• The military aviation thread
    322 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;21328813]I think it's pretty silly to call people immature for admiring military technology. I find military aircraft interesting because they constantly push the limits of aviation technology. Sure, there's some unique and innovative civilian aircraft, but I think an aircraft going 2 times the speed of sound is far more interesting than an aircraft made of composite materials and has flexing wings. Innovations tend to start in the military sector. Engines are constantly being improved and made more powerful due to the increasing standards for military aircraft. Those engine advancements pass down into the civilian sector, giving us faster, safer, and more efficient aircraft to travel about in. Calling people immature for admiring technological feats sounds pretty immature to me. I mean, I find the weapons and stuff that inmates engineer in prisons pretty despicable stuff since it's created solely for the purpose of hurting another individual, but at the same time, I admire it. I went on a field trip to a prison and the warden showed us a gun that someone made out of pipes and shit. A fucking gun. Yes, it's horrible, but you have to admit that it is pretty amazing at the same time.[/QUOTE] But why military? There is plenty of other admirable technological feats. War and warfare has been fetishised astronomically, especially by the 'immature'. I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying there is a pretty good case for it.
So much tension in this thread now...too bad it had to end like that... Anyway...more planes and shit! :buddy:
[QUOTE=NoDachi;21328894]But why military? There is plenty of other admirable technological feats. War and warfare has been fetishised astronomically, especially by the 'immature'. I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying there is a pretty good case for it.[/QUOTE] I could ask the same thing by saying why admire Call of Duty and Infinity Ward? There are plenty of other excellent games made by Valve, Relic and Taleworlds for example.
[QUOTE=gtanoofa;21328983]Am i the only one who thinks that the warthog A-10 is an overpowered piece of shit airplane that makes a horrible sound when flying ?[/QUOTE] Are you 12? You seriously just called a [I]real-life[/I] aircraft [B][I]over-powered[/I][/B]? Holy shit.
[QUOTE=gtanoofa;21329025]It's full of amunation, if anything like that crashes it the explosion will be as good as a daisy cuter.[/QUOTE] ... okay I think you confirmed my suspicions. And anti-tank rounds exploding at the same time would not create an explosion anything like a daisy cutter. At all.
It is also highly effective at fucking any given enemy up. It doesn't matter if it's infantry, a battalion of tanks, an artillery firebase, a battleship or a reinforced building. The A-10 can and will kill it to teeny, tiny pieces.
[QUOTE=archangel125;21329056]It is also highly effective at fucking any given enemy up. It doesn't matter if it's infantry, a battalion of tanks, an artillery firebase, a battleship or a reinforced building. The A-10 can and will kill it to teeny, tiny pieces.[/QUOTE] I would be interested to see how an A-10 would handle a fairly equally matched war (ie. not a conflict where the US has 100% air superiority with the biggest threat to the A-10 being some old DShK machineguns or Sa7 launchers). I know it is highly acclaimed for being able to take a huge ton of damage before going down... but surely something so slow wouldn't work so well in a theatre full of MiGs.
I'm currently an Avionics Technician for F-15Es. Good stuff. I love my job in the Air Force.. Although the training was long.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21329160]I would be interested to see how an A-10 would handle a fairly equally matched war (ie. not a conflict where the US has 100% air superiority with the biggest threat to the A-10 being some old DShK machineguns or Sa7 launchers). I know it is highly acclaimed for being able to take a huge ton of damage before going down... but surely something so slow wouldn't work so well in a theatre full of MiGs.[/QUOTE] Exactly. The A-10 was designed as a Cold War CAS aircraft in the 1970s. In its intended role in Central Europe it would've faced a shitload of MiGs, SAMs and AAA fire. Even its 30mm DU rounds are suspect these days. They can sure penetrate older tanks like T-55s, T-62s and early T-64 variants, but not T-80s and T-72s equipped with ERA and composite armor unless the pilot can shoot them in the ass and no AA assets are trying to kick his.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21329002]I could ask the same thing by saying why admire Call of Duty and Infinity Ward? There are plenty of other excellent games made by Valve, Relic and Taleworlds for example.[/QUOTE] Apples and oranges. One is creative entertainment. One is a picture of a machine.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;21329348]Apples and oranges. One is creative entertainment. One is a picture of a machine.[/QUOTE] They're both interests.
