AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

«‹›1991 »

aphid_licker: Jan 7, 2009

Can't really laugh about that russian boat missile fail given that one of the German navy's most modern warships just set itself on fire trying to launch an SM-2

# ? Jul 7, 2018 15:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 14:32

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

German stuff is absolutely a joke as well. And probably for the same reason as Russian stuff, if we're being honest: stuff turns to crap when you don't pay for its maintenance.

# ? Jul 7, 2018 16:31

Coldwar timewarp: May 8, 2007

The argument about the Bosporus and Dardanelles is a little silly. Turkey and Russia are working against each other in the civil war in Syria, with Russian weapons and materiel flowing freely through the Bosporus. So if the waterway won�t be closed in that circumstance, it�s pretty much just open war where it becomes important.

But is it that important? The Black Sea fleet just isn�t a threat in the Mediterranean, and no matter how many hypersonic missiles it theoretically has, it�s surrounded by NATO airfields outside of the range of Russian air support.

Some crazy crazy scenarios are needed where them having free access makes a difference. They have it now!

Turkey on the other hand aided IS, threatens and extorts Europe with the threat of refugees, and is occupying two of its neighbours. It has shown itself to be acting in bad faith enough that it shouldn�t be a member and shouldn�t get the F-35.

# ? Jul 7, 2018 17:28

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

General feeling from a lot of folks at work: even if Turkey does turn out to be a leaky spot for JSF tech, it�s been exported to so many allies who also could leak or be infiltrated that it�s just assumed that the F-35 will have to be good enough on its own rather than through super secrets.

# ? Jul 7, 2018 17:52

Captain von Trapp: Jan 23, 2006; I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

My concern is less "leaks will compromise F-35 effectiveness" as "leaks will allow adversaries to build the technology into their own stuff".

Yeah yeah lol F-35, but still, it helps not to have to spend money on your own R&D.

# ? Jul 7, 2018 18:10

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

^We'll see; China got a whole bunch of that information a decade ago so the J-JSF would be showing up in the next couple of years...except they don't have the background industries to actually make the components (advanced RAM, metallurgy, etc). That's tougher to steal.

Captain Log posted:

Is the state of the Russian navy still poor?

Probably worse than you think. They're in really bad shape.

Coldwar timewarp posted:

The argument about the Bosporus and Dardanelles is a little silly. Turkey and Russia are working against each other in the civil war in Syria, with Russian weapons and materiel flowing freely through the Bosporus. So if the waterway won�t be closed in that circumstance, it�s pretty much just open war where it becomes important.

But is it that important? The Black Sea fleet just isn�t a threat in the Mediterranean, and no matter how many hypersonic missiles it theoretically has, it�s surrounded by NATO airfields outside of the range of Russian air support.

Some crazy crazy scenarios are needed where them having free access makes a difference. They have it now!

Turkey on the other hand aided IS, threatens and extorts Europe with the threat of refugees, and is occupying two of its neighbours. It has shown itself to be acting in bad faith enough that it shouldn�t be a member and shouldn�t get the F-35.

Kind of inclined to agree. But this is 2018, and our government isn't really what is usually is, so I don't see the US making any waves.

Godholio fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jul 7, 2018

# ? Jul 7, 2018 18:12

M_Gargantua: Oct 16, 2006; STOMP'N ON INTO THE POWERLINES; Exciting Lemon

Most everything great about the F-22, B-2, and F-35 comes from A) Precision manufacturing which isn�t just IP you can steal or B) Electronics and software, which we don�t export.

The F-35 is still a fantastic airframe, which is why we can export it thanks to our domestic precision manufacturing. Nobody else can physically build them. Internal electronics like the control system is all locked in IP hardened FPGAs and ASICs which even at the NSA level are difficult to reverse engineer. And all the secret sauce is in the Electronic Attack/Protect/Support that gives the USAF an edge over modern radar and missile systems.

# ? Jul 7, 2018 18:23

Smiling Jack: Dec 2, 2001; I sucked a dick for bus fare and then I walked home.

