Aeronautical Insanity: Typefaces and afterburners

«‹›301 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: Typefaces and afterburners

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; WWND?

Hahah, oops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15040244

# ? Sep 26, 2011 17:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2013 03:59

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010

Captain Apollo posted:

That's a pretty weird dreamliner.

man they really didn't hit their passenger cap targets did they

# ? Sep 26, 2011 17:55

Cygni: Nov 12, 2005

Well, no wonder Boeing missed their weight goals if they put a t-top on it.

# ? Sep 26, 2011 18:07

Ola: Jul 19, 2004

edit: I tried to make fun of the Vette dreamliner many hours after the fact. I'm the one looked properly dumb.

# ? Sep 26, 2011 19:38

Boat: May 23, 2006; I'm reminded of the lesson learned in episode 14. When you try to please everypony, you end up pleasing no pony.

Crosspost from the horrible mechanical failures thread because HOLY poo poo.

MrChips posted:

Just saw this on AvHerald.

Douglas DC-9 operated by Aeropostal in Venezuela made a hard landing. How hard? Really hard:

Bonus video on the linked page of an MD-80 coming in so hard the goddamn tail pops off.

Boat fucked around with this message at Sep 26, 2011 around 20:18

# ? Sep 26, 2011 20:15

PatrickBateman: Jul 25, 2007

Welp, thats a write off. Not to mention pressure bulkhead is warped.

The MD-80 that had the hard landing and ripped off the tail, was being flown by an FAA employee. Didn't listen to the descent rate being too high. They put that, and another broken MD-80 together to be the PropFan Demonstrator later in the 80's.

A friend who worked on those at MDD said it kinda flew skewed, prior to the prop fan being installed.

# ? Sep 26, 2011 22:27

Advent Horizon: Jan 17, 2003; I love Alaska. The only people Natives beat are their wives.

PatrickBateman posted:

A friend who worked on those at MDD said it kinda flew skewed, prior to the prop fan being installed.

I guess that would make it easy to decide which side gets the higher powered engine.

# ? Sep 26, 2011 23:06

Butt Reactor: Oct 6, 2005; Even in zero gravity, you're an asshole.

Boat posted:

Crosspost from the horrible mechanical failures thread because HOLY poo poo.

Bonus video on the linked page of an MD-80 coming in so hard the goddamn tail pops off.

kinda odd that one reverser is deployed and the other isn't

# ? Sep 27, 2011 03:00

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; tighten up tone down tuen thuen

I think one is broken and the other isn't.

# ? Sep 27, 2011 03:19

Boat: May 23, 2006; I'm reminded of the lesson learned in episode 14. When you try to please everypony, you end up pleasing no pony.

Butt Reactor posted:

kinda odd that one reverser is deployed and the other isn't

I can't imagine getting nearly sheared off did the hydraulics/electronics controlling the reversers any good.

# ? Sep 27, 2011 03:44

Mobius1B7R: Jan 27, 2008

"100...fiftBOOM!"

That looks like it smarts.

In other news I saw an AF A380 at IAD today. That plane is absolutely enormous. I took some pictures of it but the glass at IAD is terrible for taking shots.

# ? Sep 27, 2011 04:22

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010

Mobius1B7R posted:

"100...fiftBOOM!"

That looks like it smarts.

In other news I saw an AF A380 at IAD today. That plane is absolutely enormous. I took some pictures of it but the glass at IAD is terrible for taking shots.

I've seen that one fly around on approach/departure from IAD, in the sky at distance it's noticeably gigantic. (mostly it just looks a lot closer than it is, but you can tell since it has such a fat rear end fuselage)

# ? Sep 27, 2011 12:02

Mobius1B7R: Jan 27, 2008

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

I've seen that one fly around on approach/departure from IAD, in the sky at distance it's noticeably gigantic. (mostly it just looks a lot closer than it is, but you can tell since it has such a fat rear end fuselage)

We were positioned behind it waiting to take off. That plane is exceptionally quiet too. The ERJ that took off after it was louder than the 380 was (at least in the cabin of my plane.)

# ? Sep 27, 2011 15:53

Advent Horizon: Jan 17, 2003; I love Alaska. The only people Natives beat are their wives.

The volume of newer planes is simply amazing. I can't wait for the Diet 737 MAX to start filtering through the system.

The State of Alaska handed out loan guarantees to flightseeing operators to replace radials on the Otters with Garrett turbines. Even when they're right over you they just sound like wind, it's great for not disturbing the wilderness (plus it keeps DHC planes in the air!).

