search results matching tag: fighters
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds
| Videos (846) | Sift Talk (14) | Blogs (73) | Comments (1000) |
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds
| Videos (846) | Sift Talk (14) | Blogs (73) | Comments (1000) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today
transmorpher says...The reason why we still have human pilots in fighters is because you can't jam or hijack a pilots brain. Any machine that is remotely controlled can be jammed at the very least. Leaving it unresponsive to commands. The exception here is that it could be pre programmed to perform a specific bunch of tasks, perhaps even something as advanced as air to air combat but, it loses a lot of flexibility. And it can be easily exploited.
E. G. you know a robot fighter jet is on it's way. Jam it so it cannot be called to cancel it's mission. Put some children into the target area.... That can happen and does with real pilots too, but they are able check and recheck as many times as they feel necessary either their JTACs or the amazing optics on modern jets giving a clear picture from over 10 miles away.
And that if course is with the ethical concerns of having an automatic killing machine fly around, which people like Stephen hawking warn us about. Perhaps in the immediate future the danger is quite low with only collateral incidents, but can you imagine say Trump with this kind of power. A trained soldier regardless of being broken in during training and even with all of the testosterone and adrenaline flowing through his body is still a compassionate and thinking human being. The likelihood of ordering a military wide atrocity is very low compared to an army of machineswhich will carry out any tasks no matter how gruesome. Can you imagine what Trump would do if people were no longer in the loop to share the responsibilities and burden of war? And by extention, that technology would likely be used to control the populace. You think the police in the US have there fair share of power tripping jackasses slipping into the service, well imagine if every officer was basically a silicon version of Trump. That's the worst ki d of robocop movie ever lol
Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.”
Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”
Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design.
Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.”
The development of the F-35 has been a mess by any measurement. There are numerous reasons, but they all come back to what F-35 critics would call the jet's original sin: the Pentagon's attempt to make a one-size-fits-all warplane, a Joint Strike Fighter.
History is littered with illustrations of multi-mission aircraft that never quite measured up. Take Germany's WWII Junkers Ju-88, or the 1970s Panavia Tornado, or even the original F/A-18. Today the Hornet is a mainstay of the American military, but when it debuted it lacked the range and payload of the A-7 Corsair and acceleration and climb performance of the F-4 Phantom it was meant to replace.
Yeah, the F/A-18 was trash when it first came out and it took YEARS and multiple changes/fixes to allow it to fully outperform the decades old aircraft it was designed to beat when it was released.
The F35 is not the best at anything it does, it is designed to fully be mediocre at all roles in order to allow it to be a single solution aircraft. That may change with more money, time, and data retrieved from hours spent in actual combat, but as it stands it is what it was designed to be. A jack of all trades and master of none, not something I would want to be flying in a role where I could encounter a master of that role.
As @ChaosEngine says, it is far beyond time that we move to a design where the pilot is not in the plane. There is no reason at this time that we cannot field a plane that could successfully perform it's role with the pilot in a secure location nearby. Such planes could be built cheaper, could perform in g-forces that humans cannot withstand, and would be expendable in a way that current planes are not. However, this would mean that our corporate welfare system for huge defense contractors would take a massive hit. We can't have that, can we?
F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today
MordhausLockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.”
Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”
Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design.
Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.”
The development of the F-35 has been a mess by any measurement. There are numerous reasons, but they all come back to what F-35 critics would call the jet's original sin: the Pentagon's attempt to make a one-size-fits-all warplane, a Joint Strike Fighter.
History is littered with illustrations of multi-mission aircraft that never quite measured up. Take Germany's WWII Junkers Ju-88, or the 1970s Panavia Tornado, or even the original F/A-18. Today the Hornet is a mainstay of the American military, but when it debuted it lacked the range and payload of the A-7 Corsair and acceleration and climb performance of the F-4 Phantom it was meant to replace.
Yeah, the F/A-18 was trash when it first came out and it took YEARS and multiple changes/fixes to allow it to fully outperform the decades old aircraft it was designed to beat when it was released.
The F35 is not the best at anything it does, it is designed to fully be mediocre at all roles in order to allow it to be a single solution aircraft. That may change with more money, time, and data retrieved from hours spent in actual combat, but as it stands it is what it was designed to be. A jack of all trades and master of none, not something I would want to be flying in a role where I could encounter a master of that role.
As @ChaosEngine says, it is far beyond time that we move to a design where the pilot is not in the plane. There is no reason at this time that we cannot field a plane that could successfully perform it's role with the pilot in a secure location nearby. Such planes could be built cheaper, could perform in g-forces that humans cannot withstand, and would be expendable in a way that current planes are not. However, this would mean that our corporate welfare system for huge defense contractors would take a massive hit. We can't have that, can we?
F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today
ChaosEngineThe problem with the F35 is the squishy organic component in the cockpit.
The concept of a jet fighter is pointless these days and the idea of a "dogfight" doubly so.
F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today
wtfcaniuseThe positive reports on mock dogfights I've read are comparing it to F-15s, not comparable 5th gen fighters. Some of the recent "praise" is also dependent on the g-force limiters being removed.
That was about 4 years ago as they were fine tuning the fly by wire system. And the sensationalist media which thrives on reader outrage took the story and spun it for clicks/views. People love to hear about military over spending just as this video from the 80s shows.
In recent dog fights, the pilots praise the F-35 greatly.
F-18 Criticisms in the 80's mirror those of the F-35 today
KrazyKat42 says...The F-35 was doomed from the start when different branches wanted different things. Vertical takeoff, stealth shielding, etc.
Recent dogfight tests have shown it loses to earlier jets. Too many compromises hurt it's ability to be a great fighter.
Vance's Incredible 365 day transformation will blow you away
transmorpher says...The fact that he's doing things the hard way is a testament to his willpower, so hat's off, but there is a much better way:
No exercise, all you can eat weight loss : https://www.nature.com/articles/nutd20173
Essentially just eat foods like this Fire Fighter recommends:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZhReouWekQ
It's so easy you'll slap yourself. Try it for 2 or 3 weeks, and see for yourself, all the recipes are free at http://ForksOverKnives.com/ or just google for "whole foods plant-based *burger/pasta/pizza/curry/burrito* " or whatever it is that you enjoy eating.
How the Soviets One Upped The West: The TU-114 Story
SFOGuyWait; wasn't that one of the loudest aircraft ever made too? As in--the military version could be traced by SOSUS sensors and NATO fighter aircraft directed to intercepts could hear the engines drumming through their canopies? (as mentioned at 7:43)
I mean; what was the noise level INSIDE the aircraft?
The New Politics (Dust)
SFOGuylol; that was funny...why does modern design always mean flat touch screens rather than voice, eye tracking, or---switchology? (the HOTAS throttle of a modern fighter jet)...
Warp Speed Comparison
cloudballoon says...This I agree. ST is indisputably more science based than SW, and deservedly earned that respect. It's fun to argue whether warp drive can/can not exist and all that, but to just compare the different warp speed of different ships, across different classes is kind of pointless, as the numbers are arbitrary to begin with, no?
Say, if the video instead compares Mach speed between F-15/16/18/22 etc. and argue which fighter got the more advanced engines (accounting for weight/speed/aerodynamic profiles factors) then I see the point...
I'm just barely geeky enough to find this interesting, but here goes. The first reason is that logarithmic scales show up in science all the time, and are frequently misunderstood by layman and media, they just aren't at all intuitive.
The second is that those shows were written over decades by smart science-literate people who put in all of these careful details that totally flew over my head, it's fun to look back and see it was deeper than I knew at the time.
When Sci-fi is written with a good understanding of science and physics, it makes the fantastic parts seem more plausible because the rest checks out. The alternative way to do Sci-fi is to just say "Screw it, it's all magic!". Which works for Star Wars but isn't compelling in the same way.
ant
(Member Profile)
siftbotYour video, Hawk 127 Fighter Jet Flies Around Buildings & Beaches | Cock, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Hypersonic Missile Nonproliferation
scheherazadeThe Zero's Chinese performance was ignored by the U.S. command prior to pearl harbor, dismissed as exaggeration. That's actually the crux of my point.
Exceptional moments do not change the rule.
Yes on occasion a wildcat would get swiss cheesed and not go down, but 99% of the time when swiss cheesed they went down.
Yes, there were wildcat aces that did fairly well (and Zero aces that did even better), but 99% of wildcat pilots were just trying to not get mauled.
Hellcat didn't enter combat till mid 1943, and it is the correction to the mistake. The F6F should have been the front line fighter at the start of the war... and could have been made sooner had Japanese tech not been ignored/dismissed as exaggeration.
Russian quantity as quality? At the start they were shot down at a higher ratio than the manufacturing counter ratio (by a lot). It was a white wash in favor of the Germans.
It took improvements in Russian tech to turn the tide in the air. Lend-lease only constituted about 10% of their air force at the peak. Russia had to improve their own forces, so they did. By the end, planes like the yak3 were par with the best.
The Mig31 is a slower Mig25 with a digital radar. Their version of the F14, not really ahead of the times, par maybe.
F15 is faster than either mig29 or Su27 (roughly Mig31 speed).
F16/F18, at altitude, are moderately slower, but a wash at sea level.
Why would they shoot and run?
We have awacs, we would know they are coming, so the only chance to shoot would be at max range. Max range shots are throw-away shots, they basically won't hit unless the target is unaware, which it won't be unaware because of the RWR. Just a slight turn and the missile can't follow after tens of miles of coasting and losing energy.
Chinese railgun is in sea trials, right now. Not some lab test. It wouldn't be on a ship without first having the gun proven, the mount proven, the fire control proven, stationary testing completed, etc.
2025 is the estimate for fleet wide usage.
Try finding a picture of a U.S. railgun aboard a U.S. ship.
Why would a laser rifle not work, when you can buy crap like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7baI2Nyi5rI
There's ones made in China, too : https://www.sanwulasers.com/customurl.aspx?type=Product&key=7wblue&shop=
That will light paper on fire ~instantly, and it's just a pitiful hand held laser pointer.
An actual weapon would be orders of magnitude stronger than a handheld toy.
It's an excellent covert operations weapon, silently blinding and starting fires form kilometers away.
Russia does not need to sink a U.S. carrier for no reason.
And the U.S. has no interest in giving Russia proper a need to defend from a U.S. carrier. For the very reasons you mentioned.
What Russia can do is proliferate such a missile, and effectively deprecate the U.S. carrier group as a military unit.
We need carriers to get our air force to wherever we need it to be.
If everyone had these missiles, we would have no way to deliver our air force by naval means.
Russia has land access to Europe, Asia, Africa. They can send planes to anywhere they need to go, from land bases. Russia doesn't /need/ a navy.
Most of the planet does not have a navy worth sinking. It's just us. This is the kind of weapon that disproportionately affects us.
-scheherazade
A big part of the Zero's reputation came from racking up kills in China against a lot of second-rate planes with poorly-trained pilots. After all, there was a reason that the Republic of China hired the American Volunteer Group to help out during the Second Sino-Japanese War – Chinese pilots had a hard time cutting it.
The Wildcat was deficient in many ways versus the Zero, but it still had superior firepower via ammo loadout. The Zero carried very few 20mm rounds, most of it's ammo was 7.7mm. There are records of Japanese pilots unloading all their 7.7mm ammo on a Wildcat and it was still flyable. On the flip side, the Wildcat had an ample supply of .50 cal.
Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was able to score seven kills against Japanese planes in one day with a Wildcat.
Yes, the discovery of the Akutan Zero helped the United States beat this plane. But MilitaryFactory.com notes that the Hellcat's first flight was on June 26, 1942 – three weeks after the raid on Dutch Harbor that lead to the fateful crash-landing of the Mitsubishi A6M flown by Tadayoshi Koga.
Marine Captain Kenneth Walsh described how he knew to roll to the right at high speed to lose a Zero on his tail. Walsh would end World War II with 17 kills. The Zero also had trouble in dives, thanks to a bad carburetor.
We were behind in technology for many reasons, but once the Hellcat started replacing the Wildcat, the Japanese Air Superiority was over. Even if they had maintained a lead in technology, as Russia showed in WW2, quantity has a quality all of it's own. We were always going to be able to field more pilots and planes than Japan would be able to.
As far as Soviet rockets, once we were stunned by the launch of Sputnik, we kicked into high gear. You can say what you will of reliability, consistency, and dependability, but exactly how many manned Soviet missions landed on the moon and returned? Other than Buran, which was almost a copy of our Space Shuttle, how many shuttles did the USSR field?
The Soviets did build some things that were very sophisticated and were, for a while, better than what we could field. The Mig-31 is a great example. We briefly lagged behind but have a much superior air capability now. The only advantages the Mig and Sukhoi have is speed, they can fire all their missiles and flee. If they are engaged however, they will lose if pilots are equally skilled.
As @newtboy has said, I am sure that Russia and China are working on military advancements, but the technology simply doesn't exist to make a Hypersonic missile possible at this point.
China is fielding a man portable rifle that can inflict pain, not kill, and there is no hard evidence that it works.
There is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. We also have created successful railguns, the problem is POWERING them repeatedly, especially onboard a ship. If they figured out a power source that will pull it off, then it is possible, but there is no concrete proof other than a photo of a weapon attached to a ship. Our experts are guessing they might have it functional by 2025, might...
China has shown that long range QEEC is possible. It has been around but they created the first one capable of doing it from space. The problem is, they had to jury rig it. Photons, or light, can only go through about 100 kilometers of optic fiber before getting too dim to reliably carry data. As a result, the signal needs to be relayed by a node, which decrypts and re-encrypts the data before passing it on. This process makes the nodes susceptible to hacking. There are 32 of these nodes for the Beijing-Shanghai quantum link alone.
The main issue with warfare today is that it really doesn't matter unless the battle is between one of the big 3. Which means that ANY action could provoke Nuclear conflict. Is Russia going to hypersonic missile one of our carriers without Nukes become an option on the table as a retaliation? Is China going to railgun a ship and risk nuclear war?
Hell no, no more than we would expect to blow up some major Russian or Chinese piece of military hardware without severe escalation! Which means we can create all the technological terrors we like, because we WON'T use them unless they somehow provide us a defense against nuclear annihilation.
So just like China and Russia steal stuff from us to build military hardware to counter ours, if they create something that is significantly better, we will began trying to duplicate it. The only thing which would screw this system to hell is if one of us actually did begin developing a successful counter measure to nukes. If that happens, both of the other nations are quite likely to threaten IMMEDIATE thermonuclear war to prevent that country from developing enough of the counter measures to break the tie.
Hypersonic Missile Nonproliferation
scheherazadeHubris.
WW2 japan had fighters that flew faster, climbed quicker, had bigger guns, and turned quicker (a6m vs f4f). And we had intel reports that told us, but we ignored them because "we have the best stuff and nobody else can compete".
You see the same stuff today with China. China makes all of our microchips, all of our microelectronics, most of which are designed over there anyways (companies here just ask for a widget that does X and Y, and Chinese companies design+make it), yet we act like as if they are some technologically retarded place that only knows how to steal ip.
Russia has been at the forefront of rocketry since ww2. Nobody has systems that compare to their consistency and reliability. Not even the U.S.. The idea that Russia can't make a hyper sonic missile before the U.S., because it's Russia, is a non sequitur.
Also, Russia broke up as a country because guaranteed government jobs for all citizens, where you can't be fired and performance is not important, is going to destroy any economy. No one will produce, shelves will be empty, and money will be no more than paper. Combine that with making private business illegal (preventing people from economically helping themselves), and you have a recipe for economic disaster and social discontent.
This missile exists to swat down carrier groups on the cheap.
We're gonna need some powerful lasers, or our own hyper sonic interceptors, or else proliferation would instantly leave us isolated in the Americas (vis-a-vis power projection via conventional weaponry). Our only option for projecting power would be reduced to nuclear or nothing.
-scheherazade
"To date, he says, the US has conducted tests on this type of missile system but to his knowledge none have been successful, flying for just a few seconds. "
Basically, Putin made a laughable claim that Russia already has a mach 10 missile, so China and the USA jumped down the rabbit hole.
Kind of like when Reagan started up the SDI star wars BS. Which some people believe led to the USSR dramatically boosting their defense spending, nigh bankrupting themselves and breaking up as a country.
"Don't Kill your Friends" 1943 Navy training film
C-noteThis video is still relevant.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6273027/F-16-fighter-jet-EXPLODES-damaged-Belgium-mechanic-accidentally-opened-fire.html
McCain defending Obama 2008
bobknight33Trump is Anti American?
Really?
Trump has been wonderful.
I would say that media have been more destructive than Trump.
They have divided Americans via their slander and bias and fake ( partial truth) news.
The Steele dossier. is a fabricated document used as the linchpin to tear down Trump. Is Trump supposed to roll over and play their game. Trump is a New York fighter. Trump is not going anywhere.
I'm not saying Trump is perfect and his twitter is at times bat shit . But overall the sky is bluer than with Obama 8 years.
Did you ever consider they ganged up on him because he's so incredibly anti American and destructive that anyone who cares about American Democracy would oppose him, Democrats, Republicans, independents, honest media, the intelligence community, law enforcement, etc? Probably not, you're convinced his party is turning on him because he's winning too much.
Lol. Steele dossier....the one that was just upheld in court when Trump's lible/slander cases were thrown out....or did you not know that?
Yes. It was the turn to backing him that was the wrong, self serving, proven short sighted move.
Trump has not sold out conservative principles, he's thrown them in the trash and shit on them. Clearly principles are NOT what you hang your hat on, he has none and you've admitted it privately.
The creature from the bronze lagoon was hardly the one to help clean up the swamp, and his most criminally convicted administration ever is pretty good proof of that.
That $80 you got goes away in a few years and becomes a raise in your taxes by around $160, in case you won't read the actual law. You didn't get a tax break, you got a tax raise and a 5 year loan packaged as a tax break, and you bought it. Trump, according to economists that studied his public holdings, stands to gain around $1 million per year forever....his tax breaks are permanent. Not what he said, but you don't care he outright lied to you about it for months, do you, yet one corrected mistake by Clinton (Benghazi was a protest over Koran burnings in America, quickly retracted) and you still think she'll be indicted for....something you're incapable of naming, but something.
Fuck, Bob. Your insistence on backing Trump's every move no matter what has made you bat shit insane, inconsistent, and totally disconnected from reality. I hope you can get therapy.
The United States of Arms
bremnet says...It's pretty but what does it say? So - weapons exports: sold to military, sold to civilian, transferred for use in conflict by US military, transferred for us in conflict by other countries? What is included - is a fighter jet a weapon? is a tank a weapon? My point: I don't know whether to be astounded or just "meh". It's data without scale or comparison (e.g. 1/3 of all firearms sold in the USA are produced internationally). Hmmm...