|
Sorry, I barely know what I'm talking about. The base AIM-9X with 90-degree off boresight capability is operational. Arguably that's plenty, but the Su-35 has effectively the same capability via the R-73, and then some, via the Flanker's supermaneuverability. Is it overkill? Probably. It certainly looks neat at air shows. I was referring to the AIM-9X Block II version, which adds Lock On After Launch for full 180 off boresight capability, and is still in testing, and taking another cheap shot at the F-35 which will take until the end of time to integrate a highly complex system like the AIM-9X LOAL mode. deck fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Apr 13, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
How do you ever lock an IR missile onto anything from within a stealthed weapons bay?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
priznat posted:Looks like the F-22 can do the Pugachev Cobra and the Kulbit, both maneuvers that used to be the exclusive realm of Flankers and Fulcrums: (in the fighter world, afaik) And the J 35 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:How do you ever lock an IR missile onto anything from within a stealthed weapons bay? With your distributed aperture system, provided that it works and has a latency below 1b ms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
That's not a cobra maneuver, that's a controlled entry into a superstall and then an immediate exit from it. edit: Draken had the best stall warning system, it was literally a stick that rapped you across the knuckles when you approached dangerous angles of attack TheFluff fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:How do you ever lock an IR missile onto anything from within a stealthed weapons bay? The missile uses inertial guidance immediately after launch to put itself on course for the target, via continuous updates over datalink from the aircraft's dedicated sensors, then acquires an IR lock en route.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Those of you thinking about combat effictiveness are forgetting that you can also drift tanks.  Before and and after the WWII/Korean era, some planes are really just toys for officers. 50 million dollar toys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unfortunately, right about the time they were reaching operational status most of the major players started fielding helmet mounted cueing sights and crazy maneuverable dogfight missiles that can fly straight across your classic turning fight and kill you, making the whole thing rather redundant. The same extremely agile missiles make any endgame maneuvers by a manned platform effectively pointless. Admittedly, I'm just another DCS: Flaming Cliffs nerd. But I've still found it invaluable for getting the target into the targeting zone and engagement angle needed for my R-73 missiles. if you have two fighters with HMS and off-boresight missiles, but one can suddenly kick it's nose towards the target by an extra 30 degrees or more that fighter will have an edge. TheFluff posted:edit: Draken had the best stall warning system, it was literally a stick that rapped you across the knuckles when you approached dangerous angles of attack I remember something similar being there for the MiG-23 too in the Red Eagles book that was linked here a while ago. Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I remember something similar being there for the MiG-23 too in the Red Eagles book that was linked here a while ago. I forget the exact wording because it's been a few years since I read it, but it slammed your knuckles back and forth into the gauge cluster if I remember right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Man people on the internet take arguing about planes that they know nothing about very, very seriously. (not referring to this thread)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Man people on the internet take arguing about planes that they know nothing about very, very seriously. Don't read YouTube comments!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Thief posted:Those of you thinking about combat effictiveness are forgetting that you can also drift tanks. Having only done a cursory pass over Blue Max (I was seeing how giffable it was), that seems to unintentionally be a larger point, despite portraying the strafing runs of biplanes as an unholy terror to ground forces. Hooning about to the point of death is a major plot point. Also, even though I skipped over 2/3 of the movie, I must have seen shots of biplane pilots manually charging their guns like 2 dozen times. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Man people on the internet take arguing about planes that they know nothing about very, very seriously. I have the pleasure of reading this kind of poo poo every single day because I play flight sims, which is really just a glorified term for overly complicated cartoon video games. Nevertheless, the majority of people these kinds of games attract are ones that will obsess over "realism" being favored only in the direction that they think makes sense all while ignoring the fact that flying airplanes is actually really loving boring most of the time. When not getting shot down and getting mad about it instead of laughing and enjoying themselves, they are constantly browsing wikipedia pages for the sake of memorizing unverified specifications and operational histories in hopes of using their misguided quotations as leverage to win an argument with another player that knows just a little about actual airplanes, military applications and even air pressure because they have very little experience going above ground level in their real lives. This is all so that they feel more justified in the fact that getting shot down is not their fault, but the flight models not being 100% accurate. They should know. They saw the documentary about it on History Channel's Dogfights™. The only thing missing from these kind of games is proper voice chat. mlmp08 posted:Having only done a cursory pass over Blue Max (I was seeing how giffable it was), that seems to unintentionally be a larger point, despite portraying the strafing runs of biplanes as an unholy terror to ground forces. Hooning about to the point of death is a major plot point. Also, even though I skipped over 2/3 of the movie, I must have seen shots of biplane pilots manually charging their guns like 2 dozen times. to be fair, I charge my guns constnatly in Rise of Flight because there's really nothing else to do when flying at only like 100MPH trying to get in range of my target. I'm pretty sure in many later prop planes, they had a lever for dropping the synchronization gear which is fairly similar to charging your guns, but they weren't supposed to fly with it on all the time cause it could wear down faster when rubbing against the engine constantly. I guess that's good enough excuse for actually showing them do it in a movie. That and there's really not much you can have an actor do in a cockpit other than look over his shoulders while excitedly explaining himself. Really though, that kind of stuff looks cool so any action director should go full Michael Bay with it: 
