Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Interesting reports from the first Gulf War illustrating the tenacity of precision guided munitions:

"The reaction of Iraqi forces to direct precision air attacks indicated that the traditional powerful psychological impact of air attack had, at last, been matched by the equally powerful impact of actual destruction. Two quotes serve to highlight this, the first from an Iraqi battalion commander interrogated by a US Marine Corps intelligence specialist a month after the war ended:

Interrogator: How many of your soldiers were killed by the air war?

Iraqi Officer: To be honest, for the amount of ordnance that was dropped, not very many. Only one soldier was killed and two were wounded. The soldier that was killed did not die as a result of a direct hit, but because the vibrations of the bomb caused a bunker to cave in on top of him.

Interrogator: So, then you feel the aerial bombardment was ineffective?

Iraqi Officer: Oh no! Just the opposite! It was extremely effective! The planes hit only vehicles and equipment. Even my personal vehicle, a ‘Waz’ was hit. They hit everything! [emphasis in original text]

The second is from an Iraqi general reflecting morosely on the war:

During the Iran war, my tank was my friend because I could sleep in it and know I was safe ... During this war my tank became my enemy ... none of my troops would get near a tank at night because they just kept blowing up." (Hallion, Richard P, "PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS AND THE NEW ERA OF WARFARE",http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/docs/paper53.htm)

I get it our game is a game not a simulation. However, I would expect modern era aircraft with smart munitions to hit a designated target far in excess of 50%.

==========

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Now on the list to investigate

Don

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I agree they sometimes get distracted by a less valuable target on the approach line especially if it shoots at them so you need to think about the approach.
Problem with air is same as artillery though in that it comes in a few turns later so you need to predict where the target unit will be & hope for the best. Unlike artillery it will normally hit something but it may not be the target you were hoping for.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I've been saying this for sometime now in this thread and elsewhere. THANK YOU for for giving these precision weapons another look. I well remember watching a B-1 flying low and level dropping bombs on a trench line on the evening news no one walked away from it. After that happened a few times, the mere act of dropping leaflets on or near trenched or other defensive positions saying surrender or you'll be bombed was enough to convince them to do just that. The video on the news reminded me of the Italian mass surrenders in Africa during WWII.

We cannot deny technologies continuing advancement. However once we get to "kill capable" laser weapons I think I'll just take a long holiday and play with what I have prior to that time. ;) I know when the time comes down the road I'll be submitting aircraft with SNIPER, LITENING etc. targeting pods. We are making progress and NLOS has lead the way from the last patch.

We're getting there as Andy and Don are still managing to squeeze out and manipulate the software to give us the best game platform possible.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Couldn't get this on my last in time. Some might find this interesting...
http://hdvideo18.com/video/one-bomb-...eo/CY9gojFu-_U
http://www.military.com/video/aircra.../2081600103001

In the first video open up the info section for the weapons data.

Nice straight and narrow. Makes me wonder if the bomb drop zone in the game is too long and should be shorter with a more "with a focused punch" if you will.

I had at one time early in this thread videos showing incoming test and actual bombing runs on targets using targeting pods. Those targets were locked on at distances out to 50Km+. That was 1st at best 2nd Gen pods. Those pods are now into their 5th or 6th Gen depending on manufacturer. Accuracy is no longer really an issue for the major players. Russia was slower than most and only really got into the "game" in the last few years.
Those post are in here, some saw them I believe and commented on them however, seems funny that those videos became "dead links" in less then a few weeks. I'm thinking they were not meant to be posted by I believe Lockheed Martin at the time. Maybe they might work now as the systems are more advanced.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I'm slow on the edits tonight-sorry!

The post on referred to concerning the Targeting Pods in located on
Page 6 Post 56 12/11/2011 on my computer. Those videos are indeed still dead (404 error code.) however the posts that follow indicate some watched those videos with comment. Also my above distances were incorrect and should read 25NM and 35NM for those targeting videos.

