User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 3:03:25 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Miss-eye-Ls ETA: or are you talking about the engines up front? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Make ekranoplans great again What are those tubes on the vertical stabilizer? Miss-eye-Ls ETA: or are you talking about the engines up front? Those bulbs at the rear behind missile tubes 5-6 are radars for targeting, I think. The nav radars are in the nose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 3:43:16 PM EST
[#2]
I have no idea if this is a worthwhile effort or not, I just like watching old Periscope films for the goofy and quaint mid-20th century narration style they all seem to have.
  GLENN L. MARTIN P6M SEAMASTER U.S. NAVY STRATEGIC BOMBER FLYING BOAT / SEAPLANE PROMO FILM XD10724  Martin P6M SeaMaster | The Navy's answer to the B-52  The Nuclear Bomber that Surfed - Martin P6M SeaMaster  Navy’s Biggest Mistake - Cancelling The Martin P6M SeaMaster |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 3:47:07 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You didn't address my only real point. Designing a sea plane specifically based on the idea of flying in ground effect is silly. There is very little advantage, and many disadvantages in doing so. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So you think they can research and build this faster than a conventional airplane? Why would that be? Again, this isn't a boat. It's an airplane, regardless of how low it flies. Call it a boat, airplane, potato, or whatever you want. It's a tactical and strategic sealift platform. It can't be built faster than a conventional aircraft because the concept hasn't even been researched but if a 787 variant met the mission requirements this project would never exist. US tactical and strategic airlift assets are limited and will be in high demand in future conflicts. Any platform research or acquisition that helps get tanks, beans, and bullets to the fight is likely worthwhile. There's no way to foresee what this project might yield but DARPA spends very little and learns quickly. You are completely missing my point. If you want a flying boat, just build a flying boat. We know how to do that. This is called the Liberty Lifter Seaplane Wing-in-Ground Effect full-scale demonstrator program. That is the part that is silly. Any airplane can fly at 100' over water. Give it a radar altimeter coupled to the autopilot, and it can do it all by itself. It isn't a special trick that requires a new revolutionary design. Yes, you can design a plane that can do it with slightly less drag, but when you have enough horsepower to take off out of high seas, who cares? By optimizing the design for that one function, you're diminishing other capabilities, such as the ability to fly higher than 10,000 feet. As a heavy lifter, how much time would it spend as an easy target, hopping around the world at 10,000 feet, vs. actually storming beaches? If you want a special purpose marine heavy lifter, look at the Osprey design. It can launch off the boat and land on the beach. What more could you want? More cargo? Make it bigger. Water landing? Put floats on it. "There's no way to foresee what this project might yield but DARPA spends very little and learns quickly." - This statement is hilarious, but it broke my sarcasm detector. The Osprey is not a heavy lifter. It's primary design characteristic is VTOL and fast cruise relative to a helicopter. Scaling it up would not meet any of the performance requirements sought in this program. The common thread between the Osprey and this concept appears that neither of them require an airfield. The 10k' ceiling is probably only to achieve the 6,500nm ferry range and only possible when the vehicle is light and empty. Performance beyond a 10k' ceiling would drive the implementation of life support and reliability systems that are unnecessary added complexity and weight for these missions. You didn't address my only real point. Designing a sea plane specifically based on the idea of flying in ground effect is silly. There is very little advantage, and many disadvantages in doing so. To be fair, there is quite a bit of induced drag reduction to be gained by flying in ground effect, although you need to fly pretty low to fully capitalize on it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 3:47:31 PM EST
[#4]
I would like to be a tail gunner on that bad boy if they had them.
