Sisco Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 Check out the Kirov class in the Russian Navy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov-class_battlecruiser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rsquared Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 5 hours ago, MikedaddyH said: See? At least it's a Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikedaddyH Posted March 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 4 hours ago, survivalshop said: Notice how far back they are moving the Island towards the Stern . Wouldn't be surprised if it was moved all the way back the next one . The next one USS John F. Kennedy CVN-79 was started in June of 2015 and is a twin to the USS Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
survivalshop Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 I can see Drones being much more involved with Combat operations , cost & what Eye Doc posted , would be good reasons for smaller , less expensive Ships . The experience I'm having with my Drone & its software , I can see them having a very big part in the future , of course the Army Drone flying out of control recently doesn't help the Automatous warriors perspective . Even with Cruse Missiles ( & Drones ) on Battleships or Cruisers, I don't think you can project the combat power of an Aircraft Carrier. Then again , maybe you can . Its not only the Aircraft on a Carrier , they carrie extra fuel & can refuel other Ships, machine shops , a large Hospital with Operating rooms , but you can do those things with extra support Ships . Talking about the Carrier's Island , they still need mast height for Radar to see over the horizon for safety & security of the Battle Group , so even if you down size the height of the Island , you will still need a much higher mast for electronic's , at least until they come up with another way of seeing over the horizon in real time . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 Back in the late 1980s when I was in fleet, a "____________ battle group" (carrier or battleship at the time) was one, electronically linked unit, spread out over a very large area. Radars, sonars, fire-control systems, weapons systems for all the ships were interlinked, all with one primary job: protect the flagship. It was very effective in drills against all threats, except submarines. I can only imagine that such technology has improved and expanded beyond our wildest dreams. If the F-35 Lightning II can perform such a function (and it can) using radar from AWACS, fighters, and ground-based systems, then use that information (and it can) to control and operate the friendly weapons systems while suppressing enemy measures/countermeasures, whatever fits on a ship must be echelons higher in capabilities. All this media fretting over things like Iran capturing a drone or China snagging sea drones overlooks one big aspect: the U.S. Military historically excels at disinformation. What these enemy nations "think" they captured is one thing. That we now have implanted viruses across their entire defense networks (to be worked and exploited by things like carrier groups and F-35s) is something else entirely different. The whole "disinformation" aspect makes me question the hype over Clinton selling our "current top-secret missile technology" to China, who then disseminated it to Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Hhmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisco Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 2 hours ago, planeflyer21 said: Back in the late 1980s when I was in fleet, a "____________ battle group" (carrier or battleship at the time) was one, electronically linked unit, spread out over a very large area. Radars, sonars, fire-control systems, weapons systems for all the ships were interlinked, all with one primary job: protect the flagship. It was very effective in drills against all threats, except submarines. I can only imagine that such technology has improved and expanded beyond our wildest dreams. If the F-35 Lightning II can perform such a function (and it can) using radar from AWACS, fighters, and ground-based systems, then use that information (and it can) to control and operate the friendly weapons systems while suppressing enemy measures/countermeasures, whatever fits on a ship must be echelons higher in capabilities. All this media fretting over things like Iran capturing a drone or China snagging sea drones overlooks one big aspect: the U.S. Military historically excels at disinformation. What these enemy nations "think" they captured is one thing. That we now have implanted viruses across their entire defense networks (to be worked and exploited by things like carrier groups and F-35s) is something else entirely different. The whole "disinformation" aspect makes me question the hype over Clinton selling our "current top-secret missile technology" to China, who then disseminated it to Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Hhmmm. Truth better to fight equipment with electronic flaws you know, then ones you don't know. Guessing that is why the US Navy tolerates Russian jet fly bys. Those jets are being interrogated electronically for what they have on board, and how it can be exploited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Sisco said: Truth better to fight equipment with electronic flaws you know, then ones you don't know. Guessing that is why the US Navy tolerates Russian jet fly bys. Those jets are being interrogated electronically for what they have on board, and how it can be exploited. Yup. Of course, with that particular version of the SU-24 being like an EF-111 or a EA-6B, they are doing the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikedaddyH Posted March 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 Didn't one of thse crash a couple of weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shepp Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 18 minutes ago, MikedaddyH said: Didn't one of thse crash a couple of weeks ago. No mike that's a toy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikedaddyH Posted March 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 April 2016, su-24 vs USS Donald Cook the Black sea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 29 minutes ago, shepp said: No mike that's a toy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt.Cross Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 56 minutes ago, MikedaddyH said: Didn't one of thse crash a couple of weeks ago. Yes! My little boy flew one straight into a Lego fort, the results were impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shepp Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, Matt.Cross said: Yes! My little boy flew one straight into a Lego fort, the results were impressive. ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisco Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 54 minutes ago, shepp said: No mike that's a toy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisco Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, MikedaddyH said: Didn't one of thse crash a couple of weeks ago. What is the model number that crashed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Sisco said: What is the model number that crashed? Not sure what Mikey's talking about but that is a model of a MiG-31, a derivative of the MiG-25. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikedaddyH Posted March 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 SU-33 ,SU-35 ,SU-27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikedaddyH Posted March 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikedaddyH Posted March 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Matt.Cross said: Yes! My little boy flew one straight into a Lego fort, the results were impressive. Those Mig 25's can really mess up some Danish plastic buildings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikedaddyH Posted March 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 SU-24 has swep wings like the F-14 Tomcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shepp Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, MikedaddyH said: SU-24 has swep wings like the F-14 Tomcat Mike have you ever been diagnosed with ADD? Or has it just always been assumed ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisco Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, planeflyer21 said: Not sure what Mikey's talking about but that is a model of a MiG-31, a derivative of the MiG-25. The Mig 25 was designed to counter the B-70 Valkyrie bomber that was never built. Later on they added look down shoot down radar, a "wizzo" weapons officer, and long range air to air missles copied from the US Phoenix AAM they bought from the Iranians after the Shah's fall, and came up with the Mig 31. It actually is a pretty effective platform with high speed and a good range and electronics (possibly French) but rotten in a dog fight. The SU26-35's are a tough customer. Have directable thrust which gives them outstanding agility. Probably better than the F15 performance wise, but not the F22. The SU 24 has proven to be F-16 fodder. The Russians use it like the US Air Force did the F-111. Edited March 4, 2017 by Sisco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 Hree's a tiny taste of the "integrated weapons systems" our military is now employing, a "ship" using the detection systems on a F-35 to track a cruise missile, which is then shot down with a SM-6: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/f-35-intercepts-cruise-missile-defend-ship-during-important-17707 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Armory Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 On 3/3/2017 at 5:23 PM, Sisco said: The Mig 25 was designed to counter the B-70 Valkyrie bomber that was never built. Later on they added look down shoot down radar, a "wizzo" weapons officer, and long range air to air missles copied from the US Phoenix AAM they bought from the Iranians after the Shah's fall, and came up with the Mig 31. It actually is a pretty effective platform with high speed and a good range and electronics (possibly French) but rotten in a dog fight. The SU26-35's are a tough customer. Have directable thrust which gives them outstanding agility. Probably better than the F15 performance wise, but not the F22. The SU 24 has proven to be F-16 fodder. The Russians use it like the US Air Force did the F-111. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ec3114612c85a81fc2e14c82e05fc5bb.thumb.jpg.dfb6b2c84b74631c1f4143b61d62c2b1.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.