|
raverrn posted:I love my extremely nonstealthy external store babies. Rule of cool, my man:  
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
bewbies posted:Re. reloading VLS at sea, it is a big problem. I was going to type out a long post no one would read about why this is but instead I'll post this pretty drat good NDU thesis on it because it basically says everything I would have, but better, and with citations. Lol that the report was supervised by Captain America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:They should have made it look like that, might have had a chance. It’s absolutely stealthier, and I think you’ll be seeing a lot more of it on non-tactical jets. But, what happens to a fighter with an over-the-wing/body intake when it pulls a lot of pitch and enters a high angle of attack condition? Do you want all of that separated flow going into the engines?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Zebulon posted:But the B-2 does have its air intakes on top of the wing? The exhausts are on top of the wing too. Whoops! Swear I read that somewhere. I’ll chalk that up to staying up late to sync for night shifts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Just a little error or thoughtlessness could end up in having to shuffle the entire maintenance areas around each time you need to get at something and moving things up and down from the main deck to get space to work. Eventually you just run out of usable airframes until you stop everything to clear out the back log. Carrier design lessons are learned though blood. Take the Japanese in WW2. Who thought having a sealed hangar deck with fuel fumes would turn the entire carrier into a giant fuel-air-bomb? Or the USS Forestall, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
Hey guys? Guys? Group buy? https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/phantom.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Lol that the report was supervised by Captain America. I thought you meant the guy from generation kill. Took me a bit to figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Carrier design lessons are learned though blood. Take the Japanese in WW2. Who thought having a sealed hangar deck with fuel fumes would turn the entire carrier into a giant fuel-air-bomb? Or the USS Forestall, etc. Yeah, I think the big trick is to build a carrier that actually functions as the basis of an efficient air wing. If the goal is just "can launch and recover some planes, doesn't sink," then you could probably get the South Koreans to build you a couple. If the goal is "project power in remote areas, obtain air superiority against sub-peer adversaries, and then support ground combat operations against those adversaries" then your learning curve is going to be a lot steeper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Crosspost from gip: https://twitter.com/ski2point0/status/1063086294560006145?s=21
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Yeah, I think the big trick is to build a carrier that actually functions as the basis of an efficient air wing. If the goal is just "can launch and recover some planes, doesn't sink," then you could probably get the South Koreans to build you a couple. If the goal is "project power in remote areas, obtain air superiority against sub-peer adversaries, and then support ground combat operations against those adversaries" then your learning curve is going to be a lot steeper. In a vacuum the prior one probably is still the preferred choice, because that old carrier should be cheaper and should include at least some lessons-learned already and should be more useful if you did have to press it into service in an emergency. That worked out for China (sort of), and it makes sense India tried it. In practice India’s probably come out okay in the end, though there was a point it looked like they were going to get screwed. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
The important lesson is don’t buy used from Russia or partner with them in research programs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I think this is the heart of the question though - if you’re building a Naval air arm from scratch anyways, you aren’t going to be in the power projection business for quite a while, so what’s the marginal benefit of taking an old refurb carrier from a nation that built it when they were trying to stand up Naval aviation and probably had it wrong themselves, vs buying a new built ship using your best guesses and what you can glean from public knowledge and whatever classified material you’ve managed to scrounge up? Because it's not just a matter of having the aircraft carrier, but training up your sailors, aviators, etc. that will have to crew the thing. Given the lead time to design and build a carrier for scratch by a nation who's never done it (Kuznetsov was ordered in 1981 and commissioned in 1990, for reference - I would assume it would take longer today for anyone, given the changes in armaments and electronics that are now all but required) and you're talking about adding a decade or more to having a single operational carrier. If you can buy a used one for a reasonable price and start training people even on the basics of operating a carrier (and making mistakes to learn from), yes you'll still be behind the curve when the new one launches but at least you won't be starting from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Because it's not just a matter of having the aircraft carrier, but training up your sailors, aviators, etc. that will have to crew the thing. Given the lead time to design and build a carrier for scratch by a nation who's never done it (Kuznetsov was ordered in 1981 and commissioned in 1990, for reference - I would assume it would take longer today for anyone, given the changes in armaments and electronics that are now all but required) and you're talking about adding a decade or more to having a single operational carrier. If you can buy a used one for a reasonable price and