US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head said:

That's how things like this start.

The fact that the did this from a commissioned LCS with the Norwegian missile speaks volumes.

This was not done on a whim and it was not half baked. That missile was launched, and it struck its target. That means it has to acquire it and guide to it. How all of that happened and the details regarding it would tell us a lot more.

But again, the fact that a commissioned LCS launched a NSM at a time when the vulnerability of the entire LCS program has with respect to its offensive SSM capabilities...and when that entire situation is being reviewed and a new class of vessels being considered to address it...again, that speaks volumes.

VERY glad to see this. If they like what they saw, future tests will begin to tell us where they intend to go with it.

My contenction would be that adding four SSMs ASAP to the existing and under construction LCS, even if in a box, or quad launcher, would improve their capabilities dramatically. That of course means they also have to have the sensor suite to make their use practical.

Click to expand...

yeah, if four NSMs can be launched from <300 tons , why not from an LCS! (I mean if the US Navy chose the NSM)

@Jeff, regardless, the position of the launch is almost definitely not indicative of the final operational configuration. Acceptable structural integration of a weapon on a ship is just as important as software integration allowing the weapon to be fired.

Of course, this is an important first step, I was just hoping we'd see where the USN planned to fit AShM canisters on their LCS given it's been a routinely discussed topic.

only now I noticed

AFB looks at aircraft much differently than I do...I look to see is it easy to load ordnance? Is it easy to perform maintenance on? Is it easy to handle? How's that landing gear looking? And since the Texan is shore based... I'm like ..enehhh..sorry. I'm sure she can perform her assigned duties.

Pretty is as pretty does.

On Long Deployments:

Jura said:

On Long Deployments:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Great for shipmates serving now..great idea. Back in '72 aboard the JFK my sea pay for an E-3 was a paltry $8 dollars a month. And my flight deck pay was $55 extra a month once I served aboard Midway in '73.. But guess what? I always had plenty of money. I sure did.

Air Force Brat said:

I'd say grey is the new black gentlemen, and Mirage Driva,,,,,, nothing like a South American chick in a short little dress with heels,,,, I'd say this is the aeronautical version of "that".

Click to expand...

Welcome to the dark side AFB. Most everyone in South America fly’s this little beauty, except for Peru I believe. She is the Sofia Vergara of the trainer world.

Miragedriver said:

Welcome to the dark side AFB. Most everyone in South America fly’s this little beauty, except for Peru I believe. She is the Sofia Vergara of the trainer world.

Click to expand...

Ah Mirage, another pilot/poet kindred spirit, I love ya man,,,,, loved your comment of buying your lady a diamond upgrade on your anniversary, I too Married UP, although I dare not brag on the Honey Badger, she invariably goes on a little tear, just the way of life. I would have sworn that the Honey Badger was a Latina/her Dr. swore she was Jewish, her little sister says they are "cozacks or something" whatever that is???? anyway, she is a "looker", wouldn't cross the street without her "makeup", but she looks much better without it so....

BD states he wants his bird a little more robust, just for the privilege of landing on his "yatch",,,, I get that, and the gear has to be like telephone poles, spar carry-through must be heavier, but the real issue is one of performance, which we may illustrate with the F-35.... The Air Force A is g-limited to 9, the Navy C is g-limited to 7.5, and the Marine/UK B is g-limited to 7.... So as the weight goes up, real world performance is reduced,,,, same horsepower/thrust lifting more weight, means less climb rate, less weapons and fuel load. This is why the B nor the C have an internal gun...

Now that translates aerodynamically to the wings and tail have to "carry" more load, so again as structural weight increases, useful load goes down, take off and landing speed increases, why the C must have larger wings and tail surfaces, so, I like the strong Petite A-29, I would guess stressed to 9gs positive, and 5 or 6 negative gs, no doubt it is a very high performance aircraft, and should carry a decent load into combat.....

Miragedriver said:

Welcome to the dark side AFB. Most everyone in South America fly’s this little beauty, except for Peru I believe. She is the Sofia Vergara of the trainer world.

Click to expand...

Now I feel tempted to take up flying - in a Super Tucano, no less. The curves already make me pumped with adrenaline. She can take loads of G shocks. Sofia, here I come.

Air Force Brat said:

Ah Mirage, another pilot/poet kindred spirit, I love ya man,,,,, loved your comment of buying your lady a diamond upgrade on your anniversary, I too Married UP, although I dare not brag on the Honey Badger, she invariably goes on a little tear, just the way of life. I would have sworn that the Honey Badger was a Latina/her Dr. swore she was Jewish, her little sister says they are "cozacks or something" whatever that is???? anyway, she is a "looker", wouldn't cross the street without her "makeup", but she looks much better without it so....

Click to expand...

Thanks AFB. Yes I am a poet/romantic when it comes down to women and aircraft. What can I say I’m a guy and a sucker for a nice pair of landing gear…..



I will now get back to drinking my Malbec and writing poetry