# ? Sep 27, 2011 19:12

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010

Well if you think about it, the 737/MD-80/757/A320 is a huge huge huge segment of aircraft and nobody's done anything truly new in that segment since the 737NG in like 1993.

It was about 25 years between the Classic and the NG, so you figure that it's about generationally time for both a new 737 and a new A320, not to mention the 757 and the MD-80. I guess you can argue that the A321 and the 737-8 and 9 are replacements for the 757 but there are still about 1100 757s in service that need replacing.

Pretty pumped for the A320neo myself.

# ? Sep 27, 2011 20:58

Cygni: Nov 12, 2005

There are so many spares and so much infrastructure built around the 737/320/CFM56, and the profits so thin for the carriers, that it will take HUGE cost savings for people to be willing to go radical.

It's why both Boeing and Airbus settled on re-engining, and both pushed back the all-new single aisles to like 2040billion and a half.

# ? Sep 27, 2011 21:24

Advent Horizon: Jan 17, 2003; I love Alaska. The only people Natives beat are their wives.

I'm probably wrong, but I don't think an Airbus has ever landed here. The A320 is a better looking plane than the 737, I will fully admit. I've never flown on one, though.

I'm curious how much Boeing is pitching the 787 as a partial 757 replacement. I think not completely redesigning the 737 will turn out to be a mistake, since a short widebody would make a very economical plane to operate in these days of fighting for overhead bin space.

# ? Sep 27, 2011 21:26

Cocoa Crispies: Jul 20, 2001; Vehicular Manslaughter!

You just missed the 787's delivery takeoff. http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000048003

# ? Sep 27, 2011 22:11

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; tighten up tone down tuen thuen

I didn't realize how much the wings actually flex. That looks wicked.

40 years from now kids are going to look at pictures of old airplanes and wonder why the wings are so flat.

# ? Sep 27, 2011 23:24

ApathyGifted: Aug 30, 2004; Tomorrow?

It was confirmed to me today that the Antonov coming in to ferry some of our parts is going to be the 225. (I had only heard that it would be an Antonov before, I figured it would have been a -124.)

I don't think I'll get any work done that day.

# ? Sep 28, 2011 00:22

Kilonum: Sep 30, 2002; After that, it's all a bit...........fuzzy...

Bring a loving camera with you.

# ? Sep 28, 2011 00:23

Cygni: Nov 12, 2005

Goddamn, what are you guys moving? That lone An-225 is truly one of the coolest planes ever built. Always loved it. That it's a one off (for now) makes it even cooler.

# ? Sep 28, 2011 01:42

ApathyGifted: Aug 30, 2004; Tomorrow?

Cygni posted:

Goddamn, what are you guys moving? That lone An-225 is truly one of the coolest planes ever built. Always loved it. That it's a one off (for now) makes it even cooler.

Fuselage parts of some other plane.

I don't think the parts themselves warrant the An-225, I think it's more the quantity and the need for them to get delivered RIGHT NOW.

Edit: Normally they get trucked down to the nearest port and shipped overwater, but we're on aerospace time, so everything is behind schedule.

# ? Sep 28, 2011 01:51

slidebite: Nov 6, 2005; Happiness is a tight butt and flat tummy. I have neither but yours looks awesome BTW do you have any beer?

Nebakenezzer posted:

Well, since you asked:

Thanks for your reply. Sorry I didn't get back to it earlier as I just noticed it.

quote:

1. The procurement process has been incredibly lovely.

There is truth to that, but it's hardly without precedent, although the dollar value probably is. The government has in the past gone sole-source at discretion.

quote:

At no point did anyone ask the Canadian Military what they actually needed in their next gen Fighter-bomber

That's not quite accurate
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/...t/notes-eng.asp

CAS Lieutenant-General Andr� Deschamps posted:

Following the announcement of the Government�s intent to acquire a next generation fighter in the Canada First Defence Strategy, we examined our requirements very closely and finalized them in early 2010. We looked at future and current roles and missions that our next generation fighter capability would be responsible for and the environment � physical and threat � in which it would be operating.

We need a capability that helps us carry out our core missions of defending the sovereignty of Canadian and North American airspace through NORAD, providing Canada with an effective and modern capability for international operations, and effectively conducting joint operations with our Allies through NATO or a coalition.

We need robust aircraft, capable of operating across Canada's vast geography and under harsh and varying weather conditions and deterring challenges to Canadian sovereignty.

