|
iyaayas01 posted:if we're talking about RPAs that would be useful in anything other than Operation Useless Dirt Welp there goes everything except the -170 
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Well, after the F-35s laser all the IADS sites...
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Door's wide open for the A-10 to deliver the Aerogavins. War's over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Question about JDAMs- I caught like 10 minutes of a Smithsonian channel program about the B2 today and they were talking about the bombing during the Kosovo War. They mentioned specifically that there were JDAM kits for both 1K lb. bombs and 500 lb. bombs. I hadn't really thought about it previously, but obviously there needs to be some adaptability with what the kits are attached to. Can someone talk a bit about whether or not there are separate kits for different types of ordinance? Or even just a big old JDAM effort post?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:Question about JDAMs- I caught like 10 minutes of a Smithsonian channel program about the B2 today and they were talking about the bombing during the Kosovo War. They mentioned specifically that there were JDAM kits for both 1K lb. bombs and 500 lb. bombs. I hadn't really thought about it previously, but obviously there needs to be some adaptability with what the kits are attached to. Can someone talk a bit about whether or not there are separate kits for different types of ordinance? Or even just a big old JDAM effort post? The kits are standardized for the warhead they are designed to attach to. A 500 lbs Mk 82 is sized differently from a 1000 lbs Mk 83 is sized differently from a 2000 lbs Mk 84, so the tailkits need to be sized accordingly. Additionally, the ballistics of each warhead are going to be different (different weight/dimensions), so the software on the tailkit needs to be designed accordingly to accurately deliver the bomb to the right coordinates. The basic design of the tailkits are the same, so if you put a GBU-38 tailkit next to a GBU-31 tailkit, they're going to look very similar, just different sizes. As for a JDAM effort post, not really much to effort post about. The Mk 80 series of weapons was always designed to be modular (retard kits vs slicks first, later LGBs), so the mechanics of coming up with a bolt on tailkit were pretty simple. How the system works is also pretty simple, GPS-updated INS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
I've got a question about the Japanese Air Self-Defense force. I always assumed it was small since constitutionally Japan doesn't engage in offensive operations, but wiki tells me they currently fly more fighters than Germany. Is this just a holdover from the Cold War, when they probably expected to have to hold the line against the Soviets while waiting for the Americans?FrozenVent posted:Door's wide open for the A-10 to deliver the Aerogavins. War's over. What the hell is an aerogavin? Google is just giving me some monstrosity made in MSPaint and a video that I don't know if it's supposed to be a joke or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:What the hell is an aerogavin? Google is just giving me some monstrosity made in MSPaint and a video that I don't know if it's supposed to be a joke or not. Some weirdo's theoretical flying M113. He has a fetish for calling them "Gavins" even though nobody else does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:I've got a question about the Japanese Air Self-Defense force. I always assumed it was small since constitutionally Japan doesn't engage in offensive operations, but wiki tells me they currently fly more fighters than Germany. Is this just a holdover from the Cold War, when they probably expected to have to hold the line against the Soviets while waiting for the Americans? It is true that the Cold War was why they developed such a robust fighter force, but in the years since they have continued to maintain a strong fighter force while continuing to develop more power projection oriented systems (E-767, then the KC-767). This has had two related driving forces: Japan's desire to become a player on the international stage and the fact that over the past decade East Asia has become a much more interesting place geopolitically thanks to China. Also the whole "doesn't engage in offensive operations" thing is pretty much a moot point at this point in time, especially given Abe's push towards changing the Constitution. While the Constitutional restrictions do impact the JSDF in certain ways (the "humanitarian force" deployed to Iraq had a severely limited ROE, their E-767 aircraft aren't capable of midair refueling), the idea of the JSDF as some meek and mild force only concerned with maintaining the protection of its borders is far from the truth. They have the fourth largest navy in the world and maintain regular worldwide deployments. Don Gato posted:What the hell is an aerogavin? The greatest thing in the history of warfare. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:
That's pretty much it. And no, not a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:I've got a question about the Japanese Air Self-Defense force. I always assumed it was small since constitutionally Japan doesn't engage in offensive operations, but wiki tells me they currently fly more fighters than Germany. Tells you more about modern Germany's military than Japan's, frankly
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Horrifyingly, Mike Sparks, the inventor of the term "Gavin" and the aerogavin concept, is or was actually a Lieutenant in the US Army Reserve in some parachute rigging company. Sparky is a bit of a celebrity of sorts on armchair general sort of forums for his prolific use of sockpuppets to defend his ideas and is banned on most of them. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
I haven't posted here for a while but I just want to remind you all that the Chinese MIX is just as if not more corrupt and full of poo poo as the US MIX.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's pretty much it. And no, not a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Tells you more about modern Germany's military than Japan's, frankly Yes. Germany also has a "No Offensive Wars" clause, although that didn't stop contributions to Allied Force. This caused a big stir at the time and is still controversial, given that it was the center-left Social Democrats and the supposedly-pacifist Green party who were the ruling coalition at the time. During the Cold War Germany (assuming we're talking West Germany here) had a comparably-sized fighter force. They bought 421 Sabre and F-84 variants, followed by over 600 F-104 variants and finally 334 Tornados and 273 Phantoms, plus a ton of other stuff in smaller numbers. So overall it's more about Germany cutting down its fighter force after the Cold War because of budget constraints (Reunification was expensive) and the lack of a plausible enemy. Japan never faced the latter part at least, as China wasn't really weakened by the end of the Cold War and tensions in the region remain. Edit: While we're at it, here's a lesser known aircraft of the Cold War: The OV-10B(Z). It's an OV-10B with a J85 turbojet bolted on, which supposedly added 80 kts and cut the takeoff distance in half. Used for dragging targets. 
food-rf fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Some weirdo's theoretical flying M113. He has a fetish for calling them "Gavins" even though nobody else does. wikipeida posted:While some claim the M113 has been nicknamed "Gavin" (after General James M. Gavin), this is not an official designation. One observer said The cute part in that video is where he thinks it will be able to take off while tracked because BIPLANE
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:I've got a question about the Japanese Air Self-Defense force. I always assumed it was small since constitutionally Japan doesn't engage in offensive operations, but wiki tells me they currently fly more fighters than Germany. Greece currently flies more fighters than Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Greece currently flies more fighters than Germany. "flies"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Tells you more about modern Germany's military than Japan's, frankly Country bordering several geopolitical hotspots has bigger military than country surrounded by allies; analysts on Internet forum confused
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
food-rf posted:During the Cold War Germany (assuming we're talking West Germany here) had a comparably-sized fighter force. Germany's air force did a good job of cutting themselves down when they flew the F-104. Helter Skelter posted:Doesn't make it any less hilarious though. The youtube video that pops up when you google "aerogavin" is amazing. Description provides links to combatreforms.org, which is a totally valid source for absolutely serious information about things that are definitely real about military topics. It's the site where you go when you want to learn about how WW2 never ended and even today NATO is still fighting against the Fourth Reich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Greece currently flies more fighters than Germany. Yeah but Germany kind of paid for those in a roundabout way. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:"flies" "Germany" what are we doing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:doing? "doing" the sound effect, not the verb
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Country bordering several geopolitical hotspots has bigger military than country surrounded by allies; analysts on Internet forum confused If you trace out the radius of a strike aircraft (or IRBM) around Germany I'm sure you can find some unfriendly faces. Not to mention surrounding itself with 'allies' (NATO, EU) bought Germany defense commitments for the whole shebang, and I certainly don't see the call for those commitments getting quieter in the future. And this is getting in the long game but historically gambling that Germany and France will remain bros forever has never been a solid bet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:If you trace out the radius of a strike aircraft (or IRBM) around Germany I'm sure you can find some unfriendly faces. Not to mention surrounding itself with 'allies' (NATO, EU) bought Germany defense commitments for the whole shebang, and I certainly don't see the call for those commitments getting quieter in the future. Can you? Up until two months ago very few people in Europe thought that there would ever be a large scale war in Europe between peer countries again. Germany, for historical reasons, is not enthusiastic about foreign adventures. Russia was seen as either unwilling or unable to seriously stir up trouble in Europe. Meanwhile, Japan had to contend with a North Korea launching missiles and testing nukes, a China it has a territorial dispute with and a Russia that has been buzzing its maritime borders. I'd say threats to Japan's sovereignty are a lot more obvious and closer to home than credible threats to Germany. And the idea that Germany should base the size of their Eurofighter purchase on the assumption of war with France is something Tom Clancy would have called dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Can you? Up until two months ago very few people in Europe thought that there would ever be a large scale war in Europe between peer countries again. Again, true at quite a few points in