Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Sandboxx"
channel.
-
47
-
Guns only, lightweight, super maneuverable, unarmored aircraft were already proven obsolete in WW2 with the Japanese designs. And the Japanese designs were built to a doctrine that was already obsolete in the 1930s.
the fact they saw no value in missiles, shows how ignorant they were. Not to mention how important range has been in a design since WW2 (Zero, P-51, B-21, F-35, extended range F-16/F-18/F-15, etc.). In fact, Sparrow missiles scored a large portion of air to air victories in vietnam, as well as Sidewinders.
32
-
31
-
28
-
19
-
17
-
@jordanledoux197 "Literally tens of thousands of people MUST be able to know what it looks like in order for it to actually be manufactured. "
not even remotely true.
most people are making parts and have no clue what it's ultimately being used on. Or they see a part, that tells them nothing about the final form.
The core team of engineers and managers knows what it looks like in its entirety, but that team is likely 100 people or less.
I've designed things for NASA that went into outer space and only a seven person team was involved in tis development. Vendors made parts, but only pieces of the puzzle. At the end of the day, there were only 3 people on the team who knew what the entire system looked like in its entirety and had actually worked on all parts of it physically (myself being one of them). We assembled all the constituent parts and pieces personally in our offices and labs, did testing, etc.
And where I work, we also do work and design things for gov agencies, and the levels of secrecy and information control, lab access, etc. is pretty strict. And we aren't even working on tech like the NGAD fighter. The gov enforces all sorts of restrictions on the people who get to work on stuff, who has access to information. I've worked on projects where as a lead design engineer for the project, I was intentionally kept in the dark on certain aspects of the product, as I didn't need to know and only the very top managers were approved access to that information, and they basically oversaw the design to make sure the critical design goals were met by what we designed. Those who have access are restricted on when and where they are allowed to travel, who they can talk to, etc. And we deal with stuff like this for things far less secret than NGAD, the B-21, etc.
Also, even just using my own knowledge and experiences, I can, and Have, easily deceived people about details of what I was working on. I give them rough/early concept models, or incorrect details, etc. to through them off and keep them guessing. or when discussing things, I'll mix up two ideas to explain something while ensuring they can never piece the details together correctly. they know too little, and they don't know which details I changed, and have no way of figuring it out. It's very easy to be intentionally vague. Things change alot over the course of a design, and even a functional prototype can look very different from the final product. and so you can easily share older work that has fatal flaws, is incomplete, is missing all of the finer details that come later in design, etc. It just depends upon what you are sharing, with whom, and for what reason. Very easy to wage a disinformation campaign on something you control the design and details of. You can give people false teasing details and let their imaginations run with it in the completely wrong direction.
But yes, eventually people will find out what it looks like, just like the F-117A, B-21, and others. But if they managed the project properly, that will only occurred when they want to reveal the exterior design (B-21, B-2, F-117A, NGAD, AH-66, stealth blackhawk helicopter, etc.)
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@recoil53 not at all. most things like chip factories, have highly delicate machinery, and when teh roof and such collapses and fires break out, they are damaged even further.
Even small bombs with high explosives do a lot of damage and throw a lot of shrapnel.
Also, there are numerous other ways to stop a factory, even without striking the factory directly. can't make anything if the machines and resources never make it to the factory. And look at Russia, with their lack of circuits and chips, makes it difficult to finish aircraft and weapons. They import that stuff, and so with sanctions they can build the mechanical hulks, but less the critical electronics, making them useless.
But the US has never had trouble taking out an enemy military in modern times. and we've rarely even gone after factories at all in modern conflicts. Modern weapons are too complex to build quickly, and so by the time the US lightning war is over in the first few weeks, there is so much destruction and chaos, that new production is the last thing on the enemy's mind. When we can destroy in 2weeks what it takes them 6-12months to produce, they'll never keep up.
Precision strikes, with minimally sized weapons gives best results. A fully loaded F-15E could theoretically carry something like 50-60 Small Diameter Bombs! That's a LOT of targets for one fighter bomber. And if that F-15E orbits at 40k ft while striking, the bombs can glide something like 50miles to reach their targets. Being able to send One fighter to strike 50+ individual targets in a single sortie from 0-50miles away is CRAZY! And such a strike would be minimal in cost compared to sending 10x F-15Es with 4x 2000lb bombs each, and actually be more effective (40 targets while risking 10 aircraft at 0-2miles from target vs 50+ targets while risking 1 aircraft at 0-50miles from target).
And by the way, I've received CAS from A-10, B-1, F-15E, and more in actual combat. Just so that you know where some of my opinions and understanding are coming from.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
when you skip all the misc BS training not related to flying and air combat, and you compress the training due to teh time not spent BS'ing, and you start with experienced pilots, some fighter pilots, who already have the basics down, you can train people a lot faster. And with so few jets, you take only the top performers, while keeping the rest in reserve and give them additional training over additional time, until aircraft become available for them as well.
Not hard at all.
My first time in combat, my entire unit was thrown into combat with experimental vehicles, experimental weapons, doing a mission for which no tactics nor techniques existed, and we figured it all out as we went. We excelled and thrived on that battlefield. We were also all volunteers, there by choice, motivated, and wanted to be the best. And we became the best, all on our own, with no formal training.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dabo5078 "So your research universities suck. " yes
"Which means they wouldn't be producing any competent engineers, So how in the world your engineers be better than Chinese ones?" because skill and competence is also a result of self determination and individual responsibility. Americans rise to the occasion and overcome. they can recognize when something is corrupted and still learn what they need to regardless. You don't need a degree to become a great engineer. Many famous inventors are self taught, especially in teh US. Colleges don't produce high caliber engineers on the day of graduation. Great engineers are formed through years of practice, experience, intuition, etc. almost none of those things are taught/learned in college, but rather on teh job and at home in teh pursuit of personal projects and goals.
