|
iyaayas01 posted:I can't emphasize enough just how expensive purpose built PGMs like the Maverick and AGM-130 were/are...the loving AGM-130 costs over three quarter of a million dollars a pop. Think about that for a second. One shot, $750K+ up in smoke. The latest version of the Tomahawk is something like that as well. Per shot. Why the hell is the AGM-130 so expensive? Isn't it just a GBU-15 with a strap-on rocket kit, just like the GBU-15 is just a Mk84 with a strap-on LGB kit?
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why the hell is the AGM-130 so expensive? Isn't it just a GBU-15 with a strap-on rocket kit, just like the GBU-15 is just a Mk84 with a strap-on LGB kit? GBU-15 alone had a 200k-300k unit cost, though that appears to have dropped to 60k recently. It's 30 years old, so all of the electronics would be that much more expensive when it was first introduced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
I took the Coast Starlight railway from LA to Seattle over the weekend, and had some time there yesterday to hit up their Flight Museum. I'd heard it was underwhelming, but I had a fantastic time. My camera's getting long in the tooth (D50), and my only real photography experience was with film, so digital post-processing is something I've yet to master, but these should at least be decent.  This guy has the best name ever.  Another of the A-6   For use when travelling the highway to the Danger Zone, or when playing volleyball.   Concorde Engines  Concorde thrust reversers  Connie!  B-47  I was super pumped to see the B-29, but it's apparently in its ghost costume this time of year.  Harrier thrusters  Mig-17  SR-71 with D-21 drone. I'd never seen an SR-71 in person before, it was way too cool.  Mig-21  F-4 Phantom II  Group photo of the last two, also with their respective pressure suits.  Mig-15  CF-86 Sabre  NASA F-104  YF-5 (I think), with F-104. Also a yellow thing, and a helicopter (don't know those).  P-51  Love the nose-art on this Yak-9. I didn't notice the Hitler face until my friend pointed it out.  Run...Live to fly...fly to live....  BF-109  727 tail. Who doesn't love that bare-metal AA color scheme?  B-17. They do interior tours of this thing, but they didn't have any available tourguides yesterday. drat shame.  I'm a layman, but had never seen a Corsair in this all-black color scheme. Totally super-villain.  V-1  Huey. Cue Ride of the Valkyries please. So on their website, they claim they have a B-52, which I didn't see. Is it not out for viewing right now? drat I hope not, I'd be pissed as hell if I missed that. edit: Pulled these from my Facebook album, and their compression really did a number on the quality. Oh well, I'm not some super awesome photographer, but if anyone (for some drat reason) wants a cleaner/larger copy of any of these, it can be done. Capn Jobe fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
I think at one time they had a setup where you could actually sit in the SR-71 cockpit. It's been years since I was down to the Museum of Flight though; they've expanded massively since then. I really ought to go back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
priznat posted:I wasn't even thinking of capability of launching more than two, just it seems like an extra bit of hardware that could futz up for not really much benefit. NightGyr posted:The Talos is a solid-boosted ramjet with the mass of a fighter jet. Designing for maneuverability at launch velocity doesn't have a lot to do with its terminal accuracy, which is probably more a matter of guidance abilities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Hasn't the Air Force been trying to get rid of the A-10 since, well, the A-10 existed? I think there was a line in the manual for A-10 Attack! about the AF trying to foister them on the Army or something. From what I've read, I'm no expert, the AF was trying to replace A-10's with special F-16's (which couldn't handle a 30mm cannon) and later with just strike variants of the F-16 before trying to replace everything with the F-35. Also, the Air Force was so pervasive in their hatred of the A-10 they actually did almost get the Army to take them instead. I can't find the link now but there was a move in the 80's to revise the Key West Agreement and have the A-10 included as an Army air asset like the AH-64. Then Desert Storm happened and the plan was scrapped because the Air Force needed the A-10 for certain niches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
LP97S posted:From what I've read, I'm no expert, the AF was trying to replace A-10's with special F-16's (which couldn't handle a 30mm cannon) and later with just strike variants of the F-16 before trying to replace everything with the F-35. Also, the Air Force was so pervasive in their hatred of the A-10 they actually did almost get the Army to take them instead. I can't find the link now but there was a move in the 80's to revise the Key West Agreement and have the A-10 included as an Army air asset like the AH-64. Then Desert Storm happened and the plan was scrapped because the Air Force needed the A-10 for certain niches. This is so wrong I don't even know where to start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:I think at one time they had a setup where you could actually sit in the SR-71 cockpit. It's been years since I was down to the Museum of Flight though; they've expanded massively since then. I