|
NosmoKing posted:I find it interesting to look back and see that you can see how the NATO forces were worried about tanks, so they built and tested piles of different anti-tank systems and the USSR was worried about aircraft, so they built mobile AA like crazy fuckers. You really have to look at their respective WW2 era experiences for this. In both cases the people who were commanding the armies through the cold war were officers in WW2. Hell, I think the last WW2 vet command rank officers didn't retire from the US military until the 80s or so, although most of those guys were junior officers when they first saw combat. Basically, the German airforce was a constant pain in the rear end for the Red Army. Even as late as the Battle of Berlin the Germans still had the ability to wrest (very) local control of the skies away from the Red Air Force and bring in some fairly devastating tactical air support. Having something on the ground to at least make airplanes maneuver around and gently caress up their aim while they worried about return fire was a flat out necessity. Meanwhile, the USAAF ran roughshod over the Luftwaffe after early 1944, to the point where air attacks against ground forces were a pretty loving huge exception to the general rule. THe only time when the Luftwaffe was ever really being regularly used in a tactical role against the US military was during some of the early stages of the Italian/Sicilian campaign. Institutionally this lead to a generation of officers who had vastly different memories. For one the sound of an airplane meant you had to look up and make sure it was friendly if not just dive in a ditch on general principle, while for the other airplane motors almost universally meant that the proverbial cavalry had arrived and that bunker/tiger tank/whatever that was giving you trouble was about to get blown the gently caress up. Really, tactical air superiority is something that the US has taken for granted ever since WW2 in a way that Russia never has.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
You see the same thing in Air Defense TTPs, particularly post-Cold War. When Patriot was designed during the Cold War, it was intended to have automatic engagement mode available and weapons control volumes (big 3d space of air) which were at Weapons Free (shoot everything not positively identified as a friend.) The system would be set to automatic when a horde of aircraft came flooding out of the Warsaw Pact and the operators would be there to manage system faults, ensure launchers were reloaded, and to interrupt or terminate engagements against any unidentified friendly craft. Now, it will typically take a directive from an Air Force Colonel or above for USA Patriot to engage an air breathing threat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You really have to look at their respective WW2 era experiences for this. In both cases the people who were commanding the armies through the cold war were officers in WW2. Hell, I think the last WW2 vet command rank officers didn't retire from the US military until the 80s or so, although most of those guys were junior officers when they first saw combat. "If the airplane is silver, it's American. If it's camouflaged, it's British. If it's invisible, it's German."  But yeah, the degree to which the U.S. has enjoyed air superiority since WWII has been staggering. The last time American forces have even been attacked from the air period was Korea (no, TBMs don't count). Not trying to suck my own service's dick here, but seriously, the absolute dominance of the past 20 years has really been something. You could also draw a related but opposite conclusion regarding the role of armor...the M60 that U.S. personnel were still using into the 1990s could trace its lineage all the way back to the WWII era M26. mlmp08 posted:You see the same thing in Air Defense TTPs, particularly post-Cold War. When Patriot was designed during the Cold War, it was intended to have automatic engagement mode available and weapons control volumes (big 3d space of air) which were at Weapons Free (shoot everything not positively identified as a friend.) The system would be set to automatic when a horde of aircraft came flooding out of the Warsaw Pact and the operators would be there to manage system faults, ensure launchers were reloaded, and to interrupt or terminate engagements against any unidentified friendly craft. Tell me to gently caress off if the answer is sensitive, but who do you usually talk to on the AF side? Do you talk much with the guys that are airborne in an AWACS or is it just with someone on the ground in an AOC?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:05
|
|
|
Got to go to work now, but I can put up a big kill chain explanation later. It's not sensitive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Our tour guide at the Titan museum said that his guess on probably the best way to take out an ICBM would be to have a few people just shooting rifles at it during initial liftoff as quickly and accurately as they could to puncture holes in the skin and vent fuel/oxidier, either causing a catastrophic failure, or enough of a leak so that it didn't fly right. Any opinions on that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
