|
Dandywalken posted:How was he guiding it? Was it designating the target via laser? I think he was just filming it.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Yeah, it's not like we don't already have the tech to laser designate from way farther away than a few thousand feet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Alaan posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvHJSIKP0Hg Watched it with a bunch of other smelly goons, it was beautiful. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, it's not like we don't already have the tech to laser designate from way farther away than a few thousand feet. Yeah thats what seemed baffling to me. But it mentions "Guides" in the video title, so 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
It was a very first baby step to integrated fire control. The ship launches the missile, the missile establishes a datalink to the aircraft, the aircraft tracks the target with its onboard radar and provides position updates to the missile until it reaches terminal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It was a very first baby step to integrated fire control. It's basically a TASM that actually works (at least as far as theory of operations) as opposed to the '80s CONOPS of "lob some in the general direction of the Soviet fleet and maybe something will get lucky and hit."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Ehhh you need only one leaker to make the W80 stick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Ehhh you need only one leaker to make the W80 stick. lol okay fair point...the mid '90s CONOPS then, change Soviet to Chinese or someone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Mazz posted:On a side note, the navy really wants to put that BAE railgun on the third Zumwalt, probably so it actually looks like it accomplished something compared to the DDG-51s. Would that be fired at high elevation for maximum range, or used more as a direct-fire weapon where you can hit while the projectile is still supersonic?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Would that be fired at high elevation for maximum range, or used more as a direct-fire weapon where you can hit while the projectile is still supersonic? They quote it's maximum range a lot when they bring it up so I assume indirect fire. Not entirely sure though, it seems more about the feasibility of the entire thing more then actual uses; power management and such.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:I'm...skeptical of this, because unless the bomber was transmitting essentially in the clear, this would mean "One senior RAF source" was spilling some serious beans on the UK's listening ability. I'd take this with a grain of salt. For the benefit of those of you outside the UK, the Express is a tawdry rag with little interest in reporting facts. I suspect at best they may have somehow learned that the Bear was carrying a training round version of a nuke-capable missile and decided to run with some scaremongering nonsense as clickbait. Edit: Sorry, that was from a few pages back
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Ehhh you need only one leaker to make the W80 stick. The integrated fire control is actually pretty baller for shooting at ships because the enormous speed differential means you don't need to stick around for that long before the missile can hit any potential ship position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It was a very first baby step to integrated fire control. It seems pretty dangerous. If an F18 can see a chinese or russian ship, then it can see the F18. If so the F18 can be shot down pretty handily. When did it become harder to shoot a ship in it's two dimensions than a plane it it's 3? My guess is the visibility. A plane is far enough off the deck that it is a sweeter radar visible target than a ship on the surface over the horizon. It just all seems so strange.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:It seems pretty dangerous. If an F18 can see a chinese or russian ship, then it can see the F18. If so the F18 can be shot down pretty handily. Its just a cheap and cheerful way to give the TACTOM an anti-shipping capability using its existing hardware.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:It seems pretty dangerous. If an F18 can see a chinese or russian ship, then it can see the F18. If so the F18 can be shot down pretty handily. It's entirely reasonable for a platform with stand-off sensor capability (say, a BAMS with MFAS) to be able to loiter outside of a surface ship's SAM rings while still being able to gather targeting information from the on-board sensor. You guys that are pooh-poohing this are thinking too small...you don't have to be 10 miles away from a surface target to be able to gather valid targeting data from the air. Granted, it's not going to be applicable to every engagement, but Polikarpov posted:Its just a cheap and cheerful way to give the TACTOM an anti-shipping capability using its existing hardware. If I can give TACTOM an anti-shipping capability by spending a minimal amount of money to integrate datalinks between hardware that I already own or am already in the process of buying, that seems like a smart decision. e: And it's worth remembering that this type of capability is the sort of thing that if we ever have to use it we're already hosed. It's in the same category as the Raptor, AEGIS (at least a shooting AEGIS), and fast attacks lobbing war-shots at people. The point is to complicate certain countries' tactical level decision-making by presenting alternative/new threats and capabilities...which in turn provides for additional consideration at the strategic level. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Feb 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 05:55
