|
Xerxes17 posted:To contribute: http://youtu.be/ZInMDmqHtKY What is that maneuver at 1:17? I don't know if its the camera but it looks like the rate of pitch at the end of that flip is insane.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
Slamburger posted:What is that maneuver at 1:17? I don't know if its the camera but it looks like the rate of pitch at the end of that flip is insane. It looks like a Pugachev's Cobra, with a completed flip. If you watch a little further, specifically 1:27, they do several Cobras. In this case it just looks like he went through the rotation, doing a backflip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Cobra
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I'm sure eventually all A-10 squadrons will be deactivated, but not immediately. No, they will NEVER be deactivated. The Air Force will keep them running through maintenance rituals until they are revered as elder relics, their technology never to be duplicated. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Why do you people keep harping on the A-10's lack of radar. Why the hell would it even NEED one? And I totally agree that Army/Marines shouldn't have indigenous fixed-wing CAS. Too many times in OEF we've had eyes on a target we could have have had a missile or bomb on in 60 seconds, only to have the JTAC wait for their battalion to sortie a Harrier which shows up late and fucks up the attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:And I totally agree that Army/Marines shouldn't have indigenous fixed-wing CAS. Wrong. The Marines should have enough CAS capability for limited operations outside the skirts of a carrier group so they can do things like Lebanon-style evacuations of civilians or Libya-type limited interventions. The Army should only be in the field somewhere there's a need for heavy boots on the ground, e.g. long land campaigns which we shouldn't be doing anyway because we should focus on the Pacific Rim and Africa, not Central Asia. quote:Too many times in OEF we've had eyes on a target we could have have had a missile or bomb on in 60 seconds, only to have the JTAC wait for their battalion to sortie a Harrier which shows up late and fucks up the attack. There's a simple solution here: just like a taxi company, the nearest CAS asset should always get the job. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Feb 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
co199 posted:It looks like a Pugachev's Cobra, with a completed flip. If you watch a little further, specifically 1:27, they do several Cobras. In this case it just looks like he went through the rotation, doing a backflip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:So a Kulbit then? ...yes, drat. I forgot about the Kulbit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:
Styles Bitchley fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Feb 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
Did somebody say Sukhois? (3543x2362)  (2784x1856)  (1920x1200)  (1772x1181)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 07:55
|
|
|
co199 posted:Some day...some day I will be obscenely rich and buy a Sukhoi to fly around with a N registration printed on its nacelles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:Who needs all this fancy STO/VTO capability when you can take off from the sea? My Great-uncle was one of the designers of the SeaMaster (and the XB-51). He passed away when I was young. I've finally gotten in touch with his daughter and I'm hoping to hear some design/development stories. The XB-51 was an awesome plane but suffered from two drawbacks: 1. short range 2. Martin and the US government were at odds a lot during that period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Weren't some of the biggest problems with the jet seaplanes were that they had a few that just plain broke apart in mid-air during testing? I don't even want to think about landing in those thing when you factor in the speed the thing will be coming in on. And the sea is rarely calm enough for such landings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 11:07
|
|
|
the seamaster was like not at all actually useful as well. rad as hell, but the boat feature adds complexity and cost without being an improvement. plus there were huge issues around water ingestion and they had to overbuild the hulls even more due to higher landing and takeoff speeds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Stumbling Block posted:Weren't some of the biggest problems with the jet seaplanes were that they had a few that just plain broke apart in mid-air during testing? Landing those planes with the drooped wingtips just looks like a hooked wingtip and a cartwheeling aircraft waiting to happen.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
It's useless, yeah, but if WWIII broke out and you were on a fishing boat and a bunch of those landed near you while the bombs went off, it would be an ok end. Most Cold War technology falls into this category.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
Stumbling Block posted:Weren't some of the biggest problems with the jet seaplanes were that they had a few that just plain broke apart in mid-air during testing? There were a lot of control system issues. One of the prototypes was lost when the the elevators went full up unexpectedly. The engines went straight while the plane went up. The wings actually clapped together under the fuselage before the plane broke up. The engines were also not up to use on the ocean. They adapted J71's and had big problems with water ingestion. Also, the Air Force had a fit when they found out that the Navy intended to air air-launched atomic weapons on the SeaMaster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the seamaster was like not at all actually useful as well. rad as hell, but the boat feature adds complexity and cost without being an improvement. plus there were huge issues around water ingestion and they had to overbuild the hulls even more due to higher landing and takeoff speeds. Makes me wonder how Beriev has managed to carve themselves such a nice niche.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Hey, been gone out of this thread for a while but I found this referenced on another forum I go to every now and then and sounds kind of neat, a SAM simulator. http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home Anyone tried it before? I don't have a ton of time right now or I would, but I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Why does the USMC insist upon using the MV-22 when they could have about 6 (or more) MH-60s for the same amount of money? I can understand there may be occasional circumstances where the extra speed or cargo of the Osprey can be handy, but on a whole it seems that the bulk of Marine tasks can be handled by the cheaper MH-60.
