|
Ship it!
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Yay it did a thing it was designed to do! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/us/f-35-fighter-carrier-landing/index.html Somewhere in there, there is a fishing joke to be made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Somewhere in there, there is a fishing joke to be made. if there is, Quint is the one telling it
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
That Works posted:How many fatalities? The USS Nimitz is going to be mothballed due to catastrophic damage to its flight deck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/us/f-35-fighter-carrier-landing/index.html Wow, just like a real plane!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
God, that single engine looks really weird landing on a carrier to me for some reason. Are there any other single-engine carrier planes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
I think they meant to write that the Nimitz made its first tailhook landing on a F-35. Because that turkey is so fat the Nimitz got wings in comparison  e: As for single-engined carrier planes: F-7 and the F-8. And the Skyraider.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:God, that single engine looks really weird landing on a carrier to me for some reason. Are there any other single-engine carrier planes? Harriers, Super Etendards. Used to be A-7s not toooo long ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
(Super) Etendard as well. e;f;b
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Look at all you guys forgetting A-4s
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Pfff, look at you guys forgetting all those pre-ww2 carriers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Oh yeah the X-47B 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:What book is this? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0760339813 Here's the second 'poo poo himself' story, copied for your enjoyment: After a quick visit to the dirty shirt for two bowls of chili, Hoser mans up on America for a training hop in the Med. Strange gurglings in his tank and sweat on the brow even before the cat shot. After a tanker visit, pain and increasing pressure lead Hoser to question his ability to hold on until recovery. He groans to his backseater, Lance "Larue" Lauer, that he needs to land due to a pending sphincter valve failure. Lance, renowned for his failing ears, just declares an emergency. The Boss can't get the actual nature of the emergency out of the plane, but he plays it safe, turns the ship, and launches the SAR helo. As Hoser is dumping about 16k of fuel, his sphincter valve slams open for an uncommanded DUMPEX of its own. A gruesome odor fills the cockpit and poor Larue goes to full oxygen as he calls the ball. After a 2-wire, Hoser parks the mighty aircraft in record time, bolts down the ladder and disappears. There were tales of a flight suit being thrown over the side. Larue is also squadron safety officer, so he feels compelled to write up the valve failure for dissemination to the CAG and Air Boss. Late at night the ever-faithful ops yeoman delivers it to communications. Message duly received by Recon Wing One and CNAL. The whole fleet wound up having a laugh. ----- Also, you guys forgot the T-45. That's a single-engine carrier-rated plane. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:God, that single engine looks really weird landing on a carrier to me for some reason. Are there any other single-engine carrier planes? Are 2 engines that much of an advantage for a carrier plane? Genuinely curious, I don't know much about planes that don't take off from tarmac.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
The idea is if you lose an engine the plane doesn't go splat in the water. The case for the F-35 is that engines these days are way more reliable than they used to be, to the point where situations which would cause you to lose one engine most likely will cause you to lose two engines (running out of gas, hitting a bunch of birds, whatever). I am not qualified to judge the truthfulness of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Not a lot of options if the one engine fails..
