|
TheFluff posted:Significant parts of the European nationalist muslim-hating alt-right receives rather enthusiastic Russian support (and sometimes funding). if by "significant parts" you mean "all of them". ukip, the fn, the golden dawn, jobbik, they all get checks from moscow. Basically you know how in the cold war unions and left wing parties got support from the ussr? that, only now it's swivel eyed loons oh yeah and one of trump's closest advisors too lmao
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
and all this ignores the fact that there is no workable logistics scheme for the "and then the USMC STOVL fighters ride in to save the day after all the runways got blown up" wet dream
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:12
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:
Who's that?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Paul Manafort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:if by "significant parts" you mean "all of them". ukip, the fn, the golden dawn, jobbik, they all get checks from moscow. Basically you know how in the cold war unions and left wing parties got support from the ussr? that, only now it's swivel eyed loons You'd think that'd be enough to blacklist the lot of them Though I see Russia's angle, if you wanted to gently caress up a nation you'd empower those people
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
DonkeyHotay posted:I thought it was a bit more complex than that, things like the k/d ratio being very near to 1:1 vs the original Soviet pilots who by and large had flown in ww2 but were pulled from the flight lines before long, and the bulk of the later flying being done by relatively poorly trained north Korean pilots. There are a bunch of factors, but training is really the biggest. The earlier North Korean pilots weren't as bad as their late-war replacements, as usual. And the Soviets weren't a huge proportion of the aircrews. And the US started the war with frankly garbage fighters for the time. Refurb P-51s against jets that were several years better than what the Nazis fielded? Come on. It's amazing the US performed as well as it did early on. But you saw a drastic uptick in performance as new training programs came online. After the war everything fell apart again, and once the lesson was learned again ten years later it was within senior officers' memory of "oh yeah we did this before" and that directly lead to the creation of Top Gun and the USAF Fighter Weapons School.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
I was always under the impression that the US could get away with refurbished P-51s and Corsairs at first because the MiGs weren't committed in numbers right away and the North Koreans were mostly flying piston Yaks when the war started. I guess I'm a little hazy on the chronology of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:You'd think that'd be enough to blacklist the lot of them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGn25URIss8 These people are sympathetic to business so of course they can just run free to gently caress everything up. Like, if current trends continue you're going to get to see what WW2 would have been like if Wendell Wilkie and the 1940 GOP had been running the show. (good news for Mortabis!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:and all this ignores the fact that there is no workable logistics scheme for the "and then the USMC STOVL fighters ride in to save the day after all the runways got blown up" wet dream It's OK, the next Marine Corps RFP will be for a C-130 sized tilt rotor that can operate off of surfaces with large potholes melted in them. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
A C-130 sized tiltroter would be rad as hell though
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I was always under the impression that the US could get away with refurbished P-51s and Corsairs at first because the MiGs weren't committed in numbers right away and the North Koreans were mostly flying piston Yaks when the war started. I guess I'm a little hazy on the chronology of it. Yeah that's basically correct. The first several months of the war the USAF ran rampant over the peninsula because the only opposing air forces were whatever leftover WWII era fighters the North had that hadn't been shot down yet. The Soviets committed MiG-15s at the end of 1950, at which point they rapidly gained air superiority because the piston engined fighters (as well as the early USAF jet fighters like the F-80 and F-84) were nowhere up to the task. Hence why the Sabre was rapidly deployed in large numbers in the early part of 1951.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
That Works posted:A C-130 sized tiltroter would be rad as hell though Isn't that what they tried for the miserable failure that was Credible Sport, though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 02:12
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Isn't that what they tried for the miserable failure that was Credible Sport, though?   Not quite the same as a full on massive tilt rotor but still cool as hell.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
