|
Nerobro posted:I need a much better explanation of this. I spent some time in the Canadian army near Zeljava. There wasn't a whole lot to see at that point since the whole thing had been destroyed, but it must have been neat to have fighters taking off from tunnels on the mountain.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
azflyboy posted:It's an Eraknoplan. I thought they worked well enough, except the only problem was that they couldn't really handle rough seas that you might encounter on the open ocean, so other than the Caspian Sea and a few other inland bodies of water it wasn't really usable anywhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 22:07
|
|
|
TimingBelt posted:I hate simulated air battles more than anything. Like Armchair quarterbacking with fighter planes. It proves NOTHING. I think the dynamics of modern air combat, much like any other form of warfare, I suppose, are much less sexy and exciting than the general public's perception. It's not a great screenplay where the USAF has the biggest radar in the sky and can see and throw BVR missiles at everyone else long before everyone else even knew what the gently caress. All these planes doing loop de loops and shooting at each other with cannons is just World War 1 stuff at this point. Braveheart wouldn't be a very interesting movie either if half the armies realistically died of dysentery and diarrhea before getting to the battlefield. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
Are the Japanese capable of manufacturing their Mitsubishi F-2 F16 derivative on their own? I thought that they were pretty keen on maintaining that capability(just in case things with America don't go so well in the future  ).If so, America can just import Japanese F16s if they needed a bunch of them in a hurry. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 05:41
|
|
|
Canada could have bought an Su-35/Su-30MK variant with super-cruise, longer range, heavier payload, presumably guaranteed to start in the cold, for a lower cost than the F35. Plus, you know that every Su-35 not bought by Canada is going to end up on the other team. Politicians screw everything up.  EDIT: Su-35MKK. Модернизированный, Коммерческий, канадский. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Sep 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 10:08
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Russian support is terrible and the Su-35 is 20 years old. Also the ability of the MKK to supercruise is...suspect. They have rather finnicky engines that require massive overhauls at about 1/10th the hours as their Western counterparts. Oh, and the engines are still in testing because they have a failure problem. 1/10th the hours of which western counterpart? The F35? How feasable is it to use western engines on the airframe?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Not feasible at all. Engines and airframe are so tightly integrated that neither party would allow the other to re-engineer the aircraft to fit Western engines. As much as the Russians would love to get their hands on an F135 or the like (which won't happen), they sure as hell wouldn't let Western engineers dig around in their aircraft's computers to make it work properly. The F15s sold to South Korea and Singapore use different engines than other F15s.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The F110 engine was designed to be close to the F100 (used in most other F-15s as well as the F-16), so there is less work needed to make it fit in an F-15 than it would be to get it to fit in an Su-27 variant. Make no mistake, though; there was still quite a bit of airframe and software work needed to make the F110 work in the F-15. Half (probably more) the point of this whole exercise is to make work for the domestic aerospace industries. If it wasn't this it would be something else. Most buyers of these things will end up doing a lot of the assembly work in their home countries. Canada has a domestic aerospace industry, there's nothing South Korea can do that Canada can't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
Wouldn't the big jets be too fast and fly too high to have a lot of guns?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
NYPD Comissioner told the news that the NYPD already possessed the means to take down aircraft independently of any federal government assistance. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/25/60minutes/main20111059_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody quote:Kelly: Well, it's something that's on our radar screen. I mean in an extreme situation, you would have some means to take down a plane. Later he claims he meant .50 cals on helicopters, but I desperately want to believe that the NYPD has a S-300 battery under a tarp somewhere in Central Park.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Linedance posted:the business class Contour seats on Air Canada all have them. They're herringbone oriented pods with hard things like monitors to smack your head on in the event of a dodgy landing. I'm guessing for someone figured the same thing for the bulkhead seats on the plane you were on. The new Ford Explorers have them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Funny thing is, the larger airlines in Russia, such as Aeroflot and Transaero, operate largely the same to any other airline in Europe or elsewhere; their occurrence rates, as a result, have not been significantly different than any major European or North American airline for the some time now. I think they have to in order to be allowed to run routes to EU destinations? That's the reason why the national carriers of North Korea and some Sub-Saharan African countries aren't allowed to fly to Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
Beijing International has all the airlines split up pretty evenly between it's terminals. All the first world airlines, Emirates, Cathay Pacific, etc are in Terminal 3, the shiny brand new building. Iran National airlines, Zimbabwe Airlines, Air Koryo, Continental and Delta go into the lovely old Terminal 2 building. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
movax posted:Aren't those the White Knights being Uh, Russian Knights, bro. Are you thinking of some subbranch of the KKK? Also Putin just tripled Russian defence spending. and won reelection too. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2011 17:52
|
|
as gently caress? The camera angle makes it look even more awesome. 3 jets in that photo that I can see.
|
Notably, The other Russain demo team, the Strizhi, uses Mig-29s.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
There's still hope for Canada to abandon the F-35 and go for Su-30MK derivatives. The longer range and payload would serve us better. I bet it starts right up as soon as you turn the key in the winter too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 07:09
|
|
|
Ruse posted:Using its wingitp to divert. This is a relatively safe thing, isn't it? It's not like the thing just exploded randomly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
MagnumHB posted:This article raised my opinion/knowledge of the Rafale quite a bit. Pretty good read. Yes but stealth Stealth LO STEALTH STEALTH 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Also the fact that Typhoon spent years as an expensive paperweight before Tranche 2 gave it any real usability. Had a look on wikipedia and came across this gem. quote:In 2001, it was announced that the Royal Air Force (RAF) would not use the aircraft's internal 27 mm Mauser cannon. This was due to a desire to save money by removing gun support costs, ammunition stocks, training costs, etc. The gun was also deemed unnecessary since the missile armament was believed to be adequate in the Typhoon's fighter role. However, because removal of the cannon would affect the aircraft's flight characteristics, requiring modification of the aircraft's flight software the RAF decided that all of its Typhoons would be fitted with the cannon but that it would not be used or supported. The service argued that this would save money by reducing the requirement for ground equipment, removing training costs and avoiding the fatigue effects of firing the cannon. The RAF maintained the option to activate the cannons at very short notice were operational requirements to change.[14] However in a third change of policy, the Daily Telegraph reported on 3 October 2006 that the RAF will fully utilise the cannon.[15] I...uh...what? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
So how about the Russian B-47/Vickers Valiant, the TU-16? The Chinese have just restarted production of Tu-16s in 2009.  Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Feb 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
I haven't flown in a while but I vaguely recall some airlines just handing out(maybe for a nominal fee) iPads or something similar for the duration of the flight? That's got to be cheaper than adding IFE to the plane.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
I think stuff is cheap enough nowadays that you can probably mount a GPS unit on a RC plane or some such small UAV and have it fly a pre-plotted course? How long before I can buy my own cruise missile?
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
So the F35 can carry external stores. Suck it haters.   
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The -Gs that were broken up for START were only required to be laid out for observation for 90 days...after that they could scrap the metal, and did. The only BUFFs that appear to be there are intact -H models that are for spare parts to keep the rest of the fleet flying. What have they got now that isn't '70s and '80s technology? The S300 and Su-27 are from that time. It's better to say that they had 1960s Mig-21-era technology in the 1990s.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2012 20:52
|
|
war with China
|
slidebite posted:Well, the poo poo is really hitting the fan in Canada over the F35 today. So I don't follow the Canadian politics thread becuase it's just a bunch of Toronto babbies whining about Toronto bullshit that doesn't concern me, but why is the conservative government being nailed here when it was the liberals who got us on the wagon? I'm for the NDP so it's nice that the cons are getting held to the fire but whats happened here
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
Is there another thread or series of posts about the F35 somewhere that I can read? I was to keep posting more more MORE about the F35 forever but this thread probably doesn't want to hear about it. 
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
It looks to me more like the steel bar is there to stop luggage carts/trolleys from hitting and marking up the walls, but engaging the wheels first. Supermarkets have similar devices do they not? EDIT: I suppose there shouldn't be luggage carts inside the terminal, maybe the staff/janitors use carts or something?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Uh oh, the Italians are going to turn tail again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
One of the fatalities may have been killed by a firetruck. http://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...+Top+Stories%29 quote:SAN FRANCISCO – An autopsy is scheduled Monday to determine whether one of the two 16-year-old girls killed in the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 died of injuries sustained when she was run over by arriving emergency vehicles or from the plane crash itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 12:25
|
|
|
Calgary Transit buses have recaro seats for the driver.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Delivering to consumers seem like a stretch but this sounds like it could be plausible for deliveries between warehouses/distribution centers? With routes that are well established before hand and a dedicated personel/facilities for loading and unloading I see it could replace the guys doing deliveries between warehouses inside a big metro area.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Here's a Mig-31 with a bunch of gopro cameras flying around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIYMyZowQV0
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:Some idiots keep tossing out the idea that THE A-10 can't handle the MANPADS THREAT BRO. Which is obviously retarded as LO is designed as a radar threat defense, not IR. Slap some IR absorbant paint on an A-10 and it will handle the situation just as well as any other aircraft currently in the sky. We helicopters are down in the dirty every single day and we handle it - why do people think an A-10 is suddenly such a vulnerable shitheap? Well a helicopter is just a small truck that can fly a little, they're not really as big ticket an item as jets. The US lost like 6,000+ helicopters over Vietnam and it ain't no thang. 
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
So I'm a shitbird with a university degree but not very good marks and anyway I hate that subject(finance). Should I take the AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES TECHNICIAN at SAIT and then fix planes for a living? It sounds kind of cool and I've generally been interested in the field since I was young but life sort of took me in other directions. I had some friends in the army who make pretty good livings fixing planes and even get to travel to exotic locales to do it. My parents both work in the UAE so it might be cool if that worked out. I don't drink or do anything else intoxicating and am mostly vegetarian so life under Shari'a is actually pretty appealing.
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Linedance posted:What the other guys say is true, unless you go in to avionics. Realistically the Canadian AME licence isn't very portable and the -S even less so, even though the trade is in demand. That being said, the stuff you will learn will keep you employed as long as you want to work, and the scope of structures extends well beyond the aircraft industry. If you want portability, go for maintenance or avionics, then write your EASA B1/B2 license and make boatloads of money working in the desert for horrible bosses. I see that SAIT offers programs in both maintenance and avionics. That's the way to go then? The maintenance one is 2 years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
So when am I going to see a V22 do a Pukachev Cobra
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Why is putting a radar on a V-22 crazy? How are the Marines going to defend Henderson Field without VTOL AWACs?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 06:54
|
|