|
1/4 scale and no dildos
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
wkarma posted:Bomb truckin! Who can spot what makes this pic different? Other than it being a hilarious loadout, the biggest thing I see is that they have an AGM-88 way farther out on the wing than I think I've ever seen one mounted, and they're a lot heavier than AMRAAMs. It looks like it could carry some hilarious 12x2xG loadout.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
saurkrautwerfer posted:GENTLEMEN: Very cool. But I'm curious why there's still an emphasis on putting infantry into the trench to clear it. Couldn't you hit it with enough high explosive from all that armor to collapse it without putting men at risk?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Very cool. But I'm curious why there's still an emphasis on putting infantry into the trench to clear it. Couldn't you hit it with enough high explosive from all that armor to collapse it without putting men at risk? Trenches have a disturbing tendency to successfully shelter defenders from even the most protracted, intense bombardment and sending tanks up against infantry without the support of friendly infantry is a great way to lose a whole bunch of tanks, even if you take the position. The combined arms approach is basically the result of a lot of really lovely experiences in the early 20th century where attempts to solve a complex tactical problem with an overwhelming superiority in one area lead to either failure or victory at a really ghastly cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Very cool. But I'm curious why there's still an emphasis on putting infantry into the trench to clear it. Couldn't you hit it with enough high explosive from all that armor to collapse it without putting men at risk? I haven't seen the video so maybe I'm missing the context, but clearing the trench gives you a nice place to stay when the pre-registered enemy artillery and counter attack comes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Other than it being a hilarious loadout, the biggest thing I see is that they have an AGM-88 way farther out on the wing than I think I've ever seen one mounted, and they're a lot heavier than AMRAAMs. It looks like it could carry some hilarious 12x2xG loadout. You're very much on the right track.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Can you even launch an AGM-88 from a pylon like that? It looks like the top fins would strike the pylon on the way down. EDIT: Is that even an AGM-88? The front fins look too small. It looks more like a Harpoon. Akion fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Mar 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
AGM-88 is the one furthest to the right, harpoon is one station inboard of it. I think the special part is the two additional stores stations on the wings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
I don't know the terminology for this but it looks like they just stuck an extra pair of pylons on the wing where pictures of F-15s (like this one) show what appears to be a spot where a pylon could go. And it's got one of those 2 missiles, 1 pylon setups on one wing and a HARM on the other. So ... Ace Combat IRL? Psion fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Mar 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
As Cyrano4747 stated already, infantry has this perplexing complex with not dying when they're supposed to. You don't want to move armor through defenses until the enemy has been cleared from the area. In practice, the artillery keeps all enemy forces suppressed, but rarely does it destroy much. The CAS/rotary wing assets kill a few of the more obvious targets (tanks, bunkers, etc), the direct fire support kills what the aviation misses (pretty much everything), but none of those really does much to destroy or force the enemy infantry out of it's holes. In reality, there's a decent chance the surviving defenders might just surrender after getting that sort of plastering. Or be so disrupted that they break and flee. Or any number of situations that result in the infantry moving through trenches filled with abandoned enemy equipment. However, if you're going to train, it makes the most sense to prepare for the situation that requires exercising all the pieces to their fullest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I haven't seen the video so maybe I'm missing the context, but clearing the trench gives you a nice place to stay when the pre-registered enemy artillery and counter attack comes. In the exercise, engineers clear a path for armor through the obstacle, armor deploys to protect against a counterattack, then infantry dismounts from the Bradleys and clears the trenches while the Bradleys put the trenches under heavy suppressing fire. It's definitely true that artillery alone won't destroy a trench. I just found it interesting that the prime method is still sending men down a trench 3 at a time, tossing hand grenades and laying down heavy SAW fire. In Desert Storm, wasn't the main method to have the