And now I see what they did, found new videos and some I recognize from that above mentioned Post, they've covered some of the data. However there's a very quick video of a boat in the water taken from 40NM out in the upper right corner.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/Sniper.html

Some more from the original videos the air base scene was from the distance noted in my 11 Dec. 2011 post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi9d8bstWsE

Another video...
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/201..._wipe_out.html

Data points...
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...niper-pod.aspx
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...the-mark-0562/
http://www.lmnetcents.com/us/product...-delivery.html
http://www.lmnetcents.com/us/products/Sniper.html

Well have a great day I need some sleep!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I gave the wrong "scene" from the video I referred to in my last concerning the boat shot. I have "captured" the right "scene" below of possibly a small fence line protected production or storage facility. For scale note the white truck in the upper right center portion of the facility or vehicles just outside of it along the bottom length of it. The location of the distance mark in the snapshot is still in the upper right @ 40nm.

Attachment 14369

If your a "true baseball fan" in a couple of days you'll know where I'll be for the next week. Take Care!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I can only speak reliably from my own experience (of course).

While "smart" weapons do tend to hit/kill their target more often in reality then they do in WinSPMBT I've also VERY frequently seen the same already dead tank with multiple hits. From 10,000 ft a tank is a tank on a TV monitor, a thermal hot spot is a thermal hot spot, there's no way to determine if its functional vice one already killed by someone else. This tends to explain some of the inflated "kill" reports made by pilots. In game this sort of thing cannot be directly simulated, but the reduced chance to hit/kill we have in WinSPMBT can be viewed as representing this.

It's also well known that dumb bombs are relatively ineffective vs armored targets unless they're delivered via dive bombing type attacks (ask anyone from a WW II Panzer Division that was attacked by the USAF ... tanks were rarely destroyed, the support vehicles however were decimated), and that sort of thing also isn't represented in the game (well ... sort of ... some aircraft are given a higher "Fire Control" rating). WinSPMBT represents aircraft as they are generally used by most of the worlds nations ... a single 10,000 foot pass where the pilot has perhaps a couple seconds to locate a tiny, to them, target; and a tank is a tank from that altitude, enemy or friendly. My personal "problem" is, being a Jarhead, I'm use to aircraft flown by semi-suicidal USMC/USN pilots at tree top heights directed by skilled aerial observers. Something WinSPMBT cannot represent.

While the incidence of friendly fire when targeting close to your own forces is much higher then I'd expect in reality this is probably due to the visibility code (this is my OPINION since I have no clue exactly what the game code looks like). An aircraft can see the units on it's own side, it may, or may not, see the enemy. So if it sees 20 friendly units in it's target area and 5 enemy it's going to hit a friendly one 80% of the time. Without a massive code rewrite there is probably nothing that can be done about this.

Don and Andy have, and continue to, work wonders with the game. But some things are pretty much beyond their control and others are subjective.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

In our game, the playability of fixed and rotate aircraft could use some tweaking. I offer the following observations while developing my latest scenario:

I designated a 82mm mortar to a Harrier, selected a 250 lb SDB for the mission. A turn later the Harrier targeted a fortified House 700m away from the designated target.

That should not happen. The Harrier should have fired on the mortar not the fortified house.

I had a Warthog approach over a Taliban squad, it expended it's stores on the squad and did not attack it's assigned target, a 82mm mortar. I would have the Warthog use cannon or guns on the Taliban squad (target of opportunity), but it should have attacked it's designated target too, completing it's mission with remaining rockets and bombs.

I switched from COIN to fighter bomber with similar results. I increased visibility from 22 to 70, similar result on the first sortie. On the second sortie the Harrier and Warthog knocked out their targets.

I would expect the Harrier or Warthog with vision settings at 40 to successfully fire on the designated target regardless of visibility at 22 or 70.

These observations I offer to assist in the understanding of what the game is doing and how player expectations may differ.

=======

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

if a "better" target is seen , the aircraft WILL attack it. Some of that issue CAN be modified with the direction of the attack

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Aircraft coding certainly produces varied results, if you want specific target selection use a helo.
SEAD aircraft with other weapons left can be very loath to use anything but there cannon, I fly them round as scouts generally.
Sometimes & I have no idea how to make this happen a plane will attack multiple targets in one run which can cause a smile or two

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

This has been the whole point of this exercise with me for many, many years now. Don and I have had many discussions over the "vision" question across all platforms in this game. He has convinced awhile back of the importance of maintaining if you will an "upper limit" within the game for vision currently capped at 60 hexes for air units and 50 for the more advanced armor in the game. We don't have in my opinion a playable map where in "real life" air/armor units couldn't see all the way across it and in the case of air units a large wide area of it as well.

