|
Armyman25 posted:They're gonna break any day now! Next year in Havana! Oxford Comma posted: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 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
What with the implosion of the F-35 program due to things like the STOVL requirement, I'd like to note that any aircraft can be short take-off. Witness the zero launch program of the 1950s. We would defend the atomic wasteland that once was America with a fleet of trucks mounting F-84 fighters: This was also tested with the F-100:  The VL part of STOVL is a little trickier, however. Interesting, the British actually used something like this operationally during WW2. Some merchant ships carried a Hurricane fighter that would launch from a catapult then ditch in the sea when it was out of gas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
The embargo has to be one of the dumber ongoing political thing the US has going. It's hard to be like CUBA IS EVIL while we are trading billions of dollars with China who are pretty much across the board worse governmentally than Cuba. You'd think by now some second term president would be like "Cuba embargo? gently caress that noise! Peace out!" then flick everyone off and ride off on his horse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:Witness the zero launch program of the 1950s.  I love odd dead-ends like this. The Germans tried this with the F-104, and the Soviets, MiG-19. Here's a video of that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
Alaan posted:The embargo has to be one of the dumber ongoing political thing the US has going. It's hard to be like CUBA IS EVIL while we are trading billions of dollars with China who are pretty much across the board worse governmentally than Cuba. You'd think by now some second term president would be like "Cuba embargo? gently caress that noise! Peace out!" then flick everyone off and ride off on his horse. Hmm how do I spell political with dollar signs? Swap the population numbers between China and Cuba and guess who we trade with and who we embargo? Valid point on the second term thing though, can the president do that or would congress have to lift the embargo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:Some merchant ships carried a Hurricane fighter that would launch from a catapult then ditch in the sea when it was out of gas. So did just about every single post-Wright Brothers battleship or cruiser. Heck, they predate the catapults, the early ones had little flight ramps on top of the turrets to take off from. Totally TWISTED posted:
The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations is unambigously and solely a power of Congress, not the Executive. The worst bit about it is that even if you do want to end Castro's dictatorship, dropping the embargo would probably make that happen within a year. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:So did just about every single post-Wright Brothers battleship or cruiser. Heck, they predate the catapults, the early ones had little flight ramps on top of the turrets to take off from. Critically, however, the Hurricanes did not have floats. There was no intention to recover them alongside like a capital ship's scouts. Given that they were used in the North Atlantic it must have taken a pretty big pair to climb into one. Nice little write-up on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:So did just about every single post-Wright Brothers battleship or cruiser. Heck, they predate the catapults, the early ones had little flight ramps on top of the turrets to take off from. And land on:  (Although that's admittedly a little larger footprint than the typical takeoff ramp or stern mounted catapult). Also look up the HMS Furious's original landing arrangements, before she was refitted...  winnydpu posted:Critically, however, the Hurricanes did not have floats. There was no intention to recover them alongside like a capital ship's scouts. Given that they were used in the North Atlantic it must have taken a pretty big pair to climb into one. There were also the MAC ships. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
One last neat plane tattoo from the last page. Worn proudly somewhere in former Yugoslavia.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:What with the implosion of the F-35 program due to things like the STOVL requirement, I'd like to note that any aircraft can be short take-off. Witness the zero launch program of the 1950s. We would defend the atomic wasteland that once was America with a fleet of trucks mounting F-84 fighters: Is that some kind of JATO under there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:What with the implosion of the F-35 program due to things like the STOVL requirement, I'd like to note that any aircraft can be short take-off. Witness the zero launch program of the 1950s. We would defend the atomic wasteland that once was America with a fleet of trucks mounting F-84 fighters: I've always wondered, what sort of G forces would the pilot undergo with such an aggressive form of taking off? Or would this design work similar to a VTOL and take off, hover (sort of) then slowly increase in acceleration?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
Whoforthenwhat posted:I've always wondered, what sort of G forces would the pilot undergo with such an aggressive form of taking off? Or would this design work similar to a VTOL and take off, hover (sort of) then slowly increase in acceleration? Google calculator says: (300 kph) / (5 seconds) = 16.6666667 m / s2 so around 2g, it's probably not a constant acceleration so around a comfy 4-5G max I'd guess. It's also pretty much just pushing your whole back, for extra comfort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 12:41
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Is that some kind of JATO under there? Whoforthenwhat posted:I've always wondered, what sort of G forces would the pilot undergo with such an aggressive form of taking off? Or would this design work similar to a VTOL and take off, hover (sort of) then slowly increase in acceleration? The F-100 took off at about 4G. One of the F-104 test pilots said it was smoother than a catapult launch. http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html The F-84s were part of a Zero Length Launch / Mat Landing program. Yes, the aircraft was supposed to land, gear up, with arrestor hook, on a 80ft by 800ft by 3 foot inflatable mat. The stop was about 5 1/2G. Three tries resulted in one successful landing.  http://www.war-eagles-air-museum.com/newsletters/weam_newsletter_2008-3.pdf joat mon fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
