SybilVimes posted:

Nebakenezzer posted:

Help would be appreciated if you can hook a brother up with PDF files off of jstor or some such

iyaayas01 posted:

33 Airline Posters from Flying's Golden Age

Pretty cool slideshow from the NYT

Midjack posted:

Mirage IV : Mirage V :: New Coke : Coke Classic

Midjack posted:

I do know, which is why I said "attributed to the IC" rather than simply "gently caress the CIA." Also note the posted link is a "OUR SPIES SAY HURR" statement so who knows what actually came out of some reports shop.

~Coxy posted:

Last time I was on Emirates I think, I notice that the Schweppes tonic water doesn't even contain quinine. Heathens.

Cat Mattress posted:

Don't try writing in French.

Mortabis posted:

Actual, indisputable best jet:

Nebakenezzer posted:

Heard a little on CBC about that crash out of Sochi; apparently the Tu-154 vanished from radar shortly after takeoff. I'm not sure how much it is worth, but Russian authorities say they are looking at pilot error or mechanical failure over terrorism at this time.

Carth Dookie posted:

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sial/225819?lang=en&region=AU&cm_sp=Insite-_-prodRecCold_xviews-_-prodRecCold10-3

Carth Dookie posted:

What the heck is this? I keep thinking Mig 21, but then there's 2 people in it (and the periscope setup for the backseater makes me think trainer) and the wings are all hosed up and wrong.

RandomPauI posted:

At least the captain never ordered two lines of ships to crash into each other.

That was an admiral sometime around that same time.

Phone posting or I'd find and link.

Wingnut Ninja posted:

I hope he's being sarcastic here, but there's a fantastic shot of an absolutely terrible landing (in-flight engagement) at the 48:23 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUCixAeZ0A&t=2900s

Very neat video, I'll have to check out the other ones when I get a chance.

Dannywilson posted:

Do you mean the OV-10?

hobbesmaster posted:

P-47 "only" had a bomb load of 2500lbs, the jet in that picture (scorpion) claims 9200lbs of armaments.

Modern combat aircraft are huge compared to WWII aircraft.

Jealous Cow posted:

It looks like some kind of Imperial troop transport.

65thagrs posted:

1.
Hi guys! I was lucky enough to fly the F-5E and the F-15C with the 65th AGRS at Nellis. It's good to see the love here for the F-5, I fell completely in love with that airplane myself.
As for the number of active aircraft, there are a LOT of F-15C and D's out there, and quite a few E's (Beagles). So many F-16's you can't help but step on the cute little buggers when you walk through Davis-Monthan. They're almost big enough to be real planes! I would say that 2700 is a good number for active fighter aircraft, and probably that again in airframes that are in storage but are complete and ready to be made mission ready in a very short time- something like three days, if I remember correctly. I would imagine our total number of available fighter aircraft is well north of 5000 airframes, if a little advance notice is possible.

2.
Personally, I think Trump is goading NK into action so we can shut them down...they are a constant threat, and that little Kim Jong-un bastard is loony as hell, so you never know what or when he is going to do anything. I'd rather force his hand now, and deal with him, than wait until he is much better prepared for war and then have him come at us with little warning.

65thagrs posted:

Sure, what would you like to know? Flight training was easy for me, as I entered OTS already an ATP with about 5000 hours and a handful of biz jet type ratings. I had flown airshows and competed in aerobatic competition, so BFM/ACM was actually quite sedate compared to my experience.
The academic portion of UPT (I actually went through Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) at Sheppard AFB) was tough, just based on the sheer quantity of new things we had to learn- I don't know how guys with no prior flight experience manage, it kicked my rear end.
I finished second, and only wanted F-15C's...that was my goal. NO slots were open. I ended up a faip (first assignment instructor pilot) for 36 months, back in tweets (T-37s) and talons (T-38s). At first I was really down about it, I had worked my rear end off to get the bird I wanted and then got stuck in Del-loving-rio...but as it turned out, I loved it. I went through the PIT, at Randolph AFB, which was a blast (pilot instructor training) and was actually sad to go, at the end, but I ended up with an F-15C slot.
I love the F-15, I wish they would keep them flying and go with the Silent Eagle upgrade, the plane is amazing. It is so easy to fly, I could teach a 100 hour Cessna 152 pilot to solo it in about an hour's worth of pattern work. It leaves us plenty of mental room for fighting the plane, as flying it is about as simple as is possible.
I ended up, eventually, at Nellis. My time with the 65th is the best part of my life. We got to fly a lot more than most fighter jocks did, and we flew simulated combat, on the Nellis range- which is a marvel of sophistication. Every vehicle has a transponder attached that allows NACTS (Nellis Air Combat Training System) to know everything about it. Simulated missile shots are calculated by the computer, based on the conditions under which it was fired- was it within it's firing parameters, and if so, to what degree, etc. Hits and misses are recorded by the computer, along with probability of a kill or amount of damage inflicted...it is, well...just completely bad-rear end, to be quite honest.
I got to fly the F-5E, which we use for DACT (Dissimilar aerial combat training) and I loved that plane...not the powerhouse that the Eagle is, but it flies beautifully, is probably the most gorgeous fighter ever built, and frankly, I waxed a lot of cocky F-16 pilots' fannies with it. They SHOULD have beaten me, which really twists the knife.

I wish I could fly the F-5A, just to see what the original version of the plane was like. The E variant changed a great deal about the plane, and I'm curious how the initial operational model flew.

I see I have skipped over a lot of things, but this is the general outline. What exactly would you like to hear about?

Nice piece of fish posted:

How "built up" was Sweden really? I know about some of the bunker stuff, but even as a neigbouring nation I don't think we're really privvy to even all of the rumors.

At the same time, the russians must know something we don't because they seem to be much more worried about Sweden than us or Finland. Or heck, maybe it's just that the swedes are more or maybe it's just the swedes are the only ones picking up on the russian intel war against scandinavia

Military intelligence works seems very stressful.

mlmp08 posted:

mlmp08 posted:

This plane is not a looker, but how am I not going to post such a weird trijet?

TheFluff posted:

The Swedish datalink system for transmitting radar targets from ground installations to fighters did so with 103-bit data packets transmitted over a 3000 bits/second tone signaling system, starting in 1962. The packets were addressed to a specific fighter, so a single link controlling 30 fighters would have enough bandwidth for one update per second for each of them. It was completely unencrypted but had simple jamming and spoofing resistance in that the receiver antennas on the aircraft could be set to a directional mode focused to the rear, the idea being that the interceptor would almost always be between the ground installation and the approaching target.

One of these days I'll finish the effortpost about it I have sitting half-written on my computer at home, I promise...