If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7080991


(Mother Jones)   The US Air Force's new fighter jets can do everything, and by everything we mean almost nothing, including fly very much   (motherjones.com) divider line 351
    More: Asinine, fighter aircrafts, flight tests, F-16, F-35, air forces, F-15E, airplanes  
•       •       •

20468 clicks; Favorite

351 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-02 09:16:08 PM  

LivefromGA: ladyfortuna: Whether it's true or not, there goes my Lockheed Martin stock (all 4 shares of it). Thanks, jerk writers.

I am not so sure how much the market will react to Mother Jones "reporting" on military hardware.


If it ain't on FOX you don't pay attention, correct?

"When development of the F-22 began in 1981, the Air Force intended to purchase 648 aircraft at an estimated total program cost of $99.1 billion -- making it the most expensive weapons system in history. The program began to meet what was perceived as a growing threat of Soviet air power and to replace the F-15 fighter."

As you read you'll see they adjusted the "threat" to justify the airplane. The timeline stops years ago but today the boogeyman is China.


Enemabag Jones: One thing the F22 was good for was knocking enemies out of the air before the F22 was seen.


This has been the claim behind ever fighter proposal over the last 50 years.

Secret Polish Boyfriend: The B-1 was a boondoggle at inception, but did eventually become valuable/useful after a fundamental redesign for a different mission.


Actually it did just fine reincarnated as the B-1B for the deterrence mission but was damned expensive. It cost more to operate and maintain than a B-52 which had become the wishful standard that no one is every going to match.

/flew them both
 
2012-05-02 09:16:55 PM  

Deep Contact: [chandrashekhara.files.wordpress.com image 480x441]

This is where they all end up.


Davis-Monthan Air Force Base has a great chow hall.
 
2012-05-02 09:20:24 PM  
ActionJoe,
Ok, so basically the F-22 was designed to be long range artillery for the air. That is perfectly fine. However, what is not fine was having the F-22 replace all current fighter air craft (not true any more since the program was cancelled) That would be like having all of our tanks replaced with artillery. Sure, great from long range. Horrible if it has to go into a city or defend against multiple approaching enemies.


Agreed, the above situation sounds pretty dumb.

I don't mean to defend the F22 that much, even though it sounds like I did. It is quite possible the project got out of control.

Unlike the F15 where there was a defender to keep it on mission, the defense contractors might have had too much power.
 
2012-05-02 09:24:42 PM  

Enemabag Jones: hasty ambushBut Japan had the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate probably their best fighter.

Well referenced. I was not familiar with that.

Another case of the loser unable to build the latest and greatest towards the end.


Actually Japan did manage to get a version of thr German ME-262 flying at the end of the war

The Nakajima Kikka

along with a version of the ME-163

Mitsubishi Shusui

and had some thter advance designs in various stages of developement.
 
2012-05-02 09:27:37 PM  
Can it build a bridge? Feed a child? Heal the sick? Fly us to the moom? Have sex with you? Gain sentience, procreate?

No? Then it is worth exactly zero.
 
2012-05-02 09:30:30 PM  

Primum: Can it build a bridge? Feed a child? Heal the sick? Fly us to the moom? Have sex with you? Gain sentience, procreate?

No? Then it is worth exactly zero.


So masturbation is worth zero?
 
2012-05-02 09:40:08 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Don Bigles: Desquamation: Don Bigles: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Warbirds thread!

[www.asisbiz.com image 640x434]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]

[members.quicknet.nl image 640x480]

[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x460]

I see your warbirds, and raise you the most beautiful plane ever built.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x458]

/love me some Spitfires

I prefer the P-51D myself but Spits are right up there.

Not really knocking the P-51, but I'm always kind of amused when it's held up as a great feat of American engineering, when it was designed by a German and was pretty useless until they put the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in it. It's still a nice plane, though.

And speaking of Germans...
[www.richard-seaman.com image 640x461]

/yellow-nosed bastard

I'm going to have to disagree with all of you and go with the FW-190.
[www.cybermodeler.com image 600x424]


I am by no means belittling the FW-190, but I really like the Bf-109. It's probably because I always been fascinated with the Battle of Britain. As a side-note, I would highly recommend the book The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay, if you are interested in the Battle.

/Park was awesome
//fark Leigh-Mallory and his "big wing"
 
2012-05-02 09:41:00 PM  
www.finesthourart.com


Vought F4U-4 'Corsair'

Description
Manufacturer: Vought

Base model: F4U
Designation: F4U
Version: -4
Nickname: Corsair
Designation System: U.S. Navy / Marines
Designation Period: 1922-1962
Basic role: Fighter
Crew: Pilot

Specifications
Length: 33' 8" 10.2 m
Height: 14' 9" 4.5 m
Wingspan: 41' 12.5 m
Wingarea: 314.0 sq ft 29.1 sq m
Empty Weight: 9,205 lb 4,174 kg
Gross Weight: 14,669 lb 6,653 kg
Max Weight: 14,670 lb 6,653 kg

Propulsion No. of Engines: 1
Powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-18W
Horsepower (each): 2100

Performance Range: 1,005 miles 1,618 km
Cruise Speed: 215 mph 346 km/h 187 kt
Max Speed: 446 mph 718 km/h 388 kt
Climb: 3,870 ft/min 1,179 m/min
Ceiling: 41,500 ft 12,649 m
 
2012-05-02 09:43:17 PM  

hasty ambush: AcneVulgaris: We have enough nukes to kill everyone several times. We could have airplanes made out of nerf and nobody would dare invade us.

First you have to take the ignorant position that we can retreat behind a fortress America and we only have to worry about an actual physical invasion for that to be true. However we are still essentially an Island nation economically and politically always have been. In 1776 a higher percentage of our per capita GDP came from foreign trade than it does now. Our first wars were about protecting our rights to trade ; The revolution were one of our grievances against the crown was the restrictions on trade, the Naval war with France, the War of 1812 and the Barbary Wars parts 1 and 2.

This means we have worldwide interests to protect foremost among them maintaining free use of the seas. This means force projection capability. Being able to keep open the Malacca Straits or Dardanelles Strait for example. China is building a blue water navy and a modern Air Force not to prevent invasion or to invade Taiwan but to protect its shipping lines. Many of these the same lanes we rely on. The old Soviet Union being more of a Continental Power less reliant on overseas trade concentrated on building a Navy geared more to sea denial not freedom of the seas which requires a less costly more specialized Navy to disrupt the trade of its enemies.

Recommend reading-The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783 by A. T. Mahan


We don't have to retreat anywhere. Pakistan acting up? Dust Karachi. Israel spying on us again? Dust Tel Aviv. Chinese carrier where we don't want it? Nuke the farker. It wouldn't take more than a few before people started doing what we said.

What are they gonna do, nuke us back and get everybody in their country killed?
 
2012-05-02 09:45:57 PM  

Oznog: The Air Force didn't want it then, as loitering close-in air support wasn't what they did. It was relatively slow and absurdly cumbersome.


People who called it cumbersome never saw it do a figure-eight target attack. Farking awesome.

/AGM-65s were kinda neat, too
 
2012-05-02 09:48:13 PM  

edmo: LivefromGA: ladyfortuna: Whether it's true or not, there goes my Lockheed Martin stock (all 4 shares of it). Thanks, jerk writers.

I am not so sure how much the market will react to Mother Jones "reporting" on military hardware.

If it ain't on FOX you don't pay attention, correct?

"When development of the F-22 began in 1981, the Air Force intended to purchase 648 aircraft at an estimated total program cost of $99.1 billion -- making it the most expensive weapons system in history. The program began to meet what was perceived as a growing threat of Soviet air power and to replace the F-15 fighter."

As you read you'll see they adjusted the "threat" to justify the airplane. The timeline stops years ago but today the boogeyman is China.


Enemabag Jones: One thing the F22 was good for was knocking enemies out of the air before the F22 was seen.

This has been the claim behind ever fighter proposal over the last 50 years.

Secret Polish Boyfriend: The B-1 was a boondoggle at inception, but did eventually become valuable/useful after a fundamental redesign for a different mission.

Actually it did just fine reincarnated as the B-1B for the deterrence mission but was damned expensive. It cost more to operate and maintain than a B-52 which had become the wishful standard that no one is every going to match.

/flew them both


Buffs Get Boned

"There are only 66 of the "Bones" (from B-One) left, and none are doing what they were designed for (flying low and fast into heavily defended enemy territory to deliver nuclear weapons). But because the B-1Bs are twenty years younger than the B-52s, they were available for duty as much as the B-52s and became particularly popular over Afghanistan, where higher speed (compared to the B-52) enabled one B-1B to cover the entire country. On a slow day, the single B-1B could hustle from one part of the country to deliver a smart bomb or two and then be off to another tense situation on the ground. This is the first sustained use of the B-1B and, by and large, the bomber has performed quite well."
 
2012-05-02 09:48:17 PM  

hasty ambush: Vought F4U-4 'Corsair'


Why'd you bold the designation period? That's just referring to the timeframe where the Navy used to designate planes by their manufacturer and role, rather than the modern cross-service designation system....
 
