Reply to topic  [ 578 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 24  Next
The "Real Aerospace" Thread 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 1287
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
hi hi

I think it is important to note that there are still quite a few countries that don't allow women to serve in the military, let alone as a fighter pilot. The United States didn't have a female fighter pilot until 1993 with Col. Jeannie Leavitt. So in that sense, their fighter craft are more antiquated than their social restrictions.

For reference: Which countries allow women in front-line combat roles


Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:59 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:10 am
Posts: 60
Location: United Kingdom
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
It's not so clear cut...

For example it was scientific belief until recently in the Royal Navy that the higher levels of carbon dioxide in submarines over a 6 month tour was dangerous to women's health, and extremely dangerous if they were possibly pregnant (Due to the nature of RN submarine operations). It turns out that some of these fears weren't true, and as such women are now allowed to serve on RN Submarines.

When in a firefight, and when performing combat maneuvers such as pepper potting, and finally when assaulting a position, you only help the wounded after the completion of the assault. As it reduces combat effectiveness. According to the Israeli's, Men struggle to maintain this doctrine when in combat with women.

Quote:
In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948. The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of female soldiers, and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness.


And finally many Commanders are unwilling to accept the risk of the capture of female combatants, their possible torture, and the likelihood of rape, or sexual assault. Such as in the case of Major Rhonda Cornum and Specialist Melissa Coleman in the First Gulf War. Not to say men can't be raped, but the occurrences appear to be rare. Especially in the context of the Gulf war were all 23 US POW were abused, but only the two servicewomen where abused sexually also.

I guess men just aren't keen to see women killed in combat. Positive discrimination I guess. But to simply say that the unease to allow women to serve in direct combat is antiquated, I think is a major simplification of the issue. It's complicated, and as such I'm not prepared to take a personal stance on the issue at this time till I can read a bit more about it.


Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:23 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:04 pm
Posts: 257
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
I've been brought up on Men are the ones who fight. That been said my dad always used to say that if a Women fights like a Man, she is a Man. I'd have no problem with Women in front line positions if they could pass the exact same physical and mental tests.

_________________
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus


Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:34 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 263
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
If you think about it, theres sound reason for such an instinct. Throw two cultures into war with the standard human 50/50 mix of sexes. Send a portion of each population to the battlefield with one side sending a mixed sex group while the other sends only a male group. Incur loses. Rinse wash and repeat in a generation. In another... Every iteration one side is losing some of its maximum reproductive potential. Long term success is destined to the group who better protects and utilizes that potential. Loroi circumvent this by having an overabundance of reproductive capacity that they must limit. As descendants of the successful, we get programmed to protect the future.


Thu Jul 04, 2013 7:49 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 3008
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
My amusement was at the antiquity of the aircraft rather than the gender of the pilot.

I think there are some legitimate arguments against having women in front-line infantry units, having to do with physical, social and logistical limitations. However, as a fighter pilot, I don't really see those limitations applying. Pilots usually fly from comfortable bases with ample facilities for both genders. In the air, the pilots can't even see each other, much less the enemy. And physically, the feminine body shape is better at withstanding G-stresses than the male. As long as she can pass the same tests and demonstrate the same aptitudes, there's no reason a female pilot can't be just as good (if not better) than a male pilot.

_________________
Outsider


Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:25 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 263
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
To be fair, there are plenty of other 2nd and 3rd gen fighters still in service. A-4s, Mirage IIIs, F-5s, hell the J-7 derivative of the MiG 21 just stopped production. All in active service. You wont hear me singing their praises mind you. Actually, scratch that, the Skyhawk deserves a special nod. What was the line, "an engineer knows he has perfected his design not when theres nothing left to add, but when theres nothing left to take away"?


Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:04 pm
Posts: 257
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Some countries just can`t afford anything better. South African Infantry for instance are not given Body Armor, just webbing and a helmet.

_________________
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus


Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:31 pm
Profile WWW
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am
Posts: 980
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
You also only really NEED something that puts you on equal footing to your most likely opponent, or rather something that puts you and your friends on equal footing with your opponent and their friends. A place like South Africa isn't likely to be drawn into a conflict with the US, so they don't need equipment that matches ours.


Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:47 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 3008
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
fredgiblet wrote:
You also only really NEED something that puts you on equal footing to your most likely opponent, or rather something that puts you and your friends on equal footing with your opponent and their friends. A place like South Africa isn't likely to be drawn into a conflict with the US, so they don't need equipment that matches ours.

