|
Flikken posted:I don't think Bagram has long enough runways
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
Since the B-2 flies with a 2 man crew, and they fly 24 hour missions or whatever, am I correct in assuming that B-2 crew are high as poo poo on uppers most of the time?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Since the B-2 flies with a 2 man crew, and they fly 24 hour missions or whatever, am I correct in assuming that B-2 crew are high as poo poo on uppers most of the time? Why wouldn't they just trade off nap times?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 02:08
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Why wouldn't they just trade off nap times? Well, the military, and the AF in particular have a habit of using/abusing all sorts of drugs, starting with uppers in WW2 and continuing through sending guys out to combat while on all sorts of psych meds. There was one particular blue-on-blue in the very early stages of NATO Afganistan where a USAF pilot blew the poo poo out of some Canadian troops, turned out the pilot was on "low doses of mission enhancing supplements" which turned out to be some sort of amphetamine. So I just assumed 2 guys, 24 hours =  edit: wiki writeup on the Canadian friendly fire incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Yeah, I know the military keeps guys hopped up on all sorts of poo poo, but I've always understood that to be situations where they really just need to keep them going non-stop for an extended period of time. 2 guys flying 10 hours in uncontested airspace to a combat zone, doing poo poo where they need to be really on the ball for 2, then having another 10 hour flight back to base doesn't really seem to fit the pattern for uppers use that I've heard of in the military. Just my gut, though, I obviously don't have any first hand knowledge of this kind of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
IIRC the B-2 is much like any modernish plane in that most of the flying is automated and the remaining work can be done by one man, so they take shifts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
I have to imagine, especially with the unbelievable negative press that followed that friendly fire incident a few years ago (where amphetamines, right or wrong, were slammed as the cause), that the Air Force keeps a closer eye on tracking use and keeping pilots accountable. At least I hope they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:IIRC the B-2 is much like any modernish plane in that most of the flying is automated and the remaining work can be done by one man, so they take shifts. Hell, they're not even allowed to touch the controls during takeoff, for fear they'll gently caress something up! F-18 crew, assuming the position:  It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn a B-2 could complete a mission and return to the US with both crewmembers asleep or incapacitated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Looking up some old Air Force magazine article, they mention that the B2 is highly automated so it only needs one pilot during cruising so the other pilot can nap, cook up a meal, or use a toilet which is, correct me if I'm wrong, luxury on military aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Also, you don't put crazy expensive bombers on bases in Afghanistan when you have potentially twitchy neighbors with large TBM reserves, and you have zero TBM defense in Afghanistan. Just a thought. edit: well, not zero defense. There's always passive defense! mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 03:54
|
|
grover posted:Hell, it's not much of an exaggeration to say that the lowly F/A-18 can pretty much take off, fly to the mission area, complete the mission, return to the carrier, and land, all without the pilot ever touching the aircraft. That's not the reason for that. At least, it has more to do with the pilots suffering from spacial disorientation. TC 3-04.93 posted:Oculogravic Illusion
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:I have to imagine, especially with the unbelievable negative press that followed that friendly fire incident a few years ago (where amphetamines, right or wrong, were slammed as the cause), that the Air Force keeps a closer eye on tracking use and keeping pilots accountable. Granted, use of amphetamine in war has a long and storied history. The WW2 Germans had amphetamine chocolate bars, and the Japanese also used it for their aviators.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:That's not the reason for that. At least, it has more to do with the pilots suffering from spacial disorientation. Uh... that still sounds exactly like being afraid they'll gently caress it up, even if it's due to general human limiations rather than "hurr pilots."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
I have tried and keep some Scho-Ka-Kola on hand. It is like eating a whole bar of chocolate and drinking two espressos with each piece of chocolate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 04:06
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Uh... that still sounds exactly like being afraid they'll gently caress it up, even if it's due to general human limiations rather than "hurr pilots." Exactly, it has to do with physiology, not the proficiency of the pilots versus the airplane.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
There's something fascinating to me about military aircraft that have crappers onboard. Su-35 especially because it's not a large aircraft. Taking a dump while cracking the sound barrier is an even more exclusive experience than the mile high club, especially with the retirement of the Concorde.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
What do pilots on long flights do when they have to drop a deuce but the plane has no toilet? I imagine it has to suck to poop your flight suit then sit in it for several hours until you return to base.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:What do pilots on long flights do when they have to drop a deuce but the plane has no toilet? I imagine it has to suck to poop your flight suit then sit in it for several hours until you return to base. I imagine that pooping is part of the pre-flight stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
