Party Plane Jones posted:Didn't the procurement process for the F-22 start in 1993? Technically, F-22 procurement started in 1981.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Didn't the procurement process for the F-22 start in 1993? Depends on how you define procurement process. The JSF's arguably started in the '93-'94 timeframe when the various programs the USAF and USN had running were merged under the JAST banner (and then again in '95 when the Marines' ASTOVL program got drawn in) although if you want to go all the way back ASTOVL started in 1983. And yeah, the Raptor started in 1981 when the RFI for the ATF program was published by the AF. Speaking of the ATF, I am incredibly grateful to whoever got the AF to drop the STOL/thrust reverser requirement from the ATF program. In all honesty we really have the S/MTD program to thank for that...it's almost like building technology demonstrators of developing technology and then using that to build a production program on top of is a smart way to do things instead of concurrent development.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Good question on defining procurement process, is it when it becomes a "Program of record", when it has program element, when it enters EMD phase or just TD phase?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
A trio of F-15s fly over the LA Coliseum during the Super Bowl! (Click for big.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Those are the strangest F-15s I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:A trio of F-15s fly over the LA Coliseum during the Super Bowl! (Click for big.) Um what? I hope you are joking. Nice soccer field down there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
emathey posted:Those are the strangest F-15s I've ever seen. The third one is using the new ARMY adaptive camo. I can see it, but I'm pretty highly trained about things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
emathey posted:Those are the strangest F-15s I've ever seen. I don't know what you're gripen' about, I see nothing wrong with the description.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:I don't know what you're gripen' about, I see nothing wrong with the description. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
How Swede it is. Also were the stadium designers going for "rectal prolapse?" YOU CANT UNSEE IT NOW
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
Topical picture I took yesterday. I call it "What Could Go Wrong?" And since this is the cold war thread, have a cold war pic  And here's the whole album, feel free to post any you'd like to talk about https://plus.google.com/photos/118407312869309312117/albums/5724761052449844113?authkey=CN-A4r6rhOyI2gE
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
Udvar-Hazy owns. I think I posted my gallery from this summer earlier. Well worth the trip. I might have to sacrifice something to the blood gods and hit the USAF museum out at Wright-Patterson but that would also require voluntarily going to Ohio. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
Psion posted:Udvar-Hazy owns. I think I posted my gallery from this summer earlier. Well worth the trip. I might have to sacrifice something to the blood gods and hit the USAF museum out at Wright-Patterson but that would also require voluntarily going to Ohio. The USAF museum is actually better than both Udvar-Hazy and the Smithsonian on the Mall. I mean, one has an XB-70...the other two don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
daskrolator posted:Good question on defining procurement process, is it when it becomes a "Program of record", when it has program element, when it enters EMD phase or just TD phase?  I'd say that it starts at Milestone A/approval to enter TD phase, or maybe even before, since my understanding is that Milestone B/approval to enter EMD is usually right around the same time it becomes a program of record in the POM, and that seems too late. However, on second thought maybe Milestone B/EMD is the right line to use, since (in grossly simplified theory) everything prior to that is "hey, look at this cool poo poo we can put on the jet!" but once you enter EMD it shifts to "hey, how the gently caress are we going to put all this cool poo poo on the jet without going massively overweight/overbudget/both?!?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 07:17
|
|
|
priznat posted:How Swede it is. I've never seen a rectal prolapse.  Can the British control the air around the Falkland Islands using only ship based SAMs ( I guess they don't have any land based systems other than the very short range shoulder fired type)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
There are also Rapier missiles in the Falklands for air defense. Even ignoring the type 45 destroyer, if the Argentinians were attacking the Falklands then I'd expect the mainland airfields to be hit with tomahawks from a nuclear sub.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
Baconroll posted:Even ignoring the type 45 destroyer, if the Argentinians were attacking the Falklands then I'd expect the mainland airfields to be hit with tomahawks from a nuclear sub. Not necessarily. During the Falklands War the British were pretty careful about not attacking the Argentinian mainland. (apart from this plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado )
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 12:26
|
|
|
Baconroll posted:Even ignoring the type 45 destroyer, if the Argentinians were attacking the Falklands then I'd hope Buenos Aires to be hit with an ICBM from a nuclear sub. Maybe they'd get the point this time then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
Actually, I just found out that the F35B has components based off the YAK141. http://aviationintel.com/2011/11/06/yak-141-freestyle-the-f-35b-was-born-in-moscow/ There is no  big enough for me right now.Hey when the program fails maybe the USMC/British Navy can resurrect the YAK141 program?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
fuf posted:Not necessarily. During the Falklands War the British were pretty careful about not attacking the Argentinian mainland. With what would they have done that back in '82 exactly? Not really proportionate to go and nuke airbases over a couple of rocks. Volley off a couple of TLAMs and no-one would bat an eye, they've been an accepted foreign policy tool for decades now 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
Psion posted:Udvar-Hazy owns. I think I posted my gallery from this summer earlier. Well worth the trip. I might have to sacrifice something to the blood gods and hit the USAF museum out at Wright-Patterson but that would also require voluntarily going to Ohio. It's worth it. Make sure you get there early and jump through the hoops to get R&D wing access, I didn't know about it until it was too late and missed out. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/r&d/index.asp
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
The Proc posted:It's worth it. Make sure you get there early and jump through the hoops to get R&D wing access, I didn't know about it until it was too late and missed out. yes, this the weird thing is that 90%+ of the people on the bus will be fired up about some ratty-rear end 707 when there's so much other cool, weird poo poo next door
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Maybe they'd get the point this time then. Requesting goddamnbugswhackedus.gif
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
I was reading up on wikipedia about James Cameron's underwater science shenanigans. So of course one thing leads to another and I'm reading all kinds of Cold War submarine poo poo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian Project Azorian: a Soviet sub implodes in the pacific, the CIA purpose builds a ship to steal it. Only a small section was recovered. Some called it a failure, some called it one of the best intel victories of the Cold War (documentation, sonar array and nuclear torpedoes were recovered).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, so many posts! I kinda missed the boat on avionics discussion last page, but to bring it back up...Cyrano4747 posted:I forget the long answer for this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone who actually knows about this will be along shortly to correct me or expand on this, but my understanding of military computer poo poo is that every new "thing" that is developed has to go through some loving obscene testing/authorization/adaptation process that has its roots back in military procurement ca. WW1 or some poo poo. We have to remember that our desktop computers are designed for very nice, standard operation conditions. Sitting on the ground, 25C nominal, nice AC power, etc. In the electronics industry, we have several common "grades" of components: commercial, industrial, automotive, etc, with commercial generally being the cheapest. They vary my manufacturer, but commercial is usually slightly below 0C up to around 70 or 85C. Automotive grade components are IIRC -40C to either 85C or even higher. Industrial components can be -40C to 80C. Altera military grade components (Altera makes FPGAs, which they market heavily for radar applications) are listed as -55C to 125C. The exact numbers vary from maker to maker but I just want to explain there are different ranges for the same part, and this drives cost. All of these vary in price, and availability. Some industrial/extended parts come with a guarantee that $company will continue to make that part for the next decade as well (Intel finally stopped in-house production of 486s back in 2007, I think). The costs of qualifying that component, and the yields (if a part passes at the high temperature range, it's cherry-picked and labeled as such, similar to how CPUs are binned) all get passed on to the customer. So, for a fighter jet, now you get to prove that your parts will all play nice at Mach 2, at 60,000ft, maintain electromagnetic compatibility, perhaps remain resistant to radiation (ICs that are sent into space aren't built on a standard silicon process) and whatever other mission requirements. That onus falls on the contractor, and then some military bureaucrat somewhere finally says "OK" and its good. Also, the DoD is freaking out at the moment about  Chinese chips making their way into our weapons systems. A lot of ICs that were discontinued, but are still in use in our systems and being "procured" from less than reputable sources (by which I mean 3rd world kids stripping the parts off vintage computer equipment and dying a few years later of cancer. We are all baby killers!)quote:I just remember back when Future Warrior was the new hotness and people were talking about infantry with HUD helmets and poo poo there was some stupid little thing with what amounted to a netbook in a backpack, and it could be easily fixed by adding more RAM. The boards they were playing with had 2x512mb slots or something like that, but only 2x256 installed. Why not just slide in more RAM? Because for whatever model and manufacturer they were using the 256 version was OK'd but the 512 wasn't, so they had to go through an approval process on that component. Yeah, it's more acceptable to drag goons like us through that, we'll just wait for the next patch. That doesn't fly when you're swapping circuit boards or modules out in a FOB somewhere, and the spare you're swapping in has spent the last 10 years in a box moving from warehouse to warehouse. Everything has to work properly the first time. And that's just hardware. We've seen the software issues...a Patriot battery failing to hit a SCUD because of its clock, Raptors dying over the IDL (sorry iyaas), etc. And from what my buddies tell me, software design philosophies at the big contractors is design-by-committee style (the same style that brought us many Eastern Bloc fighting vehicles featuring external fuel drums). e: and I forgot the punchline: all the above is necessary (I may not agree with the particular numbers, but certainly heavy testing is necessary) but takes time. That means you start the design with the state-of-the-art, and your state-of-the-art is ancient by the time you're qualified. And more nerd dumpage, newer is not necessarily always better. Most of our ICs today are CMOS-based, drawing less power and letting our iPods run longer. "Older" tech like bipolar is much more resilient to radiation. And I'm getting a massive sense of deja vu typing this. Here's a list of some rad-hardened CPUs that are found in spacecraft. daskrolator posted:The "Integrated Core Processor" and all the related sub systems are very different than regular computers bought by the private sector. The multiple redundancies as well as the security layer makes the systems very different from their commercial counterparts and makes design, debugging, and other QC activities most people take for granted as a huge issue with development and subsequent upgrades. The Raytheon CIP is more of a rack/backplane than a single IC, it