|
walgreenslatino posted:edit: it's "Raider" 
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
But there is already a new scout/light attack helicopter entering military service called the Raider. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Our suggestions were way better
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Namechange to Twix incoming...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Once you're putting late war Japanese pilots in a domestic me163 you really need to just make a manned SAM and get it over with. Random question about the Komet: what is the little baby propeller for? I assume it's unpowered, does it just spin in the wind and produce energy for the plane's electronics or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Random question about the Komet: what is the little baby propeller for? I assume it's unpowered, does it just spin in the wind and produce energy for the plane's electronics or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Our suggestions were way better I wasn't in on that, but Powercube and I just decided that Northrop B-2.1 Black Joke is the way to go on this. Tagline: "gently caress 'em if they can't take a Joke!" The Black Joke was a British slave raider, some interesting technology on it, one of the first rotating turrets, took out a bunch of ships with a lot more weight of iron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Black_Joke_(1827)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Raider isn't bad. It's at least recognizably aggressive term. I get that Spirit was because of the stealth aspect and whatnot, but it's pretty weak for a bomber capable of killing tens of millions in a single mission. Edit: Apparently Dick Cole submitted one of the papers suggesting Raider. That's definitely some extra credit for that name. Godholio fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
I think we should just let the Brits name our stuff. They seem to come up with cooler names than we do. Speaking of the Brits; what was their fascination with engines being built into the wings on a lot of their Cold War stuff? Did they just enjoy making maintenance an even greater pain in the rear end than it needs to be? Is it just lest complex than it looks? It seems like you are taking apart the whole wing to replace an engine on something like the Valiant or Vulcan. Example: 
Akion fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
The previous Northrop Raider was kind of interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
I still think it should have obviously been shadowfortress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Penetrator. Invader II stealth boogaloo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
I guess "Bomby McBomberface" wasn't serious enough for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
B-21 LeMay
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Black Widow II too!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Black Widow II too! Can the NGB evade a C&D from Disney? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
AJ and AJS 37 Viggen flight manuals (in Swedish only) I think I've posted about these here before, but as of today all the interesting parts have been declassified so I figured I'd repost in case someone interested had missed them. One of these days I'll do an effortpost on Swedish ASM's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
The Rb 05 is loving magical - a supersonic MCLOS missile on a single seat aircraft (meant to be launched at very low altitude, to boot).
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:The Rb 05 is loving magical - a supersonic MCLOS missile on a single seat aircraft (meant to be launched at very low altitude, to boot). "The missile should be launched in level flight in the speed interval 700 - 1150 km/h IAS"  (pretty sure 1150 km/h IAS is about Mach 0.93 at sea level)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:AJ and AJS 37 Viggen flight manuals (in Swedish only) Fpl AJ 37, page 60 posted:Robot 05A, se bild 48, är en vätskeraketdriven kommandostyrd attackrobot, huvudsakligen avsedd att anvandas mot sjö- och markmål, men som även kan användas mot långsamtflygande luftmål  In the manual it's stated that the MCLOS Rb 05 can be used against "slow flying air targets". Flying close to mach 1 at treetop level while manually guiding a missile towards a helicopter, I wonder how anyone thought that would ever be a useful tactic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
pretty sure they mean An-22's and the like, see the illustration on page 261 (which also says typical firing distance in the air-to-air case is 2800 meters)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
I'm getting delightful flashbacks to Wargame:ALB Drakens early on
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:I wasn't in on that, but Powercube and I just decided that Northrop B-2.1 Black Joke is the way to go on this. Tagline: "gently caress 'em if they can't take a Joke!" This or B-21 Lemay gets my vote. Raider isn't terrible though, especially considering the Dick Cole angle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but I have to say it: The problem with the B-21 is that it doesn't have any cross-marketing tie in with a domestic automaker.  [I mean, the Dodge Stealth was a thing]
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Dodge and the Airforce would like to present the B 21 This. That's right, Dodge This motherfucker!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Maybe not the right place to ask this question, but here goes: My grandma was watching some movie the other day where Tom Hanks plays a (CIA asset?) lawyer who negotiated the return of Gary Powers and some kid. I only saw bits and pieces, but in the shoot down scene, is it even remotely possible or plausible that he'd be able to grab the canopy (after ejection) and pull himself the few feet towards the auto-destruct switch? And when he takes his mask off and is still obviously 50-60,000' up, wouldn't he have at best passed out immediately? Or died of hypothermia? I realize it's a movie and all, but I thought Tom Hanks was a stickler for realism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:edit: it's "Raider" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
I still think "Wraith" would've been appropriately badass, but I'm sure that's already being used for something else. I mean, if it's good enough for Rolls-Royce...
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Bulgaroctonus posted:Maybe not the right place to ask this question, but here goes: That was Bridge Of Spies (which is excellent, if you're into that sort of thing), which fudged a few things to make a more compelling/coherent movie, including the lone action scene. As to remote possibility, the U2 crashes kind of gently because its basically wings with an airplane attached instead of the other way around and there was that one guy posted (hundreds of?) pages ago who partially ejected through a canopy and kind of held on while partially being pinned to the plane by the air rushing over the body so...maybe?* That said, unless he'd already been falling/diving for a while he probably would have passed out pretty quickly at that altitude, but fallen into warmer air before he froze. Just pretend that's probably what it felt like to be Gary Powers hyped up on adrenaline. *I'm sure six people who know a ton more about this are about to correct me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
I might be being simple but claims of needing at least 100 of the B-21 and a fleet of 175 to 200 being what is really needed seem really high in the face of what happened to the F-22. Is this at all realistic to need/expectation or is it just a desperate line in the sand in the face of budget scrutiny?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
They prob know they want about 50 but also know what happened the last time they asked for what they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Those numbers initially sounded soft to me because of the fact that this is supposed to replace the buff. But then I checked and the USAF apparently only has 76 of those in service so who knows
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Gibfender posted:Those numbers initially sounded soft to me because of the fact that this is supposed to replace the buff. But then I checked and the USAF apparently only has 76 of those in service so who knows Plan's probably to replace the BUFFs, phase out the B-1Bs, and by the sound of it replace some of their existing recon/C&C aircraft as well. If that's the case then an initial order of 100 with hopes for 175 to 200 of them makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
I think there’s no way they’re getting 200. The BUFF + B‐2 have a combined 96 in service. So call 100 their stretch goal. e: 66 B‐1Bs is more than I would have guess. Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I still think "Wraith" would've been appropriately badass, but I'm sure that's already being used for something else. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
I'm surprised again and again how low the numbers in service for many major weapons systems are even with large militaries. Definitely would have guessed that there were more B-52s active than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Amazing(?) Turkey update. https://www.englishpen.org/campaigns/an-accusation-that-will-go-down-in-history/ Ahmet Altan and Mehmet Altan have been accused of inserting subliminal messages into shows to cause the failed coup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
lordlimpet posted:I might be being simple but claims of needing at least 100 of the B-21 and a fleet of 175 to 200 being what is really needed seem really high in the face of what happened to the F-22. Is this at all realistic to need/expectation or is it just a desperate line in the sand in the face of budget scrutiny? This is part of why all the concept art shows a clear derivative of the B-2. The B-2 blazed a lot of trails technologically...it was WORDS better than the F-117's and B-1's tech. Just like the F-22 was a revolutionary leap beyond the F-15. The B-21 is supposed to be evolutionary which will keep costs down, and the next gen fighter will be the same. The B-2's problem was 20 years of serious R&D spread out over 20 airframes, just as the Cold War ended. The actual aircraft flyaway cost was actually only about 1/3 of the oft-quoted $2B pricetag. So if you spread that R&D over 100 jets, the price per airframe gets a lot more palatable. The same thing crushed the F-22, except that was just Bob Gates doing Bob Gates things. The 381 aircraft buy would've cut the per-aircraft price by about 40%, but the overall pricetag of the program would've gone up $15B.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Having not read much into it, is the B-21 built with an eventual transition to basically being a bigass UAV in mind or is that being held off until the next generation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
We've been operating UAVs in very permissive airspace against opponents who operate in the Stone Age. I'm not sure we're quite ready to throw UAVs at near-peer competitors who actually know how to degrade communications and information networks.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 17:49
|
|
