|
E-3 has a higher ceiling doesn't it?
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:E-3 has a higher ceiling doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted: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. The engineering isn't the problem, you're right. It's figuring out the proper requirements that will take 15 years. Look at the E-8 replacement effort. And the shitshow of the E-10 before it. CarForumPoster posted:Appreciate the reply. Yea the E-2 is tiny it would SUCK to be in one for 16 hours I imagine. It's also probably against the NATOPS rules, because it's dangerous as gently caress. Fatigue is a factor in drat near every military crash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
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. Agreeing with all this. Everything the E-2 does, the E-3 does More. More crew (= more controllers = can manage a larger area), more radios/comm systems, more engines to provide more power to a larger radar. More speed, more altitude, more on-station time. More microwave ovens and coffee makers. You can get some efficiency out of a smaller crew in terms of time it takes to process information; an E-2 crew can communicate via a tap on the shoulder and a finger point rather than having to run something through multiple people who aren't all in the same place. But the downside is that an E-2 can effectively manage a much smaller area than an E-3, and the crew is more prone to getting task saturated. That's really a result of what each aircraft was designed for; the E-2 for managing a carrier strike group with a few ships and a couple dozen aircraft, the E-3 for managing a large, less neatly defined battlespace with a wide range of aircraft and land units. A good E-2 crew does CSG air defense very well, but we usually get crushed when we go to Red Flag or Iraq and try to act like we can swap interchangeably with an E-3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
MTBF: 20 hours
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Never penetrated on the lawn of battle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Agreeing with all this. Everything the E-2 does, the E-3 does More. More crew (= more controllers = can manage a larger area), more radios/comm systems, more engines to provide more power to a larger radar. More speed, more altitude, more on-station time. More microwave ovens and coffee makers. Without going in to OPSEC, what would you need to not be crushed? Remote operators?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
The most important thing about E-2s is that if you play the game Hornet Leader you always want to bring one on a mission, they are pretty OP in my experience
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
19.6 hours is my longest flight. Three AR's, and on the second we did an emergency breakaway after nearly colliding with the tanker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Without going in to OPSEC, what would you need to not be crushed? Remote operators? An AWACS has a mission crew of 13-19 or something, IIRC. It depends on mission and rest rotations. An E-2 has a mission crew of 3. In a larger environment without AWACS, the E-2 should serve as AEW while some other cell like a CRC or TAOC or Aegis CIC acts as the air controller.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The engineering isn't the problem, you're right. It's figuring out the proper requirements that will take 15 years. Look at the E-8 replacement effort. And the shitshow of the E-10 before it. Often, in my experience, these requirements issues come down to a lack of communication. I'm not saying it's an easy problem, there are A LOT of stakeholders in a system like this but I've seen these things get derailed for months because a misunderstanding in wording. Requirements can be opposed to the point where you can have one or the other but not both, or one cheaply or the other cheaply but both together is exponential which can then you get into fundamental questions of what the system is supposed to be. On top of it all you have the prime saying, "Yeah we can do that" way before talking to engineering and finding out, uh, no you can't, which can lead to scrapping the whole thing and starting over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
That's pretty much how the E-10 played out. Even as a pipeline student on the beginning of the path to AWACS, it was obviously a flawed concept out of the gate. Combining AWACS and JSTARS into a single high demand/low density asset? Yeah, that makes sense. Because they're often orbiting together (no they're not, they're usually a couple hundred miles apart). I think what's going to hold up the next one is figuring out the comms and exactly how much sky you want it to control. And that's a lot more complicated than it sounds like. Godholio fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
