|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:Report finds that airliner was Ukrainian, not Russian Honestly I'm expecting him to announce that, somehow, its the fault of the US (well, Western countries) as they're trying to oppress the Russians yet again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:What? No. Thankfully they didn't specify the exact conveyance. quote:Geneva Convention (1864) https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule25_sectiona
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
What is going on here? Looks like a fun flight...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Lilbeefer posted:What is going on here? Looks like a fun flight... Holding/Approach pattern for London-Gatwick and Heathrow. It's buried in this thread, but someone did post the control patterns, and they are ridiculously huge and spread out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
drunkill posted:One of our Wedgetails got some noseart: In my sleep deprived state i had to read that about 3 times before I realized that said E-7A and not EA-7. "weren't those retired like 20 years ago- ooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh" Cool design! It's nice that your superiors aren't NO-FUN-ALLOWED wet blankets like the USAF supposedly is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Fredrick posted:I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be That Guy, but didn't they build close to ten thousand F-86 Sabres, making that the most-produced western fighter? yeah you're right. F-4 is the most produced supersonic western fighter
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Lilbeefer posted:What is going on here? Looks like a fun flight... I just thought it was funny that ATC was trying to draw a pair of scissors......
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I just thought it was funny that ATC was trying to draw a pair of scissors......
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:In my sleep deprived state i had to read that about 3 times before I realized that said E-7A and not EA-7. "weren't those retired like 20 years ago- ooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh" Seriously. Big goofy noseart should be mandatory on all USAF planes (preferably including semi-nude women). Its part of our heritage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:PPRUNE going off the deep end as per usual. Don't read PPRuNe dude, it'll make your brain melt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Lilbeefer posted:What is going on here? Looks like a fun flight... Pilot can only turn right
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Fredrick posted:I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be That Guy, but didn't they build close to ten thousand F-86 Sabres, making that the most-produced western fighter? Yep. Ola posted:Thankfully they didn't specify the exact conveyance. That's great, but helicopters are generally not going to receive that protection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Sabers own. Have an Aussie built Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Saber (112 built)quote:In 1951, CAC obtained a licence agreement to build the F-86. It was decided to power the aircraft using a licence-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7. This involved a re-design of the fuselage as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the General Electric J47 that powered the North American-built aircraft. Because of the engine change the type is often referred to as the Avon Sabre. To accommodate the Avon, over 60% of the fuselage was redesigned along with a 25% increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon,[1] while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity  CAC Saber by drunkill04, on Flickr  CAC Saber by drunkill04, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yep. Maybe not in WW3, but they would in limited incidents and certainly in this case. I think they radioed to the Libyans where they could find their pilots, but the assholes left them to drown. Fun fact: the reason he couldn't get "a loving tone" was because the volume button for the Sidewinder seeker was turned down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Ola posted:Maybe not in WW3, but they would in limited incidents and certainly in this case. I think they radioed to the Libyans where they could find their pilots, but the assholes left them to drown. why.. why on earth does a seeker head need a volume control..? Presumably your engine's going to be running when you arm a sidewinder and that noise is going to be fairly constant in volume so your seeker tone shouldn't have to be turned down or up??
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Ola posted:Maybe not in WW3, but they would in limited incidents and certainly in this case. I think they radioed to the Libyans where they could find their pilots, but the assholes left them to drown. In a case like this, sure, the US is going to allow that to happen. But that's not a Geneva Convention requirement. Also, it's doubtful the Libyans had alert crews sitting in their helicopters ready to roll. It would've been a couple of hours before anything arrive on-scene, at best. This happened 100+ miles offshore. I'm not really surprised that a FSU doctrine-following nation would just write them off in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:why.. why on earth does a seeker head need a volume control..? Presumably your engine's going to be running when you arm a sidewinder and that noise is going to be fairly constant in volume so your seeker tone shouldn't have to be turned down or up??  Different headsets have different outputs, pilots have different preferences, hardware varies...RWR and other noisemakers have volume knobs too, but perhaps it's a thing of the past.Godholio posted:In a case like this, sure, the US is going to allow that to happen. But that's not a Geneva Convention requirement. It is very much so a Geneva convention requirement, medical aircraft are mentioned at length.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Morale? We'll need to kill that right away Jokes on them: I played Kerbal Space Program my whole last deployment. I also got the entire engine shop addicted to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
The internet says a320s have a 16:1 glide ratio. A321s would presumably have a worse glide ratio. Let's be generous and say it's 14:1. In that case the flight should have been able to make it around 70 nautical miles with no headwinds at 31,000 feet. That ought to have been plenty to get to either El Arish or Eilat. I guess there was a more severe mechanical issue than just a double engine failure?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:why.. why on earth does a seeker head need a volume control..? Presumably your engine's going to be running when you arm a sidewinder and that noise is going to be fairly constant in volume so your seeker tone shouldn't have to be turned down or up??