engineers simply bulldoze the trenches with soldiers still in them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:In the exercise, engineers clear a path for armor through the obstacle, armor deploys to protect against a counterattack, then infantry dismounts from the Bradleys and clears the trenches while the Bradleys put the trenches under heavy suppressing fire. In Desert Storm it was a pretty unique situation. The Iraqis had a line of defenses which boiled down to tall sand dunes with trenches behind them, the theory being that the dune would negate the advantages of range and maneuver by hiding the Iraqi positions and troops from sight/attack, potentially bog down any armor attempting to cross it, and put anything/anyone climbing over the top toward the trench in a real bad spot. The US approach was to let them wait in the trenches, shoot anyone attempting to observe/fire from the top of the dune, then go right through the dunes rather than over them by mounting mine plows/dozer blades on the tanks and simply pushing the dune into the trenches, both destroying the trench along with anything in it and providing a crossing. It was really just a on-the-spot solution to a particularly poorly conceived defense. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Wasn't it doubly unique in that most of the trenches were abandoned by the time we got there anyways? I seem to remember reading that most of those guys stuck out to take the initial hit weren't the most reliable of troops and got the gently caress out during the week of laser-guided poo poo that preceded pushing over the dunes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Wasn't it doubly unique in that most of the trenches were abandoned by the time we got there anyways? I seem to remember reading that most of those guys stuck out to take the initial hit weren't the most reliable of troops and got the gently caress out during the week of laser-guided poo poo that preceded pushing over the dunes. Not all of them, but yeah entire sections of trench were abandoned or waiting to surrender when we got there. In the areas where troops both remained and actually followed their orders a lot of people got buried, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Other than it being a hilarious loadout, the biggest thing I see is that they have an AGM-88 way farther out on the wing than I think I've ever seen one mounted, and they're a lot heavier than AMRAAMs. It looks like it could carry some hilarious 12x2xG loadout. Those outboard stations (1 and 7) are stressed for enough weight to take an AGM-88 + pylon (barely), so that is in theory realistic (if you ignore the asymmetric load issues that you would face as well as the overall ludicrousness of it)...someone basically said it so I'll just come out and say it: the "new" thing is that currently those stations aren't activated. They were originally intended for ECM pods on the F-15Cs but that project fell through and the stations just never get used, on either -Cs or Mud Hens. The reason Boeing did that mock up is that they are going to be activated on the new Saudi F-15SAs, which honestly are going to be some pretty sweet pieces of kit: new fly by wire control system, AESA radar (V3s IIRC), and a brand spanking new EW suite. The Boeing rep at the trade show that model was exhibited at said that the USAF was going to activate those stations as well on their F-15E fleet, but I would take that with a big, BIG grain of salt. Also in Desert Storm the US used BUFFs to no-poo poo carpet bomb Iraqi trench systems, as well as dropping BLU-82s on them. Between that and the Highway of Death there was really a lot of pretty cold blooded poo poo that went down in the Gulf War (and that's not even getting into the whole "encourage the Shi'a to revolt and then stand aside while Saddam slaughters them" thing). Not trying to get all LF up in here because it's war and that's what happens, but the reality of the Gulf War was quite a bit different from the popular perception of an antiseptic smart bomb war (something like less than 10% of all air to ground munitions dropped/fired in the air war were PGMs, compared with probably at least 85% if not higher during the initial invasion of OIF).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
The Pentagon keeps on truckin' with the F-35 but every day it looks more like a dog. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/06/f35-report-leaked.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Admit it: if you got tasked to load up a couple B52s with a straight up WW2 style "It's open season on ball bearings and we're flying to Schweinfurt" bomb bay full of doom loadout you'd have the goddamn biggest AMMO hardon ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
mikerock posted:The Pentagon keeps on truckin' with the F-35 but every day it looks more like a dog. Wait, how do you get headrests and visibility wrong? Not only have people been dealing with that in fighter planes for years, they've been dealing with it in every other type of vehicle for years....
