|
benito posted:The preferred name is Chelsea. 
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
benito posted:The preferred name is Chelsea. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Ohhh I just got it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Heh Heh!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Can anyone here edit wikipedia? Cuz drat, that'd be great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Now we just need to make a concerted effort to get it renamed the Chelsea, like that crazy Gavin guy and the M113  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
benito posted:Long piece in Vanity Fair about the F-35 and its associated problems: F-35 CAN'T FLY IN THE RAIN!!! Sure, the F-35s delivered to the Marines are presently prohibited at flying in the rain, but only because they're still working towards IFR certification, not because they can't fly in the rain. (It can't fly at night right now, either, until it's certified for IFR.) People are reading way too much into out-of-context quips like this. PRICE BALLOONING FROM $81 to $161M!!! Flyaway cost isn't $161M, it's closer to $120M. Adjusting for inflation, the original estimate of $81M in 2001 dollars is $110M today. Cost overrun, yeah, but not quite the same as hyped. Also, nevermind the $1.5T number always trotted about is not acquisition cost, but lifecycle cost, a figure which usually includes about 3 or 4 decades worth of maintenance, training, future upgrades, etc. Love they always like to drop it in the same sentence as the original not-adjusted-for-inflation $233B 2001 acquisition cost estimates, though. Classy. Almost like they want people will conflate the two for false moral outrage. Vanity Fair interviewing F-35 Pilots posted:I asked, What about that comment, from an evaluation, about how lack of aft visibility in the F-35 will “get the pilot gunned [down] every time”? And yeah, the helmet's getting fixed, too. grover fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Sep 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
I'm no cheerleader for the F-35, but if there's an publication that I'd put money on to not do a fair analysis of the program through a defense and security lens like it deserves, it's a magazine dedicated to fashion, popular culture, and current affairs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
onezero posted:I'm no cheerleader for the F-35, but if there's an publication that I'd put money on to not do a fair analysis of the program through a defense and security lens like it deserves, it's a magazine dedicated to fashion, popular culture, and current affairs. quote:Walking around the supersonic stealth jet for the first time, I was struck by its physical beauty. Whatever its shortcomings—and they, like the dollars invested in the plane, are almost beyond counting—up close it is a dark and compelling work of art. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Pictured: John McCain with a plane he hasn't crashed. Yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Pictured: John McCain with a plane he hasn't crashed. The other two guys are there to make sure he doesn't get into the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
I've always liked McCain. He has balls. He also makes stupid decisions. I make stupid decisions; like liking McCain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
grover posted:The author did saw how cool it looked. What's wrong with the life-preserver on the guy on the right? It doesn't look very buoyant. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 04:52
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:What's wrong with the life-preserver on the guy on the right? It doesn't look very buoyant. If this isn't a bad joke: Its not a life preserver. Its an LBV.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:The other two guys are there to make sure he doesn't get into the cockpit. For a sitting Senator you don't just use the dog ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I've always liked McCain. He has balls. He also makes stupid decisions. I make stupid decisions; like liking McCain. Good decisions are for suckers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I've always liked McCain. He has balls. He also makes stupid decisions. I make stupid decisions; like liking McCain. I'm not that negatively inclined toward McCain but I can't forgive him for unleashing Sarah Palin upon the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
grover posted:And yeah, the helmet's getting fixed, too. Cool time machine you got there, maybe you could use it to get the operational date back to 2010.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm not that negatively inclined toward McCain but I can't forgive him for unleashing Sarah Palin upon the world. Man's got a good point here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Have you ever seen such a satire of american politics though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Have you ever seen such a satire of american politics though? Hey now, it's not like Tina Fey was just straight up quoting her on SNL or anything. Except for those times she did I guess. Am I misremembering, or was McCain's plane the one that got shot by an F-4 aboard the Forestal and started the gigantic fire?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
No, he was in the plane next to the one that had the bomb blow up I think. He jumped out of the cockpit and rolled into the man-overboard net.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:No, he was in the plane next to the one that had the bomb blow up I think. He jumped out of the cockpit and rolled into the man-overboard net. Then proceeded to the ready room because damage control is for peasants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Then proceeded to the ready room because damage control is for peasants. Wait, what? What, exactly, would you have a pilot in flight gear do? Pick up a firehose and do a job he was neither trained or equipped for?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