2012-05-02 09:48:50 PM  
www.fleetairarmarchive.net

Because why the hell not-
 
2012-05-02 09:49:03 PM  

Silverstaff: Glockenspiel Hero:
Seriously, it's pretty much useless.

1) It's cheaper to deliver nukes by ICBM
2) It's cheaper to deliver a farkton of conventional bombs via B-52 or B-1
3) It's vastly cheaper to use drones to take out point targets.

What role does it serve?

1. Ever hear of the nuclear triad? We intentionally don't put all our strategic nuclear assets in one basket. It's why we don't have all ICBM's or SLBM's. For example, a nuclear ALCM is much less obvious. You fire an ICBM and the world will know thanks to the IR bloom from the engine. A stealth launch platform can perform a nuclear first strike and the target won't even see it coming until the mushroom cloud is rising. Also, it's much quicker and easier to change the target of a B-2 strike than an ICBM or SLBM, and a big chunk of the original design intention was to be able to hit Soviet mobile ICBM launchers before they could fire.

Of course I've heard of the triad. Hint: it's not 1960 anymore. There's utterly no reason for a long range strategic nuke carrier, stealthy or not. (Unless you really want to advocate for a nuclear-first strike option. I find this ethically abhorrent, and if you think it's acceptable you need help) IC/SLBMs deliver nukes far faster and cheaper. If you really want an ALCM carrier convert a farking 747 (Rand thought that one up in 1974)- there's no reason for stealth at all.

2. B-52's and B-1's aren't stealth. A big advantage of the B-2 is the adversary doesn't see it coming. They don't know they are about to be hit, or if they suspect it they don't know where it's coming from. A B-2 with a small amount of precision ordnance can do way more damage than a B-52 dropping indiscriminate iron bombs. You don't win most war with bulk iron bombs. We dropped more iron on Vietnam than we did on Nazi Germany, and it did fark-all for winning the war there. Bulk iron won't do much in Afghanistan either, but precision strikes do.

Who the fark cares? The B-2 has fewer strike missions than the B-52 does in the past few wars we've fought, and far, far fewer than Reaper/Predator. We're not fighting the Russians, we're fighting guys in caves. If you want precision, there are a ton of cheaper ways to deliver it.

3. UCAV's are not fix-alls. We have the technological advantage now, but are you really wagering everything on the idea that an adversary will not develop ECM that can jam the command links? If you want that link to be truly unjammable you have to put autonomous control onboard. That means either an organic pilot. . .or onboard AI and I think us here at Fark don't like the idea of AI's with autonomous hunter killer capacity. Something something Sarah Connor.


Yes, it's a risk. Of course, you want to put all your eggs into stealth technology, which has already been shown to be vulnerable to existing radars and will continue to degrade over time, especially given the extraordinarily long time it takes to develop stealth aircraft- I seriously doubt the B-2 or F-35's stealth will be worth a damn in 2025, but both are going to be active far beyond that date. The 117 has already been pulled from service in part because it's vulnerable, but F-16s and A-10s that predate it are still in the air. And yes, I suspect you'll see very substantial autonomous capability very soon- anyone else take Thrun's course last year? Hell, we've had smart mortar shells for almost 20 years

There are a grand total of *20* B-2s. We spent $45 billion on the program, and god knows how much keeping them flying since. It's simply a matter of economics- I don't care how much of a wonder weapon it is, there are *20* of them. Give me $45 billion worth of drones and lets see who can do more damage- and I don't have to replace the pilots when they get shot down.
 
2012-05-02 09:50:27 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: hasty ambush: Vought F4U-4 'Corsair'


Why'd you bold the designation period? That's just referring to the timeframe where the Navy used to designate planes by their manufacturer and role, rather than the modern cross-service designation system....


ooops
 
2012-05-02 09:56:11 PM  

Chief_ Danz153A: Man... with all these warbirds, I need to go get a picture of the Commanche in the hangar down the street. Am I serious? Yes. The most expensive and (still) flyable helicopter that was never used in the military and will rot in a hangar (not even on display!) in Alabama. Sad panda is sad. Got some crazy stuff out here, like a fixed-wing Chinook. You read that right.

Speaking of Sad Pandas: Air Force is looking to significantly downsize their A-10 fleet. As an Army guy that absolutely LOVES that ugly beast, I am entering a small depression at that thought. God I love close air support from that belching-vulcan of a bird.

[img717.imageshack.us image 640x425]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Wait your saying they have a Commanche over there? Got to see my first Osprey not long ago flying over my house. Love seeing the formations of Blackhawks going overhead : )
 
2012-05-02 09:57:58 PM  

dk47: Smeggy Smurf: Happy Hours: spcMike: Oznog: The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.

The leaks are actually meant to be in there as the heat generated by the aircraft in flight causes the fuel tank to expand. Without the holes in the tank it would've over pressurized and burst.

