|
This article claims there are plans to eventually get 144 F-15EXs after the initial 8, but I don't see any sources for that number. https://www.airforcemag.com/air-force-starts-f-15ex-buying-process/
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:According to some people on Discord the article is wrong and the Rafale-B is set up so it only tandem ejects if it's the pilot initiating the ejection. I think that is wrong. On aircraft with one pilot (e.g. F-14, backseat has no flight controls), you can configure rear seat to tandem eject, or single eject. This is a button/lever, and may be switched at any time. Pilot always ejects both, as an aircraft with no pilot is not airworthy. Rafale-B is strictly speaking a trainer, it was never designed to be a two person combat aircraft. However, the french found numerous advantages of having two persons in the air, and changed the order from mostly Rafale-A (single seat), to approx. a 50/50 mix. Being originally a trainer, it would be very important for the rear seat (instructor) to be able to eject both, and in any case, rear seat needs to be able to eject and save an incapacitated pilot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I assume the eight is supposed to get through testing and evaluation until they can shake Congress down for the big buy. CIGNX posted:This article claims there are plans to eventually get 144 F-15EXs after the initial 8, but I don't see any sources for that number. Yeah, they'll never got congress to agree to a large buy because it overlaps too much with F-35 money in the near term; that being said (more) F-15s will start literally falling out of the sky soon and the F-35s were never meant to replace them so the USAF is just making that future buy more palatable to congress along with keeping the F-15 line active, refining requirements, etc. It's basically the USAF taking the opposite approach to the one taken with the F-35 in that they are slowly buying and outlining requirements for a already mature aircraft whose major technology inserts were paid for largely by someone else (debatable since I don't know how much of that money invested in the QA/SA/etc was originally US aid or whatever). An F-15EX with the outer two pylons active can carry 12 AMRAAMs. Mazz fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Apr 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yeah, they'll never got congress to agree to a large buy because it overlaps too much with F-35 money in the near term; that being said (more) F-15s will start literally falling out of the sky soon and the F-35s were never meant to replace them so the USAF is just making that future buy more palatable to congress along with keeping the F-15 line active, refining requirements, etc. Neither Qatar nor KSA are recipients of substantial US aid money. They've got plenty of money to pay for things and even lend quite a bit themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:According to some people on Discord the article is wrong and the Rafale-B is set up so it only tandem ejects if it's the pilot initiating the ejection. The Discord people can be told to learn to read French. (Or at least use Google Translate/DeepL/whatever.) https://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/580401/9905742/A-2019-03-I.pdf Summary from page 28 posted:l’arrêt de la séquence automatique est dû à un dysfonctionnement interne du sélecteur de séquence Xakura posted:Rafale-B is strictly speaking a trainer, it was never designed to be a two person combat aircraft. Yes it was. The Mirage IV is a two-seater, the Mirage 2000N is a two-seater. What do these aircraft have in common? They're strategic bombers. There's a pilot in the front and a Navigator/WSO in the back. And the Rafale B is the successor to the Mirage IV and 2000N. It was designed to replace all aircraft then in use in the French combat fleet (both air force and navy), including the strategic bombers, which doctrinally have a crew of two. The Rafale B was never meant to be just a trainer. That argument might be true of the Typhoon, but the Rafale was designed to be omnirole, so each version could do, in the air, everything the other versions can also do. By the way: technically, the Rafale C doesn't exist. Only the B and the M. The C is a hybrid created, basically, by using the fuselage of the B with the cockpit of the M. That's how far commonality goes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
It seems crazy to have a ride-along passenger pull the wrong handle or just panic and eject the pilot too, you'd think they'd be able to select a mode where the pilot had control or the passengers handle wouldn't fire the pilot's seat as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
large hands posted:It seems crazy to have a ride-along passenger pull the wrong handle or just panic and eject the pilot too, you'd think they'd be able to select a mode where the pilot had control or the passengers handle wouldn't fire the pilot's seat as well. I suspect that would open an entirely different can of worms where something might happen to the pilot and you've made the passenger unable to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I suspect that would open an entirely different can of worms where something might happen to the pilot and you've made the passenger unable to do anything about it. Eh, not really. Plenty of aircraft have passengers who get a terrifying last minute if the flight crew is incapacitated. It's not like your typical airliner has ejection seats for the people in the back. Plus I seriously doubt you could count on a person with zero training who basically luggage in the back seat having the judgement to know when to initialize a punch out, much less the training to do it. My guess would be that it's supposed to be covered under some waivers with language to the effect that flying is an inherently dangerous activity and you recognize these risks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
If loose seat belt retired contractor daddy can do it I feel like I probably also have a chance, at least more of one as I'd have plummeting to the ground with the doomed aircraft still attached
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Eh, not really. Plenty of aircraft have passengers who get a terrifying last minute if the flight crew is incapacitated. It's not like your typical airliner has ejection seats for the people in the back. Plus I seriously doubt you could count on a person with zero training who basically luggage in the back seat having the judgement to know when to initialize a punch out, much less the training to do it. The A-26 Invader was somewhat notorious for this. When ferrying passengers, they would be put in the gunner's compartment at the rear of the aircraft. This compartment is isolated from the rest of the plane, with only an intercom for communication. I've read a story where a non-flying officer freaking out about an engine backfiring shortly after takeoff, and not remembering how to use the intercom, jettisoned the hatch and jumped. Flight crew thought nothing of him, figuring no news is good news, but noticed the plane was flying a bit rough. Imagine landing, "Oh poo poo, where's the Captain?!" The officer got picked up by someone and, somewhat sheepishly, showed up at his destination later in the day. Parachutes hard. The AC-130 had a problem where new gunners would accidently pop their chute while climbing around the guns during escape drills on the ground. "Well I guess we all died, Bob, because you couldn't get out the loving door!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
Reminder that this happened once with the F-14 as well: https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/story-f-14-pilot-able-land-tomcat-without-canopy-rio-erroneously-bailed/amp
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Moonboost2/status/1250141567840550921
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:There were a couple race riots on the carriers during Vietnam but probably the closest instance in the modern navy was the Arnheiter Affair. I know this thread moves at the speed of light and this is drat near a zombie post but I have been absolutely fascinated by the Arnheiter Affair for over a decade. Neil Sheehan's (The Arnheiter Affair) book is dirt cheap and a great read. For the past few days I've been trying to write an article on comparing Arnheiter to the Roosevelt. Thing is, they're way different. The Vance mutiny was no such thing. Arnheiter was given a command that he should have never gotten and decided to play Lord Nelson with his DER rather than fulfill his mission, which was Operation Market Time. Market Time was a series of patrols off the coast of the RVN designed to catch trawlers smuggling weapons and the Vance was supposed to patrol a designated area but Arnheiter instead sought to take his boat close to shore to play Naval hero. The mission was drat boring but fulfilled part of US Naval strategy in the conflict. Sheehan found some evidence that another officer, Richard Alexander, obtained an "emergency only" status for Arnheiter and slipped it through the cracks so it was signed by the detailer for the Bureau of Navy Personnel, thus giving Marc his ship. Alexander was actually slated to command the New Jersey but this very public support of Arnheiter after the 99 days sidelined him into obscurity because he pissed off big Navy. Hell, Alexander is probably a better example to compare Crozier too. You might probably think that Sheehan is biased but he's not. Most of the press that Arnheiter got at the time was very much pro-Marcus and anti everybody else. Sheehan changes this and actually interviewed the other officers and some crew. Arnheiter participated in at least two unauthorized shore bombardments that were noted by destroyers who were supposed to be there. The action took place during Operation Masher in early 1966. Sheehan's book has the affidavit from one of the officers of the USS Mason discussing the problems Arnheiter was causing, like fouling gun range and causing confusion on the radio net. The main reason he was removed was because he sent in false position reports in order to support his fantasy as being the next Bull Halsey. He also had sailors making shore landings to check for VC landing spots, again, not in his mission set. The speedboat, bought with the crew's recreation money, was outfitted with a machine-gun and American flag to bait shore based VC so Arnheiter could shoot at them. Never worked. Back to Sheehan's account: I've spent some years working around the USS Vance association getting some accounts from guys who served on board during that time. There's also other associations where Arnheiter had served as well, like USS Fiske and USS Worden and these little accounts, often made in visitor logs all point to one thing: Arnheiter was something of a loose cannon who needed a good CO to keep him in line. I even found, hilariously, a State of Maine Supreme Court case where Arnheiter, in 1991 (!) appealed a goddamn speeding ticket to the state's top court. Reading that case was absolutely fascinating because it followed the exact same pattern as his congressional and Navy hearings. He even tried to pin his speed on a false report from the radar gun on "nearby steel buildings". He probably would have went to SCOTUS if he could have. I also found some material from the early 1960s which landed Arnheiter in trouble by exposing what he felt as major problems with the Navy's anti-submarine capability. A number of articles appeared about this and I found them mostly in campus newspapers of the period. So he was always very much somebody who would not hesitate to speak publicly, fast and loose about issues. I also suspect he had a very small filter while being very combative at the same time. I would love to write a short biography of the man because he is a fascinating character. Very much a product of the romantic Nelsonian novels from the 19th century and completely out of touch with the technical aspects of the Navy in the 1960s. Despite searching for years I have nothing on him from 1973 until he died in 2009. Before that all I have is what Sheehan wrote about. I've seen tidbits from his extended family on the Vance's association webpage but not enough to write anything about. So this wasn't mutiny. It was a crew who drat near had a collective nervous breakdown over a CO who went nuts with the power of a Ship's Captain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
That looks like an autonomous military terrorbot from Transmetropolitan, something that's forcibly inserted in the enemy's rear via rocket and stomps around on spider legs with a loudspeaker blasting "ANGER DUCK DICK!" [brrrrrrrttttt] "ANGER DUCK DICK!" [brrrrrrrttttt] targeting random people and objects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
There's a joke about the Ducktales reboot somewhere in here
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Speaking of ejections, didn't someone here have a story of an SR-71 (I think - definitely tandem plane) punch out? The story I remember is that in this case, the pilot could eject himself, both, or just the rear officer. In this case it was a recon mission over hostile territory, and the rear officer was freaking out. Rather than trying to deal with that, and knowing he could accomplish the mission solo, the pilot punched out the rear officer over friendly territory and finished it on his own. Could be apocryphal, I could be getting a lot of details wrong or I could be conflating 2 completely different stories. But I think I remember a story to that effect coming from TFR.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
I've been to the factory where they make those turret things, albeit as a kid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Speaking of ejections, didn't someone here have a story of an SR-71 (I think - definitely tandem plane) punch out? The story I remember is that in this case, the pilot could eject himself, both, or just the rear officer. In this case it was a recon mission over hostile territory, and the rear officer was freaking out. Rather than trying to deal with that, and knowing he could accomplish the mission solo, the pilot punched out the rear officer over friendly territory and finished it on his own. I really don't think an SR-71 could do its mission with a big hole in the roof.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
McNally posted:I really don't think an SR-71 could do its mission with a big hole in the roof. Also the guy in the back is the one running all the recon equipment. The pilot has his hands full just flying the thing along the right route. Now, there is a story about an electrical fault causing the "pilot ejected" warning light to illuminate on the RSO's annunciator panel, which caused a brief freak out until he was able to talk to him over the ICS and confirm he was still there. The cockpits are completely separate, so there's no way to physically see if the pilot is there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
And another story about an SR-71 disintegrating in flight and ejecting the pilot on its own: http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-free-fell-space-lived-tell/
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:And another story about an SR-71 disintegrating in flight and ejecting the pilot on its own: http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-free-fell-space-lived-tell/ Pretty sure that's the fastest speed anyone has ever exited a plane and lived to tell about it. Also I am a child and imagine it happening like a cartoon where the car crashes and the driver keeps going while holding the steering wheel as normal until they look around and see their vehicle is gone and physics reasserts itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:USS Per My Previous Email GBU-35v2/A-PMLE 
Guest2553 fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Apr 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Speaking of ejections, didn't someone here have a story of an SR-71 (I think - definitely tandem plane) punch out? The story I remember is that in this case, the pilot could eject himself, both, or just the rear officer. In this case it was a recon mission over hostile territory, and the rear officer was freaking out. Rather than trying to deal with that, and knowing he could accomplish the mission solo, the pilot punched out the rear officer over friendly territory and finished it on his own. I think you’re conflating a bunch of different stories because this doesn’t fit with any blackbird story I’ve heard, and I just finished reading Paul Crickmore’s massive blackbird book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
I feel like I've heard an F-4/Vietnam story to that effect, but can't remember any details. It definitely did not happen in a Blackbird. The aircraft would not survive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
I don’t think a RSO could ever make it to a Blackbird and be a freakout risk, I feel like that would be noted well before the Mach 3 at 80,000ft part of his career but who knows.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Apr 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I feel like I've heard an F-4/Vietnam story to that effect, but can't remember any details. This makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
To be fair to the guy it didn't sound like he freaked out, it sounds like he floated and grabbed the nearest handle to pull himself back down. . . which was the ejection handle. That's what the navy mishap board went with anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:There were a couple race riots on the carriers during Vietnam but probably the closest instance in the modern navy was the Arnheiter Affair. Really, the fault lies with his parents: what did they think was going to happen giving the kid a name like that? He had a sister and a brother were given normal names (in the cultural context of the time). In fact, given that the brother was a twin I have to assume this was some sort of hosed-up A/B testing on their part. Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Apr 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
Were there ever attempts to make the P-51 or -47 navalized to operate off carriers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Were there ever attempts to make the P-51 or -47 navalized to operate off carriers? In late 1944 a modified P-51 was tested for carrier suitability. They made 25 successful landings, but the end result of testing was that it wasn't really well suited. The difference between stall speed and arresting gear engagement was only 8 mph...not much of a safety margin. And if you had to go around, you had to apply power relatively slowly or you risked snap-rolling yourself into the loving boat or the water.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
Reading a reddit thread about how directed energy weapons would change the battlefield made me realize I don't know anything about the current state of laser development. Are we close to seeing lasers replace shipboard CIWS, or something for BMD, or having a functional aircraft-mounted weapon? Where are we at with lasers now? Just in case this is one of those topics, I'd be happy with any answer that's as vague and non-specific as it needs to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
The problem with a whole lot of laser development is that no matter what year it is, we're "5-10 years from operational employment." Also the backstop. "big space, little laser" is a bad plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Lasers are already being employed in the CIWS role. Lasers are going to be 5-10 years away from shooting over the horizon until defense agencies realize that's physically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Lasers are already being employed in the CIWS role. Did I miss some new deployment? Cause nah... If you mean the AN/SEQ-3, I don't think 1 prototype counts as operational employment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Arrinien posted:Reading a reddit thread about how directed energy weapons would change the battlefield made me realize I don't know anything about the current state of laser development. Are we close to seeing lasers replace shipboard CIWS, or something for BMD, or having a functional aircraft-mounted weapon? Where are we at with lasers now? Short answer, relatively robust solid state lasers are available in the tens of kilowatts range. They're not super compact, but they fit in a big truck. They're good enough for meaningful defense against low altitude drones. They're getting good enough for defense against short range rockets, artillery, and mortars in good conditions. (Clouds are a problem and always will be.) Shipboard CIWS isn't here yet, but may be soon as a supplement to other defenses. On aircraft, lasers as an effective punch in the sensor to incoming missiles is plausible now, hard kill is not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
There is one service who is wild enough to try out lasers for counter-drone on land right now. CLaWS is a low power USMC anti-drone laser system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
My b i thought iron beam and iron dome were the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Lasers are going to be 5-10 years away from shooting over the horizon until defense agencies realize that's physically impossible. Not true. E: No joke, mirrors. Back Hack fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Apr 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 02:37
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Did I miss some new deployment? Cause nah... If you mean the AN/SEQ-3, I don't think 1 prototype counts as operational employment. They recently stuck a different 150 kw laser on the USS Little Rock, but I assume it's also a testing prototype. There are at least a few ships with pretty powerful lasers, but none seem to be actually operational even if they're described that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Back Hack posted:Not true. Watch: "Hey, let's put big mirrors on Tritons!" *shoots them down more often than not* "Whoops!"  For some reason I'm thinking of the laser scene in Spies Like Us, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 06:00
|
|