billvon 2,478
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
kallend 1,683
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
When you figure out how a 200-kt drone is going to intercept, much less dogfight a Mach 3 warplane, let me know.
Where are these Mach 3 planes coming from? They have terribly range.
Airborne tankers and drop tanks on warplanes are hardly new things.
But it won't be going Mach 3 when refuleing, and if its range is poor the tanker will be well in range of the enemy.
The tanker is faster than the drone at refueling speed for the 'heavies', much less fighters
But STILL not Mach 3, or anywhere close.
Quote
- the drone isn't going to catch the tanker to fire the missile. As for range, the Mig 29 has a 1500 km range at altitude, compared to 2000 km for the Mig 33, F16 and F18. (ranges minus drop tanks).
It doesn't have to, the supposed enemy is coming to it.
Quote
The drone is still too slow and not maneuverable enough to intercept or dogfight warplanes.
Ever hear of missiles?
Quote
Future models *MAY* be able t]o reduce that performance gap, but it is by no means assured. Also, once you close that perfomance gap, the drone now has the same 'disadvantage' as the warplane - short legs and endurance problems.
The drone doesn't have to carry life support systems and associated overhead. The properly engineered drone will always outperform the manned aircraft.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
Quote>Wonderful - how's it going to get into RANGE???
It doesn't have to. UAV's patrol the coast. When radar detects incoming aircraft, the UAV only has to get to within 120 miles of the enemy aircraft before launching its missiles.
Uh-huh. I see... you were talking about some mythical UAV that doesn't exist shooting a missile that doesn't exist.
In that case, why stop there? Let's pretend we've got a drone that can supercruise using 2 gallons of jet fuel per hour, can pull a 12g, 500ft circle turn at 600kias, and armed with missiles that have a 1000 mile range and only weigh 20 pounds each?
I mean, if you're gonna pile on the bullshit, then let's REALLY do it right!
QuoteThe days of having to "get on an enemy's tail" and shoot inert projectiles at it are past.
Speaking of strawmen... show me where I said that.
Quote>Outstanding - tell me again how many combat kills the SR71 had, Bill?
The same number the manned mach-2 F-22 warplane has!
Nice tapdance, but about what I expected from you.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteThe tanker is faster than the drone at refueling speed for the 'heavies', much less fighters
But STILL not Mach 3, or anywhere close.
So what? How is the drone going to get close enough to fire, when everything can outrun it?
QuoteBesides, where are these Mach 3 warplanes of which you write?[\reply]
Ever hear of the Foxbat, Professor?QuoteQuote- the drone isn't going to catch the tanker to fire the missile. As for range, the Mig 29 has a 1500 km range at altitude, compared to 2000 km for the Mig 33, F16 and F18. (ranges minus drop tanks).
It doesn't have to, the supposed enemy is coming to it.
Refuelling would be done in a safe area BEFORE the combat insertion by the fighter.QuoteQuote
The drone is still too slow and not maneuverable enough to intercept or dogfight warplanes.
Ever hear of missiles?
Ever hear of maximum range?QuoteQuoteFuture models *MAY* be able to reduce that performance gap, but it is by no means assured. Also, once you close that perfomance gap, the drone now has the same 'disadvantage' as the warplane - short legs and endurance problems.
The drone doesn't have to carry life support systems and associated overhead. The properly engineered drone will always outperform the manned aircraft.
In the future...perhaps.Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 1,683
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe tanker is faster than the drone at refueling speed for the 'heavies', much less fighters
But STILL not Mach 3, or anywhere close.
So what? How is the drone going to get close enough to fire, when everything can outrun it?QuoteBesides, where are these Mach 3 warplanes of which you write?[\reply]
Ever hear of the Foxbat, Professor?
.
What is the Foxbat's range at Mach 3?
It is heavy, made of stainless steel, highly UNmaneuverable and a sitting duck for missiles.
Next?...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,683
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ad1TyKqhCBDs
GOP and Dem congressmen alike attack Paulson for his use of taxpayer money to bail out his bank buddies.
GOP and Dem congressmen alike attack Paulson for his use of taxpayer money to bail out his bank buddies.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
TomAiello 25
Quotewww.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ad1TyKqhCBDs
GOP and Dem congressmen alike attack Paulson for his use of taxpayer money to bail out his bank buddies.
And they should. Our money shouldn't be used to provide welfare for billionaires.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteI know three different guys working as contractors in Iraq, and all of them make more than 100k dollars per year.
Yep. Of the friends I have who have worked privately in Iraq, salaries seemed to _start_ there. Sadly, one didn't come back.
When the Army's Human Terrain System converted what were previously very high-payed contractor positions (some over $300K/year, most around $200K/year) to federal civilians (less than $100K/year) an estimated 1/3 quit.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
One of the reasons that I attribute (others have too, not trying to assert it’s a purely novel idea on my part) to the apparent difference in defense budgets between the US and other countries is purely domestic politics. There are other reasons too, which others have noted explictly [e.g., nanook's posts in this thread] … but this is one that I don’t think gets enough attention.
From the early 1980s through mid-2000s, there was a domestic inclination to cut government size. Or cut apparent size of the federal government, e.g., no increases in federal civilians with a shift to increased reliance on contractors.
At the same time the only budget that was politically palatable to increase was the Defense Budget. One of the unintended consequences is that the Defense Department now gets ‘stuck’ being the effective lead for things that they don’t want or is only marginally in their mission area.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
From the early 1980s through mid-2000s, there was a domestic inclination to cut government size. Or cut apparent size of the federal government, e.g., no increases in federal civilians with a shift to increased reliance on contractors.
At the same time the only budget that was politically palatable to increase was the Defense Budget. One of the unintended consequences is that the Defense Department now gets ‘stuck’ being the effective lead for things that they don’t want or is only marginally in their mission area.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
It doesn't have to. UAV's patrol the coast. When radar detects incoming aircraft, the UAV only has to get to within 120 miles of the enemy aircraft before launching its missiles.
The days of having to "get on an enemy's tail" and shoot inert projectiles at it are past.
>Outstanding - tell me again how many combat kills the SR71 had, Bill?
The same number the manned mach-2 F-22 warplane has!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites