|
Delivery McGee posted:It's Hoser being an annoying rear end in a top hat in an amusing way, which is kind of fighter pilots' schtick I was just about to mention that as another example (I thought it was F-15s but I also can't be assed to look it up). Congrats, you just shot down some fancy new fighters with your old Dubya-mobile. You also just started World War 3 by using nuclear weapons. We begin bombing in five minutes. It's a funny story, and one I've repeated myself, but it's really stupid in the context of developmental testing.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:It's a funny story, and one I've repeated myself, but it's really stupid in the context of developmental testing. Of course it's stupid, that's the point -- the dangers of hubris and all that. The Viper drivers thought they were hot poo poo, and didn't bother looking up what the -106 could actually mount, because anything that ancient wouldn't be a threat to their new badass machines. I can imagine how that agreement went down: "Let's make it fair, we'll use guns, and you can use anything you can carry." "Anything?  " "Yes ... why did you look like Satan when you said that?" "Oh, no reason."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:53
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I was just about to mention that as another example (I thought it was F-15s but I also can't be assed to look it up). Congrats, you just shot down some fancy new fighters with your old Dubya-mobile. You also just started World War 3 by using nuclear weapons. We begin bombing in five minutes. Christ almighty, you sperglord, no poo poo there was no Point Being Made About Developmental Testing, there wasn't MEANT to be. It's called a loving joke, which I understand they don't have on your planet, but you might want to study them for your time here on Earth
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I was just about to mention that as another example (I thought it was F-15s but I also can't be assed to look it up). Congrats, you just shot down some fancy new fighters with your old Dubya-mobile. You also just started World War 3 by using nuclear weapons. We begin bombing in five minutes. Genies were pretty hilarious because they're the only nuclear weapon to not have to deal with the two man rule. A scary rear end weapon to stick in the hands of one pilot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:Christ almighty, you sperglord, no poo poo there was no Point Being Made About Developmental Testing, there wasn't MEANT to be. It's called a loving joke, which I understand they don't have on your planet, but you might want to study them for your time here on Earth There actually was a point, which Wingnut completely missed-never underestimate your opponent. The F-16 pilots waltzed in expecting the F-106s to be pushovers, and instead received a faceful of Genie, which itself was followed by a pair of embarrassments in which the F-16s got badly outmaneuvered. The same thing goes for the other story-the F-5 pilot expected the dogfight to be guns-only, didn't expect to be shot at by long-ranged missiles, and got shot down. Expecting your opponent to behave the way you want them to behave in a non-restricted environment is a great way to lose a fight in any situation, and that's where the value of the stories comes from. In addition, of course, to being loving hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
I still think the ground speed check story from Sled Driver is the greatest example of one-upsmanship ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Expecting your opponent to behave the way you want them to behave in a non-restricted environment is a great way to lose a fight in any situation, and that's where the value of the stories comes from. I mean, yeah, it's a great parable about hubris and everything. I'm just overthinking it and nitpicking for shits and giggles. Very little training is done in a completely unrestricted environment, because for any specific engagement you can usually find an "I win" button that makes the whole thing pointless. Fucknag posted:I still think the ground speed check story from Sled Driver is the greatest example of one-upsmanship ever. Now see, that was just loving hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I still think the ground speed check story from Sled Driver is the greatest example of one-upsmanship ever. Yeah I don't think there is anything that'll top that for a long, long time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
This has been covered a ton...the Hornet driver was already dead on the ingress, he's within the "do not get this close" bubble (ie, he violated safety rules and cheated), and he didn't have enough frames with the Raptor locked to actually get credit for the kill anyway. But yes, it has happened. People were talking about radar displays. Here's an AWACS scope. This isn't a US E-3B/C, the little handles are too small and the comm panel has weird buttons (almost everything is in the right spot, but the buttons/knobs are smaller than US E-3s. The screen is the same though.  Edit: And now that I'm looking at his scope and comm setup, this guy is a loving trainwreck of a controller. Godholio fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I still think the ground speed check story from Sled Driver is the greatest example of one-upsmanship ever. I think it's disgusting how they were unnecessarily overtaxing the ATC with their juvenile dick measuring. SOMEONE COULD HAVE DIED!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yeah I don't think there is anything that'll top that for a long, long time. Captain Ernest Johnson speaking to Captain Charles Cooke, of the stricken submarine USS S-5, barely afloat after a valve had been left open during a crash dive posted:“What ship?” Johnson asked. Old school submariners had balls. Not really one-upmanship though. Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This has been covered a ton...the Hornet driver was already dead on the ingress, he's within the "do not get this close" bubble (ie, he violated safety rules and cheated), and he didn't have enough frames with the Raptor locked to actually get credit for the kill anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:People were talking about radar displays. Here's an AWACS scope. This isn't a US E-3B/C, the little handles are too small and the comm panel has weird buttons (almost everything is in the right spot, but the buttons/knobs are smaller than US E-3s. The screen is the same though. Jeez get a load of mr back seat controller over here!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:On a similar note: I can't find the story, but I'll tell it from memory: http://www.f-106deltadart.com/thereiwas.php you want ADC Pilots vs TAC Pilots. Fucknag posted:I still think the ground speed check story from Sled Driver is the greatest example of one-upsmanship ever. agreed. Psion fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Question from a friend: Why does the US bother with air superiority fighters? He argues that if we're fighting insurgent groups or a sub-peer nation, they won't be able to contest our dominance of the skies, so the F-22 will be kinda overkill. On the other hand, if we are fighting a fellow superpower, we and/or they will proceed quickly if not directly to throwing nukes around rather than risk losing a conventional war. I suspect the answer is that we really aren't going to get in fights where somebody would start using nukes. A shooting war with China is a terrible idea, especially given the trade links, but a skirmish over the Spratlys or such might warrant US intervention/support, and invading Syria would warrant something capable of neutralizing their air defenses. Additionally, as unnecessary as it might be, air superiority is a significant advantage and we'd be fools not to seize it if we can. How far off is my reasoning there? ETA: And if anybody hasn't read the speed check story, somebody posted it on Imgur. darthbob88 fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Oops. I would like to know more please! Are we even going to talk about the who, what, where? I mean unless that wing unlocked and folded back right when the photo was shot, we are looking at some amazing flying. On par with the Israeli F15 one winger landing. oh my god http://mofak.com/Night_Infamy.htm B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Question from a friend: Why does the US bother with air superiority fighters? He argues that if we're fighting insurgent groups or a sub-peer nation, they won't be able to contest our dominance of the skies, so the F-22 will be kinda overkill. On the other hand, if we are fighting a fellow superpower, we and/or they will proceed quickly if not directly to throwing nukes around rather than risk losing a conventional war. I'm sure someone is typing up a more comprehensive answer, but I think it is at least partially due to Americans currently finding any casualties (especially pilots for some reason) to be unacceptable. So this means that if you're fighting some shithole with an air force of old MiGs you don't want to be equal to them or they'll occasionally get lucky; you want something that so outclasses them that nobody has to go on CNN and explain why the value of a pilot's life is less than procurement costs for a new fighter. Plus a bunch of stuff about planning for the next war and deterrence that everyone else can answer much better than I can. Also, I'm of the unpopular opinion that a near-peer war doesn't necessarily mean the nukes start flying. Every world leader knows that once their nukes leave the silos, their own country is forfeit (see also: Skynet's plan) so its possible (not that you would ever want to rely on it) that nobody will push the button until their back is against the wall and its their only option. So its possible that before the operational lifetime of the F-22 is over we might get into a war over a third party (see: Korean war) where there is an unspoken agreement of "I won't launch if you don't" and that scenario needs to be planned for. ...Or Russia might get desperate and start selling some of their nicer fighters to somewhere we'll be performing a "police action" in the next 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:On the other hand, if we are fighting a fellow superpower, we and/or they will proceed quickly if not directly to throwing nukes around rather than risk losing a conventional war. Personally I think this proposition is flawed, and that's the problem for your friend. The potential of losing a conventional war has to be balanced against MAD, where everyone loses in a rather irrevocable way. The whole point of MAD, in a sense, is everyone convincing everyone else not to open the nuclear option. Hence, conventional forces are the ones most likely to ever get used at all due to the existence of nuclear ones. e: tell your friend to watch WarGames.