|
priznat posted:Yeah it’s almost assuredly going to be what is picked. Use the empties to re-skin the aircraft
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Dr_Strangelove posted:Use the empties to re-skin the aircraft Worked for the CH-46.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
North Korean TV footage of an arms and munitions industry conference appears to show the country's former leader Kim Jong-il inspecting one of the country's first ever atomic bombs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
priznat posted:Yeah it’s almost assuredly going to be what is picked. As I understand it self-respecting australians don't drink fosters
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Yeah but good luck finding a self respecting Australian.  Seriously though Coopers bottles or if you want to impugn our honour even further: XXXX Gold and goon bags.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
I was trying to be cruel dammit
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
As I understood it we aren't even selling the canucks our superhornets, but the legacy bugs we built under license. Man, we used to be able to build a fighter jet here. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
I thought we still did. Isn't there a factory in Vic for that? Doesn't the future f35 deal allow for building or at least major maintenance/repairs to be done in AU?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:I thought we still did. Isn't there a factory in Vic for that? Doesn't the future f35 deal allow for building or at least major maintenance/repairs to be done in AU? Have to work out something - it's a long flight to Guam and a US airbase with the proper facilities to service stealth aircraft. An even longer one to Okinawa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Would have thought the US would see an advantage in having repair/build capability on this side of the globe within a stable Ally's borders outside of Kim's missile range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
I would guess that the US would rather the Aussies provide a long term lease for a base operated by the US and then set up a maintenance facility there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
US F-22s intercept Russian jets over Syria, fire warning flares I'm imagining F-22s tangling with Frogfoots. Adorable
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Kinda weird that the F-22s are doing the tard wrangling rather than having some clapped out Vipers or something on bumper car duty with the Raptors sorta circling off to the side a bit where a drunk Russian can't oopsie his flying dump truck into your irreplaceable fighter jet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Kinda weird that the F-22s are doing the tard wrangling rather than having some clapped out Vipers or something on bumper car duty with the Raptors sorta circling off to the side a bit where a drunk Russian can't oopsie his flying dump truck into your irreplaceable fighter jet. You intercept with what you got on station.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/...ian-mod-claims/ "CENTCOM CJTF OIR PAO QWERTYUIOP denies and debunks the Russian claims"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/...ian-mod-claims/ It just means the public affairs officer for the commander of the joint task force that is working Operation Inherent Resolve, under the direction of the Central Command Combatant Commander, has denied and debunked the Russian claims. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It just means the public affairs officer for the commander of the joint task force that is working Operation Inherent Resolve, under the direction of the Central Command Combatant Commander, has denied and debunked the Russian claims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Combined Joint Task Force, actually. And am I the only one who thinks it's odd that a military operation has its own website? That's a non-doctrinal made up name. CJTF means Commander, Joint Task Force. MNTF means multinational task force. Even though I know CJTF, as presently and stupidly used, stands for combined joint task force, it's super dumb and I hate how every little operation has to make up their own name for themselves for no reason other than being confusing or, most often, trying to sound cool. Joint is inherent in combined operations, CJTF is so duuumb..... This needs CJTF approval. Wait, CJTF is a task force, how can a task force approve it. Oh, you meant the commander of the MNTF. Forces in Afghanistan do this to the nth degree. e: gently caress, of course they call the commander the CJFLCC-OIR commander.
mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Dec 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Kinda weird that the F-22s are doing the tard wrangling rather than having some clapped out Vipers or something on bumper car duty with the Raptors sorta circling off to the side a bit where a drunk Russian can't oopsie his flying dump truck into your irreplaceable fighter jet. I'm finding trouble envisioning the circumstances where a Frogfoot could midair an F-22 that don't come down to staggering incompetence on the part of the F-22 driver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
The navy has rammed several half billion dollar ships into gigantic freighters this year. Never shrug off incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I'm finding trouble envisioning the circumstances where a Frogfoot could midair an F-22 that don't come down to staggering incompetence on the part of the F-22 driver. In the most technical sense, any time the Frogfoot moves in the path of the F-22, the F-22 has to maneuver to avoid a collision, and then of course we can talk that up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
my kinda ape posted:IIRC it's also perfectly acceptable to eat pork if you have no alternative but starve. I have it on good authority* that pork and Moslems is like garlic and vampires. *source:  Carth Dookie posted:Yeah but good luck finding a self respecting Australian. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
priznat posted:Yeah it’s almost assuredly going to be what is picked. Then you'll know it wasn't us as no one here drinks fosters hurr hurr. From what I saw on the news though, canada was buying our old f/a18s, not supers. How's that for cruel? I think they plan on buying our supers after we got the f35 , but I may be wrong there. E: something something boeing stoush so they don't want to buy new or deal direct with usa boeing Fo3 fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Dec 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Yer right, it is non supers, even worse. Also with the Fosters that is the stereotype along with all australians are capable of operating a ski lift. (Last one more of a BC based stereotype)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Kinda weird that the F-22s are doing the tard wrangling rather than having some clapped out Vipers or something on bumper car duty with the Raptors sorta circling off to the side a bit where a drunk Russian can't oopsie his flying dump truck into your irreplaceable fighter jet. If that mini-Cold War ever goes hot, a whole bunch of clapped out Vipers on station would be eating double-digit SAMs to clear a path for whatever the reds throw up next. Cat Mattress posted:https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/...ian-mod-claims/ Oh god that's so painful to try to read through. Godholio fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Dec 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
This seems like the best place to ask this: Opinions on the following? So setting aside the weird and wonderful ideas that the Australian government have for their next class of submarines, I came across this article that suggests a group of "prominent Australians" are mad at the government for not buying Nuke subs instead of the diesel modifications of a French design they've selected. "It'll be BETTER and *cheaper in the long run*..." Now my gut tells me that a nation with zero experience operating nuclear subs, and not a great record keeping the conventional ones they helped build operational, probably doesn't need to be tooling around with nuke boats, no matter how "off the shelf" they are. Seems like training and maintenence costs would be through the roof. Then there's the question of whether the nuke option is actually better than diesels for Australia, cost aside. I'd be interested to know what the goons ITT think
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
The nuclear thing is dumb but not buying an off-the-shelf option and also trying to fund a jobs program through defence spending is also dumb. Should have gone with the Japanese option IMO
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
slothrop posted:This seems like the best place to ask this: Opinions on the following? I don't know about better, but it'd definitely be not cheaper. Nuclear is hugely expensive, especially when you figure all the costs of all the extra facilities you need for it. Basically it's a bunch of contractors/corporations etc complaining "we coulda had even more".
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
IIRC one of the (many) objections at the time for making the new UK carriers nuclear was how much it would impact manning in the RN. Not just having the additional sailors on the ship, but recruiting, training & retaining nuke-qualified sailors and engineers for two giant carriers was too much for the RN to manage even with their nuclear sub program experience. Nuke goons feel free to tell me I'm full of poo poo. But man navies are expensive, both in money and people. i think we should all agree to disband all our navies and go back to something cool like zeppelin battles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Re-invoke the Washington naval treaty and ban every major new weapons system developed after 1922
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Never mind how much it would piss off NZ if Australia picked up some nuke boats...
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Was anyone able to find the actual letter? I'm really curious why the Australian Business Elite thinks nuclear subs have an overwhelming combat advantage over diesel-electric. Is there some actual reality-based logic to it or is it just nuke->better in the minds of the corporate overlords?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
The only way that sounds like it justifies itself is if Australia is contemplating some kind of go-it-alone scenario against a distant peer opponent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Nuke boats have huge advantages in operational range and cruising speed, right? Anything else?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Nuke boats have huge advantages in operational range and cruising speed, right? Anything else? Infinitely better MPG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Nuke boats have huge advantages in operational range and cruising speed, right? Anything else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Diesel-electric is supposedly quieter, though, and air-independent propulsion is supposed to be quieter again. Not that Australia wouldn't be able to put the range to use, but I don't think they're quite in a situation like the US where it's a hard requirement
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Never mind how much it would piss off NZ if Australia picked up some nuke boats... What are they going to do about it? Raise a Hobbit army and invade over it? I've no real opinion either way on diesel vs nuke subs for us, but I do think we need newer ones that actually can be at sea doing sub stuff. Having coastal defence diesel subs is fine. It just depends on what our military strategy is supposed to be and I can kind of see why it would be nice to have boats that can do that, but also sit off the coast of North Korea basically as long as there's food available. Carth Dookie fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Dec 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Nukes can stay submerged indefinitely. The limiting factor for nuke boats is food, basically. Everything else they can generate on board.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 22:28
|
|
