mlmp08 posted:

One of the "selling points" of the Scorpion was that it could do low-speed intercepts. Complete with lovely defense industry music. (who makes thise music? I'm legit curious who's making these 80s/early 90s songs that sound like they're backing music for Knightrider or a Jane's Combat Simulation briefing screen)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMfYIjsGEmQ

hobbesmaster posted:

Assuming Wikipedia is right....


Fuel or weapons - pick one!

There is a ferry range listed but not a combat radius.

As a light trainer it should be fantastic.

Hauldren Collider posted:

It has two business jet engines and that's the most it can carry?

mlmp08 posted:

Sure, but I mean who's the actual artist person just cranking out royalty free music? It's kind of like how I wonder who the gently caress went to art school and then was like "clip art, here I come!"

Wikipedia posted:

In December 2014, NASA awarded Lockheed Martin a contract to study the feasibility of building the SR-72's propulsion system using existing turbine engine technologies. The $892,292 contract funds a design study to determine the viability of a TBCC propulsion system by combining one of several current turbine engines, with a very low Mach ignition Dual Mode Ramjet (DMRJ). NASA previously funded a Lockheed Martin study that found speeds up to Mach 7 could be achieved with a dual-mode engine combining turbine and ramjet technologies. The problem with hypersonic propulsion has always been the gap between the highest speed capabilities of a turbojet, from around Mach 2.2 to the lowest speed of a ramjet at Mach 4. Typical turbine engines cannot achieve high enough speeds for a ramjet to take over and continue accelerating. The NASA-Lockheed Martin study is looking at the possibility of a higher-speed turbine engine or a ramjet that can function in a turbine engine's slower flight envelope; the DARPA HTV-3X had demonstrated a low-speed ramjet that could operate below Mach 3. Existing turbofan engines powering jet fighters and other experimental designs are being considered for modification. If the study is successful, NASA will fund a demonstrator to test the DMRJ in a flight research vehicle.[12]

In March 2016, Lockheed CEO Hewson stated that the company was on the verge of a technological breakthrough that would allow its conceptual SR-72 hypersonic plane to reach Mach 6. A hypersonic demonstrator aircraft the size of an F-22 stealth fighter could be built for less than $1 billion.[13][14][15][16]

In June 2017, Lockheed Martin announced that the SR72 would be in development by the early 2020s and that it had topped Mach 6. Executive Vice President Rob Weiss had commented that “We've been saying hypersonics [are] two years away for the last 20 years, but all I can say is the technology is mature and we, along with DARPA and the services, are working hard to get that capability into the hands of our warfighters as soon as possible.”[17]

IPCRESS posted:

They remembered that the super tweet was OK with pickone:munitions|fuel and figured "why mess with the formula".

Looking at the elevator pitch, it seems to be a tailor made for Latin American counter narcotics roles. While I'm sure they wouldn't say 'no' to an order for 500 airframes from the DoD/USCG, I don't think they'd be particularly heartbroken if no such offer was made.

Related, mainly for the USCG thought bubble: could you loft a RADAR on an airframe that then rebroadcasts its screen(s) to a remote operator? I'm not suggesting replacing AWACS with a trailer on mars/Arizona, but if your mission is looking for fishing trawlers that aren't where they're meant to be is it feasible to remote control an airborne Furuno while the pilot just points the plane at the next waypoint?

Shooting Blanks posted:

Can you explain this statement?

Shooting Blanks posted:

Oh jesus, I'm in sales and I missed that reference. Any other thread and I would have gotten it, but I spent a good 2-3 minutes looking at the elevators trying to figure out what you were talking about.

I'm an idiot.

mlmp08 posted:

Sure, but I mean who's the actual artist person just cranking out royalty free music? It's kind of like how I wonder who the gently caress went to art school and then was like "clip art, here I come!"

Platystemon posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHDZqUa0m1s

mlmp08 posted:

Best royalty free music guy didn't even get paid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g4dkBF5anU

Dead Reckoning posted:

Eh, it's less than a mil for an engineering study. It feels more like a "how serious are you prepared to be after all the game you talked?"

Kesper North posted:

Being in sales, I assume you were too busy thinking about elevator trim.

Cyrano4747 posted:

I seriously doubt the OK for a flight to happen is as simple as "yo, your neck, wanna roll the dice?"

IPCRESS posted:

Related, mainly for the USCG thought bubble: could you loft a RADAR on an airframe that then rebroadcasts its screen(s) to a remote operator? I'm not suggesting replacing AWACS with a trailer on mars/Arizona, but if your mission is looking for fishing trawlers that aren't where they're meant to be is it feasible to remote control an airborne Furuno while the pilot just points the plane at the next waypoint?

