What air techs and tactics could other branches benefi from?

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

michaelemouse

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 10:29

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 17:45

I'll give you two examples of what I mean:

1:
The TrackingPoint RIfle works by finding a target through the scope, highlighting it with a cursor then letting the scope's ballistic computer take about a dozen parameters into account to output a targeting solution. All the shooter has to do at that point is pull the trigger and move the targeting crosshair over the aiming dot and the shot goes off when the bullet trajectory intersects with the predicted target position. That sounds a lot like Continuously Computed Release Point commonly used in aircraft.


2:
The Canadian military has the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle which has either mast or wire-linked remote stations with radar and IR sensors. Apparently, it can detect tanks up to 20km.

The Israeli military has used the Pereh missile carrier. It can launch 12 Spike missiles, either fire & forget or man-in-the-loop, up to 25km away in non-line-of-sight.

If you were to network those two together, you could take out tanks from 20km away and the only thing they could see would be a mast raised above the trees several kilometers away and missiles coming in really fast.


Are there other instances of technologies, techniques or tactics which may come from the air force but which others could find useful?
Offline

collimatrix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 15:27

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 09:48

michaelemouse wrote:I'll give you two examples of what I mean:

1:
The TrackingPoint RIfle works by finding a target through the scope, highlighting it with a cursor then letting the scope's ballistic computer take about a dozen parameters into account to output a targeting solution. All the shooter has to do at that point is pull the trigger and move the targeting crosshair over the aiming dot and the shot goes off when the bullet trajectory intersects with the predicted target position. That sounds a lot like Continuously Computed Release Point commonly used in aircraft.



I suppose Tracking Point is a bit like CCRP, but what's it's even more reminiscent of is the gun-follows-sight fire control system on a tank, which in turn is essentially a shrunk-down version of the central director fire control systems found on battleships. That right there really is the crux of the issue; not coming up with new technologies, but making them compact, light and rugged enough.

Compare piston engines of late WWII fighter aircraft to the piston engines in WWII tanks. In some cases, like the British Centurion tank and Spitfire fighter, the engines are actually the same. The Meteor engine is a ground-adapted version of the Merlin. Since tanks don't need to economize on weight to anywhere near the same extent the engine used a larger amount of steel components than its aircraft cousin. And it also produced a great deal less horsepower. Why?

An aircraft goes back to a field after every mission. There will be a large number of trained repair personnel there to fix any problems in order to get it turned around for the next mission. Aircraft systems can afford to be somewhat temperamental if it makes them lighter and better performing. Tank systems? Not so much. Tanks live at the leading edge of the supply lines, exploiting breakthroughs in enemy lines and aggressively maneuvering. Frequently, the only maintenance personnel on hand are the tank's crew and the only equipment they have are the tools they brought in the tank. For infantry, the demands are even more severe.

So the problem isn't really figuring out which fighter aircraft technologies would be useful in other applications. Probably most of them would be. The problem is making them tough enough to withstand the prevailing conditions of other forms of combat.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 908
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 16:03

few, very few.

Aircraft have the "birds view" advantage of being overhead.
Light and signals (whatever frequency) can travel long distances because of the altitude above ground.

The only advantage for ground assets is if and how and in what format they can get the info from above.

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests