The sky-high aircraft and aviation thread

As I recall, USS Lexington (CV-16) took it as a bragging point that she'd been sunk at least once during WWII and stayed in the fight. The original USS Yorktown similarly could brag of being sunk on three separate occasions over the course of a few months in 1942. Only the third time stuck, and even that was the second time during that battle.

The ship probably only sank under the weight of all of the accolades her Damage Control teams deserved.

Regarding the Stealth Fighter shootdown: People say "lucky" like lucky shots don't still result in a plane being dropped onto the ground. The only problem with luck is that it is unpredictable. And as mentioned above, the Serbs were able to stack their deck with plenty of intel and planning.

edited 18th Oct '17 12:32:37 PM by AFP

The F-117 loss in Serbia was a massive PR stunt, for both Russians and Serbs, it also put a lot of doubt into the American stealth capabilities. That incident being practically impossible to replicate is usually ignored.

Funny thing is how all those sunk American ships returning in the Pacific theater confused the living hell of the IJN, because they either assumed the US had the capability of producing carriers instantly or were fighting Ghost Ships.

Well, whatever keeps the Serbs from bragging about some atrocity you didn't want to know about.

Did anyone crunch the numbers on how big the antennas those much vaunted ultra-low frequency radars would actually need to have in order to actually see a stealth aircraft?

edited 18th Oct '17 1:31:09 PM by Krieger22

Not sure. The question does remind me of a recent FCC announcement allowing Ham Radio operators to operate in the 2200 Meter band, but only for fixed stations, not mobile.

We had some fun trying to figure out how exactly you're supposed to have a mobile antenna for a band where a quarter wavelength antenna is six football fields long. We're pretty sure it involves finding an E-6 Mercury on the surplus market and using the mile-long wire antenna that plane can spool out.

How common is it that people upon having a problem in an engine shut down the other one by mistake? Bunch of accidents happened because of this.

Thinking because the ‘‘Air Crash Investigation‘‘ episode on TransAsia Airways 235 flight episode.

Wait, there is more. Apparently the autopilot of the plane in question could have handled the first engine problem itself without the pilots having to do anything. Epic Fail...

IIRC it mostly happens after aircraft upgrades or changes.

Pilots rely a lot on subtle cues to figure out engine problems, like if the air conditioner is acting up and which engine drives it.

So if a plane upgrade or switch changes which engine controls which other things.... they end up shutting down the wrong one out of memory.

Some planes also have some weird counter-intuitive design features too. Some of the A-10's controls end up being reversed in full-manual mode, which is something you only mess with if the hydraulics fail, so already in a stressful emergency situation.

Those radars are not as massive as some of you think they are. Sure they are pretty big for mobile units but not multiple football field big. Both the Russians and to a lesser extent the Chinese have developed or possess various radars along those lines and nearly all of them are road mobile. However that doesn't mean they aren't large and bulky units especially when deployed. They are also comparably easier to spot and detect in operation and have larger logistical needs such as power generation than the other radars.

Contrary to Taira's insistence they are in fact a real concern for stealth fighter aircraft. Apparently the physics of the interaction of the shaping and stealth coating is far more favorable for large stealth craft like the B-2 Spirit. Which means outside of certain craft stealth loses what made it so incredibly effective and dangerous. The element of surprise.

However there is the fact the effective range of those systems against stealth craft is unpleasantly short and ultimately reliant on being part of a defensive network to be effective. They have to be able to cue in other radars and/or missile systems that can command guide the missiles or direct aerial interdiction.

The US counter is to utilize the fact that while no longer effectively invisible, fighter sized stealth craft are rather hard to detect at longer ranges and hard to lock onto. Which means they resort to an increasingly stable of long range guided stand off weapons. They can operate inside the ranges of pretty much all the more common radar systems. They might be detected by the other systems but so far they can easily outrange said systems with the stand off weapons. Basically they start poking out the eyes of the ADA units leaving them radar blind or suffering degradation of their systems capability to the point they are at the mercy of the enemy aircraft.

Basically it boils down to this. Stealth craft outside of the larger examples are no longer the brown trouser surprise the world first experienced them as. An enemy expecting there use and fielding the various modern equipment can detect and track their general presence and quite likely engage the target. Which means those systems pose a real and serious challenge to stealth aircraft. However the US recognizes the threat and is following multiple avenues to not only help put stealth fighters back into the higher threat category but also to help our non-stealth aircraft survive modern ADA networks of peer or near peer foes. Combinations of tactics and equipment will go a long way into helping limit the efficacy of that enemy equipment.

edited 18th Oct '17 6:33:11 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Low frequency radars are easier to jam because lower frequencies travel farther.

