User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:11:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The reason we don't want Ospreys for CSAR has nothing to do with speed. We're buying M model blackhawks because it's all congress will allow without another decade of lawsuits.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
you want to lecture me on MEDEVAC timelines? got a lot of experience with those, sport? You are talking about one small piece of the aviation mission. Then you are further fractionating into the differentiation between flight time, warm up and the difference in staying alive in a 10-20 minute window over a 60 minute. If flight time was that important the AF would be talking about an Osprey replacement for CSAR and nothing else. Instead they went with MH-47s initially and are now looking at newer 60 variants. The reason we don't want Ospreys for CSAR has nothing to do with speed. We're buying M model blackhawks because it's all congress will allow without another decade of lawsuits. If it was that important, they would get Ospreys. MEDEVAC, as you note, is one of the very few places where speed improvement actually matters. It isn't a game changer, even there, its an improvement. and "at what cost?" is the question. CSAR should be a SOCOM mission as it is with custom TFs based upon the theater and the footprint. One blanket bird to do it retarded. Sometimes you need an Osprey with its speed. Sometime a 47 with its ass. sometimes a blackhawk can get it done. And sometimes fallen angels have to get picked up with littlebirds, cause the PZ was too hot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:14:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Anyway, The Raider is neat. I wonder what Sikorsky would realistically be able to sell them for.
They had a number during the brief, but I forgot. FY15 UH60M are 17mil each, fly away FY15 CH47F are 30mil each, fly away FY15 AH64E (new builds are) 35mil each, fly away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:16:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it was that important, they would get Ospreys. MEDEVAC, as you note, is one of the very few places where speed improvement actually matters. It isn't a game changer, even there, its an improvement. and "at what cost?" is the question. CSAR should be a SOCOM mission as it is with custom TFs based upon the theater and the footprint. One blanket bird to do it retarded. Sometimes you need an Osprey with its speed. Sometime a 47 with its ass. sometimes a blackhawk can get it done. And sometimes fallen angels have to get picked up with littlebirds, cause the PZ was too hot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
you want to lecture me on MEDEVAC timelines? got a lot of experience with those, sport? You are talking about one small piece of the aviation mission. Then you are further fractionating into the differentiation between flight time, warm up and the difference in staying alive in a 10-20 minute window over a 60 minute. If flight time was that important the AF would be talking about an Osprey replacement for CSAR and nothing else. Instead they went with MH-47s initially and are now looking at newer 60 variants. The reason we don't want Ospreys for CSAR has nothing to do with speed. We're buying M model blackhawks because it's all congress will allow without another decade of lawsuits. If it was that important, they would get Ospreys. MEDEVAC, as you note, is one of the very few places where speed improvement actually matters. It isn't a game changer, even there, its an improvement. and "at what cost?" is the question. CSAR should be a SOCOM mission as it is with custom TFs based upon the theater and the footprint. One blanket bird to do it retarded. Sometimes you need an Osprey with its speed. Sometime a 47 with its ass. sometimes a blackhawk can get it done. And sometimes fallen angels have to get picked up with littlebirds, cause the PZ was too hot. I won't argue that, but I'm not a professional CSAR guy, either. AFSOC has long done CSAR with MH-53s and I'm sure they have done it with -22s too. The HH-60 has some advantages in that it's easy to transport and takes very little time to set up (a shitload less time than -47s). It's extremely low maintenance compared to -22s, but it is very cramped with an aux tank, stokes litter, penetrator, FE, gunner, and two PJs in that tiny cabin. CSAR is a separate mission with its own dedicated assets in the AF because we are a service run by pilots and those pilots want somebody to come pluck them out of the north atlantic when they have to punch out of their bazillion dollar superfighter. Could the AFSOC unit 8 miles away from RAF Lakenheath, or co-located with the HH-60s at Kadena do the job just as well? Yep. Don't tell the fighter pilots that though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:21:43 PM EDT
[#4]
This is cool.
Sorta kinda reminds me of the Fairey Rotodyne (which I still think is a cool idea). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:23:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Non-permissive anybody can do it. the fact is CSAR is a capability that we don't really use and we certainly don't need 100 birds reserved for it. It does a lot of conus stuff which is nice, but not why we bought it.
SCUBA diving HALO guys using a C130 and two blackhawks to halo in and tape a sprained ankle just to be picked up by a helo an hour later is Sofa King. That counts as a "saved life" btw. and a non-permissive environment you better bring some ass with you. which is why they wanted the -47s. so you would have CSAR squadrons with their own ground security assets to be tacked on to yet again to a mission which tasked army or marine ground elements could do and better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:24:54 PM EDT
[#6]
UK uses MERT CH47 to great effect. Plenty of medics/doctors, security, and 160kt speed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:25:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Non-permissive anybody can do it. the fact is CSAR is a capability that we don't really use and we certainly don't need 100 birds reserved for it. It does a lot of conus stuff which is nice, but not why we bought it. SCUBA diving HALO guys using a C130 and two blackhawks to halo in and tape a sprained ankle just to be picked up by a helo an hour later is Sofa King. That counts as a "saved life" btw. and a non-permissive environment you better bring some ass with you. which is why they wanted the -47s. so you would have CSAR squadrons with their own ground security assets to be tacked on to yet again to a mission which tasked army or marine ground elements could do and better. That shit is sexy as fuck though, you know you'd do it if you could. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:44:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That shit is sexy as fuck though, you know you'd do it if you could. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Non-permissive anybody can do it. the fact is CSAR is a capability that we don't really use and we certainly don't need 100 birds reserved for it. It does a lot of conus stuff which is nice, but not why we bought it. SCUBA diving HALO guys using a C130 and two blackhawks to halo in and tape a sprained ankle just to be picked up by a helo an hour later is Sofa King. That counts as a "saved life" btw. and a non-permissive environment you better bring some ass with you. which is why they wanted the -47s. so you would have CSAR squadrons with their own ground security assets to be tacked on to yet again to a mission which tasked army or marine ground elements could do and better. That shit is sexy as fuck though, you know you'd do it if you could. Its hot. no doubt. but its a giant waste. I am really tired of losing wars and men for no purpose and then driving on like nothing happened. we are becoming a DoD comprised of spoiled trophy wives driving land rovers they can't change the tires on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:47:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
UK uses MERT CH47 to great effect. Plenty of medics/doctors, security, and 160kt speed. Its a smart use. 20 frames (or plus up 160th and task appropriately) with an ODA and some GP forces and some PROFIS docs. but then you can't justify your halo studs unless everybody on that 47 is halo/scuba studs. the delineation of -47s as only an air mobility asset and not air assault is retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:50:33 PM EDT
[#10]
CH47s are used as AASLT platforms a ton. I did countless ones in Korea. Min force, even when I was tail end charlie behind the assault 60 fags (4 hawks), was 1 CH47. Nothing like briefing your irrelevance during the AMB.
We had guys do nothing but DS assault missions with Tier 1 guys as regular army CH47 crews. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:51:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am really tired of losing wars and men for no purpose and then driving on like nothing happened. we are becoming a DoD comprised of spoiled trophy wives driving land rovers they can't change the tires on. But what would change that? Losing is a political term, at least when you've annihilated every ounce of military opposition against you. We don't win politically, but that's not a DoD problem, is it? We've never asked for more than some land to bury our dead, and we don't even do that now. I feel like we're this reluctant empire that's embarrassed by its own might. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:51:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CH47s are used as AASLT platforms a ton. I did countless ones in Korea. Min force, even when I was tail end charlie behind the assault 60 fags (4 hawks), was 1 CH47. Nothing like briefing your irrelevance during the AMB. We had guys do nothing but DS assault missions with Tier 1 guys as regular army CH47 crews. I know. I'd much rather have a 47. The biggest benefit of the 60 is the fact that if you lose a bird, the mission can go on. You lose a 47, you have lost a lot of assets.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:53:26 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But what would change that? We've never asked for more than some land to bury our dead, and we don't even do that now. I feel like we're this reluctant empire that's embarrassed by its own might. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am really tired of losing wars and men for no purpose and then driving on like nothing happened. we are becoming a DoD comprised of spoiled trophy wives driving land rovers they can't change the tires on. But what would change that? We've never asked for more than some land to bury our dead, and we don't even do that now. I feel like we're this reluctant empire that's embarrassed by its own might. Fighting wars in the cheapest possible manner to keep the surrender lobby and america hating party quiet so we have the time to do what needs to be done. GP can't fight cheap. And SOCOM is getting more expensive all the time. never mind the marines in ospreys zulus and f35bs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:53:43 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryThe same can be said of the B-2. Some ideas are before their time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:56:44 PM EDT
[#15]
 another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over again
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:58:20 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againIt literally just flew. How is it a flop? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:00:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It literally just flew. How is it a flop? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againIt literally just flew. How is it a flop? give it time. comanche flew, too. doesn't mean he isn't wrong, but doesn't mean he is wrong, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:00:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It literally just flew. How is it a flop? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againIt literally just flew. How is it a flop? it may work well and perform but it will never make production. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:00:59 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it may work well and perform but it will never make production. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againIt literally just flew. How is it a flop? it may work well and perform but it will never make production. You may be right. They gotta find someone to buy 300 or so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:02:09 PM EDT
[#20]
they should be working on designing a composite blackhawk instead of the 97 .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:03:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they should be working on designing a composite blackhawk instead of the 97 . What makes you think they haven't? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:05:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes you think they haven't? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
they should be working on designing a composite blackhawk instead of the 97 . What makes you think they haven't? They left a big piece of one in Pakistan not long ago. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:07:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They left a big piece of one in Pakistan not long ago. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they should be working on designing a composite blackhawk instead of the 97 . What makes you think they haven't? They left a big piece of one in Pakistan not long ago. Would it be beyond reason to speculate that was something they toted there to troll the Pakis and Chinese? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:09:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You may be right. They gotta find someone to buy 300 or so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againIt literally just flew. How is it a flop? it may work well and perform but it will never make production. You may be right. They gotta find someone to buy 300 or so. and, see I have no problem with the B2 (in general, not specifically) go ahead and say, "we will buy 30 of these." and it will keep RnD under control. Sometimes you don't need a shitload of specialty items. If we had just planned to buy the CV-22, we wouldn't have been as willing to piss away so many billions on RnD. (and could have avoided the folding blade requirement which cost a lot in weight and complexity. A/OH-6 seems to be an OK program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:17:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fighting wars in the cheapest possible manner to keep the surrender lobby and america hating party quiet so we have the time to do what needs to be done. GP can't fight cheap. And SOCOM is getting more expensive all the time. never mind the marines in ospreys zulus and f35bs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am really tired of losing wars and men for no purpose and then driving on like nothing happened. we are becoming a DoD comprised of spoiled trophy wives driving land rovers they can't change the tires on. But what would change that? We've never asked for more than some land to bury our dead, and we don't even do that now. I feel like we're this reluctant empire that's embarrassed by its own might. Fighting wars in the cheapest possible manner to keep the surrender lobby and america hating party quiet so we have the time to do what needs to be done. GP can't fight cheap. And SOCOM is getting more expensive all the time. never mind the marines in ospreys zulus and f35bs. Sir, your heart is in the right place. But I must say that we need first rate weapons to counter enemies like China or Russia. Arming ourselves to fight only highly mobile conflicts in 3rd world countries will bite us in the ass. That's the same mentality that has haunted us over and over again, trying to fight the last war. As Ron said, it's much easier to be geared up to fight a bad ass enemy and then occasionally squash a terrorist group or 3rd world dictator, than it is to be built around fighting those conflicts, and then find yourself in a fight with a well organized and well equipped military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:19:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As Ron said, it's much easier to be geared up to fight a bad ass enemy and then occasionally squash a terrorist group or 3rd world dictator, than it is to be built around fighting those conflicts, and then find yourself in a fight with a well organized and well equipped military. Do you think we'll ever be in a conventional fight with Russia or China? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:23:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you think we'll ever be in a conventional fight with Russia or China? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: As Ron said, it's much easier to be geared up to fight a bad ass enemy and then occasionally squash a terrorist group or 3rd world dictator, than it is to be built around fighting those conflicts, and then find yourself in a fight with a well organized and well equipped military. Do you think we'll ever be in a conventional fight with Russia or China? It could happen if we got into that mentality of constructing only weapons for droning terrorist leaders and weak ass highly mobile vehicles for running around the Serengeti, Mogadishu, and using prop planes primarily for CAS. Spending money on advanced weapons can be way cheaper than actually getting into a REAL war because the enemy believed your military response would be weak and lacking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:23:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Sigh. This is not a CAS thread.
This is a thread about the S97 Raider. You arent going to win wars with helicopters, but they make life so, so much better for many people on the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:25:33 PM EDT
[#29]
Damn, that looks awesome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:44:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What compound coaxial helicopter flew in the 60s? A non-coax compound like Commanche is a whole different beast with a different set of problems. The fact that we can now build rigid rotor heads and use fly by wire in helicopters is new, and that's what makes something like the X2 or Raider more feasible. I don't see that it's much a technological challenge though, honestly. I wasn't convinced they'd get the speed out of the X2 they promised, but they did. Commanche was a compound design? Sikorsky had a YSH-60 demonstrator. Single main rotor with wings. Good speed, but it sucked at hovering which is very bad on boats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:48:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Commanche was a compound design? Sikorsky had a YSH-60 demonstrator. Single main rotor with wings. Good speed, but it sucked at hovering which is very bad on boats. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What compound coaxial helicopter flew in the 60s? A non-coax compound like Commanche is a whole different beast with a different set of problems. The fact that we can now build rigid rotor heads and use fly by wire in helicopters is new, and that's what makes something like the X2 or Raider more feasible. I don't see that it's much a technological challenge though, honestly. I wasn't convinced they'd get the speed out of the X2 they promised, but they did. Commanche was a compound design? Sikorsky had a YSH-60 demonstrator. Single main rotor with wings. Good speed, but it sucked at hovering which is very bad on boats. Sorry, meant to say Cheyenne. Are you talking about this beast? The X-49A? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:08:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryHere's the best "What's old is new again" comparisons The father of a kid who worked for me was a senior engineer on this one. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:10:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's the best "What's old is new again" comparisons The father of a kid who worked for me was a senior engineer on this one.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIFkCxQWAfUQuote HistoryQuoted:
Here's the best "What's old is new again" comparisons The father of a kid who worked for me was a senior engineer on this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIFkCxQWAfUGood one. .JPEG)
The two extra engines kind of fuck up the fuel economy though (and made it unable to hover). 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:14:26 PM EDT
[#34]
EADS built this hilarious whirlygig recently too. It was a hair faster than the X2, but man it looks like it could slice, dice, and julienne.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:37:38 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes you think they haven't? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
they should be working on designing a composite blackhawk instead of the 97 . What makes you think they haven't? they haven't . trust me |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:41:37 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they haven't . trust me Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they should be working on designing a composite blackhawk instead of the 97 . What makes you think they haven't? they haven't . trust me Do you even UH-60M bro? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:08:22 PM EDT
[#37]
Some day I'll have to take the old test flight slides of the AH-56A and scan them in for old time sake. My father was the test director for Lockheed on the 56A. He started on the project at the rotor test facility in Rye Canyon outside of the Saugus/LA area, where they tested the rigid rotors and mast. Then we moved on to Yuma for flight testing. Lots of good pics from the King Air chase plane and some static shots with the armament laid out.
Several things I remember his telling about the bird were 1) in a computer mock battle with a destroyer, the ship was sunk and 2) the very early morning he came home after being gone all the previous day and night......cleaning up the crash site of one of the birds. Catastrophic rotor mast failure causing the blades to impact the cockpit. The "APE" as they called them (Army evaluation pilot) had just enough time to switch on the recorder on his ankle before he died. Dad was very, very sullen. He respected those guys 1000%. (one of the pictures is dad and one of the APEs holding bananas) There are more interesting things about it, but the ending of Vietnam was the budget death nail for the project. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:11:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you even UH-60M bro? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they should be working on designing a composite blackhawk instead of the 97 . What makes you think they haven't? they haven't . trust me Do you even UH-60M bro? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile  The M has some nice improvements over the L but it's the same old airframe as it's always been.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:30:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The M has some nice improvements over the L but it's the same old airframe as it's always been.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they should be working on designing a composite blackhawk instead of the 97 . What makes you think they haven't? they haven't . trust me Do you even UH-60M bro? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The M has some nice improvements over the L but it's the same old airframe as it's always been.exactly its not like when they went to the 53e to the 53k |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:14:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sir, your heart is in the right place. But I must say that we need first rate weapons to counter enemies like China or Russia. Arming ourselves to fight only highly mobile conflicts in 3rd world countries will bite us in the ass. That's the same mentality that has haunted us over and over again, trying to fight the last war. As Ron said, it's much easier to be geared up to fight a bad ass enemy and then occasionally squash a terrorist group or 3rd world dictator, than it is to be built around fighting those conflicts, and then find yourself in a fight with a well organized and well equipped military. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am really tired of losing wars and men for no purpose and then driving on like nothing happened. we are becoming a DoD comprised of spoiled trophy wives driving land rovers they can't change the tires on. But what would change that? We've never asked for more than some land to bury our dead, and we don't even do that now. I feel like we're this reluctant empire that's embarrassed by its own might. Fighting wars in the cheapest possible manner to keep the surrender lobby and america hating party quiet so we have the time to do what needs to be done. GP can't fight cheap. And SOCOM is getting more expensive all the time. never mind the marines in ospreys zulus and f35bs. Sir, your heart is in the right place. But I must say that we need first rate weapons to counter enemies like China or Russia. Arming ourselves to fight only highly mobile conflicts in 3rd world countries will bite us in the ass. That's the same mentality that has haunted us over and over again, trying to fight the last war. As Ron said, it's much easier to be geared up to fight a bad ass enemy and then occasionally squash a terrorist group or 3rd world dictator, than it is to be built around fighting those conflicts, and then find yourself in a fight with a well organized and well equipped military. And I'll argue nuclear powers do not go toe to toe conventionally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:16:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I'll argue nuclear powers do not go toe to toe conventionally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am really tired of losing wars and men for no purpose and then driving on like nothing happened. we are becoming a DoD comprised of spoiled trophy wives driving land rovers they can't change the tires on. But what would change that? We've never asked for more than some land to bury our dead, and we don't even do that now. I feel like we're this reluctant empire that's embarrassed by its own might. Fighting wars in the cheapest possible manner to keep the surrender lobby and america hating party quiet so we have the time to do what needs to be done. GP can't fight cheap. And SOCOM is getting more expensive all the time. never mind the marines in ospreys zulus and f35bs. Sir, your heart is in the right place. But I must say that we need first rate weapons to counter enemies like China or Russia. Arming ourselves to fight only highly mobile conflicts in 3rd world countries will bite us in the ass. That's the same mentality that has haunted us over and over again, trying to fight the last war. As Ron said, it's much easier to be geared up to fight a bad ass enemy and then occasionally squash a terrorist group or 3rd world dictator, than it is to be built around fighting those conflicts, and then find yourself in a fight with a well organized and well equipped military. And I'll argue nuclear powers do not go toe to toe conventionally. And yet we've been fighting proxy wars with nuclear powers since the 50s. That's pretty much all we've fought since the beginning of the nuclear age. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:18:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet we've been fighting proxy wars with nuclear powers since the 50s. That's pretty much all we've fought since the beginning of the nuclear age. And thats exactly my point. thats why I said "toe to toe" we are fighting china right now. but we pretend we aren't. and then we pretend we are going to by going downtown beijing. which is why we need 2400 F35s and 200 new B2 bombers. Its bullshit and defies common sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:20:30 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And thats exactly my point. thats why I said "toe to toe" we are fighting china right now. but we pretend we aren't. and then we pretend we are going to by going downtown beijing. which is why we need 2400 F35s and 200 new B2 bombers. Its bullshit and defies common sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And yet we've been fighting proxy wars with nuclear powers since the 50s. That's pretty much all we've fought since the beginning of the nuclear age. And thats exactly my point. thats why I said "toe to toe" we are fighting china right now. but we pretend we aren't. and then we pretend we are going to by going downtown beijing. which is why we need 2400 F35s and 200 new B2 bombers. Its bullshit and defies common sense. And yet Russia and the Chinese won't hesitate to sell their most capable aircraft and SAMs to whoever can pay for them. That's the threats we have to prepare for, whether they are in Beijing or Karachi. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:26:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet Russia and the Chinese won't hesitate to sell their most capable aircraft and SAMs to whoever can pay for them. That's the threats we have to prepare for, whether they are in Beijing or Karachi. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet we've been fighting proxy wars with nuclear powers since the 50s. That's pretty much all we've fought since the beginning of the nuclear age. And thats exactly my point. thats why I said "toe to toe" we are fighting china right now. but we pretend we aren't. and then we pretend we are going to by going downtown beijing. which is why we need 2400 F35s and 200 new B2 bombers. Its bullshit and defies common sense. And yet Russia and the Chinese won't hesitate to sell their most capable aircraft and SAMs to whoever can pay for them. That's the threats we have to prepare for, whether they are in Beijing or Karachi. And thats a question of scale. Do we need the entire fleet to be exquisite? Or do we need a smaller capable fleet? Imagine we skipped the F35 and just used the F22 against the amazingly low probability we are going to use it? We have 5000 M1 tanks. Thats 10 divisions worth 10 pure armor divisions. We have 100% PGMs. that is an actual game changer technology. we should be dropping our fleets of attack aircraft by an order of magnitude. Remove nuclear powers. Who has the best AF out there after us that isn't NATO or a Pacific Ally. Tell me again why we need 2400 F35s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:34:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And thats a question of scale. Do we need the entire fleet to be exquisite? Or do we need a smaller capable fleet? Imagine we skipped the F35 and just used the F22 against the amazingly low probability we are going to use it? We have 5000 M1 tanks. Thats 10 divisions worth 10 pure armor divisions. We have 100% PGMs. that is an actual game changer technology. we should be dropping our fleets of attack aircraft by an order of magnitude. Remove nuclear powers. Who has the best AF out there after us that isn't NATO or a Pacific Ally. Tell me again why we need 2400 F35s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet we've been fighting proxy wars with nuclear powers since the 50s. That's pretty much all we've fought since the beginning of the nuclear age. And thats exactly my point. thats why I said "toe to toe" we are fighting china right now. but we pretend we aren't. and then we pretend we are going to by going downtown beijing. which is why we need 2400 F35s and 200 new B2 bombers. Its bullshit and defies common sense. And yet Russia and the Chinese won't hesitate to sell their most capable aircraft and SAMs to whoever can pay for them. That's the threats we have to prepare for, whether they are in Beijing or Karachi. And thats a question of scale. Do we need the entire fleet to be exquisite? Or do we need a smaller capable fleet? Imagine we skipped the F35 and just used the F22 against the amazingly low probability we are going to use it? We have 5000 M1 tanks. Thats 10 divisions worth 10 pure armor divisions. We have 100% PGMs. that is an actual game changer technology. we should be dropping our fleets of attack aircraft by an order of magnitude. Remove nuclear powers. Who has the best AF out there after us that isn't NATO or a Pacific Ally. Tell me again why we need 2400 F35s. We don't. I'm in agreement with you 100% with regards to the F-35. Everybody but the USMC could carry on without it and we would be better off. We could buy advanced F-15s in the vein of the SG or SA or K models, and block 60 F-16s. The USN already has a modern fleet of superbugs, only the Marines would be without their stealth supersonic hovering transforming magical airplanes (that can't carry shit). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:40:16 PM EDT
[#46]
And this helicopter is just another version of an F35. More expensive for more expensive sake.
we use the term game changer when we forgot what it means. the last game changer in the helicopter world was the turboshaft engine. we have been incrementally improving it ever sense. the osprey said improving the speed was a game changer. and, guess what, it didn't change shit. maybe raiding ability for some SOCOM units 1% of the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:42:12 PM EDT
[#47]
We dont quite know the price on this bad boy yet. This is not an "F35". Its a rigid rotor coax with a pusher. It buys you 100kts.
Look at the price of the 53K..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:44:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And this helicopter is just another version of an F35. More expensive for more expensive sake. we use the term game changer when we forgot what it means. the last game changer in the helicopter world was the turboshaft engine. we have been incrementally improving it ever sense. the osprey said improving the speed was a game changer. and, guess what, it didn't change shit. maybe raiding ability for some SOCOM units 1% of the time. You are downplaying the Osprey's capabilities. For starters it has a range at least four times that of other helicopters, enough that it can self deploy just about anywhere. It flies at C-130 speeds, for damn near C-130 distances. It has proven to be a lot more robust under fire than many had anticipated as well. It has amazing speed and range and we have put it to good use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:46:56 PM EDT
[#49]
The fact that the CV22 is self deployable is one of, if not, its biggest asset as a vertical lift aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:47:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are downplaying the Osprey's capabilities. For starters it has a range at least four times that of other helicopters, enough that it can self deploy just about anywhere. It flies at C-130 speeds, for damn near C-130 distances. It has proven to be a lot more robust under fire than many had anticipated as well. It has amazing speed and range and we have put it to good use. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And this helicopter is just another version of an F35. More expensive for more expensive sake. we use the term game changer when we forgot what it means. the last game changer in the helicopter world was the turboshaft engine. we have been incrementally improving it ever sense. the osprey said improving the speed was a game changer. and, guess what, it didn't change shit. maybe raiding ability for some SOCOM units 1% of the time. You are downplaying the Osprey's capabilities. For starters it has a range at least four times that of other helicopters, enough that it can self deploy just about anywhere. It flies at C-130 speeds, for damn near C-130 distances. It has proven to be a lot more robust under fire than many had anticipated as well. It has amazing speed and range and we have put it to good use. And we have the ability to refuel in flight for other helicopters and for the VAST majority of missions the Osprey was bought for those capabilities are completely irrelevent. But we still spent 120 million per. plus the much lower availability. |
|
|
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.
