Agreed, but then helicopter look so much cooler and hi-tech......A-10. To think we were actually going to retire that thing prior to Desert Storm...
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You're welcome.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thanks for the info. I claim no in depth knowledge on thisIt does have a connecting shaft that allows a single engine to drive both propellers.
As for gliding, you only have to worry about the props if you're going to land it...no different than a typical prop-driven plane whose landing gear won't come down.
Most aircraft today glide like bricks...but even a brick, a the right angle and speed will stay intact.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you're gliding you need to land pretty smartly, I guess that thing would glide like a brick?
In the flight position those massive rotors could cause some significant collateral damage when they hit the ground.
Any prop-driven aircraft has that to worry about...look at the side of the fuselage of any prop-driven plane. That vertical line is where the blade will come through the fuselage if the worst happens.
I would guess more moving parts than a conventional helo, but redundancies have been built in to compensate for the complexity. A failure on either side will just cause a reduction in power, as the switch-over is automatic.Dilbert_X wrote:
As far as inherent safety goes, does it have more or less moving parts than a conventional heli?
Many mechanical failures are survivable in a typical main/tail rotor machine.
It does seem to me any failure on either side and it slams sideways or upside down into the dirt.
Lack of side-guns looks significant also.
And I believe the AF SOF version will have side guns, as well.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
My inner engineer just blew his brains out.redundancies have been built in to compensate for the complexity
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Why? Does your inner engineer blow his brains out when looking at fly-by-wire fighter aircraft? They can't even glide if their computers go out...so they have triple-redundant flight control systems. This is no different.Dilbert_X wrote:
My inner engineer just blew his brains out.redundancies have been built in to compensate for the complexity
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yeah...I forgot that one.FEOS wrote:
A-10. To think we were actually going to retire that thing prior to Desert Storm...rdx-fx wrote:
Hallmark of a good System is it exceeds it's design requirements. If a system works to specification.. good. If that same system works "in the dirt and mud", after being in the hands of a pissed off Private for a year.. great.
Look at the B-52, the C-130, the AH-1, the UH-1, the H-6 'Littlebird'.
All systems that did their jobs, were more reliable than expected, and were adaptable to missions outside their spec sheet.
As a contrast, the Harrier is a cool plane. Was supposed to be a good fighter and have VTOL capabilities enabling it to operate from forward bases (like an AH-1). Instead, it was as delicate as a conventional fighter - and as vulnerable as a helicopter. Got it's ass handed to it during the 1st gulf war.
Short version: If it's reliable in combat environments, cool, use it. If it's an unreliable piece of "ooh shiny" that's going to get troops killed - send it back to the proving grounds until it works. Do NOT pull a McNamara and use combat troops as guinea pigs (M-16/Viet Nam)
No, because that level of complexity is required to achieve the performance 'required'.Why? Does your inner engineer blow his brains out when looking at fly-by-wire fighter aircraft?
In the case of the Osprey, hauling grunts around doesn't really equate to trying to shoot down Mig 29s.
Which in engineering reliability is always bad news.sounds like adding complexity to compensate for complexity
And what's wrong with Soviet eqpt? As long as it works what else is required?Of course, if you get silly with that perspective you end up with Soviet type equipment...
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The Osprey is not just for "hauling grunts". It is intended to replace both heavy lift helos and C-130s for many missions. As such, the complexity required is more than for either one.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, because that level of complexity is required to achieve the performance 'required'.Why? Does your inner engineer blow his brains out when looking at fly-by-wire fighter aircraft?
In the case of the Osprey, hauling grunts around doesn't really equate to trying to shoot down Mig 29s.
I was not saying that the mission of the Osprey and the mission of a fighter are in any way the same...only that redundancy in systems is not an unheard-of (nor undesirable) thing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
As dumb as it sounds its actually a good idea. Considering all the people that need organ donations.I mean a crappy organ is better than no organ.smartdude992 wrote:
I'll fight you for the organs!!!David.P wrote:
How many insurgents did it kill? And can i have their organs?
Fair enough - it just looks an unnecessarily complicated and risky solution.I was not saying that the mission of the Osprey and the mission of a fighter are in any way the same...only that redundancy in systems is not an unheard-of (nor undesirable) thing.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The necessity of it will be determined by its performance in the field.Dilbert_X wrote:
Fair enough - it just looks an unnecessarily complicated and risky solution.I was not saying that the mission of the Osprey and the mission of a fighter are in any way the same...only that redundancy in systems is not an unheard-of (nor undesirable) thing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I wonder if they'll make a gunship version like the 'Spooky' AC-130 maybe without the 105 though.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-02-11 06:15:09)
russian tanks suck.Dilbert_X wrote:
And what's wrong with Soviet eqpt? As long as it works what else is required?