Pakistan's most likely opponent is India, which flies the Su-30, MiG-29, and Mirage 2000.

And yes, India also uses MiG-21's (real ones, not Chinese knock-offs) as interceptors, just like Pakistan does. I think it's kind of cool that the design is still viable as an interceptor against bombers. But against any of the above fighters, the F-7 is dog meat.

Vaya con Dios, Ms. Farooq.

_________________
Outsider


Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:43 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:04 pm
Posts: 257
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
fredgiblet wrote:
You also only really NEED something that puts you on equal footing to your most likely opponent, or rather something that puts you and your friends on equal footing with your opponent and their friends. A place like South Africa isn't likely to be drawn into a conflict with the US, so they don't need equipment that matches ours.


Quite right, our only current roles would be, much like the US, acting like a policeman. South African has troops in almost all of the conflict zones in Africa. It`s not all bad, our blast protected vehicles are, still after all these years, the best in the world. And our air force has for the most parts Saab JAS 39 Gripens. In the African pond we're the biggest fish.

Not all good though.

South African`s main problem is that there`s no one who is trained for the highest tech weapons. Thusly, our boats Fail.

But if we wanted stuff compared able to the US, we can get it of our Big Bad Buddy China.

If the US wanted to liberate South African it wouldn`t take you long, but our largest trading partner China would likely be unimpressed. They would like to liberate our raw materials first.

_________________
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus


Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:44 am
Profile WWW
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am
Posts: 980
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Arioch wrote:
Pakistan's most likely opponent is India, which flies the Su-30, MiG-29, and Mirage 2000.

And yes, India also uses MiG-21's (real ones, not Chinese knock-offs) as interceptors, just like Pakistan does. I think it's kind of cool that the design is still viable as an interceptor against bombers. But against any of the above fighters, the F-7 is dog meat.

Vaya con Dios, Ms. Farooq.


Pakistan has F-16s and JF-17s, which puts them on equal footing with the Migs and Mirages, the Flankers are new and Pakistan is doubtless looking for an upgrade to counter them, but that kind of money doesn't get spent quickly.


Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:54 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 3008
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
fredgiblet wrote:
Pakistan has F-16s and JF-17s, which puts them on equal footing with the Migs and Mirages,

That's true, but not much consolation to the pilots flying F-7's. :D

_________________
Outsider


Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:31 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:11 pm
Posts: 550
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
I would be interested in what everyone thinks of the newest line of fighters coming out in America, the F-35.


Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:41 pm
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am
Posts: 980
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
If they were only making the Air Force version it would probably be great, if they were only making the Air Force and Navy versions it would probably be fine. Add in the STOVL Marine version and it's a ridiculously expensive turkey.

EDIT: Also the idea of replacing the A-10 with F-35s should get whoever came up with it shot for treason.


Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:01 pm
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am
Posts: 980
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Arioch wrote:
fredgiblet wrote:
Pakistan has F-16s and JF-17s, which puts them on equal footing with the Migs and Mirages,

That's true, but not much consolation to the pilots flying F-7's. :D


Hopefully the Pakistanis will only send them against the Mig-21s then. ;)


Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:02 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 1287
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
hi hi

As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I'm more of an Eisenhower "every gun made," kind of person. But the colossal waste of efforts notwithstanding, the F-35 is an amazing piece of machinery. My stars, that diverter-less supersonic inlet is so sexy, I could swoon. I mean, you can put advanced avionics components on any old airframe and call it a fighter, but that is a really integral feature.

Only time will tell if they become so ubiquitous that the STVOL features get significant use in backwater landing strips.


Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:15 pm
Profile WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 3008
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
I think the F-35 will be a capable F-16/F-18 replacement, but I think it was a mistake to cut short the F-22 run in favor of more F-35's. F-35 won't be that much better than what the opposition will have by the time it's operational. The F-22 is the apex predator of air superiority, and it makes me a bit uneasy that we have only 187 with no way to get more.

_________________
Outsider


Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:16 pm
Profile WWW
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am
Posts: 980
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Well yeah, the A variant will doubtless be fine, the C variant will probably work well as well. But the B variant is sucking money and time away from both of those. Hell if they didn't try for the B variant they may have had enough money to keep making F-22s.


Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 263
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Its the same story as the F-111, people who dont understand air combat are in charge of procurement. It would be cheaper to buy one thing instead of two, because one is less than two. In this case, they tried doing lets see... four? different things with a single airframe if you count being exportable and high tech at the same time as a single item. I tend to shoehorn that one in because it causes compromises between wanting to make it cheap and wanting to gold plate it.

