|
blowfish posted:
Large lift areas make it easier to land and take off at low speeds, generally.
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:It's worth noting that bigger wings != more maneuverable (by whatever metrics) in all flight regimes, both because the increased weight can place limits on the number of Gs the aircraft can safely pull and because aircraft fly thanks to voodoo magic, which means wing loading doesn't actually dictate everything about sustained/instantaneous turn rate etc. OK. Is this just a random note, or do you think that's what I was trying to say?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its a very common engine and already used in a lot of US military aircraft. Is it, though? T-6s were already addressed, and aside from military craft made from the King Air, I'm not sure what else they are in, US military-wise. The T-6 fleet is a lot larger than the King Air fleet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Harrier 3 - an osprey with some spray paint. Toss bombs out the loading ramp. The only thing making Harriers less deadly to Marines than Ospreys is the ability for Ospreys to carry passengers. Harriers might as well have been designed by the enemy. I'd find hard info on this, but the Marines make it way harder to find this info with a simple google search than US the Air Force, which makes it all readily available for their aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:No such thing as multitasking when you dealing with conscious information. You can slice your attention between tasks quickly but multitasking doesn't exist, its an illusion. When you practice a task alot you can transition really quickly like when you moving and shooting in an FPS, you will have decided where you are going before you focus on shooting. Or shooting akimbo and why accuracy drops so much even if you are ambidextrous, its because each gun are different tasks you have to switch between. That's a very pedantic way of saying something we know. Pilots maintain a "scan" where they constantly scan between things including, but not limited to: looking outside the cockpit, keeping an eye on basic flight characteristics, checking dials that display key maintenance info, and using the systems bolted onto the plane to complete whatever mission they're assigned. When it is not possible to accomplish the mission while maintaining a safe level of scan, they add crew members to platforms.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Are you serious with this poo poo? He's talking about the skill of getting multiple tasks done simultaneously, not literally the threadcount of your brain. I can't wait to meet a person who responds to "I listened to the radio while driving" with "No, technically, you did not!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
The Typhoon is hilariously expensive for what it is, and had terrible cost overruns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
It's worth noting that on day 1 of Operation Harmattan, the US launched over 100 cruise missiles, shredding Libyan air defenses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wasn't Benghazi the rebel held stronghold that we intervened to stop a massacre at? One would assume if they held the city they also held the air defense sites. Pretty much. This is also why Syrian rebels, back when they thought the US might actually bomb Assad's forces, were doggedly pursuing every SAM site they could reasonably attack.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I thought we did? Any bombing of Syrian forces is either incidental or classified to hell or something done by Israel that neither Israel nor Syria want to talk about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I'm actually kind of astonished more people haven't bought it, considering what a good deal it is and how relatively politically neutral its country of manufacture is compared to the US or Russia. The Dutch know what's up though. The same Dutch who are buying F-35s and not Gripens?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
The Dutch were never going to buy a Gripen anyway. The only thing they might otherwise do with F-35 money is spend it on the Navy instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:OK, I'm really curious. Why do marines need their own aircraft carriers and planes? Why can't they request support from a navy carrier or an airforce base? Please don't say bureaucracy, because there certainly must be better solutions than giving them their own carriers. Because we need air power in many more places than we have carriers or bases. That said, I disagree that these small carriers need F-35s enough to warrant the b model existing. But if you want to run rescue ops with helicopters or aid operations or the like, they are pretty handy to have around.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Isn't the problem with small carriers that have relatively small air wings that they can be incapable of protecting themselves while also being incapable of actually carrying out other tasks since they need to spend most of their air wing on CAP? I remember this being brought up in Shattered Sword, which talked a bit about the Japanese light carriers. Not if the thing you really want to do is something like extract everyone from an American embassy or deliver aid supplies in emergencies or quickly dump off Marines to augment security somewhere, or help out in basic peacekeeping operations, because you're using rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft for that. If you actually want it to be some badass fighting force with futuristic fixed-wing aircraft like the Marines say they do, then yeah, it becomes really problematic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
ascendance posted:So... Could th F-35 implode like the a-12? Nope, the two aren't comparable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:So is the LRS-B program looking like it'll be a poo poo show comparable to the F35? I don't know much about it, but on the face of things it looks kind of reasonable. Well, the Navy and Marines don't need their own version, so that's already a boost to the likelihood that it won't be a complete shitshow.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:I got various figures on the tuition one, some were exactly as you say, some were lower. Like I said, take the chart with a grain of salt, I was doing it for maximum impact because I had an agenda. haha. Understood. But lol, if climate change could be stopped AND reversed for $240 billion, I'm pretty sure the island nations of the world and a handful of philanthropists would have already ponied up for that poo poo. Some problems are more than dolla dolla bills y'all, even though it pains me to disagree with the Wu-Tang Clan in even a minor way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:No aircraft on the ground will survive RPG attacks. Way to kick the Marines when they're down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I actually meant that in the literal way, not "lol the osprey/f-35 will never fly" way. It was a joke about a Harrier squadron getting basically destroyed on the ground when insurgents successfully infiltrated Camp Bastion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Griffins already get pooped out the back of c-130s.