|
 I approve of all nose art!
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
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. Must be something in the water in Illinois. Pride Aircraft at the Rockford airport imported two SU-27s from the Ukraine a couple of years ago. They were listed for a while at ten million USD each, then they disappeared. I spoke with an employee last summer, and he said the government bought them and we'd never see them again.   When I was flying out of Aurora airport there was also a Mig-21 operated out of there. Really encouraged you to clear the active when it was on final behind you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Alaan posted:I approve of all nose art! I saw that. I LOVE that they went all old-school hammer and sickle. Well played, gentlemen. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 07:55
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:No, they were all busy watching Victory At Entebbe. This is the proper response. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
Video of a Syrian ZSU-23-4 firing at apartments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXg6vuUiShU Is the radome removed/folded down, or do were there different options for it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 12:45
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:I spoke with an employee last summer, and he said the government bought them and we'd never see them again. An N-number search seems to indicate they're owned by these guys: http://www.meridican.net/
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 13:33
|
|
|
Groda posted:Video of a Syrian ZSU-23-4 firing at apartments: Nice portraits of al Assad next to the barrels
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:An N-number search seems to indicate they're owned by these guys: http://www.meridican.net/ This is so obviously a government front company that it's kind of hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
I haven't looked into it, but why are China and Russia tacitly supporting that Assad dickweed anyway? I forget, is Syria friends with Iran or enemies? If friends I guess china wants oil from Iran to continue so that makes sense. Russia, is it just a sphere of influence thing? Of course both countries are also not exactly beacons of hope in the whole human rights arena.. Anyway Syria is pissing me off 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
priznat posted:I haven't looked into it, but why are China and Russia tacitly supporting that Assad dickweed anyway? I forget, is Syria friends with Iran or enemies? If friends I guess china wants oil from Iran to continue so that makes sense. Russia, is it just a sphere of influence thing? Russia has a Soviet-era naval base at Tartus in Syria that they still have a lease on. It's their last remaining naval base outside of Russian territory, and pretty important for them as a way to keep a presence in the eastern med. Basically, as long as Syria lets them hang onto that, there's no way they're ever going to agree to any kind of sanctions of any kind, and Syria can go and do whatever the gently caress they want. Since the whole Ossetia thing in the late 2010s Russia has been expanding it pretty massively, and when they're done it will be a major anchorage for them. It's a major security issue for them and I really can't imagine them accepting any political change in the region that didn't allow them to keep and expand that base. This is in addition to all of the more mundane poo poo like selling tons of arms to them and whatnot. They are Syria's major supplier and do a TON of business with them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Plus, don't doubt that China is taking a very long view on this whole thing and has an eye on that naval base. Thirty, forty years from now, Syria could be a Chinese ally state, not a Russian one. Edit: What happened to the Russian base in Vietnam? No way the Chinese are getting their hands on that one.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Plus, don't doubt that China is taking a very long view on this whole thing and has an eye on that naval base. Thirty, forty years from now, Syria could be a Chinese ally state, not a Russian one. Well, with China I suspect it has more to do with their long view on human rights, period. They have a VERY long history of vetoing anything that's done on the basis of human rights violations in general, and crackdowns on anti-government protest specifically. Basically, don't be too surprised when the country that still has "Tiennamen square was totally justified" as a talking point refuses to allow criticism of smaller countries who drive tanks in on crowds of government protesters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Plus, don't doubt that China is taking a very long view on this whole thing and has an eye on that naval base. Thirty, forty years from now, Syria could be a Chinese ally state, not a Russian one. The Chinese and the Vietnamese hate each other and were still literally shooting at each other across the border 20 years ago? I wouldn't be surprised if Vietnam will be inviting American "advisors" back to Cam Ranh Bay soon to poke the Chinese in the eye. quote:Well, with China I suspect it has more to do with their long view on human rights, period. They have a VERY long history of vetoing anything that's done on the basis of human rights violations in general, and crackdowns on anti-government protest specifically. China always opposes any kind of foreign intervention in domestic affairs at the UN on principle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:49