Thief fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
I don't care if it's McNamara's version of the f35 "do everything" aircraft, I always thought the F111 looked sexy as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unfortunately, right about the time they were reaching operational status most of the major players started fielding helmet mounted cueing sights and crazy maneuverable dogfight missiles that can fly straight across your classic turning fight and kill you, making the whole thing rather redundant. The same extremely agile missiles make any endgame maneuvers by a manned platform effectively pointless. Helmet mounted sights and high off-boresight missiles: when it's WVR, everyone dies. Dead Reckoning posted:The AIM-9X and JHMCS are already operational Not on the Raptor...spiral development! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Nor is there any chance to confuse that pair of small/medium blips going 600kts towards a published refueling track where a very large blip is slowly orbiting for the tanker itself. Unless you're French. I smell a story here. Care to share it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:How do you ever lock an IR missile onto anything from within a stealthed weapons bay? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM5pCgy2jiY In this video you can clearly see that when it comes to Sidewinders, the bay is open long enough and the missile gantry is extended out far enough for the seeker head to see in front of it. I'm sure those gantries never have the possibility of getting stuck at high-G maneuvers, potentially fouling the bay doors and dangerously compromising the Raptor's stealth, though. The good people at Lockheed-Martin would only use the BEST materials and components for such an expensive and precision piece of military hardware.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I think that's probably a valid point. The aircraft carries benefits that are not immediately obvious. Textron are not scumbags, which is a really big deal. Their deal with the government is that if it buys Scorpion, the government will own Scorpion. The government does not own the rights to much of the equipment it operates, for example: Super Hornet. When the Navy wanted to add an IR sensor package (chin mounted like the F-14) to it, Boeing wanted a fuckton of money. It didn't matter how simple the modification was, it was just an opportunity to say "gently caress you, pay me". Because of the cost involved, the Navy has been forced to settle on a demonstrably inferior alternative. The defense industry is not our friend. For the most part, these corporations lack moral fiber and will happily screw the government out of every cent they can. Also, this is an AIRPOWER thread and all but if people want to they can [ASK] me about the warships and senior level personalities of the 60s/70s era U.S. Navy. I do research on the subject in the vain hopes that the powers that be might one day learn something from the heaping pile of mistakes we've made in past procurement efforts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Having only done a cursory pass over Blue Max (I was seeing how giffable it was), that seems to unintentionally be a larger point, despite portraying the strafing runs of biplanes as an unholy terror to ground forces. Hooning about to the point of death is a major plot point. Also, even though I skipped over 2/3 of the movie, I must have seen shots of biplane pilots manually charging their guns like 2 dozen times. Old post, but were you talking about the 1966 movie or did they make a newer one? That Red Baron movie went completely under my radar until I saw it mentioned in here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:I do research on the subject in the vain hopes that the powers that be might one day learn something from the heaping pile of mistakes we've made in past procurement efforts. You're like a modern day Sisyphus, then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'm sure those gantries never have the possibility of getting stuck at high-G maneuvers, potentially fouling the bay doors and dangerously compromising the Raptor's stealth, though. The good people at Lockheed-Martin would only use the BEST materials and components for such an expensive and precision piece of military hardware. If you're pulling high-G and shooting missiles, I'd guess the time for stealth is kind of passed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
The best part of this article is that the link on Drudge Report uses a picture of a Visby.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Now what is the general opinion on the Zumwalt class? It is a jack of all trades, master of none, or is it a pretty capable plaform? Basically, is it the F-35 of the seas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Zokalwe posted:I smell a story here. Care to share it? Couple of Mirages decided to take gas from one of our AWACS, which wasn't squawking anything like their tanker nor was it anywhere near their assigned tanker rendezvous. Turns out the Frenchies controllers were using a day-old ATO and gave them bad vectors on the wrong freqs, but no one challenged them even though they'd been briefed something totally different. It was a snowball of stupid starting with forgetting a critical airspace plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
