Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
3
Aerospace / Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Last post by seruriermarshal on Yesterday at 11:39:35 pm »
second Boeing T-X fly
4
Aerospace / Re: A-X all over again - USAF pushes for A-10 replacement
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 11:21:24 pm »
Verba is believed to a be three color pseduo-imager but the general trend towards more IRCM
resistant MANPADS is clear.
What do you mean by three color pseduo-imager? It isn't IIR in two wavelengths and UV?

Seems like we're rapidly approaching the point where flares are worthless against the latest MANPADS, but did flares ever even catch up to matter against the IIR generation of missiles like Stinger and Igla?

From the patents, it looks like a trio of detectors (one per waveband) that's swept over the target scene.
With compressed sensing signal processing techniques, you can reconstruct a reasonably high fidelity
2D image. 

Stinger and Igla are pseudo-imagers as well.

There's a class of spectrally adapted, spatially distributed flares which is effective against
some pseudo imagers.  As you pointed out, in conjunction with DIRCM they could be
effective against some imaging seekers.
5
Aerospace / Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 09:54:26 pm »
IIRC, the range penalty for the two-stage KEI version of GBI necessitated (at a minimum) four CONUS sites.
Then there was the cost of maintaining (in the interim) a split inventory.

I think MDA is getting most of what they need from the 2/3 stage selectable booster stack and improved discrimination.

From what I remember of the NAS study, they said a two stage KEI would enable Shoot-Look-Shoot from Iranian and North Korean missiles, using two / three launch points. Also, do you know if the new sensor will be networked? A key point of the NAS study was that the infrared sensor of the first missile was critical to enable high quality target discrimination.

IIRC, imaging LADAR returns would be downlinked via dual-band (X and S band) datalink. 
6
Aerospace / Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX UAV Programs
« Last post by NeilChapman on Yesterday at 08:18:04 pm »
Let's suggest a CAW consists of 4 F/A-18 strike squadrons and an EA squadron.

Qty 22 F/A-18E's
Qty 22 F/A-18F's
Qty 5 Growlers

Let's assume an expected FMC rate (deployed) of .63
Let's assume an actual FMC rate (deployed) of ~.5

You've started w/49 F/A-18's and you're left with ~24.

If you add to this the fact that the Navy sends 1/2 their F-18's out as tankers the numbers are more alarming.

The rest of the aircraft support the CSG - Fleet Logistics, Submarine Defense, Early Warning, etc.

Hmm yes, but in that case shouldn't all aircraft carriers (F-35B/LHA/CVLs) be considered in terms of their FMC rate? And also, I think more important than FMC rate is the sortie rate that a carrier can generate, where I expect the larger airwing of a CVN and the larger more optimized flight deck should allow for an overall significantly higher sortie rate generation than a CVL.

I suppose what I'm getting at, is that in practice any aircraft carrier's "effective" fixed wing combat capability/availability/sortie rate is always a fraction of their overall on-paper airwing, and unless there is a reason to think that an F-35B CVL type carrier for USN LHAs is able to generate a more cost effective sortie rate and combat capability than the USN's own future F-35C equipped CVNs, I don't think the supercarrier should be judged that harshly.

Perhaps...  It would also suck to lose a crew of 6k, a $10B ship and $7B in aircraft. 

My irritation is with naval aviation decision makers as it relates to MQ-XX and develops to the CVN.

One can make a case that 30 CVL's will be more "effective" than 10 CVN's at projecting presence and, ultimately, power.  They can be built at multiple yards.  They can be built in larger quantities.  They can shorten the life span to "engineer in" new development faster.   On a war footing, replacements will be coming out of the yards faster - you have to plan on ships being taken out of action.  It currently takes 15 years to build and float a CVN.

The Navy needs to build ships as they are learning to build aircraft.  Aircraft are being designed with open systems as they know technological obsolescence is a given.  They only way to build in obsolescence in capital ships is to plan to replace them sooner.  That's much easier with smaller ships.

As it relates to this topic, the direction of MQ-XX is a symptom to the current mindset.  Their going to build a tanker that will require an air-cap.  It perpetuates the existing problem.  A CBG that exists to protect itself with self-limited strike capability. 



7
Aerospace / Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Last post by DrRansom on Yesterday at 07:37:39 pm »
IIRC, the range penalty for the two-stage KEI version of GBI necessitated (at a minimum) four CONUS sites.
Then there was the cost of maintaining (in the interim) a split inventory.

I think MDA is getting most of what they need from the 2/3 stage selectable booster stack and improved discrimination.

From what I remember of the NAS study, they said a two stage KEI would enable Shoot-Look-Shoot from Iranian and North Korean missiles, using two / three launch points. Also, do you know if the new sensor will be networked? A key point of the NAS study was that the infrared sensor of the first missile was critical to enable high quality target discrimination.
8
No that is the argument most of the people make: It's too hard. Supply base gone. Tooling disappeared. The people that know how to build them are retired. It'll take too long to train pilots.
Of got to say all of the excuses made are tiresome. How have we ever gotten anything done before with this attitude?
9
Aerospace / Re: B-52 "Arsenal Plane"
« Last post by Rhinocrates on Yesterday at 05:24:32 pm »
Wouldn't it have a sufficient radar signature to let an Izdeliye 810 or R-37 hit it at near full range (>200 km?)

I remember reading a spoof article in Smithsonian Air & Space, I think. It proposed joining several B-52 fuselages together to make the complete opposite of a stealth bomber - it's signature would be so huge that it would scare the shit out of enemy radar operators. Moreover, it could provide significant crew amenities such as a bowling alley and swimming pool.
10
Military / Re: Mouth/Teeth markings on aircraft and vehicles
« Last post by seruriermarshal on Yesterday at 05:23:01 pm »
US NAVY SSBN-632

 ;D
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10