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The Chinese and the Vietnamese hate each other and were still literally shooting at each other across the border 20 years ago? I wouldn't be surprised if Vietnam will be inviting American "advisors" back to Cam Ranh Bay soon to poke the Chinese in the eye. They are kind of already doing that. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/204055/vietnam-to-reopen-cam-ranh-bay-to-foreign-fleets-pm
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:57
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The Chinese and the Vietnamese hate each other and were still literally shooting at each other across the border 20 years ago? I wouldn't be surprised if Vietnam will be inviting American "advisors" back to Cam Ranh Bay soon to poke the Chinese in the eye. Imagine being a 40 year NVA vet who started out fighting the Japanese, then the French, the Americans, invading Cambodia and was getting ready for retirement in 1979 just as the news of the Chinese invasion came in.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
    Shot down a bunch of Ryan Model 147Hs in the 1970s, put one back together, copied it, deployed against the Vietnamese in the 1980s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Well, with China I suspect it has more to do with their long view on human rights, period. They have a VERY long history of vetoing anything that's done on the basis of human rights violations in general, and crackdowns on anti-government protest specifically. Given this...does that mean any attempts by the west to change the anti-human rights view is window dressing and bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Given this...does that mean any attempts by the west to change the anti-human rights view is window dressing and bullshit? Yes. The West wants the Chinese to keep things under the carpet, human rights-wise, because having another Tienanmen Square massacre will make it very hard to have such open trade with China. They're not going to pressure the Chinese gov't too hard into human rights reforms because the Chinese won't do this without the kind of economic pressure that would severely hurt both the US as well as China. And no American politician wants to be blamed for putting our country into a deeper recessions / hurting corporations who depend on China for production of goods / etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Oh well gently caress human rights if it'll derail the launch date of the iPad 3! BACK TO WORK, FOXCONN SLAVES! BWAHAHAHA!! :whipcracka:
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Alaan posted:
Does the other side say "Boris"? In other aircraft news, The Big Fuckin' Press is pressing again. 50,000 ton forging press with pictures: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/iron-giant/8886/ And a PDF "from 1981 has even more detail (and pictures!), though it's unclear if any of the press's specifications may have changed in the most recent rebuild."
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Just picked this article out of a different aerospace blog. Potentially interesting, but I think mostly crap. http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/02/13/building-weapons-where-70-trumps-100/?iid=bl-article-mostpop1 The article would have been a lot more compelling if they'd actually been willing to cite some 70% examples, and then stand by them, and explain how they happened, or didn't happen. Is the F-16 a 70% example? How did it come to be, could it be done again? A-4? F-5? F-18? Were those 70%s?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:
They also had these hanging off one of the TU-4's at Datangshan.  unmannedspy by RReiheld, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Just picked this article out of a different aerospace blog. Potentially interesting, but I think mostly crap. Interesting, but yeah, I share your complaint. Also, blaming the people at the coal face and engineers and not mentioning at all the procurement people strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Of course projects should perform at 100% and never work. They're way more money in that then making things that work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
 Airliners.net posted:Telemetry collector EB-47E Tell Two coming up on a KC-135 tanker for fuel over the Pacific Ocean.The antennae next to the cockpit are for receiving telemetry signals from Russian missiles shot into the mid-Pacific test range. wiki posted:Three B-47Es were converted to the highly specialized EB-47E(TT) "Tell Two" configuration to be used for "telemetry intelligence", picking up radio signals from Soviet missile tests and space launches. The Tell Two was the precursor to the RC-135S Rivet Ball and Cobra Ball. The EB-47E(TT)s featured a "Crow capsule" in the bomb bay loaded with the appropriate gear and two ECM operators (known as Crows), and also featured odd and distinctive antennas just below each side of the cockpit. All three of these aircraft were operated out of Turkey, and stayed in service until 1967. The antennas on the nose of the aircraft attracted a good deal of attention from base personnel, and crews made up imaginative stories about them, for example claiming they were part of a "return to fighter (RTF)" defensive system that would cause Soviet air-to-air missiles to loop back and shoot down their own launch fighters. In reality, they were specialized receiver antennas used for intercepting telemetry signals from Soviet space and missile launches.  I had no idea this was a thing!! I wish I was like one of you lucky goons who has a grandfather or uncle that was a engineer for this sort of Cold War program, the only stories I got were about cows 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Hey Boomerjinks why don't you tell us about how you stole an idea from AI and profited from it? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Well, with China I suspect it has more to do with their long view on human rights, period. They have a VERY long history of vetoing anything that's done on the basis of human rights violations in general, and crackdowns on anti-government protest specifically. In addition to this, it's worth mentioning that the events that transpired in Libya may have had something to do with the vetos, especially with the Chinese decision since as previously noted Russia has a much closer relationship with Syria. I mean, looking at things from a Chinese/Russian perspective, here's basically what happened with Libya...  : Okay, Russia and China, here's the deal...UNSCR 1973 is gonna be really limited, all we want it to authorize action to protect the civilians in Benghazi and try and provide some more international pressure to get this madman to stop killing his people and step down. Forced regime change isn't our objective here; we want to let things play out without getting overly involved but we can't stand by and let a psychopath despot slaughter his own people. : Alright, sounds good to us, we'll abstain. : Yeah, we're cool with it, as long as it stays limited, because we are usually pretty principled about staying out of other nations' internal affairs, but we recognize the Gadaffi is a lunatic and we don't want to see thousands of people get slaughtered on CNN anymore than anyone else does. We'll abstain as well.         :  WHOOOOO AWWW YEAH!!!  THAT'S U.N. APPROVAL SON!!! REGIME CHANGE TIME BITCHES   And then the international coalition proceeded to bomb the poo poo out of Libya while providing arms to the rebels and putting advisors on the ground, arguably in direct contravention of 1973 depending on which tortured interpretation of it you listened to (these would be the same legal geniuses that somehow argued that the War Powers Act didn't really apply to U.S. forces because it wasn't technically "war" since we weren't getting shot at, just doing the shooting), and certainly against the spirit of the resolution.Second and third order effects...U.S. foreign policy makers have been TERRIBLE about thinking about these pretty much ever since the Cold War ended (and even before then). We saw the same thing in the aftermath of the decision on the part of Western nations to just unilaterally grant Kosovo independence...if you don't see the parallels between that and the Russian actions to support South Ossetia and Abkhazia against Georgia later that year, then...you are probably a U.S. policy maker. Slo-Tek posted:Just picked this article out of a different aerospace blog. Potentially interesting, but I think mostly crap. I haven't been too impressed with the battleland blog...it falls into the same mentality that a lot of the "pop" national security blogs fall into (Danger Room, Spencer Ackerman, David Axe, etc), which anytime the topic of airpower/the USAF comes up is to basically go UGH THERE GOES THE M-I-C AGAIN BUILDING poo poo THAT IS TOTES USELESS IN OUR CURRENT WARS THE U.S. WILL ALWAYS FIGHT NOTHING BUT WARS AGAINST DIRT POOR INSURGENTS ALSO WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST SCRAP THE ENTIRE AF AND GIVE DRONES AND MORE A-10s TO THE ARMY THIS IS MY EXTENT OF AIRPOWER KNOWLEDGE PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE PLAN/PLAAF BUILD UP IN ASIA NEXT WAR ITIS NEXT WAR ITIS NEXT WAR ITIS (p.s. the air force still sucks). That said, THAT article is okay, mostly because it's written by someone other than the usual guy over there. I do share the criticism of a lack of specific examples...I think a perfect example of this (albeit taking the 70% solution to an entire segment of a service's fleet vs an individual program) would be choosing to temper the JSF buy with pursuing alternative new build legacy fighters. Do you REALLY need stealth/internal carriage of munitions on a Day 30 bomb truck? As far as individual programs, I would argue that the LWF concept as originally designed was a 50% solution, intended to be procured for 25% price...which was turned into a 75% solution that you got for 85% price. An F-5 or A-4 is getting closer to a 70% solution...in modern aircraft, I think a great example of the 70% solution is the Gripen. I know I pimp it out all the time here, but I think the program has a lot going for it...most significantly, keeping cost under control. That is the primary reason it won in Switzerland, because all three Euro-canards met the minimum performance requirements and instead of getting all googly eyed at some badass technology/performance/whatever, the Swiss stuck to their guns and bought the cheapest weapons system that met their minimum requirements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
mikerock posted:Hey Boomerjinks why don't you tell us about how you stole an idea from AI and profited from it? That could be totally wrong because I'm only trolling A.I. as I do a new car search so have an AIRPOWER image (click for big):  Source