It took me awhile out here (Ask Don.) to realize there has to definitely be a balance between those above mentioned factors. It is important to maintain these distinctions for this game to keep it viable for the player. We don't need everyone seeing everyone else on the map, which I can assure you we and others can do at both the tactical and strategic level in real time.

That being said, this is why certain units have that "watered down" advantage to encourage the player to think about those nasty things potentially being out there and to get you thinking tactically and not like the general that ordered "The Charge of the Light Brigade" it ended bad for them, it'll end bad for your units as well.

It seems at times, and I could be sadly mistaken, this is a game about maneuver as much as it's about combat. Sometimes that seems to get lost out here. Case in point any air that spots your "hidden" units or your SPA/SPAA etc. units, I would hope that'll cause you to move them if you can if ever I play against a human and you don't move, your units will pay the price. I also can promise you the AI WILL NOT hesitate to do the same as well.

What I see is the dialing back of vision (TI/GSR) for certain countries receiving advanced equipment from other countries. By example, the USA AH-64E after some discussion with Don, I submitted it with a 60 TI/GSR very fair given the first 2 paras above. However Taiwan has them now as well and operational, the UK, South Korea and India are getting them as well. But would we give those countries the full package from at least the FCS standpoint of which TI/GSR is a direct component of that said FCS? In short the answer is no. The below ref. will show a real life case of that situation.

What I'm going to recommend is in the above case either a generous 55 or probably a more realistic 50. I believe in the USA OOB the AH-64D LONGBOW current vision is at 50, with that ref. that number would be supported game wise.
http://www.janes.com/article/59908/a...rs-for-apaches

Parity should never be a part of this game, there will always be "the haves" and "have nots" that being said I seem to remember the "have nots" did a pretty good job against two major "haves" in a place called Vietnam. ;)

I need to get to bed, just something nice about knowing you have only one work day in the week and three when you come back. Life is good sometimes that way. :p

Remember don't go over that hill and through the trees too fast something bad might be on the other side!! :shock:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

If your looking at dialling back TI in some cases in a players hands a difference of just a couple of hexes is a huge advantage Cheiftain with 22 vision for example instead of 20.
Modern battles can be quite complex especially vs countries like Russia when you suddenly come across a platoon of tanks with vision that outranges yours.
The AI can take advantage of this if its defending.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

This newer article backs what I've been posting about the joint Russian/Indian T-50/PAK-FA fighter-bomber it might not be as stealthy as originally thought. However she'll be a much better in dog fight then the the F-35 which this article has maintained that distinction as expressed over the last five years or so. It could've been better if India had had it's way. India wanted the fighter with better stealth qualities to deal with the Chinese and Pakistani Air Forces.

What happened? Yes that nasty economic thing almost ended up killing the project for both countries and Russia more so as it's experiencing mounting economic pressures brought on by the worlds oil glut and widespread corruption within it's economic system (Soshi comes to mind, in the fact that S. Korea will have their Olympic facilities built for about 2/3 to 3/4 of the cost less then the Russians did 2yrs ago.)

India's response was to buy the RAFALE.

There still is some great information in the diagrams provided concerning weapons and other capabilities.

To be clear this is still an outstanding warbird.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/ga...318265ed8252c5

Yup, tracking since day one.

Though it's in the game, I suspect there might be some "tweaking" to come down the road, especially depending on what India will do to their fighters. If they add some of the equipment they want, which might actually happen, the PAK-FA will at a minimum have a higher EW rating then the Russian version. Time will tell as these fighters still are a couple or more years away from becoming fully operational.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

YEAH BUT.........we're not fighting WW1, "dog fighting" isn't the way things go anymore

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Meant that in modern terms-sorry-it is thought with the capabilities of it's radar in range and search capability plus the Russian advanced Air-to-Air missiles now recently in service it would give the PAK-FA the edge. In maneuverability that will clearly fall to the PAK-FA as well due to the advanced "vectoring" system it uses. The experts feel in this area it performs almost as well as the F-22. We'll see though irrelevant to the game. Again the keys factors from last for us is we have a better handle on what she can drop on the ground and how much, she'll have an excellent EW rating though less then the F-22 but, should be comparable to the F-35 and she'll be fast without after burners, and they know she's got a very low heat signature in line with both the F-22 & F-35.

