|
MikeCrotch posted:For CATOBAR planes? Ski-jump requires a VTOL/STOVL plane like the Harrier or F-35B to in order to take off with strike ordnance. Otherwise you are left in the position the Russians are with the Admiral Kuznetsov where their non-VTOL planes can only take off from a ski-jump with light air to air loadouts. So you could probably take off from a QE with a ski jump using a F-35C but you would be able to carry sweet gently caress all by doing so. From what I can tell the payload of the Mig-29K is equivalent to the F-35B and much larger than the Harrier. Is the carrier had been build around the Super Hornet from the beginning then maybe that would be better but it wasn't, and Mig-29s can take off from ski jumps. quote:Yes, buy frontline complicated hardware from the very loving nation that makes everything all of your enemies use. They totally won't cut you off from replacements or spare parts or anything. So... make the parts yourself then? As if that wouldn't be SOP anyway. Why is that an insurmountable technical problem? Is Russian engine technology so far advanced beyond what RR/BAe is capable of that the engines need to be sent back to Tula for rebuilds? Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Oct 7, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Not sure if trolling or just a moron. lol at the F-35B having a mysterious second engine. I wonder where those pesky Marines hid it. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:47
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Not sure if trolling or just a moron. Why not both?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:From what I can tell the payload of the Mig-29K is equivalent to the F-35B and much larger than the Harrier. Is the carrier had been build around the Super Hornet from the beginning then maybe that would be better but it wasn't, and Mig-29s can take off from ski jumps. Yes but you see my top trumps card says the F35 has a top speed of 4000 and not 3999, furthermore
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So... make the parts yourself then? As if that wouldn't be SOP anyway. Why is that an insurmountable technical problem? Is Russian engine technology so far advanced beyond what RR/BAe is capable of that the engines need to be sent back to Tula for rebuilds? Creating the tooling for making parts is massively expensive, to the point where you're getting into "why not just buy double-triple the number of fighters we actually need and canabilize them" territory. It's not like you can just 3D scan and print a turbine blade, or a specific component of the fire-control system, etc. Also now your entire inventory of bombs and missiles is incompatible with your current fighter, so now you have to either buy everything from Russia, or spend even more money to modify the aircraft and reprogram/replace the fire control systems so. . . Oh it's loving Throatwarbler . . . never mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
In non-Throatwarbler news Russia's launching at Syria from ships in the Caspian now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
If you are willing to tool up to produce all the spares and consumables for an aircraft, from scratch, you're almost literally 90% of the way to building an indigenous airplane. Supply chains are kind of a big loving deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
It's like someone read all of Flanker's posts dreaming about Canadian PAK-FAs and forgot they weren't actually serious
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
What's the CAD $ to rubles exchange rate??
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
priznat posted:What's the CAD $ to rubles exchange rate?? Hmm to convert CAD to rubles you just run your military into the ground and welcome Putin's embrace. And carry the one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Hmm to convert CAD to rubles you just run your military into the ground and welcome Putin's embrace. And carry the one. First part - check! THANKS HARPER
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:From what I can tell the payload of the Mig-29K is equivalent to the F-35B and much larger than the Harrier. Is the carrier had been build around the Super Hornet from the beginning then maybe that would be better but it wasn't, and Mig-29s can take off from ski jumps. The first thing you need to do so this idea dies in your head is look up the actual takeoff payload of a MiG-29K or Su-33 from a ski jump. It's not that loving simple. There is a reason we don't use ski jumps anywhere in the US Inventory, and that's because they are a pretty poo poo way to launch airplanes from boats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
*glances left and right for signs of grover* coast is clear! Lockheed Considering Laser Weapon Concepts for F-35 quote:Lockheed Martin’s F-35 has not yet seen combat, but already the defence manufacturer is exploring “concepts” for installing and employing a high-power fibre laser weapon on the new-generation combat jet for shooting down missiles and other airborne threats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:From what I can tell the payload of the Mig-29K is equivalent to the F-35B and much larger than the Harrier. Is the carrier had been build around the Super Hornet from the beginning then maybe that would be better but it wasn't, and Mig-29s can take off from ski jumps. According to the manufacturer's computer simulations, which as we all know here are just as good as real-world live trials, the Rafale can take off from a ski jump. Though it's a choice that would probably hurt British pride even more than a Soviet design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
The UK should have taken Mollet seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Britishprocurement.txt 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
It's almost like they watch the shitshow on this side of the pond and just don't want to play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Britishprocurement.txt And yet, still not as bad as Canadian procurement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