"". Largest computers in the world" 30 years ago? " nope, literally right this very moment the top computer in the World is a US design/built, and many more on the top 500 list as well. And the top 3 should all soon be US designed and built. Cope harder.
" And no there are no American hypersonic missiles that can hit targets, they barely even have a wokring missile(more like a unguided rocket) that goes hypersonic in atmosphere. " cope harder. chinese missile test missed a known stationary target by 25miles. US just tested a new missile a few weeks ago. US has been doing hypersonic research since the 1960s. How many manned hypersonic aircraft have the CCP built?
""no reusable US rocket ever used Russian engines" oh is that so? " yes, that is so. CCP must really be censoring your internet over there.
"Tell elon musk that he does not need to invest any money in new engine development anymore... He should have not panick invested after the sanctions against Russia aftera all." WTF are you talking about? this is nonsense gibberish
"well if we opened up more the many fundamental inventions of human civilizations are made by China. " like what? some math, black powder, silk? The best you can do is point to pre-CCP accomplishments from ancient history? Have to go into the ancient past and rest on laurels becasue you have nothing to point to currently?
"Even if you cut off CPC achievements in this decade, they turned a country that could barley clobber together bolt action rifles in the 1940s into a nuclear power with ballistic missiles, jet aircraft, submarines, etc. in mere 20 years in the 1960s."
You bought the Subs, carrier, and jets from Russia and then copied them. And not very good copies either. You know why CCP grew so fast? Cheap labor and exports, while implementing American Capitalism. Communism had china on teh brink of destruction, and only capitalism saved it. Now it is returning to Communism. But a lot of the CCP "growth" was faked too. tons of massive ghost cities, cheap construction leading to crumbling infrastructure, china cant even feed its own population without imports. Much of china is still a 3rd world country and live in abject poverty. you have concentration camps and ethnic genocide, china is the single most racist nation in teh modern world (just look how they treat africans). China has cheated, stolen, lied their way to where they are, and now it is all crumbling and Xi purges and consolidates power. Bad leadership ruins everything.
"Only to get deported because of his skin color."" that is a lie, you actually beleive not only the CCP propaganda, but western propaganda. You clearly have no ability to discern truth from lies. What was this man's name exactly so I can inform you what really happened?
"Even if you cut off CPC achievements in this decade," what achievements? you list none, becasue there are none. Nothing CCP does benefits mankind, only the CCP.
"They started to dominate the integrated circuit board market for 20+ years ago. Their shipping industries' and industrial production of rare earth materials, concrete, and steel started dominating in the 90s and 2000s and continue to dominate this very moment." how so? China makes cheap chips, yes, but not the CPU, GPU, etc. Circuit Boards are easy, and in teh US people produce ICs and Circuit Boards in their homes for fun that are as high quality as china makes. Just becasue china mass produces low tech items and raw material doesn't make them a great nation. It just means they are good at cheap labor. But many companies are leaving china due to corruption, cost, low quality work, and more.
2
-
2
-
@hphp31416 "Near peer now looks like nation that is capable of inflicting loses upon US armed forces while defending itself"
I'm going to have to disagree. Any nation is capable of inflicting casualties on the US. Name a war where the US hasn't lost people and equipment.
I'd agree with you if you were a bit more discriminating in your criteria. Perhaps something like, a nation capable of sinking US warships in combat, or ability to shoot down 100+ US airplanes in a war, etc.
The closest near peer is China, and not becasue the yare any good, they simply have enough numbers to cause problems. But other nations like France, UK, Israel, South Korea, etc. could be troublesome in a very brief conflict due to their higher levels of tech and training, but they lack numbers to really be a challenge. Thankfully most such nations are allies of the US.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardparker1338 "There are over 800 in total on the globe." that is counting Embassies and other administrative locations. It actually have more like 20-30 combat capable bases around the globe. But the US is a Superpower, China is not.
"Until 2011 China was not wasting its money on war weapons." remind me which year china built nukes, J-11, J-20, JF-17, etc......
"Even if China said, ok, Taiwan can become independent, do you really think the US would back off?" US is backed off right now. it all depends upon how beligerent CCP is
"What would happen is that the US would build a huge military base on Taiwan and continue to provoke China, one way or another." but the US is not doing that, and has no intention to do so. You're just making crap up to argue.
"Unless the US stops escalating against China, and the two nations enter a discourse on how to live together without war, there is only one outcome. " US hasn't escalated. It was teh CCP that leaked a report stating intent to invade Tawain by 2027.
"China will never let itself be defeated, nor will it allow itself to be collonised." Mongols did it, Japan did it, US did it. China has a long history of being defeated and colonized. China has a long history of being numerous fragmented nations as well.
"All sovereign countries in SE Asia are against this belligerence by the US. Including Taiwan. Just ask them." except that Tawain is a US Ally and buying weapons and asking for help if CCP invades. Vietnam is now a US ally, as is all of ASEAN, as is South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc. China has been hostile to Philippines and other ASEAN nations and claims their territory.
"China has explicitly stated that it wants a peaceful reunion. " an usurper always says that, but the fact is the CCP failed to completely overthrow the Republic of China in its coup.
"Not a single Taiwanese wants a war." same for the US, but we will fight China as required just the same.
"There are two million Taiwanese working on the mainland with huge investments." same for the US and other nations. But companies are decoupling from china and leaving too. Many vendors I work with are moving out, and we even ask them if they have facilities outside of china now too. China has become bad for business. Just look at the drop in outgoing shipping from China of late.
