V
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Navalnote versions never carried an internal gun.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Tom: Actually I am not that sure the F-4 can out dog fight a F-35. In terms of turning it matches pretty well with an F-16. What the F-4 was was a good munitions truck.
edited 16th Apr '15 4:08:41 AM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
They've had multiple reports showing the F-35 can't turn worth a damn. As in the F-4 could out-turn an F-35 rather easily.
Given there's been no announcements that such a problem has been rectified any reports that say it's "rated" as F-16 or better maneuverable need to be taken with a spoonful of salt marked with a Bullshit label.
That's one of its biggest drawbacks besides the gun and setting itself on fire.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Wrong on that count tom. It can match an F-16 and the F-4 climbs and turns like pig.
Who watches the watchmen?
Show an affirming flame
There's a lot more to maneuverability than a simple statement. I'd been reading a history of the US-piloted Migs under the Constant Peg program, and under the right circumstances a Mig-21 can outturn and outmaneuver an F-15 or F-16.
Of course, this doesn't mean they aren't much better fighters than the Fishbed—just that they should avoid those circumstances. By taking advantage of vertical maneuvers, they can match a Fishbed turn for turn, even if the Mig can sustain sharper horizontal turns and go slower.
So I'm doubtful about blanket statements about the F-35 vis-à-vis the F-4 or other such fighters. What altitudes, speeds, angles, distances,and all of that were involved matter a lot.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
V
Well, yeah. A good pilot in a MiG-21 could easily take out an inexperienced pilot in an F-22.
It's not being called the world's worst aircraft because of its cost ya know.
Cross-posting from the Sci Fi Equipment Thread.
Navy will test its electromagnetic railgun aboard DDG 1000
The Navy is evaluating whether to mount its new Electromagnetic Rail Gun weapon aboard the high-tech DDG 1000 destroyer by the mid-2020s, service officials said.
The DDG 1000's Integrated Power System provides a large amount of on board electricity sufficient to accommodate the weapon, Capt. Mike Ziv, Program Manager for Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems, told reporters at the Navy League's 2015 Sea Air Space symposium at National Harbor, Md.
The first of three planned DDG 1000 destroyers was christened in April of last year.
Ziv said Navy leaders believe the DDG 1000 is the right ship to house the rail gun but that additional study was necessary to examine the risks. A rigorous study on the issue should be finished by the end of this year, Ziv said.
"I think it's an ideal platform. There is a little bit more work needed to understand the details," he added.
The DDG 1000 is 65-percent larger than existing 9,500-ton Aegis cruisers and destroyers with a displacement of 15,482 tons,.
The DDG 1000's integrated power system, which includes its electric propulsion, helps generate up to 58 megawatts of on-board electrical power, something seen as key to the future when it comes to the possibility of firing a rail gun.
It is also possible that the weapon could someday be configured to fire from DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
"We've looked at ships as small as DDG 51s. It takes something of that size. This isn't something you are going to put on an LCS," Ziv added.
Meanwhile, the Navy plans to test-fire its new Electromagnetic Rail Gun at sea for the first time in the summer of 2016 from on board the USNS Trenton, a Joint High Speed Vessel, service officials said.
The test shots will take place at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. During the test, the rail gun will fire a series of GPS-guided hypervelocity projectiles at a barge floating on the ocean about 25 to 50 nautical miles away,
"We're going to fire it against a floating target. We're trying to gauge the ability to engage a target over the horizon," Ziv explained. "We're going to have a gradual ramp up and gather data. This is a significant event but it is also a key learning point."
The Navy is developing the rail gun weapon for a wide range of at-sea and possible land-based applications, Ziv said. The weapon can fire guided, high-speed projectiles more than 100 miles, which makes is suitable for cruise missile defense, ballistic missile defense and various kinds of surface warfare applications.
The railgun uses electrical energy to create a magnetic field and propel a kinetic energy projectile at Mach 7.5 toward a wide range of targets, such as enemy vehicles, or cruise and ballistic missiles.
"The weapon works when electrical power charges up a pulse-forming network. That pulse-forming network is made up of capacitors able to release very large amounts of energy in a very short period of time. The weapon releases a current on the order of 3 to 5 million amps —- that's 1,200 volts released in a ten millisecond timeframe. That is enough to accelerate a mass of approximately 45 pounds from zero to five thousand miles per hour in one one-hundredth of a second," Ziv added.
The hypervelocity projectile is a kinetic energy warhead, meaning it has no explosives engineered into it. This lowers the cost and the logistics burden of the weapon, Ziv said.
The rate of fire is 10-rounds per minute, Ziv said.
Due to its ability to reach speeds of up to 5,600 miles per hour, the hypervelocity projectile is engineered as a kinetic energy warhead, meaning no explosives are necessary. The hyper velocity projectile can travel at speeds up to 2,000 meters per second, a speed which is about three times that of most existing weapons.
Although it has the ability to intercept cruise missiles, the hypervelocity projectile can be stored in large numbers on ships. Unlike other larger missile systems designed for similar missions, the hypervelocity projectile costs only $25,000 per round.
