Another Osprey crashes during mission in Yemen.

>>32835101
Liberal POG maintainer sabotaged it to make Trump look bad

Why do people willingly enter the murderbird?

>>32835101
Nothing is wrong with the osprey. It's the safest helo in USMC inventory.

Helicopters crash. The fancy stealth hawk crashed too.

Fact is the osprey made this op possible.

>vehicles get damaged in the war
Wooow, stop the fucking presses

>>32835112
Aparently everything bad that happens the next 4 years is a conspiracy by liberals to make Trump look bad. Nigga listen to yourself

or maybe they died during super sekrit op and this is cover story

>>32835884
One of them did die

>>32835112
While this is obviously bait, what is sad is how many people actually believe dumb bullshit like this.

>>32835139

If this was a Russian/Chinese vehicle your response would be "haha slavshit lol lololol"

>>32835101
spec ops have a long history of aviation fuck ups, especially with rotary aircraft.

Not sure what god they pissed off, but damn if they arent getting revenge one JSOC operator at a time.

>>32835117
You mean the Shithook?

>>32835126
Wait wasn't that crash pilot error? Didn't it hit its tail on a wall or something while landing?

Apparently a bunch of civilians died in the raid as well.
Not the SEAL's finest hour.

>>32835101
yesterday i knew this thread was coming, but i checked the archive to see if it had already been made, and it had, but a day earlier, so i didn't make another one, because it's just understood: the osprey is a piece of shit.

>>32835126
>safest helo in USMC inventory.
the evidence that this statement is pants-on-head retarded has its own 2 or 3-page article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey

>>32836051
The raid started with bombings, probably responsible for most of the deaths, not the SEALs

>>32835112

You know how many times the Osprey has crashed over the years? It's been going on long before Trump was even in office.

>>32835112
You people are Nork tier

>the power went out!
>fucking Americans

>it's raining today!
>fucking liberals

>>32836036
I think it had to do with the wall around OBLs house
They trained the whole thin for months on a trining house which had a fence instead of a wall air which was pressed down by the chopper when they tried to land in the garden was reflectet by the walls and they crashed

>>32836080
The catastrophic failure rate of the osprey is the lowest of any rotary craft. Granted, that's only if you remove the statistics from early training and testing when no one knew what the fuck they were doing.
Again, your risk is the same in a black/sea hawk as it is in an osprey.

>>32836080
Maybe you should use these little things called actual numbers and actual facts, anon, before making yourself look retarded.

10 minutes of googling gives me the following service life class A mishap rates per 100,000 hours numbers for a sampling of military rotary wing aircraft in US service:
>Osprey 1.12
>CH-46 Sea Knight 1.14
>CH-47A/B/C/D Chinook 2.79
>MH-47D Chinook 4.81
>AH-64A Apache 4.11
>AH-64D Apache Longbow 6.41
>UH-60 Blackhawk 1.98
>MH-60L Spec Ops/Nightstalker Blackhawk 3.1
>MH-60K Glass cockpit Blackhawk 6.53
>OH-58A/C Kiowa 3.04
>OH-58D 3.67

In the 20 years from '85 to '05, the following class A mishap rates per 100k flight hours for rotary wing aircraft applied per service:
>Army 2.34
>Navy 4.18
>USAF 6.68
That means the Osprey is operating at roughly 1/4 the background mishap rate of all USN rotary wing aircraft.

More thoughts:
>Because of the relatively short to-date service of the Osprey, testing mishaps have a higher representation in the data than long-serving rotary wing aircraft like the Chinook
>Mishap rates historically spike much higher for the first few years of service, further skewing the data. They don't spike again until very late in service as airframes reach the end of their service lives. This is, again, another point in the Osprey's favor.

>>32835117
in the military you get voluntold what to do

>>32836684
>>Navy 4.18
>>That means the Osprey is operating at roughly 1/4 the background mishap rate of all USN rotary wing aircraft.
Sorry, that should read "Department of the Navy" and DoN rather than Navy and USN, as it includes USMC aircraft and operations.

