|
Using a stealth to defensively patrol is perfect, though. How else are you gonna Maverick up to a Bear without them seeing you so you can pop up from under them and let them know they might have a bad day if they blink wrong. e- Yeah, though, the Russians are totally allowed to buzz our poo poo in international waters. If we scramble a CAP and treat them aggressively, China is gonna look pretty smug when they buzz a frigate in the Spratlys. It's all part of the Game. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Oct 30, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I hope our "stealthy" radars have a mode designed to make Russian threat warning indicators light up like a Christmas tree. This is, to put it mildly, considered a very rude thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:This is, to put it mildly, considered a very rude thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Yeah it's literally the equivalent of pointed a loaded firearm at someone. I could see, 30 years ago, tailing behind a guy at like 4 or 8 o'clock to be a nice, obvious, but not particularly threatening blip on their radar, but what do you do when your plane doesn't make that blip?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Is there some kind of EM way to politely say "Hey, other plane, I totally see you" with a stealthy plane, or is the accepted thing to do just to pull into visual range? I'm ignorant as hell and don't even know if military planes have transponders that everyone can see when they want to do some dickwaving. It's called radio comms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's called radio comms. A radio conversation with a Russian? You know only top-of-the-line models can even talk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's called radio comms. Didn't work for civilian IR665 and KAL007, military seems even less likely to work. And yes lighting someone up on radar is like pointing a loaded gun at someone. If you drove a boat at high speed straight at a carrier you'd get guns pointed at you too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Depending on various factors spoofing a RWR can be considered a hostile act, and with that comes a whole lot of very complicated second and third order effects. In that situation doing so would have been a REALLY bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:
Yet. mlmp08 posted:It's called radio comms. I still have my copy of the script. Edit: This issue is called PDMA: Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities. It was a big to-do in the 80s and 90s when people realized the Cold War was probably moving in a slightly less disastrous direction and it would be really loving stupid to let it all go to hell if one pilot hosed up. So the US and USSR had some talks, Gen Colin Powell signed some poo poo, and now we have agreed-upon procedures. Which the Chinese haven't been willing to do, ergo we have close calls with them every few years where people die or almost die. Godholio fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Depending on various factors spoofing a RWR can be considered a hostile act, and with that comes a whole lot of very complicated second and third order effects. In that situation doing so would have been a REALLY bad idea. If you did this with a ship wouldn't you literally get shots fired across your bow or did we stop doing that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
That's a question to be asked inside a room cleared for classified info.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: This issue is called PDMA: Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities. It was a big to-do in the 80s and 90s when people realized the Cold War was probably moving in a slightly less disastrous direction and it would be really loving stupid to let it all go to hell if one pilot hosed up. So the US and USSR had some talks, Gen Colin Powell signed some poo poo, and now we have agreed-upon procedures. Which the Chinese haven't been willing to do, ergo we have close calls with them every few years where people die or almost die. Right now we're having chats with the Russians over how not to accidentally shoot each other down in Syria. Behind the political grandstanding there are a bunch of very professional people who work hard to make sure it only ever remains grandstanding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If you did this with a ship wouldn't you literally get shots fired across your bow or did we stop doing that? That will vary wildly based on time and place and it won't be discussed in any detail on here, but, possibly. And the "pointing a loaded gun" analogy regarding spoofing isn't really accurate. It is more like pointing a gun at someone who you know is armed and then firing a blank round.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Which is one of many reasons why Buddy Spikes are bad, BUT the fact that buddy spikes happen makes pilots aware that not every single bogey/bandit spike is a precursor to an engagement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Military lost another blimp, this time in Arizona: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90yE9Dzsf_8
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
