|
LP97S posted:
I seriously just spend most of an hour enjoying these. The WWI livery on modern aircraft, the F1 livery on WWII stuff, Swedish EE Lightnings. Though his design sense seems not to have translated to the t-shirts, those are remarkably bad.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:It still boggles my mind how expensive Sled Driver still is, and how there hasn't been a reprint of it that didn't cost 2 grand. So, probably gonna get  for this, hard, but I was slightly disappointed with Sled Driver, given the hype. When I was the USAF museum, there was a book there for sale for $300 or so, it was loving 3 inches thick and was written by 3 or 4 SR-71 pilots (I believe it was a bundle pack with an SR-71 operating manual, though). Somehow, I confused that for Sled Driver.When I finally got my hands on Sled Driver through an inter-library loan, I was shocked to discover that it was not the meaty version I had it confused for, and I was very glad I didn't accidentally shell out several hundred dollars for it. Don't get me wrong, the photography is unbelievable, the stories are incredible, I thoroughly enjoyed it and will continue to recommend it to everyone in the world, but it was just a handful of anecdotes from one pilot who glossed over the really juice details of the Blackbird's history that one would expect in a book written by a pilot. You're paying for the signature that is on a limited edition book, in the end. I won't deny the value of that. You'll learn more about operational history of the SR-71 from a Squadron Signal book than from Sled Driver, as it leaves the names of countries and operations thoroughly blacked-out in exchange for a nearly religious, poetic history of one pilot's relationship with the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 08:28
|
|
|
Yeah, there's no way I'm shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars for a book. I'll wait until the movie comes out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:I seriously just spend most of an hour enjoying these. The WWI livery on modern aircraft, the F1 livery on WWII stuff, Swedish EE Lightnings. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
Oh wow, I missed some 250+ posts, lots of neat discussion.movax posted:Without tooling, your plant is nothing. If I recall correctly, the F-14 tooling was all ordered destroyed, making it hugely expensive and time-consuming to restart F-14 production, if so desired. I think the A-10 tooling is all gone too. In this respect the tooling issue becomes more significant as the services want to extend the life of their systems and seek replacement parts. Harpoon anti-ship program hit its 40th anniversary not too long ago and many of the tier 2 suppliers went out of business decades ago. Most of that tooling those suppliers possessed is now gone and it makes finding new ones difficult to say the least. When OV-10 was considered for the close air support program the biggest hurdle by far was the issue of re-learning how to build it and recreate all the tooling. The recurring price per unit would have been well below that of a Hawker and Embraer were offering. I had read years ago that the Russians more or less keep their tooling for their major procurement programs, but haven't read anything beyond that. iyaayas01 posted:Ayup. I dunno what happened to Lockheed/Skunk Works in between the SR-71 and the F-35, but whatever it is it isn't good. Kelly Johnson going away and the fact that Skunk Works and General Dynamics' Fort Worth had two different design and production philosophies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
grover posted:Shame we'll never see this one for real. Shame we won't see one of these over the date line. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Low observability paint schemes make me sad. I miss the jolly roger tails and such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
There were a series of posts in AI a month or so ago from someone in the automotive industry pulling out old tooling to produce a small number of extra door panels, and it was amazing how much work went into restoring and readying a very simple set of presses. In addition, there are a lot of lessons learned that are lost as soon as the workforce is let go. priznat posted:Low observability paint schemes make me sad. I miss the jolly roger tails and such.    
grover fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jan 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
priznat posted:Low observability paint schemes make me sad. I miss the jolly roger tails and such. They uhh still have them?  I believe each USN squadron gets to paint 2 of their aircraft in full colors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
priznat posted:Low observability paint schemes make me sad. I miss the jolly roger tails and such. Well that website I linked had some cool ideas.  Or if you're really absurd 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Hm, didn't know they were still around, I haven't seen any pics of them on a carrier in so long I just assumed. They seemed to be a lot more common but perhaps it was just the same couple aircraft being photographed. I would like to point out that CF-18s still have fake canopies painted on the underside for that extra element of confusion, heh. Wiki sez USMC F/A-18s have this too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
kill me now posted:They uhh still have them? F-18s aren't very LO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:F-18s aren't very LO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:F-18s aren't very LO. Superbugs are about as LO as the navy currently has in its active inventory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
kill me now posted:Superbugs are about as LO as the navy currently has in its active inventory. And surprisingly so, given the fact that overall it has the same profile/planform as a typical fourth-gen fighter. Regarding sweet paint schemes, the Navy had each squadron do up one aircraft in a "throwback" paint scheme for the Centennial of Naval Aviation celebration...they were all pretty cool, but some of them were awesome. I posted quite a few awhile back either here or in the thread over in AI, but they're easy to google.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And surprisingly so, given the fact that overall it has the same profile/planform as a typical fourth-gen fighter. Here's the links I found looking that up. http://airpigz.com/blog/2011/1/19/navy-skins-retro-paint-for-2011-centennial-of-naval-aviation.html http://airpigz.com/blog/2011/2/10/more-awesome-retro-paint-for-the-centennial-of-naval-aviatio.html LP97S fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
grover posted:Hint: gray-on-gray paint isn't for the benefit of reduced RCS. Yeah, I know, but the use of LO I typically take to mean RCS, but I guess it also means visually. kill me now posted:Superbugs are about as LO as the navy currently has in its active inventory. There's always Tomahawks 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
kill me now posted:Superbugs are about as LO as the navy currently has in its active inventory. Why do people even care about LO anyway, why not focus on something that can actually fight effectively and then build super Phoenixes or something, like what the Russians are doing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Why do people even care about LO anyway, why not focus on something that can actually fight effectively and then build super Phoenixes or something, like what the Russians are doing? Honestly, if jamming fails in that sort of high-threat environment conditions, an F-18 is at significantly increased risk. But the paint scheme still helps during WVR dogfights. grover fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Why do people even care about LO anyway, why not focus on something that can actually fight effectively and then build super Phoenixes or something, like what the Russians are doing? Because Surface to Air Missiles got good enough to kill a whole lot of Expensive American pilots and airplanes, and a missile emplacement is always cheaper than an airplane. Not being regularly spotted and killed by 2 million dollar SAM sites was thought to be worth a few billion dollars. We aren't going to be fighting a lot of places with hundreds of 4.5th generation air superiority fighters, so stealthly 5th generation dogfighters are something you can argue about. However, most of the places may end up fighting with can and will afford a decent spread of cheap and reasonably capable surface to air missiles, so LO is supposed to pay for itself there. Some day. That, and how are you going to sell a fighter for 250 million if it doesn't do anything different or better than the one you are selling for 80 million? Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Why do people even care about LO anyway, why not focus on something that can actually fight effectively and then build super Phoenixes or something, like what the Russians are doing? The U.S. is in effect doing that with the Golden Eagle/V3 upgrade program for the F-15Cs that are remaining in the Active Duty fleet. You've got three main areas that are in competition with each other when you are designing a fighter these days: LO signature, performance metrics, and payload. Sometimes these compliment each other (a larger payload generally gives you more room for fuel which increases range performance) but more often they compete with each other (more weapons payload requires external carriage which negatively impacts the LO signature, shaping required for a reduced LO signature negatively impacts performance, etc.) The U.S. has chose to place LO signature at the forefront of its tacair recapitalization efforts primarily because Russian SAMs are so goddamned