|
GodlessCommie posted:Moonraker?
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
/\ /\ /\ Cambodia. content: The Clash's elegy for Sean Flynn Larry Burrows took some great Airpower pictures for Life, too.  102s   Skyraider  Skyraider  Skyraiders are awesome. \/ \/ \/  http://www.amazon.com/Larry-Burrows-Vietnam/dp/037541102X joat mon fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Oct 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Psion posted:You know, this has been bothering me for a while, and really started bothering me when I was flying one in Ace Combat a lot (shut up It's an ovipositor. Where do you think Su-31s come from?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2012 03:08
|
|
)
|
spankmeister posted:Is that some kind of JATO under there? Whoforthenwhat posted:I've always wondered, what sort of G forces would the pilot undergo with such an aggressive form of taking off? Or would this design work similar to a VTOL and take off, hover (sort of) then slowly increase in acceleration? The F-100 took off at about 4G. One of the F-104 test pilots said it was smoother than a catapult launch. http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html The F-84s were part of a Zero Length Launch / Mat Landing program. Yes, the aircraft was supposed to land, gear up, with arrestor hook, on a 80ft by 800ft by 3 foot inflatable mat. The stop was about 5 1/2G. Three tries resulted in one successful landing.  http://www.war-eagles-air-museum.com/newsletters/weam_newsletter_2008-3.pdf joat mon fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
Originally, it was the Royal Navy's idea for using jets on carriers immediately post WWII. http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/afe51317-dabb-4379-b802-79eb1d9815fc/The-Development-of-the-Angled-Deck-Aircraft-Carrie (pages 5-7)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Interesting:     The M-50 was real, but didn't made it onto production. It was never nuclear. The rest of the story
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
Raw_Beef posted:ill bet the ruskie non-nuke-nuke-bomber timelined up with the flying reactor XB36 project. The made-up nuclear M-50 (Dec. 1958) came out right after Sputnik (Oct. 1958), in an attempt to scare up some re-invigoration of the U.S. nuclear bomber program (and thus GE's nuclear jet engine program) which was languishing because clearer (but more boring) heads were prevailing. (radiation, radioactive jet exhaust, outpaced by ICBM technology, etc.) However, the Russians gamely played along too, flying a nuclear reactor in a Tu-95 in 1961. (the B-36 with the reactor flew from 1955 to 1957) The radiation killed all but three members of the two aircrews for the Tu-95LAL.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:How did they figure this was a nuclear powered aircraft when it clearly has jet engines? Or is that what nuclear aircraft engines look like? But here's a GE J-47, used by lots of jets in the 50s.    note the laterally running combustion chambers  But the combustion chambers on this pair of J-47s seem to run around the engine, as if the heated air/combustion part of the process could come in from somewhere external to the engine - like a turbocharger or something... grover posted:Nuclear jet engines work on the same general principal as fuel-burning jet engines, but use high-temperature heat exchangers to cause thermal expansion instead of combustion. So, externally, they end up looking quite similar. Or something. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, I understand this, but...how?   You can see the hemispherical liner ('shaped' bit) in image 3. http://www.feainformation.com/avilib/67.avi as the liner gets squished at about 30 million psi, it shoots out as a long, thin jet (still solid) with the tip going about Mach 25. At that pressure and velocity, it just pushes the target material aside.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Wasn't there also some idiotic idea to merge France into the UK that England basically laughed at? If you're talking about 1940, it was the British who proposed union, and the French (at least Petain and Co.) who laughed at the idea. e: link joat mon fucked around with this message at 20:32 on May 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I had no idea that a rifle round could penetrate the earlier LAV's. Jesus Christ, that wasn't acceptable 40 years ago. M113s are the same, AAV7s have a little less.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Needs more  (plus she's got two cheek .50s on the right side) (also a B-26) \/\/\/\/ Yeah, I meant B-25, like the one MagnumHB posted, as opposed to the A-26 at Ellsworth, which was different from the B-26, except after 1948, when it became the same. joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jul 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Sweet. C&R eligible. Technically NRHP and NHPA eligible too, which means NEPA analysis, if you wanted to slow down anything bad from happening to them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
More http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn6N2iV2_os http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/296306.pdf pages 48-59 http://northgeorgiamountainramblings.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/when-the-cold-war-came-to-dawsonville/ http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread230310/pg13 "Inside Dawson Forest; A History of the Georgia Nuclear Aircraft Laboratory" is about halfway down.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Pretty much this. I wall'o'texted on this a while back, but the tl;dr is that the punchline bit of the dog anecdote fits into a whole pattern of military myths where the somehow "backwards" nation or military gets too clever for their own good and ends up hurting themselves. So this is fake?  there's always something weirder and more true. Cyrano: Deep breath. I am saying this in a zero-effort post with a dash of hyperbole. joat mon fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Sep 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Psion posted:also, best prop plane or best prop plane? Either it or the Lysander to its 1 or 2 o'clock.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Our air mattress landing strip technology is clearly superior. Which we copied from the British. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:The Daily Mail has a photo essay about Russia's junkyard, er, air museum at Ulyanovsk. http://englishrussia.com/2011/11/04/the-museum-of-civil-aviation-in-ulyanovsk/ http://eggshelluk.smugmug.com/MilitaryAircraft/Overseas-Museums/Museum-of-Civil-Aviation/20940345_FR5nxw#!i=1663537510&k=ZbLN9VD
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I suppose it eventually will allow distinction between (mostly) remote-control and autonomous craft? Godholio posted:That's pretty much everyone's take on it. Let them feel special with a unique medal, but put it at an appropriate level. So who gets the medal for autonomous craft?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:..or in this case, almost nothing. But the rule still holds. 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
grover posted:Spoilers, geez! F-35 problems are really nothing new, and honestly pretty good as far as aircraft development programs go; the only thing that is new is the speed at which news about it flows. I think we'd lost like 37 F-14s (e: yeah, 37) to crashes by this point it it's development and god knows how many Harriers (e: 42) and Harrier pilots (e: 11 Americans, dunno how many British). What definition are you using for "this point in its development"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Well, when you compare the F-35 with a fighter so famous for a deadly flaw that an aviator death due to a design flaw was a key plot point in a naval aviation propaganda film and an aircraft that I'm not sure wasn't designed by people who secretly just wanted to see Marine aviators die, it looks great! Don't forget that 'at that point in their development' the F-14 and AV-8 had been in the fleet for six years, not six months.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
Zhanism posted:I had thought the Super Bug was deliberately designed larger so that I had longer legs than the older F-18s? I assume it can't match what the F-14 had but it was a big improvement over the A/B/C/D models no? Combat range for both flavors of F-18 is about 400 nm, about 500 for the F-14. I though the legs problem for the fleet was that as refuelers, F-18's have really short legs compared to the S-3 Viking.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
Frustration with the institutional retardation -- 40% hardships (deployments etc) of military life? -- 45% Better paying positions in the civilian sector? -- 15% (not counting the folks whose plan from the beginning is to get trained/experienced in a viable MOS and get out after a tour or two)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
FATWOLF posted:From the same article ,the UK sent laser dazzlers to the Falklands but didn't end up using them Was that illegal at the time? Using lasers to "dazzle" wasn't / isn't illegal. Using laser weapons specifically designed ... to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision quote:Article 1 tl;dr: So long as you don't explicit say, "we're using these lasers with the specific intent to cause permanent blindness" (and are the victor) go nuts with lasers. VVVV e: There are all sorts of effective weapons that aren't used because of the 1907 Hague Conventions, which banned "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." By the mid 1970s, people looking at whether lasers caused unnecessary suffering. The thinking was along the lines of, "if you get shot, you probably won't die, and can heal. If you get blinded by a laser, it's going to be permanent no matter what medical care you get." joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Aug 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
LP97S posted:The flying boardwalk t-shirt. I was thinking flying lapel flag pin.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
The Sea Sitter: An amphibian 20% larger than the Spruce Goose, with 40% greater payload than the An-225. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Oh my god look at how loving wrong you are. And if you favor the depressing over the frightening, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9aHT-IlkHo
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Imagine what the disaster would look like had we gotten the X-32 instead. It's Jabberjaw! 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
fuf posted:When people say a warhead is "100 times more powerful than the one dropped on hiroshima!!!" does that mean it would cause 100 times more destruction? I remember something about how it doesn't work like that and that the two things don't scale up in proportion. I want to use the word logarithmic but I am not so good with the mathematics. The cube root of the yield difference is the increase in the blast radius. The cube root of 100 (2MT/20KT) is 4.6 - so for a 15 psi overpressure, about 4000m vs 900m (air burst) The cube root of 2 (2MT/1MT) is 1.26 - so for a 15 psi overpressure, about 4000m vs 3200m (air burst)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Koesj posted:How does the other half of the bomb's effects (several kinds of radiation) scale though? I don't know the formulas, but here are some tables:   as Snowdens Secret said, these are approximations based on lots of variables. e: Blast/shockwave tables  
joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
fuf posted:More likely: people get promoted until they reach the level where they're incompetent. Not applicable, because the Peter Principle theory assumes a meritocratic selection process.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Forget that, I wanna know what nuke-worthy high value target sits at the borders of Washington, Idaho, and Canada.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Dam ( VVVV I bow to your superior knowledge of Kevin Costner's oeuvre. joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Oct 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:That map looks like it was put together as an argument for countervalue targeting vs. counterforce. It's post cold war, also; there are a number of bases omitted that would have been targeted in the cold war that are closed now. Here's the source document for the map: Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services From Attacks by Russian Nuclear Forces (2002) And the target list: 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Mortabis, 100 years ago posted:I know this is a joke but Jesus, it's the Western United States. You have millions and millions of square miles of loving nothing. Just put all your trash in a big heap out back. I hope they don't actually bother to fly that stuff out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Thief posted:
I think so. http://www.gloswielkopolski.pl/arty...aleria-material
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:That cat officer hosed up on his timing, there... This was all I could find, plus some congressfolks have introduced a bill to require keeping the A-10 until there are enough F-35s to replace them. e: the bill is an amendment to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act: [quote] SEC. 135. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF A-10 AIRCRAFT. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage any A-10 aircraft until each of the following: (1) The Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees each of the following: (A) That the F-35A aircraft has achieved full operational capability. (B) That the F-35A aircraft has achieved Block 4A capabilities, including-- (i) an enhanced electronic warfare capability that will allow the F-35A aircraft to counter emerging threats in a close air support (CAS) environment; and (ii) a GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb version II or equivalent weapon operational capability. (C) That a number of F-35A aircraft exists in the Air Force inventory in sufficient quantity to replace the A-10 aircraft being retired in order to meet close air support capability requirements of the combatant commands. (2) The Comptroller General of the United States submits to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the following: (A) An assessment whether each certification under paragraph (1) is comprehensive, fully supported, and sufficiently detailed. (B) An identification of any shortcomings, limitations, or other reportable matters that affect the quality or findings of any certification under paragraph (1). (b) Deadline for Submittal of Comptroller General Report.-- The report of the Comptroller General under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the date of the submittal of the certification referred to in paragraph (1) of that subsection. [quote] joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Isn't it time we just roll the Marines into the US Army? Call it the First Amphibious Division or something? The days of needing a special branch to board French/British/Barbary corsairs has long since passed. Don't forget the
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 17:51
|
|