/k/ - Weapons

>>537726

Planes can go very very high. They can be seen from most positions on the ground because of that. To avoid being detected and tracked by radar they use radar radiation absorbing coating, which makes it harder to detect them at greater distances.

Helos can't go nearly as high as planes can. When they encounter an enemy SAM site, it is usually at visual range. Using radar absorbtion won't help when you are THAT close.

Proper thermal management however does help a lot against most MANPADS at those ranges.

Same reason Comanche got cancelled, because of the key west agreement.

Stealth helicopters can do SEAD, which means if Army gets them they are a direct threat to Air Force reason for existing. On this basis Air force can challenge them and deny funding in congress.

Basically, the American air force should be scapped, they cost the country tens of trillions of dollars just since WWII.

>>537726

>Why was the Comanche ditched?

Like most other things of the period, because the cold war ended.

>But it was in development 20 years after the wall came down?

Welcome to the US defense industry.

>>537738

Ending the Army Air Corps was a mistake.

>>537739

The Air force even prevented the National Guard from building their own aircraft. Back a few decades ago, the National Guard got sick of getting the Air Forces expired obsolete hand-me-down aircraft that couldn't even fly because every nut and bolt on them was rusted shut, just to do ISR! See the NG figured they could save so much money on maintenance that the entire National Guard put together could operate 10,000 fighter and ISR aircraft for the cost of previously operating only a few hundred. So they designed an aircraft called the "blitzfighter". Which was a lot like a Czech L-59 had a baby with a Su-25. At the same time the A-10 had a baby with the F-5. Then those two babies grew up, went to college, met each other, and had a child together. Of course what NG didn't figure on is the Air Force being a nest of snakes that hates every other branch and hates this very country.

A fixed wing "stealth" mudfighter could do the Apaches, Comanches, or Cheyennes mission on a single piston engine. Far quieter, more fuel efficient, cheaper to build and operate. But the air force has scared the army into not operating fixed wing aircraft.

>>537742

Defense contractors aren't the problem. They're just companies whose single goal is to get more money for their shareholders, there's nothing wrong with that.

The flaw is with the political and military leadership, which instead of looking after the best interests of ELECTORATE and the nation, is looking after their own fucking butts.

>>537742

To fix the defense system you'd either have to tear it down and rebuild it from the ground up WITHOUT congress/local government getting involved INCLUDING all bases, or you'd have to have a military revolution/coup at which point you're just doing a hastened job of the former.

>>537742

>>537746

As for those companies, seeing as how I'm a subcontractor employee for one of those, we're just the middle men in a giant money laundering scheme because most of the middle ranking military command goes to directly work for them after service, and congress is always using us as an excuse to "sell" shit to their friends to launder money internationally as arms dealers. Shit, we've had times when we asked if we could use another company's parts because they were better quality and cheaper, and we were denied because so-and-so was friends with the company we had to order our parts from. Whistleblower laws are a joke anyways so if anyone ever did report it they'd face an assassination threat and potentially 20 years in prison if they're lucky.

>>537749

>>537746

If there was absolutely no corruption in the US defense industry and if the US defense industry was properly managed, how much would the US save on its early budget?

>>537750

>On its yearly budget

Theoretically? I'd guess they could save about 80% if done privately as a PMC, 40% if done publicly.

>>537750

Nothing because anything it saved would be et up by the welfare budget, which is now twice to three times the military one…

>>537743

Got any pictures of the blitzfighter?

>>537742

>How does one fix this mess?

You can't. This is an inevitable consequence of an economically powerful state buying military equipment. The economic incentives involved in military procurement all push toward this, and even if you try and pass a bunch of "you can't do that" bills, the legislators will just pencil in exceptions for themselves, or get attorneys to cook up reasons why it doesn't apply to them.

The only way to fix it would be to eliminate the entire state side of the equation, and I'm not holding my breath for that one.

>>537812

Initial configuration:

https://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/art/Vought-VB-100-Blitzfighter-296126107

https://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/art/The-USAF-s-Worst-Nightmare-297596894

Later proposal:

http://www.combatreform.org/Image1649.gif

http://www.combatreform.org/Image1652.jpg

More information:

http://www.combatreform.org/killerbees.htm

>>537738

>Stealth helicopters can do SEAD, which means if Army gets them they are a direct threat to Air Force reason for existing. On this basis Air force can challenge them and deny funding in congress.

But the USAF hates doing air support doesn't it?

>>537890

Yes USAF and USN they hate doing air support, which isn't a huge problem by itself. Here's the actual problem: They don't want anyone else doing air support either. They get furious and try to block it when army and marines try to secure their own air support.

