-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 114586)
Message
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 437 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

File 148248395680.jpg - (23.90KB , 516x563 , f18ng.jpg )
114586 No. 114586 ID: 6050c1
>Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns
>of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing
>to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812061677160202240

rated 5/5
63 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 114746 ID: 19102b
>>114612
We don't have a suitable domestic alternative because DOD gave responsibility for the entire projected 5th gen fleet of combat aircraft to lockmart.
General Dynamics got out of the fighter game and sold off the F-16 to Lockmart
BAe USA only gets missile and land contracts
Boeing bought up McDonnell Douglass and it's only alternatives are low RCS variants of the F-15 and Super Hornet.

Basically:
A) Don't go for one fighter fits all, don't give one company an entire generational responsibility
B) Don't freaking allow bigger companies to swallow up smaller ones
C) Fix the contract system to a more open nature, the rest of the aerospace industry should be picking up Lockmarts slack
>> No. 114747 ID: 9723b1
>>114741
It doesn't matter what year it is, a strategic bomber can't provide close air support.
>> No. 114749 ID: d4c8ee
Don't worry guys, the Libertarian venture capitalists have figured out how to fix all the problems with the F-35: we just cancel all testing and evaluation, because problems don't exist if you don't find them!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/12/20/how-trump-can-fix-the-f-35-fighter-program-without-hurting-american-
warfighters-workers-or-allies/#2279e50161dc

>However, President-elect Trump is right in saying the program doesn't need to cost as much as it does. Even if you remove the 50 years of inflation "guess-timates" in the program's trillion-dollar price-tag, it is clear that a lot of the money spent on the F-35 fighter is not related to meeting the operational needs of three different military services.

>For instance, 20-30% of the price for each fighter results from having to comply with government regulations that don't exist in the commercial world. If Boeing's jetliner unit had to follow the thousands of regulations military contractors do in developing products, it would soon be out of business. Its prices would be too high.

>It's not as though Lockheed benefits from all the unnecessary testing. Its profit margin on the Pentagon's biggest program is in the 7-8% range, while start-ups in Silicon Valley are generating 40% or 50% margins on smart-phone apps. Lockheed execs would love to see more of the program's budget go to building planes rather than keeping bureaucrats employed.

>President Trump should direct his defense team to eliminate regulations that don't add value to programs like F-35. It's unsettling to hear the President-elect say a crucial military program is "out of control," but when it comes to the way the Pentagon goes about managing such programs, you can make a case Trump is right.
>> No. 114751 ID: 07f6dc
File 148347124088.png - (733.67KB , 862x629 , bone.png )
114751
>>114747
yes it can and it will be better at it than an A-10. Precision-guided munitions/laser guided bombs/CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapons are a thing.
>> No. 114752 ID: 1519ac
>>114749
>It's not as though Lockheed benefits from all the unnecessary testing. Its profit margin on the Pentagon's biggest program is in the 7-8% range, while start-ups in Silicon Valley are generating 40% or 50% margins on smart-phone apps.

TIL building planes and coding apps is the same thing. What a stupid comparison.
>> No. 114753 ID: 90a126
File 148347415826.jpg - (126.55KB , 871x600 , dems think they are jews.jpg )
114753
>>114749
My god there is so much wrong with this I don't even know.

Government regulations especially on military equipment is higher then commercially for a reason. Military equipment goes through wear and tear that most civilian equipment would never go through. Comparing the needs of a combat aircraft to a jetliner is fucking stupid. One flies fat fucks across the country at a leisurely place, never ever being pushed to the limit. The other flies in combat, gets shot at, it put to and forced to exceed its limits. We want the limits to be fucking high because of that.

To put an example, the combat boot. The combat boot is extremely reliable, extremely durable, will last years even with tough abuse. You can still find military boots from the 70s and 80s and earlier floating around the internet and thrift stores, boots that were used and used hard. Compare that to most any civilian shoe or boot. They fall apart in months, sometimes sooner depending on the level of activity. They are not built to last, are not built to high tolerances. Equip our troops with boots made to commercial specs and our military would be going through boots like Taylor Swift through men.

Testing is so goddamn necessary. Testing means we can push shit to the limit, walk along the razors edge, in the comfort of labs and closely monitored field tests rather then sticking the shit into the field and figuring out what breaks the hard way, the way that gets people injured or killed.