I like turtles posted:Our tour guide at the Titan museum said that his guess on probably the best way to take out an ICBM would be to have a few people just shooting rifles at it during initial liftoff as quickly and accurately as they could to puncture holes in the skin and vent fuel/oxidier, either causing a catastrophic failure, or enough of a leak so that it didn't fly right. It's pretty much true. Weight is a precious, precious thing in a rocket, and so every part is designed to be only as strong and heavy as it needs to be. There's very little safety margin to deal with things like unexpected holes. The original Atlas ICBMs would actually collapse under their own weight if they weren't pressurized with fuel or inert gas. Titans weren't quite that fragile, but rockets are delicate flowers in general. Besides the structural issues, the control and guidance computers available at the time weren't exactly powerful and flexible by modern standards, either. They could keep the rocket stable if it launched under normal conditions, but they couldn't really deal with anything significantly out of the ordinary - and even a modern rocket would probably fail when presented with an issue like "hole in a fuel/oxidizer tank." When you consider that a rocket is balanced on its exhaust, it becomes obvious that even a tiny uncorrectable stability issue will become a very large stability issue, very quickly. And, even if the rocket could manage to keep itself upright enough to get into space, there's no way it would end up anywhere near its target. So, yeah. If you can get to it, early boost phase intercept is by far the best option for shooting down a rocket. A rifle could probably get the job done if you're really good at estimating lead, although I'd say that the best way to take out an ICBM would probably involve a SAM, AAM, or something with a guidance package.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
If I recall correctly the devlopment of monocoque construction techniques for rockets some US ICBMs used was a significant technological advance at the time, as using the body of the vehicle as a structural element allows a significant weight saving over a separate chassis structure supporting the skin and components on the rocket. You see the same principle on a lot of cars built today. ICBMs like Atlas resembled steel balloons kept in shape only by their own pressurised fuel. I think Wernher von Braun derisively referred to Atlas as "the Blimp". Unfortunately, while monocoque construction makes the rockets relatively lightweight and quite strong, it also makes them very vulnerable to anything that pierces the skin and vents the tank, causing the skin to crumple catastrophically. The other reason that boost phase is the best time to try and shoot down a rocket is that it's a lot easier to track a relatively slow-moving object throwing out extremely hot, IR emitting exhaust than it is to track it after the vehicle drops the booster stage and goes ballistic, at which point it's traveling at multiple kilometers a second and is a lot harder to see. And you definitely want to hit it before it deploys MIRVs/decoys because then you have a whole bunch of separate targets instead of just one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:If I recall correctly the devlopment of monocoque construction techniques for rockets some US ICBMs used was a significant technological advance at the time, as using the body of the vehicle as a structural element allows a significant weight saving over a separate chassis structure supporting the skin and components on the rocket. You see the same principle on a lot of cars built today. ICBMs like Atlas resembled steel balloons kept in shape only by their own pressurised fuel. I think Wernher von Braun derisively referred to Atlas as "the Blimp". Unfortunately, while monocoque construction makes the rockets relatively lightweight and quite strong, it also makes them very vulnerable to anything that pierces the skin and vents the tank, causing the skin to crumple catastrophically. I discussed the Atlas at some length several pages back. To my understanding, the "stainless steel balloon" design was an effort to scrape away every last little bit of extra weight from the design they could. The rocket motors of the time for the Atlas weren't all that powerful and miniaturization of electronics as well as warhead components were pretty primative. You had a lot of weight to move and any increase in weight for the airframe was less stuff you could loft. IIRC, the initial design requirements were the ability to place a warhead within 1 mile of the intended target with a 5500 mile range. The first series of warheads were heat sink blunt body warheads rather than sleek ablative warheads. They decellerated reasonably rapidly and had a big metal (copper?) heat sink on the reentry side. The nearly flat face caused a standing wave in front of the reentry vehicle, keeping most of the heat away from the surface of the warhead. The remaining heat