User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 8:43:37 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, do gay male to female trannies bang chicks or dudes? Can you be transminority? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Standards have gone WAY up. Now they only recruit gay minority trannies, who are only willing to fly F35s and fight a war with China or Russia. Wait, do gay male to female trannies bang chicks or dudes? Can you be transminority? Chicks, and yes. The AF has been turning away the white trannies, and are unable to meet their quota of asian trannies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 9:17:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
20 years ago, the Harrier could do everything a Super T could do, but better. Payload, range, speed, and the ability to in flight refuel. Now, the Harriers are done, they aren't making new ones, and the boneyards are about out of parts. Carrier ops are brutal on airframes. Unfortunately, the F-35 happened. If the F-35B variant didn't exist, the F-35 would be in full service by now. The Marines need STOAL on rough airfields. Since the beginning of WWII, they have been putting airfields as close to the front lines as possible to minimize turnaround time, and maximize loiter time. On Okinawa, Marine pilots running to their aircraft in the revetments were taken under aimed rifle fire In OIF I, they at least located the improvised strips for Harriers out of arty range, but just barely. We have the F-35 though, the aircraft that was supposed to replace all these specialized aircraft, except it does nothing particularly well... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've been wondering why the Marines didn't buy their own years ago. Kharn 20 years ago, the Harrier could do everything a Super T could do, but better. Payload, range, speed, and the ability to in flight refuel. Now, the Harriers are done, they aren't making new ones, and the boneyards are about out of parts. Carrier ops are brutal on airframes. Unfortunately, the F-35 happened. If the F-35B variant didn't exist, the F-35 would be in full service by now. The Marines need STOAL on rough airfields. Since the beginning of WWII, they have been putting airfields as close to the front lines as possible to minimize turnaround time, and maximize loiter time. On Okinawa, Marine pilots running to their aircraft in the revetments were taken under aimed rifle fire In OIF I, they at least located the improvised strips for Harriers out of arty range, but just barely. We have the F-35 though, the aircraft that was supposed to replace all these specialized aircraft, except it does nothing particularly well... The F-35 isn't held up for the STOVL variant, that is just one of the big poles sticking up in the tent of failure. The DAS is probably a bigger failure, or obstacle and opportunity if you're a manager, the seat, helmet, subsystems, mechanisms, doors, racks, structural integrity, plain old form, fit, and function, and no doubt thousands of other issues ranging from those that can be fixed in 30 seconds (they can be, not that they will be), to those that cause a circle back and delays of months or years to sort out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 9:52:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
20 years ago, the Harrier could do everything a Super T could do, but better. Payload, range, speed, and the ability to in flight refuel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
20 years ago, the Harrier could do everything a Super T could do, but better. Payload, range, speed, and the ability to in flight refuel. And about 4-5 times the operating cost at least. Unfortunately, the F-35 happened. If the F-35B variant didn't exist, the F-35 would be in full service by now. The B-variant is the only part of the F-35 program that really makes sense. Doubling (or almost tripling, if you count allied navies) the number of decks from which you can launch no-shit fighter bombers is a very, very big deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 9:58:54 PM EDT
[#4]
The entire F-35 program was hobbled by the need to fit the B model onto existing shops elevators. For the amount of money involved they should have just bought new ships.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 9:59:22 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And about 4-5 times the operating cost at least. The B-variant is the only part of the F-35 program that really makes sense. Doubling (or almost tripling, if you count allied navies) the number of decks from which you can launch no-shit fighter bombers is a very, very big deal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
20 years ago, the Harrier could do everything a Super T could do, but better. Payload, range, speed, and the ability to in flight refuel. And about 4-5 times the operating cost at least. Unfortunately, the F-35 happened. If the F-35B variant didn't exist, the F-35 would be in full service by now. The B-variant is the only part of the F-35 program that really makes sense. Doubling (or almost tripling, if you count allied navies) the number of decks from which you can launch no-shit fighter bombers is a very, very big deal. How many weapons is that SVTOL jet going to take off the deck with? Even then how much of a radius is it going to have? Making a vertical take off jet that is dependent on land based tankers seems unproductive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 10:10:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many weapons is that SVTOL jet going to take off the deck with? Even then how much of a radius is it going to have? Making a vertical take off jet that is dependent on land based tankers seems unproductive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
20 years ago, the Harrier could do everything a Super T could do, but better. Payload, range, speed, and the ability to in flight refuel. And about 4-5 times the operating cost at least. Unfortunately, the F-35 happened. If the F-35B variant didn't exist, the F-35 would be in full service by now. The B-variant is the only part of the F-35 program that really makes sense. Doubling (or almost tripling, if you count allied navies) the number of decks from which you can launch no-shit fighter bombers is a very, very big deal. How many weapons is that SVTOL jet going to take off the deck with? Even then how much of a radius is it going to have? Making a vertical take off jet that is dependent on land based tankers seems unproductive. To quibble a bit it's not V/STOL it's STOVL, which means it is completely incapable of vertical takeoff, at least with more than minimum fuel and zero weapons load. It needs a chunk of "runway" no matter where it is, I can only imagine the FOD if they tried using it on semi-prepared surfaces, lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 10:51:24 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Making a vertical take off jet that is dependent on land based tankers seems unproductive. You can't sell tankers with an attitude like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 11:58:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't sell tankers with an attitude like that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Making a vertical take off jet that is dependent on land based tankers seems unproductive. You can't sell tankers with an attitude like that. Tankers sell themselves. 