"Those white American supremacist clowns in Washington should all go the Ukraine and fight on the front for six months. Maybe they wouldn't be so keen on wars after that." the white supremacist lie is communist propaganda. China is the single most racist nation on earth right now, just look at how they treat Africans, how they murder Tibetans, Uyghurs, and others. US fought in Afghanistan and Iraq for years, we know full well what war entails, US are professional warfighters, unlike most other nations who use amateur soldiers. We send those who WANT to fight, who are WILLING to fight. We don't like fighting without good cause though. So don't give us a reason. Many US politicians are combat vets or ex-military themselves. many US citizens have already gone to Ukraine to fight in the foreign Legion.
Maybe CCP shouldn't pick fights when their people get trounced even by Indian army soldiers with rocks and sticks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@川建国-h5r that's the best you got? a single invention from years ago? FYI, we now use smokeless powder, not gunpowder.
what about the threshing machine, steam power, nuclear power, gasoline engine, airplane, submarine, iron hull ships, transistor, electricity, printing press, rifles, tanks, cars, trains, automatic loom, spinning jenny, AC power, radio, compass, internet, telescope, telephone, light bulb, smartphone, helicopter, penicillin, radar, computers, sonar, microwave, GPS, MRI, X-ray, camera, calculus, space travel, and on and on and on.
China has contributed little to the world overall. and the few significant things they did happened hundreds or thousands of years ago.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dabo5078 "China is largest in producing Paper being cited. Are you telling me every single North American research university is citing hot garbage for their stuff?" YES
"Obviously, you are so brainwashed that you don't understand the global patent system or the concept of paper citation." I understand it perfectly. Citation does not equate to "correct" or "truth", usually ignorance. I read papers and love picking them apart for failure to use large enough sample sizes, lack of sample diversity, lack of placebo, lack of controlling for variables, lack of repeatability, lack of citing assumptions or identifying biases, etc. I also hold tens of patents, and could have had well over 100 patents to my name if not for the fact they cost money and chasing down worthless patents is a waste of time and money. Also, we file patents Defensively, rather than offensively. Do you know what that means?
"Also, the fact that most shipping containers and ports in the world *yes including America is built by Chinese companies." you're proud of producing metal boxes? hahaha!!!!
And no, the Chinese did not build Boston harbor, San Francisco, Ney York, Charlotte, New Orleans, Duluth, etc. What a stupid lie.
It is literally illegal for chinese companies to produce things like US combat aircraft, nuclear carriers, nuclear submarines, and many other defense items. I'm involved in that world in more ways than one, and deal with it every day.
"Just ask yourself what engineering feat did the US achieve in the past decade? The only thing remotely successful I can think of a is barley reusable rocket that currently can't take off anymore since the Russians cut off the engine supply." Are you talking about the Falcon 9, that never used russian engines? That has flown more than pretty much any rocket in history? You mean Starship, the largest and cheapest rocket per ton to ever fly? no reusable US rocket ever used russian engines. Largest computers in the world (CCP computers have never been independently verified and so do not count as they are likely lying). Curious how you focus on teh last decade only, becasue if we opened it up more you'd have to admit CCP has accomplished next to nothing. But yes, teh US and others have accomplished many things, but due to teh nature of high technology, teh impacts seem less significant with each advancement. But we can look at things like the Black hole images, James Webb, first aircraft on Mars, first space tourism, world's largest plane, breakthroughs in aerodynamics, hypersonic missiles that can actually hit a target, holding every single hypersonic record in history, etc.
Now list the accomplishments of CCP in last decade, besides COVID. And things others have already done don't count.
1
-
@dabo5078 " As far as I know American engineers are overcoming nothing" well, you don't know much, so that's not saying much.
Fixating on the obvious things and ignoring all the things of consequence. The US public has been trying to defund Artemis and such for decades. But convenient how you ignore every single other rocket company and their successes in teh same time period. Meanwhile CCP is still dropping toxic fuel and rocket boosters on villages like a 3rd world nation.
"Finally, you talk about the largest supercomputer yet none of them had been built." built, run, and independetly verified. Frontier system is a Cray computer. Cope harder.
"Everyone talks, but talks mean nothing when no results are produced which is the current state of the American engineering community." as you literally ignore everything Elon Musk and others does. Literally refusing to accept facts and reality. Meanwhile US has a flying 5th gen fighter, hypersonic missiles that actually work, weapons that are destroying Russia like child's play in Ukraine even the legacy military systems, etc.
"One thing I would get props to them is that they finally brought down the sky-high cost of the F35 after more than 10 years." it was never that expensive to begin with. the media reported lifetime costs including fuel, spare parts, ammo and weapons, maintenance personnel costs, etc. for 20yrs of service. the purchase price was never that high. And F-35s have cost less than 4th gen European jets for many years now. It was always going to be competitive long run due to production numbers.
"Experience means very little in cutting-edge professions such as engineering" and this is why China sucks, they think experience doesn't matter. wow
"(it only matters for the project management aspect, which once again the US is bad at)" project management is the least important part of engineering. the least competent engineers get those jobs. But I get how you'd have it backwards living in a communist society your whole life.
"this is not a trade job, you need to constantly keep up with the newest development in theory and research community to not be left hopelessly behind." trade jobs are fundamental and require far more intelligence and problem solving skills than management. the fact you think so little of trades is part of your problem. that's why your buildings and dams collapse. garbage workmanship. There is a reason the world associates China with cheap low quality crap.
