|
Mortabis posted:Assuming the missile's rocket motor can actually get it to the target, which might not be the case if it's high up, far away, and flying really fast. High up is actually good for a missile, since there's less air resistance. Missile kinematics are much worse at low altitudes. Likewise, if the target is flying really fast towards you, that makes things easier.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Mazz posted:The T-62 wasn't the revolutionary one, the T-64 was, and remained a more capable tank than anything in the West for the better part of a decade I think. You're actually linking to the T-64, just a little naming mistake. The T-64 was definitely the revolutionary one. The T-62 was a literal stopgap due to the T-64 project having some serious delays and issues, with an awful lot of political interference. The 115mm gun it got was a result of Khruschev having a raging hardon for missiles - he demanded a smoothbore gun so it could eventually shoot missiles - and a senior general demanding a gun larger than the 105mm L7. The tank itself was a stretched T-55 chassis with basically the same protection and a bit worse performance. The gun ended up being OK, the tank ended up in service for about 10 years before it got relegated to reserve units and various foreign countries. The T-64 meanwhile turned out to be a good tank in the end, but wasn't originally quite as revolutionary as it looks on paper. 1) Originally it only had a 115mm gun. Not just a few, but hundreds/thousands of them were produced before the 125mm gun was ready. Not a serious problem, but it did mean that for a long while the T-64 wasn't sporting a much better gun than the NATO L7 and that much of the T-64 fleet got shittier ammo as it was neglected in favor of the newer 125mm. 2) The engine was crap for the first decade+. Really awful crap. It used a tiny diesel engine to allow the tank to remain small. The problem is the engine was new tech and because of its issues the vast majority of T-64s would never have made it to the Rhine without replacing the engines. They broke down constantly (less than 200km average according to the army) to the point the army stopped running regular exercises with them and threw massive shitfits that nearly ended the project a few times. Many of the front line units in Europe actually refused to take the T-64 because of how bad the reliability was and that situation lasted a long time due to Kharkiv's stonewalling. Eventually performance improved to nearly acceptable levels in the late 70s after the army finally managed to force inquiries with some teeth on the matter. 3) The original T-64 composite armor was a steel/plexiglass sandwich. This did improve performance against HEAT to some extent, but at the cost of performance against kinetic penetrators. This was eventually replaced in the T-64A and further improved in the T-64B. 4) The autoloader took some work to perfect. Rumors of the autoloader eating arms was probably not as frequent as some places would say, but they did install safety barriers on it along with the various reliability upgrades. Also it turns out the shell arrangement they used it caused the tank to brew up in deadly propellant fires more frequently than expected (a combination of a small space, big shells, lots of propellant, and the positioning of all of those things in the tank) or to vanish in an earth-shattering boom in what the investigators after Chechnya called "catastrophic explosions". The modernized T-64A from the mid-late 70s is what most people think of when they think of the T-64 and for about 5 years it really was much better in many areas than most NATO tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:That I have no idea about, and I'll defer to the person who knows more about it than me, but what I do know is the optical sensors you can pack in a small space are getting really good, and good luck spoofing those. Yes, but unless you're engaging at rather short range, the optics were likely flown to a workable range via radar. So if the radar is going for a false target 10 kilometers from the real target there may not be much to look at when the optics kick in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yes, but unless you're engaging at rather short range, the optics were likely flown to a workable range via radar. So if the radar is going for a false target 10 kilometers from the real target there may not be much to look at when the optics kick in. Good point about the Radar. I really want to know what the F22's one can do, but I suspect I'll be long dead before that info gets released. The history of electronic warfare in WW2 was insane, new developments happened every month. The poo poo programmed into that radar is going to be nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yes, but unless you're engaging at rather short range, the optics were likely flown to a workable range via radar. So if the radar is going for a false target 10 kilometers from the real target there may not be much to look at when the optics kick in. Seems like a great way to determine that the target your RADAR is locked on is a false target.