|
Snowdens Secret posted:Anyone know who he posted in D&D as? 
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Speaking of Bears, I follow/occasionally contribute to airliners.net, and there was a whole raft of pictures at the end of last year when an Indian Tu-142 visited Bombay's regular commercial airport for whatever reason. I have never seen an airplane look so out of place at an airport before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Bears always look ungainly, but doubly so on the ground. The proportions just seem a bit off. The wing is too far forward, the fuselage is pretty narrow. Also the fact its still rockin' the turboprops. In the end you can't argue it's a good, functional bird though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Anyone know who he posted in D&D as? So good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Those guys were legit doing their aircraft mission, though. The Russians with respect to the Alaska guys were just doing Cold War party games. cite?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Groda posted:cite? For the Russia/Alaska thing? My own experience. I flew that mission for almost 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Do we ever do the same thing to them? Been a while since we did it to the Russians, but we haven't forgotten how. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/26/japan-china-senkaku-islands/3746771/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/06/us-korea-north-idUSBREA150A320140206
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:the whole A-10 issue just has a bunch of people who want to keep them on board for reasons that range from Where on this spectrum does BBRRRRAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPP fall?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:19
|
|
to 
|
Memento posted:Where on this spectrum does BBRRRRAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPP fall? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
The Russians don't just do this with bears. They did it to Sweden with the Tu-22M3 (which I personally love, I think it looks badass with those big shoulders and the upward slice on the bottom of the nose) and Sweden were caught with their dick in the hand. Source: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=04f_1366671874
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Noone has actually stated why we did not respond to the Russians during last easter. We knew that the Russians was going to conduct excercises and still did not put up anything. So some speculate that it was on purpose as to not "disturb" the Russians and to either facilitate intelligence gathering and/or not give away response times etc to our neighbours. Either that or we just couldn't be arsed because hey why work on a weekend.  (disclaimer, I'm an interested citizen but know next to nothing about our current capabilities and goals etc in the military)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyk-XHuOyBM In-cockpit video of Blue Angels in formation. It illustrates just how close and wiggly the whole affair is 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
It is incredible flying but what bothers me is that if I have to punch out, you're going through the wing of the plane next to you. Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Not sure if this would go here or the general MilHist thread, but can someone explain to me what the hell was with the US Dragon series of ATGMs? Like, it seems from the start they were way too underpowered, inaccurate, had a wacky steering system that said "shoot me pls", and just seemed all around more terrible than everything the Russians and even the Europeans were putting out at the time. So why did the US army stick with them for so long and not just ditch them for like, Milans like everyone else in NATO?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:
So, the question you seem to be asking is why the United States military held on to an overly expensive, ineffective military system, and not adopt a cheaper, superior system produced by another country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
OK, serious question: How many times has the US adopted foreign <whatever> for something that was going to see major, high profile use? I'm not talking the HSLD go fast guys being able to have a dozen whatever the fucks on the books because they're special and want them, I'm talking about the sort of things you see bought in big numbers and used by whatever passes as rank and file in that service. Random components kind of count (example: British engines in P51s) , but kind of not. I THINK the most recent one is the Harrier. Then there's the Beretta M9 of course. Frankly I can't think of any others (without resorting to component shenanigans) until we get back to the m1917. The Krag, if you reach back a few years earlier. . . edit: let's stick to post-ww1. WW1 introduces an entire cluster gently caress of us using French equipment. Nieuports and SPADs and all sorts of poo poo, both good and bad, due mostly to us trying to get people into the fight ASAP. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Aren't AT4s/M136s a Swedish design? And we use a bunch of FN machine guns too, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Aren't AT4s/M136s a Swedish design? And we use a bunch of FN machine guns too, right? Yeah, good call on the AT4s, FN m249 is another good one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:57
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:OK, serious question: How many times has the US adopted foreign <whatever> for something that was going to see major, high profile use? I'm not talking the HSLD go fast guys being able to have a dozen whatever the fucks on the books because they're special and want them, I'm talking about the sort of things you see bought in big numbers and used by whatever passes as rank and file in that service. Random components kind of count (example: British engines in P51s) , but kind of not. Canberra was one too.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, good call on the AT4s, FN m249 is another good one. The M240 is an FN MAG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