Beardless posted:I imagine that pooping is part of the pre-flight stuff. Sure. But I imagine sometimes the flight is long or you couldn't go before the flight or dinner isn't sitting well or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Sure. But I imagine sometimes the flight is long or you couldn't go before the flight or dinner isn't sitting well or something. Wouldn't be surprised if they take a laxative to make sure they are all cleaned out before take off if it's going to be a long mission.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Lot to cover...everyone's basically already hit all the pertinent points regarding the basing discussion, although I will point out that we are discussing two different issues. First, why are bombers home based on the CONUS vs overseas, and second, why are bombers deployed to locations outside the immediate AOR (undisclosed locations in Southwest Asia, Diego, Guam, etc) instead of directly there (Bagram, Korea/Japan in the Pacific, etc.) The first is for a couple of reasons...first, since bombers have global reach they aren't required to be forward deployed to be employed effectively in an immediate crisis situation. Yes, we can employ fighters direct from the U.S. (as opposed to deploying them from the U.S. for employment from an overseas base), but you are going to see some degradation in effectiveness if they have to fly all the way from the U.S. and fight their way in, due to fatigue, whereas that's a bomber crew's bread and butter. This gives you flexibility, since launching from U.S. soil means all you need are overflight rights (or maybe not even those depending on the target), instead of having to screw around with getting the airbase's host nation to hack off on your war. This is also why Guam is so valuable in the Pacific. Additionally, there's the logistics standpoint...as many people have brought up, bombers have a larger logistical footprint, whether we are talking maintenance, munitions, supply, whatever. Also like hannibal said, you have the B-2 which has specific maintenance/environmental requirements regarding LO maintenance. Along those lines, I believe they have the special hangars at Diego, RAF Fairford, and maybe Guam. BUFFs fought out of Fairford during Desert Storm, Allied Force, Desert Fox (I think), and then the opening stages of OEF and OIF, a couple different flavors of bombers flew out of Diego during Desert Storm and the opening stages of OEF and OIF, and as I've mentioned before there's the Continuous Bomber Presence on Guam. The second reason (outside the immediate AOR) is primarily for flexibility purposes: bombers based at an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia could fly missions into both Iraq or Afghanistan; bombers based in Guam can fly missions anywhere in the Pacific Rim, whereas for example aircraft based out of Korea might have political issues getting into the fight in a defense of Taiwan scenario. Additionally as others have mentioned you have congestion issues with airbases in the immediate theater, especially ones like Bagram that are major logistics hubs. The runway at Bagram can take fully loaded FREDs and An-124s, it could handle a bomber, the issue is congestion and additional logistical requirements. mlmp08 posted:Also, you don't put crazy expensive bombers on bases in Afghanistan when you have potentially twitchy neighbors with large TBM reserves, and you have zero TBM defense in Afghanistan. Just a thought. Also this. I don't even think most of the infrastructure in Afghanistan is really that hardened (as far as resisting no-poo poo TBMs go), although to be honest neither is a lot of the infrastructure at other overseas bases (outside of Europe and Korea)...this is something I think we'll see more of in the Pacific over the next 10-15 years. priznat posted:There's something fascinating to me about military aircraft that have crappers onboard. Su-34  Su-35 is a single seat upgraded Flanker.Oxford Comma posted:What do pilots on long flights do when they have to drop a deuce but the plane has no toilet? I imagine it has to suck to poop your flight suit then sit in it for several hours until you return to base. This would only apply to fighter type aircraft, as everything larger than that has some sort of rudimentary toilet...of course, in most of those it's basically the worst crudest port-a-shitter you can think of, and it's considered bad form to drop anything close to a smelly deuce because it will stink up most/all of the aircraft (and god help you if you are seated near the "restroom" and the aircraft runs into any turbulence). In fighters I've heard they will very occasionally load up with diapers (this is also the standard female version of piddle packs) if it is going to be an especially long flight (a ferry flight across the Pacific or something) but most of the time the solution is to go before you step to the aircraft combined with a couple of low residue meals beforehand...there's a reason that steak and eggs is the traditional fighter pilot/astronaut/etc breakfast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Wouldn't be surprised if they take a laxative to make sure they are all cleaned out before take off if it's going to be a long mission. Well if you're popping yellow jackets like pez I'm sure a laxative won't kill you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
Come on, guys. Is it really THAT hard for y'all to hold a deuce for a day? Usually the stress of a complicated mission puts your body in DONT poo poo mode anyway. When I went through basic all those years ago, I didn't crap for 5 days or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 11:50
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:That's not the reason for that. At least, it has more to do with the pilots suffering from spacial disorientation. F-18s are also capable of fully automatic (hands-free) arrested landings, and will hit the 3-wire every time on a well-calibrated system. But automatic landings don't count towards carrier quals, so they usually just leave it in the assisted position, where the computer merely tells the pilot what to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
iyaayas01 hit most of the big points, but there are a few things I want to mention.Cyrano4747 posted:B1s, B2, B52s, etc - have such a loving huge logistical tail attached to them that it's straight up cheaper to just have them fly 20 hour missions out of Missouri or wherever and refuel a bunch in the air than it would be to rebase to, say, Italy. Oxford Comma posted:
MagnumHB posted:For one thing, I know B-1s have done low level show-of-force deterrent passes in Afghanistan. I doubt they want to be doing the same thing with B-52s due to their lower speed/maneuverability. The only reason they wouldn't do a low level pass today is that the crews no longer train for low level penetration, no one wants to put even more stress on already ancient airframes and because
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Are B52s only going to be retired because the airframes are getting so goddamn old?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Are B52s only going to be retired because the airframes are getting so goddamn old? In 2050.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
Flikken posted:In 2050. I really wouldn't be surprised. I mean, for bombing Backwateristan, does America need anything else?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Su-34  in my defense I was posting that from the crapper via my phone, otherwise I would have looked it up to be sure 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Fascinating paper on SEAD here: http://web.mit.edu/ssp/publications/conf_reports/3coteorPAD3.pdf Anti-radiation missiles have difficulty homing on modern SAM radars, as they spend so little time transmitting, that conventional tactics just don't work. Even with older systems, the operators would turn them on only when firing, and turn them off if ARMs were inbound to avoid getting hit. In Vietnam, US forces would jam the search radars forcing SAM crews to use their engagement radars in search mode, and thus make them vulnerable to ARMs. In Iraq, when a SAM was fired at a coalition jet, HARMs would be fired back against the targeting radar (which had to stay on to guide the SAMs), and were pretty effective at suppressing the Iraqi SAM network. In Kosovo, though, the operators would turn off the radar when engaged; they knew they'd miss their target, but the radar survived and the Serbs were able to put up at least a token level anti-aircraft resistance virtually the entire conflict. This paper proposes using networked ELINT sensors and submarines armed with theater ballistic missiles for SEAD/DEAD in an A2/AD environment. Systems networking existing aircraft RWRs and small stealthy UAVs are also proposed as ELINT sensors, precisely pinpointing the radars, to allow aircraft or submarines immediately engage with GPS-guided stand-off munitions even if the radar is only active for a few seconds. grover fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Speaking of Vietnam.... The Battle of the Ia Drang Valley That's a Liveleak link so watch out or you might see a beheading video or some poo poo. Pretty cool CBS News documentary from back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Speaking of Vietnam....
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
grover posted:"We Were Soldiers" was part of the battle of Ia Drang, wasn't it? yup
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
grover posted:"We Were Soldiers" was part of the battle of Ia Drang, wasn't it? Hal Moore's BN was the one that didn't get really hosed up in that battle. I believe 2/7 Cav took a lot more casualties
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
grover posted:Systems networking existing aircraft RWRs and small stealthy UAVs are also proposed as ELINT sensors, precisely pinpointing the radars, to allow aircraft or submarines immediately engage with GPS-guided stand-off munitions even if the radar is only active for a few seconds. Have subs ever operated in direct support of air operations before? That would be fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
grover posted:"We Were Soldiers" was part of the battle of Ia Drang, wasn't it? That was probably Mel Gibson's last decent movie. That battle and Hue/Tet always stick out in my head as examples of how the American public at large don't know history. Ask a kid today and they think we lost Vietnam because we got our asses kicked, they don't know the military history part where the US had major tactical and strategic victories. Most don't even know the difference between the VC and NVA. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
The USA lost plenty of battles in Vietnam. Also, when you say VC and NVA, don't you mean the NLF and PAVN?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:The USA lost plenty of battles in Vietnam. Well, yeah, I suppose we can get super technical here if we'd like. Also, I didn't say we won all the battles, just Ia Drang, Hue and Tet itself. Three of the more notable battles. Tet especially. I get the psychological victory that the North won with Tet, and that's probably more influential on American feelings at the time than the tactical/strategic military victory of the South/US. Generally, though, it's just one of those things that irks me about historical education. When I was taught about Vietnam and Tet in school, it was basically "then the South was overrun and we lost the war". Not exactly like that, but you get the point. I mean, I later learned that Tet was incredibly costly for the attacking force and yet still am of the opinion that Vietnam was an unneeded war. If you're going to teach incompletely, just don't teach it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
grover posted:Fascinating paper on SEAD here: http://web.mit.edu/ssp/publications/conf_reports/3coteorPAD3.pdf Unfortunately, this paper makes no real mention of SAMs capable of defending themselves by shooting down ARMs, TBMs, and Cruise Missiles. Otherwise, it's not bad at all. A lot of the stuff in that paper has resulted in increased interest in SAM systems with variable targeting methods, being able to switch between RF, IR, and EO as needed, or being able to detect with RF, but target with EO/IR in order to allow engagements while EMCON silent. Oh, this paper also reminds me why IFC could be cool one day. Marginally related: Patriot engaged something without using its own sensor recently. http://defense-update.com/20120426_patriot-pac-3-assisted-by-jlens-successfully-intercepted-a-cruise-missile-target.html mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jun 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
One of the goals of the Tet Offensive was to bleed to the Viet Cong dry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 02:40
|
|
