|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:Not exactly cold war but I thought some folks may get a kick out of this:
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Naramyth posted:These were posted by a colleague of mine on Facebook. He was .mil and is a bit older then me so I have no doubt that these were early 90s photos. I'll message him what you asked and get back to you. my dude posted:It's a Netherland F-16, I don't know when it was taken, but I think it was on my first TDY to Turkey, we were supporting the no-fly zone after the first Gulf War, so it was late 1991 time frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Need? Maybe not. But who said anything about "need." You're reading it wrong. Hellfires have a flyaway cost of roughly $60,000. Guided 70mm rockets have a flyaway cost of roughly $20,000. You can blow up three times as many bad guys for the same amount of money!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:You're reading it wrong. Says the man who shoots airguns by choice. CHOICE. More money = more boom = more better.  edit: I stand by this logic - this is a cold war thread and I'm pretty sure that was the mission statement of arms R&D procurement for both sides for pretty much all of it. editx2: saving money is for people who voted for Mondale Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Nov 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Actually given some of the stupid poo poo we spent money on during the cold war, I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. This is the country that fielded the Dragon ATGM as a valid anti-tank weapon well through the '80s.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
*"More boom" may be substituted by "more votes" as needed
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 22:46
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:*"More boom" may be substituted by "more votes" as needed "Hey let's put a 105mm on our new MBT, it's made in america, not like that 120mm german crap" I'm not sure, but I think the holdup was in getting the rights to produce the 120mm in America. Could be wrong. Pentagon design decisions (Sgt. York  ) confound me.
Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Nov 23, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:Those little 70mm rocket launchers are compatable with the new generation of guided 70mm rockets, right? You don't exactly need a Hellfire to blow up a panel truck . New generation hellfires come in a variety of different flavours don't they? They aren't all tank busters if I am not mistaken, and not all missions are panel truck recycling. Besides, I believe it's slated for Mokopa integration first up, which if claims hold up, gives this lightweight a 10km stand-off capability. Not an entirely useless feature in any number of mission profiles. I'm fascinated by the concept, and would really like to see what comes of this.  grover posted:So, it's kinda like a manned predator/reaper, but with less payload and loiter time? Exactly. A lot cheaper though, given the infrastructure required for an adequate drone system. I don't believe the intent is to be a drone alternative though. ming-the-mazdaless fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Nov 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
You guys keep comparing it to drones, but I can't look at that and see anything except a fixed-wing Cobra.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
It makes a lot of sense for conflicts where the enemy has no realistic air threat or guided AAA of their own, and you just need something up there to lob guided munitions at the enemy, especially if you're a country on a budget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
Or if you want to be the winner in a international "giant flying nose" contest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Says the man who shoots airguns by choice. CHOICE. Absolutely, more boom = more better. Think of it this way, you could carry 8 hellfires on this thing, or you could carry 28 70mm guided rockets. I followed the development of the various ICBM systems and the USA fielded a pitiful 4.5 different land based missiles. The Atlas, the Titan (the Titan 2 is a line extension IMHO and counts as 0.5), theMinuteman, and the Peacekeeper. The Soviets churned out a new class of ICBM nearly for every drat May Day parade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
So, they've parked this at the local National Guard Camp. Thoughts? Other than the hilariously racist/vintage nose art?     