But to be clear (F-22) there's not a better fighter in the air in regards to it's electronics suite, EW, speed and finally stealth. As in the real world for this game it's the "Gold Standard" which is now combat proven.

Cannons I would guess are there to make the pilots feel comfortable in the air and so they have something to strafe with.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Mind you the end of air to air dog fighting has been repeatedly predicted (before WWII, before Vietnam to name two I can think of) and it has yet to happen. A bit like the end of the Tank...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

WW I style dogfighting died with biplanes, then WW II style died with the adoption of the jet engine, then Vietnam style died with the advent of computer assisted flight controls ...

The point is a specific style of dogfighting may well become outmoded ... but machinegun/cannon range air-to-air combat persists, and will continue to persist.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Dogfighting is a form of aerial combat. The F-4 Phantom lack of guns in Vietnam killed that experiment and the Navy went back to Top Gun school. Dogfighting has no place in our game anyway.

=====

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I did say that my self above...as I've said this for years now as well concerning this piece of equipment. I thank god at at least the USN has more patience then both the USAF and USMC. Looks like the the year we settled on almost a year ago in this thread is going to hold up as 2018+ as it stands.
http://www.janes.com/article/63249/f...official-warns
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...abilit-428786/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...program-07501/

A linked aside if you will...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...0-reti-428787/

Hate fighters in the game. Love fighter-bombers though!?!
Not a topic starter as it's well covered already within this and other threads to include fairly recently.)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Have always wondered how the F35 was going to replace the A10 in doing CAS, as it seems an awfully expensive aircraft to put in the way of casual ground fire from rifles, MG's and auto cannon, etc.

I have certainly read Crabs (sorry RAF officers) saying that they think 'mud moving' is better left to kit like British Army Apache attack helicopters rather than their fast, shiny, pointy things...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

As to the F-35 replacing the A-10 ... not really. But the upper brass in the USAF never wanted the A-10 to start with and has been trying to get rid of it for years. They see the F-35 as their big chance. In spite of nay-sayers the F-35 won't be any worse then the F-16 in the ground support role, and probably better as it carries a larger payload. While the 30mm gat on the A-10 is nice it's hardly the super weapons some folks try to make it out to be. What the F-35 primarily lacks is the loiter time the A-10 has, and that matters a lot in ground support.

I use to chuckle when the USAF kept claiming it could win wars with bombs alone, these days I just roll my eyes.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Lol. Indeed.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I found this to be a very useful multi-sourced article (Bloomberg & JANES etc.) on the F-35 issue with some video and multiple pictures (Click for additional ones as indicated.) included. It does an excellent job of bring context to the issue and brought a couple that you might not be aware such as the ejection seat for instance. Anyway hope you find it useful...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ime-money.html

Bonus... Some good video of latest Russian aircraft.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/2...combat-planes/

Russia's A-10...
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...ing-tank-17499

Provided by http://www.combataircraft.com a site I've been using for awhile now.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The F35 seems to have been under development for ever (over 15 years certainly) and they only recently found out that ejecting from it is highly dangerous?

Since UK built her new aircraft carriers as STOVL ships, stupidly in my view, she is sadly totally locked into the bloody F35B, so we must hope they get this very expensive aircraft to work properly...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

They will ... eventually.
Lots of new tech with the stealth, computer assisted flight controls, and most importantly the battlefield info management.

