|
Cyrano4747 posted:Deterrence isn't cheap, but it's sure as poo poo cheaper than fighting a war. I should've been more specific at mentioning, I was referring to the B-2 / B-58 posts above mine. A deterrent bomber can be worth its weight in gold many times over, even and especially if it's never actually used.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Interestingly, just saw an article about that the other day; That article is actually near directly quoting from Skunk Works in a few instances. I picked it up when it was mentioned here on sale, but it's definitely a worthwhile read for an in-house background on the development of the U-2, F-117, and SR-71 with a few smaller sections on Skunkworks projects like the Sea Shadow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
 Crimean cat says GTFO
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Slamburger posted:I remember the amazing stat that B-2 bombers cost more than their weight in gold, not even counting the R&D. It's actually more than that. The B-2 crash loss in 2008 was estimated at $1.4b. Of course, then the Spirit of Washington got hosed up something royal, but it wasn't a total loss...it just took a little over THREE loving YEARS to get it back to operational status. A single plane. Damaged in Nov 2010, just put back into service last December. Yeah everybody, let's build 2000 stealth fighters, the Naval version of which can't be repaired while underway because it's just ~sooo advanced~. I foresee nothing going wrong with this. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Slamburger posted:I remember the amazing stat that B-2 bombers cost more than their weight in gold, not even counting the R&D. According to my calculator, the Basilica of St. Peter cost 324,503 pounds of gold (3.5 gold grams per Ducat, 42m ducats total cost) in a century and a half. A couple of B-2 bombers, basically  I suppose B-2s get frescos of Michelangelo in the cockpit or something to justify the cost, and joysticks chiseled from the finest ivory. Seriously though, what the gently caress costs so much?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:According to my calculator, the Basilica of St. Peter cost 324,503 pounds of gold (3.5 gold grams per Ducat, 42m ducats total cost) in a century and a half. A couple of B-2 bombers, basically They're nuclear capable stealth strategic bombers that integrate top secret technology. There's not a single word in that sentence that isn't expensive as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Alaan posted:On the upside, all the pics are showing the Russians without mags in the guns Not any more. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:They're nuclear capable stealth strategic bombers that integrate top secret technology. Has someone ever added up lifetime maintenance costs too? They need special hangars, special training for ground crew (I've seen public pics of the dudes in bunny suits working on surfaces), special materials' handling and probably a whole host of other classified special needs. stealthin' ain't easy e: But, for all the world knows, we have an undetectable* way to deliver a shitload of conventional or nuclear hurt anywhere on the globe. * - some dude watching the runway who hops on IRC and goes 'hey bombers just launched'
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
movax posted:Has someone ever added up lifetime maintenance costs too? They need special hangars, special training for ground crew (I've seen public pics of the dudes in bunny suits working on surfaces), special materials' handling and probably a whole host of other classified special needs. Stealth technology is the avoidance of the enemy's defence by making all the user's money disappear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Ran across this in a tumblr today, said "what the poo poo" out loud. Reckon that is a Sukhoi T-4 with one of their enormous anti-shipping missiles on it? It looks small to be a Valkyrie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 01:52
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Ran across this in a tumblr today, said "what the poo poo" out loud. Yep. You can especially tell by the rear landing gear wheel configuration, definitely a T-4. Maybe an AS-6 missile? Can't really tell. That Works fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Seriously though, what the gently caress costs so much? Pretty much every part is unique to that aircraft, and every part has to be made to incredibly exact tolerances. They might machine 10,000 proprietary bolts, only to keep 210 of them (1 per airframe and 9 backups). These bolts are essentially regular bolts, but since they are going on the B2 they are going to have to be 100% perfect. This means an engineer spending an hour on each with callipers and running each one through an x-ray a dozen times looking for the tiniest flaw or blemish. Another problem is that they likely had to invent and fabricate a lot of different tools to even work on this thing, and a lot of new manufacturing techniques were developed during production. Add to that "military top secret contract" (as mentioned above) and you get the usual inflation on everything associated with the program. Also they developed a new RAM for the B-2 and from what I understand that poo poo is super-duper top secret and even a paint chip that got stuck to the bottom of your boot could land you in a whole heap of trouble. I'm sure when the B2 crashed and burned they made sure that nobody with Chinese heritage or with a name ending in "ski" was allowed anywhere near the site. Apparently the 117 that was shot down in Bosnia had Russian and Chinese engineers crawling all over it before the wreckage hit the ground, and that poo poo was "old hat" by then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Speaking of B-2s, it's really kind of surreal seeing the tooling for the B-2 just sitting out at Davis-Monthan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
The B-2 Spirit: So technologically revolutionary that it costs you just as much as a new plane to properly dispose of one that crashed. Also, if you wonder why the B-2s have names, it's because the Air Force is so vain and hates the Navy so much that they felt that if the plane costs as much as a warship it should be *named* like one. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Speaking of B-2s, it's really kind of surreal seeing the tooling for the B-2 just sitting out at Davis-Monthan.  My favourite B-2 story is how the air force took great pains to make sure nobody could see the back end during the unveiling, but a news chopper flew over and took pictures. Edit: didn't something similar happen to the Ohio class and its prop? Blistex fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Edit: didn't something similar happen to the Ohio class and its prop? Yes:  BUT, evidently the Ohios are being refitted for pumpjets when they come up for maintenance, so for all anyone knows, the propeller there might not have been covered up simply because it was about to be removed. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Has procedure always been to cover the prop with a tarp and they just forgot this time, or did that incident cause them to start?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Has procedure always been to cover the prop with a tarp and they just forgot this time, or did that incident cause them to start? Generally they've always been covered up - with a *really* large tarpaulin when not being worked on or left sitting in dry dock, or covered by a covered scaffolding when being maintained/repaired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Seeing the prop reminds me of a story from when I was a kid. I guess it was around 1986 or so. My dad wouldn't buy a VCR from Toshiba because I guess they helped the US design some propeller design that they later sold to "those ruskie bastards." Was that a real thing or was my dad just a loonie?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Breaky posted:Seeing the prop reminds me of a story from when I was a kid. I guess it was around 1986 or so. My dad wouldn't buy a VCR from Toshiba because I guess they helped the US design some propeller design that they later sold to "those ruskie bastards." Was that a real thing or was my dad just a loonie? Not the screw, the machine to make the screw. http://articles.latimes.com/1987-08-25/local/me-3848_1_soviet-proposals-toshiba-sales-soviet-union
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Breaky posted:Seeing the prop reminds me of a story from when I was a kid. I guess it was around 1986 or so. My dad wouldn't buy a VCR from Toshiba because I guess they helped the US design some propeller design that they later sold to "those ruskie bastards." Was that a real thing or was my dad just a loonie? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba-Kongsberg_scandal
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Breaky posted:Seeing the prop reminds me of a story from when I was a kid. I guess it was around 1986 or so. My dad wouldn't buy a VCR from Toshiba because I guess they helped the US design some propeller design that they later sold to "those ruskie bastards." Was that a real thing or was my dad just a loonie? Pretty sure they just sold precision milling machines that could be used to work hard materials to make props out of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Also, if you wonder why the B-2s have names, it's because the Air Force is so vain and hates the Navy so much that they felt that if the plane costs as much as a warship it should be *named* like one. We've been naming planes for a long time:  The reason we went to the official "Spirit of..." names was pure mercenary enterprise: every Congressman knows if they throw enough money at the navy, eventually they'll get a ship named after their district (or even better, themselves.) The Air Force was hoping to pull the same shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Hah! Thanks guys, never bothered to look into that ever before. Blast from the past there.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Interestingly, just saw an article about that the other day; The linked article posted:The Air Force added the low level penetration requirement to the ATB program, resulting in added complexity and weight to the B-2 design. This sounds like a really dumb idea. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:Not any more. Seems there's been a few staged gunfights as well. This thread is now more relevant than ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:This sounds like a really dumb idea. Especially when you aren't supposed to fly the B-2 in humid conditions. It's a plane that was designed to drop B83s on extremely-high-value strategic targets, a mission that more or less became obsolete the second the ICBM was invented. The only reason to keep a bomber force at all is that it provides a natural 'pause' after an initial exchange with missiles. Except unlike submarines, your bomber force can only be kept aloft as long as the tankers have fuel to give out and/or you have friendly/allied bases to land at. France and England have learned bombers aren't worth it, the Russians are slowly coming to the realization that large fleets of heavy bombers is stupid, but the ~Spirit of LeMay~ is still alive and well in the Air Force. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
But the triad! Really, at least stealth aircraft have more use outside of a nuclear slugfest than nuclear missile subs (except on the rare occasion of slinging tomahawks) and ICBMs. Cruise missiles, even if a stealth version existed, have their limitations, and there is a certain value to being able to truck an assload of munitions downtown night one without having to send a dozen F-117s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Serious question: Was LeMay the Antichrist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Serious question: Was LeMay the Antichrist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Air_Force_Academy_Exemplar Air Force Academy cadets think he was a pretty cool guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Serious question: Was LeMay the Antichrist? He's no Thomas Power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Air_Force_Academy_Exemplar Of course, he wrangled the modern day equivalent of easily a few trillion dollars fearmongering in the 50s and 60s. He's the ideal all Air Force brass aspire to. But he was just a