What's LDHD?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted: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. Consider the Moss, the Mainstay and the Nimrod, all of which were just "add a radar to an airliner" and all of which turned out to totally suck. You are hugely underestimating the complicated nature of both speccing and designing a radar and integrating it into an existing airframe. "Just glue a Hawkeye radar onto a 767" would be likely to get you a system that works about as well as the Sgt. York ("Just glue an F-16 radar onto a Bofors carrier!") Phanatic fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:What's LDHD? Should've been HDLD, high demand/low density.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Consider the Moss, the Mainstay and the Nimrod, all of which were just "add a radar to an airliner" and all of which turned out to totally suck. You are hugely underestimating the complicated nature of both speccing and designing a radar and integrating it into an existing airframe. "Just glue a Hawkeye radar onto a 767" would be likely to get you a system that works about as well as the Sgt. York ("Just glue an F-16 radar onto a Bofors carrier!") The difficulty of integrating radar is the only reason this doesnt exist yet: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
In Narcos season 3 on Netflix, there's a scene in Mexico that shows the Cartel flying in bales of USD in a Hercules. The boss tells his men "unload the money, destroy the plane." The scene ends by zooming out on the airstrip location and you see a second Hercules and a C-17 (!) in the background. Two questions about this: 1) How much does a used Hercules cost? Are there enough of these planes on the market that you can casually destroy them? The scene mentions that they were flying in like $320 million or something so cost isn't really a concern, but I don't know about the supply side. 2) The C-17 is pure fantasy, right? This season is set in the mid 90s. I was under the impression that the C-17 was a dud in the civilian market and according to Wikipedia it was introduced in '95. Plus it was painted in the boring US military gray. This seems like a really, really dumb plane to use for illegal activity even if you somehow got ahold of one. If it was an Il-76 or just a normal cargo airliner I would totally believe it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
It's not unheard of to have a civilian C-130 but they're pretty rare. I know drug cartels have done stuff sort of like that before, but usually with airplanes valued just above scrap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:15
|
|
C-17 is pure fantasy
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:The difficulty of integrating radar is the only reason this doesnt exist yet: I love that it's a 1 seater
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
david_a posted:In Narcos season 3 on Netflix, there's a scene in Mexico that shows the Cartel flying in bales of USD in a Hercules. The boss tells his men "unload the money, destroy the plane." The scene ends by zooming out on the airstrip location and you see a second Hercules and a C-17 (!) in the background. I laughed at this as well. Likely it was just it was easy to craft a scene with an aircraft that had a rear ramp. (I mean the warez dude is standing there, with a pallet of money, when the scene begins, and all the other dude does is walk up to him) Did get me wondering what (larger) airplanes the Cartel used, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
727s. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-06-17/news/9506170113_1_cartel-cali-significant-drug-trafficker
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
A lot of cartel planes for a while were old WWII transports; eg C-47/DC-3 or C-46es since the parts are everywhere and they can land on improvised runways. IIRC most of the shootdowns now are smaller passenger planes like dual engine Cessnas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:727s. Add to that Caravelles Cookiepus, NOOOOOOOO The Cessna 206 was the most popular small plane, double doors made for easy unloading http://www.businessinsider.com/el-chapo-guzman-mexico-drug-trafficking-airplanes-2016-5 e: I forget where I was reading this, but it was a book or site talking about B-26s converted to business aircraft and then purchased for drug running, most of which vanished in shady circumstances
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
david_a posted:In Narcos season 3 on Netflix, there's a scene in Mexico that shows the Cartel flying in bales of USD in a Hercules. The boss tells his men "unload the money, destroy the plane." The scene ends by zooming out on the airstrip location and you see a second Hercules and a C-17 (!) in the background. http://www.globalplanesearch.com/listing/aircraft-for-sale/Lockheed-C-130A/290 https://ex-mod-aircraft.com/ https://www.aircraft24.com/turboprop/lockheed/l-100-30--xi106866.htm Also apparently lockheed are delivering new civilian c-130s, badged as LM-100J in the next two years or so. So the answer is; they're available. But the new ones I rather doubt would be cheap enough to be expendable. A quick google search lists a new C-130 at $30 million. I have no idea if that's accurate though: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/14/c-130-hercules-tops-list-top-10-military-aircraft.aspx Carth Dookie fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Somebody posted this within the last month or so... http://napoleon130.tripod.com/id739.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:(I mean the warez dude is standing there, with a pallet of money, when the scene begins, and all the other dude does is walk up to him) He had day 0 crackz and a bunch of unreleased movie mpegs to sell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
It was pretty common to see drug runners set their cessnas on fire when I did counter drug stuff in 2010