What isn't necessary or "crucial" is this fucking program. This program is out of control but not because of testing, that is a fucking relatively recent thing.

I'm glad this was posted. Anytime Libertarianism starts looking somewhat appealing shit like this comes along and reminds me how batshit stupid too many libertarians are.
>> No. 114759 ID: 791f24
>>114752
I'd rather have the $120billion that Lockheed is generating from their "only" 7-8% guaranteed profits than the possibility of getting 50% back on the $20,000 cost of making an app. Kelly Johnson's skunkworks sure have changed since the old man moved on, they really stink now.
>> No. 114761 ID: 9723b1
File 148349848214.jpg - (186.44KB , 650x434 , desktop-1428939663.jpg )
114761
>>114751
Alright here's an aerial photo. There are 10 of your guys being shot at by about 50 hajis. Your guys don't know where exactly where they are or where the fire is coming from.

Where do you guide your precision guided bombs.

>>114749
>7-8% range
>profit
That's after giving themselves massive salaries and reinvesting in expanding their business.

Profits for corps are low because of corporate profit tax.
>> No. 114762 ID: eb2308
>>114761
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM

I don't know, but the asshole flying a jet with modern avionics probably does.
>> No. 114763 ID: eb2308
>>114732
...you mean the thing that's been done successfully for the entirety of the war in Afghanistan?

Yes, I do in fact think things that can be verified to happen on a regular basis are possible.
>> No. 114764 ID: 028b36
>>114586
> 68 posts and 16 images omitted. Click Reply to view.

Seriously guys? No point out SoL is posting from prison with his butt phone?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-man-pleads-guilty-to-strangling-dismembering-woman/
>> No. 114766 ID: 9723b1
File 148356091420.jpg - (225.84KB , 650x434 , 148349848214.jpg )
114766
>>114762
>lockmart advertisement
EOTS is just an infrared sensor, it doesn't see through walls or trees, or tell you which white blob is friendly or enemy.

Infrared systems are great for strike bombing previously known and located targets far away from your own guys.

Not so great at CAS.

>>114763
Except every time you bring this up I post proof that the high altitude approach had several times the friendly casualty rate. I'm going to keep doing it too.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-what-point-does-the-usafs-war-against-the-a-10-becom-1685239179
>Platform ..... Civilian Casualties per 100 Kinetic Sorties
>AC-130 .......... 0.7
>A-10 .......... 1.4
>F-15E ......... 1.6
>F-16 ......... 2.1
>F-18 ......... 2.2
>B-1 .......... 6.6
>AV-8 .......... 8.4

The only fast jet with similar casualty rates to A-10 was F-15E, which also flew very low and eyeballed targets.
The only aircraft with superior casualty rates to A-10 was the spooky, which flies even slower.
>> No. 114774 ID: f11f4d
>>114766
>friendly casualty rate
>Civilian Casualties
laughing_generals.avi

Also, are you factoring in the types of circumstances that each platform is likely to be used in? Because until you do, you're no better off suggesting that eating ice cream prevents the flu.
I know what you're saying, but you're saying it poorly.
>> No. 114777 ID: 9723b1
>>114774
If you think civilians are the only ones dying from misses by 1000lb bombs, I think you should be the next guinea pig on the ground calling in an airstrike by a B-1.

See how your family feels when you become a statistic some Air Force nerd needs to hide.

>are you factoring in the types of circumstances that each platform is likely to be used in
No because I figure any such "circumstance" is probably going to skew things even more in A-10s favor, and I don't feel the need to brutally rape the pancake nazi even more. Gentle rapings are best for fixing misinformation and ignorance.

