NosmoKing posted:The last sequence in Atomic Cafe is terrifying. It goes a loooonnnnggg way to show that the simple ideas that are proposed in the film as "countermeasures" are pointless. I met a woman in Rome and during our conversation this came up. She was pretty incredulous as the idea that the US just had random bomb shelters in all the cities. She thought I was making it up to and couldn't wrap her head around the idea that this was actually thought to be a good idea at some point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2010 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 13:40 |
|
iyaayas01 posted:My third video is also related to a nuclear war drama, but this time in the U.S. I'm sure most of you are familiar with The Day After, and you probably remember some scenes featuring U.S. military personnel attempting to respond to the initial attack before the warheads strike. You may even remember that these were actual U.S. military personnel. What you probably don't know is that the scenes were clipped from a longer "drama" portion of a documentary called "First Strike." Now, ignoring the fact that "First Strike" was produced by the Team B/CPD folks and drastically inflated the actual threat posed by Soviet nuclear forces, if you are in any way interested in the Cold War military, you MUST watch this film. I'm not sure what my favorite '70s kitsch bit is because there are so many, and I don't want to ruin it for you, so I won't comment any further. But seriously, watch it...it was filmed with the full cooperation of the DoD, so all the people in it are U.S. military members, U.S. military equipment, the whole shebang. Heh, I love the quotes about how the B-52 can't be expected to be used after the mid 90's. Also great is the argument that the Soviet submarine missile system is good enough to wipe out the bombers and ICBM's, but the US subs, being able to only destroy all the Soviet cities, aren't a credible deterrent to the Soviets. Basically this movie is a sales pitch by the Military Industrial Complex.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2010 22:25
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The comment about the BUFFs was particularly retarded because all it is expected to do (as far as nuclear war/the SIOP is concerned) is be a cruise missile carrier...it can carry an advanced cruise missile just as easily as it can carry a legacy one. In fact, if the Cold War had continued another 10-15 years, chances are that we would've phased out most of the ALCMs and went ahead and solved the problems with the ACM, instead of doing the opposite in the name of cost savings (oh, and we'd have a shitton of F-22s... The best was the guy at the end of part 4 who advocated a return to conscription to build up the military's strength. And drat the 70's had some of the worst suits and hair styles imaginable.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2010 00:55
|
|
). And yeah, the whole SLBM thing was more than a bit of a stretch, to say the least.|
So, listening to Sen. Mccain's argument, would the START treaty limit the US's ability to pursue building a missile defense system? And is missile defense anything more than a pipe dream? I mean, he talked about Reagan and SDI in his speech. He seems to think that the Russians will pull out of the treaty if the US works towards strategic missile defense.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
I mean, we need this to complete the thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA Why Viet-NAM? (because we don't want to be an appeaser like Chamberlain) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEljbPwFQ9M
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 00:23
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:The Tornado isn't a cool aircraft at all. The RAF senior officers have such a hard-on for it that they've sabotaged Britain's entire force projection capacity by ditching the Harrier early, just so they can keep that useless swing-wing shitbird in service a while longer. It's a bitch paying for a robust social safety net.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2011 16:16
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wouldn't mounting external stores on it like that effectively gently caress its low-profile radar signature straight to hell, though? I mean, what's the point in having a next-gen stealth fighter if you're just going to load a bunch of last-gen weapons on hardpoints on the outside and gently caress up its radar profile? Have you checked out the F-35 thread in GiP?
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 15:30
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I don't go around GiP much. Worth a read I take it? Lot's of iyaayas postings and back and forth about US strategic doctrine, vis a vi the Marines and their need for organic CAS.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 22:01
|
|
I fully support development of the Cobra Rattler.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain this guy probably did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2011 06:24
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:A lot of it has to do with history...most (maybe all?) of the A-10s flying around with the no-poo poo shark's teeth (as opposed to the warthog nose art) belong to the 23d Wing, which traces it's lineage back through the 23d Fighter Group to the Flying Tigers. As a side note, the Army's 229 Aviation Regiment was granted permission to use the "Flying Tigers" livery by the 1st AVG veterans in 1988. How they can really claim lineage, I don't know, but there it is. http://www.usar.army.mil/arweb/organization/commandstructure/USARC/OPS/11Avn/Commands/8229Avn/History/Pages/default.aspx 
Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jun 5, 2011 |
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2011 17:48
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:
Anyone have insight into the rain problem, keeping OPSEC in mind?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2011 16:43
|
|
Why would we do that?
iyaayas01 posted:Vipers aren't really that bad as far as fighter aircraft go, even...Strike Eagles are pretty loving loud, and for some reason Super Hornets are the absolute worst. Our quarters were next to the flight line at Al Assad. Sometimes it seemed like the Marines were trying to burn up the month's fuel budget at night with the constant F-18 traffic at 3 AM.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 14:17
|
|
VikingSkull posted:This is always a good read, too. I like that they think a nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR automatically means that the rest of the world will fall into civil war just because.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2011 22:23
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Pretty much any place that could be used by either side for tactical or strategic movement and supply would be targeted. The Suez and Panama canals? Gone. Do you have a major port, dam, or highway and rail systems? It's getting nuked. Airfield of, say, 10,000 feet? Bye bye. Sounds like a good argument for reducing the amount of nukes in the world.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
I'd say we are more ingenious than that. There are lot of resources in Africa and South America, and we'd start digging out the landfills for materiel.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2011 02:01
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:No offense, but for the sake of whoever is grading your class, don't do this. When you had guys like Lemay and Thomas S."Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win" Power running around, Dr. Strangelove doesn't look that far off.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 04:42
|
|
. It's kind of the Cold War version of trying to base your Holocaust paper off of Schindler's List.|
Israel is a very rich modern nation. Why the US gives them a dime of aid is beyond me since all it seems to do is piss off the rest of the middle east.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
So, they've parked this at the local National Guard Camp. Thoughts? Other than the hilariously racist/vintage nose art?     
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
The UH-60 Black Hawk also utilizes a stabilator.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 04:37
|
|
Phanatic posted:Another shot of the B-52 doing a flyby of the USS Ranger. The guys on the island reportedly called them after they requested permission for a flyby, B-52 crew said "look down": From my understanding, that's also the same B-52 pilot who later killed himself and his crew trying to loop the aircraft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJb08ZzejAA
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
From AR 95-1 Army Aviation Flight Regulations 8–7. Oxygen system See FM 3–04.301 for restrictions on use of oxygen. Approved oxygen systems will be used as follows: a. Unpressurized aircraft. Oxygen will be used by aircraft crews and occupants for flights, as shown below: (1) Aircraft crews. (a) On flights above 10,000 feet pressure altitude for more than 1 hour. (b) On flights above 12,000 feet pressure altitude for more than 30 minutes. (2) Aircraft crews and all other occupants. (a) On flights above 14,000 feet pressure altitude for any period of time. (b) For flights above 18,000 feet pressure altitude, oxygen prebreathing will be accomplished by aircrewmembers. Prebreathing may utilize either 100 percent gaseous aviator’s oxygen from a high pressure source, or an onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS) that supplies at least 90 percent oxygen. Prebreathing will be for not less than 30 minutes at ground level and will continue while en route to altitude. In those extraordinary cases where mission requirements dictate rapid ascent, commanders may authorize shorter prebreathing times on a case-by-case basis, with the realization that such practice increases the risk for developing altitude decompression illness. Return to NORMAL OXYGEN (pressure demand regulator, gaseous oxygen-equipped aircraft) is authorized on descent below 18,000 feet pressure altitude, provided continued flight will not exceed this altitude.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 03:36
|
|
Phanatic posted:NK has roughly 72 billion artillery pieces that give them a purely conventional ability to flatten Seoul. They'd probably want to use a nuclear weapon to threaten or destroy something they don't already have the capability to wipe off the map in an afternoon. Seoul is almost completely out of artillery range, except for the northern outskirts.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 19:34
|
|
Phanatic posted:And he seems to be a big fan of the Hornet. He's got a whole section in that article, "ARGUMENTS FOR THE F/A-18F," where he's basically saying (I think) that the USMC should operate Hornets off of Navy carriers: I thought the already did that. USMC maintenance personnel deploy on CVN's anyway.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
Except that it was ridiculously expensive, carried a small payload, and was way too fragile for use in a combat theater. The Army used the money to upgrade the existing fleet of UH-60's, buy the LUH, and was going to buy the ARH, except that program has been a huge headache. Still looks cool though.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
Love the ballin' 70's music. And it's modern version, the Battlehawk.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGuds5-fSTc Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jan 21, 2012 |
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
The F-22 has cost how many billions and nobody thought to put a latch on the outside of the canopy? http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,97576,00.html
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 02:10
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And how exactly would you propose to do that without loving with the LO signature? And don't say "install a hatch or something with the handle underneath it" because even that little bit would cause a negative impact. There are many things to rant about with the F-22, some of them justified, some of them not, but the " Did they at least put a release handle inside the cockpit?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 03:41
|
|
can't open the canopy" was a one off issue 6 years ago and ranks pretty far down that list.
