|
VikingSkull posted:Is there a hidden danger that could kill you in the cockpit of your new fighter plane? We'll tell you what it is after the game. Coming up next: Which Stealth Fighter is the right one for your needs? The results of our test might surprise you!
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Coming up next: Which Stealth Fighter is the right one for your needs? The results of our test might surprise you! The joke here is that no matter what answers you put in, it always spits out the F-35, and then refuses to let you retest
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
I'm more entertained than I ought to be that in AC, the F-22 carries its 2000 missiles internally. The F-35? All of it is external. Including the gun.  Of course, we all need to be aware the game is fictional. After all, it has a functioning F-35B.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
benito posted:Haven't read through this, but there seems to be a lot of AWACS experience around here: SJS is a pretty cool dude and everyone here should go read his Flightdeck Friday series. Detailed knowledge filled posts about pretty much every corner of Naval Aviation, along with a bunch of other stuff. Also in case you needed further convincing that you should go visit the museum at Pensacola, here's a write-up he did that says what we were all trying to say far more eloquently: quote:Here, you can walk right up to arguably the two most important aircraft in the Museum’s inventory – the NC-4 and an SBD-2 Dauntless that survived Pearl Harbor and Midway. You can run your hand along the hull of the NC-4, feel the polished smoothness of the wooden props, and admire, up close and personal, the assortment of guy wires and doped fabric that held and covered the first aircraft to cross the Atlantic. Here you can run your hand over the fuselage near the gunner’s mount and observe the seeming random squares of skin rivited in place – reminders of the desperate battles in the skies over the Pacific as BuNo 2106 as one of only 8 of VMSB-241′s strike launched from Midway against the Kido Butai. Originally assigned to VB-2 on Lexington after Pearl Harbor (it was being held at Ford Island for further transfer to the Marines on Midway) BuNo 2106 participated in the first coordinated strike against Japanese shipping when on 10 March 1942, flown by Lieutenant (junior grade) Mark T. Whittier with Aviation Radioman Second Class Forest G. Stanley as his gunner, the aircraft joined 103 other planes from Lexington and Yorktown (CV 5) in a raid against Japanese shipping at Lae and Salamaua in New Guinea. Credited with pressing home his attack against a Japanese ship, Whittier received the Navy Cross. So yeah, not only was that aircraft present at both Pearl Harbor and Midway but two pilots were awarded the Navy Cross while flying her. And make sure to click that link to go see the pictures, I forgot to mention that earlier...that thing is COVERED in patches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
benito posted:Happened to be reading about the B-17 for some odd reason tonight and thought this was an interesting sidenote. I've read that the B-17 was also used very early in the US' involvement in Vietnam for dropping agents. Granted, this was from an older publication.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I've read that the B-17 was also used very early in the US' involvement in Vietnam for dropping agents. Granted, this was from an older publication. Considering we were "involved" in Vietnam at least as early as 1946.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I was gonna say, it depends on what your definition of the Vietnam War is. It's entirely possible like Outside Dawg said. Hell, 1946 isn't even that early, I'm sure there were American boots on the ground in WWII, even. The relationship the US and Vietnam has now is amazing and should be recognized the world over as how you ideally move past nation-state conflicts when they arise. It's probably the only thing that gives me hope after the Iraq War, maybe one day, ya know? Well, probably not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
According to this article, this photo is of an OSS "Deer Team" taken in what was then Indochina in 1945, you may spot one or two recognizable faces in the photo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Col. Robin Olds  click for huge  
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/29/the_littlest_boy_cold_war_backpack_nuke Here's an article about cold war SADM teams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/29/the_littlest_boy_cold_war_backpack_nuke How do I get past their stupid paywall poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
Akion posted:How do I get past their stupid paywall poo poo? The paywall is just a div id overlaying the content, and it tracks your monthly views with a cookie. (adblock and delete the cookie)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Right, they really only gloss over the 'operational wisdom' of employing SADMs for anything else than shaping the battlefield but god drat those offensive delivery use cases sound loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Right, they really only gloss over the 'operational wisdom' of employing SADMs for anything else than shaping the battlefield but god drat those offensive delivery use cases sound loving stupid. Not really; the part they truly gloss over is that SADMs make the most sense as part of a first strike. If a national leader decides based on warnings that an overwhelming conventional and possibly nuclear attack is imminent, and decides to preempt that attack, SADMs allow for the selective destruction of high value targets with high accuracy virtually no warning. It's SLBMs before SLBMs achieved their present level of accuracy. Those A-Teams wouldn't be going in at the start of World War III, they'd be going in to start World War III.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
benito posted:Happened to be reading about the B-17 for some odd reason tonight and thought this was an interesting sidenote. I knew about the program but no real details...cool as gently caress, thanks. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:This one weird trick helps reduce RADAR cross section. FrozenVent posted:SAM operators HATE him. This made me laugh out loud. Then I spent over an hour and a half (  ) making this:
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Crescendo posted:This made me laugh out loud. Hah holy gently caress this is a thing of beauty
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Crescendo posted:This made me laugh out loud. Someone should buy this as a banner ad that directs to this thread, it's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Those A-Teams wouldn't be going in at the start of World War III, they'd be going in to start World War III. Like I said...
