|
On Tuesday, I made an overnight trip up to Las Vegas and took some photos of the airplanes taking part in Red Flag exercises at Nellis AFB. The word among the other photographers was that there was an F-35 there, but I didn't get a chance to see it (I only photographed for one day of the two weeks that it lasts for, after all.) I had the camera on automatic shooting part of the time; that means I took way, way more exposures than I'll ever actually use, so I'm still sorting through them, but I'll repost some of the cooler stuff to this thread when it's ready. There was an Australian Wedgetail AWACS and a C-130 with some really funky antenna attachments, among other things.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:On Tuesday, I made an overnight trip up to Las Vegas and took some photos of the airplanes taking part in Red Flag exercises at Nellis AFB. The word among the other photographers was that there was an F-35 there, but I didn't get a chance to see it (I only photographed for one day of the two weeks that it lasts for, after all.) I had the camera on automatic shooting part of the time; that means I took way, way more exposures than I'll ever actually use, so I'm still sorting through them, but I'll repost some of the cooler stuff to this thread when it's ready. There was an Australian Wedgetail AWACS and a C-130 with some really funky antenna attachments, among other things. As promised!          
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
On that 1st F16 photo what's the ordinance hanging on the left most (not wingtip) pylon?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
AIM-9
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:11
|
|
Godholio posted:AIM-9 With no rear fins?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Breaky posted:On that 1st F16 photo what's the ordinance hanging on the left most (not wingtip) pylon? IIRC, its a training device. I think they use it to track hits in mock dogfights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Breaky posted:With no rear fins? Looks like there is one hanging off that Eurofighter, as well. Could be some sort of training dummy. EDIT: F-18's also have on on their wingtip pylon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
In exercises, how are missile kills determined? Is an actual missile fired at an actual plane but without a warhead or something? I would think not but I really have no idea. I just can't think of another reason the F-16 would be carrying a missile, unless it's shooting a drone. VVVV yeah that's what I'm figuring, shooting a live missile at a plane with someone in it seems way too dangerous Mortabis fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:In exercises, how are missile kills determined? Is an actual missile fired at an actual plane but without a warhead or something? I would think not but I really have no idea. I just can't think of another reason the F-16 would be carrying a missile, unless it's shooting a drone. Pretty sure a missile without a warhead would still gently caress you up. Probably just computer stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Breaky posted:With no rear fins? Oops. Yeah it's the exercise telemetry thing... I just looked at the front fins. Edit: The jets computers track all the relevant data and it's sent through the pod. After the mission there are a ton of mission specific debriefings, one of which is the shot-validation. The entire mission is played on a projector and paused when a "shot" was taken. The numbers are analyzed and it's determined to be a kill or miss. There are real-time judges who call players dead when appropriate during the actual mission, too. I don't know how, but they're right more often than not. Edit2: Remembered the acronym. Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Comedy option: they roll a D20.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Comedy option: they roll a D20. I've literally been at a live flight exercise where they used dice for a couple of the SAM systems that didn't have accepted shot validation practices the way the fighters do. You basically look at the probability of kill charts of the system and the range at which the shot was taken and roll the dice. After the first run that way, they just used an RNG to print out a spreadsheet and would cross off numbers as they were used. In my experience, rather than have a shot called a miss, pilots are very aware of how shots are assessed and only take shots they are rather certain of unless they REALLY need to take a dodgy shot to avoid mission failure or if you're firing shaping shots or just busy playing the drag to defend game where both fighters are shooting then dragging away to kinematically defeat the missiles over and over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
That's kind of a good habit to be in, though. Almost every (maybe every) AIM-120 miss in combat was due to shots being taken outside of parameters or being the second shot on a target where the first missile scored the kill. Edit: Fines were often assessed in the shot val...can't remember if it was for every miss or just for a shot that clearly should not have been taken at all. The best moment in one of those was when a low-level Tornado GR4 pilot called for a shot assessment on an F-16 and the entire room just turned around like 
Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
That's one of the EC-130H Compass Calls from Davis-Monthan AFB, Dad flew those back when we lived there in the 90s. I'll ask if he has anything notable to say about them or maybe even that particular plane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Is the wedge on the Wedgetail a more modern and streamlined version of the radome on the AWACS planes, or do they perform different functions ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Hoopy Frood posted:Is the wedge on the Wedgetail a more modern and streamlined version of the radome on the AWACS planes, or do they perform different functions ? Same idea, but the Wedgetail is an AESA so newer tech. No idea of performance differences though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's kind of a good habit to be in, though. Similarly, in one exercise, all shots with a pK above 90% were assessed as 100% shots, because they didn't want some pilot getting the idea that it was smart to enter a 90% pK engagement zone based on a lucky die roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Hoopy Frood posted:Is the wedge on the Wedgetail a more modern and streamlined version of the radome on the AWACS planes, or do they perform different functions ? The Wedgetail has a an AESA radar, E-3 does not. This gives the Wedgetail a bit of an advantage dealing with a few situations like jamming or other interference. I suspect it has a smaller resolution cell (basically a higher res radar picture) based on improved beam steering...that's a guess. The E-3s radar is electronically steered in azimuth only, and is not as tweakable to deal with interference. But it has greater range and a few different modes I don't think the Wedgetail has...but the Wedgetail probably has a superior maritime capability. The biggest difference is in the airframe itself though...the 737 just doesn't have the physical room to take over the E-3's mission at anything close to a 1:1 ratio. It doesn't have enough radios, it doesn't have a big/powerful enough radar, and it doesn't have enough crew members. Even after several positions are eliminated by the new AWACS upgrade, the E-3 mission crew will still have twice as many people...the team of controllers is almost a big as the Wedgetail's crew. That said, not many countries really need the full AWACS treatment. Australia doesn't plan for managing an air war a thousand miles across. It doesn't need to control 500 aircraft. The US does plan for it and has done it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The biggest difference is in the airframe itself though...the 737 just doesn't have the physical room to take over the E-3's mission at anything close to a 1:1 ratio. It doesn't have enough radios, it doesn't have a big/powerful enough radar, and it doesn't have enough crew members. Even after several positions are eliminated by the new AWACS upgrade, the E-3 mission crew will still have twice as many people...the team of controllers is almost a big as the Wedgetail's crew.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
grover posted:Do those functions really need to be onboard the AWACS, though, or can some of those personnel be sitting in a command center hundreds of miles away? There's a legit concern of having radio antennae separated enough so they don't interfere with each other, but as far as the crew goes, I suspect the E-3's replacement will have most of the mission crew on the ground. The main concern here is data throughput and adversary jamming capabilities. Japan wanted a 767 rather than waiting for a 737, remember.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
In the past few months, I've read two books of interest to the thread. The first is Argo, the book that movie last year was based on. I always like reading about real life intelligence operations, and this one is quite good at painting a picture at what life is like in the CIA. It also has a crackin' yarn to tell, about the exfiltration of American citizens out of revolutionary Iran. So, if you like either of those things, you'll like Argo. Added bonus: as a Canadian, it's nice to read about Canada doing something right in the national security arena post World War 2. The other is "Command and Control" by Eric Schosser, which as y'all probably know, is about nuclear weapons and the illusion of safety. I have to say, this book shattered a few illusions for me. For example: while I knew that the 'Little Boy' bomb used on Hiroshima had a risk of premature detonation, I assumed that the risk of that happening in later weapons was minimal, and, uh, that was not true. The time that the air force nearly nuked South Carolina has already been discussed in these parts, but "Command and Control" is filled with horrifying near-miss stories, where had something gone just a *tiny* bit differently, there would have been an accidental detonation of a warhead. And this is fun: sometimes these accidents would have happened in allied countries like Britain and Morocco! I think anybody reading this book will come away slightly amazed that there's never been an accidental detonation of a warhead. The slight consolation here is that there is a group of officials and scientists who from the very start were cognizant of the dangers America's nuclear weapons were running, and tried to make them safer. The book also provides a fascinating look into how nuclear policy developed in the USA. In this thread we have given a lot of stick to Russians deploying half-baked ideas in service of closing gaps. I didn't realize until I read this book that all the first generation ICBMs and medium range missiles deployed by the USA were the same thing. Reading about the politics of flying around with live warheads just 'cause was also an eye-opener for me. Anyway, it's a book that I think anybody reading this thread would get a kick out of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:deploying half-baked ideas in service of closing gaps 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:42