joat mon posted:RATOs. The F-84 used the launch rocket (55,000 lbs thrust) for the Matador cruise missile, the F-100 used one that developed 130,000 lbs thrust. It's a moonwalk for airplanes! (take off your shoes before entering, kids)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
So the Air Force was getting jealous of the navy drat near breaking planes every time you need to use one and wanted to do it as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 13:59
|
|
|
Originally, it was the Royal Navy's idea for using jets on carriers immediately post WWII. http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/afe51317-dabb-4379-b802-79eb1d9815fc/The-Development-of-the-Angled-Deck-Aircraft-Carrie (pages 5-7)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:
Even if the president could do it unilaterally (he can't) there would be the bigger issue of how it's basically his job in our current system to campaign like a motherfucker for his VP in the upcoming election. Basically no one is going to do that because they don't want to gently caress things up for the next guy. You would have to find a president who not only is a 2nd term guy, but who is also either completely checked out from his own party or who is either so loved or reviled that nothing he does at the last minute is going to change how people feel about his presidency or how they feel about voting for his party in the next election. Ironically enough, GW Bush was probably the best candidate for exactly this kind of "gently caress you all, kiss my rear end, buy my memoirs" final act. Of course he'd be just as likely to order a goddamned invasion of the island with a month left in his tenure as actually try to open relations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Cuba is literally the retort to anyone who wants to impose sanctions on a foreign country, especially one that is peaceful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:The VL part of STOVL is a little trickier, however. Interesting, the British actually used something like this operationally during WW2. Some merchant ships carried a Hurricane fighter that would launch from a catapult then ditch in the sea when it was out of gas. Yeah, the CAM ships, to protect against Fw 200 Condor attacks. They did manage to shoot down a few Condors, though the program on a whole was a big waste of resources. You needed several pilots per fighter (they'd sit in the cockpit in two hour shifts) and because the aircraft just sat on a ship's deck, they'd launch and find out things didn't work, like the machine guns. The next improvisation they tried, escort carriers, proved to be the good idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Saw a link a few pages back but can't find it now - it's the link to a site that compares two militaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Cross posting from the Aeronautical Insanity thread - seems our Russian and Japanese friends are playing together! Speaking of Tu-95s and their Russian brethren, the JASDF intercepted 5 Russian planes today, including 2 Tu-95s, 2 Su-24s and an A-50 AEW. Per Baseleg: http://thebaseleg.blogspot.com/2012/02/russian-50-intercepted-off-japan-for.html  quote:Japan's Defense Ministry has said that a total of 5 Russian military aircraft were intercepted by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) off Japan on Wednesday, including the appearance of an Ilyushin/Beriev A-50 Airborne Early Warning aircraft for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Song of the deck pilots  http://youtu.be/FIHnb8m0mZU
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
This is probably the best thread for this considering all the cold war/modern era mental wargaming we do, but Strategy & Tactics press is going to start a new title called "Modern War" this summer. Just like this thread, it'll focus on cold war and modern conflicts, both real and hypothetical, and, like all S&T magazines, offer actual paper and chit style wargames for sale. Here are the planned topics for the first six issues Issue 1: Near future wars in Asia Issue 2: Iranian threats to the middle east after a US disengagement Issue 3: Piracy around the horn of Africa Issue 4: The Six Day War Issue 5: A new war on the Korean peninsula Issue 6: Anti-insurgency operations during the Iraq War From here: http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/103653/modern-war-magazine
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:This is probably the best thread for this considering all the cold war/modern era mental wargaming we do, but Strategy & Tactics press is going to start a new title called "Modern War" this summer. Just like this thread, it'll focus on cold war and modern conflicts, both real and hypothetical, and, like all S&T magazines, offer actual paper and chit style wargames for sale. Sounds a bit like Falcon 3.0 meets ArmA mods on the board table.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
slidebite posted: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. This looks really neat, but as it says in the FAQ is not by any stretch of the imagination a game. The documentation looks relatively good, but not surprisingly it's fairly complex. Not helping is the fact that every screen I've seen so far is either in Russian or Hungarian moon writing. My Russian can most charitably be described as terrible to nonexistent, so it's been a bit of an issue. The AAR at least is in english, but when you have no idea what you're looking at that isn't terribly helpful. Probably doesn't help that I have no background in air defense, and my radar experience is limited to using yacht based sets to avoid ships and not drive into islands. It definitely seems to be in the same vein as the A-10 simulator discussed earlier that includes the 15 minute engine start sequence, except in Russian. I plan on playing with it some more, but they're serious about the RTFM step.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
