AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

«‹›1991 »

_firehawk: Sep 12, 2004

TheFluff posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfdR0G5gc_s

Flanker intercepting Portuguese P-3 over the Baltic sea, in November last year.

I am showing it as removed.

# ? Jan 24, 2015 20:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 15:30

DesperateDan: Dec 10, 2005; Where's my cow?

Is that my cow?

No it isn't, but it still tramples my bloody lavender.

It's here now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN8OoefnUPM

drat nice looking aeroplane. I seem to remember stories of intercepting pilots holding up messages/porn/booze to taunt their targets, wonder if it still happens.

# ? Jan 24, 2015 21:18

Outside Dawg: Feb 24, 2013

Kind of interesting that the Russians are still using the Soviet red star, I thought I had seen some pics of their aircraft sporting a Russian Federation Flag on the tail in place of the star.

# ? Jan 24, 2015 21:29

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

Outside Dawg posted:

Kind of interesting that the Russians are still using the Soviet red star, I thought I had seen some pics of their aircraft sporting a Russian Federation Flag on the tail in place of the star.

Not long after Putin took power, they rebranded their air force with the red star again, surprise surprise.

# ? Jan 24, 2015 21:34

Hubis: May 18, 2003; Boy, I wish we had one of those doomsday machines...

MrChips posted:

Not long after Putin took power, they rebranded their air force with the red star again, surprise surprise.

[Img-SimpsonsRussia2USSR.gif]

# ? Jan 24, 2015 21:49

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

# ? Jan 24, 2015 22:05

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

I posted a long read in the D&D F-35 thread about the DOT&E report (available here), figured I'd cross-post it:

iyaayas01 posted:

As for the DOT&E report, I think that guy hit the major points but I think it lacks context. Here's what stands out to me as I read through it, I'll endeavor to include more commentary to provide some context...

quote:
- Discoveries of deficiencies continued to occur in later versions of Block 2B software, further slowing progress. For example, completion of weapons delivery accuracy events lagged the plans for CY14 and was put on hold in August when the program discovered a deficiency in the F-35 navigation system.

- Through the end of November, 10 of 15 weapon delivery events had been completed; all events were planned to be completed by the end of October. However, the program must transition development and flight test resources to Block 3 in order to preserve an opportunity to complete the System Design and Development phase as planned in 2018. Block 2B will finish later than planned, with deficiencies remaining that will affect operational units; fixes for these deficiencies will be deferred to Blocks 3i and 3F

So further issues cropping up with the Block 2B software combined with delays in testing (such as the AOLs) have driven the program into a corner: they can either close out Block 2B in its entirety or they can pursue development and testing of later Blocks as scheduled but they can't do both because the same pool of test assets is available for use with both efforts. If they do the former they will put the larger programmatic schedule at risk and possibly delay declaration of IOC for both the AF and Navy; if they do the latter they have to accept fielding an incomplete Block 2B because they had to close the software prior to incorporating fixes to all the issues they have discovered so far with Block 2B testing, instead pushing those fixes into a later software build (Block 3i or 3F). They're obviously choosing the second option, which is the correct choice...but it means the USMC is going to declare IOC with an OFP that is even less capable and bug-prone than was previously expected.

On the plus side...

quote:
In the FY13 Annual Report, DOT&E estimated that the program would complete Block 2B testing between May and November 2015 (7 to 13 months late), depending on the level of growth experienced, while assuming the program would continue test point productivity equal to that of the preceding 12 months. Since the end of October 2013, the program has made several adjustments to reduce the delay estimated in the FY13 report:

The adjustments are basically consolidation of test points across software builds (allowing for fewer test points overall while still meeting the intent), slightly higher overall test productivity, and being able to briefly delay modification of a couple aircraft from Block 2B to later Blocks without incurring overall schedule risk (see above). DOT&E now assesses that Block 2B will be done with testing by Feb 15...but only if the current version of Block 2B is the one that closes out testing (i.e., what I referenced above about not reopening software to fix all the known bugs.)

Going along with what I've said so far about Block 2B...

quote:
In April, the program accepted a DOT&E recommendation that the Block 2B Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE), which was being planned for CY15, should not be conducted and that instead, resources should be focused on conducting limited assessments of Block 2B capability and re-allocated to assist in the completion of development and testing of Block 3i and Block 3F capabilities.

- This recommendation was based on DOT&E�s review of Block 2B progress and assessment of the program�s ability to start the Block 2B OUE as planned without creating a significant impact to Block 3F development.

- The Program Office, JSF Operational Test Team, and Service representatives then began working to �re-scope� use of operational test aircraft and operational test activities in lieu of the OUE�detailed planning is still under development. The scope of the operational test activities will be limited until the flight restrictions induced by the engine failure are removed from the operational test aircraft. Availability of the operational test aircraft will continue to be affected in CY15 and CY16 by the depot time required for modifications.

So this is interesting for a couple reasons. The reason DOT&E recommended cancelling the Block 2B OUE is because, as I've highlighted above, Block 2B has numerous issues that threaten its ability to be operationally relevant. These issues have no intention of being fixed in Block 2B because reopening the software (which drives retesting) would prohibitively delay the timeline for testing of later Blocks (i.e., Block 3i and 3F, the Blocks that really matter for combat capability for the majority of the fleet.) So DOT&E basically assessed that if they did an OUE on Block 2B it'd be a repeat of the OUE they did a few years back on Block 1. The conclusions from that OUE were basically "it flies....but that's about it, because it has a bunch of restrictions that completely limit its ability to be assessed on combat performance, it breaks all the time, and no one can fix the drat thing." No reason to repeat what we already know, especially when performing an OUE on schedule would suck up test assets that would otherwise need to be used for Block 3 developmental testing....because the operational test assets which are supposed to be the ones performing an OUE are all getting extensive depot mods to be upgraded to the 2B standard (since they were earlier production lot tails) and aren't going to be fully available until the middle of 2016. Every time another major issue pops up in testing that drives a significant modification, the timeline for these depot mods extends out even further. Say it with me one more time...concurrency was the dumbest idea the US military has had in a long time. Almost as dumb as the USMC's insistence on declaring IOC with Block 2B in 2015 is, especially given all the problems/limitations with Block 2B.

This next discussion is hilarious to me for personal reasons (I have an unyielding hatred of System Program Offices):

quote:
DOT&E conditionally approved Revision 4 of the TEMP in March 2013, under the provision that the program revise the master schedule so that there was no overlap of spin-up training for IOT&E and the certification period needed for the Services� airworthiness authorities to approve a flight clearance with the software to be used for IOT&E. Specifically, this would require the program to adjust the start of the spin-up training from February to July 2017, coinciding with an Operational Test Readiness Review. This adjustment also moved the start of IOT&E to January 2018, vice August 2017, and hence pushed the completion of IOT&E into FY19. In spite of the conditional approval, the program continues to show schedules that plan for the start of spin-up training in February 2017 and the start of IOT&E in August 2017.

So I know that was acronym and jargon heavy, I'll attempt to lay it out in plain language. The TEMP is the Test & Evaluation Master Plan...which is exactly what it sounds like: the overarching plan for all T&E on a given program. This is developed by the acquisition program managers in the Program Office (usually called a SPO, the F-35's is called a JPO just to underline how "joint" it is I guess). However, since the F-35 is such an expensive and troubled program, it is on DOT&E (Director, Operational Test & Evaluation...independent office in the Pentagon that oversees DoD OT&E efforts) oversight, which means that any changes the JPO makes to the TEMP have to routed through DOT&E for approval before they become official. In 2013 DOT&E conditionally approved a revision to the TEMP under one big condition: that there be no overlap between spin-up training for IOT&E and the airworthiness certification. IOT&E is Initial Operational Test & Evaluation, it is a formal operational evaluation conducted by independent testers (i.e., DOT&E) and passing it is a legal requirement for a program to proceed to Full Rate Production (as opposed to LRIP, Low-Rate Initial Production, which is where the F-35 currently is). Given the fact that economy of scale is a big part of the F-35's promised affordability, the JPO obviously wants to get into FRP as soon as possible....so conducting and passing IOT&E on schedule is a big deal for them.

IOT&E is conducted in an operationally representative environment...so it is conducted using "production" configured aircraft doing operationally representative things (i.e., combat type missions, not just flying around the flagpole), flown by operational (not test) pilots, maintained by uniformed (not contractor) maintainers. In order for this to take place, a big requirement is getting an airworthiness certification...."test" aircraft flown by test pilots operate under different rules than operational aircraft flown by operational pilots. In order for a program to pass from the DT ("test") world into the OT ("operational") world, the airworthiness certification authority for a particular service has to certify that the system is safe to operate and that there aren't any known issues that highly trained and experienced test pilots are working around but that a big dumb operational pilot wouldn't know how to handle. This airworthiness cert is part of the package that gets sent up for the OTTR (Operational Test Readiness Review...exactly what it sounds like). The airworthiness cert is granted against a particular hardware and software configuration...so in order for the cert to be granted on x date, the hardware and software config to be used in IOT&E has to be frozen y months ahead of the cert granting date in order to give the authority time to analyze the data and process the cert. If you go in and reopen the software or start monkeying around with hardware, the process starts all over. Additionally, prior to IOT&E officially beginning there needs to be a period of spin-up training (F-35 is planning on 6 months). This is to give the operational pilots and maintainers time to gain familiarity with the operational configuration of the system so they can give it a true accurate assessment in IOT&E (in other words, you don't want problems in IOT&E due to unfamiliarity with the system, because this muddies the waters as to how effective the system truly is or isn't.) Obviously it is impossible (or at least illegal) to begin the spin-up training before you have an airworthiness cert, since that would cause operational pilots to begin flying a plane that was not certified for their use (huge no-no).

