kelpdiver 2 #126 July 17, 2009 Quote The warplane doesn't HAVE to (and I don't think any CAN) make a trans-oceanic flight on internal fuel. It brings tanker support with it, and tops up before starting it's insertion. The tanker DOESN'T accompany the fighter into the battle zone. We already covered that. Tanker is a slow moving easy target. Back to that 40s radar technology. And even if air defenses screwed the pooch and let in the first sorties, that would be the last time the tankers could get close enough. But right...you think would be easier if we were like Poland? Who needs thousands of miles of ocean when you could be surrounded by Russia and Germany!? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #127 July 17, 2009 >Global Hawk != Predator Agreed. Any UAV force will require a plethora of vehicles, from low/slow/small vehicles like the Predator to high/heavy vehicles like the Hawk. >Phoenix STILL retired from inventory for the last 5 years Also agreed. I'm not saying you could assemble this configuration and launch it tomorrow - I am saying that there is nothing stopping you from designing such a system based on the current state of the art, and on our current hardware. Note that the reason it was retired was that the armed forces had no need of a weapon that had such a long range, but was less useful in close-range air superiority. Since we're talking about a system that would be predicated on long range engagement, this missile makes more sense than any of the more modern shorter-range air to air missiles. >100+ mile missile engagement STILL bullshit. ?? Why? They have been tested successfully to that distance. Now, it may not be a good idea to launch said missile at a threat you cannot see, because the odds of it being, say, a wayward CRJ from Seattle are high. However, the missile is still perfectly capable of firing on such a target. >Nope, I didn't say THAT either - What I SAID is that a drone is NOT going >to work as an airborne interceptor. And I've demonstrated how they can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #128 July 17, 2009 Thanks, that's some interesting stuff. The MQ-9 is farther along than I thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #129 July 17, 2009 QuoteWe already covered that. Tanker is a slow moving easy target. Back to that 40s radar technology. That's right, we did... what part of "The tanker DOESN'T accompany the fighter into the battle zone" was incomprehensible to you? Quote And even if air defenses screwed the pooch and let in the first sorties, that would be the last time the tankers could get close enough. UAV - 150-200 knots KC-130 - 315 knots KC-135 - 470 knots KC-10 - 550 knots You can't kill what you can't catch.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #130 July 17, 2009 >UAV - 150-200 knots >KC-130 - 315 knots >KC-135 - 470 knots >KC-10 - 550 knots AIM-92 Stinger: 1200 knots AIM-9 Sidewinder: 1850 knots Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #131 July 17, 2009 Quote>UAV - 150-200 knots >KC-130 - 315 knots >KC-135 - 470 knots >KC-10 - 550 knots AIM-92 Stinger: 1200 knots AIM-9 Sidewinder: 1850 knots AIM-92 Stinger range: 8km AIM-9 Sidewinder range: 18 miles Again, you can't shoot what you can't catch.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #132 July 17, 2009 Quote>UAV - 150-200 knots >KC-130 - 315 knots >KC-135 - 470 knots >KC-10 - 550 knots AIM-92 Stinger: 1200 knots AIM-9 Sidewinder: 1850 knots Indeed - nothing prevents us from creating a UAV that takes the speed/range of the cruise missile (550mph over 1100km) and puts several stingers on it. Cruise missiles can be launched by smaller ships as well, doesn't require a carrier. meanltx - you seem remarkable creative with this phantom threat to the 48 states, yet remarkable unimaginative with what defenses could be posed in a model where we primarily use the military for the purpose of border defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #133 July 17, 2009 >Again, you can't shoot what you can't catch. And again, if you want 100% protection against invasion, you can use a few high speed vehicles or a lot of lower speed ones. Lots of cheaper, lower speed ones is both more reliable (redundancy) and more cost effective. Not even the fastest fighter can outrun a missile launched from a vehicle that's in its way. Also keep in mind that no one is suggesting completely eliminating manned military aviation, but rather supplementing it. A patrol of UAV's that can detect and down 6 of an incoming flight of 10 bombers, and then provide updates while another set of UAV's are launched (or while manned interceptors are launched) will go a long way. Indeed, the New York Air National Guard 174th Fighter Wing is transitioning from F-16's to UAV's. In the future, they will serve complementary roles, as they do now. As time goes on UAV's will take over more and more manned missions, saving us money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #134 July 17, 2009 QuoteIndeed - nothing prevents us from creating a UAV that takes the speed/range of the cruise missile (550mph over 1100km) and puts several stingers on it. Cruise missiles can be launched by smaller ships as well, doesn't require a carrier. That very well MAY be possible, at some hypothetical point in the future. Quotemeanltx - you seem remarkable creative with this phantom threat to the 48 states, Remarkably creative? I'm not "creating" anything - do some research on air defense and intercept. Could the drones have a part in it? Certainly they can, and they do. They *ARE*, however, unsuited for an airborne intercept role. Quoteyet remarkable unimaginative with what defenses could be posed in a model where we primarily use the military for the purpose of border defense. You and bill have been talking pie-in-the-sky future weapons - I am talking about what is possible TODAY, as I've mentioned SEVERAL times in the thread. If we're going to play "what ifs", let's forget the drones and just have laser emplacements.