|
Frozen Horse posted:What's going on here? Are these flares that are getting dispensed by being thrown out the side window or something? The geniuses that designed the Bone put the countermeasure dispensers in the upper fuselage, right behind the crew compartment. If the aircraft maneuvers in the wrong way after dispensing flares, they can come into contact with the rear of the aircraft (usually upper portions of the vertical stabilizer), burning holes in the structure.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Well, that's completely reasonable. After all, who would ever be violently manoeuvring while in a situation that also calls for anti-missile flares?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 06:44
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:Well, that's completely reasonable. After all, who would ever be violently manoeuvring while in a situation that also calls for anti-missile flares? It happens when they DON'T maneuver. A lot of the tail damage you see if from Shows of Force/Shows of Presence, where they buzz the bad guys and drop flares to gently caress with them. It's normally a fantastic way of dealing with look down targeting since as the B-1 is supposed to go in low. The flares get between the exhaust plume and missile, making flare rejection less effective since it blocks out the weaker signature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 07:15
|
|
|
Here's some more...                                     
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 10:45
|
|
|
And some more...                                The Sabre in that last picture is Erich Hartmann's personal jet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 11:01
|
|
|
Last one for now...just like with the ones before, click through for higher resolution.                                             
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 11:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:More Thuds please. Something about the brutal proportions of that jet, as well as the F-4 Phantom, always tick the right boxes in my aesthetic senses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 13:14
|
|
|
I'll do some more Phantoms later, but for now here are some more Thuds...click for larger:      4500 lbs of bombs a piece in that picture, nowhere close to the Thud's max.      24,500 lbs of thrust.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 13:31
|
|
|
Was use of the parachute extremely common on landing for a Thunderchief? Also brings up a question which I hope yields another crazy test project: were there any aircraft that absolutely needed parachutes or else no runway could accept them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
Scut posted:Was use of the parachute extremely common on landing for a Thunderchief? Also brings up a question which I hope yields another crazy test project: were there any aircraft that absolutely needed parachutes or else no runway could accept them? Probably the XB-70.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I don't know what it is, but I love the hell out of the P-38 Lightning. It's just so pleasant to look at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it also one of the very few 'heavy fighters' that wasn't terrible? Also, like Scut, I get a similar, hard to explain boner for the F4 Phantom. Maybe I just like odd-looking, but distinguished aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Probably the XB-70. The XB70 actually did make a few landings without a brake chute although I'm not sure if they were all planned or not. IIRC, it needed a roll out of about 11K feet when it did. This obviously would have narrowed its potential choices of runways if it didn't have a functional brake chute. I think the A12/SR71 were in the same boat in the way that they were meant to land with a chute at each time, but it didn't always work out that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
An 11,000 foot rollout is just wrong on many levels. It was the Cold War, though, so I'm sure the answer would have been "make 50,000 foot runways in at least 100 areas of the country" or "improve national highway system", or something dumb like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:If we're talking about writers that went insane you could talk about Dale Brown. Why yes, Russia just nuked nearly every military site in the US and then convinced the president to not retaliate. Better call in the remote controlled b-52's to invade russia on their ow- gently caress why did I read those books. My favorite Cold War nonsense is still the Clive Cussler book where the Soviets attack a secret American moonbase while Dirk Pitt fumbles around in Cuba. Or Japanese businessmen sneaking nuclear weapons into American cities disguised inside cheap hatchbacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:An 11,000 foot rollout is just wrong on many levels. It was the Cold War, though, so I'm sure the answer would have been "make 50,000 foot runways in at least 100 areas of the country" or "improve national highway system", or something dumb like that. iyayaas can probably correct me, but I'd guess that if aircraft that needed an 11k foot rollout like the XB-70 and SR-71 couldn't find a suitable runway and their only options were highways or other "rough" surfaces, there are a lot bigger problems going on (like the Cold War going hot).