effective (and cheap) that they pose a much larger threat in any possible scenario than the handful of 4.5-gen fighters that a worst case adversary would be able to get off the ground (China is the exception here, but as I've said numerous times that isn't about fighting a war, it's about providing a credible conventional deterrent as part of our overall effort to attempt to manage China's rise...and surprise, LO plays a key role in the deterrent mission as well.) I've criticized the U.S. in the past for placing too much of an emphasis on LO regarding the JSF, because it is supposed to serve as a day-30 BAI/CAS platform, which assuming we've done our job on the first couple of nights to degrade the adversary's IADS means that LO is not nearly as important here and that we could buy new build legacy fighters instead, BUT LO most definitely is a requirement for at least a portion of the U.S.'s tacair force because without it our options once an adversary acquires a couple S-300s is a) strike solely with Tomahawks and JASSMs (prohibitively expensive), b) use B-2s heavily (prohibitively expensive as well as operationally difficult since there are only 20 of them), or c) accept highly increased risk to legacy fighters (almost certainly politically impossible). e: grover posted:Honestly, if jamming fails in that sort of high-threat environment conditions, an F-18 is at significantly increased risk. But the paint scheme still helps during WVR dogfights. You mean that awesome Vietnam War-era ALQ-99? It's a piece of poo poo (see page 60 of this document for details). The U.S.'s EW capability is a loving disaster zone and our assumption that our dominance of the EM spectrum will remain uncontested is going to bite us in the rear end one day on so many different levels. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
LP97S posted:It would be loving awesome of the Luftwaffe brought back Lozenge camo (minus the garish pink)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:ighters on an amphib, it's probably a big enough threat to send a CSG or two to deal with...the SCS concept was originally intended to basically substitute the MEU for a shitload of ASW stuff. It was never intended to operate in a true "sea control" role like the CVBG/CSG does, because to do so would basically be getting 15% of the capability at 50% of the cost; a more accurate description would have been "anti-submarine escort carrier," but "sea control ship" sounds so much cooler. If this were GiP that'd be one thing, but that's a ton of acronyms to throw down and not explain 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
mikerock posted:It would be loving awesome of the Luftwaffe brought back Lozenge camo (minus the garish pink)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:Could we please get this in english? see also: MEU Amphib - Amphibious assault ship...think a Wasp-class LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock). Basically a transport ship with a well deck and flight deck that is designed to carry Marines around and provide them with the lift to get to shore. CSG - Carrier Strike Group (previously known as Carrier Battle Groups...CVBG). The Navy's construct for employing carriers, it consists of a carrier with an embarked carrier air wing, a Ticonderoga-class cruiser or two, a couple of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, a screening attack sub, and usually a resupply ship or two. SCS - Sea Control Ship. As previously stated this is ostensibly a secondary mission for the U.S. Navy's Amphibs, but as I previously stated I have a problem with this idea. ASW - Anti-Submarine Warfare. Exactly what it sounds like. MAGTF - Marine Air-Ground Task Force. I think Veins McGee addressed this a bit, but it's the primary way the Marines organize their forces for combat employment. It is designed to be self contained, containing a command element, ground combat forces, aviation combat units, and logistics support. It is intended to be scalable, which brings me to my next point MEU - Marine Expeditionary Unit. It is the smallest of the MAGTF scales (the others are Marine Expeditionary Brigade and Marine Expeditionary Force). A MEU will consist of an infantry battalion reinforced with armor and artillery, a composite helicopter squadron along with a det of STOVL fighters, and logistics support. A MEU will embark on a couple of amphibs which will join with a couple of destroyers, possibly a cruiser, and maybe an attack sub to form an Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) which is basically the amphibious equivalent of a CSG. C/JFACC - Combined/Joint Force Air Component Commander. The officer in overall command of all air forces within a given theater of operations. Responsible (through the AOC...Air Operations Center) for generating the Air Tasking Order (ATO), which is how the C/JFACC tasks assigned forces for each 24 hour period. This is almost always an Air Force officer, but this is not a requirement. It's "Joint" if it is U.S. only, "Combined" if it is a coalition operation. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:a) strike solely with Tomahawks and JASSMs (prohibitively expensive) Oh no! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
edit: nvm
Forums Terrorist fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Wacky paint schemes? How about this Czech MiG21