Oxford Comma fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Feb 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Why does the USMC insist upon using the MV-22 when they could have about 10 (or more) MH-60s for the same amount of money? I can understand there may be occasional circumstances where the extra speed or cargo of the Osprey can be handy, but on a whole it seems that the bulk of Marine tasks can be handled by the cheaper MH-60. The Iran Hostage Rescue Debacle was the reason I always hear for the MV-22.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:The Iran Hostage Rescue Debacle was the reason I always hear for the MV-22. Is it just me, or does that seem like a pretty niche reason?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Why does the USMC insist upon using the MV-22 when they could have about 6 (or more) MH-60s for the same amount of money? I can understand there may be occasional circumstances where the extra speed or cargo of the Osprey can be handy, but on a whole it seems that the bulk of Marine tasks can be handled by the cheaper MH-60. Let's compare specs... CH-46s: 25 pax, shade under 7,000 lbs payload, 145 knots, and 160 nm combat radius. UH-1N: 8 pax, 4,500 payload, 120 knots, and 124 nm combat radius. CH-53D: 38 pax (55 max), 32,000 lbs payload (max), 170 knots, and 270 nm combat radius (less with max payload). CH-53E: 37 pax (55 max), 32,000 lbs payload internal, 36,000 slung, 146 knots, and 270 nm combat radius (less with max). MH-60S: 11 pax, 9,000 lbs slung load, 146 knots, and 225 nm combat radius (less with slung load). So you could make the case that the proper replacement for the CH-46 would have been the MH-60S instead of the Osprey, since other than the maximum amount of troops the Knighthawk's specs are comparable or better (although the amount of troops for a medium lift helo is quite a bit more significant to the USMC than to the USN). Indeed, the whole reason for developing the Knighthawk was to replace the CH-46 in the UNREP role for the Navy. However, that doesn't tell the whole story...the vastly increased range/speed of the Osprey is its biggest justification. Eagle Claw was the initial inspiration for the program, but the reason the USMC have stuck with the program while everyone else (other than a limited AFSOC buy) has dropped out is because that increased range/speed is key to a shift in the way the Marines are intending to operate from the sea. Instead of immediate ship to shore maneuvers, they intend to operate from a further standoff distance (possibly important given the recent proliferation of anti-access weapons) and/or deploy forces further inland in one jump instead of having to seize a port before transitioning further inland, in ways that a -60/-53 rotary wing fleet wouldn't be able to support. Operational Maneuver From The Sea provides the doctrinal underpinnings for this push. It was both a shift in thinking and a shift in equipment (the Osprey, JSF, and AAAV/EFV are the most notable). With the (justified, IMHO) cancellation of the EFV the Osprey has become all the more important to this concept. Now you could definitely make the case that the increased capability isn't enough to justify the vastly increased cost, and I would probably be sympathetic to that argument, but the reason for procuring them is quite a bit more complex than just "Eagle Claw."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Makes me wonder how Beriev has managed to carve themselves such a nice niche. The number of units they move is pretty small.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Eagle Claw was the initial inspiration for the program, but the reason the USMC have stuck with the program while everyone else (other than a limited AFSOC buy) has dropped out is because that increased range/speed is key to a shift in the way the Marines are intending to operate from the sea. Instead of immediate ship to shore maneuvers, they intend to operate from a further standoff distance (possibly important given the recent proliferation of anti-access weapons) and/or deploy forces further inland in one jump instead of having to seize a port before transitioning further inland, in ways that a -60/-53 rotary wing fleet wouldn't be able to support. Operational Maneuver From The Sea provides the doctrinal underpinnings for this push. It was both a shift in thinking and a shift in equipment (the Osprey, JSF, and AAAV/EFV are the most notable). With the (justified, IMHO) cancellation of the EFV the Osprey has become all the more important to this concept. Thanks for the info. What supports the Osprey at the LZ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 00:38
