|
 Pictured: the best the US could do during the 50s, apparently
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
The Navy bankrolls all the USMC Aircraft. So basically the Navy buys F-35Bs and bought Harriers. This isn't some thing about how Marines are in the dept of the Navy. The Navy dollars literally buy the planes. QED 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
So what you're saying is USMC aviation is a Navy project to kill marines?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:
The Delta Dart was pretty good
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The Delta Dart was pretty good What is that bottom thing and my god why are the wings so small
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Alaan posted:What is that bottom thing and my god why are the wings so small "In the Canadian Forces, the aircraft were sometimes referred to, in jest, as the Lawn Dart, the Aluminium Death Tube, and the Flying Phallus." lol
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
It only took them how long to put the gun back on?Alaan posted:What is that bottom thing and my god why are the wings so small From reading Kelly Johnson's autobiography, it exists because the MiG-15 had a higher flight ceiling than the F-86, and this made the Air Force sad during the Korean War.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
The good news is your plane has very little drag from the wings! the bad news is your plane stalls if you look at it funny because it has tiny wings.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:It only took them how long to put the gun back on? Well, let's see. The Air Force first flew the F-4 in 1963 and put a gun in the E model, which first flew in 1967. So four years for the Air Force. The Navy first flew the F-4 in 1958 and put a gun in the F-14.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:F-4 Phantom
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Guys, let's all stop lying to ourselves and just admit the Coast Guard makes the best planes. 
Back Hack fucked around with this message at 07:48 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The systems works flawlessly. When it doesn't that is an error and should be discounted as such. You all laugh but this is almost verbatim what someone said on a telecon the other day in regard to T&E. "Well the system could have a problem, if we structure our evaluation to hit on that specific system it could result in uncovering problems, which we don't want because it will drive delays." "...uh, isn't 'uncovering currently unknown potential problems' the entire loving reason we test things?" And then we all remembered that no, no it isn't. The reason we test things is so the Program Office can say "well we put it through testing" and then push it out the door, regardless of what the final report says about how the testing actually went. Dead Reckoning posted:The navy has neither the inclination nor the training to manage strategic air and space operations. The largest aircraft they have more than 20 of is Yeah I was going to say, if we're going to talk about Naval Aviation being faultless in tacair development let's just trot out the good ol' Westinghouse motors joke and throw an A-12 on top for good measure. Also giving any more aviation assets to the Navy is a terrible terrible idea. Mobility aviation would cease to exist except to ferry parts around the world to wherever a carrier was pulled into port and to fly tankers in endless circles around CSGs because that's what's most important. We'd forget we had bombers because why do we need to fly more than a couple hundred miles off-shore, that's why we have ships!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah I was going to say, if we're going to talk about Naval Aviation being faultless in tacair development let's just trot out the good ol' Westinghouse motors joke and throw an A-12 on top for good measure.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Prop planes are the only ones that have dropped nukes in combat. And the most powerful weapon ever tested was dropped by a prop. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
ETERNAL NORTH KOREA TEST-LAUNCHES BALLISTIC (?) SUBMARINE MISSILE Announcement accompanied with a photoshop of Kim Jong-Un
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Prop planes are the only ones that have dropped nukes in combat. And the most powerful weapon ever tested was dropped by a prop. But not a single seat, single (piston) engine prop.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:ETERNAL NORTH KOREA TEST-LAUNCHES BALLISTIC (?) SUBMARINE MISSILE I like the way the BBC phrased it. "The North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, was pictured apparently overseeing the launch."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:But not a single seat, single (piston) engine prop. They apparently never actually put a real live nuke on a skyraider.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:But not a single seat, single (piston) engine prop. They apparently never actually put a real live nuke on a skyraider.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Video of an AC-130W shooting its ATK auto cannon http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3fd_1430285376 I guess there is talk of this being added to the AC-130 or its possible successor if there is one http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/ATK_Precision_Guided_Mortar_Munition_Scores_Direct_Hit_In_Guided_Flight_Test_999.html A mortar seems a bit silly to me for an aircraft. Imagine if it rose to apogee and then speared the aircraft which could theoretically "get in the way" of the round on its way to the target. INTJ Mastermind posted:Pity the fool who plinks at a tank with a machine gun. Definitely, but there was a case at the Baghdad Airport battle where a guy with a 12.7mm DsHK killed an abrams with shots to the APU part of the turret. The turret hydraulic assist pump caught on fire and the tank burned up. Hard to find info about it now because either I really suck at finding it again or there is an active scrubbing program by either Abrams fanboys or the Government. Could be either.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
NK actually has way more submarines than I would have expected. Even if they 60 year old soviet diesel electrics or their own home grown one somewhere between a midget sub and a real sub.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:
From what I understand they are using the mortar as a direct fire weapon so it never really go ballistic. We use to put a 105m howitzer on the 130 but that wasn't needed since we aren't sending the round out 20+ miles. Replace that with a direct firing 120mm mortar and you save a lot of weight on bracing and can place a lot more freedom HE on target.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
