Why are American Cars so BIG?

[Matra et Alpine]

...Russian planes may have the edge right now, but I would still put my money on an American plane to come out on top. Superior training, superior avionics, superior maintenance on the planes.

Don't know the results for the last couple of years, but you are aware that in the regular joint mock battles held with US, Canadian and UK forces that the US guys got trounced almost every time.
Too much dependance on technology is an oft-cited comment from RAF pilots

Besides any edge they might have will be gone once the Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 enter service.

For sure, can't see Russia continuing to provide advanced planes beyodn current gen.

[mr bill]

The MiG 41 built ten years ago was the precurser to the F22. Yanks coppied the design and then improved upon its stealth abilities and avionics.

The point of course is that if the Russians were building the precurser to the American planes TEN YEARS AGO, so I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

[more-boost1555]

Don't know the results for the last couple of years, but you are aware that in the regular joint mock battles held with US, Canadian and UK forces that the US guys got trounced almost every time.
Too much dependance on technology is an oft-cited comment from RAF pilots

For sure, can't see Russia continuing to provide advanced planes beyodn current gen.

RAF pilots are pretty elite, and now you Brits have your Euro Fighter Typhoon, quite a nice piece of kit.

[Matra et Alpine]

RAF pilots are pretty elite, and now you Brits have your Euro Fighter Typhoon, quite a nice piece of kit.

One of the famous examples was an attack by the ageing Tornados
All the smarts and hte Brits took them in sooooo low that the technology didnt' work - if there is one thing I think the UK avionics has been supreme on is terrain-following support for the pilot

oh, and the training .... any hill-walker and mountaineer in Scotland has tales of Tornados and Harriers flying BELOW them I've looked down into a Tornado cockpit and I swear the nav waved

[more-boost1555]

The MiG 41 built ten years ago was the precurser to the F22. Yanks coppied the design and then improved upon its stealth abilities and avionics.

The point of course is that if the Russians were building the precurser to the American planes TEN YEARS AGO, so I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

That proves nothing, except that Russian scientists have come up with some innovative concepts before. Was a prototype ever even produced? Was their stealth technology ever proven in combat?

And if they had this technology ten years ago, how come it never made it to the fore front? Even though new Russian models like the SU-37 have been developed?

Most likely budget issues, we ran their economy into the ground during the cold war, now their ideas are in service with our military. That's what happens when you win a war, you get the spoils.

Interesting side note, the AN-94 is also Russian made and is the most advanced assault rifle in the world. Budget issues have kept it from being produced in great numbers as well.

Lol, funny thing, I have a toy airplane at home, honest to God, is an exact model of the plane diagrammed above. I got it when I was like ten years old. Seems strange that a top secret russian prototype could be a toy in an american childs hands. It is just like that picture, all black paint job, two red stars, one on each wing.

[mr bill]

Heh, it wasn't top-secert, that's why the Americans could copy it to begin with.

As for that line about "running the Soviet economy into the ground" that's not true at all.

Prove it.

[Matra et Alpine]

Lol, funny thing, I have a toy airplane at home, honest to God, is an exact model of the plane diagrammed above. I got it when I was like ten years old. Seems strange that a top secret russian prototype could be a toy in an american childs hands. It is just like that picture, all black paint job, two red stars, one on each wing.

Revell AURORA kit - 'nuff said, toy makers copied everyone !!!

[crisis]

Actaully, unmanned drones, such as the Gobal Hawk have some of the most impressive ranges in the US airforce, almost outstripping the U2 spyplane.

But slow, and probably beyond reach of terrorist organisations.

Yup, I can- really! X-47 Pegasus! It's right there, above you a few posts.

And its stillin experimental stage for the US which means its a pipe dream for most other countries and unobtainable for terrorists.

Again, once more, its called the X-47 Pegasus built by Northrop-Grumman. Infact, it's a stealth plane, which means it can do MORE then the vaunted F/A-18.

How is it controlled? If it is purely automated is it a match in air to air combat without a pilot. In any case it belongs to the country we are debating should be worried about such things.

Yes they can: the Tarawa Class Marine Assault ship carries 6 Harrier attack planes, 12 Super Cobra/Seaknight helicopters and 9 Sea Stallion helicopters. So, yah, they CAN launch "any kind of air attack whatsoever".

The Nimitz for example has detachments from 4 F18 squadrons, a helicopter squadron as well as AEW, electronic countermeasure and various support aircraft. Besides a Marine assualt ship is just as much a sitting duck as a carrier. More so if you take into account its diminised AA capability and its speed vs a nuclear carrier.

This is poor reasoning- try resupplying a fleet composed of over a dozen ships and over 20 thousand men "indefinately". It's almost impossible.

Which is why they have more than one and rotate them.

Firstly, it's range is 570 Nautical miles, and, yes that IS short. Look at the X-47! It's range is over a THOUSAND Nautical Miles- that's more then TWICE the range of the Tomcat.

The range is an advantage but the F14 is refuellable. THe X47 does not have the payload and I dnt know its AA capabilities. Eventually pilotless aircraft will prevail but that does not negate the need for vessels to accomodate them. Whatever you pu to sea will be in some way vulnerable.