Mr Putin has stolen our designs, now let him manufacture them.

# ? Jul 7, 2018 18:34

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

M_Gargantua posted:

Most everything great about the F-22, B-2, and F-35 comes from A) Precision manufacturing which isn�t just IP you can steal or B) Electronics and software, which we don�t export.

The F-35 is still a fantastic airframe, which is why we can export it thanks to our domestic precision manufacturing. Nobody else can physically build them. Internal electronics like the control system is all locked in IP hardened FPGAs and ASICs which even at the NSA level are difficult to reverse engineer. And all the secret sauce is in the Electronic Attack/Protect/Support that gives the USAF an edge over modern radar and missile systems.

Most of the platform can be physically built overseas, and is. To include Turkey, which contributes major airframe components (like the fuselage center), EO/IR components, engine blades, and skin composites.

# ? Jul 7, 2018 19:00

CarForumPoster: Jun 26, 2013; â¡POWERâ¡

EDIT: I made a dumb joke but eh if someone actually ever attributed it to me they might bitch about wikipedia numbers so I am deleting it.

CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jul 7, 2018

# ? Jul 7, 2018 21:14

knox_harrington: Feb 18, 2011; Running no point.

Kesper North posted:

Can Chinooks... wallow?

Check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9pA4I606No

# ? Jul 7, 2018 21:43

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Found something early cold war I've never heard of, reading about the B-45:

This is a North American B-45 Tornado, America's first jet bomber. Design work started during WW2, when America got wind of the German jet bomber programs. It first flew in 1947, and up until the Korean war, was subject of many a slapfight. While it could drop Nuclear bombs, the USAF wanted them for recon. During the Korean War, it did this job quite well. It was also one of those aircraft that flew over the USSR on recon flights in the mid-1950s, and was only replaced formerly by SAC in 1959. You might wonder, like I did, why it remained it service past the Korean war with the B-47 being a thing, but according to Wikipedia [for what it is worth], the B-47 wasn't really working properly until 1953, and was a maintenance hog.

The interesting bit:

quote:

Operation Ju-jitsu

The only other nation to use the RB-45C was the United Kingdom, where it was operated by an ad hoc unit of crews largely drawn from Nos. 35 and 115 squadrons. Whilst the USAF was prohibited by the President of the United States from overflying the Soviet Union unless under a state of war, US allies closer to the European theatre of war could. In the United Kingdom, whilst successive Labour governments had refused, the return of Winston Churchill and a Conservative administration to Downing Street brought a more co-operative atmosphere to joint intelligence initiatives.

As a result, under Operation Ju-jitsu, in July 1951 four aircraft were leased to Britain from the 91st Strategic Reconnaissance Wing to form 'Special Duties Flight, Sculthorpe', commanded by Squadron Leader John Crampton. Stripped of all USAF markings and then applied with RAF markings, the four aircraft were attached to a USAF squadron based at RAF Sculthorpe, Norfolk in eastern England. The aircraft were tasked with flying deep-level reconnaissance missions over the Soviet Union to gather electronic and photographic intelligence. The Special Duties Flight conducted missions during the period 1952�54.

On April 17, 1952, three aircraft were assigned to head for Kiev from Germany, scheduled to return to Sculthorpe ten hours later. Flying at 36,000 feet (11,000 m), Crampton's aircraft was tracked by ground radar and came under antiaircraft fire. Applying full power, he immediately turned and headed for Germany, none too soon, as Soviet night fighters had been dispatched to hunt down his aircraft.[8]

Subsequent flights over the Soviet Union were carried out using English Electric Canberras under the codename Project Robin, operating at higher altitudes of around 54,000 ft (16,000 m). It was not until 1994 (under the "fifty-year rule" of the Public Records Act 1958) that the existence of the spy missions became public knowledge.

Anyway, the thing that confuses me is the prohibition of recon flights over the USSR, when Truman was authorizing recon flights over the USSR. I understand lying, but why the "dodge" of a rule that was being broken anyway?

e: further reading, the wiki article of aerial recon over the USSR. The article states '45 US aircraft were shot down in the years doing this' but I'm dubious

Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jul 7, 2018

# ? Jul 7, 2018 23:29

McNally: Sep 13, 2007; Ask me about Proposition 305

Do you like muskets?

