|
Well, someone has to post it now, I might as well do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omm3QPMqyjc
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Well, someone has to post it now, I might as well do it. I kept expecting a switch to this at any moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:If you're an American cold war planner the answer to this is always "Germans." Harsh, but accurate. Seriously though the whole 'austere fighter' thing was a joke. I remember a similar reaction to the "bigger, heavier, can't turn for poo poo" fighter development in the 70s for air-to-air, something with like no radar and two Sidewinders? Everyone said "uhhhh no" and eventually the USAF ended up with the F-16, so they got it right for once. I mean the problem with the idea of "well it's okay if the airframe is disposable, we'll just build 7500 of them" is that you are also considering the pilot just as expendable, and pilot training isn't cheap. I think it stands to reason nobody would like that idea, least of all the Psion fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Psion posted:Harsh, but accurate. Still an improvement on the Starfighter. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Still an improvement on the Starfighter. What was up with that, by the way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
This thread has been awesome and I've had trouble keeping up with it, but I'm gonna try and contribute. So, tracked landing gear for high altitude bombers, anyone? Behold, tank treads on a B-36!  I don't know much about the objective inherent in having a tracked system for landing gear, but this does not appear to be the Air Force's only experiment with it.  A close friend of mine's grandfather was a test pilot in the 40s and 50s, he's got a number of pictures of really outrageous test planes his grandfather took and exchanged. He has one particularly amazing picture of a B17 coming in for a landing with a tracked landing gear system noticeably longer than the one shown above. Allegedly the longer tracked landing gear was part of an experiment to test landing heavy aircraft in marshes and swamps. He said he's going to digitize and send them to me, I'll have them up in the thread as soon as I'm able. Apologies if this subject is a repost, but I'm really looking forward to sharing some of those pictures with you all, pretty unlikely any of you have seen them. We're pretty certain they've never been digitized and put online before so
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
As a way to distribute weight, tracks are pretty awesome. ProfessorCurly posted:What was up with that, by the way? The F-104, a purpose built fast, high altitude interceptor was 'improved' by Lockheed to win a Luftwaffe contract. The Luftwaffe wanted a really fast interceptor that could also do close support at low levels. The F-104G was a pig, and ended up killing way more Luftwaffe airmen than the Warsaw pact did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
DeliciousPatriotism posted:This thread has been awesome and I've had trouble keeping up with it, but I'm gonna try and contribute. DeliciousPatriotism posted:I don't know much about the objective inherent in having a tracked system for landing gear, but this does not appear to be the Air Force's only experiment with it. DeliciousPatriotism posted:A close friend of mine's grandfather was a test pilot in the 40s and 50s, he's got a number of pictures of really outrageous test planes his grandfather took and exchanged. He has one particularly amazing picture of a B17 coming in for a landing with a tracked landing gear system noticeably longer than the one shown above. Allegedly the longer tracked landing gear was part of an experiment to test landing heavy aircraft in marshes and swamps. He said he's going to digitize and send them to me, I'll have them up in the thread as soon as I'm able. Cool. Please post them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
DeliciousPatriotism posted:I don't know much about the objective inherent in having a tracked system for landing gear, but this does not appear to be the Air Force's only experiment with it. I think that part of it was to cause less damage to runways. I remember the B-36 (I think) originally had the largest landing gear wheels ever made, and were pretty bad in the sense that you had all that weight coming down on two points and really causing a lot of compression and damage in the long run. Naturally they moved on to multiple wheels to help mitigate this. Example of one of the worst ever aircraft to have land at your runway (Seoul War Museum ~2007/8, excuse the crappy photos I was running out of light in some) B-52 (D?)    While it does have multiple wheels per strut, I've head the GP is still pretty bad. As you can see, there are 8 wheels, but they are all so close to each other that might be part of the issue here. (Size comparison)   /\/\ Chinese co-teacher who got a real kick out of reading some of the facts about the Korean war they didn't teach (suppress) in China. While the Buff is a big aircraft, I was always amazed how narrow (and wrinkly) the fuselage was.  F-86D with. . . retractable rocket pod?  F-5 Tiger's are really small!  North and South Korean POW delivery systems   Some manner of trainer?  Missiles/Rockets:  
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Some manner of trainer? T-37
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Psion posted:Seriously though the whole 'austere fighter' thing was a joke. I remember a similar reaction to the "bigger, heavier, can't turn for poo poo" fighter development in the 70s for air-to-air, something with like no radar and two Sidewinders? Everyone said "uhhhh no" and eventually the USAF ended up with the F-16, so they got it right for once. That wasn't what came before the F-16, that WAS the F-16 (or more accurately, the original LWF competition.) That was supposed to be the fighter mafia's chance to "get it right" after the USAF had, in their eyes, hosed it up with the F-15 by making it too big and heavy. They then accused the powers that be in the USAF of doing the same thing to the F-16, by taking it from its roots as a fair weather only lightweight dogfighter with no radar and only armed with 2 Sidewinders and a Vulcan to adding a radar along with air to ground capability and turning it into an all weather multi-role fighter. Given that the F-15 has a 104-0 combat record and spun off what is arguably the most successful interdiction aircraft of the past 20 years while the F-16 has been operated by 26 countries and sold 4,500+ aircraft (and counting), I'd have to say that the powers that be probably got it right on that one. Nebakenezzer posted:The F-104, a purpose built fast, high altitude interceptor was 'improved' by Lockheed to win a Luftwaffe contract. The Luftwaffe wanted a really fast interceptor that could also do close support at low levels. The F-104G was a pig, and ended up killing way more Luftwaffe airmen than the Warsaw pact did. Want your own F-104G? Buy a plot of land in Germany and wait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The F-104, a purpose built fast, high altitude interceptor was 'improved' by Lockheed to win a Luftwaffe contract. The Luftwaffe wanted a really fast interceptor that could also do close support at low levels. The F-104G was a pig, and ended up killing way more Luftwaffe airmen than the Warsaw pact did. A bunch of those deaths were caused by the pilot riding the plane into the deck because the F-104 was in no way an all-weather plane and sticking it in poor conditions at low level over hilly/mountainous terrain was a recipe for disaster, no matter what the speed. Command and Control is pretty good, though finding out that a full 75% of the Polaris missiles were duds thanks to temporary safety measures corroding was pretty 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:A bunch of those deaths were caused by the pilot riding the plane into the deck because the F-104 was in no way an all-weather plane and sticking it in poor conditions at low level over hilly/mountainous terrain was a recipe for disaster, no matter what the speed. I've said it a million times before, but the F-104 has an undeservedly bad reputation: Myself in another thread posted:...if you actually break it down, it isn't that much worse than any other aircraft of its era. Of the 110 CF-104 losses, 43 of them were directly connected with the low-level flying they were tasked with; causes such as controlled flight into terrain (29 total, and 25 of the 37 fatalities) and engine failures due to bird strikes (13). Losses that are directly connected to the aerodynamics of the CF-104 total 10; six "pitch-up incidents" and likely the other 4 loss-of-control incidents were connected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
quote:"being shot down by one's own cannon ricochet" So do you get credited with a kill if you manage to shoot yourself down?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:So do you get credited with a kill if you manage to shoot yourself down? Hey, gun control groups always include suicides in their kill counts, so why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Nevermind I'm illeterate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:So do you get credited with a kill if you manage to shoot yourself down? I'm not sure. Ask Grumman, they've had two test pilots shoot themselves down iirc. (Also the starfighters thing is more to say the Luftwaffe would have really low expectations.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Remember when the history channel made good documentaries? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgG2HITMMY4 Peak cold war shenanigans here, with some great commentary from both sides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:This is true. This is my area of expertise (I'm an EA-6B guy) and I'm very hesitant to say too much just to make sure I don't inadvertantly cross a line I shouldn't. Generally speaking, theory is usually ok and the more specific you get with capabilities and platforms the more likely it is you shouldn't be talking about it. I'm not sure if I'm up for effort posting but I'd be happy to discuss even if the best I can do is generalities. Fellow Croooooow! If anyone wants (UNCLASS) effort posting about EW, I would be happy to abide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