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The internet says a320s have a 16:1 glide ratio. A321s would presumably have a worse glide ratio. Let's be generous and say it's 14:1. In that case the flight should have been able to make it around 70 nautical miles with no headwinds at 31,000 feet. That ought to have been plenty to get to either El Arish or Eilat. I guess there was a more severe mechanical issue than just a double engine failure? The knee jerk speculation that I saw on the news this morning was that they might have had pitch control problems. Radar plots had it going from FL310 at 400kts to FL270 at 90kts within about 20 seconds (I think that was from a flight tracking website, so huge grain of salt). The lack of any kind of distress call point towards something sudden.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Ola posted:
CSAR aren't considered medical aircraft under Geneva 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
brains posted:CSAR aren't considered medical aircraft under Geneva True. SAR is though. Any more nits?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Ola posted:
yeah but even then allowing the pilot to turn it down so the can't hear it at all doesn't seem like good design. And lmao doubly so for the RWR too (*sa-21 surprises pilot by flying up his tailpipe*) standard.deviant posted:Because when the seeker malfunctions and stop giving you a tone, you want to be able to shut it off so you can concentrate and land the plane safely. alright admittedly I've never had to fly a fighter jet in my life and this make sense, except couldn't you just disarm the missile in that situation? would the seeker continuing transmitting a tone with the arm switch off? I'm just imaging a bunch of volume knobs for the seeker, RWR etc just waiting for a errant swipe of the hand or knee to knock it into the off detent and its hilarious. please correct me if this is not how it works at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Ola posted:True. SAR is though. Any more nits? Not trying to troll but can you link to where Geneva talks about SAR? I recall the rules about not killing ejected pilots nor shooting pilots on the ground before they have an opportunity to surrender, but don't recall anything about SAR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Ola posted:True. SAR is though. Any more nits? ....SAR like Coast Guard SAR? Sure, but SAR like Combat Rescue? Nope, they are combat equipped and are fair game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Have you seen the competition? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....SAR like Coast Guard SAR? Sure, but SAR like Combat Rescue? Nope, they are combat equipped and are fair game. It's funny how every single Marine CASEVAC chopper is fair game according to international law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Not trying to troll but can you link to where Geneva talks about SAR? I recall the rules about not killing ejected pilots nor shooting pilots on the ground before they have an opportunity to surrender, but don't recall anything about SAR. Not directly related, but if you ever watch allied gun-cam rolls from late WWII, there's a whoooole lotta shooting German planes as they try to ditch, landing gear down and everything. Usually they'll come around again and strafe the crew while they try and get away from the wreck. I mean I appreciate the circumstance and everything, but it's still kinda lovely to see stuff like that as it happened. Which also reminds me of that interview with the pilot who shot up a Nazi in a parachute because he saw the same guy doing it to bailed B-17 crews.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Not trying to troll but can you link to where Geneva talks about SAR? I recall the rules about not killing ejected pilots nor shooting pilots on the ground before they have an opportunity to surrender, but don't recall anything about SAR. CommieGIR posted:....SAR like Coast Guard SAR? Sure, but SAR like Combat Rescue? Nope, they are combat equipped and are fair game. https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079 Ctrl-f for medical aircraft. As long as they are not doing any C, they are just SAR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:Not directly related, but if you ever watch allied gun-cam rolls from late WWII, there's a whoooole lotta shooting German planes as they try to ditch, landing gear down and everything. Usually they'll come around again and strafe the crew while they try and get away from the wreck. I mean I appreciate the circumstance and everything, but it's still kinda lovely to see stuff like that as it happened. Yeah, it's not exactly a secret that all sides took part in war cimes during WWII. Some more than others  I meant modern Law of War
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
lol if you think CSAR stops being CSAR the second they stop shooting. I mean holy poo poo. The link even confirms what I already was sure I knew. If a CSAR/CASEVAC aircraft even carries more than basic small arms for self-protection or taken from the wounded/dead, it's not a medical aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/J_8mdH20qTQ Please remember to check your planes for cats now that the weather is getting colder
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Ola posted:https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079 this isn't just a nitpick, it's a major distinction in international law. i think you're confusing medical evacuation with "rescue," when they are two distinct types of missions. in terms of Geneva classification of forces, "medical aircraft" means dedicated air ambulance with medical aidmen on board, flying for the express purpose of evacuating casualties. this is not the same as flying out and picking up a downed pilot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Ola posted:https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079 SAR for combat personnel is not a simple SAR. You are not showing up in a combat zone claiming you are doing SAR under a flag of truce. They will shoot you down. mlmp08 posted:lol if you think CSAR stops being CSAR the second they stop shooting. I mean holy poo poo. Which is pretty much any SAR in a Combat Zone. Its too much of a grey area to try to protect SAR operations as 'Medical Only'. Only actual Medical Evac missions are covered under the Geneva Conventions. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:lol if you think CSAR stops being CSAR the second they stop shooting. I mean holy poo poo. So if you're fighting an enemy who has signed the Geneva convention, as was the case with Libya, you'll do well to send unarmed rescuers and the US (the signer) will not shoot at you. If the enemy hasn't signed the Geneva convention, or isn't even a nation, as has mostly been the case since WW2, CSAR is the order of the day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Ola posted:So if you're fighting an enemy who has signed the Geneva convention, as was the case with Libya, you'll do well to send unarmed rescuers and the US (the signer) will not shoot at you. If the enemy hasn't signed the Geneva convention, or isn't even a nation, as has mostly been the case since WW2, CSAR is the order of the day. I've lost track of what even the argument (?) is about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Oh my god who caaaaaaaaaaaaaares take this poo poo to gip
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
rscott posted:Oh my god who caaaaaaaaaaaaaares take this poo poo to gip look at this guy in the Aeronautical thread mad about minutiae.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:23
|
|