People just like to hate him. He is an american hero, no matter what a retard he is as a politician.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:People just like to hate him. He is an american hero, no matter what a retard he is as a politician. There you go. I don't give a gently caress if McCain was a bad pilot or if he's a bad politician or whatever, I still respect him because of the horrible poo poo he went through as a POW. The stuff the North Vietnamese did to our pilots is goddamn heartbreaking. They broke his bones so much he can't raise his arms above his head.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wait, what? The better question is whether the ready room was his general quarters / damage control muster spot (probably, if it wasn't in his suddenly non-existent plane.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The better question is whether the ready room was his general quarters / damage control muster spot (probably, if it wasn't in his suddenly non-existent plane.) I remember reading that it was, since (at the time) damage control doctrine assumed that a carrier would have most of its planes away if it took a serious hit (since it would be mid-battle with another carrier fleet), and if not then they would be basically in the way, so therefore pilots should drown as buoyantly as possible to keep the ship afloat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wait, what? According to wikipedia (and sourced to a page on navy.mil) one of the other pilots rolled into the net, went to the hangar deck, and took command of a firefighting party. I assume that's the genesis of that particular statement. From what I understand, McCain did some dumb poo poo as a pilot but after reading GIP I've come to understand "doing dumb poo poo" and "as a pilot" are redundant statements. I have no criteria on which to judge whether or not he did more or less stupid poo poo than average.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Psion posted:According to wikipedia (and sourced to a page on navy.mil) one of the other pilots rolled into the net, went to the hangar deck, and took command of a firefighting party. I assume that's the genesis of that particular statement. I have equally no relevant experience by which to judge the stupidity, but the bolded part up there just SEEMS really loving goddamned stupid and not something that should be lauded. Some guy who has highly specialized (and expensive) training in how to fly airplanes and drop bombs on people takes command of a firefighting team? What the gently caress? What does he know about fighting fires?  Sir, what are you doing? We are the damage control team. We have trained for exactly this. We know how to put out flaming avgas on a deck full of bombs. We are wearing flame retardant clothing. You are wearing flight gear and are trained to fly airplanes. You know as little about how to keep this ship from sinking as we know about how to drop napalm on the right patch of jungle.  But I'm . . . . . an OFFICER!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I have equally no relevant experience by which to judge the stupidity, but the bolded part up there just SEEMS really loving goddamned stupid and not something that should be lauded. Some guy who has highly specialized (and expensive) training in how to fly airplanes and drop bombs on people takes command of a firefighting team? What the gently caress? What does he know about fighting fires? Everyone that gets flight deck pay gets Aircraft Shipboard Firefighting. Officers, enlisted, aircrew, everyone (even contractors, I hear). Five year refresher, too. They put everyone on every spot on the hose, fill this fake airplane up with jet fuel, and light it up. If you can put the fire out, you pass. If you can't, you keep trying until you can. Then you do it again in full flight deck gear (coveralls, jerseys, float coats, cranials). They only hold the classes in the middle of summer, at noon, or the middle of winter, at sunrise. "The trainer is down for maintenance" at all other times, like there can be something fundamentally wrong with a steel tube you put Jet-A in. That said, Battle Stations means everyone does their DC job as they deem fit and doesn't really worry about anyone else. If some random pilot saw a fire party floundering like retards on his way to the ready room, his type-A personality would mean he takes charge. The other pilots and aircrew mustering in the ready room are probably taking muster and going "where's Lt. Bag o'Donuts? Probably exploded, since he's not here, at his assigned muster point." They do not think "I should go out there and help" because literally every breathing form of life on that ship has a place to be, and if you're not in it, you're in the way. babyeatingpsychopath fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Sep 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Everyone that gets flight deck pay gets Aircraft Shipboard Firefighting. Officers, enlisted, aircrew, everyone (even contractors, I hear). Five year refresher, too. They put everyone on every spot on the hose, fill this fake airplane up with jet fuel, and light it up. If you can put the fire out, you pass. If you can't, you keep trying until you can. Then you do it again in full flight deck gear (coveralls, jerseys, float coats, cranials). They only hold the classes in the middle of summer, at noon, or the middle of winter, at sunrise. "The trainer is down for maintenance" at all other times, like there can be something fundamentally wrong with a steel tube you put Jet-A in. was that the way they were trained AT THAT TIME though? I was told by a DC guy that damage control training and SOP changed drastically after Forrestal and Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