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:It seems pretty dangerous. If an F18 can see a chinese or russian ship, then it can see the F18. If so the F18 can be shot down pretty handily. That's why you'll be spotting the ship with an X-47B /UCAV equivalent or some giant fuckoff Global Hawk type system.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
That Works posted:That's why you'll be spotting the ship with an X-47B /UCAV equivalent or some giant fuckoff Global Hawk type system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Is this also a way that a ship could fire on a target without giving itself away by emitting tracking radar itself? How do regular ASMs track?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqfXXaOisKo You know you love it
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Haha, I never noticed before that it shows the Tomcat having a 360 degree radar sweep.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
I remember when I was growing up, I had the ability through my father's connections (and living in the Hampton Roads area) to occasionally talk to Tomcat pilots and RIOs, and one of them, a RIO, while in a foul mood at a party, decided to tell me - a six year old at the time - that if they'd made Top Gun entirely realistic it would've been a 45 minute movie - five minutes of scaring off those first two "MiGs" with the radar at max range, 30 minutes of Cougar and Merlin having a really boring time at Miramar, and ten minutes of briefing and images of Tomcat rippling off 50 million dollars' worth of AIM-54s at the mass of hostile aircraft for sheer overkill's sake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Is this also a way that a ship could fire on a target without giving itself away by emitting tracking radar itself? How do regular ASMs track? There are several ways you can do it, especially if your missile has its own radar. In the 80's the Swedish FAC's and corvettes with RBS 15 had a data link which let a truck-mounted or helicopter-mounted radar be used for the initial target acquisition. Then, once the missile caught the target on its own radar the helicopter (or whatever) could leave the missile to its own devices. The launching ship did not need to be radiating at all. More advanced versions of the RBS 15 from the 2000's has both inertial guidance and/or GPS as well as its own radar, so you can - without having a radar at all - program the missile to fly to a given area, launch, and once it gets to the area it'll start its own radar and attempt to find targets autonomously. Obviously though this has the potential of being extremely problematic from a rules of engagement standpoint (I'm pretty sure the missile doesn't have an IFF interrogator), and the missile's radar is a lot less capable than a big ship-mounted one with a human operator. Still, depending on what you want to do, it might be enough. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Feb 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Haha, I never noticed before that it shows the Tomcat having a 360 degree radar sweep. I thought he radar picture was fed from AWACS, which would have a 360 degree sweep - although I doubt it'd have the F-14 at the centre of the sweep. I am also highly ignorant on these sorts of matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Is this also a way that a ship could fire on a target without giving itself away by emitting tracking radar itself? How do regular ASMs track? Most dedicated ASMs have an active radar head for terminal, and many have added passive/ESM functions. The P-500 and P-700 supposedly also have an interesting feature: quote:The missiles were intended to be used in salvos; a submarine could launch eight in rapid succession, maintaining control of each through a separate datalink. In flight the group could co-ordinate their actions; one would fly to a higher altitude and use its active radar to search for targets, forwarding this data to the other missiles which remained at low altitude. The missiles were programmed so that half of a salvo would head for a carrier target, with the rest dividing between other ships. If the high flying missile was shot down another from the salvo would automatically pop up to take its place. All of the missiles would switch to active radar for the terminal phase of the attack. As for the block IV Tomahawk (wiki): quote:In 2014, Raytheon began testing Block IV improvements to attack sea and moving land targets.The new seeker will passively pick up the electromagnetic radar signature of a target and follow it, and actively send out a signal to bounce off potential targets before impact to discriminate its legitimacy before impact. Mounting the multi-mode sensor on the missile's nose would remove fuel space, but company officials believe the Navy would be willing to give up space for the sensor's new technologies.