|
Lightbulb Out posted:What is the point of a fastener like that? Like most fasteners, it holds things together. E: Well poo poo, I didn't want my stupid, sarcastic comment to be top-of-page. Have a picture: 
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Like most fasteners, it holds things together. Continental meatball livery best Continental livery. And now: A G spot. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Sir Cornelius posted:QA. Torque and using correct, and correctly aligned, tools. For evaluating the work done, they beat Phillips pretty much. Phillips heads were designed in Ye Olden Dayes of industrial controls when you couldn't reliably limit torque at the tool. So they did it at the screw, the thing's supposed to cam-out instead of over-tightening. Which means they really suck except for the fact that they're self-centering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Phillips heads were designed in Ye Olden Dayes of industrial controls when you couldn't reliably limit torque at the tool. So they did it at the screw, the thing's supposed to cam-out instead of over-tightening. Which means they really suck except for the fact that they're self-centering. They also suck because you can easily use an incorrect bit and torque it down to specifications while damaging the head in the process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Again, the issue with information isn't really the ability to collect or the technical aspects of a datalink, it's the ability to interpret and disseminate that information to the people who need it. While I recognize the advantages inherent in having advanced sensors on a fighter aircraft that can get closer to the fight/target than a lumbering 707, I don't see how replacing a double digit mission crew with one pilot/WSO/sensor operator/everything else is an improvement, unless you think that just firehosing all available information out to everyone on the network at all times is the best option. Thanks to the radar horizon, it'll have to get just as close as the JSTARS. So there's no superior standoff capability for the F-35's SAR/MTI/whatever. And I'd be very surprised if it has a better resolution. Radar tech just doesn't advance that fast. The AN/APY-2, designed in the early 60s, is still the most advanced PESA in the world besides the SPY-1, and actually has capabilities superior to AESA systems like you'll find on the Wedgetail. The JSTARS' APY-7 is pretty loving modern. vulturesrow posted:First off, hanging jammers of an LO aircraft is huge waste of that aircraft's capabilities. So theres that. That means nothing, sadly. Yeah, the jammers should sit on the aircraft that aren't capable of surviving in the environment so they can hang back, but if there aren't Growlers/Prowlers in the area there's not much choice. Better the F-35 than F-22. This has been the AF's most consistent tactical fuckup since splitting from the army. grover posted:So what's the air force solution for jamming, then, call the navy? Literally, yes. Godholio fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Literally, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Thanks to the radar horizon, it'll have to get just as close as the JSTARS. So there's no superior standoff capability for the F-35's SAR/MTI/whatever. And I'd be very surprised if it has a better resolution. Radar tech just doesn't advance that fast. The AN/APY-2, designed in the early 60s, is still the most advanced PESA in the world besides the SPY-1, and actually has capabilities superior to AESA systems like you'll find on the Wedgetail. The JSTARS' APY-7 is pretty loving modern. Oh, I wasn't saying that the F-35 would have better standoff, I was just saying that because it's a  FIFTH GENERATION STEALTHY AIR DOMINANCE MACHINE it could get closer to the fight than a lumbering 707 and possibly collect more/better data that way. Basically I was conceding one minor point to the LockMart guys.Although yes, I definitely share your skepticism that its sensors are going to be as awesome as they are being advertised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
grover posted:That's an amazingly good solution, actually, I'm just really surprised Air Force allowed it to happen. Seriously, though, why bother with unnecessary replication between the services when we can- and should- be working together in a joint capability? Gotta love AirSea Battle (whatever the hell it actually is)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
I wanna see Canada go with the F-71 interceptor as their new front-line fighter. What better way to patrol the desolate wastes than with a Mach 3 aircraft? Twin-engine, too!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Lost of milgoons posted:
I tried to write a huge effort post about all the things that went wrong trying to cater to all the involved communities when it came time to make tradeoffs in capabilities for the JSF, but there's no way to really complain about it without going to jail. I'll leave it at this: every time people got together at Nellis, somebody said "hey Plane A and Plane B have inverse pluses and minuses, lets combine those in the F-35 and get the best of both" and more than half the time we ended up doubling down on the minuses without the expected doubling of the pluses. I can't wait for 30 years down the road when people are publishing project management case studies about why you can't design a plane that can only exist in Ace Combat. (yet, the F-35 is and will be capable of some pretty amazing feats, just nothing like what is being promised the way Lockheed blows their own dicks about it) I firmly believe the demand for this plane is and was driven solely by defense industry lobbying and only later have we tried to make the requirements fit any actual or near- or future needs. If you are interested in reading about acquisition programs there's a couple good reads some recent programs. One was recently published online by one of the F-22 OT&E guys (which I can't find at the moment), and the other was a comparison of the Raptor and Super Hornet programs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:10
|
|
about F-35
|
grover posted:That's an amazingly good solution, actually, I'm just really surprised Air Force allowed it to happen. Seriously, though, why bother with unnecessary replication between the services when we can- and should- be working together in a joint capability? Because we don't always operate in the same location, and jamming is IMPORTANT. I'd be more than happy if the AF decided to adopt the Growler, or worked out some kind of deal with the like with the F-4s, but the best solution is the EB-52. iyaayas01 posted:Oh, I wasn't saying that the F-35 would have better standoff, I was just saying that because it's a It's not going to get any closer, because the 707 is going to be there too...it has to, in order to do its job. Geizkragen posted:
Here's my theory: a replacement for the F-15C was absolutely needed. The F-22 was designed as a god among fighter jets, so why not play off its anticipated success and pitch a successor to the F-16 too? But there's no way the AF will have enough money to fund both...let's tie the multirole jet to the Navy and pitch it as a Hornet replacement too! By the time it turned into a fiasco, everyone was hooked and couldn't get out of it. There are no other options. No service wants to walk away after how much effort and money they've pumped into this program. They're all on record talking about how it's crucial to their future success. Except here's the thing: ITS NOT. Not for any of them. The Air Force could have gotten away with affordable new-build F-16s for another 40 years. The F-16 is not an offensive fighter, it will not be leading the way when we run into an advanced IADS if another major war kicks off. F-22s will do that, and they'll be backed up by ancient F-15s (new F-15s cost only slightly less than F-22s). The F-16 is a tactical bomb truck with self-defense capability, which at most would be used in a DCA CAP if we were short on 22s/15s. The Navy could make an argument for wanting a fifth-generation fighter, and the F-35 will have higher combat survivability than the F/A-18...but the Super Hornet is very advanced and very capable, and aside from a conventional RCS it's not really obsolete at all. This jet has another 20 years or more of useful front-line service. The Marines were in a tough spot. They need a replacement for the Harrier. I get that. And there was no way they were going to get a purpose-built aircraft that actually met their needs. They had no choice but to jump on the F-35 bandwagon, and what they ended up with is an aircraft tailored against their needs. Can it serve as a bomb truck? Yeah, but no better than a 4th-generation aircraft...which is what it will look like on radar because for the Marine mission it's going to be loaded with external stores. So what the gently caress is the point? How much would it have cost to throw a ski-ramp on the LHDs so they could just operate C models? How much has been dumped into the F-35B, an aircraft in search of a role?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Because we don't always operate in the same location, and jamming is IMPORTANT. I'd be more than happy if the AF decided to adopt the Growler, or worked out some kind of deal with the like with the F-4s, but the best solution is the EB-52. Need growler support, but don't want to deal with the logistics/training/etc tail? Attach a Navy growler squadron under Air Force OPCON and deploy as necessary. Problem solved. Isn't this already pretty much what's happened? grover fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:"Offset cruciform" is the also known as "Airbus screws", they aren't nearly as bad as the tri-wings reputedly are, but they'll still strip to poo poo with minimal effort if they're stuck. It isn't just improper torque or wrong sized bits you have to worry about, it's 20 years of 100degree temperature cycles, flexing, moisture, corrosion, etc. too. Of course, with Airbus screws you also have to worry about monkeys who've only worked on Boeings and only have a Phillips bit in their screwdriver and who then attempt to take out or install them with said bit because it looks kind of similar and it's dark and cold and a screw's a screw, right? edit- all this talk of Growlers... did they know it's slang for a pussy before they came up with that nickname? Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:21
|
|
term.
