|
The JPO has not handled JSF well: http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2013-140.pdf 719 major and minor issues found with the JSF program. Some of these have already been addressed.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:That map looks like it was put together as an argument for countervalue targeting vs. counterforce. It's post cold war, also; there are a number of bases omitted that would have been targeted in the cold war that are closed now. Here's the source document for the map: Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services From Attacks by Russian Nuclear Forces (2002) And the target list: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Here's the source document for the map: The only problem is that PSR put it out, so I would wonder if they didn't go with the worst of the worst examples...granted it's nuclear war, so it's not like the optimistic end is that good. I mean look at this horseshit they put out: http://www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/ quote:Issues
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The JPO has not handled JSF well: http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2013-140.pdf Preempting Grover here but what's the ratio of fixed to not fixed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Tom Petty playing himself was the only good part of that movie. I was actually impressed with the gunplay where the lady was trying to take out "beardy McWarlord" with the AR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:The only problem is that PSR put it out, so I would wonder if they didn't go with the worst of the worst examples...granted it's nuclear war, so it's not like the optimistic end is that good. The target list for that scenario is a totally realistic full counterforce+ one except for he State Capitols and Power Plants being included. It muddles up the purity of the 'force on force' option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:A McDonnell Douglas product with hydraulic leaks? Say it ain't so. It's only a problem when a plane /isn't/ leaking hyd fluid. Because that means it's out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
those aren't hydraulic leaks, they're air lube. the plane has dispensers near areas of high-pressure airflow to make it slide through the air.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 10:46
|
|
|
wkarma posted:It's only a problem when a plane /isn't/ leaking hyd fluid. Because that means it's out. This is 100% correct for Douglas/MD products. atomicthumbs posted:those aren't hydraulic leaks, they're air lube. the plane has dispensers near areas of high-pressure airflow to make it slide through the air. It puts the lotion on its skin, else it gets the hose again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Thought this was more relevant here than in the news thread: Vo Nguyen Giap, the Vietnamese general who masterminded victories against France and the US, has died aged 102.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:Thought this was more relevant here than in the news thread: Yeah, I saw that. I have to admit, my first thought was "what the everloving gently caress?!? Goddamned Giap was still alive?!?" edit: Seriously, you guys need to read his "how we won the war." I took a class at the UofO back in highschool about the Vietnam War and it was one of the assigned readings. Blew the top of my teenaged head off. drat good read. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Seven years ago today, the US Navy flew the F-14 for the last time. You should commemorate this by watching
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I have to admit, my first thought was "what the everloving gently caress?!? Goddamned Giap was still alive?!?" That was my first thought too. I had no idea he was still alive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Not only was he still alive, he was OG as gently caress, still calling the govt out on selling out poor farmers to Chinese mining companies.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Seven years ago today, the US Navy flew the F-14 for the last time. You should commemorate this by watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqyI04WDZlQ Still love the beginning of that one... First Tomcat flight: December 21, 1970 First hydraulic failure: December 30, 1970 First ejection: December 30, 1970
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
I've always wondered how hard is it to switch air frames as a pilot? If you spent 5 years flying tomcats do you go back for retraining or can you just hop into a hornet and fly away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I took a class at the UofO back in high school Wait, what? What high school in Eugene did you go to? Also, high-five fellow Duck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Branis posted:I've always wondered how hard is it to switch air frames as a pilot? If you spent 5 years flying tomcats do you go back for retraining or can you just hop into a hornet and fly away. One of the military or ex-military flyers in here can probably answer better (paging Godholio or Dead Reckoning) but you are going to get some sort of retraining to fly another airframe. The extensiveness of that retraining depends on the type of swap...whether it is permanent or just because of a particular job you are filling for the next couple of years, how much experience you have in your current platform, how different the types of aircraft are, etc. As far as how hard it is to do (voluntarily), depends...it definitely can be done (boss at my previous base had been a fully checked out operational pilot on F-15Cs and F-117s and also flew Aggressor F-16s while in that job) but it all depends on what airframe you are coming from and going to as well as a bunch of other stuff. Of course there is involuntary retraining, which is a whole 'nother thing. Ask the guys who got TAMI-21'd into RPAs how they feel about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Do they swap the placement of the "Fly" and "Land" buttons on different airframes?  (Simpsons joke)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Wait, what? What high school in Eugene did you go to? Also, high-five fellow Duck. Sheldon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
My first roommate was from Eugene, Oregon. He said it was home to "alternative lifestyles," especially "alternative chemistry" and "alternative agriculture."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
further proof that oregon is the best state
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:My first roommate was from Eugene, Oregon. He said it was home to "alternative lifestyles," especially "alternative chemistry" and "alternative agriculture." Also, alternate living situations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpjcY4vENCY
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
right arm posted:further proof that oregon is the best state So trying to convince my wife to return to Eugene.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:One of the military or ex-military flyers in here can probably answer better (paging Godholio or Dead Reckoning) but you are going to get some sort of retraining to fly another airframe. The extensiveness of that retraining depends on the type of swap...whether it is permanent or just because of a particular job you are filling for the next couple of years, how much experience you have in your current platform, how different the types of aircraft are, etc. Length of time depends on the airframes, but there are courses for "difference training." If you're staying within similar airframes, like fighters, it's pretty short...a few weeks, maybe 2 months I think. As with all training, it comes down to sorties available and whatnot too. With fighters, it's a lot easier to generate sorties than with some of the heavy airframes like AWACS/JSTARS. So the syllabus might call for 8 flights which could take 2-3 weeks in fighters, but on AWACS it's more like 6-8 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
That's surprisingly quick. I would have guessed more time to really be figured as combat capable in another airframe as opposed to competent to fly between point A and point B.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
Alaan posted:That's surprisingly quick. I would have guessed more time to really be figured as combat capable in another airframe as opposed to competent to fly between point A and point B. There is a lot of simulator work too. I think it's to the point that C-17 initial qual is only four flights in the actual airplane. Also, being qualified in an airframe and being mission certified/combat mission ready are actually two separate qualifications.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There is a lot of simulator work too. I think it's to the point that C-17 initial qual is only four flights in the actual airplane. quote:The maximum time period for pilots completing the aircraft commander initial qualification course to be certified as an aircraft commander is 180 days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Alaan posted:That's surprisingly quick. I would have guessed more time to really be figured as combat capable in another airframe as opposed to competent to fly between point A and point B. Well, if you think about it, it makes sense. The fighters all use the same weapons, so the parameters for an engagement are going to be very similar. The tactics are going to be similar across most fighters. You're really just learning the radar mechanics, airframe specific concerns (reading the TO, learning the warnings/cautions/notes, etc), and control fam. And you've already got a solid understanding of the underlying principles and probably at least a thousand hours of actual experience. You're not starting at the same place as a new pilot. Edit: I didn't even think about looking up the numbers. You should be able to find it for almost any platform. AFI 11-2(airframe) Vol 1 is your training regulation. 11-2C-17, 11-2E-3, 11-2F-15, etc. Vol 2 is evaluations, Vol 3 is operations (governing things like fuel requirements, mission planning procedures, etc...not tactical stuff). Difference training will be covered in Vol 1, maybe the base/unit supplement to it. It'll lay out the basic requirement, but the primary instructor will have some leeway as well. Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: I didn't even think about looking up the numbers. You should be able to find it for almost any platform. AFI 11-2(airframe) Vol 1 is your training regulation. 11-2C-17, 11-2E-3, 11-2F-15, etc. Vol 2 is evaluations, Vol 3 is operations (governing things like fuel requirements, mission planning procedures, etc...not tactical stuff). Difference training will be covered in Vol 1, maybe the base/unit supplement to it. It'll lay out the basic requirement, but the primary instructor will have some leeway as well. standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