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I forget where I was reading this, but it was a book or site talking about B-26s converted to business aircraft and then purchased for drug running I think it might have been a post on that 'WW2 stuff in use after WW2' blog.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Without going in to OPSEC, what would you need to not be crushed? Remote operators? Remote operators would effectively just be another C2 agency, and now you're not really talking about an E-2, just another offboard entity that the crew has to work with. There's huge room for improvement in the HMI. E-2D added a super spiffy radar and tied it into what is still largely a 1980's user interface. Something like BC3 would speed up and automate a huge portion of the operator workload, which frees up time and brainpower to work on other things. It wouldn't put the E-2 on par with the E-3, because there's still a limit to how many radio nets one person can effectively manage, but it would be a big help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Remote operators would effectively just be another C2 agency, and now you're not really talking about an E-2, just another offboard entity that the crew has to work with. Interesting. What is a radio net?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Interesting. What is a radio net? Different frequencies. If you're working more than a handful, or if any of them are busy, it can be very difficult/confusing. Also applies to ground based ATC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Different frequencies. If you're working more than a handful, or if any of them are busy, it can be very difficult/confusing. Also applies to ground based ATC. Yea that makes perfect sense. Seems also like the perfect thing to hand off task wise over SATCOM or any of the other comms channels as long as you can ship whatever data that needs to go along with it (tracks or whatever else).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Different frequencies. If you're working more than a handful, or if any of them are busy, it can be very difficult/confusing. Also applies to ground based ATC. Yeah, you normally have different tasks happening on different frequencies. So one frequency is talking to fighters in a certain sector, one freq is talking to ISR assets, one is talking to higher headquarters, one is talking to other C2 agencies that are working adjacent areas, etc. CarForumPoster posted:Yea that makes perfect sense. Seems also like the perfect thing to hand off task wise over SATCOM or any of the other comms channels as long as you can ship whatever data that needs to go along with it (tracks or whatever else). That's doable for some kinds of nets, but satcom access is a highly limited resource, and Joe Hornet isn't rolling around with a satcom or mIRC feed in his cockpit. A lot of tactical communication and coordination is still done over line-of-sight UHF radio.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:It was pretty common to see drug runners set their cessnas on fire when I did counter drug stuff in 2010 ...I have to ask, did they do that while in flight, or...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:...I have to ask, did they do that while in flight, or... Land the plane in the middle of nowhere, get the drugs out, torch it so you don't leave as much incriminating evidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Land the plane in the middle of nowhere, get the drugs out, torch it so you don't leave as much incriminating evidence. Yes. It was really funny seeing the after action reports.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
david_a posted:In Narcos season 3 on Netflix, there's a scene in Mexico that shows the Cartel flying in bales of USD in a Hercules. The boss tells his men "unload the money, destroy the plane." The scene ends by zooming out on the airstrip location and you see a second Hercules and a C-17 (!) in the background. Narcos is a great show, but they routinely gently caress equipment up in a big way. The guns are one of the easier to spot things. Either they don't have a good adviser for that on set, or they just don't give a gently caress and use whatever looks cool. THere's a really cringe worthy scene in S1 when they get what are supposed to be uzis for the sicarios and they're this weird looking czech blank firing prop gun. Obviously way easier for the production than getting a bunch of BFA equipped full auto Uzis, but it stood out in a bad way if you know about guns at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Remote operators would effectively just be another C2 agency, and now you're not really talking about an E-2, just another offboard entity that the crew has to work with. It's worth mentioning that we already do this all over the place with ground based radars. Usually there are landlines for improved reliability, but ATC and the USAF CRCs (like a ground-based AWACS, same career field) use remote radar feeds all the time. Not every radar tower is at the end of a runway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Godholio posted:USAF CRCs (like a ground-based AWACS, same career field) They always sound like they either have the best job in the world, or they hate their life and just want it to end. Never a middle ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:22
|
|