|
It's a great plan until the enemy shows up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:55 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:Congrats now you have a super great defensive standoff interceptor that's poo poo for everything else. If you could make it cheaper than an F22 or an F35 and free up strike craft to purely be strike craft it would be a good thing though right? Smiling Jack posted:It's a great plan until the enemy shows up. So in this scenario the enemy would have to slip within your engagement range undetected by your own radar or AWACS right? In that case would being a supremely good dogfighter still matter? Would having a high angle off boresight capability negate that somewhat? Or, just having a 4 plane formation spread several miles apart to cover each other? I get what you're saying I'm just curious as to the thinking here.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
The issue with missiles isn't a technical one, it's an operational one. In all but the most permissive rules of engagement (ie all-out hot war), targets have to be identified and confirmed hostile before you can open fire, not just based on radar signature. For those, you need a plane that can operate in short to medium range, and that means maneuverability and/or stealth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
That Works posted:If you could make it cheaper than an F22 or an F35 and free up strike craft to purely be strike craft it would be a good thing though right? You said "low RCS" so no, probably not. You're pitching the idea of a flying SAM site, and for a whole host of reasons it works better on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:35
|
|
Fucknag posted:The issue with missiles isn't a technical one, it's an operational one. In all but the most permissive rules of engagement (ie all-out hot war), targets have to be identified and confirmed hostile before you can open fire, not just based on radar signature. For those, you need a plane that can operate in short to medium range, and that means maneuverability and/or stealth. Gotcha. Thanks guys.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Weren't the Brits making operational use of AEW planes with a radar designed during WWII in the 70s or 80s? I'm not remembering that great this morning but project CADILLAC is probably the best weapon system to almost see service in WWII, and I swear I remember that radar ending up in RAF service way later than any sophisticated electronic system should have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
That Works posted:Bit of an effortpost on something I've been thinking about a bit after reading this thread. We're kind of going in this direction but with some major differences. Integrated fire control is the basis for this concept, which basically means that we're seeking a fire control construct that is agnostic to the shooter and sensor. In other words, one platform detects a target, another fires the interceptor, and a third platform (or the detecting platform) guides the interceptor to terminal. As an example, the US might employ F-35s as forward-based sensors, F-22s as deep sensors and guidance platforms, and then 4G fighters as missile trucks further behind. Ground based sensors (Patriot/Sentinel or their successors, the 3DELRR, SPY-1, etc) are also contributors. The extremely long-legged ground launched interceptors (Patriot MSE and SM-6) can augment AAMs, etc. Today and in the past the big hindrance to long range interception like this has been identifying the target, but these fantastic new radars and other ISR platforms are going a long way to solving this issue and finally allowing positive ID and then engagements without visual contact. The problem with your idea is that all of this stuff has to be survivable. IE, in the scenario I described above, the 5G fighters are going to be operating at the edge of highly contested airspace. They have to in order to get their sensors deep enough to be of any use. 4G fighters will be further behind; despite whatever countermeasures they might have they're going to be pretty vulnerable. Ground based sensors are huge emitters and can't move well, plus they're now contested by extremely effective threat systems. Point being, all of this stuff, even when hardened/low observable/maneuverable, is still pretty vulnerable. Having a big fat plane with a giant emitter operating near hostile systems would...not fare well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Weren't the Brits making operational use of AEW planes with a radar designed during WWII in the 70s or 80s? Shackletons with APS-20s (same radar as TBM-3W) were retired from RAF service in 1991.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You said "low RCS" so no, probably not. I prefer to think of it as an F-52 thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
That Works posted:
Building a plane that does nothing but BVR isn't such a great idea when most times the ROE prohibit BVR engagement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
That Works posted:Bit of an effortpost on something I've been thinking about a bit after reading this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer The idea has been proposed before, but as someone else said, you end up with a sitting duck after all of the missiles have been expended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:Shackletons with APS-20s (same radar as TBM-3W) were retired from RAF service in 1991. God dammit Britain. Incidentally, I kinda think I or someone else should effortpost about Cadillac, because what they did to make stuff work was super cool and it's not even on the scope for most discussions of late WWII futuretech.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
