|
Party Plane Jones posted:
I love how you can pretty much put a reasonably accurate date on this picture - mid-to-late 1956 - based on the aircraft in it (assuming they're all operational and not prototypes, that is).
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Surprise! Look at the shells. The tailgunner is like, "tat.. ratatat.. ratatatatatatatta.. murica"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I love how you can pretty much put a reasonably accurate date on this picture - mid-to-late 1956 - based on the aircraft in it (assuming they're all operational and not prototypes, that is). The red wingtips on the B-52 implies a late prototype, but there are other planes with red accents as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:don't matter, they didn't stop him from getting airborne 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:So some Spanish Eurofighter Typhoons made a low fly-over of Tallinn yesterday. Modern jet fighters are *LOUD*. Congrats on seeing like a quarter of the Spanish Air Force  (but seriously) MrChips posted:I love how you can pretty much put a reasonably accurate date on this picture - mid-to-late 1956 - based on the aircraft in it (assuming they're all operational and not prototypes, that is). This is probably my favorite part of going to holistic museums like Pensacola or the USAF Museum at Wright-Pat...you can walk around and just trace the development of a given type/manufacturer of aircraft from plane to plane, often which occurred in a pretty short amount of time. I think the best example of this is at Pensacola, where they have a FF-1, a F3F, and a F4F parked right in a row. You can practically see the engineers at Grumman going "okay guys, so this works now, but what's the next step?" And then you also get to look at complete outliers...like the Gutless Cutlass  But on the other hand, you also get outliers like the F4D so 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I love how you can pretty much put a reasonably accurate date on this picture - mid-to-late 1956 - based on the aircraft in it (assuming they're all operational and not prototypes, that is). quote:View of aircraft representative of the US Air Force's operational planes as they fly in formation over the Gulf Coast, Florida, 1956. Visible are, top row from left, B-36 bomber, B-47 bomber, KC-97 tanker, RC-121 observation, B-57, B-66; Second row from left, B-52 bombers, C-131, C-119, C-124 transports; third row from left , F-86D, F-84G, RF-84F, F-102A fighters, bottom row from left, F-94C, F-89H, QF-80A target towing, T-33 jet trainer, F-84F, F-86H, and F-100A. (Photo by J.R. Eyerman/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images) Right on the money. The caption neglects the B-45 though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Congrats on seeing like a quarter of the Spanish Air Force The situation with the air forces of Western and Southern Europe is a lot more dire than most people think. Germany, for example, has I think 7 Typhoons which are airworthy, and 2 of them were stationed in the Baltics at one point. Which meant they had a whopping 5 aircraft to defend their air space. The only countries which seem to have more or less functional air forces are the Scandinavian ones. Yes, the little ones closer to Russia. Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:The situation with the air forces of Western and Southern Europe is a lot more dire than most people think. Germany, for example, has I think 7 Typhoons which are airworthy, and 2 of them were stationed in the Baltics at one point. Which meant they had a whopping 5 aircraft to defend their air space. The only countries which seem to have more or less functional air forces are the Scandinavian ones. Yes, the little ones closer to Russia. Makes you think. Where are you getting those numbers? Is the claim that only about 6% of all of Germany's Typhoons are airworthy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:The situation with the air forces of Western and Southern Europe is a lot more dire than most people think. Germany, for example, has I think 7 Typhoons which are airworthy, and 2 of them were stationed in the Baltics at one point. Which meant they had a whopping 5 aircraft to defend their air space. The only countries which seem to have more or less functional air forces are the Scandinavian ones. Yes, the little ones closer to Russia. Makes you think. The French and the British have working air forces, too. (Though they could use more transports and tankers. Which is probably why they're so angry at Airbus. The head of the French procurement agency, during a recent visit to Dassault's factory, said "Airbus guys should come here to see how the job's done!") The French also have a working Navy Aviation; Gen. Dempsey just paid them a visit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Roll Call!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
I wonder if that KC-135 is still in service today. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
It could've been active as late as 2009, but probably not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I wonder if that KC-135 is still in service today. The tail on it says 53121. USAF naming conventions changed the tail number to 55-3121 Wikipedia says that this KC-135A and 2 others (55-3127, 59-1465, and 59-1514) became "KC-135A Reconnaissance Platforms" starting in 1961 Wikipedia also says this group later became KC-135R Rivet Stand / Rivet Quick (not to be confused with the other KC-135R turbofan conversion "R" designations) planes Then Wikipedia says that 55-3121 became a KC-135T Cobra Jaw plane in 1969 Then Wikipedia says that 55-3121 became a RC-135T Rivet Dandy in 1971 and then Wikipedia posted:In 1973 the aircraft's SIGINT gear was removed and transferred to KC-135E 58-0126, resulting in 55-3121 assuming the role of trainer, a role which it fulfilled for the remainder of its life. EDIT: Keep this in mind next time someone brings up MH-370. We had this plane on radar and radio, emitting a zillion signals, belonging to the USAF, and it's approximate crash location. It's exact location was obscured for half a year because of a little terrain, snow, and plants. Not because of 28,400,000 square miles of water. More info on the crash here http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850225-3 It would have looked like this at the end. It is not one of these because this picture is from 2001 
