So who likes Military stuff? *unofficial Military topic thread*

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Meh, thing is, the Russians have superior flying combat planes, but as proven in the various Cold Wars, they're armanment was behind ours, and their missiles sucked in comparison to ours.

Also, on a note from Wikipedia:
"However, on February 23, 2004, the U.S. Army announced their decision to cancel the Comanche helicopter program in view of the need to provide funds to renovate the existing helicopter fleet of aging attack, utility, and reconnaissance aircraft.
....the growing popularity in the military of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for reconnaissance purposes ? in addition to tests, UAVs had proven their worth in Afghanistan and Iraq. About US$8 billion had already been invested in the Comanche program at the time of its termination and an additional US$450-680 million was required in contract termination fees to main program partners Sikorsky and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.
...Technology developed for the Comanche will be integrated into the Apache and other U.S. military helicopter developments. Some of its roles will be taken over by the ARH-70, an off-the shelf armed reconnaissance helicopter."

Huh, so it wasn't engineered to be an attack copter anyway. It was meant to be a UAV that could guide missiles and have a machine gun--exactly what the RQ FireScout is meant to do, without risk of loss of life, so I guess thats alright then.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: TehMac
From what I've read, this can go places UAV can't, its designed for short endurance treks, because it is unmanned, programmable. This thing gets its mission programmed in, then it takes off, and they can access it anytime they need to, but its basically on its own, taking pictures, and survelliance. Its able to be launched from Jungles and Carriers (and cruisers).
I really don't know, but hopefully it helps.

I guess it depends on the footprint for the system. If it's very small (the footprint) and can be used by small units, it would be a boon for surveillance and some reconnaissance. If it requires brigade level support, it would seem that the current method of a Predator or a Hunter is preferable. I need to learn more about it.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Well, its supposedly more attractive than the Comanche, because this is replacing the Comanche, which was just an armed scout anyway. This FireScout is more attractive than the copter, and its cheaper and less risky in terms of human life, I suppose.

I think they need a new 'ttack chopper and rifles though.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: TehMac
Meh, thing is, the Russians have superior flying combat planes, but as proven in the various Cold Wars, they're armanment was behind ours, and their missiles sucked in comparison to ours.

No, they do not have superior combat planes.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: TehMac
Meh, thing is, the Russians have superior flying combat planes, but as proven in the various Cold Wars, they're armanment was behind ours, and their missiles sucked in comparison to ours.

No, they do not have superior combat planes.

The current Mig can fly higher and better at certain altitudes than the F/A-18E&F Super Hornet.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: TehMac
Meh, thing is, the Russians have superior flying combat planes, but as proven in the various Cold Wars, they're armanment was behind ours, and their missiles sucked in comparison to ours.

No, they do not have superior combat planes.

The current Mig can fly higher and better at certain altitudes than the F/A-18E&F Super Hornet.

What Mig? When you say "the current mig", it makes it sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, unfortunately for the Mig, those factors aren't as important as other factors such as stealth and radar capability.
 

SVT Cobra

Lifer
Mar 29, 2005
13,264
2
0
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: TehMac
Meh, thing is, the Russians have superior flying combat planes, but as proven in the various Cold Wars, they're armanment was behind ours, and their missiles sucked in comparison to ours.

No, they do not have superior combat planes.

The current Mig can fly higher and better at certain altitudes than the F/A-18E&F Super Hornet.

F-22 Raptor anyone?

Not to mention the cieling of what a plane can fly and how efficient it is is like factoring whether a sports car has back seats or not when comparing a Mustang to a Corvette. The Mig is very good at meanuverbility, but the F/A 18 has much more advanced avionics and the pilots are trained better, and now with the war in the mieddle east, have a lot more experience.
 

Smartazz

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2005
6,128
0
76
Originally posted by: spunkz
send in the robots so i can hack into one and fight the war from my bedroom. i can aim with my mouse better than IRL anyway

lol, that would be something if we had the American public fighting the war from their computers.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: TehMac
Meh, thing is, the Russians have superior flying combat planes, but as proven in the various Cold Wars, they're armanment was behind ours, and their missiles sucked in comparison to ours.

No, they do not have superior combat planes.

The current Mig can fly higher and better at certain altitudes than the F/A-18E&F Super Hornet.

What Mig? When you say "the current mig", it makes it sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, unfortunately for the Mig, those factors aren't as important as other factors such as stealth and radar capability.