Because we cannot afford to acquire and operate multiple, specialized fighter fleets, tomorrow�s fighter aircraft must be capable of undertaking multiple roles, which comprise a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface combat roles. In a more generic sense, the fighter must be capable of undertaking the defence roles we demand of it, whether that is northern sovereignty patrols, intercept roles, war-fighting, surveillance and more.

Furthermore, to be prepared for the future, the aircraft must be flexible enough to deal with threats and missions that were unexpected at its time of conception.

We know that some of the threats faced by the CF-18 in the late 20th century have faded, some have continued and new ones have emerged. There is no reason for us to doubt that we will continue to see similar fluidity and evolution in threats as this century unfolds. We assume that technology will continue to evolve on various fronts, such as data processing, threat detection, weapons systems, self-defence suites, and interoperability � to give just a few examples.

Specifically our short list of high level mandatory capabilities, which are qualitative and not quantitative in nature, comprises the following characteristics.

Range: The aircraft must have the range to be capable of deploying in NORAD and NATO alert configuration, in accordance with instrument flying rules without air-to-air refuelling support, whether the aircraft is flying non-stop from a main operating base to a deployed operating base or from a main operating base to a forward operating location with one stop enroute if required.

Endurance: The aircraft must have the endurance to be capable of operating from a main operating base, a deployed operating base or a forward operating location in accordance with instrument flying rules and maintain a combat air patrol in accordance with Canadian Forces, NORAD and NATO requirements.

Speed: Our next fighter must have the speed to be capable of successfully conducting an intercept of air-breathing threats � that is to say, non-ballistic threats such as fighters or bombers � to Canadian airspace or to airspace assigned to the Canadian Forces in accordance with NORAD and NATO standards.

Air-to-Air Refuelling: The fighter must be capable of receiving fuel in-flight to extend its range and endurance.

Deployability: Our next fighter must be capable of deploying to and operating from forward operating locations domestically and worldwide in a full range of geographic, environmental, climatic and threat conditions.

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance: The fighter must be capable of providing non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data, before, during and following the deployment of weapons. This capability will assist targeting, intelligence and command entities in a variety of decision-making processes.

Weapons: The aircraft must precisely deliver a range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons in all weather conditions, day and night, and in permissive and non-permissive environments to provide a spectrum of tailored weapons effects.

Survivability: The aircraft must be capable of defending itself by employing a range of self-defence technologies and minimizing the risk of detection, engagement and damage in predicted threat environments.

Growth Potential: The aircraft must be capable of continuous upgrade to its level of interoperability, survivability and operational capabilities for the duration of its lifetime.

Fleet Size: The fleet must be large enough to conduct assigned missions and roles while simultaneously maintaining combat-ready force generation capability (that is, training new crews and maintenance of aircraft).

Certification: The aircraft must be capable of certifcation and sustainment in accordance with Canadian standards.

Delivery: The delivery times must give us the capability of achieving an initial operating capability of the new aircraft coordinated with the CF-188 Hornet�s end of lifetime. In other words, the new fighter must begin delivery in 2016 to allow overlap with the Hornet�s projected retirement in 2020 and thus avoid a gap in our defence capabilities by ensuring that such needs as trained crews are are ready to go. In procurement terms, that is almost tomorrow!

The analysis of the quantitative mandatory requirements associated with these high-level mandatory capabilities for Canada�s next fighter made it clear that only a 5th generation fighter could satisfy our mission needs in the increasingly complex future security environment.

The F-35 Lightning II is the only aircraft that meets our mandatory requirements and the only 5th generation aircraft available to Canada.

quote:

At the same time, there was no competition for the new contract, either. So it's a giant procurement program with crazy money being spent that ignores all the most basic rules of how a government should buy things.

Well, the official line is there isn't another aircraft available for a competition, hence soul source.

Is it because the Military is in cahoots with the ruling party and decided only on the F35? Maybe.

Personally, I would have loved a fly-off but if the competition is over before it even begins because it's just window dressing, why bother?

quote:

The reason for all this is of course political. Lockheed promised a ton of baksheeh to the Fed in the form of spending the same amount in Canada as Canada spends on the F-35. In the Fed's mind at this point, it doesn't matter if the F-35 is made of canvas and string; the only important thing to the Fed is the ability to mint as much political currency as possible from the military. gently caress any sort of question of "is this right for us." The government got its cut, who the gently caress cares about anything else?