IPCRESS posted:

They remembered that the super tweet was OK with pickone:munitions|fuel and figured "why mess with the formula".

Looking at the elevator pitch, it seems to be a tailor made for Latin American counter narcotics roles. While I'm sure they wouldn't say 'no' to an order for 500 airframes from the DoD/USCG, I don't think they'd be particularly heartbroken if no such offer was made.

Related, mainly for the USCG thought bubble: could you loft a RADAR on an airframe that then rebroadcasts its screen(s) to a remote operator? I'm not suggesting replacing AWACS with a trailer on mars/Arizona, but if your mission is looking for fishing trawlers that aren't where they're meant to be is it feasible to remote control an airborne Furuno while the pilot just points the plane at the next waypoint?

Not Nipsy Russell posted:

I always picture this poor guy in a soundproof room in the Pentagon with a bunch of really bored enlisted musicians.



"Nice work, Colonel! Outstanding! You know, though, it could sound a little...sexier"
"Sex..sexier, General? Is that really appropriate? It's about shooting down enemy pilots"
"Of course it is, but let's give the men something to really get excited about. Jazz 'em up! Make it hot!"

IPCRESS posted:

Related, mainly for the USCG thought bubble: could you loft a RADAR on an airframe that then rebroadcasts its screen(s) to a remote operator? I'm not suggesting replacing AWACS with a trailer on mars/Arizona, but if your mission is looking for fishing trawlers that aren't where they're meant to be is it feasible to remote control an airborne Furuno while the pilot just points the plane at the next waypoint?

Godholio posted:

Yes, and that's actually what I expect the E-3's replacement will be. It takes a lot of bandwidth and EM jamming becomes even more of a concern, though. There are currently no serious efforts to work on an E-3 replacement program, so we're looking at 2+ decades down the road at least. And AWACS turned 40 this year already.

Edit: A better example than Triton or other UASes would just be Link-16. You could literally fly an E-3 with a mission crew of one or two (to set up the radar and datalink) to do this right now.

Mazz posted:

Well yeah but my point is it wasn't like Delta was handcuffing people to their seats. Delta has to make the decision to even attempt the flight, but it's the passengers call to get on the plane in the first place.

I don't want lead into a liability derail with this so I'll just say I personally feel like Delta took on the risks of getting passengers out of the path of a Cat 5 which may take down the airport for days/weeks. If the passengers wanted to leave, Delta gave them the option as they saw the possibility to do so. All Delta should have to do is say get on at your own risk and I feel the liability is on the passengers. Stay or go right loving now, either way entirely their choice.

Of course if something did happen I completely understand Delta would get sued, I'm just not sure I agree with the basis for it given the above.

Cyrano4747 posted:

The problem is that individuals don't really have the resources or understanding to make that call. How dangerous is a 20MPH cross wind with 40MPH gusts to a passenger aircraft? I have no idea because I'm just some schlub that gets on the flying bus to take me places. What about 40/80 winds? What kind of conditions make for unsafe flying as a fuckoff huge hurricane approaches?

Note that I'm not saying that this particular flight was this kind of crazy unsafe. There are entire layers of people having to decide "yeah, we can do this safely" ranging from air traffic control to FAA people to the pilots and probably half a dozen more that I'm not aware of, and in this case they decided to go for it. My point is that the inability of the layman to make an informed decision - a layman who may really, REALLY want to get to NY for some reason - and weigh the risks of taking off vs. staying put makes any kind of liability waver situation questionable at best.

Cyrano4747 posted:

The problem is that individuals don't really have the resources or understanding to make that call. How dangerous is a 20MPH cross wind with 40MPH gusts to a passenger aircraft? I have no idea because I'm just some schlub that gets on the flying bus to take me places. What about 40/80 winds? What kind of conditions make for unsafe flying as a fuckoff huge hurricane approaches?

Note that I'm not saying that this particular flight was this kind of crazy unsafe. There are entire layers of people having to decide "yeah, we can do this safely" ranging from air traffic control to FAA people to the pilots and probably half a dozen more that I'm not aware of, and in this case they decided to go for it. My point is that the inability of the layman to make an informed decision - a layman who may really, REALLY want to get to NY for some reason - and weigh the risks of taking off vs. staying put makes any kind of liability waver situation questionable at best.

quote:

The NS 430 GPS navigation system is an optional add-on module for DCS World aircraft. Starting with DCS: Mi-8MTV2, the NS 430 provides powerful, yet intuitive, navigation and radio communications options to supplement the navigation and radio systems already integrated into our aircraft. The NS 430 is particularly useful for older aircraft with less sophisticated navigation and communication systems.