thesurlyspringKAA posted:No, armyman, there are no handles. The pilot is sealed into the aircraft and they bond, become one single entity devoted to win wargames but never actually see combat. So, like FireFox?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 03:50
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Advocating tracked IFVs instead of the wheeled Stryker doesn't sound all that insane to me? What don't you like about it? Because the M113 is an antiquated POS? And the fact that it's not an IFV it's an APC. And if you blow the track on an M113 it's deadlined, while a Stryker can keep going, even with a couple of wheels blown off. There's also the fact that Mike Sparks thinks that the entire US military should be airborne. That our entire force structure should be paratroopers and M113's dropped from the sky. Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jan 28, 2012 |
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 21:28
|
|
grover posted:The avenger is awesome and all, but the A-10 is an aging aircraft with a very limited mission role, and has huge vulnerabilities to modern missile systems on the heavily contested battlefields where we would need it the most. "Low and slow" was important when your only sensor was the MkI eyeball, but it's simply a huge vulnerability now. Isn't this what the Air Force said, circa 1989?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 00:15
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yeah, and since then we've had the Gulf War, which proved the USAF right and resulted in the A-10 being kept up at high altitudes outside of MANPAD range in Yugoslavia a few years later. I thought the A-10 proved very effective versus armor and ground targets. And one even shot down a Hind.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 01:05
|
|
Phanatic posted:It also got shot down a lot. 9 took MANPAD hits. 6 of those didn't come home. It fared pretty well against AAA fire (11 took AAA hits, all made it back), but like Grover said: "huge vulnerabilities to modern missile systems on the heavily contested battlefields where we would need it the most." You do know we've made a lot of improvements in anti-MANPAD technology since 1990, right?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 01:22
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Contrary to the past decade, the Air Force does have other missions than being the Army's flying artillery and delivery service. The Army would be more than happy to take over those missions, if the Air Force would let it. But look what happened with the C-27.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 19:02
|
|
Alaan posted:Since we are kind of talking losses of airframes: Are there any replacements slated for a new helicopter? It seems like some months we lose as many troops from Blackhawks falling out of the sky for god knows what reason as we do to enemy action. You have some documentation on that? http://www.armyaircrews.com/blackhawk.html Maintenance and mechanical failure from age is pretty far down the list as to the cause of helicopter crashes. The Army is still receiving new UH-60M's and will eventually phase out the A/L's. (in 20 years). (maybe) Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
The Apache did draw out one of Nic Cage's best performances: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyuHA_zAOM Y'know, Firebirds really is what it looks like. What would happen if the Army tried to make Top Gun.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 23:47
|
|
Phanatic posted:Heh. I worked with the guy who played the Bad Guy in that film. Bert Rhine, they brought him in as a technical consultant and to fly the helicopters in the aerial sequences, and then said to him "We...really don't have a bad guy in the film, do you want to be it? We'll give you an acting credit and a line or two." I think the line they gave him to say was "AAAGGGGGH!" That's pretty awesome! Also, I love how Cage unstraps his helmet there. Hello, you still have to fly home!
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2012 03:44
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Thanks for the info. What supports the Osprey at the LZ? The F-35B of course!
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 01:05
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yup. The Marines have actually in at least one instance broken down the MEU ACE into two separate groups, one comprised solely of rotary winged Hueys and Cobras and the other comprised solely of fast jets and Ospreys, enabling autonomous operations between the two since the fast jets complimented the Osprey so well compared to helos. The Osprey also is supposed to have a rudimentary self defense capability with a belly mounted remotely operated turret in addition to the ramp gun, but the turret has faced some developmental issues. That and by doctrine the Osprey is not supposed to land in a contested LZ.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 13:40 |
|
LP97S posted:And the US is still imposing a massive embargo for nearly 50 years now. They're gonna break any day now!
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 20:13
|
|