I think that's pretty cynical, even if there is a grain of truth to it. The current government has been making siginficant investment in equiping the military, I'd say in areas to its political detriment. This is almost certainly going to be a case in point. Positive political mileage over this will be tenuous at best with anyone but the most hard core and they already have their vote.

quote:

2. The F-35 as of right now is a ton of unknowns, which is not true of it's competition.

Absolutely. Although it's compeition is a moving target. Some would have a strong argument to say that the F35 doesn't have any current competition. Is it true? Probably not according to most. I'm sure Boeing would disagree.

quote:

3. The F-35 lacks a feature that Canada could really use, and has an expensive feature of dubious value. Fuckin' plane doesn't supercruise, the one modern fighter feature that'd be incredibly useful in a nation as large as ours.

Meh. I don't think supercruise for Canada is a big deal, and in most theaters we've been in it hasn't been huge issue for anyone. Should a Gen 5 fighter have it? Probably. Is it a deal killer? I don't think so.

quote:

All of this also begs the question of if it's worth the now quite-considerable premium is over the competition.
.
.
.
4.- in a buyer's market. I think we've talked about this before. There are many alternate planes that are cheaper, have proven reliability, and would possibly fit Canada's needs better.

Once again, we're going back to competition. The Military is on record (linked earlier) that according to their needs there is no competition. Is it true? Maybe. Could the Military "make due" if they didn't get their dream plane? Sure. I suspect they could.

One thing though is that when they get this, as I mentioned earlier, I half expect them to be flying this for 40+ years and I'll probably be dead and buried while these are still in the air barring something bizarre. As a taxpayer, I'd rather spend a premium now than go down this road again in 15 years.

# ? Sep 28, 2011 02:13

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

The only reason "no other jets meet the specifications" (this is a common theme from militaries buying the JSF) is because the JSF is "stealth" and the only other "stealth" jet in production is the F-22, which Congress won't let the U.S. sell to anyone else, so if one of your requirements is "fifth-generation" (a bullshit term dreamt up by LockMart's marketing department) your options are the JSF or...the JSF.

The problem with this is it views "stealth" as this either/or thing where you turn on a switch and your jet is magically invisible, or you have a "non-stealth" aircraft that is totally vulnerable to any enemy radar. Anyone with a passing knowledge of RCS knows that this isn't the case and there are varying degrees of lowered RCS from various aspects against various radar bands, and how these variables interact matters (lowered RCS against fire control radar may be more significant than lowered RCS against search radar for certain purposes while for other purposes lowered RCS against all bands may be necessary; lowered frontal RCS against search radar may be more significant than lowered rear RCS against search radar, etc.) Of course, this is way too complicated for any legislature or defense appointee to understand, so it's far simpler to go "

WE HAVE TO HAVE STEALTH WE HAVE TO HAVE FIFTH GENERATION F-35 IS THE ONLY OPTION!!!

"

That's not to take away from your other points, which are valid, but I'm always suspect of any military logic that states the F-35 is the only option while referencing "fifth generation." Here's a post I made in another thread discussing "fifth generation." Short version is that there are different definitions of what it constitutes, and if you take LockMart's definition from when it was selling the F-22, the F-35 doesn't meet the criteria. Shockingly enough, when they started trying to sell F-35s, it magically became "fifth generation."

# ? Sep 28, 2011 02:48

slidebite: Nov 6, 2005; Happiness is a tight butt and flat tummy. I have neither but yours looks awesome BTW do you have any beer?

To be clear, I don't really give a whole lot of favor to the F35. The only thing that I see as a real plus in its corner is Canada has been in the program since 2002. Personally, I'd be delighted with superbugs or something from the other continent.

Regarding Stealth, of course RCS varies so much on stores its ridiculous. Interestingly, I didn't see "Stealth" listed as one of the cliffnote "requirements" in the DnD explanation, although to be honest that's the only thing that I think lacking from the list. Take that out of the equation there are certainly other competitors. Endurance? check. Speed? Check. A-A refueling? Check. Deployability? Check. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance? Check. Weapons? Check. Survivability? Check. Growth Potential? Check. Fleet Size? Check. Certification? Is that a joke? Delivery? Not only a check, there are others out there that would be better. So that really does leave Stealth as the unstated major premise.

I think there is some political mileage to be made out of this, but it is at the governments peril. It could very easily backfire and they know this, even with the right-wings of the country, myself included. My main point to Nebakenezzer was that it appears to me, as a layperson, to have passed at least some cursory military vetting process. I'm certainly not endorsing it wholeheartedly, but I could see it being worse.

