Merry Christmas, everyone. Open thread rules are as per usual, talk about whatever you want that isn't culture war.
Also, a reminder that the USNI sale ends on the 31st. There's a lot of good stuff there, and you should check it out before the sale ends.
2017 overhauls are Huascar Parts one and two, The South American Dreadnought Race, Dreadnoughts of the Minor Powers and Armor Parts one and two. 2018 overhauls are The First South Dakota Class, Commercial Aviation Part 3, Electronic Warfare Parts one, two and three, and Spot 1. 2019 overhauls are Billy Mitchell parts two and three, Aircraft Weapons - Short Range Missiles and Riverine Warfare - Southeast Asia Part 2. 2020 overhauls are Watches, Alsadius' review of Portsmouth, SYWTBABB Leftovers Part 1 and NWAS Cruise Missiles Part 1.
Comments
Things I did not expect to do today: come up with a new theory about the balance between coastal defenses and battleships in the late 19th century. This actually explains some things I previously didn't understand, which is nice.
That sounds rather interesting - I've always been intrigued by these balance of defense versus offense questions, and about what actually does and does not make things obsolete.
Lately there's been a crank over on Quora quacking on about drone swarms - by which they mean the little drones that move at less than 50 knots, carry a kilo or so, have a range of a few kilometers, and have costs in the hundreds or low thousands, not the kind of drone that's basically a remote-piloted smallish aircraft or a missile by another name. They seem to be under the impression that swarms of these itty-bitty drones are going to make everything we currently know obsolete - tanks, trucks, helicopters, manned aircraft, large drones, and absolutely, positively, every warship that's not a submarine.
He joins the legions of ra-ra-flagwavers insisting that Zirkon, Avengard, DF-26, etc makes carriers (and sometimes surface ships of all sorts) obsolete, ATGMs mean tanks should have been scrapped back in the 50s and everyone since then is just stupidly wasting money, that stealth or EW is about to render guided missiles obsolete and everyone should go back to guns (since you obviously can't shoot down cannon rounds!), and other such tiresome folk. (The folks who argue the converse - that carrier groups are invulnerable and people developing ASCMs and ASBMs are just throwing good money after bad are just about as tiresome, although they usually have a better understanding of why things are done the way they are now.)
I do love how blissfully unaware people who hype up quadcopter drones as anti-ship weapons are of how much RF modern air-search radars put out.
It was always a fun discussion with the radar guys over whether the quadcopter would simply crash as the signal was blanked out by the radar or actually catch fire because of how much RF the SPY puts out.
I've wondered half-seriously if a single SM-6 could actually knock out multiple quadcopters just by accidentally noise-jamming them with the seeker, to say nothing of what a ~100kg warhead would do if set off in the middle of a gaggle of them.
I actually have a post on the subject of drones coming up relatively soon, although I hadn't called out the use of SPYs, which is an oversight I will definitely fix. Thanks.
The USAF is considering purchasing the E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft, based on the Boeing 737, to replace the ageing E-3 system, based on the Boeing 707. (link)
Interestingly, the E-7A was originally developed for the Australian AF, and has since been purchased by several other air forces. Having the USAF pick it up now would be rather the reverse of how these things are usually done, isn't it?
How do the E-3 and E-7 compare in terms of radar performance and will switching to the small plane result in any capability reduction?
Happy New Year to everyone here. I hope your 2020 + n + 1 is better than 2020 + n has been.
I doubt the Wedgetail surrenders much performance, if any, to the E-3. Radars keep getting better, and AESA in particular offers a big step up. You will lose some operator positions, but I suspect that better computer processing makes up for it. And a 737NG is infinitely easier to maintain than a 707. Also, it will be a lot quieter, which is important because I used to live under the alternate approach path for Tinker, and those things are loud.
The 707 is ancient, introduced in 1958. The 747, generally thought of as an old plane, was introduced in 1970.
Johan Larson:
Also updated relatively recently, the 707 hasn't even been made for about 3 decades.
bean:
Which implies you no longer do which fixes the problem for you just as effectively as the USAF buying new planes and at much lower cost to the taxpayer.
That said, what will keep using the TF33, with all those TF33 using aircraft scraped or re-engined there should be a lot of spare parts left?
Maybe. But I suspect most of those TF33s already have a lot of hours on them, which may limit the extent to which cannibalizing them is useful.
Can modern air-search radars (and their operators) reliably differentiate between quadcopters and, well, birds?
It might be worth noting that the Navy's had a few brushes with drones in the field, and each time so far they have used specialized counter-UAS equipment. The Boxer knocked out an Iranian drone in 2019 with a counter-UAS system, and man-portable counter-UAS gear was deployed the same year when destroyers off the coast of California were stalked by unidentified drones(?) of unknown origin.
I can think of some reasons in both cases why the SPY wouldn't be deployed, though. But maybe bean will cover all of this in his post!
I just read Intelligence in War by John Keegan, and he had a couple of claims that are both new (to me) and relevant to discussions we've had here.
Ooh wait, I have access to internet now, lets ask the intertubes why schnorchels burst eardrums:
The intakes have valves that shut off when waves break over them, so they don't inhale water into the engines. But the engines keep running and use up the air in the u-boat, dropping air pressure sharply and bursting eardrums.
OK, so it's a stupid design issue, not fundamental at all. And it's LOW pressure, not high pressure, causing the damage.
I believe this was Valiant, and the other SSNs off the Argentine coast. That wasn't mentioned in my main source close to the war, and may not have been public in 2003, but it's come out since then.
I have serious questions about this. It's probably some sort of effectiveness-weighted value assembled in hindsight. It definitely doesn't accord with what I understand of their thinking in that era, and I've been looking at ironclads lately.
It's not a stupid issue, actually. There's not really any way around it, because you can't stop a big diesel like that quickly, and the air has to come from somewhere.
Philistine:
There will still be some useful parts on them and it just doesn't look like that many aircraft needing them so could last quite a while.
bean:
How do modern diesel 'submarines' not burst the eardrums of their crew?
I assume they use the same compressed-air reserves they have for blowing their ballast tanks, and release enough gas from these to maintain the air pressure when the snorkel valve is closed.
I suppose this would have been possible for U-boats, but that crew comfort just wasn't a priority during wartime.
Catching up on an older Open Thread (93) I saw some discussion about "bomb truck role" aircraft that aren't BUFF. About the time that post went up, this article went up
https://www.tactical-life.com/news/rapid-dragon/
"As part of its ongoing campaign to increase its conventional warfare capacity, the Air Force recently completed a live test fire of a cruise missile from an MC-130 using the Rapid Dragon Palletized Weapon System.
The AGM-158 JASSM cruise missile used in the test...
The USAF plans an additional live fire test out of a C-17 next year."
Article notes that the pallet is designed to carry 6x AGM-158s (the other 5 slots in this test carried weight dummies)
Now, there's "about 60" MC-130s in service right now, but I don't know exactly why the USAF used the MC-130 instead of a plain-jane Herc. And I don't think there's an MC-17?
I'm not actually sure that modern diesels don't have the same problem when they snort in bad weather. I know it persisted a way into the Cold War, although, yes, a makeup air reserve could prevent it.
Re bomb trucks, there was some discussion of using transports. I have some concerns about that for a lot of the roles the BUFF fills today, although it would work for "we need a lot of JASSMs in this area all at once". And no, there's no MC-17. I'd guess they used an MC-130 simply because the crew is a lot more used to weird stuff.
@Anonymous,
Yes, there will be "some" useful parts left on the old TF33s still in inventory. The parts that wear out the fastest, though - and every machine has components that wear out faster than others, often by design - are probably already in short supply after decades of service. This is evidenced by the reported low availability of the E-3 fleet which led to the interest on the part of the USAF in buying Wedgetail which started this discussion.
@Bean: Just messaged a friend of mine who served on SSBNs. At least on US boats, there's a pressure switch that stops the diesels somewhere between "ears pop" and "eardrums rupture". And the snorkels are better designed so it doesn't happen very often.
Interesting. I'd actually wonder if that would be possible on smaller boats. They're going to have less volume to suck air from, and probably more diesels per volume. (IIRC, the diesel on an SSBN is pretty similar to the one on a WWII fleet boat. Except that the fleet boat had four.)
Not for nothing, but there's a lot more C-130s out there than B-52s, if we get to count our allies' birds. Maybe we wouldn't hand out JASSMs like candy every day, but having the option would be nice.
Having a look at what TF33 powered aircraft would still be around makes me suspect that the old parts may last quite a while since there won't be many aircraft using them (assuming the E-7 replaces the E-3 in USAF service and that NATO either buys the E-7 or re-engines their E-3 fleet) and the OC-135, WC-135 and WB-57Fs do not appear to be in constant use.
Also a source of annoyance for the Dutch people living under the flight path for the NATO AWACS base at Geilenkirchen (just over the border in Germany), and of ongoing political wrangling in the area. Apparently NATO plan to keep their E-3 fleet flying until 2035.
One very small point, the E-7 most likely can reach a higher initial altitude after takeoff, but is an extra initial 2000' or so really that much of an operational benefit for the equipment on board? Obviously the E-3s are long of tooth and probably in need of replacement. Would like to know the process that yielded a 737 airframe to be chosen instead of other options?
The TF33s were btw, although loud like any engine of the early years, extraordinary robust in every airframe on which they were mounted. A variant was on the C-141 and if you brought the throttles back too quickly at cruise you could get some rather impressive compressor stalls.
While this would be of great concern on most aircraft,I never had one not recover immediately and rarely even made a maintenance entry as it was not required. On more modern engines a compressor stall is a big event and, at the very least, requires a serious check and possibly even an engine change. My point is that some of this old kit was very well engineered and while understandably being nudged aside by modernity, served honorably in harness.
It's early and I need my coffee, but I read those as rank-codes and had a chuckle.
Firearms manufacturers are an enterprising bunch. They even have a cartridge specifically designed for time travelers visiting the Cretaceous: the .577 Tyrannosaur.
I have previously mentioned the stories about the SS RICHARD MONTGOMERY that pop up in my Google Alerts feed. The Sun has helpfully given me an example (warning, it's The Sun).
@Suvorov: complicated answer, but broadly speaking, I would expect modern radar to detect birds but not track them (ie it would notice the radar returns but algorithms would reject them as some form of clutter). Those quadcopters should have a significantly higher RCS, possibly enough to make it transition into a track; whether an operator would be able to recognize it is a valid question.
I should note, however, that in my expectations of what happen, it won't matter whether the drone is detected by the radar or not, there is still enough pure energy out there to fry it (especially vulnerable is the battery pack).
Also, the cheaper the drone, the less likely it is that it'll be able to resist simply having its control signal yelled over by the radar. If the promise of drone swarms is that of very cheap but very precise attack, even being able to temporarily addle the control signals is a big weakness.
Huh, so that's why an E-3 flew over when I was at the Three Country Border.
@Johann: Notwithstanding cinematic hype, a Tyrannosaur is roughly as large and massive as an African elephant, and probably about as tough. So, yeah, Elephant Gun, Tyrannosaur Gun, whatever sells the most guns, the user will figure it out.
I believe the number of big game hunting rifles sold every year substantially exceeds the number of big game hunting licenses issued each year (and most hunters don't buy a new rifle ever year), so whether you call it an Elephant Gun or a Tyrannosaur Gun makes only a small difference in the probability of its ever being used against its "proper" target :-)
OTOH, you Canadians have moose, and I want the biggest rifle I can get the next time I see a suspicious-looking moose.
A moose bit my sister once...
The moose where I live just want education: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/moose-crash-sylvia-fedoruk-school-1.6237194
Perhaps america should consider the merits of tranquilizer darts. :D
Apparently, in Australia, the cool kids these days use elephant guns (9.3 x 62 Mauser for preference) on wild pigs, buffalo and other biggish Australia game. These used to be taken with smaller calibre semi-auto weapons, but the Australian ban on semi-autos meant that hunters wanted a one-shot kill guarantee, so they went up in size.
Originally, of course, these animals were hunted with .303 bolt actions for decades, but a generation of hunters got used to the multiple shots available with semi-autos, so they changed the sort of vegetation, range etc. that they were prepared to hunt in. (Some might also argue they don't have the skill or patience of the old timers too.)
Anyway, my point is that you don't need an African safari licence to actually have hunting use for a real elephant gun.
Those who are interested in the upper end of elephant guns should check out the .700 Nitro Express. The ammo is like US$100 per cartridge, but it can penetrate 67 inches of ballistic gel, so you can down a couple of elephants with each shot if you line them up correctly.
@DoctorPat: in Florida, where I have spent a good chunk of my life, .44 Magnum revolvers where the preferred back-up weapon when boar hunting (logic was you wanted something small and easy to move in the dense bush but still powerful enough to make up for the grievous error of missing on the pig with your longarm).