"PS The guy did get kicked out for his skin color, otherwise, why would he leave his salary in America worth hundreds to thousands of times that of in China and better quality of life in the 50s? Also nuclear technology were achieved when the entire mainland was under strict western sanctions. Don't know how you got to the point where American capital helped in that regard."
1950s?!?! hahaha CCP was pathetic back then, no bearing on today. Also, why are you afraid to give me his name? Why would he leave his salary? maybe the CCP threatened him and his family if he didn't return? happens all the time.
"Don't know how you got to the point where American capital helped in that regard." because you're not paying attention to what I actually said, and you're conflating things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@generalrendar7290 Yes, they can put up a symmetrical fight, for a little while. But if the SU were to take on Russia, at the start of the Ukraine war, head to head, the US would have curb stomped Russia within a month.
China is a little harder, but not much. Opening moves are to secure the island blockade of China, sink any and all Chinese warships as fast as possible with submarines and air power while keeping bulk of US primary naval assets east of Philippines, and missile strikes on Chinese harbors, command and control, airbases, major supply lines, manufacturing, power plants to critical military facilities, etc. Just pound them from the air for a few weeks nonstop. Then play the long game of espionage, fostering revolt, blockade, and starve them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Guns only, lightweight, super maneuverable, unarmored aircraft were already proven obsolete in WW2 with the Japanese designs. And the Japanese designs were built to a doctrine that was already obsolete in the 1930s.
the fact they saw no value in missiles, shows how ignorant they were. Not to mention how important range has been in a design since WW2 (Zero, P-51, B-21, F-35, extended range F-16/F-18/F-15, etc.). In fact, Sparrow missiles scored a large portion of air to air victories in vietnam, as well as Sidewinders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't disagree with the questions about generations.
5th gen is generally stealth capability, and advanced avionics/sensors.
6th gen is stealth, optionally manned.
But I'd argue my own definitions.
1st gen jets are from WW2 (Meteor, Me262, P-80...), and peaking with the likes of the F-86, Mig17, A-4, etc. They are subsonic early fighters.
2nd gen would be mach 1 capable, after burning engines. Radar and Missile capable. F-4, Mig21, F-100, etc.
3rd gen would be energy maneuverability multirole fighters (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Mig29, Su-27, etc.).
4th gen would be stealth capable, super cruising, etc.
There are of course execptions to these, and those could be described as their lowest most applicable category. Electric Lighnting was supercruise, but not 4th gen. F-4 was multirole, but not 3rd gen. Mig17 was afterburning, but not 2nd gen, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dammy "I'm talking about US program, not PLA's." then your argument is even WORSE. The US has no carriers to shoot hypersonics at. We can sink enemy ships with ease using a variety of other better weapons. The US is not investing heavily in hypersonic glide weapons as this video pointed out. the US is the world leader in all forms of hypersonic research, and they understood back in teh cold war the limitations and economics of hypersonics. everyone else is still playing catchup.
So, since the US has no such weapons, as we have no need for them and they don't make sense strategically nor tactically, we are going to discuss the PLA's hypersonics as the use case you KEEP describing is that of China attacking a US carrier. and since china actually tested one of these for real, we have actual understanding of what it can and cannot do right now.
The Chinese test missed a known stationary target by many miles. Two, as hypersonics descend into thicker air near the surface (where carriers are), they can no longer achieve hypersonic speeds due to air resistance. Look at the max speed of different aircraft at sea level vs at 40k ft. Many jet fighters can't even go supersonic at see level due to air density. Gliders have a fixed energy budget to use to reach their target. If you bleed off too much enroute, you wont have the same range as a missile that has nothing to dodge. Also, at mach 5 to mach 10, the exterior frictional heating will destroy sensors, antennae, etc. (look up the X-15 fastest flights if you don't beleive me). and so how do you plan to communicate with this thing in flight? The plasma build up during reentry of a space capsule can happen to these hypersonics too, blocking communications as well. How do they track moving targets after they've been fired? Keep in mind they are firing beyond line of sight, and so early the only way they can be guided is to be told by ground assets where the target is and where teh interceptor missiles are. These things can be detected and tracked from the point of launch, giving time for even a large ship to maneuver enough. And since the missile will be supersonic at best by the time it reaches the target, the majority of the damage will have to be done by it's rather small conventional warhead.
Also, don't forget that the US has demonstrated multiple weapon systems capable of intercepting ICBMs, satellites, and objects moving at hypersonic velocities in live tests. These hypersonics may be fast, but they are still much slower than a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US has the B-21, B-2, F-35, F-22, NGAD, etc.
Even as other nations like Russia, China, South Korea, UK, and others seek to field their own stealth aircraft, the US's most obsolete stealth aircraft from the 1980s are still stealthier than anything these other nations have yet been able to produce....says a lot about just how far behind everyone else is.
Tacit Blue, Have Blue, Bird of Prey, YF-23, YF-32, F-117, SR-71, various stealth drones, Loyal Wingman, Ghost Bat, AH-66, stealth UH-60, DDG-1000, Sea Shadow, etc. US has a long history of stealth aircraft and stealth technology, both in research as well as operationally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nedkelly9688 Detecting the presence of a missile and having enough info to maneuver against it are not the same thing. often time s the missile is transmitting, broadcasting it's presence. What if an enemy fighter is not doing that?
Flying in close formation is one thing, maneuvering in relation to an unknown bandit within 1-2miles is another.
not all friendly/allied air forces have the transponder tech or latest fighters we have. Are you going to shoot down allies?
"How does one determine a Chinese destroyer from their copied Western designs also." ships are a bit easier, as they are larger and have distinct shapes and radar signatures, the CCP does not possess Arleigh Burke destroyers for example. But still an issue with positive ID, yes. But you must have radar data on them, and have radars capable of that level of detail.