I'm still waiting for the current government to announce a replacement for the second hand subs that were basically a fiasco from day 1 to be announced.

# ? Sep 28, 2011 03:02

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

slidebite posted:

To be clear, I don't really give a whole lot of favor to the F35. The only thing that I see as a real plus in its corner is Canada has been in the program since 2002. Personally, I'd be delighted with superbugs or something from the other continent.

Regarding Stealth, of course RCS varies so much on stores its ridiculous. Interestingly, I didn't see "Stealth" listed as one of the cliffnote "requirements" in the DnD explanation, although to be honest that's the only thing that I think lacking from the list. Take that out of the equation there are certainly other competitors. Endurance? check. Speed? Check. A-A refueling? Check. Deployability? Check. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance? Check. Weapons? Check. Survivability? Check. Growth Potential? Check. Fleet Size? Check. Certification? Is that a joke? Delivery? Not only a check, there are others out there that would be better. So that really does leave Stealth as the unstated major premise.

I think there is some political mileage to be made out of this, but it is at the governments peril. It could very easily backfire and they know this, even with the right-wings of the country, myself included. My main point to Nebakenezzer was that it appears to me, as a layperson, to have passed at least some cursory military vetting process. I'm certainly not endorsing it wholeheartedly, but I could see it being worse.

I'm still waiting for the current government to announce a replacement for the second hand subs that were basically a fiasco from day 1 to be announced.

Haha, the Upholder/Victoria-class is a pretty funny story. How's it feel to have four submarines and not have a single one operational?

And yeah, fair enough. It could be a lot worse. I was just zeroing in on this: "The analysis of the quantitative mandatory requirements associated with these high-level mandatory capabilities for Canada�s next fighter made it clear that only a 5th generation fighter could satisfy our mission needs in the increasingly complex future security environment," since according to LockMart's definition the only 5th gen aircraft available for sale is the F-35.

# ? Sep 28, 2011 04:38

2ndclasscitizen: Jan 2, 2009

iyaayas01 posted:

Haha, the Upholder/Victoria-class is a pretty funny story. How's it feel to have four submarines and not have a single one operational?

Isn't that entirely normal?

# ? Sep 28, 2011 13:09

monkeytennis: Apr 26, 2007; Mmmm ladyboys...

ApathyGifted posted:

It was confirmed to me today that the Antonov coming in to ferry some of our parts is going to be the 225. (I had only heard that it would be an Antonov before, I figured it would have been a -124.)

I don't think I'll get any work done that day.

Whoa. Take TWO cameras. And pray for good weather. The sole time we had that beast in here (Doncaster Sheffield) the crowds waiting for it to leave were huge.

Unfortunately it was a rare foggy morning and nobody could see poo poo. Just a few lights, really far apart, moving through the gloom

# ? Sep 28, 2011 14:34

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

2ndclasscitizen posted:

Isn't that entirely normal?

Hahahaha, funny story, I actually typed "Collins-class" in my post above before I was like nope, that's the OTHER class of SSKs that is absolutely terrible.

# ? Sep 28, 2011 14:57

wilfredmerriweathr: Jul 11, 2005

Whoa I had never heard of the collins class before but I'm reading the wiki about it now and holy poo poo that's a lot of problems. How does all this poo poo go wrong?

# ? Sep 28, 2011 15:14

Rinkles: Oct 24, 2010; What I'm getting at is...
Do you feel the same way?

Just finished reading through the 4500+ posts. Wonderful thread.

I recently came upon a great resource on youtube, and chances are if you went searching for some aircraft videos you may have as well. quickscope2011's channel is a goldmine of classic military documentaries, most of which are aircraft related. None of that top 10 nonsense Discovery et al. exclusively spout out nowadays. Good old Wings and traditional History Channel style documentaries. There's some older stuff that might make you snoozy, but tonnes of aeronautic archived material nonetheless.

Finger's crossed the account doesn't get suspended anytime soon.

Some choice picks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6YPesV8ZSs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQY6g0UqVtk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krqObiHUQVY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y2DQg4LpQI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yN2lF_UUgc
_{(Not aeronautics related, but still fascinating)}

Rinkles fucked around with this message at Sep 28, 2011 around 16:53

# ? Sep 28, 2011 16:50

Ola: Jul 19, 2004

Excellent post Rinkles! Hopefully more can share their youtube goldmines.