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So, they've parked this at the local National Guard Camp. Thoughts? It's an P-80 Shooting Star, the first really decent American jet fighter. They actually managed to get a few in theatre at the tag end of the war in Europe, but didn't see any combat. They did see combat in Korea, but by that time they were pretty seriously outclassed by the Mig-15, and were quickly replaced by F-86 Sabres. Lockheed updated and iterated the design several times, there was the F-94 Starfire, which was an interceptor with no guns, but a nose full of dumbfire rockets. The two-seat advanced jet trainer version, the T-33 was the most successful and long-running. It got license-built all over the world, and a lot of them ended up on the civilian market. The F-90 was interesting. Similar to the original P-80, but more engine, swept wings, and a lot of stainless steel construction. It was a miserable dog, and didn't get put into production. Eventually the airframes were used for destructive testing. One got the wings ripped off at NASA-Lewis, and the other was towed out to Frenchman's flats and repeatedly nuked to learn the effects of atomic fire on modern aircraft. It was stricken from the records, and left out there. Some 50 years later, they found it again, still full of radioactive dust, but in remarkably decent shape.  Here it is at the USAF Museum restoration hangar. After drilling out all the rivets to blow the radioactive dust out, they determined that the restoration would be impractical, so they are going to put it on display about like it looks here.  XF-90 by RReiheld, on Flickr Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Nov 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:
Hm, interesting...I knew the Dutch provided some Marines and reconstruction/medical type folks for Provide Comfort (the operation preceding Northern Watch) but I didn't think they ponied up any fighters. ming-the-mazdaless posted:I'm fascinated by the concept, and would really like to see what comes of this. It's an interesting concept...the problem (as I see it) with the turboprop COIN-type aircraft (Super Tucanos, AT-6, etc.) is that they are still pretty drat expensive, both in procurement and operating costs, and outside of a few narrow examples (relatively well off countries in South America and Southeast Asia, as well as maybe a few countries in Africa) its price point is caught in the middle: too high for the majority of the countries that need the capability to afford it, but too low for the majority of countries that can afford it to realistically buy it due to the whole gold plated equipment MIC dealio (whether these countries could use that capability is another discussion). As I see it this aircraft would be for lower range countries that need an ISR platform capable of performing armed reconnaissance...basically folks that could use a small Predator fleet but lack the money/expertise to effectively operate UAVs. Cyrano4747 posted:It makes a lot of sense for conflicts where the enemy has no realistic air threat or guided AAA of their own, and you just need something up there to lob guided munitions at the enemy, especially if you're a country on a budget. Yup. I see it more in the armed reconnaissance role, similar to the Predator...excellent ISR package with the ability to carry a few PGMs. Hell, assuming it's cheap enough I could see this used by the U.N./other NGOs in an unarmed capacity to provide overhead imagery, as I know one of the things that is always in high demand during disasters, genocides, and other such events is quality imagery, and the NGOs are almost always beholden to the military/other governments to provide the imagery, which can cause issues when the political objectives of the government(s) conflict with the objectives of the NGOs. A prime example of this is during the First Congo War in the '90s when the U.S. "disappeared" ~400,000 Rwandan Hutu refugees and internally displaced Zairians...the U.S. overflew the country in a P-3 and shared imagery showing large numbers of refugees; within a few days most of the refugees were gone from the imagery the U.S. was providing. Didn't realize you were at Camp Dodge, Armyman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 02:53
|
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:I think the APKWS relies on an avionics package though I can't see why it couldn't be integrated. It reminds me of a backwards OV-10. Without all the cool factor. (click for big) 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 03:10
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It's an interesting concept...the problem (as I see it) with the turboprop COIN-type aircraft (Super Tucanos, AT-6, etc.) is that they are still pretty drat expensive, both in procurement and operating costs, and outside of a few narrow examples (relatively well off countries in South America and Southeast Asia, as well as maybe a few countries in Africa) its price point is caught in the middle: too high for the majority of the countries that need the capability to afford it, but too low for the majority of countries that can afford it to realistically buy it due to the whole gold plated equipment MIC dealio (whether these countries could use that capability is another discussion). As I see it this aircraft would be for lower range countries that need an ISR platform capable of performing armed reconnaissance...basically folks that could use a small Predator fleet but lack the money/expertise to effectively operate UAVs. Although they might be a bit cash-strapped, I could also see Indian Ocean and equatorial Pacific nations using this for a maritime patrol and fisheries enforcement capability. It's an awful choice for that, but it appears general-purpose enough that it could end up as, say the entire air force of Vanuatu. Monday, direct the navy towards the guys who are fishing all your tuna, Wednesday, throw a flying doctor in the back seat, Friday, get imagery of how much of some island was inundated by Thursday's typhoon, Saturday, fly some VIP's nephew to a dance contest. Think of it as a JSF for the $1000 annual GDP/capita set. Slo-Tek posted:The F-90 was interesting. Similar to the original P-80, but more engine, swept wings, and a lot of stainless steel construction. It was a miserable dog, and didn't get put into production. Eventually the airframes were used for destructive testing. One got the wings ripped off at NASA-Lewis, and the other was towed out to Frenchman's flats and repeatedly nuked to learn the effects of atomic fire on modern aircraft. It was stricken from the records, and left out there. Interestingly, it lost to the McDonnell XF-88 Voodoo. This was also intended to be a penetration fighter for escorting bombers, and lost to the Air Force going, "Wait, is subsonic bomber escort still sexy?" A couple of prototypes got made, and laid the groundwork for the much larger, supersonic F-101 Voodoo. One of these XF-88 prototypes had a turboprop added to the nose, as was the fashion at the time. Using this in conjunction with its jet engines, it did barely achieve supersonic flight. I wonder if it was as horrifyingly loud as the XF-84H.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Another neat bit of cold-war XFery was the YF-107.  Was a supersonic fighter-bomber based on the F-100 Super Saber. One of the requirements was that it be able to carry a nuclear weapon internally, or semi-recessed. The chin-mounted intake on the F-100 created some troublesome turbulence that interfered with weapons separation (something to be avoided when dropping nukes) so they moved the intakes and variable inlet ramps up to the top of the aircraft. Makes nice laminar flow on the belly to drop bombs through. Has some side effects though. The rear visibility ain't much, and ejecting might be a problem. Eventually the even bigger, even louder F-105 got the job, and trucked a hell of a lot of conventional bombs through the jungle. But that wasn't the coolest thing the F-105 did. For one glorious half-season, before one of the aircraft disintegrated over the crowd, the F-105 was used by the Thunderbirds demo team. Allegedly the loudest airshow performances in history. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Eventually the even bigger, even louder F-105 got the job, and trucked a hell of a lot of conventional bombs through the jungle. But that wasn't the coolest thing the F-105 did. For one glorious half-season, before one of the aircraft disintegrated over the crowd, the F-105 was used by the Thunderbirds demo team. Allegedly the loudest airshow performances in history. Second loudest: when both the Blues and T-Birds were flying the F-4. I would give my left nut to see all three of those shows
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The rear visibility ain't much, and ejecting might be a problem. You could always try downwards ejection, like they did with the early F-104s. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Second loudest: when both the Blues and T-Birds were flying the F-4. I would give my left nut to see all three of those shows The Angels in F-4Js managed to blow out the windows along main street of Kelowna, BC during the regatta there: http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/aeronautics/clips/1220/ My dad was there, along with a friend who had recently escaped the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Apparently the Sovs did the same thing on the Czechs as a prelude to the invasion, so he was pretty amped up, heh. priznat fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Nov 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 08:07
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The C-5s in European 1 are so loving Cold War...hey, these are strategic airlifters, but what the hell, paint them in our tactical camouflage pattern too. The 105th Airlift used to get some of these in back in the 80s and early 90s. It's been years since I've seen any that weren't solid green or gray, and if anything the camo on those giants draw attention. "Holy gently caress, is that a whole forest in the air? It loving is, isn't it...." They should have just painted them in full WWI dazzle, honestly. Gray on an overcast day is about as close to hidden as a C-5 is going to get, but you hear it 5 minutes before it's in visual, anyway. Smiling Jack posted:Pentagon design decisions (Sgt. York I know it was terrible, but the Sgt. York is just goddamned cool looking. Any time a tank is built with two cannons, I'm ok with it. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Nov 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
Speaking of terrible designs, I was reading a book about the "Red Eagles", US servicemen who flew "acquired" MiGs as part of training USAF/USN/USMC pilots. They mention repeatedly how absolutely terrible the MiG-23 is, and how much of a deathtrap it is. Was the MiG-23 actually that bad, or was it due to the export model's lovely engine? The MiG-21 export they flew didn't seem to have nearly as many problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
Aren't Mig-21s basically flying engines?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
English Russia is pretty cool. http://englishrussia.com/2011/11/23/where-is-abandoned-rotor-driven-equipment-stored/  http://englishrussia.com/2011/11/23/a-glimpse-of-the-history-of-the-soviet-aircraft/  quote:The Yakovlev Yak-40 (NATO reporting name: Codling) is a small, three-engined airliner that is often called the first regional jet transport aircraft. It was introduced in September 1968 with Aeroflot. By January 1 2008 about 92 planes were lost and 841 people were dead. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
Regional jets have way worse safety records than larger jets, combine that with the Soviet Union's "safety" record and ka-boom!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Speaking of terrible designs, I was reading a book about the "Red Eagles", US servicemen who flew "acquired" MiGs as part of training USAF/USN/USMC pilots. Perhaps the problem was between the stick and seat. They seem to fly OK without anybody aboard. One thing stuck out about descriptions of the MiG-21, the fact that it would pitch-up uncontrollably if flown to below 1/3 remaining fuel. This seems like what I would call a design flaw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
