|
Those dang Russians have apparently taken delivery of their first handful of SU-35S, this is apparently the 2nd serial numbered one: Definitely intimidating. AESA radar, glass cockpit, sustained supercruise and it sports the latest long range AA-12s. That said, if you add every example of every variant of plane that can be considered a "Super Flanker", the Russians only have 11 of them, including 3 SU-35S. Some sources say that the contract is for 48 to be delivered by 2015, but we'll see if that happens. More photos here.
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Mar 25, 2025 19:09 |
|
|
 Apparently, this is one of the leading competitors for the Army's next camo pattern. Am I the only one who thinks this looks a bit...off? Like something I'd buy at a paintball shop?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
I don't have a copy of Jane's readily available, but I'd recommend checking eastern European/former bloc countries and their exports for that configuration. For some reason, Serbia comes to mind when I look at it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
I've heard those things are really hard to fly. They have this weird niche in their performance envelope at like Mach 1.8 where you can stall the engine out and die, pretty much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the incident I was thinking of. As I recall he basically took the thing out on a joyride without telling anyone or planning it out and it killed him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Fresh from Syria, specifically Darayya, yesterday: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=91e_1358349215 Looks to be a pair of T-64s awkwardly fitted with with ERA. Probably an offensive decision rather than a defensive decision as I've heard that Soviet ERA packages tended to protect the tank at the cost of shredding anyone nearby. Also, note at 1:18 that the guy throws some kind of pistol out of the window. It almost looks like a Tokarev, but it has some kind of weird barrel extension.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
The Marines did that during Phantom Fury II. Insurgents in a building? Tank nearby? BOOM
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
ded posted:Some crazy rear end angles of attack in an F-22. I love that the F-22 can do the original Battlestar Galactica thing, which is basically slowing almost to a stop and doing a 180.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
quote:Get ready sheep, arm yourselves or be enslaved. The war is coming.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21307208 The Iranian Air Force has unveiled their game-changing, IDF-stopping stealth fighter on state TV for the first time. It appears to be a 1/2 scale model...on the ground. I think that the thing you see flying in the video is a large RC aircraft. The takeoff/landing was not filmed. I mean, this isn't unheard of. In the 60s they used to make 1/2 scale airplanes to fly in war movies, those look pretty drat convincing on low-res TV. The Ju88 Stukas in The Battle of Britain are examples. The Iranians are pretty well known for sewing together working aircraft from old spare parts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Click For Big Higher resolution image. Ho-lee poo poo. Look at that thing. The canopy is obviously low-quality plastic. The paint job doesn't look great. Got another, much smaller:  It's adorable. Interestingly enough, the ejection seat warning there is written in English, something I would not at all expect in Iran. I found another high-res image as a Google image pull from Freep of all places, but it won't let me re-host it. You can see that the "WARNING" stencils on the sides are not symmetrical. Red Crown fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
 ~airpower~ Oh who am I kidding, this is awesome. vasnote: use imgur or some other image site, you doofus. Somebody fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Feb 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
War...has changed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
The Russian Air Force is basically...a skeleton crew. They have about a dozen Flankers, three dozen MiG-29s...it's high quality hardware, but they don't have very much of it, and they don't maintain it very well. The entire Russian military basically subsists on Vodka and hazing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:
It can also mean "Yeah, that's not gonna happen" as a snippy response to a request.  Note the glowbelts on the machine guns
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the Syrians have one of the largest and most advanced chemical weapons stockpiles around, so it would surprise me if they decided to start using it for what appears to be a very small engagement. That, or they're testing the waters to see if the President will actually do something about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
 My Cobra waifu~~~
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Limp Wristed Limey posted:They came very close to winning. One exocet hitting the right ship would have meant a complete loss. Losing the Atlantic Conveyor was pretty devastating but losing the Hermes or Invincible would have been game over. Granted they would not have been able to land any more men or equipment by sea because of the submarines but we would not have been able to provide any air defence. Maybe, maybe not. We were fully prepared to give them the Iwo Jima crewed by American "contractors" in the event one of their carriers got knocked out of the fight. It wouldn't have been a 1:1 replacement, but it would have been enough if it had been deployed rapidly.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Christoff posted:Yeah the giving them a carrier with retired sailor contractors familiar with the ship is just verbatim from Wikipedia. Not saying that's where he got it but yeah No, I've read that somewhere reliable, I forget exactly where, though. The plan was actually very Cold War style probably-technically-legal: The entire crew of the Iwo Jima would be "retired" and then immediately re-hired as "contractors", I forget if they would be U.S. government employees or work for a shell company. Basically, it would have been the flimsiest of pretenses to deploy the Iwo Jima under command of whoever was in charge of the British task force. As I recall, we had the paperwork ready and everything. Someone was asking after a good read on the war, I recommend Max Hastings' The Battle for the Falklands.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
It wouldn't surprise me if the heart eater guy was from an extremist group. I think Steven Pinker said it best: If you follow an ideology that says that a utopia is at the end of the conflict if you win, then you are fighting for something that can do an infinite amount of good. Therefore, anyone who opposes you is standing in the face of something infinitely good and therefore must be evil. By extension, whatever means you "need" to take justify the infinitely good ends. Mass killings of civilians, executions, and cutting a dude's heart out become justifiable. Pinker theorized that this is a big part of the reason why average people were willing to carry out horrific brutality in the name of say, Mao's Cultural Revolution, or Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
BaconAndBullets posted:Any open source stuff on that? Despite being an infantryman the world of submarines has always interested me deeply. Must say besides "Blood Makes the Grass Grow Green", "Blind Man's Bluff" was my favorite closing out Iraq deployment read. This is the best I got for you Beyond that, all I know is that the Carter is the Special Operations boat, and anyone I've asked about it has just said "we don't talk about that", even if it isn't necessarily classified.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpZ79FXs-eI
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Pretty offensive to our Moslem brothers in arms, IMO Our options are kind of this (shitstorm), tinpot dictators, or actually caring enough to put half a million troops in the region. We did the dictator thing for a while and it tended to work. They kept the water running, bread on the table, and a monopoly on violence. The Sunni/Shi'ia divide is perfectly bridgable, all you have to do is be willing to kill anyone who has power and isn't part of the single party. A lot of people are pessimistic about ever bringing Western-style guarantees of rights and non-tyrannical government to that region, stating that the culture is just too far removed from ours to be receptive to it. I don't think that's the case. I think citizens of Arab states just realize that elected governments in the region tend to be unable to consolidate enough power to have even a majority of control in a state, some don't even have a plurality of control (Yemen comes to mind). Divided control leads to lack of infrastructure which makes people hungry which makes them not care about ideals (which is why Egypt's Army, the thug/enforcer arm of the Mubarak criminal state, was recently welcomed back into power with open arms)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
I believe the aircraft you are looking for is this: But if F-16s are more your bag, then try F-16CJ:  Or, you can fly Navy and do tactical electronic warfare the way it was meant to be done:  I've got a huge soft spot for electronic warfare aircraft. My dad worked the back seat in both the Prowler and the Whale. The EA-3 is an often forgotten aircraft. It wasn't fast, efficient, or good looking, but dammit it existed: 
Red Crown fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What's that thing on the centerline hardpoint on the F-16CJ and why is that a single seater and not a two-seater? Because Air Force, basically. The USAF had absolutely no desire to replace the F-4G and was content to let the Navy handle SEAD and other tactical electronic warfare missions for the most part. The USAF has a disdain for two seat fighter aircraft, and has avoided making them whenever possible. Rather than contract a new airframe for SEAD or buy EA-6Bs, the USAF decided to add some wiring and pods to F-16C. As far as I know, since the F-16CJ has no ECMO it isn't useful for much more than straight up SEAD, it lacks much of the versatility of EA-18G/EA-6B.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
DinosaurWarfare posted:It wasnt an agreement on behalf of the USAF to give EW to the USN and supply CSOs for growlers? After retiring the Spark Vark and the F-4G, the Air Force decided it was going to press hard on F-22 at the expense of basically everything else. I don't think there was any agreement with the Navy about picking up the slack. Hydrolith posted:On the subject of special forces, here is a documentary on the selection course for the Australian SAS. Speaking as a civilian, it looks incredibly loving brutal. Yeah, SOF training literally kills people from time to time. BUD/S does, and I think as recently as earlier this summer there was a bit of a row over UK SAS training killing 4 candidates in one class. NZ SAS after their now famous pitched gunfight in a Kabul hotel: 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
zombie303 posted:What are drop tanks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UcaOwtiD5w&t=24s
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Dammit_Carl! posted:Not to downplay our wars of today, but WW1 was a meat grinder on a whole higher level than I think we could ever comprehend today, if at all. The Russians would routinely sacrifice entire divisions to cover their retreat. In May 1915, the Germans launched a small-ish attack on the Polish front at a couple places called Gorlice and Tarnów. The Russians instantly collapsed, losing as many as 400,000 soldiers dead in a month. Before the end of the fighting season, they would suffer a total of 1.5 million casualties, with the Germans losing a "mere" 200,000 dead. So yeah, you're right, I don't think we really can understand what that looks like these days. At least, not that many dead in such a short time. WWI produced literal piles of skulls, much like this one: 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Mar 25, 2025 19:09 |
|
|
The Navy knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn’t. By subtracting where it is from where it isn’t, or where it isn’t from where it is (whichever is more expensive), it obtains an acquisition program. OPNAV uses acquisition to generate corrective commands to drive the Navy from a position where it is to a position where it isn’t, and arriving at a position where it wasn’t, and now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn’t, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn’t. In the event that the position that the Navy is in is not the position that it wasn’t, the service has acquired a budget shortfall, the shortfall being the difference between where the Navy is, and where it wasn’t. If budgetary shortfall is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the OSD. However, the Navy must also know where it was. The Navy planning process works as follows. Because a budget shortfall has modified some of the information the Navy has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn’t, within reason, and knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn’t, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn’t be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the acquisition program despite the budget shortfall. This is called “strategy.” 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 21:56
|
|