|
chitoryu12 posted:I quickly put up the video filmed of me using that magazine loader. This is the first time I ever used it myself. Almost seems like it'd be faster just to load them by hand. Still a pretty cool little device though.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/ Allright, which one of you is responsible for this bit of trolling? (Make sure you read to the end)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Almost seems like it'd be faster just to load them by hand. Still a pretty cool little device though. It's definitely much harder by hand in practice. You need to shove the cartridge stack down and push the next round straight back in, instead of just pushing down like an AK or Thompson magazine. It's a bit of a pain normally, but much more so after an hour of shooting various guns in a hot room when your hands are covered in sweat and have already loaded about 120 rounds into magazines before getting to the Sten.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/ Probably Johan from Paradox. They are a Swedish company, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:How many maintainers lost their lives for this photo? It's F-4s at what looks like Osan, which means it's the 1980s So what you should be asking is "How many maintainers lost their livers and/or had to be put on antibiotics for a week to clear up the drip" or Psion posted:at least 14 livers, if not lives
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/ I for one welcome the F-39 Bambiraptor, small trunk space but oh boy there's gonna be enough for every american home to have one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
lol there's pictures of the LRS-B flying already and it looks nothing like the YF-23
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:lol there's pictures of the LRS-B flying already and it looks nothing like the YF-23 Link?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Link? http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/so-what-were-those-secret-flying-wing-aircraft-spotted-1555124270 If I had to guess, a large flying wing that isn't the B-2 is most likely still made by Northrop. It's not a 100% certainty that what's been sighted is the LRS-B testbed, but whatever it is there is more than one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/ Holy God that last paragraph
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Found a bitching 2014 report on the various possible Russian arms treaty violations. http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Confirmation-of-Russian-Violations-of-the-INF-Treaty8.pdf Also the F4 is a beautiful aircraft! Get a brain/taste morans!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Holy God that last paragraph "The F-22 would cost too much to modernize! Instead, we should go back to an even older, less finished airframe and modernize that!" That whole website looks like a real winner, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
The author is well-known for arguing that the planet's climate is trending cooler rather than warmer. While I'm no scientist, I think maybe anything that guy has to say is pretty much garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:The author is well-known for arguing that the planet's climate is trending cooler rather than warmer. While I'm no scientist, I think maybe anything that guy has to say is pretty much garbage. Wait which author, because goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Wait which author, because goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Wait which author, because goddamn. He's written a book about the future being poo poo, surely he has many worthwhile ideas
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
What is the F-35s intended role in a conventional A2A fight where the ROE allows for BVR engagement? Are they supposed to be the missile trucks that fire at targets the F-22's AWACs designate? Are they supposed to designate targets for Super Hornets to missile spam? Are they expected to go in alone and do it all? The electronics suite that they have in the cockpit looks pretty amazing, and I'm sure the networking between each other is top-of-the-line, but is that going to be the only edge they need in a "Clancy Scenario"? I keep hearing that their stealth characteristics are "better" than the F-22's, but looking at that engine I can't believe that. They are not up to the task of fighting engagements where the ROE requires visual confirmation due to their inability to really turn/burn, and they have a really limited missile inventory compared to the 6 the F-22 can carry or the  12 loadout the super hornet can muster.What is the game-plan beyond, "This is going to create jobs in your riding congressman"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
A lot of the concerns you bring up here are why the US is very deliberately working to increase Combad ID capabilities across a variety of platforms. It can make it unnecessary to get visual in cases where you don't need a tail number or to look for other visual markings. If a radar can tell you "I'm 99.5% this shape is a Su-35" it makes it unnecessary to go take an actual look.* *this is not representative of a particular system, just the idea that nations are seeking systems that do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
As time goes on I kinda think the F-35 is a huge smokescreen to get other nations to develop 5th gen garbage while we perfect drone tech. I mean, that has to be what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
F-35 good, so what
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Blistex posted:What is the F-35s intended role in a conventional A2A fight where the ROE allows for BVR engagement? As much flak as the F35 justifiably gets, it is (eventually) going to be an exceptionally capable A2A platform. Sure, if the program wasn't such a clusterfuck it could have been significantly better kinematically, in payload, range, in cost, on schedule and the F-35B would not be a thing. But when it is finally finished, it is going to offer capabilities that are simply not present in 4th Gen aircraft, capabilities which will be absolutely vital in surviving current and future threats. In terms of answering your question, quote:Are they supposed to be the missile trucks that fire at targets the F-22's AWACs designate? Yes, there has been development of more compact missiles, in order to increase their small payload http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/ quote:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/here-s-the-first-shot-of-the-f-15c-pod-that-will-change-1750314539 quote:Are they expected to go in alone and do it all? https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-doubles-f-15c-missile-load-in-2040c-eagle-u-416766/ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-fighter-idUSKCN0SK2OV20151026 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/here-s-the-first-shot-of-the-f-15c-pod-that-will-change-1750314539 Sure, the F35 could have been significantly better, and the program is a dumpster fire of the highest order, designed to funnel money into LockMart coffers. But the plane itself is not a turkey. VikingSkull posted:As time goes on I kinda think the F-35 is a huge smokescreen to get other nations to develop 5th gen garbage while we perfect drone tech. As much as Lockheed Martin deserve to be indicted on federal fraud charges, they do have a point in terms of their definition of 5th gen and how it is a 'game changer'. There is a reason why the United States has gone to the terrifyingly expensive effort to convert its entire tactical aircraft inventory to stealth aircraft in acquiring the F-22 and F-35. There is a reason why all the great powers are trying to develop and acquire their 5th generation stealth aircraft (PAKFA, J-20, J-31) at tremendous cost , and everyone who isn't capable of developing one indigenously is trying to purchase them (F35, PAKFA, J-31). The current Integrated Air Defense environment (S-300/ S-400) is incredibly lethal to all non stealthy aircraft and in order to survive in that environment, stealth is necessary . The current A2A environment is hugely advantageous to stealthy aircraft. Stealthy aircraft will be the price of admission to fight a future high end, high intensity war, non stealthy aircraft will simply not survive in this environment. As much as the F35 program has been a dumpster fire, it does have legitimate goals. But yeah, its accomplished its goal of producing a plane which is a stealthy F16 equivalent, in literally the worst possible way. And the program is the biggest piece of poo poo in probably the history of United States acquisitions 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Yes, there has been development of more compact missiles, in order to increase their small payload http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/ There's also been talk of eventually rearranging some parts of the A and C's weapons bay to allow for 6x AMRAAM internal carriage instead of 4x. Also, w.r.t. mlmp08's discussion of NCTR stuff, it's also worth noting that even if you limit yourself to visually identifying aircraft, the F-35 has things like this: http://gfycat.com/BlackandwhiteBeautifulHawaiianmonkseal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5VuCsQJy8Y Nobody can pretend that F-35 acquisition hasn't been a procurement dumpster fire, but a stealthy F-16 with a bunch of sick-nasty sensors and sensor fusion and all that other crap eventually came out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Blistex posted:What is the F-35s intended role in a conventional A2A fight where the ROE allows for BVR engagement? Yes. Remember the F-35 can carry (I think, anyway) 14 AAMs in non-stealthy mode (12x120, 2x9). In example, you can employ two 35s in "spotlight" configuration (all fuel and sensors) 100 kms ahead of a couple pairs of 35s in "missile truck" configuration. Those onboard AAMs can be complimented by Patriot MSE and SM-6 being controlled over a joint integrated fire control network to further extend the planes' (or ships, or Patriot launchers') magazines. Magazine depth is a big deal. This however is all irrelevant because we'll all be out of high end interceptors and attack missiles 30 minutes into a big shooting war (only half kidding). Regarding visual IDs, the US is moving away from that doctrinally very, very quickly in every domain. Actively scanned arrays let you do some amazing things and we need to adapt our thinking in a big hurry to maximize what capabilities they give us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Are the days of dogfighting over? Is it all missiles from outside visual range?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Are the days of dogfighting over? Is it all missiles from outside visual range? There hasn't been an air to air battle for years so who knows. I'll only say that this has been said many times before over the decades and its never been true. But missiles are actually good now so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:And the program is the biggest piece of poo poo in probably the history of United States acquisitions    Nah, not even close
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
The Sergeant York attempted to kill the Pentagon brass who funded it so in a sense it's the most successful product to come out of the MIX in a long long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
I'm familiar with the first two but what is this ECSS?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm familiar with the first two but what is this ECSS?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
^^ haha, good God. Did nobody tell the military Oracle is basically a marketing company that outsources everything? Also: when talking about procurement fuckery, people often ask about procurement fuckery behind the Iron Curtain. A few months ago, Xerxes17 in the mil history thread did some excellent effort posts on Soviet tank development. While the products were sometimes revolutionary (T-62) or quite useful (T-72) the story does talk about a poo poo-ton of needless competition, political shenanigans, and a process that has the Soviet Union fielding three MBTs with nothing common between them. The Object 172 Aka, T-72 “Straight outta Nihzny Tagil Ft. Leonid Kartsev” The T-80: Explosion at the Soviet Haywire Factory Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
4 MBTs, if you count the diesel version of the T-80. What was that quote, 10% more combat capability for 5x the cost?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
The T-62 wasn't the revolutionary one, the T-64 was, and remained a more capable tank than anything in the West for the better part of a decade I think. You're actually linking to the T-64, just a little naming mistake. The T-62 was basically a T-54/55 enlarged to carry the 115mm gun, which was pretty quickly made unnecessary by better ammo for the 54/55.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Are the days of dogfighting over? Is it all missiles from outside visual range? Absolutely not. Low-RCS adversaries will just bring ranges closer together again. In a war zone where civilian traffic remains a problem you might have to get in closer to make sure you're not tagging a Malaysian/Russian/Korean/Iranian airliner instead of an Il-76. Pussyfooting politicans can also restrict the ROE like was seen in Vietnam. Electronic warfare may degrade radars and datalinks making long-range shots impossible to take or support. Bunch of reasons not to pretend everything's going to be BVR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
It's hard to say though if we are actually shooting at Chinese or Russian planes the ROEs might not be much at all. poo poo has definitely hit the fan in that situation. Missiles and radar are better than they were in Vietnam, but so are the ways to reduce weapon engagement distances. We won't really know for sure until it happens. Mazz fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Are the days of dogfighting over? Is it all missiles from outside visual range? God knows, but there was some goon that said his dad developed missiles (might have been in this thread ages ago), and they basically considered hitting a plane a solved problem if you get a lock. Any modern missile can happily have IR, Optical and UV sensors, as well as RADAR, or passive RADAR for cheap - look at your mobile phone - computing power is cheap as gently caress. Which is why stealth. If I can get a shot on you ten seconds before you can see me, you die every time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:God knows, but there was some goon that said his dad developed missiles (might have been in this thread ages ago), and they basically considered hitting a plane a solved problem if you get a lock. Assuming the missile's rocket motor can actually get it to the target, which might not be the case if it's high up, far away, and flying really fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Absolutely not. Low-RCS adversaries will just bring ranges closer together again. In a war zone where civilian traffic remains a problem you might have to get in closer to make sure you're not tagging a Malaysian/Russian/Korean/Iranian airliner instead of an Il-76. Pussyfooting politicans can also restrict the ROE like was seen in Vietnam. Electronic warfare may degrade radars and datalinks making long-range shots impossible to take or support. Bunch of reasons not to pretend everything's going to be BVR. Worth noting that WVR crap today is not your daddy's Vietnam-era Sidewinders. I've probably posted these like 40 times and I don't care because they're cool as poo poo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b-BwMi19JE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LxhLMiRklQ
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Regarding the idea that a lock means a definite hit, have fun seeing if your lock is valid on fourth gen radars when the enemy is pushing false targets at an alarming rate and generally playing hell on your radar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Regarding the idea that a lock means a definite hit, have fun seeing if your lock is valid on fourth gen radars when the enemy is pushing false targets at an alarming rate and generally playing hell on your radar. That I have no idea about, and I'll defer to the person who knows more about it than me, but what I do know is the optical sensors you can pack in a small space are getting really good, and good luck spoofing those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
its gonna take alot of missiles to get a kill on a real battlefield
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:39
|
|