Safety tbh, no point in the vehicle if the crew's dead.Dilbert_X wrote:
And what's wrong with Soviet eqpt? As long as it works what else is required?
The problem with soviet tanks was that they were designed to go up against stuff like the Leopard and the abrams en masse. Offense, not defense. That's why Gulf War was such a strong example of raping.
Soviet aircraft, on the other hand, were extremely rugged and durable, with a tendency towards solid design from the start. The Hind is still flying, for example, despite being replaced twice and being almost obsolete.
Soviet aircraft, on the other hand, were extremely rugged and durable, with a tendency towards solid design from the start. The Hind is still flying, for example, despite being replaced twice and being almost obsolete.
You shouldn't talk about anything related to the military anymore, EVER. I mean it, before you get decent knowledge (or atleast do a little decent search before you post) of wtf you're talking about in military related things I don't think anyone will give you serious answers.Dilbert_X wrote:
And what's wrong with Soviet eqpt? As long as it works what else is required?
Soviet equipment NEVER works, NOT reliable, DIDN'T work.
Last edited by dayarath (2008-02-11 11:20:18)
inane little opines
Planes were good, except for the fact that when they aged a little bit " they suddenly crashed " crash nota have rarely been kept in soviet russia and I bet that thousands of military personell died with their idiotic tests of equipment that didn't work properly.Skorpy-chan wrote:
The problem with soviet tanks was that they were designed to go up against stuff like the Leopard and the abrams en masse. Offense, not defense. That's why Gulf War was such a strong example of raping.
Soviet aircraft, on the other hand, were extremely rugged and durable, with a tendency towards solid design from the start. The Hind is still flying, for example, despite being replaced twice and being almost obsolete.
and soviet tanks really suck. En masse or not, that just means that you get millions of copies of something that sucks in the first place. They just sacrificed their own men. I don't call that good equipment.
inane little opines
Soviet aircraft were (and still are) VERY maintenance-intensive. Comes from the "quantity has a quality all its own" mentality. Yes, they can use anything flammable and liquid as fuel, but their engines are basically thrown away after a fairly short period of time and their avionics are antiquated in comparison to Western aircraft. Just ask the former Warsaw Pact pilots who flew the MiG-29 and then flew the Tornado, F-16, and other Western jets...no comparison.Skorpy-chan wrote:
Soviet aircraft, on the other hand, were extremely rugged and durable, with a tendency towards solid design from the start. The Hind is still flying, for example, despite being replaced twice and being almost obsolete.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Apparently there have been quite alot of Soviet Airframes being upgraded with Western/Israeli avionics and how they were brought right upto par with the aircraft.FEOS wrote:
Soviet aircraft were (and still are) VERY maintenance-intensive. Comes from the "quantity has a quality all its own" mentality. Yes, they can use anything flammable and liquid as fuel, but their engines are basically thrown away after a fairly short period of time and their avionics are antiquated in comparison to Western aircraft. Just ask the former Warsaw Pact pilots who flew the MiG-29 and then flew the Tornado, F-16, and other Western jets...no comparison.Skorpy-chan wrote:
Soviet aircraft, on the other hand, were extremely rugged and durable, with a tendency towards solid design from the start. The Hind is still flying, for example, despite being replaced twice and being almost obsolete.
I was reading about the MiG-21 ages ago..lemme see if I can find it again..
I know, don't beleive everything on wiki. So I checked out the source it linked towikipedia wrote:
Upgraded MiG-21 'Bison' aircraft reportedly performed well against F-15 and F-16s of the USAF during Indo-US joint air exercises, surprising American pilots with its capabilities. They will remain in service until 2017
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chan … 283667.cms
Interesting stuff. Maybe you can teach an old rusty dog (that keeps crashing and killing everyone) new tricks
The key there being upgraded with Western/Israeli avionics. The Israelis have done the same thing with the F-4 and Mirage airframes, as well.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yeah, I was just saying how it's amazing how Avionics can make such a difference. Then again, it's also kinda obvious I guessFEOS wrote:
The key there being upgraded with Western/Israeli avionics. The Israelis have done the same thing with the F-4 and Mirage airframes, as well.
This is how you win a pissing contest about Tanks.
Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world.
Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world.
