|
Godholio posted:No, that would be "No I am NOT loving hot mic'd!" yes he was "Luger 91 flight, you are cleared for takeoff on runway 13R. ... That guy didn't acknowledge me before taking the active. Write him up." Other guy in the RSU: "Dude, you're sitting on your transmit button."
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
VERTiG0 posted:That's the craziest goddamn thing I've ever read.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
MrChips posted:This might just be my foreign perspective, but why does the Navy even need its own army these days? To my eye, there's so much overlap between the army and the Marines that it doesn't really make sense to have them as two separate entities. Roll the Marines into the army as an army command or a series of divisions or whatever the hell, let them keep their silly uniforms and be done with.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
grover posted:Doctrine-wise, US does not like to deploy amphibious ready groups for peacetime low-intensity/flag-waving missions without at least some protective air support. I'm pretty sure it's cheaper to deploy 4 F-35Bs with each ARG than to commission the additional 13 CVNs required to escort all those ARGs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The ride can be a bit rough in a refueling aircraft. Like "oh that dude with a thousand hours just puked in his glove" rough. H. T. F. U.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Yes, transport height landing gear, unimproved strips, and fighter-style underwing engine intakes. Nothing can possibly go wrong. A better idea would be to do B-1 style signature management without going balls out and trying to design a transport that can go in on the first night of the war unescorted. I'm sure AFSOC would love that, but it's a capability that is going to go unused 99% of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Madurai posted:When's the last time the unimproved strip capacity was used? Beaten, but the answer is: pretty much all the time. Also comes in handy then you have to land places that are technically "airports" but are mainly used by the locals as junkyards/animal pastures.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:e: So you all should check out this ppt featuring pictures of the Naval Aviation heritage paint schemes. I know there's a couple that aren't depicted there (VX-9's, for starters although that one apparently wasn't an "official" heritage scheme and was just done up by the unit) but it is a pretty good round up. I think my favorite has to be the P-3 scheme that is identical to the scheme that the first P-3s were delivered in. Those two- and three-tone Orca schemes are baller as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Ola posted:I wonder which limbs the fighter pilot will lose for that one. Koesj posted:None. Something tells me this wasn't a contractor, and a national doing lead-in will have some pull. Haha, yeah. Ten bucks says it turns out to be someone with the word "Prince" before his name and the Emirati aviation authority quickly finds the 777 crew fully at fault.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Never fails. "Oh wow, this land right off the end of the runway is so cheap! I can't believe no one has noticed this rock-bottom price, I must be a genius at real estate. I'mma build my condo there!" *six months later* "The government flies planes over my house all day and night and it's too loud and I'm a taxpayer, I pay their salaries and I have rights!  "
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Huh. That's cool. Didnt know that TR wasn't factored into the data. The E-3 does have a totally awesome anti-skid system. It's pretty sweet landing on an RCR 10 runway and watching the lights flicker like crazy. evil_bunnY posted:It'd be kind of ironic to not make your landing after en engine loss. Uh...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
grover posted:How is tanker fuel metered/handled budget-wise? Can't imagine the pilot has to cut a funding document from the cockpit every time he/she wants fuel... holocaust bloopers posted:-135 crews just love to be like, "Hey AWACS..... so we lost our activity and need to mosey on home. How about you take 60k of gas so we can just get out of here?! TTTTHHHAAANNNKKKSSSS!"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Haha you can be honest here. It's no secret that tankers try really hard to get the gently caress out of AR track and back home in record time.  I had to carry an extra 60k" is less than nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
grover posted:Both, actually. How's it work? Well, as I said, for training purposes, the tanker units track receiver units and bill them based on how the mission is coded. TDYs and large exercises may come out of a different fund site. I think this is actually implemented as a module of the scheduling software we use, but I'd need to ask someone in finance to find out for sure and gently caress that. Overseas contingency operations are funded by   authorizing a   season lightly   (Congressmen never actually read this part)   is disbursed to individual units in the supported command based on    then ∑  {black magic goes here} x  = you dump a billion dollars in a hole in the desert, cover it with JP-8, and light it the gently caress on fire
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I'd love to see what the full interior of something like the Tu-160 or a B1-B or B2 looked like.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
Might Die
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Have a drone survival guide. Pretty simple but pretty neat. I had no idea how many types of drones we have in service. You can pay for it on aluminum or you can download the pdf for free and print it out yourself. It's almost insulting, really. "Oh, those poor ethnics in Pakistan have been living under the shadows of Obama's immoral drone war for over a decade. If only they had a Dutch technocrat to tell them about shiny materials!" Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Has anybody ever flown airliners in close formation? Powercube posted:Sometimes the South Africans do it  EDIT: Tables. Click for huge.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Cessna 172 or a Piper Cub. If you're a DIY type, a Vans RV kit can be a cheap option.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
lushka16 posted:My grandfather was a navigator in the following aircraft: What was Russian navigator training like? How did the selection, instruction, schoolhouse operate? What was their primary means of fixing? (Cell, dead reckoning, navaids, radar, visual?) What was their interaction with the rest of the crew like? How did they cope with navigation at extreme northern latitudes? (Did they use the same Grid nav system as the USAF?) Did he save any of his old charts?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Hey, Polymerized Cum, you don't have PMs, so: what's the process like to become a flying medic? Is it easier to get the flying or the medic part first?Plinkey posted:This and they also fly around Palmdale a few times a week. NASA has their own white U2 flying every once in a while. Well, there was until it became increasingly clear the Global Hawk wasn't meeting its promised capability milestones.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:And if he diverted that pilot would have done the right thing legally but probably would've gotten fired for pissing off such a big name client as Bieber. hobbesmaster posted:(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
bolind posted:Just finished plowing through Sled Driver. Man, what a crazy, crazy aircraft. I'm surprised most of the pictures were taken by the author, in the cockpit. I would've imagined that wouldn't be allowed. You're not supposed to, mainly because they'd like you to focus on flying the plane rather than taking cool pictures of yourself, but as long as you make sure nothing sensitive is in the frame it's generally tolerated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
grover posted:The US combat tested a lot of prototype UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, we didn't. I'd love to hear what "a lot" you're thinking of. Using something in combat for the first time is not the same thing as using a prototype.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
grover posted:"A lot" as in %-wise of the UAVs developed during that time period. The Global Hawk is the most public example; DARPA bought the thing and threw it right into afghanistan. IIRC, they just flew the gently caress out of all the prototypes until they failed, usually about the time the next was ready, and then flew that and kept going.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
So here's a thing I saw recently: Textron Scorpion. It's so adorably tiny 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
It's the 21st century now, and people need to stop thinking that a gun is a viable primary weapon system for a combat aircraft. Also,  at the 6,100 lbs max takeoff weight. No, that isn't missing a zero.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
There's a reason most of the Crusader's kills were with Sidewinders, and that the design was a dead end. Or were you misunderstanding the meaning of "primary"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The vast majority of combat aircraft see these days is air to ground and cannon certainly works there. Cannon in a ground attack role aren't realistically useful against any but the most beaten down and dirt poor of enemies, and it is a poor decision to base our aircraft acquisitions on the idea that the enemy won't fight back. There are a few reasons for this. First, strafing has essentially zero adverse weather capability, and buying an aircraft that is only meant to use its main weapons when the weather cooperates is velcro-shoes retarded in a world where SDBs and JDAM are a thing. Now, you might be able to fly below the weather, but that gets into our second problem, the tyranny of slant range. Most aircraft rotary cannon, even the vaunted GAU-8 AVENGER, have an effective slant range of around 1-2 miles, which puts them inside the effective range of virtually every SHORAD system developed in the last 40 years. This isn't even addressing the huge advancements in tactical & strategic SAMs since the SA-2/3 combo ruled the roost. Aircraft in Allied Force had to operate above an altitude restriction to stay out of the low altitude air defense threat. An aircraft built around strafing is going to be useless, or at best severely hampered in that environment. You know, assuming you aren't willing to accept daily double digit attrition of your CAS assets. *There are a few other extremely notable exceptions. Also worth mentioning here that even AFSOC is looking at transitioning away from cannons on their gunships towards more PGMs. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
I know the Wombats are still rocking a 30mm. They're also way more capable than the Harvest Hawk in a lot of ways. Last I heard the J model gunship weapons hadn't been 100% pinned down yet. The AF.mil fact sheet says they're keeping the 105mm cannon, but I know they were looking at replacing it with a mortar at one point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
simplefish posted:King Airs also fire Hellfire missiles I'd be interested in seeing a source on this, I haven't heard of it before. holocaust bloopers posted:Serious question. Any talk of the USAF looking to pack a rail gun type weapon on an AC-130? I know that's sci-fi poo poo that Grover pounds off too at night considering the immense power requirements. Not until we perfect batteries with a higher energy density than chemical propellants.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Cessna Caravan with hellfires Snowdens Secret posted:Also, the USAF went through a long phase of trying to co-opt Navy language. Partially this was just an attempt to co-opt the gravitas of a ship's captain, commodore, or admiral of the high seas. But especially in the '50s you had all this sci-fi that future war was, actually, going to be fought with battleship-sized rockets with crews in the hundreds, hurling atom bombs at each other from a hundred miles up, as a techy fantastic skyborne version of the Battle Of Trafalgar. Cue money being dumped into Martin Seamasters, Regulus missiles, and the USS United States.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Was pilot survivability ever considered when designing stuff like the "two AIM-9s, one M61, no radar" F-16 or the "one GAU-8, nothing else" SC ARES thing? The only way I see those concepts making sense is in some sort of AI controlled massive swarm thing, where they're cheap and unmanned, and nobody cares if you lose most of them getting close enough to use their weapons. The threat environment of the time was much different as well. The SA-10, MiG-29 and AA-11 didn't start showing up until the 80's, and the SA-14 and SA-6 were just starting to come on line. Early Warsaw Pact tactical SAMs had a poor record against aircraft with countermeasures, (which were in the F-16 from the start,) and scary, mobile strategic SAMs that could reach out and slap planes out of DCA orbits hadn't been fielded yet. Warsaw Pact tactical fighters of the era were the MiG-23, MiG-21 & Su-15. The F-16 could compete against the MiG-23, especially in a DCA role, but the big feature was that it completely outclassed the MiG-21 generation of fighters, and could be bought in sufficient numbers to effectively neutralize them. Even if the F-16 had to be pushed on the offensive, we would do what we did in Vietnam and protect the package with dedicated SEAD and ECM aircraft. No one ever really thought about it in a disposable "lol zergling rush" way. Or at least, no more disposable than literally every other air asset in the NATO European forces. The SC ARES is still retarded though. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:You're right that the original ADF/LWF/ACF program spec always called for a very small ranging radar, but that doesn't mean the fighter mafia was happy about it. The LWF was supposed to be their chance to "get it right" with that daytime only 2xAIM-9 and a Vulcan armed fighter after the USAF had (in their words) "hosed it up" by turning the F-X into a gold plated overweight not maneuverable enough piece of crap (that has just managed to rack up a 105-0 kill ratio and was the most dominant air superiority fighter in the world for a quarter century). quote:Friendly reminder that the USAF's own loss rate predictions in a major theater war in Western Europe had at least 50 A-10s getting shot down a day, with the entire fleet gone within two weeks. Davin Valkri posted:How well would a countermeasure launcher have worked with no radar warning receiver or similar to track incoming missiles? Would the pilot just have to hope he saw the launch trail before using them manually? Because right now this thing sounds like it would have been a "sci-fi bad guy henchman vehicle" level of deathtrap. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Flikken posted:I liked the part when Charlotte ATC tried to get him to shoot down SF choppers after 9/11.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Geoj posted:I would expect the majority of the airgoing public to have a visceral bad reaction to the pilots not having a window to look out of, not really understanding that they fly by instrument for the majority of the flight anyways. That will probably kill this concept faster than any regulatory agency's refusal to sign off on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:When I worked in flight safety I would get to hear about all of those ludicrous complaints. My favorite one was some elderly lady out in the sticks of Fairbanks, AK who repeatedly complained that an AWACS pilot (she would read the names on the side of the jet and since we only flew two jets she kept catching the same one) was attempting to kill her dogs by flying low over her place.  : "Yes, hello, I'm sorry to have to call. I support our forces, and every thing you do. I'm used to the planes coming over my house, but they came over especially low today, and it was so loud it made my dog wee!"RAF: "Well, ma'am there are a lot of planes flying today. Are you sure it was one of ours?" : "Well, it was grey, it had two engines, it was definitely a fighter... and it had a [roman numeral redacted] on the tail."RAF:  "Ok ma'am, definitely one of ours, we'll have a word with the pilot."For reference, this is how big the Squadron markings are on RAF Tornadoes:  Think about how close you'd have to be to read that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Radiohead71 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZRKm6PG918 All I can hear is a long horn followed by a monotone voice saying, "BANK ANGLE, BANK ANGLE... MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:Going to work this into the next trivia contest. "What was the last American military aircraft built without on-board radar?" hobbesmaster posted:Probably actually the T-52. Apparently the U-28 actually has a weather radar which was my other guess. Depends if you go from first flight or IOC. It might be one of the trainers, but a lot of those are designed and flying with civilians or other nations well before we buy them. If not those, it's probably the MQ-9 or some sort of helo, I can't remember if we've bought any new ones lately.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I always wondered why there wasn't an anti AWACS ARM missile
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 06:14
|
|