Your radar ranges of small jets is ridiculous. Where are you getting such values. You're talking about over-the-horizon detection with radars that can't bend like that.
"Military officials talk up the AI in these newest drones and can't be all lies." I work in the AI industry. AI is misunderstood by most people, especially those not working on it, and even some who are working on it. AI is not yet to the level people think it is.
You thought you'd just ask, and someone would simply fork over to you Top Secret info on a very sensitive piece of military tech? wow, you're dumb. Why not just ask for specs on the B-21 while you're at it?
1
-
1
-
@nedkelly9688 "Maybe your AI company is garbage at it then lol." Ah yes, insults. The inevitable ad hominem fallacy from those who have no clue what they are talking about.
"We may never know but USA was impressed with it and brought one to test and only time will tell." Without the help, expertise, and gov approval from teh US, the Ghost Bat would not even exist. It is a US project, being done for Australia.
"But the AI was so good they built AI submarine now also using it and wouldn't if was rubbish. " yes, but what does that submarine have to do? Navigate, not run into things, observe, report, etc. Rather simple by comparison.
1
-
@nedkelly9688 My argument isn't contingent on insults.
wow, you can copy and paste. congratulations.
The US defense contractors worked on teh drone, as they did on fighters for a few other countries like japan. Those companies cannot share such knowledge, expertise, technology, etc. with foreign nations without the US DOD's express permission. The US greenlit these projects, provided funding, resources, personnel, etc. to make them happen.
Go ahead and cherry pick aspects of the project specific to Australia, that's to be expected on such projects, just like the projects in Japan and other countries where they are doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Do you know how many countries funded, manufacture, or worked on the F-35? It's a US design/project though.
But none of this has any bearing on the efficacy and capabilities of a particular AI. Nor does it prove what the capabilities and limitations of that AI are, and what restrictions have been placed upon it, such as weapons firing, target selection, friend or foe ID, etc.
1
-
1
-
@nedkelly9688 The airframe design and stealth is Lockheed Martin. The DOD has AI F-16, X-45, X-47, X-47A, Global Hawk, MQ-25, X-37, X-37B, and much more for decades. Did you know the US used kamikaze drones in combat in WW2 against Japan? Interstate TDR-1.
"the best parts of it of the AI and the detachable nose that no other country has ever done" US has created swappable payload bays for decades in a variety of aircraft. Heck, one could argue the P-38 was an early form of this. Australia has almost no experience designing aircraft. They had some good designs in WW2. Whereas the US has been fielding unmanned unpiloted (and by that i'm not including remotely piloted, but fully unmanned) airframes for longer than I've been alive. US has been at the forefront of AI development both in the military and the civilian world.
"even the resin injection of the frame is Australian as are the only country in the world who can do it." perhaps, but not significant and depends on the Exact details that makes it special, but it could be easily replicated. Resin injection and composites I can even do in my house. Most likely it's merely that no factory currently has the special tool used, which can easily be remedied by buying the tooling.
Keep trying though, maybe you're pathetic attempts to make an unrelated argument might workout, but probably not in my lifetime.
1
-
@nedkelly9688 "most USA tech is designed and built by foreigners" no, it's not. It's actually illegal in the US for military contractors to hire foreign engineers for these types of projects. They have to be US citizens. And foreign involvement has to be approved. I'm an engineer working on the cutting edge of some of what you're blabbering about.
"but hey USA did it lol." yes, the bomb was designed and built in entirely in the US. People just had to come to America to have their genius potential unleashed. Tesla, Einstein, Fermi, Sikorsky, and more came to great success after moving to the US.
"Australian Mark Oliphant started the Manhatten project and had to convince USA to do it. he then helped refine the Uranium lol." wow, the level of coping and revisionist history you're trying to spin. "hey, look at us, we know how to do resin infused composites, we designed everything, we're the best!". Maybe you should focus more on not assaulting your fellow citizens over masks and lockdowns, and maybe if you actually had freedoms like free speech and gun rights you wouldn't have so many issues down under.
"A lot of Australian and other friendly countries tech is in USA military equipment lol." exactly, it's all US designed and made.
"If America could do the resin tech they would as costs more doing it in Australia and sending overseas. haha you no idea kid." US outsources things due to cheap labor on those countries..... Kid? now I know what kind of person I'm dealing with. What is your job, and how many years have you been doing it?
"Don't kid yourself America is the smartest in the world. all you got is the money for R&D." yes, we are the smartest in the world, due to our societal values (that some people are trying to destroy), and that helped us become rich enough to afford such high tech. So if Australia lacks money for R&D, then clearly they aren't the ones doing the innovation, because they can't afford it. What kinds of aircraft are in the Australian military again? What kinds of weapons? Name companies and models.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nedkelly9688 "Allies won WW2 with help from other's but again you have no idea as the ground forces in Pacific by Australia and America were about even."
wow, you just keep digging like a good CCP 50cent army soldier.
YEs, the allies won WW2. But take away the UK, Australia, and such and we still would have won. Who provided fighters to Australia? Ammo? Food? Did you know the US brought so many people to Australia in WW2, it changed the Australian population and culture forever?
The US fought in the Atlantic, Pacific, Pacific Island, Alaska, India/China, Med, North Africa, Italy, Western Front in Europe, did strategic bombing, and provided lend lease to the USSR, UK, France, Australia, and many more. We provided the ships, airplanes, rifles, ammo, medicine, food, tanks, trucks, fuel, and more. Australia would have fallen to Japan if not for the US. You had few aircraft and pilots and were outclassed.