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:...Or Russia might get desperate and start selling some of their nicer fighters to somewhere we'll be performing a "police action" in the next 50 years. That's probably the single most likely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Question from a friend: Why does the US bother with air superiority fighters? He argues that if we're fighting insurgent groups or a sub-peer nation, they won't be able to contest our dominance of the skies, so the F-22 will be kinda overkill. On the other hand, if we are fighting a fellow superpower, we and/or they will proceed quickly if not directly to throwing nukes around rather than risk losing a conventional war. Having air superiority fighters works for both offense and defense. The F-15 has proven itself in battle and there should be no question why you need a solid number of excellent air superiority fighters. Also think about this: Russia is developing and producing a wide variety of very capable anti-aircraft missile systems. Since they have close political ties to countries like Syria, Iran and Nort-Korea you can be sure as hell that some of those advanced systems will end up in those countries. That's why need stealth fighters like F-22, they go all SEAD on the enemy's rear end and then the rest of the fighters and bombers go in and do their thing. You could probably do the same with existing 4th gen fighters if you developed really long-range air-to-surface missiles, but in any case, F-22 is one of the reasons that no other power (like Russia or China) can try something funny against the US. As for nuclear war, you seem to be forgetting that the Russians and Americans spent a lot of time fighting each other by proxy during the Cold War. Nukes will not fly until one side is very close to absolute defeat, or their military high command are raving maniacs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:As for nuclear war, you seem to be forgetting that the Russians and Americans spent a lot of time fighting each other by proxy during the Cold War. Nukes will not fly until one side is very close to absolute defeat, or their military high command are raving maniacs. You're leaving out another more recent and far more plausible rationale for the start of a nuclear war - complete economic collapse of a nuclear-armed state. The personnel who man the silos, fly the bombers, watch the radars, and sail in the boomers don't do it out of patriotism, on either side. They do it because they're *compensated* for it - and if you can't pay them in a currency that they can use, you'd better drat well still be able to provide them and their families food and creature comforts. It's in our best interests *not* to let Russia lapse into a crushing economic depression. (and yes, I'm well aware Russia's been in dire straits before and still managed to maintain an adequate nuclear response - I'm talking about a depression, not a recession) BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Psion posted:Personally I think this proposition is flawed, and that's the problem for your friend. The potential of losing a conventional war has to be balanced against MAD, where everyone loses in a rather irrevocable way. The whole point of MAD, in a sense, is everyone convincing everyone else not to open the nuclear option. Hence, conventional forces are the ones most likely to ever get used at all due to the existence of nuclear ones. Moreover there's a big difference between the kind of political existential conflict the Cold War was about and the kind of limited war envisaged today. For example, there is a highly unlikely but not impossible scenario where everyone gets all hawkish and NATO troops end up shooting at Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Nobody's going to launch nukes over that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 13:21
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:You're leaving out another more recent and far more plausible rationale for the start of a nuclear war - complete economic collapse of a nuclear-armed state. The personnel who man the silos, fly the bombers, watch the radars, and sail in the boomers don't do it out of patriotism, on either side. They do it because they're *compensated* for it - and if you can't pay them in a currency that they can use, you'd better drat well still be able to provide them and their families food and creature comforts. This was for years a big part of the reason we were helping the Russian space program financially right? Didn't that money in a way help to keep their nuclear arsenal funded and controlled and less likely to get lost Also, lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyjNInIH4Hw&t=245s That Works fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Question from a friend: Why does the US bother with air superiority fighters? It is very well within our interests to prevent any conflict between major powers. This is one of the few really cogent pillars of US Navy strategy, or our larger military strategy altogether. The point is to make the prospect of a war with China or Russia as undesirable as possible. It's a credible deterrent to help the Chinese out with their calculus. When they ask themselves, "hey, can I really just push the button, launch my Scuds and get my naval infantry onto Taiwan's shores before anyone can do anything about it?", advanced US Navy and Air Force assets are the answer. Maybe they could eventually beat us and take Taiwan, but they couldn't just accomplish a fait accompli, and they'd eat a plate full of international opprobrium. Think about what Putin did with Crimea. It's not even an issue now, everyone knows no one can do a thing about it so it wasn't even on the table for the cease fire. He got away with it. Our advanced military is there to make sure no one can just "get away with it", so that the threat of international relations and trade consequences has to enter their thought process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Question from a friend: Why does the US bother with air superiority fighters? He argues that if we're fighting insurgent groups or a sub-peer nation, they won't be able to contest our dominance of the skies, so the F-22 will be kinda overkill. On the other hand, if we are fighting a fellow superpower, we and/or they will proceed quickly if not directly to throwing nukes around rather than risk losing a conventional war. I'd say it's because without putting a huge number of our troops on the line, if we can't credibly win a conventional war or at least make the costs outweigh the downsides, the deterrent isn't that great if it isn't the US on the line. If for example China goes for Taiwan, do we escalate to nuclear and lose a few cities at least? If we can win conventionally there isn't that uncertainty. It gives us a lot more leverage when nuclear states are going for not us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:Think about what Putin did with Crimea. It's not even an issue now, everyone knows no one can do a thing about it so it wasn't even on the table for the cease fire. He got away with it. Our advanced military is there to make sure no one can just "get away with it", so that the threat of international relations and trade consequences has to enter their thought process. Unfortunately, the rest of Europe has been asking a similar question since the end of the cold war, "Why does the EC even bother with a stand army at all?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Having multiple air superiority programs/airframes flying in the past has allowed the US to historically have force projection. Others had to yield to it's will. Since we don't really project our force in that way anymore, we only need one or two airframes to do that, especially with the shift to drone technology. Besides, nobody wants to spend billions (except those with aerospace jobs) on an air superiority fighter that is supposed to lead through upgrade programs for 15-20 years when the next logical progression in force projection is clouds of cheaper drones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Uh, when did the US stop doing force projection? I hadn't noticed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Uh, when did the US stop doing force projection? I hadn't noticed. Who said we stopped? I only said we changed the way that we do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
priznat posted:Jeez get a load of mr back seat controller over here! I was an instructor, I got paid to poo poo on people who do what this guy is doing. He's well on his way to failing that ride.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
That Works posted:This was for years a big part of the reason we were helping the Russian space program financially right? Didn't that money in a way help to keep their nuclear arsenal funded and controlled and less likely to get lost That may have been a consideration, but more likely it was because for a while the Russians were the only ones with an operational med-heavy lift system due to the grounding of the shuttle and lack of replacement. Even before that, the Russians were doing the larger part of supplying the ISS because the shuttle turnaround time was so abysmal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:People were talking about radar displays. Here's an AWACS scope. This isn't a US E-3B/C, the little handles are too small and the comm panel has weird buttons (almost everything is in the right spot, but the buttons/knobs are smaller than US E-3s. The screen is the same though. Have you ever heard of civilian FAA controllers getting FAM rides on an AWACS, or are they entirely too secret-squirrel for that? I think that would be godamned fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I was just about to mention that as another example (I thought it was F-15s but I also can't be assed to look it up). Congrats, you just shot down some fancy new fighters with your old Dubya-mobile. You also just started World War 3 by using nuclear weapons. We begin bombing in five minutes. For the record, the F-106/Viper story wasn't during some sort of formal DT, OT, or any type of evaluation at all...it was just some phone-call scheduled DACT, "I got airspace in the R-whatever range at this time, this altitude to this altitude, you bring yours, I'll bring mine, we'll meet at the merge" type deal. This would be back when the US military actually had money to do things like that on the regular as opposed to now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
On my AWACS fam flight a very confused LT tried to trick me into just being her alert acknowledge button pusher.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
^That's pretty funny.MrYenko posted:Have you ever heard of civilian FAA controllers getting FAM rides on an AWACS, or are they entirely too secret-squirrel for that? I haven't...it would be kind of a hassle for everyone involved, including the passengers. It's very very rare for an E-3 to carry any pax except for certain TDYs/deployments where we bring our own maintainers and security. Off the top of my head, the only time I can remember ever flying with someone who wasn't crew, mx, or security was when we brought a 2-star general along on an OEF mission. We do fly certain missions with people who aren't cleared for everything that's going on, and it's doable. But in a standard 8 to 9 hour flight, you can expect maybe an hour of aircraft under control. Probably less if it's F-16s. The surveillance guys (basically identifying and tracking) will work outside of that time, but for anyone who's done ATC or anything similar it'd take you about 3 minutes to figure it all out and be appalled that it's necessary for human beings to do a task that most automated systems were able to do in 1985. Most of what shows up on the displays isn't going to be classified, but there are a few things. It's certainly possible to configure a scope at an unclassified level. In that image above, the purple lines are the terrain map, loaded by the computer tech during system power-up. They're probably on the east coast. The dashed line is something one of the crew input, it's usually the airspace boundary when operating in a MOA, whiskey area, etc. The amber almost-squares are symbology for an aircraft, looks like they're considered "evaluated unknown" (unevaluated unknown is open to the opposite direction). The green "U" or rotated "U" shapes are friendlies of some type. Small white lines coming off the symbology are speed/heading indicators; longer stick means higher speed. Tracks without visible sticks are either suspended in place (there should be a designated area called a park box to avoid confusion) or they're too slow to show up, or they might be crosstold over a datalink (unlikely in this case). Green dots are IFF returns, amber are skin returns. The blue circles are user-input...I'm not sure what they represent here. They could be SAM rings, they could be "regen points" where aircraft that have been "killed" have to return to within X miles of a designated point then they come back to life...this is to replicate detection of a new wave of enemies taking off from an airfield. There's one red dorito in the middle of the scope in that mess...that's an identified hostile. Some of why this guy would be causing me to rip my hair out: He's not loving zoomed in on what's happening. It's good to zoom out once in a while to see what's going on around and not get total tunnel vision on the merge (since awacs is of limited use at that point) but I suspect he's just staying on the big view. It's SOP to build a 5-mile buffer inside the airspace to help prevent lateral spill-outs. It's built for the entire crew...this guy turned it off or just didn't bring it up on his scope. If he misses his warning calls to the pilot prior to a spillout, he's probably going to fail the ride. He doesn't have altitudes displayed. This is the worst thing here and begging for an immediate failure, to say nothing of the risk to the aircraft out there. He has three tabular displays up (the data at the bottom). One is useless 99% of the time, the other two are actually track information...both for the same track. On his comm panel he's got the internal net that the controllers use turned up, the others are down...so I assume he's a controller, not the MCC or in surveillance. Neither of those would use this lovely scope setup either. iyaayas01 posted:For the record, the F-106/Viper story wasn't during some sort of formal DT, OT, or any type of evaluation at all...it was just some phone-call scheduled DACT, "I got airspace in the R-whatever range at this time, this altitude to this altitude, you bring yours, I'll bring mine, we'll meet at the merge" type deal. We were officially directed NOT to contact anyone while in-air to try and find aircraft to control (trolling for missions). I never heard a logical explanation why, so I assume some idiot O-6 felt like his toes were being stepped on. Previously if we saw fighters taking off, we could contact their ops desk and see if they wanted AWACS to play...usually the answer was yes and we'd get solid training instead of sitting on our thumbs. This was particularly useful when our scheduled activity dropped out for some reason. After the OG said no more, we'd just fly the 8+ hours and get nothing out of it. But hey, we got our hours! That's what matters, right? 
Godholio fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Question from a friend: Why does the US bother with air superiority fighters? He argues that if we're fighting insurgent groups or a sub-peer nation, they won't be able to contest our dominance of the skies, so the F-22 will be kinda overkill. On the other hand, if we are fighting a fellow superpower, we and/or they will proceed quickly if not directly to throwing nukes around rather than risk losing a conventional war. Thank you for sharing that, I wasn't familiar with the story. It's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:We were officially directed NOT to contact anyone while in-air to try and find aircraft to control (trolling for missions). I never heard a logical explanation why, so I assume some idiot O-6 felt like his toes were being stepped on. Previously if we saw fighters taking off, we could contact their ops desk and see if they wanted AWACS to play...usually the answer was yes and we'd get solid training instead of sitting on our thumbs. This was particularly useful when our scheduled activity dropped out for some reason. After the OG said no more, we'd just fly the 8+ hours and get nothing out of it. But hey, we got our hours! That's what matters, right? Wouldn't be surprised if the O-6's logic was having to do with his/her perception that the ORM was too high during a "pick-up game" training event.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
quote:On this day in aviation history: In 1991, a fighter jet bombs an attack helicopter out of the sky! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Blows up what's down, shoots down what's up. And vice versa, if need be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Godholio posted:Some of why this guy would be causing me to rip my hair out... For the purposes of what's likely just a USAF stock photo, is it possible the plane's just sitting on the ground running a pre-recorded test scenario on the scope with some random displays up? Not sure if that's something an E-3 can do, but I've certainly run into similar situations before for photo ops. Just bring up a bunch of windows and run some random data, the closer we make it look like NCIS in here the bigger next year's budget will be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:25
|
|
