Russia's new supersonic bomber can outrun Britain's best fighter jet

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Pilotless weapons platforms from the comfort of your armchair.

 

[ne6togadno]

I wonder if, because of not having a pilot, if it is capable of pulling even harder Gs in turns making it a more difficult target than it would be otherwise. Yeah, they're old, but being pilotless could be a huge advantage when dogfighting.

no it's not capable.
palaners are designed with 20% (~25% for russian's) safety margine so 9g limit from human capabilities result about 11g max limit of plane itself. motheren air to air can do 13-15g

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I know the F-22 is capable of doing much more. I wonder if the USAF will be able to convince the Pentagon, vis-à-vis Congress, to order a dozen F-22 trainers (no weapons systems making it lighter, faster, more maneuverable, and most importantly, cheaper). If NATO pilots were training against F-22s that can even outperform their own F-22s, the pilots would likely be unmatched in dogfights.

But no, Congress won't do that because when was the last time there was an aircraft dogfight that wasn't training? The threat needs to be real for Congress to justify the money. Then again...this could be a pilot program to see if the remote systems are capable of real-time dogfighting...

 

[eddman]

Boeing delivers pilotless F-16 fighter jet set to be used as flying target in war games

The first production Boeing QF-16 optionally manned target drone has been delivered to the US Air Force (USAF), Air bosses have revealed.
Aircraft QF-007 arrived at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida on 11 March, ahead of being pressed into service by the 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron (ATS).
Boeing has delivered six pre-production QF-16s, and in all, the USAF expects to receive 126 QF-16s.
The unmanned McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II currently used is no longer truly representative of the air-to-air threats USAF pilots are likely to encounter on future operations.

Here is an interesting read, pics and video.

Honestly, it's not that interesting. They've been doing this for decades and the basics haven't changed.

This video might be even more interesting:

P.S. We're going quite off-topic here, no?

I know the F-22 is capable of doing much more.

How much more? A big, heavy fighter can never match a missile in g tolerance. Beyond 11g, even an F-22 will start to lose its structural integrity.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

@eddman shame you dont find it interesting....I do.

Epic video, good find, equally as interesting.


Straight from Wiki...as you can tell

The earliest examples of electronically guided model aircraft were hydrogen-filled model airships of the late 19th century. They were flown as a music hall act around theater auditoriums using a basic form of spark-emitted radio signal.[2] In the 1920s, the Royal Aircraft Establishment of Britain built and tested the pilotless Larynx, a monoplane with a 100-mile (160 km) range. It was not until the 1930s that the British came up with the Queen Bee, a gunnery target version of the de Havilland Tiger Moth, and similar target aircraft. Radio control systems for model aircraft were developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s by English enthusiasts such as Howard Boys, who patented his 'Galloping Ghost' system of proportional control and became a regular contributor to Aeromodeller on the topic.[3]

In the United States, two pioneers in the field of controlling model planes by radio were Ross Hull and Clinton B. DeSoto,[4] officers of theAmerican Radio Relay League. During 1937, these two men successfully built and flew several large R/C gliders in the first public demonstration of controlled flights, in the course of which their sailplanes made more than 100 flights. A scheduled R/C event at the 1937National Aeromodeling Championships attracted six entrants: Patrick Sweeney, twin brothers William and Walter Good, Elmer Wasman, Chester Lanzo, Leo Weiss and B. Shiffman, Lanzo winning with the lightest (6 pounds) and simplest model plane, although his flight was rather erratic and lasted only several minutes. Sweeney and Wasman both had extremely short (5-second) flights when their aircraft took off, climbed steeply, stalled and crashed. Sweeney, however, had the distinction of being the first person to attempt a R/C flight in a national contest. The other three entrants were not even able to take off, although both William and Walter Good persisted with developing R/C systems, culminating in first placings in the 1940 US Nationals and again after the end of World War II, in 1947. Their historic R/C model airplane, which they named the “Guff,” was presented to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., in May, 1960, where it can be seen today.[5]

 

[eddman]

@eddman shame you dont find it interesting....I do.
Epic video, good find, equally as interesting.

Straight from Wiki...as you can tell

...

I didn't mean it in any disrespectful way. It's just that a new Q target drone plane is not interesting at all.

They are simple remote controlled planes that have only one purpose; to be shot down. They have no attack capabilities at all. I don't find it interesting, because I don't see anything new here.

Planes like the X-47B and the UCLASS project as a whole are far more interesting in comparison.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

How much more? A big, heavy fighter can never match a missile in g tolerance. Beyond 11g, even an F-22 will start to lose its structural integrity.

It's more about using the autocannon.

What I remember it from, I'm sure, was the YF-22, not the production F-22A. Lockheed knows what the airframe is capable of without a pilot but those numbers aren't published.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

LRS-B was discussed in this thread so it fits...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/politics/long-range-strike-bomber-northrop-grumman/index.html

The contract was awarded to Northrop Grumman (maker for the B-2 Spirit) and the first aircraft are expected to be delivered in 2020. There's speculation that it will be able to operate manned or unmanned. It is also a stealth aircraft that is capable of delivering nuclear and conventional payloads. The US order for LRS-B is at 100 aircraft compared to the B-2's order of 21. LRS-B will cost about half ($511 million) per aircraft compared to the B-2's heavy price tag of approximately $1 billion per aircraft.

Not much more than that is known at this time. The Pentagon is holding the cards really close to its chest on this one. There must be a super secret component to the project (AI? LASERs? Rail guns?) because "stealth bomber" doesn't necessitate this degree of secrecy.

 

[rooivalk]

LRS-B will cost about half ($511 million) per aircraft compared to the B-2's heavy price tag of approximately $1 billion per aircraft.

sidenote: $511 millions per 2010 dollar, translated to $564 millions as of today.

I don't think it'll be ultra-top-secret platform. It exists as interim solution between current mix of B52/B1 to future 2037 bomber (replacement for B2). It's also focused as affordable long range bomb truck, ultra exotic systems don't fit well with LRS-B. Think of it as GeForce 970.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

B-52 is getting replaced in 2037. B-52's replacement will likely be all about efficiency: cutting fuel consumption, increasing range, decreasing crew, and increasing payload.

B1-B will have to be replaced in the 2030s but there are no plans to do so yet. I suspect B-52's replacement, with thrust vectoring, could potentially fulfill both rolls.

The LRS-B is intended to supplement and replace the B-2 Spirit. B-2 are extremely expensive and it is a first generation stealth flying wing. I'm sure many lessons were learned from it which is going into the next generation. Additionally, B-2 is really only limited by crew endurance (they literally have to sleep in the cockpit on long missions). LRS-B presumably won't suffer from that problem because it can be either remote or AI controlled. It's hard to say what all they did but, the B-2 is a 25 year old aircraft, the mission, and technology has changed. B-2 has enormous maintenance costs too so I think, once the LRS-B proves itself, most of the B-2 fleet will be sent to the boneyard.

LRS-B won't debut until 2020 and they typically have at least a 25 year life. That puts the LRS-B to at least 2045.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

LRS-B gets the B-21 designation and, unsurprisingly, looks a lot like the B-2 Spirit:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/polit...mage-long-range-strike-bomber-b-21/index.html

It will primarily replace the aging fleet of B-52s and potentially replace the B-1B Lancers as well.

 

[bbmarley]

Lol i just brain farted for a second. had a thought "that looks like a nice protractor triangle".

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

Knowing Russia, they probably have about 3 of these. They like to make a lot of high tech prototypes that don't actually get beyond the demonstration phase just for bragging rights... kinda the opposite of the west which keeps such things under wraps.

I mean, have they even actually widely deployed the T-90 series of tanks yet? Didn't think so.

Technically they built 3200 T90 tanks vs 10k M1 Abrams
However Russia has the new T14 Armata and have placed orders for about 2300 or so by 2020.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

M1 Abrams is getting long in the tooth. Congress insisted on M1A3 instead of a replacement for the M1.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

Meh to be honest lets face it the chance for a 2 first world nations going to war is tiny. We spend a shit ton of money on high tech weaponry. To fight terrorism and 3rd world dick-Tators. Aka Iraq invasion. one M1 Abrams had a track knocked off that was it no tanks were destroyed.