I don't know if the Zumwalt is a goofy boondoggle or not, but loving railguns, guys!!! The future is here. (someday, when they add the railgun)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Now what is the general opinion on the Zumwalt class? It is a jack of all trades, master of none, or is it a pretty capable plaform? Basically, is it the F-35 of the seas? If the Seawolf class teaches us anything it's that a three-ship class loaded with tons of unique tech doesn't lend itself to high readiness levels. The Zumwalt's focus on surface strike at the cost of AAW and ASW capability make it an odd fit for a lot of roles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:Also, this is an AIRPOWER thread and all but if people want to they can [ASK] me about the warships and senior level personalities of the 60s/70s era U.S. Navy. I do research on the subject in the vain hopes that the powers that be might one day learn something from the heaping pile of mistakes we've made in past procurement efforts. I've heard that around the '60s we had several classes of ASW surface ship that went all or most of their front-line careers with (at best) severely underperforming sonar systems. If you have any info on this or any other goofed (long-retired) classes with glaring deficiencies I'd like to hear them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Old post, but were you talking about the 1966 movie or did they make a newer one? 1966. It's on Amazon prime streaming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:If the Seawolf class teaches us anything it's that a three-ship class loaded with tons of unique tech doesn't lend itself to high readiness levels. I can understand the Seawolf being cut to three as the Berlin wall had just fallen and they were fuckoff expensive, but why only three of something like a "destroyer"? Are these expected to just be railgun/missile haulers and let everyone else (Arleigh Burke) do the AAW and ASW? Hell, are they only divvying one per coast and the third is for swapping the other two when they need to hit the drydock? Is this entire class just to justify the money they are spending on rail-gun tech?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I can understand the Seawolf being cut to three as the Berlin wall had just fallen and they were fuckoff expensive, but why only three of something like a "destroyer"? Are these expected to just be railgun/missile haulers and let everyone else (Arleigh Burke) do the AAW and ASW? Hell, are they only divvying one per coast and the third is for swapping the other two when they need to hit the drydock? Is this entire class just to justify the money they are spending on rail-gun tech? IIRC they just got too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
They got too expensive and got re-roled to fill the Congressional requirement for naval gunfire support I believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
They're tech demos in a lot of ways and that's not a bad reason to build them. They're not design dead ends like the Seawolves ended up being. The automation and power distribution systems, once validated, could benefit future classes significantly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Sort of like the SeaShadow, but useful?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:They're tech demos in a lot of ways and that's not a bad reason to build them. They're not design dead ends like the Seawolves ended up being. The automation and power distribution systems, once validated, could benefit future classes significantly. The Seawolf program led to the Virginia class, which is basically the economy version.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Now what is the general opinion on the Zumwalt class? It is a jack of all trades, master of none, or is it a pretty capable plaform? Basically, is it the F-35 of the seas? It's an Air Defense cruiser that ideally needs a non-stealthy Arleigh Burke nearby to share a better radar with. The Navy finally got their 'Arsenal Ship.' The ship was built and gimped because "CG(X) is coming and it's gonna be SOOOOOOO much better." Well, the CG(X) program was canceled because the Flight III Arleigh Burkes are going to be SOOOOOOO much better for everything the Zumwalts were designed for. In short, the Zumwalts are nothing but a thing for the Navy to point at and claim they're "futcha"-ready, because so many smaller navies have low-RCS frigates and the like, and our ships look like they belong in the 90s. Nevermind we've still got the single-best navy in the world and I'd put three Arleigh Burkes up against basically anything that floats, but LOOKIT HOW COOL AND *NEW* IT LOOKS, GUYS! AND IT'S CAPTAIN'S NAME IS KIRK! The Zumwalt also costs half as much as a Nimitz, but only ~1/3~ of a Ford-class carrier. But since the Navy wants three of them, so much for that comparison. Blistex posted:Sort of like the SeaShadow, but useful? Seeing as it's *also* a ship that can never afford to take a hit from even a small caliber cannon round, sort of. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The Seawolf program led to the Virginia class, which is basically the economy version. Nah, the VAs are more evolved from the later 688i boats, not the Seawolves. Let's not get into specifics, but the general fast-and-deep vs slow-and-shallow design priorities show this lineage. And of course the VAs have VLS like 688i and don't carry over things like the Seawolf's crazy torpedo magazine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Nah, the VAs are more evolved from the later 688i boats, not the Seawolves. Let's not get into specifics, but the general fast-and-deep vs slow-and-shallow design priorities show this lineage. And of course the VAs have VLS like 688i and don't carry over things like the Seawolf's crazy torpedo magazine. I do love how the plan with the Block V boats of the Virginia class is causing so much concern over it having a hump that will *minorly* effect its acoustics, but add a ton of effectiveness to the hull:  And yes, those do look like SLBM tubes, but evidently they're going to be used to house the 'drum' launchers (and/or a SEAL module, supposedly) that are currently fitted to the Ohio SSGNs, and ~eventually~ they might house hypersonic cruise missiles. Each Tomahawk drum carries seven missiles, so eight tubes means 56 Tomahawks per equipped Virginia boat. It's not 154 Tomahawks, but I'd imagine if a Virginia needs to fire more than 56 Tomahawks, something big has gone down. Snowdens Secret posted:Nah, the VAs are more evolved from the later 688i boats, not the Seawolves. Let's not get into specifics, but the general fast-and-deep vs slow-and-shallow design priorities show this lineage. And of course the VAs have VLS like 688i and don't carry over things like the Seawolf's crazy torpedo magazine. To say nothing of the fact that any submarine vs. submarine fight in the next twenty years will be in shallower waters, since Russia only puts about 1-2 boomers to sea at any given time, and China doesn't let its SSBNs wander too far from their bases yet either. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It's an Air Defense cruiser No it's not  Or is everything with a Mk 41 or A50/70 VLS an air defense ship these days?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
I was going to make a crude joke about how USN already got its 'arsenal ship' with SSGN and that China needed to get serious about a TSOSUS net to keep them out of nearby waters, but this is apparently already a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 09:54
|
|