Like in that article said, if you account for passes/runs, the A-10 is like 13 times better. On top of that I bet half the strikes by the high altitude aircraft were strikes on fixed, preplanned targets. Like areas enemy mortar fire was coming from for three fucking days while troops stood there dying and waiting for some bomber to get ready and fly there from America *cough*operation*cough*anaconda*cough*.
>> No. 114821 ID: 1d521e
The fact of the matter is, in the last 15 years the A-10 has been involved in four friendly fire incidents to the B1's single incident. The way these different systems are employed, and the differences in their loadout can easily explain the civilian casualty rate. Trying to force the assumption that friendly fire rates occur at the same rates as civilian casualties is absurd.
>> No. 114827 ID: 9723b1
>>114821
>in the last 15 years
Top Heh, nice of you to enjoy the text surrounding that cooked link, which explains how it was cooked.
>For one, the numbers were cooked by time frame. The chart comparing civilian casualties starts in 2010, conveniently excluding the 2009 Granai Massacre in which a B-1 killed between 26 and 147 civilians and wounded many more. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission estimated 97 civilians killed, which the Department of Defense has not disputed. Including 2009 would have made the B-1 bomber the worst killer in theater by far.
>For the fratricide data, on the other hand, the Air Force incongruously extended the time-frame back to 2001. If they had used the same time-frame, the B-1 bomber's killing of five American troops in 2014 would have made it top the list for fratricide.
>Second, the Air Force's data doctoring went so far as to exclude all wounded U.S. troops, all killed or wounded allied troops, and all wounded civilians over the same time period. Including these statistics would have collapsed their case against the A-10. If the Air Force included all friendly killed and wounded, three aircraft would have caused substantially greater total fratricide losses than the A-10. This was also an obvious conclusion from the released data sheets, but not mentioned in the press reports.
>Finally and most importantly, to make sure no one could compare aircraft using the crucially important friendly casualty rate per 100 sorties, the Air Force withheld as classified the number of firing sorties each plane flew during the fratricide data period (2001 to 2014)—notably the same data they declassified for their civilian casualty chart from 2010 to 2014.
For the sake of argument ignore all that.

In total B-1 killed five Americans.

How many did A-10 hit?
They claim 10, but... read the fine print: Casualties incurred in one incident involving AH-64 and the A-10 are counted in both weapon system types.
In this incident in 1991 only the AH-64 fired, killing 2 soldiers and wounding six. Bringing A-10 friendly kills to 8.
The A-10 had two and a half times more sorties. Adjusting A-10 fratricide by a factor of 2.5 to 3.2 friendlies per sortie.
The A-10 fired during twice as many sorties. Adjust by a factor of two to 1.6 friendlies per firing sortie.
The A-10 makes 2-3 times more firing runs per sortie. Adjust A-10 fratricide by a factor of two again to 0.8.

We're down to 5 versus 0.8.

Even the numbers that are designed to shit on the A-10 show it's better in every way.
>> No. 114828 ID: 1d521e
>>114827

>> In the Battle of Nasiriyah, an American force of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs) and infantry under intense enemy fire were misidentified as an Iraqi armored column by two U.S. Air Force A-10s who carried out bombing and strafing runs on them. 17 were wounded as a result.

>> 190th Fighter Squadron/Blues and Royals friendly fire incident – 28 March 2003. A pair of American A-10s from the 190th attacked four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals, killing L/CoH. Matty Hull and injuring five others.

>>On 6 April 2006, a British convoy in Afghanistan wounded 13 Afghan police officers and killed seven, after calling in a US airstrike on what they thought was a Taliban attack.[120]

(though I'll give you the A-10s were just doing what the FAC asked them to)

>>Operation Medusa (2006): 1 – Two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts accidentally strafed NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham.

(and wounding 30 others)

In that same time period was 1 B1 incident;

>>Five United States Special forces operatives, an Afghan Army counterpart, and an interpreter were killed by friendly fire in Southern Zabul Province on June 9, 2014. Whilst on patrol, and coming under heavy Taliban fire, an air-strike was called in and a B-1 Lancer bomber misdirected its payload killing the seven military personnel amongst others

Which was largely a result of the JTAC not being on top of things.

I didn't want to open it back to 91 because the B1 hasn't been doing CAS that long, but if you want to bring that up....

>>During the Battle of Khafji, 11 American Marines were killed in two major incidents when their light armored vehicles (LAV's) were hit by missiles fired by a USAF A-10.

>>An American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacked British Warrior MICVs, resulting in nine British dead and numerous casualties.

(numerous = 11 wounded)

So from an operational lifetime standpoint, the A-10's bodycount stands at 28 American Casualties, 26 British Casualties, and 31 Canadian Casualties. If you considered ANA/ANP as "blue" forces, that would be an additional 20.

By contrast, the B1-B is at 5 American Casualties and 2 Afghani Casualties.

Using your own provided "math", adjusting by a factor of 6.5 (which is horribly bogus but I don't have the time to go into how screwed your math is, as skewed as you have it in the A-10's favour, that's still *13* casualties, to the B1's 7.

So really, talk to me about "cooking the books". If you try and argue that deaths and casualties are different, I'm done, there's just no point.
>> No. 114830 ID: 9315da
>>114596
>>114597

These.