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Seems like a great way to determine that the target your RADAR is locked on is a false target. If you're within the useful range of the EO system, and if you're willing to spend the kind of time it takes to manually confirm the radar's data, sure. But in the meantime you're closing with your target at several miles per second, and Russia makes and sells pretty good missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If you're within the useful range of the EO system, and if you're willing to spend the kind of time it takes to manually confirm the radar's data, sure. But in the meantime you're closing with your target at several miles per second, and Russia makes and sells pretty good missiles. That is probably something you can automate these days, actually. It also assumes you're in a situation where the other guy has effective electronic warfare and you do not, which is a bad spot to be in regardless of whether you're able to confirm at 5km or 50km. But if you're the one who can take a look at the thing (or lack of thing) 50km out rather than needing to close on it to eyeball it, that's an advantage. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The T-62 wasn't the revolutionary one, the T-64 was, and remained a more capable tank than anything in the West for the better part of a decade I think. You're actually linking to the T-64, just a little naming mistake. Yeah, my mistake. I meant T-64. Warbadger posted:Stuff on the T-64 So did the older variants of the T-64 ever get upgraded?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
In theory, sure. In reality, R&D isn't free, even the most basic systems take years of development, testing, and avionics integration before being fielded. And EO wasn't much of a priority for the US until recent years. But yeah, it absolutely assumes the adversary has an advantage. That's what you do when you plan contingencies, and it's not that unrealistic that the US might not have the advantage. It's not hard to see how important EW has been to the US, considering the USAF retired it's ENTIRE fleet of jammers and the Navy only bothered buying the Growler because the Prowlers were falling apart almost as bad as the F-15C. In the meantime Russia, China, India, France, Israel and probably a few others have made big strides. And they're all willing to sell anything on the open market. Edit: If you're waiting until 50km in a true BVR environment, you're loving dead. It's not 1990. Wikipedia puts the AIM-120C at 105km range. That's probably supposed to be kinematic, so effective range would be somewhat less, but regardless...not many tv cameras have that kind of fidelity to pick out a dot at 50+ miles. Godholio fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Russia makes and sells pretty good missiles. Great land-based SAMs, but the VVS never adopted the R-77 (AMRAAMski) and won't be doing so until Izd. 180 comes along for the T-50. They sold some to India and China, but they themselves are still carting around BVR missiles that are roughly the same as big AIM-7s. If you're numberwanking it, China's arguably better off than Russia is in this specific category (their latest developments that are actually in service being the PL-12 and R-27ET respectively). Cabbage Disrespect fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
Wow, so the detection really is that good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:Wow, so the detection really is that good. Its worth mentioning that anyone knowledgeable on this subject, knowledge of what a system can or can't detect, would absolutely positively not EVER EVER EVER post about it on a public forum. Ranges included. They'd be fired immediately. Also, for radars/radar weapon systems, lot of the wikipedia ranges seem to be "operational ceiling is this, horizon is that at the operating altitude/sea level so its range must be Y" Total b.s. There's no way class info is going on wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:There's no way class info is going on wikipedia. I'm certain there's class classified info on Wikipedia but anyone who knows its correct classified info would never even begin to confirm it or deny it. The US likes to classify everything from special secrets to totally open secrets to banal news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
There's probably accidentally classified data, leaked classified data and total unclassified guesswork to be had out there, and good luck telling the difference without classified access.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:There's probably accidentally classified data, leaked classified data and total unclassified guesswork to be had out there, and good luck telling the difference without classified access. LM, NG, DoD etc employ a lot of people on those programs, some of them may enjoy this forum 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:There's probably accidentally classified data, leaked classified data and total unclassified guesswork to be had out there, and good luck telling the difference without classified access. This is exactly why I only use wikipedia numbers, or what I've seen on placards at airshows. Whether I know if it's accurate or not, I'm sticking with consistency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
 The camo is awesome but what is it used for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This is exactly why I only use wikipedia numbers, or what I've seen on placards at airshows. Whether I know if it's accurate or not, I'm sticking with consistency. "20+ knots, 500+ feet NOPE NOPE I don't know any more." hogmartin fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/so-what-were-those-secret-flying-wing-aircraft-spotted-1555124270  Also seconding the lol about the last paragraphs
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
^ The B-2 was operation for several years before being publicly acknowledged, too.Suicide Watch posted:
The white? It's not, it's a test/chase plane. ED is the tail flash for the 412th Test Wing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted:In theory, sure. In reality, R&D isn't free, even the most basic systems take years of development, testing, and avionics integration before being fielded. And EO wasn't much of a priority for the US until recent years. Of course, for planning you can assume your enemy will have some advantages. If they have all advantages all the time, however, you'll lose. Every time. If the enemy has all the advantages, then he's already fired SRBMs at each of your bases from cleverly concealed cargo trucks parked just outside the bases and shot your pilots on the ground after infiltrating all of your airfields with special forces who avoided all of your security measures. Not that it would matter, because they'd have just jammed all of your sensors if you got airborne, leaving you blind while they shot them all down with 100% effective missiles. I understand where you're coming from, though. Anyways, the USAF has never quit development of EW, nor have any of the big players in NATO. There are all sorts of fancy EW pods and the like that have been in continuous development along with a bunch of programs to stick EW suites on drones and newer platforms. If you mean the existing specialized EW platforms, then yeah, they retired a lot of them but that's not the whole EW game. If nothing else, after the fall of the Soviet Union it pretty clear that US and NATO in general got their hands on basically everything the Soviets had, along with a lot of the guys responsible for developing it as they were either in Warsaw Pact countries or left as part of the massive brain drain in the 90's. And as you point out, Russia and China sell a lot of new poo poo on the international market (not just EW), so it's out there to be examined and much of it has been purchased by states that are ostensibly friendly to the US/NATO. That's a big deal when you consider the benefits of direct access to the threats you're developing counters for. And again, when we're talking stealthy airframes in an environment with false RADAR contacts, drones, and who knows what else it's still a big advantage to be able to look at the things you're thinking about shooting from 50km - where he might not even see you - rather than 5km. Especially if the other guy is also going to want to verify his target before shooting. Nebakenezzer posted:Yeah, my mistake. I meant T-64. They upgraded the old models to the T-64R starting in 1977. The downside was the gun and armor were not upgraded, it added things like the new snorkel system, modern radios, and better stowage containers. The T-64As saw similar gradual upgrades but it was spotty with parts of the fleet getting upgraded at the factory and others not. You see a bit of a grab bag of features among the T-64As and Bs as a result. The engine issues were actually less of an issue starting in late 1971 (for new production tanks, at least). Up until this point the T-64 had only been deployed to some Belorussian and Ukrainian units because the army hated them due to the unreliability and did everything they could to avoid assigning them to front line units. In early 1971 Karkhov had promised the army that the problems had been resolved along with a large scale test to prove it. The army still saw a shitload of problems, however, and proceeded to divert 80% of the T-64A's to storage facilities and training units. A bunch of the defense higher-ups visited Kharkov, threatened to end production of the T-64, and things quickly improved with new production tanks. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:^ The B-2 was operation for several years before being publicly acknowledged, too. And here I was hoping it was an F-16 painted in anti flash white.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Of course, for planning you can assume your enemy will have some advantages. If they have all advantages all the time, however, you'll lose. Every time. If the enemy has all the advantages, then he's already fired SRBMs at each of your bases from cleverly concealed cargo trucks parked just outside the bases and shot your pilots on the ground after infiltrating all of your airfields with special forces who avoided all of your security measures. Not that it would matter, because they'd have just jammed all of your sensors if you got airborne, leaving you blind while they shot them all down with 100% effective missiles. I understand where you're coming from, though. Most of this paragraph makes me think you still don't, even though everyone in this thread has tried to explain it to you. quote:Anyways, the USAF has never quit development of EW, nor have any of the big players in NATO. There are all sorts of fancy EW pods and the like that have been in continuous development along with a bunch of programs to stick EW suites on drones and newer platforms. If you mean the existing specialized EW platforms, then yeah, they retired a lot of them but that's not the whole EW game. If nothing else, after the fall of the Soviet Union it pretty clear that US and NATO in general got their hands on basically everything the Soviets had, along with a lot of the guys responsible for developing it as they were either in Warsaw Pact countries or left as part of the massive brain drain in the 90's. And as you point out, Russia and China sell a lot of new poo poo on the international market (not just EW), so it's out there to be examined and much of it has been purchased by states that are ostensibly friendly to the US/NATO. That's a big deal when you consider the benefits of direct access to the threats you're developing counters for. You live in a very idealistic world. Let's say the US managed to get ahold of a working example of Radar X in 1992. It's not like an airplane where you can put it through its paces in six months then crate it up or put it on static display in