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Thanks for the info. What supports the Osprey at the LZ? The F-35B of course!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:The F-35B of course! Yup. The Marines have actually in at least one instance broken down the MEU ACE into two separate groups, one comprised solely of rotary winged Hueys and Cobras and the other comprised solely of fast jets and Ospreys, enabling autonomous operations between the two since the fast jets complimented the Osprey so well compared to helos. The Osprey also is supposed to have a rudimentary self defense capability with a belly mounted remotely operated turret in addition to the ramp gun, but the turret has faced some developmental issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 03:52
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yup. The Marines have actually in at least one instance broken down the MEU ACE into two separate groups, one comprised solely of rotary winged Hueys and Cobras and the other comprised solely of fast jets and Ospreys, enabling autonomous operations between the two since the fast jets complimented the Osprey so well compared to helos. The Osprey also is supposed to have a rudimentary self defense capability with a belly mounted remotely operated turret in addition to the ramp gun, but the turret has faced some developmental issues. That and by doctrine the Osprey is not supposed to land in a contested LZ.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Thanks for the info. What supports the Osprey at the LZ? It hovers over it until the Sea Cobras catch up! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
I had no idea what the Osprey was so I, of course, looked it up on Wikipedia. I now understand what iyaayas meant when he said that the improved range was a "big deal" 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
I regard the MV-22 in a much better light than the F-35; it's a deathtrap, sure, but at least it's a useful deathtrap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:I regard the MV-22 in a much better light than the F-35; it's a deathtrap, sure, but at least it's a useful deathtrap. It hasn't been a deathtrap since they got the big problems out of the way though 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
Koesj posted:It hasn't been a deathtrap since they got the big problems out of the way though Old fears never die easy, especially since when an Osprey crashes it takes a lot of lives with it. Compare this with a plane that cannot land on a carrier with the carrier specific "variant".
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
I'll admit it - these aviation tattoos posted in Danger Room are kind of awesome. http://goo.gl/drqX2    Ruined by armpit hair:  Ruined by nipples:  Also, kind of dumb: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:It hovers over it until the Sea Cobras catch up! *Saturating target area with the devastating firepower of a single rear mounted M240
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Cold War thread seems as good a place to ask as any. Could our friendly island neighbor to the south Cuba actually be considered communist in any sort of reality these days or is it just another island dictatorship?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
I would say they still are but you have to look at communism as a spectrum just as capitalism is on a spectrum. They are a dictatorship too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Cold War thread seems as good a place to ask as any. Could our friendly island neighbor to the south Cuba actually be considered communist in any sort of reality these days or is it just another island dictatorship? My understanding is that they're liberalizing, but SLOWWWWWWLY. Like they just recently allowed citizens to open their own small businesses, doing things like house painting or selling knicknacks, in certain industries. Conventional wisdom is that they will eventually be a tropical China, but not until Fidel has passed on, as he tends to quash any reform movements. Fidel is no longer the official head of state, but he can kill of policies just by speaking out against them, so no one's eager to cross him yet. Here's a relevant Economist article http://www.economist.com/node/21529043
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
And the US is still imposing a massive embargo for nearly 50 years now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 20:10
|
|
LP97S posted:And the US is still imposing a massive embargo for nearly 50 years now. They're gonna break any day now!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
LP97S posted:And the US is still imposing a massive embargo for nearly 50 years now. Given that Florida alternates between voting GoP and voting Democrat, no politician wants to alienate the anti-Castro types living in Florida, and push those precious electoral votes to the other party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 20:43
|
|