Aviation Thread

[Phalanx]

Talk about all things aerospace, I don't care, all I want is a thread for propellerheads to be able to vent.

[Tau]

TIL I'm not alone here.

So yeah, I've been an aviation nut since I was four. My parents were both stationed at Wright-Patt in the '90s, so.

I don't have anything aerospace-related to vent about at the moment, actually. Except that I really wanted to make it up to Oshkosh this year with some guys from the local air museum club, but I haven't been in touch with them since March.

[Luna]

You're looking at the wrong person. I know a lot of things but i'm not super interested.

[Shadowcatbot]

TIL I'm not alone here.

So yeah, I've been an aviation nut since I was four. My parents were both stationed at Wright-Patt in the '90s, so.

I don't have anything aerospace-related to vent about at the moment, actually. Except that I really wanted to make it up to Oshkosh this year with some guys from the local air museum club, but I haven't been in touch with them since March.

Nub join the Civil Air Patrol, you can be a marshal IN Oshkosh.

[Vinyl]

You're looking at the wrong person. I know a lot of things but i'm not super interested.

[ACH0225]

Are missiles aviation?

[Phalanx]

TIL I'm not alone here.

So yeah, I've been an aviation nut since I was four. My parents were both stationed at Wright-Patt in the '90s, so.

I don't have anything aerospace-related to vent about at the moment, actually. Except that I really wanted to make it up to Oshkosh this year with some guys from the local air museum club, but I haven't been in touch with them since March.

By the age of six I could name every aircraft in service with the US during world war two 1943 onwards.

[Archduke Daynel, PhD]

The Spitfire was really cool.

[Ivan2006]

Are missiles aviation?

Only if they go hypersonic.

On a similar note, America is about to lose their air superiority if they can't fit anti-missile lasers into their fighters by 2016.

Below are fifth-generation fighter aircraft projects, three of which have already produced operating prototypes, one from Russia and two from China,

Spoiler:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47 (Russia, prototype, cancelled, but was proof of concept for technologies vital for further Russian developments)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-50 (Russia, prototype, planned to enter service in 2016)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_LMFS (Russia, in development)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA (Russia/India, early develpment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_M ... t_Aircraft (India, in development)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20 (China, prototype, likely to enter service between 2017 and 2019)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31(China, prototype, very little information available)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_ATD-X (Japan, in development, first flight planned 2014)

[Error]

Fun fact: the British and Canadian Lancaster bombers (the 2 still flying in the world) are making a tour of the U.K., and I'm hopeful the Brits will break out their Tin Triangle (Vulcan) and give folks probably the most Avro Bomber flyby ever.

[Shadowcatbot]

Are missiles aviation?

Only if they go hypersonic.

On a similar note, America is about to lose their air superiority if they can't fit anti-missile lasers into their fighters by 2016.

Below are fifth-generation fighter aircraft projects, three of which have already produced operating prototypes, one from Russia and two from China,

Spoiler:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47 (Russia, prototype, cancelled, but was proof of concept for technologies vital for further Russian developments)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-50 (Russia, prototype, planned to enter service in 2016)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_LMFS (Russia, in development)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA (Russia/India, early develpment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_M ... t_Aircraft (India, in development)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20 (China, prototype, likely to enter service between 2017 and 2019)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31(China, prototype, very little information available)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_ATD-X (Japan, in development, first flight planned 2014)

Ivan what? most of those articles dont even have the word laser in them. And the ones that do appear to be nothing more then laser pointers to distract heat-seeking missiles. Laser based missile defense is a joke currently and especially in an atmosphere. Once were in space then the size requirements for a powerful laser and dropoff of damage could be waved. As for US research into it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL ... velopments
and:

Former Secretary of Defense Gates said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."

"So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."

The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable." In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion. On 14 February 2012, the YA-1 flew her final mission to Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ and was placed in storage at the AMARG.

I dont see how laser based missile defense would give them air superiority, Not to mention you need platforms to launch said aircraft and as for the US's supply of air bases, well, there fucking everywhere. And ten of these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier because you know, You can never have enough air dakka.

[Ivan2006]

Ivan what? most of those articles dont even have the word laser in them. And the ones that do appear to be nothing more then laser pointers to distract heat-seeking missiles. Laser based missile defense is a joke currently and especially in an atmosphere. Once were in space then the size requirements for a powerful laser and dropoff of damage could be waved. As for US research into it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL ... velopments
and:

Former Secretary of Defense Gates said that "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."

