|
Cool. Just googled that and I'm glad the aim-9x is getting love instead of some brand new interceptor. I also wrote integrated army missile defense up there due to lack of coffee. Should have been army integrated air and missile defense.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:MEADS ABT TBM PAC-3 MSE PDB IAMD SHORAD UAS C-RAM IFPC BINGO
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:BINGO Then RTB.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
AIM-9X is infrared only, right? I know it's good, but do the smaller drones put out enough heat? Also it still seems like an expensive solution, especially compared to the obvious answer of reviving the Sgt York
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
I dunno, $650k per copy vs ... how much did the M247 program cost? What's funny is since they're back to using the Sidewinder, maybe there are some Chaparrals sitting in a depot somewhere they could roll out  Might as well buy some surplus Shilkas. e: somewhere that weirdo M113 guy is getting a boner over the M163 VADS: Mark II Psion fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:AIM-9X is infrared only, right? I know it's good, but do the smaller drones put out enough heat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Psion posted:Might as well buy some surplus Shilkas. The reason you started seeing a lot of Shilkas in armies during the 1970-80s is because shilkas weren't very good. The Soviets had been working on replacing them for two decades with short range SAMs. As soon as relatively reliable stuff like the SA-13 and improved MANPADS started entering the inventory they started pushing the shilkas overseas and into reserve units. Even the Tunguska's primary capability isn't in the gun, it's the SACLOS SAM system. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:AIM-9X is infrared only, right? I know it's good, but do the smaller drones put out enough heat? The 9X seeker is bascially an infrared camera, so it can track hot things and a lot of things that aren't hot. Warbadger posted:The reason you started seeing a lot of Shilkas in armies during the 1970-80s is because shilkas weren't very good. The Soviets had been working on replacing them for two decades with short range SAMs. Even the Tunguska's primary capability isn't in the gun, it's the SACLOS SAM system. I too read about how the Shilka replacement program began under Stalin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:AIM-9X is infrared only, right? I know it's good, but do the smaller drones put out enough heat? Yes and yes. The seeker isn't just looking for hot spots like in the 50s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:I too read about how the Shilka replacement program began under Stalin. Yeah, it was more like a decade. Development of the Tunguska started in 1970 and it was preceded by the Strela-1 and Strela-10. The Shilka's limitations were pretty obvious shortly after it entered service and it joined the T-55 and T-62 in the "please export" pile by the mid 70s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
It's worth noting that the ZSU-4-23 / Shilka was far superior to: Chaparral, Vulcan, Sgt. York (lol). It always astonishes me that the US Army / Marines operated without any significant armored/mobile SAM capability for literally decades.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:It always astonishes me that the US Army / Marines operated without any significant armored/mobile SAM capability for literally decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
As opposed to having a "great need" for destroying ground targets?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:AIM-9X is infrared only, right? I know it's good, but do the smaller drones put out enough heat? God yes. We need more latrine fans and bleachers full of Congressmen and Generals gunned down, Ed-209 style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:It's worth noting that the ZSU-4-23 / Shilka was far superior to: Chaparral, Vulcan, Sgt. York (lol). The Vulcan, yeah. Though by less of a margin than you'd imagine. The Sgt. York? Obviously, because if nothing else it never actually existed outside of a prototype. Not the Chaparral, though. The Shilka had a maximum effective range of about 1.5-2.5km against plane-sized targets. The tracking RADAR had problems with low altitude targets (like say, helicopters at low level) to the point that you had to manually spot the target and then manually aim it - with no rangefinder. Meanwhile it had trouble tracking the average fixed wing targets inside around 6km due to high angular velocity, which as you can imagine presents some issues when your maximum engagement range is half that. The Chaparral (at least the early models) was junk compared to say, the Strela-10, but when compared to the Shilka we're still talking at least double the engagement range and a missile that at least did tend to track and hit things close enough to be shot at. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not as though they've ended up having any great need for it during that time. Well neither did the Soviet Union 'end up' needing the gazillion AD assets they developed and deployed. It rather bankrupted their nation, along with too large a number of other ludicrous procurement decisions. It's just a bit weird that _ultimately_ the Cold War US Military never got a replacement mobile SAM in service, or a more modern SPAAG for that matter, when the MIM-72/M163 combo was getting long in the tooth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:AIM-9X is infrared only, right? I know it's good, but do the smaller drones put out enough heat? The first increment's primary target set are class 2 and 3 UAS (ie, from roughly Raven through Reaper size), so IR signature shouldn't be an issue. For the micro/mini stuff we're probably looking at a "shoot your machine gun at it" approach until such time as the new RAM interceptor hits the streets (something like EAPS, or smaller), or alternatively if DE proves itself viable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Well neither did the Soviet Union 'end up' needing the gazillion AD assets they developed and deployed. It rather bankrupted their nation, along with too large a number of other ludicrous procurement decisions. I think Dead Reckoning's point is that the decision to not pursue a mobile SAM or more modern SPAAG was a good procurement decision since there wasn't near as much of a need for the US to have those systems compared to the Soviets, due to our significant advantage in the air (especially by the late '70s into the '80s). Regarding AIM-9X... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ In addition to being cool as poo poo, that video shows a couple of good examples of what the -9X's IIR seeker is capable of, as far as what it can see/detect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Someone posted their grandfather's pilot log book from WWII. Looks like he flew the Corsair a bunch, so pretty cool. http://imgur.com/a/TmzJA
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
Thief posted:Someone posted their grandfather's pilot log book from WWII. Looks like he flew the Corsair a bunch, so pretty cool. My Grandfather had something like 50 hours in CG-4As. I need to get some pics of his logbook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
America's Nuclear Forces 'Rotting From Within'
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:America's Nuclear Forces 'Rotting From Within' The USAF nuclear force is hopelessly broken (that's what happens when you take a red haired stepchild and lock them in the basement for 20 years). The "reinvigorate the nuclear enterprise" bullshit that senior leadership has been spewing ever since Minot is a colossal joke...it's kind of hard to reinvigorate something when you a) continue to not fund it appropriately and b) continue to treat the people who work in that career field like poo poo. We just need to quit the triad and give the Navy sole responsibility for the nuclear mission. The less things the USAF touches the better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The USAF nuclear force is hopelessly broken (that's what happens when you take a red haired stepchild and lock them in the basement for 20 years). The "reinvigorate the nuclear enterprise" bullshit that senior leadership has been spewing ever since Minot is a colossal joke...it's kind of hard to reinvigorate something when you a) continue to not fund it appropriately and b) continue to treat the people who work in that career field like poo poo. We just need to quit the triad and give the Navy sole responsibility for the nuclear mission. The less things the USAF touches the better. Give it to the Marines! Kidding aside, are the Marines the only branch (Coast Guard aside) that never had nuclear weapons at any point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
The marines would insist on deploying nukes danger close because OORAH
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I think Dead Reckoning's point is that the decision to not pursue a mobile SAM or more modern SPAAG was a good procurement decision since there wasn't near as much of a need for the US to have those systems compared to the Soviets, due to our significant advantage in the air (especially by the late '70s into the '80s). Yes I'm aware of that point, but IMO it's a bit trite. On the same side of the fence you had the French and the W. Germans ultimately investing way more in SHORAD (short range air defense) capabilities, while the Canadians on the other hand didn't have anything to work with and relied on whatever scraps VII Corps would have handed out if push came to shove. NATO would have nominally enjoyed the same amount of aerial coverage since 2 and 4 ATAF were well integrated on the air defense side AFAIK (even more so with NATO's E3 force), and then there's stuff like the Hawk and Nike SAM belts which were parceled out on a national basis, but which protected the entire front. Ergo, in Central Europe the baseline higher level umbrella was in place for everyone. The relative level of investment in mobile, ground based protection are what's interesting to me. You've got a number of minor allies (or not so minor, in case of the UK before tracked Rapier) rolling around with very little in the way of SHORAD, the US making due with ever aging systems, and a number of countries investing in heavily in stuff like Roland and Gepard. Plus, I don't think the US decision to