|
priznat posted:Some kind of weird horse trading that ends up them having to pay 3x the going rate in the end. ahhh I was wondering why Canada is buying Australia's clapped out F-18s, I didn't realise it's Canada's kink - not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:ahhh I was wondering why Canada is buying Australia's clapped out F-18s, I didn't realise it's Canada's kink - not that there's anything wrong with that. Paying more for less is kind of our thing 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:ahhh I was wondering why Canada is buying Australia's clapped out F-18s, I didn't realise it's Canada's kink - not that there's anything wrong with that. Canada has a long and proud history of loving up procurement. From shovels with holes in them by design, to buying a pre-bugged HQ for the Defense ministry to subs that catch fire. Now I know what you're thinking, what about the F-35 or the QE carriers? But those are developmental products. And loving up procurement of those is easy. No Canada goes for truly difficult. loving up off the shelf purchases.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
Atleast they skipped the arrow though so there may be hope for them one day
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Stravag posted:Atleast they skipped the arrow though so there may be hope for them one day Apparently someone found the complete plans. So I wouldn't rule out them deciding their next big fighter purchase will be 500 Arrows built by Bombardier.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:Canada has a long and proud history of loving up procurement. From shovels with holes in them by design, to buying a pre-bugged HQ for the Defense ministry to subs that catch fire. Now I know what you're thinking, what about the F-35 or the QE carriers? But those are developmental products. And loving up procurement of those is easy. No Canada goes for truly difficult. loving up off the shelf purchases. The Cyclone was the piece de resistance, a commercial product that was also totally unproven in a lot of ways. Perhaps not the worst piece of hardware (although the investigation on the crash in the agean will be interesting) but god drat there were proven options right there, guys. Jeesus.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:04
|
|
|
Mazz posted:To be honest the further we get into the program the more I feel like the F-35C was really the unnecessary one, even compared to the B. I feel like the Navy is veering hard into unmanned search/strike and longer range missiles over more manned fighters... which makes way more sense to me anyway. The F-35B at least fills a novel role elsewhere, I'm not really sure capability the F-35C is going to bring that isn't accomplished better and cheaper by other future Navy/CSG apabilities. Maybe as a sensor for CEC I guess? We're a long, long way from an unmanned platform that would be able to replace the full gamut of what manned fighters do. All of the unmanned stuff in development will be a great complement to manned fighters, but a lot of the most critical functions still require meat in the seat and will for quite some time. As long as we're operating aircraft carriers we're going to have manned fighters operating off them, and that's going to go well past the lifetime of the super hornet.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
I feel the need, the need for speed. Some DCS stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMmsynPSZY 
Steeltalon fucked around with this message at 00:07 on May 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
it is kind of crazy to think about but this is probably the third most capable carrier in the world, maybe the second depending on how well the RN is doing this week (and assuming the CVNs are lumped in as one thing) edit - this is accounting for the capabilities of the air wing in addition to the actual boat
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:it is kind of crazy to think about but this is probably the third most capable carrier in the world, maybe the second depending on how well the RN is doing this week (and assuming the CVNs are lumped in as one thing) From what I can tell as a random guy on the internet with no expertise, the RN carriers have a much larger and more capable air wing and can generate a lot more sorties
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:DR has said repeatedly that FARPs/highway strips are not practical but it is not yet clear to me why. The idea is not new and in fact has been practiced by many militaries including Sweden, Taiwan, Singapore and others. Maybe it doesn't work but I would love an explanation of why all these militaries feel differently. Neither of the above conditions apply to the United States. Hauldren Collider posted:the ability to fly fighters off of amphibious assault ships seems obviously valuable to me. mlmp08 posted:No, that isn’t the justification. It’s that Marines are, compared to the Army, smaller and lighter with a comparative pittance of heavy armor and much less in the way of artillery, so fixed-wing aviation mitigates that lack of capability. mlmp08 posted:And compared to the Air Force, they are more mobile and expected to generate combat power far faster than the USAF can build out new air bases, even assuming it’s politically possible for the USAF to establish basing and you don’t require international waters-based aviation. mlmp08 posted:Most of the ACE is logistic, transport, and tac-ISR, not high end fighters so arguing that the ACE shouldn’t exist is comparable to asking why the army has helicopters or MC-12s or grey eagles. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:37 on May 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why? For what purpose? Hey, my reasons might suck, but you could at least tell me why. piL posted:It'd be cool if there was an F-35 that could operate on an LHA instead of a CVN. Then an ARG could peel off and threaten any length of coast as a flank for either actual invasion or as demonstration operations (ala Desert Storm) without compromising the strike mission of the CSG.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