I don't know the exact specs, sorry. :brokenheart:
I was saying that they're superior in conventional measurements in terms of climb rate and abilities at high altitude. Of course, nowadays, weapons systems and radar and stealth are important, which is what I was trying to say. Yes, the F-22 >>>>>Everything else, but so and so many Raptors are going to be built, the main course is the F-16 and F/18A,B,C,D, E,F which get out performed in terms of flying abilities, but their weapons systems are much better.
Which is why we managed to blast the Russian's jets when we encountered them.
 

mfs378

Senior member
May 19, 2003
505
0
0
Originally posted by: Meatyone
Originally posted by: TehMac
Anyone know of any other Army plans that are still in the works? I hope that new secretary of defense gets his act together and starts having it so that we're actually winning the war, in his opinion.

The latest generation of IAWS is supposed to have passed the latest round of tests at the Aberdeen and Yuma proving grounds. The first two generations of test systems, manufactured jointly by Lockheed Martin and Motorola and other subcontractors, were prone to override lockout and other problems with redundancy and mobility systems. The 3rd generation, IAWS-III (Intelligent Autonomous Weapons System III) appears to have met all operational targets thanks to collaboration with Sun Microsystems and IBM. It is rumored the system integrates the first functional quantum processors and high-engergy particle weapons. The IAWS also incorporates a conventional solid projectile weapons subsystem utilizing the standard NATO 5.56mm round. It is a fully upright bipedal platform mobile in all terrain conditions and capable of operating independently of any human command oversight.

The system weighs just 122 kilos and in "high activity" mode may remain in the theatre of operations for over 50 hours without recharge. It can anticipate many human tactical maneuvers and utilizes emergent learning capabilities to constantly refine anticipatory gaming routines. In recent tests, according to Jane's Defence Weekly, the platform was able to operate for 72 hours in a hostile desert test environment evading detection and correctly distinguishing hostile from friendly forces in 100% of all contact situations. In 94% of contacts the IAWS-III was able to supress enemy combatants before detection, and in the remaining 6% of cases targets were supressed with less than 4 rounds of conventional ammunition expended. The IAWS was fired upon twice in 72 hours of testing at Yuma but was never hit due to intervention of FAAR (Fire Anticipation and Avoidance Routines). For brief periods of peak conflict FAAR may override normal combat neural wetware systems when deemed necesary by Survival and Attack priority algorithms.

The system has proved sufficiently robust that the DoD has quietly placed a contract for 100 units at a cost of 17 millions dollars per unit to be delivered beginning mid 2007. There is some speculation that there is a desire within certain defense circles to test the system in Iraq before the large scale reduction of U.S. and Coalition forces there anticipated in 2008.

I can't find any photos right now, but it is the coolest thing I have heard about in quite a while. Let's see if it really works.

Quantum processors? What a joke.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Hows that a joke? You realize that the military technology is leaps ahead civilian's.
 

dannybek

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2002
1,096
0
0
Originally posted by: TehMac
Hows that a joke? You realize that the military technology is leaps ahead civilian's.


Do not generalize, since this is not always the case.
 

fstime

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2004
4,382
5
81
Is the Abrams(sp?) still our standard tank?

If so, I think it's outdated and other countries have got better stuff out there.

Ex. The German Leopard 2A4(not sure on this number)
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: dannybek
Originally posted by: TehMac
Hows that a joke? You realize that the military technology is leaps ahead civilian's.


Do not generalize, since this is not always the case.

Mainly it is though. The military had computers all over before civilians ever thought of em.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
And no, the Abrams isn't at all outdated. Keep in mind, the European countries like to exaggerate performance, but they don't have the funs to produce as many, or in such nice quality.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
So I was recently talking to a Marine Iraq Vet, and he was telling me how the pentagon is thinking of doing away with hummers and just using those Vietnam jeeps instead, with a gatling gun or a M240 mounted on top instead. This way, its fast, its armed, and it won't get blown up by IEDs.
It'll be much faster, and won't need armor. Which many people consider counter intuitive.