seems. Still very expensive to develop, but at least it's using some CotS components like the i960. You slide in modules that interconnect with each other over some high-speed bus (modules for radar, communications, crypto, running the cockpit MFDs, etc). And all the modules/processors/etc have to function properly in combat conditions too. Here is a Honeywell Radar Altimeter SEM-E module. Plug that into your backplane and with a little work you have a radar altimeter! Also, I can't believe that level of information is easily available on the internet. I wonder if some Russian goon could get the same level of information about the PAK-FA's avionics without ending up in prison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Flanker posted:I was reading up on wikipedia about James Cameron's underwater science shenanigans. So of course one thing leads to another and I'm reading all kinds of Cold War submarine poo poo. I saw a show (on discovery channel or one of those types) on this and they had CG reenactment footage showing at one point the sail shifted and one of the missiles slid out of the tube. It started its descent while people watched and probably held their breath. Not that it would be likely that the nuke would detonate, but still. Major pucker factor. And then a bunch of the capture assembly failed and dropped 2/3rds of it anyway, whoops!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
priznat posted:I saw a show (on discovery channel or one of those types) on this and they had CG reenactment footage showing at one point the sail shifted and one of the missiles slid out of the tube. It started its descent while people watched and probably held their breath. Not that it would be likely that the nuke would detonate, but still. Major pucker factor. And then a bunch of the capture assembly failed and dropped 2/3rds of it anyway, whoops! In a Clive Cussler book they pull the Explorer out of storage and use it to deflect away sound-energy of doom(TM), bouncing it back towards a volcano which then movax fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Mar 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
movax posted:In a Clive Cussler book they pull the Explorer out of storage and use it to deflect away sound-energy of doom(TM), bouncing it back towards a volcano which then interrupts. How do they do that, replace the grabbing claw with a big parabolic dish or something? Also the book "The Jennifer Morgue" mixes the real life event with Cthulu type mythology and it's a fun read. Along with the rest of the series, if you're into that kind of thing (tongue in cheek britishy sci-fi)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
priznat posted:How do they do that, replace the grabbing claw with a big parabolic dish or something? Heh I just realized I typed 'interrupts' instead of 'erupts'. Pretty much though, yeah. They use some decommissioned parabolic satellite dish, transport it over to the ship, and then suspend it underwater with the claw. I'm really embarrassed I remember this. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
Flanker posted:Project Azorian: a Soviet sub implodes in the pacific, the CIA purpose builds a ship to steal it. Only a small section was recovered. Some called it a failure, some called it one of the best intel victories of the Cold War (documentation, sonar array and nuclear torpedoes were recovered). priznat posted:I saw a show (on discovery channel or one of those types) on this It might have been this documentary, which is pretty good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h6rGrzD2VY I was sure I watched it online somewhere but I can't find it now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
fuf posted:It might have been this documentary, which is pretty good: Oh, that looks better than the one I saw. I think mine was the PBS "sub secrets" one actually. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2602subsecrets.html http://www.eaglespeak.us/2007/07/sunday-ship-history-glomar-explorer.html quote:The tension is high as the long, slow lift begins. Almost half way up, three of the arms on the giant claw give way. K-129 slips and a nuclear missile glides slowly, almost gracefully, out of its silo. It will be traveling 80 miles per hour when it hits the ocean floor. Before it does, K-129 breaks apart. The minutes tick by slowly. There is no nuclear explosion. Only a 38-foot section makes it to Glomar Explorer's giant recovery room. There are no code books or missiles. There are body parts. priznat fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Mar 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/11990/the-misunderstood-iceman/ Sorry to breakup the AIRPOWER/JSF thread with something else but I liked this article.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Cold War/Spacerace related: Jeff Bezos Plans to Recover Apollo 11 Rocket Engines From Ocean Floor Pretty cool piece of history there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
movax posted:And that's just hardware. We've seen the software issues...a Patriot battery failing to hit a SCUD because of its clock, Raptors dying over the IDL (sorry iyaas), etc. And from what my buddies tell me, software design philosophies at the big contractors is design-by-committee style (the same style that brought us many Eastern Bloc fighting vehicles featuring external fuel drums). Weren't those jettisonable from inside the tank and were intended for use in moving across long distances and were to be popped off in the event of combat? Hardly seems like a flaw to me...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Plus they were probably diesel which isn't as flammable as gasoline. But yeah, easily disconnected from the rear end-end of a tank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Dudes we're talking about BMP-1s with fuel tanks in their rear doors 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Dudes we're talking about BMP-1s with fuel tanks in their rear doors grover fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Mar 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
They weren't supposed to go into combat with those tanks full of fuel either, I don't think. The fact that the troops sat against the main fuel tank inside was problematic, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Dudes we're talking about BMP-1s with fuel tanks in their rear doors I think having armor made out of magnesium was probably a bigger issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 02:35
|
|