|
Best royalty free music guy didn't even get paid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g4dkBF5anU
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 02:56 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 09:47 |
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) 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!"
|
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 03:37 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Assuming Wikipedia is right.... It has two business jet engines and that's the most it can carry?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 05:21 |
|
Hauldren Collider posted:It has two business jet engines and that's the most it can carry? 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?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 05:59 |
|
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!" There are a lot of desperate musicians in the world who really need ten bucks for groceries. Alternatively, they might just be as boring as this guy: https://www.wired.com/story/distracted-boyfriend-meme-photographer-interview Airpower content: Apparently the SR-72 is making some form of vague progress towards realness? I thought hypersonic air-breathers were one of those perpetually ten years away things? But apparently LockMart says that time is finally here: 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] And of course it won't have a human pilot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 06:19 |
|
That's an awful lot of words to say "we want another line of funding for when the f-35 gravy train is done, give us more money."
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 06:31 |
|
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?"
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 06:39 |
|
IPCRESS posted:They remembered that the super tweet was OK with pickone:munitions|fuel and figured "why mess with the formula". Can you explain this statement?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 07:13 |
|
'Elevator pitch' being a marketing term for pitching a product in the time it takes to ride an elevator somewhere, not the placement and/or articulation of the control surfaces called elevators on the airframe. IPCRESS fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Sep 7, 2017 |
# ? Sep 7, 2017 07:18 |
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Can you explain this statement?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 07:20 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 07:22 |
|
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. Being in sales, I assume you were too busy thinking about elevator trim.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 08:23 |
|
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!" An illustration/SeqA career event I visited went like "comics! video games! publishing! Lady from Target: "we need embroidery patterns"*
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 09:06 |
|
Was that the shootdown where they killed an undercover DEA agent who was on board the plane? It didn't go over too well politically iirc.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 09:23 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Best royalty free music guy didn't even get paid: Never ever ever link this again I hope you die. (This is the holding music for every orange juche fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Sep 7, 2017 |
# ? Sep 7, 2017 10:37 |
|
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?" A billion for a proto build. It's not clear if they built and flew a prototype or if he means its exceeded Mach 6 in a sim. I assume the production run is many billions.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 10:53 |
|
Kesper North posted:Being in sales, I assume you were too busy thinking about elevator trim.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 12:37 |
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I seriously doubt the OK for a flight to happen is as simple as "yo, your neck, wanna roll the dice?" 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. Mazz fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Sep 7, 2017 |
# ? Sep 7, 2017 12:54 |
|
IPCRESS posted:
That's actually how one of the earliest AEW birds, the TBM-3W, worked. Yes, that was a WWII project. Sensor fusion from a fleet of stones would be awesome.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 13:25 |
|
IPCRESS posted:They remembered that the super tweet was OK with pickone:munitions|fuel and figured "why mess with the formula". https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/06/23/MQ-4C-Triton-UAS-demos-new-capabilities/2571466693109/
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 13:34 |
|
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. I wish I could 5 individual posts.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 14:06 |
|
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? 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. Godholio fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Sep 7, 2017 |
# ? Sep 7, 2017 14:56 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 15:33 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 15:56 |
|
Putin helped Korea with nukes to keep everyone distracted from shenanigans to be launched from Zapad
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 15:59 |
|
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? Yeah I can understand that, also I didn't consider that if Delta had pax on the inbound flight and just flew all the way there to dump more people in harms way instead of diverting that poo poo makes no sense either way (unlikely but a fun thought)
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 16:54 |
|
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? My understanding is that it is entirely up to the pilot to decide whether or not it is safe. Yeah, this was a risky flight to take as soon as they departed New York. But it was a calculated risk, and they could have diverted at any time if the storm changed speed/direction. I'm sure the crew at the airport in PR were prepping everyone to board as fast as possible - same for ground crew/fueling. At some point you have to just assume that people know their jobs, and to use their best judgment on whether staying or flying out is a better option. It's similar to going to a doctor and finding out you have cancer, it's operable but risky. You ask what your chances of survival are, you're expecting to be given a number, a percentage. The couple doctors and the surgeon I know absolutely HATE that question - it's oversimplifying an incredibly complex situation, when there are tons of variables that can't all necessary be accounted for. Edit: NM, just saw your liability waiver part. Somehow skimmed past it on first glance.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 17:35 |
|
This thread will probably find it cool that DCS is putting out a new dlc of a supermarket-style GPS for the older russian aircraft. So basically the DLC will be a "here's a GPS for your windshield to help you get to places." 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. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/ns430/ Since I'm sure most people in this thread are familiar with pictures like this:
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 18:34 |
|
Will be a great addition to the Huey. Hopefully they port it there.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 19:51 |
|
RIP two more A-10Cs that crashed at Nellis. Pilots are OK. Unclear what happened yet.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 20:03 |
|
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. 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?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 20:43 |
|
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. Boeing would like to have a word with you.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 20:54 |
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Boeing would like to have a word with you. Keep the 767 line going forever!
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 21:06 |
|
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. Yea I think youre agreeing with what I was really getting at which is we already have a decent platform on which to build when E-3s reach EOL. Yes there may be some limitations in key performance parameters now, but dropping $100M on a radar modernization program and some $20M contracts to universities for better radar algorithms for the platform is way cheaper than a new airframe. 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.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 21:13 |
|
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. 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. 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. 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 fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Sep 7, 2017 |
# ? Sep 7, 2017 23:48 |
|
|
# ? Sep 7, 2017 23:51 |
|
I love it.
|
# ? Sep 8, 2017 00:15 |
|
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. I know I'm not an expert but I can't help feeling like you might be overestimating the difficulty of adding a radar to an airliner. Yes, US procurement is bad and lots of things take time unrelated to actual engineering. But come on. If we seriously start running the risk of not having AWACS, something will get figured out. They'll find a way to glue the E-2 radar on a 787 or something. It's like the whole F-22 line restarting argument that happened in this thread way back. Yes, it would be expensive--as expensive as a new airplane design? Haha no.
|
# ? Sep 8, 2017 01:09 |
|
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. Appreciate the reply. Yea the E-2 is tiny it would SUCK to be in one for 16 hours I imagine.
|
# ? Sep 8, 2017 01:43 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 09:47 |
|
Also the E-3 can get on station, slide, and scram faster than an E-2. They're rather different platforms/crews.
|
# ? Sep 8, 2017 01:45 |