But lets not bring engineering into this.

sounds like they didn't. I would think engineering would overcome such a problem without having it leak fuel.

They did solve it in the most elegant way possible. Physics did it for them.

Oh god. Why do we have to hash this out in every stupid airplane thread??


Because elegance should always be the subject of discussion. Simplicity in action should be commended. Not spending a billion dollars to overengineer a solution that solves itself should be rewarded
 
2012-05-02 10:02:30 PM  
LivefromGA: {STUFF!}

I'm not sure if you were addressing me... but for the sake of "SOMEONE WAS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!" I've enclosed the following:

I copy/pasted some pics. It turns out I was far too young to take photo's while my grandfather was shot (twice) in the same italian campaign that my wife's grandfather got the Distinguished Flying Cross before being shot down (In his P51D) becoming a POW for about 2 years, and returning home after liberation... after losing >45% of his body weight.

My knowledge is not copy/pasted however. It's that whole "I'm actually a damn pilot" thing. The Army and my own insatiable thirst for everything that is FARKIN' AWESOME about WWII planes (from all world powers) that has made me a bit of a reader.

That being said, disregard if this wasn't your intent. Meh.

Unrelated sidenote: Helicopters are a pain in the ass to fly. At least modifications make the latest iterations make flight a lot less pilot-labor-intensive (except you poor OH58 guys). Woot, two engines ftw.
 
2012-05-02 10:04:19 PM  

LivefromGA: ladyfortuna: Whether it's true or not, there goes my Lockheed Martin stock (all 4 shares of it). Thanks, jerk writers.

I am not so sure how much the market will react to Mother Jones "reporting" on military hardware.


I saw something the other day (on Fark even, I thought) that said the recent planes weren't performing well. Granted I'm only a little mad about articles about it, I'm a lot more angry with the company for apparently making sub-par hardware on our (taxpayer AND stockholder) dime.
 
2012-05-02 10:06:23 PM  

Riothamus: rocketpants: Riothamus: Happy Hours: spcMike: Oznog: The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.

The leaks are actually meant to be in there as the heat generated by the aircraft in flight causes the fuel tank to expand. Without the holes in the tank it would've over pressurized and burst.

But lets not bring engineering into this.

sounds like they didn't. I would think engineering would overcome such a problem without having it leak fuel.

PV=nRT

kthxbai

I hope you're not referencing the ideal gas law to describe the behavior of a liquid.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x259]

Have you ever boiled a covered pot of water before? The gas (OMG CONVERTED FROM A LIQUID) will find a way out.



And this relates to the SR-71 fuel leakage how...?

Anyway, the gas law doesn't apply to the water until AFTER it's boiled.
 
2012-05-02 10:07:13 PM  

Primum: Can it build a bridge? Feed a child? Heal the sick? Fly us to the moom? Have sex with you? Gain sentience, procreate?

No? Then it is worth exactly zero.


How much is a Zero worth then?
 
2012-05-02 10:08:25 PM  
So, when will that widely-respected news source Mother Jones report on all the trillions wasted on liberal social programs that were epic img1.fark.net?
 
2012-05-02 10:14:39 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Chief_ Danz153A: Man... with all these warbirds, I need to go get a picture of the Commanche in the hangar down the street. Am I serious? Yes. The most expensive and (still) flyable helicopter that was never used in the military and will rot in a hangar (not even on display!) in Alabama. Sad panda is sad. Got some crazy stuff out here, like a fixed-wing Chinook. You read that right.

Speaking of Sad Pandas: Air Force is looking to significantly downsize their A-10 fleet. As an Army guy that absolutely LOVES that ugly beast, I am entering a small depression at that thought. God I love close air support from that belching-vulcan of a bird.

[img717.imageshack.us image 640x425]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Wait your saying they have a Commanche over there? Got to see my first Osprey not long ago flying over my house. Love seeing the formations of Blackhawks going overhead : )


Go to the aviation museum at Ft Rucker, AL. Civilians have no issue getting on base with normal ID's and a quick inspection. You'll have to set up an appointment (they prefer groups of like 10-15, but hell... grab you fam or friends and a few strangers). It's a small museum, so just talk to the staff or museum curator. We have it stored in a nearby hanger, but it's not on open display due to previous political reasons (*cough* spending a crap ton of cash for a not-terribly-large-improvement aircraft).

In it's defense, many electronic and stealth tech for the Commanche got pushed to various other airframes (the AH64, OH58 and certain "Blackhawks" which may have crashed while performing ops to kill certain "Bin Laden's")
 
2012-05-02 10:14:40 PM  

hasty ambush: AcneVulgaris: We have enough nukes to kill everyone several times. We could have airplanes made out of nerf and nobody would dare invade us.

First you have to take the ignorant position that we can retreat behind a fortress America and we only have to worry about an actual physical invasion for that to be true. However we are still essentially an Island nation economically and politically always have been. In 1776 a higher percentage of our per capita GDP came from foreign trade than it does now. Our first wars were about protecting our rights to trade ; The revolution were one of our grievances against the crown was the restrictions on trade, the Naval war with France, the War of 1812 and the Barbary Wars parts 1 and 2.

This means we have worldwide interests to protect foremost among them maintaining free use of the seas. This means force projection capability. Being able to keep open the Malacca Straits or Dardanelles Strait for example. China is building a blue water navy and a modern Air Force not to prevent invasion or to invade Taiwan but to protect its shipping lines. Many of these the same lanes we rely on. The old Soviet Union being more of a Continental Power less reliant on overseas trade concentrated on building a Navy geared more to sea denial not freedom of the seas which requires a less costly more specialized Navy to disrupt the trade of its enemies.

Recommend reading-The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783 by A. T. Mahan


Very well said.
 
2012-05-02 10:16:22 PM  

profplump: Never bring an F-16 to an F-35 fight


The F-16 has as far as I know a better turn rate/turn radius. Also it has a better thrust to weight ratio and lower wing loading. So it should have a better climb rate than the F-35. Given that and that the F-35 doesn't have thrust vectoring, really no reason to not take the F-16.
 
2012-05-02 10:20:10 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: We're not fighting the Russians, we're fighting guys in caves.


Yeah, but we plan weapons systems out a few decades in advance and Afghanistan is due to end in September 2014. The perennial problem of all military leaders, not just ours, is the fixation on always fighting the last war.

The Nazi's took over most of Europe in WWII because they were fighting with blitzkrieg tactics against Generals who anticipated WWI style trench warfare instead of paying attention to what developments had been made in weapons technology. The total failure of the Maginot line was the embodiment of this failed strategy.

We went into Korea trying to treat it like WWII. MacArthur was relieved in large part for demanding to drop an A-Bomb on Pyonyang just like they did Hiroshima, thinking that would fix everything instead of making it worse geopolitically.

We went into Vietnam trying to treat it like Korea, thinking it would be conventional infantry actions and strategic bombing would be worth a damn thing, instead of guerrilla warfare.

We went to Desert Storm deathly afraid it would be a desert version of Vietnam, but it never got to that ongoing occupation stage and our late Cold-War era weapons devastated Iraq's mid Cold War era Soviet-bloc weapons.

We went to Iraq thinking it would be Desert Storm all over again. The quick initial victory was correct, but then it did become the "desert Vietnam" as we are great at fighting conventional forces and taking land. Less so dealing with insurgencies and holding against an unfriendly local population.

Don't get too fixated on building our forces for fighting untrained irregulars armed with RPG-7's and AK-47's, when there are actual standing armies with training and serious weapons (including nuclear arms) which would very much like to take a swing at us if they think they could get away with it.

Let's not go into what comes next with the idea that all our future wars are fighting mujahadin-style insurgents living in caves. Eventually we're going to have to deal with Best Korea. Iran is a perpetual powderkeg waiting to go off. China and Russia are less likely adversaries, but we would be fools to not have defenses against them.

Learn the lessons for how to wage counterinsurgency actions, but remain on a footing of being able to repel conventional aggressors. . .and that means stealth aircraft, air superiority fighters, and strategic bombers (among other things)
 
2012-05-02 10:21:27 PM  
The F-22 is a sports car. The F-35 is a pickup truck. The F-22 owns you the sky. The F-35 can take any bomb to any corner of the theater fast and with enough information networking to understand the battlespace and put it where it's needed. It's also a little quicker at it. The F-35 has 5th gen air-to-air self defense capability, not air superiority capability. You wouldn't send a F-16 against good Russian hardware but you do load a few missiles in case the F-15s can't manage protection.
 
2012-05-02 10:26:02 PM  

Silverstaff: The total failure of the Maginot line was the embodiment of this failed strategy.


The Maginot Line failed because there were gaps in it. Can't hold off anyone when your fortification has a gap in it, doesn't matter what tactics they use.
 
2012-05-02 10:29:16 PM  

HempHead: The problem with building a multirole aircraft like the F-35 is that it tends to be average at each of its roles.

Average planes get shot down a lot like the F-111.

[www.military-wallpaper.net image 640x480]


The F-111 gets shot down a lot? 11 were lost in Vietnam, compared to nearly 400 F-105Ds, and over 650 F-4s.

And using a picture of an F-11 doing a "dump and burn" to support your assertion is disingenuous.

Why do you hate the Pig?
 
2012-05-02 10:29:20 PM  

Frederf: It's also a little quicker at it.


Quicker than what?
 
2012-05-02 10:33:38 PM  

Chief_ Danz153A: tinfoil-hat maggie: Chief_ Danz153A: Man... with all these warbirds, I need to go get a picture of the Commanche in the hangar down the street. Am I serious? Yes. The most expensive and (still) flyable helicopter that was never used in the military and will rot in a hangar (not even on display!) in Alabama. Sad panda is sad. Got some crazy stuff out here, like a fixed-wing Chinook. You read that right.

Speaking of Sad Pandas: Air Force is looking to significantly downsize their A-10 fleet. As an Army guy that absolutely LOVES that ugly beast, I am entering a small depression at that thought. God I love close air support from that belching-vulcan of a bird.

[img717.imageshack.us image 640x425]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Wait your saying they have a Commanche over there? Got to see my first Osprey not long ago flying over my house. Love seeing the formations of Blackhawks going overhead : )

Go to the aviation museum at Ft Rucker, AL. Civilians have no issue getting on base with normal ID's and a quick inspection. You'll have to set up an appointment (they prefer groups of like 10-15, but hell... grab you fam or friends and a few strangers). It's a small museum, so just talk to the staff or museum curator. We have it stored in a nearby hanger, but it's not on open display due to previous political reasons (*cough* spending a crap ton of cash for a not-terribly-large-improvement aircraft).

In it's defense, many electronic and stealth tech for the Commanche got pushed to various other airframes (the AH64, OH58 and certain "Blackhawks" which may have crashed while performing ops to kill certain "Bin Laden's")


Oh, I thought you meant Redstone sense your profile says Madison. Well if I'm ever down that way I might have to try to see it. Sorta have a thing for helicopters. Remember some of the original write ups on Commanche and I'm glad to know some of the tech is still in use.
 
2012-05-02 10:38:14 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silverstaff: The total failure of the Maginot line was the embodiment of this failed strategy.

The Maginot Line failed because there were gaps in it. Can't hold off anyone when your fortification has a gap in it, doesn't matter what tactics they use.


There will always be gaps

"A line cannot be strong everywhere". attributed to Napoleon

"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man" Patton
 
2012-05-02 10:40:11 PM  
 
2012-05-02 10:42:00 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silverstaff: The total failure of the Maginot line was the embodiment of this failed strategy.

The Maginot Line failed because there were gaps in it. Can't hold off anyone when your fortification has a gap in it, doesn't matter what tactics they use.


Well the French army also failed in there use of the tank. They actually had more than the Germans (IIRC) it was how they used them they saw them as an infantry support weapon and had them scattered in infantry divisions. The German concept of the armored division simply overwhelmed them. And some account I have read said the french tanks were equal to or better than the Germans tanks of the time.
 
2012-05-02 10:42:29 PM  
Hear this load from the press (that wouldn't know an F-22 from a hole in the ground) about how none of the military gear works. Would like too hear it from the pilots or at least someone who really knows what they are talking about.
 
2012-05-02 10:48:28 PM  

stuffy: Would like too hear it from the pilots or at least someone who really knows what they are talking about.


There's a few linked articles in this thread that talk in depth about such stuff. Also, if something doesn't work, it doesn't work.

tinfoil-hat maggie: Well the French army also failed in there use of the tank


There is that, also the French got duped on top of having gaps in the line. Had they known enough to go north to head off the Germans coming through Belgium and not had the gaps in the line in the Ardennes forest, things could've turned out differently.
 
2012-05-02 10:49:21 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silverstaff: The total failure of the Maginot line was the embodiment of this failed strategy.

The Maginot Line failed because there were gaps in it. Can't hold off anyone when your fortification has a gap in it, doesn't matter what tactics they use.


A fixed wall of fortifications like the Maginot line as your main line of defense was pretty much helpless against paratroopers, bombers, and other airborne assets, even if the line was absolutely a total ground barrier. It wasn't exactly built with ADA capability, it was built to shoot at tanks and infantry charging the border, not throw flak at the Luftwaffe.

It was built with WWI tactics in mind. A few decades of advancement in aviation made it painfully obsolete.

Putting the primary defense of your country into weapons systems built around the tactics of the last war was the failure of Maginot, because it was flawed in inherent concept. The holes just made a bad idea worse.

Building American defense in the long term around fighting Afghanistan and Iraq-style counterinsurgency warfare is a failure on the same scale if we neglect air superiority, strategic bombing, stealth, and naval capacities which are useless in a COIN environment.
 
