Military Equipment Sperging Thread - The Tiger II is a better tank than the M1 Abrams edition

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
A drone carrier wouldnt be nearly as expensive as a conventional carrier
It's probably be about the same. You'd have the same displacement in order to carry enough drones, the same armaments, and of course that means it must be nuclear powered as well. You'll still need crew to maintain the ship and "man the drones."
if you arent sending something as expensive as a conventional carrier you dont need the dozenish other vessels that accompany the carrier to protect the very expensive carrier.
It's not (just) the cost. Carriers are and will always be HVTs. That won't change even in the hypothetical scenario that war becomes entirely drone-based. They're going to be your base for naval power projection and operations. Naturally, you want to keep it alive, and the enemy wants it gone. You need the other ships in the battle group for defense.
 
Man, you'd think that if you liked drones so much you'd at least do a little reading about drones first.
 
Exactly, the entire reason carriers are targets are because they're the hub for force projection that are most likely to be in theater. Bombers, tankers and high capability fighters and interceptors are almost always going to be coming from the enemy's safest and most secure locations, but a carrier has to be relatively close to be at full efficacy. Doesn't matter if you load it with drones, fighter bombers, helicopters or 20 batteries of HIMARs, it represents a dangerous offensive tool and an expensive one that is extremely hard to replace.
 
I forgot drones operating on a ship need a well deck and space to dock a landing craft capable of transporting a MBT. Why didnt I remember that?
Because its cheaper to adapt existing designs to drone ships instead of making new ones. And it gives some multi purpose use to this very niche use tool. Drones can only do one thing and that is attack. They can't fight other planes, shoot down shit, just drop bombs. It would be nice in that case to have some dudes to deploy, some multi purpose.
 
Because its cheaper to adapt existing designs to drone ships instead of making new ones. And it gives some multi purpose use to this very niche use tool. Drones can only do one thing and that is attack. They can't fight other planes, shoot down shit, just drop bombs. It would be nice in that case to have some dudes to deploy, some multi purpose.
Do you not understand that ship wasnt designed with the intention of using drones as its air component?

It was designed and built with the intention of carrying F-35s(and originally Harriers). The only reason its carrying drones now is because the US banned the sale of F-35s to Turkey. Again if youre just building a ship from the ground up to operate drones, you dont need a vessel nearly that big. That ship has a whole slew of equipment and capabilities that have zero to do with operating drones.
 
Do you not understand that ship wasnt designed with the intention of using drones as its air component?

It was designed and built with the intention of carrying F-35s(and originally Harriers). The only reason its carrying drones now is because the US banned the sale of F-35s to Turkey. Again if youre just building a ship from the ground up to operate drones, you dont need a vessel nearly that big. That ship has a whole slew of equipment and capabilities that have zero to do with operating drones.
To launch a plane without a catapult, a drone if you will, light as it may be, you do in fact need a flight deck that big to get it going. The size helps quite a bit honestly. Lots of space for fuel and parts. What do you want, suicide ships that would kill everyone onboard if it got hit by a fucking 5 inch deck gun? Are you retarded?
 
If youre only carrying 50 drones you dont need a ship nearly that big.
1730682045255.png

You need the space to store those drones, and if you want something of similar capability to a plane then it's going to be the size of a plane and will require the same amount of space of an equivalent number of planes. Do you seriously not realise this?
 
View attachment 6596650
You need the space to store those drones, and if you want something of similar capability to a plane then it's going to be the size of a plane and will require the same amount of space of an equivalent number of planes. Do you seriously not realise this?
PREACH

People think a Predator class drone is small.... LMAO they're actually pretty fucking big.

A jet powered drone is going to be almost as big as manned jet.
 
PREACH

People think a Predator class drone is small.... LMAO they're actually pretty fucking big.

A jet powered drone is going to be almost as big as manned jet.
Dude, some of the jet drones are bigger than F16s and legacy hornets and only have a quarter the useful ord. Hunters and Shadows were probably more cost and mission effective than predators and 90% of their missions were just chilling out and waiting for the need to laze shit for Apaches, Vipers and mudhens
 
View attachment 6596650
You need the space to store those drones, and if you want something of similar capability to a plane then it's going to be the size of a plane and will require the same amount of space of an equivalent number of planes. Do you seriously not realise this?
The US literally built this exact same thing in large numbers in WW2, they called escort carriers. Casablanca's where 11000 tons fully loaded, 520 feet long with a beam of 65 feet. Not much bigger foot print than an Arleigh Burke destroyer.

Dude, some of the jet drones are bigger than F16s and legacy hornets and only have a quarter the useful ord. Hunters and Shadows were probably more cost and mission effective than predators and 90% of their missions were just chilling out and waiting for the need to laze shit for Apaches, Vipers and mudhens
PREACH

People think a Predator class drone is small.... LMAO they're actually pretty fucking big.
I dont think you guys have any idea what youre talking about.

Yes while Reapers for example have a larger wingspan(its 10 feet shorter), overall they are a fraction of the size of an F-16. 5000 pounds empty v 19000 pounds empty. A reaper carries less because its significantly smaller than a F-16 but its payload fraction isnt significantly worse.

A jet powered drone is going to be almost as big as manned jet.
Wingspan wise. Like the Reaper the Avenger has a larger wingspan but is shorter than a F-18 Viper. But again like the reaper, its a fraction of the weight of a Viper.