I wish I had tons of money and a pilot's license: http://bringatrailer.com/2015/10/23/mach-2-bargain-bin-1965-mig-21pf/Phanatic posted:Military lost another blimp, this time in Arizona: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I know I know comments on open-source Yahoo articles are always stupid and ridiculous but the comments on that page are particularly hilarious clearly the answer is to unmothball all the battleships and arm them with cruise missiles and railguns Because Yahoo or not, it isn't like it is a ground breaking philosophy. Use a massive missile big enough to blow a carrier in half, and send lots of them to overwhelm air defensive schemes. What I was just saying that it is not much different than the old Russian philosophy on using missiles on carrier groups. I blame Tom Clancy! But China instead of just sea skimming (which some of the other massive chinese missiles do) these ones dive in en masse from altitude. This isn't even a philosophy that is as new as Russian missiles. The Tirpitz, Bizmark, the battle of Midway. Just overwhelm them. "Blowing in half" or sinking would be best, but just taking something out of the fight gets the job done. You don't do this in the two dimensions of surface warfare, it is done with something from above. It isn't like we are talking about some sort of vaporware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 From here: http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon quote:If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack. The chinese are not known for lovely missile tech. Ever seen how accurate a silkworm missile is? Not the hilariously slow missiles from Wikipedia that have a comical appearance, based on the Termit designed in Russia in the 1950's. I am talking about the later C-101 versions are not slow at all. They are good to use even on land targets. People love to bag on Chinese bomber tech, because they fly those ancient old H-6 bombers. But what good is a bomber, when you have all these missiles? Besides you can always fly your fighter bombers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
I haven't seen this video posted in the thread so here's to hoping it's something you guys haven't seen before. Someone flew a quadcopter over some of the planes sitting outside at the Central Air Force Museum in Moscow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G0FI4hlGN0
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
It makes me sad seeing all those things sitting out exposed to the elements.  Also, what is that U2-alike?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Akion posted:It makes me sad seeing all those things sitting out exposed to the elements. M-55 or M-17 (video won't load on my phone)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Pic. EDIT: Also, wtf is that tiny thing one plane down from it? gently caress, I need to visit Russia. Akion fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
In my heart it's a replica of Mr Powers' U-2. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Akion posted:Pic. Looks like a Yak-15 to me, early Russian jet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
I somehow combined the M-4 and Tu-16 in my head so I was surprised at it being as big if not bigger than the Tu-95. The M-4 is actually slightly larger than the Tu-95; the Tu-16 is significantly smaller like I expected. I don't actually see a Tu-16 in the video unless it's parked way in the back along with what look like civilian airliners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Akion posted:Pic. Is the small one a Yak fighter from WWII maybe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
McNally posted:Is the small one a Yak fighter from WWII maybe? EDIT: Yak-17? david_a fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Someone should use that obnoxious on-screen comment feature Youtube has to label each one with a link to the appropriate Wikipedia page.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Akion posted:Pic. Yak-25RV Yak-23 E: the tiny thing two planes down from the circled one is the Yak-23. The one in between is a regular Yak-25 joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Thanks! Also - this tidbit from the Yak-23 wikipedia page is cool. I always love reading about cold war airplane shenanigans. quote:US testing
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:A radio conversation with a Russian? You know only top-of-the-line models can even talk. "And how about that smell?" Scratch Monkey posted:Russian aircraft approach USS Ronald Reagan, prompting US fighter jet scramble So how demoralized were the crew after their vessel was rendered inoperable by the mysterious Russian EW device it was undoubtedly testing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Blistex posted:"And how about that smell?" DuffelBlog should have a story about this mysterious EW device knocking all forms of electronic pornography offline. Bust out the emergency skin mags!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:A radio conversation with a Russian? You know only top-of-the-line models can even talk. Communism is a memetic virus. That is how it is spread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
 What are these? vvvv thanks Heliosicle fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
Heliosicle posted:
Top one is Myasishchev M-55 Geofizika and the bottom one is MiG-105.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
What's the long skinny twin-rotor job next to the Hinds at the end of the video?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 12:55
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:What's the long skinny twin-rotor job next to the Hinds at the end of the video? Vertol 44 / Piasecki H-21
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Can someone explain why ANG units operate stuff like A-10s and B-2s? To this layman with 0 experience, it'd make more sense for them to have transport, air refuelling and air defence missions
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Can someone explain why ANG units operate stuff like A-10s and B-2s? To this layman with 0 experience, it'd make more sense for them to have transport, air refuelling and air defence missions A lot of them do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Can someone explain why ANG units operate stuff like A-10s and B-2s? To this layman with 0 experience, it'd make more sense for them to have transport, air refuelling and air defence missions It is cheaper, basically. For a fairly slight reduction in capability you can save somewhere between half and two thirds of the personnel costs while maintaining a deployable organization. ANG units tend to train/work a lot more than do other services' reserves though, for obvious reasons, so the cost savings aren't as pronounced as they are elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:15
|
|