The NS 430 was introduced in 1997 and quickly became aviation's most popular GPS. Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) capability was added in 2006. The sharp, clear display and intuitive button layout of the NS 430 made it the standard for general aviation around the world.

CarForumPoster posted:

What does the E-3 do that the E-2D doesnt? If you just need + a few people that you can beam offline, it seems like that'd be the obvious replacement since theyre still in production and have a bunch of upgrade contracts going on.

Tetraptous posted:

I gather radar performance data is classified, and certainly practical application of radar is a complex subject, so it's hard to compare the specific performance of the AN/APY-2 in the E-3 to the AN/APY-9 in the E-2D. But, at a fundamental level, the performance of a radar is dependent to first order on the size of the aperture and the power output. The AN/APY-2 is much bigger, and we can guess that the E-3 can probably supply it with a lot more power than the much smaller E-2. I mean, the E-3 has nearly six times the max gross weight of the E-2. Given an equivalent level of technology, the bigger radar will win; and the E-3 can carry a lot more radar than the carrier-capable E-2. Not to mention that the E-3 can fly longer and farther because it can afford to pack a bunch more fuel. Like always, there are compromises to be made in making an airframe small enough to fit on a carrier.

To what I think is your specific point, more modern avionics might allow the E-3 to offload some crew, especially if the data were telemetered to a ground station. But there's not such a pressing need to cut down on crew when your platform is a 175 ton airliner. Having another mission critical datalink makes you more vulnerable to EW, and it can be helpful to have more eyeballs interpreting the data at the source. Surely things could be automated and optimized, but why bother when the system works and there are plenty of competing procurement priorities?

Shooting Blanks posted:

Boeing would like to have a word with you.

Tetraptous posted:

I gather radar performance data is classified, and certainly practical application of radar is a complex subject, so it's hard to compare the specific performance of the AN/APY-2 in the E-3 to the AN/APY-9 in the E-2D. But, at a fundamental level, the performance of a radar is dependent to first order on the size of the aperture and the power output. The AN/APY-2 is much bigger, and we can guess that the E-3 can probably supply it with a lot more power than the much smaller E-2. I mean, the E-3 has nearly six times the max gross weight of the E-2. Given an equivalent level of technology, the bigger radar will win; and the E-3 can carry a lot more radar than the carrier-capable E-2. Not to mention that the E-3 can fly longer and farther because it can afford to pack a bunch more fuel. Like always, there are compromises to be made in making an airframe small enough to fit on a carrier.

To what I think is your specific point, more modern avionics might allow the E-3 to offload some crew, especially if the data were telemetered to a ground station. But there's not such a pressing need to cut down on crew when your platform is a 175 ton airliner. Having another mission critical datalink makes you more vulnerable to EW, and it can be helpful to have more eyeballs interpreting the data at the source. Surely things could be automated and optimized, but why bother when the system works and there are plenty of competing procurement priorities?

CarForumPoster posted:

What does the E-3 do that the E-2D doesnt? If you just need + a few people that you can beam offline, it seems like that'd be the obvious replacement since theyre still in production and have a bunch of upgrade contracts going on.

CarForumPoster posted:

WRT endurance the E-2 is supposed to have every plane w/AR by 2020 and they built a "holds a bunch of fuel" version for Japan. Mash the two together for the "land based high endurance" flavor of E-2 that approaches AWACS levels.

B4Ctom1 posted:

Godholio posted:

Almost everything better. Better detection range, better operator workload, longer mission duration/range, more radios, better ELINT capability, and finally there's some radar fidelity trade-offs between the two. The E-2D is worlds better than any C model, though.


No, it doesn't. You're not doing 24 hours in an E-2. Fortunately I've never seen it done in an E-3 either, but I've seen 20+ hr missions planned. My personal best is 16.x...and that's more than enough. Good luck doing that in a Hawkeye with a 5 man crew and having the pilot alert enough to land safely.

Godholio posted:

Almost everything better. Better detection range, better operator workload, longer mission duration/range, more radios, better ELINT capability, and finally there's some radar fidelity trade-offs between the two. The E-2D is worlds better than any C model, though.


No, it doesn't. You're not doing 24 hours in an E-2. Fortunately I've never seen it done in an E-3 either, but I've seen 20+ hr missions planned. My personal best is 16.x...and that's more than enough. Good luck doing that in a Hawkeye with a 5 man crew and having the pilot alert enough to land safely.