was absorbed by the heat sink and it didn't heat the warhead components up past tolerable (to the components) levels until the warhead was at KABOOM level. I think the later Atlas warheads on the later Atlas variants ended up being ablative shielded. I know the Titan warheads were. Edit: when I get some time tonight, I'll see if I can compile some AA system videos as well as some ATGM videos. Blowing up tanks is always fun to watch. Almost as much fun as watching SPAAG's rip off a zillion shots at a passing drone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You really have to look at their respective WW2 era experiences for this. In both cases the people who were commanding the armies through the cold war were officers in WW2. Hell, I think the last WW2 vet command rank officers didn't retire from the US military until the 80s or so, although most of those guys were junior officers when they first saw combat. That is extremely fascinating, and so true. I love how the Warsaw Pact had such a hard on for SPAD systems, as there's nothing more metal than showering the skies with lead. This may be a more esoteric question, but how strictly regimented was life in the Soviet army in the Eastern Bloc? I'm sure they didn't go off base as much or had their needs catered as well as the US forces in Europe had it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:So, yeah. If you can get to it, early boost phase intercept is by far the best option for shooting down a rocket. A rifle could probably get the job done if you're really good at estimating lead, although I'd say that the best way to take out an ICBM would probably involve a SAM, AAM, or something with a guidance package. Yeah, though the issue remains the requirement that you be in the immediate vicinity of an ICBM at launch. For obvious reasons, countries don't set up ICBM launching sites within close range of enemy sharpshooters and SAMs/AAA, so what seems like the best answer ends up being a very difficult one to execute. iyaayas01, in reference to your question about Patriot kill chains... On the Patriot side, from top to bottom: Air Defense Artillery Fire Control Officer (ADAFCO) - O3 or CW3/CW4 (RARELY an O4) This is a Brigade asset. then Tactical Director (TD) - O3/O2 or CW2/CW3 Battalion Headquarters element asset then Tactical Control Officer (TCO) - O1/O2 or WO1/CW2 Battery element I ignored the enlisted components, but the ADAFCO typically has 1 enlisted assistant, and TDs and TCOs each have 2 extra crew members consisting of one air defense soldier and one communications soldier. The ADAFCO is where Patriot meets the Air Force directly. The ADAFCO needs to be with the SADC or RADC or whoever is the engagement authority. My previous statement of an Air Force Colonel having to order an engagement is misleading, because if we actually were in a position to be shooting at planes, I'm sure EA would be passed down to a lower level than the CFACC. Typically, the ADAFCO is with the CRC like so:  At the ADAFCO course, I integrated with a USAF CRC team and learned the OM system, since it's fairly different from Patriot control stations. In those exercises I sat next to an SWD who had EA for exercise purposes and it went really well. I've been in other Marine exercises where they try to put the ADAFCO somewhere other than right next to the EA and it gets really messy and delays result. The Air Force seems to be the best at integrating us into their own capabilities while simultaneously explaining things we need to know, but don't know. It is possible to put an ADAFCO in an AWACS, Aegis, TAOC, C/JAOC, or TAOC depending on the RADC/SADC layout. I think the CRC is the best place to put an ADAFCO given that they have robust communications architecture, plenty of room to accommodate an ADAFCO cell, a native radar picture in case comms go down, and Air Force personnel who've worked with ADAFCOs. Aegis does a decent job of integrating us physically from what I hear, but I haven't done so personally. They also have a tougher time integrating us doctrinally, because they tend to want to run the show and ignore us. The AWACS just doesn't have all the space and resources we need to run an ADAFCO cell for an extended period of time. It can be done in a pinch and I've flown with an AWACS crew, but not for extended ops. For one thing, Patriot is up pretty much all the time and airplanes just aren't. Second, the AWACS consoles are different from the OM and most ADAFCOs don't really know how to operate them. I can do very basic commands on them, but not really what I'd need to know to be an effective engagement controller in a shooting war. They also lack some communications architecture we love to have. mIRC is fantastic, but there are very, very few mIRC-capable AWACS last I talked to an AWACS crew. The Navy works far more with Upper-Tier ADAFCOs (THAAD) than with Patriot ADAFCOs since the Navy's work with us relates much more to TBMs than to ABTs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:It's only sorta-kinda airpower related, but don't forget all the anti-air assets developed in the arms race. My old man commanded a platoon of these in Vietnam. Since there were little-to-no aerial threats against US forces, the Dusters ended up finding quite a niche as close infantry support. A platoon of these with a platoon of Quad .50s tended to be a very welcome addition to any convoys traveling between the many artillery compounds. He's got a lot of fun stories, like the 4th of July celebration (provided by 40mm tracers), and the time his personal Duster found a land mine the hard way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