It's inherently flawed CONOPS's that have amazing salesmen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 12:01:15 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many weapons is that SVTOL jet going to take off the deck with? Even then how much of a radius is it going to have? Making a vertical take off jet that is dependent on land based tankers seems unproductive. I thought they did a tanker variant of the V-22? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 12:06:05 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought they did a tanker variant of the V-22? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How many weapons is that SVTOL jet going to take off the deck with? Even then how much of a radius is it going to have? Making a vertical take off jet that is dependent on land based tankers seems unproductive. I thought they did a tanker variant of the V-22? With what? 15k of give? So a small deck carrier is going to need one osprey for each F-35? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 12:17:29 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't sell tankers with an attitude like that. KV-135, you say? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 1:11:35 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tankers sell themselves.
It's inherently flawed CONOPS's that have amazing salesmen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Making a vertical take off jet that is dependent on land based tankers seems unproductive. You can't sell tankers with an attitude like that. Tankers sell themselves.
It's inherently flawed CONOPS's that have amazing salesmen. They already have the KC-130Js, they just don't want to admit the dependence on land based gas, just like their Navy brethren. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 1:49:46 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To quibble a bit it's not V/STOL it's STOVL, which means it is completely incapable of vertical takeoff, at least with more than minimum fuel and zero weapons load. It needs a chunk of "runway" no matter where it is, I can only imagine the FOD if they tried using it on semi-prepared surfaces, lol. The ANG at my airport is redoing some of the taxiways in preparation for F-35 FOD requirements. Which is funny because the F-16s already there are made out of spun sugar and gossamer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 2:07:03 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Supply Officer Property Book Officer Maintenance Officer (MTP) ALSE Officer NVG Custodian Arms Room Officer Bla bla bla. The US Army CWOs are becoming RLOs for 1/3rd less pay. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So Pilots have to do other stuff besides piloting? Like what? Supply Officer Property Book Officer Maintenance Officer (MTP) ALSE Officer NVG Custodian Arms Room Officer Bla bla bla. The US Army CWOs are becoming RLOs for 1/3rd less pay. If its anything like the Corps you can add: Weight control officer Combined Federal Campaign Officer Navy & MC Relief Fund Officer Voting Officer Marine Corps Ball coordinator And then the following are just a few more examples: Monthly armory inventory (CMR) JAGMAN (investigations) as directed Annnnndddd the one we love to hate...Officer of the Day! Duty! On top of leading your troops in field and garrison don't forget to stay on top of your annual requirements, make it to the range, personnel admin (fit reps and pros/cons), your own personal physical fitness and finally maybe have a life. LOL at those new officer candidates who think they are going to run and gun their whole way... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 2:24:29 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If its anything like the Corps you can add: Weight control officer Combined Federal Campaign Officer Navy & MC Relief Fund Officer Voting Officer Marine Corps Ball coordinator And then the following are just a few more examples: Monthly armory inventory (CMR) JAGMAN (investigations) as directed Annnnndddd the one we love to hate...Officer of the Day! Duty! On top of leading your troops in field and garrison don't forget to stay on top of your annual requirements, make it to the range, personnel admin (fit reps and pros/cons), your own personal physical fitness and finally maybe have a life. LOL at those new officer candidates who think they are going to run and gun their whole way... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So Pilots have to do other stuff besides piloting? Like what? Supply Officer Property Book Officer Maintenance Officer (MTP) ALSE Officer NVG Custodian Arms Room Officer Bla bla bla. The US Army CWOs are becoming RLOs for 1/3rd less pay. If its anything like the Corps you can add: Weight control officer Combined Federal Campaign Officer Navy & MC Relief Fund Officer Voting Officer Marine Corps Ball coordinator And then the following are just a few more examples: Monthly armory inventory (CMR) JAGMAN (investigations) as directed Annnnndddd the one we love to hate...Officer of the Day! Duty! On top of leading your troops in field and garrison don't forget to stay on top of your annual requirements, make it to the range, personnel admin (fit reps and pros/cons), your own personal physical fitness and finally maybe have a life. LOL at those new officer candidates who think they are going to run and gun their whole way... How is it that most WOs get away with drinking coffee and bitching as their primary duties during the typical 4 hour duty day? I keed...Sort of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 9:00:27 AM EDT
[#16]
in case you haven't noticed, the army doesn't have weight control officers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 9:25:58 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
