US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I got nothing.
But what I do have is
F35B targeting for MLRS
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Here is the same idea being used with an Army system.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Why my goodness could perhaps this be a capability across multiple platforms and mission types? Good heavens what if it’s Meads or PAC next.
 

Jura

General
I got nothing.
But what I do have is
F35B targeting for MLRS
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Here is the same idea being used with an Army system.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Why my goodness could perhaps this be a capability across multiple platforms and mission types? Good heavens what if it’s Meads or PAC next.
  1. what data-link the F-35s used in what you linked? and
  2. what were the distances in the setup of an F-35 -- ground station -- target?

 

Brumby

Major
my point is airborne artillery-observers have been around since 1800s (in balloons at first)
Human beings have been killing each other (probably with stones) since the dawn of time while still living in caves. Over time, the killing machine is much more efficient in both depth and scope.
So what is your point about observers in a balloon? You are not making a point but merely making a statement.

You are free to criticize about any technology or system but make a case for it. If you think sending observers onto a balloon is the way to go then make a case for it. I would be very interested in in how it would compare to a MADL data feed to a SM-6.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
my point is airborne artillery-observers have been around since 1800s (in balloons at first)
And so you are comparing a balloon that would have relayed information half an hour old by the time it got to artillery to a system that exchanges information on targeting objects at the speeds limited only by the computational speed of the processor.
That’s a thin argument. I mean I have had some thin ones myself, but this is active data exchange across a breath of data types.
 

Jura

General
LOL what is this TE
And so you are comparing a balloon that would have relayed information half an hour old by the time it got to artillery to a system that exchanges information on targeting objects at the speeds limited only by the computational speed of the processor.
That’s a thin argument. I mean I have had some thin ones myself, but this is active data exchange across a breath of data types.
I would've thought you might've realized the features you linked

Yesterday at 6:43 PM

Yesterday at 7:33 PM

aren't specific to the F-35, in fact any suitable aircraft (for instance the F-18) could get them;

since you haven't realized (or pretended not to) said features aren't specific to the F-35,

I pointed this out to you in a hyperbole Yesterday at 11:03 PM (you didn't notice my reference to the 19th century was a hyperbole, no?)
Human beings have been killing each other (probably with stones) since the dawn of time while still living in caves. Over time, the killing machine is much more efficient in both depth and scope.
So what is your point about observers in a balloon? You are not making a point but merely making a statement.

You are free to criticize about any technology or system but make a case for it. If you think sending observers onto a balloon is the way to go then make a case for it. I would be very interested in in how it would compare to a MADL data feed to a SM-6.
now Brumby jumped into the end (for me) of this conversation OK it began

Yesterday at 6:43 PM

with the chunk boasting about the F-35:
Nearly
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Navy and Lockheed Martin tested pairing an F-35B with an Aegis Combat System armed with a Raytheon Standard Missile-6. An Aegis test site at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, used data from the F-35 to launch an SM-6 anti-air missile at a Beechcraft MQM-107 target representing an adversarial fighter
and Yesterday at 7:14 PM I called that chunk

one-time PR stunt aimed to
  • justify ("justify") exorbitant F-35 program cost, and
  • prove ("prove") how advanced the F-35 was (back in 2016)
and have nothing to add to this, actually I ask again what's on top of this page which is

so what's been the progress on the F-35 involvement in the NIFC-CA since then? just tell the World:

EDIT by the way is the NIF-CA even a program of record? (I don't know that)
 
Last edited:

Jura

General
very interesting (but not for the thread full of fanciful ideas LOL)
Navy Reverting DDGs Back to Physical Throttles, After Fleet Rejects Touchscreen Controls
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jura

General
Jul 12, 2018
vague to the point of a farce PEO Ships: Future Surface Combatant Hull Still Undecided, But Will Use Flight III DDG-51 Combat System
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now
Navy Considering More Advanced Burke Destroyers as Large Surface Combatant Timeline Slips
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the LCS part is to me like a red scarf to a bull (LOL I should take it easy in the landlocked country)
 

Top