|
TheNakedJimbo posted:I've never been able to find out if the ones that ATAC owns now are the ones that the USN/USMC leased, but it wouldn't surprise me. I don't believe this is the case, as the F-21s were C1 Kfirs but the ones ATAC owns are C2s. ATAC doesn't just fly DACT for the Navy/USMC, either...they also do a fair amount of work (not near as much as they do with the Navy/USMC) with the USAF, as well as plenty of foreign militaries as part of US coalition exercises. Here's a map. And Kfirs aren't all ATAC operates:   Apparently they no longer operate Drakens or Skyhawks, which is too bad. Phanatic posted:Check this poo poo out: back in 1991, in the Persian Gulf, the USS Princeton (a 9600-ton cruiser) struck a mine in 16 meters of water. The explosion sympathetically detonated a second mine about 350 yards away. Between the different shock components, the ship was twisted in all 3 axes; the bow, stern, and midships were basically all gyrating in circles but with no common axis. This does *very bad* things to ships, stuff like cracking 8"x10" steel I-beams, heaving the deck upward 20 degrees, separating 10% of the superstructure from the main deck, things like that. Her chill-water pipes were ruptured, so her combat systems overheated and shut down. Her hull wasn't holed, but she still started to flood through burst seams. Her port rudder was jammed. Damage control efforts got her weapons systems back online within two hours, letting her resume duties as the local AAW command vessel. She stayed on station for another 30 hours providing air cover for the minesweeping and recovery efforts before she was relieved and put under tow. There were only a few deaths. The Princeton and the Sammy B both are testaments to the toughness of modern ship design and the U.S. Navy's proficiency at damage control. mlmp08 posted:Also note that after the Stark was hit, we went the other way as far as mentality goes and downed a civilian airliner within an air corridor with its IFF on... Such a clusterfuck. AEGIS system: That aircraft is climbing.  CIC crew: THAT AIRCRAFT IS DESCENDING AND ACCELERATING!!Forums Terrorist posted:It is my firm belief that in part because of all this the M1 Abrams is the finest weapons system the US has ever deployed, and I'm saying that as a huge goddamned Russophile. 104-0 begs to disagree with you.  Nah, among the top it's just down to splitting hairs...the Abrams has definitely earned a place there, along with the Arleigh Burkes for sure. Oxford Comma posted:What does Canada do that would require a replacement for the F/A-18? Or are the Hornets just so old that they're soon going to fall apart? The RCAF (so happy I can officially call them that again) takes part in coalition air operations with Canada's allies, including kinetic operations as well as support...they sent a detachment of Hornets to Desert Storm, they sent Hornets to Allied Force, and they sent Hornets to help with the "no-fly zone" over Libya. They started receiving them in 1982, so yes, they are getting a little long in the tooth. Also, these guys still like to fly right up to Canadian airspace, just like they do in Alaska: 
iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Mar 30, 2012 |
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
priznat posted:When I worked for the mil contractor they had a bunch of vehicles like M155 and a Leopard 1 and I could barely fit my shoulders through the commander's hatch. And that was while contorting.. Definitely not a tall guy's game, armor. I'm not a giant but am 5'11 and got pretty used to being a crewman on a Sheridan. It's all in the technique.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:What does Canada do that would require a replacement for the F/A-18? Or are the Hornets just so old that they're soon going to fall apart? Probably the latter, though I don't honestly know. On a side note, pilots may be limited to certain Gs depending on the mission and how long the service expects the plane to be in service. So if you're a country engaging in hairy dogfights within visual range, you may be pulling max-Gs routinely and just expect your planes to wear out faster. On the other hand, If you're performing medium-high altitude bombing and ISR/RSTA missions against a force without air defenses that can range you, don't pull mad Gs. It may seem cool for the pilot, but it just wears out the airframe unnecessarily. Canada may well have been flying to profiles which would wear the airframes out on a given date, and now that date is approaching and they need something, anything new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
216A posted:I'm not a giant but am 5'11 and got pretty used to being a crewman on a Sheridan. It's all in the technique. Yeah, in my criticism of the Russian poo poo, I tried to discount the really stupid side-doors and such because they would be more practiced. But even after crawling my way to the seat, once seated with my hands/feet on the controls, my head would hit the ceiling or pop through a hatch such that it could not close without me slouching, which isn't always possible when the seat is an 8"x8" slab of metal suspended in the air by a pole with no seatback.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Even if you're not actually dogfighting in real life, presumably you still have to do all that poo poo in training which will wear the plane out anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Even if you're not actually dogfighting in real life, presumably you still have to do all that poo poo in training which will wear the plane out anyway. Yes, but if you do it in training every once in a while it's way less stress than if every other time the pilot turns he says "gently caress it" and pulls a max-G turn for fun edit: I'm told by some Navy/Marine guys that the Navy picks airframes which they will not stress unduly to give to the Marines when the Navy is done with them. If it's an F-18 model the Marines don't want, they'll run it ragged. This is all watercolor talk, so take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Probably the latter, though I don't honestly know. Canada's just in the same boat with their Hornets as the U.S. is with the older Vipers and legacy Hornets...they need to be replaced sometime soon. Not necessarily tomorrow, but as we saw with the longerons on the Eagles when you are dealing with older aircraft that are only getting older you run the risk of a sudden problem cropping up (granted, the F-15A/B/C/Ds that had the problems are straight air to air without a pound for air to ground, so chances are they've been ridden harder than your average multi-role Viper or Bug). When you are the USAF, that is a problem, but not an insurmountable one as long as it doesn't happen on multiple aircraft types at the same time. If you are the RCAF with one type of fighter, that's a little more disconcerting single point of failure type of deal. With modern combat aircraft development and procurement timelines being what they, if you want to have a replacement start entering service in the 2015-2018 timeframe (as both the U.S. and Canada are notionally planning on with the F-35) you can't just wake up in 2014 and go "alright, let's go to the fighter dealership and get a couple of fighters."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:"alright, let's go to the fighter dealership and get a couple of fighters." How cool would that be if that existed though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Flikken posted:How cool would that be if that existed though? I was just thinking that after I posted it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Is there any European stuff Canada could get for less money than the F-35? MiGs? Or is it pretty much a done deal that Canada will buy the American plane because of politics?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I was just thinking that after I posted it. Saab should start opening up dealerships all around the world, what could possibly go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Came up in conversation today, I have a t-shirt from VFA-81 (The Sunliners!) that I got back in 1990. Along with my letter from the president of Grumman, it's probably my most prized aviation related swag.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
It really comes down to if the fighter has to be a gen5 or not. Not many options there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:One thing I've always wondered about these systems: how do they harden the component that actually handles the "voting?" It seems to me that it'd always be a single point of failure, which kind of defeats the whole exercise. Is it just given extra shielding and built on a bigger/more rad-resistant process? Radiation hardening defends against a variety of issues. The primary (and longest) use case for rad-hardened devices is in satellites and space probe. Space is a dick. There's nothing up there like our atmosphere to protect you from radiation. Cosmic rays, high-energy particle belts (like our Van Allen belt) can and do wreak havoc on systems in two major ways: 1. gradual damage and degradation of semiconductor structures, and 2. single-event upsets. #2 is literally a high-energy particle passing through a chip and maybe flipping a bit, which could then result in data corruption, lock-up, etc. #1 can be seen on satellites whose solar panels literally degrade under the constant bombardment of particles from the sun and other sources. Advances have been made, but it's still a concern. Physically you build the chip on a different process, use rad-hardened materials, etc. Logically, that's where many voting-subsytems would come in, watchdog timers, error-correcting codes, etc comes in. I don't think avionics have to be quite built up to the standards of say GPS or communication satellite electronics, but certainly they keep in the mind the electromagnetic environment the aircraft is operating in. Flikken posted:How cool would that be if that existed though? Only if they come with typical car-dealership style ads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
Crazy Ivan's House of Planes that Fight!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
priznat posted:Crazy Ivan's House of Planes that Fight! We don't have enough domestics to fight off those 'dem imports 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
