|
blah blah Permissive Environment blah blah Peer Conflict blah blah fvl will never be employed in a fulda gap scenario and will be employed continuously in a pound dirt scenario
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
100km from mach 3 and 60,000 feet maybe...  *huffs own farts vigorously *
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:100km from mach 3 and 60,000 feet maybe... Brimstone 2 is already 60km+ from fast jets...
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
Different pilot, same heli type. Still, the idea holds. Flying on the edge in tricky terrain may be somewhat ineffective in the long run. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 04:32 on May 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Anyway, at the conference, the Army bigwigs made it clear that they do want commonality of systems; but that doesn't mean commonality of airframes at all. It's much more important that things like radios, sensors, weapons, be modular and use standardized interfaces so that they can be shared across platforms. They want to avoid the current situation where, for example, helicopters are festooned with antennas for separate systems, when one integrated RF system could manage communications through a common interface for a range of mission equipment, saving on size, weight, and power. There are probably good reasons to have separate rotor systems for separate missions, and these days it's not the rotor systems that cost a lot of money to develop. The US Army is large enough to built two airframes with reasonable economies of scale. Plus, what goes unsaid is that you need to give Bell, Boeing, and Sikorsky/Lockheed each something to eat if you want the helicopter industrial base to remain competitive. What could be avoided without much compromise is having separate avionics, mission systems, and software for each platform. There's an effort, FACE, to develop a common software architecture for avionics, but apparently it's like pulling teeth to get industry to agree to use the same APIs. It’s an adorable thought certainly but 100% a political problem when it comes to trying to develop common software/hardware/engineering architectures and interfaces. Cue that xkcd comic strip where 16 competing standards now become 17 competing standards, and this is in an industry that has low volumes and 10-year product development timelines. There are not insurmountable technical hurdles in designing a common radio that the army could chuck into goddamned every single vehicle (doesn’t this exist?) with a property partitioned system but it all goes to hell when that project ends up involving a dozen contractors and program offices.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:blah blah Permissive Environment blah blah Peer Conflict blah blah If it is then nobody will be alive to enforce the toxx.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
The military seems to have its own set of corporate buzzwords! I'm used to seeing "Plan of action, moving forward, best practice, etc." and silently throwing up in my mouth. This is an exciting new world!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
movax posted:There are not insurmountable technical hurdles in designing a common radio that the army could chuck into goddamned every single vehicle (doesn’t this exist?) with a property partitioned system but it all goes to hell when that project ends up involving a dozen contractors and program offices. It was tried, it turned into a massive mess. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/how-to-blow-6-billion-on-a-tech-project/ I found a good "When to kill a project" type PDF ages ago for a similar attempt in the 90s to (IIRC) get unified radios for special forces, written by the guy who managed the project for the last year or so and then canceled it, but I can't find it right now.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:blah blah Permissive Environment blah blah Peer Conflict blah blah They'll be employed in the same way as the vaunted, king of CAS, irreplaceable, A-10. They'll be 100% thrown into the meat grinder for about 2 weeks after which there will be none left. Captain Log posted:The military seems to have its own set of corporate buzzwords! You have no idea. Welcome to a whole new plane of buzzword reality.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
Captain Log posted:The military seems to have its own set of corporate buzzwords! "Moving forward" is really a great one, as if the passage of time is somehow optional and we're simply electing in this case to allow it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:"Moving forward" is really a great one, as if the passage of time is somehow optional and we're simply electing in this case to allow it. Best Practice is one of my most hated. It's seriously like one person taught every management seminar from 1970 to 1995, and told everyone, "Your employees are too stupid to read sentences."
