AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

«‹›1991 »

SyHopeful: Jun 24, 2007; May an IDF soldier mistakenly gun down my own parents and face no repercussions i'd totally be cool with it cuz accidents are unavoidable in a low-intensity conflict, man

Flikken posted:

With the / it means airpower or cold war. At least that's how i read it.

The intentions were Cold War-era military technologies, I'm pretty sure iyayaas01 threw in the AIRPOWER and the / because he's USAF .mil and airpower is his area of knowledge, but the thread is open for any Cold War tech discussion. There's enough WW2 stuff literally everywhere else and it's nice to have a thread that, for the most part, hasn't derailed into another P-51 fap-fest or a "who can post the most obscure, oddball Nazi aircraft concept" contest. Don't get me wrong, I love WW2 stuff and my love of Cold War history evolved out of my love for WW2 aviation.

Considering a WW2 airpower thread could easily and quickly get as long and probably even more in-depth than this thread, I'd really like to see WW2 stay separate. Start a WW2 airpower thread! Do writeups about the 8th AAF. Share stories from RAF fighter pilots about the Battle of Britain. Tell me more about how much of a stone-cold badass Erich Hartmann was. Remind us that America's top fighter ace was named Dick Bong. Hell, even Cyrano would be welcome to write more of his information-dense posts

It doesn't take much effort to start a thread, and I can guarantee you a WW2 airpower thread would take off quickly; I just really don't want to have to scroll past 78 pictures of F4U-1s and 91 posts discussing the differences between the B-17F and B-17G to get to that golden writeup of the XB-70.

In exchange I'll try to do an effortpost on Project Iceworm. Deal?

# ? Nov 17, 2011 18:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 16:53

Flanker: Sep 10, 2002; OPERATORS GONNA OPERATE
After a good night's sleep

Scut posted:

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.

It's made in the US, and Harper likes it therefore it's WRONG! Also, I wish to borrow your crystal ball that shows our foreign policy and threat spectrum 20 years from now when your 80's jets are half a century old. I'm pretty sure Gaddafi's air defense network was more advanced than some guys in pick up trucks with RPGs.

Is the F35 perfect for Canada? No, it isn't. But our F18s need replaced and it's the least lovely option. For long term sustainability, we need to get on board with what our Allies are using (not just the US, most of western Europe too) to ensure potential parts supply and cross training opportunities exist in the future.

In my ideal imaginary world, we'd select a high performance Gen 5 air dominance/interceptor for arctic sovereignty, then a dump truck for everything else. I would go as far as looking at some of the high end turbo props coming out of South America. Light, modular aircraft that can be used for CAS, ECM or even SOF insertion. A few of these roles can be supported by armed drones as well.

# ? Nov 17, 2011 19:04

CarterUSM: Mar 17, 2004; Cornfield aviator

I guess my experience is post-Glasnost, but it's probably technically Cold War since that was what my platform was designed for.

I was an ET3 plankowner on the U.S.S. Connecticut (SSN-22), the second of the Seawolf class attack subs. Those suckers are, if I recall correctly, one of the most recent major platforms whose design specs were based around Cold War requirements.

If anyone wants some boring sea stories about it, ask away.

The only cool thing that comes to mind right now relates to the first of the class, the Seawolf (SSN-21). A classmate of mine from ET "A" School was on-board her when it went out for sea trials. I'm sure most of you know that the Los Angeles class submarines used rubber anechoic tiling to reduce their acoustical signature. Well, the Seawolf class went one further, by using a compound called SHT (go ahead, make the joke...) which was put on more or less as a continuous sheet, rather than having discrete tiles.

Well, one element of the sensor suite of the Seawolf was the use of Wide Aperture Array (WAA) sonar panels, which were arranged in groups of three along each side of the sub. (You can see the forward WAA panel here just aft of the torpedo tube outer doors. This is the USS Jimmy Carter, with the SpecOps hull plug, so it's longer than a standard Seawolf) Well, obviously you can't put sound-deadening material over a sonar panel, so the way the WAA panels were mounted, there was a two or three inch lip at the edge of the WAA panel where it was attached to the pressure hull. The discontinuity at this lip, of course, gets filled in with SHT to make a nice smooth surface to minimize flow noise.

Except they didn't do that right away with the Seawolf. The Navy and Electric Boat were going to take it out for a shake-down cruise. It was the lead ship of the class, so they figured they were going to have to make modifications and the like when they got back, so they left the SHT off to make it easier to replace equipment via hull-patching.

