|
Frozen Horse posted:Fags with Fagots Alternately...with anti tank missiles? Which they'll need to go against Patton and his many different tank variants.
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I'm sure the AC-47 and AC-130 don't count for :reasons: too. Not to butt in, but think the reason they "don't count" is that they started life as cargo planes before being converted to ground support work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
grover posted:No targets near me. So 80s me might actually have survived a nuclear war long enough to die of starvation/disease/whatever. The blobs on the east coast I can understand, but what's around the black blobs in North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming/Nebraska/Colorado?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:The North Dakota blob is because of the Minot AFB. Ah, that link gave the answer! Those are where the Air Force units in charge of ICBM units might be hiding. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:What are you referring to? The Navy's explanation that a "gay" saboteur stuck a detonator in the powder which caused the explosion, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Are those Czech Republic roundels on the aircraft, or am I just being confused by the colors?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
I knew I was having a brainfart there, durrr 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Just for clarity's sake, what does "Single Battle Concept" entail? From mlmp08's explanation, it sounds like it means "there is no operational distinction between front line, rear, and reserves/reinforcements", but how is that different from something like, say, Airland Battle (which proposes that the front line and the reserves must be attacked/disrupted simultaneously?) or Soviet Deep Battle (which...also seems to attack everything simultaneously, or at least as part of the same plan)?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:The story goes that she wanted to launch a single, inert Polaris at Buenos Aires with a note saying "Next one is live". That sounds...dangerous. Like, in the "oh god, UK just fired the first shot of WWIII, commence counterattack operations! Fire back!" sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It would be a lot more informative if lasers were literally the next step instead of land-based aim-9s, AMRAAMS in some cases, or other systems. That's the MIM-72 Chaparral, right? Will we be seeing that come back into US service, then? (Honest question.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
I miss airplane chat  SO! I brought this up in the Aeronautical Insanity thread after they turned again to how much the F-35 program is...not going well: I asked whether, given the apparent success of the F-15 pure air superiority -> F-15E strike fighter and F-16 cheap pure day fighter -> F-16 cheap bomb truck conversions, it would have been better, at least from the US perspective, to focus entirely on the F-22 airframe and retrofit advanced air-to-ground improvements on it later. Would this be a bad idea?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:[ It kinda also sounds like the "missiles make guns obsolete" thing from sixty years ago or so. I wonder if there's a similar thought process going on for "stealth makes *X* obsolete"? And, yeah, I guess that would be a better air doctrine. F-15s and F-16s are cool too. If I might ask, the AI thread mentioned that the F-35 was supposed to be the cheaper, lighter, exportable counterpart to the F-22. Obviously that hasn't been the case, but if we were going for a sort of F-4 / F-5 thing for the new century, how should the F-35 program have been run from day one? Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 20:16
|
|
: "Your jet is overly vulnerable to enemy fire.
: "Good thing we just won't get shot! 
"
|
Pffft, you can shoot down a PAK-FA with an F6F if you REALLY feel like it. And that's after you shoot down a trio of Su-47s and weirdo experimental bombers while you're there. (Does Ace Combat Cross Rumble/Assault Horizon Legacy count?)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:
Drakens are cool planes, yeah. Does anybody still fly them, as, I dunno, trainers, airshow craft, something?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Psion posted:If you'll refer to Proposal A12347, mounting anti-UAV weapons on an M113, I believe you'll find the most tactically superior option includes ...resurrecting PIVADS! Combat Reform now! 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Well, the Bradley turned out...usable in the end, right? Although I think I've heard it's used more in the "ATGM Carrier" role than the "IFV/Cavalry Scout Vehicle" role? vvvvvv Wait, what?! That sounds like some kind of conspiracy thriller airplane novel!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:It was a Stanley Kubrick movie, dude was loving obsessed about the details. Are you implying that Slim's inventory wasn't real? Why the heck would an airman in the middle of nowhere need prophylactics? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:30 years ago the Mig-21 was still a world class plane. Now in an era of BVR missiles and AWACS they're sort of screwed facing anything post F-16. They're maneuverable as all hell but have a tiny gas tank so there is maybe 30 minutes of flight time before they have to pull back. They can't easily stick a giant amount of missiles on them like US fighters can, the radar is hampered by their tiny nosecone space, and the missiles they can carry are about the equivalent of 1980s US inventory. The 21 is good if you're facing the Air Force of Costa Rica or Liberia but not for much else thee days. Aren't MiG-21 variants (21-93, LanceR, stuff like that) still in use as front line fighters in some countries? Granted, Eastern Europe and India may not be the standard of air forces.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
The F-35 has to be one of the very few aircraft whose success makes me sad. I saw an Australian newspaper article talking about the RAAF's future acquisition of the F-35 with pride, and comparing it to the "it's practically a strategic bomber!" (my thoughts, not theirs) F-111 with a straight face. It's like, come on! Eagles and Falcons are sleeker, Gripens and Hornets are cuter, all of the above are cheaper and probably work better at the moment, get those instead! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Hey, I remember the ROKAF thing! They had an initial bid submission last year where a bunch of jets showed up, and the officers in charge of the committee picked the F-15SE over the competitors, including the F-35, because it was cheaper and played well with the F-15Ks they already had. Then the government went all "The F-15SE is old hat with new makeup, we need a FIFTH-GENERATION FIGHTER for a NEW GENERATION  !"and scrubbed the contract entirely. Then they re-released it with a requirements list that I think straight-up had "must be FIFTH-GENERATION" and the F-35 was the only on the block for that. I think that's when I went from "The F-35 could probably be done better, right?" to "Seriously, what the gently caress, F-35 program?!" It just makes me  . If I ever make a game about air combat in the modern jet age, the F-35 is going to be the equivalent of stuff like the MiG-21 in Ace Combat: used mostly by the enemy and shot down in droves!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:It's a pipedream most of the time but ever since it blew my eardrums out while I was visiting the Paris Air Show last year the Rafale is my sentimental favorite for every fighter competition. But Dassault's representative is so whiny! I'll take the Gripen, the Gripen is cuter and cooler. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
So the Soviets used their top-of-the-line intelligence/spy ship to...bum pay-by-channel satellite TV? Or was that just a test for ACTUAL satcom monitoring capabilities? EDIT: Oh, drat. Now I get it, it's a joke. Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Happy April Fools Day, Davin. Shut up, it's still March 31st where I live, okay?! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
priznat posted:I'm pretty sure that is where they churn the ice cream for the crew. I thought that was submarines?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I can't wait until a South Korean F-35 gets shot down by a Nork Mig-21's (1967 vintage) K-13 over international waters and everyone looks towards Lockmart and says, "fith generation?". It's called Ace Combat, I think. Although, yeah, if the F-35 gets its tail whacked by fighters that it's supposed to be inferior to, somebody's going to have a lot of explaining to do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
What's the thread's opinion on the Scorpion? I haven't seen any performance testing, but the last time I remember a company privately funded a fighter jet venture like this was the F-20 Tigershark, and that had a sad ending (for the F-20, anyway).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Generally speaking, there is a list of names for the various types of mission. So maybe there are 25 tanker callsigns, 50 CAP callsigns, 50 CAS callsigns, etc. As missions go out each day, the next callsign in line is used for that flight. A name is not reusable until the previous use of that name has landed and ended mission. In this way you might have a "Knight" flight every day, but have it be a different set of aircraft and pilots each time. Using actual callsigns such that you can identify which pilot it is and what kind of plane that pilot flies is bad OPSEC. So Ace Combat lied to me?! But if certain callsigns are always associated with, e.g., a strike mission, wouldn't that also compromise OPSEC? Or is the list of the "25 tanker callsigns, 50 CAP callsigns, 50 CAS callsigns, etc." re-randomized every day?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
In the helicopter world, don't they all use S-70 derivatives too (Blackhawk, Seahawk, etc.)?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Goddamn, Douhet. "First we'll drop incendiaries to start fires in the cities. Then, as the first responders react, we'll drop high explosives to kill them all and turn all the stone construction that survived the fire into rubble. Then we'll drop gas to kill anyone hiding/surviving in the rubble." I guess Douhet was stuck on the "literally ANYTHING is better than trench warfare" bit that (by my understanding) informed strategic bombing as a whole?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:If we're talking about overrated German weapon systems, one would be remiss if they did not mention the Fixed it for you. Stupid Tiger fanboys.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Uh...is there a joke I'm missing or should that be Kanonenjagnpanzer? EDIT: welp! Nevermind then!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Speaking of the Bradley, what, if anything, did the M2A1 and up versions do to...if not "fix" then cut down on the silliness of the original boondoggle? Or is the whole line compromised and therefore we should move to Strykers as soon as production permits?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Aren't AT4s/M136s a Swedish design? And we use a bunch of FN machine guns too, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
So how come no one is calling for expanded PGM stockpiles/"making more of the weapons we've already got" or whatever if all signs point to "what we have reserved right now won't last us a week"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:WE ARE others posted:It's not politically viable. Huh. And here I thought "expand PGM manufacturing" would be an easier sell than "make a new fighter/destroyer/whatever that might blow up in your face when deployed." Especially in tricky economic times, and especially when you've seen the results firsthand. You'd think something like (for example) Odyssey Dawn would have told the British military establishment to stop worrying about Astute and whatnot when budget cuts come around not two years later. Talking about "paper tiger risks" and having to go to an ally to bum off their ordnance stocks feels like they should be related somehow. Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
While we're on the topic of Canadians, what differences are there between "CF" designs and "F" designs? Like, say, the CF-18 vs. the F/A-18 OG Hornet, or the CF-104 vs. the regular F-104? Is it swapping out the engines and flight computers, just making stuff cold-proof and bilingual, or is there no one schema for differences?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
priznat posted:Agusta A129: What are the guys on the landing gear doing here? I'm guessing this isn't a normal mission.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:You're video lead me to this: I like the bit at 4:15 or so where the SWORDS drone fires at the Russian drone in the spotlight and the Russian drone pulls a rocket launcher from its rear end and goes "No, gently caress you!" EDIT: Are all defense tech CGI videos this...toyetic? It feels like it belongs in a bad 1990s commercial. "RC TANK WITH REAL rear end ROCKET ACTION" or something. Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 05:52 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Do you know who would survive the giant mess after a Cold War style exchange of nukes? Not goons. Alternately: "That's not fair. That's not fair at all. There was time now. There was all the time I needed...! That's not fair!"
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
He does sound crazy, but I'm still not sure why you would retire an aircraft from active service before its intended replacement is up and running. It seems...weird, from a "I like planes!" perspective anyways.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 18:02
|
|