How effective are BVR missiles when they're not engaging civilian airliners anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:God dammit Britain. Incidentally, I kinda think I or someone else should effortpost about Cadillac, because what they did to make stuff work was super cool and it's not even on the scope for most discussions of late WWII futuretech. If you like stuff like that you might want to poke around and see if you can find any information on telephone infrastructure and the development/growth of the internet. I have only the vaguest understanding of this based mostly on a conversation with a network engineer in a bar once, but apparently huge chunks of the physical infrastructure of the internet 10 years ago was just a giant hairball of 50s-70s era telephony tech that was kludged together in the most brain-shattering ways possible, and which itself was the result of a big wave of upgrades from 1890s-1940s era poo poo that took place at the high water mark of the Bell years. I just remember that it left me utterly amazed that we had a functional telephone network at all, much less the internet as it stood ca. 2005.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
That Works posted:Bit of an effortpost on something I've been thinking about a bit after reading this thread. Is there a compelling reason to make this an aircraft, rather than say, a ship or a truck? At ground level your line of sight is shorter, but BVR engagement implies some sort of coordinated fire control anyway. Logistically I would think it would be a lot easier to post a missile cruiser a few dozen km away from your carriers and have it provide the volume of missiles you want for some sort of mass engagement. Unless all that altitude buys you a large amount of range, but I doubt it. What I'm saying is I really want to see a cruiser launch a volley of (non-nuclear) Sprint missiles at something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:40
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
At sea that is basically the whole point of AEGIS. The whole fleet shares it's radar information and the AEGIS cruisers/anything with the launchers starts vomiting out anti-air missiles when you have targets. I'm sure in an OH GOD THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING situation it would be impressive seeing the fleet empty its magazines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
The F-35 has problems with its fuel. Specifically, it can't run fuel that has been sitting in fuel trucks on the tarmac in the sun.  quote:The F-35 program continues to work through a litany of problems, but this one is almost laughable. According to the USAF, the troubled fighter cannot use gas from standard green colored USAF fuel trucks if it has been sitting in the sun. Considering that these jets will most likely find themselves operating in the desert or in somewhere in the scorching Pacific, this is a big problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The F-35 has problems with its fuel. Like f 35's will be anywhere near a battle zone, color of the fuel tanks hardly matters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
simplefish posted:The MRA4 was not nearly as bad though I'll agree it was no oil painting I think he's talking about the avionics integration bit. deck posted:How effective are BVR missiles when they're not engaging civilian airliners anyway? No one who knows is going to talk about Pk specifics...that said good rule of thumb to use is not as effective as advertised, more effective than Vietnam era Sparrows. quote:Clearly it is not tactical in any way to be driving a giant white potential fuel-bomb around a battle zone.  "tactical" fuel trucks. Yes, clearly it is the now white vs previously green fuel trucks that will give an airbase away, not the massive amount of hangars, screaming jet engines, and other infrastructure. Also at KAF (i.e., the base with the most rocket attacks in Afghanistan as far as large airbases go) the fuel trucks are contract and are painted a combination of yellow and white...somehow they've managed to avoid being blown up every time the Taliban decided to lob a couple rockets at the base. This is dumb and is basically evidence of yet another compromise made due to weight (I'm assuming they couldn't install a beefier ECS because of weight concerns and are therefore having to rely on the fuel as a heat sink to a greater degree than originally intended), but as far as F-35 issues go this is pretty small potatoes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
I thought the Navy couldn't even afford to keep the A2A missile launchers on AEGIS ships fully stocked anyway. Okay so I'll bite on a slightly different question: Why not just put BVR missile racks on an AWACS?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:18
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:I thought the Navy couldn't even afford to keep the A2A missile launchers on AEGIS ships fully stocked anyway. E-3's flying around just owning everything probably doesn't make a very good recruiting commercial 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Just strap some AMRAAMs on top of the rotating radar dish and you're good to go for awesome recruiting videos
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Painting fuel trucks green is like the USAF equivalent of the reflective PT belt. TBH that strikes me as a pretty excellent solution to a potentially tricky problem, I'm not sure why we should be so upset about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
How can the Marines save Guadalcanal if the F-35B can't use fuel that's been in the sun?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:38
|
|