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Nobody ever bothered to point out that the employees (and enlisted personnel) aren't brain dead, just soul dead. Do countries with smaller defense budgets-- i.e., "literally everyone else"-- ever manage to pull off systems commonality with any degree of success just out of basic necessity? It seems like something Japan or South Korea might be able to do, what with having limited funds for a defense capability they might realistically have to use against a local aggressor at some point.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
They're saying that these South Korean Dokdo-class LPH's can potentially use F-35's? Without even a ramp? I suppose F-35's could LAND on them no problem. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/south-korea-just-launched-its-new-aircraft-carrier-disguise-25880 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokdo-class_amphibious_assault_ship I think this thread has told me that it ain't as easy as just bolting on a ramp in this kind of arena.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
BAE Systems can even do the conversion for taps at calculator four hundred squintillion dollars.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
IPCRESS posted:BAE Systems can even do the conversion for taps at calculator four hundred squintillion dollars. "Plus a small 'number invention' fee." Yes I'm aware it's a 'stand in' phrase for something incredibly large...or incredibly small. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 11:30
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Different pilot, same heli type. Still, the idea holds. Flying on the edge in tricky terrain may be somewhat ineffective in the long run. Flying a helicopter in combat against a modern integrated air defense means the definition of “Long run” becomes extremely flexible.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 11:52
|
|
|
Proper Kerni ng posted:Do countries with smaller defense budgets-- i.e., "literally everyone else"-- ever manage to pull off systems commonality with any degree of success just out of basic necessity? It seems like something Japan or South Korea might be able to do, what with having limited funds for a defense capability they might realistically have to use against a local aggressor at some point. Letting the supplier provide you ‘whatever’ generally means you get a product with a less expensive initial cost. Requiring commonality is an attempt to reduce long term or hidden costs but costs much more to implement. Commonality can work as a multiplier when it’s really pursued though just from systemic efficiency point of view. Commonality makes sense but if you have limited funds pursuing acquiring one off designs can let you acquire the capability a lot cheaper.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
movax posted:It’s an adorable thought certainly but 100% a political problem when it comes to trying to develop common software/hardware/engineering architectures and interfaces. Cue that xkcd comic strip where 16 competing standards now become 17 competing standards, and this is in an industry that has low volumes and 10-year product development timelines. I think the military's push to COTS is the one solution to this. For example using COTS equipment from commercial planes to do chat (via COTS chat software) through [Commercial satellite network] rather than some "open architecture" system that talks to an "open architecture" satellite via hypersecure (until its not) proprietary chat software. Then you dont have competing architectures, youre using what the commercial world is and you hope that your business keeps those companies afloat so you dont lose the service.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 12:52
|
|
|
LRADIKAL posted:They're saying that these South Korean Dokdo-class LPH's can potentially use F-35's? Without even a ramp? I suppose F-35's could LAND on them no problem. Obviously, the ski jump isn't required; the US doesn't have them on LHA or LHDs which operate Harriers and will operate the F-35B. The ski jump does reduce takeoff distance for the same load. The Dokdo is a fair bit shorter than an LHA, 650 ft to 850 ft. I found a few numbers for takeoff distances for the F-35B--550 ft on a flat deck, 450 ft with a ramp--but who knows what the assumed load was. In any case, it sounds doable, but carrier operations would be a pain since a large portion of a very small deck will have to be made available for launching the aircraft. The aircraft might also have a reduced fuel or weapons load. Still, better than nothing, right?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
I've always kind of wondered why they didn't put a ski ramp on USS America given how they went ahead and cut the well deck out to fit more F-35Bs. I realize no modification to a ship is really trivial but the ski ramp doesn't have any machinery it in--should just basically be a steel frame with tarmac (or whatever they surface the flight deck with) on top, right?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Americans don’t jump for nobody.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
The kindle edition of "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" is on sale for $1.99. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-T...tin+can+sailors
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
BadgerMan45 posted:The kindle edition of "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" is on sale for $1.99. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-T...tin+can+sailors
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Americans don’t jump for nobody. I could honestly see it being, "we don't want no eurotrash/commie ski deck poo poo"
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Been waiting for that to be on sale.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:
Reported for posting porn.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:I've always kind of wondered why they didn't put a ski ramp on USS America given how they went ahead and cut the well deck out to fit more F-35Bs. I realize no modification to a ship is really trivial but the ski ramp doesn't have any machinery it in--should just basically be a steel frame with tarmac (or whatever they surface the flight deck with) on top, right? Adding a ski-jump reduces the amount of space that can be used for helicopters and other equipment on deck.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
BadgerMan45 posted:The kindle edition of "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" is on sale for $1.99. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-T...tin+can+sailors Not for everyone apparently 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/05/historic-photos-of-nasas-cavernous-wind-tunnels/560660/
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
BadgerMan45 posted:The kindle edition of "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" is on sale for $1.99. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-T...tin+can+sailors I'm reading this right now, it's quite interesting. Neptune's Inferno, by the same author, is also very good.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 23:27
|
|
BadgerMan45 posted:The kindle edition of "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" is on sale for $1.99. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-T...tin+can+sailors Yoink! Thanks for the heads up, heard reference to this book several times in this thread before.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Adding a ski-jump reduces the amount of space that can be used for helicopters and other equipment on deck. Makes sense. I wonder if it'd be possible to have a collapsible/removable ski ramp that could be set up if expecting a bunch of fixed wing flights.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:...collapsible/removable ski ramp that could be set up if expecting a bunch of fixed wing flights. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
Yeah, just make a -B variant of the carriers that has this useful feature.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
What if we made a carrier that could take off and land vertically 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:What if we made a carrier that could take off and land vertically Can we call it Yamato?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:What if we made a carrier that could take off and land vertically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBi0LqgwrH8
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
You just know that the marines are the reason that they decided to submerge the giant flight critical rotors in saltwater before taking off, not to mention all those LCD panels just corroding away.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Can we call it Yamato?  Thanks for the link to that book, 90% off for something I'm even a little interested in will be a guaranteed buy for me.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:You just know that the marines are the reason that they decided to submerge the giant flight critical rotors in saltwater before taking off, not to mention all those LCD panels just corroding away.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 01:59
|
|