really ought to go back. When I was there last in 2004, they had a section of SR71 that's just around the cockpit, separate from the complete display plane. Here's one of my cousins sitting in it: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Also, the Air Force was so pervasive in their hatred of the A-10 they actually did almost get the Army to take them instead. I can't find the link now but there was a move in the 80's to revise the Key West Agreement and have the A-10 included as an Army air asset like the AH-64. Then Desert Storm happened and the plan was scrapped because the Air Force Fixed that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:When I was there last in 2004, they had a section of SR71 that's just around the cockpit, separate from the complete display plane. Here's one of my cousins sitting in it: They had a couple sample cockpits you could sit in. Unfortunately, I was too chickenshit to do so for a photo, as a grown man. Totally regret that. Capn Jobe fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Capn Jobe posted:They had a couple sample cockpits you could sit in. Unfortunately, I was too chickenshit to do so for a photo, as a grown man. Totally regret that. Still the SR-71 and F-18L cockpits?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Still the SR-71 and F-18L cockpits? Yes, MOF has both of those. I posted some photos from it back in March. That SR-71 cockpit is difficult for tall people. It's a salvaged nose section from a crashed SR-71, so it's really the real deal, which is more than kind of awesome. Their display plane is actually an M-21/D-21 combo if you want to get really pedantic on it. Capn Jobe posted:
You're right that it's a YF-5A, the 'yellow thing' is a Bowers Flybaby 1A and the the helicopter behind it is an HH-52 Seaguard. As for the B-29 it's T Square 54 and is wrapped up to preserve it for restoration work, and I too did not see a B-52 when I went there and that's a drat shame. I bet they don't have anywhere to park it. Some cursory Google work shows it's up at a Boeing facility at Paine Field, about thirty miles north. Also up at Paine is the Flying Heritage Collection, which is one of the better uses of Paul Allen's Microsoft Billions, in my opinion. At least compared to some of his other projects, if not in the grand scheme of things.  Psion fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. Actually, http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:(This, btw, is one of the factors behind the push to kill the A-10; tactical air defenses are so much better than when it was built it isn't even funny. The main system it was designed to beat was the ZSU-23-4.) Unguided bombs are much less accurate when delivered from medium and high altitudes, and cloud cover can compromise laser guided weapons. And yet our air defense systems are still pretty much as they were in the 80s aren't they? Like isn't US Army tactical ADA pretty much just stingers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is probably a large part of the answer. Look at first gen SAMs like Nike/S-75/Talos compared to current systems. The legacy systems are mostly two-stage, rail launched missiles steered by fins. I'm sure they were maneuverable enough once they got up to Mach 4 or so, but I doubt the airframes had the capability to radically maneuver during the boost phase. Even if they could, it would eat deeply into the missile's total energy, and the gap between missile and target performance was much narrower than it is today. Compare that with modern systems like Patriot or S-300, which are single stage missiles that are half the size and mass, accelerate quicker, have several times the range and steer by reaction motors or thrust vectoring. If something like a PAC-3 has to orient itself to the target during launch or boost, it's going to do so more quickly and expending less energy, and since engines have improved so much since the 50s, it's still going to arrive at the terminal phase with enough kinetic energy to defeat any endgame maneuvers by the target. I think the other part of this is related to the guidance. I'm not sure I understand it 100% but with a beam-riding missile you basically need to 'throw' the missile into the beam. Similarly with semi-active radar-homing / command guidance it seems you need to initially get the target and its radar reflection into the seeker head's field of vision - to 'lock onto the target' - and early seeker sensors were very narrow-sighted. With a jet fighter you accomplish this by pointing the plane at the enemy, but with a warship you need a launcher that can slew a missile with an exposed seeker at the target - if you kept it in a weatherproof and EM shielded case until launch and then just hurled it straight up, it'd never acquire the guidance beam. Newer weapons not only have much wider aperture seekers, they can also handle much more sophisticated launchtime-loaded flight plans, like "kill thing over this way" instead of just "kill thing" Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Capn Jobe posted:So on their website, they claim they have a B-52, which I didn't see. Is it not out for viewing right now? drat I hope not, I'd be pissed as hell if I missed that. Was cool as hell to sit in that SR-71 cockpit, even if they put stupid plastic all over it so I couldn't play with the buttons.   e: wait, the B-52 nose was at Ford Island in Hawaii, not Seattle. Is there a buff at Boeing? I don't remember seeing one.Ford Island's restoration hanger:   