|
grover posted:Wouldn't the size and poor maneuverability of the EB-52 render it far to risky to operate in the types of mission environments a jamming aircraft is needed the most? One of the aspects Navy was really excited about with the F-18E/F was that it finally allowed them to refuel aircraft over contested airspace; something they couldn't risk doing with S-3 Vikings and Air Force doesn't like to risk large tankers for, either. I bring this up, because the EF-18G, while a jammer, still has the maneuverability and survivability of a fighter aircraft and is far less risky to fly straight into the throat of an enemy IADS. The EB-52 was intended as a long range standoff jammer. quote:Need growler support, but don't want to deal with the logistics/training/etc tail? Attach a Navy growler squadron under Air Force OPCON and deploy as necessary. Problem solved. Isn't this already pretty much what's happened? No thats not how it worked and the problem is that the only reason we were able to field expeditionary squadrons is that the AF helped fund them so the Navy could afford them. Now the AF doesnt want to fund expeditionary but still wants the benefits? And no the expeditionary squadrons were never under Air Force OPCON. They were always JFACC assets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
^ You bastard!grover posted:Wouldn't the size and poor maneuverability of the EB-52 render it far to risky to operate in the types of mission environments a jamming aircraft is needed the most? One of the aspects Navy was really excited about with the F-18E/F was that it finally allowed them to refuel aircraft over contested airspace; something they couldn't risk doing with S-3 Vikings and Air Force doesn't like to risk large tankers for, either. I bring this up, because the EF-18G, while a jammer, still has the maneuverability and survivability of a fighter aircraft and is far less risky to fly straight into the throat of an enemy IADS. Why would size and maneuverability be a problem when every enemy ack/track radar posing a threat for X-miles is worthless? I've seen what the B-52's current EW suite is capable of doing. With advanced pods that are even more effective against tactical radars, it might be the biggest target out there but it'll be by far the hardest to get to. It won't have to be particularly close in most cases, but even if it has to push forward, that's what AWACS is there to watch. Shuffling assets around to avoid enemy patrols is beyond easy, but it's not even likely to come up often. This scenario is practiced in almost every simulator scenario and in every LFE. The only Prowler I ever "lost" in an exercise was at MCAS Yuma for WTI support...and I made 3 threat calls to them before they remembered what their callsign was and starting moving back (after the enemy "missiles" were "active"). quote:Need growler support, but don't want to deal with the logistics/training/etc tail? Attach a Navy growler squadron under Air Force OPCON and deploy as necessary. Problem solved. Isn't this already pretty much what's happened? No, and that's far more complicated and political than you may realize. Edit: The OPCON confusion is probably because the CFACC is almost always an AF general...but that position is filled based on what service has the most assets in-theater. And he is dual-hatted as the commander of his service's air assets (ie, an AF CFACC is also COMAFFOR-Commander of Air Force Forces). Godholio fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Because we don't always operate in the same location, and jamming is IMPORTANT. I'd be more than happy if the AF decided to adopt the Growler, or worked out some kind of deal with the like with the F-4s, but the best solution is the EB-52. All of this is pretty spot on. Godholio posted:How much has been dumped into the F-35B, an aircraft in search of a role? And how badly has the B model's unique requirements compromised the already-problematic design decisions forced on the program by the differing requirements of the A and C models? The F-35 is an amazing aircraft, from a technical standpoint. The fact that LockMart has been as successful as they have been is impressive. That doesn't mean that the program is successful. F-35 as a single-variant, ground based CTOL replacement for the F-16 made sense. The extra money could have funded quite a lot of more-capable F-22s, and the Navy could have started a proper carrier based fifth gen fighter program. (SEA RAPTOR LOLOLOLOL) Single-engine carrier operations are something the Navy got away from, probably for a reason. Additionally, single-engine powered lift, at sea, is a SPECTACULARLY poor idea, as evidenced by the Harrier's obscenely high accident rate. Whether the Corps actually NEEDS supersonic, stealthy, VTOL attack jets that operate off their mini-carriers is a seperate, but equally important question. You could certainly argue against it, for a multitude of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Why don't aerospace companies use Robertson drive screws? Supposedly the driver will strip before the screw does in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Why don't aerospace companies use Robertson drive screws? Supposedly the driver will strip before the screw does in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It's been in the works for awhile given the hammering that Harper's government has taken over it, but the final decision came down yesterday. Thank god. $5 says we end up with superbugs but lust for the Silent Eagle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
