- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,011
Steve Pace said:I must have missed it. -SPsferrin said:That pic has been around for several years.
It started showing up on page 16 of this thread.
Steve Pace said:I must have missed it. -SPsferrin said:That pic has been around for several years.
phrenzy said:starviking said:RyanCrierie said:Lasers have also shot down artillery shells, which spin at around 1,600+ RPM and are relatively thick walled, solid construction items compared to say, missile bodies.
I think the attack geometry makes an artillery shell shoot-down easier, as most energy is going to be absorbed by the front of the shell, if the laser is acting in point defence.
Other factors would be beam footprint and intensity. If the beam's intensity and footprint are big enough spinning will make little difference, as half the shell will be absorbing beam energy at any time. With a ballistic missile, beam footprint is likely to be smaller, making rotation more effective. If it is liquid fuelled there will also be a heat-sink effect.
true but the distances involved in an air to air fighter laser interception might be a little closer.
I wonder how effective a DEW attack directly against the pilot in the cockpit would be? I know lasers for the purpose of binding are banned by treaty but would you really need that much energy to scald a pilot to the point of taking them out of the fight?
The introduction of lasers might end up bringing about the end of the mark 1 eyeball for any use beyond looking around an enclosed cockpit. Even if lasers aren't introduced for the purpose of attacking the pilot the risk of burns or blindness might be very real.
Maybe they will go back to the cold war tactic of sending pilots out in operations with an eye patch so if they are blinded in one eye they can calmly take the patch off and fly on the remaining eye.
kagemusha said:Arming 5th & 6th Gen Aircraft In An A2AD Environment
http://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/archive/40th_Symposium/AFRL_WilcoxAAS2014.pdf
This presentation is related to Next Generation Air Dominance.
Wow. Super DIRCM (DE self defense), compact Cuda air/air missiles, hypersonic strike missiles...... The only thing missing is a thermostellar ultra intelligent bomb.
[font=]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI[/font]
kagemusha said:Arming 5th & 6th Gen Aircraft In An A2AD Environment
http://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/archive/40th_Symposium/AFRL_WilcoxAAS2014.pdf
This presentation is related to Next Generation Air Dominance.
If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).sferrin said:How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
SpudmanWP said:If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).sferrin said:How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
sferrin said:SpudmanWP said:If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).sferrin said:How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
Yeah. Seems like an odd choice for an illustration given there are about a million pics of Russian/Chinese aircraft with cruise missiles.
sferrin said:SpudmanWP said:If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).sferrin said:How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
Yeah. Seems like an odd choice for an illustration given there are about a million pics of Russian/Chinese aircraft with cruise missiles.
Grey Havoc said:sferrin said:SpudmanWP said:If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).sferrin said:How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
Yeah. Seems like an odd choice for an illustration given there are about a million pics of Russian/Chinese aircraft with cruise missiles.
The implication seems to be that someone has already successfully reverse engineered RATTLRS, most likely the PRC.
pathology_doc said:Whatever else they do, they need to build something NOW and get it flying in the next five years. Tossed together on the cheap, with the best off-the-shelf technology that they can sell to allies without hesitation at a rock-bottom price. The chief designer needs to channel Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann (more the latter), and to carry a bullwhip wrapped around the gonads of the current and next President and Secretary of Defence to ensure the thing gets built and sold.
There is no other choice. It's that or let themselves get lost in the la-la land of concept studies while America's enemies keep on building things. They need to re-learn the art of committing themselves to hardware. The American Secret Projects books of the late 21st Century could end up being like the BSPs we have today - predominantly filled with things that never got past concept and the occasional rarity that got as far as a mock-up or (even worse) with the prototype cancelled halfway down the production line.
tacitblue said:pathology_doc said:Whatever else they do, they need to build something NOW and get it flying in the next five years. Tossed together on the cheap, with the best off-the-shelf technology that they can sell to allies without hesitation at a rock-bottom price. The chief designer needs to channel Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann (more the latter), and to carry a bullwhip wrapped around the gonads of the current and next President and Secretary of Defence to ensure the thing gets built and sold.