Also it's just too late to do anything , really , about the F35. The military is so deep into the program the only practical choice now is forward.
>> No. 114831 ID: 90a126
File 148379972842.jpg - (37.55KB , 450x357 , beer-goggles.jpg )
114831
>>114830
>The military is so deep into the program the only practical choice now is forward.

Its funny, that was pretty much the same advice a friend gave me if I ever found myself wasted and balls deep in some modern day neanderthal woman, you're already so deep you might as well keep going.

I don't think that was good idea for that and I certainly don't think its a good idea for us to keep getting fucked by the F-35 just because its balls deep in our wallets.
>> No. 114832 ID: 632b3e
>>114830

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/
>> No. 114834 ID: 9723b1
>>114828
>British
Foreign casualties aren't included in the files released by the air force.

This is yet another way the totals were cooked.
>> No. 114836 ID: 0d82ce
>>114828
>I didn't want to open it back to 91 because the B1 hasn't been doing CAS that long, but if you want to bring that up....
Oh wow you aren't even trying to hide it.

First of all, the B-1 has never flown the full requirements of a CAS mission, which include identifying the enemy on their own, providing fire support on their own, and keeping it up persistently. They have always worked through FACs and always struck stationary targets with JDAM.

Second of all, the official time when it even starts doing """"CAS"""" is in 2008. That brings the A-10 casualty (wounded and not) totals to 2.3 and the B-1 to 7.

We have no info on how many were wounded in that same incident by the B-1, but we do know that it happened due to the inherent limitations of the aircraft, and was avoidable.
>> No. 114841 ID: 1d521e
  >>114836

>>We have no info on how many were wounded in that same incident by the B-1

0. There is no info on how many were wounded because there were none. They dropped 2 bombs and killed 6 guys who were on a ridge line after having just cleared out a village. It's not like they dropped bombs on the middle of a drill formation and they're trying to cover up the number of wounded.

>> incident by the B-1, but we do know that it happened due to the inherent limitations of the aircraft, and was avoidable.

So that's just factually incorrect. The JTAC directed them at the wrong hill, because both he and his CO couldn't keep track of things, and a fairly glaring limitation of the Sniper pod which couldn't see IR strobes (which is a gross oversight of the Sniper system, it means this situation could occur with ANY CAS aircraft which uses a Sniper pod - that includes the A-10).

The limitation lies with the Sniper pod and not with the B-1B as a whole. A pilot has to trust his controllers, and can't spend a bunch of time second guessing them. 99/100 they're doing their job properly, but when they're wrong, it's usually terrible.

>>The Air Force JTAC, who mistakenly told the air crew the Americans were a safe distance from the target when they were in fact the target, had a spotty career. He had been demoted from staff sergeant to senior airman for misconduct. He was kicked out of a special unit because he twice called in close air support directly over friendly positions. The Times learned that he showed a lack of basic air controller know-how when he was interviewed by accident investigators.

So the JTAC in this situation was habitually shitty at his job.

>> First of all, the B-1 has never flown the full requirements of a CAS mission, which include a list of bullshit I just made up

Here's what the US Military considers to be "CAS". Your irrelevant goalposts can shift themselves off the field entirely.

>> close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets, that are in close proximity to friendly forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.

>>Close air support requires excellent coordination with ground forces. In advanced modern militaries, this coordination is typically handled by specialists such as Joint Fires Observers (JFO)s, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC)s, and Forward Air Controllers (FAC)s.

If your excuse is that an A-10 could have positively identified the forces on the hill as being American...well, there's plenty of incidents listed here that show that the A-10 is just as capable of running on friendlies (including the video).

There are reasons to defend the A-10. The ones you've chosen to harp on about are pretty much the weakest string of defenses one could conceive.

>>114834
>>Foreign casualties aren't included in the files released by the air force.

They didn't have to be? They were released as they happened by other sources. Which is why I could find a list of them.

...in fact, by NOT including British and Canadian casualty figures caused by A-10s, that "cooked the books" in favour of the A-10. As I pointed out.
>> No. 114846 ID: 9723b1
>>114841
>As I pointed out.
As you failed to point out, he >>114836 disproved it.

