|
FrozenVent posted:Bet that guy never has an issue with people tailgating him. I would only be worry if I saw a Swiss plane on the highway since they're trained to do it. Well that and why the hell am I in Switzerland. 
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Uhhh because Switzerland is awesome
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
F-5s are also pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
The plant that makes the F-35 is on strike. The best part of the article is white-collar workers being used to keep the line operational, which certainly fills me with hope regarding all those quality control problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Whenever I think of the MIM-104 Patriot, I always pictured it as being "new" technology Instead this video made me think that, If you have an air threat problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the MIM-104 Patriot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfLxOvaLZho&feature=related
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The plant that makes the F-35 is on strike. The best part of the article is white-collar workers being used to keep the line operational, which certainly fills me with hope regarding all those quality control problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
grover posted:I hope they mean engineers are getting their hands dirty discovering they designed poo poo only a double-jointed acrobat can assemble, and not that accountants and HR reps are making critical titanium welds. The problem is that some engineers are double-jointed acrobats, and will always come back with "I had no trouble making the prototype, what is this manufacturability you speak of?" What this whole situation really shows is the lack of worker protections for salaried workers and that the whole working class needs to stand together.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:Whenever I think of the MIM-104 Patriot, I always pictured it as being "new" technology Remember though that there's patriot and then there's also pac-3, different missile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:The problem is that some engineers are double-jointed acrobats, and will always come back with "I had no trouble making the prototype, what is this manufacturability you speak of?" What this whole situation really shows is the lack of worker protections for salaried workers and that the whole working class needs to stand together. I dont deal with aircraft, but in the automotive world, it seems the more advanced vehicles, mainly german, have a specific design of dissasembly in order to reach a minor part that might be openly accessable in a GM or Ford. The german concept seems to be do a major overhaul as soon as the most minor wear is present, to prevent ever a catastrophic failure. The american design (untill the late 0's when everyone went micro-component) was more for single component access and replacement. There are definate schools of engineering that view maintenence and replacement as secondary features. And of course one must have every factory numbered special tool and jig for the thing to sit on, plus their proprietary code for clearing the inevitable "you unplugged me" warning the device will issue upon restarting order (mercedes im looking at you)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
We don't really have technicians at my current job, so every design I work on, I keep in mind that I am the one who will be spending many hours debugging/testing it. Then again, I'd also be afraid of getting white-collar workers (assuming they're engineers/similar) up-to-speed on the actual production variant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
daskrolator posted:Remember though that there's patriot and then there's also pac-3, different missile. The real key difference is that the version shown in the video is very old, even beyond the PAC-2/PAC-3 differentiation. That system is running an AN/MPQ-53 radar vice the AN/MPQ-65 and is probably running version 2 or 3 software, vice build 6.5 we're on right now. A modern configuration 3+ system has about twice the search power of the one pictured and piles of integration, radar, and missile capabilities not possible when that video was shot. What's great about that video is when the announcer basically says "Identification? Let the computer handle it and you just press the shooty button!" REP refers to radar hardware Config refers refers to hardware and software together. edit: in other news, I watched a bunch of PGMs hit mockup tanks today followed by live-fire show from Cobras (AH-1W), new Hueys (UH-1Y), and a Little Bird. The AH-6 can dive like a motherfucker... mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Apr 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
AIRPOWER/Cold War Thread: Falkin' the Vulcans!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
I know it's just saber rattling, but still. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-09/news/31311454_1_russian-defense-ministry-military-action-dmitry-rogozin
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:
Does the guy at 5:20 comply with the grooming standard? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:AIRPOWER/Cold War Thread: Falkin' the Vulcans! She was outside for the first time this year the other day too:  Won't be long until display season  Edit: just found out she will be flying tomorrow if weather permits! monkeytennis fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Apr 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I know it's just saber rattling, but still. Hahahhaha holy poo poo it's straight outta BF3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:She was outside for the first time this year the other day too: Is it true that the pilot was the only one who got an ejection seat?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is it true that the pilot was the only one who got an ejection seat? Pilot and co-pilot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
