|
priznat posted:One thing I learned from reading way too many 80s clancy-esque military thrillers is that the food is apparently really good on the subs c/d? Would you rather have 2-4 cooks that cook for 60-80 dudes or 30+ cooks that cook for 300-4000 dudes?
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
ded posted:Would you rather have 2-4 cooks that cook for 60-80 dudes or 30+ cooks that cook for 300-4000 dudes? Ugh, math!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That wasn't ever a serious attempt. It was in a goddamned book and a few people were like, "Hey should we look into this a bit more? No, nevermind." The Bone has been goddamned HUGE in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I'm not sure how it's irrelevant. As a low-level supersonic wunderbomber, yeah that's not gonna work. But as a conventional bomber with a few unique tricks, it's been very successful. Oh there's no doubt that it can and does do its job as a bomber, it's just expensive as hell to operate IIRC. We've got a ton of these pricey but capable airframes so we're going to use them, but I was curious if there's been any innovations that actually take advantage of the purpose-built Cold War pinko killing features since a swing wing mach 2 nuclear bomber dropping pain on mudhuts is like swatting mosquitos with a bat. Regardless, it's a cool rear end airplane, I remember seeing them parked at Hickam a few times when I was living there way back when.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
The Bone whiskers are so 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:This would also be why we kept the tooling for a SLEP, because those 187 (actually less since a significant portion of them have a hardware incompatibility that makes them incapable of being upgraded to current spec, which means they aren't combat coded) are quite literally it for air superiority in the US military for at least another several decades. When we discover wing cracks in the fleet in 20 years we're sure as hell not going to retire any of them, each one has to stay in service as long as it is physically in one piece.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Risket posted:Can you elaborate on the hardware incompatibility, as well as the combat coding? Does this mean that some of the Raptors cannot fly combat missions, and can only fly training missions or airshows or something? The hardware incompatibility is basically a processor issue...the first several dozen aircraft off the line (the number is around 40) were built in such a way that their processor hardware is prohibitively expensive to upgrade to enable the current Block upgrades. Basically these aircraft were Block 10s that were capable of being upgraded to Block 20, but not being upgraded beyond that. Later aircraft were built as Block 20s off the production line with the capability to be upgraded beyond that. The current combat standard is Block 30+, so these aircraft that are only Block 20s are no longer at the current combat standard. "Combat coded" is what the aircraft are tasked to do; in other words, what the mission is of the unit they are assigned to. The aircraft in question are assigned to test/training units...so the FTU (Formal Training Unit) at Tyndall as well as T&E (Test and Evaluation) birds at places like Edwards and Nellis. So with around 40 of the aircraft falling into the "not combat coded" category, the real number of combat coded jets (assigned to actual operational units who regularly deploy, at places like Elmendorf/Langley/etc) is closer to 140. The aircraft in question that aren't combat coded aren't completely helpless (they still have a radar, can carry weapons, have LO, etc), it's just that they lack the various upgrades (software, sensors, weapons, etc) that the later Block 30+ configured aircraft have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Edit: Oh fine, give details.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The hardware incompatibility is basically a processor issue...the first several dozen aircraft off the line (the number is around 40) were built in such a way that their processor hardware is prohibitively expensive to upgrade to enable the current Block upgrades. Basically these aircraft were Block 10s that were capable of being upgraded to Block 20, but not being upgraded beyond that. Later aircraft were built as Block 20s off the production line with the capability to be upgraded beyond that. The current combat standard is Block 30+, so these aircraft that are only Block 20s are no longer at the current combat standard. Aren't all the B-52's different from each other, because they've been in service for so long?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Risket posted:Aren't all the B-52's different from each other, because they've been in service for so long? Technically, yes. But the difference is only where they have used duct tape, wire coat hangers and gorilla glue to piece it back together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
Good-ish news. In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility I expect a lot of legal challenges to the new rules, and the FCC is promising the industry a "light-touch" when it comes to Title II enforcement, but considering that I was very pessimistic of anything coming out of the FCC that wasn't a champagne blowjob for the telecoms, this is a pleasant surprise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
lol if you think its gonna happen (its not)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:IYAAYAS hit most of the big points, but I already typed this up, so: Just wanted to say John McCain also just tried to kill off the Jones Act by attaching an amendment to the Keystone bill but was easily defeated. Not a fan of his in the least, he needs to do something other than be a geriatric politician.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Good-ish news. Is anyone else worried that once the FCC starts regulating the net, no matter how light a touch they promise, that it'll essentially be the end of P2P, restricted file sharing, and various forms of censorship? Or am I just being 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
its not going to happen
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Lazy Reservist posted:Is anyone else worried that once the FCC starts regulating the net, no matter how light a touch they promise, that it'll essentially be the end of P2P, restricted file sharing, and various forms of censorship? Or am I just being You realize that various laws and regulations already apply to the internet and have provisions against sharing copyrighted material via P2P or other means, right? The FCC isn't going to (and arguably can't) go full Roskomnadzor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
The FCC chairman was a telecom lobbyist since the 1970s and has been inducted into at least two of their halls of fame. He's not gonna poo poo in his buffet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
So apparently this is a thing http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555454/Intercepted-Russian-bomber-was-carrying-a-nuclear-missile-over-the-Channel Pretty cool Russia is flying nukes around like it's the 1950's again
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Bolow posted:So apparently this is a thing  The more things change...
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Russia... Russia never changes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Bolow posted:So apparently this is a thing And we thought the cold war was over? lmbo
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
ded posted:And we thought the cold war was over? lmbo I'm supposed to think some Russians loving around is a sign of the resurgence of the Cold War? Did you hear they arrested a russian spy in NYC a couple weeks ago It's basically the 80s again!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
ded posted:And we thought the cold war was over? lmbo Well, their bonds are at junk status and nothing seems to be looking up so they go to what they got left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Ummmm I'm just a retard from NZ but isn't flying a nuclear weapon in another country's airspace pretty much a blatant sign of aggression/war?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Its the open sea, not exactly another country's airspace, though who even knows how soon an ADIZ is going to get set up there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Bolow posted:So apparently this is a thing 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
I guess Putin's tired of the baltic sea, Sweden doesn't even try to intercept his subs (they can't). Also, propdriven bombers??
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:Ummmm I'm just a retard from NZ but isn't flying a nuclear weapon in another country's airspace pretty much a blatant sign of aggression/war? Add it to the loving list, then. Since no one actually wants to spark a world war the punishment for acts of aggression ends up being poo poo like "hey we're cutting off salt exports to your country for a few months you assholes" I get cranky because every time China fucks around in the Pacific and we park an aircraft carrier next to Taiwan there's a bunch of loonies going "IT'S REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN THIS TIME GUYS"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:Ummmm I'm just a retard from NZ but isn't Nope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:I guess Putin's tired of the baltic sea, Sweden doesn't even try to intercept his subs (they can't). Propdriven or turbojet driven, our poo poo is really hosed if heavy bombers get through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Also, propdriven bombers?? Why not? All of them were built in the 80s and 90s, which makes them 30 years newer than our flying B-52s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Risket posted:I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it seems as if they could go "hey lets install the new poo poo in the older birds so they'll all the same". I used to work on CH-46's and CH-53's, and a lot of those had little things about them that were singular to that aircraft, but they had been in service for years and years (some supposedly since Vietnam). It seems crazy to do that right off the production line... Spiral development. As jets are coming off the production line they are making incremental changes to the design to add additional capabilities that they didn't have the funding for and/or that wasn't mature technology when the first jets were being built. They also are making improvements based on experience in the field. Those jets that are already fielded then have to get those additional capabilities added in after the fact...but in some cases it is cost prohibitive to get those upgrades made to portions of the fleet due to significant changes in design between the first jets off the line and the later manufactured ones. It's not as bad as it used to be with the Raptor, there were previously something like 6 different configs across the fleet, now they've all been standardized on 3 (or maybe even two, I dunno if they've gotten all the non-Block 20 jets up to the Increment 3.1 standard). The reason spiral development is a thing is because the sticker-price on jet fighters is significant...and it gets even more significant if you add in all the bells and whistles that a fighter will eventually be fielded with right up front. Putting everything in on the front end also seriously compounds the timeline for fielding...the development timeline for the Raptor would have been even more protracted if they had (for example) shoe horned SDB and ground mapping capability into the first OFP build as opposed to pushing it out to Increment 3.1 (several years after initial fielding). I have mixed feelings about spiral development, because taken to its logical extreme it results in some serious stupidity...but the idea of less capable jets rolling off the production line first and then being upgraded later is unfortunately a fact of life in modern procurement programs. By no means is it limited to the Raptor or even to advanced fighters (for example, the Osprey, the replacement to the Phrog, had spiral development built in to its acquisition program.) This problem is even worse with the F-35, because in addition to spiral development being built in to the program even if everything goes right, the F-35 has concurrency, where they are building significant numbers of production aircraft well before they are anywhere near completion of testing. This means that unless your modeling and simulation prior to beginning production has been perfect, you are going to discover issues in testing of actual hardware (that didn't crop in in M&S). Which in turn means that the aircraft rolling off the production line will have to be retrofitted after fielding to fix these issues, as opposed to doing things in the right order where you test then fix then build/buy. I'll give you one guess as to whether or not the F-35's modeling and simulations were perfect. (Concurrency was and is loving stupid)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Its the open sea, not exactly another country's airspace, though who even knows how soon an ADIZ is going to get set up there. The inner ADIZ is what matters. Breaking the outer ADIZ provokes an interception. Penetrating the inner one is weapons free type poo poo. For those who don't know, an ADIZ is an air defense identification zone. The inner one is set at 12 miles off the coast, if I remember correctly. bloops fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The inner ADIZ is what matters. Breaking the outer ADIZ provokes an interception. Penetrating the inner one is weapons free type poo poo. The inner one (12 miles) isn't technically an ADIZ, it's the internationally recognized limit of a country's no-poo poo airspace. Hence why busting it generates a..."more aggressive" response than flying a Bear a couple hundred miles off the Aleutians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The inner ADIZ is what matters. Breaking the outer ADIZ provokes an interception. Penetrating the inner one is weapons free type poo poo. We get to hear ADIZ violation advisory calls over guard all the time. Even when you can tell its some 110lb 19 year old girl, the phrase "Aircraft squawking 1200, position, direction of flight, at altitude, this is the US Air Force, squawk discrete code and contact the FAA immediately" never ceases to send a chill down your spine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Bomb found at Cairo international airport. Phone posting no details
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:We get to hear ADIZ violation advisory calls over guard all the time. Even when you can tell its some 110lb 19 year old girl, the phrase "Aircraft squawking 1200, position, direction of flight, at altitude, this is the US Air Force, squawk discrete code and contact the FAA immediately" never ceases to send a chill down your spine. I've made these calls for TFRs, like when the president is in town somewhere. It usually takes two calls before GA realizes you're talking to them. It's kind of fun on the second or third call, when you're putting a bit more emphasis on certain words, then the next time the radar swings around they've snapped to the new heading and are trying to squeeze every bit of airspeed from the plane because "gently caress that's me!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:Bomb found at Cairo international airport. http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-egypt-cairo-alexandria-20150203-story.html posted:Reflecting the increased public fear and awareness, a popular smartphone application designed to provide information on traffic jams started a new service last week titled "Where is the bomb?" to alert commuters about reports of roadside explosives. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
The Islamic State has apparently released a video that shows the Jordanian fighter pilot being burned alive. Jordan promised to hang every member of ISIL that they get their hands on in response. Killing every member of ISIL who fights and hanging every one that surrenders sounds like good policy to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
I guess that's gonna be the new shock method.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
God, that's horrible. Makes beheading sound preferable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:47
|
|