I just find it funny that fundamentally Humanity has not changed we still basically try to one up each other. And for what? Imagine what the world could be if all the nations on the planet didnt invest in massive weapons of war aka. Say we focus on space travel / colonization vs 10k tanks and new destroyers / subs/ aircraft carriers etc.

Example

Ukraine Russia does their thing we provide cash support to the opposition. Economic sanctions etc.

Think about it Apple is worth more than all of Russia. War is essentially kinda pointless. But so much economic policy relies on inflated military budgets.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Well...if no one policed the oceans, piracy would make a come back and all of these products imported from China would be stolen and resold at hefty discounts. The US Navy is an unfortunate nessessity. I generally agree though. A new Manhattan Project needs to be started with the end goal of getting humans to another star.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

well with AI and robots in my life time they are expecting 50% unemployement in that senario world falls apart because theirs no one to buy the products the rich CEOs and their corporations make. Humanity has flaws and greed is basically going to be our undoing.

To many mouths not enough food. Future water shortages in various parts of the world to do climate changes and shifts. So wars will break out but nothing will come of it but destruction. But then again thats the way it goes. Government ask the brightest and best among us for answers if those answers aren't what they wanted they ignore it and push on anyway lol. Does Russia need 2300+ new tanks? Does the US need more tanks? or susper sonic jets ?

I mean for christs in the last 70 years the wars we have fought have been in places where our enemies are god damn peasants / militia / terrorists with make shift weapons old tech and gurriella style fighting. Last time nations went toe to toe with equal tech was WWII. I will gladly admit that Naval aspect is required.

But do we really need.
2,500,000 Soldiers
8,800 Tanks
41,062 Armored Fighting Vehicles
1,934 Self Propelled Guns
1,299 Towed Artillery
1,331 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems
13,444 Air craft
2,308 Fighers / Interceptors
2,785 Fixed Wing Attack Craft
5700 Transport craft
2700 Training craft
6000 Helicopters
957 Attack helicopters
415 Total Naval Strength
19 Aircraft Carriers
6 Frigates
62 Destoryers
75 Submarines
13 Coastal Defense Craft
11 Mine Warfare

Thats just what we KNOW about.

While many nations are spending and growing their military the US outspends everyone for the time being.

USA 610 Billion not counting black budgets
China 216 Billion
Russia 84.5 Billion
Saudi Arabia 80.8 Billion
France 62 Billion
United Kingom 60 Billion
India 50 Billion
Germany 46.5 Billion
Japan 45.8 Billion
South Korea 36.7 Billion


Now some say China / Russia our the biggest threats to us. That may be true. But when you compared Russia China to US allies. 610 + 62 + 60 +46.5 + 45.8 for staunch support aka France / UK / Germany ./ Japan. thats a total of 820 Billion roughly not counting black budgets etc

820 billion. Its amazing that for all our advances we still as a sentient species cant get our shit together.

Point is for the current foresable future we spend a shit ton of money on high end weaponry to deal with dudes hiding behind rocks with RPGs in the middle of nowhere. We have tanks we have planes and drones but so far it doesn't seem to have done us much good.

 

[johnspack]

Dam, maybe my people should of stayed in Estonia, and be owned by Russia.....

 

[Divide Overflow]

While many nations are spending and growing their military the US outspends everyone for the time being.

Hey now, SOMEBODY has to keep Canada in line!

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

An excellent installment from the series "Wings of Russia" It gives an insight into the 60 year history of this aircraft.

"The White Swan"

Nr.2 Tupolev Tu-160

 

[Tatty_Two]

well with AI and robots in my life time they are expecting 50% unemployement in that senario world falls apart because theirs no one to buy the products the rich CEOs and their corporations make. Humanity has flaws and greed is basically going to be our undoing.

To many mouths not enough food. Future water shortages in various parts of the world to do climate changes and shifts. So wars will break out but nothing will come of it but destruction. But then again thats the way it goes. Government ask the brightest and best among us for answers if those answers aren't what they wanted they ignore it and push on anyway lol. Does Russia need 2300+ new tanks? Does the US need more tanks? or susper sonic jets ?

