Last dogfight episode this Sat, season 2 on sale.

[tmdgm 0]

The very last dogfights episode is airing on the history channel this Sat, if you're interested.

 

http://www.history.com/shows.do?episodeId=...p;action=detail

 

 

Also, season 2 is on sale. Looks like a good father's day present.

 

 

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=114190

[+Spectre_USA 7]

I have an Outlook reminder setup for Saturday morning.

 

Just wish I had a DVR...

 

[JediMaster 451]

I have a DVR, but I still have to set it. Hard to do more than 2-3 days in advance because it hasn't grabbed the schedule for it yet. In HD yet!!

[+Pancho 0]

Real shame this series is ending ...

[JediMaster 451]

I've watched the first half so far. Very good effects, although I question some of their conclusions! I seriously doubt we'll have a B-1R flying in less than 10 years, for instance!

[eraser_tr 29]

Yeah, it was essentially two hours of F-22 and F-35 dominates all near effortlessly. Having SCRAMJET planes, armed with lasers and going to the edge of space by 2027 is beyond far fetched compared to a B-1R loaded with AMRAAMs.

 

No mention of PAK-FA, mig-LFI or J-12 either.

[+Dave 2,318]

Well you know I think the episode was a good assessment of things to come. The scramjet with a laser is not far fetched as you think.

[MAKO69 186]

Where were the F-4s

[eraser_tr 29]

Eh? So you think we'll live to see Lockheed-Martin paying royalties to the Lucas estate to build USAF X-Wings?

 

Until either aliens show up, or manned craft in Earth orbit becomes more common than government and research for that to be the slightest bit useful.

[+Dave 2,318]

Eh? So you think we'll live to see Lockheed-Martin paying royalties to the Lucas estate to build USAF X-Wings?

 

Until either aliens show up, or manned craft in Earth orbit becomes more common than government and research for that to be the slightest bit useful.

 

Well we are already testing the ABL. So we know that the laser has a future.

[JediMaster 451]

Of course, I'm not so sure about a solid state laser that powerful in just 2 decades. Plus I was skeptical of them using a 767 for it!! It also didn't look right for the beam path. A 747 is being used now because the cockpit is above, leaving space for the laser to go straight to the nose. Here they make it seem like the laser is totally generated from the nose itself.

I just doubt we'll be that far with solid state lasers (to be more powerful than the chemical ones we have today) in 20 years. Those still need a ton of development.

 

They also made a comment about Su-30s "not flown by any allied nation"--gee, doesn't give much hope of better relations with India, does it?

[+pcpilot 181]

Quick question...overall, how would you guys knowledgable about aviation history rate this tv series. Ive seen and heard a few wonky things more than once on History channel. Ive only seen this show a couple times and enjoyed it. But its often talking about dogfights Ive not even heard of much less know anything about. If the concensus is this is a great show and reasonably accurate historically, Id love to get a season or two on DVD.

Edited May 16, 2008 by pcpilot

[gosquidgo 0]

Although I don't think we'll ever see a B-1R, why wouldn't the AMRAAM's be carried internally on the rotary launchers? Besides I think it would be far more likely that we would spend the money on F-22's than more B-1's.

[censored 0]

Quick question...overall, how would you guys knowledgable about aviation history rate this tv series. Ive seen and heard a few wonky things more than once on History channel. Ive only seen this show a couple times and enjoyed it. But its often talking about dogfights Ive not even heard of much less know anything about. If the concensus is this is a great show and reasonably accurate historically, Id love to get a season or two on DVD.

 

With the exception of the last episode - which contains a lot of speculation and subjective opinion - I have also enjoyed most of the series. The producers tend to do well when they have actual, historical dogfights to retell, and can interview the pilots who took part in them. Many of the pilots that the interview are aviators that I had heard of and read about prior to seeing the series. I was also familiar with some of the historians that they interviewed. Overall, a good series to own.

[eraser_tr 29]

They also made a comment about Su-30s "not flown by any allied nation"--gee, doesn't give much hope of better relations with India, does it?

 

Yeah, I noticed that too. They're selling them everywhere, I would imagine alot of allied (or simply neutral) nations would be using them by then.

[+Dave 2,318]

Of course, I'm not so sure about a solid state laser that powerful in just 2 decades. Plus I was skeptical of them using a 767 for it!! It also didn't look right for the beam path. A 747 is being used now because the cockpit is above, leaving space for the laser to go straight to the nose. Here they make it seem like the laser is totally generated from the nose itself.

I just doubt we'll be that far with solid state lasers (to be more powerful than the chemical ones we have today) in 20 years. Those still need a ton of development.

 

That is a pretty narrow minded view considering how far aviation went in its first 20 years. 20 years is a long time and I will not subscribe to the fact that in 20 years this and that wont happen. Pay attention to the world, you see how fast technology has advanced? I rest my case.

[eraser_tr 29]

Some technology advanced faster than others. Computers are such a far cry from what they were 20 years ago, assuming we're not back in the stone age. I did see a video of the US Army testing a robotic suit (it showed up after one of the BBC videos linked here) that they'd be fielding sooner than I'd have expected.

 

I wouldn't doubt a 767 sized plane carrying an ABL, but I think it'll be a while before we can compact that into a fighter, or be having dogfights in space. Though the retiring head of the Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks has been quoted on a dozen shows about stealth, future weapons and ufos as saying ' anything you've seen on star trek or scifi, we've been there, done that.'

[MigBuster 2,861]

I think a lot can change over 20 years and in some respects it has.

 

I would put the the technology growth since 1988 down to a steady growth in the computing industry caused by cheap silicon enabling better hardware and thus better software. Electrical and mechanical components can now be made with more precision and more compact because of this.

 

In some ways you could say that since 1988 there have been only gradual changes linked to this growth - eg for military AC - Better avionics, more intelligent missiles, more efficient and powerful jet engines, and better wireless data communication techniques.

 

As far as stealth goes - well er better ways to maintain the RAM coating on the F-22 I suppose - pretty sure the shape and fly by wire system could have been done back in 88 anyway.

 

 

 

Lasers, Scramjets and AI have been researched for years so far - we just need the breakthrough. And if Lasers can shoot down rockets that is something we do actually need now - so you think a lot would be going into it.

 

The optimistic outlook on Lasers and AI seems to have turned sour recently - I only studied AI for a year so know sweet FA - however some top bods are pretty much dismissing intelligent AI with emotion at the mo.

 

As for the head of LM's quote - if he has a spaceship that can do Warp 10 and that transporter thing then that would be some trick.

[eraser_tr 29]

I wouldn't be surprised if he had a good trick or two up our sleeves, but thats a little much.

[JediMaster 451]

Narrow view? Some might call it pessimistic, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

 

2001 was a great film but one of the worst predictors of the future ever made, even with a genius like Clarke behind it. Within a year of its release we had man walking on the moon! Within 5 years, the last man left and no one has returned since...

Computers you could talk to that took up a room! We get computers you can hold in your hand that can't tell you anything except it's crashed!

 

The only problem with the "black world has it all" theory is that some of the things they supposedly have would HURT the US if they stayed black.

 

Besides, I can name a dozen things out of SF that I KNOW haven't been done because they're either impossible according to the laws of physics as we know it (hyperspace, lightsabers, transporters) or they require a tech we've not been able to create yet (getting around on something other than primitive rocket propulsion).

Messing with an idea in a lab and saying "done that" is NOT the same as having practical, operational vehicles. The space shuttle, for instance, isn't really practical and is barely operational. On that I would say we don't YET have a good reusable space vehicle.

[+Dave 2,318]

Point in case, that NKC-135 at the USAF Museum had shot down 5 AIM-9's and a Firebee drone using, yep lasers. And that was all done before being retired in 1988.

[eraser_tr 29]

Damn! Why hadn't we heard of that before?

[+Dave 2,318]

Damn! Why hadn't we heard of that before?

 

Its been public knowledge for years. What makes the ABL so different is the type of laser they are using to fry ICBM's.

[JediMaster 451]

Using a laser to fry a guidance system in a warhead is a bit different. Also, taking out anything the size of a plane or larger requires an increase in power by several orders of magnitude. Rockets are easy, they're fragile. Put a small hole that leaks fuel or buckle the side and ruin the aerodynamics and it will tear or blow itself apart.

The power problem is also nontrivial. A chemical laser generates the energy by mixing the toxic fluids, but a solid state one uses electricity...from the engines? Not even a 747's 4 engines with alternators driving it will power a SSL directly. You need banks of capacitors charging for one shot...then a looooong time to charge it up again. I think SSL's are topped out at 1kw right now? Not enough, not compared to the chemical one.

 

The day when we can fire a SSL from an airborne platform at a fighter and take it out without getting "lucky" and igniting an external tank or blinding the pilot in the cockpit is still far off. Actually, IIRC the threat of lasers to pilots' eyes is the predominant concern right now. Who needs to shoot them down if the plane will crash on its own once the pilots are blind?

[+Dave 2,318]

Using a laser to fry a guidance system in a warhead is a bit different. Also, taking out anything the size of a plane or larger requires an increase in power by several orders of magnitude. Rockets are easy, they're fragile. Put a small hole that leaks fuel or buckle the side and ruin the aerodynamics and it will tear or blow itself apart.

The power problem is also nontrivial. A chemical laser generates the energy by mixing the toxic fluids, but a solid state one uses electricity...from the engines? Not even a 747's 4 engines with alternators driving it will power a SSL directly. You need banks of capacitors charging for one shot...then a looooong time to charge it up again. I think SSL's are topped out at 1kw right now? Not enough, not compared to the chemical one.

 

The day when we can fire a SSL from an airborne platform at a fighter and take it out without getting "lucky" and igniting an external tank or blinding the pilot in the cockpit is still far off. Actually, IIRC the threat of lasers to pilots' eyes is the predominant concern right now. Who needs to shoot them down if the plane will crash on its own once the pilots are blind?

 

The Firebee drone is a good indication that it is possible as in the afore mention test. Firebees are not that small and they fried one of those. So it is possible and has been done.