>2.3 and the B-1 to 7.
It still kills five more people, even with your fiddling.
>> No. 114847 ID: 1d521e
I see, I'm done, if you're just going to blatantly ignore facts, there's no point in trying to discuss this.
>> No. 114849 ID: 9723b1
>>114847
He pointed out you added 7 extra years of CAS work to A-10, but not to B-1.

Do you have an excuse for why you would perpetrate such a blatant attempt at manipulation or not?
>> No. 114854 ID: 1d521e
>>114849

I'm not fiddling with shit, nor am I manipulating shit. The goal posts keep getting moved because the original ones were easily dealt with. He moved goal posts first, I included the incidents he didn't when he decided to bring up 1991. Then he tries to move them back. All while using made up contexts to support his math/claims.

All I did was offer up their respective histories with regards to friendly fire incidents. His bullshit idea that CAS can't be provided by high altitude assets because they're more likely to cause friendly fire incidents is demonstrably false.

The fact of the matter is, the A-10 has killed or wounded A LOT of blue force compared to other aircraft (like, say, the F-16, F-15, and F-18, all of which have better track records over any time period he chooses to talk about next). And they've done it in situations he's saying should lead to less casualties over high altitude CAS.

I don't need to manipulate shit, because I'm not trying to fabricate support for a bullshit idea.
>> No. 114855 ID: 90a126
>>114854
To be fair, the A-10 performs a different role the those other aircraft. Its mission is to the lay the hurt danger close, the F series aircraft are more likely to be laying the hurt behind enemy lines well away from friendlies. Even operating in support of ground forces most fighter planes operate high and wide from friendly, won't be near to the deck blasting dudes practically on top of their guys. Thats pretty much all the A-10 does though, it is going to fight close to friendly forces and have far more chances of accidentally engaging friendlies then fighter aircraft. Comparing them seems very apples and oranges.

It would be like saying a NASCAR hits fewer pedestrians then a normal car. Of course it does but not because the NASCAR is safer or anything but because it is in a role where its rare for it to get squishable people in its path.

Any aircraft performing such close air support is probably going to have a high friendly fire rate, just the nature of the mission that unfortunately sometimes friendlies get hit.
>> No. 114856 ID: 9723b1
>>114854
>The fact of the matter is, the A-10 has killed or wounded A LOT of blue force compared to other aircraft
But that's not true, why do you keep repeating it?

If you break it down properly the A-10 is hurting around 5 times less friendlies, and up to 10 times less civilians.
>> No. 114861 ID: 1d521e
>>114856

Except it isn't hurting less than the aircraft I've mentioned. It's raw numbers are the highest, and only by manipulation can it said to be 5 times less deadly to friendly forces than the B-1 (remember, that's where most of this debate has been centered around). If you compare it to the F-16, which has been flying CAS just as long as the A-10 and is the actual CAS workhorse (over 30% of CAS sorties were flown by F-16s in Afghanistan, much more than the A-10). It has 12 friendly casualties to its name stemming from one incident at the start of that deployment where an F-16 mistook a backfiring generator as AA fire and rolled in despite orders not to.

The way in which these aircraft are employed impacts these numbers greatly, but if anything they should be proof that the A-10 is not the magical CAS bird that this guy is trying to make it out to be.

Like I said, there are reasons to defend the A-10 and possibly keep it around, but he's chosen the weakest argument.
>> No. 114936 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - Episode 1
>> No. 114937 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - Episode 2
>> No. 114938 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - Episode 3
>> No. 114939 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - Episode 4
>> No. 114940 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - The Radar Equation [v1.1]
>> No. 114943 ID: 649f2c
  thanks for linking us to objective information and not paid advertisement from lockheed employees posing as fanbois on reddit.
>> No. 114945 ID: d4c8ee
Best "adur F-35 is bad" thing I've seen in a while was some Kotaku writer whining about how the A model uses boom refueling while the B and C have a probe and drogue setup.

It's up there with that British writer going "The Royal Navy spent over a hundred million pounds on a 4.5 inch long gun!"
>> No. 114949 ID: b70387
>>114945
Honestly, why would the different models use different aerial refueling setups like that?
>> No. 114953 ID: dd244d
File 14842330021.gif - (59.46KB , 350x266 , poster-1340301986_reaction_face.gif )
114953
>>114936
>Busting Myths
Should be called "excuses".

>F-35 is limited to low speed BUT since most aircraft carry external stores...
It's nonsense, F-35 has to carry external stores ON TOP OF its horrific fuselage architecture just to have enough weapons for a mission. Half the time people compare other fighters to it, Lockmart themselves will trot out the ole "but we got pylons toooooo".

This was an aircraft that was promised to supercruise with a full weapon loadout and cost $50 million, and instead it flies subsonic with a full weapons loadout and costs $150 million. Mon visage quand moronic shills think facts like this will slip by a userbase of a militaria themed vebsite.

>>114949
Because you're moving and you've got to pack a 6lb cat, 8lb dog, and 10lb pig but all you bought are 5lb bags.

Same reason C and B don't even have guns, there's just noplace to put them.
>> No. 114960 ID: 1e3438
>>114953
why do people keep on saying they're a $150million plane?
its a $1.5trillon for 1700 planes. can't you do basic math? the planes cost $882million each.
>> No. 114961 ID: d4c8ee
File 148424935419.jpg - (140.56KB , 358x519 , USAF_B-52_refueling_with_a_KC-135.jpg )
114961
>>114949
The Air Force uses boom refueling because it can provide a much higher flow rate for large aircraft, and the pilot of the aircraft being refueled basically just has to fly up behind the tanker and wait for the boom operator to hook up.

The Navy, and pretty much everybody else in the world, uses probe and drogue refueling because despite the fact that the pilot now has to spear a drogue whipping around behind a aircraft (and that's without bad weather or low visibility), it's a lot simpler and lighter, and one aircraft can refuel multiple aircraft at once. Also you can do stuff like buddy tanking if you don't or can't operate larger aircraft, and refueling helicopters.

The KC-135 can be fitted with a drogue adapter on the boom, and can be fitted with wing-mounted adapters, while the newer KC-10 has a drogue mounted centrally in addition to the boom. The new KC-46 will have all three as standard IIRC.
>> No. 114963 ID: 9723b1
>>114949
Well you see it's two to three times faster to refuel by pipe than by hose.

So obviously because the C variant has the highest fuel store and operational need (CAP) for fuel, and because the B variant has the smallest store and has to be refueled most often, Lockheed martin has decided to make it so that those two variants that most rely on refueling can only be refueled by the slowest, most dangerous, and most unreliable possible system available.
>> No. 114965 ID: d4c8ee
File 148425935513.jpg - (1.05MB , 2991x1953 , KA-6_F-14_DN-ST-87-10386.jpg )
114965
>>114963
>idiot has idiot opinions

This guy can't post now.
Personal insult.
>> No. 114968 ID: 791f24
>>114961
They seem to be delivering the goods at quite a steep bank angle.
B-52 formation aerobatic team when?
>> No. 114969 ID: d4c8ee
  >>114968
Never.
http://sbfpd.org/uploads/3/0/9/6/3096011/darker_shades_of_blue.pdf

>"You've killed us you asshole." -Lt. Col McGeehan
>> No. 114970 ID: 9dcda2
  >>114969
Interesting read.

Cached HTML version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qN5quCOYEv4J:sbfpd.org/uploads/3/0/9/6/3096011/darker_shades_of_blue.pdf+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

On the video, FF to 1:10 for 8 jet engines coming up to power.
>> No. 114975 ID: 649f2c
File 14844607756.jpg - (17.72KB , 340x282 , post-51173-0-53953200-1290625728_thumb.jpg )
114975
I think what d4c8ee was trying to say in >>114965 is that the previous poster was mistaken in their assessment and drogue & probe refueling was in fact the correct logical choice because the tankers available from carrier decks are limited, somewhat antiquated and are equipped with drogue & probe refueling gear & they're not scheduled to be replaced in the foreseeable future.
all of that what what I read into the picture.

If Trump wants to dump a bunch of money into new makes of the F-18, then maybe they can develop a boom refueling system for the new F-18s, but that would be way off in the future & probably won't happen. A biplane version for heavy lift, & extra tankage?
>> No. 114977 ID: b70387
>>114975
I doubt 9723b1 would have picked up on all that. I certainly didn't. In which case, the post is less than constructive.

Thank you for your reasoned discourse.
>> No. 115080 ID: d4c8ee
>>114975
No I was calling him a idiot for saying Lockheed is responsible for the Air Force and Navy adopting different refueling systems back in the 60s.
>> No. 115224 ID: 5f1643
File 148579561275.jpg - (118.47KB , 1000x669 , 04.jpg )
115224
>>114977
>i ban people because they posted something that i didn't know about

opchan trivia night ruined
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason