|
Bacarruda posted:Tried aerial refueling with a KC-135. poo poo is way harder than it looks. Even with the tanker flying straight and level, simply approaching the tanker was loving hard. You really become aware of the C-17s bulk. There was major lag between control inputs and aircraft response. Not to mention the wake turbulence from the tanker. The simulator was actually shaking at some points. It was like trying to pick up a grain of rice in a windstorm while using telephone poles for chopsticks. It's even harder in real life. The wind effects from a KC-135 are relatively mild compared to a KC-10, but the C-17 bow wave will actually push the -135 around. Careful control inputs are a must; pilots overcorrecting is a leading cause of disconnects. A typical technique is to make three adjustments: freeze your relative motion, input half of what you think you need, then take it back out once you are centered up. All three boom axis are interconnected as well: getting further forward will decrease your telescope, but lowers the elevation unless you correct. hepatizon posted:military.txt I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't work in any sort of professional technical field. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Nov 20, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Gervasius posted:
Nope, pretty sure it just means star butt 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Here's the opposite of that, something I posted earlier in the thread: Sounds like somebody pushed early and got killed for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Some cool Cold War stuff. Jimmy Stewart narrates a documentary about everyone's favorite Mach 2 strategic bomber: the B-58 Hustler. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYvsjGroa78 And a B-58 landing with a broken gear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZu_ONVE90Y
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
I know I could find out quite easily the physics behind it, but I've never bothered to: I find it amazing that you can open bomb bay doors going faster than the speed of sound without them getting ripped right off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
I like the SR-71. I also like pictures of it that I haven't seen before.    
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't work in any sort of professional technical field. Wrong! I work in a professional technical field that doesn't need its rear end wiped by the Pentagon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Aerial Refueling is about knowing what the airplane needs 5 seconds ahead of time constantly. When our pilots on the E-3 were taking 100K onloads, they'd go from all chill to ffuuuuccckkk in a hurry. Lots and lots of trim and ever increasing power needs. 707 is a loving pig at 350k gross weight at FL 290.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Wrong! I work in a professional technical field that doesn't need its rear end wiped by the Pentagon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:13
|
|
hepatizon posted:Wrong! I work in a professional technical field that doesn't need its rear end wiped by the Pentagon. You're also a jerk. I say this as an academic who has never served.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
It's not even the military thing; haters gonna hate. It's more that my job for the last two years has included teaching navigation, so when I say something is a good practice, I expect that someone disagreeing with me will substantiate their rebuttal with something a bit more substantive than, "well, this is what I feel is the way everyone should do things."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Gonna defuse the situation with some pictures of (I guess Portuguese) F-16 fighters stationed in Lithuania. Link: http://www.postimees.ee/galerii/44349/fotod-nato-havitajad-tegid-leedus-tuvastuslende/
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Old news, but still a great video. It's quite loud, so headphones users, be warned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpJzSG2sZ8M
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Suck it, Brazilian architecture!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
As I recall, that was their Supreme Court building.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Gonna defuse the situation with some pictures of (I guess Portuguese) F-16 fighters stationed in Lithuania. Link: http://www.postimees.ee/galerii/44349/fotod-nato-havitajad-tegid-leedus-tuvastuslende/ Yeah, Portuguese F-16s and Canadian F-18s
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Yeah, Portuguese F-16s and Canadian F-18s False canopy spotted!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Haha, I would love to hear more stories like [F-5s owning F-18s and F-16s], if anyone has to share. Air and Space ran a cover story back in 2004 on the A-4's use as an aggressor aircraft. I'll scan (as in, more effort than these quick iPhone photos) the rest of it over the weekend if there's interest; it touches on that theme:  huge: http://imgur.com/loNEBio  huge: http://imgur.com/RYrMj70
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
TheNakedJimbo posted:Air and Space ran a cover story back in 2004 on the A-4's use as an aggressor aircraft. I'll scan (as in, more effort than these quick iPhone photos) the rest of it over the weekend if there's interest; it touches on that theme: I haven't read the magazine in a while but our family had a subscription back in the late 80s/early 90s and I hoarded all of the old issues. Loved that magazine and there were so many great things about it. Does anyone else remember the satellite map that had updates for a while? It was a wall poster and issues that came out later would have little icons that you could cut out and paste on to the map at the appropriate altitude as new satellites were launched, and they'd let you know when one de-orbited. Eventually that got pretty crowded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