To recap: in order for a program to enter FRP it has to pass IOT&E. IOT&E schedule is laid out in the TEMP. DOT&E has final approval authority of the F-35's TEMP. They approved it, on the condition that there be no overlap between the beginning of spin-up training for IOT&E and the receipt of the airworthiness cert. This drove delays in the schedule for IOT&E, because since there are developmental issues with the Block 3F software planned to be used in IOT&E there have been subsequent delays in the expected date of closing the software...which means delays in the airworthiness cert....which means delays in beginning spin-up training...which means delays in starting IOT&E.

The JPO has just ignored all that and continued to say that IOT&E will take place on schedule, even though this means either starting IOT&E with severely compressed spin-up training (something DOT&E would not allow) or conducting spin-up training without an airworthiness cert (something the individual Service components would not allow, much less DOT&E). So basically the JPO has completely ignored DOT&E, because following the rules and DOT&E's direction would mean accepting a delay in FRP, which could cause cascading problems with the rest of the program.

Of course, it's kind of a moot point, because:

- One, DOT&E's power in this area is absolute. They absolutely can (and have in the past) told a program "no, gently caress you, we're not doing IOT&E until we say we're ready, do not pass go, do not collect $200, I don't really care what this does to your precious schedule."

- Two, there are so many issues with Block 3's schedule anyway that it likely won't be ready for the notional DOT&E IOT&E schedule laid out above (spin-up July 17, IOT&E kick-off January 18), much less the JPO's impossible schedule (spin-up Feb 17, IOT&E Aug 17).

These issues are both with software:

quote:
- Block 3i flight testing began in late May 2014, five months later than the program�s baseline plan.

- Block 3F flight testing was scheduled to start in November 2014 according to the program�s baseline plan; current program estimates show the testing starting no earlier than late February 2015, three months late.

As well as hardware:

quote:
Modification plans for the IOT&E aircraft will likely not have aircraft ready to begin the start of spin-up training in February 2017 as planned by the errant schedule submitted in the TEMP. To become Block 3F capable, the operational test aircraft require extensive modifications, including new processors, in addition to those needed for Block 2B capability. Block 3F modification plans are taking into consideration some modifications that already have engineering solutions and approved designs. Other modifications � although known to be required � are still in the formal change approval process leading to parts and modification kits being developed and procured from suppliers. Some of these latter modifications are currently not scheduled to be available until May 2017 for the F-35A and February 2018 for the F-35C, which is later than needed to support spin-up training for IOT&E.

(Thanks again concurrency!)

Bottom line is that DOT&E thinks the schedule will need to be revised further past their notional July 17/Jan 18 timeline:

quote:
In order to account for these realities and reduce the overlap of spin-up training for IOT&E with final development activities (such as the activities that provide the certifications for use of the final configuration), the program master schedule should be adjusted to reflect these realities and depict the start of spin-up training for IOT&E no earlier than the Operational Test Readiness Review in November 2017, and the start of IOT&E for Block 3F to occur six months later, in May 2018 and completing in May 2019. If it becomes apparent that spin-up training entry criteria (e.g., providing properly configured production-representative aircraft in sufficient numbers) cannot be met on this timeline, then the schedule will have to be adjusted again

I don't think anyone has really picked up on that blurb yet, but like I've laid out above pushing out IOT&E even further (and thus delaying the start of FRP), is actually a pretty big deal.

There wasn't anything too noteworthy from flight sciences...testing is proceeding decently (not well but not terrible), and outside of the engine issue there haven't been any show-stopping problems in that department. However, moving on to mission systems, Block 2B has some...challenges:

quote:
- To date, performance of 2BS5 software, which began flight testing in June, has shown improvement in startup and inflight stability compared to earlier versions. However, fusion of information from own-ship sensors, as well as fusion of information from off-board sensors is still deficient. The Distributed Aperture System continues to exhibit high false-alarm rates and false target tracks, and poor stability performance, even in later versions of software.

So on the plus side, it doesn't take forever to boot up and it doesn't constantly crash in-flight. On the downside, it can't really do its job effectively (manage and process information to allow combat performance). Also DAS still doesn't work.

quote:
- In June, the Program Office and the Services completed a review of nearly 1,500 deficiency reports accumulated since the beginning of testing to adjudicate the status of all capability deficiencies associated with Block 2B fleet release/Marine Corps IOC. The review showed that 1,151 reports were not yet fully resolved, 151 of which were assessed as �mission critical� with no acceptable workaround for Block 2B fleet release. The remaining development and flight test of Block 2B will determine the final status of these 151 mission critical deficiencies, whether they are corrected or will add to the incomplete development work deferred to Block 3F with the less critical flaws.

So the overall number of DRs really isn't that high, especially for a program of this magnitude. Even the number of Cat I DR's ("mission critical" with no acceptable workaround) isn't that astronomically high, relatively speaking. But the idea of proceeding to fielding a system with known unfixed Cat I DRs is absolutely ludicrous and just provides another data point for how retarded the USMC is for pressing to declare IOC with Block 2B later this year.

Suitability continues to be a challenge. Maintainers are dependent on contractor FSRs as well as going out for engineering action requests to resolve issues. Depot mods continue to be a driver of fleet availability (see above.) Supply chain management has improved, resulting in a decrease to NMC-S time. The program office is playing numbers games with metrics (emphasis mine):

quote:
▪ Some of this is due to re-categorizing nut-plate failures. Actual reliability growth can also explain some of this, as could poor training leading to bad troubleshooting and maintenance practices. Some of this could also be due to re-categorizing failures previously scored as inherent failures as induced failures. For example, Program Office maintenance data records showed that there were twice as many inherent failures as induced failures in September 2012, and there were many more inherent failures than induced for every subsequent month through May 2013. Then in June 2013, records showed that there were more than twice as many induced failures than inherent failures, and induced failures have always been much greater than inherent failures for each month afterward. This sudden and abrupt reversal of the relationship between induced and inherent failures across the entire F-35A fleet suggests that scoring failures differently (induced vice inherent) may result in an increase in the design‑controllable metric that is not manifested in other reliability metrics.

In other words, don't pay any attention to the design-controllable metric because it's not supported in the other reliability metrics because the JPO is gaming the system. Also lol at the idea of nut-plate failures being induced vs inherent. The JPO must think that they have a bunch of mongoloid maintainers just cranking down on these things without any regard for tech data, but speaking from experience on other platforms nut-plate failures are inherent 90%+ of the time.

The discussion previously about counting all flight hours while only counting failures of improved components about covers that, I don't have much to add.

LO:

quote:
� Several factors likely contribute to extensive maintenance time, especially long cure times for Low Observable repair materials. The Program Office is addressing this issue with new materials that can cure in 12 hours vice 48 for example, but some of these materials may require freezer storage, making re-supply and shelf life verification in the field or at an austere operating location more difficult.

The idea that "cure time" shouldn't count for some reason is completely wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not a maintainer is touching the plane, if the plane isn't capable of flying because it's on cure then it's broken and that data should be included in reliability metrics. Period, no "technically" about it. This is especially true on a system that promised increased reliability and reduced maintainability regarding LO compared to the last LO plane we bought (F-22). If we're talking 48 hr cures that doesn't seem to be too much of an improvement to me. That said, I wouldn't get too worked up about the freezer storage bit...pretty much every plane in the fleet requires some sort of consumable that requires temperature controlled storage. I guess it gives us another cudgel to hit the USMC over the head with to emphasize that there's no way they'll be living out their fantasy of flying -B's from some open field right behind the battlefield...but I feel like the entire F-35B kind of proves that point already.

I won't talk about ALIS since no one but me probably cares about that...suffice to say it still sucks and won't be getting demonstrably better anytime in the near future.

Same thing about tech data...short version is it's incomplete and updates to it are extremely cumbersome because they have to be pushed out through ALIS.

The section about depot mods is basically "concurrency was a pretty big mistake," like I've said previously. However, it did include a nice example of the Marines loving everything up for everyone yet again:

quote:
The Program Office has prioritized Block 2B associated modification for Marine Corps F-35B IOC aircraft over operational test aircraft. Because manufacturers could not meet the schedule demand for modification kits, not all of the operational test aircraft will be in the Block 2B configuration by early 2015 when the planned start of spin-up training for the OUE would have occurred, as was noted in the FY13 DOT&E Annual Report.

I'm a broken record on this, but declaring IOC in 2015 is loving STUPID. (And thus par for the course with USMC Aviation.)

Also expect to see the same "shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic" situation regarding aircraft available for T&E vs in depot when it comes to the Block 3 effort, for the same reasons:

quote:
- Modification planning has also included early plans to ensure operational test aircraft scheduled for IOT&E will be representative of the Block 3F configuration. However, these plans show that the program is likely to face the same scheduling and parts shortage problems encountered in planning for Block 2B modifications of the operational test aircraft.

Concurrency...just say no.

Finally, the recommendations section basically just recaps what I've already said:

- Shift the TEMP timeline regarding spin-up and IOT&E kick-off to reflect reality

- Get at least the minimum required testing and analysis done before fielding anything

- Improve timeline for developing tech data

- Fix ALIS

# ? Jan 24, 2015 22:12

Marshal Prolapse: Jun 23, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

MrChips posted:

Not long after Putin took power, they rebranded their air force with the red star again, surprise surprise.

And on the subject of old is new again. I was watching the excellent By Dawns Early Light (which is light years better than the rather awful book its based on) and totally had forgotten which city getting glassed triggers pseudo World War III.

# ? Jan 24, 2015 22:35

goatsestretchgoals: Jun 4, 2011

gfanikf posted:

And on the subject of old is new again. I was watching the excellent By Dawns Early Light (which is light years better than the rather awful book its based on) and totally had forgotten which city getting glassed triggers pseudo World War III.

500,000 MT seems a bit excessive.

iyaayas01 posted:

about software

Colonel Panic reporting for duty. *exaggerated sound of engine spinning down*

goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jan 25, 2015

# ? Jan 25, 2015 00:29

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

bitcoin bastard posted:

500,000 MT seems a bit excessive.

Get a hair cut, hippie.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 01:33

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

iyaayas01 posted:

I posted a long read in the D&D F-35 thread about the DOT&E report (available here), figured I'd cross-post it:

As someone who's a flight test engineer on rotary-wing aircraft, all I have to say about that whole long post is:

Holy loving poo poo.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 01:45

Shooting Blanks: Jun 6, 2007; Real bullets mess up how cool this thing looks.

-Blade

What I got from that isn't that it's a software problem, but that it's fundamentally a process problem. They're trying to force a schedule without correcting critical errors - yes, that's the way every major corporation in the world writes software (ship it, issue a fix pack), but when you're talking truly mission critical software (i.e. people's lives depend on it), it's the worst way to do it.

The US Government DOES (or at least used to) know how to write good code. They're just allowing the horse to drive the buggy (or should I say, the bean counters to fly the jet).

This article may have been posted way back in the thread and while it's definitely Cold War related, it's from the shuttle program so some of you may not care.

They Write the Right Stuff

# ? Jan 25, 2015 01:58

Marshal Prolapse: Jun 23, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Godholio posted:

Get a hair cut, hippie.

.....

But yeah I noticed that too. It's actually a pretty good movie with the love angle being the dullest. Rip Torn and the Grand Tour is arguably goofy...but hey can't you loved Rip Torn talking about cutting the head off the communist chicken.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 02:11

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

bitcoin bastard posted:

500,000 MT seems a bit excessive.

Since the dawn of time, man has yearned to ~~destroy the sun~~relocate it to Donetsk.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 02:20

Shooting Blanks: Jun 6, 2007; Real bullets mess up how cool this thing looks.

-Blade

PittTheElder posted:

Since the dawn of time, man has yearned to ~~destroy the sun~~relocate it to Donetsk.

I hadn't even noticed that, jesus. Can someone even put that into context for me?

# ? Jan 25, 2015 02:29

Xerxes17: Feb 17, 2011

Shooting Blanks posted:

I hadn't even noticed that, jesus. Can someone even put that into context for me?

Tsar bomba was 50MT iirc.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 02:49

Glorgnole: Oct 23, 2012

Shooting Blanks posted:

I hadn't even noticed that, jesus. Can someone even put that into context for me?

Delivery: Backyard

# ? Jan 25, 2015 02:53

BIG HEADLINE: Jun 13, 2006; "Stand back, Ottawan ruffian, or face my lumens!"

Pretty sure someone forgot to put a decimal point in there, or just forgot to use "KT" instead. 500.000 KT is far more plausible, unless you're in one of those socialism-loving countries where the period is also used as a comma. :colbert:

Also, the entire movie is on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyWNFFReXkA

Funniest part? "Col. Tanner" playing After Burner in the Alert lounge and getting his poo poo pushed in. So much for "It was five on one...I got four."

Major Kong from Daily Kos occasionally does movie reviews, and I'd *really* like to see him rip into/comment on the B-52 parts of the movie, especially the part where they use what I can only assume is a B28 or B83 as an air-to-ground-to-air weapon. He'd also have a good laugh at the old quad-50s mount taking down a Foxbat.

Speaking of that - I'd never thought to look for a picture of a classic tailgunner position on the -52:

Something tells me in the times when he could, that reclining seat made for a pretty comfy bed.

BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jan 25, 2015

# ? Jan 25, 2015 03:16

Hunterhr: Jan 4, 2007; And The Beast, Satan said unto the LORD, "You Fucking Suck" and juked him out of his goddamn shoes

Glorgnole posted:

Delivery: Backyard

Think of the cost savings!

# ? Jan 25, 2015 04:07

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

MrChips posted:

Not long after Putin took power, they rebranded their air force with the red star again, surprise surprise.

You sure it wasn't always that way? The flag on the tail changed but I don't remember them ever using anything besides the red star (though the details have changed a bit, it's now supposed to have a blue and white outline I believe.)