start training people even on the basics of operating a carrier (and making mistakes to learn from), yes you'll still be behind the curve when the new one launches but at least you won't be starting from scratch. Liaoning took at least 7 years and maybe as many as 10 to put back into service, depending on exactly when the PLAN got started, which is not entirely clear. That's not counting the four years it took to complete purchase and delivery of the hulk. Or the additional six year gap between China expressing interest and them figuring out the cutouts to actually do it without immediately prompting an international incident. Presumably you could cut that down if you were buying a refurb from someone other than a former Soviet state, but realistically the time frame to acquire a second hand vessel and then get it into service isn't that much quicker. EDIT: I should note, I still think both India and China were ultimately better off taking the refurb path, the advantages of building off of someone else's lessons-learned are worth it. In India's case, they ended up not getting hands-on build experience AND not actually saving any money due to what was either outright extortion or bait-and-switch sales tactics or some combination of both. There was also a real risk that they were going to get stiffed even after they coughed up the extra cash. If anyone else decides to pursue carriers, that's going to make the "do it yourself" option seem more attractive... but I agree with Alaan, it's really more a reflection on who India was specifically doing business with. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:I don’t see any real design constraints other than engine maintenance, which is a big deal, but pulling an engine on any fighter is a pain. https://gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=295  
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
I can come up with arguments every different way for buying vs building carriers. One of the big questions that comes to mind is commonality. If you have a decent set of escort ships already (and if you don't, maybe carriers are not for you, yet), then you ought to have some standard systems in those ships. If you can leverage some of those systems for your carrier, thus making it easy to train up your engineers, electronics crew, etc, then that's a big win for building your own. On the other hand, knowing that you need a first draft to throw away, maybe it's better to work on scaling up those standard systems while you use some purchased hoopty carrier as your testbed. How expensive is your manpower, anyway? How quickly can you train people as sailors and pilots? Are you expecting a lot of military assistance from the people who built the carrier? I can imagine hypotheticals to justify all sorts of approaches, and I don't have the background to prove that one is better than the other in any specific case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
^^ Maybe the Koreans could market a generic carrier, made for figuring out all the poo poo of carrier ops. Lots of extra internal space.Phanatic posted:Hey guys? Guys? I contacted the Canadian military and they were down until they learned it was just one F-4 They still wrote up a list of about 100 items they wanted to change, though
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:I don’t see any real design constraints other than engine maintenance, which is a big deal, but pulling an engine on any fighter is a pain. e: fifty-five hours to swap an F-35 engine on a carrier, with a clear hangar deck 
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Back to 23A chat for a second, the most interesting thing to me there was the extended internal storage bays. If it was long enough to fit things like JASSM I wonder if that would’ve swayed the decision at all. Probably not since it wasn't supposed to drop bombs anyway but in TYOOL 2018 and 18 years of low intensity bomb trucking/pacific pivot it's an interesting thought.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Only in the F-35. All of the Eurocanards have nominal engine swap times of an hour or below under good conditions. On the Gripen you can do it in a few hours in the field outdoors too, and same thing with the Viggen before it. The F-35 was many times that even in a depot as far as I can remember, and absolutely ridiculous (something like 12 hours? I don't remember) on a carrier. That doesnt seem bad at all for a proof of concept or MDEMO. On top of that stealth planes tend to have a lot of sealing/touch up operations you have to do. Like anything it goes faster when you have and experienced crew.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Back to 23A chat for a second, the most interesting thing to me there was the extended internal storage bays. If it was long enough to fit things like JASSM I wonder if that would’ve swayed the decision at all. Probably not since it wasn't supposed to drop bombs anyway but in TYOOL 2018 and 18 years of low intensity bomb trucking/pacific pivot it's an interesting thought. The idea of trucking a stealth CM on a stealth plane externally, which I'd expect to make it decidedly not stealthy from side aspects, is very funny to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:^^ Maybe the Koreans could market a generic carrier, made for figuring out all the poo poo of carrier ops. Lots of extra internal space. Wow I can see the sales pitch already. "Boat shaped like an aircraft carrier, some assembly required, figure it out" that's sure going to attract a lot of customers. Serioustalk for a second: aircraft carriers are expensive to operate which is why you've got only a handful of nations that are interested in having them. Not counting helicopter carriers, you get only eight current aircraft carrier operators:
Which country would, in your opinion, be a potential candidate for joining this club while neither willing to build their own, nor buying a second-hand carrier? Because honestly I'm drawing a blank here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:They should have made it look like that, might have had a chance. Nah, they wouldn't. The X-32 was more in the weight range of a AV-8B. The Marines would have liked it (if the VTOL worked) but it'd be a hard sell for everybody else looking to replace their F-16s with a 5th generation stealth jet. People have been reading too many of the monthly "X-32: The secret history of the only fighter that could beat the F-35!" clickbait articles on National Interest IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:
Why they didn't call it the F-32 Sabre II . . . Boeing even owns what's left of NA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:The idea of trucking a stealth CM on a stealth plane externally, which I'd expect to make it decidedly not stealthy from side aspects, is very funny to me. There’s not much reason to beam your enemy inside detection range while still carrying a cruise missile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
China claims it's developed a quantum radar that can see stealth planes. Bet they have some swell deals on used bridges too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
Indian already had carriers and had been using them in actual wars when they bought the Russian one. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Why they didn't call it the F-32 Sabre II . . . Boeing even owns what's left of NA. Keep in mind the prototype x-32 and the production model would have had even bigger design/engineering changes that the 35. Going from that huge droopy composite delta wing to a more traditional tail would have meant a ton of extra man hours, possibly greater delays than the 35 had/has.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
As bad as the F-35 might've been/is, the F-32 was considerably worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There’s not much reason to beam your enemy inside detection range while still carrying a cruise missile. Agreed, I guess I'm getting at the less stealthy assets, or the internal carry stealth assets, make a lot more sense as bomb trucks for LO cruise missiles. Navy/LRASM maybe being the exception since their bomb trucks are pointy and you might not want your ship within "launch from the VLS" range.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
The F-23 and X-32 were both inferior jets, sorry to say. Their development would have been even more troubled and protracted. Particularly the X-32, which lost because its VTOL system just didn't work. They had to switch out the whole intake for it to be able to fly supersonic. Boeing pinky swore they'd have a working intake that wasn't too heavy for the production version. DoD said no. It was the right choice under the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Just proof that VTOL is bullshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The F-23 and X-32 were both inferior jets, sorry to say. Their development would have been even more troubled and protracted. Particularly the X-32, which lost because its VTOL system just didn't work. They had to switch out the whole intake for it to be able to fly supersonic. Boeing pinky swore they'd have a working intake that wasn't too heavy for the production version. DoD said no. It was the right choice under the circumstances. To add to this, the F-22 and F-35 look better than the F-23 and F-32 did.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:To add to this, the F-22 and F-35 look better than the F-23 and F-32 did. Holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
The YF-23 would look better than the F-22 if featured on an episode of SeaQuest DSV shooting underwater pew pew lasers, dodging volcanic columns, rescuing Darwin from danger. Otherwise, nope. Raptor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:China claims it's developed a quantum radar that can see stealth planes. Oh man, looks like I'm out of the job. Well played China, looks like we had a good run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
I remember the Russians making a stink about having invented ~plasma stealth~ to make all of their aircraft invisible to radar, and also that they'd recently fielded the P-18-2 that could supposedly detect stealth aircraft as well. With this administration, it's honestly probably just a ploy to sucker  into dumping tons of taxpayer money into making "tremendous and bettah new invisible planes."
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Nov 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:China claims it's developed a quantum radar that can see stealth planes. China's J-20 stealth jet has taken to the skies — but India says its fighters can spot it easily  quote:China recently made history as the first country besides the US to field stealth aircraft with its J-20 fighter, but reports from its regional rival, India, indicate that it may want to go back to the drawing board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Blistex posted:China's J-20 stealth jet has taken to the skies — but India says its fighters can spot it easily When stealth planes are just farting around the airspace, or transiting or something, they have radar reflectors installed to embiggen their return.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
I'm sure the J-20 might be somewhat "stealthy" at least nose-on, but just looking at it, you can tell the other three quarters of it are messy as hell. The Chinese obviously placed a lot of faith in the PAK-FA and MiG 1.44's design, and then tried to incorporate lines and ideas from the F-22 and YF-23. And like the YF-23, they might have built a semi-decent straight-line interceptor, but super-maneuverable multirole stealth fighter, she is not. Also, there's no way in hell that these things *aren't* going to suffer from massive airframe stress issues over time:  The CG on that thing has to be where, somewhere three feet past the tail? BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Nov 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:26
|
|