File: God+cheeseburger+eddie+_e010a705d18096374583fec872edf24e.jpg (21KB, 500x195px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x195px

>>32836670
Yeah, but people here need to meme "lol muhreens!"

They aren't going to allow things like facts and service records stop that.

>>32836684
No one on /k/ cares about facts. It's fun to call it the murderbird and say it will kill you.

>>32836684
Goddamnit but I love it when some anon comes through and facefucks a stupid thread with good info and everyone actually gets to learn something.

Good on ya, m8

File: mbt70.jpg (1MB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2016x1512px

>>32835101
the US military hasn't self started a successful new gear for at least 60 years.

DOD wants new gear:

A)copies off a nato country, usually canada
>Acu (cadpat)
>LAV25 (lav)
>Stryker (lav)
>Mrap (casspir)
>Ranger Special Operations Vehicle (Land Rover)

B) updated old design with new tech
>every tank since M4 Sherman
>javelin ATGM
>AMPV
>JLTV
>Grwoler

C)CIA/Skunkworks/NASA tech
>stealth tech
>blackbird
>every ICBM

D) Private sector design
>Blufor tracking
>Chenowth Advanced Light Strike Vehicle
>M35 replacements
>Pickup trucks
>Windows OS on every computer system

E)DOD project that costs too much, never works right and gets cancelled
>pic related
>Ground Combat Vehicle
>Commache
>too many to list

F)DOD project that costs too much, never works right and doesn't get cancelled and
costs even more, and still never works right.
>Bradley
>Osprey
>Stryker 105mm (shit)
>Stryker 30mm (we'll see)


The DOD is incapable of innovation.
They can expand on other people's ideas.
But they can't come up with new ideas and implement it successfully themselves.

>>32836605
Cool , thx for telling

>cia/(X)works/nasa
>not us military

US military has funded plenty of new ideas and gear, you are simp-

>F)DOD project that costs too much, never works right and doesn't get cancelled and
costs even more, and still never works right.
>Bradley
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BRADLEY

No, you are just retarded and wrong.

>>32836745
is for
>>32836870

Also the JLTV is not an updated old design.

Neither is the Javelin.

Then there is pretty much every new aircraft that shits on your idea's, stealth completely aside.

Then there is various small arms that shit all over your ideas, like the XM-25.

I mean, how can one guy be so fucking wrong?

>>32836891
>JLTV
MRAP

>Javelin
Handheld ATGM

>Then there is pretty much every new aircraft that shits on your idea's
You just pluralized a normal noun with an apostrophe

>Then there is various small arms that shit all over your ideas, like the XM-25.
Doesn't work

>I mean, how can one guy be so fucking wrong?
There's nothing special about being wrong
being as ballsy about it as you are is pretty notable

>>32836016
That's wrong. I like slavshit

>>32836745
>B) updated old design with new tech
>>every tank since M4 Sherman
What the literal fuck are you even talking about? Are you so stupid that you don't understand the mechanical, operational and mission differences between an MBT (concept invented whole cloth in the 1960s and finally executed in the 80's) and a WWII medium tank? Holy shit.

C)CIA/Skunkworks/NASA tech
>stealth tech
>blackbird
VLO technology has advanced so much since the Hopeless Diamond/Have Blue first flight in 1977 and now it's almost unrecognizable. Material science and application techniques for RAM coating alone has been completely revolutionized at least twice since the F-117 introduction in 1983.

As far as the Oxcart program, A-12, SR-71, etc., they were obsolete as primary strategic recon platforms as soon as recon satellite tech was adequate and in numbers and the Soviets developed the SAM technology to challenge if not intercept them. They never flew a single mission over mainland Soviet territory, only on the fringes. They were incredible achievements in aviation engineering and history, but operationally never the godsend people believe. There's a reason we still operate U-2s and SR-71s haven't been in service in 20 years.

>D) Private sector design
That's the entire strength and backbone of US military R&D and procurement, and it has been since the US built the Great White Fleet. If you don't understand this, you have no place commenting on any of these matters. Read a fucking book.

CONT

>>32836191
>You know how many times the Osprey has crashed over the years? It's been going on long before GW was even in office.

Those things are death traps kept alive by good idea fairy's. It is cool to see them land an take off though. Just keep your distance.

>>32836960
>E)DOD project that costs too much, never works right and gets cancelled
>pic related
>Ground Combat Vehicle
>Commache
>too many to list
Again, this is historically consistent. Sometimes projects don't work, funding isn't there, political landscape changes, science isn't ready yet or battlefield requirements change drastically. Prominent examples from before the last 60 years:
>Lexington class Battlecruisers - requested, delayed, redesigned, ordered, delayed, redesigned, delayed, converted and scrapped. Two converted to CVs halfway through build, 4 scrapped finally due to Washington Naval Treaty after being deprioritized for escort vessels, ASW ships and submarines for over a decade.
>Alaska class CBs - two completed, served less than three years before mothball/scrap, one scrapped uncompleted and three cancelled
>Montana class BB - cancelled after years of design work
Not to mention all the WWII aircraft which were initial failures/underperformers, required tons of redesign to ram through and eventually because successful not because they were initially awesome designs but because we had to make them work because, lol, war on guize:
>B-17
>P-40
>P-51
>F4U
>F2A -> F4F -> F6F -> F8F dev cycle
>P-38
etc.

And that's just shit off the top of my head. If I go looking, I could bury you in examples.

Examples of technologies and platforms radically evolved in the last 60 years which changed how war is fought, and which came with DoD/DARPA/military funding:
>F-117
>B-2
>most of the 5th gen/F-35 software and avionics hardware
>PESA and AESA
>Aegis
>the MBT in design and operational concept
>most of the currently operating tech on modern SSNs and SSBNs
>GPS
>most modern variants of PGMs and A2G sensor guidance packages
>pretty much everything connected to a C4SIR node
>AWACS
the list goes on and on and on

>>32836950
>Xm-25 doesn't work
Source?
or are you living in 2012?

>>32836999
>Not to mention all the WWII aircraft which were initial failures/underperformers, required tons of redesign to ram through and eventually because successful not because they were initially awesome designs but because we had to make them work because, lol, war on guize:
Don't forget about things like the YB-34, YB-35, YB-49, most of the 1st gen naval jet aircraft, XF5U, XF-48H, etc, etc, etc.

We tried and completely failed metric fucktons more in the 1930s-1950s than we ever have in the last 60 years.

>>32835117
>Voluntary

Anon, do you know how the military works, at all?

>>32836684

Isn't this offset by the fact that the Ospreys are the newest, and therefor should have the lowest accident rate?

As equipment is continued to be used, shit gets worn out and over time the accident rate goes up.

>>32836950

>i am going to be severely autistic and render things down to their most basic idea to try to make my point, with little bits of autistic grammar nazisim to really push my point!

Ok fucccccboi....

You said "the US military hasn't self started a successful new gear for at least 60 years." 60 years ago was Thursday, January 31, 1957.

So, being that you are being so fucking autistic, BY ALL MEANS, lets be real fucking autistic.

Genuine new idea from after January 1957, brought into service. Done.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(satellite)

First satellite navigation system, launched by a USAF Thor-Ablestar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_camera#Digital_cameras

Worlds first digital camera was the KH-11 launched by the NRO in late 1976.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-Purpose_Improved_Conventional_Munition

DPICM, first entered service in 61.

I can go on and on.

What was that you said about "being ballsy about it", my autistic friend?

>>32837060
No, ospreys are the newest, and thus have a higher mishap rate due to human error.

Did you even read his words?

ICBMs arent NASA tech.

our rocket program tech went FIRST to the US Army, then to NASA and the USAF/contractors like Boeing, which fed back intermittently into NASA and vice versa.