|
|
I just started Command and Control and 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Command and Control us great but I really dislike how the book was organized. Splitting up the silo disaster into many chapters was annoying. I got the feeling that the author had material for two small books, and elected to weave then together into one. Aside from my nitpick it's a very good read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Does the E-3 have an upgraded electrical system, versus a standard C-135/707, or is it the same three or four generators, but actually loaded up? (I think C-135s have 3, and 707s have 4.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There's a legit concern of having radio antennae separated enough so they don't interfere with each other, but as far as the crew goes, I suspect the E-3's replacement will have most of the mission crew on the ground. The main concern here is data throughput and adversary jamming capabilities. grover fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Command and Control us great but I really dislike how the book was organized. Splitting up the silo disaster into many chapters was annoying. I got the feeling that the author had material for two small books, and elected to weave then together into one. I felt that this was done to give an in depth case of the book's theme of "little accidents can have large consequences when dealing with nuclear weapons." Smiling Jack posted:I just started Command and Control and My feelings in a sentence (and an emoticon)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Does the E-3 have an upgraded electrical system, versus a standard C-135/707, or is it the same three or four generators, but actually loaded up? I don't really know technical specifics of the airframe (and our former E-3 flight engineer is wicked busy in real life) but I know there are 8 generators. Wikipedia says 1Mw. So there are going to be some differences, but no idea on how different. grover posted:Pragmatically speaking, any sort of jamming environment that would prevent voice and/or data links between and AWACS and mission crew on the ground would also prevent voice and/or data links between AWACS and controlled aircraft. Keeping those personnel onboard would reduce the points of failure, though it adds to the number of people in harm's way. Do you think AWACS may be augmented by UAVs in the not too distant future, as a means to extend coverage into areas too dangerous to risk an E-3 or its successors? I disagree with the first part, because that's way too oversimplified. If my UHF radios are being jammed or otherwise interfered with, I have a variety of options to get around it (such as various datalinks). Likewise, if my Link-16 is hosed, I can work around that too. But if I can't get the radar picture, I can't do poo poo...that's a massive single point of failure and if I were Russia/China/whatever you better believe I'm focusing on that. I see the next-gen AWACS moving to a smaller airframe dedicated primarily to the hardware and probably a couple of airborne technicians, while the mission crew sits on the ground in CRC-style trailers. Interestingly, they're looking at doing exactly this with JSTARS, which is likely to be phased out sooner. As far as the UAV question, I doubt it. I don't think the payoff is worth the cost. First, we already have pretty good range, especially compared to everyone else and anything in the foreseeable future. Second, a useful radar would be big enough to make it a design challenge. I don't doubt that it's feasible, but it won't be cheap and frankly the payoff isn't that great. If we were in Cold War R&D Mode, I could totally see it being pursued, but nowadays? Not a chance in hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I don't really know technical specifics of the airframe (and our former E-3 flight engineer is wicked busy in real life) but I know there are 8 generators. Wikipedia says 1Mw. So there are going to be some differences, but no idea on how different. Ya... That's different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I disagree with the first part, because that's way too oversimplified. If my UHF radios are being jammed or otherwise interfered with, I have a variety of options to get around it (such as various datalinks). Likewise, if my Link-16 is hosed, I can work around that too. But if I can't get the radar picture, I can't do poo poo...that's a massive single point of failure and if I were Russia/China/whatever you better believe I'm focusing on that. MrYenko posted:Ya... That's different. grover fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
