|
poisonpill posted:Cameron is being rather pig-headed about this entire situation. Cat Mattress posted:"Austerity" is code word for "gently caress the poor", HTH.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Austerity. There's a youtuber that I follow and he had a nice point in one of his videos (he's British). It went something along the lines of: "I like David Cameron, because he is very honest. You know exactly what you are getting with him. Look, there are some poor people over there... gently caress 'EM!". The man's got a point. In other, actual military news: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34983396 quote:Only 29 of Germany's 66 Tornado jets are airworthy, a defence ministry report has revealed. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Is that an unusual serviceability rate for any airforce though? Assuming that sort of info isn't secret squirrel territory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
right arm posted:your wife is disabled? Should probably just open the console and type "Enable" after clicking on her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Is that an unusual serviceability rate for any airforce though? Assuming that sort of info isn't secret squirrel territory. Random googling shows Air Force Times articles talking about how only 50% of the USAF's fleet is combat ready, although the general tone of those seems to be "this poo poo ain't right." Now, the real question is what the word the politicians are using actually mean and if they're being reported correctly, so good loving luck there. Does "not airworthy" in this context mean it's actually loving unsafe to fly, or it simply isn't coded combat ready for some reason? There's a spectrum there that goes from "you will probably die if you try to fly this" on up through "this thing needs some maintenance, probably should keep it in the hanger."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
 J 29F's from the "Haglind group" (the 9th air wing's display team straight outta Gothenburg, headed by squadron commander Per Haglind) doing their best Blue Angels impression. Late 1950's, possibly 1957. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Availability rates are a very complicated thing; a same fleet can have an availability rate that changes from 45% to 108% depending on the metric you use. Suppose you have a fleet of 20 aircraft, in total. Out of these aircraft, 8 are stored for attrition/reserve purposes, so you have 12 operational aircraft. Let's say three of them are in maintenance: you have only 9 available aircraft, 45% of the fleet. But now suppose that four of the aircraft that have been marked as stored are actually kept in a state where they can be put back in active duty with minimum turn around; for example they've only been put out of active duty because they've already filled their flight time quota for the year so they're on time out until next year. Your operational contract for the fleet is of 12 active aircraft and you can scramble 13 of them, that's an availability rate of 108%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Is that an unusual serviceability rate for any airforce though? Assuming that sort of info isn't secret squirrel territory. Yeah, kind of. It's not unheard of, but if that's where the airworthiness rate has sat for any appreciable amount of time it's pretty...uh...well, poo poo for a front-line combat aircraft in a first-rate service. If that's actually the mission-ready rate, it's still pretty low and a bad sign for the Luftwaffe's present state. Edit: It's not as big a deal if it's a platform that has very few copies (ie, the B-2 or Compass Call probably have times where their rate is crazy low), but we're talking about almost 70 aircraft in this fleet. Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a big difference between "not fully mission capable" and "not airworthy." I'm thinking this might be the latter being reported as the former. We fly jets that aren't FMC on combat missions sometimes, depending on what system is down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
I bet not a single of the Army's 500,000 or so tactical vehicles is "full mission capable" but a fair number of those are because they're waiting for windshield wipers or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
US Defense Secretary Ash Carter has announced that all combat roles in the US military will be opened to women. Marines try to spoil things as usual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:As a competition, it should be interesting. F-35 vs. A-10 quote:The idea behind the tests is to evaluate both aircraft for close-air support and other roles such as air-to-air combat. I know this was a few months ago but it brings to mind something I've been wondering about for awhile. The A-10 is obviously not designed for air-to-air combat, but how would it perform going up against say, WWII era fighters? Cannons, gunpods, and rockets only, of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Concordat posted:I know this was a few months ago but it brings to mind something I've been wondering about for awhile. The A-10 is obviously not designed for air-to-air combat, but how would it perform going up against say, WWII era fighters? Cannons, gunpods, and rockets only, of course. Probably quite favorably. With all the armor and redundant systems, it's going to be hard to shoot down with <20mm weapons, it's maneuverable as all hell, climbs better, is probably faster down low, and is a LOT easier to fly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