The railgun can draw its power from an onboard electrical system or large battery, Navy officials said. The system consists of five parts, including a launcher, energy storage system, a pulse-forming network, hypervelocity projectile and gun mount.
While the weapon is currently configured to guide the projectile against fixed or static targets using GPS technology, it is possible that in the future the rail gun could be configured to destroy moving targets as well, Ziv explained.
— Kris Osborn can be reached at kris.osborn@military.com
When this finally becomes fully operational can we start on plans to have gun cruisers back? Maybe a new era of battleships?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Yes Tom you are. Especially considering since that article they put the A against an F-16 and it did rather well. Nice try though. Keep the ass pulls coming. It won't be an air superiority fighter but it can dog fight if it has to.
Who watches the watchmen?
Ass pulls? You're the one claiming it can match an F-16 with no proof to back it up. Put up or shut up Marine. Let's see the vid of that dogfight of an F-35 kicking an F-16's ass in maneuvers during exercises.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
How about actually trying to post something that has merit. All you ever do is one big ass pull after the other and you frequently get spanked for it. You would think you would have learned by now. Your like that little kid who keeps putting the fork in socket despite getting shocked the first time.
Your supposition along with that in the article is at best very questionable. The F-16 vs F-35 test was shared earlier. It isn't on me if you can't be assed to read info that was already made available to you.
To wit only in a clean vs clean is the F-16 really ahead. But in a more realistic combat load out the F-35 wins. The key item to this is the internal weapons bay for the F-35 gives it nearly the same aerial performance as a clean F-35.
The A and C should actually do well. The B which has been one astounding screw up after another. No really all the biggest issues almost entirely center around the B. The biggest problems is how we are farming out the work to great cost and letting the more problematic version drag the other two down and drive up the program costs. We should still wait until the craft are actually fully complete and capable instead of waiting a few years for that.
The F-35 certainly won't likely beat dedicated interceptors like the F-22 and it's Foreign Counter Parts but it is looking like in general it will get the job done but at a big price tag.
edited 16th Apr '15 10:08:46 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Error, tinyurl leads to a tinyurl.
The future of warfare in UC.
Wreck of the USS Independence confirmed.
We've known about where it is for awhile now, but there was some doubt since it had never been properly photographed.
edited 16th Apr '15 11:18:11 PM by Night
Nous restons ici.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Wow that it is still mostly intact is pretty damn cool.
Balmung: Oops try this.It cuts to the chase
HGW XX/7
Obviously what the US needs is the De Havilland Mosquito.
Schild und Schwert der Partei
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
A modern Mosquito might actually be pretty cool.
Who watches the watchmen?
The future of warfare in UC.
Well, maybe if the A-12 program hadn't been hideously mismanaged or we'd invested in an F-111 follow-up.
Nous restons ici.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Program mismanagement and development flubs is pretty much a guarantee though. How bad seems to be different.
Who watches the watchmen?
V
It's pretty much a guarantee with whatever aircraft project — especially military — you look at. Even the Mosquito and Spitfire had problems, and the Lancaster only came after the failed Manchester.
US Navy Develops Cannon Launched "Drone Swarms".
Advanced Warfare was right! Break out your car doors and take cover!
Seriously though, it makes for some nifty versatility in ship guns. No longer just being an obsolete AA gun mostly used for pelting ships and shore targets anymore.
edited 20th Apr '15 7:22:04 PM by MajorTom
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Well it isn't quite weaponize drone swarms the idea is for these to be a network scouting and spotting swarm to guide long range munition strikes. Though from the look of the drones they are not far removed in terms of design from the Switch Blade Loitering Munition.
Like that one variety of Russian cruise missiles that use the coordinated swarm to improve their attack. The Loitering Munitions could track, locate, and then attack targets or they could work with the spotting and targeting swarms to do the same thing. Have the loitering munitions launched along side the spotter drones and attack painted targets.
edited 20th Apr '15 7:31:05 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
The future of warfare in UC.
US to post female admiral as ComThirdFleet.
First female fleet commander. Coming up on first female CNO pretty soon, too.
Nous restons ici.
Great news. I wish her well in her new role.
I would've figured it was more a DDG can launch its own scouts for missile/torpedo strikes on targets rather than rely on carrier recon or SpySat. Cheaper than shit like Fire Scout too since the gun launched drone doesn't necessarily need to return to the ship.
^^ The Phantom's major flaw was the lack of gun and it was rectified. It was built as intended. It carried more missiles than any of its contemporaries for air to air warfare (or air to ground in later years of the 1960s), it was one of the fastest fighter aircraft then available (they don't call it the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics for nothing), and by all accounts it was affordable, reliable and much easier to maintain and use than the Pigeon.
Hell the F-4 can run rings around an F-35 in a dogfight! THAT'S HOW BAD THE F-35 IS!
Carrier skippers could trust the Phantom in the 1960s and 1970s. I don't think they can place that same level of faith with the F-35.
edited 15th Apr '15 5:03:45 PM by MajorTom