I have been wondering about the Vulcan of late. What's with its semi-flying-wing design, and why was that layout chosen? If it was a good idea, why are so many other aeroplanes, well, aeroplane shaped?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:I have been wondering about the Vulcan of late. What's with its semi-flying-wing design, and why was that layout chosen? If it was a good idea, why are so many other aeroplanes, well, aeroplane shaped? It's called a delta wing. The reason it's chosen is because if you're building an aircraft that's going to spend a big portion of its time in the air in the high subsonic, transonic, or supersonic regimes, the sweep angle of the wing keeps the leading edge from coming into contact with the shock wave that's built up ahead of the aircraft, greatly reducing wave drag. If you were to build regular swept wings with that extreme a sweep angle, the wings would have to be considerably longer than a delta wing of equal wing area, and the wave drag would be awful. A delta wing lets you reduce drag, have a low wing loading, while giving better low-speed performance than a more conventional high-speed wing, and providing a large internal volume for fuel (another advantage if you're building an intercontinental bomber). An aircraft that's not going to fly that fast is more concerned with induced drag rather than wave drag, and you minimize induced drag by having a longer, thinner wing rather than a shorter, thicker one. Look at gliders: very long, very skinny wings, because that reduces induced drag. Or look at swing-wing aircraft. An F-14 taking off looks like this:  An F-14 going fast looks like this: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Besides the efficiency concerns, delta wings have some other issues, too. A tailless design like the Vulcan doesn't have space for flaps, and while it can develop a shitload of lift at high angles of attack, it generates a lot of drag doing it. This adds up to very high takeoff and landing speeds, which limits your choice in airfields and presents safety concerns. That big, lightly loaded wing will pick up every little gust of wind and give passengers a lovely ride, as well. Not the biggest problems in the world for the military, but serious problems for any civil airliner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
Hence why Concorde had some of the most advanced autopilot and fly-by-wire hardware in the world when it came out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
You can follow the Vulcan on twitter: https://twitter.com/!/XH558 They're trying to test but it's pissing down with rain/hail here at the moment. One of the reasons I get so interested is I live right next to the runway directly opposite the hangar they keep the Vulcan in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Hence why Concorde had some of the most advanced autopilot and fly-by-wire hardware in the world when it came out. Unfortunately, they couldn't really do anything about the takeoff speeds, which were a huge factor in the Flight 4590 crash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
I remember a documentary about Concorde on the Smithsonian Channel. Powering up for takeoff was slamming the throttles into afterburner. No slowly raise to 60%, stabilize, then slowly to full throttle like in a 737.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
s0nar posted:I remember a documentary about Concorde on the Smithsonian Channel. Powering up for takeoff was slamming the throttles into afterburner. No slowly raise to 60%, stabilize, then slowly to full throttle like in a 737. There was nothing about flying the Concorde that wasn't 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:I have been wondering about the Vulcan of late. What's with its semi-flying-wing design, and why was that layout chosen? If it was a good idea, why are so many other aeroplanes, well, aeroplane shaped? One of the other nice things about delta wings, in addition to aerodynamic advantages/disadvantages Phanatic layed out, is that they provide an enormous amount of space for fuel and hardpoints, and they are structurally simple so you can build them cheap and tough. There are always plans for delta versions of aircraft to give them a better fuel fraction. Some of them even get built. F-16XL, This was designed and built as competition for the F-15E Strike Eagle.  Most of them don't, like the FB-22  [edit] He did mention it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
I guess it's the high approach speed and bumpy ride that kills the delta-wing for something like a trans-pacific airfreight Vulcan, which is too bad. What I was more wondering about was the way the Vulcan and the B-52 were quasi-contemporaneous designs and have wildly differing answers to the same question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:I guess it's the high approach speed and bumpy ride that kills the delta-wing for something like a trans-pacific airfreight Vulcan, which is too bad. What I was more wondering about was the way the Vulcan and the B-52 were quasi-contemporaneous designs and have wildly differing answers to the same question. It's not really the same question. The B-52 was designed to be a long range heavy bomber designed to operate from the US, informed by US's experiences with the B-29 in WW2. The Vulcan was designed to operate from UK as a nuclear strike delivery system with a maximum strike range less than half that of the B-52. The B-52 weighs twice as much as the Vulcan and can carry three times as much ordinance. The B-58 was closer to the Vulcan in terms of role and payload. That said, I think that if the B-52 had been developed in 1950 instead of 1945 it would have had a delta wing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
theclaw posted:That said, I think that if the B-52 had been developed in 1950 instead of 1945 it would have had a delta wing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Just thought I'd drop this youtube of a history channel show I just watched (45 min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AK85wOxUso It's nominally about fighter plane development through the cold war up through the F15 (with interesting commentary about its development re: John Boyd and the Fighter Mafia), but it also talks about how bomber doctrine influenced the adoption of (or lack of) pure fighters. It has a lot of interesting canceled/experimental planes in it, parasite fighters, and all kinds of good stuff. Definitely worth a watch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Slamburger posted:Just thought I'd drop this youtube of a history channel show I just watched (45 min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AK85wOxUso Watched the whole thing, it was great. Basically this entire thread condensed into 45 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