For those of you with a chemtrail nut in your regular orbit, this fabulous tee-shirt will absolutely get you into amazing and fascinating conversations that will last for hours!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
ctishman posted:For those of you with a chemtrail nut in your regular orbit, this fabulous tee-shirt will absolutely get you into amazing and fascinating conversations that will last for hours! Those are amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Thank god. Comedy option: Gripens. Geizkragen posted:I can't wait for 30 years down the road when people are publishing project management case studies about why you can't design a plane that can only exist in Ace Combat. I'm all for abandoning all current programs and developing an airframe that its nose opens up and lasers pour out. e: VVV I keep forgetting about that! Phy fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Phy posted:Comedy option: Gripens.  The USAF already has, and has already mothballed it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
grover posted:I wanna see Canada go with the F-71 interceptor as their new front-line fighter. What better way to patrol the desolate wastes than with a Mach 3 aircraft? Twin-engine, too! It depends on whether the next request will be tailored to Canada's actual needs or shiny cool-looking technological dead ends. If the latter, might I suggest the Sud-Ouest Trident? Man was Le Bourget's air museum awesome
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Because we don't always operate in the same location, and jamming is IMPORTANT. I'd be more than happy if the AF decided to adopt the Growler, or worked out some kind of deal with the like with the F-4s, but the best solution is the EB-52. Trying to modify LHA/D with ski ramp decks and arresting gear would be comically expensive. More expensive than the cost savings from a clean sheet VTOL vs. the F-35. Personally I a bit of a bitch with USMC operating fixed wing off LHA/D anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Some do. Pretty much every wrenching configuration you can think of is represented somewhere. Fortunatly most people will never know the joy of an aircraft that's only mostly Whitworth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Trying to modify LHA/D with ski ramp decks and arresting gear would be comically expensive. More expensive than the cost savings from a clean sheet VTOL vs. the F-35. Personally I a bit of a bitch with USMC operating fixed wing off LHA/D anyhow. That was kind of a comic suggestion...a dedicated USMC CAS platform is the obvious answer, but 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Fortunatly most people will never know the joy of an aircraft that's only mostly Whitworth. I think this is the quote of the week. I can only imagine the amount of swearing that involves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That was kind of a comic suggestion...a dedicated USMC CAS platform is the obvious answer, but Carrier A-10? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
That makes more sense than a stealth, medium-altitude, supersonic STOVL fighter. Just fold the wings up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Carrier A-10? *STOVL* Carrier A-10. Marines, remember?  I had completely forgotten the Rattler was a Tri-jet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The Marines were in a tough spot. They need a replacement for the Harrier. I get that. And there was no way they were going to get a purpose-built aircraft that actually met their needs. Because they do not, really, need a replacement for the Harrier. You can ditch Marine fixed-wing entirely and it will not matter. What's Marine fixed-wing doing now? It's sitting at land bases in Afghanistan getting blown up. Why is USMC doing that mission instead of USAF fixed wing? It's not operating in support of a landing, and in the event of a landing, there is no chance that we'd ever put Marines on a beach relying on their own fixed-wing support, there will be an entire CVBG there to support them, just like when they landed in Al-Faw in 2003. There's no way we're feeding Marines into an opposed landing without a real full-size carrier behind them, it ain't going to happen. I get that the Marines *want* fixed wing, but it seems entirely superfluous to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Thank god. As I'm kinda lusting for the Silent Eagle right now, I'll take that bet. Does the Silent Eagle have strike capability? e: Mr. Platypus I always love your F-35 takedowns 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Because they do not, really, need a replacement for the Harrier. You can ditch Marine fixed-wing entirely and it will not matter. Fair enough. I actually agree, so I guess I should've said the Harrier needs to go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