in case you haven't noticed, the army doesn't have weight control officers. We do |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 10:00:26 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They already have the KC-130Js, they just don't want to admit the dependence on land based gas, just like their Navy brethren. Its not that we don't admit it, its more like our dependence on USAF tanks is a growing vulnerability that is being slowly addressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 10:05:12 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its not that we don't admit it, its more like our dependence on USAF tanks is a growing vulnerability that is being slowly addressed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They already have the KC-130Js, they just don't want to admit the dependence on land based gas, just like their Navy brethren. Its not that we don't admit it, its more like our dependence on USAF tanks is a growing vulnerability that is being slowly addressed. The Marines know they don't have enough tankers, so they are modifying all of their tankers so they can operate as expensive LAARs rather than tankers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 10:21:52 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marines know they don't have enough tankers, so they are modifying all of their tankers so they can operate as inexpensive attack assets rather than tankers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 10:44:27 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Everyone with a brain knows that trusting the JFACC and Institutional USAF is a losing proposition, so they are modifying all of their tankers so they can retain some organic capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 10:47:11 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marines know they don't have enough tankers, so they are modifying all of their tankers so they can operate as expensive LAARs rather than tankers. I sincerely hope you don't take this as an insult, but if the USAF has some JPME for junior officers or senior enlisted, I'd highly recommend it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 9:04:42 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I sincerely hope you don't take this as an insult, but if the USAF has some JPME for junior officers or senior enlisted, I'd highly recommend it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Marines know they don't have enough tankers, so they are modifying all of their tankers so they can operate as expensive LAARs rather than tankers. I sincerely hope you don't take this as an insult, but if the USAF has some JPME for junior officers or senior enlisted, I'd highly recommend it. there is nothing in SEJPME about using admittedly limited resources for a role that is better served by much cheaper systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 10:24:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is nothing in SEJPME about using admittedly limited resources for a role that is better served by much cheaper systems. Once the Marines are established ashore, their need for tanking is reduced, and their need for long endurance shooter-in-the-loop recon assets increases. Those assets are usually ring-fenced from the ATO process. The Marine commander retains a doctrinal authority to recall any MAGTF sorties back to direct support. Every Harvest Hawk sortie is an indictment of the experts in air power, and how USAF driven Joint doctrine has hobbled the Joint commander and negated the prime on-paper advantages of the US military The USN, Army and USMC at great cost retain their own tactical air forces precisely because of their lack of faith in USAF delivered assets under the ATO structure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 10:29:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once the Marines are established ashore, their need for tanking is reduced, and their need for long endurance shooter-in-the-loop recon assets increases. Those assets are usually ring-fenced from the ATO process. The Marine commander retains a doctrinal authority to recall any MAGTF sorties back to direct support. Every Harvest Hawk sortie is an indictment of the experts in air power, and how USAF driven Joint doctrine has hobbled the Joint commander and negated the prime on-paper advantages of the US military The USN, Army and USMC at great cost retain their own tactical air forces precisely because of their lack of faith in USAF delivered assets under the ATO structure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
there is nothing in SEJPME about using admittedly limited resources for a role that is better served by much cheaper systems. Once the Marines are established ashore, their need for tanking is reduced, and their need for long endurance shooter-in-the-loop recon assets increases. Those assets are usually ring-fenced from the ATO process. The Marine commander retains a doctrinal authority to recall any MAGTF sorties back to direct support. Every Harvest Hawk sortie is an indictment of the experts in air power, and how USAF driven Joint doctrine has hobbled the Joint commander and negated the prime on-paper advantages of the US military The USN, Army and USMC at great cost retain their own tactical air forces precisely because of their lack of faith in USAF delivered assets under the ATO structure. Utter horseshit, but I shouldn't be surprised. Harriers have endurance measured in minutes, not hours, without tanker support. The harvest hawk shitshow is made possible by the 70+ Kc-135s at the deid providing gas to the entire coalition, freeing the kc-130js to find a reason for existing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 10:42:01 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Utter horseshit, but I shouldn't be surprised. Harriers have endurance measured in minutes, not hours, without tanker support. The harvest hawk shitshow is made possible by the 70+ Kc-135s at the deid providing gas to the entire coalition, freeing the kc-130js to find a reason for existing. You mean dumping gas in the IO out of the Deid, but same-same. There is a reason why