MrYenko posted:How can the Marines save Guadalcanal if the F-35B can't use fuel that's been in the sun?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Okay so I'll bite on a slightly different question: if the AWACS can shoot, so can whatever it's shooting at. That's a bad equation when one is a flying bus and one is - presumably - a maneuverable fighter or high-speed interceptor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:How can the Marines save Guadalcanal if the F-35B can't use fuel that's been in the sun? Evaporative cooling. Give beers to a bunch of PFCs and have them piss on the tankers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Fuel being too hot to use does happen. Yea yea it's the F-35 and we all like to laugh at it. It could very well have stricter fuel limits than other USAF planes. Even with awacs that was an issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Okay so I'll bite on a slightly different question: Really though it is because we don't trust AWACers with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Fuel being too hot to use does happen. Yea yea it's the F-35 and we all like to laugh at it. It could very well have stricter fuel limits than other USAF planes. Even with awacs that was an issue. With my serious face on, does USAF just leave full tankers parked on the ramp all day? In the civ world, tankers are never full long enough for it to be an issue. I would imagine that simply filling tankers on demand, and/or running the operation with fewer of them to reduce heat soak would be a more cost-effective solution than repainting them all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Downside: You just put another slow down on your sortie rate. Now you need to fill the truck then fill the plane or don't have enough trucks to properly service your planes. Just putting together some half-assed shade is probably also totally fine. Basically this really isn't a huge issue in and of itself, but just one more stone tossed onto the pile of the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Generally speaking, if the enemy is in range of your AAMs, you are in range of theirs. Although their value as human beings is questionable, from a financial perspective 20-odd ABMs plus two pilots and the jet are more expensive than any fighter in the air. Also, the kinematic advantage of a fast mover means that real fighters could engage advantageously and at will. There's truth to all of this (although AWACS can have a big hand in that positive identification and declare an aircraft hostile, the ultimate responsibility supposedly rests with the shooter). There's no way in loving hell AWACS wants to let an enemy fighter anywhere near missile ranges. If they get that close and we're still in the orbit, we're dead. It's that cut and dry. Replacing an E-3 would probably cost somewhere north of half a billion dollars. Pilots and ABMs spend about two years in the training pipeline before they ever get to an operational squadron. In a real shooting war, you'd probably have the two pilots, 9 or so ABMs, a nav, and between 9 and 15 enlisted aircrew. That's a big investment to risk on a glorified game of chicken. The AWACS radar isn't optimized for the gnats-rear end resolution you need to actually guide a missile, too. That dome spins at 6 rpm, then there's latency induced by the 50 year old computer's wheezing. So getting an update every 10 seconds that could be a couple of seconds old isn't all that conducive to a successful physical intercept between two objects closing at supersonic or hypersonic rates. Edit: we had a lot of missions where we had to hit an extra tanker or go home early because of the heat, when we couldn't take off with the full planned fuel load. Gets hot in the Middle East, who knew? Godholio fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Building a plane that does nothing but BVR isn't such a great idea when most times the ROE prohibit BVR engagement. Air Force flies F-52s, Navy's Army's Air Force flies A-10s. I just fixed American air power for the next 100 years, you're welcome. *drops mic* E: The Navy flies nothing but KC-18s, a carrier will be able to refuel one F-52. goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Evaporative cooling. Give beers to a bunch of PFCs and have them piss on the tankers. Make this man chief of acquisitions. Alaan posted:Downside: You just put another slow down on your sortie rate. Now you need to fill the truck then fill the plane or don't have enough trucks to properly service your planes. Yeah, pretty much. The overall CONOPS for how the USAF operates fighters, particularly in a surge/quick turn/hot pit type situation, just doesn't lend itself to operating the same way the civ world does when it comes to refueling. And yeah, the long-term fix is going to be to toss a couple MILCON dollars towards getting some additional sunshades for wherever LRS parks their fuel trucks. In the grand scheme of things not a big deal at all. Still stupid though. Godholio posted:There's truth to all of this (although AWACS can have a big hand in that positive identification and declare an aircraft hostile, the ultimate responsibility supposedly rests with the shooter). Unless the targets are Hinds/Black Hawks, in which case it's solely AWACS's fault.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Just strap some AMRAAMs on top of the rotating radar dish and you're good to go for awesome recruiting videos 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Okay I see why an AWACS with a missile rack and an inflight refueling capability is a potential bad idea. Still, it'd be loving awesome
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
WTF AWACS with missiles? If we are talking bullshit hypotheticals what you want is a 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Okay I see why an AWACS with a missile rack and an inflight refueling capability is a potential bad idea. It would be p. sweet, and the B-1 missile truck idea was tossed around (informally), but one of the biggest problems with a stand-off missile shooter is that you can always put a bigger missile on the ground:  (click for huge) Variants of the SA-5, first introduced in 1967, can scream out to 250nm at Mach 4. Designed specifically to counter big ordinance trucks like B-52s and AEW aircraft. You just can't put a stand-offish enough missile on an airplane because you'd have to make it gigantic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:WTF AWACS with missiles? If we are talking bullshit hypotheticals what you want is a Do you want even worse sortie/readiness rates?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
And of course, the classic 747 cruise missile truck: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:13
|
|