Proof.hot water maker for the UK tank crews to make tea
The explanation for that is that Iraq, the red-headed stepchild of soviet-supplied countries, got the export model of the T-72, which was so outclassed it wasn't funny.rdx-fx wrote:
In short, the Soviet equipment doesn't work when required.Dilbert_X wrote:
And what's wrong with Soviet eqpt? As long as it works what else is required?
Soviet tanks got decimated during the Gulf War
* They had to be stationary to fire with any accuracy - their opponent could shoot while moving at max speed
* They had half the range of their opponents
* Their armor was tinfoil against their opponent's ammunition
* Their engine bays (and general heat management) made them missile magnets for coalition aircraft
* Their turrets popped off when they got hit by anything larger than an RPG
In short, the soviet tanks were a case of "quantity over quality".
They're noisy, hot, uncomfortable, cramped, unsafe and generally have no regard for the safety or wellbeing of the crew.
Meanwhile, the Coalition tanks had air conditioning, NBC overpressure systems, fire suppression systems, gyro stabilization fire control, IR mitigation, automatic transmissions, padded seats, explosion-proofing ammo bins.. and a few specialty addons depending on nationality - hot water maker for the UK tank crews to make tea, and 2 gears of reverse for the french tank (I kid on neither of those).
Didn't help that they were offensive tanks in a defensive role against tanks designed to take that very model of tank out.
HAHA, we have a hot water maker in Bradleys, and Im pretty sure Abrams as well. Its called the MRE heater/coffee maker (although, I wouldnt trust the thing to make me hot water for consumption)Mek-Izzle wrote:
This is how you win a pissing contest about Tanks.
Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world.Proof.hot water maker for the UK tank crews to make tea
this.....Skorpy-chan wrote:
The explanation for that is that Iraq, the red-headed stepchild of soviet-supplied countries, got the export model of the T-72, which was so outclassed it wasn't funny.rdx-fx wrote:
In short, the Soviet equipment doesn't work when required.Dilbert_X wrote:
And what's wrong with Soviet eqpt? As long as it works what else is required?
Soviet tanks got decimated during the Gulf War
* They had to be stationary to fire with any accuracy - their opponent could shoot while moving at max speed
* They had half the range of their opponents
* Their armor was tinfoil against their opponent's ammunition
* Their engine bays (and general heat management) made them missile magnets for coalition aircraft
* Their turrets popped off when they got hit by anything larger than an RPG
In short, the soviet tanks were a case of "quantity over quality".
They're noisy, hot, uncomfortable, cramped, unsafe and generally have no regard for the safety or wellbeing of the crew.
Meanwhile, the Coalition tanks had air conditioning, NBC overpressure systems, fire suppression systems, gyro stabilization fire control, IR mitigation, automatic transmissions, padded seats, explosion-proofing ammo bins.. and a few specialty addons depending on nationality - hot water maker for the UK tank crews to make tea, and 2 gears of reverse for the french tank (I kid on neither of those).
Didn't help that they were offensive tanks in a defensive role against tanks designed to take that very model of tank out.
is soviet night vision for tanks. Im not kidding.
in soviet russia, night vision gives away YOUR positionGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this.....http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/15-mil … ower-1.jpgSkorpy-chan wrote:
The explanation for that is that Iraq, the red-headed stepchild of soviet-supplied countries, got the export model of the T-72, which was so outclassed it wasn't funny.rdx-fx wrote:
In short, the Soviet equipment doesn't work when required.
Soviet tanks got decimated during the Gulf War
* They had to be stationary to fire with any accuracy - their opponent could shoot while moving at max speed
* They had half the range of their opponents
* Their armor was tinfoil against their opponent's ammunition
* Their engine bays (and general heat management) made them missile magnets for coalition aircraft
* Their turrets popped off when they got hit by anything larger than an RPG
In short, the soviet tanks were a case of "quantity over quality".
They're noisy, hot, uncomfortable, cramped, unsafe and generally have no regard for the safety or wellbeing of the crew.
Meanwhile, the Coalition tanks had air conditioning, NBC overpressure systems, fire suppression systems, gyro stabilization fire control, IR mitigation, automatic transmissions, padded seats, explosion-proofing ammo bins.. and a few specialty addons depending on nationality - hot water maker for the UK tank crews to make tea, and 2 gears of reverse for the french tank (I kid on neither of those).
Didn't help that they were offensive tanks in a defensive role against tanks designed to take that very model of tank out.
is soviet night vision for tanks. Im not kidding.
