|
mlmp08 posted:Expand for huge  Mil Mi-26I’ve never seen it in relation to anything else before. The Soviets sure liked their large boy choppers huh
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
The Mi-10 is one nice high steppin' lady. Bet even 757 pilots are jealous of all that leg. e: holy poo poo it could move a loving train engine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2JPqD2qoM0 Craptacular posted:The Comanche is on there, and it never went past prototype. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I assume the intro of the E-3 was a big part of it as well, as it seems to coincide with the AWACS mission really blossoming in effectiveness. A quick glance says 77ish. The platforms existed but you basically don’t hear about them in a essential-to-ops way as the E-3s now. At least I never have. AWACS/GCI and the rise of BVR likelihood are most definitely tied at the hip. The E-3 hit IOC in 77 iirc; prior to that EC-121s were doing similar work as well as picket AEW missions all over the drat place. They controlled quite a few intercepts during the Vietnam War, but nothing like what we saw in Desert Storm then Northern/Southern Watch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
david_a posted:
The Mi-26 tail rotor is about as big as the main rotor on some light helicopters. I was just surprised that any chart would include the S-67 and not the Cheyenne. I love the S-67 for various reasons, but neither helicopter got past the prototype stage and the Cheyenne was a hell of a lot more important by most measures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
why do russia always got to have the biggest dick stuff
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
bewbies posted:why do russia always got to have the biggest dick stuff Took the wrong lessons from Hitler's biggest dick stuff?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Took the wrong lessons from Hitler's biggest dick stuff? Well, more of authoritarian states in general being wayyyyy more susceptible to the temptation to go for the biggest dick stuff. Also a dash of being unable to keep up with technology when it came to miniaturization leading to the need for larger platforms to match performance of Western planes/missiles. The Su-27 is a good example in that it's very similar to the F-15 in performance but had to be notably larger to pull it off. Same deal with the Tu-160 vs. the B-1A.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
david_a posted:
I knew the Mi-26 was overly large, but did not know that it is so large as to make a CH-53 look small. The -53 is the size of a small house! It's like a singlewide mobile home with a tail boom.  Thing must be loud as gently caress. I've had a 3-ship of USMC CH-53Es fly low over my house and the vibration knocked things off shelves, I can only imagine what something that size would sound/feel like to be under if it was in a hurry at low altitude. Also seconding the sentiment of "boo, no V-12". Minor boo for not including the CH-53K, but I'll allow that omission because the image may be old. Edit: the big Sikorsky is surprisingly powerful for its size, the new CH-53K is only 5 tonnes less lifting capacity than the Mi-26, and just a little over half the empty weight. To be fair, it's meant to sling-load cargo dangling underneath, the Mi-26 maximizes interior volume for carrying troops. Also, fun fact: the fuselages of helicopters are built as lightly as possible, for obvious reasons. So how do you make a helo that can lift more than its own weight in external cargo? Hang it directly from the engine/transmission assembly, of course. Through a hole big enough to jump out through. The hooks at the corners of the lower hull are just to stabilize the load, it's lifted a bigass ring sticking out of the bottom of the gearbox, to which the rappelling line is attached in this video:. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBMBn4prkbw Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 05:01
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
david_a posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:The US got some good use of a contract Mi-26 in Afghanistan—they can sling-load a CH-47 off the side of a mountain. Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so, ad infinitum.  Poem by Augustus De Morgan. Photo credit: my father, Vietnam, 1970-71, reprinted by me from the original negative because his original print is hanging across the room in a frame and is way the gently caress underexposed to the point that I can just barely make out the choppers looking at it from my desk. Maybe he was intentionally making it dark for aesthetics and went too far, and I didn't go far enough, but I like my version where you can actually see the clouds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:why do russia always got to have the biggest dick stuff Would it be some combination of their doctrine and force composition: 1) Soviet deep operation doctrine: The Mi-8 could loft a BMD* + complement to somewhere behind the front lines. 2) Mmmmmaybe a relatively small pool of people the regime could trust enough to dump a bunch of rotary wing training in and not have them immediately visit West Berlin/Japan. So you want each rotary wing guy to be able to 3) Can steal more & larger cows. *: As a bit of comedy, some of the usual suspects claim it could carry a BMP. e: VVV Hmmm. First one built was 1977. I wonder if Canada stipulated that they had to be the oldest airframes available in the lease. IPCRESS fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
Here's a pic that always seems weird as hell to me (Leased Mi-17 in Afghanistan for the RCAF)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:as previously mentioned, the current gen AMRAAM has a ~100 mile range. The one thing I took away from wasting my free time watching flight sim nerd videos, is how easy you can gently caress up a missile's kinematics by doing certain maneuvers at the right time. ~100 mile range is a very specific scenario, not really a general feature, albeit much helped by launching from a stealthy supercruising platform with missiles going active p. late.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 11:06