Nevada. You're looking at a decade or more of exploitation and analysis. THEN you get to try to figure out what to do about whatever you learned. Maybe that means new tactics, which take a while to figure out, maybe it's a technical matter which may or may not be able to be incorporated into extant systems. Maybe the best way to jam that radar is on a frequency band outside the range of those "fancy EW pods and the like." Now what? Start the process for a new pod or whatever, which is also not a short process. Then you deploy and integrate it. This isn't the loving 1940s. Everything that was happening on a scale of months back then is now stretched into years or decades. quote:And again, when we're talking stealthy airframes in an environment with false RADAR contacts, drones, and who knows what else it's still a big advantage to be able to look at the things you're thinking about shooting from 50km - where he might not even see you - rather than 5km. No poo poo, but you're making a huge loving assumption that he can't see as well as you can. Considering we're just starting to field our first effort in this arena for 30 years, I'm unimpressed with that assumption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Godholio posted:No poo poo, but you're making a huge loving assumption that he can't see as well as you can. Considering we're just starting to field our first effort in this arena for 30 years, I'm unimpressed with that assumption. And you are making the assumption that he can see you as well you can see him. Unless he also has a camera to track targets at 50km he cannot, in fact, see as well as you can in that particular area. There's also the assumption that nobody thought or will think of integrating the camera into the sensor suite to automate the process of answering the old question of "what the hell am I targeting??". Finally there seems to be the assumption of it only being used in a mutual intercept. I guess it's also worth mentioning that the slant range in the gif posted was 90km rather than 50km and either way you're still getting eyes on target some 25 seconds before you otherwise would have and it's not going to prevent the pilot from shooting outside of 50km in whatever situation calls for that anyways. You might as well argue that our planes don't gain much benefit from RADAR, because aforementioned EW and various other concealment measures exist and if the enemy has the advantage you won't pick him up until it's too late. You argue that this is reasonable because you believe the US has fallen behind in EW, yet concealment of aircraft from sensors is a thing the US has been on the cutting edge of for decades while practically everyone else is just making their first effort in the field. You're also talking about not making the mistake of thinking current gen is 90's tech while simultaneously trying to make the point that cameras only see a few pixels at 50km when the unclassified footage posted was reading signs on buildings at 90km out. It's also not the first effort in this arena for 30 years. Optic pods have been a thing for a while now and optic pods that track fast moving targets have been a thing in both the military and civilian world. If nothing else they've been in extensive use on the testing side of things. This system didn't come out of nowhere, neither did our current generation of EW devices. You're being hyperbolic and you know it. Godholio posted:You live in a very idealistic world. Let's say the US managed to get ahold of a working example of Radar X in 1992. It's not like an airplane where you can put it through its paces in six months then crate it up or put it on static display in Nevada. You're looking at a decade or more of exploitation and analysis. THEN you get to try to figure out what to do about whatever you learned. Maybe that means new tactics, which take a while to figure out, maybe it's a technical matter which may or may not be able to be incorporated into extant systems. Maybe the best way to jam that radar is on a frequency band outside the range of those "fancy EW pods and the like." Now what? Start the process for a new pod or whatever, which is also not a short process. Then you deploy and integrate it. This isn't the loving 1940s. Everything that was happening on a scale of months back then is now stretched into years or decades. And you're still in a much better spot having that than not having that. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Hey let's do that cool guy thing where we dispute points from literal professionals in their field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Hey let's do that cool guy thing where we dispute points from literal professionals in their field. Feeling right on the Internet where people can see is way more important than actually being right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Its worth mentioning that anyone knowledgeable on this subject, knowledge of what a system can or can't detect, would absolutely positively not EVER EVER EVER post about it on a public forum. Ranges included. They'd be fired immediately. Also, for radars/radar weapon systems, lot of the wikipedia ranges seem to be "operational ceiling is this, horizon is that at the operating altitude/sea level so its range must be Y" Total b.s. There's no way class info is going on wikipedia. This isn't entirely my experience. A few times I've had friends who've told me blatantly classified info when wasted. To which my response has always been "I am going to down a bottle of vodka now so I can't remember this conversation in detail". Time a - talking to a mate about computational logic, turns out he described the entire fire control system of a ballistic missile sub to me. I have never downed a bottle of vodka so fast. Time b - not really a mate, but a dude I'd known for ages who did forensics for the UK gov (this stuff is now all declassified), was going through a divorce, and pissed as gently caress. Explained every single thing he'd been working on for several years, to which my only reply trying to calm him down was "you know I'm literally going to erase my hard drive now". Which I did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 11:43
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Hey let's do that cool guy thing where we dispute points from literal professionals in their field.  I was thinking the same thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:to which my only reply trying to calm him down was "you know I'm literally going to erase my hard drive now". Which I did. He sent you that stuff by email/irc/whatever?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:He sent you that stuff by email/irc/whatever? Yeh IRC, all about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
In an ideal world there would be no wars and we'd solve international problems by arguing about who could make the cooler military system to kill everyone, without ever really doing it. And playing WarThunder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 15:18
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:In an ideal world there would be no wars and we'd solve international problems by arguing about who could make the cooler military system to kill everyone, without ever really doing it. And playing WarThunder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PJzK35hMrU
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
So the NTC finally got its hands on a handful of drones and on the last rotation they used them to absolutely wreck some poor IBCT that apparently didn't even know they were being surveiled. The pics from the drones are hilarious...it is just a bunch of army trucks, tents and poo poo out in the desert, absolutely obvious, clear as hell, clustered together, unprotected and totally unconcealed. We may have a serious problem here. I'll see if I can get the pics cleared to show on the internet, it is really something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So the NTC finally got its hands on a handful of drones and on the last rotation they used them to absolutely wreck some poor IBCT that apparently didn't even know they were being surveiled. The pics from the drones are hilarious...it is just a bunch of army trucks, tents and poo poo out in the desert, absolutely obvious, clear as hell, clustered together, unprotected and totally unconcealed. We may have a serious problem here. Immediately after this FCOE started getting asked by maneuver guys what whiz-bang tech was going to be fast tracked to save them. The answer was largely "all that passive air defense poo poo that has existed since WW2, sorry" We've also seen that air defenders who have either been in Patriot, doing C-RAM, or guarding static cites in DC aren't exactly well-versed in maneuver these days nor expressing to BCT commanders what they can bring to the fight. If the avenger that shot down an A-10 24 hours ago keeps sitting there, it tends to get wrecked either by artillery or an A-10 that doesn't go low. Dispersion, hardening, and concealment go a long way if you aren't facing a ton of fancy drones with top of the line SAR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Worth noting that WVR crap today is not your daddy's Vietnam-era Sidewinders. I've probably posted these like 40 times and I don't care because they're cool as poo poo: It is a good thing it is able to turn its "eye" so far over to the target and hold it and stay locked on to the right target, otherwise I would say the AIM-9X aeronautically probably has the best capability of any missile ever to shoot yourself down. It could have been like the Mk48 of missiles! Wingnut Ninja posted:High up is actually good for a missile, since there's less air resistance. Missile kinematics are much worse at low altitudes. Likewise, if the target is flying really fast towards you, that makes things easier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:It is a good thing it is able to turn its "eye" so far over to the target and hold it and stay locked on to the right target, otherwise I would say the AIM-9X aeronautically probably has the best capability of any missile ever to shoot yourself down. It could have been like the Mk48 of missiles! Mk14, surely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:In an ideal world there would be no wars and we'd solve international problems by arguing about who could make the cooler military system to kill everyone, without ever really doing it. And playing WarThunder. I'll settle for not invading any more middle eastern countries. That's a pretty low bar to be honest 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Mk14, surely? Ouch yes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo#Circular_runs
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So the NTC finally got its hands on a handful of drones and on the last rotation they used them to absolutely wreck some poor IBCT that apparently didn't even know they were being surveiled. The pics from the drones are hilarious...it is just a bunch of army trucks, tents and poo poo out in the desert, absolutely obvious, clear as hell, clustered together, unprotected and totally unconcealed. We may have a serious problem here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:And playing WarThunder. "We cannot allow a latency gap, Mr. President."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:56
|
|