The reason you have aircraft carriers is becuase its the perfect symbol of American Militarism and Imperialism. Moving a carrier CLOSER to its objective is a death wish- not only would this put the ship within range of land based cruisemissiles but also of airbased fighters, and no matter how great your carrier is, it can't face up to a full ground luanched missile/strike fighter/bomber assault.

Yet not one has been touched to date. They dont need to be close enough to put themselves in danger.

The best fighters in the world are currently Russian, (for example, the Super-Flanker) and that line about the best pilots is mere conjecture.

The best fighter in the world should be judged on its performance, avionics, capabilities and weapons systems. In any event these aircraft are in small numbers anywhere the US is likely to encounter them, would have limited range and in many countries not supported by air to air refuleing.

It's been done in the past by Soviet submarines, and it has been done in the present by German submarines. Believe me, its utterly possible.

When have Soviet submarines launched such an attack on a US carrier group? The Germans used U boats successfully against merchant ships and died in their hundreds.

This is mere ignorance on your part, espacily that latter line about being unable to coordinate an attack. It would actaully be easy as sin to do for any nation with Satellite technology. For example, using GPS and survailance satellites, one tracks and locates a carrier group, then relays the information to the waiting submarines who then indepentdly arrive at prior set cordinates and fire their missiles at the apprioprate signal from a joint command. Easy
.

Except that no such nation with those intentions exists.

The LA class make up the vast mainstay of the US navy's submarine fleet, and they are indeed, rather obsolete.

Which country has a more modern fleet in a state of readiness?

[crisis]

Go to a known site for R/C enthusiasts to fly and launch a plane every couple of minutes. Do that at half a dozen sites and withn half an hour your swarm is out of sigh and plotting their own individual courses. Who woudl question the planes - as long as you chose a time when nobody from the club is there
If flight time is going to be short, you could assemble wings and launch a couple of hundred over a couple of hours out of a truck. These aren't intended vehicles for landing etc no wheel, hand thrown etc etc.

Im thinking it through logically. So a bunch of strangers with large ( they will need to be) r/c aircraft which by the nature of the fact they are packing heat will look strange and attract the attention of the gathered enthusiasts, go to a number of clubs (how many of these are located in a reasonable proximity to each other in each city (if a city is the right place)) and muscle in and launch their wave of aircraft and nobody their thinks anything of it? I agree it is physically possible but to put that plan in practice is not a simple as you make it sound.

erm, the technology to do this is off the shelf.
R/C enthusiasts have created a 'monster' without them realising as they strove to make planes/helos easier to fly and recover. So lightweighth fuel-efficient and fast motors abound. GPS and microcontrollers are there NOW for the ordinary hobbyist to integrate. It is NOT rocket science, it's so easy it's why some defense companies are lookign at production and defense against them.

I think there is a difference between drones and model aircraft. Bear in mind most model aircraft are not designed to carry explosives and are designed to be as light as possible.

again I think you're considering outright destruction and yes that would take a lot of munitions as ships have been built to withstand those.
But you dont' do that .... say you use napalm - simple mixture to make up - and deliver by the hundreds. A first wave would alight a carrier deck and prevent planes landing/refueling/taking off. Then more arrive as fire crews try to control it. Now those fire crews become victims and soon the ship cannot fight the fires. Feeding a near continuous 1-2 gallons of liquid jelly will soon start ingress to the lower decks. THEN the ship does it's own destruction.
AND we've not even TRIED to make these smart weapons which could aim themselves for the 'soft' parts of the aircraft carriers. A swarm capable of aiming for funnels, bow openings, deck lifts etc would be more effective with less - but more complex.

Again napalm is weighty. The amount you could deliver even in your scenario wold not cause that much of a problem. How are they actually going to home in on a funnel ( which nuclear carriers dont have) or any small part. Given the ship is moving the targetting system would have to be far more sophisticated than a GPS. Im lucky to fing freaking fish with them. These ships are equiped with blast doors to control fuel fires and other forms of attack. I cant see where afew gallons (if that much could be delivered ) would do much harm.Fire fighting systems on carriers are designed to control devastating fires. You also assume every one of these drones nails its target, Its a big call.

Now THAT made me laugh, a carrier evading a small drone. NOT going to happen. And where do you evade to ? A decent 'swarm' will be coming from all directions acros a smallish time period. Still thinking bit modern munitiosn warfare. ( By now you might realise that we've a local defence contractor and a lot of mates have worked for them - I even interviewed for them - and tech-heads end up exploring possibilities over beers in the pub )

Your drones would travel at what speed from what range ? A carrier can travel at 40 knots. As I said the targetting of these thing would have to be at a GPS point. What other guidance method do you envisage a bunch of terrorists would be able to pack into their model aircraft given much of the payload will need to be set aside for the napalm or other low tech explosive. Dont forget the Phalanx systems will be filling the air with lead at these relatively slow targets. Some will get through so the fire fighters will be busy I suppose.