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
The hilarious part being that the -35 already has a history of engine issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The idea is if you lose an engine the plane doesn't go splat in the water. The case for the F-35 is that engines these days are way more reliable than they used to be, to the point where situations which would cause you to lose one engine most likely will cause you to lose two engines (running out of gas, hitting a bunch of birds, whatever). I am not qualified to judge the truthfulness of that. The same philosophy is present in commercial aviation. For decades, 2-engine airliners were not flow transoceanic, they had to be 3 or 4 engine, but both the 777 and 787 are modern twin engine transcontinental airliners, so at some point that restriction was dropped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
With the caveat that todays twin engine jets are certified to various ETOPS ratings for singel engine diversions after a failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The idea is if you lose an engine the plane doesn't go splat in the water. The case for the F-35 is that engines these days are way more reliable than they used to be, to the point where situations which would cause you to lose one engine most likely will cause you to lose two engines (running out of gas, hitting a bunch of birds, whatever). I am not qualified to judge the truthfulness of that. As pointed out previously, until somebody tried to make the Navy buy the F-16, they had no problem with single engine airframes (and, indeed, some single engine aircraft had lower combat and operations loss rates than twins). But, somebody DID try to make the Navy share an airframe with the Air Force (rather than the other way around) so suddenly it was utterly impossible, unimaginable, that a single engine aircraft (that wasn't an A-4, A-7, F-8, Skyray, Demon, or Spad) could fly off a carrier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Is there a reason why there's no small arms industry in modern Japan? They sure did make a lot of stuff during WWII. Other former Axis countries today have a pretty significant arms industries still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Is there a reason why there's no small arms industry in modern Japan? They sure did make a lot of stuff during WWII. Other former Axis countries today have a pretty significant arms industries still. Ostentatious pacifism became a point of national consensus enshrined in their new constitution after the shithammering the US gave them in The War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Maybe it's just that I don't like the rear-profile of the F-35. For whatever reason my brain doesn't like seeing that big engine squatting between two vertical stabilizers compared to any twin-engine jet or one stabilizer on top ala F-16.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Is there a reason why there's no small arms industry in modern Japan? They sure did make a lot of stuff during WWII. Other former Axis countries today have a pretty significant arms industries still. They do manufacture some small arms, I think, as well as some indigenous aircraft. They just don't export anything (though that's going to change, they just sold some bomb-rear end flying boats to India.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:They do manufacture some small arms, I think, as well as some indigenous aircraft. They just don't export anything (though that's going to change, they just sold some bomb-rear end flying boats to India.) I was just curious because Japanese design is usually very different from European and American in most industries so a modern indigenous Japanese gun would be kinda cool. If anything the Tavor could pass for Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:I was just curious because Japanese design is usually very different from European and American in most industries so a modern indigenous Japanese gun would be kinda cool. If anything the Tavor could pass for Japanese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howa_Type_89 They don't really sell it to anybody else. Howa did make some AR-18s back in the '70s, some of which made it to the US. And some companies have imported Japanese-manufactured shotguns at various times in the past couple decades, usually selling them under different brand names.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_equipment_of_the_Japan_Ground_Self-Defense_Force
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:They do manufacture some small arms, I think, as well as some indigenous aircraft. They just don't export anything (though that's going to change, they just sold some bomb-rear end flying boats to India.) Haha what
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:Maybe it's just that I don't like the rear-profile of the F-35. For whatever reason my brain doesn't like seeing that big engine squatting between two vertical stabilizers compared to any twin-engine jet or one stabilizer on top ala F-16. The VTOL variant looks like a dog taking a crap when in VTOL mode, which is the most accurate visualization of the f-35 possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Flikken posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_equipment_of_the_Japan_Ground_Self-Defense_Force Huh, I had no idea they flew Apaches, I always assumed that the JGSDF used some kind of home grown design like they do with their tanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007FIIC0
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Huh, I had no idea they flew Apaches, I always assumed that the JGSDF used some kind of home grown design like they do with their tanks. I only learned they flew Apaches when they crashed one in a race against a ZR1 on Top Gear Japan. Edit: Ok, nevermind. It was actually Korea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EsoWpTO2qg Edit2: V Yeah that too, but I figured the video made that part clear. Godholio fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
That is not an Apache? Now I know how the Air Force confused Blackhawks for Hinds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Related: When Nature Calls in a Jet Fighter at 500 knots "...fuckin' stinks up here, that's all I'm sayin."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That is not an Apache? They're both them whirlybird-type things, close enough 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Haha what For reals! Some of the final assembly will be in India apparently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Humboldt Squid posted:The VTOL variant looks like a dog taking a crap when in VTOL mode, which is the most accurate visualization of the f-35 possible. Now I want a photoshop of an F-35 in hover mode replaced with a squatting dog. Something extra goofy while squatting like a greyhound.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howa_Type_89 I really love the weirdos who make it a point on to go on every goddamn japanese-related wiki page and translate the english there to whatever the hell asaruto-raifuru is
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
right arm posted:I really love the weirdos who make it a point on to go on every goddamn japanese-related wiki page and translate the english there to whatever the hell asaruto-raifuru is Speaking of Japanese guns aren't howa rifles a big thing in precision shooting circles ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 05:36
|
|