[9] The new seeker could make the Tomahawk a candidate for the U.S. Navy's Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment II requirement. The previous Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile, retired over a decade ago, was equipped with inertial guidance and the seeker of the Harpoon anti-ship missile and there was concern with its ability to clearly discriminate between targets from a long distance, which would be more reliable with the new seeker's passive detection and active millimeter-wave radar;[10] the Tomahawk would likely compete against a version of the Lockheed Martin LRASM for ship-launched needs. Basically they are slowly giving it the same capabilities as a dedicated ASM, fast tracked now to get a hand in the OASuW contact coming up. Mazz fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Feb 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I thought he radar picture was fed from AWACS, which would have a 360 degree sweep - although I doubt it'd have the F-14 at the centre of the sweep. I imagine any sort of realistic radar picture would have people going 'Well that sure is a bunch of things'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqfXXaOisKo those poor MiG-5's 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I thought he radar picture was fed from AWACS, which would have a 360 degree sweep - although I doubt it'd have the F-14 at the centre of the sweep. AWACS (in this case an E-2) would be able to inject datalink tracks that would show up on their system, but it wouldn't give them a 360 sweep. Fighter radars just sweep a cone in front of their nose. There's also a conspicuous lack of any kind of communication with an E-2 or other air control unit, in any of the air combat scenes (not bitter at all). Hunterhr posted:I imagine any sort of realistic radar picture would have people going 'Well that sure is a bunch of things'. And this. A real radar display is a bunch of colored symbols and numbers and poo poo that doesn't mean much if you're not trained on it. Hence why every radar scope on film and TV is a green circular sweep that makes clear, discrete blips appear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I remember when I was growing up, I had the ability through my father's connections (and living in the Hampton Roads area) to occasionally talk to Tomcat pilots and RIOs, and one of them, a RIO, while in a foul mood at a party, decided to tell me - a six year old at the time - that if they'd made Top Gun entirely realistic it would've been a 45 minute movie - five minutes of scaring off those first two "MiGs" with the radar at max range, 30 minutes of Cougar and Merlin having a really boring time at Miramar, and ten minutes of briefing and images of Tomcat rippling off 50 million dollars' worth of AIM-54s at the mass of hostile aircraft for sheer overkill's sake. Once you skip over the love story and Goose dying, Top Gun's not much more than 45 minutes anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Goose in Mad Max was cooler anyhow
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Most dedicated ASMs have an active radar head for terminal, and many have added passive/ESM functions. The P-500 and P-700 supposedly also have an interesting feature: TLAM is not a great ASM even once they get the seeker improvements in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I remember when I was growing up, I had the ability through my father's connections (and living in the Hampton Roads area) to occasionally talk to Tomcat pilots and RIOs, and one of them, a RIO, while in a foul mood at a party, decided to tell me - a six year old at the time - that if they'd made Top Gun entirely realistic it would've been a 45 minute movie - five minutes of scaring off those first two "MiGs" with the radar at max range, 30 minutes of Cougar and Merlin having a really boring time at Miramar, and ten minutes of briefing and images of Tomcat rippling off 50 million dollars' worth of AIM-54s at the mass of hostile aircraft for sheer overkill's sake. Yeah, the whole point of the Tomcat was that it was a sniper, not a brawler. As opposed to the ol' F-8:  Oops.  Mazz posted:Most dedicated ASMs have an active radar head for terminal, and many have added passive/ESM functions. The P-500 and P-700 supposedly also have an interesting feature:
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:11
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Yeah, the whole point of the Tomcat was that it was a sniper, not a brawler. As opposed to the ol' F-8: Ahem...  