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Appropriate usage of comic sans 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Crescendo posted:This made me laugh out loud. hahaha jesus loving christ that's golden
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Crescendo posted:This made me laugh out loud. That is a thing of beauty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
If any of you read Niall Ferguson, I implore you not to do so because he doesn't know anything and I've gone and Cyrano'd all over the A/T Military History thread as to why. Oh, and I purchased that banner but I had to resize it a bit. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Aw, shucks. Thanks guys 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
...
Nostalgia4ColdWar fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
I have tried to read the Pity of War about three times in the decade-plus I have owned it. Each time I stop caring and stop reading. I eat thousand page history books for breakfast but not this one. Stops me dead every time. Good to know I don't ever need to bother with attempt #4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Davy Crocketts were withdrawn from service in the early 70s. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w54.htm
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Psion posted:I have tried to read the Pity of War about three times in the decade-plus I have owned it. Each time I stop caring and stop reading. I eat thousand page history books for breakfast but not this one. Stops me dead every time. Speaking of history books that you don't read I still haven't been able to read through the book about Blackwater/Xe/Whatever because the opening chapters made me so incredibly angry at the sheer and utter stupidity of what was going on with their infamous Iraqi shooting that I couldn't continue. I also haven't gone through both Max Hastings books I've got as well but that is mostly because reading a brick while on the loo is really awkward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
50 Foot Ant posted:By the 1970's/early 1980's Madam had slimmed down quite a bit and only weighed about 150 lbs, where Sad Man only weighed about 75 lbs. The amount of atomic snake eaters had gone down though, and mostly they sat in the states. There was a Ranger unit out of Wildflecken that handled a lot of tasks that the article is claiming were handled by nuclear special-ed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Oh, and I purchased that banner but I had to resize it a bit. Haha, I was browsing the forums unaware and I did a double-take when I saw your ad. A pleasant surprise. I also tried my hand at an obnoxious GIF to suit the SA banner restrictions: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
...
Nostalgia4ColdWar fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
...
Nostalgia4ColdWar fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Psion posted:I'm more entertained than I ought to be that in AC, the F-22 carries its 2000 missiles internally. The F-35? All of it is external. Including the gun. So can you actually 'stealth' external missiles to make them less of a drawback, and do existing designs make any attempt to do this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Holy. poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:Holy. poo poo. Go search around in GiP for more 50 Foot Ant posts, it gets better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
50 Foot Ant posted:
I thought that was what you did on Sundays? Seriously though. Your stories about Cold War Bullshit are the best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:So can you actually 'stealth' external missiles to make them less of a drawback, and do existing designs make any attempt to do this? Bearing in mind my armchair general status: Not really. It's also not just ordnance: If you have pylons, much less missiles on said pylons, you have noticeable radar return. This is one of the more frequent (and frankly, justified) jabs at the F-35: it can't carry much internally, meaning it almost has to use external stores to perform anything beyond the most basic of mission profiles, meaning hello RCS. There are some roles which the F-35 will be tasked for where, iirc, it will literally be unable to perform without external stores. Anything involving carrying a HARM or Maverick or whatever, for example - so SEAD/DEAD goes right out the window, etc etc. You can have missiles which go for a low-RCS shape, e.g. Storm Shadow/SCALP EG but that's more for when they're in flight versus on your plane. Also there are performance tradeoffs so I'm not aware of any low-RCS AMRAAM projects or anything. Psion fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Feb 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Psion posted:Anything involving carrying a HARM or Maverick or whatever, for example - so SEAD/DEAD goes right out the window, etc etc. The F-35 has some issues, but you can totally do DEAD with SDB's instead of Harms or Mavericks. If sensors pick up ADA assets and you stealthily drop SDBs on them, the ADA is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Oh right, I forgot about SDB. Fair enough. On the other hand is the CEP for that thing small enough to ensure a good hit probability on your average radar trailer? I don't know much about SDBs other than they can apparently glide for a really long-rear end time. (perhaps unfair, but also how many other F-35s will get tasked to do air-to-air coverage for the F-35 that's only carrying SDBs) also the USAF should get ALARMs. I don't care if they do or don't work, the idea that they can pop a little chute and loiter around looking for radar to gently caress up is awesome. Psion fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Feb 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that one pylon can carry 3 SDBs. Thus, an F-35 could carry 6x SDB and 2x AMRAAM. And our bombs are pretty loving accurate nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 05:11
|
|