The question of course is ... how much better then the F-16, F-18, A-6, and A-10 will it be? Obviously better in some respects and worse in others since it's not purpose built for a specific niche. Since the US Navy plans to keep the F-18 (primarily for the air superiority role) we can assume the F-35 won't match the newest F-18 in this role. But keep in mind (unlike the majority of people seem to be able to) it's primarily a ground support/attack aircraft not an air superiority fighter.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

As Don well knows this next was the plane (Type) that needed to be in the game in regards to the top 5 or so major OOB's when I offered to cull them of the fighter types to open up slots in those OOB's. But after some discussion a couple of years back, we touched on some of the issues involved to include the complication of these planes being available in scenarios along with pick lists etc. So Don doesn't get upset I'm not asking for that again but, am still available if that should ever come about!?! :p

Point is this plane along with the A-10, GRACH where among a handful to support the above discussion, this one being the key in my mind. It is part of a very exclusive category only slightly bigger by about 3 planes called 4.5 GEN which notably is where the GRIPEN and many would say the T-50/PAK-FA truly belongs. Of course 5th GEN belongs to the F-22 and as yet to be fully determined maybe the F-35 if they can keep the paint on it!?!.

It is one of my favorites and will be competing against the F-35 in the below ref. Though not from AUSA the aviation "think tank", the next does a very good job in it's assessment of these two aircraft very much in line with AUSA and a couple of others. And as a reminder in air to air combat this plane is undefeated with a record 100 to 0.

Well enough "shenanigans" here's your read...
http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.c...vs-silent.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Agreed. However the F35B will have to able perform as a fighter (rather than only as a fighter bomber) in Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm service, since it will be the only fixed wing aircraft the two new, 65,000 ton RN Carriers can operate.

Some UK F35B's will be RAF manned and some Fleet Air Arm manned, although all are expected to operate from the Carriers as required. On which note many of us will recall the reluctance of the RAF to operate Harriers from Carriers once they controlled the whole Harrier force (before they helped kill it in favour of keeping more Tornadoes). But I digress.

Anyway, a Task Force at sea can sometimes, have land based air cover, although traditionally that has not by any means worked very well. Sometimes you can have help from allies, but your allies may not always be fighting in your war (ie, something like the Falkland conflict).

So from a UK point of view the performance of the F35B in the air to air role is of rather more than academic interest...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I suspect the F-35B will be a significant improvement over the Sea Harrier. Since the UK decided not to outfit the Queen Elizabeth's as conventional carriers any attempt to compare the F-35 to the F-18 is pointless. If they wanted F-18's they'd have outfitted the carriers to handle them.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Only with respect to carrier based EW roles, the F-35B or F-35C can not replace the F-18 Growler. This looms as a major concern.

=====

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Read up on the EF-35C Ferret.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Sure. But, where they're going to put the lift fan to accommodate the backseat EW officer?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I remember having heated discussions, getting on for ten years ago, on why UK should have gone cats and traps and F18 Super Hornet for the new carriers. That were always, supposedly, designed for relatively easy conversion from VSTOL to conventional carriers.

Sadly the RAF was 100% behind F35B -since they believe it will allow pilots to operate from carriers with relatively little training and/or seatime- and, sadly, so was a good deal of the Royal Navy, although back then the idea was a smooth transition from VSTOL Harrier to VSTOL F35B. Of course now UK has had a carrier gap, all be it with air and deck crews working with the USN to retain skills.

I don't doubt F35B will be better than Sea Harrier, since it is a much more modern aircraft. although it worries me that something like pilot ejecting safety, that, obviously has little or nothing whatever to do with computer codes, and a great deal to do with air frame design and aerodynamics is in issue after 15 years of design and testing work...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The more complicated a system is the more teething problems it's going to have. Long gone are the days of wooden frames, fabric surfaces, and 80 hp radial engines you could fix with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.

Look back on the original F-4 Phantom ... it didn't have MGs/Cannon ... a rather glaring oversight in a fighter wouldn't you say?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Well it didn't until the F-4E came along in the fall of 1967. It carried a M61A1 VULCAN six barreled 20mm internal nose mounted cannon. Due to it's initial design mission as a long range radar interceptor it was felt the plane didn't need it. That would change with the lessons learned from the Vietnam War.

To be fair actually the F-4C did eventually carry either the SUU-16/A or SUU-23/A gun pods however they caused drag issues compared to just carrying extra fuel tanks or ordnance. These issues would part of the reason as stated above, for an internal mounted weapons system.

Seems like we just had this discussion within the last couple of years!?!