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Is this really true? What weapons did NATO supply to the Libyan opposition? I know the Qataris and the other Gulf monarchs were doing it on the down-lo but didn't think the west was doing it. I'm not asking for a source, I don't know that much about it either way, just if you are sure about it. I think the fact that it was so multi-lateral was what helped Libya get through, much like Afghanista post 9/11. I mean if Denmark and Norway are on board, who can really be against it? The French and the Germans in particular are pretty cozy diplomatically and economically with Russia and China, I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians and Chinese let Libya go just as a personal favour to Sarkozy. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Feb 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:In addition to this, it's worth mentioning that the events that transpired in Libya may have had something to do with the vetos, especially with the Chinese decision since as previously noted Russia has a much closer relationship with Syria. I mean, looking at things from a Chinese/Russian perspective, here's basically what happened with Libya... There's been a lot of debate over it in the Middle East thread in GBS. I think the general consensus is that Russia knew exactly what they were signing on to, but it was worded vaguely enough so that they claim they had no idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Is this really true? What weapons did NATO supply to the Libyan opposition? Caro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
Can someone explain what is meant by a "70% solution"? Is it just designing something cheaper that only does a few things, rather going all out on some shiny bit of kit that can do everything?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:There's been a lot of debate over it in the Middle East thread in GBS. I think the general consensus is that Russia knew exactly what they were signing on to, but it was worded vaguely enough so that they claim they had no idea. Because the general consensus in GBS has any relationship to reality on anything to do with anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Because the general consensus in GBS has any relationship to reality on anything to do with anything. You clearly don't understand, it's a general goon consensus 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
Ygolonac posted:Does the other side say "Boris"? Update to the Big loving Press story, 'The Machines That Made The Jet Age': http://boingboing.net/2012/02/13/machines.html Without these giant machines that were built just after WWII, we don't have an aerospace industry, and we would not have been successful in the Cold War. The US literally cannot make such things today. Fascinating stuff, and don't miss the link to the vintage Mesta company catalog of giant fuckoff industrial machinery. It's more  than .
Schindler's Fist fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Feb 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
First reply in the comments:quote:I just want to see that massive wheel rolling down a hill somewhere. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 09:49
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Because the general consensus in GBS has any relationship to reality on anything to do with anything. While I agree that most people in GBS are gibbering idiots, the Middle East thread usually has very good news and discussion going on. That being said, I'll drop the issue as I don't want to start a derail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Schindler's Fist posted:Update to the Big loving Press story, 'The Machines That Made The Jet Age': http://boingboing.net/2012/02/13/machines.html How much of this has been replaced by CnC mills? Maybe you don't so much need a 500 ton press and the space and crew to operate it when you can set the computer to carve your bulkheads out of a brick of titanium over night. I am always somewhat suspicious of people who moan about the lost awesome technology of the past, without making much note of why they were lost. "They don't make 'em like they used to" is not always a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
I dunno, China has a gently caress-ton of high quality presses, drop forges and stuff, but what do they make these days? Oh yeah, everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Wasn't there a story somewhere recently of some bridge in the US that was using giant forged parts from China? And they were having all kinds of problems building the bridge due to those forged parts being out of spec?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
priznat posted:I dunno, China has a gently caress-ton of high quality presses, drop forges and stuff, but what do they make these days? That's such a silly exaggeration. Germany and the US both have about 1.3 trillion dollars worth of exports a year. China's got significantly more than that, about 1.9 trillion, but Germany's got a population of about 80 million compared to china's 1.3 billion people. You think Germany and the US don't make things anymore? I can tell you for a fact that the new Chinooks coming off the lines have frames that are milled from solid billets of aluminum, just like the above poster was talking about, rather than forged.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 21:48
|
|
