101–110 of 130 posts
Similar to the old story when Arnold Schwarzenegger stole a tank and went on a rampage, but then was protected by his protégé and got away with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a related note, I saw a video at the Pensacola Naval Air Museum of the USS Forrestal fire. Not a maintenance error, but an electrical anomaly caused a Zuni rocket on a McDonnell Douglas F-4B Phantom to fire, striking an external fuel tank of a A-4 Skyhawk. The flammable jet fuel spilled across the flight deck, ignited, and triggered a chain-reaction of explosions that killed 134 sailors and injured 161. Future Sen…
We had to watch that video during naval basic training. IIRC, McCain was not merely on deck, but was strapped into his airplane. I also remember that they were pushing fighter jets overboard rather than attempt to extinguish them as there was magnesium on fire that could not be put out quickly with the resources they had and they were afraid they would just melt through the ship, like thermite.
How the Forrestal fire was handled is a case study in how to do it wrong and the high number of casualties was the very sad cost of how poorly prepared the crew were.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could always be a personal conflict with other technicians/personnel, of course - or a curious form of sabotage. However, on the political front, renewing the F16s in Belgium has been a point of some controversy. The other EU countries (and the US, through the NATO) expect us to stay up to date with military hardware, but Belgian politicians are hesitant to actually spend the money, as it puts the budgets under heavy…
I was in Belgium last year (visiting where dad fought at Elsenborn Ridge[0]) and something I was curious about - after Belgium had been occupied in WW-I, and it became obvious during the inter-war years[1] that Germany was rearming, why didn't they launch a crash defense program? With Russia now becoming increasingly aggressive, I would think the time to prepare a deterrence is now. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
As a Belgian I find this hilarious. This might be the most Belgian thing ever. By the way they are investigating whether this was an accident or on purpose. The chances of this being an accident are quite small.
What would the possible motive be for doing this on purpose, do you think? Also thanks for the best beer ever
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/05/09/soldier-...
If you watch the video you’ll see the type of clown he is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a related note, I saw a video at the Pensacola Naval Air Museum of the USS Forrestal fire. Not a maintenance error, but an electrical anomaly caused a Zuni rocket on a McDonnell Douglas F-4B Phantom to fire, striking an external fuel tank of a A-4 Skyhawk. The flammable jet fuel spilled across the flight deck, ignited, and triggered a chain-reaction of explosions that killed 134 sailors and injured 161. Future Sen…
We had to watch that video during naval basic training. IIRC, McCain was not merely on deck, but was strapped into his airplane. I also remember that they were pushing fighter jets overboard rather than attempt to extinguish them as there was magnesium on fire that could not be put out quickly with the resources they had and they were afraid they would just melt through the ship, like thermite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are not difficult political questions. The US through NATO are forcing Belgium to buy F35s, and that'll be that. Out of all the jets allegedly in the running, only F35s can be used to drop US nukes. The very same US nukes which have been sitting around in Belgium for decades. The worst best kept secret in the country. No politician is willing/allowed to go on record about this, so they all pretend other jets ar…
It sure is silly to buy an expensive military plane if one cannot produce all parts including the engines domestically... how is hauling spares from across the Atlantic going to work in a hot situation?
Don't worry! F35 engines can also be maintained in Turkey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK government boxed themselves into a corner by designing their new aircraft carrier to only handle STOVL aircraft. And the only such aircraft available is the F-35B. If they had designed their carrier with catapults like the French did then they would have had a couple other aircraft options, and thus more negotiating power.
A CATOBAR setup was included in the designs at one stage but later scrapped for cost reasons. Building a carrier with a ski-ramp is a lot cheaper. The disadvantage is as you point out, severely limited types of aircraft for operations. The advantage of the cheaper design was that two carriers could be produced - France, with a similar economy and military to the UK size-wise, has only one fixed-wing carrier. Two carr…
I don't believe it was ever really included in the design. EMALS was undeveloped at the time, and where would you get the steam for a conventional catapult, with no reactor and no boilers? And where were the compartments to physically put the (huge) catapults and arrestor gear? And even if EMALS was available where would you get the electrical power to run it (no reactor remember) when the (gas turbine) engines full output would be needed to head into the wind for launches?
It was a tickybox, that's all. Because BAe could never take the risk that the UK would chose Rafales or Super Hornets, they had to make the F35-B, which coincidentally they also have a finger in the pie of, the only option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just read that story, amazing. It reads like an awesome Root Cause Analysis ticket.
What do you mean by ‘ticket’?
It makes it useful for future referencing and is searchable. Unlike writing it up in a word doc and uploading it to something like sharepoint where it is forgotten
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was in Belgium last year (visiting where dad fought at Elsenborn Ridge[0]) and something I was curious about - after Belgium had been occupied in WW-I, and it became obvious during the inter-war years[1] that Germany was rearming, why didn't they launch a crash defense program? With Russia now becoming increasingly aggressive, I would think the time to prepare a deterrence is now. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
They mobilized 20% of the male population, built large modern fortifications and had a strong air force. The germans just had better weapons and better tactics and rolled over them in 18 days. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belgium
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could always be a personal conflict with other technicians/personnel, of course - or a curious form of sabotage. However, on the political front, renewing the F16s in Belgium has been a point of some controversy. The other EU countries (and the US, through the NATO) expect us to stay up to date with military hardware, but Belgian politicians are hesitant to actually spend the money, as it puts the budgets under heavy…
I was in Belgium last year (visiting where dad fought at Elsenborn Ridge[0]) and something I was curious about - after Belgium had been occupied in WW-I, and it became obvious during the inter-war years[1] that Germany was rearming, why didn't they launch a crash defense program? With Russia now becoming increasingly aggressive, I would think the time to prepare a deterrence is now. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael
Wars tend to expose obsolete military doctrines. Big fortresses on land and sea (battleships) that can bombard targets many miles away are great if the enemy doesn't just fly in.