There's a reason the Vulcan system was called upon to "mow the grass" in Vietnam. Various retired Colonels argue that the Vulcan should have been kept around just for fun, since it was apparently a blast at the range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:40 mm Bofors are the tits!!! The 40 mm is big enough that even in the 60's, they could put in lots of neat stuff like proximity fusing. The US had good luck with the 40mm all the way back through WWII and before. It's a classic design. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDJ4UgvGj6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVt7dq-magE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzXThJXRdbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvwCMd4q2AI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5iL1EkSkRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dkbgIi7UCU gently caress it, a mish-mash of lots of Russian anti air assets with bad techno. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBXgpTt_JB8
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
And poo poo, who don't like some anti-armor missiles? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-akbhcsjmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRK8DFfbYt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJhWTJcYzws
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 03:34
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Uh, they fielded quite a bit of this in the form of the Linebacker system (now retired but saw action in OIF) and the Avenger system, which we still have today. They didn't start fielding the M6 until 1998, which is significantly after the Warsaw Pact packed up and went home. For most of the Cold War, the US fielded the previously mentioned Vulcan / Chaparral combo which were outdated almost as soon as they were fielded. US field anti-air just flat out sucked. And christ, the attempt to replace it with the Sgt. York was a staggering disaster. The Patriot wasn't fielded until 1984 (I think). On the other hand, as was pointed out, the Soviets were producing a loving poo poo-ton of different systems from the SA-6 (which gave the Israelis such a nasty surprise in '73) to the Tunguska in '84. Of course, since US policy during the Cold War was openly "Yeah, if the Soviets start winning we will cheerfully drop nukes on West Germany to stop the Soviet Hordes, okay" this lack of air defense didn't really matter that much I guess. As an aside, ever since 73 Easting or so, the popular perception of modern US forces is like it's War of the Worlds and we're the untouchable Martians in our invulnerable death machines. Everyone forgets the 1967-1982 years when we would show up to NATO exercises in our pinnacle-of-1963 technology M60A1 behemoths with crews full of drugged-out felons and the rest of NATO would look at us like the red-headed bastard stepchildren we were. Okay, I'm exaggerating a little bit. However, if you look back at that era, the Vietnam War basically cost the US Army almost an entire modernization cycle. Started and canceled programs include the MBT-70 which was supposed to replace the M60 tank. Instead we ended up with the M1, which while far superior didn't really enter service in great numbers until the mid '80s (and originally had a gimped 105mm gun anyway). Hell, the Marines were still using the M60 as a front-line tank in Desert Storm. edit: anti-armor? Don't even get me started on the loving Dragon, goddamn edit: I am editing this nearly four years later to clarify that the Sgt. York was supposed to replace the Vulcan, not the Patriot. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:
What's wrong with a heavy, bulky, flinch inducing, monopod supported, slow to reach the target, active command, won't penetrate the armor on a MBT with any reliability anti-armor weapon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Typically, the ADAFCO is with the CRC like so: That looks familiar, did they just have some 1C5s at the schoolhouse for this specific purpose or was there an ACS nearby? Just curious as I used to be stationed at one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:They didn't start fielding the M6 until 1998, which is significantly after the Warsaw Pact packed up and went home. For most of the Cold War, the US fielded the previously mentioned Vulcan / Chaparral combo which were outdated almost as soon as they were fielded. US field anti-air just flat out sucked. I think you're right about the BSFV, but Patriot became a system of record int he 1970s (1976 I think?). Avenger has been in service since just about the end of the cold war, meaning it was being developed during the cold war but missed the boat. The SA-15 and the like seem more impressive in comparison. What is harder to measure without getting into classified information is the probability of kill of US vs. USSR-era systems. Also, the SGT York was a disaster, but it was never intended to replace Patriot. It has a totally different role. The SGT York was supposed to be a maneuver shorad AAA system, whereas Patriot is a mobile long range SAM which can only fire when emplaced. Maybe I'm not understanding you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