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:An 11,000 foot rollout is just wrong on many levels. Only has a 12K' runway? Make sure it's down on the threshold or you're hosed!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:20
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:My favorite Cold War nonsense is still the Clive Cussler book where the Soviets attack a secret American moonbase while Dirk Pitt fumbles around in Cuba. Or Japanese businessmen sneaking nuclear weapons into American cities disguised inside cheap hatchbacks. Someone over in the Book Barn described Clive Cussler as "and then suddenly Spanish Neo-Nazis are using Chinese sonic weapons to manipulate the prices of orange futures in Florida" or something like that and it took me a minute to realize that this was not an actual book.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Requesting that anybody with the knowledge make a few effort posts about Navy shenanigans and stuff during the Cold War. This thread seems to be mostly focused on USAF/Army stuff but I wanna hear it all!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
Here's a really good effortpost on Cold War submarine development in the US: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/cold-war-asw.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
Longish post on Red Army incoming...Remulak posted:Aha, a visit to Wikipedia tells me that this is the same guy that wrote the famous "Dude, Where's My Civil War?" piece, claiming there was no civil war in Iraq. In 2006. Sure, still, Red Army was written in '89. quote:Of course they achieve limited victory - it was flat-out propaganda to show the need to increase defense funding, because THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU DON'T. Dunno, I wasn't in any position to judge this back in '89. When reading it first a couple of years ago I just took the book as purely a work of fiction and not beholden to any political position. quote:Also note that the American sectors were the only ones that did well against the damned Ruskies, those perfidious eurofags surrendered and gave them just what they wanted. I haven't got the book around right now but if I'm not mistaken the NATO conscript armies actually held their own in their sectors (Dutch 1 Korps and German I. Korps) and a breakthrough was forced in the (non-conscript) British Army on the Rhine (BAOR) sector of the NATO Northern Army Group (NORTHAG). Peters describes a Soviet feint across the Lüneburger Heide while simultaneously stacking up 3rd Shock Army (Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG)) Tank divisions to rapidly break through British lines along the Salzgitter - Hildesheim axis towards the Weserbergland. This works pretty well in a wargame environment (TOAW, HPS Modern Campaigns) and Peters didn't have access to any of those resources back then so I was pretty impressed with this particular part of his scenario. The book centers around GSFG operations against NORTHAG anyway while all tripwire US forces were stationed in CENTAG (Central Army Group) up until somewhere in the late 80's when the forward based 3rd Corps Brigade was added into the Northern mix (still a pretty inconsequential force). Force disposition, terrain and logistics would have made a push into American (and BRD) defended Central Germany a lot harder anyway, It's lovely tank country south of the A44. So I don't think it's unrealistic to see a WWIII book having the Soviets rapidly advance in the north while stalling everywhere else. The 'magical' aspect of the US Army appearance towards the end wouldn't have been too far off the mark either seeing as the US 3rd Corps would have drawn their prepositioned stocks and been laying somewhere deep in the rear behind the Weser. What follows in the book is a meeting engagement where a lot goes wrong for the Soviets but I didn't feel like these sudden defeats were solely of an American making. Had there been a British Corps in the waiting, or big non-reserve German, Dutch or Belgian formations, that particular battle might have had a similar outcome. Then again, entire fresh divisions with large organic rotary assets and ICM rocket artillery, a full TO&E of state of the art MBT's and AFV's, contract soldiers and a highly professional NCO corps, being flown in fresh out of NTC rotations and such, drawing gear in mint condition... that's a mix no other NATO army could provide at that particular moment in such a conflict. That's why I feel the books conclusion still works on a strategic level: Forward defense fails, second and third echelon Soviet forces are hitting deep into Germany, assaulting into old farts in crummy reserve outfits (who by the way are a country's wage-earners and household patrons) while top of the line US formations (really the only good ones left) get to pick and choose their engagements against a backdrop of quick nuclear escalation. Hence a peacenik copout by West-German leadership. quote:I read that whole book with my teeth gritted internally arguing with the guy. The problem is he's a better writer than Clancy so his bullshit is more insidious. Have you got more specific points on where you felt Peters dropped the ball? Koesj fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Nov 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Someone over in the Book Barn described Clive Cussler as "and then suddenly Spanish Neo-Nazis are using Chinese sonic weapons to manipulate the prices of orange futures in Florida" or something like that and it took me a minute to realize that this was not an actual book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Requesting that anybody with the knowledge make a few effort posts about Navy shenanigans and stuff during the Cold War. This thread seems to be mostly focused on USAF/Army stuff but I wanna hear it all! One of the coolest was Operation Ivy Bells. Soviets ran an underwater communications cable between their naval base at Petropavlosk, across the Sea of Ohkostk, to the fleet HQ in Vladivostok. That's territorial waters for them. Plenty of naval traffic, and the seafloor's seeded with sensors sort of like SOSUS. USS Halibut gives no poo poo, sneaks on in there and finds the cable in 100 meters of water. Divers planted a long eavesdropping device on it, and every month or so they'd go back to and retrieve the data tapes it was making and probably swap out the batteries and such. The Soviets were so sure the cable was secure that they didn't even bother encrypting much of the traffic that flowed across it. The operation ran for something like ten years, until an NSA agent sold the details to the Soviets. We figured out it was burned when USS Parche went in to retrieve the tapes and found them missing. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Nov 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Navy shenanigans Naturally it all started with the Germans, who had several ideas along these lines. The only one to see use was the Bachem Ba-349 Natter.   This was designed to take off from a vertical tower, empty its load of rockets at a bomber formation, then land on parachute to be theoretically recovered, refueled and relaunched. Less than 20 were ever built. The field they would operate from was overrun by the Allied advance before they ever saw action. Sometime in 1948 the US Navy called for designs of aircraft to be vertically launched from the decks of conventional ships. Convair, Lockheed and Northrop all submitted candidates. The Northrop aircraft never made it to prototype stage, despite being the best-looking of the lot. See?   the Lockheed entry: XFV-1 Salmon  Isn't that beautiful? something about it just looks right. It first took to air for a brief hop during taxi tests in December 1953, and first flight was in June 1954..but it never took off or landed vertically. The intended engine never became available and the final version was about 2000hp underpowered. So each of its test flights used a conventional takeoff and landing, with use of two fixed wheels at the tail, and a main undercarriage mounted by means of this huge ungainly frame.  the Convair entry: XFY-1 Pogo  Somewhere I heard these called 'pogo fighters' and where exactly the term comes from is just going to remain one of life's great mysteries. Anyway, this one used a somewhat more stable-looking arrangement, less likely to tip over in rough seas. First flight, tethered, was in April 1954 and in November of the same year it took off vertically, transitioned to level flight, landed vertically again. Intended armament for both was supposed to be 4x 20mm cannon in the wingtip pods, or a load of those horribly inaccurate folding-fin aerial rockets the USAF/Navy were fond of at the time. Somewhere I read the cannon were fuselage-mounted and firing through the propeller disks, but I don't even want to imagine the interrupter gear required for this. One interesting common feature was a pilot's seat that tilted 45 degrees forward, to make the whole landing while looking over one's shoulder and hanging nearly upside down thing a little easier.. but it wasn't easy enough and the the project was scuttled in mid-1955. Reasoning was, only very experienced pilots could take off and land in such a contraption, especially on a naval platform, and conventional fighters had begun to offer much greater performance. Another one: Ryan X-13 Vertijet  This actually started life as a tech demonstrator. Can we make a jet take off and land vertically? Yes, we can. From a semi-truck trailer? Yes, we can! First flight was conventional, with temporary fixed landing gear, in December 1955. In April of 1957 it actually lifted from its trailer once that was lifted to vertical, transitioned to level flight, buzzed around for a little bit, transitioned to vertical again, approached and landed itself on the trailer's framework. Thrust vectoring was used for maneuvering while vertical, in addition to wingtip thrusters for roll control, and video of both prototypes is on youtube. HONORABLE MENTIONS Writing about these would be a bit too  SNECMA C.450-01 Coléoptère - first flown in May 1959 and crashed in July 1959, this French annular-wing thing was supposedly very unstable and dangerous to fly.  Focke-Wulf Fw Triebflügel - this thing only went as far as wind tunnel model testing. The three-blade propeller mounted amidships used three ramjets on its wingtips. Getting fuel there from the fuselage tanks must've presented an interesting engineering nightmare.  Heinkel Lerche - also never made it to prototype stage. This was supposed to use twin engines for twin counterrotating propellers mounted inside that round wing thing, and two designs were proposed, one of which used a prone position for the pilot. Neither would've worked, for lack of engines powerful enough to drive the thing. But I have to say, flying one of these in IL-2:1946 was a total blast - using fictional engines and an equally fictional stabilizing system for vertical flight.  Somewhere I heard of a Soviet tailsitter project by Sukhoi, but I don't know if it really happened. nnnnghhhhgnnngh fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Nov 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
Looking back I wonder if the YF-23 was a better option than the YF-22?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:Looking back I wonder if the YF-23 was a better option than the YF-22? I've always had a gut feeling that the 23 had way more potential, but it wasn't chosen because air force deciders are huge pussies who can only agree on airplanes that look like the F-15.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Longish post on Red Army 'Teas a masterpiece of a post, I read the book sometime in the early 90's, so my take in it was pretty different, to the point that it pissed me off as I was enjoying it. I don't remember a lot of the details now but some scenes from the book are still vivid in my memory. I'm kind of amazed how passionate I am about this still, there are books I liked a lot better that I don't remember this well
