User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 6:09:38 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So...you just going to have them take a van? ETA: better yet, Uber. Only if they have their dads call and arrange the pickup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 6:13:08 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only if they have their dads call and arrange the pickup. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So...you just going to have them take a van? ETA: better yet, Uber. Only if they have their dads call and arrange the pickup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 6:24:19 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's wrong with buying Bell 412s off the shelf ? Ask Canada how happy they are with their Griffons, as opposed to Blackhawks... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 6:30:29 PM EST
[#4]
Pool of Bidders Grows For Air Force’s UH-1N Competition
Defense Daily 03/02/2017 Author: Rich Abott Several companies this week have revealed their offerings to replace the U.S. Air Force’s UH-1N Huey fleet, including Boeing [BA], Lockheed Martin [LMT], and possibly Textron [TXT]. The UH-1N Replacement Program plans to replace the Air Force’s entire Huey fleet with 84 new helicopters. They entered into service in the 1970s. The Air Force’ UH-1Ns currently protects the Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and launch sites and provides emergency transportation to support Continuity of Government Operations missions in Washington, D.C. Last month the Air Force said it would release a second draft request for proposal (RFP) in April following industry feedback that their current platforms do not meet all requirements contained in the initial draft. The final RFP is therefore expected to be released in the summer following the second draft (Defense Daily, Feb. 17). The Air Force plans to award a contract in FY ’18 resulting in the delivery of the first operational helicopter in the FY ‘20/21 timeframe. Boeing revealed its MH-139 helicopter as its entry into the completion on Thursday. The MH-139 is based on Leonardo Helicopter’s AW139 multi-mission helicopter. Boeing announced its competition bid at the Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium held this week in Orlando, Fla. According to a Boeing spokesman the company will be the prime contractor with Leonardo Helicopter as its subcontractor, producing the completed civil version of the aircraft at its Philadelphia, Pa. facility. Boeing will have total systems responsibility for this program and be the principle interface with customers to provide integration of military equipment not already on the civil aircraft. The company will not develop a prototype or test the aircraft because it is based on the AW139. Boeing highlighted nearly 900 AW139s are currently in service around the world and one of its final assembly lines is in Philadelphia, Pa. “Just as the aircraft has met their individual requirements, Boeing will do the same for the USAF once their requirements are defined through a final RFP,” the spokesman added. “The Huey replacement is of vital importance to the Air Force, and the MH-139 is the right solution for those missions. The fact that the AW139 is being built today on an active production line will speed it to meet the time-critical demand following the competition,” Judy Fedder, director of global sales & marketing at Boeing Integrated Logistics, said in a statement. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 6:35:51 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ask Canada how happy they are with their Griffons, as opposed to Blackhawks... Their special operations Griffons are gorgeous 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 6:44:35 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They need to replace their normal Pavehawk fleet too. They are worn out, corroded, and broken as fuck. Enter the UH-60M based HH-60W Pave Hawk II. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 6:44:46 PM EST
[#7]
So, what's the all-up cost per operating hour for an H-60 variant vs. an AW-139 or a Bell 412 type? What is the overall cost and can the various aircraft perform the mission?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 7:08:13 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Their special operations Griffons are gorgeous https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2864/9252584546_1f09b070a4_b.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ask Canada how happy they are with their Griffons, as opposed to Blackhawks... Their special operations Griffons are gorgeous https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2864/9252584546_1f09b070a4_b.jpg Damn that's stupid looking. When blackwater or whatever they are called these days has better camo than they do on their 412s, how do they call themselves a military service? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 7:32:25 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Link to a list of armed assaults against CONUS missile solos? Repelled by airborne fire team or not, I'll take either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nothing you wrote is accurate. Ever wonder why it hasn't happened yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 7:41:47 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever wonder why it hasn't happened yet? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing you wrote is accurate. Ever wonder why it hasn't happened yet? It kinda has. 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/28/clowns_attack_nuke/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:01:42 PM EST
[#11]
I thought one of the reasons the AF had kept the UH1N's was that there were some helipads in DC for continuity of government that couldn't take UH60's?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:04:58 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought one of the reasons the AF had kept the UH1N's was that there were some helipads in DC for continuity of government that couldn't take UH60's? The Global Strike requirement is different than the Washington Area one. Although that would make those remaining N models even more of a challenge from a lifecycle management perspective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:05:42 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought one of the reasons the AF had kept the UH1N's was that there were some helipads in DC for continuity of government that couldn't take UH60's? Sounds shady to me, the footprint is nearly identical though the weight is not. We keep our 68 and 69 model turds for the same reason we keep our KC-135s. They were paid for decades ago, and they work "well enough" for the bullshit DV transport mission. We have some of them here and even though they are antiques, they are bone simple and work fairly well. There are parts shortages just like there are with any ancient airframe. We have sacrificed a lot of aircraft upgrades and replacements on the altar of the F-35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:09:17 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds shady to me, the footprint is nearly identical though the weight is not. We keep our 68 and 69 model turds for the same reason we keep our KC-135s. They were paid for decades ago, and they work "well enough" for the bullshit DV transport mission. We have some of them here and even though they are antiques, they are bone simple and work fairly well. There are parts shortages just like there are with any ancient airframe. We have sacrificed a lot of aircraft upgrades and replacements on the altar of the F-35. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought one of the reasons the AF had kept the UH1N's was that there were some helipads in DC for continuity of government that couldn't take UH60's? Sounds shady to me, the footprint is nearly identical though the weight is not. We keep our 68 and 69 model turds for the same reason we keep our KC-135s. They were paid for decades ago, and they work "well enough" for the bullshit DV transport mission. We have some of them here and even though they are antiques, they are bone simple and work fairly well. There are parts shortages just like there are with any ancient airframe. We have sacrificed a lot of aircraft upgrades and replacements on the altar of the F-35. True enough about the recapitalization priorities, but that being said I'm pretty sure AFGSC could get new rotary wing tomorrow if they just hopped on an existing airframe rather than insisting on being special. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:16:06 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That'll be pretty expensive. Although the maintenance costs on the old Huey's must be getting up there now. Hueys are stupid simple mechanically compared to a Black Hawk. Cheaper to operate, the AF is only replacing the Hueys because they have reached the end of their usable life aka they are really old in Helicopter yrs. AF would be better off buying new production 412's to replace old 212's ( UH1-N ) but when has the AF done anything smart when it has a chance to spend Money on Shiny new toys...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:35:30 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds shady to me, the footprint is nearly identical though the weight is not. We keep our 68 and 69 model turds for the same reason we keep our KC-135s. They were paid for decades ago, and they work "well enough" for the bullshit DV transport mission. We have some of them here and even though they are antiques, they are bone simple and work fairly well. There are parts shortages just like there are with any ancient airframe. We have sacrificed a lot of aircraft upgrades and replacements on the altar of the F-35. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought one of the reasons the AF had kept the UH1N's was that there were some helipads in DC for continuity of government that couldn't take UH60's? Sounds shady to me, the footprint is nearly identical though the weight is not. We keep our 68 and 69 model turds for the same reason we keep our KC-135s. They were paid for decades ago, and they work "well enough" for the bullshit DV transport mission. We have some of them here and even though they are antiques, they are bone simple and work fairly well. There are parts shortages just like there are with any ancient airframe. We have sacrificed a lot of aircraft upgrades and replacements on the altar of the F-35. The size may be similar, but the Huey just needs space for the skids on the ground, the 'hawk has that tail wheel to deal with. The friend who told me this flies UH1N's out of Andrews :-) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:37:34 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The size may be similar, but the Huey just needs space for the skids on the ground, the 'hawk has that tail wheel to deal with. The friend who told me this flies UH1N's out of Andrews :-) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought one of the reasons the AF had kept the UH1N's was that there were some helipads in DC for continuity of government that couldn't take UH60's? Sounds shady to me, the footprint is nearly identical though the weight is not. We keep our 68 and 69 model turds for the same reason we keep our KC-135s. They were paid for decades ago, and they work "well enough" for the bullshit DV transport mission. We have some of them here and even though they are antiques, they are bone simple and work fairly well. There are parts shortages just like there are with any ancient airframe. We have sacrificed a lot of aircraft upgrades and replacements on the altar of the F-35. The size may be similar, but the Huey just needs space for the skids on the ground, the 'hawk has that tail wheel to deal with. The friend who told me this flies UH1N's out of Andrews :-) If that's your worry get short wheel base ones like the Navy birds. ETA: Or UH-72s |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:46:19 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought one of the reasons the AF had kept the UH1N's was that there were some helipads in DC for continuity of government that couldn't take UH60's? The USAF kept the UH-1N platform because the Marines went with new build UH-1Y's instead of a mix of new and rebuilt airframes. This in turn freed up "New Old Stock" UH-1N's for the USAF. Air Force may get used UH-1Ns from Marines https://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/24/afa-air-force-may-acquire-used-uh-1ns-from-marines/ USAF set to receive first converted Marine UH-1N Huey in September (2013) http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusaf-set-to-receive-first-converted-marine-uh-1n-huey-in-september |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:46:22 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn that's stupid looking. When blackwater or whatever they are called these days has better camo than they do on their 412s, how do they call themselves a military service? They are painted in that manner for the same reason DOS air wing and some SOCOM aircraft operate in other than typical military schemes 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 8:49:32 PM EST
[#20]
Lockheed should offer up the VH-71 Kestrel.
Too bad the .gov sold off the 9 airframes to the Canadians for spare parts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 9:03:45 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you highlight the part where I claimed anything was the fault of another service? I said that no one would want to use any of the other services' patterns. The Army's doesn't work, the Navy's is designed to hide paint spills, and the USAF's, well, at least they rejected the tiger stripe pattern they considered. Incase you didnt know, they did go with the dumbass tiger stripe pattern. Glad I'm wearing either a flight suit or 2 piece flight suit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2017 9:05:02 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Incase you didnt know, they did go with the dumbass tiger stripe pattern. Glad I'm wearing either a flight suit or 2 piece flight suit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can you highlight the part where I claimed anything was the fault of another service? I said that no one would want to use any of the other services' patterns. The Army's doesn't work, the Navy's is designed to hide paint spills, and the USAF's, well, at least they rejected the tiger stripe pattern they considered. Incase you didnt know, they did go with the dumbass tiger stripe pattern. Glad I'm wearing either a flight suit or 2 piece flight suit. In case you didn't know, they rejected the much more ugly blue and green version. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 12:35:03 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In case you didn't know, they rejected the much more ugly blue and green version. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 12:49:07 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In case you didn't know, they rejected the much more ugly blue and green version. Here you go, zipper suited sun tard: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 12:51:27 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here you go, zipper suited sun tard: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/64912/IMG-0866-158541.jpg Lol, yup. Thanks bih. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 2:11:49 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the M4 share some parts commonality with the M9? They should have required the F35 share some common parts with the Cobra too. You ever seen an F35 in an HMLA squadron? Yeah, me neither. Get back to me when the cost of an M9 exceeds that of a powerplant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 2:22:40 AM EST
[#27]
No way you're squeezing an ICBM into that little thing. Try this:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 2:32:04 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
God, we were promised this back in 2009. Those Huey's are struggling. We had a guy show up for a Vietnam Veteran's Open House and got all tripped out when he (Army helo mechanic) recognized the tail number on one of them. Those things struggle with maintenance and some other issues. It'd be really nice if they bought these but like I said, promised before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 8:54:35 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
:0 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
God, we were promised this back in 2009. Those Huey's are struggling. We had a guy show up for a Vietnam Veteran's Open House and got all tripped out when he (Army helo mechanic) recognized the tail number on one of them. Those things struggle with maintenance and some other issues. It'd be really nice if they bought these but like I said, promised before. I would say that he had a bout of nostalgia and was mistaken. The USAF UH-1Ns never belonged to the Army and were only flown by 2 squadons in South East Asia,one of them being exceptionally secrative to the point that in one of the books by a gunship pilot,someone flying a Green Hornet wouldn't acknowledge him though they were in the same class at Fort Rucker. It would be easy enough to determine when that airframe was built,just look at the tail. On the other hand,I would never correct someone thinking that,no reason to be a dick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 10:55:35 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would say that he had a bout of nostalgia and was mistaken. The USAF UH-1Ns never belonged to the Army and were only flown by 2 squadons in South East Asia,one of them being exceptionally secrative to the point that in one of the books by a gunship pilot,someone flying a Green Hornet wouldn't acknowledge him though they were in the same class at Fort Rucker. It would be easy enough to determine when that airframe was built,just look at the tail. On the other hand,I would never correct someone thinking that,no reason to be a dick. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
God, we were promised this back in 2009. Those Huey's are struggling. We had a guy show up for a Vietnam Veteran's Open House and got all tripped out when he (Army helo mechanic) recognized the tail number on one of them. Those things struggle with maintenance and some other issues. It'd be really nice if they bought these but like I said, promised before. I would say that he had a bout of nostalgia and was mistaken. The USAF UH-1Ns never belonged to the Army and were only flown by 2 squadons in South East Asia,one of them being exceptionally secrative to the point that in one of the books by a gunship pilot,someone flying a Green Hornet wouldn't acknowledge him though they were in the same class at Fort Rucker. It would be easy enough to determine when that airframe was built,just look at the tail. On the other hand,I would never correct someone thinking that,no reason to be a dick. A few of the Ns AFGSC is flying these days are former Marine birds that were pulled from AMRG and outfitted to AF configuration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 11:27:22 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
God, we were promised this back in 2009. Those Huey's are struggling. We had a guy show up for a Vietnam Veteran's Open House and got all tripped out when he (Army helo mechanic) recognized the tail number on one of them. Those things struggle with maintenance and some other issues. It'd be really nice if they bought these but like I said, promised before. While the story itself may or may not be true, it is a fact that the Hueys at the missile bases are Vietnam era aircraft, some with documented combat time in Southeast Asia and the bullet hole patches to prove it. From what I've read, ICBM fields have had helo support nearly from the beginning, even before Minuteman; problem is, their main focus in the beginning was keeping missiles on alert by supporting maintenance and ferrying crews. As time went on and the focus changed to preventing some crazy group from getting their hands on a single weapon a couple of counties away from the main base, their mission has changed more and more to security, but the airframes did not. I am not going to get into classified issues of their shortfalls or the stop-gaps we've put into place to mitigate them - but the replacement is long overdue for all sorts of reasons. To all the people saying to just get something off the shelf and be done with it, that's exactly what we wanted to do and were shot down. If you don't like it, then write your Congressman. No, seriously, stop complaining in this thread and write your Congressman to have the Air Force just buy normal Blackhawks for 20th Air Force and be done. You don't need a combat aircraft for the ICBM mission, until that one time you really do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 11:29:23 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here you go, zipper suited sun tard: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/64912/IMG-0866-158541.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In case you didn't know, they rejected the much more ugly blue and green version. Here you go, zipper suited sun tard: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/64912/IMG-0866-158541.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 11:30:24 AM EST
[#33]
The last Huey I saw in service was for SAR at NAS Fallon. Those things still around?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 12:06:55 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever wonder why it hasn't happened yet? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing you wrote is accurate. Ever wonder why it hasn't happened yet? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 12:10:03 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
because anyone who would knows it would be considered an act of war and they'd get nuked for sure. That's who Hueys were procured for. The new helicopter is for the kind of people for which that's a bonus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 2:46:47 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
because anyone who would knows it would be considered an act of war and they'd get nuked for sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing you wrote is accurate. Ever wonder why it hasn't happened yet? That assumes the actors would be from a nation or state. Unless your thought process is to evaporate the muslim training camps that dot the US, in which case, I like the cut of your jib, sir I'm really confused, this part is out of my lane somewhat. You have these HUGE missile fields. You either put a lot of guns at each point, or you put a couple of flights of guns at a couple of places, and then ferry them to the problem. What's better than a helicopter for this role? Unless you're trying to say that the silos are hard enough to not warrant an immediate response, or that the attractiveness of the silos aren't high enough anymore to warrant the investment and expense. Then, you're indicting the entire land-based nuclear field as a whole, which I think is unfair. I mean, unless I am misremembering, some silos are even inside private property. How hard do you think it would be to go damage some blast doors, or set a fat ass shaped charge on several with the goal of putting a carrot into a reentry vehicle? No, I think with all the wasteful spending and foolishness you guys talk about on here, having good rotary wing assets with brrrrrt capability is necessary and reasonable if we want to continue presenting this leg of the triad as credible. Right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 2:57:35 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Their special operations Griffons are gorgeous https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2864/9252584546_1f09b070a4_b.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ask Canada how happy they are with their Griffons, as opposed to Blackhawks... Their special operations Griffons are gorgeous https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2864/9252584546_1f09b070a4_b.jpg I got to watch a couple of their SAR helos train down here with the Coast Guard. I guess the water is a little warmer down here this time of year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 3:11:27 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That assumes the actors would be from a nation or state. Unless you're thought process is to evaporate the muslim training camps that dot the US, in which case, I like the cut of your jib, sir I'm really confused, this part is out of my lane somewhat. You have these HUGE missile fields. You either put a lot of guns at each point, or you put a couple of flights of guns at a couple of places, and then ferry them to the problem. What's better than a helicopter for this role? Unless you're trying to say that the silos are hard enough to not warrant an immediate response, or that the attractiveness of the silos aren't high enough anymore to warrant the investment and expense. Then, you're indicting the entire land-based nuclear field as a whole, which I think is unfair. I mean, unless I am misremembering, some silos are even inside private property. How hard do you think it would be to go damage some blast doors, or set a fat ass shaped charge on several with the goal of putting a carrot into a reentry vehicle? No, I think with all the wasteful spending and foolishness you guys talk about on here, having good rotary wing assets with brrrrrt capability is necessary and reasonable if we want to continue presenting this leg of the triad as credible. Right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing you wrote is accurate. Ever wonder why it hasn't happened yet? That assumes the actors would be from a nation or state. Unless you're thought process is to evaporate the muslim training camps that dot the US, in which case, I like the cut of your jib, sir I'm really confused, this part is out of my lane somewhat. You have these HUGE missile fields. You either put a lot of guns at each point, or you put a couple of flights of guns at a couple of places, and then ferry them to the problem. What's better than a helicopter for this role? Unless you're trying to say that the silos are hard enough to not warrant an immediate response, or that the attractiveness of the silos aren't high enough anymore to warrant the investment and expense. Then, you're indicting the entire land-based nuclear field as a whole, which I think is unfair. I mean, unless I am misremembering, some silos are even inside private property. How hard do you think it would be to go damage some blast doors, or set a fat ass shaped charge on several with the goal of putting a carrot into a reentry vehicle? No, I think with all the wasteful spending and foolishness you guys talk about on here, having good rotary wing assets with brrrrrt capability is necessary and reasonable if we want to continue presenting this leg of the triad as credible. Right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 3:13:51 PM EST
[#39]
That is not a uniform in service by any branch of the united states armed forces.
EDIT, sorry didn't know what you meant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 3:23:59 PM EST
[#40]
Area 51? Screw the helicopters, just pull the tarps off the saucers and use 'em for fuck's sake. It's not like you're fooling anybody anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 11:14:57 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That assumes the actors would be from a nation or state. Unless your thought process is to evaporate the muslim training camps that dot the US, in which case, I like the cut of your jib, sir I'm really confused, this part is out of my lane somewhat. You have these HUGE missile fields. You either put a lot of guns at each point, or you put a couple of flights of guns at a couple of places, and then ferry them to the problem. What's better than a helicopter for this role? Unless you're trying to say that the silos are hard enough to not warrant an immediate response, or that the attractiveness of the silos aren't high enough anymore to warrant the investment and expense. I'm not saying, but I'm saying... Then, you're indicting the entire land-based nuclear field as a whole, which I think is unfair. [i]I mean, unless I am misremembering, some silos are even inside private property. How hard do you think it would be to go damage some blast doors, or set a fat ass shaped charge on several with the goal of putting a carrot into a reentry vehicle? Harder than you think. No, I think with all the wasteful spending and foolishness you guys talk about on here, having good rotary wing assets with brrrrrt capability is necessary and reasonable if we want to continue presenting this leg of the triad as credible. Right? First, there are separate outer and inner zone security measures that security and maintenance personnel have to do to access a silo. These are required to ensure that no one group can access the launch facility. Basically, security has to access the area allowing maintenance to access the launch facility. All of this also has to be done with the respective Missile Combat Crew's permission that has command over the respective launch facility. Some of the security features have a built in time features that by design delays immediate entry or access to the launch facility. This also increases the amount of time the security assigned under the control of the commanding missile combat crew has to respond if it was an attempt at unauthorized entry. As far as trying to gain access to a launch facility by using force to bypass the security features and instead break through the physical structures themselves, good luck. You actually would need too much explosives or too much time. This site has some decent general information and pictures of what LF's are like, how they are constructed and the security involved. http://minutemanmissile.com/pah.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 11:18:44 PM EST
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2017 11:27:39 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be okay with the nuke security guys getting the UH-60m DAP 
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/34/c5/bf/34c5bf65d0dfd7036b405e630056b2ce.jpg http://www.americanspecialops.com/images/photos/night-stalkers/mh-60l-dap-bg.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2017 11:48:28 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, there are separate outer and inner zone security measures that security and maintenance personnel have to do to access a silo. These are required to ensure that no one group can access the launch facility. Basically, security has to access the area allowing maintenance to access the launch facility. All of this also has to be done with the respective Missile Combat Crew's permission that has command over the respective launch facility. Some of the security features have a built in time features that by design delays immediate entry or access to the launch facility. This also increases the amount of time the security assigned under the control of the commanding missile combat crew has to respond if it was an attempt at unauthorized entry. As far as trying to gain access to a launch facility by using force to bypass the security features and instead break through the physical structures themselves, good luck. You actually would need too much explosives or too much time. This site has some decent general information and pictures of what LF's are like, how they are constructed and the security involved. http://minutemanmissile.com/pah.html thanks! |
|
|
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.
Attached File