|
Thomamelas posted:I looked through the thread and didn't see this. Why does it look like it has a tailgun?
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
apseudonym posted:Why does it look like it has a tailgun? Because it does have a tailgun. 23mm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:I looked through the thread and didn't see this. Man, that thing is channeling the Il-2 hard. Also poorly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:The F-22 has been my wet dream since I was a kid and first played F-22 Lightning II by NovaLogic, I won't listen to none of this sass talk about the Raptor Nuking stuff was the best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Because it does have a tailgun. 23mm. It was good enough for the Il-2, it's good enough for all CAS planes was the line of thinking. It was intended to harass fighters but then guided missiles happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The F-22 is that pretty chick that you blew off because you thought you could do better. No wonder you post so much about the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
I think the F-35 is probably an excellent plane but it is definitely a terrible program. The A anyway, who knows about B and C (probably still better than the competition, if any) Worth the price, however? I don't know about that. I don't think it is the right plane for Canada though. Single engine aside it isn't compatible with the refuelling setup, being boom only and not drogue. That seems pretty goddamn important. The SuperHornet and Rafale are the two most compelling options, imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
There's an unwritten rule that all CAS aircraft have to look sort of awkward yet beautiful if only in its ugliness
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
priznat posted:I think the F-35 is probably an excellent plane but it is definitely a terrible program. I remember reading Canada's are getting refitted with drogue parachutes and refueling probes from the B/C versions. e: wiki article says yes but the source is a dead link 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I remember reading Canada's are getting refitted with drogue parachutes and refueling probes from the B/C versions. Yeah I heard that too buuuuut.. I also heard they would just contract out tanker duty which is.. Questionable. I can just imagine something getting hosed up on a retrofit too, with cost overruns and delays etc. nothing is a simple fix on machines this complex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Plus the Raptor is probably pretty good at it's intended job of shooting other planes down. At the very least it can take off and land on runways it was designed to operate from, unlike the F-35b and F-35c Hey now, the -C just got its first carrier trap. Now, as far as boarding rate goes, we'll have to see. Did they ever come up with a solution to the "tailhook is too short" problem?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Because it does have a tailgun. 23mm. The plane of my heart
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The F-22 is that pretty chick that you blew off because you thought you could do better. Waking up from the American Dream
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The number one reason to hate on the raptor was that it finally came into being in the midst of a war where Americans were dying on a daily basis in battles where the F-22 was basically useless. When you look at mission parameters and how it operates, the F-22 pretty much owns. It's going to be the fighter version of the B2, isn't it? Limited airframe, awesome at what it does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
from what I've read the Raptor's only real 'limit' is not being able to pack certain large-rear end munitions in the bays, but it can still fight in the air and bomb targets on the ground - seems like it's doing just fine. unless you mean in "numbers of planes bought" in which case 187 isn't the same as 21, but I'm nowhere near qualified enough to debate that on a strategic "needs of the US" level. Except that a lot of USAF people say "loving not enough  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
^It's absolutely true. It really is only about half as many as the Air Force needs for the bare minimum to meet DOD wartime requirements. I mean, look...if the fact that we're trying to replace over 700 F-15Cs with about 140 F-22s doesn't at least make you raise an eyebrow, I don't even know how to approach the issue with you. 40 or so of the early F-22s are physically deficient and are not combat-coded...they're used for testing and training so they don't really count towards the useful number.Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Ahem. Congrats on becoming the bitter old timer, because you are saying exactly what my father said about the F-15 vs F-106. Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Oh don't get me wrong, it makes me raise an eyebrow but I know where my armchair limits are, sometimes, so I'm staying the gently caress out of that one. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:Man, that thing is channeling the Il-2 hard. Also poorly. I see tons of rockets, a bunch of steel hammered into a vague plane-like shape and . Seems like a worthy successor to the Black Death. All it needs is a  nickname like the original Il-2 had. Also to have, you know, actually been put into mass production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:Hey, accidents happen on the DC Beltway all the time. He's the driving intellectual force behind the "Third Offset" strategy initiative, which SecDef Hagel has signed off on. In it, Hagel has officially stated that the DoD will open up to "global markets", which is a nice way of putting our bloated, incestuous defense industry on notice. For decades they've ridden the wave of "Buy American!" and it hasn't always been good for us, so this is a good development. Work is also looking hard at F-35C. One of his close associates, who until recently was one of the only active duty Naval officers to have a PhD, has written on potentially phasing out manned strike aircraft. Between the lines, this could definitely apply to the Super Hornet replacement, but Work thinks we may be able to significantly reduce the F-35C buy. Buying more SHs as a stop-gap and accelerating development of UCAVs while significantly reducing the F-35C buy is something that NAVAIR has been not-so-unofficially floating as an idea for a while now. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Ahem. I'm told the PMAs have gotten better. A little. Actually the AF has done a lot better job of executing the IETMs concept in general over the past couple of years. Also I have acquaintances working on the F-35 who swear up and down that despite whatever the plane's other faults may be, ALIS (its version of IMIS) actually works pretty well (now) and is a maintainers dream. \/ The Integrated Maintenance one is my favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HjPOcVLOkI You have serial synchrophaser failures on engines 2 and 4! ....yeah, my propeller fell off I'm seriously tempted to print out a screen cap of the shot with the army guys in the dirt and caption it "Y'know, the usual guys...*insert GA logo here*" iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
priznat posted:I think the F-35 is probably an excellent plane but it is definitely a terrible program. Relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWJeqrvoF6M
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
