|
Frosted Flake posted:I was loving around with ChatGPT on lunch and accidentally reinvented the QF 17 Pdr, if anyone wants to get in on the grift for real and bid on a contract: no loving way. as someone who’s seen this poo poo and don’t ask why or where, this would pass as a submission easily
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I was loving around with ChatGPT on lunch and accidentally reinvented the QF 17 Pdr, if anyone wants to get in on the grift for real and bid on a contract: Put this thing on a m113 and we have a new war thunder premium in the making.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:no loving way. as someone who’s seen this poo poo and don’t ask why or where, this would pass as a submission easily I'm 99.99% sure people in government have been using it to write their work emails, because it even knows how to do government of Canada signature blocks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
Lmao we need apfds to protect our artillery against the gaz tigr and btr
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
I mean yeah, if you're sending tanks to a tank war you probably should include some AP ammo
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AcqTalk/status/1625218247292231695 i guess china just has to do the devious plan of waiting patiently to win ww3
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
Danann posted:https://twitter.com/AcqTalk/status/1625218247292231695 lol at the y-axis
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
So even when the f15 was brand new about 15% of them couldn't fly...?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
The F-35 was designed to maintain lucrative parts and labor contracts for Lockheed, and in this role it is second to none. Truly world-class money slusher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So even when the f15 was brand new about 15% of them couldn't fly...? even new aircraft need maintenance, this is how much of the fleet can fly at a given moment
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:The F-35 was designed to maintain lucrative parts and labor contracts for Lockheed, and in this role it is second to none. Truly world-class money slusher. You say that but people seem to forget how Turkey managed to get kicked out of the F-35 program and forced everyone to redo the supply chain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
The idea was that it was supposed to be amortized and everyone would get a cut and keep their aviation industries alive by building at least subassemblies under licence like with the F-104 and F-86. However, Lockheed put an end to that on both counts while the US cranked up diplomatic pressure for everyone else to buy it anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 02:54
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The idea was that it was supposed to be amortized and everyone would get a cut and keep their aviation industries alive by building at least subassemblies under licence like with the F-104 and F-86. However, Lockheed put an end to that on both counts while the US cranked up diplomatic pressure for everyone else to buy it anyways. "i cant believe america sold me out again" infinite redux
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So even when the f15 was brand new about 15% of them couldn't fly...? it's "normal" for any given unit of planes to be at less-than-100% readiness. The issue here is that the F-35 is atrocious at its readiness metrics even given that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So even when the f15 was brand new about 15% of them couldn't fly...? yeah
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:it's "normal" for any given unit of planes to be at less-than-100% readiness. The issue here is that the F-35 is atrocious at its readiness metrics even given that. isnt this true of like everything in the military? stuff breaks or just needs to go offline for routine maintenance, guys get sick or hurt, etc. in any large organization you aren't ever going to be at 100% capacity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 03:15
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:isnt this true of like everything in the military? stuff breaks or just needs to go offline for routine maintenance, guys get sick or hurt, etc. in any large organization you aren't ever going to be at 100% capacity. Yes
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 03:21
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The idea was that it was supposed to be amortized and everyone would get a cut and keep their aviation industries alive by building at least subassemblies under licence like with the F-104 and F-86. However, Lockheed put an end to that on both counts while the US cranked up diplomatic pressure for everyone else to buy it anyways. yes, the F-104 program was highly successful at getting German pilots to crash into their own neighborhoods