If you want to be super anal, we were inspired by early Nazi work, as was the USSR and UK

>>32837060
>Isn't this offset by the fact that the Ospreys are the newest, and therefor should have the lowest accident rate?
No. As I noted here: >>32836684
>>Because of the relatively short to-date service of the Osprey, testing mishaps have a higher representation in the data than long-serving rotary wing aircraft like the Chinook
>>Mishap rates historically spike much higher for the first few years of service, further skewing the data. They don't spike again until very late in service as airframes reach the end of their service lives. This is, again, another point in the Osprey's favor.
Early service life mishap rates for aircraft are historically almost exclusively much higher than middle and even late service life mishap rates. That is because of several reasons:
>airframe/engine/avionics flaws still being discovered as more and more hours and situations are encountered - the examples here being clear in the F-15, F-14, F-16, and pretty much every other aircraft to ever enter military service, especially before good simulators were available
>operational flaws discovered through failure/mishap due to poor training/inexperienced pilots/bad doctrine - the classic example here is the F-104 in German service
These are the general issues that get discovered, investigated and ironed out early in an aircraft's life service cycle.

For instance, some numbers for the F-15 Class A mishap per 100k flight hours rate by FY:
>FY75 22.02
>FY77 14.61
>FY78 11.59
>FY79 5.16
>FY80 4.57
Fiscal Year 99 was the only other year in F-15 operational history in the US where that rate was above 4. Only 6 of the remaining 26 years were actually above 3. Think about that.

Very similar stats for most other military aircraft entering service.

>>32837175
This.

It's also why the F-35 testing and development program is such an outlier and so successful in this regard. I think it's the first military jet aircraft program in history to make it to IOC without an aircraft crash in testing.

We lost several thousand (no typo!) helos in Nam. Rotary wing missions are fucking dangerous and the idea you can fight wars without losing men and equipment is ignorant.

That's what light casualties look like. Get over it.

>>32837175
It's even worse for the F-16:
FY75 621.12
FY76 442.48
FY79 30.64
FY80 18.65
FY81 8.86
FY82 15.83
FY83 7.30
FY84 5.01
It didn't really settle out to an average around 2.5-4 until 13 years after its first flight.

>>32836670
...so we don't care specifically about USMC inventory anymore? because they don't have the worse ones, the navy does.

>>32837175
>>32837275
Oh, and I should note that the F-15 and F-16 sport service lifetime USAF class A mishap rates at:
>F-15 2.36
>F-16 3.46
So we're not talking about aircraft which are death machines. It's something all newly operational aircraft tend to go through.

File: 1401200790763.gif (29KB, 482x800px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 482x800px

>>32835661
>>32836002
>>32836191
>>32836580
>that's bait but I'll reply anyway
kystbh

>>32836684
While I agree with the fact that Class A mishaps are less common in Ospreys compared to other rotor craft, how many of these mishaps result in a complete loss of the airframe compared to other helicopters?

I feel like not being able to autorotate and being completely fucked if you lose an engine would lead to a slightly higher loss of airframes per class A. I'm probably wrong though, just an idea.

>>32836745
>the US military hasn't self started a successful new gear for at least 60 years
What is the Gavin?

>>32837359
>I feel like not being able to autorotate and being completely fucked if you lose an engine would lead to a slightly higher loss of airframes per class A. I'm probably wrong though, just an idea.

This is incorrect. Osprey has a driveshaft between the nacelles, which means if one engine goes down the other engine can power both rotors in forward flight and perform a safe rolling touchdown.

In case of catastrophic and complete loss of all power, the aircraft is flown like a fixed wing aircraft and glided in for a landing where available.

You've actually got many more options in an Osprey to safely conclude a major mishap incident than you do in a traditional rotary wing - the lift and control surfaces provided by the wings and tail alone ensure this.

The only possible period in flight ops there is a disadvantageous comparison between the two types would be in vertical flight mode and a complete power failure in both engines. With no forward momentum and not enough altitude to dive and gain energy to glide, the reduced auto rotation characteristics in the two rotor discs make the incident more difficult to manage. However, because of how widely spaced the nacelles are, the chances of complete power loss in both engines due either to catastrophic failure in one damaging the other or a single combat hit on both is exceedingly small compared to the traditional engine arrangement on our older rotary wing assets.

For an Osprey to under perform compared to a traditional chopper in an serious power loss incident, the following would have to happen:
>both widely spaced engines would have to fail simultaneously during vertical flight operations within 500 or so feet of the deck
>single engine and driveshaft failure during vertical flight mode and close to ground
and even then, it'd still have a chance depending on terrain and pilot to convert some of that downward energy into forward momentum using a dive and flare profile.

