|
That Works posted:Also that people don't consider having a few major US cities being evaporated in a peer vs peer conflict possible now. I...what?
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:So, more funny news from everyone's favorite plane: I mean, flying at 1.6 is it's max speed on after burner. While that is a limitation, it's going to be drinking a poo poo ton of fuel to maintain that speed. As for the doors being closed and speed issues - the max speed of the A-10 in a clean load out is 380 knots according to wikipedia. Using the numbers from this report it can still fly at 490 knots in a stealth load out under 5000 feet. That's sustained speed of 575 miles an hour or mach ~.75 and the ability to exceed that for 10 minutes. If you go up to 5K-15K, the sustained numbers are ~630mph or mach .82. For the last band between 15K-25K, that's nearly 590mph or mach .9. That still means you have a stealthy fighter packing 2 AMRAAMs and 2 2000 pounders or 8 SDBs able to fly at the speeds above with no issue as it's currently built. Clearly a poo poo plane. TCD fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:So, more funny news from everyone's favorite plane: OH NO A MISSILE ON MY TAIL! Better slow down so I can shoot a flare!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
That Works posted:Also that people don't consider having a few major US cities being evaporated in a peer vs peer conflict possible now. I'm pretty sure that the risks of global thermonuclear war are lower now than at any point since the advent of nuclear weapons. Any notional chain of escalation to everyone nuking each other's major population centres is beyond even what Tom Clancy could make up. But yes, a conventional peer vs peer conflict will be incredibly bloody for everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:28
|
|
bewbies posted:I...what? Oh ah, the statement was talking about expectations based on wars of the 90s. We're currently building technology to counter peer vs peer threats and talking about massive loss of pilots / aircraft etc in that conflict. I was making the point that if we were in that kind of shooting war with a peer then the consideration that we (or areas in the theatre) could be nuked. It doesn't seem to be something that people think about much but if we were in a situation where we just got our air forces in the area routed and ground troops were on the way, how many more steps are we going through until nuclear weapons come into play.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
TCD posted:I mean, flying at 1.6 is it's max speed on after burner. While that is a limitation, it's going to be drinking a poo poo ton of fuel to maintain that speed. It's still a pretty serious restriction in an aircraft that was sold, in no small part, as being freer of restrictions and more care-free to operate than previous generation aircraft. This sits right in the middle of the performance envelope of the aircraft like a turd on the living room carpet. Also Mach 1.6 as a top speed is nothing to write home about, even taking into account the speed penalty of a similar loadout on an F-16 or F-18.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
About those AMRAAMs:quote:Testing to characterize the vibrational and acoustic And I think this has come up before but lol: quote:Test pilots flew 17 engagements between an "Don't fly below 25 000 feet, don't go faster than mach 1.2 and for the love of god don't get in a dogfight with anything. Oh, and your AIM-120 missiles might blow up in your face from vibrations, or not work at all, or overheat and god knows what might happen then... so really stay away from BVR fights too. Any questions?" Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
MrChips posted:It's still a pretty serious restriction in an aircraft that was sold, in no small part, as being freer of restrictions and more care-free to operate than previous generation aircraft. This sits right in the middle of the performance envelope of the aircraft like a turd on the living room carpet. Pretty sure it was sold as the only western stealth aircraft for sale that has radar, networking, and other capabilities not found in previous generation aircraft. Oh yeah, and it can penetrate areas under S-300 and S-400 coverage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
TCD posted:Pretty sure it was sold as the only western stealth aircraft for sale that has radar, networking, and other capabilities not found in previous generation aircraft. Oh yeah, and it can penetrate areas under S-300 and S-400 coverage. It was sold for a lot more than just that; it was sold as being able to collect and sort much more sensor data in a very user-friendly manner, being essentially carefree to fly, having rugged and easy to maintain systems, in addition to all the stealth poo poo. And even the F-35 can't easily penetrate S-300/400 infested airspace. Stealth isnt a Klingon cloaking device yo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:It is literally a cooldown timer.  It's unlikely the F-35A will be in combat at those altitudes, but that's seriously some bullshit. Pimpmust posted:About those AMRAAMs: Ugh. THIS post is far more concerning than weapons bay temperatures. MrChips posted:And even the F-35 can't easily penetrate S-300/400 infested airspace. Stealth isnt a Klingon cloaking device yo. It can get a lot closer than, say, an F-15E. Godholio fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:
More ammunition for why the F 35 is so drat good: In addition to being faster and less observable than the A 10, the F-35 is also a better dog and BVR fighter than the A-10!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
I'm guessing that's due to hanging a missile on a door, vs a built in pylon. Oops MrChips posted:
Uh, compared to any other nations aircraft, and from everything out in the public domain, it can operate a lot further in than any other aircraft. It's not a cloaking device, it's ensuring that the fire control bits can't actually engage the aircraft at whatever range it's actually reduced by. TCD fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Hah. It was pretty funny when I looked it up and there were articles from today saying that Bombardier is in danger of being dropped off the Toronoto Exchange. Bombardier's biggest problem is that they are operating out of Quebec where business still works like it's 1930's Chicago/Studio 54. Subcontractor: "Hey, I want a piece of this action!" <hands over envelope of cash> Bombardier: "Oui Oui! Take our business!" <pockets envelope> . . . . ONE YEAR LATER. . . . Subcontractor: "Ehhhh, I can't get this finished on time because . . . stuff!" Bombardier: "Maybe this will help!" <hands over even larger envelope of cash> . . . . 3 month Poutine break! . . . Government/Clients: "Where the gently caress is our product? You said it would be ready a year ago!" <Bombardier, the Quebec Mafia, and a local MP are rolling around in a pile of cash and cocaine on the floor sucking each other off> "The Canadian Aerospace industry Gentlemen!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 20:17
|
|
ArchangeI posted:It's really telling how the wars of the 1990s have shaped public expectations that western soldiers are essentially unkillable supermen and their planes are the chariots of gods. Uh no. It's not that I think the A-10 would have taken a few casualties, I think that the A-10 would have been loving obliterated by Warsaw Pact air defense, and I don't think the Apache would have done much better.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
TCD posted:I mean, flying at 1.6 is it's max speed on after burner. While that is a limitation, it's going to be drinking a poo poo ton of fuel to maintain that speed. Wasn't super cruise a selling point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
wargames posted:Wasn't super cruise a selling point? On the F-22.... via wikipedia quote:The F135 and F136 engines are not designed to supercruise.[252] However, the F-35 can briefly fly at Mach 1.2 for 150 miles If I did my maths right, 10 minutes at 1.2 is right around 150 miles. TCD fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Is it really that hard, given that multiple parts already have to be temperature controlled, to fit some form of vent/cooling system?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Is it really that hard, given that multiple parts already have to be temperature controlled, to fit some form of vent/cooling system? LM: That wasn't in the design specs - that will be another few mill per copy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The eastern europe battle plan was basically Given that it would been raining (hopefully) conventional SRBMs from the off, how many would have even made it into the air in the first place I wonder? I've heard quite a few ex-RAF pilots say the first sign the balloon was about to go up would have been a bunch of pilots not making it to work one morning for various unpleasant reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Uh no. It's not that I think the A-10 would have taken a few casualties, I think that the A-10 would have been loving obliterated by Warsaw Pact air defense, and I don't think the Apache would have done much better. Wasn't the projection for WW3 that the entire A-10 fleet would have 100% attrition after a week? Or maybe a month, I forgot. In any case they weren't expected to last long. Mostly their role was to slow down the Soviet hordes a bit, so that their brave sacrifice would buy time for reinforcements to cross the Atlantic. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:It's really telling how the wars of the 1990s have shaped public expectations that western soldiers are essentially unkillable supermen and their planes are the chariots of gods. Pretty sure the Internet harbors all flavors of "my poo poo is best" nowadays, 1990's curb stompings or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-super-bowl/ This is the 30 second spot Northrup Grumman bought during the game tomorrow. Some pretty sweet "6th Gen fighter concept" CGI, but strangely nothing about Congressmen getting VD from NG-supplied whores or massive amounts of paperwork being filed in protest by Boeing & LockMart. Maybe they're saving that spot for the Oscars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-super-bowl/ That's pretty wild. First defense contractor to have potentially bought a super bowl spot. And they used a Chicago creative agency! I'm so proud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Speaking from a non US perspective, it is pretty loving wack that the military industrial complex is buying superbowl spots. That's a pretty damning indictment of the amount of influence they have over civil society. I mean tell me I'm not crazy, advertising weapons systems on primetime family television is not normal right? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
First time in super bowl history if they actually did purchase a spot! And yes it is super weird. But any company or individual can buy air time. There's nothing to stop Northrop in the past. Gotta establish that brand identity bloops fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-super-bowl/ sloppy loving work they didnt get the nod from kenny loggins
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Speaking from a non US perspective, it is pretty loving wack that the military industrial complex is buying superbowl spots. That's a pretty damning indictment of the amount of influence they have over civil society. Do you think ad agencies are government owned or something? Since when has "we give u money, u play our video" ever been a damning indictment of anything in the ad industry? The entire point of all free media is to spread information paid to be spread by the highest bidder. Seriously, how stupid are you that you'd be appalled that a middle class, conservative-leaning, flag-flying, All American patriotic sprting event that starts with a bomber flyover has ads for bomber manufacturers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Do you think ad agencies are government owned or something? Since when has "we give u money, u play our video" ever been a damning indictment of anything in the ad industry? The entire point of all free media is to spread information paid to be spread by the highest bidder. I'm saying that from a non US perspective, it is abnormal. I mean, in the UK you would absolutely, never, ever see a weapons manufacturer advertising their weapons systems at a major sporting event. Never, it's just not acceptable. That's the difference, that it's not socially acceptable to advertise weapons on primetime family TV. No need to call people stupid over it
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:I'm saying that from a non US perspective, it is abnormal. I mean, in the UK you would absolutely, never, ever see a weapons manufacturer advertising their weapons systems at a major sporting event. Never, it's just not acceptable. That's the difference, that it's not socially acceptable to advertise weapons on primetime family TV. No need to call people stupid over it Yeah, because your procurement process is so pure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:I'm saying that from a non US perspective, it is abnormal. I mean, in the UK you would absolutely, never, ever see a weapons manufacturer advertising their weapons systems at a major sporting event. Never, it's just not acceptable. That's the difference, that it's not socially acceptable to advertise weapons on primetime family TV. No need to call people stupid over it Don't listen to him. What Northrop is doing is unusual for it being a Super Bowl spot. The point is to make a huge statement by purchasing air time during what is the ad industry's marquee night. I can elaborate more on the significance of this. It'll be telling just how much they spent and how serious they are by when the ad runs and in what spot in the commercial pod. The cheapest ads are in the third quarter. Most expensive are the first quarter and the first ad in the pod. That's the big money poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Seriously, how stupid are you that you'd be appalled that a middle class, conservative-leaning, flag-flying, All American patriotic sprting event that starts with a bomber flyover has ads for bomber manufacturers? He thinks the PRC's takeover of all neighboring waters is the best thing since the US lost in Vietnam so
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
apropos of nothing but linkin
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:I'm saying that from a non US perspective, it is abnormal. I mean, in the UK you would absolutely, never, ever see a weapons manufacturer advertising their weapons systems at a major sporting event. Never, it's just not acceptable. That's the difference, that it's not socially acceptable to advertise weapons on primetime family TV. No need to call people stupid over it Nah just minor sporting events. http://www.baesystems.com/cs/Satellite?c=BAEMedia_C&childpagename=US%2FBAELayout&cid=1434554776804&pagename=USWrapper And entire schools. https://www.rt.com/uk/252697-bae-take-over-school/ The Children  And massive national holidays. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1412567/BAE-sponsorship-of-poppy-day-is-like-King-Herod.html The Veterans But thank god Ronaldino and Wayne aren't aware submarine makers exist. Seriously, you're complaining about a weapons system that doesn't, and may never, see the light of day. And lol at it being unusual for weapons makers to "advertise", most of the NFL games out there start with a weapons system product demo. Propagandalf fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Flikken posted:Yeah, because your procurement process is so pure. No, the UK system worse in pretty much every way in terms of product and efficiency. The sole redeeming feature is that the UK defense contractors don't have the same tendrils of influence over government as the monsters Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon , GD do I'm making the point that the oversize influence that those defense contractors have is 'a bad thing'
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
It's not influence. They have money and can spent it however they want. There's no rules governing how or where defense contractors can run ads like the smoking industry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Nah just minor sporting events. Dude did you read the links that you posted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1412567/BAE-sponsorship-of-poppy-day-is-like-King-Herod.htmlquote:A decision by British defence manufacturer BAE Systems to sponsor this year's Poppy Day has been likened to "King Herod sponsoring a special day reserved to prevent child cruelty".The Campaign Against the Arms Trade said the presence of the BAE Systems logo on promotional material for Remembrance Sunday contradicted the sentiments behind the event. But the company rejected the criticism and said its support of Poppy Day was entirely appropriate. And those sponsorships are not advertising weapons systems themselves, they're nebulous 'Support our jobs and British Manufacturing'. There would be an absolute shitstorm if any company started advertising weapons systems like tanks or missiles on primetime TV.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Dude did you read the links that you posted. You cited a absolutist disarmament coalition attacking an arms maker as proof of your accuracy? Exactly which weapons system is being advertised here? Name the system, its specs, cost, and delivery date.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:You cited a absolutist disarmament coalition attacking an arms maker as proof of your accuracy? That's the point i'm making, there are no weapons systems being advertised in the UK because there would be a shitstorm if they tried that. Look, I just made an observation that it's 'not normal' to have weapons advertised on the superbowl and a comment on how defense contractors having too much influence is bad. I don't think that's all that crazy
Mr Crustacean fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:That's the point i'm making, there are no weapons systems being advertised because there would be a shitstorm if they tried that. Explain to me how it's suddenly different and dangerously influential that children are seeing computer renders on TV of products that don't exist when half the Evil Defense Contractor-built inventory of the US Air Force flies over every sports stadium in the US before the game/race/orgy starts. Again, what weapon is being advertised. Where is it made, how much does it cost? Propagandalf fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:30 |
|
Propagandalf posted:Where is it made, how much does it cost? No one can answer this.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:22
|
|