For a second there I thought the helicopter picture was from Chernobyl's boneyard but that's apparently located here: http://englishrussia.com/2009/03/16/chernobyl-scrap-metal/
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:Perhaps the problem was between the stick and seat. They seem to fly OK without anybody aboard. That article linked me to this which is an even funnier incident because nobody was killed. I remember now that the problems with the 23 that they had mostly involved hard maneuvering and transitions around mach 1 and mach 2, neither of which the 1989 suddenly-UAV had to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Speaking of terrible designs, I was reading a book about the "Red Eagles", US servicemen who flew "acquired" MiGs as part of training USAF/USN/USMC pilots. I got Red Eagles a while ago, good read. This was after going through the whole book discussion on the Keypublishing Forum though where Some guys with direct access to former -23 operators were pitching in on US 'hot rod' pilots/maintainers who didn't know their poo poo while constantly harping on the author for not publishing a glowing account on Soviet gear instead of a book on the Constant Peg program within its own historical context  They've still got a point though. Although you can only commend the guys in the 4477th for running such a ballsy program I'd gather their operating procedures were far removed from optimal VVS/PVO practices not to mention things like depot support and OEM access.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
priznat posted:The Angels in F-4Js managed to blow out the windows along main street of Kelowna, BC during the regatta there: http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/aeronautics/clips/1220/ Now I'm sad that I moved across town, and they're only loud enough to require you to almost-shout  It was unbelievable, for several hours, for three days straight, every summer. You just had to stop whatever you were doing if you had to hear until the plane passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
Try being in the middle-of-loving nowhere Maine in a canoe and then having a B-52 fly over so low I thought I could touch the goddamn thing. Almost had a heart attack.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Try being in the middle-of-loving nowhere Maine in a canoe and then having a B-52 fly over so low I thought I could touch the goddamn thing. That sounds loving awesome
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 07:56
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Try being in the middle-of-loving nowhere Maine in a canoe and then having a B-52 fly over so low I thought I could touch the goddamn thing. Never been buzzed really low, but one time I was camping in the eastern Sierra Nevada and I was able to make out two small aircraft without lights flying towards each other. Based on silhouette, probably F-16s. They lit up afterburners, started turning as they passed, and that night's ACM exercise was on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 08:42
|
|
|
Anyone know what the marker light pattern is on F-117s? Definitely saw a set of three lights pretty much in an equilateral triangle shape flying over at one point which is not a normal layout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 08:45
|
|
|
The closest thing to being randomly buzzed I ever got was when one of the flying Avro Lancasters flew over my neighbourhood at way less than 1000 feet a few times before the Abbotsford Airshow when I was 12.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 09:09
|
|
|
I live right beside an airport so every now and then a few CF-18s will take off or land over my house. I can usually spot the snowbirds when they're in town, too. I once had a C-130 fly drat near sideways over my house because the wind was really strong. Nothing beats being buzzed by a Mirage when I was at the Tank Memorial at Courcellette, though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 10:25
|
|
|
I was fishing a few kilometers off the landing strip of the city airport when the lights went out. Not a cloud in the sky all day and then it went into twilight in a second. I look up and around and see a C5 over my head. God loving dammit I never had reflected on just how huge those bastards are. And the king of noisy flyovers will always remain the Saab Viggen. Like a mix between a fierce jet whistle and an old Magirus V12 fire truck from the sixties struggling up the last few meters of a slightly too steep climb. A dapper looking airplane, too. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 11:09
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:That article linked me to this which is an even funnier incident because nobody was killed. quote:One of the other pilots on the mission is reported to have radioed Foust during his descent under his parachute that "you'd better get back in it!". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 11:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:The Blue Angels had their restrictions for flying over Seattle tightened years ago, and after those boundaries and limits were enforced, living on Beacon Hill years ago (right along the flight path for quite a lot of the passes they made towards the lake), it would get far too loud to even shout over effectively. Nothing has scared me out of sleep to such an immediate 0-100MPH "fight or flight" heart attack than the first time one of them blew overhead. F/A-18 flybys do indeed make for an extremely effective alarm clock. Not to mention all the screaming car alarms left in their wake. Now I live in Ballard, and I miss it too. Even though it would probably be incredibly infuriating to deal with since I work graveyard shift.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 11:46
|
|