I mean for christs in the last 70 years the wars we have fought have been in places where our enemies are god damn peasants / militia / terrorists with make shift weapons old tech and gurriella style fighting. Last time nations went toe to toe with equal tech was WWII. I will gladly admit that Naval aspect is required.

But do we really need.
2,500,000 Soldiers
8,800 Tanks
41,062 Armored Fighting Vehicles
1,934 Self Propelled Guns
1,299 Towed Artillery
1,331 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems
13,444 Air craft
2,308 Fighers / Interceptors
2,785 Fixed Wing Attack Craft
5700 Transport craft
2700 Training craft
6000 Helicopters
957 Attack helicopters
415 Total Naval Strength
19 Aircraft Carriers
6 Frigates
62 Destoryers
75 Submarines
13 Coastal Defense Craft
11 Mine Warfare

Thats just what we KNOW about.

While many nations are spending and growing their military the US outspends everyone for the time being.

USA 610 Billion not counting black budgets
China 216 Billion
Russia 84.5 Billion
Saudi Arabia 80.8 Billion
France 62 Billion
United Kingom 60 Billion
India 50 Billion
Germany 46.5 Billion
Japan 45.8 Billion
South Korea 36.7 Billion


Now some say China / Russia our the biggest threats to us. That may be true. But when you compared Russia China to US allies. 610 + 62 + 60 +46.5 + 45.8 for staunch support aka France / UK / Germany ./ Japan. thats a total of 820 Billion roughly not counting black budgets etc

820 billion. Its amazing that for all our advances we still as a sentient species cant get our shit together.

Point is for the current foresable future we spend a shit ton of money on high end weaponry to deal with dudes hiding behind rocks with RPGs in the middle of nowhere. We have tanks we have planes and drones but so far it doesn't seem to have done us much good.

That figure for the UK includes my pension in fact pensions are by far the biggest single spend within the budget not equipment.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The same for pretty much every other 1st world nation. Pretty sure DoD is behind Medicare now too thanks to Obamacare. Both of those line items are mandatory spending where DoD is discretionary.

But do we really need.
2,500,000 Soldiers
8,800 Tanks
41,062 Armored Fighting Vehicles
1,934 Self Propelled Guns
1,299 Towed Artillery
1,331 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems
13,444 Air craft
2,308 Fighers / Interceptors
2,785 Fixed Wing Attack Craft
5700 Transport craft
2700 Training craft
6000 Helicopters
957 Attack helicopters
415 Total Naval Strength
19 Aircraft Carriers
6 Frigates
62 Destoryers
75 Submarines
13 Coastal Defense Craft
11 Mine Warfare

They all represent well paying US jobs. You can't build 8800 tanks without skilled labors back at home to assemble and repair them. Soldiers need food (farmers), clothing (upholsterers), and shelter (carpenters). Militaries also require energy which comes from power companies, nuclear engineers, and the oil industry. Doesn't matter where you go in the world, the military--no matter how small--is a staple of the economy.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

True enough Ford, but i wonder while we do have that massive military as part of the economy it didnt HAVE To be that big a part. Instead of going into space, or pushing forward with new advancements we basically just build more and more expensive death machines to fight against dudes in turbans in th middle east hiding behind sand dunes. Don't get me wrong having the tech is nice and its no longer possible to scale back as you pointed out. BUt that doesn't mean we didn't waste alot of money and resources we could have used to fund something bigger and better for society as a whole. I mean fuck look at NASAs contributions. I just find it funny we can land a rover on Mars send data back, Can see distant galaxies, We have the ability to create cleaner energy and with new farming techniques we could solve global hunger problems but we never evolved past the i need to be in charge i need to be #1 i need to make a profit. We havent managed to get past the "ME ME ME ME ME" aspect of ourselves granted I am no different. Although it is interesting to wonder where we would be if religion never entered the equation and we managed to work past warlike tendencies and desire to be better than our neighbors.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Railguns and lasers work really well in space...

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

yeah but M1 Abrams / T14 / T90 / Challanger 1 those IFVs etc not so much lol.

And lets face it if a war DOES break out between two first world nations aka Nuclear powers. Eventually someone has to lose = Nukes are deployed