India Might Finally Terminate Their Stealth Fighter Program With Russia.

Rogoway's wishful thinking aside (the F-35 is too much of a boondoggle at this point for India to consider, and that's NOT considering the piss poor calamity that is Indian military procurement), this isn't too surprising. Russia has been how shall we say "hesitant" to provide proper working shite for their high-end projects for other countries.

You mean like the US has been doing with the F-35?

The US shares it's good stuff with NATO. Due to the Iran threat, the Gulf states get some good equipment (F-16 block 50, THAAD, PATRIOT) but some are downgraded (the M1's the Saudis have are a good example).

Russia has always been notorious for the "monkey models": severely downgraded tanks and aircraft they provided for their allies.

Not helping Russia's case is their attempt to convert a cruiser into an aircraft carrier.

And one of Russia's "Flaptor" prototypes caught fire and nearly burned to the landing gear (unlike the F-35 who's engine fires were minor compared to the Sukoi flambe)

India is inking a deal to make F-16's for all of Asia (and perhaps the world). That is really going to tempt them away from any Ruskie POS.

There was a brouhaha a while back that the US was unwilling to do some level of technology transfer for the F-35 that would've basically made it impossible for the purchasing nations to perform maintenance or something.

Hah, exporting Black Box technology. I've read sci-fi stories where that was a plot point, like Vatta's War.

Newsweek: Nuclear Bombers to Return to 24-Hour Alert After Trump Recalls Retired Pilots

The F-35 Has Had A Rough Week.

Good news: They're planning and doing some (really small) deployments to various places. So....yay?

Bad news: Not counting the traditional problems never addressed in costs, low payload, unreliable stealth, poor performance and setting itself on fire, it has poor readiness owing to a lack of spare parts and repair capabilities, continues to choke out its pilots, has ridiculously lax computer security, and is having problems with production and deployment both in the US and UK.

Seriously, we should just cancel the craptastic thing already. We're never going to get anything good out of it at this rate.

Costs: So, what new do you have to say? Unit costs are going down and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Low payload: 8 SDBs are considered a miserable payload?

Unreliable stealth: 15-1 K/D with the cards stacked against it at Red Flag don't real.

Poor performance: I beg your pardon?

Setting itself on fire: Funny how the Su-57 doesn't get shit on for doing the same thing and being in a much worse state.

Lack of spare parts and repair capabilities: They're still in the process of actually making enough of them to service.

Oxygen supply issues: Stop reading RT.

Poor computer security: You are deliberately confusing a government network maintained by the lowest bidder with the onboard systems of the F-35.

Problems with production and deployment: Get back to me when they officially declare the end of LRIP.

Aye, right.

The Pigeon is still going to be the most expensive weapons programme ever conceived. And Tom's great grandkid's great grandkids may still be paying for it. (Mine won't be because I don't have kids or any desire to.)

And all for a plane who's benefits over its competition may in the medium to long term be either transitory or illusory, and in any case it's probably going to be the last major mandatory-manned fighter aircraft in the US inventory.

They won't be. I'll be President in 2020 and I'll see to it the Pigeon is not only cancelled for its poor performance but its costs recouped via a combination of shaking Lockheed Martin down for war profiteering and yanking it from the pay and pensions of every single officer and NCO in the services who have pushed for or were part of its procurement.

...Tom, I'm one of those who think we should have just stuck with the f-22 and simply designed a new carrier aircraft(with maybe a VTOL variant on the side), but even I think you're beating a dead horse into glue at this point. Please knock it off.

Also, if you don't want to be jumped every time you bring up the f-35, please do so while a) having actual new information, and b) stop using tyler rogoway as your only source. I mean, I read the guy, but I do so knowing he can be a bit, shall we say, "biased" in his reporting. Please try sourcing multiple people.

^ That's a little hard to do when most news sources out there that could cover the F-35 are either: A) sycophants for the program who dismiss anything bad. B) completely ignoring of the program outright. C) Sensationalist drivel not worth reading or D) straight from the sole source such as the GAO itself which would be covered by Rogoway.

Is this another case of "anything more positive than my viewpoint is shilling"?

If this Rogoway fellow is just citing the GAO, why not just cite the GAO?

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure every time you rant about the F-35, Gabe Newell diverts money from the Half Life 3 budget to the F-35 budget.

^ The Half-Life 3 budget was expended years ago, I don't need to worry about that.