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Arming utility helicopters is fine. It just so happens that the USA is rich enough to afford dedicated attack gunships in addition to utility choppers. But the marines still arm UH-1s, the SH-60 carries armament, tons of allies roll with armed utility helicopters. Armed utility helicopters are extremely popular these days as sensor packages and guided weapons improve and nations find that expensive attack helicopters that can't do multirole are kind of expensive for what you get.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Also I'll say that no one in the Army, Navy, or Marines has been attacked from the air for over 60 years... Leave it to the USAF guy to handwave away all the times the USAF has decided to blow up ground units in the US Army, Navy, and Marines.  Other kinda-sorta air threats depending on definition: Iranian surveillance UAV that was shot down over Iraq, various ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that have either been shot down or hit friendly forces over the years. etalian posted:For examp,e in the US military there's only the patriot missile in terms of long range aircraft killer, while the Russians have piles of different missile and gun platforms by comparison. This is true of the Army, but the Navy's long range aircraft killing power from surface platforms is considerable in capabilities and numbers. Then there are special snowflake areas like the national capitol region, which sports NASAMS. Dead Reckoning posted:It's my understanding that most armed utility helicopters included the provision for weapons mounting hardware as part of the design, and in some cases the installations are semi-permanent. I don't think there have been any designs since the Mi-24 with the provision to carry heavy weapons and troops/cargo at the same time. It gets back to my earlier point: the Marine Corps just got a whole bunch of money to buy AH-1Zs, why do they need to gently caress around refitting their tilt-rotors into ghetto gunships, aside from ~*~camouflage flight helmets~*~? I'm not making a specific argument in favor making the Osprey into a weapons platform. I was just saying that arming utility choppers is very common, and becoming ever more common, particularly when you look at nations that don't have the kind of budget that the USA has. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
It's a lot faster and easier to establish air dominance by blowing up airfields, parked planes, and supplies than it is to dogfight every enemy plane until they have none left.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
The idea that the reason the warthog has two engines is to handle recoil is the funniest thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The chances of the U.S. going to war against an enemy with non-trivial aircraft are, themselves, trivial. On the other hand, the US is more and more likely to face adversaries with non-trivial air defenses. Airplanes don't have to be perfectly invisible to get through modern SAM systems; just a greater ability to penetrate enemy airspace before the enemy can fire on you opens up tons of opportunities to hit targets or attack the SAM systems directly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:I'm just going to assume the red text that someone bought you was totally justified. His thing is that he thinks being an economic leftist makes insane bigotry and blind spots OK.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
I think the F-35 program is a hot mess but at this rate we're going to see a picture of an F-35 cut in half by a train running through one and people will be like "lol 1800s tech beat it"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Can its radar absorbent coating take deicing spray without getting ruined? The F-22 gets sprayed down, so I imagine the F-35 can as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:A train would actually be useful for something outside of ludicrously improbable fantasy scenarios, whereas the F-35, much like the F-22, is the nation-state equivalent of a diamond encrusted codpiece. Bombing people isn't a fantasy, what world do you live in? I'm being glib 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
It's pretty hard to sim something that is largely top secret compartmentalized information without going to federal prison. So you'll only see those planes in arcade style games.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Uhhhh excuse me??? Hard to tell who is joking ITT.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
On the one hand JSF was and is a lovely acquisition program and it's fun to make fun of it. On the other, it's tiresome seeing posters just make poo poo up like saying the F-35 cannot even fly or pull more than one G.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
The UK has four Typhoons at the Falklands. So far that's done the job.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Oh, it can pull more than one G, but then the engine starts to rub because important info was kept secret from the people designing it. But the one G thing is this thing called "satire". I know, how dare anyone try such on a satire site. God, grow a sense of humor or something This joke just got real meta. E:fb
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:You heard it here, folks. No making jokes about anything ever after some made up point in time. So I'm assuming this entire post following is a joke/satire. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. I didn't know Jon Kyl posted on SA.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:Compared to what western naval fighter? The Super Hornet can fly 3,000 miles without external tanks and carrying a full load of ordnance. If you look that up and it's a lie, you don't understand satire 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
I like the marine corps press releases insisting they'll make IOC then in the same breath making it abundantly clear that they are not ready for any combat whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:http://defensetech.org/2015/03/06/general-f-35-will-initially-lag-older-aircraft-in-close-air-support/ That's not really what that article says.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
So until then it won't have the gun (not ideal but frankly kind of meh when looking big picture), and it won't have the advanced SAR or a bomb that the A-10 doesn't have anyway. It will still do what most CAS is: dropping JDAMs and laser guided bombs on the enemy. Where it does lag is in having a wider variety of ordnance testing complete but the most important and useful bombs and missiles have been fast tracked. Maybe I'm missing something though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm genuinely curious what you think performing a CAS mission actually consists of. He just snipes away with wrong bullshit and every time he gets called out he accuses other people of not having a sense of humor. It'd be a better gimmick in a less technical D&D thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 18:41
|
|