Largeish pic:
Spoiler: show
Image


And Im not convinced the C variant is what the Navy needs. Guided missile tech is becoming more ubiquitous, the new generations of conventional submarines can run quieter than a nuke, and war games have shown the navy is vulnerable. The Army and Marines can use a high/low mix (F-35 isnt low enough) but the Navy needs two distinct functions. Long loiter, dash capable interceptor and a bomb truck capable of ASW, something that can replace the S-3 and A-6. Navy doesn't really need a penetrating strike fighter, that can be handed off to drones or missiles. Or the Chair Force.


Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:25 pm
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am
Posts: 980
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
It's not the same, it's FAR worse. Not only have they been down this road before and thus they should know better, they're trying to cram a STOVL plane in as well, which comes with wildly different requirements.

Conventional subs have always been able to run quieter when they're on electric power, that's not really new, they're handicapped by range, nothing else really. I do agree that the Navy needs new ASW since they've killed off the S-3 permanently, but the trend towards consolidation is powerful (see the above mention of A-10s), I think ASW might be a good role for drones though. I disagree that the Navy doesn't need the F-35, the Navy needs to be able to do everything the Air Force can do because sometimes they ARE the Air Force for a while before things get mobilized, as a result they have to able to fill any role, even if only poorly. That being said I expect that deep strike could be better served by drones, though I question what happens when we face off against someone with the ability to jam them (like Iran claims to have done).

I think that adding in the Navy was reasonable since they were both looking for similar things (light, multi-role planes) but the Marines was just dumb. They don't need a stealth plane, they need a CAS plane that can defend itself. Make a new Harrier, don't waste their money on stealth and air superiority.


Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:02 am
Posts: 82
Location: Online/offline
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
My perspective on this might be outdated, but bear with me.

Regarding the harrier-replacement F-35, I'm pretty sure the British navy is glad for it's development, if they can see it as affordable, as opposed to planning for catapult-only operations on next-gen carriers. It's not like the Eurofighter Typhoon is gonna get amphibious. On the other hand, if the F-35 hover variant doesn't cut it, there are european options like the Dassault Rafale that might fill the catapult-launched navy role.


Smithy wrote:
When in a firefight, and when performing combat maneuvers such as pepper potting*(comment below), and finally when assaulting a position, you only help the wounded after the completion of the assault. As it reduces combat effectiveness. According to the Israeli's, Men struggle to maintain this doctrine when in combat with women.

I hope you meant leapfrogging, because that was way too obscure to know or guess.

_________________
Fandom established 2004*. (*Official records lost)
Sometimes I have a twisted mind…
¿What could possibly be better than giant robots fighting with knives? ¡Giant robots fighting with swords, of course!


Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:55 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 263
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Quote:
I disagree that the Navy doesn't need the F-35, the Navy needs to be able to do everything the Air Force can do because sometimes they ARE the Air Force for a while before things get mobilized, as a result they have to able to fill any role, even if only poorly.


You can fulfill the role, even if only poorly, with ship launched missiles, missile equipped drones, the theoretical A-6/S-3 replacement, and hypothetically this rail gun theyre spending all this money on for just this purpose. Just because the Navy needs interior power projection doesn't mean it needs a stealthy strike fighter when it can use its other assets to do the same thing. And as long as they dont go overboard on the dog fighting focus like they did with the F-22, this primary fighter/interceptor idea could have limited stealth strike capacity. Just a matter of making sure the interior bays accommodate large enough munitions and a targeting laser, both of which are absent on the F-22. The Raptor's smaller bay size is forgivable, but not giving it any target lasing was foolish. At least in hindsight.


Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:33 pm
Posts: 718
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Nemo wrote:
Quote:
I disagree that the Navy doesn't need the F-35, the Navy needs to be able to do everything the Air Force can do because sometimes they ARE the Air Force for a while before things get mobilized, as a result they have to able to fill any role, even if only poorly.


