• The military aviation thread
    322 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archangel125;21326297]Apache image I've always felt that helicopters are the only real kind of piloting left - Fast-movers are mostly computer-controlled now. And the AH-64D Apache longbow is the baddest motherfucker that ever flew.[/QUOTE] I just noticed that the apache has a leno jaw on it.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21345673][img]http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/prop-bike.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] My comment still stands.
Here's a slightly less-loved aircraft that I like: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/Mc_202_folgore.sized.jpg[/img] The Italian [B]Mc 202[/B] It's very difficult to find good pictures of this thing, probably because we don't have an extensive supply of documents from the fascist Italian regime, because they were probably all destroyed at the end of the war and because countries that lose a war don't tend to take much pride in the hardware of such wars. Anyway, it was a beautiful aircraft that was produced and flown in large numbers and was piloted by Italy's great aces of the war. An Australian pilot who fought in all theatres (and therefore faced Zeros, 109s, 190s etc) said that the Mc 202 was "one of the best and most undervalued of fighters". Many think that, had it been better armed, it would have been vastly superior to the 109 because of its wonderful flying characteristics.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21341589]And then the Americans realized not having a gun was a huge mistake from their Vietnam experiences and ended up sticking a gun under the nose/cockpit area.[/QUOTE] yeah Veitnam bit them in the ass the most because of the pressure from the MiG's, finally they installed a gun under the fuselage that looked like a reserved fuel tank [editline]09:22AM[/editline] [img]http://www.museumofflight.org/files/imagecache/lightbox/TMOF%20McDonnell%20F-4C%20PhantomII-2_P2.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Craptasket;21346097]it was the Korean war that bit them in the ass the most because of the pressure from the MiG's, finally they installed a gun under the fuselage that looked like a reserved fuel tank[/QUOTE] What? How could the Korean War effect the choice to mount a gun on F4s in Vietnam? The US aircraft in the Korean War [I]had[/I] guns. It was after that war that some idiot decided jets go way to quick for a gun to be necessary anymore so they declined to install one into the F4. It was once Vietnam got underway and old Mig-15s and new Mig-21s were kicking their asses that they hastily stuck one under the fuselage.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21346144]What? How could the Korean War effect the choice to mount a gun on F4s in Vietnam? The US aircraft in the Korean War [I]had[/I] guns. It was after that war that some idiot decided jets go way to quick for a gun to be necessary anymore so they declined to install one into the F4. It was once Vietnam got underway and old Mig-15s and new Mig-21s were kicking their asses that they hastily stuck one under the fuselage.[/QUOTE] whoops, went out to check, you're right.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21346144]What? How could the Korean War effect the choice to mount a gun on F4s in Vietnam? The US aircraft in the Korean War [I]had[/I] guns. It was after that war that some idiot decided jets go way to quick for a gun to be necessary anymore so they declined to install one into the F4.[/QUOTE] These are the same idiots who believed that any future aerial war would be fought with only beyond visual range AAMs.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21342451]Thread needs more of this: [B]CH-47 Chinook[/B] [I]The[/I] best transport chopper in the world. It's proven, rugged, reliable and damn fast. These things are so fast that Apaches acting as escorts find it hard to keep up. The noise they make is incredible and being under the wash of one of these things is like being in a hurricane.[/QUOTE] CH-47 is a living proof of the theory, that if you manage to slap enough propellers on it, you can make [I]anything[/I] fly. [editline]06:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Nerdrage;21344492]Why doesn't anybody post the [I]real[/I] direction military avatation is going. UAV's are where it's at. Unmanned strike UAV's like these: the Excalibur: [IMG]http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4517/aw110320081708l2449449pi5.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] It's only a model. [IMG]http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail038.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21346664]These are the same idiots who believed that any future aerial war would be fought with only beyond visual range AAMs.[/QUOTE] Are you agreeing with me or impling that they are correct because modern aerial warfare only uses AAMs that engage beyond visual range? Because there hasn't been much wide-spread aerial combat since Vietnam and it is more than probably that gun-based dogfights can still occur, hence why the majority of modern combat aircraft are equipped with some sort of cannon or machinegun.
[QUOTE=rosthouse;21344814]The russians just know how to build great choppers. By the way, here's a comparison chart for those two choppers. [IMG]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/helicopters/size/size-comparison.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] nice, would love to see the MI 12 fly
B-52, reporting in. [IMG]http://www.all-freeware.com/images/full/59532-b-52_stratofortress_in_bw_screensaver_desktop_screen_savers.jpeg[/IMG]
oh and this is pretty damn cool english electric lightning: [IMG]http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/4/1/7/1366714.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.space-travellers.de/home/grafik/images/lightning.jpg[/IMG] I mean it managed to intercept a U2 spy plane at 80,000 feet, clime rate: 20,000 ft/min all the way to about 60,000 feet
[QUOTE=kekedakis;21349039]B-52, reporting in. [/QUOTE] For about the 5th time.
[QUOTE=kekedakis;21349039]B-52, reporting in. [IMG]http://www.all-freeware.com/images/full/59532-b-52_stratofortress_in_bw_screensaver_desktop_screen_savers.jpeg[/IMG][/QUOTE] beat you to that one
[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayashi;21326685][IMG]http://imgkk.com/i/a4rx.jpg[/IMG] A10[/QUOTE] you know that's just the cannon, right
[QUOTE=Cogniscente;21349218]you know that's just the cannon, right[/QUOTE] No really??? I thought it was the whole plane without wings or an engine and no cockpit?? [/sarcasm]
[QUOTE=Cogniscente;21349218]you know that's just the cannon, right[/QUOTE] but it's still impressive
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21347028]Are you agreeing with me or impling that they are correct because modern aerial warfare only uses AAMs that engage beyond visual range? Because there hasn't been much wide-spread aerial combat since Vietnam and it is more than probably that gun-based dogfights can still occur, hence why the majority of modern combat aircraft are equipped with some sort of cannon or machinegun.[/QUOTE] I'm disagreeing with them. Remember that flexibility is key also. Maybe a flight of F-15Cs may be called to give some light air support for a ground unit with its 20mm guns. There are many situations in real life of this happening, but I fondly remember in Red Storm Rising when two F-15Cs from Iceland were called in to strafe the bridge of a Soviet cargo ship.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;21323461]It may look ugly, but these jets are scary. First used in the korean war, [b]they were the first jets to be in a dogfight.[/b] They are armed with powerful 20mm cannons, and can be arm with other bombs and rockets. They were great against B-29 bombers, but weren't that great against allied fighters.[/QUOTE] What about the Messerschmitt ME-262 and the Gloster Meteor?
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21349564]I'm disagreeing with them. Remember that flexibility is key also. Maybe a flight of F-15Cs may be called to give some light air support for a ground unit with its 20mm guns. There are many situations in real life of this happening, but I fondly remember in Red Storm Rising when two F-15Cs from Iceland were called in to strafe the bridge of a Soviet cargo ship.[/QUOTE] Ah good. Yes I agree with you completely. [QUOTE=David29;21349682]What about the Messerschmitt ME-262 and the Gloster Meteor?[/QUOTE] What he means is two jets in a dogfight together. The Meteor was never in dogfights during WW2 by the way.
[QUOTE=SeamanStaines;21345094]Thread lacks Harriers [img]http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~keith.oc/GR3.JPG[/img] [/QUOTE] Intakes remind me of: [img]http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/1242630512000/00813/riesenhai_DW_Wissen_813521g.jpg[/img]
[IMG]http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/lockheed_sr-71_blackbird.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg[/IMG] SR-71 blackbird Used for High Allitude recon flights over Soviet russia, retired now but still used by nasa for astronaut training. has no weapons whatsoever. After landing the pilot had to wait up to 2 hours befoire the hull was cool enough to let him leave. Also a spacesuit was needed to fly it. And it also flew faster than a bullet.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;21344968]My Asvab was bullshit... Which wheel does cable B spin? And it shows a drawing in ASCII which is impossible to decipher[/QUOTE] I'd just try to take it again. Maybe try to study. It's great once you're in.