B-24 Liberator [IMG]http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/consolidated-b24-liberator.jpg[/IMG] my grandfather was a nose gunner in one of these during WWII. Side note: his plane was involved in the first bombing of Berlin. [editline]12:07PM[/editline] one of the leading planes in that bombing I think
[QUOTE=JeffAndersen;21329271]I'm currently an Avionics Technician for F-15Es. Good stuff. I love my job in the Air Force.. Although the training was long.[/QUOTE] How did you get into that? I mean, what qualifications did you have to have? Did you need to do maths and physics in your school years and then do engineering at university or what?
[QUOTE=Str4t0s;21326813][IMG]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130h-19990803ac130a.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] enemy AC-130 is in the air. but seriusly i have flied in one of those (the C-130J wich is the transport plane) it was awesome but very loud, when i first saw the plane i said "AC-130 is in the air" infact here is a picture the Royal Norwegian air force's C-130J hercules [IMG]http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4963/img0667l.jpg[/IMG]
I fucking love planes and helicopters.
I got the chance to fly on a WC 130 like this one, except in a darker shade of gray. [img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/wc-130-dvic196.jpg[/img] This thread has a lack of... The Messerschmitt Me 262, Sexiest airplane of WWII. [img]http://www.aviationartgallery.co.uk/Images/Large-Images/Messerschmitt-me262.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Siminov;21330712]This thread has a lack of... The Messerschmitt Me 262, Sexiest airplane of WWII.[/QUOTE] It's a nice looking aircraft but I just don't find it as romantic as the good 'ol props.
[QUOTE=Methylparaben;21323536]this thread is quite short, and those napalm bombs that the A10 uses are banned by the Geneva-Conventions so what ever website you got your infomation of was also incapable of checking its research. also you say the F22 rapter has a "advanced helmet with a HUD system", it dose but so dose very nearly every aircraft the US airforce uses, $150,000 a piece[/QUOTE] You are such a moron. A HELMET. HELMET. Not a HUD that appears in the actual cockpit. You don't even need a visor/helmet to see those. The F-22 does indeed have a HELMET that contains a special HUD made just for the aircraft.
[QUOTE=Mikhail;21331310]You are such a moron. A HELMET. HELMET. Not a HUD that appears in the actual cockpit. You don't even need a visor/helmet to see those. The F-22 does indeed have a HELMET that contains a special HUD made just for the aircraft.[/QUOTE] No you are a moron. Most combat aircraft pilots get that now, hell even some attack helicopter pilots and gunners. Get with the times. The F22 isn't special any more.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21331729]No you are a moron. Most combat aircraft pilots get that now, hell even some attack helicopter pilots and gunners. Get with the times. The F22 isn't special any more.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the F-22 wasn't the first to have a HUD. Apache's have had a HUD in their helmet for a long time, they can even aim the main cannon by just looking over at a target if they wish to do so.
[QUOTE=Mikhail;21331310]You are such a moron. A HELMET. HELMET. Not a HUD that appears in the actual cockpit. You don't even need a visor/helmet to see those. The F-22 does indeed have a HELMET that contains a special HUD made just for the aircraft.[/QUOTE] Mm hm. The Soviets had operational ones since the mid 1980s on their MiG-29s and Su-27s. Just a helmet mounted HUD doesn't make an aircraft any more "exclusive" or "better".
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21329160]I would be interested to see how an A-10 would handle a fairly equally matched war (ie. not a conflict where the US has 100% air superiority with the biggest threat to the A-10 being some old DShK machineguns or Sa7 launchers). I know it is highly acclaimed for being able to take a huge ton of damage before going down... but surely something so slow wouldn't work so well in a theatre full of MiGs.[/QUOTE] The US has air superiority that allows them to use the A10 because they create that air superiority. They didn't just let the A10s fly into Iraq and start shooting up tanks. They first took out the SAM sites and other ground threats while destroying the Iraqi air force. The full theater of migs taking on an A10 won't happen and if it did, the migs would have an obvious advantage seeing as they are designed to shoot at other planes and not the ground.
