|
hobbesmaster posted:Are the USAF's other PT6A/B/C powered aircraft also contractor maintained? Its a very common engine and already used in a lot of US military aircraft. It's about more than just the engine. All that stuff I laid out (tools, training, tech data, depot pipeline, supply chain) aren't magically the same just because you have an aircraft with the same engine in the inventory. So even if they have the same engine you're still talking about spending more money beyond the cost of the physical iron to add an additional weapons system to the inventory. But yes "all" of the USAF's PT6 powered aircraft are contractor maintained...but as has been pointed out it's really not that many: just the T-6s and the various flavors of King Airs that we fly (although that's not too many any more since we gave/are giving the MC-12s to the Army), also the U-28s. The mx on T-6s isn't that expensive (it's actually cost-effective to contract out mx on trainers, which is why we've done it universally) but that's because they don't have to deploy...ever. Once you start talking about sending contractors somewhere where they can get shot at their rates tend to go up. Also combat aircraft tend to have a whole bunch of avionics related systems on them (targeting pods/balls, other -INT packages, etc) that trainers don't. The skill-set required to maintain these systems is going to drive higher salaries compared to your average metal benders...something else that drives up the cost of the contract mx. The U-28 and MC-12 were two of the platforms I had in mind when I said that contracting out mx on combat aircraft hasn't been cheap.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Seems to me that if someone had just told the Marines to shut the gently caress up the F-35 would be on the way to becoming a great plane, basically a 21st century F-16.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Seems to me that if someone had just told the Marines to shut the gently caress up[...] the F-35 would be on the way to becoming a great plane, basically a 21st century F-16. Should be the subtitle of the "Tragedy of the American Military" Thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
The marines suck!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Seems to me that if someone had just told the Marines to shut the gently caress up the F-35 would be on the way to becoming a great plane, basically a 21st century F-16. Build a harrier 3 for the marines (which can't do anything much like the current harrier, and therefore can be cheap), let everyone else have real planes 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 01:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Build a harrier 3 for the marines (which can't do anything much like the current harrier, and therefore can be cheap), let everyone else have real planes Harrier 3 - an osprey with some spray paint. Toss bombs out the loading ramp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Harrier 3 - an osprey with some spray paint. Toss bombs out the loading ramp. The only thing making Harriers less deadly to Marines than Ospreys is the ability for Ospreys to carry passengers. Harriers might as well have been designed by the enemy. I'd find hard info on this, but the Marines make it way harder to find this info with a simple google search than US the Air Force, which makes it all readily available for their aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The only thing making Harriers less deadly to Marines than Ospreys is the ability for Ospreys to carry passengers. Harriers might as well have been designed by the enemy. I'd find hard info on this, but the Marines make it way harder to find this info with a simple google search than US the Air Force, which makes it all readily available for their aircraft. Yeah it's an open fact that STOVL jet aircraft have a mishap rate insanely high compared to normal jet aircraft that takeoff and land like god intended...although I'm not surprised that the USMC is hiding their mishaps stats. Couple relevant cross-posts from the TFR Airpower thread: iyaayas01 posted:There's a joke someone (I think Bill Sweetman) made about how the STOVL fad in Western Europe in the middle to late Cold War was just a massive Soviet plot to cripple NATO air forces, it was the only explanation that made sense. iyaayas01 posted:USMC Aviation: the toddler of the US military. Red Crown posted:Hey, at least the F-35B will only kill one person at a time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah it's an open fact that STOVL jet aircraft have a mishap rate insanely high compared to normal jet aircraft that takeoff and land like god intended...although I'm not surprised that the USMC is hiding their mishaps stats. It's hilarious how the Harrier was a turkey of the aircraft but the marines still clamored for a next gen version of the original bad concept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's hilarious how the Harrier was a turkey of the aircraft but the marines still clamored for a next gen version of the original bad concept. "Hey Congress, we have this plane that crashes all the time and really can't do anything well, but we want to make it super capable so please give us money to upgrade its radar and strap a bunch of other cool avionics to it, so that way when it inevitably crashes (since it has the same basic powerplant as the current plane that crashes all the time) we can waste even more money!! Thanks!!!!" - USMC Aviation c. late '70s/early '80s
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's hilarious how the Harrier was a turkey of the aircraft but the marines still clamored for a next gen version of the original bad concept. Someone post a link to usmc.txt where the perfectly fine wheel up-landing of a Harrier got ruined by some higher up who didn't want to explain why the nose paint got scratched and... had mattresses put on the runway... which completely unexpectedly got ingested by the engines and ruined them (the pilot was like "hey you're crazy, this will never work ... sir yes sir, i'll ruin the plane if you insist") suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Don't have the .txt but here's a jpg instead:
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Here's the sequence leading to the jpg:   That said, they perfected the idea and managed to land on a stool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9tvdjDAr1U
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yeah. I guess at this point trying to claim what you're going to do when the 'machines are gonna fail' is a fairly inapplicable argument to most of modern warfare that doesn't involve an infantryman and his rifle. And even then... As an ex grunt, most stuff that is on the ground can still operate without computers on an individual level, but at reduced capacity. Coordination without computers gets more iffy. And I would assume that most armies train for such occassions, intensively. I accept that this is different for planes though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
Mightypeon posted:As an ex grunt, most stuff that is on the ground can still operate without computers on an individual level, but at reduced capacity. Coordination without computers gets more iffy. Life is a whole lot different as an artillerist without a computer, that's for sure.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:As an ex grunt, most stuff that is on the ground can still operate without computers on an individual level, but at reduced capacity. Coordination without computers gets more iffy. Artillerymen are not grunts
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Don't have the .txt but here's a jpg instead: Here's the quick word: quote:This comes under the heading "truth is sometimes stranger than fiction".
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
I really do wonder why they are going ahead with the B version, and I'm tangentially touched by the matter since I live in Italy, which is about to buy the B version for its terrible aircraft carrier(s). Anyway, I remembered reading a good article a bunch of years ago on the Harrier and why it was an unsafe and unneeded plane: http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722 It's a good read and won a Pulitzer in 2003. The F35 is still referred in it still as "Joint Strike Fighter". I suppose that most of the criticism that was reasonable 12 years ago, is even more reasonable now, except that the F35 should be less easy to track with infrared than a Harrier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Translation thing? Our equivalent of "grunt", "Frontsoldat" (which would perhaps be more akin to "front line") did encompass tube Artillery, mechanized Infantry and Tankers (everyone who regularly shoots at other ground targets, gets shot at a lot and is not some kind of "special elitist prick with delusions of mattering"). Mind you, our (Artillery) slang for tankists would be translated into "Soft targets" and our colloquial term for mechanized infantry was "even softer targets". IIRC German Tank Grenadiers refer to German Artillery as "The only thing we are worried about because we cant shoot back and claim it was friendly fire". I am not that familiar with US military slang. Could have sworn the the US artillery guys we trained with refered to themselfs as "Artillery grunts" btw, mind you, thats 10 years ago now. And yeah, live without a computer is less easy but possible. And you dont exactly keep shooting 10 rounds per minute from a howitzer without one. But you can still gently caress up other people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
I like to think that the USMC brass were sold on the power of VTOL and demanded a new Harrier because of True Lies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Here's the quick word: LOL. Mind you, if this was in Russia, the Golf Cart would have crashed into some fuel, which would not immidiatly explode because fuel actually doenst work that way, but then some frantic attempt to fix/cover up things would result in some cataclysmic explosion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Translation thing? Grunt is slang for infantry
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Grunt is slang for infantry Thanks. Does this include infantry who are stationed in the rear "Etappenhengste" ("Rear Area Stallion", i think your slang term is "rear echelon motherfucker")?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Grunt is slang for infantry Grunt is slang for soldier, but infantry think that they are the only soldiers worth talking about. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Grunt is any sort of infantry. It sometimes extend to low-wage, unskilled workers outside of military context. Grunt is named after a guttural noise. Infantry, etymologically, means "unable to speak". The common trend here is that they are supposed to shut up and follow orders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Thanks. Yes but they will have to deal with other infantry telling them it doesn't as a form of insult (basically saying they're "not real infantry"). In the American army the term "POG" or "Pogue" (person other than grunt) is used in a derogatory manner toward non-infantry types (though the term is generally not applied to non-infantry types who also go out and share fire, unless they shirk from it). The term is generally only particularly offensive if used to refer to someone who is actually an infantryman or someone who does something equally dangerous. The rear echelon guys would probably be called that and "Fobbit", which is an amalgam of FOB (forward operating base) and Hobbit (exactly what you think) and refers to people who never leave the safety of the base.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Grunt is any sort of infantry. It sometimes extend to low-wage, unskilled workers outside of military context. Also shutup and just deal with suffering without complaint
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Here's the sequence leading to the jpg: lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Cheap planes are simple planes. Simple planes are not simple to use, because all the complexity of flight has to be handled by the pilots directly, instead of being handled by the avionics. On a modern fighter plane, the pilot does not control directly the ailerons, elevons, canards, rudders, spoilers, spoilerons, stabilators, decelerons, air brakes, and whatever other moving surface there might be. That's all handled by the flight computer. Pilot merely tells the plane to pitch up or roll left and the computer will handle all the moving parts accordingly. The A-10 isn't fly-by-wire, though. As planes have become easier to fly, more and more of the crew’s attention is spent on systems and mission management. The F-35 is probably going to be a bastard in that regard. Already an F-16 pilot has to be able to navigate hundreds of MFD pages, display settings, radar modes (not a problem for A-10 pilots) and emitter settings, in both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. The F-35 may strive for better human interface, but the sheer number and complexity of systems, and multiple missions, are going to drive a huge array of demands on the pilot’s knowledge and attention. I don’t think you can really say one is “easier” than the other, because that’s going to be driven by the mission and the external demands placed on the pilot more than by the airframe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I want to go back a little ways to address this, because it’s super wrong. Saying that the F-35 will be easier to fly than the A-10 because it has FBW is like saying a 2014 Porsche GT3 is easier to drive than a 2003 Hilux because the Porsche has an automatic transmission and the Toyota has a manual. Let’s get the obvious out of the way and realize that stick-and-rudder flying is not exactly voodoo magic. Tens of thousands of people learn every year, including every single military pilot in their first year. FBW doesn’t magically remove the requirement to control the aircraft either; the F-16 still has rudder pedals after all. Really it just reduces the need to trim and lets a human control relaxed stability airframes without consuming