history, including at least a brief period post-WWI. quote:And the idea that Germany should base the size of their Eurofighter purchase on the assumption of war with France is something Tom Clancy would have called dumb. That wasn't what I meant. Again, referencing the long term, these defense coalitions inevitably follow the pattern of the Athenian League - small states contribute financially, one big state dominates the military side, eventually the small states balk at the costs and the big state wonders why it's asking politely instead of just taking. Right now NATO is lucky to be dominated by the US, the most benevolent and unambitious empire in the history of the planet - but at some point we'll choose or be forced to withdraw (one can argue we're starting to now) and then barring some sudden ex nihilo explosion of military industrial development, your options for the next strongman of Euro are Germany and France. Realistically that's a several-decades-out issue, but trace the rise of Le Pen and her ilk out 20-30 years (or look at any presidential period pre- about Mitterrand, really) to see what you'd be dealing with there. Again, that's a pattern Europe's dealt with (with the two countries trading positions) over and over and over again, with this particular pax being unusual in many ways but particularly unusually long. A Germany that brings its defense capabilities up, not to dominate Europe, but at least provide a credible counterweight to whoever will, will enjoy far more safety than one that just throws up a metaphorical Maginot line and waits for someone to storm over it. Even if you think inter-EU hostility can never, ever happen again, that still ensures Germany has more say in (i.e. veto of) future Libya-style Euro excursions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Again, true at quite a few points in history, including at least a brief period post-WWI. By the time the treaty of Versailles was signed, many people knew that the War to End All Wars wouldn't live up to its name. quote:That wasn't what I meant. Trying to determine the future from studying the past is problematic at best. The geopolitical situation is massively different. Just try to imagine what widespread political unrest in China would do to Europe's economy today, in 1914, in 1814 and in 1714. I stand by my assertion - Germany's defensive capabilities are completely in line with a country in its geopolitical and strategical position. Given the procurement times of modern military hardware, one would have to ask what event in the last 5 years (as opposed to the last 2 months) should have spurred Germany to develop a larger military. One can easily point out such events for Japan. quote:A Germany that brings its defense capabilities up, not to dominate Europe, but at least provide a credible counterweight to whoever will, will enjoy far more safety than one that just throws up a metaphorical Maginot line and waits for someone to storm over it. Even if you think inter-EU hostility can never, ever happen again, that still ensures Germany has more say in (i.e. veto of) future Libya-style Euro excursions. I do not disagree, but a defense policy needs to be within the realm of political possibilities. I do not see Germany increasing the number of fighter squadrons and tank battalions anytime soon, mostly for domestic political reasons. Having a large defensive army means you have to be able politically to explain why the 120k soldiers with their hideously expensive tanks and planes sit around in the barracks all day while the government is racking up debt. And that is before the additional problem of justifying it to a mostly pacifist population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Trying to determine the future from studying the past is problematic at best. The geopolitical situation is massively different. Just try to imagine what widespread political unrest in China would do to Europe's economy today, in 1914, in 1814 and in 1714. I stand by my assertion - Germany's defensive capabilities are completely in line with a country in its geopolitical and strategical position. Given the procurement times of modern military hardware, one would have to ask what event in the last 5 years (as opposed to the last 2 months) should have spurred Germany to develop a larger military. One can easily point out such events for Japan. You don't have to be so specific as to name China; for as long as Euro states have had foreign trade, they've had wars traceable to the economic shocks from that trade's interruption, and that goes back to antiquity. I'd argue there's no way Germany is going to escape the inevitable EU results of the Libyan Expedition one way or the other, but that's too tangential / D&D. Japan's buildup can just as easily be attributed to reduced American area influence as it can to the rise of others (again because we're withdrawing) which makes it little different from the forces affecting Germany. quote:I do not disagree, but a defense policy needs to be within the realm of political possibilities. I do not see Germany increasing the number of fighter squadrons and tank battalions anytime soon, mostly for domestic political reasons. Having a large defensive army means you have to be able politically to explain why the 120k soldiers with their hideously expensive tanks and planes sit around in the barracks all day while the government is racking up debt. And that is before the additional problem of justifying it to a mostly pacifist population. I think you're making the mistake of confusing being happy with the force level you have with the funding to sustain it. The US is a huge example of this, as we're still riding on a massive lump of equipment funded at the tail end of the Cold War, including but not limited to the Aegis