forego on mobile SHORAD was a well though out one based on positive factors, since they did intend to procure both DIVADS and SHORADS (Roland) on a very large scale. It's just that both programs proved to be unsuccessful for various reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Kidding aside, are the Marines the only branch (Coast Guard aside) that never had nuclear weapons at any point? Marines kind of had nukes for a short period of time in the '50s and '60s because several of their attack squadrons (mostly A-4s) were certified for the delivery of nuclear weapons. Of course they would've been doing so off of Navy carriers, as a squadron integrated with the CVW. Also Marines provide the security personnel to secure USN nukes. Koesj posted:Plus, I don't think the US decision to forego on mobile SHORAD was a well though out one based on positive factors, since they did intend to procure both DIVADS and SHORADS (Roland) on a very large scale. It's just that both programs proved to be unsuccessful for various reasons. That's a pretty valid point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The marines would insist on deploying nukes danger close because OORAH Well, they did make a nuke for the Harrier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Thief posted:Someone posted their grandfather's pilot log book from WWII. Looks like he flew the Corsair a bunch, so pretty cool. That's pretty badass actually, a great find.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Was working the AWACS at the Nellis Airshow a few years ago...we were parked next to JSTARS and Rivet Joint (the "Iron Triad"). This little old man walks up to me, points at the RJ (which had a 1955 tail number) and tells me he flew on that plane when it was brand new. Showed me his log book right there to prove it. Then he dropped it as he shuffled off and I had to run after him. That was the time we left our jet locked because Nellis ground folks decided not to empty the lavatory after an 8-hr mission...so it sat, in the July heat, for two days before the airshow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That was the time we left our jet locked because Nellis ground folks decided not to empty the lavatory after an 8-hr mission...so it sat, in the July heat, for two days before the airshow. I am far too familiar with that particular odor...  The only thing worse is pigs. Moral of the story is: Go to college, kids. And if you don't, at least work passenger ops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Give it to the Marines! Well, if you consider that the Marines aren't actually a separate branch, but a Corps of the Navy, then they do technically have nukes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I am far too familiar with that particular odor... It always amuses me whenever I hear about livestock being flown somewhere. I mean, it makes sense, I guess I really just don't think about a plane full of pigs when I think air cargo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
It mildly scares me that so many of the air force's most important planes are just ancient 707s stuffed to the gills with radios.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It mildly scares me that so many of the air force's most important planes are just ancient 707s stuffed to the gills with radios. This is kind of like saying that nascars are just street cars with fancy roll cages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Not really, what I mean is that those planes are frickin old and they've got to be falling apart at the seams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The marines would insist on deploying nukes danger close because OORAH NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:Well, they did make a nuke for the Harrier. Maybe the Marines should get (conventional) ICBMs. Would give them the VTO part of VTOL, the landing still has some kinks to be worked out but it'd at least carry a payload probably comparable to an F-35B. Probably cheaper, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:This is kind of like saying that nascars are just street cars with fancy roll cages. Not at all, actually. The first two AWACS were literally 707s that were modified (then the line was modified to produce E-3s directly). On those two you can actually see the panels on the fuselage covering the line of windows. All of JSTARS were formerly airliners and cargo 707s. KC-135s aren't technically 707s, but they're a different modification of the Dash-80. RJs are based on the KC-135. They all came through the same assembly line, which isn't something NASCAR has been able to claim for decades. Edit: The Navy's E-6Bs are the last 707s to roll off the line. The AF turned down the chance to buy more E-3s and E-8s, so Boeing shut 'er down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
KingPave posted:Maybe the Marines should get (conventional) ICBMs. Would give them the VTO part of VTOL, the landing still has some kinks to be worked out but it'd at least carry a payload probably comparable to an F-35B. Probably cheaper, too. Safer too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
They should have kept this cockpit layout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 00:20
|
|
