|
Scratch Monkey posted:Here's a page with a bunch of unremarkable but huge photos of the 111th FW's old A-10s. They also got BRAAC'd away from Willow Grove a few years ago. I used to love it when these guys flew over my house when I was a kid. I threw the same fit that other kids threw when the ice cream man came up the street. I used to see those guys fly around all the time during the summer while spending time around Camp Bayshore/Swatara Gap State Park area. I believe the 111th are the same that would do training around Ft. Indiantown Gap. Nothing better than mountain biking and coming into a clearing to see a bunch of A-10 flying around.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Yeah Fort Indiantown Gap has the live fire range they used to train on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:As a side note, the Army's 229 Aviation Regiment was granted permission to use the "Flying Tigers" livery by the 1st AVG veterans in 1988. How they can really claim lineage, I don't know, but there it is. I've never seen a shark mouth on an Apache before, that's awesome. So how does the way the Army uses the Apache differ from the way the Marines use the Cobra for CAS? They operate more independently right? Attack helicopters, especially the Apache have had to take on new roles since the tank-killing it was designed for isn't required all that often anymore, so I don't know what sort of missions it flies these days. Attack helos 'round the world         
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
On a more cold war note, Nowadays, Russia the US, and Europe are, for the most part fairly transparent when it comes to military issues and hardware, comparatively, why is China so opaque. Every other day I hear news like "China Fires on Philippines ships", or "China creates carrier killing missile", I'm starting to develop an irrational fear of China Another odd thing I have noticed, is that during the cold war, when the Mig-25 was spotted, US Analysts thought is was a highly maneuverable Soviet wonder jet, with the Chinese J-20 the opposite reaction is true, analysts say it is "underpowered" or "not stealthy", is it not a dangerous game to underestimate, rather than overestimate? Another mistake I may be making is that the opinions on the Mig-25 publicly came out a while after it's existence was known, whereas due to the immediate nature of the internet the perception of the J-20 is clouded by the opinions of bloggers and "analysts". Or it might actually be poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:On a more cold war note, Nowadays, Russia the US, and Europe are, for the most part fairly transparent when it comes to military issues and hardware, comparatively, why is China so opaque. Who is to say that our declarative stance on Chinese technology is the same as our actual policy though? We may be publicly downplaying its capability while evaluating our own. It's definitely possible that it's poo poo, or it might not be poo poo but people don't want you to know that. The whole thing with the MiG-25 being perceived as something more than it was was partially due in part to poor intelligence, but also because it fit the narrative of the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:Every other day I hear news like "China Fires on Philippines ships", or "China creates carrier killing missile", I'm starting to develop an irrational fear of China Then it's working. You've got to have a technologically advanced enemy to justify high tech military R&D. Expensive weapons like the F-22 are pointless in Iraq / AfPak / Libya / the next 3rd world enemy. dogmaan posted:Another odd thing I have noticed, is that during the cold war, when the Mig-25 was spotted, US Analysts thought is was a highly maneuverable Soviet wonder jet, with the Chinese J-20 the opposite reaction is true, analysts say it is "underpowered" or "not stealthy", is it not a dangerous game to underestimate, rather than overestimate? In the last 60 years if you go back and compare actual Soviet technology to what the 'Vulcans' or their equivalents claimed the capabilities were you'll find that the analysts were insanely optimistic. Hundreds of billions were spent to counter imaginary technology. quote:Another mistake I may be making is that the opinions on the Mig-25 publicly came out a while after it's existence was known, whereas due to the immediate nature of the internet the perception of the J-20 is clouded by the opinions of bloggers and "analysts". It's worth noting that there are observable characteristics that the J-20 that bloggers and analysts can see. In counterpoint, the Mig-25 analysis was largely based by grainy, classified spy photos. Of course, the narrative is still "Cheap inferior Chinese technology can't match our twenty year old super-weapons."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
Can we expand the discussion a little bit on the Canada fighter selection? It'd be nice to be able to talk about it with folks who have an actual clue (unlike in the Canada D&D thread where it boiled down to "why do we need jets to intercept 50 year old russian planes anyway?"  )I'm on board with the need for replacing the CF-18s, but it just seems like the procurement process has been a little flawed. I guess a major problem is the lack of viable 5th generation fighters to be had. Perhaps there wouldn't be any other options that would fit the criteria, but it's kind of annoying the tender wasn't even put out there in the first place. Factoring in the unknown end costs, the ongoing development and debugging of the entire system, it seems this is a pretty risky horse to bet on. Last I heard they wouldn't be ready to field until 2020 or so for that matter. Basically what would people here think would make a good alternative to the F-35 for a small military, bearing in mind they'd have to do a lot of different tasks, have extended range capabilities etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