BadgerMan45 posted:That looks familiar, did they just have some 1C5s at the schoolhouse for this specific purpose or was there an ACS nearby? Just curious as I used to be stationed at one. I'm going to be honest and say I have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I'm going to be honest and say I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, I was being presumptuous and assumed you were more familiar with CRCs, nobody ever understands what the hell we do when I try explain it to them (including other people in the AF, or even the maintainers in our own drat squadron) so I get excited when someone has actually heard of any of that stuff. ACS= Air Control Squadron=CRC, 1C5X1 is the AFSC (MOS) of the operators that work there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
Ah, now I remember hearing ACS/Air Control Squadron, but I never heard the MOS or Air Force equivalent thereof. edit: this training is performed at the DMOC at Kirtland AFB. We worked with some folk from Tinker AFB who came to Kirtland on TDY.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 06:41
|
|
|
Senor Science posted:This may be a more esoteric question, but how strictly regimented was life in the Soviet army in the Eastern Bloc? I'm sure they didn't go off base as much or had their needs catered as well as the US forces in Europe had it. Depends on when you're talking about. RIGHT after the war (we're talking May, June, July '45 here) they basically were running rampant over the country side and there were some BAD problems. Like, "entire villages full of women gang-raped" type bad problems, along with systematic looting that was so out of control that soviet authorities were having trouble keeping them from stealing poo poo that the Soviets wanted to "procure" to send back to the USSR - specialty lab equipment, lenses, etc. This was such an issue that they started getting MASSIVE complaints from returning pre-war communists who had been in hiding during Hitler's reign, especially in Poland and Germany. Basically, the Red Army were being such dicks that the locals were thinking the problem was with Communists in general. This quickly lead to some hard-core base lockdown for a few years where occupation troops basically never went off post, ever, except for officers (and even then we're talking more Major and above than the platoon LT). Get into the 60s and you start to see off-base leave and the like, but even into the 80s they were more restricted in their movements than American soldiers were. A lot of the later reasoning for this had to do with poo poo like the Prague Spring and the 17. June uprising in E. Berlin - if they half expected to need to use those troops to put down the locals they didn't want them going out and becoming all buddy-buddy with them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 13:46
|
|
|
Senor Science posted:This may be a more esoteric question, but how strictly regimented was life in the Soviet army in the Eastern Bloc? I'm sure they didn't go off base as much or had their needs catered as well as the US forces in Europe had it. My two cents: Vast conscript armies aren't well known for being a super awesome party time thing. A conscript army, especially a communist one, would probably be a half step above jail. Maybe not for officers, or specialized trades but for the hundreds of thousands/millions of men pushed into the grunt roles. Morale was probably in the shitter. You had guys pulled in from all over, think of the break away republics that now end in 'stan', the Baltic states, the Polish, none of which are thrilled to wear a sickle and hammer and usually don't even speak Russian. During the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, 80% of their troops came home with awful diseases, (malaria, TB etc). Their second line support services (like medical, immunization) were weak or non existent. The Russians worked hard to present the west is this massive fit, square jawed Iron Bear Man, think of their olmpyians (or Ivan Drago!). And we generally bought it. We probably would have encountered mal nourished conscripts speaking anything but Russian coughing up blood on us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 18:31
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Also, the SGT York was a disaster, but it was never intended to replace Patriot. It has a totally different role. The SGT York was supposed to be a maneuver shorad AAA system, whereas Patriot is a mobile long range SAM which can only fire when emplaced. Maybe I'm not understanding you. Mobile US air defense sucked. That was the original point. The Linebacker and Avenger weren't fielded until well after the cold war, while the Soviets were in love with the idea of field mobile guns'n'missiles and poo poo. Also pretty sure that the Patriot wasn't deployed until the mid '80s.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
