Greggster posted:I forgot to quote and reply to the people who answered my question, I just wanted to say thanks for the replies y'all gave me! The Bridges at Toko Ri was a fictional account of Korea and more about psyche during war. Also made a decent but dated film. American Caesar was a biography about Macarthur but I believe talked about his desire to use nukes there. Good read either way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Awesome, thank you! I once hung out with a bear cub that was in a refuge for bears that got too familiar with humans once, and it owned, even though she scratched the hell out of me while trying to investigate what was inside my shirt. Spoiler alert: my torso was in there! The other great thing about the Naval Aviation Museum is that nothing is roped off, and they don't mind you putting noseprints all over the glass. Most of the ancient geezer docents wiping noseprints off are ex-navy, and often some kind of badass. If you give them a minute, or ask a leading question or two, they'll tell you some really cool stuff that isn't on the interpretive materials. some stuff: http://www.nps.gov/guis/planyourvisit/fort-pickens.htm http://www.alabamagulfcoastzoo.com/#!tiger-encounters/cm1t http://www.adsfr.com/ This is fun to drink, and look at all the crazy fish people are hauling up. Can sometimes get a reasonable deal on a deep sea fishing charter, something to do if you find some novelty in that sort of thing. I've not had an opportunity to dive the Oriskany, it is pretty deep, not-that-close, and not cheap, but if you do this sort of thing, it looks awesome. Note that Pensacola, Pensacola Beach, and Gulf Shores aren't right near eachother. I tend to take them as a whole redneck riviera whole, but you'll definitely need a rental, and some bridge toll money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Also because regardless of what was said in public British leadership as well as Bomber Command leadership (i.e., Bomber/Butcher Harris) had waaaaaaay less compunctions about intentionally going in to a city and wrecking shop without any intention of only targeting military targets or really any target other than the city as a whole. My old latin tutor flew Lancasters during the war and at different points shared an airfield with a Canadian squadron. He mentioned that the Canadians were never really satisfied with the stock configuration of their Halifaxes and later Lancasters and were known to modify them to suit their tastes. He remembered seeing various Halifaxes with holes cut into their bellies, out of which a single .50 poked out, because they were getting sick and tired of being shot all to hell by schraege music and having no way of warding off the night fighters responsible. Later on, he came across a Lancaster that had its quad .303s in the tail removed and replaced with a single 20mm cannon; apparently the crew had a couple of tail gunners maimed or killed while a fighter sat off their tail and pounded shots into the bomber and decided to do something about it. From what he remembered, they bribed an armourer with a crate of scotch and worked out a new mount for the thing-- it worke quite well, and he remembered seeing the bomber later on with a couple of fighter silhouettes on its tail. I asked him if the added weight of the cannon would have affected the performance of the bomber at all, his response was basically that an extra couple of hundred pounds when you're carrying several tons of munitions didn't make that much of a difference. Godholio posted:The short answer is that the results from nighttime bombing were awful. Bombs fell miles, or tens of miles off target because cities were blacked out and navigation was a bitch. There was a lot of tactical debate within the British and American services over day vs night and high vs lower altitude. Spaatz's anecdotes from this time period are pretty interesting, he was an attache in England. I am certain that this has been discussed elsewhere, but the strategic bombing campaign served a whole shitload of purposes far better than the actual, stated aims of reducing German industrial capacity (which, if memory serves, hit its peak in July/August of 1944-- some four years after aerial bombardment began). The daylight bombers were basically used as bait to draw up German fighters for destruction by their escorts, and the entire campaign kept an absurd number of high-velocity guns and personnel stationed all around German cities rather than actively popping Russians on the Eastern front. Fearless fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
^^ That's true, though they also did in fact hamstring Axis war production. Godholio posted:When I was a kid I lived on RAF Woodbridge. Every few years I recognize another base getting closed. Woodbridge and Bentwaters are gone, Chicksands, now Mildenhall and Alconbury are on the list. Also Molesworth, but I don't remember that one. Molesworth is a hilarious name for an airbase. I mean, I thought Mildenhall was an odd name... Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 02:41
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:^^ That's true, though they also did in fact hamstring Axis war production. hey this would be a great time to talk about tank destroyer doctrine
