Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
StriderX said:
Well I was writing that thinking we're talking about C-130's.
Click to expand...

Yeah as I said if you were working on it then you wouldn't just do it overnight.
It wouldn't be a quick, nor easy thing to achieve.

I have a couple of friends who visited the USSR pre cold war ending.
They travelled on a plane that they said was basically a troop carrier. It was Aeroflot (spelling) but it was pretty much a military plane converted for civ use.

The biggest issue IMO would be that should this ever reasonably considered to be a thing then the tensions would be already very high and as such likely any suitable air traffic would already have been stopped.

Russia doing it elsewhere, maybe, but not "us" against Russia. IMO we just wouldn't.
Russias issue would be how would they even realistically make enough of a dent across the wide area of NATO.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
For equivalent missiles its very much true yes.
The ground based need to use a massive amount of energy to get upto speed and elevation.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as equivalent air to air and ground to air missiles. They both have different tactical applications. Ground based have far fewer design constraint’s such as not being weight limited or having to be mounted on (or indeed, inside) an aircraft.

Anyway - moving on, I think we’ve established a first strike nuclear attack on Russia using cargo planes is a non-starter.

My work here is done.
 
esmozz said:
There is no such thing as equivalent air to air and ground to air missiles. They both have different tactical applications. Ground based have far fewer design constraint’s such as not being weight limited or having to be mounted on (or indeed, inside) an aircraft.

Anyway - moving on, I think we’ve established a first strike nuclear attack on Russia using cargo planes is a non-starter.

My work here is done.
Click to expand...

Well you asked for equivalent, I assumed you were meaning in regards range.
If not no idea what you were on about since as you say the GAM or SAM generally has a different usage, although they do overlap.

Much smaller air launched missiles have the same range as much larger ground launched ones.
The ground ones have to be larger since they have to use a large amount of energy to get themselves and their fuel for range upto a decent height. Problem is the more you weigh the more you need to get up there.
Doesn't matter what you are, plane, ICMB, SAM etc physics and mavity tells you how much energy you need. And its notable.

We don't really I believe have a direct equivalent for ground based to Meteor, but the closest is probably CAMM-MR which is slightly lighter, max speed is 75% (Mach 3 vs4) and is thought to be 100km+ vs 200km.

The main issue with air launched is you need to put them there, thats a significant cost and of course far more limited as you need airframes. SAM is far easier to deploy and keep effective.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Well you asked for equivalent, I assumed you were meaning in regards range.
If not no idea what you were on about since as you say the GAM or SAM generally has a different usage, although they do overlap.

.
Click to expand...
I didnt ask for anything - your claim was the AA were more deadly than GA. You then assumed equivalent equals range for some bizarre reason. And given that it theoretically possible for a ground based missile to fly from one side of the planet to the other I’d question that assumption. Pretty poor swerve to be honest…..

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
.

The main issue with air launched is you need to put them there, thats a significant cost and of course far more limited as you need airframes. SAM is far easier to deploy and keep effective.
Click to expand...
So not equivalent then?
 
esmozz said:
I didnt ask for anything - your claim was the AA were more deadly than GA. You then assumed equivalent equals range for some bizarre reason. And given that it theoretically possible for a ground based missile to fly from one side of the planet to the other I’d question that assumption. Pretty poor swerve to be honest…..


So not equivalent then?
Click to expand...

Well more deadly as in fly faster with a longer range...

If you going to argue not identical is not equivalent then yeah your right.
 
esmozz said:
Well nothing is impossible if you throw enough money at it but still, you’re a decade away from from converting a cargo plane from being able to do what is described. I think you’re underestimating the complexity of the task. And the huge number of ways it could fail.


yeah….no. It sounds like a mission with zero possiblity of survival - still, you can volunteer if you like.

Theres probably a reason the west/NATO has spent untold billions on things like submarine nuclear deterrents, B1 bombers etc etc, and not converting banged up cargo planes to try and sneak nuclear weapons into enemy territory and that reason would be it being a ridiculous idea.
Click to expand...

The capability to do it exists today - all the automation is already there and/or in use in other industries, technically even take off could be automated though that is a bigger task and you might as well have a crew fly some of the way then bail out. If someone was determined to do it adaption of a plane with an existing rear ramp could be done in hours, a couple of weeks for a cargo plane without ramp.

People seem to have forgotten Russia operates a nuclear triad - even if such attack did impact their land/air based systems they still have nuclear armed submarines and potentially ships though I don't think their ships are regularly nuclear armed.
 
Rroff said:
The capability to do it exists today - all the automation is already there and/or in use in other industries, technically even take off could be automated though that is a bigger task and you might as well have a crew fly some of the way then bail out. If someone was determined to do it adaption of a plane with an existing rear ramp could be done in hours, a couple of weeks for a cargo plane without ramp.