I would actually be really interested to know how DC was handled on carriers before and after. I'm curious if the changes - I assume there were quite a few, hah - were primarily equipment retrofit or procedural changes. Or both? I know about the deck edge spray system and more all-hands mandatory DC training, but details.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Flikken posted:was that the way they were trained AT THAT TIME though? I was told by a DC guy that damage control training and SOP changed drastically after Forrestal and Enterprise. Canada had a serious engine room fire in HMCS KOOTENAY in the 60s that forced us to make some serious changes to how DC was handled. As memory serves, it went from "that's what a few guys in the engine room do" to "that's what everyone loving does until we stop burning/sinking."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Psion posted:I would actually be really interested to know how DC was handled on carriers before and after. I'm curious if the changes - I assume there were quite a few, hah - were primarily equipment retrofit or procedural changes. Or both? I know about the deck edge spray system and more all-hands mandatory DC training, but details. This must have been posted earlier in the thread but we watched this in boot camp (2002): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6NnfRT_OZA Like Fearless said, DC went from a specialized artisan craft of DCmen who handed down damage control lore to their selected apprentices to something everyone is prepared to do at any time, until they die or the boat stops killing them. Favorite part: one team has coated the fuel with foam and smothered the fire, then another team blasts it with high-pressure seawater, blows the foam off, and the whole thing reflashes  I can only imagine that a stupendous amount of institutional DC knowledge and attitude had been lost between WWII and then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Obviously there's only one way to check if that knowledge is still around. Reintroduce the Zuni and strap it to everything  Gotta keep the DC crew on their toes, or they'll lose their edge!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:This must have been posted earlier in the thread but we watched this in boot camp (2002): I thought every man aboard a ship being trained in DC was what made US ships so hard to sink in WWII (especially compared to the Japanese, where it was "welp our DC guys died in the fire, time to abandon ship. Nippon Banzai!"). How the hell do you go from a tried and working system to one that has been found wanting in the same test?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I thought every man aboard a ship being trained in DC was what made US ships so hard to sink in WWII (especially compared to the Japanese, where it was "welp our DC guys died in the fire, time to abandon ship. Nippon Banzai!"). How the hell do you go from a tried and working system to one that has been found wanting in the same test? It wasn't just DC in WW2. Ship design had a lot to do with it, as did institutional practices when it came to things like fueling and ammo handling. Plus, the Japanese were actually pretty drat good at damage control. They had a lot of really terribly crippled ships make it home and get repaired just to get shot up again. Also, they got really situationally hosed in a couple famous battles. Caught with a bunch of airplanes on the deck getting rearmed and fueled when American dive bombers show up overhead? You're pretty hosed. If you're talking about things like the USS Franklin and other famous examples of US ships gently caress near burning to the waterline without going down, a lot of those happened at the end of the war and survived because we learned a lot of hard lessons early on and had the luxury of rotating crews back to training duties to spread their experience around. Most other countries involved in the war didn't have this luxury so a lot of knowledge was taken by specialized soldiers to their graves. The US is one of the few militaries that actually got a lot more combat effective as the war progressed, rather than the other way around.* As to how you lose that knowledge? You dial back the size of your military by a huge amount, cut costs everywhere, old guys retire without passing on what they know, and you generally re-define the purpose of your military in the mean time. The Pentagon of the 30s and 40s was very concerned with blue water Navies. The Pentagon of the 60s didn't totally ignore them, but it was a lot more concerned with SAC and nuclear poo poo. Hell, the English have the same problem right now. Since decommissioning their last carrier they're trying to get crew spots on a French boat so they at least keep a couple guys in-service who know how a flight deck works. That's why it's such a huge loving deal when a country gets their first carrier, or puts a man in orbit, or whatever. Once you do that thing, whatever it is, for the first time subsequent attempts are that much easier because you have a bunch of people who know what they're doing. The Chinese and the Indian carriers don't represent a credible threat to anyone, so much as they represent training beds which can be used as a jumping off point for a rapid naval expansion in the future. *There is an argument to be made for Russia, although that involved strategic and theater level doctrine and strategy. The Red Army was basically destroyed and rebuilt twice during the war. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Sep 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The Pentagon of the 30s and 40s was very concerned with blue water Navies. The Pentagon of the 60s didn't totally ignore them, but it was a lot more concerned with SAC and nuclear poo poo. The Navy certainly had its obsession with nuclear everything, propulsion and weaponry. The Popular Mechanics-style future vision was very heavy on nuke subs firing nuke torpedoes and nuke missiles at every problem, with the occasional nuke cruiser or nuke-carrier-launched jet nuking things as well. Obviously none of these engagements were projected as extended slugfests. I wonder how much of a shock the optempo of a conventional carrier-based bombing campaign was to begin with; the Forrestal and Enterprise fires both resulted from what sound like dumb shortcuts by overstressed crews who didn't know smart shortcuts. The focus on nuking everything obviously had a negative impact on pilot proficiency and aircraft design when it came to conventional air-air and air-ground attacks, as has been discussed before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:*The Red Army was basically destroyed and rebuilt twice during the war. What was the second time? Also do you really think the British divisions landing in Normandy in 1944 were less combat effective than the ones leaving from Dunkirk in 1940? (genuine question) Speaking of losing knowledge: I remember the leader of the Red Arrows arguing that if their funding is cut then their knowledge will be lost forever. It's not like you can just increase it again in the future and immediately get everything back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 14:06
|
|