B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
I found one source that says that was the very first production -135 Boeing ever handed directly to the Air Force, instead of retaining for flight test.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:(Emphasis mine) loving Alaska. Still, when I read this I feel like they can't have been looking all that hard? An RC-135 crashes into the side of a mountain, it's bound to be obvious from the air to an observer aircraft flying a few weeks later in better weather, right? They knew the exact ground track it flew. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:38
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Still, when I read this I feel like they can't have been looking all that hard? An RC-135 crashes into the side of a mountain, it's bound to be obvious from the air to an observer aircraft flying a few weeks later in better weather, right? The quote is kinda vague and I didn't read the article but it may have gone down in lovely weather, preventing search efforts until it was all covered over with snow. After that? Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
There is that I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Where are you getting those numbers? Is the claim that only about 6% of all of Germany's Typhoons are airworthy? I've seen similar numbers from various sources, most lately from someone on this forum who is a German. I'm sure if you'll google it you will find many interesting details.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:I've seen similar numbers from various sources, most lately from someone on this forum who is a German. I'm sure if you'll google it you will find many interesting details. I did and those details point to those numbers being pulled from thin air.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
I looked it up as well, the 7-8 numbers all seem to stem from the same Der Spiegel article where the magazine mistakenly added all planes set to undergo routine maintenance as inoperable. There was a report to Germany's parliament that had availability closer to 40%, or a little north of 40 planes. Still poo poo, but certainly not eight out of 109.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
david_a posted:I've managed to find a somewhat questionable source that says they were indeed 48-ply aluminum impregnated rubber tires filled to 500 psi. This Saturday I fondled some worn-out SR-71 tires at the Area 51 exhibit (the rest of the exhibit is pretty stupid) at the National Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas. And, yes, they do feel drat odd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Roll Call! I love how relatively dinky that B-50 (I think?) top-right looks compared to even some of the fighters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I looked it up as well, the 7-8 numbers all seem to stem from the same Der Spiegel article where the magazine mistakenly added all planes set to undergo routine maintenance as inoperable. There was a report to Germany's parliament that had availability closer to 40%, or a little north of 40 planes. Still poo poo, but certainly not eight out of 109. They also conflated "fully mission capable" with "capable of flying." Which of course isn't the case. As an example, there have been times where the entire USAF fleet of a particular aircraft has been running a 0% FMC rate...they were still flyable and capable of carrying out their assigned mission, they just had a systematic issue that someone wanted to make a point about, hence the statusing all of them PMC instead of FMC. So they were running a (notional) 85% MC rate, it's just that all that MC time was PMC, not FMC. tl;dr metrics taken out of context are pretty much worthless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:They also conflated "fully mission capable" with "capable of flying." Which of course isn't the case. As an example, there have been times where the entire USAF fleet of a particular aircraft has been running a 0% FMC rate...they were still flyable and capable of carrying out their assigned mission, they just had a systematic issue that someone wanted to make a point about, hence the statusing all of them PMC instead of FMC. So they were running a (notional) 85% MC rate, it's just that all that MC time was PMC, not FMC. The Air Force used to get so loving irritated when we would rate an operational Patriot Battery as NMC, because the prime mover for the radar had a flat tire or a class III oil leak. They finally, thankfully, won that fight, so we no longer report a static Patriot site as completely broken based on a broken prime mover for a radar that isn't going anywhere any time soon. Of course, it's still reported as NMC on the Army side for the purpose of ordering parts. It's fully sorted out now, but back when it wasn't it was hilarious to have the joint services call us up when we went red asking what we could still do and our answer was "everything except drive away." Not to mention all the poo poo that makes you NMC on paper that just does not matter in practice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:They also conflated "fully mission capable" with "capable of flying." Which of course isn't the case. As an example, there have been times where the entire USAF fleet of a particular aircraft has been running a 0% FMC rate. Huh. I didn't think the USAF had a fleet of F-35s yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Boeing and Saab strapped a SDB to an M26 rocket motor from the MLRS for ground based launch. Turns out it works pretty well. http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-03-10-Boeing-Saab-Adapt-Air-Launched-Small-Bomb-for-Ground-Launch