dubzee posted:Remember when the history channel made good documentaries? The History channel reminds me of a once great mind being slowly ravaged by Alzheimer's. The disease has taken such a toll that it not only doesn't remember its former greatness, but has long since forgotten its purpose and is now publicly shedding its dignity. RIP History channel. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
They're all in a race to out-TLC TLC, which isn't even bothering to call itself The Learning Channel anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Some pictures. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
Oh hey look who had their first public flight yesterday: e: new one on the bottom of course Koesj fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
There are more differences than I expected. Certainly bodes well for it to be an F-22 killer. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Yeah here's the full list, courtesy of the people over at secretprojects.co.uk:quote:- a Raptor-style light-grey colour scheme,
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There are more differences than I expected. Certainly bodes well for it to be an F-22 killer. Maybe I'm not getting the scale right but isn't this much larger than an F-22? I thought the initial reports indicated that it was more likely to be some kind of bomber/heavy strike aircraft and not a fighter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Oh hey look who had their first public flight yesterday: That looks like a Dachshund.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Maybe I'm not getting the scale right but isn't this much larger than an F-22? I thought the initial reports indicated that it was more likely to be some kind of bomber/heavy strike aircraft and not a fighter. It doesn't look drastically larger. I won't swear the guy who did this overlay got it perfect, but it seems close as far as merging the images. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Maybe I'm not getting the scale right but isn't this much larger than an F-22? I thought the initial reports indicated that it was more likely to be some kind of bomber/heavy strike aircraft and not a fighter. You mean 'initial reports' written by a couple of hacks, and maybe one or two early birds who were drawing quick conclusions on the first few grainy pics? I can't look into the heads of those at the PLAAF and CAC setting and executing on requirements, but the plane itself is actually a tad smaller than the J-11/-15 (Su-27/-33): 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/10/31/Pentagon-s-15-Trillion-Jet-Punches-Back Watch out, world! The F-35 managed to hit a stationary target for once!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/10/31/Pentagon-s-15-Trillion-Jet-Punches-Back Oh poo poo! Did the pilot eject safely?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Akion posted:Oh poo poo! Did the pilot eject safely? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Akion posted:Oh poo poo! Did the pilot eject safely? hahaha 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Akion posted:Oh poo poo! Did the pilot eject safely? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Akion posted:Oh poo poo! Did the pilot eject safely? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
The F35 program is getting so expensive that it will be soon cheaper to bomb with blackbeard era gold dobloons. Speaking of which, it reminds me of that failed US/EU project in the early 90s for a stealth cruise missile, which was scrapped when it became apparent that it had no purpose. It was an era where you could get government funding for any project as long as it had a *STEALTH* before the name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:The F35 program is getting so expensive that it will be soon cheaper to bomb with blackbeard era gold dobloons. Uhh and which project would that be?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
The US stealth cruise missile project was partially scrapped (from ~1,500 missiles to ~450, remaining missiles decommissioned in 2012) because it violated START II. What's the point at having a stealth cruise missile if the B-52 (and not the B-2) is your launch vehicle?
Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Speaking of which, it reminds me of that failed US/EU project in the early 90s for a stealth cruise missile, which was scrapped when it became apparent that it had no purpose. It was an era where you could get government funding for any project as long as it had a *STEALTH* before the name. I can't imagine why you'd need LO on a weapon designed to evade anti-air defenses and hit highly defended targets with an expensive nuclear warhead. triad Party Plane Jones posted:The US stealth cruise missile project was partially scrapped (from ~1,500 missiles to ~450) because it violated START II. not exactly quote:What's the point at having a stealth cruise missile if the B-52 (and not the B-2) is your launch vehicle? You launch outside of contested airspace?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Steeltalon posted:Some pictures. Now here is a dumb question: is the Blackbird black naturally, thanks to its Titanium alloy? Or is it painted black?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:51
|
|