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:C/JFACC - Combined/Joint Force Air Component Commander. The officer in overall command of all air forces within a given theater of operations. Responsible (through the AOC...Air Operations Center) for generating the Air Tasking Order (ATO), which is how the C/JFACC tasks assigned forces for each 24 hour period. This is almost always an Air Force officer, but this is not a requirement. It's "Joint" if it is U.S. only, "Combined" if it is a coalition operation. Building off this, the C/JFACC is run by the branch which has the preponderance of air power in an area and is also capable of controlling those aircraft. The Army often has the most aircraft in a theater because we have so many rotary wing aircraft, but we lack the ability to control aircraft beyond the basics, so it will typically be the Air Force, followed by the Navy, followed by the Marines. During OIF 1, the Marines ran a TAOC which controlled Army patriot systems and the like. If a Navy carrier group is the first unit on site, they may be the JFACC until a large number of USAF units show up and the Air Force takes over JFACC responsibilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 05:30
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I would seriously pay good money for a quality movie to be made about the Angolan Bush War. (Actually, I'd probably pay good money for a quality movie to be made about the other Rhodesian Bush War as well.) It was posted a page or two back, but if you are at all interested in the Bush Wars, you should really read this link... There are a lot of memoirs and monographs about the Rhodesian Bush War that have come out recently. These are all pretty interesting reads. Rhodesia Tactical Victory/Strategic Defeat A paper analyzing the war written by two Marine officers We Are Everywhere The Rhodesian Bush War from the perspective of African fighters. The Bush War in Rhodesia. Memoirs from a guy who was in the RLI and Selous Scouts(False gang Security Forces operation). Since it's not ghost written, it's not very polished.. Fireforce Memoirs from a solder in the RLI. A little more polished than Croukamp's but still rough. Mukiwa Peter Godwin's memoirs from childhood through 1983ish. He was a police officer but Rhodesian police were more of a military force than our own. Rhodesian's Never Die An anaylsis of the war and it's effect on society. Pretty expensive. more of a textbook. vains fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
Oh man, thanks for those links. This thread is seriously one of the best resources for Cold War analysis and opinion, and this is exactly the reason why. Looks like I know what I'm doing the next few hours. e- right off the bat in that first pdf, I learned something new. The two main guerrilla factions were funded by the USSR, which I knew, and the PRC, which I had no idea. The Sino/Soviet split had way more dimensions to it than I knew. Pretty wild that the Chinese were contrary to the Russians in such a global way back then, and yet both were still able to confront Western influence at the same time. It's stuff like this that gets people called hawks elsewhere on this site, and yet people don't really understand that seeking out such knowledge helps form better opinions of current events. Geopolitics and military history should be taught better in school than it is, it could be one of the most important aspects of knowledge in the coming century. It's right up there with science and mathematics IMO, and if stuff like this was taught in more depth, kids would probably be way more interested in it. I know I got tired of hearing about wooden teeth and cherry trees after about the 6th straight year of it. e2- goddamn, what a great breakdown this is so far, can't stress this enough Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
 The F-22 is faaaaabuloooouuussss!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
This seems relevant, being that it was during the cold war and USN personnel were involved:  years ago today (Jan 23, 1960) the bathescape Trieste probed the murky depths of the Challenger deep, 10,916m below the surface. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPU1heok3GE priznat fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jan 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
priznat posted:42 years ago today (Jan 23, 1960) 52
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:52 lol, I suuuuuuuuck
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
You know, this has been bothering me for a while, and really started bothering me when I was flying one in Ace Combat a lot (shut up  )What is in the enormous  Seriously. Look at the size of that thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
EW gear. Oh wait. Ejection pod. The crew crawls back, and it poops out the back of the plane. Also, vodka tank. And the scale is way off. Su-34s are actually the size of B-1s, the pod contains a Su-17 with folding wings. Propagandalf fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Psion posted:You know, this has been bothering me for a while, and really started bothering me when I was flying one in Ace Combat a lot (shut up It's a thought-activated rear defense pod, of course. State-of-the-art and then some. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Ejection pod. The crew crawls back, and it poops out the back of the plane. Well by that logic it could be the storage tank for the poop; Fullbacks have a toilet onboard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 02:02
|
|