zealot who wanted more toys than the other children. If you want to truly get to know a Kool-Aid drinker, read up on LeMay's adjutant-turned-SAC Commander, Gen. Thomas Power. It's like Hoover and Tolson without the crossdressing and gay sex. LeMay was certainly a cocksucker, though - http://curtis-lemay.tripod.com/ In the 1950's, under Eisenhower, LeMay had the authority to order a nuclear strike without presidential authorization if the president could not be contacted. That option was extended down to General Thomas Power, head of SAC, whom LeMay himself described as "not stable" and a "sadist." Source: http://bit.ly/1gOcJMP --- "Yeah, that guy's a fuckin' nutjob, but he did his job well back in World War II so by Air Force tradition, until we catch him fuckin' a guy or doing something against the rules we've gotta keep promoting him. Plus he's hitched his career to mine, so if he ever went down it'd reflect poorly on me, and that doesn't even count all the dirt he's got." BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Oh, got LeMay and Powers mixed up. I'd like to revise the question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'm not sure. Ask Grumman, they've had two test pilots shoot themselves down iirc. (Also the starfighters thing is more to say the Luftwaffe would have really low expectations.) McD/Boeing doesn't count own goals. The F-15's perfect record is "no losses to ememy fire." One fighter-model F-15 (as opposed to Mudhens, which get shot down relatively often, mostly by AA) was shot down by his wingman accidentally pulling the trigger on a real Sidewinder while play-fighting. BIG HEADLINE posted:In the 1950's, under Eisenhower, LeMay had the authority to order a nuclear strike without presidential authorization if the president could not be contacted. That option was extended down to General Thomas Power, head of SAC, whom LeMay himself described as "not stable" and a "sadist."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 09:15
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:McD/Boeing doesn't count own goals. The F-15's perfect record is "no losses to ememy fire." One fighter-model F-15 (as opposed to Mudhens, which get shot down relatively often, mostly by AA) was shot down by his wingman accidentally pulling the trigger on a real Sidewinder while play-fighting. Still not as nuts as the F11F shooting himself down with his own guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Still not as nuts as the F11F shooting himself down with his own guns. From Wikipedia: quote:The F-11 Tiger is noted for being the first jet aircraft to shoot itself down. On 21 September 1956, during a test-firing of its 20 mm (.79 in) cannons, pilot Tom Attridge fired two bursts midway through a shallow dive. As the velocity and trajectory of the cannon rounds decayed, they ultimately crossed paths with the Tiger as it continued its descent, disabling it and forcing Attridge to crash-land the aircraft; he survived. I'd like to see a diagram of that. Edit: The F-15E's only air-to-air victory is also somewhat hilarious: quote:On 14 February [1991], an F-15E scored its only air-to-air kill: a Mil Mi-24 helicopter. While responding to a request for help by US Special Forces, five Iraqi helicopters were spotted. The lead F-15E of two acquired a helicopter via its FLIR in the process of unloading Iraqi soldiers, and released a GBU-10 bomb. The F-15E crew thought the bomb had missed its target and were preparing to use a Sidewinder when the helicopter was destroyed. The Special Forces team estimated that the Hind was roughly 800 feet (240 m) over the ground when the 2,000 lb (910 kg) bomb hit its target. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:I'd like to see a diagram of that. Ask and ye shall receive! http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.hk/2011/09/fighter-that-shot-itself-down.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Ask and ye shall receive!  Well that's a stroke of bad luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
this one: http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html has a picture of the shell that was found in the engine e: also http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.hk/2011/09/fighter-that-shot-itself-down.html posted:Subsequent examination of the aircraft showed that Attridge had flown the same test profile earlier that day and what was thought to be large ding from an ejected casing on the vertical fin actually turned out to be a projectile hit- apparently Attridge had grazed himself on the first test flight of the day and gotten away with not shooting himself down! And what happened to Attridge? http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2012/05/25/the-plane-that-shot-itself-down/ posted:At this point three of the rounds that he had fired at the higher altitude, which had been slowed by air resistance and which had curved towards the Earth under the effect of gravity, struck the aeroplane’s windshield, nose cone and one of the engine intakes. With reduced engine power available Attridge was unable to return to Grumman’s Long Island airfield and when the engine finally died he was forced to crash land, 800 metres short of the runway. Also: http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2012/05/25/the-plane-that-shot-itself-down/ posted:In 1973 another Grumman test pilot, Pete Purvis, also shot down his own plane,* this time with a dummy AIM-7E Sparrow III air-to-air missile that pitched upwards after being released from its hardpoint and struck the wing of the F-14 Tomcat that Purvis was flying. Both Purvis and his Weapons Systems Officer ejected safely. simplefish fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Edit: The F-15E's only air-to-air victory is also somewhat hilarious: An A-10 had a similarly hilarious overkill victory too. Couldn't get a tone on an Iraqi helicopter with his sidewinder so he fired up the GAU. quote:On the final pass, I shot about 300 bullets at him. That's a pretty good burst. On the first pass, maybe 75 rounds. The second pass, I put enough bullets down, it looked like I hit with a bomb. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-08/news/mn-937_1_air-combat
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:16
|
|