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The other great thing about the Naval Aviation Museum is that nothing is roped off, and they don't mind you putting noseprints all over the glass. Most of the ancient geezer docents wiping noseprints off are ex-navy, and often some kind of badass. If you give them a minute, or ask a leading question or two, they'll tell you some really cool stuff that isn't on the interpretive materials. A couple trips ago the docent who was hanging out in the new hangar (can't remember what they call it, the one that's behind the main building and has most of the newer aircraft in it) was talking about Que Sera Sera, the C-47 that was the first plane to land at the South Pole. Turns out he was one of the pilots who flew it on the mission. Also yeah, make sure you get up close and personal with all the planes, it still blows my mind that I've been able to physically touch an airframe that was on the ground at Pearl Harbor and that flew in combat at Midway. Like Slo-Tek also said, make sure you do the backlot tram tour. Smiling Jack posted:hey this would be a great time to talk about tank destroyer doctrine lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I'm looking to go to Pensacola to see the the naval aviation museum later this year. Anything I should absolutely not pass up that I might casually miss or surrounding attractions worthwhile? I'll be there either in spring or summer for maybe 4 to 7 days. Not TDY, just vacation. Lots of good suggestions already. Unfortunately sounds like you are showing up after I PCS otherwise I could show you around a bit. Check the Blues practice schedule. Unless you want to watch the practice, which is pretty good, you don't want to go anywhere near the base until it's completely over with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
So apparently IS supporters hacked US CENTCOM's Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Who noticed? Who could even tell the difference?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
More succinctly who gives a poo poo about official military twitter feeds. I mean seriously who reads that poo poo. Especially if you EAS's or never were dumb enough to sign up in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
lol. Where can I buy 100 of those?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
1986. Or ebay. Though I'm sure your local tiger shop can knock something together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
So out morbid interest (and since I missed Arc Light and Limited Nuclear War chat) what is the US plan for strategic bombers in the new few decades? I mean I know the BUFF is good till the 2050s, but I would think something is next. IIRC isn't there supposed to be a stop gap bomber and then a new hypersonic one to replace that and the BUFF? Also is nuclear deterrence even looked at as one of the primary purposes or is it far far down the list beyond cruise missile and JDAM truck? I mean obviously that makes sense, but it certainly wasn't the case with the BUFF, Bone or even B2 development
Marshal Prolapse fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Not much, they're seen as pretty much outdated, as all of their original functions (deep strikes, nuclear strike, carpet bombing) have all been taken over by fighters with JDAMs/LGBs (in the case of the first one), ICBMs/SLBMs (#2), or are politically disastrous (#3). Really their best use now is as the first stage of a cruise missiles for targets that can't bee reached with a Tomahawk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
The AF keeps starting and killing a next gen bomber program. It's basically the new tanker fiasco, except it hasn't gotten nearly as far along as the tanker poo poo did when Dryun hosed it all up in 97 or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Clearly, the AF should reconsider and greenlight the FB-22 as a backdoor way to get more Raptors built and get a "next-gen bomber" at the same time. "oh look at this parts commonality, guys. Well, while you've got the tooling set up..." I'm available for consulting, Lockmart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:So out morbid interest (and since I missed Arc Light and Limited Nuclear War chat) what is the US plan for strategic bombers in the new few decades? I mean I know the BUFF is good till the 2050s, but I would think something is next. IIRC isn't there supposed to be a stop gap bomber and then a new hypersonic one to replace that and the BUFF? Also is nuclear deterrence even looked at as one of the primary purposes or is it far far down the list beyond cruise missile and JDAM truck? I mean obviously that makes sense, but it certainly wasn't the case with the BUFF, Bone or even B2 development It seems Hagel answered this question almost personally. He's very right that our nuclear forces are getting long in the tooth but I don't think there's the political will nor the strategic need to update all three components to 21st century technology. If I'm betting the SSBN and ICBM forces get seriously reduced and the bomber goes ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Speaking of acquisitions, and reposting from the GiP Navy thread: V-22 Osprey picked to be the next COD Interesting news. For years now it's basically been a question of whether they would make a new C-2B, or go with Ospreys, so it's nice that they've finally made a decision. They've got fairly similar capabilities, with the Osprey's lesser range probably being the biggest difference. And at least they're going with an existing airframe rather than the C-3 Frankenviking proposal. It should be interesting to see how they integrate it; right now Greyhounds and Hawkeyes all share a type wing and training pipeline, and there's a lot of parts/maintenance commonality. That means that an air wing's Hawkeye squadron can help support Greyhounds on the carrier, though Greyhounds do embark a small maintenance det as well, and spare parts are a lot easier to get. With a V-22, they'll be on their own. The big question in the VRC/VAW community now is whether they'll roll V-22's in with us, or set up a separate COD wing and eventually revert the Hawkeye/Greyound wing back to Hawkeye only.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Wasn't there an issue with the Osprey for COD because it can't carry entire jet engine spares as cargo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:Wasn't there an issue with the Osprey for COD because it can't carry entire jet engine spares as cargo? That's okay - all those crew chiefs need to get good at taking engines apart and putting them back together again while underway.  *every F-35 maintainer in the Navy commits suicide simultaneously* And it was only the F-35's engine it couldn't carry. Neither the C-2 nor V-22 can evidently carry the engine intact without a specially-designed 'carrying rail' being installed, which then would need a ~speshul~ offloading vehicle to receive it on the carrier. The MH-53 (and evidently V-22) can carry it externally, though...for less than 300 miles.  "However, the F-35C's Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, contained in its Engine Shipping System, is too large for the cargo door on a standard carrier onboard delivery plane and for the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, the program office acknowledged in a response to a follow-on query from Navy Times. The engine can be broken down into five component parts, but just its power module and packaging alone won't fit into the COD or the V-22." You do kind of have to love that they developed a specially contained 'engine shipping system' that cannot be easily transported to a Nimitz-sized ship that can receive fixed-wing CODs. I've got a feeling that for the first few cruises there's going to be an AOE ship pacing alongside or near the carrier ready to VERTREP new engines on board. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The AF keeps starting and killing a next gen bomber program. It's basically the new tanker fiasco, except it hasn't gotten nearly as far along as the tanker poo poo did when Dryun hosed it all up in 97 or whatever. bomber 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
I recall reading that the engine itself is small enough, but it's too big with the packaging, and that the packaging is being redesigned. I can't find a link though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:bomber I really would love to see what a string of 17 CBU's would do to a target area. How is there not a YouTube video of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
kill me now posted:I really would love to see what a string of 17 CBU's would do to a target area. How is there not a YouTube video of that. Apparently the B-52 can carry 40 CBU-87s or 42 CBU-89s 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
bewbies posted:If I'm betting the SSBN and ICBM forces get seriously reduced and the bomber goes ahead. Keeping nuclear bombers over boomers sounds insane. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I recall reading that the engine itself is small enough, but it's too big with the packaging, and that the packaging is being redesigned. I can't find a link though. There's workarounds for some stuff, but there's parts that just can't be made smaller, like the diameter of the fans (both the first-stage fan and especially the lift fan on the -B variant). I believe GE and Boeing had similar issues with the GE-90; most of the engine is pretty narrow and can be carried on a standard 747 cargo lifter, but the fan's so fuckoff huge it can only be transported either by a rail car or something like the An-124. Obviously the F135 is a smaller engine, but then the V22 is a smaller plane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Keeping nuclear bombers over boomers sounds insane. Yeah, I also thought freefall nukes were on the way out. The only real advantage nuclear bombers have (besides being expensive as gently caress) is that they are recallable deterrence, which is useful if you are crazy enough to play brinkmanship, i.e. you can have nuclear armed bombers in flight while negotiations are still going on, with the implied threat that they will be used if negotiations break down. In the current political climate, I honestly don't see much of a reason for it. The West has shifted to a credible retaliation strategy in all but name, and bombers are amazingly bad at that compared to boomers. Having nuke-capable ALCM isn't really an advantage either, because in what possible scenario would you use them instead of nuking the entire country with ICBMs? In this day and age the concept of a tactical nuke doesn't really exist anymore, if it ever did. if you decide to escalate to nuclear, you might as well go all the way because the other side sure as hell is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
bewbies posted:If I'm betting the SSBN and ICBM forces get seriously reduced and the bomber goes ahead. I guess I'll just start brushing up on my Russian and Mandarin now, then. Fucknag posted:There's workarounds for some stuff, but there's parts that just can't be made smaller, like the diameter of the fans (both the first-stage fan and especially the lift fan on the -B variant). I believe GE and Boeing had similar issues with the GE-90; most of the engine is pretty narrow and can be carried on a standard 747 cargo lifter, but the fan's so fuckoff huge it can only be transported either by a rail car or something like the An-124. The fan section of a GE90 is field-detachable (sort of ) for this reason. A dressed GE90 with the quick-engine-change kit installed (pretty much the standard way to move aviation engines,) won't fit in anything shy of an An-124 or C-5. A GE90 with the fan detached, laid down on its own pallet, with most of the QEC kit installed, and the rest crated, will fit in a nose-load 747F.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:There's workarounds for some stuff, but there's parts that just can't be made smaller, like the diameter of the fans (both the first-stage fan and especially the lift fan on the -B variant). I believe GE and Boeing had similar issues with the GE-90; most of the engine is pretty narrow and can be carried on a standard 747 cargo lifter, but the fan's so fuckoff huge it can only be transported either by a rail car or something like the An-124. http://aviationweek.com/defense/bell-tests-v-22-jsf-engine-carrying-capability Turns out it does fit, but probably not with the lift fan. I'll bet the V-22 was chosen for this reason plus its ability to potentially transport stuff to other ships besides carriers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Keeping nuclear bombers over boomers sounds insane. Bombers can do more than one thing, subs can't unless you spend a couple hundred million refitting them. Plus, the main advantage of SSBNs over aircraft and missiles (low observability) isn't really as important nowadays, at least insofar as being a nuclear deterrent goes. Were I a congressman you'd have to do some pretty fancy explaining as to why we'd need 12 boats at $8+bn a pop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Well, any strategic bomber that can actually drop a nuclear bomb without getting blown up is going to be a billion a pop if history is anything to go by.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Navy will keep their subs because they've had far fewer embarrassing public gently caress-ups than the USAF, and the Virginia and Washington congressional delegations will team up with the CNO to stiff arm attempts to eliminate the fleet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:http://aviationweek.com/defense/bell-tests-v-22-jsf-engine-carrying-capability I've got it, we add a second lift fan and small stabilizing fins and make the engine self-flying. That way it can transport itself! Self-sufficient operation is kind of the Marines' thing, should be an easy sell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I've got it, we add a second lift fan and small stabilizing fins and make the engine self-flying. That way it can transport itself! This idea is horrible, expensive, useless, and inconvenient for everyone else; they'll love it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I've got it, we add a second lift fan and small stabilizing fins and make the engine self-flying. That way it can transport itself! Strap a chair and controls to the top, a couple of Sidewinders to the sides, and you've got an F-35 Compact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Strap a chair and controls to the top, a couple of Sidewinders to the sides, and you've got an F-35 Compact. It's gotta be stealth too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:It's gotta be stealth too.  Apparently this is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
that is a thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
bewbies posted:Bombers can do more than one thing, subs can't unless you spend a couple hundred million refitting them. Plus, the main advantage of SSBNs over aircraft and missiles (low observability) isn't really as important nowadays, at least insofar as being a nuclear deterrent goes. Were I a congressman you'd have to do some pretty fancy explaining as to why we'd need 12 boats at $8+bn a pop. Without boomers, there's no MAD. Honestly, if nuclear deterrence has to be downsized, I think it'd make more sense to axe everything except the SSBN.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:28
|
|