But it does has monumentally increased endurance, just like the reaper v F-16. How many tanker sorties are you gonna need to keep a combat loaded F-18 in the air for 10+ hours?
 
50 sounds like the right amount of drones for a ship that big. It's probably a tight squeeze though. With maintenance and everything else inside, it must feel claustrophobic.
But it does has monumentally increased endurance, just like the reaper v F-16. How many tanker sorties are you gonna need to keep a combat loaded F-18 in the air for 10+ hours?
I can answer this. It's one, a single tanker will keep many F-18s(or fighter aircraft of your choice) airborne for 10+ hours. However, loiter time is not the important thing for Fighter aircraft. Tankers are used to extend the range of the aircraft as they transit from a safe area that you have total control over, to the battlespace. Tankers are less important for carrier based aircraft, as carriers are a floating airfield. The airfield is brought to the battlespace, the planes take off, they fire off their rounds, return, rearm and go again until the end of crew duty day.
 
Tankers are less important for carrier based aircraft, as carriers are a floating airfield. The airfield is brought to the battlespace, the planes take off, they fire off their rounds, return, rearm and go again until the end of crew duty day.
Tankers are just as important for carrier aircraft. Those F-18s and F-35s taking off loaded to the gills with ordnance have a very short combat range. Its exactly why this exists;

1730790263413.jpeg


And why the Navy has developed a drone specifically for refueling aircraft;


Having a weapons platform that doesnt need to rely on tankers nor worry about pilot fatigue is a massive advantage.
 
Tankers are just as important for carrier aircraft. Those F-18s and F-35s taking off loaded to the gills with ordnance have a very short combat range. Its exactly why this exists;

View attachment 6602261

And why the Navy has developed a drone specifically for refueling aircraft;


Having a weapons platform that doesnt need to rely on tankers nor worry about pilot fatigue is a massive advantage.
His point is though that the airfield can move towards the planes, making the need for tankers LESS. Not eliminated, but less. Yes they built the Stingray, it filled a capability gap. Still doesn't change that a moving airbase gives options. You can launch fully loaded F-18's just off the coat to attack a target 10 miles in, 17,000 pounds of ordnance each, and just annihilate everything in sight, no tankers needed. A drone is still limited by its payload capacity because it put all its stats into range.
 
How useful is the reverse slope defense in the modern day? I imagine it would be slightly less due to proximity shells and more prevalent recon
 
And why the Navy has developed a drone specifically for refueling aircraft;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray
Having a weapons platform that doesnt need to rely on tankers nor worry about pilot fatigue is a massive advantage.
It's an interesting concept, but it's a tiny tanker, with basically no fuel on it. Something like a KC-10 is refueling all the heavies(AWACS etc) in the airspace as well as fighters. As a probe and drogue based refueller it would work for fighters, as probe and drogue puts all the effort on the "customer" and fighters aren't creating the same wake turbulence as a heavy which disturbs the flying of the refueller. That being said, AAR is extremely stressful and one of the most difficult things pilots will do. It requires both the tanker and the "customer" to be in constant contact and adjust how they fly so they can keep connected. So I would be interested to see how they overcome that.

Even then it adds an extra 150nm to the combat radius, which is always good but you'll need one for every 4 aircraft. Which with some of the numbers you see in large assaults, like say a Libya. Means you have a fuckton of them, all to do the job of a single KC-10. I can see them being used as a force multiplier augmenting manned tankers. All aircraft in an operational area rely on tankers. It extends their range so they can be stationed in a safe nation, rather than 150 miles from the front and vulnerable to enemy action at takeoff, or enemy bombing.

As well western nations like to play in places that are extremely hot, so take off weight is limited. So if you can offload the fuel requirement needed at takeoff to a tanker and then your heavy once airborne can get the rest of their fuel needed.

As for pilot fatigue, the aircraft breaks before the pilot does. All aircraft have a certain amount of hours they can fly before they have to come back for maintenance. Even drones, which are simpler aircraft have to come down every dozen or so hours so they can be tinkered with. Aircraft are not like a car. They have so many moving parts, and have so many things that can go wrong with them.

All that being said, drones act as a force multiplier for already established capabilities. Augmenting manned capabilities. It will be interesting to see if they can make this drone operational, and yes I know it flies, but to see it approved for actual operations and how it will fit in.

For everyone's reference there are two types of connector for refueling, probe and drogue which is used by the USN and anyone using an F-18. The other is Boom and Spine, which is used by the USAF and has a boom operator in the back of the aircraft maneuvering the boom into place. Probe and Drogue to my understanding is being phased out, but as with anything that can change.
 
T
It was a much more interesting concept back when the contract was for a purpose-built refueler with internal storage. Instead we got a drone that can carry one buddy tank instead of 2 like S-3s or F-18s.
That's what it looked like to me as well. I can't imagine the control nightmare to keep a fleet of these de-conflicted in their orbits and the air refueling track. With fighters zipping up and down. Drone tankers moving out of the track and back to the orbit. I suppose you could take them off as a five ship, 4 fighters, one tanker. Have them fuel on route and the tanker returns to the carrier. But if one tanker drops out, you lose those 4 fighters as they won't have enough fuel to reach the marshal point. Or their playtime in the airspace would be halved. So you'd have to have extra on hand.
 
Back
Top Bottom