drzrma posted:This looks really neat, but as it says in the FAQ is not by any stretch of the imagination a game. The documentation looks relatively good, but not surprisingly it's fairly complex. Not helping is the fact that every screen I've seen so far is either in Russian or Hungarian moon writing. My Russian can most charitably be described as terrible to nonexistent, so it's been a bit of an issue. The AAR at least is in english, but when you have no idea what you're looking at that isn't terribly helpful. I'm not crazy enough to try and figure out that sim, but if anyone else does successfully, it would be interesting to get a short writeup or narrated youtube about what's going on. More to understand how SAMs work rather than for how to play the sim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Canadian F-35s: God himself approves TL;DR: This week a defense journal put out a comprehensive criticism of the F-35. The responce of the asst. Defense minister was "All the people who wrote that are leftists." When pressed further (and somebody pointed out all the facts in the report were taken from American government sources, he responded: ”The member opposite is referring to a failed NDP candidate who wrote this report, critical of everything that is holy and decent about this government’s efforts to provide our military men and women with the resources,” (sic) You got that, Canadians - any criticism at all of the F-35 = blasphemy. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Feb 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
That's pretty much how the Conservative party rolls these days.. Dissent gets you labelled as an agitator/terrorist and then whatever bill gets rammed through anyway. Glad it'll work alright for killing the long gun registry though!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
priznat posted:That's pretty much how the Conservative party rolls these days.. Dissent gets you labelled as an agitator/terrorist and then whatever bill gets rammed through anyway. I was amazed before the election that the one time the Cons do something I agree with is the only time the entire political establishment rose with one voice to stop them
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
    RIP  I went to the Intrepid. Suicide Watch fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Feb 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
I used to like the F-35, then I read this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
VERTiG0 posted:I used to like the F-35, then I took an Arrow to the knee. Sorry, overdone I know, but I couldn't resist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
VERTiG0 posted:I used to like the F-35, then I read this thread. I hear you brother 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
nplus1 elephants posted:I had no idea what the Osprey was so I, of course, looked it up on Wikipedia. So, the Osprey allows you to send a small number of troops to somewhere far beyond artillery, naval gunnery, or helicopter gunship indirect fire support, with the Osprey as the only means of resupply or medevac, and with only MANPADS for air defense coverage? This seems like the truism that four wheel drive lets you get stuck further from help. Did nobody involved with this watch A Bridge Too Far?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:So, the Osprey allows you to send a small number of troops to somewhere far beyond artillery, naval gunnery, or helicopter gunship indirect fire support, with the Osprey as the only means of resupply or medevac, and with only MANPADS for air defense coverage? This seems like the truism that four wheel drive lets you get stuck further from help. ....seriously? There is a whole host of mission sets for light infantry like the USMC that do not require artillery or NGS because they can rely on fixed wing support for any fire support or air defense requirements. There's a case to be made against the Osprey, as well as (a lesser but still valid) case against the general idea of using vertical lift for deep strike missions like this, but  THE OSPREY CAN'T CARRY A HOWITZER!!! ain't it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:....seriously? There is a whole host of mission sets for light infantry like the USMC that do not require artillery or NGS because they can rely on fixed wing support for any fire support or air defense requirements. All I was pointing out was the case against deep strike missions without a good capability for support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
So...I found some MiGs in the Texas Panhandle. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 05:56
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:Did nobody involved with this watch A Bridge Too Far? No, they were all busy watching Victory At Entebbe.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
Agustin Cienfuegos posted:So...I found some MiGs in the Texas Panhandle. When I was in Champaign-Urbana, I was taking lessons at U of IL's Institute of Aviation (Had Illinois Veteran's Grant which completely paid for my flight fees and tuition...booya!), and as part of that training I did several solo cross-country flights. On one of them I was flying to Quincy, IL. Quincy is a large town (~40K population) on the western border of Illinois...nothing special about it, really. I was on short final to runway 31. You can see that it passes to the right of the FBO and administration buildings. Just as I touched down I glanced to my left and saw twin tails with a bright red star on them...had brief flashbacks of Red Dawn, but couldn't believe that it was ACTUALLY a MiG-29 sitting in the middle of the damned Midwest. As it turns out, yes it was. There's actually a private company based out of Quincy that contracts with the military to do aggressor/adversary training. I was floored.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
CarterUSM posted:As it turns out, yes it was. There's actually a private company based out of Quincy that contracts with the military to do aggressor/adversary training. I was floored. http://air-usa.com/team posted:Maintenance 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 06:58
|
|