grover fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Is there any other plane in the US inventory that can do the job of the A10 as well as it can? Because it seems to be about perfect for the CAS role. AC-130, maybe, but I doubt its anti-armor abilities. Unless a buncha Hellfires were strapped under its wings. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Is there any other plane in the US inventory that can do the job of the A10 as well as it can? Because it seems to be about perfect for the CAS role.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:And yet our air defense systems are still pretty much as they were in the 80s aren't they? Like isn't US Army tactical ADA pretty much just stingers? Stingers mounted on vehicles now like some sort of G.I. Joe show brought to life. But you don't need air defense when you have the USAF 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:And yet our air defense systems are still pretty much as they were in the 80s aren't they? Like isn't US Army tactical ADA pretty much just stingers? Patriot for long range and Stinger for short range, currently. The US Navy has a bunch of fancy new SAMs, though, like the Evolved Sea Sparrow and Rolling Airframe Missile, which are both fantastic at slamming into flying things across the gamut of types, speeds, and sizes. It's also important to remember that Patriot and Stinger have seen continuous upgrades and are wholly different animals than they were in the 1980s. There were some projects that successfully employed the AMRAAM from various ground vehicles, but it never made it to production because when it comes down to it there was no real need for it. I mean, at this point it'd be silly to drop a bunch of cash on ground-based air defense platforms when we've got an Air Force that really doesn't have much competition in that game. I mean the Russians are basically the other primary innovator for aircraft and they've got a really nice modernized Su-27 in the Su-35, which is supposed to be a real threat to the current fleet of F-15/16s. However, they also only built 14 of them. Also notable that while we're still some time away from shoving a useful laser in a plane, we've already got the first generation of mobile laser platforms on the ground that are getting really close to the "this thing can zap holes into airplanes at useful distances" category. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, the F-35. Low and slow is not an advantage on the modern battlefield; it's a liability.  When it's got a laser that'll melt through a tank hull from altitude, I'll agree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Is there any other plane in the US inventory that can do the job of the A10 as well as it can? Because it seems to be about perfect for the CAS role. It depends on what you mean by CAS, as annoying of a question as that is. If you mean something that has long loiter time, high payload capacity, and can deliver PGMs on target quickly - that's one thing. If you mean "can it use a GAU-8 to shred the hell out of Soviet tank columns in the Fulda Gap before delivering a metric shitload of cluster munitions while laughing off 23mm AAA," that's another. And in at least one of these scenarios "making it home in one piece" is a relevant part of the CAS mission. So I guess it's a two part answer: the A-10 isn't actually 'just about perfect' for CAS in the world of widely proliferated MANPADS but that doesn't mean the USAF has something better in the inventory. Relative measurement, after all. in my thoroughly armchair way (so basically just like Grover with less bias) I vote F-15E and think the USAF should get some of those Ace Combaty ones iyaayas posted a while back where Boeing activated those two outermost pylons so it had like 20 missiles hanging off the drat thing. Might as well go all-in on that Ace Combat thing and paint the right wing red, too. e: or the FB-22, I remember that looking surprisingly cool for a fat Raptor. Visual aesthetics are, of course, the most important concern for any aircraft purchasing much like enormous boner-guns on battleships are the key of any navy. (The YF-23 was robbed) Psion fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Psion posted:It depends on what you mean by CAS, as annoying of a question as that is. If you mean something that has long loiter time, high payload capacity, and can deliver PGMs on target quickly - that's one thing. If you mean "can it use a GAU-8 to shred the hell out of Soviet tank columns in the Fulda Gap before delivering a metric shitload of cluster munitions while laughing off 23mm AAA," that's another. And in at least one of these scenarios "making it home in one piece" is a relevant part of the CAS mission. I'm really digging the look of this 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Yeah, the Silent Eagle is pretty slick. Obviously, this means it'll never be put into production.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Just build stealth A-10s. Everyone's happy!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
Warbadger, if you want to talk modern reasonably immobile AA development, there is Iron Dome. Even then, it's a fairly niche application. On the other hand, it seems to be the only product on the market claiming counter-mortar and artillery shell capability, other than the groverlaser
