Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Sandboxx"
channel.
-
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