So apparently China is going to give everyone a demo of the J-31 sometime this week: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-10/china-to-debut-fighter-jet-as-u-s-brass-attends-airshow.html Assuming it's a successful demo, and knowing US observers will be watching this like a hawk, what are we looking for and how might this impact our own development? Obviously we'll be looking for performance envelope, and equally obvious is that we won't get a chance to check its radar signature, but what else will we be looking for? So far, everything I've read has been that this plane is vaporware but who knows - it's been largely a black hole like the PAK-FA as far as I'm aware, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:So apparently China is going to give everyone a demo of the J-31 sometime this week: While it's interesting, I don't think there is an awful lot of concern for it since it's primarily billed as an export fighter with some PLAN interest as a carrier aircraft. The Chinese aircraft industry also seems to be getting better, but it's still way too early to know how they do with largely indigenous, complex designs like this. I mean they are still interested in buying Su-35s alongside all these programs, to give you a bit more of an idea. Basically, I don't think this crop of aircraft is going to bring about any fundamental changes to how we approach the Chinese militarily( at least in the way things like new submarines and SSMs/SAMs have), but it does show they are spending a lot of money to learn how to do it themselves. EDIT: I guess they've also taken some steps to upgrade it for more ground attack roles, which makes some sense. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Mazz posted:While it's interesting, I don't think there is an awful lot of concern for it since it's primarily billed as an export fighter with some PLAN interest as a carrier aircraft. The Chinese aircraft industry also seems to be getting better, but it's still way too early to know how they do with largely indigenous, complex designs like this. I mean they are still interested in buying Su-35s alongside all these programs, to give you a bit more of an idea. Additionally, everything I've seen regarding the Chinese aircraft industry points to their engines still being giant bags of poo poo with adjustable nozzles. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Additionally, everything I've seen regarding the Chinese aircraft industry points to their engines still being giant bags of poo poo with adjustable nozzles. I was going to say, if there isn't furious activity in a hangar immediately after the demo to perform an engine change because the TBO is measured in minutes we'll get some evidence that maybe they've actually made progress on their engine tech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Maybe they'll try to swap out engines quickly and hope that no one notices the few hours that the plane goes missing after every landing. It wouldn't be the weirdest thing I've heard of the PLA doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I was going to say, if there isn't furious activity in a hangar immediately after the demo to perform an engine change because the TBO is measured in minutes we'll get some evidence that maybe they've actually made progress on their engine tech. That progress will have to be about 3 decades' of metallurgical development to even begin to be a concern.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
The J-31 sure looks like an F-22 knockoff.. Yet it still looks better than the J-20 which is firefox's retarded cousin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Maybe they'll try to swap out engines quickly and hope that no one notices the few hours that the plane goes missing after every landing. It wouldn't be the weirdest thing I've heard of the PLA doing. Multiple planes painted identically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:It wouldn't be the weirdest thing I've heard of the PLA doing. What's the weirdest thing you've heard?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Glorgnole posted:What's the weirdest thing you've heard? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e_XXUYFdyk&t=85s
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Glorgnole posted:What's the weirdest thing you've heard? Horseback charge through the stem of a mushroom cloud. Or the QBZ-95. One of those two.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:I see tons of rockets, a bunch of steel hammered into a vague plane-like shape and . Seems like a worthy successor to the Black Death. All it needs is a I think the Il-102s NATO name is "Brawny" (shared with its great pa, Il-40/42), which is fitting enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Horseback charge through the stem of a mushroom cloud. Or the QBZ-95. One of those two. The QBZ-95 looks like a toy, or maybe a bad movie prop. Have any goons, perhaps in Canada, had personal experience with one? Are they garbage?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Glorgnole posted:What's the weirdest thing you've heard? The Cold War-est thing was the TU-4 Bull with the early warning radar on it. A 1960's Chinese modification of a 1950's Russian built copy of a 1940's American strategic bomber. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The QBZ-95 looks like a toy, or maybe a bad movie prop. Have any goons, perhaps in Canada, had personal experience with one? Are they garbage? They're fairly solid and decent value (about $1k, pretty much the least expensive semi auto .223 black rifle) and is also non restricted unlike the AR-15. Not really adjustable and small stock, mags don't drop free, and the safety is in a crappy spot. Buuuut I'd still get one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The Cold War-est thing was the TU-4 Bull with the early warning radar on it. A 1960's Chinese modification of a 1950's Russian built copy of a 1940's American strategic bomber. This thing belongs in Fallout 4. Speaking of Fallout, of you bought the Anchorage DLC for 3 you might've seen something that looks suspiciously like this bad boy playing a Chinese heavy bomber. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The Cold War-est thing was the TU-4 Bull with the early warning radar on it. A 1960's Chinese modification of a 1950's Russian built copy of a 1940's American strategic bomber. I'm amazed those engines don't snap their mounts and fall off from sheer leverage, those things have got to be hanging a good 5 yards off the leading edge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The F-22 is that pretty chick that you blew off because you thought you could do better. Didn't just blow off that pretty chick, but thought you're so good you could afford it alone when you couldn't. WTF were you thinking locking out the anglo allies that could have been the wingmen and thrown in funds? Shiiiit, we could of had it too, you could of had more, now we have the promise of the F35...
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I'm amazed those engines don't snap their mounts and fall off from sheer leverage, those things have got to be hanging a good 5 yards off the leading edge. That's pretty common for piston engine aircraft that get re-engined with turboprops later in life. Turboprops are almost universally lighter, which means to maintain the same static CG, the new engines have to go WAY THE gently caress OUT THERE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Thomamelas posted:I looked through the thread and didn't see this. A war that can't be fought with this isn't a war worth fighting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 19:37
|
|
