|
Godholio posted:
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 07:27 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 22:23 |
|
simplefish posted:Is the dick dance like a rain dance except instead of storm clouds you get daughters? Nah, that's just from showing up to work. The dick dance just makes everyone involved look like a bunch of mentally challenged assholes.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 07:38 |
|
Godholio posted:
Well, they shouldn't be changing their callsign after they check in with their controller. On the other hand, they also should be squawking the correct codes, which I know they often don't care about, so I'm not really surprised. "What? You use the 'identify friend or foe' system to identify friendly units? Gosh, maybe we should pay attention to that." On the gripping hand, I've also been burned before by the whole "AWACS has different callsigns for front end and back end" thing.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 07:52 |
|
Smiling Jack posted:Yeah the F-35 flies in that movie. And has a working internally-mounted gun. Two of them, if I remember the scene correctly.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 08:12 |
|
Have we ever had a fighter with multiple guns since the M61 was developed? Gunpods notwithstanding.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 09:26 |
|
Fucknag posted:Have we ever had a fighter with multiple guns since the M61 was developed? Gunpods notwithstanding. Sure, the A-4, the F-8 and the earlier versions of the A-7 Corsair II all had 2 or more (4 on the F-8) of the Colt Mk 12 M61 was designed in 1946 (!). I guess only the Corsair II really counts, the other two were designed before the M61 entered service (1959). priznat fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Jan 31, 2015 |
# ? Jan 31, 2015 09:39 |
|
B4Ctom1 posted:sky porn My god that's sexy.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 10:54 |
|
Godholio posted:Edit: I can't make fun too much though, I somehow went through two years of training without learning that Navy jets change callsigns when they "go tactical." Why?
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 11:56 |
|
I've been reading stuff and watching documentaries about F-15 Eagle and it's just an incredible fighter. I mean the air-to-air dominance is so astounding that it just blows your mind. I know that pilot training is an important component and possibly the kill ratio wouldn't be so excellent with less well trained pilots, but still, what an awesome piece of hardware. Makes you wonder why the spent to much money on F-22/F-35 when they could've just spent half of that making more advanced versions of F-15 (and the Strike Eagle variant).
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 14:34 |
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:On the gripping hand, I've also been burned before by the whole "AWACS has different callsigns for front end and back end" thing. Groda posted:Why? The navy also has its own quirks. The Carrier Battle Group usually has a bubble of airspace around it controlled by the Senior Air Defense Officer (or whatever the navy calls it) and navy jets that don't leave the airspace often won't bother with a callsign, they'll just take off and check in with their BuNo (tail number.) I'd guess that using BuNos makes it easier for the Carrier Air Group commander to track tails and sorties. OhYeah posted:Makes you wonder why the spent to much money on F-22/F-35 when they could've just spent half of that making more advanced versions of F-15 (and the Strike Eagle variant). Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Jan 31, 2015 |
# ? Jan 31, 2015 15:53 |
|
FrozenVent posted:Isn't firing a conventionally armed ballistic missile - or really any ballistic missile - a terrible idea? For most ballistic missiles we can tell almost instantaneously where they're targeting and we have a very good estimation of whether or not they're nuclear. There are some huge differences between conventional short and medium range BMs and ICBMs, and everyone at least pays lip service to keeping these lines clear for obvious reasons. This is, for example, the main reasoning behind the INF treaty, for example: no one wanted a conflict to go nuclear because we can't tell the difference between the missiles until the warheads detonate. The Chinese aren't signatories to the INF and as a result they have a colossal intermediate range force that has left the US and friends with a pretty serious capability gap. These can all be nuclear-armed of course, but from a balance-of-power perspective, 1) they'd have little reason to use nuclear warheads on these missiles as they have enough conventional warheads to do pretty much anything they'd need or want to do in the western Pacific, and 2) their ICBM force remains small and relatively incapable as compared to the US and friends so the traditional MAD structure isn't really in place.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 16:12 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Because it's a 40 year old design; most of the aircraft and systems it was designed to defeat have been superseded. The game has changed. I understand this, but it makes you wonder whether the 5th generation fighters, considering all the technical and budgetary clusterfucks, can become as reliable and renowned in combat as the Eagles. I understand that the fact itself that US is the only country who has a significant number of 5th gen stealth fighters flying is a strong deterrent and maybe the reason why they won't see any combat at all - no one simply wants to go and try their luck with a fighter that costs 10x as much as the one their flying with arguably the best pilots in the world. There is something inherently cool and menacing about the ease with which the Eagles score air-to-air kills. I know it hasn't been really tested against the best that Russia/China has to offer, though. I think it has shot down a couple of Su-27s but that's about it.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 16:26 |
|
Fucknag posted:Have we ever had a fighter with multiple guns since the M61 was developed? Gunpods notwithstanding. F-5?
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 16:42 |
|
bewbies posted:The Chinese aren't signatories to the INF and as a result they have a colossal intermediate range force that has left the US and friends with a pretty serious capability gap. These can all be nuclear-armed of course, but from a balance-of-power perspective, 1) they'd have little reason to use nuclear warheads on these missiles as they have enough conventional warheads to do pretty much anything they'd need or want to do in the western Pacific, and 2) their ICBM force remains small and relatively incapable as compared to the US and friends so the traditional MAD structure isn't really in place. Yup. I suppose it's entirely possible that China could just be like "surprise, we nuked one of your airbases suck it" but then their nation would be destroyed. So, sorry bout that Airmen/Marines/ADA forces who got nuked.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 17:13 |
|
OhYeah posted:I think it has shot down a couple of Su-27s but that's about it. Nope, the only Flanker AA combat use was (allegedly) against Eritrean MiG-29s by Ethiopia. Both sides had their planes flown by contractors IIRC.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 17:16 |
|
OhYeah posted:There is something inherently cool and menacing about the ease with which the Eagles score air-to-air kills. I know it hasn't been really tested against the best that Russia/China has to offer, though. I think it has shot down a couple of Su-27s but that's about it.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 17:44 |
|
The F-15 got shot down in air-to-air combat, but everyone ignores it. Mostly cause another F-15 shot it down.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 17:54 |
|
mlmp08 posted:The F-15 got shot down in air-to-air combat, but everyone ignores it. Mostly cause another F-15 shot it down. Wait what?
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 18:04 |
|
Flikken posted:Wait what? I'd love a deep read into what happened, but the short version that's publicly available is that during training a Japanese F-15 pilot fired an AIM-9 into another Japanese F-15. The F-15 pilot who was hit ejected and lived.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 18:10 |
|
Flikken posted:Wait what? quote:On 22 November 1995, during air-intercept training over the Sea of Japan, a Japanese F-15J flown by Lt. Tatsumi Higuchi was shot down by an AIM-9L Sidewinder missile inadvertently fired by his wingman in an accident similar to the one that occurred on 19 March 1990. The pilot ejected safely. Both F-15Js involved were from JASDF 303rd Squadron, Komatsu AFB. However I could swear there was also a US incident. I remember there being a big stink about it (could be the F-15s shooting down Army helicopters come to think of it)
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 18:12 |
|
Party Plane Jones posted:However I could swear there was also a US incident. I remember there being a big stink about it (could be the F-15s shooting down Army helicopters come to think of it) That was it. An F-15 shot down two Black Hawks in '94 and killed 26 people.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 18:18 |
|
Mortabis posted:That was it. An F-15 shot down two Black Hawks in '94 and killed 26 people. Yeah, but I was talking about shoot-downs of F-15s. There's not enough time in a day to talk about the Air Force blowing up grunts.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 18:21 |
|
OhYeah posted:There is something inherently cool and menacing about the ease with which the Eagles score air-to-air kills. I know it hasn't been really tested against the best that Russia/China has to offer, though. I think it has shot down a couple of Su-27s but that's about it. That ease is what happens when you have a technological lead. The F-22 adds a whole bunch of advantages to that.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 18:25 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Navy aren't the only people who change callsigns when they cross the fence, they're just far more likely to do it in peacetime. For example, it was pretty common in Odyssey Dawn for aircraft to use one callsign while talking to normal ATC going to and coming from the operations area, and use a different callsign once they crossed the fence and switched to secure radios. It's to keep adversaries from building an air picture or order of battle by following callsigns. For training they'll usually use their standard squadron ATC callsign while transiting out, and then switch to a tactical callsign based on their role once they're in the working area. So, for instance, you could have two Winders and two Bullets talking to ATC, who become four Shields when they get together for their close escort role. Air Wings use side numbers, which is different from the BuNo. Each squadron on the carrier has its own side number block; one has 100's, one has 200's, and so on. That way if someone refers to aircraft "203" you immediately know which squadron and thus which type of aircraft it is. That's useful for all kinds of things, like setting the arresting gear correctly.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 18:49 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, OK. If we paint a shark mouth on the F-35, will it be cool and menacing enough for you? Couldn't do any harm, I guess.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 18:53 |
OhYeah posted:Couldn't do any harm, I guess. Until it turns out that the colored RAM paint takes even longer to cure, requires orphan blood to set the correct tint, and each batch needs a LockMart exec to blow a load into it, just cause.
|
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 19:00 |
|
OhYeah posted:Couldn't do any harm, I guess. Serious question: Wouldn't that gently caress up their magical anti-radar topcoat or whatever the gently caress?