That's why US army is chronically short of air support and why US marines have to fight tooth and nail for cobras and harriers.

>>537890

>>537893

its because the air force and the aviators in the navy view themselves as knights of old and dont want anyone on their territory at least thats the only thing that makes sense to me. which is funny because the USSR punished retards that did that shit when they didnt want to support ground operations, it was beneath them so to speak (no pun intended). but they dont want anyone else doing anything aerial, its truly retarded.

>>537893

>short on air support

>short on artillery

We at least have rockets, r-right?

>>537742

>How does one fix this mess?

Go back to REALISTIC objectives for the budget asked.

>>537743

>>537857

>Blitzfighter

it still lives on in the Hawk 200 series.

But barely anyone uses them.

The US doesn't have any serious SAM systems and depends on the Airforce to keep air superiority, which if the enemy has a decent overlapping network of defenses would leave the Army defenseless.

Hell, right now China has a decent range for it's anti ship missiles which would make a carrier air wing useless since nothing really has the range to do a SEAD mission, unless you use B-2s.

They're already developing missiles for the F-35's range.

Don't even get me started on the USAF's doctrine of knocking everything out from the air before they actually commit to a bombing or air support mission. It's ridiculous.

>>537911

>we at least have rockets, right

Yes, but they're shittier than they have any right to be, considering how much they cost.

>>537726

Design of stealth airplanes revolves around obscuring the turbine blades, because they are made of structural titanium and are not at all stealthy, on top of reflecting radio scan signal back to radar from basically any angle. They nullify all of your stealth technology applied elwerhere on the plane. You can't even begin doing this with helicopter's main rotor. Plus it's still extremely loud machine and there's no way to reduce the noise appreciably, gas turbine engine noise especially, but props as well.

I saw a Blackhawk flying over the city i was in today. That thing is huge as a bus and helicopters are noisy by design. How do you make that remotely stealthy?

>>544136

>Reduce Parts

>Reduce Vibration on the parts left

>Reduce tip speed (can be done with slower rotation with more torque or by cranking the tip)

>Direct sound rearward so sound is only when it's in visual range and/or already leaving

>improve avionics so that you never have to be within visual range if it's a combat aircraft and improve speed for transport aircraft so they can't react in time if it's spotted and/or heard

There's other shit with Thermal but you know, all of this increases cost.

A nation's helicopter fleet is usually much larger than their fixed wing fleet, those numbers start to add up.

>>537857

>they bought into gun on the aircraft meme

Doomed to fail.

>>544115

Youre forgeting that SAM capability reduces radically with altitude.

Buk has a ~0.9 probability of hitting a fighter flying at altitude, while only ~0.8 chance of hitting a helicopter flying at low altitude.

>>544154

kys

The Comanche was ditched because the Apache is secretly a disaster with no true role and ate up the Army's research budget for a decade.

>>544115

Yeah there is. Making helos silent enough to do pop-up attacks and take out AA before the radar/IR finder can acquire them was Russia's entire strategy for defeating chaparrals and HAWKS.

>>544181

It can still take much more of a punch and carry much more payload than the rest of western attack helis at least that's what I'm trying to convince myself since it's the only dedicated gunship in the greek inventory.

>>544183

You don't do any silencing for that, simply flying out of line of sight will do the job. Sound waves don't pass easily through solid objects.

>>544198

The problem isn't how it's made, it's that it doesn't have a role and no one knows how to fully use all of its slapped on bloat features. In 2003 a squadron of Apaches was nearly destroyed by a handful of flak cannons because the army didn't know what the fucking thing was useful for.

>>544198

Its windshield is plexiglass, a pistol round can penetrate it at close enough ranges. The entire point behind the apache is a cheap platform that can A) hover too low to be detected or engaged, B) hide behind terrain, C) carry enough missiles to take out a Soviet armored column.

Downsides of the design:

As a result its fuel hungry because it doesnt need to be efficient, it can land easily since its only flying a few yards above ground. It cant fly fast, and struggles to fly high or far (until the fuel update) because its mostly defensive. Its less armored than other attack copters as well, because it isnt meant to fight its way past opposition.

Advantage of this design philosophy:

NATO could theoretically build 10,000 of them, and the Soviets were so scared of it that to this day all their armored columns have mini IADS with them. Regardless of its laundry list of flaws, this chopper played a huge part in keeping the cold war cold.

>>544210

The bloat only changed when its mission changed from defense to offense, meaning it needed to carry more fuel for range and more armor to fight, which meant it needed bigger engines…. and then they turned it from an offensive helicopter into an insurgency chopper.

So it went through three complete changes in design philosophy - like trying to turn a B-52 into a CAS, then into an interceptor….