2012-05-02 10:53:43 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: HempHead: The problem with building a multirole aircraft like the F-35 is that it tends to be average at each of its roles.

Average planes get shot down a lot like the F-111.

[www.military-wallpaper.net image 640x480]

Hence, you have a real fighter like the F22Raptor, that is suffering alot of the same ills the Falcon and Phantom had when they got pushed hard. These things get worked out. Stupid pillow biting liberals think science is some thing they get from the mayor of San Francisco and whine when it isn't so. Quelle suprise.


No. Science is what you expect to cure what you bring home to your wife, from San Francisco. But you wouldn't know about that...
 
2012-05-02 10:58:11 PM  

ha-ha-guy: A-10 is replaced by a Reaper Drone or something of that nature. The drone has a better loiter time and can actually do more daring strikes in that if it gets shot down, who gives a fark? Plus you can buy the suckers en masse.


The A-10 still works best when you must have eyes (close to) on the ground.

The F15-SE came out of what was McD D's test platform for its F23 designs. Boeing is pushing it for Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and laughable New Zealand (whos only armed aircraft are WWI and II antiques).

I've heard Japan has asked if they can buy some brand new Buffs. Modern wings, engines and fuselage and they might get an extra 20,000 feet altitude out of them and a bit less drag at its max speed. I expect the only reason to ask for these is to imply they would like to be able to flatten a nearby country.
 
2012-05-02 10:58:50 PM  

MBrady: So, don't blame the defense contractor, blame the USAF for their clusterfark.


Oh I think there's MORE than enough blame to heap on both. AF generals needing their own pet projects, often to put on their resume to get a job with the contractors later. Contractors promising things they'll have to up the price on later. Sales guys promising everything and tech guys having to kludge together something that is "technically" correct with the requirements (best kind of correct!) because they aren't paid enough to bend the laws of physics. (Though ironically the sales guys are paid that much) And the politicians, oh the politicians. Gotta have us a shiatty engine built in an Indiana factory because fark design specs or the laws of physics, there's kickbacks to collect and votes to buy!

Publikwerks:
cache.gawkerassets.com

These guys are the future, not the F-35


But they're not as coooool!!!!111one

Actually there is the issue of hacking/jamming drones. Drones should (and likely will) serve a larger role as time goes on, but a human brain is still the most robust computer platform for an ever-changing and evolving battlefield.

Though the concept of drones controlled by larger planes and the inevitable comparison to the S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier come to mind rather rapidly...
 
2012-05-02 10:59:32 PM  

WhyteRaven74: profplump: Never bring an F-16 to an F-35 fight

The F-16 has as far as I know a better turn rate/turn radius. Also it has a better thrust to weight ratio and lower wing loading. So it should have a better climb rate than the F-35. Given that and that the F-35 doesn't have thrust vectoring, really no reason to not take the F-16.


How about the F-35 probably will nto be able to detect the F-35 before the F-35 is able to dettect and launch a missile at the F-16. If it a long range missile fight I would take the F-35 over the F-16.

If I had to penetrate a modern air defense system I would also want the F-35

Its all about exploiting an aircraft's strengths and weaknesses AS THEY ALL HAVE THEM


If it is a close range knife fight I would ask for a Harrier

At past Red Flag (Nellis AFB) exercises the Harrier has achieved a 75%+ success rate at low level close in ACM with F15's. .
 
2012-05-02 11:00:20 PM  
As someone who's had much experience working with/for military contractors, I can totally see this all being true.
 
2012-05-02 11:08:45 PM  

Chief_ Danz153A: LivefromGA: {STUFF!}

I'm not sure if you were addressing me... but for the sake of "SOMEONE WAS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!" I've enclosed the following:

I copy/pasted some pics. It turns out I was far too young to take photo's while my grandfather was shot (twice) in the same italian campaign that my wife's grandfather got the Distinguished Flying Cross before being shot down (In his P51D) becoming a POW for about 2 years, and returning home after liberation... after losing >45% of his body weight.

My knowledge is not copy/pasted however. It's that whole "I'm actually a damn pilot" thing. The Army and my own insatiable thirst for everything that is FARKIN' AWESOME about WWII planes (from all world powers) that has made me a bit of a reader.

That being said, disregard if this wasn't your intent. Meh.

Wasn't addressing you at all. I believe it was the person that started the thread if I have the correct one, hard to tell from {stuff} :)
But I know your name wasn't one I addressed.

Unrelated sidenote: Helicopters are a pain in the ass to fly. At least modifications make the latest iterations make flight a lot less pilot-labor-intensive (except you poor OH58 guys). Woot, two engines ftw.

 
2012-05-02 11:10:59 PM  

Desquamation: Strolpol: I can't fathom why they're retiring the A-10 in favor of this thing.

If anything, we should be SPECIALIZING in A-10 type support vehicles instead ones designed for air-to-air engagements, which are a relic of the past.

Because the A-10 won't make Lockheed Martin a shiat ton of money?


but they COULD. they could make something with lots of tech. tech doesn't mean fragile, tech could just be a exhaust that dissipates heat In a special way, but doesn't disable the plane if it falls off. or an engine that is almost 100 percent cold air bypass...
 
2012-05-02 11:12:29 PM  

Silverstaff: Learn the lessons for how to wage counterinsurgency actions, but remain on a footing of being able to repel conventional aggressors. . .and that means stealth aircraft, air superiority fighters, and strategic bombers (among other things)


Yeah.

No one doctrine is going to protect you forever, not even MAD.

I just wish our generals, contractors, and politicians were willing to throttle-down on the currently-irrelevant doctrines and make sure what they DID with those doctrines was actually worth a damn.

We're not actually at war with anyone, and the police actions don't need more tech as much as they need more PEOPLE.
 
2012-05-02 11:14:39 PM  

edmo: LivefromGA: ladyfortuna: Whether it's true or not, there goes my Lockheed Martin stock (all 4 shares of it). Thanks, jerk writers.

I am not so sure how much the market will react to Mother Jones "reporting" on military hardware.

If it ain't on FOX you don't pay attention, correct?

"When development of the F-22 began in 1981, the Air Force intended to purchase 648 aircraft at an estimated total program cost of $99.1 billion -- making it the most expensive weapons system in history. The program began to meet what was perceived as a growing threat of Soviet air power and to replace the F-15 fighter."

As you read you'll see they adjusted the "threat" to justify the airplane. The timeline stops years ago but today the boogeyman is China.


Enemabag Jones: One thing the F22 was good for was knocking enemies out of the air before the F22 was seen.

This has been the claim behind ever fighter proposal over the last 50 years.

Secret Polish Boyfriend: The B-1 was a boondoggle at inception, but did eventually become valuable/useful after a fundamental redesign for a different mission.

Actually it did just fine reincarnated as the B-1B for the deterrence mission but was damned expensive. It cost more to operate and maintain than a B-52 which had become the wishful standard that no one is every going to match.

/flew them both


I "read" the article, but I am not the market, what is YOUR point (that I didn't pay attention)? Besides the fact you KNOW I don't only read FOX NEWS or I wouldn't be here talking about this. OBTW, I live 10 miles from where they made the damn thing, we didn't only hear about it from FOX NEWS or Mother Jones for that matter.
 
2012-05-02 11:15:36 PM  

LivefromGA: Canada could do worse...might as well let us eat the development costs. I am sure my country isn't smart enought to charge enough for them after our politicians get to drinking and kissing each others ass.


Canada's reconsidering whether they'll buy any F-35s. I think it was around $75 million x 65 planes and a total 20-year cost of $20 billion to keep the fleet going.
 
2012-05-02 11:18:59 PM  

lazyguineapig33: Chief_ Danz153A: Riothamus:
False:
in conclusion, USAAF did well because of numbers, not because of great planes. and that is a fact.



Fact: More FW 109s were produced in WWII than P-51Ds. The reason the US did so well in air battles over Germany is strategy- prioritizing airfields and airplane factories for bombing and using a handful of Mustangs to accompany bombing raids- yes there were surplus numbers of bombers, but they were reliable and could fly despite having more holes in them than a spaghetti strainer- that's what made them win air battles. Also, the ME262 was a piece of shiat. Yeah, the few that worked were a threat, but if 7/10ths of your fleet fall out of the sky amidst a raid due to mechanical failure, you should probably stick to flak cannons.
 
2012-05-02 11:21:33 PM  

ha-ha-guy: A-10 is replaced by a Reaper Drone or something of that nature. The drone has a better loiter time and can actually do more daring strikes in that if it gets shot down, who gives a fark? Plus you can buy the suckers en masse.


The best feature of the Reaper Drone is that they do not have to be flown by Air force pilots and can be flown by civilians back in Virginia. None of that pesky rules of combat or code of chivalry or Geneva Conventions or not wanting to kill an unarmed American citizen bullshoot to prevent completion of a mission.


www.deviantart.com
 
2012-05-02 11:25:23 PM  

whatshisname: LivefromGA: Canada could do worse...might as well let us eat the development costs. I am sure my country isn't smart enought to charge enough for them after our politicians get to drinking and kissing each others ass.

Canada's reconsidering whether they'll buy any F-35s. I think it was around $75 million x 65 planes and a total 20-year cost of $20 billion to keep the fleet going.


Sounds like a bargain! :)
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report