piL posted:It'd be cool if there was an F-35 that could operate on an LHA instead of a CVN. Then an ARG could peel off and threaten any length of coast as a flank for either actual invasion or as demonstration operations (ala Desert Storm) without compromising the strike mission of the CSG. Oh, and there doesn't appear to be any ASW capability in the ARG either. Now, you could peel those resources off the CBG to go with the ARG, but now you're weakening the CBG to create "a CBG, but much more vulnerable and much less capable." My God, have we found a use for the LCS?! This idea only appears to work if you're going to assault a target with the skimpiest of defenses, in which case it seems like you could get away with using helos and standoff precision fires from other components. Buying/configuring mostly-JSF LHAs and the F-35B so that we can do A Carrier Battle Group, But Worse makes no sense when we have actual carrier battle groups. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:06 on May 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
It's interesting how Marine Corps aviation has everything except dedicated Medevac, which is supplied by the Army and the Navy. The use of the Huey has more to do with its parts commonality with the Cobra, rather than any specific operation aspects of the Huey vs the Black Hawk. The Marines have decided that the streamlined support chain is worth the hit in capability they take by operating the AH-1 and UH-1 versus the Apache and the Black Hawk.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
DR, your arguments would be more readily acceptable if the first start of every scenario wasn’t “Imagine your commanders are the biggest bunch of dumbasses this side a 4chan meetup.” Example: acting like just because a fighter might approach a SAM means the navy is also just cruising blindly toward anti-ship missiles for no good reason. Here, let me do your version for the air force’s tacair. “Ok, so you say you need a USAF stealth strike fighter to fly a few hundred miles and bomb an advanced SAM or do CAS or whatever? Such a foe is likely to have long range precision missiles as well, making your air base obsolete and destroying aircraft on the ground. This is why expeditionary tac-air is stupid and we should instead either invest in mega-carriers for naval aviation to take expeditionary missions or build a long-range air force fleet that is all but purely over the horizon LO strike except for homeland defense interceptors. Additionally, just develop super duper army fires capabilities since fighter jets are super expensive sitting ducks 95% of the time*.” It’s basically take an issue, oversimplify it in a biased way, assume near-absolute incompetence in employment and protection measures, and then hold that up as proof of your correctness. *but we’re actually doing that last one i guess Marines have dedicated medevac. Just not aerial medevac 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let's look closer at this. You're going to send the ARG to engage a target that has the sort of double digit SAM defenses that an F-35 is needed to overcome. Of course, if someone has advanced SAMs, they might have anti-shipping missiles as well, so the F-35s will have to do sea superiority too. The bad guys might have some sort of prepared position to shoot at the Marines from, so the Marine riflemen will want the F-35s to do CAS as well. If you peel the ARG off the CBG, it doesn't have any Aegis shooters, so those F-35s will have to be fleet defense CAP as well, assuming the bad guys have an air force. To review, 6 - 12 F-35s are going to handle SEAD, strike, and ARG protection, and CAS, all at once. Uh, ARGs have organic ASW--that's not a carrier thing? Price of an aircraft carrier: $37.3B / 2 = $18.6B a pop Pirice of 3 LHAs: $10.1B / 3 = 3.36B a pop So at 5.5 LHAs/carrier, we're really looking at more like 33 F-35 but with another 66 MV-22, 22 CH-53K, 38 AH-1Z, and 11 MH-60S (Or slot in some Romeos!) , along with 8800 of your closest friends. Or more likely, you take two with a quantity of F-35 adjusted for mission set and don't take the carrier off station supporting operations in progress to escort an ARG to a beach. Or just generally get a more distributed force for lower intensity and distributed operations.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let's look closer at this. You're going to send the ARG to engage a target that has the sort of double digit SAM defenses that an F-35 is needed to overcome. Of course, if someone has advanced SAMs, they might have anti-shipping missiles as well, so the F-35s will have to do sea superiority too. The bad guys might have some sort of prepared position to shoot at the Marines from, so the Marine riflemen will want the F-35s to do CAS as well. If you peel the ARG off the CBG, it doesn't have any Aegis shooters, so those F-35s will have to be fleet defense CAP as well, assuming the bad guys have an air force. To review, 6 - 12 F-35s are going to handle SEAD, strike, and ARG protection, and CAS, all at once. Oh please, it's all strawmen all the way down. You're argument here depends entirely on some wild command decision matrix where the options are CVBG completely overmatched for the target or an ARG completely undermatched and no in betweens allowed. Like there is no way to mix ad-hoc forces to accomplish a mission set or to temporarily assign assets for a brief intense period and decompose down to a lesser force after that's completed. If the target is big enough and bad enough to be the kind of threat your describing then the CVBG and LBA support come in and knock it down to size. After that's over though you still need to provide sustainment and generally, admirals are adverse to leaving CVBG's sitting in limited operation areas with limited amounts of work to do for long periods. So, you establish a couple of forward airbases and support them with an LHA outside of whatever limited scope of attack OpFor has left, or reinforced such to deal with it, while the CVBG goes around doing expensive big ship things. quote:Buying/configuring mostly-JSF LHAs and the F-35B so that we can do A Carrier Battle Group, But Worse makes no sense when we have actual carrier battle groups. No, wrong. CVBGs are expensive and limited in number. If you have a mission set identified that can be done by a cheaper, smaller, flexible CVBGish force then you acquire that and use it for that purpose. There is a gamut of options between no response and tasking 100 billion dollars worth of assets with 10 billion worth of annual maintenance costs to do something that can be done for 1/5th the cost. quote:cutting the Marines back down to amphibious light infantry and security forces for the Navy would absolutely be a win. If they want to have helos, and some sort of Predator variant that flies off LHAs, fine. It took close to 20 years to field the F35, the light assets you describe are fine for the limited roles you are straw manning today, but what about tomorrow after good quality S300/S400's have proliferated down to every two-bit dictator the US wants to exert pressure on? Do you sheepishly go back to the drawing board and hope to have something in 20 years that you needed today? Today's missions were planned for decades ago and it's only that foresight that lets us accomplish those actions today. Maybe an F-35B is too much today, but the thing is my great grandson could be flying an F-35 in 40 years and you can't wait until you need it to go get it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 02:07
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:Canada has a long and proud history of loving up procurement. From shovels with holes in them by design, to buying a pre-bugged HQ for the Defense ministry to subs that catch fire. Now I know what you're thinking, what about the F-35 or the QE carriers? But those are developmental products. And loving up procurement of those is easy. No Canada goes for truly difficult. loving up off the shelf purchases. I had to look this up, and yep. Impressive. Edit: Murgos posted:It took close to 20 years to field the F35, the light assets you describe are fine for the limited roles you are straw manning today, but what about tomorrow after good quality S300/S400's have proliferated down to every two-bit dictator the US wants to exert pressure on? Do you sheepishly go back to the drawing board and hope to have something in 20 years that you needed today? If you only have a dozen of them, you're still going to need support. That's why the independent air component argument fails to hold water...there aren't enough of them to do anything for more than a few days, and there aren't enough of them to do all the things at the same time for more than an hour or two...and that only lasts as long as you can hot pit them without losing them to maintenance or battle damage. In the situation where the Marines have to go in alone, they basically get one stab with the spear before having to rely on backup. At the heart of the issue is whether you think that stab is worth the cost of the spear. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:29 on May 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I had to look this up, and yep. Impressive. Sam Hughes was a real piece of poo poo, fancied himself as an officer and showing up at camps giving orders etc. A literal noble
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I had to look this up, and yep. Impressive. Hughes also over saw the Ross Rifle procurement for WWI. Which is a very accurate rifle on a range but also prone to fouling if it sees mud. So not exactly beloved of Canadian troops on the Western Front. Oh and the bayonet tended to fall off if you fired it. Sure, bayonets weren't as beloved by infantry as they were rifle designers and procurement officers but that does have to be embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why is the lack of heavy organic fires and armor not a problem for light army formations like 10th Mountain or the 82nd Airborne? Why don't they need an indigenous fixed wing air capability? This is maybe my favorite distillation. I pointed out that the Army is a heavy fuckin' force compared to the Marine ground forces, and so your counter is to point out the deliberately lightest possible units in the whole-rear end Army to ask why they aren't equipped and organized like a heavy force or, alternately, like a MEF. Lack of fires and armor and fixed-wing "isn't a problem" for the 82d because we don't send them in relatively alone unless it's a last-ditch emergency, and when we do that we go "oh gently caress, oh gently caress" and augment them with significantly heavier equipment, to great cost to strategic lift, outside of their usual organic capabilities (See: DESERT SHIELD) and hope we can trick the enemy into not rolling them if there's a period of vulnerability where they're still too light to do the job if the enemy commits (See: DESERT SHIELD again). Otherwise, if the 82d or other light forces like SOF or partner nation light infantry are doing ops in a more permissive environment, you can say Air Force squadrons aren't allocated against them in technicality, but just look at the F-15E, F-16, and A-10 deployment rotations to CENTCOM and you'll quickly realize that's exactly what's been done for the light infantry or mech infantry units operating in CENTCOM for a long time.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
the problem is yall think you're in argument with DR but you're actually playing a home brew tabletop wargame in his basement and he's moving your pieces around everytime he comes up with or you respond to a what if scenario. they're not strawmen arguments he's just asking you to clarify if you really want to move that piece that
PookBear fucked around with this message at 03:49 on May 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:45
|
|
|
PookBear posted:the problem is yall are think you're in argument with DR but you're actually playing a home brew tabletop wargame in his basement and he's moving your pieces around everytime he comes up with or you respond to a what if scenario ha, ok, this is good!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
Who owns Australia?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Who owns Australia? he turned off historical mode so poo poo's getting weird 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is maybe my favorite distillation. I pointed out that the Army is a heavy fuckin' force compared to the Marine ground forces, and so your counter is to point out the deliberately lightest possible units in the whole-rear end Army to ask why they aren't equipped and organized like a heavy force or, alternately, like a MEF. Light infantry with joint air support sounds a lot like marines operating off a LHA with organic F35s. When you want the deployment to happen now, isn't that the best way to go about it?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Light infantry with joint air support sounds a lot like marines operating off a LHA with organic F35s. When you want the deployment to happen now, isn't that the best way to go about it? Often yes, light infantry plus joint air support is a good way to go if you not only have defended airbase(s) nearby, but it/they also have sufficient capacity and permission to operate strike aircraft from there. When you don't, LHAs get really, really attractive. One of the problems is that Army light infantry have zero way to control aircraft other than very tactical, down and dirty control. Marines and the Navy have organic C2 that can do the C2 mission. The USAF has that ability best where they already exist, but their capability to deploy whole new C2 nodes is pretty limited or on call for the highest of priority missions.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
piL posted:Uh, ARGs have organic ASW They do? In what form?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They do? In what form? Romeos and DDGs?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 04:31
|
|
|
priznat posted:Sam Hughes was a real piece of poo poo, fancied himself as an officer and showing up at camps giving orders etc. A literal noble This cannot be overemphasized. That colossal prick at one point lobbied to be awarded the VC for some inane bullshit in South Africa during the Boer War and was eventually sent home for indiscipline. His career was fuelled in large part by patronage, but that is less unusual for the time than one might think; the colonel commanding my great grandfather's battalion during the Great War was a cousin of the prime minister, for instance. Fearless fucked around with this message at 04:34 on May 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
piL posted:Romeos and DDGs? Well, I guess they're not listed in the Wikipedia entry for an ARG but, not to give away warplan medium slate blue, they attached two USN Arleigh Burke DDGs and an Anzac class Frigate to the one exercise I went on.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
It'd also be pretty weird if an ARG was operating in hostile sub infested waters without any fast attack boats nosing about.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
ARG vesseles are Navy, not Marines, so of course Navy can and will assign complementary forces as required. The idea that an ARG is a loose and alone cannon commanded by an insane Marine Ork is part of DR's tabletop-isms.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
I guess when the destroyers showed up it was an ESG and not an ARG any more, sorry if that threw anybody off.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
It is happening again. https://twitter.com/valerieinsinna/status/1265745835884593152?s=21
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It is happening again. “In this case, munitions stacked upon wooden pallets, or Combat Expendable Platforms (CEPs)” Ahaha, pallets go to $10k each when they get an acronym.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Wooden pallets? Should have called them Combat Heavylift Expendable Platforms or something, get an H in there for maximum hilarity.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, were either the yf23 or yf22 capable of being altered to fulfill the jsf mission without the amount of work that was going into the fb22? Also how much effort would have bmnavalizing eitherbhave been, similar to that level again? Just curious if it woukd have left us in a better spot if they had pulled an F16 trials decision, kept the f22, made the yf23 the jsf, made the A and C variants, and then either rolled the navy fa18s to the marines or made them their own special stealthish newharrier. Is this feasible in the yeah you can shoot 6.5 creedmoor out of a scar 18s sense or yeah you can shoot 330 lapua out of it but to do it you have to rebuild and reengineer so much youre only left with the shape?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 06:22
|
|
|
One of the biggest albatrosses about converting an aircraft that was originally designed for runways to carrier operations is that it's no small feat to replace the landing gear with a set that will stand up to the 'controlled crashes' that are carrier landings. And that's just ONE thing you have to fundamentally change about an airframe before you can consider it properly 'navalized.' Doesn't even have to be for carrier landings, either - supposedly one of the things that made the MiG-23 such a pile of dogshit was the over-engineered landing gear (rough field capability was a requirement during development for it) shifted the CG and added a ton of extra weight. The JSF has as much in common developmentally with the MiG-23 than it does with the Yak-141. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:32 on May 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Thats what i figured it would require to make either rhe yf23 or yf22 navalized just wanted to be sure Edit : i hadnt even asked if the yf23 had the bay size required to be a jsf or if that would have been as much of a rework as the fb22 as well because there was no need for that much length on something competing to be the ultimate air to air assassin. Wasnt that the main hangup on multirole for the f22 before they got the SBDs? Stravag fucked around with this message at 06:37 on May 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2020 06:35
|
|