|
B4Ctom1 posted:Close call with death Man its a small internet. Unless there are multiple B4Ctom1s, you posted comments on one of my imgur posts and I think you used to be on another car forum I was on like turbo mustangs.
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Those are both me too. The thickness of the mullet you must posses for a modded V6 camaro...I bet is magical.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I'm gonna go ahead and say there are plenty at fault including engineers. As an engineer on mil planes, can confirm its probably the fault of someone who at least possesses an engineering degree even if theyre now a manager or systems person.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:Wow, so the detection really is that good. Its worth mentioning that anyone knowledgeable on this subject, knowledge of what a system can or can't detect, would absolutely positively not EVER EVER EVER post about it on a public forum. Ranges included. They'd be fired immediately. Also, for radars/radar weapon systems, lot of the wikipedia ranges seem to be "operational ceiling is this, horizon is that at the operating altitude/sea level so its range must be Y" Total b.s. There's no way class info is going on wikipedia.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:There's probably accidentally classified data, leaked classified data and total unclassified guesswork to be had out there, and good luck telling the difference without classified access. LM, NG, DoD etc employ a lot of people on those programs, some of them may enjoy this forum 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I believe the proper pronunciation/spelling is "YYEEEEERRRRRR" Are you able to link that youtube that mock this? I cant find it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoZE0nE60sk Love it, thanks
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:I miss the old days when we would just secretly YAL-7 these things out of the sky and the world press would just exclaim, "lol N.Korea". What is a YAL-7 and what are you talking about
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:YAL-1 was the 747 with a lazor, supposed to zap multistage missiles during the boost phase. It was dumb as hell. ClassicFascist posted:More like cool as hell! No he ways right, chemical lasers are a stupid solution especially when youre putting them on planes you'll never build rather than buying more planes you actually need. When you know on the ground that "this doesn't work that well" Dont go retrofitting it. We will eventually get airworthy solid state lasers and then it'll be cool as hell. You bring up a good point though, Im surprised we cant go fly a bunch of growlers near by combined with the LWSD ship to make the thing "succumb to environmental factors"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
wargames posted:How is mood lighting suppose to stop a wire guided missile? chitoryu12 posted:Actually, this does make me think. Is there any way for a wire-guided missile that follows a flare at the back of the missile (like a TOW) to be fooled by similarly bright lights, or is there something unique about the flare that keeps it on target? It is my guess that is exactly how this works.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
We already fly over countries with planes that have a variety of ESM systems on it. Why would that be an issue? EDIT: I cant find a list of planes with an AN/ALR or AN/ALQ something on it but it seems like any of those should be capable of sigint as is or with minor upgrades. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There's a difference between a RWR/missile warning system and an ELINT package. A lot of countries that might be OK with the former are going to be a lot less comfortable with the latter. How would they know the difference? I'd challenge you to point to generic hardware that can only be used for one but not the other.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Really depends, and I'm not sure we should have the conversation. Too easy to slip up on this topic. Agreed, to clarify I'm not talking about any specific system, I mean it in a generic way. X-Band is X-Band, the computer and software you hook up to it is easy to change when the rest is already integrated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Who says they don't already. Most airliners today have a wifi network on them. Airliners use a LOT of computer based radio systems. There is a thin line between receiving over the air signals, and passively recording/compressing/emailing the ones on the desired bands.  WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT MAN WHO POSTS ON EVERY FORUM
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:No, these were B-2 sized, and once spotted the Air Force then flew B-2's on the same path to throw a smoke screen. X-47B and theyre mistaken about the size maybe? I guess front shape isnt quite right. Also maybe some hypersonic test bed or something. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Sucks that the name "Blackjack" is already taken. It is funny to me that the picture on this page is not the Hawkeye 2000. This is an E-2C Hawkeye 2000: Notice different propeller and dunce cap on dome. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Also the greatest advancements in air power lately has been in sensors and weapons and links as opposed to showing off high speeds and sick flips. Nebakenezzer posted:I know, all of these remakes, in movies and in aircraft, are boring. I'd add 3) higher availability for each airframe. B-2 fleet readiness is below the USAF targets. A big push for this is that each individual plane has a significantly higher up time and doesnt need special air conditioned hangers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:Because drones are cheaper, have vastly longer loiter times, and don't put pilots at risk. You don't have to spend nearly as much on stealth. It might be a better strategy these days to build large numbers of cheap drones and expect a certain rate of attrition that would be unacceptable in manned aircraft. No because: It is very easy to jam SATCOM. The powers involved just arent that high because the distance is so far. Other devices can be used to jam the other sensors, lasers for optics, not sure about radar that evaluates the terrain and compares to maps but probably... Without stealth that rate of attrition might well be 100% destruction or inoperable in 3 weeks of fighting against a peer adversary. In any event it seems that even the current generation of drones has stalth as a basic design featore, look at the UCAS D and RQ-170. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:Yeah, I forgot about the whole "hackable, jammable nuclear platform" thing. Having a human with final physical control over weapon release is indeed a mission requirement. [This is not my area of expertise] My guess is a combo of: An enemy that can't jam things from the air well EMI filters and really good signal processing. Its one thing to turn on a resonator (like a microwave) at the frequency you want, it's another to basically try to ddos an aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I've seen this before: the -135 has a habit of making a pitch down when the a/p kicks off. I call out it was an a/p kick off, we go into an emergency descent. T What is an a/p kick off
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Cue hoards of goons rushing to post F-35 CAN'T FLIE IN RAIN LOL. Is the F-35 still not certified for lightning strikes or something? Also, this was discussed quite a bit when the new Canadian PM or president or maple king or whatever they have got elected. Canda is staying with the F-35. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-stay-in-program-of-f-35-jet-buyers-despite-pledge-to-withdraw/article28897002/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Well, paying the subscription fee to stay in the consortium so that aerospace companies can bid on F-35 contracts I misread because I'm retarded.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:I just want planes with dangling Good news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALE-55_Fiber-Optic_Towed_Decoy
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So, in a jamming as gently caress environment, could I build a drone that scans autonomously? Like, follow these GPS coordinates, start sensors here, return here and report? GPS is trivially easy to jam. In a "J-A-F" environment there will not be GPS. As someone mentioned INS' are poo poo unless theyre super expensive and big. That said NG and DARPA are on it: http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsnorthrop-grumman-to-develop-navigation-grade-mems-imu-for-darpa-programme-4839464 Also theres a reason the first army unit to get planes was a radio unit. Its because slow moving planes are useless without speed of light coms. Link for fun reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeronautical_Division,_U.S._Signal_Corps CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The mention of the A-6F reminded me that in TYOOL 2016 the US military is still flying an aircraft that is powered by no-poo poo turbojets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Sabreliner#Specifications_.28T3J-1.2FT-39D.29 EDIT: JK reengined in the 70s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Humor has no NSN. I like this joke. Content:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XA2J_Super_Savage
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:A question: you know chobham armor on the Abrams and the Challenger II? I've been reading a bit about the Leopard 2 recently on wikipedia, and they talk about the Leo 2's composite armor as "yeah, the Germans were shown chobham armor, but due to their love of material science they decided to have a crack at it themselves and made their own, off-brand version with an equivalent level of protection". Is this true? Fun fact: A research group known as the DLR in germany is basically at the forefront of non-oxide ceramic composite manufacturing which are heavily used in making lightweight composite armor. I read the head researchers book when Iw as in undergrad doing related research. So rather than say "they have a knockoff" you should probably think of it as "they literally wrote the book on it": http://www.amazon.com/Ceramic-Matri...=Walter+Krenkel And just for funsies, here's a how it's made on making Cf/C-SiC brakes by the same method armor of that material is like to be made. I will point out that the ceramic composite armor recipes I've read about include boron carbide as well which would not be made this way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAsafGWlSzI CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 03:44 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Countdown to ISIS improvised tanks (trucks with scrap metal plate armor) starting to roll around with rotors mounted on the sides. I wanted some beat to poo poo NASCAR takeoffs and they were still like $400/pair on ebay  Ferrari/Lambo/etc. carbon brakes were considerably more.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
And that's why aerial refueling systems have flame arrestors.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV5PKkp194o Brazil is making their own helicopter bourne Exocets apparently. ...I was going to be somewhat patronizing about the age of the technology but actually the heli could probably get close enough to be a real threat. 100nmi may well be out of range for surface radar. (The type of radar being intentionally ambiguous because )