movax posted:Only if they come with typical car-dealership style ads. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvOfZSn6qAk#t=3m10s I'm really sad that only two eps of this show were made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Is there any European stuff Canada could get for less money than the F-35? MiGs? Or is it pretty much a done deal that Canada will buy the American plane because of politics? Canada is a NATO member. It will be a cold day in hell before any NATO country buys any Russian aircraft as their primary combat aircraft, just the way it is. In fact, I would be willing to guess that no "old" (pre-end of the Cold War) member of NATO has any Russian equipment in their inventory...I hesitate to make it an absolute because there's always weird one-off poo poo (for example, apparently South Korea has T-80s and BMP-3s as repayment for Soviet-era debts) but it would be incredibly unlikely. That said, the Euro-canards would make a good alternative...probably not the Eurofighter, because it has almost as many issues as the F-35, and the Rafale has some issues of its own, but as I've said numerous times before the Gripen (particularly the NG that is going to be a thing now that the Swiss agreed to buy some) is the best value in the fighter market right now. Of course as priznat says it comes down to "fifth generation," but... priznat posted:It really comes down to if the fighter has to be a gen5 or not. Not many options there. I've gone over this before, but "fifth gen" is a loving joke. It was a marketing scheme thought up by LockMart to get incompetent leadership from air forces around the world to think that they had to buy LockMart products or be "left behind" (I'm exaggerating there for effect, clearly, but not by much...LockMart really did try to trademark the term "fifth generation fighters.") All "fifth generation" means is that it is a somewhat LO capable aircraft that is manufactured by Lockheed Martin. According to the official definition, "fifth gen fighters" don't need to be capable of supercruise, despite the fact that many "4.5 gen" fighters are more than capable of it...the F-35 can't supercruise. Coincidence? Here's the thing: any modern fighter will make a couple of tradeoffs...one is between LO performance, payload, and performance, and the other is between avionics and LO performance. Both of these tradeoffs are obviously balanced against cost. The F-22 and F-35 represent one view of the tradeoff, with LO performance taking precedence (and there not being much of a tradeoff between LO performance and avionics...which yields some pretty awesome performing LPI AESA radars, but also drives cost up), performance a close second (in the case of the Raptor anyway...an unwillingness to sacrifice much in this area has also driven cost up), payload falling somewhere behind that, and cost finishing way behind. This is not the only way to design a fighter (despite what LockMart would have you believe.) And even with that, the F-35 is most definitely not a linear development from the F-22...they just come from the same basic school of thought when it comes to those tradeoffs, due mostly to them being U.S. led projects and that is what the U.S. has chosen to emphasize. In fact, given the direction most programs still in development are trending towards (PAK-FA, Gripen NG, follow-on Super Hornet derivatives, Silent Eagle) LO has become somewhat more emphasized but not at the expense of the other areas, to include cost. People seem to have this idea that an aircraft that looks "LO" optimized (internal carriage, LO shaping/faceting, RAM, etc.) magically becomes invisible to the enemy at all times, aspects, and ranges, but that an aircraft that doesn't look that way (external carriage, has a more traditional planform) has the RCS of a loving F-4 or something. Obviously the reality is a LOT more nuanced (avionics plays a huge role, as does aerodynamic performance). Bottom line is that the only "true" fifth-gen aircraft in the world today is the Raptor, because it is that badass of a fighter, but really "fifth-gen" is pointless and people should stop using the term (looking at you, LockMart and JSF Program Office.) I'll leave you with this thought (something I've said before): the pursuit of an all LO tacair fleet has been the single worst thing to happen to U.S. tacair in the post-Cold War era. movax posted:We don't have enough domestics to fight off those 'dem imports  Did that AEI study seriously reference North Korea? I mean, the issues with limited numbers of aircraft/tyranny of distance in a China/Taiwan Strait scenario are well known (poo poo, we discussed it at length a couple of pages ago) but North Korea? Even if they have that supposed indigenous SA-10-esque system, their air defenses are a joke that would last about 24 hours in a shooting war. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Mar 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Yeah it's a brilliant move of LockMart getting the 5th gen stuff in people's heads. "Welp the only options are the F-22, F-35 or some russkie fighter - haha YEAH RIGHT! Seriously though sign here for your F-35 contract" At this point I say fuckit and go with a Silent Eagle or SuperHornet or Gripen or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
The Silent Eagle is a loving brilliant concept and gently caress the US for not going with it 
Forums Terrorist fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Mar 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
if i hit the half-billion mega I am buying the poo poo out of a t-38
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Is there any European stuff Canada could get for less money than the F-35? MiGs? Or is it pretty much a done deal that Canada will buy the American plane because of politics? On top of everything iyaayas01 said, keep in mind that there are other American export options. The latest revisions of teen series fighters might not be quite as futuristic and sexy, but the flip side of "old-fashioned" is "mature, well-tested platform." On that note, I kind of wonder if the F-35 and Eurofighter debacles are going to push export buyers to a less speculative approach in general. It has to really sting to buy promises, subsidize the spiraling cost increases for somebody else's GI Joe superfighter dreams, and then get stuck with a hamstrung export version at a ridiculous price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:if i hit the half-billion mega I am buying the poo poo out of a t-38 They are just loving awesome. Sure, not as maneuverable as modern fighters and shortish legs, but available and beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
I know that Canada (and other NATO nations) will never get MiGs, but I can dream. Sooo...when will the M1-series of tanks get replaced?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I know that Canada (and other NATO nations) will never get MiGs, but I can dream. Right when future combat systems starts HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA who knows?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
One word: Hovertanks edit: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:42
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Sooo...when will the M1-series of tanks get replaced? Not for a really, really long time. Electronics and armor upgrades, mayyyyybe adding active ATGM defense if they can sort out the whole "kinda hard on nearby infantry" thing. I'd expect the focus to be on sensors & concealment, and of course, engine improvements.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Not for a really, really long time. Electronics and armor upgrades, mayyyyybe adding active ATGM defense if they can sort out the whole "kinda hard on nearby infantry" thing. I want to see the Abrams become capable of indirect fire via buddy-lazing, but that may just be dumb, if neato.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I want to see the Abrams become capable of indirect fire via buddy-lazing, but that may just be dumb, if neato. Doesn't the Merkava have a mortar on it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I want to see the Abrams become capable of indirect fire via buddy-lazing, but that may just be dumb, if neato. It's like BitTorrenting but with fire support instead of Hunger Games screeners!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvOfZSn6qAk#t=3m10s This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. The extended "Danger Zone" sequence in the first ep was hilarious...seemed very Archer-ish, especially with the ridiculous off-key singing along. And the entire second episode was great. Space Gopher posted:On top of everything iyaayas01 said, keep in mind that there are other American export options. The latest revisions of teen series fighters might not be quite as futuristic and sexy, but the flip side of "old-fashioned" is "mature, well-tested platform." Yup, Block 60 Vipers and Super Bugs would both be an option, especially the Super Bugs. I think I've mentioned it before, but your second point really is going to be interesting to see, both with future programs and as countries try to weasel their way out of/into getting a better deal with the F-35. mlmp08 posted:Right when future combat systems starts HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It might take the USAF awhile to procure stuff as of late, and lord knows we are incompetent at it, but at least when we set our minds to buying something we eventually get some iron in service (usually). You guys, on the other hand...Comanche, Crusader, ARH-70, and the crowning jewel, FCS. The combined cost would've paid for like 3 and a half Raptors  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Yeah, but I really love the idea of a reaper going dry, then lazing a target just to have an Abrams max out main gun elevation then kick off a round which pitches up, then dives down on the target from beyond visual range. But realisitcally, the M1 series should focus on defeating basic anti-armor weapons, since it's not particularly difficult to make a weapon that just murders armor using top attack profiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It might take the USAF awhile to procure stuff as of late, and lord knows we are incompetent at it, but at least when we set our minds to buying something we eventually get some iron in service (usually). You guys, on the other hand...Comanche, Crusader, ARH-70, and the crowning jewel, FCS. The combined cost would've paid for like 3 and a half Raptors It was weird being at Nellis and seeing such a huge number of Raptors and roughly 1/4 of the AWACS fleet sitting around. Also, being at creech is creepy as gently caress. So many RPAs/RPVs/UAVs/UASs/whateverthefuckwecallthemthismonth....