quote:The maximum time period for pilots completing the aircraft commander initial qualification course to be certified as an aircraft commander is 180 days. Source: I worked in a training shop for a while. I'd note, however, that the AF (not even going to mention other branches) has a bad habit of not standardizing terminology across MAJCOMs, or completely replacing it because a pubs change is an awesome OPR bullet. EDIT: *This explanation trying to condescend you, SD. Everyone else wouldn't be able to read this post if I left it as alphabet soup. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:It would really surprise me if it were differences training instead of initial qualification with some leeway for proficiency advancement. I am qualified on the slick 130, but if I moved to Shadows or Talons or something I'd still have to go through IQT. Could be different for different platforms. There are some big differences in how slicks operate vs some of the other Hercs. I've already asked a buddy of mine who started with AWACS then ended up on JSTARS after going to USAFWS...I'm curious what he went through. I know when I was at Tyndall a few guys who showed up from other fighters for Raptors went though difference training rather than the B-course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
What exactly is a Slick C-130?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
Alaan posted:What exactly is a Slick C-130? Just a normal cargo-carrying C-130. The other C-130s mentioned are specialized aircraft that support special operations forces. The MC-130P is a tanker and airborne command post that supports special operations aviation (think 160th SOAR and USAF CSAR aircraft like the HH-60 Pave Hawks, etc.). MC-130-family of Combat Talon special operations aircraft is used to insert, extract and otherwise support ground special operations forces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Source: I worked in a training shop for a while. I'd note, however, that the AF (not even going to mention other branches) has a bad habit of not standardizing terminology across MAJCOMs, or completely replacing it because a pubs change is an awesome OPR bullet.  into reading someone else's pubs for an internet comedy forum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 11:14
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Could be different for different platforms. There are some big differences in how slicks operate vs some of the other Hercs. I've already asked a buddy of mine who started with AWACS then ended up on JSTARS after going to USAFWS...I'm curious what he went through. I know when I was at Tyndall a few guys who showed up from other fighters for Raptors went though difference training rather than the B-course. The answer from my buddy who went AWACS-JSTARS is that he went through AWO (controller, the lowest officer mission crew position) IQT, then in-house SD upgrade (crew leadership, controller supervisor). It's very likely the people I saw at Tyndall were high-hour, high-experience guys. It was the early days of the 43rd so they were probably just trying to shove as much experience into the airframe as quickly as possible. Edit: I think Dead Reckoning probably nailed it above.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Scott Carpenter dead at 88.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
George Beurling, "The Falcon of Malta", a Canadian Spitfire fighter ace with 32 kills, was trotted around to sell war bonds, but got himself fired from that due to a tendency to get a little too graphic...George Beurling, in a press interview, posted:"I came right up underneath his tail. I was going faster than he was; about fifty yards behind. I was tending to overshoot. I weaved off to the right, and he looked out to his left. I weaved to the left and he looked out to his right. So, he still didn't know I was there. About this time I closed up to about thirty yards, and I was on his portside coming in at about a fifteen-degree angle. Well, twenty-five to thirty yards in the air looks as if you're right on top of him because there is no background, no perspective there and it looks pretty close. I could see all the details in his face because he turned and looked at me just as I had a bead on him. One of my can shells caught him in the face and blew his head right off. The body slumped and the slipstream caught the neck, the stub of the neck, and the blood streamed down the side of the cockpit. It was a great sight anyway. The red blood down the white fusilage. I must say it gives you a feeling of satisfaction when you actually blow their brains out." 
grover fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Oct 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Nothing could go wrong with this ever. Swords into plowshares!quote:The best way to send much-needed supplies to isolated communities in the wake of an asteroid impact, tsunami or other natural disaster may be to launch them atop converted intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), one researcher says. http://www.space.com/23188-ballistic-missiles-disaster-relief-launches.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
I'm sure the survivors of an asteroid impact will happily go dig the supply containers out of the craters the ICBM slammed them in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:38
|
|