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I guess? I definitely wouldn't ignore the threat if I weren't an idiot goon posting on the internet if that's what you're saying. I assume carriers don't have Hawkeyes flying surveillance 24/7. Ships probably can't see "clearly" (i.e. gently caress the ionosphere) that far compared to aerial radar and it makes them big slow targets that can be engaged by fast missiles from beyond the horizon. All of this is quite old technology too. I guess what I'm trying to say is nice red text, buddy.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Neither China nor Russia are dependent on satellites for ISR over blue water. You wouldn't need to destroy them only jam/spoof.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Actual discussion topic (this never goes well) It was big news mid last year that Russia got really good at electronic warfare and has been highly effective at jamming Ukrainian comms/radar/GPS/other nav. Now Ukranian officers have met with American officers and the American officers fear there's an EW gap when hearing about the Russian's capabilities. While we've been balls deep in COIN operations with their relatively easy to disrupt coms/remote detonators and some cyber ops, Russia has been upping their EW game in a big way. Related articles: http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/russias-surging-electronic-warfare-capabilities/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/08/02/us-army-ukraine-russia-electronic-warfare/30913397/ Count down to jamming pod race.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Blistex posted:It seems that the US has really gotten complacent or almost negligent when it comes to certain areas like EW, instead appearing to put all their eggs into "sexy" areas like stealth and Railguns. Is it true that the Air Force pretty much has to rely on EZ/F-18's or is that bullshit? AFAIK The only purpose built "smart" airborne jamming asset is growlers. That, said I dont know that much.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I don't see what the airframe has to do with anything other than it's ability to deliver power to subsystems. It's the equipment fixed to the chassis that's important.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:Is anyone willing to do an effortpost on the relative merits and costs of the various planes in U.S. service? I know it's a tall order but I'd like to be able to understand kind of where we are in terms of planes. Like, I understand the B2 was insanely expensive, but I've heard conflicting arguments over how effective it is. And now the B3 is going to basically be an updated version? Or, for another example, the Hornet and the Super Hornet are basically different planes entirely, is that correct? How much did that cost to develop, and was the upgrade worth it? The F15 is really near the end of its service life, how many are out there, and although they are super cool, are they generally considered good investments? -I think you'll find when someone asks questions in this way it doesn't really get much attention. It appears you're not terribly interested in planes or you'd have asked different questions or at least googled some of these before asking. -The "B-3" is being called the B-21 and no it is not an updated version of the B-2. It is a new plane. -They are very different. -Google the development cost of the F/A-18E/F and the differences in roles and capabilities. -F-15s are still in production, Saudi Arabia just bought a bunch of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:I still can't get over how the US and Soviet's first jet bomber designs both knocked it so far out of the park that they're both outliving decades of would-be replacements. First F-15 flight was 44 years ago. Same as the B-52, many many upgrades over the years. I kinda think the next bomber will be the long rumored "7X7 full of cruise missiles". Speaking of good ideas because they'll be easy retrofits to a plane already made, Fortune is reporting this week that the Air Force wants money from Boeing for being terrible. Tanker is delayed 5 months. Remember when the competitor entered an aircraft that had been flying in service since 2011 for other countries and actually won the contract only to lose it in litigation and requirements changing? I hope the Air Force remembers. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What’s the problem in a low‐pressure environment? Cooling? A bunch of environmental factors. The unpressurized area is often treated as "outside the plane" when it comes to validating components. And antenna on the bottom and some electronics in the wing often get the same specs to meet and they are harsh. This isn't necessarily realistic but it makes for robust electronics. Kesper North posted:Man that seems like such an obvious load of horseshit. Isn't that what E-3s are supposed to be for? Assume that the battlefield is something like [clear airspace] <XXX number of miles> [contested airspace] <XXX number of miles> [A2AD airspace] There is value to having that sort of capability in A2AD areas that are under EW, no? Think about how an ad hoc network works. If your C2 asset can only fly in uncontested areas, but you are door kicking, how do you do that with something which is radar detectable from infinity miles away? How do you deal with the fact that comms power drops off as a square function and there is no SATCOM or BLOS comms? EDIT: For reference when your C2 aircraft flies at 35k ft, the radar horizon is sub 300 mi at "door kicking altitude" Basically, bewbies posted:I don't really know it'd be "horseshit". We're only now starting to scratch the surface on things like sensor fusion (all sensors contributing to a single operational view) and integrated fire control (being able to shoot off of another sensor's - or the network's - data), and all of the 5th gen fighters and now this B-21 Giant Bat, not to mention persistent LO unmanned platforms, have the potential to be big contributors. The old methodology, which was giant seeing eye radar with poor track quality detects track -> voice comms to shooter -> shooter manually acquires target is getting pretty long in the tooth and really doesn't take full advantage of capabilities that are in the field today, let alone those that are going to emerge over the coming years. This. Baloogan posted:I would love to know how effective LPI AESA is in a contested peer v peer EW battlescape. for reasons. (S)No on will tell you CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Who care about trains. This thrad for PLANES Have some planes w/radomes. E-2D  E-1 Tracer  KJ-3000  Saab 340 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
hogmartin posted:That's a pretty sweet 340 right there. I mean, every 340 is beautiful, even with an awkward radar parasite on its back. How dare you. That line of border enforcement is Saab doing it right while all the Americans are still mechanically scanning. Enjoy your slip rings you capitalist pigs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 01:42
|
|