There's a lot of assumptions made in this thread predicated on poo poo you have all read or believe to be fact. Probably a good idea to take a step back to ponder over that maybe that the general public and even us in the military just are not privy to the big picture. Short story is this thread now reads like a independently-funded paper i.e. it's boring as poo poo. More airplane photos please. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It's not going to get any closer, because the 707 is going to be there too...it has to, in order to do its job. Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree completely...I basically said as much regarding all the enablers. I was just trying to be overly fair to the LockMart position since I was basically eviscerating everything else the guy was saying. Godholio posted:Here's my theory: a replacement for the F-15C was absolutely needed. The F-22 was designed as a god among fighter jets, so why not play off its anticipated success and pitch a successor to the F-16 too? But there's no way the AF will have enough money to fund both...let's tie the multirole jet to the Navy and pitch it as a Hornet replacement too! By the time it turned into a fiasco, everyone was hooked and couldn't get out of it. There are no other options. No service wants to walk away after how much effort and money they've pumped into this program. They're all on record talking about how it's crucial to their future success. This is basically exactly what happened. In the early '90s there was the USAF MRF program that was supposed to develop a strike fighter replacement for the F-16 and the CALF program that was supposed to develop a STOVL replacement for the Harrier (the USAF was also involved with this one to a certain degree). The Navy was up poo poo creek at the same time aircraft procurement wise due to the simultaneous cancellation of the ATA/A-12 and the NATF program (navalized F-22) and was just starting to develop the requirements for a possible replacement aircraft for the gap those two programs left. By the mid '90s MRF and CALF had merged into JAST and the Navy had been brought on board to solve their procurement issues; JAST begat the JSF and the rest is not so illustrious history. Linedance posted:edit- all this talk of Growlers... did they know it's slang for a pussy before they came up with that nickname? One of the original names considered (and quickly discarded) was, I poo poo you not, the Shocker.   As you might imagine Naval Aviators took quite a liking to that one. MrYenko posted:The extra money could have funded quite a lot of more-capable F-22s, and the Navy could have started a proper carrier based fifth gen fighter program. (SEA RAPTOR LOLOLOLOL) Like I kind of alluded to above, the NATF navalized F-22 program actually got canceled well before the JSF was even a thing yet...there were a bunch of reasons but basically it boiled down to the ATF development timeline being strung out due to the end of the Cold War and the bad taste that the A-12 left in NAVAIR (and Congress's) mouth regarding Naval LO aircraft. Regarding Marine fixed wing air, the issue as I see it isn't necessarily Marine fixed wing air, it's having to develop a STOVL jet fighter for them. They want Marines supporting Marines, the MAGTF, I get it. So they get conventional CATOBAR fighters to operate off of the carriers like they do currently. But there is a valid argument that fixed wing CAS can do things that helos can't do and that there is a possible situation where having fixed wing support available from an amphib would be worthwhile. Good thing there's already a solution available:    The Marines have successfully operated OV-10s off of an amphib without any major issues. While OV-10s probably aren't a realistic option, there's no reason why they couldn't consider purchasing a new build light attack aircraft with similar STOL performance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Regarding Marine fixed wing air, the issue as I see it isn't necessarily Marine fixed wing air, it's having to develop a STOVL jet fighter for them. They want Marines supporting Marines, the MAGTF, I get it. So they get conventional CATOBAR fighters to operate off of the carriers like they do currently. But there is a valid argument that fixed wing CAS can do things that helos can't do and that there is a possible situation where having fixed wing support available from an amphib would be worthwhile. Good thing there's already a solution available: Just need to buy some Super Tucanos, paint them sea blue and convince the Marines that they're Wildcats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
It's too bad they didn't go with the Shocker nickname, they could have based them out of McConnell AFB in Wichita, home of Wichita State who's sports teams are the Shockers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
rscott posted:It's too bad they didn't go with the Shocker nickname, they could have based them out of McConnell AFB in Wichita, home of Wichita State who's sports teams are the Shockers. Seriously, I normally don't care that much about what they name military aircraft (judging by the wide variety of nicknames they get, I don't get the impression that the people who actually fly them do either) but that would be just hilarious to see happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
I'm loving DYING at those patches.  Terrifying Effigies posted:Just need to buy some Super Tucanos, paint them sea blue and convince the Marines that they're Wildcats. I'm tempted to suggest Super Tucanos as a genuine option, actually. They almost fit the bill and they're a lot more affordable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 01:51
|
|