|
|
|
Inside the Su-57's thrust vector nozzle 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
Tythas posted:Inside the Su-57's thrust vector nozzle Is... is that in-flight? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:another image for image gods I would be surprised if they all had working engines at this point, less because of broken engines and more then fact we havn't bought replacement parts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
I mean, at any given time it’s a safe bet that at least one out of a a few dozen aircraft is down for maintenance. But those 35 pictured all launched and flew same day of photo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
david_a posted:
https://twitter.com/Rotarywings1/status/1064806790590803968 Also a good comparison, not sure if it was linked or not earlier in the thread. (Probably was with my luck.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Koesj posted:The one thing I took away from wasting my free time watching flight sim nerd videos, is how easy you can gently caress up a missile's kinematics by doing certain maneuvers at the right time. ~100 mile range is a very specific scenario, not really a general feature, albeit much helped by launching from a stealthy supercruising platform with missiles going active p. late. That's true but it applies equally to all missiles, so it's not really something that can be held against any particular one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Doing some lazy worktime reading on the F15 STOL/MTD, essentially a program to review 2D thrust vectoring and maneuverability on a modified F15. It looks extremely funky: F15B converted into STOL/MTD test plane   Same airframe converted into F15 ACTIVE, a NASA test plane which retained canards but went back to standard engine nozzles (as far as I can tell) 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:
ACTIVE had 3-d thrust vectoring nozzles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:F15B converted into STOL/MTD test plane One of my favorite planes to use in Ace Combat
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
yeah i was about to say, the Active has been in a ton of video games and always rules
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
In AC4 it had the only thermobaric in the game and it made some of the ground attack missions comically easy. Plane owned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:ACTIVE had 3-d thrust vectoring nozzles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Didn’t know we were already doing combat ops with a 35B, here’s a video of rolling starts off the Essex LHD, the boat the first ones came from. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AzxnR-gsWzc I’m really not sure there’s a sound I like more than a jet engines spooling up from idle to takeoff power. Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:Doing some lazy worktime reading on the F15 STOL/MTD, essentially a program to review 2D thrust vectoring and maneuverability on a modified F15. It looks extremely funky: I can’t find it on the internet, but that same concept artist did another angle of a pair of STOL Eagles taking off between bomb craters. It’s pretty  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Expand for huge Ka-60... smdh Kamov are sellouts
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Ka-50 Havoc checking in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Expand for huge An insufficient number of these are in the (old?) Coast Guard livery. Goddamn is that a nice looking paint scheme. E: Yeah, that's the stuff... 
Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Nov 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 00:20
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, That's a really cool shot. I like your exposure on it also.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Didn’t know we were already doing combat ops with a 35B, here’s a video of rolling starts off the Essex LHD, the boat the first ones came from. Taking off with a full combat load i see . . . 5 minutes fuel, 32 cannon rounds, 1/2 a sidewinder, and 2 x 5000g bombs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Hot take or...clam bake? ...right make ...brisk snake ...cool fake god, these are awful, don't come back to me The US Navy basically admitted that the Littoral Combat Ship looks like a massive failure
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 21:19
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Hot take or...clam bake? I'm sure the Zumwalts will cover the gaps here
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
That Works posted:I'm sure the Zumwalts will cover the gaps here "It wasn't designed for that kind of mission."
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
That Works posted:I'm sure the Zumwalts will cover the gaps here If by "cover the gaps" you mean melting them down and using them to patch existing ships that actually work. . . then maybe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
I’m imagining a montage of these projects failing interspersed with “Arleigh Burke flight I”, “Arleigh Burke flight II”...
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I’m imagining a montage of these projects failing interspersed with “Arleigh Burke flight I”, “Arleigh Burke flight II”... That scene from Robocop 2, except naval vessels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
It would suck being the namesake of a massive boondoggle of a ship. Then again they usually name em after dead guys anyway (with a few exceptions like the carriers named for still living presidents and Jimmy C’s sub) At least the LCS are all named for cities or concepts E: oh man they named one for Gabrielle Giffords? That’s just mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I’m imagining a montage of these projects failing interspersed with “Arleigh Burke flight I”, “Arleigh Burke flight II”... "Celebrating 6 decades of failed M16 replacement programs."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 01:20
|
|