Also, if a new hummer were to be released, it would have to have a stronger engine and all that.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Personally, I can't get enough of the SR-71. Maybe there isn't a use for it now, but still, I'd love to see a successor fly one day :)
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
thompson's alright, I like checking out the British Army's WW2 equipment, its pretty neat, British Tommys are quite interesting to study.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
I just found out, the Huey is going, and so is the CH-46. Both are being replaced by the MV-22 Osprey and the Seahawk will be the equivalent of the Blackhawk.
I'm sad to see the Huey go, it has a ton of potential; if they further developed it into a armor gunship/transport, and add faster engines, they'd be able to mount a gatling gun on the nose, two gatlings on the side, rocket launchers, and an m240 on the rear. It'd be the ultimate armored transport and support copter.
The MV-22 Osprey can't even have m240s on the side, due to the tilt rotors. :(
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
hmm does anyone know when the joint strike fighter is finally coming out? i saw a whole thing on it on the military channel and it looks pretty snazzy. i flew it in battlefield 2. the only thing, us letting other countries having the same jet seems not like a good idea even though they are our allies currently
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: TehMac
Meh, thing is, the Russians have superior flying combat planes, but as proven in the various Cold Wars, they're armanment was behind ours, and their missiles sucked in comparison to ours.

Also, on a note from Wikipedia:
"However, on February 23, 2004, the U.S. Army announced their decision to cancel the Comanche helicopter program in view of the need to provide funds to renovate the existing helicopter fleet of aging attack, utility, and reconnaissance aircraft.
....the growing popularity in the military of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for reconnaissance purposes ? in addition to tests, UAVs had proven their worth in Afghanistan and Iraq. About US$8 billion had already been invested in the Comanche program at the time of its termination and an additional US$450-680 million was required in contract termination fees to main program partners Sikorsky and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.
...Technology developed for the Comanche will be integrated into the Apache and other U.S. military helicopter developments. Some of its roles will be taken over by the ARH-70, an off-the shelf armed reconnaissance helicopter."

Huh, so it wasn't engineered to be an attack copter anyway. It was meant to be a UAV that could guide missiles and have a machine gun--exactly what the RQ FireScout is meant to do, without risk of loss of life, so I guess thats alright then.

See, if we had Su-35s replacing our F-15s and then top that with our F-22s, our air force would be unstoppable.

The reason we kick@$$ right now is because no country in the world has the training that we give our pilots. So even if F-15s can get killed by British Typhoons, training is far more important.

Same thing if we used some Russian helos, we would kick even more @$$, but once again training makes our Apaches appear quite good =)
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: zerocool84
hmm does anyone know when the joint strike fighter is finally coming out? i saw a whole thing on it on the military channel and it looks pretty snazzy. i flew it in battlefield 2. the only thing, us letting other countries having the same jet seems not like a good idea even though they are our allies currently

They're coming out in 2008-2010, so don't expect to see em at next years air show. :p Well, even though the design is their's, they have to upkeep it, maintain it with their own engines and all that.
Because they're socialist, less funding can be afforded to the military anyway.
Originally posted by: angminas
Why wouldn't jeeps get blown up by IEDs?

The idea is they're going very fast, k? And so when they're driving by, by the time the moron terrorist ignites or activates his IED, the jeep will be sufficiently past. As well as the fact that these engines might be stronger (supercharged rumor is) to provide thrust. But as for the whole shrapnel factor, the idea is there's less to blow up, so there's not much shrapnel, significantly reducing the threat of mortality.
Our troops are killed in these hummers by shrapnel. Adding more armor seemed like a good idea, but it made the hummer slower and it just produced more shrapnel.
Its counter intuitive.
There should be two extremes in this situation:
Either heavily armored and slow as hell
OR
fast with little armor
This cross between armor and speed only slowed the thing down and made more shrapnel. These new jeeps coming will also be mounted with a gatling gun, an m240, or a Sraw, depending.
Originally posted by: DLeRium


See, if we had Su-35s replacing our F-15s and then top that with our F-22s, our air force would be unstoppable.

The reason we kick@$$ right now is because no country in the world has the training that we give our pilots. So even if F-15s can get killed by British Typhoons, training is far more important.

Same thing if we used some Russian helos, we would kick even more @$$, but once again training makes our Apaches appear quite good =)
Ehh, F-15s are outdated man, the Raptor is much faster. I'd rather be flying in an F-16 myself. At any rate, Apaches are good, because they got good armanment, they're not clumsy. In the sky, you can afford to have a cross between armor and speed and nimbleness. At any rate, The War in Vietnam was a victory of USA Airpower over NVA airpower--its just we failed to take advantage of it. I've talked to some vets who were in the USMC who flew Phantoms. The Marine corps never got the Phantom IIs with internal machine gun pods, so they had to mount these big pods on one of the MURRs (Multiple Unit Release Rack). One pilot mounted 3 pods on his, and let his two side wings carry the drop tanks! He had some sidewinders and sparrows by the Fuselage.
At any rate, their migs were faster, but our weapons systems were better, and we shot down loads of em.