My recollection is that Dragon missiles are much lighter than missiles like Milans. The problem of preferring domestic stuff, dumb as it is for every reason, exists worldwide. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Yeah the M240 is just an updated MAG58. We also use the M3 MAAWS (Carl Gustav), and a couple different mortar systems are foreign made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crew-served_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_Forces If you want to go with vehicles, the Stryker is built in Canada and a couple MRAP models are foreign-designed and/or made. For aircraft, it doesn't look like we use any foreign-built or designed combat aircraft other than the Harrier, but we do use some foreign transport aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, good call on the AT4s, FN m249 is another good one. The M3 (Carl Gustaf) is, too. And the Bofors 40mm. E:f;b
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Main gun on the M1 was a British gun and on the M1A1 a German gun. M240 medium machine gun is a variation of the FN MAG. M249 light is a variation of the FN Minimi. AT-4 is a Swedish design. LAV-25s and Strykers are variants on Swiss designs. M777 artillery is a British design. M1014 is Beretta shotgun. M252 81mm mortar is an adaption of a British design. M32 grenade launcher is South African. The SMAW is an adaptation of an Isreali design.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Federal law makes it, not impossible, but very difficult to purchase anything on government contract if a reasonable domestic substitute can be made to exist. At the least it generally will be built domestically. We rented HSwMS Gotland because we needed a diesel submarine. I'd also suspect with the ATGM thing that other people assumed their infantry-carried missiles were primary antitank assets, while the US assumes its antitank punch will come from its own tanks, and fixed/rotary air assets. In a hot war any man-portable anti-tank shaped hole in our lines can be filled by allies. Kinda like the convo we've had before here about why US mobile AA has sucked so hard for so long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
NASAMS  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:My recollection is that Dragon missiles are much lighter than missiles like Milans. There are plenty of smart reasons to prefer domestic designs and production, too. Arms development/licensing and manufacturing eat up a lot of money - if you're in charge of a country, it's in your best interest to keep that money flowing back into your own economy if it's at all possible (or, if you can't do that, funnel it towards a strong ally). And, especially on the production side, it's a good thing to be self-sufficient as much as possible. If you get into a war, you don't want to be hosed by an embargo or blockade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Yeah I think we can assume that any hot war we encounter production capacity isn't going to be a significant factor. But this part:Space Gopher posted:if you're in charge of a country, it's in your best interest to keep that money flowing back into your own economy if it's at all possible is completely wrong. That money flows back into your economy by the foreign stuff being better/costing less and the government taxing actually useful economic activity less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:is completely wrong. That money flows back into your economy by the foreign stuff being better/costing less and the government taxing actually useful economic activity less. Let's say two tanks are equally good, and the US variant costs $500 more than the foreign one. It would obviously be better to employ American workers than foreign workers, as far as the local economy goes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
For the American workers working in the local factory maybe but for everyone else no. I'm just speaking from a strictly economic perspective here. There may be other strategic reasons for buying domestically which I'm really not going to try to judge the merits of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:is completely wrong. That money flows back into your economy by the foreign stuff being better/costing less and the government taxing actually useful economic activity less. Sorta; the money the government spends overseas leaves the system (If you consider the country a closed system); the money the government spends at home gets taxed on the way down, then what's left is spent within the economy, where it's taxed again, and that's spent again and taxed again... If you think of all government spending as subsidizing a segment of the economy, it makes a lot more sense to subsidize your own economy than to subsidize some other guy's. I'd much rather a government procurement contract create 200 jobs the next province over than 100 jobs in Scandinavia, you know? Plus it's not like the government is going to tax anyone less because they're spending less, in practice. Mortabis posted:For the American workers working in the local factory maybe but for everyone else no. Well, it's better for the workers, for the people working in the restaurants those workers frequent, for the people renting apartments to the people working in those restaurants, for the people who get hired to renovate those apartments and for the cities charging property taxes on those buildings, amongst others. Money the government spend doesn't just go into someone's account and sit there. FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Yeah I think we can assume that any hot war we encounter production capacity isn't going to be a significant factor. Why would we assume that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Why would we assume that? Because a modern war will be short either way. Either you run out of ammunition or the collapse of international trade makes a long war impossible to finance. Besides, the monarchies of Europe are all related to each other, I don't see why they would wage a long war that could end in a revolution. They'll make peace quickly if it becomes obvious that a long war can't be won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Because a modern war will be short either way. Either you run out of ammunition or the collapse of international trade makes a long war impossible to finance. Besides, the monarchies of Europe are all related to each other, I don't see why they would wage a long war that could end in a revolution. They'll make peace quickly if it becomes obvious that a long war can't be won. Or it all ends in nuclear holocaust. But yeah, blockades and embargoes fall into that category of 19th Century diplomacy that just has no place in the 21st century world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Or it all ends in nuclear holocaust. The joke -> Zeppelin -> Fokker Eindecker -> You ->