There is no other choice. It's that or let themselves get lost in the la-la land of concept studies while America's enemies keep on building things. They need to re-learn the art of committing themselves to hardware. The American Secret Projects books of the late 21st Century could end up being like the BSPs we have today - predominantly filled with things that never got past concept and the occasional rarity that got as far as a mock-up or (even worse) with the prototype cancelled halfway down the production line.
The problem is since the fall of the USSR there hasn't been a boogie man in the closet to worry about, in the minds of the elected leadership. The b2 was a great aircraft to replace the buff and to fill its role decades after the last buff landed at Davis. But nope. No USSR no new bomber to replace the then 40 year old boeing. Metal fatigue and spare parts be damned, advances in air defenses around the world be damned, gotta keep me flying for another 20 years (now even longer). The same happened to the -22.
Instead we get the dubious v-22, and a light attack bomber with the ability to defend itself. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on with their own super cruising stealthy fighters.
It used to be we'd let the bad guys have a better rifle. Now we're letting them have better aircraft.
tacitblue said:and a light attack bomber with the ability to defend itself.
bobbymike said:tacitblue said:pathology_doc said:Whatever else they do, they need to build something NOW and get it flying in the next five years. Tossed together on the cheap, with the best off-the-shelf technology that they can sell to allies without hesitation at a rock-bottom price. The chief designer needs to channel Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann (more the latter), and to carry a bullwhip wrapped around the gonads of the current and next President and Secretary of Defence to ensure the thing gets built and sold.
There is no other choice. It's that or let themselves get lost in the la-la land of concept studies while America's enemies keep on building things. They need to re-learn the art of committing themselves to hardware. The American Secret Projects books of the late 21st Century could end up being like the BSPs we have today - predominantly filled with things that never got past concept and the occasional rarity that got as far as a mock-up or (even worse) with the prototype cancelled halfway down the production line.
The problem is since the fall of the USSR there hasn't been a boogie man in the closet to worry about, in the minds of the elected leadership. The b2 was a great aircraft to replace the buff and to fill its role decades after the last buff landed at Davis. But nope. No USSR no new bomber to replace the then 40 year old boeing. Metal fatigue and spare parts be damned, advances in air defenses around the world be damned, gotta keep me flying for another 20 years (now even longer). The same happened to the -22.
Instead we get the dubious v-22, and a light attack bomber with the ability to defend itself. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on with their own super cruising stealthy fighters.
It used to be we'd let the bad guys have a better rifle. Now we're letting them have better aircraft.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, the so-called Peace Dividend absolutely gutted our nuclear systems and we may never recover as now modernization is said to be too expensive (which is BS but a debate for another day), I do think you're more negative than necessary. While it would have been nice to have 132 B-2 and 400 F-22 (that would have been really cool) you must remember the US is on its 4th generation of stealth aircraft while China and Russia are flying little more than technological demonstrators IMHO.
As importantly, or maybe more importantly, the USAF CoS said the US, not only has the platforms, but over 20 years experience in integrated air operations with these platforms. If you've been driving a VW Beetle and someone gives you an F1 race car you aren't going to be winning races for a long time.
That is of course not to say I am totally optimistic as the US continues to cut defense (almost all from modernization accounts) what you wrote may in fact come to pass in the next 20 years.
tacitblue said:bobbymike said:tacitblue said:pathology_doc said:Whatever else they do, they need to build something NOW and get it flying in the next five years. Tossed together on the cheap, with the best off-the-shelf technology that they can sell to allies without hesitation at a rock-bottom price. The chief designer needs to channel Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann (more the latter), and to carry a bullwhip wrapped around the gonads of the current and next President and Secretary of Defence to ensure the thing gets built and sold.
There is no other choice. It's that or let themselves get lost in the la-la land of concept studies while America's enemies keep on building things. They need to re-learn the art of committing themselves to hardware. The American Secret Projects books of the late 21st Century could end up being like the BSPs we have today - predominantly filled with things that never got past concept and the occasional rarity that got as far as a mock-up or (even worse) with the prototype cancelled halfway down the production line.