But go ahead, be a good Communist shill and claim the Australians and USSR single handedly won WW2 all by themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matchesburn F-4 Phantom (countless countries and the USAF), F-18 (Switzerland, Canada, Australia...), A-4 Skyhawk (Argentina, Israel...), F4U, F4F, TBM, SBD, F-111 (Australia, USAF...), Super Étendard, etc.
Then you have the variant aircraft like the F-35, F-86, F-15, Mig29, Su27, Spitfire, Mosquito, and more, where the naval and land based versions add or remove the features.
Then you have the land-based aircraft that need no carrier modifications at all. B-25, C-130, V-22, OV-10, AV-8B, etc.
And even still, the F-15 and many others still have tail hooks, though not quite as robust if used daily, but could be upgraded to be tougher. And the F-16 landing gear is very much like that of the F-8, meaning it could be navalized, and was considered for navalization.
And let's not forget the need for operating from damaged or unimproved runways. Something we used to plan for in teh Cold War, and that Ukraine is proving was/is a valid concern. Aircraft like the Gripen, F-5, A-10, AV-8B, OV-10, Mig29, Su27, and more were specifically designed for this purpose. While others like the F-18, F-35, and such could be used in this manner.
1
-
@matchesburn Way to ignore the entire argument due to invalid cherry picked criteria that doesn't prove you right.
Notice I also listed many US aircraft examples. Mostly US in fact.
F-4, AV-8B, OV-10, C-130, U-2, B-25, F4U, F4F, SBD, TBM, F-18, F-111, A-4, F-86, V-22, F-15, F-35, and more.
But in truth, you can't provide a valid counter argument to mine, and so rather than admit defeat, you falsely try to claim my arguments are invalid while trying to change the rules of the debate like a child trying to change the rules of a game of Monopoly whenever they are losing.
My argument is 100% valid and intact.
You have no argument at all.
"Carrier aircraft have their own special requirements to meet CATOBAR standards. Requirements which lessen performance and... I shouldn't have to point this out... but aren't necessary to the USAF."
this claim is not specific to only US aircraft, and the USN and USAF has historically flown aircraft of other nations as well, so they count, and other nations have used USAF and other naval aircraft as well, both for carrier and land based uses.
1
-
@MotoroidARFC Wrong.
Landing is the toughest and most dangerous part. The catapults can be adjusted, and rather fragile aircraft have been catapult launched throughout history, and there are many types of catapults, many which don't attach to the landing gear at all. The first ever
AV-8B uses no catapult, nor did the C-130, B-25, U-2, OV-10, etc. F-35 can launch with or without a catapult.
Aircraft like the FJ-1, FJ-4, F6F, A-4, F-4, F-8, F4D, F11F, P-51 Sea Horse, F4U, and Super Etendard, and many more didn't attach the catapult to the landing gear at all.
Aircraft like the B-25, P-40, J-3, P-47, Mosquito, and many more also launched from carriers both with and without catapults.
Catapults put very little stress on teh airframe and landing gear the way a crash down arrested landing does.
Want to see weak landing gear on a carrier? look at the Spitfire and Seafire.
Hurricanes were even catapult launched off of transports in the Atlantic to ward off air attacks.
All of Langley's attempts at powered flight used a catapult launch of his fragile aircraft, the last attempt on Oct 7, 1903. He died never knowing the Wrights had flown.
The first ever ship launch and landings were done with Curtiss aircraft, very fragile in nature.
Seaplanes were catapult launched from battleships, cruisers, seaplane tenders and such for many decades without issue.
1
-
@MotoroidARFC "it isn't the landing, it's the launching. That's when the aircraft is at its heaviest and needs a strong structure to tolerate the catapult forces. "
Wrong. the aircraft is at 1G on takeoff, and then is accelerated to speed laterally. the weight of the aircraft actually helps, as it's inertia slows the catapult. but the weight is not a multiplier on the catapult, as the forces are not acting in the same directions. And catapults are tuned to the weight/size of aircraft.
But on landing, the jet can experience many G's and in ways that can break many parts of the aircraft, from wing spars, to landing gear, to the tail or fuselage, tail hook, and more. This is where weight is critical, as the weight is acting with the forces on landing. many aircraft can takeoff heavier than they can land, even civilian airplanes that don't fly off short airfields. They have to dump fuel or payload (bombs even) before landing to get below their max landing weight. Sometimes thy just have to fly in circles for a while to burn enough fuel. Also on landing, the bombs can be ripped clean from the aircraft and be sent across the deck.
"Eagles weren't designed for that. "
a naval version was drawn up, and it would have done just fine. Take a look at the gear of the FJ-1 and Fj-4, of the F4D and F-8. Heck, look at the F-4 nosewheel or the A-4.
Even the F-16 was considered for a naval version.
"Just look at how dinky the landing gear is compared to the Super Hornet landing gear; specifically the nose wheel vs nose wheels."
the F-18 and such have beefy nose gear because they are pulled in a VERY bad angle on the nose strut by the catapult. But most aircraft in history had the catapult attach to teh fuselage and wing roots. F4F, F6F, F4U, A-4, F4D, F-8, F-4, Etendard, FJ-1, F11F-1, FJ-4, and many many more.
the U-2, C-130, B-25, AV-8B, and many more also never used catapults at all.
When you want to launch using the nosewheel, then yes, you need to beef it up, but also by adding a strut that moves backwards along the fuselage.
Or you can just launch using the older time tested method of pulling on the airframe.
"This channel has a video about the Sea Eagle."
then you should know better...