If the A-10s were assholes they could just stay high as hell and bounce fighters as they ran out of fuel first. That said I've been wrecked by WWII planes in DCS when I'm too busy trying to ground pound to notice a 190 diving on me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Probably quite favorably. With all the armor and redundant systems, it's going to be hard to shoot down with <20mm weapons, it's maneuverable as all hell, climbs better, is probably faster down low, and is a LOT easier to fly. mlmp08 posted:If the A-10s were assholes they could just stay high as hell and bounce fighters as they ran out of fuel first. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
I would imagine that three decades of advances in avionics and targeting would be a major loving deal, and that's assuming we're talking about first gen, 1970s A10s. The increase in situational awareness alone would be crazy, and gunnery has advanced a bit beyond reflector sights. Now if you REALLY want to play an interesting historical "what if" imagine the Germans with A-10s instead of 262s and what would happen to a flight of bombers that one came across.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Some very few interceptors actually had ceilings higher; my thorough research of reading wikipedia says the A10 tops out at 13,700m vs 15,000m for the Ta-152. I mean yeah the latter was a very low-production Fw-190 variant built late in the war, and I'm not digging into comparing the dogfight performance of each. Given adequate air-air targeting systems for the cannon, though, I think it's safe to say the hawg would knock most aircraft of the era out of the sky given a split second on target.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Austerity.  You can bash Cameron for a lot of things, but every prime minister gives a speech at the Lord Mayor's dinner iirc and they all wear white tie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
A-10s also have sidewinders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
^^^ Already ruled those out as unsporting.Cyrano4747 posted:I would imagine that three decades of advances in avionics and targeting would be a major loving deal, and that's assuming we're talking about first gen, 1970s A10s. The increase in situational awareness alone would be crazy, and gunnery has advanced a bit beyond reflector sights. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:^^^ Already ruled those out as unsporting. Well for some of that they use Sniper pods, but pretty sure you are dead nuts on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'd dispute the maneuverability question. In terms of speed and service ceiling, the A-10 is about on par with late war fighters. Given the different wing designs, I'd expect a Mustang or Spitfire to actually have better roll and turn performance, particularly sustained turn performance, but you're right that the A-10 is probably going to have better climb performance due to benefiting from 30 years of engine improvements. I'd be really interesting to see the two Ps graphs overlaid. I'll concede that the mustang and such might have better instantaneous rates of turn, but no WWII fighter has the power reserves to keep the turn going like an A-10 does. Even if the A-10 bleeds more energy, it just has so much more power than just about any piston powered aircraft, that it might just not matter. Roll rate might go to the fighters as well, but also maybe not. Ask someone who's flown both a modern jet fighter and a P-51 (as an example,) and the first thing they'll tell you is just how much physical WORK it is to fly that airplane at even 9/10ths. (Air and Space magazine had an excellent article a few years ago by an F-15 pilot who got to fly a P-51.) Piston-engined fighters are just a lot harder to fly in general, and that magnifies, both in physical force required, and sensory workload on the pilot, when you start to push the envelope. Some vague, possibly false information I've been able to quickly find lists the instantaneous roll rate of a P-51D at 250mph as 130°/s. The A-10 at 300kts (345mph) does the same, but can't be increased to 200°/s with use of the speed brakes. A good pilot in a Mustang or such might stand a chance, but even skills between pilots, and I think the Warthog is going to be extremely hard to beat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
All this reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3XNEWtJF0o&t=1s 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
That Works posted:All this reminds me of One of the best scenes in movie history. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
A P-51 specifically would probably do fine vs an A-10 at high speed/high altitude...it is a lot more aerodynamically efficient and it'll keep its speed/altitude much better...A-10s are real slugs up high, for obvious reasons. At low speed/low altitude a P-51 would be easy meat. A more interesting matchup to me would be a Yak-3 or LA-7 versus an A-10 at low altitude...that'd be extremely close in most respects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:33
|
|
MrYenko posted:One of the best scenes in movie history. Due credit to Top Gun and all but there's some sweet F14 footage in that film.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
Video games and air shows have taught me that Yak-3s have some form of alien propulsion system that lets them defy physics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