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
gently caress F-105s, more 106s!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
movax posted:Indeed. I've been meaning to put up a thread mocking Clancy for a few months now in GiP; I've got the OP like half-written. I had recently re-read all the Clancy books for the first-time since I was younger, and holy poo poo do they read differently when you're 21 instead of 12. I'd love for you to do this. The last Tom Clancy book I read was about evil Bulgarians assassinating the pope, and for some reason there was extended commentary about how terrible public health care systems are compared to 'merica's way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:iyayaas can probably correct me, but I'd guess that if aircraft that needed an 11k foot rollout like the XB-70 and SR-71 couldn't find a suitable runway and their only options were highways or other "rough" surfaces, there are a lot bigger problems going on (like the Cold War going hot). Yeah, while an 11k foot rollout is pretty ridiculous, it wouldn't be too hard for an aircraft to find a runway capable of one, even if you limited it to military only runways. Boomerjinks posted:I've always had a gut feeling that the 23 had way more potential, but it wasn't chosen because air force deciders are huge pussies who can only agree on airplanes that look like the F-15. It came down to favoring maneuverability over speed and stealth. The YF-23's use of shaping to lower RCS had the advantage of not compromising high speed performance, as opposed to the YF-22's use of faceting. Additionally, the YF-23's exhaust did a really good job of lowering IR signature, through shaping and having the air flow through tile lined troughs (this also improved rear aspect RCS). However, this precluded the use of thrust vectoring like the YF-22, hence the difference in maneuverability. Both designs met the minimum ATF requirements, it just came down to what area(s) the USAF wanted to emphasize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
F-23s would have been just as apropos on the "not particularly effective against an insurgency" macros  (I think the YF-23 looked wayyyy cooler and in the end that is what shapes my opinions on fighters so they made the wrong call <  >)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 06:26
|
|
|
 Avro Vulcan flying over the B-24 Lady Be Good in Libya. Found on the rather excellent x planes tumblr. http://xplanes.tumblr.com/
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
If you really wanna see how far we've come, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=?Ki86x1WKPmE F-35 ship usability testing. Neat stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 15:12
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:If you really wanna see how far we've come, watch this: It's just a white screen, Jeff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
Ace Oliveira posted:It's just a white screen, Jeff. I'm guessing this is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE Maybe it's just growing up with Transformers, but all that poo poo opening up at 0:32 and 1:16 makes the entire video for me. When did that big top scoop get added to the -B? I remember closet-style doors opening on the top to expose the front fan, but not that huge backwards speed brake looking thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
Sexual Lorax posted:I'm guessing this is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE Thanks. drat, that video is awesome. The music also owns. From the little I've read about the F-35, it seems like a pretty impressive aircraft. I also didn't know it could open itself up like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
Someone explain to me again why everyone has such a huge hate-on for the F-35?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 16:02
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Someone explain to me again why everyone has such a huge hate-on for the F-35? Lockheed-Martin and jet fighters they design don't go too well. "So how's that massive boondoggle of the F-22 coming along?" "Great, now we have another huge, over-budget project that's tied up in a myriad of production and distribution problems!" The Canadians don't really want it (they can't refuel it mid-flight) but Harper has a hard-on for it, the USAF wants it to replace everything ever including the A-10, the SVTOL version is only wanted by the Marines and has driven the project way over-budget, and the Israel version literally gets thrown into terrible, terrible political deals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Someone explain to me again why everyone has such a huge hate-on for the F-35?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
LP97S posted:"Great, now we have another huge, over-budget project that's tied up in a myriad of production and distribution problems!" As a Canadian this pretty much sums up my stance on the F-35. I think it's an amazing piece of engineering, but in my opinion the only reason Harper's buying into them is to win favours in Washington. I don't much see the point in subsidizing the American arms industry when our primary role as a military is to protect refugees from guerrillas most of the time. A fleet of tooled-up 80's era jets and modern drones are going to sling bombs against dudes in Toyota pickups armed with RPG's just as effectively as a transforming stealth ultra-jet. I don't want to open up a can of worms here. To be clear, I think it's a loving amazing machine. I think resources could go into other loving amazing machines that are good for something other than killing people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 16:43
|
|