grover posted:That's a good point; voice and JTIDS are fairly low data rate, but the sort of bandwidth you'd need to transmit that real-time raw radar data seems as though it would be far more susceptible to jamming. How long do you think it'll be before automatic systems can process and interpret data as good as a human operator, or close enough to mitigate risk in a heavy jamming environment? Raw radar data is on the order of Gb/s I'm sure it's even more than something like AWACS vs fire control and nav systems that I'm used to dealing with. Processed data could be doable if you can get it down to the few hundred Mb/s speed. If you're doing that kind of speed you're going to a satellite so you'll be pointing a very narrow beam up. You'd have to have someone above you to jam it. As for a UAV/automatic system it'll be a long time. Radar is a statistics problem that still needs a human in the loop but it's getting better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:
Pretty much this. You won't replace controllers with computers in our lifetimes (unless legit AI becomes a reality), but the Block 40/45 upgrade is replacing 2 of the 3 human surveillance technicians with 1990s software. The technology exists to do a lot of the human element and has for decades...automatic identification based on the ROE has been a possibility in the CRC world since before I joined the AF, but is often never used because A-a typo in the ATO means a good guy could be incorrectly engaged, or B-if a glitch pops up and someone gets shot down that shouldn't be shot down, who do you blame? Automation is good for some things, but there have to be human eyes to provide oversight/soak up the blame. MrYenko posted:Ya... That's different. The APY-1/APY-2 soaks up a lot of juice. But in case I misled you, that's a total figure, not per generator. grover posted:That's a good point; voice and JTIDS are fairly low data rate, but the sort of bandwidth you'd need to transmit that real-time raw radar data seems as though it would be far more susceptible to jamming. How long do you think it'll be before automatic systems can process and interpret data as good as a human operator, or close enough to mitigate risk in a heavy jamming environment? An option would be to have the computer processing still done on the jet...but with the amount of customization you'd want, you would still want a lot of bandwidth to send you "rawer" data. Although honestly as it is right now, the old computer itself can't even handle all the data the radar provides...forget transmitting it. Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
I figured as much, but as a comparison, the only civilian aircraft I can think of with more than one engine driven generator per engine is the 787. I will now refrain from asking any of the several follow up questions that are now floating through my brain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
When I see these numbers of how much electricity a plane like an E-3 or F-35 can generate and consume, it immediately makes me think of the pain in the rear end it'd be to dump all the waste heat. Don't answer this if it's a wizard question, but if a hostile is close enough to put out enough focused juice to jam an AWACS signal, aren't they close enough to just shoot it? Is the jamming concern more credible in not-yet-shooting standoff scenarios?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Don't answer this if it's a wizard question, but if a hostile is close enough to put out enough focused juice to jam an AWACS signal, aren't they close enough to just shoot it? Is the jamming concern more credible in not-yet-shooting standoff scenarios? 1-Not necessarily. 2-Totally situationally dependent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:When I see these numbers of how much electricity a plane like an E-3 or F-35 can generate and consume, it immediately makes me think of the pain in the rear end it'd be to dump all the waste heat. Most aircraft have at least double the actual required generating capacity, IE: you have one generator per engine, and you can run everything on any single generator. I'm not sure how it would work with an aircraft with dramatically higher loads, like an E-3. Heat rejection is easy with a 250kt slipstream @ -50C. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
 25 years ago today
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Soviet APCs look like they must be really goddamn cramped. Is it not just the tanks that ordinary sized people can't fit in?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Soviet APCs look like they must be really goddamn cramped. Is it not just the tanks that ordinary sized people can't fit in? You should see the passenger cabin in the Mi-24. Like Sardines in a can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:Soviet APCs look like they must be really goddamn cramped. Is it not just the tanks that ordinary sized people can't fit in? All of their ground combat vehicles are sized for midgets. I'm only 5'8" and ~135lbs and getting into, out of, and around a T-72, MT-LB, BMP-2 and whatever else was not a pleasant experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 14:28
|
|
