AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

«‹›16 »

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

NosmoKing posted:

Watch the video, especially at the end. The sprint missile fuckin' MOVED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vq4mWyYl2Y

Hahaha it makes stuff like THAAD looks so slow and piddly. First stage ignition -> 100g kick in the pants -> :byewhore:

evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Dec 16, 2010

# ¿ Dec 16, 2010 13:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:11

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Cyrano4747 posted:

edit: it also helps that Midway is a battle where, on paper, the US should have had it poo poo shove in. I don't know how true this is or not, but I've heard from more than one source that it's a favored scenario at USN tabletop wargames and that the side assigned the US has yet to win it since the actual battle.

On paper before you consider crypto failures maybe. Once you take that into account, you have the US basically knowing what where and when to expect from the imperial fleet, who was advancing blind as a bat.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2012 13:09

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

movax posted:

I was a sad child when I realized my Lego ships would sink to the bottom

If you nerds had listened when the teacher taught about displacement you'd have stuck bubble wrap in the hulls like the cook kids.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2013 17:37

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

There's also the problem that mainland would poo poo an atomic brick if the republic confirmed they had nukes.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2013 17:16

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

TISEO can't laze poo poo, it's just an optical system (TV sensor behind a x10 zoom lens).

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 12:42

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Rogers got a legion of merit out of it too

# ¿ Mar 12, 2013 04:14

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

It allows the AF to maintain its pilot-boner a while longer. You only need to look at crash statistics to realize why this is a bad idea.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2013 17:40

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Hagel just put that under review.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2013 17:47

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

StandardVC10 posted:

The basic problem was also an influence on the Harrier and other much less conventional ideas.

I don't understand what's not to like when you have planes that are basically designed from the ground up to climb like hell and shoot bombers.

e: the problem was that instead of using it for intercepts, they did it by first trying to land tailhook-equipped jets on air mattresses (with predictable results, obviously) then devised a plan that involved trucking nuclear bombers around the country side.

evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Apr 1, 2013

# ¿ Mar 31, 2013 23:52

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

MrYenko posted:

with decent search radar, you're going to know about inbound aircraft early enough that you don't need to panic-launch your interceptors from giant roman candles, in the first place.

But but but ballistic interceptor!

# ¿ Apr 1, 2013 00:01

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

It gets Israel nothing but the assurance that whatever conventional war they're fighting is now irrelevant.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2013 08:48

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Low RCS won't loving help when you have an exhaust plume the size of the Empire State Building.

# ¿ May 14, 2013 11:07

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

He probably meant in Russia's sphere of influence. It'll be a cold day in hell before Putin orders poo poo from Sikorsky.

# ¿ May 18, 2013 16:44

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

grover posted:

And soon, the F-35.

"soon"

# ¿ Jun 9, 2013 14:39

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

movax posted:

I think the F-5/T-38 were pretty painless programs, IIRC.

Completely unambitious though. Also not naval.

NightGyr posted:

Was there any trouble with the F/A-18 or the Super Hornet? As far as I know, they never ran into major snags or cost overruns.

Someone is going to yell "BUDDY STORES" but the superbug still has supershort legs.

evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jun 11, 2013

# ¿ Jun 11, 2013 20:19

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Phanatic posted:

Starstreak. Laser-guided hit-to-kill MANPAD.

You still need a dude to keep lasing the target using a mk1 eyeball and a joystick. Good luck hitting a low flying jet with that.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 01:52

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Team B was a bunch of jingoistic psychos, so no wonder.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 16:50

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

iyaayas01 posted:

the post I promised on nuclear strategy waaaaaaay back near the start of the thread that was.

Buddy you don't even know how happy this makes me.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2013 00:47

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Strange loving day when a Marine Corps commandant tells you to hold your loving horses.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2013 17:05

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Snowdens Secret posted:

We're in a bit of a Catch-22 where we'd really like more allies helping with subsurface patrol roles, and they need modern, capable, high-endurance boats (I.e. not the Collins class) to do so. But this means possibly entrusting high-grade sneakytech to nations with less-than-stellar data protection history. This is sort of the same conundrum as with the F-22.

Much like with the F-35, canada would do well to reevaluate their needs. Type 212 are a dime a dozen.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2013 16:38

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

FrozenVent posted:

There could be an argument that nuclear subs would help maintaining sovereignty in Arctic waters in the winter months. You couldn't pay me enough to take that job, but there's the idea.

Modern conventionals can already cruise for weeks and weeks.

Cyrano4747 posted:

If your coast guard doesn't have a military or law enforcement mission what the gently caress do they do?

Fish and game stuff?

In a lot of places (including most of the old world), the coast guard is basically life guards with boats.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2013 02:00

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

FrozenVent posted:

Submerged?

Yeah. 3 weeks on 212's.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2013 09:56

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Bobcats posted:

Who has to retire before Drone Air Force activates?

Every AF officer ever?

# ¿ Aug 8, 2013 00:43

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

gfanikf posted:

So what is current US doctrine for supporting an opposed amphibious assault?

Pound them in the butt until it's an unopposed amphibious assault.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2013 15:35

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Mortabis posted:

And yet our air defense systems are still pretty much as they were in the 80s aren't they? Like isn't US Army tactical ADA pretty much just stingers?

Have you heard of patriot? I think it's pretty good.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 08:57

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Sjurygg posted:

Why is the NASAMS in use specifically around the DC area? I mean, it's kind of cool that they're using a system from teeny lil' us to protect the airspace around the capitol and the white house, but why not just use Patriot which is well-known, pervasive, well battle-tested and indigenous?

PAC-3 doesn't have a warhead?

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 13:09

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

StandardVC10 posted:

Well at least that's pretty.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 23:04

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Phanatic posted:

It wasn't fixed a couple of months later. That article you link to there is June of '12, a year after the problem was publicized in the 2011 quick-look. In April of '13, Lockheed was still "promising" a fix:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lockheed-promises-tailhook-fix-to-navys-f-35c/

You mean grover be misrepresentin'?

Snowdens Secret posted:

Because you don't really increase the number of total jobs, you just spread them out geographically. By definition you're giving work to people who weren't competitive in the first place, sometimes on quality but usually on cost.

Or on presence of state-funded R&D. There's no reason for a sovereign state to buy foreign manufacture instead of license building.

Snowdens Secret posted:

Someone like a Gripen-loving Swede could make the argument that they need to keep domestic industrial capability for national defense

That's exactly what's happening in France, for example.

evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Aug 23, 2013

# ¿ Aug 23, 2013 11:51

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Vindolanda posted:

What's the name of that bomb that throws out anti-tank skeet? Doesn't that basically do what the A-10's gun does (to armour) but from higher and with more adaptability in airframes?

There's a bunch of reasons ground personnel love the A-10 and I can tell you already that if it carried sensor-fused AT weapons, they wouldn't be part of them.

atomicthumbs posted:

let's just make a few more A-1 Skyraiders, put rear-facing GAU-8s in them, fit them with drone hardware, and call it a day

That's AC-130 level performance envelope, and they have the same problem the A-10 does but squared.

evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Sep 27, 2013

# ¿ Sep 27, 2013 12:19

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Faltion posted:

Maybe someone here can help me out. I'm trying to identify this tank:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/lvta1.htm

# ¿ Sep 27, 2013 12:25

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

They have the VL tubes, so the decision to not include the appropriate SM support in the software suite is just straight retardation.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2013 01:12

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Koesj posted:

Range would be a bit of an issue though, and I can't imagine the FCS could keep up with that many.

100nm less than SM-6, no biggie.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2013 03:11

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

PAC-2 don't come cheap

# ¿ Nov 19, 2013 13:34

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

grover posted:

If they had just been carpet bombed by ICBMs, they'd probably choose to stay underground for a while, but would eventually want to come up when air/water/food/whatever ran out. Any would *probably* not have much help. But all they need to do is open that hatch that's totally there

At that point you'd think a bit of sand would literally be the least of their worries.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2013 15:09

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Boomerjinks posted:

The "Turret Jettison" lever in the B-52 tailgunner position might be the most :metal: thing I've ever seen. Do you think that just drops the gun off, or the entire thing falls away so the gunner can bail?

"On all models of the B-52 up through the B-52F, the gunner rode in the tail of the aircraft, facing aft, and did not have an ejection seat. In order to bailout, he would jettison the entire turret leaving nothing but air in front of him. He could then just lean forward and fall clear of the aircraft. On the B-52G, the gunner and EWO sat side by side, facing aft in the main crew compartment. In this model the gunner did have an ejection seat."

# ¿ Dec 9, 2013 10:21

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

If you were white and not a woman, and didn't farm, sure.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2013 10:57

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Isn't the kh-22 old as balls?

# ¿ Dec 17, 2013 00:00

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Because manpads and HMG.

E: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Dec 27, 2013

# ¿ Dec 27, 2013 01:24

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Snowdens Secret posted:

It makes me wonder if, in a pinch, you could operate an F-35B off a regular ship's helicopter pad, or if it's just too big.

Once, with fire fighting teams hosing it down maybe?

# ¿ Dec 28, 2013 00:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:11

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Snowdens Secret posted:

AIM-9X is infrared only, right? I know it's good, but do the smaller drones put out enough heat?

I remember watching a test firing and the whole target airframe was lit on the seeker feed.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2013 21:22

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

«‹›16 »