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Boeing and Saab strapped a SDB to an M26 rocket motor from the MLRS for ground based launch. Turns out it works pretty well. I don't know why you couldn't hollow out the nose of an ATACMS and pack 2-3 SDBs in there for a pseudo-MIRVed conventional TBM solution. Only downside I could see is that ATACMS already maxes out at the MTCR restrictions range-wise, and the SDBs would effectively give it an illegal range. But if you never intend to export it, there's no issue. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:The situation with the air forces of Western and Southern Europe is a lot more dire than most people think. Germany, for example, has I think 7 Typhoons which are airworthy, and 2 of them were stationed in the Baltics at one point. Which meant they had a whopping 5 aircraft to defend their air space. The only countries which seem to have more or less functional air forces are the Scandinavian ones. Yes, the little ones closer to Russia. Makes you think. I'm frankly terrified that our shoestring budget conscript armed forces are outclassing major EU nations on paper at this point. How in the hell do we end up with more German tanks than the Germans themselves?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
uncleTomOfFinland posted:I'm frankly terrified that our shoestring budget conscript armed forces are outclassing major EU nations on paper at this point. How in the hell do we end up with more German tanks than the Germans themselves? Because we've been What would be interesting to know is if the countries we currently have dual-key arrangements with regard to shared B61 gravity bombs are keeping their crews properly trained and their aircraft properly maintained and ready. Having seen the Italian Air Force in action first hand it's alarming to know that they have even half-control of nukes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/11/black-hawk-helicopter-crashes-into-the-ocean-near-florida-all-11-aboard-presumed-dead-pentagon-says/ RIP
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
A lot of people in Europe don't want armed forces at all. But say, Italian air force has access to nukes? This is something that never gets mentioned in the media, how does that work?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:A lot of people in Europe don't want armed forces at all. But say, Italian air force has access to nukes? This is something that never gets mentioned in the media, how does that work? Just from the term "dual-key" I would have to guess that its an agreement that allows us to base nukes in Italian territory, but they can nix any actual use of said weapons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:A lot of people in Europe don't want armed forces at all. But say, Italian air force has access to nukes? This is something that never gets mentioned in the media, how does that work? Basically, you have american nuclear weapon loaded on Italian air force Starfighter, with two keys that must be used to arm the weapon. Italian officer has one key, USAF officer has the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
UK and France have their own nukes, but a number of other NATO countries get to have nukes as well, shared by the US Air Force. The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Turkey are concerned. Canada and Greece used to be on that list, as well. Belgium (which is planning to replace its old F-16 at some point) said that the ability for the replacement fighter to have nuclear strike capability was necessary (article in French), something that seems custom-tailored to make sure none of the European fighters (Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale) will qualify since none of them have integrated the American B61; what with Sweden not having nukes, France having its own ASMP-A, and the Eurofighter barely starting to get ground attack capabilities. On the other hand, the B61 was integrated on the Panavia Tornado, so there's precedent for the US allowing integration on non-US aircraft. But I don't have the feeling that the US, which are trying to force-feed the JSF to everyone and get rid of European competition on the ever-shrinking fighter market, would be so generous nowadays: Federation of American Scientists posted:Initially the old NATO F-16A/B and Tornado PA-200 aircraft that currently serve in the nuclear strike mission will not be able to make use of the increased accuracy of the B61-12, according to U.S. Air Force officials. The reason is that the aircraft computers are not capable of “talking to” the new digital bomb. As a result, the guided tail kit on the B61-12 for Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian and Turkish F-16s and Tornados will initially be “locked” as a “dumb” bomb. Once these countries transition to the F-35 aircraft, however, the enhanced targeting capability will become operational also in these countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Because we've been To be fair it's more like since the 90's. It's not like in the actual Cold War there weren't substantial European armies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I don't know why you couldn't hollow out the nose of an ATACMS and pack 2-3 SDBs in there for a pseudo-MIRVed conventional TBM solution. Only downside I could see is that ATACMS already maxes out at the MTCR restrictions range-wise, and the SDBs would effectively give it an illegal range. But if you never intend to export it, there's no issue. MTCR's also completely voluntary and has no enforcement or regulatory provisions. There's nothing illegal about changing our minds and exceeding its restrictions, it's not like it's a treaty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
The 3/9 issue of the New Yorker has a pretty long article on peace activists, some of them in their eighties, breaking into secured nuclear sites as a form of protest. Surprise, surprise, a big chunk of our nuclear infrastructure has been privatized and put in the hands of incompetent chucklefucks who actively cheat on readiness tests instead of doing their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Surprise surprise people whose only incentive is to try and make a buck will try to do just that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
but muh free market
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
My favorite part is the revelation that they would tape over their MILES sensors to keep from getting hit during simulated attacks - often after having been told in advance when and where the attacks would be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:27
|
|