Just sit back there and watch everything go by in reverse, especially on take offs and landings. Would probably calm me right down tyoo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 4:04:49 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 4:07:07 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A C-17 can land in the water, but only one time. And it can't take back off. Different mission for this project. Hence the new design and development. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nothing you have said justifies optimizing for flight in ground effect. A C-17, (for example), can fly just fine at 100 feet above water. Building a new plane for the navy is a worthy cause. A C-17 can land in the water, but only one time. And it can't take back off. Different mission for this project. Hence the new design and development. We're not talking about the ability to take off and land on water. That's a good idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 4:13:15 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To be fair, there is quite a bit of induced drag reduction to be gained by flying in ground effect, although you need to fly pretty low to fully capitalize on it. https://cdn.boldmethod.com/images/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/what-really-happens-in-ground-effect/induced-drag-plot.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So you think they can research and build this faster than a conventional airplane? Why would that be? Again, this isn't a boat. It's an airplane, regardless of how low it flies. Call it a boat, airplane, potato, or whatever you want. It's a tactical and strategic sealift platform. It can't be built faster than a conventional aircraft because the concept hasn't even been researched but if a 787 variant met the mission requirements this project would never exist. US tactical and strategic airlift assets are limited and will be in high demand in future conflicts. Any platform research or acquisition that helps get tanks, beans, and bullets to the fight is likely worthwhile. There's no way to foresee what this project might yield but DARPA spends very little and learns quickly. You are completely missing my point. If you want a flying boat, just build a flying boat. We know how to do that. This is called the Liberty Lifter Seaplane Wing-in-Ground Effect full-scale demonstrator program. That is the part that is silly. Any airplane can fly at 100' over water. Give it a radar altimeter coupled to the autopilot, and it can do it all by itself. It isn't a special trick that requires a new revolutionary design. Yes, you can design a plane that can do it with slightly less drag, but when you have enough horsepower to take off out of high seas, who cares? By optimizing the design for that one function, you're diminishing other capabilities, such as the ability to fly higher than 10,000 feet. As a heavy lifter, how much time would it spend as an easy target, hopping around the world at 10,000 feet, vs. actually storming beaches? If you want a special purpose marine heavy lifter, look at the Osprey design. It can launch off the boat and land on the beach. What more could you want? More cargo? Make it bigger. Water landing? Put floats on it. "There's no way to foresee what this project might yield but DARPA spends very little and learns quickly." - This statement is hilarious, but it broke my sarcasm detector. The Osprey is not a heavy lifter. It's primary design characteristic is VTOL and fast cruise relative to a helicopter. Scaling it up would not meet any of the performance requirements sought in this program. The common thread between the Osprey and this concept appears that neither of them require an airfield. The 10k' ceiling is probably only to achieve the 6,500nm ferry range and only possible when the vehicle is light and empty. Performance beyond a 10k' ceiling would drive the implementation of life support and reliability systems that are unnecessary added complexity and weight for these missions. You didn't address my only real point. Designing a sea plane specifically based on the idea of flying in ground effect is silly. There is very little advantage, and many disadvantages in doing so. To be fair, there is quite a bit of induced drag reduction to be gained by flying in ground effect, although you need to fly pretty low to fully capitalize on it. https://cdn.boldmethod.com/images/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/what-really-happens-in-ground-effect/induced-drag-plot.jpg Agreed, and any plane can take advantage of it. Optimizing a plane to take advantage of it can only improve upon what you would already get by a small percentage, at the expense of something else. Any aircraft design is a compromise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 6:58:48 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 7:41:55 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? 100feet |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 7:49:46 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 8:10:21 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not quite that simple. There are plenty of better ideas and concepts out there that don't exist yet. The objective here is to carry heavy weight at faster speeds than conventional sealift. It's competing with ships, not planes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not quite that simple. There are plenty of better ideas and concepts out there that don't exist yet. The objective here is to carry heavy weight at faster speeds than conventional sealift. It's competing with ships, not planes. Not with a C-17-class payload it isn't. Ships carry infinitely more payload than aircraft. You only airlift stuff when you need it someplace in a hurry. If you need a *lot* of stuff, you use ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 8:16:19 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If planes can do the same job, it's competing with planes. What can it do that a "conventional" plane can't? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not quite that simple. There are plenty of better ideas and concepts out there that don't exist yet. The objective here is to carry heavy weight at faster speeds than conventional sealift. It's competing with ships, not planes. If planes can do the same job, it's competing with planes. What can it do that a "conventional" plane can't? The theory goes that you don't need a runway to use them. Same idea as the Martin P6M bomber prototype from the late 50s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 8:25:25 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 5 DARPA Inventions that Changed the World The Computer Mouse (1964) It goes without saying that the computers of the 1960's looked a whole lot different than those today. ... GPS (1983) Today we all hold geopositioning technology in the palm of our hands with our smartphones. ... “Siri” (2002) ... Drones (1988) ... The Internet (1969) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: DARPA is a Research Agency, i.e. there are no current plans to actually build anything, just see if a design can even be done. Yes, it's a lot of money for just a design, but figuring out if a thing can be built before you decide to build it is far better, and much cheaper, than trying to build something and find out that lack of proper materials, physics etc prevents your new thing from even being built. 5 DARPA Inventions that Changed the World The Computer Mouse (1964) It goes without saying that the computers of the 1960's looked a whole lot different than those today. ... GPS (1983) Today we all hold geopositioning technology in the palm of our hands with our smartphones. ... “Siri” (2002) ... Drones (1988) ... The Internet (1969) No offense but DARPA didn't invent drones in 1988. Drones (uninhabited aircraft) have been around since the 1940s. Further, natural language processing ("Siri") was also around long before 2002. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 8:45:42 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The theory goes that you don't need a runway to use them. Same idea as the Martin P6M bomber prototype from the late 50s. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not quite that simple. There are plenty of better ideas and concepts out there that don't exist yet. The objective here is to carry heavy weight at faster speeds than conventional sealift. It's competing with ships, not planes. If planes can do the same job, it's competing with planes. What can it do that a "conventional" plane can't? The theory goes that you don't need a runway to use them. Same idea as the Martin P6M bomber prototype from the late 50s. Once again, we aren't talking about sea planes, We're talking about sea-skimming ground effect planes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 8:48:27 PM EST
[#15]
That will certainly prolong a war with China and allow for much more lucrative defense contracts before we inevitably lose.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2023 9:35:13 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That will certainly prolong a war with China and allow for much more lucrative defense contracts before we inevitably lose. As long as the rear admirables get their 300000$ board of directors jobs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 7:58:37 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 10:37:19 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Awfully big assumption there. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 12:12:25 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? That they have an ultra long range SAM that can engage a big ass plane 100’ off the deck compared to a tanker or AWACS at 30,000’ AGL. ULR SAMs rely on getting into very high, very thin air to minimize drag and taking guidance cues from multiple OTH sensors. Those sensors are looking for AWACS and naval assets, not sea skimming aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 12:36:29 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That they have an ultra long range SAM that can engage a big ass plane 100’ off the deck compared to a tanker or AWACS at 30,000’ AGL. ULR SAMs rely on getting into very high, very thin air to minimize drag and taking guidance cues from multiple OTH sensors. Those sensors are looking for AWACS and naval assets, not sea skimming aircraft. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? That they have an ultra long range SAM that can engage a big ass plane 100’ off the deck compared to a tanker or AWACS at 30,000’ AGL. ULR SAMs rely on getting into very high, very thin air to minimize drag and taking guidance cues from multiple OTH sensors. Those sensors are looking for AWACS and naval assets, not sea skimming aircraft. Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 12:43:32 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? That they have an ultra long range SAM that can engage a big ass plane 100’ off the deck compared to a tanker or AWACS at 30,000’ AGL. ULR SAMs rely on getting into very high, very thin air to minimize drag and taking guidance cues from multiple OTH sensors. Those sensors are looking for AWACS and naval assets, not sea skimming aircraft. Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. ‘If’ And that’s the million dollar assessment. If DARPA has been charged with researching this, it’s probably because that’s a gap that’s been identified. Faster and cheaper than a ship and much more survivable than a C17 at altitude. It also doesn’t need a big ass strip of concrete on both ends that’ll get kissed by containerized MRBMs from Chinese shipping container vessels a few hours into the big dance. Avoiding detection and needing less infrastructure is what this is designed to do. I know, every development is merely done to enrich the MIC and our military will roll out like the Russians with rotten tires and cardboard body armor, but maybe we let this one slide and understand that this it’s being developed specifically to try and capitalize on a weakness in our enemies defenses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 1:08:44 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ‘If’ And that’s the million dollar assessment. If DARPA has been charged with researching this, it’s probably because that’s a gap that’s been identified. Faster and cheaper than a ship and much more survivable than a C17 at altitude. It also doesn’t need a big ass strip of concrete on both ends that’ll get kissed by containerized MRBMs from Chinese shipping container vessels a few hours into the big dance. Avoiding detection and needing less infrastructure is what this is designed to do. I know, every development is merely done to enrich the MIC and our military will roll out like the Russians with rotten tires and cardboard body armor, but maybe we let this one slide and understand that this it’s being developed specifically to try and capitalize on a weakness in our enemies defenses. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? That they have an ultra long range SAM that can engage a big ass plane 100’ off the deck compared to a tanker or AWACS at 30,000’ AGL. ULR SAMs rely on getting into very high, very thin air to minimize drag and taking guidance cues from multiple OTH sensors. Those sensors are looking for AWACS and naval assets, not sea skimming aircraft. Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. ‘If’ And that’s the million dollar assessment. If DARPA has been charged with researching this, it’s probably because that’s a gap that’s been identified. Faster and cheaper than a ship and much more survivable than a C17 at altitude. It also doesn’t need a big ass strip of concrete on both ends that’ll get kissed by containerized MRBMs from Chinese shipping container vessels a few hours into the big dance. Avoiding detection and needing less infrastructure is what this is designed to do. I know, every development is merely done to enrich the MIC and our military will roll out like the Russians with rotten tires and cardboard body armor, but maybe we let this one slide and understand that this it’s being developed specifically to try and capitalize on a weakness in our enemies defenses. I don't think China has anything to do with it. We aren't ever going to attack them with planeloads of tanks and troops. More likely for SEAL Team stuff in shithole countries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 1:14:03 PM EST
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 2:05:29 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think China has anything to do with it. We aren't ever going to attack them with planeloads of tanks and troops. More likely for SEAL Team stuff in shithole countries. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? That they have an ultra long range SAM that can engage a big ass plane 100’ off the deck compared to a tanker or AWACS at 30,000’ AGL. ULR SAMs rely on getting into very high, very thin air to minimize drag and taking guidance cues from multiple OTH sensors. Those sensors are looking for AWACS and naval assets, not sea skimming aircraft. Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. ‘If’ And that’s the million dollar assessment. If DARPA has been charged with researching this, it’s probably because that’s a gap that’s been identified. Faster and cheaper than a ship and much more survivable than a C17 at altitude. It also doesn’t need a big ass strip of concrete on both ends that’ll get kissed by containerized MRBMs from Chinese shipping container vessels a few hours into the big dance. Avoiding detection and needing less infrastructure is what this is designed to do. I know, every development is merely done to enrich the MIC and our military will roll out like the Russians with rotten tires and cardboard body armor, but maybe we let this one slide and understand that this it’s being developed specifically to try and capitalize on a weakness in our enemies defenses. I don't think China has anything to do with it. We aren't ever going to attack them with planeloads of tanks and troops. More likely for SEAL Team stuff in shithole countries. I don’t think we’re invading either, but if the USMC’s force modifications are any indication of where we’re going I can see this being a good way to resupply a battery of HIMARs deposited on an island with no runway who have been given the job of shutting down shipping lanes. Something between slow boat and C-130/C17 that’s faster and not as easy of a target would seem to be a preferable way to resupply aquatic fire bases in the SCS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 2:08:03 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryThis, but dropping guided missile ammo and faster and easier to keep off CHICOM sensors. Or at least a more difficult target to complete the kill chain on compared to a slow ass ship or high altitude cargo plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 2:19:00 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t think we’re invading either, but if the USMC’s force modifications are any indication of where we’re going I can see this being a good way to resupply a battery of HIMARs deposited on an island with no runway who have been given the job of shutting down shipping lanes. Something between slow boat and C-130/C17 that’s faster and not as easy of a target would seem to be a preferable way to resupply aquatic fire bases in the SCS. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? That they have an ultra long range SAM that can engage a big ass plane 100’ off the deck compared to a tanker or AWACS at 30,000’ AGL. ULR SAMs rely on getting into very high, very thin air to minimize drag and taking guidance cues from multiple OTH sensors. Those sensors are looking for AWACS and naval assets, not sea skimming aircraft. Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. ‘If’ And that’s the million dollar assessment. If DARPA has been charged with researching this, it’s probably because that’s a gap that’s been identified. Faster and cheaper than a ship and much more survivable than a C17 at altitude. It also doesn’t need a big ass strip of concrete on both ends that’ll get kissed by containerized MRBMs from Chinese shipping container vessels a few hours into the big dance. Avoiding detection and needing less infrastructure is what this is designed to do. I know, every development is merely done to enrich the MIC and our military will roll out like the Russians with rotten tires and cardboard body armor, but maybe we let this one slide and understand that this it’s being developed specifically to try and capitalize on a weakness in our enemies defenses. I don't think China has anything to do with it. We aren't ever going to attack them with planeloads of tanks and troops. More likely for SEAL Team stuff in shithole countries. I don’t think we’re invading either, but if the USMC’s force modifications are any indication of where we’re going I can see this being a good way to resupply a battery of HIMARs deposited on an island with no runway who have been given the job of shutting down shipping lanes. Something between slow boat and C-130/C17 that’s faster and not as easy of a target would seem to be a preferable way to resupply aquatic fire bases in the SCS. This all reminds me of something from when I was a kid. The local FM station ran fake ads for a made-up company. Brute Force Cybernetics - "The company that creates a need, then fills it." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 2:31:36 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This all reminds me of something from when I was a kid. The local FM station ran fake ads for a made-up company. Brute Force Cybernetics - "The company that creates a need, then fills it." You could have just told us outright that you hate innovation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 3:07:16 PM EST
[#28]
We just need to strap hydro foils onto a cargo ship and give it some speed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 4:18:12 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We just need to strap hydro foils onto a cargo ship and give it some speed. You jest but... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 5:46:48 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You jest but... Honestly only half joking. The plane thing just won't be effective in a large-scale conflict. If there's a fight going on, you need 20 or 30 armored vehicles being dropped off at once, not the 1 or 2 that would fit in your plane. Not to mention all the support equipment that those vehicles would need. A C-17 can carry 1 Abrams, and since your new seaplane is supposed to have similar load capacity, you'd need 14 planes to carry a fullish company of tanks. If you could come up with a high-speed hydro foil cargo ship of some sort, you'd be able to move very large amounts of troops or equipment in a much faster speed than you would with a conventional cargo ship. It wouldn't be as fast or as sexy as the seaplane, but you'd be able to put a lot more tonnage on the beach at once. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 6:00:13 PM EST
[#31]
That mother fucker better run off of batteries!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 6:18:38 PM EST
[#32]
That mother fucker better run off of batteries!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 6:40:21 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 20,000 ft at 214 miles. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 100 ft at 18 miles. This is assuming no stealth or jamming. So, yes, if your enemy detects your cargo planes they are done, but detection range is much shorter with low-flying aircraft. And for some reason, I doubt these WIG aircraft will be in the first assault wave on any contested beach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 7:52:18 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honestly only half joking. The plane thing just won't be effective in a large-scale conflict. If there's a fight going on, you need 20 or 30 armored vehicles being dropped off at once, not the 1 or 2 that would fit in your plane. Not to mention all the support equipment that those vehicles would need. A C-17 can carry 1 Abrams, and since your new seaplane is supposed to have similar load capacity, you'd need 14 planes to carry a fullish company of tanks. If you could come up with a high-speed hydro foil cargo ship of some sort, you'd be able to move very large amounts of troops or equipment in a much faster speed than you would with a conventional cargo ship. It wouldn't be as fast or as sexy as the seaplane, but you'd be able to put a lot more tonnage on the beach at once. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You jest but... Honestly only half joking. The plane thing just won't be effective in a large-scale conflict. If there's a fight going on, you need 20 or 30 armored vehicles being dropped off at once, not the 1 or 2 that would fit in your plane. Not to mention all the support equipment that those vehicles would need. A C-17 can carry 1 Abrams, and since your new seaplane is supposed to have similar load capacity, you'd need 14 planes to carry a fullish company of tanks. If you could come up with a high-speed hydro foil cargo ship of some sort, you'd be able to move very large amounts of troops or equipment in a much faster speed than you would with a conventional cargo ship. It wouldn't be as fast or as sexy as the seaplane, but you'd be able to put a lot more tonnage on the beach at once. The USMC is divesting themselves of M1 Abrams. A HIMARS 6x6 weighs much less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 7:53:35 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 20,000 ft at 214 miles. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 100 ft at 18 miles. This is assuming no stealth or jamming. So, yes, if your enemy detects your cargo planes they are done, but detection range is much shorter with low-flying aircraft. And for some reason, I doubt these WIG aircraft will be in the first assault wave on any contested beach. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 20,000 ft at 214 miles. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 100 ft at 18 miles. This is assuming no stealth or jamming. So, yes, if your enemy detects your cargo planes they are done, but detection range is much shorter with low-flying aircraft. And for some reason, I doubt these WIG aircraft will be in the first assault wave on any contested beach. Thanks for the mathematical support. The lack of understanding as to what these are supposed to do is embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2023 8:12:27 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 20,000 ft at 214 miles. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 100 ft at 18 miles. This is assuming no stealth or jamming. So, yes, if your enemy detects your cargo planes they are done, but detection range is much shorter with low-flying aircraft. And for some reason, I doubt these WIG aircraft will be in the first assault wave on any contested beach. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 20,000 ft at 214 miles. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 100 ft at 18 miles. This is assuming no stealth or jamming. So, yes, if your enemy detects your cargo planes they are done, but detection range is much shorter with low-flying aircraft. And for some reason, I doubt these WIG aircraft will be in the first assault wave on any contested beach. That's what I said. ETA: I wonder if the US has the technology in place to detect a bunch of low flying planes approaching our shore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:06:44 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's what I said. ETA: I wonder if the US has the technology in place to detect a bunch of low flying planes approaching our shore. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 20,000 ft at 214 miles. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 100 ft at 18 miles. This is assuming no stealth or jamming. So, yes, if your enemy detects your cargo planes they are done, but detection range is much shorter with low-flying aircraft. And for some reason, I doubt these WIG aircraft will be in the first assault wave on any contested beach. That's what I said. ETA: I wonder if the US has the technology in place to detect a bunch of low flying planes approaching our shore. I wonder if the US has an ability to complete the kill chain. Detection is one thing, but if you can’t put a warhead on the threat all the detection in the world doesn’t stop your enemies. The CCP is dealing with this via ULR SAMs and a ton of different toys they’re trying to synch up so they can detect, track, and engage further and further away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:14:37 AM EST
[#38]
This idea gets thrown around every few years. It always gets dropped. I doubt this time is going to be any different.
Barring a major breakthrough in engine tech, any major overseas deployment is going to require sealift. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:18:57 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not quite that simple. There are plenty of better ideas and concepts out there that don't exist yet. The objective here is to carry heavy weight at faster speeds than conventional sealift. It's competing with ships, not planes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not quite that simple. There are plenty of better ideas and concepts out there that don't exist yet. The objective here is to carry heavy weight at faster speeds than conventional sealift. It's competing with ships, not planes. At C-17 capacity it’s not coming close to competing with ships. There’s no way it will be cheap enough to make up for lack of capacity with numbers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:21:56 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: DARPA is a Research Agency, i.e. there are no current plans to actually build anything, just see if a design can even be done. Yes, it's a lot of money for just a design, but figuring out if a thing can be built before you decide to build it is far better, and much cheaper, than trying to build something and find out that lack of proper materials, physics etc prevents your new thing from even being built. This has been researched for decades already, and I don’t think there have been any breakthroughs in enabling tech since the last look that would justify a new effort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:29:43 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t think we’re invading either, but if the USMC’s force modifications are any indication of where we’re going I can see this being a good way to resupply a battery of HIMARs deposited on an island with no runway who have been given the job of shutting down shipping lanes. Something between slow boat and C-130/C17 that’s faster and not as easy of a target would seem to be a preferable way to resupply aquatic fire bases in the SCS. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? That they have an ultra long range SAM that can engage a big ass plane 100’ off the deck compared to a tanker or AWACS at 30,000’ AGL. ULR SAMs rely on getting into very high, very thin air to minimize drag and taking guidance cues from multiple OTH sensors. Those sensors are looking for AWACS and naval assets, not sea skimming aircraft. Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. ‘If’ And that’s the million dollar assessment. If DARPA has been charged with researching this, it’s probably because that’s a gap that’s been identified. Faster and cheaper than a ship and much more survivable than a C17 at altitude. It also doesn’t need a big ass strip of concrete on both ends that’ll get kissed by containerized MRBMs from Chinese shipping container vessels a few hours into the big dance. Avoiding detection and needing less infrastructure is what this is designed to do. I know, every development is merely done to enrich the MIC and our military will roll out like the Russians with rotten tires and cardboard body armor, but maybe we let this one slide and understand that this it’s being developed specifically to try and capitalize on a weakness in our enemies defenses. I don't think China has anything to do with it. We aren't ever going to attack them with planeloads of tanks and troops. More likely for SEAL Team stuff in shithole countries. I don’t think we’re invading either, but if the USMC’s force modifications are any indication of where we’re going I can see this being a good way to resupply a battery of HIMARs deposited on an island with no runway who have been given the job of shutting down shipping lanes. Something between slow boat and C-130/C17 that’s faster and not as easy of a target would seem to be a preferable way to resupply aquatic fire bases in the SCS. HIMARS are a legacy system, the eventual replacement is ROGUE fires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:31:38 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 5 DARPA Inventions that Changed the World The Computer Mouse (1964) It goes without saying that the computers of the 1960's looked a whole lot different than those today. ... GPS (1983) Today we all hold geopositioning technology in the palm of our hands with our smartphones. ... “Siri” (2002) ... Drones (1988) ... The Internet (1969) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: DARPA is a Research Agency, i.e. there are no current plans to actually build anything, just see if a design can even be done. Yes, it's a lot of money for just a design, but figuring out if a thing can be built before you decide to build it is far better, and much cheaper, than trying to build something and find out that lack of proper materials, physics etc prevents your new thing from even being built. 5 DARPA Inventions that Changed the World The Computer Mouse (1964) It goes without saying that the computers of the 1960's looked a whole lot different than those today. ... GPS (1983) Today we all hold geopositioning technology in the palm of our hands with our smartphones. ... “Siri” (2002) ... Drones (1988) ... The Internet (1969) Drones had been around a long time in 1988. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:34:36 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: HIMARS are a legacy system, the eventual replacement is ROGUE fires. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Awfully big assumption there. What assumption? That the Chinese can shoot down a large slow cargo plane that's flying at 100' over water? That they have an ultra long range SAM that can engage a big ass plane 100’ off the deck compared to a tanker or AWACS at 30,000’ AGL. ULR SAMs rely on getting into very high, very thin air to minimize drag and taking guidance cues from multiple OTH sensors. Those sensors are looking for AWACS and naval assets, not sea skimming aircraft. Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. ‘If’ And that’s the million dollar assessment. If DARPA has been charged with researching this, it’s probably because that’s a gap that’s been identified. Faster and cheaper than a ship and much more survivable than a C17 at altitude. It also doesn’t need a big ass strip of concrete on both ends that’ll get kissed by containerized MRBMs from Chinese shipping container vessels a few hours into the big dance. Avoiding detection and needing less infrastructure is what this is designed to do. I know, every development is merely done to enrich the MIC and our military will roll out like the Russians with rotten tires and cardboard body armor, but maybe we let this one slide and understand that this it’s being developed specifically to try and capitalize on a weakness in our enemies defenses. I don't think China has anything to do with it. We aren't ever going to attack them with planeloads of tanks and troops. More likely for SEAL Team stuff in shithole countries. I don’t think we’re invading either, but if the USMC’s force modifications are any indication of where we’re going I can see this being a good way to resupply a battery of HIMARs deposited on an island with no runway who have been given the job of shutting down shipping lanes. Something between slow boat and C-130/C17 that’s faster and not as easy of a target would seem to be a preferable way to resupply aquatic fire bases in the SCS. HIMARS are a legacy system, the eventual replacement is ROGUE fires. I imagine there are a bunch of new rocket artillery systems in development. I just referenced one I assumed most would recognize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:38:19 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for the mathematical support. The lack of understanding as to what these are supposed to do is embarrassing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 20,000 ft at 214 miles. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 100 ft at 18 miles. This is assuming no stealth or jamming. So, yes, if your enemy detects your cargo planes they are done, but detection range is much shorter with low-flying aircraft. And for some reason, I doubt these WIG aircraft will be in the first assault wave on any contested beach. Thanks for the mathematical support. The lack of understanding as to what these are supposed to do is embarrassing. The useful range is much shorter to unusable in a sea state with high waves. Your radar on a 100 foot tower is a juicy target, too, and it's easy to find when it's radiating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:39:58 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or you could just send in the 82nd and heavy drop the needed stuff. Quoted: If there was any advantage, they would be everywhere already. Flying at high altitude is much more efficient. Not with the CCP sinking a ton of R&D into ultra-long range SAMs designed to shoot down big planes beyond the first island chain. This thing is designed to replace slow ships, not C-17s that are already doing heavy lift at altitude. Missiles are not really part of the discussion, unless you want to talk about how much easier it is to kill a target that's lumbering along at 100 feet than one that's at 30 or 40 thousand. Avoiding detection is the goal. Is it easier to hide a C-17 from radar at 100ft or 20,000ft off the surface of the ocean? Why do you think I said that avoiding detection is the goal? It's obviously why they would want to fly down low. You said it was to avoid long range SAM's. It doesn't matter what kind of high flying missile the chi-coms are developing, because they certainly already have one that will hit something at 100'. The best way to avoid long range missiles of any type is to avoid detection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 8:54:48 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That radar had better be able to track the target in severe ground clutter of the sea. It's useless otherwise. The useful range is much shorter to unusable in a sea state with high waves. Your radar on a 100 foot tower is a juicy target, too, and it's easy to find when it's radiating. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 20,000 ft at 214 miles. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 100 ft at 18 miles. This is assuming no stealth or jamming. So, yes, if your enemy detects your cargo planes they are done, but detection range is much shorter with low-flying aircraft. And for some reason, I doubt these WIG aircraft will be in the first assault wave on any contested beach. Thanks for the mathematical support. The lack of understanding as to what these are supposed to do is embarrassing. The useful range is much shorter to unusable in a sea state with high waves. Your radar on a 100 foot tower is a juicy target, too, and it's easy to find when it's radiating. Yep, and ground clutter making it harder to maintain a track and get a missile on it seems like an obvious advantage this thing would have over the C17…but that appears lost on some. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 9:21:45 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I still think they should just buy US-2's and be done with that exercise. The potential for this erkanoplane thing will be worth following, but I seriously doubt anything will come of it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: AFSOC just stopped work on the MC-130J on floats. Sometimes the juice just ain't worth the squeeze. This was one of those times. The potential for this erkanoplane thing will be worth following, but I seriously doubt anything will come of it. I suspect if the ekranoplan was worth it the Soviets wouldn't have abandoned the idea |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 9:24:13 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They should name it the Goose. It’s called the Hercules damn it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 11:45:11 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder if the US has an ability to complete the kill chain. Detection is one thing, but if you can’t put a warhead on the threat all the detection in the world doesn’t stop your enemies. The CCP is dealing with this via ULR SAMs and a ton of different toys they’re trying to synch up so they can detect, track, and engage further and further away. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where did I say they had a long range SAM to take out planes at 100', and why would they need one? As I said, detection is the issue. If you detect cargo planes inbound at 100', it's a fish in a barrel. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 20,000 ft at 214 miles. A radar on a 100' tower will detect a target flying at 100 ft at 18 miles. This is assuming no stealth or jamming. So, yes, if your enemy detects your cargo planes they are done, but detection range is much shorter with low-flying aircraft. And for some reason, I doubt these WIG aircraft will be in the first assault wave on any contested beach. That's what I said. ETA: I wonder if the US has the technology in place to detect a bunch of low flying planes approaching our shore. I wonder if the US has an ability to complete the kill chain. Detection is one thing, but if you can’t put a warhead on the threat all the detection in the world doesn’t stop your enemies. The CCP is dealing with this via ULR SAMs and a ton of different toys they’re trying to synch up so they can detect, track, and engage further and further away. We have fighters that can be launched pretty quick. Plenty quick enough for these, since they're not bombers. Even if they made it all the way to the beach, they'd be bobbing there in the water, waiting to get sunk. That's another reason that SAM's aren't really part of this conversation. These would never pose an immediate threat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2023 11:48:57 AM EST
[#50]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File