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:There are plenty of smart reasons to prefer domestic designs and production, too. Arms development/licensing and manufacturing eat up a lot of money - if you're in charge of a country, it's in your best interest to keep that money flowing back into your own economy if it's at all possible (or, if you can't do that, funnel it towards a strong ally). And, especially on the production side, it's a good thing to be self-sufficient as much as possible. If you get into a war, you don't want to be hosed by an embargo or blockade. Domestic production, yes. Domestic designs, no. Those same design engineers will still have a job doing production engineering, quality assurance, and updates/upgrades whether they imagined it from scratch or not. Not Invented Here is an extremely infuriating fallacy. Superior weapons systems are superior weapons systems, and the end user shouldn't give a poo poo who dreamed them up. I hope some office in the pentagon procurement department has a file cabinet full of war material we can actually mass produce during a serious conflict. Because we sure as poo poo aren't gonna be cranking out F-22s or F-35s at 20,000 a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:I hope some office in the pentagon procurement department has a file cabinet full of war material we can actually mass produce during a serious conflict. Because we sure as poo poo aren't gonna be cranking out F-22s or F-35s at 20,000 a year. Is there a realistic scenario where two nuclear powers (one of which is the USA) have an extended conventional war and neither side goes nuclear pretty quickly? I was always under the impression that potential wars were pretty much either: 1. Regional war against a non-peer adversary (Gulf War, OIF, OEF) where USA-based production capacity isn't particularly strained because losses aren't that bad, relatively speaking. 2. Holy gently caress the world is exploding, nukes are going off everywhere. Production capacity doesn't matter because everyone's dead. If there's not something between those two, then does domestic production capacity matter nearly as much?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Yeah the M240 is just an updated MAG58. We also use the M3 MAAWS (Carl Gustav), and a couple different mortar systems are foreign made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crew-served_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_Forces I wouldn't count any of those foreign transports...all the USAF ones are small buys for AFSOC to do special things with, and the HC-144 is for the Coast Guard. MRC48B posted:I hope some office in the pentagon procurement department has a file cabinet full of war material we can actually mass produce during a serious conflict. Because we sure as poo poo aren't gonna be cranking out F-22s or F-35s at 20,000 a year. Uh, the kind of stuff you need to fight and win a serious conflict today isn't the type of stuff you can just crank out on a whim; the days of WWII style converting jukebox factories to build rifles while GM builds fighters are long over. That's why people get so wrapped around the axle about procurement decisions, because the decision you make to end or expand a program today will have an impact 30 years from now. This would also be why those of us concerned about American airpower pitched such a shitfit when the F-22 buy got canned at 187. Stopping the program with that low of a number of aircraft incurred a rather significant amount of strategic risk that no one at the time in a position of power seemed to really care about. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 01:21
|
|
Craptacular posted:Is there a realistic scenario where two nuclear powers (one of which is the USA) have an extended conventional war and neither side goes nuclear pretty quickly? I was always under the impression that potential wars were pretty much either: That was the plot of Red Storm Rising right? I have no clue if that scenario was realistic or not.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Craptacular posted:Is there a realistic scenario where two nuclear powers (one of which is the USA) have an extended conventional war and neither side goes nuclear pretty quickly? I was always under the impression that potential wars were pretty much either: I'm always wondering about the "China and the US go to war, war goes nuclear within a week" thing, because it makes little sense to me. The decision to escalate to nuclear is a political one, so the political gain of going nuclear has to outweigh the political cost. Since the cost is the complete destruction of your country because MAD is a thing, I don't see a scenario where a country would decide to escalate to nuclear. That includes tactical nukes. Today, firing off a nuke isn't just packing a big explosion into a small bomb anymore, it is a message. Any nuke will be answered with a full response, no holds bared, make the rubble glow because of what a nuke means politically. Compare, in a way, chemical weapons in WWII. They weren't used, even by sides that were in absolutely desperate situations. Neither the Russians in 1941/1942 nor the Germans in 1944/1945 decided to unleash chemical weapons (the Japanese did in China, but only on a very limited scale). Even if you account for Hitler's aversion to gas and the fear of reprisals, by 1945 there was little left to lose for the Nazis by deciding to outfit a V2 or three with poison gas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 01:36
|
|