France crashes the HMS Queen Elizabeth's commissioning ceremony by slowly sailing the de Gaule past while launching/recovering Rafales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:France crashes the HMS Queen Elizabeth's commissioning ceremony by slowly sailing the de Gaule past while launching/recovering Rafales. I can see it in my mind already . . . it's . . . it's . . . . you guys! It's so beautiful!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:And yet, still not as bad as Canadian procurement. Hey man, it's not a competition. There's been some rumblings lately too that the Tories have quietly let it slip that the RCN will be getting fewer than the promised 15 replacements for the existing fleet of frigates and the not-quite-existing destroyers. On top of this, our oilers are also being paid off due to antiquity with civilian vessels being converted to act as replacements... in a couple years' time. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/warship-building-numbers-uncertain-1.3254431 for the reduction announcement. Just goes to show that if the RCN wants to get anything done, they need a Liberal government to make it happen. Fearless fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Didn't the liberals completely gently caress up something as simple as replacing a bunch of Sea Kings? I don't know that Canada has good options here. The libs promise to recompete the F-35, but something tells me that would just result in another 15 years of "flying" the F-18s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
They sure did; the Conservatives too. Efforts to replace the Sea Kings began in 1983. We received the first 6 replacement Cyclones in June!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 04:42
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Mortabis posted:Didn't the liberals completely gently caress up something as simple as replacing a bunch of Sea Kings? I don't know that Canada has good options here. The libs promise to recompete the F-35, but something tells me that would just result in another 15 years of "flying" the F-18s. The Liberals cancelled a Sea King replacement in the early 90s, then re-initiated it in 2004 or 05. In the intervening decade, the Tories have allowed the program to go over budget, horribly late and have progressively scaled back the requirements for the finished helicopters because reasons. Oh, and they also cancelled a Liberal-initiated procurement (from 2006) for two support ships that would have replaced our now paid-off oilers before one of them caught fire and drifted for a couple of days off Hawaii. With the possible exception of the second batch of patrol frigates in the late 80s (which itself was simply a continuation of a Liberal procurement), there has not been a single warship obtained for the RCN by a Conservative government since at least the 1930s. A fighter replacement is due, sure, but next-gen fighters aren't what are going to be doing the heavy lifting as far as protecting our arctic sovereignty goes-- the RCN has never been a priority for the Conservatives and that needs to change. Nobody is going to defend our coasts for us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Didn't the liberals completely gently caress up something as simple as replacing a bunch of Sea Kings? I don't know that Canada has good options here. The libs promise to recompete the F-35, but something tells me that would just result in another 15 years of "flying" the F-18s. Yeah the Cyclone program is worse than the F-35s imo in that replacements are way, way overdue already and they're basically doing R&D with our order being the dev platform. Also they change the requirements on a whim like the one where the transmission needs to be able to run a certain length of time without oil, nah too hard let's skip it. I still think the brits have a worse record of procurement but when the surface combatant stuff rolls out for the RCN Canada will take home the Gold, Silver and Bronze. A combination of demanding the ships are made in Canada paired with a shipbuilding industry that is not even on life support, just unplugged and wheeled out into the hallway but not dead yet for some inexplicable reason, will make this the shitshow of the century. BCers got a minor taste of this in the 90s with the fast ferries debacle and now the whole country can enjoy. Oh yeah also: http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-athabaskan-engine-fails-1.3258059 The sole remaining (43 year old) destroyer of the RCN has engine problems, AGAIN. priznat fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
priznat posted:Yeah the Cyclone program is worse than the F-35s imo in that replacements are way, way overdue already and they're basically doing R&D with our order being the dev platform. Also they change the requirements on a whim like the one where the transmission needs to be able to run a certain length of time without oil, nah too hard let's skip it. You make it sound like her engine problems were at some point fixed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Fearless posted:You make it sound like her engine problems were at some point fixed. Well, problems in that she's not goin anywhere.. Seems like a bad idea to go on jaunts across the atlantic in early fall with a ship that has some questionable engine history.. But then I am not an admiral.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
They'll be recommissioning Sackville to defend the Maritimes at this rate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Seriously, how the gently caress did you Commonwealth types still even have armed forces at this point? Honestly the QE class is a success story as far as the Royal Navy is concerned because hey, they actually got the loving ships built. As for the planes, I would not be shocked if someone at the MOD has suggested laundering Flankers or Fulcrums through India. Hell, it's as likely to work as the F-35B. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Seriously, how the gently caress did you Commonwealth types still even have armed forces at this point? Hey, us Aussies have working ships and aircraft. We went off and bought F/A-18E's to replace our A's and B's, until we got the F-35. We've got Air warfare Destroyers with AEGIS! C-17s! C-130J! A330 MRTT and so much more! We have, relatively speaking, new equipment! We just don't have that many of them. Admittedly, I suspect our Submarine procurement program will follow in the footsteps of our Canadian and British