# ? Jan 25, 2015 06:53

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

Phanatic posted:

As someone who's a flight test engineer on rotary-wing aircraft, all I have to say about that whole long post is:

Holy loving poo poo.

I work OT&E on another DoD program...I've posted on it before, ours exists in a bizarro world where none of the acquisitions rules apply and SPO officials say things like "that's on a cost-plus contract, we can't hold the contractor accountable for failing to meet it because they made a good effort."

Even then everyone in our office is unanimous that we'd still rather be here than associated with the F-35.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 07:10

Red Crown: Oct 20, 2008; Pretend my finger's a knife.

iyaayas01 posted:

I work OT&E on another DoD program...I've posted on it before, ours exists in a bizarro world where none of the acquisitions rules apply and SPO officials say things like "that's on a cost-plus contract, we can't hold the contractor accountable for failing to meet it because they made a good effort."

Even then everyone in our office is unanimous that we'd still rather be here than associated with the F-35.

Is there anything in the contract they're working off of that says they ever have to finish it? At this point, I'm not even kidding.

I'm just guessing here - but I think the USMC is pushing hard for "IOC 2015" because they want to put F-35B on USS America (LHA-6) for its first deployment. Depending on the ship's crew and the captain not getting fired (the transition from pre-commissioning unit to first "real" deployment can be lethal), that could be late 2015 or early 2016. LHA-6 is a light aircraft carrier, it was built from the hull up to be a CV, the "L" is just a fig leaf, and I know there are people that want to pack 20 F-35Bs on it.

It's a good ship, though. LHA-7 is going to have the same aviation capacity with a small well deck, LHA-8 too.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 14:37

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Everyone's favorite BRRRRRRRRRRRRT machine in action. Also further evidence of American "advisors" I guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SE6VCn3pR8

# ? Jan 25, 2015 15:55

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Excellent Post Mr. iyaayas. Is the DnD F-35 thread a big a shitshow as I imagine? I"m imagining it's like only 25% better than the actual F-35 program.

Also random fact I learned thanks to this thread: Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 eruption and China's yearly SO2 emissions are the same amount.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 19:25

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

Red Crown posted:

Is there anything in the contract they're working off of that says they ever have to finish it? At this point, I'm not even kidding.

I'm just guessing here - but I think the USMC is pushing hard for "IOC 2015" because they want to put F-35B on USS America (LHA-6) for its first deployment. Depending on the ship's crew and the captain not getting fired (the transition from pre-commissioning unit to first "real" deployment can be lethal), that could be late 2015 or early 2016. LHA-6 is a light aircraft carrier, it was built from the hull up to be a CV, the "L" is just a fig leaf, and I know there are people that want to pack 20 F-35Bs on it.

It's a good ship, though. LHA-7 is going to have the same aviation capacity with a small well deck, LHA-8 too.

My program or the F-35? Because my program got a waiver from ever having to declare FRP soooo....

Seriously though, while I'm sure the America might have something to do with it the larger piece is that their current tacair fleet is all but literally falling out of the sky. Even with declaring IOC in 2015 they don't finish fully transitioning to the F-35 until 2030 (that's when the last Reserve Hornet squadron transitions)...and they don't get rid of their Harriers until 2025. These are aircraft that were never designed to have that long of a service life and have been ridden hard and put away wet, so they're having to spend a buttload of money to SLEP them.

But this is what happens when you refuse to buy Super Bugs for ~reasons~...I like to imagine there were some meetings with NAVAIR where Amos was just stomping his feet like a petulant child refusing to eat their peas.

"NO NO NO I DON WANNA BUY EM YOU'RE NOT MY DADA YOU CAN'T MAKE ME I'M GONNA TELL CONGRESS ON YOU"

Nebakenezzer posted:

Excellent Post Mr. iyaayas. Is the DnD F-35 thread a big a shitshow as I imagine? I"m imagining it's like only 25% better than the actual F-35 program.

Also random fact I learned thanks to this thread: Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 eruption and China's yearly SO2 emissions are the same amount.

It's not as bad as you'd think, every so often someone wanders in to make some sick burn against the evil MIC but mostly it's a pretty reasoned discussion of the program.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 21:12

B4Ctom1: Oct 5, 2003; OVERWORKED COCK; Slippery Tilde

Xerxes17 posted:

Tsar bomba was 50MT iirc.

So 10,000 Tsar bombas? Ok, 10,000 Tsar Bombas.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 21:54

Letmebefrank: Oct 9, 2012; Entitled

A few pages back:

Nebakenezzer posted:

The pro-Winter side at this point tacks, and says it's not about atomic bursts, it's about ash being lofted into the Stratosphere because of all the fire the bombs cause. Ash *does* get lofted into the stratosphere by intense fires, such as firestorms in cities and forest fires. But that brings us to a particular point - if that is true, can't we see some of this action in the historical record? World War 2, for example, is filled with burning cities, so if this effect is there, could we not see the noticeable cooling thanks to all that lofting?

This is a question I've never seen addressed.

There has been more recent studies on the nuclear winter. Robock has a good paper about climate effects of a smaller regional scale war (available in open access!: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2003/2007/acp-7-2003-2007.html right panel) :

quote:

We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply. The climate changes are large and long-lasting because the fuel loadings in modern cities are quite high and the subtropical solar insolation heats the resulting smoke cloud and lofts it into the high stratosphere, where removal mechanisms are slow. While the climate changes are less dramatic than found in previous "nuclear winter" simulations of a massive nuclear exchange between the superpowers, because less smoke is emitted, the changes are more long-lasting because the older models did not adequately represent the stratospheric plume rise.

i.e. We are hosed even in relatively minor wars.

However, as I work in this field (atmospheric aerosol climate effects), I must just say that any precipitation pattern changes are highly uncertain, there has definitely been improvements in the climate modelling since 2007, the number of experiments was quite small (and their model is not as good as ours, of course). The overall picture holds in my opinion though.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 22:02

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Letmebefrank posted:

A few pages back:

There has been more recent studies on the nuclear winter. Robock has a good paper about climate effects of a smaller regional scale war (available in open access!: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2003/2007/acp-7-2003-2007.html right panel) :

i.e. We are hosed even in relatively minor wars.

However, as I work in this field (atmospheric aerosol climate effects), I must just say that any precipitation pattern changes are highly uncertain, there has definitely been improvements in the climate modelling since 2007, the number of experiments was quite small (and their model is not as good as ours, of course). The overall picture holds in my opinion though.

Cool! Thanks for the link. Is it OK if I ask you a few questions? I'm admittedly a bear of little brain on this subject, but I've been thinking about the nuclear winter thing for awhile.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 22:35

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Letmebefrank posted:

i.e. We are hosed even in relatively minor wars.

Yeah, but how hosed is hosed? I mean "impacts the global food supply" can mean a whole slew of things. Does this mean lovely crops for 10 years and famine in 3rd world countries that are heavily import dependent? Does it mean catastrophically bad crops and famine in major producers, including first world nations? Does it mean a complete breakdown in our ability to feed ourselves as a species and massive die off complete with the collapse of modern society as we understand it? Does it mean an extinction-level event at least as far as Homo Sapiens Sapiens is concerned?

edit: not trying to be confrontational, genuinely curious - I just don't have the time to plow into reading a substantial paper right now

# ? Jan 25, 2015 22:57

Fender Anarchist: May 20, 2009; Fender Anarchist

Question about the A-10, and the Avenger specifically. In all those videos, both the gun firing and the shells impacting are audible from pretty far away. The cannon explains itself, but why is the impact noise so loud? Are they HE rounds going off, or do they just have that much kinetic energy?

# ? Jan 25, 2015 23:20

DesperateDan: Dec 10, 2005; Where's my cow?

Is that my cow?

No it isn't, but it still tramples my bloody lavender.

Fucknag posted:

Question about the A-10, and the Avenger specifically. In all those videos, both the gun firing and the shells impacting are audible from pretty far away. The cannon explains itself, but why is the impact noise so loud? Are they HE rounds going off, or do they just have that much kinetic energy?

Wiki says the avenger can fire HE rounds, and as they hit I see a bunch of flashes, so I'm gonna bet yes.

# ? Jan 25, 2015 23:33

Psion: Dec 13, 2002; eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

Also even if they were just solid slugs, it's a big chunk of metal at 3500 ft/sec. That's an awful lot of kinetic energy just on its own.

# ? Jan 26, 2015 00:00

Marshal Prolapse: Jun 23, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

So during the late 1970s and 1980s did the US ever expect or train for non nuclear attacks on the on continental United States during a conventional war in Europe? By this I mean more then naval action off the coast. Say long range cruise missile attacks or I guess bombers (say an attack on a sub base or naval yard or anything else for that matter)? Was the thought that if things are coming for CONUS it's a nuke attack and respond accordingly or that it would return little benefits for the Soviets and incur far to much a cost (even not nuke related)?

Marshal Prolapse fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jan 26, 2015

# ? Jan 26, 2015 00:01

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Cyrano4747 posted:

Yeah, but how hosed is hosed? I mean "impacts the global food supply" can mean a whole slew of things. Does this mean lovely crops for 10 years and famine in 3rd world countries that are heavily import dependent? Does it mean catastrophically bad crops and famine in major producers, including first world nations? Does it mean a complete breakdown in our ability to feed ourselves as a species and massive die off complete with the collapse of modern society as we understand it? Does it mean an extinction-level event at least as far as Homo Sapiens Sapiens is concerned?

edit: not trying to be confrontational, genuinely curious - I just don't have the time to plow into reading a substantial paper right now

I read through the paper; the third world nuclear war analyzed would cause cooling on par with the "little ice age" that happened in the middle ages. There's no direct analysis of what that would mean to the global food supply, but it would at best mean #1 in your list and at worst #2.

