|
I tried to read the whole thread but skipped that last 2K posts or so... http://vimeo.com/40935850 Pretty good video for a bunch of C-driving assholes...(I would kill to get that job in Kadena)
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:VFR aircraft are supposed to squawk 1200, your only problem is aircraft with no transponders, but they're restricted from controlled airspace. Yeah, not all of them are Mode C capable either, and I'm pretty sure TCAS needs altitude reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
We've really standardized a lot in the cockpit, it's pretty seamless working with E2, or E3 and flying with 15s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
azazello posted:
"Vul time vul time" - AF speak for "Fights on" Cap - that group is orbiting at a point strike group...: they are the start of their strike route S GRP, Beam S: the southern group (multiple radar contacts get labeled and named so everyone knows who everyone else is talking about), is 'beaming'. From that brevity code link - "Target stabilized within 70 to 110 degree aspect; generally (direction) given with cardinal directions: east, west, north, or south." - aka, not pointing at the fighters anymore, but not running away either Geizkragen fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Man that's bullshit. Our maintainers use the same cs we do on the radio because its just simpler. Instead of XXXX 1/2/3/4 etc, it's XXXX Maintenance/Deck/Line etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Seconding the Marine museum. You can time (a lot of) the traffic by avoiding the museum when the base is changing shifts. Normal commuter traffic on 95 always sucks, but if you try to get to Quantico from either direction from 0600-0900 or 1500-1900, well, good luck. I would go after 0930 and leave by 1300-1400. Even better if you're coming from/returning to DC.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
I wish I remember where these guys were from, but they were nice enough to email us some pics they took one day (they liked the flags).   
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
grover posted:Does the super bug need to deploy air brakes to refuel? Haha no. They asked to see the flags. I fell out of the basket about .000001 sec after that was taken.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:Tenerife taught us one important thing. Teach millions of hours about crew resource management and how important 'Assertiveness' is in the cockpit That is still the textbook case of how rank doesn't matter when your hair stands up and you think, "Is this rear end in a top hat about to get me killed?"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:
Those are C's. Vert stab antenna configuration is a little different on the Super.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Well, at least he didn't go offroading at the end. Goddamn that's going to be embarrassing for that crew though. Other "that doesn't go there" stories: I had a buddy who watched the tower at NAB Fallon wave off a Marine Hornet who was attempting to land on the taxiway next to the long parallels. There was a section of F-5s taxiing to the active at the time. Only time I've heard of tower saving someone's rear end in Fallon. Then there's this guy: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes2/domestic-news/general/14001-finnish-fighter-pilot-ejects-after-landing-on-taxiway-.html This poor bastard was a relatively brand new pilot at the time (less than 200 hours) and was really inexperienced with NVGs. So the Finns decide a couple years ago to practice these lights-out NVG landings. Wing had never seen it done, and although lead had done it a few times, he didn't brief the poor bastard at all on what to expect. For safety reasons, when they did these NVG landings only the runway lights would be turned off and all the remaining airfield lights were still on. During the approach (IFR, in a snow storm...with NVGs on*) Lead breaks out, kisses off the wingman and doesn't think anything more about it. Wing stops sucking wingtip just in time to look up and see...the taxiway lights. Lead rolls out on the nice 8k'+ runway, pops his goggles off, and looks up just in time to see the seat rockets fire off. Poor bastard landed on a 3k'x75' taxiway, was puzzled as to why there was a giant white wall in front of him (plowed snow bank) and pulled the ejection handle. So many things wrong with this flight, from conception to brief to execution. *for those who are wondering, with the complete loss of peripheral vision and depth perception, flying in precip or IFR with NVGs is loving hard, especially if you're not laser focused on your HUD. Given his experience level and the conditions, this kid probably had some serious spatial D issues to fight through in addition to dealing with the normal stresses of flying close formation while trying to do checklists and think of all the poo poo you're supposed to be doing when you're by yourself, at night, with that little experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2012 12:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Given the description of the landing (I've seen reports that the plane was within feet of running out of runway surface) and the fact that they had to burn off fuel to get down to a weight to be able to get back out of there safely...the crew just done hosed up. As for the high security, rumor is that the jet had Mattis on board...you know, USMC four star general James Mattis, CENTCOM Commander type. Depending on what's going on at CENTCOM, there are times when you just can't land there. Like, you will get threatened with violence if you try to land there (even if you are a Navy jet with a no poo poo get on deck emergency diverting from Key West you will get told to turn the gently caress around or go to Homestead...). It's entirely possible that they weren't taking any traffic there, somebody/something very, very important was on board and needed to get on deck and the pilot said "I can make this happen" and just did it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2012 13:48
|
|
|
Godholio posted:God drat that article is dumb. Nevermind that all of this is also pretty much nonsense. There's a reason why the jackasses wearing the stars are the ones talking about this in the press. The pilots (Typhoon and Rapter both) know the quoted sources and the writer are talking out of their collective asses for a couple reasons. I'm not sure who's the worse bench racers of the world, car journalists or aviation journalists. Car journalists often can't drive worth a poo poo, and hoo boy, aviation guys, many have no idea just how much they don't know. Report please, don't speculate on poo poo you'll never get the details on. What details you ask? 1) We don't know the training rules and ROE they were flying with. 2) We don't know the context of those 'killshots'. For instance, executing a guns weave, or IR missile drills, for training, would allow for such footage repeatedly. For many reasons they may have been starting fully defensive in the first place, which against any capable platform with a competent pilot will get you shot repeatedly. The F-22 is amazing, but it can't escape the physics of basic EM diagrams. 3) We don't know if the AF handcuffed the Raptors at all with what they were allowed to do. (I'm going to go with a big 'probably' here. They don't fly full up against non-AF assests in the states most of the time.) 4) We don't know the skill levels of the pilots flying. Gone are the days when 22 guys were all experienced 15/16 retreads. Assuming the Typhoon did in fact whoop some Raptor rear end, our standard (every fighter organization I've ever been around in the US actually) is to put our most junior guys in those kind of flights for a couple reasons: we like to encourage them to stick around and not leave the service, hence awesome deals like that, and it's an incredible experience for a younger pilot where you can learn a poo poo ton. (Things like, don't get 'buck fever' and do stupid things with your jet that allow an inferior aircraft to bend you over the barrel.) Many foreign militaries, when given the chance to fly with us, do the opposite, mainly because they want their most experienced personnel there to observe and take notes on whatever they can pick up from us. See - French and Israelis. Perspective on some of this from a guy who is allowed to go into more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w Fake edit: Just read the artice; this took place at Alaska? Haha yeah, sure, the Raptors got their asses handed to them, whatever you say folks. See the video above: alaska is all about sunshine and rainbows and happiness, not letting the Raptor squadrons demoralize our very proud, and sometimes sensitive partners.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Haha, yeah as if the French ROA EWR ARAACCS WFT Rafale could ever compete with a USAF FUAF full on loaded with AXRAM FUNDIP in an ALSF EXNOR exercise in AK of all places! LOL that's like saying a F17 could BBW a DG-444 in a dogfight with an Unintelligible Military Acronym! ok ok ok, we'll take it back to GiP...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
kill me now posted:I am really sorry for going back to this but once the Navy pilots got their training poo poo together they did infact go back to shitstomping the NVAF to the tune of a 13:1 kill ratio from 1970 on. Man in the box. Same poo poo since World War I still applies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Especially when you can pluck Super Hornets off the line for roughly the same cost, lower maintence/spare costs, lower training costs, etc. Seriously. Are you paying attention Canada (and Denmark, Brazil, Kuwait, Finland and Switzerland?)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
grover posted:WWI pilots shot down more planes with less gadgets; predator may be small, but it still shouldn't be a difficult target, even if it took evasive maneuvers. "Evasive action" in a Predator? I'm sure like every program they have their secrets, but the entire MQ series is intended for a permissive environment. With the wing loading, airspeeds and thrust on tap the Predator (or any drone of significant size for that matter) is almost completely unable to defend itself from anything more than small arms fire (which it does through altitude and distance). And depending on where it was being controlled from don't forget the lag which wouldn't allow the operators to defend it from a gun attack, which happens very, very fast. I would be very surprised if the Frogfoot had any mechanization for A/A gunnery aside from a boresight marker set to some fixed distance/airspeed/g-loading. Basically, you would be just as well served to draw a crosshair on the canopy with a grease pencil, especially considering the next point: A/A gunnery is loving hard. In modern western fighters you often see the gun boresight canted up a couple degrees above the horizontal axis of the aircraft. That helps get you a solution much faster in an engagement, but makes hitting poo poo on the ground harder. All the Soviet era fighters and attack aircraft have boresights directly in line with the axis of the aircraft. In general this makes ground attack easier and hitting anything airborne a bitch. Even if the Frogfoot had a funnel, it would comically hard to use in anything other than level, 1G flight, which as someone pointed out above would be hard to achieve on a slow-rear end Predator. That's not even getting into the mechanics of why you want the nose moving as you fire, how fast, and under what kind of loading. Without only the funnel, with a gun designed for A/A engagement, in a modern aircraft with HOTAS and modern flight control systems that make things far, far easier than they should be, I've known only a few really skilled guys who were capable of hitting PLANFORM fighters consistently (in the sim, or simulated in the jet) in set-ups designed to practice our gunnery skills. Now try that with a much narrower target, that might be uncooperative, with a background of not having nearly as much time in the cockpit as you need to stay current (much less tactically proficient) and I bet these guys were hoping for that "golden BB". For comparison: The Israelis get mucho hours, fly a modern, exremely capable fighter shooting what many would argue is the best IR missile in the world AND as an overall fighter culture have more relevant combat experience to draw on than just about anyone alive(and are some of the most professional, disciplined and skilled pilots I've ever flown with: I've always said, the country I would least want to get into a no poo poo A/A shooting war with is Israel, by a loooong shot) and their F-16I needed 2 Pythons to take down that drone a little bit ago. All of that being said...I've seen the raggedy-rear end speedboats bravely charging US warships so this is far from the craziest thing the Iranians probably did today alone in the Gulf.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
I'll jump on the vulturesrow QA session as well. <---F/A18C and E, O3E looking to get on the vulturesrow dreamride known as "I'm a Terminal O4 so gently caress your fitrep cycle" (  actually I'm a Kool-Aid drinker, I want to command a squadron one day, but terminal O4 would not suck either)Ambihelical Hexnut posted:But where? If it's in the airspace system they are using FAA call signs, if it's tactical they're using ATO. Maybe in a training mission and only while talking to a ground unit or something? You will rarely hear them on those channels, never with a ground unit unless you're talking to an old buddy or something in a zero-threat environment (training A/G range talking to a JTAC you went bar hopping with at some conference for example). Maybe on the link if we're talking to another flight in country or around the boat, but even that is 'internal' to the airwing normally (note to aspiring pilots, nothing is 'internal', everything is recorded: I've found this out the hard way). I've never seen a personal callsign used for a training flight, but that may be a Navy vs AF thing. You're right, they're mostly for internal use, or in an emergency. If you're concerned about a member of your flight maintaining awareness/consciousness (hypoxia is probably the most common 'awareness' emergency, followed by G-loc) it's been shown that using their name is much more likely to get a response than 'Jackass 21' or whatever you are that day. But you don't want to throw around real names on the radio (especially open range/ATC freqs, especially in a situation where a crash/ejection is possible...) so you would use a personal callsign. Short answer is: we don't use personal callsigns much at all airborne. Nebakenezzer posted:I have a question for mr. vulturesrow. I once read a newspaper article on how navy fliers get their call-signs. While I've forgotten the actual process, because the other pilots were picking each other's call-signs, the results didn't end up with many Icemen. I remember that one guy got assigned the call-sign "shooter" (because once when on leave he accidentally shot himself in the foot) and somebody else got "mumbles" (because she was a US citizen raised in England and Switzerland and had a odd mixed accent.) Lots of good, accurate answers on this already. The AF way is exactly like the Navy way, but we would almost (aaaaalmost) never do it in public because we're bad at decent, human interaction and behavior when we drink together. See: Tailhook '91 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011189,00.html http://www.cafepress.com/dd/6856558 Good job to the guys wearing this in public in a bar in Virginia Beach. It only made the NY Times. Geizkragen fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Tide posted:Friend of mine from college that's now flying F-18s has the call sign "Mogen".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Given that anecdote, individual callsigns seem sort of vestigial. In everyday life we never use anything but personal callsigns. There are guys that I've flown with for three+ years whose first names I have to look up when I try to email them. Edit: iyaayas01 posted:plastic bug Huh? Never heard that one before.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
blambert posted:So this fine gentleman is building his own helicopter. This week, on Junkyard Wars...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It's an ease of maintenance thing. The B-2's RAM coating is old enough technology that it will almost literally melt off in the rain (okay, not like if it flies through a cloud it's going to instantly not work but there's a reason we spent the money to build B-2 sized climate controlled hangars at all of the FOLs we could theoretically be operating them from). I'm going off my experience with the F-22 here, I assume the F-35's RAM is roughly the same. The Raptor can and has been operated outside/without climate controlled cells for all the jets all the time, they have deployed to Guam and other places for months at a time and operated outside, it's just that leaving them in the elements for an extended period of time drives an increased LO maintenance tempo. When you are dealing with "non-LO" jets, the biggest thing you have to worry about when you leave them parked outside is corrosion/general wear and tear, which is a months to years type maintenance concern. When you are dealing with LO it is gradual deterioration of the LO surface, which is a weeks to months type maintenance concern. Supposedly the coating on the 22 is still tough to take care of, but nothing like the B2. Some Lockheed guy was bragging the other week (I think it was reported on Danger Room and Flight Global) about how the 35 is supposed to be a massive leap forward from the 22, even claiming that it gets stealthier with time... I'm not so sure about that but I hope it stands up to carrier deployments. (I'm not holding my breath)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
We've had plenty of warmup experience with the RAM on the Super Hornet. We added plenty of manpower to Corrosion shops years ago in E/F-land to deal with the extra hassle. Having seen how undermanned all USMC hornet squadrons are I feel sorry for them. I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal really, or at least not as big of a deal as other unforeseen issues maintenance-wise. Consider this: Lockheed has built stealth before, and has now two generations of experience with the coatings; Lockheed has never built a carrier aircraft. I'm far more concerned about the latter statement. As for 24 hour dry, climate controlled, etc...I'm snorting with laughter thinking about how poorly that requirement would go down with ships company. What you are describing, short of a new carrier design, is literally impossible onboard. There's got to be major differences between the 22 and 35 because that kind of maintenance ain't gonna work for the hangar Chiefs and the fire crews running drills. Geizkragen fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
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
|
Yeah, there was a lot of support for the Shocker. Then someone over the age of fifty figured out the joke and the idea collapsed, so the new name is slang for 'a giant poo poo'...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And heck, the F-35 can't land on carriers anyway. gently caress it. This would be funny if it weren't so true. There were also some stress issues on the airframe when they modified the hook later in the year, so, yeah, still not fixed 100%.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Air and Space did a pretty good article on it a few years back. The bits about the program in general are a bit dated since it was published in 2006 and a lot has changed since then, but some of it is still pretty prescient (I especially love the bit about the former Navy pilot who's worried that the weight loss efforts are going to possibly negatively impact the -C due to a loss in structural strength.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
That was only done on the early lot -As. The Soviets (unlike the Marines) figured out that they operated from unprepared fields about never, and the design added more problems than it solved. It is an easy way to tell the ancient as gently caress -A from the later models though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Sorta, it's the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah now that I think about it that makes sense. For some reason I was thinking the Navy's rules on that were more lenient but I really have nothing concrete to base that on so it's probably not the case. Absolutely more lenient. We land F18s wherever offers 6000' of runway, contract fuel, and the best food/FBO girls. If we're overnighting somewhere it's a little more stringent but not bad. For example in st Louis we go to Spirit of St Louis instead of Scott and in Colorado we prefer Grand Junction over Buckley and/or Colorado Springs. Mostly it has to do with faster turnaround and free food. The pizza at Grand Junction is great, the people love military customers and the visual approach is a much better view. The 18 community is spoiled though because we don't need ground power or huffers. Makes planning easy for cross countries.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
movax posted:F-15/16s can't self-start, or is it more they need the ground power for checking LOX/etc before firing off JFS? I'm sure they can get off the ground completely by themselves. I think they need the power for normal startup procedures, but I'm not 100% on that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Seems like you've all been landing at Scott lately. Had quite a few F18's land there last week. Probably 2 seaters that replaced a perfectly good 15 min of fuel with a WSO. Or they were there for a longer stay. Spirit doesn't have enough security for us to leave the flight line. The other possibility is a ferry with a really draggy configuration. We can always go Scott with spirit as alternate, but we may not have the gas to hit spirit then Scott in a gear down emergency. (Depending on where we come from) Geizkragen fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jan 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:So how do you guys (and the air force) deal with parking a plane at a civilian airport if you're over-nighting? I'm assuming there aren't any security forces guys following you everywhere you go. The only time we overnight anywhere is if it is approved by the appropriate authority (depends, but normally squadron or air wing commander) and the civilian airport has to meet certain security restrictions. There is almost always a pre-approved list and anything not on the list normally requires jumping through your own rear end in a top hat to get approval. It's up to the requesting pilot to provide documentation that the requested field complies. In more than 5 years doing this I have never seen a USN aircraft ferry live ordnance. When we carry live rounds it is specifically to use on that flight on a designated range. In that case we will always plan for military alternates, and if everything goes to poo poo and we land in the middle of nowhere we will not leave the aircraft (like, I don't leave arm's reach and nobody else gets near me) until the qualified people arrive to safe and secure the aircraft. We do often carry inert/training ordnance (captive carry weapons that can only leave the jet by jettisoning in an emergency: meaning you couldn't arm the jet and release the weapon) but even then we're going to military fields for 1)security (don't want someone stealing even our practice toys) and 2)to avoid causing unsuspecting Joe Public to freak out and call the media about us preparing for an imminent terror attack on their town. (This has happened) I had this happen to me once: diverted as an emergency aircraft to a not-secure-enough field with ordnance on the jet. Thankfully the brain trust on the boat had the sense to send someone with me so we could take turns on watch in the cold, dark night while the other person slept in a nearby hotel. It was not fun. Edit: If you intend on taking a jet somewhere out of the ordinary (air shows, static displays for veterans groups, whatever the excuse) and you can't find an ANG unit nearby that you can bribe with alchohol you're a moron and don't deserve to go.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Yeah basically what I was getting at, just didn't feel like typing it all out on my tablet. Well the USMC was never down with the Growler for the same reason they are still overworking the poo poo out of their maintainers while rocking dogged out A-Ds and Harriers: they have a mental block for all things E-G related and buying a single Super Hornet airframe would be an admission of their poor planning and subsequent reliance on Navy airframes, parts and EW support.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 14:41
|
|
As EW guy and patch wearer to boot I'm sort of frustrated with the state of EW in DoD. EA-6B pods are old as poo poo and showing their age. Hanging them off a Super Hornet airframe is really a band-aid fix when you get right down to it. EW is a huge force multiplier and it seems like DoD is really just letting it languish. To my mind hanging pods on an F-35 is beyond stupid. I really wish USAF and USMC would've gotten on board with the Growler and then we maybe would've had a more unified push towards a next gen jamming pod. In all honesty though a good deal of the EW mission could be handled via UAV, especially close in stuff, but again that's going to require some serious technology advancement on the jammer side of the house.
|
Very Ace Combat. I know why Boeing is doing that but without unlimited funds that's never getting flight/release tested. It's just...insane. It's like that Buff photo with all the ordnance laid out in front, except on the airplane.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I think the moral questions raised by drone warfare will necessitate a lot stricter control of weapons deployment and decision making by cool heads, which is an improvement on the current system of a pilot jacked up on amphetamines deciding an entire squad of allied soldiers are enemies even though he's being told they are friendly. If you seriously think that drones and their operators, separated by all the psychological barriers inherent with those platforms, are more discriminate than me and my ability to used staged escalation of force (even while I am 'jacked up on amphetamines') based upon one hosed up example then you need to pay attention to the ongoing debate about armed drone use and how indiscriminate it actually is. There are so many steps before we get to kinetic employment. Many of them not available to the drones in use today. People make mistakes. People operating drones make mistakes too. For you to suggest that the guy sitting that far removed from danger staring through a camera has a better grasp on things than me directly overhead talking in real time to the ground bubbas is insulting. I can't count the number of times I supported guys who had a pred/reaper overhead because my eyeballs and in person assessment of what some chuckle gently caress is doing with his shovel on the side of a road is a more certain way to determine that that Afghani farmer gets to see his family again instead of fitting some ridiculous profile and getting smoked for planting his crops, or that a group of kids are playing a game in a treeline and not maneuvering towards a mounted patrol. Eo/ir has its limitations and if your first option is hellfire because you can't use the presence of your defenseless drone to get in close and look or buy a reaction then you will destroy a lot of lives needlessly. Sorry. I feel sort of strongly about this...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
gently caress cargo shifts. I know people who died like that in a C2 crash off the boat. Goddamn that sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
As someone who flies aircraft on and past the limits of controlled flight all the time, I would say that there looks like nothing resembling controlled flight towards the end of that flight. I'm sure they were trying to fly it. Nobody gives up there, not with the ground staring at you like that.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:
No And where are you getting the info about the Kitty being a good AWACS?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 18:27
|
|