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 19:09 |
|
Tbh that would enhance the terror effect as the radar operator sees a grinning shark maw visage bearing down on his position and poops his pants.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 19:14 |
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Air Wings use side numbers, which is different from the BuNo. Each squadron on the carrier has its own side number block; one has 100's, one has 200's, and so on. That way if someone refers to aircraft "203" you immediately know which squadron and thus which type of aircraft it is. That's useful for all kinds of things, like setting the arresting gear correctly. Cyrano4747 posted:Serious question: Wouldn't that gently caress up their magical anti-radar topcoat or whatever the gently caress?
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 19:17 |
|
The F-15 is certainly a good aircraft, but it's just a small part of the total US domination in the air. Air combat is a very big system with a lot of interconnecting parts, and the thing is that the US dominates almost all of them. Just having AWACS is a huge advantage - very few countries can afford flying radar stations at all, let alone gigantic ones like the E-3. Pilot training, sensors, doctrine, intelligence, supporting assets, logistics, the weapons you have access to - they're all part of the system. I'd say individual aircraft performance is actually a pretty small part of the big puzzle that is air combat these days, but people tend to focus on it because fighter jets are so drat cool. That being said, have a picture of fighter jets being cool. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jan 31, 2015 |
# ? Jan 31, 2015 19:21 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's what I was thinking of. Don't know why I mixed up BuNo and side number. Thanks. ... per ounce.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 19:35 |
|
TheFluff posted:The F-15 is certainly a good aircraft, but it's just a small part of the total US domination in the air. Air combat is a very big system with a lot of interconnecting parts, and the thing is that the US dominates almost all of them. Just having AWACS is a huge advantage - very few countries can afford flying radar stations at all, let alone gigantic ones like the E-3. Pilot training, sensors, doctrine, intelligence, supporting assets, the weapons you have access to - they're all part of the system. I'd say individual aircraft performance is actually a pretty small part of the big puzzle that is air combat these days, but people tend to focus on it because fighter jets are so drat cool. The Soviets developed their entire aerial warfare doctrine around working within US air dominance(for example, there's a focus on long range aerial cruise missiles and anti-radiation missiles designed to attack AWACS planes.). It's very telling how they considered their prospects in that regard, though it did lead them to develop air defense in a more comprehensive way than the US.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 19:47 |
Panzeh posted:The Soviets developed their entire aerial warfare doctrine around working within US air dominance(for example, there's a focus on long range aerial cruise missiles and anti-radiation missiles designed to attack AWACS planes.). It's very telling how they considered their prospects in that regard, though it did lead them to develop air defense in a more comprehensive way than the US. This came about in large part because the Soviets spent a large part of WWII with the Luftwaffe overhead, didn't it? Meanwhile the American experience of usually having air superiority led to projects like the York being a big pile of poop and the reaction was a big "welp, the fighters and chapparel or whatever will do". Meanwhile the Soviets are designing loads of ZSU's, the Tunguska, etc to blot down anything that wants to try having a go. So then we make Apaches with pop-up fire and forget missiles, A-10s with enough armor to hopefully make a few runs on an armored column and so on.
|
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 19:56 |
|
Arrath posted:This came about in large part because the Soviets spent a large part of WWII with the Luftwaffe overhead, didn't it? Meanwhile the American experience of usually having air superiority led to projects like the York being a big pile of poop and the reaction was a big "welp, the fighters and chapparel or whatever will do". Meanwhile the Soviets are designing loads of ZSU's, the Tunguska, etc to blot down anything that wants to try having a go. So then we make Apaches with pop-up fire and forget missiles, A-10s with enough armor to hopefully make a few runs on an armored column and so on. Well, as far as the York goes the Zsu-57-2 was crap. Like, really really bad and they sold them off to client states ASAP. The Zsu-23-4 was kinda good but still not so good in an age of fast moving jets and tree-level helicopters because it was very short ranged with a *really* low ceiling, yet the RADAR was also infamously garbage at picking out targets from clutter at low altitudes, and it had a hilariously tiny engagement envelope against fast movers - which even in those cases it apparently had trouble keeping the guns on. The Soviets just managed not to mow down a chunk of the Politburo with it (the RADAR probably couldn't find them). In the end it ended up most useful for providing manually aimed support fire for infantry in Afghanistan. For air defenses in general the US kept up until the 70's, and even then continued to keep up or surpass the USSR in long and very short range SAMs. What the US didn't do was put short or medium range missiles on tracked vehicles like the SA-6/8/9/11/13/15, it just kept on trucking with the semi-mobile HAWK. Redeye was OK for its time, Stinger was and continues to be great, Patriot was and is also fantastic (and despite being on trailers was actually even comparably mobile to the early SA-10). Warbadger fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jan 31, 2015 |