their entire attention. Most modern aircraft designs are relatively untaxing to simply fly; non-experimental aircraft becoming uncontrollable due to pilot inputs is so rare these days that it’s newsworthy. The A-10 has all the hallmarks of an easily flyable design as well, with long, straight wings, large ailerons, and centerline thrust. I’ve never personally flown one, but I’m certain it has more benign approach and landing characteristics than, say, an F-16. I also imagine throttle and center-of-gravity management is easier than on a B-52 or -135. This was basically what I was guessing. Thanks for putting it way more eloquently and detailed then I could. Could you explain the term "MFD page"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Multifunction displays. Aircraft electronic UIs are a clusterfuck that lack the elegance of their predecessors when it comes to displaying or inputting information. They make windows 8 look good. They tend to distract the pilot who effectively has to stop flying the plane and cause a lot of accidents when even mildly misused.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
A buddy of mine worked at the base where the Harrier did the mattress thing. He was working in Hazmat at the time, but ended up driving over to watch the hilarity ensue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Multifunction displays. Aircraft electronic UIs are a clusterfuck that lack the elegance of their predecessors when it comes to displaying or inputting information. They make windows 8 look good. They tend to distract the pilot who effectively has to stop flying the plane and cause a lot of accidents when even mildly misused. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:This was basically what I was guessing. Thanks for putting it way more eloquently and detailed then I could. Could you explain the term "MFD page"? The "pages" refer to the different displays of data a MFD can switch between. oohhboy posted:Multifunction displays. Aircraft electronic UIs are a clusterfuck that lack the elegance of their predecessors when it comes to displaying or inputting information. They make windows 8 look good. They tend to distract the pilot who effectively has to stop flying the plane and cause a lot of accidents when even mildly misused. There isn't an elegant way to display all the information a modern pilots needs, especially in a combat aircraft. MFDs are a good compromise, and they don't cause crashes unless the pilot is incapable of multitasking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Grunt is any sort of infantry. It sometimes extend to low-wage, unskilled workers outside of military context. It's a Vietnam thing, it meant "Ground Ready Units, Not Trained", something to do with speeding soldiers through training to send them to Vietnam without preparation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:It's a Vietnam thing, it meant "Ground Ready Units, Not Trained", something to do with speeding soldiers through training to send them to Vietnam without preparation. Grunt as referring to military soldiers does indeed backdate to the Vietnam war, but the word has been used to refer to low-level, low-skill workers since around 1900. My guess is that is that you've got a backronym there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Flying a plane is easy, relatively. Anyone who has been on a Cessna knows that it's a matter of a few days to learn to fly, at a very amateurish level. From there on, complexity only increases, and while I could theorically start a Cessna and fly away (landing would be a problem as I've never done that), I can't even imagine how complicated must be to even taxi a plane that takes off at a higher speed than the maximum speed of the aforementioned Cessna. Anyway, being a pacifist, I can't but thank Lockheed Martin for their effort to stop arming the western militaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There isn't an elegant way to display all the information a modern pilots needs, especially in a combat aircraft. MFDs are a good compromise, and they don't cause crashes unless the pilot is incapable of multitasking. No such thing as multitasking when you dealing with conscious information. You can slice your attention between tasks quickly but multitasking doesn't exist, its an illusion. When you practice a task alot you can transition really quickly like when you moving and shooting in an FPS, you will have decided where you are going before you focus on shooting. Or shooting akimbo and why accuracy drops so much even if you are ambidextrous, its because each gun are different tasks you have to switch between.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:No such thing as multitasking when you dealing with conscious information. You can slice your attention between tasks quickly but multitasking doesn't exist, its an illusion. When you practice a task alot you can transition really quickly like when you moving and shooting in an FPS, you will have decided where you are going before you focus on shooting. Or shooting akimbo and why accuracy drops so much even if you are ambidextrous, its because each gun are different tasks you have to switch between. That's a very pedantic way of saying something we know. Pilots maintain a "scan" where they constantly scan between things including, but not limited to: looking outside the cockpit, keeping an eye on basic flight characteristics, checking dials that display key maintenance info, and using the systems bolted onto the plane to complete whatever mission they're assigned. When it is not possible to accomplish the mission while maintaining a safe level of scan, they add crew members to platforms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
oohhboy posted:No such thing as multitasking when you dealing with conscious information. You can slice your attention between tasks quickly but multitasking doesn't exist, its an illusion. When you practice a task alot you can transition really quickly like when you moving and shooting in an FPS, you will have decided where you are going before you focus on shooting. Or shooting akimbo and why accuracy drops so much even if you are ambidextrous, its because each gun are different tasks you have to switch between. Are you serious with this poo poo? He's talking about the skill of getting multiple tasks done simultaneously, not literally the threadcount of your brain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:29
|
|