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
I thought Australia had a functioning military, though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
The one thing not utterly starved in Canadian military procurement seems to be medium lift capabilities with the shiny new-ish CC-177s (C-17s) and CC-130Js (er, C-130Js) Did the purchase of the CH-47Fs go sideways somehow, I heard something was hosed up about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
TsarZiedonis posted:I thought Australia had a functioning military, though? 'Functioning' is a strong word. We're running our surface navy into the ground refouling refugees, only half the submarine fleet can be active at a time because of staffing problems, the air force is still heavily reliant on an f18 fleet with serious metal fatigue problems and the army...is actually doing ok as far as I know. There was some trouble with the second hand Abrams they picked up a while back I guess? Oh, and there is an ongoing institutional sexual assult problem despite the best efforts of this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:'Functioning' is a strong word. We're running our surface navy into the ground refouling refugees, only half the submarine fleet can be active at a time because of staffing problems, the air force is still heavily reliant on an f18 fleet with serious metal fatigue problems and the army...is actually doing ok as far as I know. There was some trouble with the second hand Abrams they picked up a while back I guess? Our last CDS, Gen. Lawson, suggested that our institutional racism and sexism problems are due to the fact that men are just wired that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:They sure did; the Conservatives too. Efforts to replace the Sea Kings began in 1983. We received the first 6 replacement Cyclones in June! Similarly, we've been trying to replace our fixed wing SAR aircraft since 2003. There were only three options, all very similar. It is now 2015 and for reasons unknown the contract has been delayed again. The DND won't say why the contract was delayed, because everybody incompetence shamed them so much that now they just keep everything secret. (This is not totally the DND's fault - they apparently need about 3000 people working there, and they have 1500. The 'regeneration' hiring program to get more and younger people working there was shitcanned when Harper got his majority in 2008.) But for the benefit of Mortabis, yeah, Canada is terrible at procurement regardless of party. Harper promised to change this when he first got into office, and he has admittedly a few successes but yeah, he's just as bad as the Liberal predecessors. OK, since we're discussing this: what's everyone's take on the National Shipbuilding Strategy? Having some native naval capacity makes sense for Canada (and spending more for the equivalent stuff) as well as rebuilding capacities the Liberals killed - but is it too late? Should we just say gently caress it and buy naval ships from other people? I haven't been following the details too closely, but if the number of ships is dropping, it seems the government over-promised. Again. I've been having a bit of a think about these issues lately, and I think one major issue with Canada is the constant obsessing about getting the most political capital/capability possible in every acquisition. And guess what? Worrying and changing your plans constantly and never actually doing anything is bad. Relevant post: Canada is renting a supply ship from Chile. For the reasons above we of course don''t have any supply ships anymore, but look how Chile got theirs: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/chiles-30-million-supply-ship-south-american-nation-has-capabilities-canada-lacks PS Teen facing crucifixion and beheading "no obstacle" to Canadian arms deal
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Similarly, we've been trying to replace our fixed wing SAR aircraft since 2003. There were only three options, all very similar. It is now 2015 and for reasons unknown the contract has been delayed again. The DND won't say why the contract was delayed, because everybody incompetence shamed them so much that now they just keep everything secret. (This is not totally the DND's fault - they apparently need about 3000 people working there, and they have 1500. The 'regeneration' hiring program to get more and younger people working there was shitcanned when Harper got his majority in 2008.) I think native naval shipbuilding is an attainable goal for Canada, but it requires that the major political parties agree not to gently caress around with DND's budget to the point that it becomes unsustainable. The Liberals have made investment in the RCN a big plank in their platform (full disclosure: I am a reserve RCN officer and a Liberal), but I think it's going to take a long term commitment to more than just a single class of warships to revive it. I like the idea of being able to order and build ships in our own country through Canadian companies for the simple fact that while it will almost certainly wind up more expensive for a variety of reasons, those expenses can be recouped at multiple levels through taxation. We don't get that opportunity with ships purchased abroad (which also often stipulate that maintenance or upgrade work be done in foreign yards) so a few hundred million saved up front costs us far more in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
She's not passing near me on her farewell flight  (though knowing what Vulcan to the Sky are like the farewell may be in the same way Kiss keep having farewells) Also this picture was taken from a Spitfire 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
So by now everyone here has probably heard about the Russian missiles headed for Syria that accidentally crashed in Iran? http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/russian-missiles-syria-landed-iran/index.html?eref=rss_world During a discussion of these systems somebody showed me this: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Things are not going well there: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb9_1444332194
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 11:15
|
|