# ? Jan 31, 2015 20:57 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:...right now there's a multi-page derail about whether America is really a democracy since you can't get elected President if you're a poor with no connections, and how dare we judge Russia, their system is just as vibrant and open as ours. Yeah I made that remark before that little discussion. OhYeah posted:I've been reading stuff and watching documentaries about F-15 Eagle and it's just an incredible fighter. I mean the air-to-air dominance is so astounding that it just blows your mind. I know that pilot training is an important component and possibly the kill ratio wouldn't be so excellent with less well trained pilots, but still, what an awesome piece of hardware. Other people have already addressed this but setting aside all the technological advances, even if you could somehow shoehorn all those into an F-15 airframe (in which case you'd be spending just about as much money as a new-build F-22 anyway), shaping wise there's only so much you can do for LO on a legacy aircraft. If you want top of the line LO capability it has to be designed in from day one, and that is what the F-22 and F-35 get you. mlmp08 posted:Yeah, but I was talking about shoot-downs of F-15s. There's not enough time in a day to talk about the Air Force blowing up grunts. There was a similar incident to the JASDF one up in AK in the early '90s with USAF F-15s...wingman for some reason has lives loaded up along with CATM training missiles on a training sortie, selects the wrong missile and accidentally puts one in the tailpipe of lead. Only difference is that in that instance lead managed to limp back to Elmendorf. e: And then there's also that incident featuring the Navy F-14 driver who shot down a USAF F-4...and then almost got promoted to Rear Admiral in the Reserves 20 years later.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 21:26 |
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Having a 3-star dad probably didn't hurt his continued advancement. The F-4 driver was seriously hosed up after ejecting at over 600 mph.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2015 21:42 |
|
On the F-15/F-22, it's pretty relevant to look up what the F-22 has been able to do to the F-15 in mock combat. It's literally the evolution of concepts learned in the F-15, and sometimes it makes a lot more sense to spend the extra money on something brand new then trying to make the old thing feel new again. Case in point: the Su-27 airframe is still being upgraded to do all sorts of impressive stuff, yet they still went ahead with the PAK-FA. Also, I'm not sure you can say that US air dominance is what caused the numerous ADA projects to mostly suck, they sucked because they sucked. It was just that they had a lot shorter leash then things like the Bradley or MBT-70, which sucked equally (maybe not York bad) but were pushed or modified until they bore fruit. It's also worth noting that the US also had programs to field the Roland 2, and the ADATS, but both didn't see the light of day for the noted reasons of air dominance (and politics). There's only one weapons program I look at from the Cold war and just stare blankly at, and that's the Dragon. Why we didn't just bite our tongue and license the MILAN or something that wasn't dogshit (until the Javelin) I'll never really understand. Mazz fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jan 31, 2015 |
# ? Jan 31, 2015 23:35 |
Warbadger posted:Well, as far as the York goes the Zsu-57-2 was crap. Like, really really bad and they sold them off to client states ASAP. The Zsu-23-4 was kinda good but still not so good in an age of fast moving jets and tree-level helicopters because it was very short ranged with a *really* low ceiling, yet the RADAR was also infamously garbage at picking out targets from clutter at low altitudes, and it had a hilariously tiny engagement envelope against fast movers - which even in those cases it apparently had trouble keeping the guns on. The Soviets just managed not to mow down a chunk of the Politburo with it (the RADAR probably couldn't find them). In the end it ended up most useful for providing manually aimed support fire for infantry in Afghanistan. Somehow I'm not surprised! It's nice to hear that the Soviets could field worthless systems, too. I was really only posting about the doctrinal directions/influences and the systems they spawned, in my utter layperson/lurker level of knowledge. Thanks to Wargame I realize the US didn't entirely neglect the ground based air defense aspect, but rather the SHORAD guns systems (beyond, like, the m113 with a Vulcan on it) while the Soviets loved to slap AAA on old tank chassis.
|
|
# ? Feb 1, 2015 01:42 |
Mazz posted:There's only one weapons program I look at from the Cold war and just stare blankly at, and that's the Dragon. Why we didn't just bite our tongue and license the MILAN or something that wasn't dogshit (until the Javelin) I'll never really understand. oh my god this
|
|
# ? Feb 1, 2015 01:44 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 22:23 |
|
Is the ADATS system good? It seems like using one of those missiles in an anti tank role would probably not be cost effective. My favourite terrible soviet system was the BMD-1, dropping out of planes with the driver and commander strapped in, rocking magnesium armour that burned like a motherfucker when hit by a HE projectile.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2015 01:53 |