Harriers are usually in close prox to ground forces, and why getting them ashore is job one for MAGTF air asset planner. The Harrier concept was actually pretty well exercised in both COIN and MCO in multiple theaters, as opposed to the USAF's 72 hour nuclear bukkake concept that was exercised in asset justification. Those -135s were procured in a cost-no-object fashion in pursuit of a dying CONOPs in the 1950s, and thankfully have proven useful in the meantime. So, basically, if we throw enough money at the USAF, some of it will squeak through in a useful fashion. But the USAF can't continue to believe that the power of the Texas Congressional Delegation to buy shit we can't afford in pursuit of CONOPs that were proven costly decades ago will continue. All of the services are facing this constraint, but all of them procure aircraft outside of the ostensible core missions, so we can fly irreplaceable tankers and bombers on million dollar sorties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 11:15:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean dumping gas in the IO out of the Deid, but same-same. There is a reason why Harriers are usually in close prox to ground forces, and why getting them ashore is job one for MAGTF air asset planner. The Harrier concept was actually pretty well exercised in both COIN and MCO in multiple theaters, as opposed to the USAF's 72 hour nuclear bukkake concept that was exercised in asset justification. Those -135s were procured in a cost-no-object fashion in pursuit of a dying CONOPs in the 1950s, and thankfully have proven useful in the meantime. So, basically, if we throw enough money at the USAF, some of it will squeak through in a useful fashion. But the USAF can't continue to believe that the power of the Texas Congressional Delegation to buy shit we can't afford in pursuit of CONOPs that were proven costly decades ago will continue. All of the services are facing this constraint, but all of them procure aircraft outside of the ostensible core missions, so we can fly irreplaceable tankers and bombers on million dollar sorties. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Utter horseshit, but I shouldn't be surprised. Harriers have endurance measured in minutes, not hours, without tanker support. The harvest hawk shitshow is made possible by the 70+ Kc-135s at the deid providing gas to the entire coalition, freeing the kc-130js to find a reason for existing. You mean dumping gas in the IO out of the Deid, but same-same. There is a reason why Harriers are usually in close prox to ground forces, and why getting them ashore is job one for MAGTF air asset planner. The Harrier concept was actually pretty well exercised in both COIN and MCO in multiple theaters, as opposed to the USAF's 72 hour nuclear bukkake concept that was exercised in asset justification. Those -135s were procured in a cost-no-object fashion in pursuit of a dying CONOPs in the 1950s, and thankfully have proven useful in the meantime. So, basically, if we throw enough money at the USAF, some of it will squeak through in a useful fashion. But the USAF can't continue to believe that the power of the Texas Congressional Delegation to buy shit we can't afford in pursuit of CONOPs that were proven costly decades ago will continue. All of the services are facing this constraint, but all of them procure aircraft outside of the ostensible core missions, so we can fly irreplaceable tankers and bombers on million dollar sorties. Speaking of cost-no-object. The harvest hawk costs as much per airframe to modify (let alone the $71M base aircraft cost) as to buy a brand new Super Tucano while operating at about 20 times the cost per hour. PS: The truth has a date-time stamp when throwing jabs at dumping gas. When I was recently there I only saw gas being dumped when jets were coming back for an IFE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 11:32:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Speaking of cost-no-object. The harvest hawk costs as much per airframe to modify (let alone the $71M base aircraft cost) as to buy a brand new Super Tucano while operating at about 20 times the cost per hour. PS: The truth has a date-time stamp when throwing jabs at dumping gas. When I was recently there I only saw gas being dumped when jets were coming back for an IFE. The fuel dumping number came from an AD -135 guy I worked with, after a member here mentioned it. You'll get no argument out of me that the Marines should have never ditched the OV-10. The problem was that VMO-2 Squadron CO in GW1 was a flaming incompetent and more than mildly crazy. The fact that the OV-10 took losses in GW1 (from poor tactics and poor airmanship) gave the fast mover community the reason they needed to cull airframes during the post GW1 drawdown. The USN did the same thing with Intruders and Hoovers when went on their F-18 ALL THE THINGS! campaign, the costs of which were predicted and coming to pass as the legacy F-18s are getting tired quickly. Now, the problem is that the USAF has consistently made its small wars force the bill payers in post war drawdowns, only to resurrect it during conflict. This time, it didn't even do that. Considering they have the mandate to do this, as one of their core missions, makes it even more inexplicable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 11:47:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... So, basically, if we throw enough money at the USAF, some of it will squeak through in a useful fashion. But the USAF can't continue to believe that the power of the Texas Congressional Delegation to buy shit we can't afford in pursuit of CONOPs that were proven costly decades ago will continue. All of the services are facing this constraint, but all of them procure aircraft outside of the ostensible core missions, so we can fly irreplaceable tankers and bombers on million dollar sorties. I like you, you can fuck my sister. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
