|
As a friend put it, "China shot down the jet to distract everyone from Ukraine" 
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
Airpower newbie here - Isn't "bumpification" something that happens to pretty much all military aircraft? They start out nice and sleek, and over time get ugly bumps added due to cramming more and more stuff in?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Someone sent me this: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/715bb9297261 If poo poo were to hit the fan, surely that would get stomped incredibly hard? The chap who sent it to me is claiming it'll be fantastic because they could "Zerg rush" because they're so cheap. But, that seems ludicrous to me. Edit: He's specifically comparing it against the F-35. I'm arguing that he's comparing the wrong planes (Assuming that they would be the sole air assets) - Wouldn't the US be using F16s, F22s etc? DrAlexanderTobacco fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:This just in from Cold War 2: Electric Boogaloo - This may be the way the first F-15 is positioned, but are those AIM-120s daisy chained in front of each other, nuts-to-butts? If so, are there any implications on firing the first two in front of the second row? Flames, exhaust fumes etc. Unless they drop first before igniting the booster.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Great documentary on the Vulcan Bomber/initial Falklands conflict here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEFe-dh_UpI Edit: It highlights just how poo poo a condition the bombers were in when the war/conflict first broke out. I assumed they were kept more up to date! DrAlexanderTobacco fucked around with this message at 23:46 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's amazing, I had no idea that they'd allowed their IFR capability to atrophy so completely. For those who didn't watch it, apparently they hadn't refueled Vulcans in flight for *20 years* because they considered it too dangerous and they had to do some rapid re-engineering to even get their hands on enough parts to assemble a working system. And then they had to, you know, train the crews how to do it. Obviously being in such proximity to the Soviet Union makes such a capability less important, but still, this was during a period of time where the US was keeping B-52s up in the air, constantly, 24 hours a day. Not only that, but they made a point to state just how much had been forgotten since WW2 - including conventional bombing runs! Even though the mission itself was sort of a flop, I'm impressed they pulled it off.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
Heliosicle posted:Well they did achieve what they set out to do, its just the mission itself probably wasn't that worthwhile in the first place given the amount that had to be done to drop 1 bomb on the runway. Well, the intention was to completely gently caress up the runway so it was unusable before the main task force arrived. They achieved reaching Port Stanley, dropping bombs and withdrawing without taking damage, for sure - But the runway itself wasn't really damaged. Most planes were able to operate off it effectively, IIRC C130s and their main fast jet. It was repaired within 24 hours. Only one bomb actually hit the runway. The rest damaged the surrounding area. I think the mission still held merit as it must have scared the Argies a fair bit, considering it was a lone bomber they didn't detect until it was something like 60 seconds out. It proved that the UK took the situation seriously and weren't hoping to just intimidate through gunboat diplomacy. It didn't stop Argentina from sinking the HMS Sheffield with a jet-launched Exocet though so 
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:IIRC, the one bomb thing was intentional, since they bombed the runway at an angle. If you try to bomb along the length at night there is a good chance you'll miss the runway entirely. And the Argentinians never operated jets from Stanley, they had some weird light propeller strike plane there that ended up doing very little in the war. You're right, they had the Pucara there! My mistake. If you were to show the chaps in the Vulcan this image before they took off, I'd doubt they'd view that as a successful strike - From a perspective based on damage to the airfield.  (Bomb from the first mission circled) monkeytennis posted:Pucara. That's true as well, if I remember correctly the Argentinian air force moved their actual jet forces a little further inland after the strike.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
http://www.auctionsamerica.com/events/feature-lots.cfm?SaleCode=LC14&ID=r0018&Order=runorder&feature=&collection=&grouping=&category=
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
I just re-read Red Storm Rising. Jesus that Icelandic love-plot was weird.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It was also kinda necessary since there's no other character story in the whole book. Maybe, but the way Clancy handled it was poor. Maybe the reader could understand the horrors of war (rape etc.) a little better if Clancy didn't immediately segue into how great the girl's breasts were.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I'm not saying it was well-executed, but the book is filled with characters with which you have no investment whatsoever pretty much with the exception of Iceland, and maybe Alekseyev and his aide. Edwards and his party are pretty much the only sizable group of named characters in one place. I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. I approached the book as a series of short vignettes exploring the different areas of a (roughly!) modern conflict. The book dips and dives between the different characters, I didn't really notice the lack of development. It was a great excuse for Clancy to sperg out on the various nuances of the conflict and I think he should have stuck to that.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
The limo was the best car, it had a really powerful turret with 360 degree vision. Unless you unlocked the tanks through cheating.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
What are Iron Dome's chances of dealing with a sustained attack, rather than just the odd rocket now and then?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:There is a local small Airshow today in Cincinnati. They have a B-17 that you can take a ride on. I am sure its not cheap to take a ride. But I would love to do it. If you have the money, and won't affect the lives of the people who you may support, go for it. That's definitely a bucket-list entry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The LCAC with a GAU is straight up Mike Sparks stuff. After the strong points are reduced to rubble the Marines will take the beach in amphibious "Gavins"... or they would if anyone would JUST LISTEN When the GAUvin formally enters service the GAU-8 will be able to pivot so it points straight down, thus giving the GAUvin a short aerial hop over enemy defenses.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Wasn't that the #1 goal during development of the Merkava chassis - crew survival rates? Everything else came second. Makes sense if you think of it that way. I doubt Israel's ever going to need an airdrop anyway. IIRC they even have a tank-bulance variant, fitted with all sorts of medical poo poo 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Beautiful jet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
It's just the BBC catching up with the times. Google, etc have started to use that format. My one objection is the way images will just pop up suddenly on the right. Here's another loving amazing article done in the same format, following a robin-hood esque robber in Greece. Who escaped from prison in a helicopter. Twice. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8700/index.html
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
All crew of the AeroFavins will use SKSs chambered in .fusion
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The way this thread is highly invested in other countries buying specific fighter jets is kind of odd. How on earth is that odd? I don't have to be a Finnish citizen to want them to procure a good jet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Did you hear that initial reports are citing a build-up of dihydrogen monoxide vapour as the cause of the explosion?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Lately I've been reading Tom Clancy: FIGHTER WING which is an In-depth look through the tactics, planes, and ordinance of the USAF, from the gulf-war era (and a little on the history of earlier conflicts.) No idea how reputable Tom Clancy is in the non-fiction department, but I'm finding it really interesting. It goes into fairly specific detail, even just on jet engine development of the last 50 years. Would recommend. (Non-fiction somehow doesn't ensure Clancy can't inject rapey undertones though)...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
They'll get hosed over in court and have to pay fines to Russia, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Churchill was a complete oval office.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:I'm really not sure what capability is demonstrated by detonating an exposed RPG round.  I'm not sure what's demonstrated by flying a rocket a mere few furlongs' length.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
Moves slow enough to be tracked by the LaWS™, too! All that flammable canvas...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
ISIS are claiming they used a MANPADS - but at the moment I believe it's still unknown whether the jet was shot down or it simply crashed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
The obvious solution is to issue AeroGavin™ transports to police. No-knock raids turn into No-House raids. The War On Drugs is won.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Crusader posted:There is a bear in the water: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/05/led-zeppelin-comes-to-washington-russia-nukes-putin-arms-control/ Smart, desperate, crazy? A little of all three? I'm not well versed enough to know.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Gunship 2000 and M1 Tank Platoon 2 loving owned and anyone who preferred Novalogic was bad and dumb. "Sabot, up! On the wayyyyyy"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Greggster posted:Re: Red Storm Rising, I like the book but I assume a LOT of it is pretty much USA OOrah, could anyone tell me more in-depth about the book and what of the stuff described in it is plain wrong, what Clancy actually got right and so forth? Or point me in the direction of anyone on the internet who has done it? There's a super rapey subplot where this American lieutenant saves an icelandic girl from death after she was raped by Russians, and the book then goes into intense detail describing how beautiful she was, her boobs etc. and ends up with them banging or at least getting together. Can't remember actually. It's got a strong "I AM MAN! I WILL PROTECT WOMAN!" vibe to it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 23:13
|
|
The cold war is a pretty big interest of mine but I've only really read stuff like Clancy and so forth which is probably pretty far from the truth in what could have happened.
|
He's like a creepy niche Ron Swanson. Tammies 1, 2 and 3.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Wonder why no one figured out that for either side, just surrendering would always be a better option than a nuclear exchange. DON'T TREAD ON ME 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
In that case, I can see how someone might just say "Just put some loving jets on it" if they didn't get a description.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Why wouldn't we just axe the ICBMs? They're old and expensive as hell. Keep the subs since they make the most sense, especially since we're finding new ways to shoot Tomahawks out of them wherever possible. Have at you! 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:What could of been Cons: - Is less maneuverable Pros: - Faster - Looks loving amazing
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
God, I can't stand most of Adam Curtis' stuff. He's seemed to latch onto a method for all his recent documentaries: take a huge, grossly complex issue with dozens of causes, pick one, and bend the rest of the facts to reflect that "main" cause - with Bitter Lake, it seems to be the arrogance of British colonialism (v. quick google).
DrAlexanderTobacco fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
TheNakedJimbo posted:Physics question here. Most of us know the Doppler effect, where an approaching train whistle will seem to increase in frequency until it reaches the observer but then decrease in frequency as it's moving away. With airplane engines, it seems to be the opposite: in 0:07 through 0:11 of this video, the perceived frequency is decreasing as the airplane moves toward the camera; the plane passes overhead, and in 0:11 through 0:16 the perceived frequency increases. Can anyone shed some light on that? You're getting it backwards - The frequency is increasing as the plane gets closer. Listen to the whine of the engines. It then decreases as the jet moves away, consistent with the doppler effect.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 12:53
|
|