.
Click to expand...
Theoretically possible and technically achievable are two very different things. I should point out I fly cargo planes for a living (in particular the B737 freighter variant) and I think there is a wider misunderstanding about just how far away crewless aircraft are using existing airframes. Believe me - it’s decades.

As an aside I recall a documentary a few years ago where the FAA wired up an old aircraft for remote control in order to crash it. That involved a crew having to bail out mid flight and despite the fact you might consider crashing an aircraft to be a relatively easy thing to do, they still managed to mess it up.
 
Last edited:
They already exist, reaper drones are basically just smaller planes.

Its an odd human behaviour I see a lot, people who work in an industry seem to think automating it is difficult and won't happen. They are often the most blind to reality.

"For the past few years, Xwing has been running automated test missions, mainly in California. A flight plan is submitted, just as if there were a human pilot, and the flight’s parameters are pre-programmed before takeoff. “It’s really a one-click thing,” Piette says. “You engage the system and it runs its mission.”

Until the technology is certified by the FAA, however, there will need to be a safety pilot on board. This allows Xwing to fly without jumping through regulatory hoops. “The safety pilot can disconnect a system and revert the aircraft to manual flying, but otherwise doesn’t do anything but monitor the system. It’s a very boring job,” Piette explains. Meanwhile, the Cessna is operated from the ground, with one human controller watching a moving map on a screen and interfacing with air traffic control."

Unsurprisingly its almost there, https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzann...2/26/pilotless-autonomous-self-flying-planes/
 
esmozz said:
Theoretically possible and technically achievable are two very different things. I should point out I fly cargo planes for a living (in particular the B737 freighter variant) and I think there is a wider misunderstanding about just how far away crewless aircraft are using existing airframes. Believe me - it’s decades.

As an aside I recall a documentary a few years ago where the FAA wired up an old aircraft for remote control in order to crash it. That involved a crew having to bail out mid flight and despite the fact you might consider crashing an aircraft to be a relatively easy thing to do, they still managed to mess it up.
Click to expand...

You are overthinking it - for a situation like this they won't need to fully operate the aircraft or fly an entire route - just the last leg into range - the communications systems already exist to be able to relay essential comms, squawk, etc. and remote minor autopilot changes if necessary though probably not necessary as by the time any flight discrepancy was noticed, challenged and responded to it would likely be too late in this scenario. The automation of the delivery system is already in use in other industries.
 
jigger said:
It’s interesting how systems that had long been considered obsolete, have now come full circle and incredibly relevant again.
Click to expand...

I've mentioned it before but probably 15 years ago was a series called weaponology. It plotted precisely that, how things were invented, went out of fashion, came back later for differing uses / reasons.

Plate armour being a great example, it became the best in class, making you almost invincible in some situations to then being a massive negative when it could be easily breached. Roll back around years later and we are putting ballistic plates in holders to try to intercept rounds.
Gatling had similar in / out type evolution.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
They already exist, reaper drones are basically just smaller planes.

Its an odd human behaviour I see a lot, people who work in an industry seem to think automating it is difficult and won't happen. They are often the most blind to reality.

"For the past few years, Xwing has been running automated test missions, mainly in California. A flight plan is submitted, just as if there were a human pilot, and the flight’s parameters are pre-programmed before takeoff. “It’s really a one-click thing,” Piette says. “You engage the system and it runs its mission.”

Until the technology is certified by the FAA, however, there will need to be a safety pilot on board. This allows Xwing to fly without jumping through regulatory hoops. “The safety pilot can disconnect a system and revert the aircraft to manual flying, but otherwise doesn’t do anything but monitor the system. It’s a very boring job,” Piette explains. Meanwhile, the Cessna is operated from the ground, with one human controller watching a moving map on a screen and interfacing with air traffic control."

Unsurprisingly its almost there, https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzann...2/26/pilotless-autonomous-self-flying-planes/
Click to expand...

The RQ-4s can detect problems, loss of communications, improper operation, etc. and respond accordingly, squawk 7600 or 7700, enter a holding pattern or even fly back to base autonomously - in 2001 one performed a fully autonomous flight from California to Australia.
 
Rroff said:
The RQ-4s can detect problems, loss of communications, improper operation, etc. and respond accordingly, squawk 7600 or 7700, enter a holding pattern or even fly back to base autonomously - in 2001 one performed a fully autonomous flight from California to Australia.
Click to expand...

Yeah well I was trying to break him in gently to the fact it exists now basically.
20+ year old tech was already capable.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US already has the tech for the piloted airframe with AI buddy drone wingman stuff.
I haven't looked into it much but it was what I saw as their expected next step. The AI one being able to fly beyond the capabilities of a human pilot to sustain G etc by that point.

I always find military evolution unbelievable. 20 years ago, a drone that could kill a human was sci-fi stuff. Its very much reality now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom