|
Godholio posted:And their demo is loving awesome.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Where in Chicago are you? From the window of my office in the loop I have caught the Blue Angels, the Golden Knights (or the Navy parachute team, couldn't tell if the dark color was blue or black), and some other civilian stuff. I saw the F22 from the street right by the Chicago River on the north side of the loop while having a walk over lunch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
I took a wrong turn in the Badlands a week ago. What's in this hole in the- Oh.  The other pictures were crap, so I won't post them. But if you're in the area it is worth a visit. You can do a self-guided audio tour by calling a number on your cell, which is pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Someone's keeping a Mig-21 in a hanger at the airport in my city. I need to figure out who it is and what I need to do in order to crawl all over it and take pictures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:What I love is the mention of the 'software controlled arresting gear' being specialized for smaller aircraft. I'm still trying to figure out what feature of the Ford are supposed to give a 25% increase in sortie generation rate. Anyone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:I'm still trying to figure out what feature of the Ford are supposed to give a 25% increase in sortie generation rate. Anyone? Based on that infographic, maybe deck space and the ammunition loading setup. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Didn't we have this conversation in GiP and most of it (theoretically) came from the rearranged elevators? Fake edit: one source says it's rearranged flight deck / elevators while another one says it's "easier to refuel / rearm on the flight deck". There's also a few different % numbers out there about just how many more sorties the gain's supposed to be, but obviously if it lets you have one or two CVNs in area instead of two or three that has to be a big jump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:I'm still trying to figure out what feature of the Ford are supposed to give a 25% increase in sortie generation rate. Anyone? The only thing I can think of is a hidden 5th catapult that shoots planes directly out of the hangar bay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Didn't we have this conversation in GiP and most of it (theoretically) came from the rearranged elevators? I guess I'll have to do some research on my own but I just don't see how that helps much. Wingnut Ninja posted:The only thing I can think of is a hidden 5th catapult that shoots planes directly out of the hangar bay. You joke but if I remember correctly this idea was given some serious consideration early in the development of the Ford. Course that could be just me hoping it was true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
The new catapults are based on a Gatling gun concept.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:I guess I'll have to do some research on my own but I just don't see how that helps much. EMALs + no loadout limits on the 4th cat + deck rearrangements to enhance flow + better weapon elevators. quote:Moving the island creates deck space for a centralized rearming and refueling location. This reduces the number of times that an aircraft will have to be moved after landing before it can be launched again. Fewer aircraft movements require, in turn, fewer deck hands to accomplish them, reducing the size of the ship's crew. A similar benefit is realized by altering the path and procedures for weapons movement by redshirts from storage to flight deck, again potentially allowing the new ship to support a higher sortie rate than the Nimitz-class ship while using fewer crew members than the Nimitz requires. On Nimitz-class carriers the time that it takes to launch a plane after it has landed is set by the time needed to rearm and refuel it. To minimize this time, ordnance will be moved from storage areas to the centralized rearming location via relocated, higher capacity weapons elevators, utilizing linear motors.[21] The new path that ordnance follows does not cross any areas of aircraft movement, thereby reducing traffic problems in the hangars and on the flight deck. quote:Catapult number four on the Nimitz-class cannot launch fully loaded aircraft because of a deficiency of wing clearance along the edge of the flight deck. wkarma fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Maybe it'll be relegated to using F/A-18's while all the others are using F-35's 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:The only thing I can think of is a hidden 5th catapult that shoots planes directly out of the hangar bay. Deck space, better armament management, and the EMALS system...if/when they get it to work. I don't know how much quicker an EMALS can recharge and fire as opposed to a steam catapult. The AAG gear could theoretically increase sortie rate as the entire reason for its existence is it's supposed to reduce stress on planes from trapping (and less stress on the ~pwecious~ F-35C's airframe), which means less planes/UCAVs laid up in the hangar bay during deployment. It's almost definitely a bullshit/unverifiable figure some wonk at Northrop-Grumman thought up, since saying anything more than 25% might actually raise some eyebrows. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
How many operations in, say, the last forty years have required two carrier groups at once in the same area?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 13:31
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:How many operations in, say, the last forty years have required two carrier groups at once in the same area? Yankee Station off Vietnam Desert Storm/Desert Shield OEF 1.0 OIF 1.0