cruisers, the OHPs, the Seawolves, the entire Trident submarine/missile system, almost the entire 688 fleet, all but about 3 of our carriers, the vast majority of our Air Force, the bulk of our M1 tank hulls, etc etc. We're funding to maintain this stuff in the sense that we're keeping up with necessary PMS and repairs until planned obsolescence (many would debate even that.) But we're certainly not sustaining in the sense of replacing junked hardware with new stuff of equal capability, if not quantity. Just in order to sustain the force level we're at, we have to recognize the post-Cold War peace dividend was at least somewhat temporary, and bring capital spending levels back up to somewhere in the middle, or we'll continue to fall. That's a trap it seems like every Western state is falling into, and you can debate the roots of it but that doesn't make it go away. This also applies to manpower, although that's more complicated; shrinkage in numbers is meaningless without looking at the tech competency levels required at different points. We're also almost just now getting to the point where we're seeing senior leadership that didn't originate from the Cold War military and the effect of that is undetermined.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Actual real life implications question here, though AeroGavins are hilarious. I am traveling to Los Angeles on vacation this month. I would love to stop at a military air museum of some kind in the area. I don't mind driving a ton since I will have a car there. There's quite a few of them and they all seem to have nice collections. Which ones would you all recommend if I had to pick JUST one museum?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Actual real life implications question here, though AeroGavins are hilarious. The Space Shuttle at the Science Center. The USS Iowa is supposed to be cool too, but I haven't made it there yet. http://www.pacificbattleship.com/ Plinkey fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Actual real life implications question here, though AeroGavins are hilarious. No question, Planes of Fame in Chino. I went there a bunch in undergrad and it's just great. They've got a ton of the usual favorites, but two that really stand out in my mind due to how rare they are are the Horton flying wing glider and the Northrop Flying Wing. Both of those turned out to be pretty influential for the development of what became, a few decades and a computing revolution later, the B2. Tons of naval fighters, lots of cool foreign poo poo, most of the iconic WW2 fighters. Just a great collection. ALso really well displayed. They've got a wreck of a crashed Japanese Betty Bomber that was pulled out of the jungle that they've got set up with a pretty cool display around it, makes it look like it's back at the wreck site. They've got one of the knock off Japanese Me 163s, plus one of the few actual flying Zeroes. Oh yeah, a poo poo load of their stuff is flying. Chino air shows are off the loving hook. Check their website, the collection is just nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Oh yeah, completely forgot about them. I really need to make it down there at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:They've got a wreck of a crashed Japanese Betty Bomber that was pulled out of the jungle that they've got set up with a pretty cool display around it, makes it look like it's back at the wreck site. Supposedly it's the only (remains of a) G4M that can be seen without traveling to actual battle sites in the Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Actual real life implications question here, though AeroGavins are hilarious. There's a few hoops to jump through, but if you either have a valid ID card to get on a DoD base or happen to be visiting on one of the weekends they allow civilians in, there's the Edwards AFB Flight Test Museum. http://afftcmuseum.org/afft-museum/edwards-museum/ Even if you aren't visiting at a time you can get onto the base, there are several freely accessible exhibits like the Blackbird Airpark: http://afftcmuseum.org/afft-museum/blackbird-airpark/ It's also next to another civilian airpark museum with some interesting stuff in it: http://www.cityofpalmdale.org/airpark/ (the future plans are a bit ambitious if you look at the rendering) BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:
These two aren't too bad, they are right down the street from me, check the hours before hand if you want to do this because I think they are only open Thurs-Sat from like 9am - 4pm. It's also going to be sunny and hot as poo poo so bring sunscreen (everything is outside). It's about an hour and a half from LAX in good traffic. Edit: Also I think this map is not right.  They don't have a B1 or B2. That's like the 'future exhibits thing'. Plinkey fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Yeah, with that collection they'd BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Google Maps showing the same area as that map: tIMG'd for tablefuckery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Western Museum of Flight has one of two YF-23's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:The Space Shuttle at the Science Center. At the Science Center, there are also Mercury and Gemini capsules and maybe an Apollo one if I recall correctly. Plus, a free bonus F-20 Tigershark!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
wkarma posted:Western Museum of Flight has one of two YF-23's. They don't allow you take photos of it though. because it'll break your camera
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Thanks guys! I think I can fit in the Chino museum while on the way to or from the Citrus state park in Riverside!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 16:04
|
|