|
I have never had a problem with pilots either military or civilian. My beef with aviation is just how frequent we put in 12 and 14 hour shifts to get birds ready for morning flights.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Does anyone know where I could find out what the motto of the czechoslovakian army was? The current czech army's is apparently Verni Zustaneme (always faithful), but I don't know if that would have been the motto during the cold war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
I don't know if Eastern Bloc formations were ever big on mottos. I think in many cases they were abolished with the other trappings of the old regime. I'd be interested if someone knows different though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Apparently, up until 1938 it was, "Tak přísaháme!" I do not speak Czech, so I've no idea what the translation is. It was part of this oath I found on a forum post from 2008; quote:We SWEAR, in the course of everything sacred, in accord with our The thread is here if anyone is interested; http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?138192-Czechoslovak-army-1918-1938
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:Apparently, up until 1938 it was, "Tak přísaháme!" I do not speak Czech, so I've no idea what the translation is. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html Welp F-35.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html This is the kind of assed-up journalism that puts me in the strange position of defending the F-35 program and that makes me even more irritated than this stupid article which cites such luminous sources as "an Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program" and uses a grossly misleading headline. The "wars of the future" probably are not going to look anything like OIF/OEF. Specifically as it relates to CAS, the requirement to put a small amount of ordnance in a very discrete location is not going to be nearly as important as it has been over the past 10 years. If we're needing to do that again, it will most likely be in a counterinsurgency situation, and the observability of the aircraft won't mean anything. Thus, 4G fighters or an F-35 with a bigass pod on it or a B-52 doing laps above the field will be just fine. When the F-35 is in full low observable mode, it almost certainly isn't going to be delivering ordnance in a CAS role. It is going to be shooting big expensive things from extended ranges against peer opponents using mostly joint sensors as the ISR platforms. bewbies fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The "wars of the future" probably are not going to look anything like OIF/OEF. [...] It is going to be shooting big expensive things from extended ranges against peer opponents using mostly joint sensors as the ISR platforms. Do you mean the Cold War deterrent of the future, or the actual shooting war of the future?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Also, a lot of brand-new systems are going to be lacking some capabilities at IOC compared to mature systems that have been getting tweaks and upgrades for the last decade. You have to baseline the systems somewhere, and balls-rear end CAS probably wasn't high on the list of "things we need from the F-35 ASAP". If they had tried to feature-creep newer pods into the F-35 development you can bet this guy would be shrieking about "further F-35 delays" or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:You have to baseline the systems somewhere, and balls-rear end CAS probably wasn't high on the list of "things we need from the F-35 ASAP". Someone should probably tell the Marines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
...to go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html Gonna go ahead and quote myself here. Dead Reckoning posted:The author's butthurt is that the F-35 doesn't have the very latest in HD video or a laser designator without an external pod, a "problem" common to literally all of the legacy aircraft it's slated to replace and every other fixed wing platform in the inventory except the Predator, Reaper, and B-52. Oh, and it doesn't have ROVER download, which can probably be fixed with a software upgrade. FYI the B-1B didn't have a pod until 2008, and we'd been using them for CAS for at least five years before that. If having the very latest targeting pod turns out to be super important, the F-35 can always carry it externally. Dead Reckoning posted:If you're at the point in the war where you can fly circles overhead, matching sparkle and downloading video, things have officially gone permissive and stealth isn't a super big deal anymore. Presumably we'd be sending F-35s instead of F-15Es for the same reason we send F-16s today: there are not enough F-15Es in the inventory to satisfy all the ground commanders' CAS requests, so the workload gets shared out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Can't we just use the Grover laser to target the stuff? Who needs targeting pods. Fire up the fully functional Death Star array and let's stop some weddings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
It's good to know the F-35 doesn't need to use its stealth capabilities. Probably saves on cancer paint costs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Wooper posted:It's good to know the F-35 doesn't need to use its stealth capabilities. Probably saves on cancer paint costs. At this point I honestly think journalists are writing 'gently caress the F-35' articles in the hopes LockMart will pay them to retract it or - more likely - hire them to shut them up. They certainly can't think that ~THEIR GLORIFIED BLOG POST~ will stop a trillion dollar defense expenditure. I mean, that linked article ends with "I don't know, dude, it doesn't look good." BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Do you mean the Cold War deterrent of the future, or the actual shooting war of the future? Both, I suppose. LO strike capabilities (not just from the F-35) are a big component of practically every concept I'm aware of so pretty much everyone is banking on the capability as both a deterrent and as an employable thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I mean, that linked article ends with "I don't know, dude, it doesn't look good." Now that's
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Both, I suppose. LO strike capabilities (not just from the F-35) are a big component of practically every concept I'm aware of so pretty much everyone is banking on the capability as both a deterrent and as an employable thing. Deterrents have to be employable to be credible, sure, but it sounds like you were predicting that such a war would actually occur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Deterrents have to be employable to be credible, sure, but it sounds like you were predicting that such a war would actually occur. Even if the big one never happens, employing those capabilities in smaller wars can be useful in building credible deterrence, though that shouldn't be the express purpose of a small conflict unless you're just a total dick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Deterrents have to be employable to be credible, sure, but it sounds like you were predicting that such a war would actually occur. Well if we end up in any conflict that isn't Afghanistan again the idea we need LO first strike isn't very outlandish. I have no loving idea who it might be but who knows in 5-10 years. Look at oil, I don't think many people saw it dipping to $50 a barrel 5 yeas ago, and that can destabilize a lot of things over time just by itself. mlmp08 posted:Even if the big one never happens, employing those capabilities in smaller wars can be useful in building credible deterrence, though that shouldn't be the express purpose of a small conflict unless you're just a total dick. This made start trying to work out good reasoning for the last 15 years sEND HELP Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Deterrents have to be employable to be credible, sure, but it sounds like you were predicting that such a war would actually occur. Well that's sort of the whole point of having a standing military. Credible capability is the basis for deterrence, and you build credible capability largely through trying (and mostly failing) to predict the capabilities needed for the "next war" whatever that might be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
First flight of the 767-2C / KC-46A today:   http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Well if we end up in any conflict that isn't Afghanistan again the idea we need LO first strike isn't very outlandish. I have no loving idea who it might be but who knows in 5-10 years. Look at oil, I don't think many people saw it dipping to $50 a barrel 5 yeas ago, and that can destabilize a lot of things over time just by itself. It was pretty loving useful both times we went into Iraq. And even if we do get into another Afghanistan type deal the days of uncontested skies may very well be over post-Syria. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Also, a lot of brand-new systems are going to be lacking some capabilities at IOC compared to mature systems that have been getting tweaks and upgrades for the last decade. You have to baseline the systems somewhere, and balls-rear end CAS probably wasn't high on the list of "things we need from the F-35 ASAP". If they had tried to feature-creep newer pods into the F-35 development you can bet this guy would be shrieking about "further F-35 delays" or something. Godholio posted:Someone should probably tell the Marines. Forget CAS, they're so hellbent on declaring IOC this year that they should probably worry about whether the plane is going to be able to accomplish any of its missions in an operationally representative environment without serious limitations. That said, it's worth mentioning that the program office's IOC report for the F-35 explicitly calls out CAS as being one of the mission sets that the system must be capable of performing prior to declaring IOC. That's true for all three services. So yeah, according to the program office themselves the F-35 is supposed to be able to perform CAS in order to declare IOC. That's not me or Winslow Wheeler or Pierre Sprey or some other crackpot defense thinker saying that, that's the F-35 JPO themselves. But silly me, there I go again assuming that people actually follow the rules in acquisitions and hold contractors accountable when they fail to meet things like "requirements." Also I find it pretty ridiculous that we'd call including something as basic as an IR pointer "feature-creep." I'm usually one decrying the latest doom and gloom F-35 stories as ridiculous and overwrought, but this one points out all the idiocy and wastefulness inherent in our current acquisitions process. I'm not disputing that the story itself is written from a very slanted point of view or that there aren't valid quibbles with the way in which the author presents information, but the overall thrust of the story is pretty head-shaking. But then again maybe I'm just jaded from having spent the last 6 months battling a program office on their push to field a system that was literally unsafe to fly. You would think almost 10 Cat I DR's against a system would be enough to discourage people from pushing to field prior to fixing the issues, but I guess there's something in the water at Wright-Pat. e: And that's not counting the other system that the same program office is hell-bent on buying that can't even get off the ground. e2: \/ No that sounds about right. I'm surprised the Navy is bothering to hold the contractor accountable though. Usually DoD just rolls over and buys whatever piece of poo poo the contractor provides (half the time the spec that the program office notionally submits to the contractor might as well have been written on contractor letterhead) and then, if the end users in the field bitch enough and submit enough DRs against the system, gives even more money to the contractor after DoD buys it to make it to the spec it should've been originally designed to. \/ iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
I have a question about how common a certain practice is and if this really is a predicament that's been going on since the cold war. My father's spent about 30 years designing training courses. The courses are for equipment that only exists on paper. Many times the craft the equipment will go on doesn't exist in the real world yet either. The navy sends its requirements to the company, the company sends its interpretation of the requirements to my dad, my dad designs the courses to the company spec. And if that gets rejected by the navy he's told to rewrite the courses to a new interpretation until he's eventually told to rewrite it to navy specs. He isn't allowed to design to the navy specifications in the first place because his superiors are certain that their interpretation is the correct one even if that interpretation is liable to change week to week. He loves his job and does it well but trying to predict what the future is going to be like with the equipment, mind read what his bosses want, and get those to conform to what the instructors and navy actually need has to be mind boggling. I can't see that being the norm with the military but after a few stories from here I can't see that not being the norm either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
wkarma posted:First flight of the 767-2C / KC-46A today: Well, it's basically a 767 with probably the right cockpit configuration and cargo deck. But it doesn't have a boom or most of the refueling hardware, nor will it. Same goes for the next testbed. I think the following two will be full-up, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:That said, it's worth mentioning that the program office's IOC report for the F-35 explicitly calls out CAS as being one of the mission sets that the system must be capable of performing prior to declaring IOC. That's true for all three services. So yeah, according to the program office themselves the F-35 is supposed to be able to perform CAS in order to declare IOC. That's not me or Winslow Wheeler or Pierre Sprey or some other crackpot defense thinker saying that, that's the F-35 JPO themselves. Wow, that's... actually pretty sad, then. I would have figured they'd be focusing on the areas where LO makes a big difference, like strike and OCA, but hey, let's just ask for everything at once. F-35B IOC posted:CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance  Surprised they don't have cargo transport on there as well. Gotta keep those austere FOBs resupplied!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
I'll offer a flipside to this: Ramming F-35B into IOC before its ready may actually be good for the program. It's only a tiny percentage of Senators and Reps that have any understanding of the acquisition process; and an appreciation for just how many things can go wrong when trying to fit so much advanced technology into the sausage skin dress that is an airframe. Congress often has neither the patience or ability to comprehend anything beyond "Program is on track/off track". If they hear that the program is off track, they treat the services like a child who gets an allowance: they slim down what they give until the service produces results on the erroneous assumption that the military just needs a "wake up call". You see this all the time, programs get slowly choked to death as Congress expects the services to do more with less and less money. As ugly as it is, fudging the IOC may be the only way to ensure the program gets the funding necessary to ensure it succeeds in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Wow, that's... actually pretty sad, then. I would have figured they'd be focusing on the areas where LO makes a big difference, like strike and OCA, but hey, let's just ask for everything at once. USMC Aviation: the toddler of the US military. Red Crown posted:I'll offer a flipside to this: Ramming F-35B into IOC before its ready may actually be good for the program. It's only a tiny percentage of Senators and Reps that have any understanding of the acquisition process; and an appreciation for just how many things can go wrong when trying to fit so much advanced technology into the sausage skin dress that is an airframe. Congress often has neither the patience or ability to comprehend anything beyond "Program is on track/off track". If they hear that the program is off track, they treat the services like a child who gets an allowance: they slim down what they give until the service produces results on the erroneous assumption that the military just needs a "wake up call". You see this all the time, programs get slowly choked to death as Congress expects the services to do more with less and less money. As ugly as it is, fudging the IOC may be the only way to ensure the program gets the funding necessary to ensure it succeeds in a reasonable amount of time. Counter-counter-point: The V-22. I mean, it's not like USMC Aviation has a history of rushing immature programs into service by flying them in an operational fashion prior to IOC, prematurely declaring IOC, and then getting people killed unnecessarily just so a bunch of generals could brief Congress that the slides were green and everything was on-track, pay no attention to that aircraft that crashed into the Potomac or all those flag-draped coffins. I hear what you're saying but the right answer is "do acquisitions right, to include setting realistic requirements" not "let's pretend things are great and send a system into operational service when it isn't ready because being open about how much of a dumpster fire the program is will get our budget cut." But option a doesn't get contractors paid nor does it get jobs in Congressional districts nor does it get a bunch of generals the newest shiniest toy, so it'll never happen. e: Fudging things like IOC and requirements from the CDD/CPD is how you wind up with systems in operational service that are literally unsafe to fly, or how you wind up buying systems that can't even get off the ground. Ask me how I know. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Counter-counter-point: The V-22. Hey, at least the F-35B will only kill one person at a time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:Hey, at least the F-35B will only kill one person at a time. Until someone sees Wingnut Ninja's post about cargo transport and decides to rig up EXINT pods on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
wkarma posted:First flight of the 767-2C / KC-46A today: If I'm impressed by the virtual 3D boom control station, have I just been snookered by the military-industrial complex? iyaayas01 posted:e: Fudging things like IOC and requirements from the CDD/CPD is how you wind up with systems in operational service that are literally unsafe to fly, or how you wind up buying systems that can't even get off the ground. Ask me how I know. If I didn't know better I'd say you worked for the Canadian Military iyaayas01 posted:Until someone sees Wingnut Ninja's post about cargo transport and decides to rig up EXINT pods on it. I've said it before: the F-35 needs a flying boat variant for the Coast Guard
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Until someone sees Wingnut Ninja's post about cargo transport and decides to rig up EXINT pods on it. Or just put handholds on the wings of the VTOL version. You could totally get two guys on there. FOBbits carrying their own personal FOB! You need, what, a radio, shovel, bags for sand, snacks for a week? Suspect Bucket fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Quoting this from a few pages back to add: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:If I didn't know better I'd say you worked for the Canadian Military There's an exchange officer from the RAF that works with me, every time one of us gets started on a rant about how idiotic the USAF/DoD is, he'll pull out a story from the RAF/MoD that makes us look like geniuses in comparison. I can only imagine what it would be like if we had someone from the RCAF working with us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Is that a friggin T-33?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Well, it's basically a 767 with probably the right cockpit configuration and cargo deck. But it doesn't have a boom or most of the refueling hardware, nor will it. Same goes for the next testbed. I think the following two will be full-up, though. Which is why I said 767-2C. That is the cargo configuration designation before it gets tankerized. It's more than just a new cockpit though. The -2C combines the -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear, cargo door and floor, -400ER digital flightdeck and flaps, and uprated engines. The tanker bits aren't important for basic aerodynamic flight test. Plenty of flutter and envelope expansion work to do before introducing the boom/WARP pods/mission systems. quote:Is that a friggin T-33? Yep. Boeing uses a couple for test/photo chase.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Ask me how I know. How do you know? Story time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
wkarma posted:Yep. Boeing uses a couple for test/photo chase. Why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Wow, that's... actually pretty sad, then. I would have figured they'd be focusing on the areas where LO makes a big difference, like strike and OCA, but hey, let's just ask for everything at once. KC-35C: Stealth tanker iyaayas01 posted:Until someone sees Wingnut Ninja's post about cargo transport and decides to rig up EXINT pods on it. E: The outstanding piece of modern literature "Ghost" from John Ringo had a B-2 rigged to drop SEALs from the rotary launcher, any reason we couldn't do that on a smaller scale with the F-35? goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:31
|
|