The problem is since the fall of the USSR there hasn't been a boogie man in the closet to worry about, in the minds of the elected leadership. The b2 was a great aircraft to replace the buff and to fill its role decades after the last buff landed at Davis. But nope. No USSR no new bomber to replace the then 40 year old boeing. Metal fatigue and spare parts be damned, advances in air defenses around the world be damned, gotta keep me flying for another 20 years (now even longer). The same happened to the -22.
Instead we get the dubious v-22, and a light attack bomber with the ability to defend itself. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on with their own super cruising stealthy fighters.
It used to be we'd let the bad guys have a better rifle. Now we're letting them have better aircraft.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, the so-called Peace Dividend absolutely gutted our nuclear systems and we may never recover as now modernization is said to be too expensive (which is BS but a debate for another day), I do think you're more negative than necessary. While it would have been nice to have 132 B-2 and 400 F-22 (that would have been really cool) you must remember the US is on its 4th generation of stealth aircraft while China and Russia are flying little more than technological demonstrators IMHO.
As importantly, or maybe more importantly, the USAF CoS said the US, not only has the platforms, but over 20 years experience in integrated air operations with these platforms. If you've been driving a VW Beetle and someone gives you an F1 race car you aren't going to be winning races for a long time.
That is of course not to say I am totally optimistic as the US continues to cut defense (almost all from modernization accounts) what you wrote may in fact come to pass in the next 20 years.
The problem is that the bad guys aren't starting from scratch with their first gen stealthy fighters. Publicly it is known about the chunese engineer who handed the chinese government the design of portions of the b2. The publicized accounts of stolen -35 secrets. Who knows what was taken from the atf program 25 years ago. Who knows about other theft of secrets. They ain't starting from a blank sheet.
AeroFranz said:There's nothing like a tail to generate pitching moments, not even thrust vectoring (which is only in 2D anyway on all VLO tailless aircraft to date)
marauder2048 said:AeroFranz said:There's nothing like a tail to generate pitching moments, not even thrust vectoring (which is only in 2D anyway on all VLO tailless aircraft to date)
Really? The impression I've gotten from the open technical literature is that TVC can generate pitching moments
equivalent to conventional pitch effectors though perhaps only at thrust settings that are inimical to range and/or signature.
Surely that third airstream in the ADVENT engine has some TVC applicability.
DrRansom said:If this story reflects something approaching reality, that would explain the repeated need to increase weapon count aboard stealth aircraft:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html
Summary: Unnamed USAF sources say that digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) are very effective against AMRAAMs. This has dramatically reduced expected Pk, creating a payload crisis for stealth fighters. Your mileage on the scale of the crisis will vary.
For NGAD, that suggests the need for a big payload, either through smaller missiles or through large aircraft. The larger aircraft fits the need for Pacific combat.
DrRansom said:If this story reflects something approaching reality, that would explain the repeated need to increase weapon count aboard stealth aircraft:
BDF said:While none of the future platform depictions are probably representative of working designs I like this one:
Triton said:DrRansom said:If this story reflects something approaching reality, that would explain the repeated need to increase weapon count aboard stealth aircraft:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html
Summary: Unnamed USAF sources say that digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) are very effective against AMRAAMs. This has dramatically reduced expected Pk, creating a payload crisis for stealth fighters. Your mileage on the scale of the crisis will vary.
For NGAD, that suggests the need for a big payload, either through smaller missiles or through large aircraft. The larger aircraft fits the need for Pacific combat.
Is this an issue with the MBDA Meteor BVRAAM? I also wonder if we might see B-1B bomber aircraft refitted into missile trucks like the Boeing B-1R proposal.
sferrin said:I'd think the simplest way around something like this would be a dual-mode seeker or HOJ functionality.
marauder2048 said:AeroFranz said:There's nothing like a tail to generate pitching moments, not even thrust vectoring (which is only in 2D anyway on all VLO tailless aircraft to date)
Really? The impression I've gotten from the open technical literature is that TVC can generate pitching moments
equivalent to conventional pitch effectors though perhaps only at thrust settings that are inimical to range and/or signature.
Surely that third airstream in the ADVENT engine has some TVC applicability.