# ? Jan 26, 2015 00:10

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

gfanikf posted:

So during the late 1970s and 1980s did the US ever expect or train for nom nuclear attacks on the on continental United States during a conventional war in Europe? By this I mean more then naval action off the coast. Say long range cruise missile attacks or I guess bombers (say an attack on a sub base or naval yard or anything else for that matter)? Was the thought that if things are coming for CONUS it's a nuke attack and respond accordingly or that it would return little benefits for the Soviets and incur far to much a cost (even not nuke related)?

Yes, there was definitely training, and it was a huge concern. I mean...duck and cover, the Cuban Missile Crisis, interceptors were based up and down both coasts, in Alaska, Hawaii, Iceland, and the UK...most of the military efforts continue today. Russia still runs mock cruise missile launches from bombers, and the US still intercepts them with fighters in North Atlantic and around the Bering Strait. We pulled the fighters out of Iceland, but still send them there from time to time. F-15s out of England still get scrambled. Alaska's F-22s are constantly responding.

As far as specific reactions in the event of a successful attack...I don't think you're going to find any reliable unclassified information. Most of it is probably very similar to the current plans.

# ? Jan 26, 2015 00:20

Marshal Prolapse: Jun 23, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Godholio posted:

Yes, there was definitely training, and it was a huge concern. I mean...duck and cover, the Cuban Missile Crisis, interceptors were based up and down both coasts, in Alaska, Hawaii, Iceland, and the UK...most of the military efforts continue today. Russia still runs mock cruise missile launches from bombers, and the US still intercepts them with fighters in North Atlantic and around the Bering Strait. We pulled the fighters out of Iceland, but still send them there from time to time. F-15s out of England still get scrambled. Alaska's F-22s are constantly responding.

As far as specific reactions in the event of a successful attack...I don't think you're going to find any reliable unclassified information. Most of it is probably very similar to the current plans.

True, but isn't that more tied into the idea that they would be carrying nuclear weapons? Though I guess the two really do mirror each other in terms of continental air defense to an extent.

I just recall (vaguely) from 9/11 and a doc on air defense that they had been really ramped down since the end of the cold war and generally considered a footnote. IIRC the planes from Virginia didn't even have ammo and the idea of giving it a Rip Torn inspired ramming was discussed before Flight 91 was confirmed down.

Edit: oh god trying to look up 9/11 things on youtube is loving hell on earth sorting through garbage.

Marshal Prolapse fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jan 26, 2015

# ? Jan 26, 2015 00:33

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

Alert aircraft were at a serious minimum prior to 9/11. I'm not going to throw numbers out there, but there is an enormous difference between CONUS defense posture now vs in 2000. Now, at any given time, you've got fighters all over the place and AWACS standing various alert postures. I wouldn't at all be surprised if technically some regulations were violated by getting jets in the air on 9/11 because there weren't enough alert aircraft on the east coast. I know the AWACS that took over that airspace was out there on a typical training mission and was retasked.

# ? Jan 26, 2015 05:47

Letmebefrank: Oct 9, 2012; Entitled

Nebakenezzer posted:

Cool! Thanks for the link. Is it OK if I ask you a few questions? I'm admittedly a bear of little brain on this subject, but I've been thinking about the nuclear winter thing for awhile.

Just ask. I will try to answer - nuclear winter is not really the subject I am specialist in, but is related enough.

# ? Jan 26, 2015 06:57

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

gfanikf posted:

IIRC the planes from Virginia didn't even have ammo and the idea of giving it a Rip Torn inspired ramming was discussed before Flight 91 was confirmed down.

That's correct. The jets weren't in any way cocked on alert...they took two jets that had some JP-8 still in the tanks, ran out and fired them up, pulled chocks, and took off.

So yeah, saying some "regs were violated" is putting it lightly, assuming that story is true (and I don't see any reason to believe it isn't) they ignored every step in the pre-flight and more or less literally kicked the tires and lit the fires.

There were two alert F-15s out of Otis that were actually cocked and armed, they got airborne right after the first plane hit the North Tower. They were south of Long Island when the second plane hit the South Tower.

# ? Jan 26, 2015 07:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 15:30

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

In addition to the jets not being ready, I'm pretty sure the pilots were picked by the D.O. busting into the flight office and yelling "Who's not drunk or hungover? You and you, STEP NOW."

# ? Jan 26, 2015 08:25

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

«‹›1991 »