[QUOTE=Stupideye;21328590][IMG]http://imagebank.ipcmedia.com/imageBank/a/avro-arrow-air-to-air1.jpg[/IMG] Avro Arrow Why our government scrapped it is beyond me.[/QUOTE] Gives em shivers, man. I was just waiting for someone to post the Arrow. *Sniff*. Apparently the Canadian government scrapped it and made a deal with US, 'cause the yankies were a-scared of this technological marvel - and in return, Canada got to participate in the failed "Star Wars" missile defense shield. What a waste. :/
[img]http://online.sfsu.edu/~amkerner/memory/Img/Galleries/Full_size/yamamoto/oka.jpg[/img] Oka A.K.A. Cherry Blossom. Japanese Suicide plane. Would be carried via Japanese bombers, then dropped. A jet in the back would turn on and the pilot would steer his plane into the American Ships. There's a small animated short based on this.
-Saab JAS 39 Gripen. -Multirole fighter. -Swedish aircraft. [img]http://www.cas2.com/images/JAS39Gripen_000.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Saxon;21340878]I remember seeing an A-10 fly 500 feet above my house and its gun started going off. I was shitting bricks thinking WW3 had started until I found out it was firing blanks for an airshow for the nearby airport. Maybe I'll dig up some pics from my trip to the Smithsonian about a year ago tomorrow and post them. As for the Osprey, people should get with the times. They're actually reliable now.[/QUOTE] So they just let 30mm casings fall on people's houses? WTF, are you bullshitting us? BTW, I love the shithook as well. :smug:
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;21352524]So they just let 30mm casings fall on people's houses? WTF, are you bullshitting us?[/QUOTE] Do they just eject the shells out of the aircraft? I've never seen shells in any photographs.
[QUOTE=Gubru;21352184]Gives em shivers, man. I was just waiting for someone to post the Arrow. *Sniff*. Apparently the Canadian government scrapped it and made a deal with US, 'cause the yankies were a-scared of this technological marvel - and in return, Canada got to participate in the failed "Star Wars" missile defense shield. What a waste. :/[/QUOTE] Nope, if you read my post somewhere earlier in the thread the Arrow was a victim of the political fights between the Conservatives and Liberals. The Liberals were the ones that started the project and back in the day the Conservatives really wanted to kill the "rampant Liberal spending" and grounded the Arrow down for good when they were elected. And after that, it wasn't Star Wars/SDI. You're thirty years ahead there bud. The US offered our government further integration into NORAD via the SAGE system and that included several CIM-10 Bomarc SAMs with nuclear warheads. In the case of a Soviet bomber attack (ICBMs hadn't become the new fad yer) these SAMs would be shooting down bombers over Canadian territory with [i]nuclear[/i] warheads. Now I don't need to say what happens when a nuclear SAM shoots down a Tu-95 over say Toronto or Winnipeg. Obviously this was a cheaper prospect and the Conservative government already dug too deep of a hole to revive the Arrow. [editline]03:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;21352605]Do they just eject the shells out of the aircraft? I've never seen shells in any photographs.[/QUOTE] The GAU-8 puts the spent casings back into the internal ammo drum.
FUCK THE THE US. FUCK THIS COUNTRY. Wikipedia. The high cost of the aircraft, a lack of a clear air to air combat missions because of the lengthy delays in the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighter programs, a US ban on Raptor exports, and the development of the cheaper and more versatile [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II"]F-35[/URL] resulted in calls to end F-22 production. In April 2009 the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Department_of_Defense"]US Department of Defense[/URL] proposed to cease placing new orders, subject to Congressional approval, for a final procurement tally of 187 Raptors.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#cite_note-cut-7"][8][/URL] The US Senate and House each passed 2010 budget bill versions without F-22 production funding in July 2009.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#cite_note-8"][9][/URL] Congress worked to combine these versions into one bill,[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#cite_note-9"][10][/URL] and President [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama"]Obama[/URL] signed the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2010"]National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010[/URL] in October 2009, without funding for F-22 production.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#cite_note-10"][11][/URL] Fine cancel the most bad ass fighter ever created. When the Russians start bombing the shit out of the world and Osama gets f-15s I hope they bomb the white house because America didn't have the best shit in the world. Fucking waist of hard work and and brilliant engineering [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/FA22_Raptors_Oct2005.jpg[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.