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:Yankee Station off Vietnam Also numerous periods over that timeframe in the Gulf and some in Westpac where "increased tensions" led to CSGs overlapping their deployments...the outgoing one would get extended by a few months and/or the incoming one would surge early. And El Dorado Canyon involved three CVBGs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
So I've been complaining about not getting pictures of heavy bombers, but then there's this: That's 12-year-old me with a bomber crew there should be a movie of, around the time the Berlin Wall fell. I think that ship got shot down in Desert Storm, or maybe just went to the guillotine for START II, either way, I'm pretty sure it's gone. Edit: there's a list of all the B-52s, and 2590 apparently served in Desert Storm but survived, no fate listed. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 14:30
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:The only thing I can think of is a hidden 5th catapult that shoots planes directly out of the hangar bay. You joke but the 1930s Yorktowns actually had these.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:You joke but the 1930s Yorktowns actually had these. A couple of British carriers had a short flight deck mounted in front of the hangar for launching slow flying aircraft. Lexington had a fly-wheel powered catapult for launching sea planes until 1935 or so. Fearless fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:You joke but the 1930s Yorktowns actually had these. The USS Hornet (the second one, preserved outside Oakland) had a lower deck catapult as well. IIRC it fired perpendicular to the direction the ship was facing, which made it kind of difficult to actually use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:So I've been complaining about not getting pictures of heavy bombers, but then there's this: No BUFFs were lost in Desert Storm, but 2590 was a -G model so it got its wings clipped during START I and is now soda cans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
I would love to have a picture hung in my office with bear intercepts over the years. Showing the evolution of U.S. interceptors and the bears remaining relatively unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:I would love to have a picture hung in my office with bear intercepts over the years. Showing the evolution of U.S. interceptors and the bears remaining relatively unchanged. And title it "Pencil vs. Space Pen."
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Fragile fire hazard vs expensive technological innovation. Yeah, that works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Bears. Bears never change.   More twink-on-bear action here: http://acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/intercepting-the-bear/
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Fragile fire hazard vs expensive technological innovation. Which is which?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
They should stop intercepting them with cool stuff and just send up crop dusters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Bears. Bears never change. Those were really cool missions. I always enjoyed flying them. Some of the most worthwhile work that I've ever done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:They should stop intercepting them with cool stuff and just send up crop dusters. I was going to make a joke about sending up WW2 fighters to intercept it, but it's slightly faster than an Me-262.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I was going to make a joke about sending up WW2 fighters to intercept it, but it's slightly faster than an Me-262. It's (just) slower than an Me-163.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
The Gloster Meteor could do it though. So can the P-80.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Bears. Bears never change. Some of these intercepts are rather odd. Not that I`m complaining; it just got me curious as to what the story was behind it. VC-10 intercepts Bear Italian Starfighter intercepts An-22  Eurofighter intercepts An-72 F-14 intercepts Il-76 Skyhawk intercepts Be-6 flying boat P-3 Orion intercepts Bear F-14 intercepts An-12 Norwegian F-16 intercepts a Tu-160 Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
I'm guessing they just sent whatever's available. Not so much "hey, we could shoot you down if we wanted" as "hey, we see you." Plus it makes for more variety in the pictures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
I didn't see the one where a Harrier intercepted a Bear, that may be my favorite. [edit] found it.  Also the A-6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
So what's the odds that any of those Bears are actually armed? Also, I kind of want to see them just ignore one just to gently caress with the Russians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I'm guessing they just sent whatever's available. Not so much "hey, we could shoot you down if we wanted" as "hey, we see you." We were working around the boat in our trusty EA-6B while in the Indian Ocean. We get a call from the ship telling us they had a non-squawker and gave us an intercept vector. The pilot and I looked at each other and sort of shrugged our shoulders. I called them back and said "Strike, 503, you know we're a Prowler, right?" They said yes but they didn't have anyone else available. So off we went to rid our airspace of this unknown contact. Turns out to be a Pakastani Atlantique. We lived to fight another day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Can the EA-6 even do air-to-air?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Flash the high beams! Blast them with so much EMF their nuts fall off
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Can the EA-6 even do air-to-air? Outside of kamikaze attacks, no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Can the EA-6 even do air-to-air? You can fly it into something if that's what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 01:00
|
|