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Warbadger, if you want to talk modern reasonably immobile AA development, there is Iron Dome. Even then, it's a fairly niche application. On the other hand, it seems to be the only product on the market claiming counter-mortar and artillery shell capability, other than the groverlaser The Centurion C-RAM system has been around for a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Capn Jobe posted:
Not just a corsair, but an F2G-1 SUPER Corsair. One of five -1s built, and two that still exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:And yet our air defense systems are still pretty much as they were in the 80s aren't they? Like isn't US Army tactical ADA pretty much just stingers? The primary Army systems are Patriot and Avenger/Stinger. Patriot today is really not very much at all like it was in the 80s. We also have C-RAM (deployed), JLENS (in test), THAAD (deployed), and NASAMS (used in DC area). SLAMRAAM worked fine and was courted by the Army and Marines, though the Marines named it CLAWS or something. It just became a thing no one really wanted to spend money on, so it was cancelled, but still sits around in a warehouse somewhere in case people want to buy it someday. I think it's safe to say that there's a lot more interest in getting any sensor any shooter working than there is in just building entirely new ground-based shooters, with the exception of whizzbang things like directed energy weapons. MEADS stands for Maybe Eventually Air Defense System. IAMD is Imaginary Air and Missile Defense. A picture of SLAMRAAM:  A picture of the latest NASAMS upgrade:  edit: Somewhere there is a warehouse full of LAV-AD turrets detached from the LAV itself. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Is there any other plane in the US inventory that can do the job of the A10 as well as it can? Because it seems to be about perfect for the CAS role. Anything the Air Force is NOT flying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:And yet our air defense systems are still pretty much as they were in the 80s aren't they? Like isn't US Army tactical ADA pretty much just stingers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
Why is the NASAMS in use specifically around the DC area? I mean, it's kind of cool that they're using a system from teeny lil' us to protect the airspace around the capitol and the white house, but why not just use Patriot which is well-known, pervasive, well battle-tested and indigenous?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
I thought the US would forego on deploying MEADS and only partially fund it or something, which led to some predictably icy reactions in germany.Warbadger posted:I mean the Russians are basically the other primary innovator for aircraft and they've got a really nice modernized Su-27 in the Su-35, which is supposed to be a real threat to the current fleet of F-15/16s. However, they also only built 14 of them. Uhh how about the Su-30?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Why is the NASAMS in use specifically around the DC area? I mean, it's kind of cool that they're using a system from teeny lil' us to protect the airspace around the capitol and the white house, but why not just use Patriot which is well-known, pervasive, well battle-tested and indigenous?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I thought the US would forego on deploying MEADS and only partially fund it or something, which led to some predictably icy reactions in germany. It depends. The late models like the MKIs flown by India had a shitload of modernization upgrades over the Russian service models from the 90s and should be a hell of a lot more capable. They basically replaced all of the avionics and electronics with French/Israeli stuff and a bit of more modern Russian hardware to round it out. The Russians are now building 60 of them for themselves (or 30 depending on the source) while the Indians continue to upgrade them with poo poo like compatibility with the Meteor. Edit: To clarify, the model that took part in exercises with the US in 2004 in which its performance against the F-15C was publicized (and everybody references when comparing the F-15C and Su-30) was the MKI. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 13:30
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:Anything the Air Force is NOT flying. So, the F-35?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
It's got a laser* so it doesn't need to fly it just bounces it's shots off the moon parked up :groversay:
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, the F-35. Low and slow is not an advantage on the modern battlefield; it's a liability. Seems like it does pretty well in Afghanistan. Can you remind me the last time an A10 was shot down, Grover? (Hint: its been 10 years.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Seems like it does pretty well in Afghanistan. Can you remind me the last time an A10 was shot down, Grover? (Hint: its been 10 years.) Yes when I think of modern air defense systems I think of Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Flikken posted:Yes when I think of modern air defense systems I think of Afghanistan. The point is that the modern battlefield doesn't necessarily include modern air defense systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 14:45
|
|