No context, no insight, no narrative. A shameful documentary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Koesj posted:No context, no insight, no narrative. A shameful documentary. The state of the History Channel. Everything is reduced to how extreme something is, or whether something weighs the equivalent of SEVERAL JUMBO JETS!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Have this example of a series of glorious Russian documentaries instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI2g3iQvLAg
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Crossposted from the photo thread, because honestly it belongs more in here: If anyone is interested in some REALLY geeky reading on the Sino-Soviet 1969 border conflict (which is pretty much as close as we're getting to a even moderately realistic look at what a non-nuclear war between China and russia would look like) check out this webpage: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB49/index2.html . Make sure to flip through the linked documents. All sorts of fun poo poo in there, like the Soviets asking the US what our response would be to them "neutralizing" chinese nuclear sites. For an even earlier conflict, check out the 1935 Soviet invasion of Xinjiang. This is one of those oddball little forgotten conflicts where WIkipedia is actually the best unified resource, as it pulls together all the snippets on the subject from works on other, larger issues. The whole thing is just bizarre and shows just how hosed up the Soviet military was in the mid-30s. The staggering incompetence of the Soviet military between the revolution (arguably during the revolution, too) and 1940 is really impressive. Remember: these guys lost a war to Poland in the 20s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
This is really interesting in conjunction with the book on the USAF in the early years of US involvement in Vietnam. Apparently the US command was worried about China suddenly involving themselves in Vietnam as they had in Korea. This fear seems more remote if China was busy with the USSR and that little bit of cultural revolution, etc. at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:This is really interesting in conjunction with the book on the USAF in the early years of US involvement in Vietnam. Apparently the US command was worried about China suddenly involving themselves in Vietnam as they had in Korea. This fear seems more remote if China was busy with the USSR and that little bit of cultural revolution, etc. at the time. Would it have been far more likely that China would decide to stab North Vietnam in the back while they were busy fighting the south?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Would it have been far more likely that China would decide to stab North Vietnam in the back while they were busy fighting the south? China and Vietnam didn't have their huge falling out until well after the US already had one foot out the door. Basically, China wasn't realistically doing to do gently caress-all during the Kennedy/Johnson years because its nuclear program was in its infancy and they would have been utterly mega-hosed in any sort of serious exchange with the US. They were in the middle of a badly deteriorating situation with Russia as well, and Russia and the US were talking back and forth about maybe blowing up China's nuclear program - first it was the US approaching a disinterested Russia, and then the Russians approaching a disinterested US. To help establish a timeline: China tested its first nuke in '64 and its first H-bomb in '67. They were also trying to keep a low profile because of some UN poo poo that I'll get to in a moment. China wasn't going to do gently caress-all under the Nixon administration because Nixon was full steam ahead with taking advantage of the Sino-Soviet split to thaw out relations with the PRC and establish some serious political and economic connections. This was firmly rooted in Cold War power politics and the utility of having a China-leaning US on Russia's southern border regardless of political ideologies, but it started economic relationships with the west in general that catapulted them into some loving big-time growth and which we're still seeing the effects of - for better or worse - today. Pretty much the ONLY time where a land war with the PRC was realistically a possibility was during Korea, and that was more or less directly a result of the UN (and more importantly the UN Security Council) refusing to recognize the PRC as a nation, and Mao going a little nutso as a result. That decision is pretty much what prompted them to help out with N. Korea's little backwoods squabble, and the Soviets pulling out of all UN meetings (therefore not being around to veto poo poo on the SC) is what directly led to the US being able to get the UN to underwrite the Korean War as its first - and only - actual UN sanctioned war to stop armed aggression. Starting in the 60s you get a bunch of countries pushing to stop the bullshit with Taiwan being the recognized government of China in the UN (and holding the permanent SC seat assigned to China), so the PRC was trying to avoid doing anything too confrontational. Once they got recognized by the UN as the legitimate government of China in '71 there was ZERO reason for them to do anything as overtly retarded as invading a country that the US had troops actively involved in. tl;dr - the realities of 60s-70s cold war politics and strategic arms disparities meant that China was about as likely to put themselves in a shooting war situation with American soldiers as they are right now. The situation that put them into deep support of the N. Koreans in the Korean war was entirely unique and deeply rooted in western anti-communist politics of the early 50s and the immediate results of the Chinese Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Would it have been far more likely that China would decide to stab North Vietnam in the back while they were busy fighting the south? China and Vietnam didn't really have a falling out until later on in the war, with things not coming to a head until after the North reunified with the South. There was actually considerable competition after the Sino-Soviet split between China and the Soviets to curry favor with the North Vietnamese as far as aid and advisors and things like that were concerned. The U.S. actually did end up engaging Chinese aircraft on a couple of occasions during unintentional airspace incursions during strikes on North Vietnam due to the proximity of Hainan Island to North Vietnam, as well as some possible intentional overflights gone wrong. A couple of U.S. pilots ended up being captured by the Chinese and held as POWs for several years until Nixon's visit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 00:27
|
|