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #135 July 17, 2009 Quote>Again, you can't shoot what you can't catch. Not even the fastest fighter can outrun a missile launched from a vehicle that's in its way. I don't disagree - IF you have a vehicle that is within range. MY point is that, if the drone is NOT in the way, it has NO chance of intercept. QuoteAlso keep in mind that no one is suggesting completely eliminating manned military aviation, but rather supplementing it. Never said they were - just said that UAV's are unsuited for an active intercept role. Without the speed to catch the incoming well clear of their objective or an incredible density to ensure COMPLETE coverage, they're the airborne equivalent of a HAWK battery or an Avenger HMMWV.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #136 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuote>WAY too heavy for the Predator to carry Global Hawk RQ-4 UAV: Empty weight: 8,490 lb (3,850 kg) Gross weight: 22,900 lb (10,400 kg) Carrying capacity (fuel/sensors) - 14,000 lbs Weight of a Phoenix - 1000 lbs Capacity at 3/4 fuel load based on weight - 3 Phoenix missiles Global Hawk != Predator Unknown if Global Hawk hardpoints would support missile mounts - hardpoint weight limit of 1000 could MAYBE support a Phoenix, except..... Phoenix STILL retired from inventory for the last 5 years STILL no attack radar in the drone 100+ mile missile engagement STILL bullshit. Quote>Nope, didn't say THAT, either OK. So according to you we need a high-mach fighter and we don't need a high-mach fighter. Your logic remains consistent. Nope, I didn't say THAT either - What I SAID is that a drone is NOT going to work as an airborne interceptor. FFS, quit trying to put words in my mouth, Bill. And a manned Mach 3 interceptor (Foxbat, your example - check what its design role was) is not going to work as a long range offensive weapon.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #137 July 17, 2009 QuoteAnd a manned Mach 3 interceptor (Foxbat, your example - check what its design role was) is not going to work as a long range offensive weapon. It doesn't have to fly at mach 3 all the time, and it can be air-refueled. What was your point, again?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #138 July 18, 2009 Quote You and bill have been talking pie-in-the-sky future weapons - I am talking about what is possible TODAY, as I've mentioned SEVERAL times in the thread. so what threat is possible TODAY? Who's going to attack us with Foxbats or the equivalent? There's nothing pie in the sky here - these are low tech weapons, far easier to design and build (and pay for) then the F22/F35 or next gen 100M$ plane. And it seems obvious to note that today we have the most massive military force on earth. And 187 F-22s planned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #139 July 18, 2009 QuoteQuote You and bill have been talking pie-in-the-sky future weapons - I am talking about what is possible TODAY, as I've mentioned SEVERAL times in the thread. so what threat is possible TODAY? Who's going to attack us with Foxbats or the equivalent? I don't know - You tell me, since you're such an expert. QuoteThere's nothing pie in the sky here - these are low tech weapons, far easier to design and build (and pay for) then the F22/F35 or next gen 100M$ plane. Then where are they? The fact is that the technology does NOT exist yet. QuoteAnd it seems obvious to note that today we have the most massive military force on earth. And 187 F-22s planned. Si vis pacem, para bellumMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #140 July 18, 2009 >MY point is that, if the drone is NOT in the way, it has NO chance >of intercept. Correct. Which means that UAV's are good defensive weapons (defense of a home area) and not great offensive weapons (air superiority over another country for example.) Which, to me, is a good thing. >Without the speed to catch the incoming well clear of their objective or >an incredible density to ensure COMPLETE coverage, they're the airborne >equivalent of a HAWK battery or an Avenger HMMWV. Or an F-22, which doesn't have the speed to catch a Foxbat either. Given their relative costs ($10 million for an MQ-9 vs. $137 million for an F-22) the UAV's seem like a pretty good deal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #141 July 18, 2009 Quote >Again, you can't shoot what you can't catch. And again, if you want 100% protection against invasion, you can use a few high speed vehicles or a lot of lower speed ones. Lots of cheaper, lower speed ones is both more reliable (redundancy) and more cost effective. Not even the fastest fighter can outrun a missile launched from a vehicle that's in its way. Also keep in mind that no one is suggesting completely eliminating manned military aviation, but rather supplementing it. A patrol of UAV's that can detect and down 6 of an incoming flight of 10 bombers, and then provide updates while another set of UAV's are launched (or while manned interceptors are launched) will go a long way. Indeed, the New York Air National Guard 174th Fighter Wing is transitioning from F-16's to UAV's. In the future, they will serve complementary roles, as they do now. As time goes on UAV's will take over more and more manned missions, saving us money. Yep, nobody would ever shoot done some drones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #142 July 18, 2009 Quote>Without the speed to catch the incoming well clear of their objective or >an incredible density to ensure COMPLETE coverage, they're the airborne >equivalent of a HAWK battery or an Avenger HMMWV. Or an F-22, which doesn't have the speed to catch a Foxbat either. Given their relative costs ($10 million for an MQ-9 vs. $137 million for an F-22) the UAV's seem like a pretty good deal. BAD analogy. The F-22 DOES have a comparable turn of speed to other warplanes (if not the Foxbat) and thus WOULD (and does) have an air superiority/intercept role.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #143 July 18, 2009 >?Yep, nobody would ever shoot done some drones. They would - just like they would shoot at some F-22's. I'd much rather lose the drones than the aircraft and pilot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #144 July 18, 2009 >The F-22 DOES have a comparable turn of speed to other warplanes . . . What's a "turn of speed?" Do you mean turning ability (i.e. envelope)? UAV's have a far higher ability to turn than aircraft with human pilots. UAV's don't lose consciousness at high G loadings. Or did you mean speed? If so, you've spent several posts saying that if you do not have the speed to intercept incoming aircraft, you cannot engage them. To use your phrase - when you figure out how a mach-2 fighter is going to intercept, much less dogfight a mach-3 warplane, let me know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #145 July 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd a manned Mach 3 interceptor (Foxbat, your example - check what its design role was) is not going to work as a long range offensive weapon. It doesn't have to fly at mach 3 all the time, and it can be air-refueled. What was your point, again? Re-read what I wrote, more carefully this time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #146 July 18, 2009 QuoteQuote>Without the speed to catch the incoming well clear of their objective or >an incredible density to ensure COMPLETE coverage, they're the airborne >equivalent of a HAWK battery or an Avenger HMMWV. Or an F-22, which doesn't have the speed to catch a Foxbat either. Given their relative costs ($10 million for an MQ-9 vs. $137 million for an F-22) the UAV's seem like a pretty good deal. BAD analogy. The F-22 DOES have a comparable turn of speed to other warplanes (if not the Foxbat) and thus WOULD (and does) have an air superiority/intercept role. Ok, so we exclude the Foxbat (which YOU brought up) and your stated position falls apart even further than before..... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #147 July 18, 2009 All you guys are arguing about air attacks. No one here yet has talked about submarine threats and their ability wreck havoc. What about threats from surface ships? with our 65 bil navy, we would have three subs per coast and 5 warships. Most threat countries have highly capable subs that no UAV will be able to find. Also, the UAV arguments and their future capability are starting to add up cost and maintenance wise. I have an idea that if we have to scale down to meet the minimums, and use UAVs to cover the area that the abandoned surface radar and sattelite used to do, their resulting numbers will never allow for getting close to 2X the budget._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #148 July 18, 2009 Quote>The F-22 DOES have a comparable turn of speed to other warplanes . . . What's a "turn of speed?" Do you mean turning ability (i.e. envelope)? UAV's have a far higher ability to turn than aircraft with human pilots. UAV's don't lose consciousness at high G loadings. I wasn't talking maneuverability - although I understand several UAV crashed have been from pilots overstressing the airframe of the drone. QuoteOr did you mean speed? If so, you've spent several posts saying that if you do not have the speed to intercept incoming aircraft, you cannot engage them. To use your phrase - when you figure out how a mach-2 fighter is going to intercept, much less dogfight a mach-3 warplane, let me know. A mach 2 aircraft is going to have a lot easier time getting a cutoff on a mach 3 aircraft than a 200 knot aircraft trying to get that same cutoff, don't you think?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #149 July 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd a manned Mach 3 interceptor (Foxbat, your example - check what its design role was) is not going to work as a long range offensive weapon. It doesn't have to fly at mach 3 all the time, and it can be air-refueled. What was your point, again? Re-read what I wrote, more carefully this time. Re-read what *I* wrote to begin with - the intruding aircraft doesn't HAVE to have exceedingly long range. It will tank outside the battle zone, then fly in on full tanks. That's been doctrine for, oh, a couple DECADES at least.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #150 July 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>Without the speed to catch the incoming well clear of their objective or >an incredible density to ensure COMPLETE coverage, they're the airborne >equivalent of a HAWK battery or an Avenger HMMWV. Or an F-22, which doesn't have the speed to catch a Foxbat either. Given their relative costs ($10 million for an MQ-9 vs. $137 million for an F-22) the UAV's seem like a pretty good deal. BAD analogy. The F-22 DOES have a comparable turn of speed to other warplanes (if not the Foxbat) and thus WOULD (and does) have an air superiority/intercept role. Ok, so we exclude the Foxbat (which YOU brought up) and your stated position falls apart even further than before.. Wrong yet again, Professor. You're so cute when you try to talk military stuff.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