Erm, you do realise that lesson was first learned in 'Nam. Hence why Hueys were successful and 'green giants' only sent in when ground fire could be supressed and ultimately why Spectre is now the platform of choice
The problem with military is they often forget the bad lessons because 'gung-ho' attitude doesn't want to reflect on errors in the past. Since WW1 there are hundreds of examples of the same mistake being repeated a mere 2-3 years later

Somalia was a clusterf# but the error was in not expecting a orchestrated response. Like Vietnam the US were restricted in what they could use. In the film they asked for an AC130 but were denied. I dont know how factual that was but they were unlikely to lay waste to the city where the people they were trying to defend lived. Hard call.

[crisis]

by the way, god damn is it time consuming rebutting you guys, fun though, no hard feelings of any sort to either of you gentlemen.

Ahem, ok.

First off, this prototype can go supersonic, I'll give you that point. However it's range and payload are not that impressive.

An F-A18, can carry a maximum payload of 6220 kg, which converts to roughly 13,712 pounds. That's just an F-A18, I couldn't find specs on the e and f models, or "superhornet". I could find range for it however. A superhornets' max range without external fuel tanks is 1,275 nautical miles, with three external tanks, 1,660.

The fact is that that drone is a prototype and not ready for service. Even if it were, it still will not be able to compete with the F-18's battle proven service record and un-matched multirole capability. Just read this Hornet

The global hawk, is not multi role capable, and it has a miniscule payload.

The Tarwa assault ship? Wow it can launch aircraft capable of attack and close support. None of those aircraft have any air Superiority capability what so ever, and they all have very limited range as well as small payloads.

Also it is not impossible to support a carrier group indefinately. It's called setting up air superiority, and secure routes for your supply ships. Besides do you think these drone carrier ships are going to just resupply them selves? They will have the same logistic problems.



The reason to have aircraft carriers is to have a highly mobile forward presence of deadly aircraft ready to mobilize at any moment! Of course you don't send a carrier into a known hostile area. That's why the U.S. has stealth bombers/fighters, you take out radar/power/communications sites first, then move in with the carrier to assert air superiority. Or you can just launch Tommahawks, same thing.

Russian planes may have the edge right now, but I would still put my money on an American plane to come out on top. Superior training, superior avionics, superior maintenance on the planes. Besides any edge they might have will be gone once the Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 enter service.

The Russian fleet is not capable of the things you propose! Well maintained and in top shape, perhaps they could be. The fact is however, they are not. State of the Russian Fleet



I agree, and it will happen. The Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 Raptor are said to be most likely the last generation of manned aircraft developed by the U.S.

Sorry to everyone. I should have read this before I went off.

[crisis]

No you can buy commercially available GPS receiver for $100. It doesn't need maps or anything, it just needs an 'address'
Serial controlled can interface to a micro-controller equally interfaced to standard R/C parts.
All up cost of electronics is only about $300 !!!!
You're not making an R/C vehicle, it is autonomous, so dont' bother with comms

yep and that's when simple imaging comes in.
Nothing too sophisticated, the lens assembly in your optical mouse or to be able to detect carrier versus 'ship' the one in your mobile phone Crude image recognition is easily done in a microcontroller by any second year computer science student

It's $20 for a camer + lens module for microcontroller

Laser detection is VERY simple as with a simple filter it would be the ONLY thing to show up, but it has the drawback of needing someone to light up the target. Crude visual recognition woudl be the easiest, or infra-red - a $1 part

I cant refute your premise but it sounds a bit simplistic that you can simply hook up a camera lense, a GPS and a microcontroller. My laser mouse wont work from 3 metre away! If it is this simple I wonder why it hasnt been at least attempted. ( all right I did refute it)

[mr bill]

Let's try a different line of logic- why would you want to keep a carrier group arond when you could just as easily replace them with Corsair groups and drones?

[Blue Supra]

i can see this thread deviated from the orginal topic...

as for why american cars are so big?
because americans in general are big!
simple.

as for carrier groups and such im not going to be botherd to read through 20 odd pages of forum to find out how you got onto that subject. especially involving russians...

[crisis]

Let's try a different line of logic- why would you want to keep a carrier group arond when you could just as easily replace them with Corsair groups and drones?

Thats the whole argument. You cant replace them with these Corsairs. The proposed several humdred million dollar price tag would triple like all other military purchases. The training and weapons systems need to be created to work with them. All the steel that is currently raoming the seas which have a projected lifespan of 50 or so years, would be wasted with little or no return (although scrap is fetching a reasonabe price these days). It would take years (20?) to fully equip the fleet with enought to replace the current capability. The Dept of Defence is ass deep in the ATF which would have to be slated and politically that would be quite painful.
In the end , even a cheif proponent of the Corsair, Vice Adm. Art Cebrowski, president of the Naval War College, said that the Corsairs are not meant to replace the large aircraft carriers.
"There still is no better way to show the flag, and certainly there is no better way to keep other world powers from thinking they can challenge the U.S. on the high seas,”

[mr bill]

"There still is no better way to show the flag, and certainly there is no better way to keep other world powers from thinking they can challenge the U.S. on the high seas,”

Of course, that's exactly what carrier are for- Imperialism missions (Iraq being a prime example).