So they're out there doing various evolutions to see how the sub does under operational conditions. Angles and dangles, hovering, periscope depth maneuvers, etc... Finally they get to the speed test. CO gave the order for flank speed, and the Seawolf's speed rapidly built up to...er..."in excess of 25 knots". And as a result, tore the aft port WAA panel nearly completely off the sub. The water pressure against the forward lip of the panel was powerful enough to pull it out of its mounting points and leave it dangling off the hull like a broken wing. I remember going into the drydock to see my classmate and having him take me around aft to see it. Naturally, I couldn't take pictures, but it was pretty impressive.

# ? Nov 17, 2011 21:34

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

Trench_Rat posted:

ACHTUNG JABO

edit: is doubble vju doubble vju two allowed in this thread?

I never understood why they named the Eurofighter after the Typhoon...it was an underperforming "fighter" that only achieved infamy because it slaughtered a bunch of Germans on the Western Front. There are so many other better historical choices...hell, if they wanted to name it after a British aircraft Spitfire or Tempest would've been a far better name.

And yeah, I'd be cool with someone starting a separate WWII thread.

Flanker posted:

In my ideal imaginary world, we'd select a high performance Gen 5 air dominance/interceptor for arctic sovereignty

We've already discussed the F-35 to death both here and in the AI Aeronautics thread, so I won't rehash that, but arctic sovereignty is a requirement that I think gets overlooked quite a bit in discussion around Canada's Bug replacement. I mean, there's a reason you guys built the CF-100.

CarterUSM posted:

Those suckers are, if I recall correctly, one of the most recent major platforms whose design specs were based around Cold War requirements.

Yup, it, the Arleigh Burkes, and the Raptor are basically the pinnacle of U.S. Cold War weapons development.

# ? Nov 17, 2011 21:55

slidebite: Nov 6, 2005; Good egg

I am not keen on having a single engined AC either as we don't have bases, or even loving runways for thousands of KMs up north in places.

I do think the Superbug could have potentially been a good option, but reasonable argument has been made that the F35 will have a longer lifespan with more upgrade programs than the E/Fs will have.

And since we have a history of using military hardware for years past its "USE BY" date, that's probably not a bad thing.

# ? Nov 17, 2011 23:44

Frozen Horse: Aug 6, 2007; Just a humble wandering street philosopher.

For the frozen north, what you want is some sort of SAR/maritime patrol aircraft. With global warming's effects on the polar sea ice, Canada will need the ability to do what it usually does off of Nova Scotia all the way from Labrador to the Yukon. For air superiority / getting in the middle of a U.S. - Russia fight, just modernise the BOMARC into a stealthy, dogfight-capable semi-autonomous drone and be done with it.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 03:51

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

Frozen Horse posted:

For the frozen north, what you want is some sort of SAR/maritime patrol aircraft. With global warming's effects on the polar sea ice, Canada will need the ability to do what it usually does off of Nova Scotia all the way from Labrador to the Yukon. For air superiority / getting in the middle of a U.S. - Russia fight, just modernise the BOMARC into a stealthy, dogfight-capable semi-autonomous drone and be done with it.

Only problem with that is these guys:

Can't really intercept them using a SAR/maritime patrol aircraft, and using an extended range semi-autonomous missile only works for no poo poo war, not for peacetime intercepts. If Canada got rid of their manned fighters they'd either have to pay the U.S. to do the intercepts over Canadian airspace or just cede their air sovereignty.

And before anyone asks, yes, the Canadians do intercepts of Russian bombers in the Western part of the country, just like the U.S. does regularly around Alaskan airspace.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 06:44

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Also the BOMARC is a missile from the 1950s? Let's also "modernize" some Mig-19s to back them up.

If Canada wanted drones or SAMs they would go for modern ones, I think, although I don't know if there are currently any UAVs in service that cruise at jet fighter speeds?

# ? Nov 18, 2011 08:21

Frozen Horse: Aug 6, 2007; Just a humble wandering street philosopher.

Mostly I was namedropping BOMARC in reference to its role in Canada's cold-war history (RIP Avro Arrow).

# ? Nov 18, 2011 08:27

mikerock: Oct 29, 2005

We would still be using the Arrow today if it had gone into production.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 08:44

Snowdens Secret: Dec 29, 2008; Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.

CarterUSM posted:

I was an ET3 plankowner on the U.S.S. Connecticut (SSN-22), the second of the Seawolf class attack subs. Those suckers are, if I recall correctly, one of the most recent major platforms whose design specs were based around Cold War requirements.

If anyone wants some boring sea stories about it, ask away.

I was going to ask for the Connecticut coming out of prototype but everyone told me no, it was the newest hull in the fleet, it would only do VIP tours and bullshit PR missions and I'd end up cleaning all the time. Instead I went to an i-boat that did VIP tours and bullshit PR missions and ended up cleaning all the time and right after I would've gotten there the Connie did all sorts of cool poo poo like a run to the North Pole - which was my dream underway, and which my boat never did.

I did have a buddy go to the Connecticut after you would've been gone, he had some crazy stories about some of the fancy stuff the Seawolves had over the i-boats, but it'll be ages before anyone can talk about it in an open forum.

Remulak posted:

This is definitely a professional-level click. It's also a good reminder as to how much the Walker ring really cost us.

Now here's a question for our military analysts: It is accepted wisdom that the Walker ring greatly hurt us militarily by removing key overwhelming wartime advantages. Yet it could be argued that much of the US's aggressive foreign policy and proxy conflicts of the '60s and '70s were based on assumptions of these overwhelming advantages and our expected supremacy in (the conventional phase of) any escalation to genuine superpower global conflict. After Walker broke, we began to take a much more cautious stance, particularly in fomenting proxy wars, possibly based on an assumption that maritime shipping required for escalation was at much greater risk. This toning down in the late '80s/90's turned out to come just in time for the USSR to internally destabilize and unravel in a way that might have been much more perilous had tensions been higher. In the end, did the Walker spy ring and the consequent deflating of American military overconfidence actually make the West safer?

For bonus points Lyaayas can discuss the ramifications, if any, of improved Soviet submarine capabilities on the drive to improve heavy airlift capacity.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 08:46

slidebite: Nov 6, 2005; Good egg

mikerock posted:

We would still be using the Arrow today if it had gone into production.

Highly unlikely, even for us, unless the name kept in play.

While pretty much everyone mourns the Arrow, we built such a mystique around it we'd have people thinking it could fly to the moon by now.

What we probably would have though is a homegrown modern military aircraft industry, although it probably would have been bought buy Lockmart by now.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 15:16

mikerock: Oct 29, 2005

We're still flying Sea Kings and they went into service around the same time the Arrows would have.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 17:56

Ygolonac

Nov 26, 2007

pre:

*************
CLUTCH  NIXON
*************

The Hero We Need

mikerock posted:

We're still flying Sea Kings and they went into service around the same time the Arrows would have.

Aren't y'all still using Inglis High Powers, too?

# ? Nov 18, 2011 19:34

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Ygolonac posted:

Aren't y'all still using Inglis High Powers, too?

There was a RFQ (or whatever) out for a replacement for the CF sidearm but it got withdrawn to get retuned because none of the manufacturers would agree to turn over their plans so Colt Canada could make them here. Ditto a requirement to replace the Canadian Rangers' old-rear end No. 4 Lee Enfelds.

I think the navy uses P226s on their boarding parties.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 19:42

mikerock: Oct 29, 2005

Buddy who went overseas in '09 got issued a brand-new in the grease with the Inglis decal Hi-Power.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 20:50

Slo-Tek: Jun 8, 2001; WINDOWS 98 BEAT HIS FRIEND WITH A SHOVEL

slidebite posted:

Highly unlikely, even for us, unless the name kept in play.

While pretty much everyone mourns the Arrow, we built such a mystique around it we'd have people thinking it could fly to the moon by now.

What we probably would have though is a homegrown modern military aircraft industry, although it probably would have been bought buy Lockmart by now.

Yeah, I could see Canada carving out a spot about the size of Sweden in the aerospace defense business if they had stayed the course.

Building a respectable and reasonably priced 4.5th gen fighter that would show up in all the international fighter competitions, and lose to a Lockmart contract.

Though I do wonder if the perpetual also-rans like Saab and Dassault keep the prices a little more honest, or if it is just a competition between Military Industrial Complexes as to who can subsidize the sale most heavily.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 20:53

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

The Rafale is a pretty nifty looking plane, IMO. The intakes are especially distinctive.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 20:55

slidebite: Nov 6, 2005; Good egg

mikerock posted:

We're still flying Sea Kings and they went into service around the same time the Arrows would have.

Big difference on wear between a high-G pressurized fighter/interceptor and a helicopter.

Long term airframes are certainly not rare (cargo planes, your helicopter example) but I don't know of any 1st world air forces actively flying operational fighters designed and built in the 50s/early 60s.

If they were Arrows, they'd have nothing in common with the original other than name.

Edit: We probably would have been flying them of some sort of variation well into the 80s though, just like the Voodoos.

slidebite fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Nov 18, 2011

# ? Nov 18, 2011 21:20

Trench_Rat: Sep 19, 2006; Doing my duty for king and coutry since 86

what sort of airplanes did the french airforce/navy use between 1946 and ca 1962 (DeGaulle going gently caress you american swine we are going our own way)

# ? Nov 18, 2011 22:38

Flikken: Oct 23, 2009; 10,363 snaps and not a playoff win to show for it