Flanker posted:My two cents: Well, yes and no. Beginning at least in the 30s, if not before then, the Red Army was organized into various "lines," generally according to political reliability and the quality and training of the troops. There were sub-groupings too, but generally you had (and remember I'm way more familiar with the WW2 era organization): First Line - These were generally drawn from ethnic russians and had what was generally considered to be quality equipment. At the top end of this you've got stuff like Armored Guards divisions which were straight up elite soldiers equipped with the best kit and with excellent support, while the "average" was still pretty well trained, decently equipped, and had fairly good support apparatuses. These were the fist units to get new equipment as it was developed. Second Line - less dependable for whatever reason. Crappier kit. Crappier support. Not terrible soldiers, but kind of unreliable. These are the guys who were still rocking Mosins and up-gunned T34s in the mid-50s. These guys would be good enough to not be totally embarrassing if you threw them against NATO forces in the 70s or 80s, but you probably wouldn't use them to put down a political uprising or something like that. Pretty much the bulk of the Red Army, generally at least "european" in ethnicity, if not Russian. Third Line - this is your real poo poo-grade human-wave type formations, and I"m not even entirely sure that the Soviets kept any on the books after WW2. When you read about the Soviets sending conscript battalions of mongolians through known German minefields to blow them up with their feet before sending in the Red Army Guards, that's these guys. I'm pretty sure this is also where the penal batallions figured in. Basically no equipment or support. If the cold war had gone hot in the 70s or 80s, these are the poor SOBs who would have been handed all those RC K98ks, refurbed Mosins, and mothballed T34s in the hopes that they could at least slow down NATO forces, if only by forcing them to take the time to shoot them. Generally speaking if they were drawing conscripts from their "colonial" possessions (the various *stan countries, Soviet East Asia, etc) this is where they ended up. In WW2 these poor bastards looked closer to Korean War-era Chinese formations than the late-war Red Army. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Feb 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Mobile US air defense sucked. That was the original point. The Linebacker and Avenger weren't fielded until well after the cold war, while the Soviets were in love with the idea of field mobile guns'n'missiles and poo poo. Yeah, mobile US air defense did suck and still does IMO. Patriot wasn't deployed until the early 80's, but was a system of record in the 1970's. Various people try to describe Patriot as mobile when they it really is only "moveable." I wouldn't call a 1 hour tear down time, lack of shoot on the move, and 1 hour setup time "mobile" air defense. One of the few great air defense systems from the US we got to see in devastating action was the Stinger missile itself and its precursor, the Redeye. While the range is quite limited, they were key in destroying hundreds of aircraft in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Have always had a big boner for ground-based missile systems, SAGE, B-52s, and so on. This has been one of the most informative threads I've read on SA, probably the best I've read since I started lurking here. Keep it coming. P.S. I can't believe how many old Nike sites existed just within five miles of my house up until 10-15 years ago. Now they're all paved over, on private property, or converted to commercial use. My cousin did an inpatient drug treatment program at a compound that was very obviously former military housing of some sort, and I later learned that it was the launch control center for a Nike site in the area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Tovarishi, what happen to knowledge of winners of Cold War!? Soviet Union wins this fight? Probably this is because of superior Soviet airpower.  Click here for the full 1000x667 image. Su-25 is powerful weapon! Су-25 (Amerikanski comrades call Frogfoot Su-25) is glorious example of will of Soviet peoples in air combat excellence. It is best for overcomplicate American capitalist mind to think of superior Su-25 as “Russian A-10”. This is best for understanding and friendship. First Грач (Soviet forces name plane after mischievous bird, not mutilate amphibian part) was flying from year 1981 in battle against Osama bin Laden and American-backed allies in Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Su-25 swoops in and shoots everything up. Long has the Motherland operated sturmoviks against ground enemies. Su-25 is logical elevation of this history developed to pave way through NATO in Europe. Good-bye NATO, you have been terminated! First important point is titanium bathtub for our pilot to protect. Ah, not only A-10 get this luxury! Cock Pit of Su-25 can withstand shelling of 20mm cannon. Only dent! Flying good.  