Nebakenezzer posted:

Found something early cold war I've never heard of, reading about the B-45:

This is a North American B-45 Tornado, America's first jet bomber. Design work started during WW2, when America got wind of the German jet bomber programs. It first flew in 1947, and up until the Korean war, was subject of many a slapfight. While it could drop Nuclear bombs, the USAF wanted them for recon. During the Korean War, it did this job quite well. It was also one of those aircraft that flew over the USSR on recon flights in the mid-1950s, and was only replaced formerly by SAC in 1959. You might wonder, like I did, why it remained it service past the Korean war with the B-47 being a thing, but according to Wikipedia [for what it is worth], the B-47 wasn't really working properly until 1953, and was a maintenance hog.

The interesting bit:

Anyway, the thing that confuses me is the prohibition of recon flights over the USSR, when Truman was authorizing recon flights over the USSR. I understand lying, but why the "dodge" of a rule that was being broken anyway?

e: further reading, the wiki article of aerial recon over the USSR. The article states '45 US aircraft were shot down in the years doing this' but I'm dubious

President establishes a rule for diplomatic reasons, President can rescind the rule also for diplomatic reasons.

# ? Jul 7, 2018 23:38

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Enjoy this whole channel, which has a lot of AIRPOWER/Cold War material. Lots of old footage mixed together with music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puylXe3MhyQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1DZL3Mu5Kg&t=211s

VERY IMPORTANT EDIT: Thank you, Mr. Dr. Alexander Tobacco M.D. for linking this to me last night. Please everyone send your adoration to him.

mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jul 8, 2018

# ? Jul 8, 2018 15:10

Somebody Awful: Nov 27, 2011; BORN TO DIE
HAIG IS A FUCK
Kill Em All 1917
I am trench man
410,757,864,530 SHELLS FIRED

M_Gargantua posted:

Electronics and software, which we don�t export.

The Chinese aren't breaking into US networks and servers for the lulz.

# ? Jul 8, 2018 23:27

Doctor Grape Ape: Aug 26, 2005; Dammit Doc, I just bought this for you 3 months ago. Try and keep it around for a bit longer this time.

Sperglord Actual posted:

The Chinese aren't breaking into US networks and servers for the lulz.

I imagine it'd be for the rurz.

# ? Jul 8, 2018 23:30

Captain Log: Oct 2, 2006; Now I am become Borb,
the Destroyer of Seeb

Doctor Grape Ape posted:

I imagine it'd be for the rurz.

Am I racist for laughing? I think I caught racism.

# ? Jul 9, 2018 02:20

Memento: Aug 25, 2009; Bleak Gremlin

gently caress me, the women who was exposed to Novichok last week has just passed away.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/british-woman-dawn-sturgess-exposed-to-novichok-nerve-agent-dies-20180709-p4zqaw.html

This is the first actual death from it, right? I've read how Novichok doesn't have a particularly long dwell time at a site, speculating that this incident can't be linked to the Skripal attack because in the interceding ~4 months it would have degraded to be just about inert.

Nothing will come of this, clearly, there's far too much Russian Oligarch money in the UK for the government to do anything except get impotently cross about it.

# ? Jul 9, 2018 03:00

Neophyte: Apr 23, 2006; perennially; Taco Defender

Might depend on what they were loving with, if it was something like a resealed vial or used syringe with liquid still in it the agent may have been protected from the air enough to still be potent.

edit: whoops wikipedia thinks novichok might be a powder, not a liquid, but the same thing may apply - the agent was in a protective-enough container that it was still deadly even after all this time

or maybe the wiki entry quote is accurate and "it is very stable with a slow evaporation rate and can remain dangerous for years once deployed"

anyway, winners don't do drugs or something

Neophyte fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jul 9, 2018

# ? Jul 9, 2018 03:16

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Neophyte posted:

anyway, winners don't do drugs or something

Wouldn't it be more like "winners don't have drugs done to them" in this case?

# ? Jul 9, 2018 03:39

Neophyte: Apr 23, 2006; perennially; Taco Defender

StandardVC10 posted:

Wouldn't it be more like "winners don't have drugs done to them" in this case?

Depends on the drugs, as my "Hotbox Recipient of the Year" trophy clearly implies.

# ? Jul 9, 2018 03:57

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

Things I learnt today:

The Royal Navy have a British Army artillery liason on board for shore bombardment, even in support of Royal Marines operations

The Royal Marines regard one naval gun in support as equivalent to a battery of 81mm mortars, and especially like it because they don't have to worry about resupplying it

# ? Jul 9, 2018 10:23

inkjet_lakes: Feb 9, 2015

IPCRESS posted:

Wait, so you're telling me that the sidewinder nimrods aren't full-fledged day 1 doorkickers?

I suppose they did have a slim chance of claiming the first kill of Op Corporate.

Proper Kerni ng posted:

Just a normal day in the Russian Navy, y'know, rollin' coal in the Kuznetsov an' losin' one quarter of the planes.

I gave up on PPRUNE after the thread earnestly discussing the Kuznetsov belching it's way down the channel being the first move of a potential Russian attack on the UK.

# ? Jul 9, 2018 12:48

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

inkjet_lakes posted:

I suppose they did have a slim chance of claiming the first kill of Op Corporate.

I gave up on PPRUNE after the thread earnestly discussing the Kuznetsov belching it's way down the channel being the first move of a potential Russian attack on the UK.

Why would Russia attack the UK when the ruling class use it as a safe haven and can openly kill anyone they want, however they want already?

# ? Jul 9, 2018 15:19

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

inkjet_lakes posted:

I gave up on PPRUNE after the thread earnestly discussing the Kuznetsov belching it's way down the channel being the first move of a potential Russian attack on the UK.

Pretty sure the Brexit vote was the first move of a Russian attack and it was a decisive victory.

# ? Jul 9, 2018 15:38

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Warbadger posted:

Why would Russia attack the UK when the ruling class use it as a safe haven and can openly kill anyone they want, however they want already?

Arrogance

There was an 'election' in Russia

incompetence on the part of the agents responsible

or like Hobbesmaster said, they've written them off as any sort of threat via brexit and dark money propping up the real estate speculation in the UK

# ? Jul 9, 2018 17:46

Mortabis: Jul 8, 2010; I am stupid

I don't understand why any Russian expats, particularly ones who may have antagonized Putin, still live in the UK. Seriously move anywhere else. Move to like, Grand Forks or something, and buy a gun.

# ? Jul 9, 2018 17:54

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

So, according to this story, another fitness tracker app causes information breeches about secret personnel and the locations of stuff.

But in a twist, it also identified foreign agents in America near classified facilities.

# ? Jul 9, 2018 18:03

knox_harrington: Feb 18, 2011; Running no point.

simplefish posted:

Things I learnt today:

The Royal Navy have a British Army artillery liason on board for shore bombardment, even in support of Royal Marines operations

The Royal Marines regard one naval gun in support as equivalent to a battery of 81mm mortars, and especially like it because they don't have to worry about resupplying it

Pretty sure this is just because 29 Commando, including 148 Battery who specialise in forward observation for naval bombardment, are "Army Commando" rather than specifically Navy. Once on land the RM artillery technically comes from the Army even if they have brought it with them.

# ? Jul 9, 2018 20:00

Guest2553: Aug 3, 2012

From what I remember in my time there*, Chiefs of Fires (or equivalent), whether in a joint environment or no, will always be an artillery officer because of some order of precedence thing.

hobbesmaster posted:

Pretty sure the Brexit vote was the first move of a Russian attack and it was a decisive victory.