1
-
@MotoroidARFC " It's also fact that CATOBAR aircraft can launch with heavier loads than ski jump users which is why the USN use CATOBAR F-35Cs off their big deck carriers."
that has Nothing to do with structure of teh aircraft. that has everything to do with not being able to go fast enough to produce enough lift to carry more weight. a catapult can get it to a higher speed, producing more lift, thus carrying more weight.
But an F-35C can catapult launch at full weight, and be weight restricted on the Queen Elizabeth due to the ski jump, even though it's tough enough for a catapult. This doesn't prove your point, debunks it in fact.
"USN carriers have catapults that use the nose gear to connect to the catapult shuttle. They don't use any other catapult system for their CATOBAR aircraft."
You can use an airframe strap on US carrier catapults if necessary. not a big deal. Argentine, French, and other foreign naval aircraft have launched and landed on US nuclear carriers. The Argentine Etendard for example, requires the airframe strap, and they were launched using it. US catapults can 100% launch such aircraft. Just because US aircraft presently don't use that launching method, in no way mans the catapults can't still do it. And the US carriers still launch foreign aircraft that way at times.
"Also, when aircraft land they are lighter as they have burnt off or dumped their fuel and, if fighting or live fire training, have fired or dropped their munitions."
not always. aircraft go on missions in combat and find themselves unable to fire all their weapons, and will jettison them before landing. Also, emergencies happen, and a jet might have to return to land immediately, and will have to dump weight in a hurry in order to land.
"The USMC use the shorter range F-35B from the gator freighters. Also, why mention out of service and long obsolete aircraft which cannot operate from today's carriers? You're just vomiting word salad and proving you know nothing."
The F-4 is still in service around the world, the last F-8 was retired in 2008 I believe, there are still Etendards in service, as well as A-4s. U-2s are still in service, as are C-130s, OV-10s, the Harriers were only recently retired, but other nations still fly them. The older aircraft are relevant in proving that structurally the takeoff is no big deal, and flimsy aircraft can launch using catapults fully loaded. But if you had any clue what you were talking about, I wouldn't have to explain such basics to you. I teach kids STEM (aerospace engineering STEM in fact), and they understand these concepts with ease, and most of them are still in middle school.
Your childish attempt to invalidate my arguments by simply dismissing them is not going to work. Closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and shouting, "lalalalalala!" doesn't change reality.
You're arguing with the wrong person. I'm a combat vet of OIF/OEF, a professional airplane and helicopter pilot, an Aerospace engineer who designs airplanes with tens of patents and I do record setting work for NASA, and military/aviation history is a favorite pastime of mine.
So bring facts, logic, reason, and science if you wish to have a chance at winning here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MotoroidARFC "they retired the Super Étendard and got rid of their carrier."
irrelevant. doesn't change the catapults and their capabilities.
"And who will keep throwing away the cables needed to launch them as bridle catchers don't exist on French or American carriers?"
If we found ourselves in a war of attrition against China lets say in a WW3 scenario, and both sides were taking incredible losses of aircraft. Now let's say in order to recoup our losses quickly, we need to mass produce a fighter jet quickly and cheaply. The heavy nose landing gear results in a much heavier, more costly, and harder to mass produce aircraft. And it might make sense to resort to different launching methods to produce more aircraft faster. Having the option to do that can be critical in a war. The cost and space taken up by those cables is so small as to be laughable. It's annoying to rely on a consumable, but it is easily replenished as well. We fought all of WW2 using them, and we had FAR more carriers and FAR more carrier aircraft to launch every single day. It's not an issue. Also, bridle catchers could easily be added to the carriers if needed.
"And why bring aboard such old aircraft when a modern one is more worthy of the limited space?"
red herring. this argument was never made. But if you're referring to why bring older allied aircraft aboard? it's about international training and cooperation, in case aircraft have to land on another nation's carrier in a time of war for any of a number of reasons (aircraft damaged and can't reach its own carrier, it's carrier was sunk, etc.).
"U2s operate from land bases. Sure, they did tests but that doesn't mean they will do it routinely and they never have. "
wrong, they routinely operated U-2s from carriers for many decades. they tested it, but you can find pictures of numerous different models/generations of U-2s flying from carriers in multiple decades, as well as U-2 pilots talking about their experience using carriers in operations. Just down the road from me in a small farm town we have two U-2 pilots. One is retired, the other actively serving. I've also given a presentation on this a few months back.
Wow, you finally got something right. Even a broken clock is right 2x a day. Yes, the C-130 was only tested, but it proved possible, and with surprising ease too. And in a pinch it could be done any time, so long as we have the large nuke carriers and C-130s. And a war in China could bring about the need to use C-130 to speed up resupply in desperation. You just never know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MotoroidARFC "I said they were heavier and endured more stress than landing when they are lighter than at launch."
Wrong, you said,
"it isn't the landing, it's the launching. That's when the aircraft is at its heaviest and needs a strong structure to tolerate the catapult forces."
And this statement is FALSE. The forces at launch are completely different than at landing. the forces during launch are rather mild and benign, other than the local stresses felt by a nose wheel launch due to the stresses being applied to it specifically in a sub optimal way. the ONLY thing feeling such stress on takeoffs is the nosewheel strut.
On landing, the ENTIRE aircraft is getting a beating. the Wings, fuselage, tail, landing gear (mains and nosewheel), pylons, etc. and all being subjected to very large forces compared to takeoff.
1
-
@MotoroidARFC "yes it does matter when equipment isn't available to do so and when the people who are experienced in such launches aren't around and such launches are unnecessary."
it takes a few hours to train people. all the training manuals, training videos, etc. still exists, as do the blueprints for the parts.
"There are more modern aircraft that can do far more than the aircraft that use the obsolete method."
more capable in terms of what? avionics? an F-14 or F-4 could have ben upgraded with ALL of the latest sensors, avionics, targeting pods, etc. Just like the F-15EX, and F-16 block 70.
An F-4 and F-14 in many ways are far more capable than many modern carrier fighters, in things such as payload, speed, range, maneuverability, etc. And imagine if they were given newer engines, fly by wire, and such they'd be even better.
But even still, saying, "There are more modern aircraft that can do far more than the aircraft that use the obsolete method.", does NOT prove that aircraft experience far greater forces on launch than landing.
If you want to compare launch and landing fairly, then consider a single jet (F-4D?) at 50% of its internal fuel weight, and no weapons. then explain how launch stresses it more than landing at the same weight.
1
-
@MotoroidARFC "sending an F-4 up against something two generations more advanced is wasteful. It would be better for it to haul stuff for the newer ones. It would stay out of the fight and release weapons when the newer ones call for it. "
red herring. you're off topic again.
"Upgrades can only go so far before the basic design limits it."
actually, that's not true. A fully upgraded F-4 would be just as effective at being a missile truck as an F-15EX or F-35, and just as effective at deploying standoff weapons for CAS. The maturity and proliferation of precision standoff weapons has changed the game, and speed is no longer the key.
"And in some cases the time and money spent on that could have been spent on things more worthwhile."
give an example.
"In the Eagle II's case, other nations funded the upgrades which made it attractive to the USAF. It's telling they didn't fund the upgrades on their own and didn't even bother with their F-4s. So no, if it's too old, it's not worth it."
The US gov needed stop gap fighters, and given that the F-15EX had all the upgrades, the gov bought those as they were available. You know what else is available that the USAF doesn't have much of? The F-16 Block 70. We could also buy those. But do you realize how old the F-15 and F-16 platforms are now? And yet short of the F-22/F-35, they are basically the best fighters on earth.
By the time the F-15EX came along, all the US F-4 had already been long retired, and production lines no longer existed. You can't buy something no longer being produced, even if it could have been upgraded if still produced.
You want to talk about age? try the A-4, C-130, B-52J, U-2, Mig21, Mig17, AH-1, UH-1, CH-47, UH-60, etc. Many aircraft in operation today are as old or older than the F-4. And many of the newer aircraft are going to far exceed the F-4's service life.
If your assertions were true, none of those older aircraft would still be flying or combat effective. but many are still some of the best in the world at what they are doing.
If I upgraded an F-4E with F-35 radar, F-35 avionics, new ejection seats, new bubble canopy with gold tint, stealth paint, composite airframe, new engines, new air intakes, new IRST and targeting sensors, and updated its flight controls to the latest in fly by wire, and gave it meteor missiles, AMRAAMs, AIM-9X, helmet mounted sight, HARM, small diameter bombs, Harpoon, and more. What role in modern air combat would the F-4 not be well suited for?
"so a service is to train people in an obsolete method of launching aircraft and begin manufacturing the equipment to do that just so they bring back into service obsolete aircraft which would need upgrades themselves and trained crews to operate them? "
no, they retain the ability to use alternatives, and retrain people when/as needed. the method of launching is not obsolete. In what way is it obsolete? just because it's not popular anymore, doesn't make it obsolete. it still works just fine and very effectively. It's just not preferred. A little common sense goes a long way, should look into getting some.
"Fantasy. No one will wait around for all that to happen. They will work with what they have and in more effective ways."
They will work with what they have, including th ability to bridle launch aircraft. When you're taking high losses, you will resort to putting into service anything you can get, even if it's not what you wanted/preferred. I've been in combat for years of my life, I have made do with what we had, fixed things, modified things, and I am telling you, when sh1t gets crazy, technology is not your friend. the ability and know-how to revert to low tech methods and still win is underappreciated these days. We had all the tech and gadgets overseas, and yet rarely used it. old fashioned methods still worked, were still more reliable and consistent, and could be used to surprise enemies expecting us to use the technology and weren't expecting us to attack them the way we did. And things break, and the more advanced and complex they ar, the harder it is to fix them, the more parts it takes, and the harder it is to support logistically in teh field. sometimes you'll have to wait MONTHS to get the parts you need, and in the meantime you have to make do with what you have. and so you resort to low-tech solutions, even grabbing civilian equipment to use.
"And they're still lighter than at launch."
So??????? you're like a broken record. this is what, teh 6th time you've repeated this? And still you have yet to make a valid point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Elthenar I personally received Danger Close air support from a B-1 in Afghanistan. 38x 500lb bombs dropped within 200-500yds of our position one night. I'll never forget that.
I also received CAS from the A-10s of the 23rd Flying Tigers. Close up gun attacks. Nothing like seeing an A-10 attack, and it truly does put the enemy on notice. The enemy never sees the B-1 coming, but they see the A-10,a nd that is more effective than people realize at pushing back enemy attacks. Some times a show of force is required.
"The sensors and electronics on an F-35 would let it drop an SDB extremely close to friendlies relatively safely."
same for the F-15E and F-15EX, which can theoretically carry up to 50-60 SDBs at once. and SDBs have a potential glide range after drop of up to 50miles to target, allowing significant standoff from the targets.
The F-15E would orbit overhead in Afghanistan and just wait for calls for air support. You could spot them if you looked hard enough, just flying circles overhead, waiting.
In Iraq my unit got CAS mostly from AV-8B, F-18, AH-1, UH-1, AH-64....(with the Marines)
In Afghanistan my unit got it mostly from Kiowa, AH-64, A-10, B-1, and F-15E... (with the Navy Seabees)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1