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:isnt this true of like everything in the military? stuff breaks or just needs to go offline for routine maintenance, guys get sick or hurt, etc. in any large organization you aren't ever going to be at 100% capacity. IDK how the military accounts for things, but you should in theory be able to have squadrons at 100% readiness without having all the planes working because there should be spares, especially for machines that need maintenance after every time they are used. LOL at that F-35 readiness rate though. I've see people in comments sections saying all of NATO should be buying the F-35, it's performs better and is cheaper to maintain than the Eurofighter, Rafale, or Gripen, and that just does not seem possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:IDK how the military accounts for things, but you should in theory be able to have squadrons at 100% readiness without having all the planes working because there should be spares, especially for machines that need maintenance after every time they are used. When aircraft are having spares installed or are down for scheduled maintenance, that counts negatively against a 100% readiness rating. So when an airplane (or generator or tank or whatever) hasn't "broken" at all, but it has come due for a 12 hour or 3 day or 4 week period of maintenance, that maintenance time counts against its availability. If a piece of equipment is due for scheduled services based on miles or hours or whatever unit of use, the equipment is considered "non-mission capable" due to being due for the scheduled service. One way to get around that is doing your services early or precisely on-time, but you still typically count the downtime where the equipment was taken apart for service as non-available, even if it doesn't go on an unexpected failure type report, etc. It's double-edged. A generator that works flawlessly, but has to come down for 8 hours every 100 hours is "unavaiable" 8% of the time. But it also stops someone from saying that equipment works 100% of the time by saying that spending weeks at a time in a depot "on schedule" simply doesn't count against availability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 04:51
|
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:IDK how the military accounts for things, but you should in theory be able to have squadrons at 100% readiness without having all the planes working because there should be spares, especially for machines that need maintenance after every time they are used. LOL at that F-35 readiness rate though. I've see people in comments sections saying all of NATO should be buying the F-35, it's performs better and is cheaper to maintain than the Eurofighter, Rafale, or Gripen, and that just does not seem possible. The USA and America's worst enemies both agree that anybody allied with the USA should replace their functional aircraft with as many F-35s as possible
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 04:51
|
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:IDK how the military accounts for things, but you should in theory be able to have squadrons at 100% readiness without having all the planes working because there should be spares, especially for machines that need maintenance after every time they are used. LOL at that F-35 readiness rate though. I've see people in comments sections saying all of NATO should be buying the F-35, it's performs better and is cheaper to maintain than the Eurofighter, Rafale, or Gripen, and that just does not seem possible. no matter how many spares you have the airframe has to be grounded and inspected at intervals and that takes time, you can approach but never reach 100%, and the expectations put on military aircraft (they have to sacrifice ease of maintenance for dumb poo poo like weapons and countermeasures that take longer to inspect) mean they'll never be as good as civilian aircraft ofc, the f-35 is as far from that ideal as possible because capitalism optimizes for worst possible maintenance nightmare as that means more dollars
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 12:37
|
|
|
making planes hard to maintain is an intended MIC grift feature
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
World War Gay
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
The F-35A was suppose to be the "good one" in terms of readiness as well, while the F-35B and F-35C are significantly worse. It is perhaps why the Navy really doesn't want more of them. That said, as the US forces the F-35a on its allies it is going to eventually cause a readiness gap to the point even if they start pooling aircraft together there isn't going to be enough for future major operations. Remember too, the F-15e has seen combat at a certain point, and the F-22 is known for having its parts supply chain basically not existing (and its declining readiness is probably due to cannibalization of existing airframes). The Lock-Mart has build 890 F-35s in total, raw production isn't that much of an issue (although it is over the space of 8-9 years), but yeah actually maintaining that fleet especially as it continues to swell in size is going to be the problem. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 13:39 on Mar 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The F-35A was suppose to be the "good one" in terms of readiness as well, while the F-35B and F-35C are significantly worse. It is perhaps why the Navy really doesn't want more of them. turkiye knows what's up
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 13:46
|
|
|
Palladium posted:making planes hard to maintain is an intended MIC grift feature The planes for Ukraine are mainly a pain to maintain
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