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It was weird being at Nellis and seeing such a huge number of Raptors and roughly 1/4 of the AWACS fleet sitting around. Also, being at creech is creepy as gently caress. So many RPAs/RPVs/UAVs/UASs/whateverthefuckwecallthemthismonth.... Future location of Skynet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:But realisitcally, the M1 series should focus on defeating basic anti-armor weapons, since it's not particularly difficult to make a weapon that just murders armor using top attack profiles. The challenge is being able to do this without killing all the infantry around your tank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Some kind of tesla coil setup.. gently caress another thing C&C was right about!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
I read in one of those  RED ARMY 1980 books about some kind of artillery shell that would reach a certain height, deploy a parachute, and then turn into some kind of one shot mini recoiless rifle and would fire a penetrator downwards into an enemy tank. How it would aim itself or ID targets was unclear. Was that a real thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:The challenge is being able to do this without killing all the infantry around your tank. Just shove this poo poo on a tank somehow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uQ8UjjLeZE&feature=relatedAlso, someone arms an MCOM like 5 seconds into the video.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I read in one of those Dunno about the Soviets, but the CBU-97 basically works like that. It identifies targets by IR signature and laser outline.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:What does Canada do that would require a replacement for the F/A-18? Or are the Hornets just so old that they're soon going to fall apart? To address the first half more directly: We share the arctic ocean with this country called Russia (you may have heard of them). They like wandering into our airspace a lot to see what we do. We need a good, reliable interceptor to maintain sovereignty over our vast north. Since we're a bunch of socialist chuckle fucks scared of sharp things, our military budget (per capita or GDP or something) is one of the lowest in NATO. So whatever cool jet we pick has to do everything else too. Like CAP missions in the first Gulf War airstrikes in Serbia/Kosovo airstrikes in Libya I don't like hearing 'why does Canada need things?' from anyone (Canadian or otherwise). We didn't know we'd be running sorties into Libya until it was happening. If we want to be a player in the four eyes community and be taken seriously as a modern international actor we need to back our foreign policy with a modern flexible military. That includes a capable Navy and Air Force. Our military has to be ready to defend our sovereignty, respond to disasters, take direct action against threats AND peace-keep, sometimes in the same theater. Compared to other smaller nations like Belgium, Austria, Australia, Netherlands, our defense/force projection capabilities are woefully behind. This especially shameful considering the amount of defense sub contracting that happens here. With our domestic ship building and aviation industries, it is utterly baffling that our military has to beg its allies for scraps (dented subs) and suckered into crazy poo poo like the F35 program. ----------------- I think it's strange that we so quickly rule out Russian aircraft because they're not in NATO but everyone is basically assuming we'll jump on the Gripen even though Sweden isn't in NATO either. Canada had to contract Ukrainian aircraft to move our gear to Afghanistan because at the time our strategic lift was non existent. Soviet/Russian equipment in NATO service: Germany continued operating the Mig 29s it got from unification until the Typhoon came online http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe#Aircraft_inventory Which now serve with NATO member Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Air_Force#Since_1990
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:38
|
|