I wouldn't consider the F35 risky since most of western Europe, the US and Australia are adopting the same platform. The F35 isn't perfect, or a perfect answer to every tactical aviation concern Canada has this week or last week. It's the best shot at covering all the bases for the next 20+ years before it's replaced, since we have no idea what those are going to be. Most of the resistance against the F35 is largely political. The Liberals bought into the program and the Conservatives simply carried on with the contract, they didn't ask for more fighters or change anything to my knowledge. I don't know if the Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale are good choices, or if they even count as Gen 5 fighters. I get a laugh when people ponder aloud why we we aren't simply building our own fighters. If we're going to do that, we should have started 20 years ago. Or start on the F35's replacement now. edited for typos Flanker fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jun 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Man I hope it's going to be viable for longer than 20 years! I thought it was supposed to carry us until 2050 or something like that. It's probably the best answer but I can't help but be very nervous about cost overruns and development issues. At least we won't be taking any of the S/VTOL risks with it, but still. It sounded like some US gov't bigwigs were expressing some extreme concern about the spiraling costs of the project. Agreed about the Gripen, Typhoon et al. It doesn't even sound like those would be appreciably cheaper (barring some serious overruns) I have to laugh about some people expressing we should be looking at the PAK FA aka Su-50, though. Yeah, that's gonna happen!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
priznat posted:I have to laugh about some people expressing we should be looking at the PAK FA aka Su-50, though. Yeah, that's gonna happen! I've said in the past that Russian designed aircraft license built in Canada to our specs would serve us incredibly well, but that's an insanely unrealistic idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Flanker posted:I've said in the past that Russian designed aircraft license built in Canada to our specs would serve us incredibly well, but that's an insanely unrealistic idea. It would be pretty cool but definitely unrealistic. Even the talk of getting some priznat fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jun 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:Attack helos 'round the world Could you or someone else ID these for me? Attack helicopters are the bee's knees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
1. Chinese WZ-10 2. Russian Mi-28 (Havoc) 3. South African AH-2 Rooivalk 4. Russian Ka-50 Black Shark
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
ought ten posted:Could you or someone else ID these for me? Attack helicopters are the bee's knees. 1) Chinese WZ-10 2) Mil Mi-28 3) Denel AH-2 4) Kamov KA-50 e;fb, drat my linking slowness!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
Much obliged to both of you. I think I recognize the Shark now that I connect it with the name (the double rotor is very distinctive) but the other three are new to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
3 of the 4 are in Battlefield 2. That is the only reason I recognized them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
I just remember the Mi-28 and WZ-10, what was the other one in BF2? Or was it an expansion? I only had special forces I think..
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
2 of the 4 are in BF2. The KA-50 wasn't in it except for mods.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
You are Right, AIX had the KA-50. edit: and the AH-2. So it looks like I probably played with all these choppers through BF2 or one of the BF2 mods. _firehawk fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jun 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:It was introduced in 1972 and is projected to be in service until at least 2028 simply because nobody's been able to come up with anything better. One failed idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
Flanker posted:I wouldn't consider the F35 risky since most of western Europe, the US and Australia are adopting the same platform. Eurofighter and Rafale are considered Gen 4.5, mostly because of their lack of significant architectural radar reduction measures. In terms of software and flight performance they'd otherwise be considered Gen 5. They also have that whole 'combat tested' thing thanks to Libya, while the F-22 was having it's seat padding swapped for causing a space-time inconsistency in the tertiary gravitron defluxipators. Also, fingers crossed, the F-35 is modular enough that most of it's mission-specific shortcomings are fixable with bolt-ons. Or we'll all just buy Eurofighters and skip any sort of air superiority notions for the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
I must say the Eurofighters, Gripens and Rafales look really cool. The combo of the delta wing and forward canards are nifty as heck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Eurofighter and Rafale are considered Gen 4.5, mostly because of their lack of significant architectural radar reduction measures. In terms of software and flight performance they'd otherwise be considered Gen 5. They also have that whole 'combat tested' thing thanks to Libya, while the F-22 was having it's seat padding swapped for causing a space-time inconsistency in the tertiary gravitron defluxipators. Canada could have gotten 95% of the f-35's capability with the F-15 Silent Eagle for about 60% of the cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 07:35
|
|
|
wkarma posted:Canada could have gotten 95% of the f-35's capability with the F-15 Silent Eagle for about 60% of the cost. Bingo. I'll have more about this later, but this is basically the crux of the argument regarding the F-35 vs advanced legacy fighters (the Euro-canards, Block 60 Vipers, Silent Eagles, etc.) The JSF's capability is nowhere near what it costs; despite what its supporters say, it is nowhere near a Raptor in performance, will never be near a Raptor in performance, and was never supposed to be near a Raptor in performance (both standard performance metrics like agility/maneuverability/turn radius/E-M type stuff, ceiling, and top speed/supercruise ability, as well as LO performance), yet it is rapidly approaching a Raptor in price. The performance doesn't merit the cost, but LockMart has managed to seduce customers with promises of "stealth," convincing them to overlook its performance shortcomings, and have strong armed them (along with the US Government, at least in the case of Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands) into jumping on board the joint program by threatening them with being left behind if they don't get with the program.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
Any particular reasons why we shouldn't just cancel the F35 and build more F22s?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 14:18
|
|
|
Is their a version of the F22 that can land on a carrier?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Any particular reasons why we shouldn't just cancel the F35 and build more F22s? Restarting the supply chain and production line will take time and cost a few billion dollars. RAND did a study on it a few years ago that goes into much greater detail. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR831.html I've said JSF stuff in the past when I really shouldn't, but I will say that historically both the USAF and the Navy have made sacrificed more capable (either curtailing orders or outright canceling) for lower cost ones when budgets get tight. F/A-18A-Ds over F-14s, F-16s over F-15s, F/A-18EFs over the A-12. Hell, look at how F-15s and F-14s were born out of the F-111's failing so miserably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Any particular reasons why we shouldn't just cancel the F35 and build more F22s? Why would we do that?Scratch Monkey posted:Is their a version of the F22 that can land on a carrier? We're still working on a version that can fly in the rain
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
Someone give me a list of Gen 5 fighters. I suspect the only one on that list available to Canada will be the F35 Airpower: Can someone find me a resource tracking the no fly enforcement over Libya? Like how many sorties by country, which airframes are in action, results, etc? edit: wiki page if anyone is interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_no_fly_zone Flanker fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jun 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 16:25
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:
Anyone have insight into the rain problem, keeping OPSEC in mind?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Is there a version of the F22 that can land on a carrier? Is there a carrier-based mission besides CAS that couldn't also have begun within a VLS? The post-cold-war paradigm seems to be one where the air war is won within the first hours, usually through destruction of infrastructure. It is fine and good to speak of the need for an air-superiority fighter or for carrier-based CAP, until one realizes that any combat where one air force isn't destroyed in detail by the first salvo of cruise missiles is likely to be between countries with strategic nuclear forces, and thus unlikely. Similarly, SEAD happens early, fast, and without an overwhelming need for manned aircraft. The cold war was filled with the idea of missile-armed interceptors flying in against high-speed strike aircraft and later by air-superiority fighters circling like boxers. The real question is, is there a version of the SM-6, MQ-1, or BGM-109 that one would bother launching from a carrier? The future is not a boxing match, it is a sucker-punch followed by a curb-stomping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
5th gen is a lockheed-marting marketing term with ever changing goalposts. Atleast that's what I've been able to gather from reading general stuff on the web and a lecture by the North European F35 LM program director at our university. Supercruise? F35 can't do that. Stealth? does that make the F117 5th gen? Sensor fusion? any modern new built western fighter has that. If you take the 5th Gen concept seriously, then the only 5th gen aircraft is the raptor IMO. F35 might well be the best choice regardless, but basing that decision on marketing doublespeak is a bad idea. I'm just a MechEng student who spends entirely too much time reading about airplanes, so I offcourse could be completely wrong. AlexanderCA fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jun 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
So that crazy Argentinean pilot from a page or two ago? Gizmodo's got the HUD camera footage. http://gizmodo.com/5809436/exclusive-cockpit-video-of-the-craziest-flyby-ever People having to literally dive out of the way of his plane...that insane sonofabitch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
I'd been thinking of the SuperHornet as an alternative to the F-35 so much I forgot all about the Silent Eagle. That'd be a great alternative too IMO. It's odd seeing an F-15 with canted stabilizers!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
I think we should consider forgetting this whole 'paint' thing and go back to finishing aircraft in glorious, gleaming bare aluminium. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:I think we should consider forgetting this whole 'paint' thing and go back to finishing aircraft in glorious, gleaming bare aluminium. We'd have to stop building our airplanes out of plastic. Or develop hundred thousand dollar a gallon silver paint that will stick to plastic. I don't know if Krylon rattlecans are Military-Industrial enough.  I've seen them flying the F-15SE test bed out over Lambert Field a couple times in the last year. The one they have flying now doesn't have the bent stabs. it's just a fat eagle with the conformational weapons bays. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jun 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
F-22: IT'S TAPE!Slo-Tek posted:I've seen them flying the F-15SE test bed out over Lambert Field a couple times in the last year. The one they have flying now doesn't have the bent stabs. it's just a fat eagle with the conformational weapons bays. Ah so it's not like this one anymore? 
priznat fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jun 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
priznat posted:F-22: IT'S TAPE! That one is a nonflying mockup, I think. They may have a more representative one in the air now, and I just havn't seen it yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:I think we should consider forgetting this whole 'paint' thing and go back to finishing aircraft in glorious, gleaming bare aluminium.  This thing could not be sexier if it had boobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Ah yeah it looked a little mock-uppy. Gotta wonder how stealthy it can get with giant vertical stabs, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 22:49
|
|