|
Phanatic posted:If it's on time and on budget but doesn't meet objectives, it's probably not entering into service. Of if it's not meeting objectives, enough time or money will be dumped on it to get it to enter into service that it won't be on time and on budget anymore. The A-5 had some issues though. Mostly related to the "stores train" / horizontal bomb bay concept.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The A-5 had some issues though. Mostly related to the "stores train" / horizontal bomb bay concept. And the whole, 'being 77 feet long' thing. And still having a wingspan in the 40 foot range with the tips canted up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The A-5 had some issues though. Mostly related to the "stores train" / horizontal bomb bay concept. If pooping out nuclear bombs is wrong, I should stop going to Mexican night.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:If pooping out nuclear bombs is wrong, I should stop going to Mexican night. I was about to call the A-5's bomb bay the "poop chute" but I wasn't sure people would know what I meant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Is the B-52 considered current in terms of its jamming capabilities? Would it be expected to be able to enter airspace defended by a decently capable air defense system, or would it stick to firing cruise missiles or something from outside it until the system is mostly down? The B-2 exists, and is getting an updated followup in the form of the B-21. Doesn't this answer your question?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The B-2 exists, and is getting an updated followup in the form of the B-21. Doesn't this answer your question?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The A-5 had some issues though. Mostly related to the "stores train" / horizontal bomb bay concept. Yeah, that's what he was asking for. On time, on budget, *doesn't* do what you wanted it to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Did John McCain show the Right Stuff?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Jesus christ.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Quick someone photoshop Trump standing in front of the Vietnam memorial calling them all losers.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
That Works posted:Quick someone photoshop Trump standing in front of the Vietnam memorial calling them all losers. More like "I had to rent a private jet once when my 757 broke down, so I know all about sacrifice."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
This is incredibly hosed up, tasteless, garbage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
That Works posted:Quick someone photoshop Trump standing in front of the Vietnam memorial calling them all losers. "I prefer the veterans of wars we win." 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:"I prefer the veterans of wars we win." 50,000 people who just don't get how much sacrifice is involved in getting 5 deferments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
No no guys don't forget he fought his personal Vietnam in the Battle of Poon Tang or so he says
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:No no guys don't forget he fought his personal Vietnam in the Battle of Poon Tang We lost many good men on that Mons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:This is incredibly hosed up, tasteless, garbage. They've got a great piece about the sinister death of William Colby, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:There is also an ALCM replacement program in the works. Doesn't most of that article say it isn't in the works? Also, why are we not just simplifying our inventory by just making Tomahawks in their various AGM/BGM/RGM/UGM versions to fit every need?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Here's a pretty picture of everyone's (second/third) favorite eurocanard: https://twitter.com/spphotographyuk/status/759812354481594369
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Some nice pictures of modernized T-72s, plus some other commie tanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Doesn't most of that article say it isn't in the works? I suspect that the reason for Tomahawk not being the universal answer goes along the lines of "something something IADS something something low observable, please give us more money."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
The TLAM warheard is something like 1/3 the size of a CALCM. But the AGM86 desperately needs to be replaced, as was determined around 1980.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
  e: quote:At 15-20 ft altitude and at .93M, well over 600 MPH, you can clearly see the shock wave being pushed in front of the jet in the grass, much like the wave a ship pushes ahead of it. Look closely and you can see the grass rolling over just like a wave... go much faster and the jet passes that wave and you would hear a sonic boom and the jet would be supersonic...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
All this compares favorably to Trumps military record.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Doesn't most of that article say it isn't in the works?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Doesn't most of that article say it isn't in the works? LRSO RFP just got released the other day, along with the GBSD (Minuteman replacement) LRSO nuclear is pointless. The "well we need a conventional LRSO regardless" argument is stupid too, JASSM-ER is being integrated on the BUFF (already integrated on the Bones) and if it isn't up to snuff for the range just pay LM to make a JASSM-RER (Really Extended Range)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
just turn the b-52 into a standoff jammer already
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The B-2 exists, and is getting an updated followup in the form of the B-21. Doesn't this answer your question? I would not call the B-21 an updated followup to the B-2. Using the experience learned with what were good and bad requirements that drove insane costs and tenuous technical ability isn't really the military's style. You can bet the air force will add a bunch of requirements, whose conception always starts with "well why dont they just", that won't work and will drive it to be mostly terrible or hilariously expensive or both. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
That actually is one of the specific points of the project, and why Grumman will build it. It's also explicitly part of whatever the F-22 replacement is being called. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The revolutionary tech that's on the way is likely to be in energy weapons and if we're smart, EA/EP. The Pentagon is very aware that it can't afford any more of the acquisitions fiascos like we've seen recently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That actually is one of the specific points of the project, and why Grumman will build it. It's also explicitly part of whatever the F-22 replacement is being called. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The revolutionary tech that's on the way is likely to be in energy weapons and if we're smart, EA/EP. The Pentagon is very aware that it can't afford any more of the acquisitions fiascos like we've seen recently. Yep. We'll see if that happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:just turn the b-52 into a standoff jammer already This was supposed to happen but big Air Force showed it's usual disdain for anything non kinetic and let it die on the vine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
yeah everything I've seen indicates that they really are taking the "evolutionary, not revolutionary" thing very seriously with the B-21. It sounds like it's basically going to be an new production B-2 with updated avionics + room for upgrades/growth (like those revolutionary directed energy and/or EA weapons), which if you think about it isn't really a bad thing at all. Like Godholio said, everyone is very aware that another F-35 or B-2-esque debacle is not something the DoD can afford. People very high up on the acquisitions side of things are on high alert for requirements creep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Remember when they said that about tanker 8 years ago...and then went with a significant development over an already flying modification...and now it is super late and massively over budget. -or- "The Triton is just a Global Hawk for the Navy" *Adds sense and avoid radar*, *immediately 355 million over budget* CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Have Lockheed or the missile makers started trying to push LO pylons/conformal pods or ordinance casings?   
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Remember when they said that about tanker 8 years ago...and then went with a significant development over an already flying modification...and now it is super late and massively over budget vulturesrow posted:This was supposed to happen but big Air Force showed it's usual disdain for anything non kinetic and let it die on the vine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
daaaamnn http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=987_1470079085
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Have Lockheed or the missile makers started trying to push LO pylons/conformal pods or ordinance casings? JASSM is already supposed to be LO, but it seems to me nearly impossible to make a LO from most angles thing hanging from a pylon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Boeing has pitched some LO conformal pods. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/military/fa18ef/docs/ash_product_card_130904.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Yep. the SAA seems to have overextended in quite a few places and rebels have made a lot of quick progress breaking the siege of Aleppo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:39
|
|