You can fulfill the role, even if only poorly, with ship launched missiles, missile equipped drones, the theoretical A-6/S-3 replacement, and hypothetically this rail gun theyre spending all this money on for just this purpose. Just because the Navy needs interior power projection doesn't mean it needs a stealthy strike fighter when it can use its other assets to do the same thing. And as long as they dont go overboard on the dog fighting focus like they did with the F-22, this primary fighter/interceptor idea could have limited stealth strike capacity. Just a matter of making sure the interior bays accommodate large enough munitions and a targeting laser, both of which are absent on the F-22. The Raptor's smaller bay size is forgivable, but not giving it any target lasing was foolish. At least in hindsight.
I haven't checked the intended timelines, but my guess is that the rail gun is intended for real deployment partway (or even towards the end, if materials research doesn't go so well) of the F-35's pre-extension lifetime. As for the rest: presumably more expensive, not yet proven, and "didn't that get cancelled?", in that order.

At any rate, the F-35 was supposed to be a commodity fighter, and if they can ever get the thing out that's exactly what it'll be. It'll be a stealth commodity fighter, which is a bit of an oxymoron, but a commodity fighter none the less. In general I don't even object to it, but at the same time as they're developing their fancy new commodity fighter, they really need to be filling specialist roles as well, such as CAP and deep-strike (neither of which would I be especially inclined to use an F-35 in, but perhaps specialist variants of the F-22). I understand that the carrier cargo aircraft are currently nearing end-of-life too, and a higher-capacity carrier tanker would be a boon (and both of those could be variants on the same airframe as a "naval heavy" bomber), and I think that the Navy should have just accepted some A-10 variant or commissioned one with a comparable gun (and that airframe would presumably be useful for some naval combat support tasks), I'd like to see 2-4 smaller carriers for operations in smaller bodies of water, etc. Regardless, the F-35 does make some sense, Washington just needs to remember that it won't be able to fill high-end roles, and thus other aircraft need to be developed too. The B variant I can't really speak on, but apparently software is a big issue, so I suspect that someone has failed to accept that they might need to start with standard programmers and "bring them up to snuff". Also, apparently there have been "magical" cost overrun improvements since Lockheed was told to help pay for the overruns ;) .

As for the F-22, we can always hope that some variant on the FB-22 gets pitched again, and actually gets picked up. On any F-22 a targeting laser shouldn't be a big deal, since after-market augmentations to aircraft are a long-standing US military tradition, the big issue is the bays. Designing a stealth-preserving laser unit won't help if you don't have a way to use it.


Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:27 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:44 am
Posts: 614
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
sort of sad really....military procurement that is.

first off on the F35, i think the marines tried to basically say "FFS give us more A-10's!, but since you won't this is what we need for it to be better, get a clue moron." but this subtle hint somehow got missed.

and ANY plane that is working is better than no plane, as it's been said before quantity is a quality all it's own, example, the F35 is a good plane, really it is, but i would take the 2 JAS 39 Gripen you could get for the same money any day, especially taking maintenance time vs air time into account.....heck taking maintenance into account it's more like FIVE Gripen for every F35, and you would probably get over ten times the air time due to not being hangar queens.

the american military have sadly fallen for the "silver Bullet" scam again and yet again, it is overly costly and seldom comes out well, reminds me of a NATO exercise bombing run against sweden, where swedish gripen welcomed the bombers and RTB'd and returned for another round of shoot the bomber on the return leg for the bombers, chairforce screamed bloody cheating! it is impossible to refuel and reload a fighter in that time frame, especially from a 'wilderness base', it was possible, standard procedure actually....the Gripen is not the best jet around, but it is by far the cheapest of the modern ones(closest competitor is the F16 at only 30% more/flight hour and the gripen compares rather favorably all over against it, except ground bombing load, the F16 can carry a bit more there.)

but yes, the F35B is just effing silly stupid.


Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:52 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 3008
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
discord wrote:
first off on the F35, i think the marines tried to basically say "FFS give us more A-10's!, but since you won't this is what we need for it to be better, get a clue moron." but this subtle hint somehow got missed.

As far as I know, the Marines have never operated any A-10's. They fly F-18's and AV-8B Harriers, and the F-35B seems clearly to be a replacement for the Harrier. Which seems reasonable from a certain point of view, considering that the core Harrier is 44 years old, and that it's currently one of our most vulnerable fixed-wing aircraft.

As tempting as it might be to compare the F-35 to the F-111, I don't think the F-35B questions affect the likelihood that the A and C versions will be competent at their roles. All it does is waste money, and there are worse sins in military procurement (such as delivering systems that don't work).

The nice thing about the A-10 and the B-52 is that while we might wish for new versions, we can live without them for a while, as both will be in service at least until 2040. And we have a lot of spare parts sitting on the tarmac at AMARC.

_________________
Outsider


Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:13 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 578 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 24  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sunphoenix and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.