|
This is a really cool picture of something I knew about but had never seen.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
Major Kong lays out the A-10 vs. F-35 issue and does a very good job of it, too
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Major Kong lays out the A-10 vs. F-35 issue and does a very good job of it, too quote:What I've come up with is: Yeah, that's probably the most even-handed and realistic piece I've read on the issue. I do take issue with his assertion that the USAF is run by fighter guys...that's the stereotype but it's really not true, especially not recently. Oh yeah, and it goes without saying but don't read the comments 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
A decently presented article for once. What the hell is the $/hr cost of A-10s that it would take 360 F-16s at AMARC to see the same savings?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Sorry folks: I'm alone, out of town and bored. Your gonna have to put up with photo dumps for awhile. Mmmm, Hawkeye pics. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Godholio posted:A decently presented article for once. What the hell is the $/hr cost of A-10s that it would take 360 F-16s at AMARC to see the same savings? Depot/ALC/SPO/FTU/other back-end stuff. Assuming we're considering "$/hr cost" to only be the O&M portion of that (fuel, parts, ops/mx personnel, etc) then the A-10 is quite a bit cheaper...but like he implies, by keeping the A-10 around and making the cuts elsewhere you have to cut more individual airframes in the other MDS since you aren't getting to cut the associated backend. I mean in reality it's one big shell-game since it's not like those people are directly getting riffed, the positions are going to go to other platforms (F-35) but from a budget perspective that's the logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Anyways: Agressors. 'Murican planes, Ruskie Colors 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah, that's probably the most even-handed and realistic piece I've read on the issue. I do take issue with his assertion that the USAF is run by fighter guys...that's the stereotype but it's really not true, especially not recently. The comment about the electronics is something I've been suspecting for a while. We've seen a lot of countries choose to purchase the F-35 even when it seems like a bad option. Many reasons have been blamed, from US state department lobbying to straight up bribery by Lockheed Martin, but I bet the electronic warfare component is actually the biggest part of it. I'm totally open to the idea that a ton of Western governments have decided to seppuku themselves en masse, but the possibility that maybe there's some pixie dust poo poo going on with the F-35 that we don't know about is also plausible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Depot/ALC/SPO/FTU/other back-end stuff. Assuming we're considering "$/hr cost" to only be the O&M portion of that (fuel, parts, ops/mx personnel, etc) then the A-10 is quite a bit cheaper...but like he implies, by keeping the A-10 around and making the cuts elsewhere you have to cut more individual airframes in the other MDS since you aren't getting to cut the associated backend. I get the idea, I just question the math that results in such an extreme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The comment about the electronics is something I've been suspecting for a while. We've seen a lot of countries choose to purchase the F-35 even when it seems like a bad option. Many reasons have been blamed, from US state department lobbying to straight up bribery by Lockheed Martin, but I bet the electronic warfare component is actually the biggest part of it. I'm totally open to the idea that a ton of Western governments have decided to seppuku themselves en masse, but the possibility that maybe there's some pixie dust poo poo going on with the F-35 that we don't know about is also plausible. Said pixie dust is likely to not be working.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:whooops forgot one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The comment about the electronics is something I've been suspecting for a while. We've seen a lot of countries choose to purchase the F-35 even when it seems like a bad option. Many reasons have been blamed, from US state department lobbying to straight up bribery by Lockheed Martin, but I bet the electronic warfare component is actually the biggest part of it. I'm totally open to the idea that a ton of Western governments have decided to seppuku themselves en masse, but the possibility that maybe there's some pixie dust poo poo going on with the F-35 that we don't know about is also plausible. Nothing even secret, it's just the radar, the EW suite, and DAS, specifically the integration. Godholio posted:I get the idea, I just question the math that results in such an extreme. A-10 fleet totals ~345 tails...not that big of an delta. Remember, the divestment plan isn't/wasn't to send them all to the Guard, it is/was to completely divest the entire fleet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Said pixie dust is likely to not be working. I keep waiting for some L-M-employed shill to say something to the tune of "the Chinese are ~tirelessly~ trying to duplicate the F-35, and you know what they say about imitation and flattery..." *wink wink nudge nudge* "Then why'd they give theirs two engines?" "Because their engines aren't powered by *awesome*. You only need *one* engine when it's awesome." Godholio posted:This is a really cool picture of something I knew about but had never seen. Yeah, I used to live in the Virginia Beach area when my father was working his way through the -46 squadrons and -53E training wing at Norfolk, and you'd see the Russkie-painted F/A-18As and F-16As from the Challengers, usually static on the ramp near the main terminal building. They had this dirty shirt-ish eatery in the terminal then that had some one word name, "Molly's" kind of stands out for some reason. Pilots would come in still reeking of the 5-10 pounds of sweat they'd lost on their flight ops. For all I knew I might've eaten lunch with Hoser and Snort (both were Oceana and Navy Fighter community royalty), but all I cared about was 'seeing jets' and seemingly not minding that my burger had *mayonnaise* on it because it was good and messy...I should probably note that I was ~4-5 at the time. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:You know how I've said the photoshop of the Osprey refueling the F-35B is USMC_Aviation.jpg? Why they never tried just stripping the guts out of an old Hawkeye or a Greyhound and fitting a gas tank and the usual air refueling geegaws is something I'll never understand. Like, poo poo dudes, the Air Force figured that out in the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