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
How did the swing-wings on the F-14 work anyway? Were they just left for a flight computer to continuously adjust during manoeuvres?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 02:12
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
MrYenko posted:Ahem... From a reverse image lookup: quote:As soon as they reached the assigned area, the fighters set up twenty miles apart for a head-on intercept under ground control. Seven miles from the merge, with closure well over 1,000 knots, Hoser called “Fox One”, a Sparrow missile away, scoring a direct hit. This is either a horribly mangled anecdote, or the guy is an idiot. If you're going up to test one specific system (guns), you don't just decide to go "lol ur dead now" with a completely different system (SAR missiles). That's just a waste of everyone's time. Just as stupid as this: quote:Both Eagles were gunned down and a gun camera film which showed the F-15 locked in the F-14 HUD almost caused Japan to revert its decision to buy the Eagle. Because one single example obviously completely invalidates any other considerations that go into buying a platform. I'm sure if you ran enough sorties under the right circumstances, you could have an F-5 get a gun kill on an F-22. PittTheElder posted:How did the swing-wings on the F-14 work anyway? Were they just left for a flight computer to continuously adjust during manoeuvres? There was an automatic mode, but they could also be controlled manually. I've heard one good story of an F-14 pilot using the manual mode to set his wings to a sweep that would indicate a different airspeed, to throw off his opponent in a dogfight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:TLAM is not a great ASM even once they get the seeker improvements in. Yeah. It's still fairly vulnerable to hard-kill defenses, which it sort of avoids over land by sticking close to the terrain. In contrast, LRASM pretty obviously has some low-observable design features which might make it more difficult to acquire by defensive SAMs. Same with Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile. I'd also hazard to guess that LRASM is big enough to feature chaff or decoys, seeing as its predecessor, JSOW, came in a submunitions variant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I'm sure if you ran enough sorties under the right circumstances, you could... get a kill on an F-22. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:This is either a horribly mangled anecdote, or the guy is an idiot. If you're going up to test one specific system (guns), you don't just decide to go "lol ur dead now" with a completely different system (SAR missiles). That's just a waste of everyone's time. The context I've read is two-fold - first, the guns agreement was unofficial and not part of the exercise. Second, Hoser is insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:This is either a horribly mangled anecdote, or the guy is an idiot. If you're going up to test one specific system (guns), you don't just decide to go "lol ur dead now" with a completely different system (SAR missiles). That's just a waste of everyone's time. The point of the anecdote I believe, to show off the competitive type "gotta win" personalities that fighter pilots are known for. "Hoser" being one the famous ones for regularly pranking/tricking/pissing off others to do so. quote:Because one single example obviously completely invalidates any other considerations that go into buying a platform. I'm sure if you ran enough sorties under the right circumstances, you could have an F-5 get a gun kill on an F-22. While you are correct of course, weapons buys are often mostly political (some less so) and hearing the aircraft they were buying was inferior to another they turned down would at least made both parties nervous. This story has been around a while but supposedly the footage went to Grumman and Aviation Week wrote about the F-14's "superiority" to the F-15. Wikipedia says there were 13 different submissions for the Japanese Starfighter/Phantom replacement at the time, so it may have helped gather attention at the time depending at what point they were at during the process. PittTheElder posted:How did the swing-wings on the F-14 work anyway? Were they just left for a flight computer to continuously adjust during manoeuvres? The Aviationist has a good article here with a couple of stories that touch on what Wingnut Ninja said. Gabrielite fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Psion posted:The context I've read is two-fold - first, the guns agreement was unofficial and not part of the exercise. Second, Hoser is insane. It's Hoser being an annoying rear end in a top hat in an amusing way, which is kind of fighter pilots' schtick On a similar note: I can't find the story, but I'll tell it from memory: One time back when the F-16 was the newest hottest poo poo, they went to play with some National Guard F-106s. The Viper drivers, being young and cocky, allowed the old-timers to simulate any weapon they could carry, to make it a bit less horribly unfair They called "fight on", the lead F-106 immediately called a missile shot and the entire formation of F-16s was declared dead.  That's what happens when you bring nukes to a gunfight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
That little story is magical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:39
|
|