Yeah, another thing from that report is just how little the F-35/F-22 are also being flown, a little more than just half that of the F-15, and the F-35C versus the F-18 is similar. The F-35b is only being flown about 8 hours a month which is honestly worse than the Harrier looking at a similar age of the aircraft. The full mission availability for the F-35b/c is still around 20%. The issue is both the maintenance of the jets, but also that so few are often available (along with other factors) that pilots don't get flight time on what what is an advanced aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Raw Flight Time can be misleading as well. For a while, F-15E squadrons were getting more flight time than anyone, but flying a 5-8 hour missions every other day and zero sim time burning holes in the sky over Syria or Northern Iraq in case ISIS shows up is less useful for major combat training than 6-10 hours of live flight time per month plus training and sim where the flights are training high end conflict and a variety of missions. Yeah, the F-15E crews will be the most practiced in stuff like takeoff, landing, and insurgency-level CAS, but they might be LESS capable when it comes to advanced A2A combat training or SEAD/DEAD or long-range strike compared to crews getting less hours, but training instead for high end combat. F-15E squadrons still deploy to the middle east, but a lot of the focus over the last couple years has been getting them back into training the kind of skills required for a Pacific conflict.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
i can't believe the silly russians are using 40 year old tank designs, what savages. what imbeciles. literal children wearing their dad's suits *uses B52s to harass russia, oblivious to how ironic it is*
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
Palladium posted:making planes hard to maintain is an intended MIC grift feature Its insane, you go inside a small wing that has lilke 3 helis used only to ferry the academies generals around and there are like 8 contractors there to service them full time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:Its insane, you go inside a small wing that has lilke 3 helis used only to ferry the academies generals around and there are like 8 contractors there to service them full time. The VIP squadron here has come under fire more than once for officers playing grabass with stewards and treating flights like an open bar. Despite that reputation and relative inactivity, it still has contractors “working” there and constant lobbying from Bombardier for the government to buy new business jets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, the F-15E crews will be the most practiced in stuff like takeoff, landing, and insurgency-level CAS, but they might be LESS capable when it comes to advanced A2A combat training or SEAD/DEAD or long-range strike compared to crews getting less hours, but training instead for high end combat. F-15E squadrons still deploy to the middle east, but a lot of the focus over the last couple years has been getting them back into training the kind of skills required for a Pacific conflict. I predict the F-35 crews will get quite a lot of practice at being DEAD
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The VIP squadron here has come under fire more than once for officers playing grabass with stewards and treating flights like an open bar. Despite that reputation and relative inactivity, it still has contractors “working” there and constant lobbying from Bombardier for the government to buy new business jets. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:I predict the F-35 crews will get quite a lot of practice at being DEAD Honestly, looking at the numbers, I don’t know if they are going to sent into combat in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Practice at surviving ejection while wearing a 40lb helmet
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 22:28
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Raw Flight Time can be misleading as well. For a while, F-15E squadrons were getting more flight time than anyone, but flying a 5-8 hour missions every other day and zero sim time burning holes in the sky over Syria or Northern Iraq in case ISIS shows up is less useful for major combat training than 6-10 hours of live flight time per month plus training and sim where the flights are training high end conflict and a variety of missions. the E is the version kitted out for ground attack so maybe being less capable at air-to-air than F-15C pilots isn't such a big deal or do they just use F-15Es for everything these days?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Honestly, looking at the numbers, I don’t know if they are going to sent into combat in the first place. If they do I imagine they'll be flying till they literally fall out of the sky. Just sending dudes on non-nuclear one way missions
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:the E is the version kitted out for ground attack so maybe being less capable at air-to-air than F-15C pilots isn't such a big deal The F-15Cs are being retired (they're old) and replaced by a mix of F-15EXs and F-35s. F-15Es do air to air as a secondary role, but they have been put on CAP missions before just cause they're around, and they've shot down Iranian drones in Iraq and Syria before. Not all Es have the newer AESAs, but those that do have considerable capability between modern radars and AMRAAMs. The F-15EX will be an F-15 that essentially can do all the F-15C missions and drat near all of the F-15E missions, but with more hardpoints and some improved systems. The only real thing the F-15EX lacks by design is that they cannot carry nuclear weapons, while select F-15Es can. With the new hardpoints, the EX can carry some absurd (and probably terribly inefficient) loads like 12 air to air missiles while still carrying a few cruise missiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
What you're telling me is that the Americans built the f35 whereas the Russians would've just built the f15ex
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 06:15
|
|