But you see, hawkeyes can't STOVL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Die Phony bad guy! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
The other thing so shocking about that image is how *clean* the Turkey looks. It was a plane that honestly looked better the dirtier it was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:But you see, hawkeyes can't STOVL. Slap another engine on each wingtip and it will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
Ugh. I'm stuck in SeaTac overnight and this is a thousand miles in the opposite direction of where we were supposed to be tonight. Bitch over. Back to Mig-28 chat. What range did you observe it from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Slap another engine on each wingtip and it will. Or... http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/09/v-22-weve-seen-refueler-is-aew-variant.html "It slices, it dices, it juliennes!" I don't know why it's showing a Boeing JSF being refueled, though. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Why are Commonwealth aircraft either mind-numbingly beautiful (Spitfire, Mosquito, Dragon Rapide, Vulcan, Sea Fury, Comet, Concorde,) or essentially the very epitome of an ugly motherfucker? (Basically everything else.)  I've been wondering what this aircraft was since I saw it earlier this year at the Shuttleworth Collection The prettiest aircraft I saw in person was the DH-88 Comet   A steal at only £5000! in 1934
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
I was thinking there were only about 200, but it looks like that's the ACC portion of the fleet (191 according to Wikipedia).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Might be a repost, but new to me anyway. Great video of the J-58 engines in the SR-71. Those doors and bleeds have never made much sense to me, they do now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ao5SCedIk
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
I much prefer my aircraft fat and under powered.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
https://www.flickr.com/photos/realhokum/9724618457/in/set-72157635184027168 Can someone rehost the PAK FA pics from this? Currently can't view them myself but I love how it looks and want to see them 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Ola posted:Might be a repost, but new to me anyway. Great video of the J-58 engines in the SR-71. Those doors and bleeds have never made much sense to me, they do now. Everything about the SR-71 is mind blowing, and the fact that it was designed and built 50+ years ago, long before modern computers allowed for detailed simulation work is probably the most amazing thing of all when looking back of the history of the plane and how well it did the things it was designed to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
I got Skunk Works for my birthday, and I had a little moment when I was reading it. I realized that, let's say, a 737 flying across Canada (because I've been on a bunch of those in the last few years) is at a certain altitude. A U-2 is as far above my plane as my plane is above the ground. Blackbird is higher than that, and over three times faster to boot. And I just thought, Jesus. It's like Martian poo poo in the middle of the 20th century. Those were some smart fuckin' people in that shop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Everything about the SR-71 is mind blowing, and the fact that it was designed and built 50+ years ago, long before modern computers allowed for detailed simulation work is probably the most amazing thing of all when looking back of the history of the plane and how well it did the things it was designed to do. A good friend of mine got his Phd recently, and he's intellectually omnivorous: his Phd is a interdisciplinary one between Philosophy and math. I was thinking of gifting him a model SR-71 someday, possibly with the caption "built without computers" or "built with slide-rules" or something. My question is: was the SR-71 built without aid of computers? I know that there might be some ambiguity; I was specifically thinking of the Concorde's wings which apparently needed computers to get the shape right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Someone say slow (relative) plane pictures?         And of course the best looking plane of the era: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
The mind blowing thing isn't that this was done 50 years ago, the mind blowing thing is thinking about what might not be declassified at this point that has been building for 50 years on that technology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:A good friend of mine got his Phd recently, and he's intellectually omnivorous: his Phd is a interdisciplinary one between Philosophy and math. I was thinking of gifting him a model SR-71 someday, possibly with the caption "built without computers" or "built with slide-rules" or something. My question is: was the SR-71 built without aid of computers? Its design was certainly only done with slide rules, but radar testing and other such testing certainly relied on some sort of computer. However, most of the initial designing was all done by hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:The mind blowing thing isn't that this was done 50 years ago, the mind blowing thing is thinking about what might not be declassified at this point that has been building for 50 years on that technology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Why do all P-51s have invasion stripes. Also perfect ones at that, not ones that were splashed on the night before the invasion started.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Why do all P-51s have invasion stripes. Because P-51's get repainted every 5-10 years and D-day stripes are iconic. Also, nobody wants their 2-3 million dollar airplane to look messy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
FAT CURES MUSCLES posted:And of course the best looking plane of the era: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Ahem. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Nope, sorry, the original lovely air intakes look better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Why do all P-51s have invasion stripes. Because they look loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:25
|
|