Here's my contribution http://www.youtube.com/user/BitnikGr Lots of docs about Russian aviation. The narrator of Wings of Russia has an authentic but at times a bit annoying accent.

This one you've probably seen http://www.youtube.com/user/airboyd Thousands of aviation vids but mostly clips, not full docs.

A great series is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq_2UmiCoJk

Instruction videos to WW2 pilots in training. I believe it's produced by Disney, hence the silly animations here and there (go to 15:20 for an angry P-38 after a nose landing and a confused student pilot).

# ? Sep 28, 2011 17:04

VikingSkull: Jul 23, 2008; A problem has been detected and windows has been shutdown to prevent damage to your computer.

Rinkles posted:

Just finished reading through the 4500+ posts. Wonderful thread.

I recently came upon a great resource on youtube, and chances are if you went searching for some aircraft videos you may have as well. quickscope2011's channel is a goldmine of classic military documentaries, most of which are aircraft related. None of that top 10 nonsense Discovery et al. exclusively spout out nowadays. Good old Wings and traditional History Channel style documentaries. There's some older stuff that might make you snoozy, but tonnes of aeronautic archived material nonetheless.

Finger's crossed the account doesn't get suspended anytime soon.

Some choice picks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6YPesV8ZSs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQY6g0UqVtk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krqObiHUQVY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y2DQg4LpQI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yN2lF_UUgc
_{(Not aeronautics related, but still fascinating)}

Goddamn, I loved Wings.

Also Beyond 2000. Though in hindsight those fuckers lied to me a metric fuckton.

# ? Sep 28, 2011 20:53

2ndclasscitizen: Jan 2, 2009

wilfredmerriweathr posted:

Whoa I had never heard of the collins class before but I'm reading the wiki about it now and holy poo poo that's a lot of problems. How does all this poo poo go wrong?

An absolute obsession that as much of our military equipment be built here as possible, whether or not it's an industry/expertise we've already got or not. Not so bad when you're talking about 4x4s, trucks, etc. But subs, not so much. It's really stupid. When we went from the old SLR to the Steyr's, we could have gotten cheap M16/M4s by the kilo, but the Govt. wanted them built here. Colt said no, now we've got the AUG.

# ? Sep 29, 2011 05:25

dissss: Nov 10, 2007

2ndclasscitizen posted:

When we went from the old SLR to the Steyr's, we could have gotten cheap M16/M4s by the kilo, but the Govt. wanted them built here. Colt said no, now we've got the AUG.

That's pretty widely used by Commonwealth nations

# ? Sep 29, 2011 05:36

Shimrod: Apr 14, 2007; The Rod

dissss posted:

That's pretty widely used by Commonwealth nations

Plus it's a good rifle + I'm pretty sure it's Austrian build, not Australian.

Collins is a pos though.

# ? Sep 29, 2011 06:59

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

dissss posted:

That's pretty widely used by Commonwealth nations

Not really...the only other Commonwealth nations that use it are New Zealand, Papua New Guinea (both of whom use the Austeyr, so it's not far fetched to assume they'd be using whatever Australia decided to buy) and a special operations unit in Pakistan. You'd have far more commonality using an AR based platform.

Shimrod posted:

Plus it's a good rifle + I'm pretty sure it's Austrian build, not Australian.

Collins is a pos though.

The F88 Austeyr is a licensed version manufactured in Australia with some modifications made from the original Austrian design.

# ? Sep 29, 2011 07:18

dissss: Nov 10, 2007

iyaayas01 posted:

Not really...the only other Commonwealth nations that use it are New Zealand, Papua New Guinea (both of whom use the Austeyr, so it's not far fetched to assume they'd be using whatever Australia decided to buy) and a special operations unit in Pakistan.

Australia and Malaysia too.

# ? Sep 29, 2011 08:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2013 03:59

sanchez: Feb 26, 2003

iyaayas01 posted:

I plan on going kind of slow through the prologue and extracting quite a bit because a) I think it has some of the best writing in the book (which is really saying something) and b) it is one long continuous story with a pretty big payoff, and it sets the tone for the rest of the book. I'll start being more judicious with my selections once we get into the book proper, although even there it will be hard to pick and choose because the entire book is seriously that well written.

You all should just go out and buy it.

This (Fate is the Hunter) arrived yesterday and I was half way through it before the end of the day. It really is fantastic, might even end up on my list of the top 5 books ever.

# ? Sep 29, 2011 16:38

«‹›301 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: Typefaces and afterburners