The problem with the stories of A-4s/T-38s/F-5s owning more modern fighters is that it basically only happens when the scenario is designed for it to happen. Same way the Indian Air Force kicked rear end at Cope India 2004. Either the little guys have so many aircraft that some are guaranteed to leak through (rare) or they already died on the ingress. I was wandering around the 1st Fighter Squadron at Tyndall in 2005 to get some life support gear and some F-16 pilots came in after a mission. They'd just wrapped up a 4v2 against F-22s and they'd been pounded. The Lt Col was stoked because on the last setup (they run it repeatedly until they start running out of fuel or airspace time, and with Vipers it's ALWAYS fuel) he actually got a gun kill on one of the Raptors! Of course, by his own admission he'd eaten probably two AMRAAMs on the way in, and the rest of his formation was also killed BVR before even getting to the merge and dying some more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
What are your thoughts on think tank pieces that run scenarios of Raptors or F-35's against modern enemy forces? I recall there being something of a stink when a few of these places theorized that the Raptor/Lightening aren't what they're cracked up to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Also how hard do -35 get their poo poo pushed in when going against raptors?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:What are your thoughts on think tank pieces that run scenarios of Raptors or F-35's against modern enemy forces? I recall there being something of a stink when a few of these places theorized that the Raptor/Lightening aren't what they're cracked up to be. The key piece there is the "or." The Raptor and F-35 aren't in the same ballpark, they're not in the same league, they're barely in the same sport. Setting aside the F-35, because that's so politically charged there are think tank pieces ranging from "this thing is going to dominate the skies for the next eleventy billion years" to "a Sopwith Camel would shoot it down," regarding the Raptor the only serious think tank piece I've seen that had anything negative to say was the one that RAND did a few years back. It posited that in a Taiwan Strait scenario we'd lose the air war because the tyranny of distance, relatively short legs on the Raptor, Chinese bombardment of Kadena forcing operations to be conducted out of Andersen, and the overall relatively small number of Raptors meant that even assuming very generous Pks in favor of the Raptors eventually the Chinese would overwhelm the USAF fighter screen simply because the US couldn't maintain the necessary throughput to have enough Raptors on station (IIRC the scenario assumption was that F-15s would be playing as well but that most of them got schwacked on Kadena during the initial missile barrage and of the ones that were left they weren't operating under nearly as generous Pk conditions as the Raptors). So, what do I think of it? - The scenario had issues, some more serious than others...the two biggest ones were that it didn't include the Navy (either Super Bugs off of the carriers or AEGIS ships firing off a bunch of Standards) and it didn't discuss the impact of interdicting the Chinese airfields directly (problematic in its own right, of course...but worth considering, especially in a scenario that posits the Chinese hit Kadena and Futenma with a bunch of TBMs.) - Those issues, while important to remember when discussing the piece, aren't the deal-breaker that some people make them out to be. The points raised in the piece are at least somewhat valid. - Thanks for nothing Gates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Airpower!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
benito posted:I haven't read the magazine in a while but our family had a subscription back in the late 80s/early 90s and I hoarded all of the old issues. Loved that magazine and there were so many great things about it. Does anyone else remember the satellite map that had updates for a while? It was a wall poster and issues that came out later would have little icons that you could cut out and paste on to the map at the appropriate altitude as new satellites were launched, and they'd let you know when one de-orbited. Eventually that got pretty crowded. A little crowded is somewhat of an understatement: http://qz.com/296941/interactive-graphic-every-active-satellite-orbiting-earth/ Pretty neat to see some of the larger constellations laid out though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:What are your thoughts on think tank pieces that run scenarios of Raptors or F-35's against modern enemy forces? I recall there being something of a stink when a few of these places theorized that the Raptor/Lightening aren't what they're cracked up to be. Let's also get the obvious out of the way here and point out that anyone who is really in a position to compare the capabilities of Western and Russian front line fighters isn't writing think pieces for loving AusAirPower.net tl:dr- VVVV Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
It seems to me that the outcome of these think tank pieces seems to vary widely based upon the starting assumptions.
StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
My favorite dumb thinkipieces are the ones that start from insane starting points. Like an F-22 losing a turnfight against a noted turnfighter when starting from neutral positions 1,000 feet apart. Or Plane A beating Plane B if Plane B is only allowed to use its worst missiles and has no GCI or AIC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:My favorite dumb thinkipieces are the ones that start from insane starting points. Like an F-22 losing a turnfight against a noted turnfighter when starting from neutral positions 1,000 feet apart. Honestly, that's just as silly as assuming you're going to have the ROE to slay everyone with AMRAAMs from a zillion miles away. Like Dead Reckoning said, there are so many variables that it's silly to use any single scenario as the definitive "gotcha".
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Honestly, that's just as silly as assuming you're going to have the ROE to slay everyone with AMRAAMs from a zillion miles away. That's why roughly every exercise we do, ever, is an escalation or deescalation exercise. It's also waaaay more interesting/fun/educational when we are always doing exercises that cover the full gambit of very tight ROE all the way to insane BVR murder-fests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:For example, Australia and Canada have very different needs from the Czech Republic, even if all three are buying the "best" fighter they can. The former two have large, uninhabited swaths of territory to patrol, and the nearest likely military threat is literally an ocean away. (This is the real reason the F-35 is wrong for both of them, Australia in particular.) I wonder what's gonna happen when the Australians come to grips with how short-legged the F-35 (at least for what Australian needs). Maybe CFTs to make the F-35 even more bloated? Or a giant sail to help tow the F-35 along?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:I wonder what's gonna happen when the Australians come to grips with how short-legged the F-35 (at least for what Australian needs). They'll buy more tankers from American defense contractors, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Surely it's not more short-legged than their Hornets are now? Obviously it has nothing on the varks they used to have, but still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
I can't answer that, but we got superbugs to replace the f111 already
Fo3 fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:They'll buy more tankers from American defense contractors, of course. They've taken delivery of some Airbus A330-based tankers recently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:What are your thoughts on think tank pieces that run scenarios of Raptors or F-35's against modern enemy forces? I recall there being something of a stink when a few of these places theorized that the Raptor/Lightening aren't what they're cracked up to be. As usual, I'm in agreement with iyaayas. And I don't know how much you're gonna like this, but the best campaign scenarios you're going to find will come from the O-3/O-4 level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
 Not exactly air power, but it's still cold war. I'm pretty sure there is a Göteborg-class destroyer in this picture somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The problem with the stories of A-4s/T-38s/F-5s owning more modern fighters is that it basically only happens when the scenario is designed for it to happen. Same way the Indian Air Force kicked rear end at Cope India 2004. Either the little guys have so many aircraft that some are guaranteed to leak through (rare) or they already died on the ingress. Do they simulate stuff like ECM, faulty missiles and the like that may allow planes to get through even if someone "fires" 1-2 missiles at them? They aren't using GAR-1s anymore, but a lock = a kill isn't necessarily true still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Do they simulate stuff like ECM, faulty missiles and the like that may allow planes to get through even if someone "fires" 1-2 missiles at them? They aren't using GAR-1s anymore, but a lock = a kill isn't necessarily true still. It depends. I've never seen an exercise that didn't at least take into account kinematics, so taking a really dirty shot at questionable ranges, you'd see fighters fire a pair of AMRAAMs, and when jets maneuver such that they would kinematically defeat the missile, they get to live. Similarly, don't fire one piddly aim-9 into a 4 engine plane and call it a day. I don't think I've ever seen an exercise where they simulate faulty munitions outside of large-scale tabletop type missions, where you're talking on a scale where a 3% failure rate or something actually matters. You'll see a lot of live ECM, though that's typically targeted at the systems actually out there rather than at notional missiles. One of the simpler ways to do the pK game is to have an estimate of how effective a missile is, then have a number generator spit out a pile of results. Let's say you have a missile that's 95% effective to start, go ahead and round it up to 100%, because it's not great training value to let someone who hosed up and got shot at with a valid shot get to live through their mistake due to a hardware malfunction. Then imagine Jammertron 5000 cuts the missile's effectiveness down to 40%. Spit out a pile of numbers so that after every kinematically valid shot, you already know if the 7th missile will be a hit or miss against the jammer. There are very detailed rules of kill assessment based on kinematics derived from smart people that the services generally agree upon. I don't run these things, I've just taken part in a bunch of them, both as a player and white cell. Someone more knowledgable, feel free to clear up or counter what I've written. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:31
|
|