For the F-35B, couldn't you just make some marston mat style sections (without the holes of course) coated with that heat resistant stuff they cooked up for the amphibs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Isn't that what they tried for the miserable failure that was Credible Sport, though? That was a C-130 Rocketplane, completely different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:For the F-35B, couldn't you just make some marston mat style sections (without the holes of course) coated with that heat resistant stuff they cooked up for the amphibs? Yeah, you could. Or repair the asphalt. Or alternate sections and have somebody level it out with a board when it melts. With asphalt at least it was already a problem with the harrier. Asphalt is just pitch with poo poo mixed into it and becomes liquid at like 150 degrees (F). The whole "FOBs on a road with VTOL jets" idea has always had a pile of problems (such as vertical takeoffs with useful amounts of munitions loaded on the plane) and melting asphalt is a pretty inconsequential tip of that iceberg. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:For the F-35B, couldn't you just make some marston mat style sections (without the holes of course) coated with that heat resistant stuff they cooked up for the amphibs? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Cuz when you're establishing a FARP, what's a couple thousand square feet of insulated matting to haul around? Edit: Who am I kidding, they're never going to actually do any of this in combat, the goddamned Marines are going to operate exactly the same as the AF and Navy will because Operation SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE is never going to loving happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Cuz when you're establishing a FARP, what's a couple thousand square feet of insulated matting to haul around? LockMart will develop a drop-ready package that fits together like Legos! It'll be *fun*!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Cuz when you're establishing a FARP, what's a couple thousand square feet of insulated matting to haul around? But man if it does I look forward to a special snowflake FARP being set up via USAF heavy airlift or USN sealift delivering the materials then Army transport moving the materials to the FARP, then the Marines can set it all up and by the time it's ready to go, it's already obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:But man if it does I look forward to a special snowflake FARP being set up via USAF heavy airlift or USN sealift delivering the materials then Army transport moving the materials to the FARP, then the Marines can set it all up and by the time it's ready to go, it's already obsolete. The proprietary coating developed by a DuPont-Lockheed consortium ($50,000 per plank) degrades and flakes off after prolonged exposure to sunlight and/or moisture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Cuz when you're establishing a FARP, what's a couple thousand square feet of insulated matting to haul around? The solution is obviously a stealthy VTOL square of insulated matting that can be rapidly deployed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:The proprietary coating developed by a DuPont-Lockheed consortium ($50,000 per plank) degrades and flakes off after prolonged exposure to sunlight and/or moisture. I didn't even think of this, but you're absolutely right. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: Who am I kidding, they're never going to actually do any of this in combat, the goddamned Marines are going to operate exactly the same as the AF and Navy will because Operation SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE is never going to loving happen. mlmp08 posted:But man if it does I look forward to a special snowflake FARP being set up via USAF heavy airlift or USN sealift delivering the materials then Army transport moving the materials to the FARP, then the Marines can set it all up and by the time it's ready to go, it's already obsolete. so is this where I post the story from Desert Storm where this is almost verbatim what happened? tl;dr is the USMC "forward deployed" Harriers to a "FARP" set up in a soccer stadium. Said "FARP" obviously required insane amounts of ground transport for fuel/munitions/etc to remain operational. USAF deployed a unit of A-10s to an airfield 20 or 30 miles further away than said "FARP," A-10s managed to crush the "FARP" in pretty much every metric (sortie generation, on-station time, munitions delivered, etc). In a logical world that would've been the nail in the coffin of USMC STOVL aviation....but this is the Marines we're talking about. e: lol actually upon further googling to refresh my memory it sounds like they claimed to operate from the soccer field (at Jubail) when they actually operated from an airfield a couple miles away. Either way they got their asses kicked by the A-10s regarding any measure of effectiveness, it just makes it that much more hilarious if it was while operating from a no-kidding airfield. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
That Works posted:
I, uh, wait, what the gently caress is it doing? Aren't the rockets supposed to push the airplane forward? Am I looking at rocket thrust reversers here? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Yes that is exactly what you are working at.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I, uh, wait, what the gently caress is it doing? Aren't the rockets supposed to push the airplane forward? Am I looking at rocket thrust reversers here? Credible sport was the Carter admin's second rescue plan for the Iranian hostages. Because after their first complicated plan failed, landing a loving VTOL C-130 in a soccer field across the street from the embassy sounded like a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
/\/\/\/\ not VTOL, unless vSTOL and the v is for VERYStandardVC10 posted:I, uh, wait, what the gently caress is it doing? Aren't the rockets supposed to push the airplane forward? Am I looking at rocket thrust reversers here? The L in STOL 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Rotacixe posted:The F-35 program seems to have run into a good problem lately. This is going to sound dumb as poo poo, but at what point could a country say "We're not going to develop cutting edge latest generation weapons programs anymore because we have thousands of nukes. Attack us and we will nuke the living poo poo out of you." Could they save trillions of dollars by building & fielding old but cheap and reliable tech. Enough to kick rear end on some third tier nation or bully some colonies, but with Y2K and older tech because nobody would win WW3 against you, so why bother preparing for any kind of war except the winnable ones ie. against people who don't have nukes? Is an offensive military really necessary except to send off to Valhalla in some poor shithole country that you are meddling with as a "police action"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
It should be ITOL for insane takeoff and landing. I think the one time they tried it he plane basically cracked in half.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:24
|
|
Syd Midnight posted:This is going to sound dumb as poo poo, but at what point could a country say "We're not going to develop cutting edge latest generation weapons programs anymore because we have thousands of nukes. Attack us and we will nuke the living poo poo out of you." Could they save trillions of dollars by building & fielding old but cheap and reliable tech. Enough to kick rear end on some third tier nation or bully some colonies, but with Y2K and older tech because nobody would win WW3 against you, so why bother preparing for any kind of war except the winnable ones ie. against people who don't have nukes? Is an offensive military really necessary except to send off to Valhalla in some poor shithole country that you are meddling with as a "police action"? This was a thing back in the fifties, it didn't work out. Nuclear strategy, stability and proliferation are a huge part of most academic international relations programs, happy reading.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:It should be ITOL for insane takeoff and landing. Turns out when your forward airspeed drops to zero when you're still 20ft off the ground, you can hit hard enough to crack the wing between #3 & #4.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzqmtYcpCQ&t=98s The bottom set of rockets weren't supposed to fire until they were on the ground. SeaborneClink fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
I just wish Carter had recordings like Nixon so we could hear the pitch for that plan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:This was a thing back in the fifties, it didn't work out. To add to this, if you want to read up on why "just build a bunch of nukes, we don't need a conventional military" is a bad idea, "Massive Retaliation" and "Eisenhower" are the phrases you want to search for. Of course, it's not like Kennedy's Flexible Response was any less stupid. In today's world, the argument goes that we'd need a credible conventional deterrent capable of convincing anyone that today isn't the day that they should do something stupid. A nuclear deterrent isn't really an option for this because (to use just one example) a nuclear deterrent isn't going to stop China from doing something stupid in the South China Sea because they know we aren't going to go nuclear over them shooting up a bunch of Filipino or Vietnamese patrol boats and then annexing some more islands. Another example would be Russia starting poo poo in the Baltic states. They're members of NATO, but Russia might be willing to roll the dice on NATO not willing to use nukes in the event they pull a Ukraine on Lithuania. However, us having a credible conventional deterrent is (in theory) enough so that Xi Jinping or Putin wake up and never think "today's the day" because they know that if they started something we'd respond with a conventional force capable of making it not worth their while, regardless of the nuclear implications.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Syd Midnight posted:Enough to kick rear end on some third tier nation or bully some colonies That requires the ability to send your 20th century conventional forces to said third tier nation or colonies. The capability to project force far away from home is extremely expensive, because it means you need top-notch logistics (airlift is expensive), a blue water navy (with aircraft carriers, and those are quite expensive too), a forward bases (either in overseas territory if you have them or by crashing on a SOFA in a friendly country). Keeping all that stuff functional and modern isn't much more expensive than keeping all that stuff functional and obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
I wish they'd had the time/balls to build a second Credible Sport C-130 with improved sequencing controls for the rockets. Can you imagine how that rescue would've been? Directors would get into fistfights over who got to make the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
The dumb thing is that the system basically worked, but a dude just miscalculated and hit the retroboosters too early. I mean a system with a release that's basically "kill everyone unless you're <4feet off the ground" can hardly be described as "working" but still.
evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The dumb thing is that the system basically worked, but a dude just miscalculated and hit the retroboosters too early. I mean a system with a release that's basically "kill everyone unless you're <4feet off the ground" can hardly be described as "working" but still. Considering what happened on the first rescue attempt canning this was probably a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:A-10 vs Harrier
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
david_a posted:Wouldn't an A-10 be far more effective than a Harrier even under ideal conditions? From what I know the A-10 is robust and relatively easy to maintain, while the Harrier... isn't. Which is because of sacrifices the Harrier makes to be a tremendous piece of poo poo that carries a sad excuse for payload, I mean to be able to operate from within RPG range of the front line, I mean to chew through pilots and airframes at a worrying rate, I mean to operate at the wrong end of the logistical chain, I mean to operate in forward bases because that's what makes close air support close, am I right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 15:03
|
|
