hospital, landing craft bay, troop berthing and vehicle transport. That it can land a bunch of helicopters simultaneously is a bit of a fringe benefit although wouldn't be the main focus of it. It's ice hardened too (unlike the frigates) so it would be useful up north a lot longer out of the year. I don't think it requires a huge crew to operate either. It would require training and manpower beyond the current capabilities but that just requires a further investment in defense spending (  ). Of course it'll never happen because we will have to pour shitloads of cash into domestic shipyards that lost their capability to build major projects like the naval ships ages ago so it will be a bit of a fuckaround until they get their poo poo together, all the while money burning like crazy. Frankly that plan scares me even more than the F-35 purchase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:My understanding is that the US Navy has been absolutely psychotic about damage control since about '42 or so. You go on one of those things and it feels like every third space is a damage control locker. Given the myriad of the threats to ships, it's pretty justified. I imagine our frigates that got hit in the Persian Gulf were pretty thankful for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:You go on one of those things and it feels like every third space is a damage control locker. Given the myriad of the threats to ships, it's pretty justified. I imagine our frigates that got hit in the Persian Gulf were pretty thankful for it. Ships fight better when they're not on fire or under water, or both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Ships fight better when they're not on fire or under water, or both. Except fireships, or submarines, or both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Vindolanda posted:Except fireships, or submarines, or both. Valiant submariners shoveling uranium into the nuclear firebox, as is my understanding
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
shiptalk https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=837808462937458
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:My understanding is that the US Navy has been absolutely psychotic about damage control since about '42 or so. The Forrestal fire in 67 that was previously cited was made worse than it needed to be due to a lack of proper training in firefighting and heavy casualties among the designated damage control teams.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
Yeah, that'll ruin someone's day. It seems a bit far above the waterline, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:53
|
|