Anyway...
http://www.aviation-history.com/mcdonnell/f4.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ighter-bomber/
https://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-4_phantom_ii.pl


I saw some discussion on the next so here's a "where are they now" update.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/3...aesh-in-libya/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Well yes and no. That was about technology seemingly overcoming physics and common sense: Missiles get more kills, more certainly, so who needs guns, except when you run out of missiles and/or the enemy is right up your rear and he has a cannon and you do not.

The pilot escaping a shot down aircraft, is, surely, a fairly basic thing to get right? Or is it overcoming physics and common sense again: Vastly expensive aircraft, the aircraft is so expensive it should be A) Invulnerable and B) the pilot is, finally, worth less than the aircraft so it is not so important? To me the idea that a F35 will never get into a close range 'dog fight' goes against all common sense and history.

Don't agree at all, about the pilot, just saying...

I'm fairly sure that X number of F35's with X number of missiles v Z number of enemy aircraft has been wargamed at a fairly professional level and that, for example if you have 48, very expensive, F35 and the enemy has 150 rather cheaper, but more agile, Soviet/Chinese aircraft, that he does not mind losing, the ending is not always all that good, no matter what the people who make (and make vast amounts of money from) the very, very, expensive F35 say...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The problem with the F-35 and ejection apparently comes from the massive weight of the VR helmet thingy the pilots have to wear. Undergoing rapid rocket acceleration that occurs with ejector seats, the pilot's neck seems to have a severe problem coping with all this and so is likely to be snapped by the massive whiplash effect.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

So the people making the F35 lost sight of the restrictions the human body places on stuff? Really?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

All this reminds me of the early 1960's, when, according to many experts, some of whom the British Government believed, we are told, missiles were going to make all manned aircraft obsolete. I think that probably also relates to F4 Phantoms starting life with no cannon.

It is a bit like "The bomber will always get through" BS that Governments believed in the 1930's...

Humans never seem to learn from history, perhaps because so few of us read it.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Apparently so.

Then again, stuff that is cool in the design shop sometimes does not work well when exposed to reality. I worked on a Sea King airborne sonobouy system (that rapidly grew into a mission system), and the initial design used a track ball. That worked fine till it was installed in a real helicopter, which vibrates like a wobbly thing. The trackball then produced its own jiggle from the vibes. Had to be replaced with a stiff stick controller.

This VR helmet may have to be shelved if its so deadly, waiting for possible future tech that is light enough to be put in a normal weight flight helmet?. Pilots certainly do not have time to fish out a neck brace from storage somewhere in the cockpit and fit it properly, before pulling the eject handle!.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Ahh, the voice of experience and common sense. Just why I always doubted Lockheed Martin a bit.
I used to be accused of being a McDonald Douglas fan boy by F35 fanboys. I always thought it very strange, being a Englishman and a infantry soldier who served in Northern Ireland and Africa. Like I care all that much about US aircraft makers. Ffs.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Tracking China

Following the possible IOC of the first Y-20 Airlifters back in June 2016, China now apparently has signed a deal with Antonov to resume An-225 production.

http://www.janes.com/article/63341/c...225-production

What I think this means: Probability of An-225 #2 being completed as a test bed goes up a bit more; with an all-new Chinese very heavy strategic airlifter (Y-21??) entering service in about eight years, sized more towards C-5 capabilities than An-225.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I seem to recall reading someplace that the Russian ejection seat basically immobilizes the pilot when it ejects.
http://www.military.com/video/aircra...r/903159086001
Perhaps they just need a modified ejection seat that immobilizes the pilots neck, or a lighter helmet display.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Love the carrier shot where he ejects underwater and lands on the flight deck! :shock:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

It beats being run over by a carrier...........

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Interesting video. Fair number of Air Show crashes...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Probably because at an Air Show everyone and their brother has a camera, whereas a crash in the middle of nowhere ...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

...that and the fact they tend to be doing difficult manoeuvrers close to the ground so have to bail rather than having space to level it out".

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

All no doubt true. You would think that air show aircraft would be on the top line for maintenance, etc, though. Makes you wonder how many crashes they have 'off camera' perhaps?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

That thought occured to me as well.........you don't send second rate pilots to do airshows where everyone watches your every move and you don't send second rate ground crews to service the aircraft......however what you may try to do as a hotshot fighter pilot is push the envelope too far to prove you can do it .....or be told to run it on the edge by your superiors to prove a political point