wargames posted:From what I understand they are using the mortar as a direct fire weapon so it never really go ballistic. We use to put a 105m howitzer on the 130 but that wasn't needed since we aren't sending the round out 20+ miles. Replace that with a direct firing 120mm mortar and you save a lot of weight on bracing and can place a lot more freedom HE on target. According to the extremely bad (and therefore, official) powerpoint I saw on the subject, yes. Both are fired as direct fire weapons, so the mortar would have guided rounds, more explosive per shot, less recoil force to deal with, and generally be A Good Thing. Of course, this PPT was from the company who stood to make money off regunning the AC-130. The powerpoint neglected to mention whether or not the 120mm mortar could perform equally well as a 105 firing sabots against Scorponok. Psion fucked around with this message at 20:26 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
The guided rounds should usually offset the biggest weakness of a mortar vs. howitzer, the time it takes the shell to arrive.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
I thought we already switched over to the 120mm freedom express mortar, and these guys are just peddling guided rounds.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
wargames posted:I thought we already switched over to the 120mm freedom express mortar, and these guys are just peddling guided rounds. Not for the AC-130. The -U model is still rolling with the 105mm and the new -W and newer -Js don't have a big gun, their delivery of significant amounts of explosives is through guided munitions (Griffins, Viper Strikes, Hellfires, and SDBs). e: I should say "don't have a big gun yet." The 120mm is being considered as a potential follow-on development for the -J model down the road.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
a rule of thumb is mortar rounds have about twice the HE capacity of their equivalent tube caliber so if range is irrelevant it makes a lot of sense to use mortars. plus pgk kits are on the way for heavy mortars so that adds a near precision capability
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Buk catches fire in the Victory Day parade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tMvBFgnmY8
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Buk catches fire in the Victory Day parade The Ghost of MH-17?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
A400M crashed Saturday in Spain, killing 4 /6 crew. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11594603/Military-plane-crashes-during-test-flight-near-Seville.html
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
I'm at a loss for words... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSAEhGnRg5Y I'm really hoping that if there is someone that understands the Russian language on here, that they will watch this and just say "Oh yeah, it is a silly funny thing and not at all serious" but on the other hand... Russia. That being said, I think the US Navy uses sea lions for finding stuff underwater so maybe they are actually training the seals for something similar.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Sounds like the story about the Armata breaking down at the rehearsal is starting to shift to "it was a towing demonstration" again. I suppose the photos of it being towed away have cast some doubt on the "we had to call the IT guy to hit the reset button, EVERYTHING WAS FINE, THE CREW WAS DUMB!!" story.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
block51 posted:I'm at a loss for words... Those are Baikal seals, endemic to lake Baikal, and the only exclusively-freshwater pinnipeds in the world, so I doubt they're training them for anything like that. I'm pretty sure it's just a zoo doing something ridiculous for the news cameras. The training is good for the critters, though. Bored marine mammals can develop behavioral problems.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
bewbies posted:a rule of thumb is mortar rounds have about twice the HE capacity of their equivalent tube caliber so if range is irrelevant it makes a lot of sense to use mortars. plus pgk kits are on the way for heavy mortars so that adds a near precision capability I was under the impression that they used the 105 for kinetic energy but I guess when you're shelling mud huts HE is better
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
block51 posted:I'm at a loss for words... Aww, look at their little hats!  
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Those are Baikal seals, endemic to lake Baikal, and the only exclusively-freshwater pinnipeds in the world, so I doubt they're training them for anything like that. I'm pretty sure it's just a zoo doing something ridiculous for the news cameras. The training is good for the critters, though. Bored marine mammals can develop behavioral problems. Good catch! The only thing I could tell about them is that they looked a bit odd compared to most seals that I have seen pictures of or in person at seaworld or the zoo.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
They look like a pug and sack of fat mixed together. I dont understand how the russians didnt make them go extinct years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:They look like a pug and sack of fat mixed together. I dont understand how the russians didnt make them go extinct years ago. Maybe it's something of a breeding animal for lonely Ruskies in Siberia? 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:They look like a pug and sack of fat mixed together. I dont understand how the russians didnt make them go extinct years ago. The seals or middle-aged Russian women?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I was under the impression that they used the 105 for kinetic energy but I guess when you're shelling mud huts HE is better my source on this was someone at SA, but he told me they rarely carry anything other than HE rounds for the AC-130 105. Actually it was in reference to the sabots and Scorponok - after that movie came out he just had to buzzkill everyone by pointing out AC-130s won't load KE or HEAT or whatever rounds unless required by the mission. so, assuming that's true, a 120 mortar is probably going to do the exact same job. e: I think he actually said "never heard of anything other than HE" and not "rarely" also, see bewbies' post on the next page. Psion fucked around with this message at 23:41 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:53
|
|