|
Phanatic posted:Are those noisy enough to have to worry about the abatement path in the first place? I'm not sure, because there aren't any scheduled flights to John Wayne Airport using the 1900D. Plenty of King Airs with charter and business outfits, though.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
drunkill posted:"Twenty-Two Nighthawks. Total Cost: $2,446,400,000." If they're in danger of being strafed in New Mexico or wherever they were based, something has already gone very wrong indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:If they're in danger of being strafed in New Mexico or wherever they were based, something has already gone very wrong indeed. Holloman 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
drunkill posted:"Twenty-Two Nighthawks. Total Cost: Let's keep things in perspective here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Are those noisy enough to have to worry about the abatement path in the first place? The departure procedures at John Wayne make no distinctions in this case; all turboprop and pure jet aircraft must follow the same procedure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:If they're in danger of being strafed in New Mexico or wherever they were based, something has already gone very wrong indeed. No, no, no, they're parked close together so they can be protected from saboteurs !
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
I don't even see anything on that runway 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
drunkill posted:"Twenty-Two Nighthawks. Total Cost: $2,446,400,000." So cheaper than F-35's, and they actually fly without randomly catching on fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Slamburger posted:I don't even see anything on that runway If you zoom in, there's a bunch of weather balloons lined up on the tarmac.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
The Locator posted:So cheaper than F-35's, and they actually fly without randomly catching on fire. I know they are about as much as "fighter" as a helicopter, but not going to lie if news came out tomorrow Canada made a deal to take them out of mothballs to replace the CF18s I'd be as happy as a 6 year old at chuck-e-cheese.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I know they are about as much as "fighter" as a helicopter, but not going to lie if news came out tomorrow Canada made a deal to take them out of mothballs to replace the CF18s I'd be as happy as a 6 year old at chuck-e-cheese. I think we'd probably be better off just sticking with the CF-18s. At least they have radar and a whole host of other things the nighthawks don't. Besides the correct US mothballed aircraft to replace the cf18 is the A-10  no radar too but I can forgive it, this time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Shut up you. It's black so it's cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Really we should just get the YF23, that was black. None more black.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I know they are about as much as "fighter" as a helicopter, but not going to lie if news came out tomorrow Canada made a deal to take them out of mothballs to replace the CF18s I'd be as happy as a 6 year old at chuck-e-cheese. That's assuming they were in fact mothballed. There are a number of videos of -117s out flying since their retirement; whether they are being held in some sort of functional retirement or actually being used in some role is a point rife with idle speculation. Also the -117 is a horrible maintenance hog - for a long time it posted the all-time worst maintenance per flying hour rate; 150 man-hours per flying hour. Even after several improvement programs the rate was still greater than 50, which compares poorly to nearly every other fighter-bomber type aircraft (with the exception of the F-14  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Shut up you. It's black so it's cool. Just paint the A-10's black - instant BRRRAAAAAAAAP-stealth. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's assuming they were in fact mothballed. There are a number of videos of -117s out flying since their retirement; whether they are being held in some sort of functional retirement or actually being used in some role is a point rife with idle speculation. They're kept in some sort of active retirement state. What the USAF has planned for them, I dunno. But yea the fleet and knowledge base is still intact somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
IIRC the F-117s were big pieces of crap that were geared to an extremely narrow mission profile that depended heavily on the element of surprise. If you think the F-35 is a bit of a turd in the dogfighting arena, remember the F-117 only has that F- moniker as one last layer of deception, and that an A-10 could probably run rings around it. That and the stealth tech was old twenty years ago, which was why we didn't feel bad blowing its load against Fortress Baghdad. Googling puts the F-117's top speed at a whopping 40 MPH more than a Tu-95's, which would make it pretty much useless at the one thing Canada still needs fixed-wing aircraft for, intercepting wayward Bears and shooing them back away from the mainland. (Buy the F-23, do itt)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:They're kept in some sort of active retirement state. What the USAF has planned for them, I dunno. But yea the fleet and knowledge base is still intact somewhat. I'm in the "testing some sort of UCAV" camp. Either that or they've been converted to suicide drones and are being programmed to be used as something akin to a BQ-7.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Rafales or bust for  Literally, the F-35 will bankrupt us. Plus they are sexy lookin little French numbers 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Googling puts the F-117's top speed at a whopping 40 MPH more than a Tu-95's, which would make it pretty much useless at the one thing Canada still needs fixed-wing aircraft for, intercepting wayward Bears and shooing them back away from the mainland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
priznat posted:Rafales or bust for Please buy them  I still don't get why, with the Gripen and Rafale's track record, people don't just go 'gently caress the F-35'. The savings alone should make any government do a 180. Plus, politically they'd be good for Franco-Canadian relationships.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
I bet the #1 reason why the F-35 is continuing in Canada is because DND wants them and DND wants them because the higher mucky mucks are probably pals with the US DoD mucky mucks. That or just plain inertia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Please buy them How much kickbacks would Mulroney get? That's how Canadian purchases of French jets work isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:How much kickbacks would Mulroney get? That's how Canadian purchases of French jets work isn't it? Arrrgh god that guy. He is in the phase of his life now where he gets trotted out in "elder statesman" mode like everyone is supposed to forget what a crooked fucker he was/is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:How much kickbacks would Mulroney get? That's how Canadian purchases of French jets work isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's assuming they were in fact mothballed. There are a number of videos of -117s out flying since their retirement; whether they are being held in some sort of functional retirement or actually being used in some role is a point rife with idle speculation. It's highly likely they're used for adversary work. An F-117 would make a fantastic adversary for F-22s and AESA Eagles/Hornets. Also really good for radar testing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
I've only just gotten round to reading the 117's wiki page and lolquote:F-117, AF Ser. No. 80-0792, was lost on 11 July 1986 near Bakersfield, California. The aircraft suffered a controlled descent into terrain, and was destroyed on impact. The pilot, Maj Ross E. Mulhare, was killed in the crash. The cause was determined to be spatial disorientation. Definitely a theme there
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:(Buy the F-23, do itt) That's an interesting thought: could Northrop (or Boeing, I guess) pull an F-20 and develop a fighter with the specific intent of exporting? Obviously Lockmart does that already with Viper variants, but something like the F-23, a full-size air superiority fighter; maybe with slightly less capability than late-model F-22s, but still cutting edge? I imagine a lot of countries would be scrambling to buy an actual good fighter; Canada and Australia come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:That's an interesting thought: could Northrop (or Boeing, I guess) pull an F-20 and develop a fighter with the specific intent of exporting? Obviously Lockmart does that already with Viper variants, but something like the F-23, a full-size air superiority fighter; maybe with slightly less capability than late-model F-22s, but still cutting edge? Building airplanes on spec is a good way to lose a lot of money. Back when there were meaningful arms export restrictions, there was some sense to it. It is pretty much impossible to sell a cheap and cheerful 'export' fighter in a market where you could buy the 4000th through 4040th front line fighter off the line, and have 20 nations and 3999 fighters to buy second-hand parts off down the road. What do most nations need an air force for? To meet their bare minimum commitments to their treaty organizations, and maritime sovereignty. You can do either of those better than fine with an F-16 or F-18. (or a Mig-29)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:That's an interesting thought: could Northrop (or Boeing, I guess) pull an F-20 and develop a fighter with the specific intent of exporting? Obviously Lockmart does that already with Viper variants, but something like the F-23, a full-size air superiority fighter; maybe with slightly less capability than late-model F-22s, but still cutting edge? You just described the silent eagle\hornet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:remember the F-117 only has that F- moniker as one last layer of deception This  did not get nearly enough love. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:They compensate for the take off procedure when they book the flight too. It's like how airlines compensated for Calgary's short main runway (actually high altitude, but whatever) by not launching their big planes or only scheduling routes out of Calgary where they can keep the takeoff weight safe by shortening their route (ie connecting to Vancouver instead of non-stop to Hon Kong) Calgary's primary main runway that's been around for years 16/34 (now 17R/35L) is 12,675' long. The only time I am aware of that long haul operations had to make an intermittent stop was years ago when they were repaving a portion of it near the 34 touch down zone. Air Canada's flights to LHR and FRA (operated with A343's at the time I believe) had to hop up to Edmonton to fuel up before heading across the Atlantic. That runway has regularly accommodated Cargolux 744's and 748's non-stop to Luxembourg before the new 14,000' parallel opened up a month or so ago. It is also sufficient enough for the Air Canada YYC-Narita flight to depart with no penalties too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Guys Canada can't buy black planes, how are they supposed to paint a cockpit on the bottom?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
priznat posted:I think we'd probably be better off just sticking with the CF-18s. At least they have radar F117s don't have radar? I had no idea. e: damnit buttcrackmenace fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:F22s don't have radar? I had no idea. Radar != Stealth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Radar != Stealth. I can understand SOP being to not radiate ... I'm just curious as to whether the airframe simply doesn't have radar gear at all. off to wikipedia! Wikipedians posted:The F-117A carries no radar, which lowers emissions and cross-section, and whether it carries any radar detection equipment is classified. Going to work this into the next trivia contest. "What was the last American military aircraft built without on-board radar?" buttcrackmenace fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:I can understand SOP being to not radiate ... I'm just curious as to whether the airframe simply doesn't have radar gear at all. F-22 has radar. They were talking about another jet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:F-22 has radar. They were talking about another jet. I got that - mentally swapped 117 and 22.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
But the F117 is so cool looking 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
I especially liked the one that was modded for special forces airborne insertion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:25
|
|