Su-25 return from battle with smelly Georgians! Fly to home ok! Now that pilot is good, he may attack ground enemies with smorgasbord of missiles, bombs and cannon. While American A-10 ground attack has overcomplicated technical showoff gun, beloved Su-25 has more practical, yet dead making Gsh-30-2 30mm cannon. Many attach points can carry rocket, bomb, missile, or even barrel of kvas.  Look at sexy time. Americanski A-10 has fly to maximum at 706 kilometers per hour. Su-25 surpasses enemy imposter with maximum of 950 kilometers per hour. Check off win in column again for Russia! Overcomplicate design of capitalist planes also cripple ability to fly from any crumbling airstrip in middle of forest like Грач. Su-25 take off in frozen tundra airfield covered in downed tree and with covering of empty vodka bottles. A-10 and other NATO types take oppression of hundreds of crewmembers to hourly sweep runway with toothbrush. Very sad and unfortunate.  Comrades in Peru show last-ditch assault tactic. Watching of video is also good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0mE_BCj-eg
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Agustin Cienfuegos posted:
Is Russian edition of Ghost By Alexi Ringoski!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Oh man, that Su-25 is one sexy beast! And speaking of Peru, it's interesting they were the only South American nation that uses Russki stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 23:06
|
|
Senor Science posted:Oh man, that Su-25 is one sexy beast! Not only did Peru use Russki stuff, they had a Maoist-flavored commie revolutionary group named the loving Shining Path who hung dead dogs as their calling card and the president of Peru was ethnically Japanese. Peru is like that kid in the cafeteria who just HAS to be different from everyone else.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
Cool writeup on the Sukhoi, but I found this even more fascinating/hilarious.Wikipedia posted:The gun was noted for its high (often uncomfortable) vibration and extreme noise. The airframe vibration lead to fatigue cracks in fuel tanks, numerous radio and avionics failures, the necessity of using runways with floodlights for night flights (as the landing lights would often be destroyed), tearing or jamming of the forward landing gear doors (leading to at least three crash landings), cracking of the reflector gunsight, an accidental jettisoning of the cockpit canopy and at least one case of the instrument panel falling off in flight. The number of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft firing (or flying) within 200 metres of the impact area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Senor Science posted:Oh man, that Su-25 is one sexy beast! Not really... Also, Mexico operates Mi-8/17s and a couple of An-32s, Nicaragua also operates Mi-8/17s along with a few An-26s, and Peru operates MiG-29s, Su-22s, Su-25s, Mi-8/17s, and some An-32s. And holy poo poo, that Su-25 write up was awesome. e: gently caress, reading comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Git yer foxbat on UNF http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47g1HhyAy-0&feature=related edit: what the gently caress is foxbot? Flanker fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Feb 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
Muchas gracias a todos! I was procrastinating on some GIS work, and thought I'd try to make a stupid/awesome post. The Peru Su-25s apparently came from Belarus...and are used to shoot down cocaine cowboys!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Flanker posted:Git yer foxbot on UNF Foxbot? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Foxbot? Kids, this is what happens when you're browsing the forums at work, and you're malnourished and dehydrated. You type foxbot and go on thinking you typed foxbat. What the gently caress. What is the bird the Su-25 is named after? I can't read Russian
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
Whenever I script in a Foxbat running a high altitude, high speed "gently caress you" recon profile like the one flown here, Patriot operators get all confused and seem to think the radar is acting up in the simulation. It's funny to see new guys who are used to seeing real radar tracks, like generic subsonic military flights or civilian flights think the recon flight Foxbats are either spurious or maybe a misclassified air-to-air missile or some such.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2011 06:21
|
|
|
Flanker posted:Kids, this is what happens when you're browsing the forums at work, and you're malnourished and dehydrated. You type foxbot and go on thinking you typed foxbat. What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Agustin Cienfuegos posted:
   
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2011 07:54
|
|