Without getting too DND, NY Mag put together an interesting timeline of how Russia could have plausibly cultivated trump as an asset since as early as '87. It's the first article from a reputable source I've come across that approaches things from the perspective of 'what if the worst is true'.

quote:

The media has treated the notion that Russia has personally compromised the president of the United States as something close to a kook theory. A minority of analysts, mostly but not exclusively on the right, have promoted aggressively exculpatory interpretations of the known facts, in which every suspicious piece of evidence turns out to have a surprisingly innocent explanation. And it is possible, though unlikely, that every trail between Trump Tower and the Kremlin extends no farther than its point of current visibility.

What is missing from our imagination is the unlikely but possible outcome on the other end: that this is all much worse than we suspect...And while the body of publicly available information about the Russia scandal is already extensive, the way it has been delivered � scoop after scoop of discrete nuggets of information � has been disorienting and difficult to follow. What would it look like if it were reassembled into a single narrative, one that distinguished between fact and speculation but didn�t myopically focus on the most certain conclusions?

Either way this week's NATO summit is gonna be lit as af tho.

*e. preemptive alibi - that's what I remember being told and it lines up with my experiences on ex/course, so it could still be an elaborate game of 'let's gently caress with the colonials'

Guest2553 fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Jul 10, 2018

# ? Jul 10, 2018 00:45

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Semi-related to that discussion of army guys on RN ships, for at least part of the 20th century they also had one of the turrets on the bigger ships manned by the Marines because, hey, gotta give them something to do I guess. I don't know when or if they ever stopped that, mostly I know it's a thing from reading about Jutland and seeing explanations about why there's a bunch of marines manning some of the turrets.

# ? Jul 10, 2018 00:48

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Fun fact: the Royal Navy stopped doing pike and cutlass drills on board ironclad battleships in 1906, 26 years after the adoption of the QF breach-loading gun.

# ? Jul 10, 2018 01:18

BIG HEADLINE: Jun 13, 2006; "Stand back, Ottawan ruffian, or face my lumens!"

Arglebargle III posted:

Fun fact: the Royal Navy stopped doing pike and cutlass drills on board ironclad battleships in 1906, 26 years after the adoption of the QF breach-loading gun.

Gotta run out of ammo eventually.

# ? Jul 10, 2018 01:25

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

So according to Tyler Rogeoway, the refit of the Admiral Nakhimov is still ongoing and is now down to a bare-hull rebuild. This has delayed its return to service until 2021. After, apparently, Peter the Great will get the same treatment. This is some sort of consolation prize to the Russian Navy as their hilarious enormous 'destroyers' are not being funded.

# ? Jul 10, 2018 01:41

Smiling Jack: Dec 2, 2001; I sucked a dick for bus fare and then I walked home.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Semi-related to that discussion of army guys on RN ships, for at least part of the 20th century they also had one of the turrets on the bigger ships manned by the Marines because, hey, gotta give them something to do I guess. I don't know when or if they ever stopped that, mostly I know it's a thing from reading about Jutland and seeing explanations about why there's a bunch of marines manning some of the turrets.

It was a tradition in the US Navy also, as late as ww2. IIRC, the Intrepid carrier had a marine turret. Goes back to at least the revolutionary war era.

# ? Jul 10, 2018 01:47

Hauldren Collider: Dec 31, 2012

Nebakenezzer posted:

So according to Tyler Rogeoway, the refit of the Admiral Nakhimov is still ongoing and is now down to a bare-hull rebuild. This has delayed its return to service until 2021. After, apparently, Peter the Great will get the same treatment. This is some sort of consolation prize to the Russian Navy as their hilarious enormous 'destroyers' are not being funded.

Tyler Rogoway is the worst of all the clickbait mil journo people though

# ? Jul 10, 2018 03:30

CarForumPoster: Jun 26, 2013; â¡POWERâ¡

Hauldren Collider posted:

Tyler Rogoway is the worst of all the clickbait mil journo people though

Yea and the move to The Drive made it somehow even much worse. I love how "it could/may/might" about a future military project is synonymous with "poo poo I made up based on literally 0 knowledge of the contractor, engineering or the customer"

# ? Jul 10, 2018 04:13