"So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept."

The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable." In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion. On 14 February 2012, the YA-1 flew her final mission to Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ and was placed in storage at the AMARG.

I dont see how laser based missile defense would give them air superiority, Not to mention you need platforms to launch said aircraft and as for the US's supply of air bases, well, there fucking everywhere. And ten of these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier because you know, You can never have enough air dakka.

Ah, yes the airborne laser. It kinda failed, didn't it?
Except I am not talking about that thing.
I am talking about EXCALIBUR.
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/MTO/Progr ... LIBUR.aspx
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Release ... 03/06.aspx
Which is supposed to fit a laser onto a fighter jet.
Which then could use said laser to shoot down missiles heading for it, making the aircraft very hard to shooot down, which gives you that air superiority I've been talking about.
and yes, you need platforms, but again, if other contries want air superiority in their own skies, those sould not be a problem. And that is the air superiority they need, because if American military strategies are designed around one thing, than that's air superiority. They litterally have a very hard time operating in areas whare they don't have it.

[Iv121]

See the advantage of missile AA def is indeed the vast range of the missile , however there is one main limitation: They have trouble taking out low altitude projectiles. AA missiles require a radar system to direct them to their targets, problem is that those radars have trouble picking up small low altitude projectiles on time for the missiles to intercept them. Currently our Iron Dome is the only AA system in the world capable of intercepting such low flying targets however this requires the radar system to be placed outside the missile (on the battery itself). The missiles themselves are launched at the trajectory of the incoming projectile. Currently this method provides 95% destruction rate which is good but leaves you open to the remaining 5%, also those missiles have trouble with low altitude course changing missiles, in other word cruising missiles. Those also cant provide protection against shells, lasers on the other hand protect well against all 3 threats mentioned above.

Lasers have a smaller effective radius however they make up for it by the ability to hit their targets almost instantaneously (basically at the speed of light). In other words its just point and shoot at everything that comes in your direction, will it be a shell or a missile. The course of the projectile doesn't matter anymore either. Although the targeting radar suffers from the same limitations usual radars do the short periods of time in which they are capable of detecting the incoming projectiles is enough for the laser to target and destroy them.

In general though as you see lasers are more fit to be placed in specific areas that you need to defend or in specific directions where you know the projectile is going to pass. Good locations would be ships, special military camps, the border of Gaza and Israel. Bad places would be planes, satellites, the border of the united states and so on.


For Aircraft there is an easier solution again involving projectiles. Im talking about the Windshield system thingie that we put on our well whatever is gonna prob get shot thing. This thing detects an approaching projectile and launches a counter missile (well more of an explosive slug) from a tube facing the incoming projectile's direction, sound stupid but in reality works pretty well. Its much cheaper and lighter than carrying a giant laser and works pretty much the same as we know perfectly well the direction in which the projectile is going (aka us) and the short detection period is enough for us to send the correct tube out.

[Ivan2006]

See the advantage of missile AA def is indeed the vast range of the missile , however there is one main limitation: They have trouble taking out low altitude projectiles. AA missiles require a radar system to direct them to their targets, problem is that those radars have trouble picking up small low altitude projectiles on time for the missiles to intercept them. Currently our Iron Dome is the only AA system in the world capable of intercepting such low flying targets however this requires the radar system to be placed outside the missile (on the battery itself). The missiles themselves are launched at the trajectory of the incoming projectile. Currently this method provides 95% destruction rate which is good but leaves you open to the remaining 5%, also those missiles have trouble with low altitude course changing missiles, in other word cruising missiles. Those also cant provide protection against shells, lasers on the other hand protect well against all 3 threats mentioned above.

In general though as you see lasers are more fit to be placed in specific areas that you need to defend or in specific directions where you know the projectile is going to pass. Good locations would be ships, special military camps, the border of Gaza and Israel. Bad places would be planes, satellites, the border of the united states and so on.

Lasers have a smaller effective radius however they make up for it by the ability to hit their targets almost instantaniously (basically at the speed of light). In other words its just point and shoot at everything that comes in your direction, will it be a shell or a missile. The course of the projectile doesn't matter anymore either. Although the targeting radar suffers from the same limitations usual radars do the short periods of time in which they are capable of detecting the incoming projectiles is enough for the laser to target and destroy them.

have a THEL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

[Iv121]

Well what it lacks is a good radar similar to the one on the the Iron Dome but it does deal with cruising missiles alright, its not effective as a weapon though.