I don't know a lot of information about military aviation, but one thing I've heard time and again is that the apache fucking rapes nearly every ground-based target.
[QUOTE=Hiccuper;21332681]I don't know a lot of information about military aviation, but one thing I've heard time and again is that the apache fucking rapes nearly every ground-based target.[/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/CrashedA64by_Karbala.jpg[/img] That's because the US operates with basically total air superiority. There was [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Attack_on_Karbala]one time[/url] during the 2003 Iraqi invasion when an Apache was shot down by 23mm AA fire. Helicopter gunships are actually more vulnerable to ground fire than what you would expect from seeing all of those news broadcasts. Take a look at the Soviet Union's adventures in Afghanistan too regarding their Mi-24s.
It was retired pretty recently, but this fucker was responsible for assfucking anti-aircraft sites in both Desert Storm and in the beginning phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It'll put a missile through your goddamn window and be long gone before your buddies can put up any kind of resistance. One was shot down during the Cold War period methinks, simply because they used the same flightpaths for an area and the enemy was able to use trial and error to put out AA sites in the right spots. [img]http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f117/images/nhawk11.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21332787][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/CrashedA64by_Karbala.jpg[/img] That's because the US operates with basically total air superiority. There was [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Attack_on_Karbala]one time[/url] [/QUOTE] FFAR's sticking out dangerously overhead
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21332787][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/CrashedA64by_Karbala.jpg[/img] That's because the US operates with basically total air superiority. There was [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Attack_on_Karbala]one time[/url] during the 2003 Iraqi invasion when an Apache was shot down by 23mm AA fire. Helicopter gunships are actually more vulnerable to ground fire than what you would expect from seeing all of those news broadcasts. Take a look at the Soviet Union's adventures in Afghanistan too regarding their Mi-24s.[/QUOTE] notice how it's almost completely intact :v:
[img]http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/Su-35/Su-35BM_big.jpg[/img] Sukhoi Su-27, quite possibly one of the prettiest aircraft ever made, along with the Spitfire. Also a formidable fighter.
[QUOTE=TH89;21327775]No it's not, cause Congress cancelled it, remember? We only have like 20 iirc[/QUOTE] 120+ or so, actually, and the potential to build many more if the requirement arises. As it stands, an asymmetrical war is by far the most likely so Congress isn't too keen on the $150+ million price tag per jet, plus maintenance. Still is an outstanding piece of technology, even if it won't ever be used for anything but intimidation. The F-35 will be fulfilling the roll of the air forces 2000 AD+ attack jet. [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21329160]I would be interested to see how an A-10 would handle a fairly equally matched war (ie. not a conflict where the US has 100% air superiority with the biggest threat to the A-10 being some old DShK machineguns or Sa7 launchers). I know it is highly acclaimed for being able to take a huge ton of damage before going down... but surely something so slow wouldn't work so well in a theatre full of MiGs.[/QUOTE] Tom Clancys "Red Storm Rising" (released long before the absurdity of his Ryanverse and such in the modern era) was an excellent example of conventional Cold War era doctrine, including the usage of the A-10. It's about the best example of how the A-10 may have faired in a war that takes place in its prime. As far as the A-10 is concerned in the modern era, it was retired before 2001 because it likely wouldn't hold up to modern anti air. Because of the asymmetrical warfare that the United States is likely to be engaged in in most future conflicts, it's used heavily as a cheaper alternative to the F-35. The F-35 would fulfill the roll it currently takes in a symmetrical war.
[QUOTE=Wolfie13;21323972]Except hurricanes got more confirmed kills.[/QUOTE] Because there were a lot more of them early war. [QUOTE=B-hazard;21324074]Yeah, the hurricane had better bang for your buck.[/QUOTE] Most early war variants were armed the same, 8 x .303 (7.7mm) Vickers K, later Browning, machine guns. Later on the Hurricane's tended to better armed, but were used for different roles, such as tank hunting or ground attack. Gotta love it though. :)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.