wuzak
Captain
There was a turret fighter prototype, W4053. The fighter prototype W4052 had flown earlier.
The turret fighter had nothing to do with the Fw 200.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'd almost swear they had thought of making a turret fighter to counter the Fw.200 Condor.
Zipper730 said:What does POH mean?
Granted it is sort of a mock-up but it went with the Beaufighter abomination.
At what point sanity prevailed I don't know.
So to be clear, the radar system for the P-61 was supposed to be a blind-shooting radar-directed gun-laying system like the Skyknight had? This could be lined up with the guns or the turret?
When you say "use their weapons" do you mean take control of their A/C and fire-control system automatically, or simply assign them a target?First the F-35 IS NOT a dedicated air to air fighter, but if used in that role it does not necessarily need to get on an enemy's 6 - it could stand off and fire from miles out and even interface with other aircraft in the vicinity and use their weapons.
So it would use all the networked data (AWACS, Satellites, Ships, and it's own data), and use that to propose and recommend attack plans for the F-35 pilot? Does this take control of the plane to execute the attack or simply advise the pilot?It could also compute a mission strategy by interfacing with other aircraft and even ground and naval weapons systems (like a mini AWACS)
I'm not sure what the limits are, and I'm not sure which press has attacked this: I know the neocons wanted the F-22 over the F-35; there are guys like Pierre Sprey, who are remarkable at being able to mix the truth with half-truths and whole lies.The F-35A (and probably the F-35C) have the maneuverability of an F/A-18C. Despite some maneuvering limitations (which were exaggerated by the press and others)
Yeah, but it's a long enduring statement: Even in the book "Linebacker" (1989) by Karl J. Eschmann mentioned MiG-15/17'sI believe all the MiGs in Vietnam that we saw in combat that looked like the MiG-15 were MiG-17s, as you say.
That was my impression as well, so as a general rule you would want to carry them internally in high threat areas.I knew the F-35 could carry more missiles, but it loses a lot of stealth when it does so.
The critics often are people like Pierre Sprey who are proponents of somewhat simpler, low-cost fighters that can be produced in large numbers.When I try to read up on the F-35 I can usually find only two sides: One side says it does the job better than anything else has to date. That side comes from Lockheed-Martin / USAF top brass. The other side says it is abysmal as a fighter. That side is, for want of better words, "the critics."
I'm not sure how much of our net-centric capability works through direct line of sight telecommunications systems (i.e. aircraft-to-aircraft, aircraft to ship, aircraft-to-ship-to-aircraft without satellites; communications through satellites), and over the horizon communications (radio waves transmitted up into the ionosphere and bounced back down).I hear a lot about current US and NATO doctrine that is heavily dependent on very complex integrated CCC systems. Which to me means these fantastic monsters are highly vulnerable to loss of that data. And as someone that has worked on defense computer systems I can tell you they are not all that robust any system has its vulnerabilities. I don't have an answer per se, but if our sats are disabled as an opening act, very real potential, then we are going to literally be back to Mark 1 eyeball and those fancy integrated systems become so much deadweight to be shoveled around.
So if they were attacked, they couldn't repair themselves quickly enough and might sink.Mark 1 eyeball is a wee exaggeration but you get my point, the Navy's new wonder ships, the littorals, which via automation were supposed to require significant crew reductions proved impractical. For one, Captains said that with as small a crew as called for damage control functions could not be accommodated.
A very disturbing questionMy concern is that we seem to have become so very dependent on external technology, meaning external to the ship/aircraft/infantry soldier, that I wonder how well these systems will work if that technology is disrupted?
Because of all the interlinking between all the A/C...Look at the F-22, surely a modern fighter.
Each one has a God's eye view of the entire hemishpere it is in, and knows what weapons all other F-22s in the hemishpere has, and waht is on their sensors.
It would be bad, but the fact is that the radar systems/sensor-fusion would still work pretty well and provide a 360-degree view. You would only be limited to your own sensors however, and your own weapons (fortunately these are excellent). The aircraft's GPS might go out, but we probably have a back-up INS and almost certainly a compass (the HUD shows one it seems).That's WAY cool until it "goes away." When it does, the F-22 drivers are flying a very cool airframe that is almost entirely dependent on the Mark 1 eyeball.
Military satellites are EMP hardened, though a nuclear explosion in space produces an artificial Van Allen Belt, the electronics should hold-up far as I know.I'm thinking nuclear detonation in space taking out a lot of satelites.
If they did do this, they could take their own out too... we'd be evenly fucked up.Maybe they can't get them all. Maybe they can. Maybe losing half would not cripple anything. Maybe not.
They almost certainly have.I wonder if anyone has run a simulation of loss of satellite / uplink / downlink data and seen what happens ... but I have no idea whether or not they have.
Aircraft involved would have to be EMP hardened (all seem to be), and the datalink would have to be data obtained by line of site from one source to another, or over-the-horizon from one source to another (or over the horizon to a site that would transmit line of site to another).But, my bet is there IS a plan for that. It looks like something called AWACS and digital radar at ground level.
The question is who gets screwed more, and can we win even if we get screwed more?Thing is, the potential enemies have the exact same problem. If they take out satellites, THEY are back to the same technology.
Good pointI'm somewhat leery of the incredible dependence on GPS. By its very nature, the ephemerides of GPS satellites have to be known to all users, so they're highly vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons
One reason driverless cars scare the crap out of me!this would be a very unsafe act, and would only be part of a wider war, but GPS signals can also be spoofed and jammed.
Oh, that's great! I'm really happy to hear that...This is why the USN is starting to teach celestial navigation again.
JDAM'sHowever, the GPS-guided munitions, especially those launched from internal carriage in the F-35 and F-22
Depending on degree of spoofing.This is what cyber warriors would probably corrupt most profitably
Yeah, 2.2 pounds isn't that big a deal to fit a back-up INS systemJust try goggling
Inertial navigation systems.
They have existed since the 1950s and I am sure that modern ones work much better than the 1950 models, which were used to guide intercontinental ballistic missiles. New ones would be much smaller and lighter than the 1950s versions.
One I found with less than 2 minutes;
VN-200 SMD Specifications - VectorNav Technologies
Weight 45 grams. Granted it 'seems' to update from GPS signals and might very well not be able to guide a plane for 6-10 hours without an update? Or maybe it can? or maybe a unit under 1kg can. In any case building multi-million dollar aircraft and not having some sort of device like this in the navigation system would border on criminal negligence.
*busts out laughing*Why would you spoil a story with facts?
That's not good...As an aside in the 80's we were issued with new radios that used "channels" not frequencies. When the switching mechanism failed not 1 in 50 could manually tune their radios to the correct frequencies.
Making it easier to manually switch as a back-up?Eventually re-training occurred and the next gen radios that followed had more clearly marked instrument faces.
That's right...Every time technology "helps" us, we have to remember to plan and train, for when that technology is no longer available.
Okay, I was just curious as to this statement from Dana Bell which I'm going to quote belowRadar was for searching and tracking target.
Pilot or gunner still had to aim the guns.
This seems to suggest at least the intention for a blind-shooting system. I'm not sure exactly how it was supposed to work (it was stated that it never worked), but it kind of reminds me of what I read about the F3D...Dana Bell said:The big problem was the radar-guided, automatic gun-laying system being designed for the P-61 - it never worked.
That late?the radar used in the P-61 (the SCR 720) was also used in Mosquitoes (as AI Mk X)- some NF.XIXs, most NF.30s, Maybe some NF.XVII.
Still too long? I tried to keep it on one topic rather than drift, I did group some replies together as long as they stayed with the topic; when they didn't I quoted the replies separately...WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Still too long? I tried to keep it on one topic rather than drift, I did group some replies together as long as they stayed with the topic; when they didn't I quoted the replies separately...
This seems to suggest at least the intention for a blind-shooting system. I'm not sure exactly how it was supposed to work (it was stated that it never worked), but it kind of reminds me of what I read about the F3D...
That late?
That was my assumption always as well until the quote I sent you.I don't think that the P-61 gun turret was ever connected to gun laying radar, rather that the turret used a remote sighting system, possibly with a computing gun sight.
For some reason I figured the plane flew in 1942 and somehow mixed up some numbers and thought the NFXII would have probably a similar system.Late?
Around 1943/44, about the time the P-61 was being introduced to service.