B4Ctom1 posted:I wouldn't be flying in Venezuela anytime soon Demands a repost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkOsXNF_ZoM
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Godholio posted:Frankly this has been a big problem for the entire USAF/USN flying community for years. The problem is just further exacerbated with the new fighters. So whats the problem here? The fighters are now "too gud" for your equipment and doctrine to provide a sufficient enough challenge?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So whats the problem here? The fighters are now "too gud" for your equipment and doctrine to provide a sufficient enough challenge? no, it's that we can't effectively replicate the capabilities of the high end threats the gud fiters were designed to counter
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:I wouldn't be flying in Venezuela anytime soon Why couldn't they have done this in 2010 when I was down there? drat. Raenir Salazar posted:So whats the problem here? The fighters are now "too gud" for your equipment and doctrine to provide a sufficient enough challenge? The problem is that most of the hardware we train against was designed and/or built in the 1960s and 70s. It's a lot easier to buy/build an SA-2, 6, or 8 than it is to get a 10 or 20, which are the modern threats. We can replicate North Vietnam's defenses all day...so what? That's not what we're going to face in a near-peer conflict. Our tactics and doctrine are likely fine or really close to it...but being able to practice them realistically is pretty important. It's responsible for most of the difference between the US's 2:1 kill ratio at the beginning of the Korean War and the 10:1 kill ratio at the end. Godholio fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jul 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
That Works posted:Demands a repost. Things I hate about that movie, everything except the Tomcats
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:31
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Things I hate about that movie, everything except the Tomcats Whatever flaws it has are forgiven by the awesome cinematography and flight footage. Checking it out in HD is well worth it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
bewbies posted:no, it's that we can't effectively replicate the capabilities of the high end threats the gud fiters were designed to counter To add to this, it has been a problem for a long time. Hell, even though PESA Patriot radars aren't a great substitute for latest-gen AESA SAMs, for over a decade now Patriot has been in such high operational demand that Patriot forces have had to back out of or deny support to training exercises run by aviation forces across the military, because it's just not feasible to dedicate a battalion to playing OPFOR when that battalion is also taking over a global response force mission or about to deploy operationally or just got back from deployment and thus is going through reset and starting with brand new crews from scratch. When we have live top-tier US air defense against live aircraft, you can learn more about how your system would perform in war in a 2 week exercise than you would in a couple years of training on simulators, but that poo poo costs a ton of money, requires incredibly careful scheduling, and often either falls through or you end up with one or the other side creating training restrictions that make it a bit unrealistic. In my experience, the Marines have been quickest to say "go hog wild" and let combatants do whatever the gently caress they want as far as system capabilities, but then Patriot forces get to feel smug that they shot down a fuckload of F-18C/Ds and legacy Growlers and Harriers, but the actual high end USAF threats they faced were not doing everything they could have to gently caress up the ground forces at all. It's not like a day 0 kick in the door scenario is to send Gen 4 fighters into the teeth of a decent SAM system. There have been a ton of exercises where US SAM operators and pilots alike were surprised as hell by each other and what they can/can't do, because blowing up patches of dirt with insurgents and defending the airbases from which we launch those planes blowing up patches of dirt on it has been the major priority for so long.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
That Works posted:Whatever flaws it has are forgiven by the awesome cinematography and flight footage. Checking it out in HD is well worth it. It's a pretty terrible movie, but the F-14/Zero fight sequence (despite its flaws,) is pretty much the best dogfight footage ever put on film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Also I recall it has a cool dog.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:To add to this, it has been a problem for a long time. Hell, even though PESA Patriot radars aren't a great substitute for latest-gen AESA SAMs, for over a decade now Patriot has been in such high operational demand that Patriot forces have had to back out of or deny support to training exercises run by aviation forces across the military, because it's just not feasible to dedicate a battalion to playing OPFOR when that battalion is also taking over a global response force mission or about to deploy operationally or just got back from deployment and thus is going through reset and starting with brand new crews from scratch. I feel like I've had the two most frustrating jobs in the military between being in C2 and now organizing LFE events. There's SO MUCH we could do if we just diverted the funding for flat screen tvs and lovely network software into buying other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:That looks photoshopped... Correct. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Steeltalon posted:Correct. Ladies and gentlemen, the replacement for the A-10. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
LBR the only thing the a-10 does better is pulverize dirt patches that sometimes have people on them. As long as the people don't have post-1970 anti air. And you can station them close enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Ladies and gentlemen, the replacement for the A-10. If an A-10 is flying around without rapidly becoming a smoking crater in the ground then it's permissive enough for an F35 to fly around with its underwing stores
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Steeltalon posted:Correct. Cloning tool bullshit.  I have been had..
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:12
|
|
kill me now posted:If an A-10 is flying around without rapidly becoming a smoking crater in the ground then it's permissive enough for an F35 to fly around with its underwing stores For x fraction of loiter time.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
OfficialGBSCaliph posted:http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...ic-state-sukhoi This is so confusing  Why is a British paper (I'm assuming it's one of those "nest of vipers living in bilious garbage" sort of papers) getting all starry eyed about the deployment of a Russian carrier?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
That Works posted:For x fraction of loiter time. Underwing stores includes external tanks
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is so confusing The Russian ship is on a mission to kill Muslims. What other reason could the tabloid possibly need to be a fan? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Star_(British_newspaper)#Resignation_by_Richard_Peppiatt
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
kill me now posted:If an A-10 is flying around without rapidly becoming a smoking crater in the ground then it's permissive enough for an F35 to fly around with its underwing stores Which basically undercuts the entire reason for the F-35B's existence and 75% of the program cost overruns. Gail Wynand posted:Underwing stores includes external tanks Same for the A-10, at a fraction of the cost/hour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
People seem to forget Taiwan in all these F-35B conversations. In my opinion that's the really legit use case. Though should there just have been a separate VTOL fighter program? Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
What use case is that, and why is it relevant given that we're never going to sell F35s to Taiwan?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Which basically undercuts the entire reason for the F-35B's existence and 75% of the program cost overruns. Yeah, but this isn't 1958 and the Navy/Air force/Marine's don't field a dozen different types of specialized Fighters/strike aircraft. There was virtually no chance of the USMC giving up their proclaimed need to operate STOVL fighters off LHA's and no chance of it being a stand alone platform. Its not the worst thing in the world to have a jet that can survive in a modern iads environment early in the conflict (which the AV-8B and A-10 aren't doing) while also being able to be configured as a bomb truck when the airspace is permissive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:53
|
|
kill me now posted:Yeah, but this isn't 1958 and the Navy/Air force/Marine's don't field a dozen different types of specialized Fighters/strike aircraft. There was virtually no chance of the USMC giving up their proclaimed need to operate STOVL fighters off LHA's and no chance of it being a stand alone platform. Sure but it's better to have 2 separate airframes that each do their respective jobs better than a single one.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
That Works posted:Sure but it's better to have 2 separate airframes that each do their respective jobs better than a single one. And that was never ever going to happen
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:What use case is that, and why is it relevant given that we're never going to sell F35s to Taiwan? Even if we don't sell F35s to Taiwan (realchat we will someday) we are still bound to defend them..
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Cool video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQf4m6rew7c
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
If you have enough money you can do the same thing. It's like 20k Euros or something insane like that, but I'm sure it's worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It's responsible for most of the difference between the US's 2:1 kill ratio at the beginning of the Korean War and the 10:1 kill ratio at the end. I thought it was a bit more complex than that, things like the k/d ratio being very near to 1:1 vs the original Soviet pilots who by and large had flown in ww2 but were pulled from the flight lines before long, and the bulk of the later flying being done by relatively poorly trained north Korean pilots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Because China can take out every runway in Taiwan on day 1 of a hypothetical invasion. So there's a real role for VTOL aircraft to play in that conflict. The problem with the F-35B is that it can't take off from roads since it'll melt the asphalt. So ironically using its STOVL capabilities reduces the number of places it can take off and land from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The problem with the F-35B is that it can't take off from roads since it'll melt the asphalt. So ironically using its STOVL capabilities reduces the number of places it can take off and land from. That doesn't really prevent it from taking off, it just fucks up the road. The problem is that it would also ruin the standard flight deck surfaces over time, which aren't as easy to fix as "pave over with new asphalt" or "leave a hosed up road behind".
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Ok so the lead plane takes off. What about his wingman? His second element? The next strike package?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Isn't the F-35B only VTOL capable if it doesn't carry a combat load?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The problem with the F-35B is that it can't take off from roads since it'll melt the asphalt. So ironically using its STOVL capabilities reduces the number of places it can take off and land from. It'll melt the asphalt, but saying that using its STOVL capabilities reduces the number of places it can take off and land from is sorta misleading given that the point of it is to give the Marines something to masturba-- uh, to let you perform short takeoffs if conventional ones aren't possible. An F-35B can take off from anywhere an F-35A can conventionally, and the short takeoffs let it fly from a few extra places, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:33
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The problem with the F-35B is that it can't take off from roads since it'll melt the asphalt. So ironically using its STOVL capabilities reduces the number of places it can take off and land from. Probably not gonna have to worry about as many landings as takeoffs.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Because China can take out every runway in Taiwan on day 1 of a hypothetical invasion. So there's a real role for VTOL aircraft to play in that conflict. The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes that China will bother to destroy runways instead of destroying, you know, the actual aircraft while they're sitting in their hangars. It's actually a lot easier to destroy a hangar than it is to make a runway really unusable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes that China will bother to destroy runways instead of destroying, you know, the actual aircraft while they're sitting in their hangars. It's actually a lot easier to destroy a hangar than it is to make a runway really unusable. The trick is waiting until all the planes are elephant walking down a taxiway and then having your giant unmanned quadcopter pop up a mile away to blast everything on the tarmac before your special operators speed away on crotch rockets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is so confusing Significant parts of the European nationalist muslim-hating alt-right receives rather enthusiastic Russian support (and sometimes funding). TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jul 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Back Hack posted:Isn't the F-35B only VTOL capable if it doesn't carry a combat load? Probably. It's designed to be STOVL, so taking off with a full load still requires a short roll (like off the end of an amphib).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:04
|
|