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
When your project is so politically motivated the money is not going to R&D it is going to kickbacks. That is how you get fuckups like these. Hey guys, you know why we designed the bubble canopy in WW2? So we could see 360 degress? Yeah, we still need that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
It always blows my mind every time I read about the Schweinfurt raids, especially when I was stationed there. Just thinking about how many bombs were dropped on that place, trying to picture what it might have looked like compared to the modern town I was in. Their biggest employer is still the ball bearing manufacturer in town, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
mikerock posted:The Pentagon keeps on truckin' with the F-35 but every day it looks more like a dog. But you see, EO-DAS will render maneuvering irrelevant!  (This is a no poo poo quote from a NG executive c. 2007). Cyrano4747 posted:Admit it: if you got tasked to load up a couple B52s with a straight up WW2 style "It's open season on ball bearings and we're flying to Schweinfurt" bomb bay full of doom loadout you'd have the goddamn biggest AMMO hardon ever. Big Belly modded B-52s are one of the best things ever:          (click for huge on that last one) Fun fact: at AFCOMAC (the AF's "AMMO University"), during the Iron Flag capstone exercise, they actually still have you fragged to meet some old school lines of a BUFF's worth of dumb bombs, as well as several lines of an entire bomber's worth of PGMs (JDAMs, LGBs, WCMDs, etc), the idea being that the point of the exercise is to stress you well beyond any realistic frag by building a shitload of munitions in a very short amount of time. No better way to do that than meeting a whole mess of bomber lines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
quote:dune & trench stuff IIRC the Israelis tried to block off parts of Sinai with giant walls of bulldozed and compressed sand to confound Egyptian armor advances. The Egyptians cut through them with firehoses. That clearing of minefield and trench networks seems like another thing that, while you have to be prepared for it, isn't likely to ever happen again in a real war. It's just much easier to bomb whatever the network is protecting into pebbles, or just find another way to go around. Even in Desert Storm with its "let's use every Cold War toy we can" stategems, most of those trench and mine systems were just bypassed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
On the  procurement tip, the much delayed CH-148 Cyclone (military version of the Sikorsky S-92) is still late, and weirdly it almost seems like the gov't is happy so they can point at that and call it the "worst military procurement in Canadian history" (direct quote from the defense minister) to possibly deflect the same criticism from being fired at the F-35. It helps that the contract was originally signed under a different government (Paul Martin's Liberals in 2004). Originally we were supposed to have the full fleet of helicopters in December 2013 but it looks like none will be delivered until at least ~2015~. Sikorsky is in no huge rush because due to penalties and costly redesign they'll actually lose money on each helicopter produced (to the tune of $14million apiece!) This is because they were completely new military designs that were approved based on specs, and to date no other country has ordered any for their armed forces. So in the meantime, the 50 year old CH-124 Sea Kings keep slogging away. The media likes to play up how they are flying death traps but with proper maintenance they are fine. The big Joint Support Ship procurement is coming up so we may have a new contender for "Canada's worst military procurement", though! Our government loving sucks at buying stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
It wasn't always this way. We had Inglis and Long Branch once... and then the Arrow
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Since we're still using them 50 years later the Sea King would have to be a pretty good deal too. Definitely wrung the full purchase price out of those puppies! It'll be weird if the Cyclones just get cancelled altogether and the government ends up going back with something like the EH-101 , the helicopter that was on order way back in 1998 before the gov't kiboshed that based on campaign promises. Things go full circle! priznat fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
mikerock posted:It wasn't always this way. We had Inglis and Long Branch once... and then the Arrow And you don't even have the right maple leaf on your currency! Honestly, Canada really needs to re-evaluate things. (Seriously, it looks like a stylized Canadian leaf to me, I have no idea where that "controversy" came from)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Psion posted:And you don't even have the right maple leaf on your currency! Honestly, Canada really needs to re-evaluate things. The true weirdness is on the $5 bill all the kids with hockey sticks are right handed shooters but the majority of Canadians shoot left 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Here's some poo poo:      Pretty cool huh? Remove the "l" from the end of the url for huge as gently caress. My dad's friend gave me this years ago, he was a Grumman engineer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
I think it's pretty awesome their demo area was "just off Long Island" not where I would have anticipated it being, but well, there you have it. Today I learned there used to be a Naval Weapons plant on Long Island.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Psion posted:I think it's pretty awesome their demo area was "just off Long Island" Yeah, Grumman was headquartered out of Long Island. They built spaceships there too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
mikerock posted:The Pentagon keeps on truckin' with the F-35 but every day it looks more like a dog.   It's funny; until now, the F-35 seat was getting rave reviews from pilots who were unabashedly praising it for it's comfort and ergonomics and the improvements to the harness. The F-35 is the first ejection seat ever to feature height and tilt adjustability. I wonder if the pilots complaining have the seat adjusted differently? To use a car comparison, visibility in a Honda S2000 with the top closed isn't too bad if you're a driver with short legs and the seat is slid up, but it's simply godawful if you're tall and have the seat slid full back- the windows are the same, just the perspective is different. grover fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Mar 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
We should have just bought that super fuckton of Super Tucano's as COIN bomb trucks to beat up on browns and then spent the F35 money on F15SE's and F16V's
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
grover posted:To use a car comparison, visibility in a Honda S2000 with the top closed isn't too bad if you're a driver with short legs and the seat is slid up, but it's simply godawful if you're tall and have the seat slid full back- the windows are the same, just the perspective is different. Aircraft are generally engineered to have very specific Design Eye Positions, or ranges of positions. Many aircraft are even equipped with eye position indication, so that the pilot can get himself in the position intended by the manufacturer for optimum sight lines out of the aircraft. It is my understanding that military aircraft have tighter tolerances, because of the reliance on HUDs, however, the F-35s HMD might negate that a bit. However, there is still ZERO chance the design eye position was not looked at, or not taken seriously during cockpit design; Your comparison with an S2000 is laughable at best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Aircraft are generally engineered to have very specific Design Eye Positions, or ranges of positions. Many aircraft are even equipped with eye position indication, so that the pilot can get himself in the position intended by the manufacturer for optimum sight lines out of the aircraft. It is my understanding that military aircraft have tighter tolerances, because of the reliance on HUDs, however, the F-35s HMD might negate that a bit. However, there is still ZERO chance the design eye position was not looked at, or not taken seriously during cockpit design; Your comparison with an S2000 is laughable at best. So are the complaints about the headrest. If there's a visibility problem, it's from the bulkhead. From the pictures I can find, I'm not convinced there IS a meaningful visibility problem...it's next to impossible to look directly behind you in an F-15 or F-16 anyway, even with the lower dorsal spine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Well, they just had the 100th delivery of the body/center fuselage today I think, loving nowhere to park with all the VIPs and poo poo. Well, except for far away but gently caress walking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Those outboard stations (1 and 7) are stressed for enough weight to take an AGM-88 + pylon (barely), so that is in theory realistic (if you ignore the asymmetric load issues that you would face as well as the overall ludicrousness of it)...someone basically said it so I'll just come out and say it: the "new" thing is that currently those stations aren't activated. They were originally intended for ECM pods on the F-15Cs but that project fell through and the stations just never get used, on either -Cs or Mud Hens. The reason Boeing did that mock up is that they are going to be activated on the new Saudi F-15SAs, which honestly are going to be some pretty sweet pieces of kit: new fly by wire control system, AESA radar (V3s IIRC), and a brand spanking new EW suite. The Boeing rep at the trade show that model was exhibited at said that the USAF was going to activate those stations as well on their F-15E fleet, but I would take that with a big, BIG grain of salt. 1 and 9, but yup. It's probably an AARGM (-88E) too. You could potentially carry 12 AMRAAMs and 3 drop tanks with the new pylons heh. Call it the straits of Taiwan load out 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
wkarma posted:1 and 9, but yup. It's probably an AARGM (-88E) too. You could potentially carry 12 AMRAAMs and 3 drop tanks with the new pylons heh. Call it the straits of Taiwan load out Whoops, yeah 1 and 9. AARGM only if it's not a USAF jet (USAF isn't buying any, just one of our many extremely intelligent acquisition decisions). Actually I don't even know what the gently caress because no one with Strike Eagles uses them to employ HARMs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 08:37
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Whoops, yeah 1 and 9. AARGM only if it's not a USAF jet (USAF isn't buying any, just one of our many extremely intelligent acquisition decisions). Actually I don't even know what the gently caress because no one with Strike Eagles uses them to employ HARMs. My teenage self would like a word with you, sir!   Bonus F-117 porn. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Akion posted:My teenage self would like a word with you, sir! Heh, I remember when this was a Microprose game called F-19 Stealth Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Heh, I remember when this was a Microprose game called F-19 Stealth Fighter. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 21:08
|
|