That Works posted:Due credit to Top Gun and all but there's some sweet F14 footage in that film. Sweet footage of an entire air wing. A-6's, A-7's, F-8's, E-2's... It's probably one of the best movie depictions of an actual air wing in operation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Sweet footage of an entire air wing. A-6's, A-7's, F-8's, E-2's... It's probably one of the best movie depictions of an actual air wing in operation. Complete with real, unscripted compressor stalls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I'll concede that the mustang and such might have better instantaneous rates of turn, but no WWII fighter has the power reserves to keep the turn going like an A-10 does. Even if the A-10 bleeds more energy, it just has so much more power than just about any piston powered aircraft, that it might just not matter. Roll rate might go to the fighters as well, but also maybe not. Ask someone who's flown both a modern jet fighter and a P-51 (as an example,) and the first thing they'll tell you is just how much physical WORK it is to fly that airplane at even 9/10ths. (Air and Space magazine had an excellent article a few years ago by an F-15 pilot who got to fly a P-51.) Piston-engined fighters are just a lot harder to fly in general, and that magnifies, both in physical force required, and sensory workload on the pilot, when you start to push the envelope. Remember that while capable of acrobatics the A-10 has the engines of a CRJ-200 and with a full bomb load weighs the same. Sure it can put up those roll rates and whatever but it's an attack aircraft. If it's forced to defend itself like that it'll need to jettison stores which means the p-51 won. At least the P-51 would win if the USAAF gave it better armament than 6 pea shooters. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Remember that while capable of acrobatics the A-10 has the engines of a CRJ-200 and with a full bomb load weighs the same. Sure it can put up those roll rates and whatever but it's an attack aircraft. If it's forced to defend itself like that it'll need to jettison stores which means the p-51 won. What about a F4U-4? 4x20mm
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 09:52
|
|
Flikken posted:What about a F4U-4? 4x20mm And after shooting down the A10 the pilot dies on landing.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
That Works posted:And after shooting down the A10 the pilot dies on landing. Who said anything about a carrier landing? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Massively late to the game, but Corbyn literally wants the end of NATO . And is no stranger to white tie. [  He's not keen on dropping bombs on other countries in case of hurting people, yet he was fully supportive on the IRA in their bombings killing british civillians as a necessary struggle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Some very few interceptors actually had ceilings higher; my thorough research of reading wikipedia says the A10 tops out at 13,700m vs 15,000m for the Ta-152. Pretty sure the Ta-152 only gets there on a limited supply of methanol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
A post on Romanian fighter development in the 80s (not by me, I just found it)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
The post by the same dude a further up the page is hilarious. He goes into a whole analysis of the turret and how it blends Western and Chinese concepts and designs and armor angles and ..... that's an unmodified T-72A turret. That thing would be lucky to have half the armor he claims, it's a 1979 vintage T-72 model with a M60 drivetrain shoved into it. It even looks like they recycled the glacis plate into a much taller tank for some godawful reason. Also when looking at that IAR 95 i can't help but see a F-4 front end kitbashed onto a F-16. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Can I interest anyone in the full flight manual for the J 35F Draken, including the parts that were classified until last week? Part 1 - general info, checklists, etc. Has a bunch of funny illustrations on almost every page. Part 2 - by far the most interesting part. Describes the airplane as a system and the working principles of its most important subsystems (radar, data link receiver, sights, armament etc) as well as its tactical use. Tons of cool diagrams in here. Part 3 - performance charts for every imaginable situation and load alternative Part 4 - more of the same According to the performance graphs, climbing to 11000 meters with full afterburner eats about 30% of the internal fuel. Full dry thrust "only" eats about 22%. It's a very intercepty interceptor. I also need to write some words about datalinks. Or maybe I should finish that series of posts about the Viggen's computer systems...
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Remember that while capable of acrobatics the A-10 has the engines of a CRJ-200 and with a full bomb load weighs the same. Sure it can put up those roll rates and whatever but it's an attack aircraft. If it's forced to defend itself like that it'll need to jettison stores which means the p-51 won. Just further to this, how would the 50cal go against the A10? I feel like the A10 could absorb a fair bit of punishment from that sort of gun better than say 20mm cannon? I don't have any actual facts or experience to back that up, just wondering if anyone who knows more can comment?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:58 |
|
slothrop posted:Just further to this, how would the 50cal go against the A10? I feel like the A10 could absorb a fair bit of punishment from that sort of gun better than say 20mm cannon? I don't think the 50cal would do poo poo against the more important parts of the plane. Couple A10s came back shot up to hell during the 1st Gulf War. Titanium bathtub photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/25695066@N00/sets/72157627461871723/ I can't find it now but had a book growing up that showed ordinance tests on the A10 bathtub as well as windscreen and other parts. I think a lot of it was designed to at minimum stop some 30 (37?) mm round the soviets used.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 15:33
|
|