iyaayas01 posted:Contrary to the past decade, the Air Force does have other missions than being the Army's flying artillery and delivery service. The Army would be more than happy to take over those missions, if the Air Force would let it. But look what happened with the C-27.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:56 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Looks like the Rafale is lined up to win the Indian MMRCA bid. Shoulda sold them some F-35's. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
Since we are kind of talking losses of airframes: Are there any replacements slated for a new helicopter? It seems like some months we lose as many troops from Blackhawks falling out of the sky for god knows what reason as we do to enemy action.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 19:10
|
|
Alaan posted:Since we are kind of talking losses of airframes: Are there any replacements slated for a new helicopter? It seems like some months we lose as many troops from Blackhawks falling out of the sky for god knows what reason as we do to enemy action. You have some documentation on that? http://www.armyaircrews.com/blackhawk.html Maintenance and mechanical failure from age is pretty far down the list as to the cause of helicopter crashes. The Army is still receiving new UH-60M's and will eventually phase out the A/L's. (in 20 years). (maybe) Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There's probably an argument to be made for exactly that, but you're missing one big problem: I absolutely agree with what you're saying. And it explains why the A-10 will be replaced while the AH-64, which is probably less survivable than its fixed wing counterpart, will remain in service.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I absolutely agree with what you're saying. And it explains why the A-10 will be replaced while the AH-64, which is probably less survivable than its fixed wing counterpart, will remain in service. AH-64s don't need runways to take off. That's sort of A Thing for the army.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Also, unlike the A-10s, (some) AH-64s have radars
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
priznat posted:Also, unlike the A-10s, (some) AH-64s have radars And can actually utilize things like cover and concealment. Granted that is a very Army way to fight a war so I wouldn't expect the Air Force to understand
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
I did a GIS for a pic of the Apache peeking over some tree cover but didn't hit it. I know I've seen that pic someplace and it's very cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
priznat posted:I did a GIS for a pic of the Apache peeking over some tree cover but didn't hit it. I know I've seen that pic someplace and it's very cool. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
Haha, it wasn't that exact one (pre `shop), I remember it was some kind of conifers it was looking over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
The Apache did draw out one of Nic Cage's best performances: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyuHA_zAOM Y'know, Firebirds really is what it looks like. What would happen if the Army tried to make Top Gun.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Army Aviation! (1920x1200)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
I remember being a kid and being so excited for Firebirds but then the review on the Siskel and Ebert show tore it to shreds, so I was very disappointed. Probably for the best that I didn't see it, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Flight of the Intruder, Firebirds, Iron Eagle. I loved the poo poo out of cheesy aviation action movies back then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Flikken posted:And can actually utilize things like cover and concealment. Granted that is a very Army way to fight a war so I wouldn't expect the Air Force to understand 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Well if you wanted to save money you could start by nationalising key defence industries. :fascistsay: At a recent defense industrial conference Northrop Grumman's director of strategy gave a presentation that explicitly mentioned the possibility of going back to an arsenal model within certain areas of procurement because there will no longer be sufficient programs to sustain multiple contractors. It's not so much about saving money as it is about maintaining an industrial base that can continue to innovate and a monopolist position by a contractor of a given niche market does not provide for this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
LP97S posted:That dude in the lower left makes me giggle everytime I look at his goofy expression. Edit: Also, pretty sure that all those people on that Apache are going to exceed its make takeoff weight. Hope they didn't try to all fly at once. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:The Apache did draw out one of Nic Cage's best performances: Heh. I worked with the guy who played the Bad Guy in that film. Bert Rhine, they brought him in as a technical consultant and to fly the helicopters in the aerial sequences, and then said to him "We...really don't have a bad guy in the film, do you want to be it? We'll give you an acting credit and a line or two." I think the line they gave him to say was "AAAGGGGGH!" Nicest loving guy in the world. Plays a nice Martin. He wore a T-shirt one day that said "I'd rather be waterboarding" and he's one of the few people in the world who can pull that off without being offensive. Hell of a pilot, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyuULnLsc4w
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
daskrolator posted:
It's not like an arsenal model's a real improvement as far as that goes. See for example, Torpedo, Mark 14.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 03:39
|
|
Phanatic posted:Heh. I worked with the guy who played the Bad Guy in that film. Bert Rhine, they brought him in as a technical consultant and to fly the helicopters in the aerial sequences, and then said to him "We...really don't have a bad guy in the film, do you want to be it? We'll give you an acting credit and a line or two." I think the line they gave him to say was "AAAGGGGGH!" That's pretty awesome! Also, I love how Cage unstraps his helmet there. Hello, you still have to fly home!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Blue Thunder had the best helicopter fight. You are all horrible people for not realizing this.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:That's pretty awesome! Well he didn't have an oxygen mask to pull off after the fight like the movie that they
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Blue Thunder had the best helicopter fight. Having watched Blue Thunder and now that clip from Firebirds, I agree. Also Roy Scheider and fuckin' Malcom McDowell are about infinity times better than Nic Cage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
In my mind, Airwolf is still king but I'm afraid to rewatch it because my current self will probably have a vastly different set of criteria to what constitutes "acceptable entertainment" than what my young punk kid self had. The theme song still owns though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
priznat posted:In my mind, Airwolf is still king but I'm afraid to rewatch it because my current self will probably have a vastly different set of criteria to what constitutes "acceptable entertainment" than what my young punk kid self had. From what my friend has told me, you realize that they just use the same 6 shots every episode. Also, best plane movie is The Starfighters because it's an unabashed ad for Lockheed and is boring as hell, like the real Air Force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
LP97S posted:From what my friend has told me, you realize that they just use the same 6 shots every episode. Also, best plane movie is The Starfighters because it's an unabashed ad for Lockheed and is boring as hell, like the real Air Force. Shut up SHUT UP LALALALA MY CHILDHOOOOOOOOOOD 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
LP97S posted:From what my friend has told me, you realize that they just use the same 6 shots every episode. Also, best plane movie is The Starfighters because it's an unabashed ad for Lockheed and is boring as hell, like the real Air Force. “You know, it’s all kind of dull until you remember how sharp those wings are.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
Looking at the poster for the starfighters it made me think would there be any worse ideas than that plane used in a flight demonstration team. It'd be like just tossing a bunch of syringes into the air. welp: http://www.starfighters.net/ "here we are going fast.. here we're going fast and straight.. here we're going straight up.. here's 3 of us going fast and straight together!" priznat fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Feb 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Watch it: http://www.hulu.com/watch/112299/mystery-science-theater-3000-the-starfighters hulu is the biggest bitch about adblock, ever. I whitelisted your site, stop giving me that message, chumps. e: god, all the aerial refueling. so much aerial refueling iyaayas01, I dare you to defend this  Psion fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Feb 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Some stuff from English russia   
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Man those Iranian F-4s look positively tiny compared to the Sukhois or am I just falling victim to the camera angles?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
movax posted:Man those Iranian F-4s look positively tiny compared to the Sukhois or am I just falling victim to the camera angles? The Su-27 is 2.5 meters longer, 3 meters wider, and .92 meters taller. It's a bit of both, but the Su-27 and F-4 are massive planes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:The Army would be more than happy to take over those missions, if the Air Force would let it. But look what happened with the C-27. Yeah, the C-27 debacle is pretty sorry, although I can't say I didn't see it coming. For the record, I have absolutely zero problem with the Army operating fixed wing transports and I think the decision to give the AF sole ownership of the C-27 was a huge mistake, but I do have an issue with them operating fixed wing strike aircraft. You start down that path and you're going to start to get duplication of effort, as well as the "mine" mentality which is the whole antithesis of centralized control, decentralized execution (and the reason for that mantra in the first place). If I am dividing up the battlefield into various "zones", AirLand Battle style, splitting between artillery, MLRS, helos, and fixed wing makes sense, but you start to lose focus if you are going to begin splitting up between fixed wing aircraft. Obviously there are limitations (an A-10 probably isn't going to be doing deep strategic strike just like the F-111s weren't supposed to be doing CAS) but as I mentioned earlier those lines have begun to blur given the proliferation of GPS guided munitions...with a JDAM, targeting pod, and comms with a JTAC a Strike Eagle can be just as effective of a CAS platform (if not more so) than an A-10. Guns are great, but there's a reason we're spending the money to upgrade the A-10s to give them more advanced avionics and 1760-bus capability. Oxford Comma posted:I absolutely agree with what you're saying. And it explains why the A-10 will be replaced while the AH-64, which is probably less survivable than its fixed wing counterpart, will remain in service. Point of order...not sure if you were saying this, but some other people in the thread have definitely been implying it: while the A-10 is eventually (in theory) supposed to be replaced by the F-35, it's not like the AF is completely getting rid of the A-10 with this recently announced cut. They are cutting 5 squadrons, of which only one is AD (one Reserve and 3 Guard). There are a grand total of (counting whatever unit at D-M is the FTU but not counting T&E/Weapons School) 16 A-10 squadrons AF wide (7 AD, 4 Reserve, and 5 Guard), so cutting 5 isn't like the jet will be completely out of service tomorrow or anything. Psion posted:“You know, it’s all kind of dull until you remember how sharp those wings are.” "So basically, according to themselves, the Air Force is a bunch of leather-faced, not-so-bright, heavy drinking, dull-witted speed-freaks who poop in their pants and can't make it with women, right?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:"So basically, according to themselves, the Air Force is a bunch of leather-faced, not-so-bright, heavy drinking, dull-witted speed-freaks who poop in their pants and can't make it with women, right?" "Six and a half scotches later".
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Point of order...not sure if you were saying this, but some other people in the thread have definitely been implying it: while the A-10 is eventually (in theory) supposed to be replaced by the F-35, it's not like the AF is completely getting rid of the A-10 with this recently announced cut. They are cutting 5 squadrons, of which only one is AD (one Reserve and 3 Guard). There are a grand total of (counting whatever unit at D-M is the FTU but not counting T&E/Weapons School) 16 A-10 squadrons AF wide (7 AD, 4 Reserve, and 5 Guard), so cutting 5 isn't like the jet will be completely out of service tomorrow or anything. I'm sure eventually all A-10 squadrons will be deactivated, but not immediately. I guess my last statement was that the Army seems to want to keep the AH-64 because its something that the Army owns, unlike the A-10. Also, really surprised the A-10 hasn't been upgraded with some type of radar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Also, really surprised the A-10 hasn't been upgraded with some type of radar. Having a giant gun occupying the spot where most fighters carry radar makes it rough, I would imagine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I'm sure eventually all A-10 squadrons will be deactivated, but not immediately. I guess my last statement was that the Army seems to want to keep the AH-64 because its something that the Army owns, unlike the A-10. mlmp08 posted:Having a giant gun occupying the spot where most fighters carry radar makes it rough, I would imagine. I've said it earlier, but the Su-25 has been upgraded to have a radar system on it's under-fuselage pylon. It's called the "Kopyo-25" and has the white cap in the pictures, click for big.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Su25T Throatwarbler posted:Sukhois. Unnnnf  To contribute: http://youtu.be/ZInMDmqHtKY
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:56 |
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Unnnnf 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 16:19
|
|