>>32835101
one of them probably talked about how this is their last mission and they were going to marry their GF and settle down when they get back stateside

>>32837629
>single engine and driveshaft failure during vertical flight mode and close to ground

This is the most dangerous point for any Chopper/Tilt rotor, the low level landing, the Osprey is massively more vulnerable, also less maneuverable & slower in descent.

So you can't go anywhere you might take small arms fire in an Osprey, where a Blackhawk might be more flexible

Also: What elevation was this taking place at? The Osprey has greatly reduced performance at altitude compared to a normal helicopter.

>>32837359
From an engineering standpoint, and taking >>32837629 into account, a V-22 has more modes of failure but also far more redundancy and far fewer single points of failure compared to a traditional whirly bird.

>>32837720
>So you can't go anywhere you might take small arms fire in an Osprey

This is false and retarded. A bullet that will kill an osprey will kill a blackhawk too.

Kys.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/maturing-of-the-osprey-first-v-22-pilots-awarded-dfcs/

>>32837720
Did you read fucking nothing in that post?

He literally said that several MORE hits/failures would have to happen to an Osprey before it was less survivable than a chopper. At least one engine plus driveshaft, or both engines at the same time.

In a chopper? Rotor stalk (drive shaft) goes, you're completely fucked, and probably not even getting any auto rotation. Both engines fail, and you're going the fuck in, plus the fact that because in choppers both engines are almost right next to each other, there's a far higher chance a single hit takes them both out.

What the fuck, exactly, is your objection? What are you not getting?

>>32837810
>What the fuck, exactly, is your objection? What are you not getting?

He has been fed a decades of memes from the MSM about the osprey.

Remember, the osprey was the first internet age military "boondoggle" lambasted by the MSM.

There are thousands of faggots on 4chan who think what he does.

>>32837766
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/maturing-of-the-osprey-first-v-22-pilots-awarded-dfcs/
>As Hutching’s V-22 came down it took heavy fire, which so damaged the plane that the systems on board told the pilot to not fly the aircraft. Of course, not flying was to face certain death, so the task for the pilot and the crew was to find a way out. The plane was badly damaged, but because of the various redundant systems on board and the skill of the pilot and the crew, they were able to depart and to make it back to Camp Bastion in airplane mode. With a traditional rotorcraft, of course, you do not have the relative luxury of switching between two modes of travel.

So that's at least one Osprey that RTB when a Blackhawk would have gone down.

>>32837766
>no details at all in regards to the actual damage to the aircraft

Clearly both engines were working as it was still flying

>>32837810
It just ain't true, the Osprey is far more delicate, has no protection against small arms fire, must take a lot longer doing a slow descent into landing

Physical seperation of the engines is a bad thing, not a good thing

>>32835661
>Aparently everything bad that happens the next 4 years

8 years you jamoke

>>32837845
Doesn't say that at all

>>32837918
>evidence, actual mishap rate numbers and combat testimony don't matter
>only muh feelz matter
>ONLY MUH FEELZ

God damn, but you're about 8 kinds of stupid.

>>32837918
>Clearly both engines were working as it was still flying
See >>32837629
Again.
Clearly you need lessons in reading comprehension.
The Osprey is still fully capable of flight with a single working engine and functioning driveshaft in forward flight mode. It can even take off lightly loaded in rolling takeoff mode depending on conditions.

>>32837918

So we got anecdotal and hard data, and you just go "NOPE, JUST AIN'T TRUE HURHURHUHUR"

You are a faggot of the highest order.

>>32837918
>the Osprey is far more delicate
It has far more redundancy, both aerodynamically and mechanically. Mishap rates also put the lie to your "more delicate" meme. Learn to read.

File: 1430620707137.jpg (37KB, 500x367px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x367px

>>32835117
>willingly

>people willingly do things in the military

>>32837918
You completely miss the part where the V-22 has slightly more wing area than an F-16, with higher lift wing geometry to boot. It's also only 25% heavier empty weight. Which means that in an emergency with fuel dump, an unloaded V-22 would get no small amount of help from glide characteristics. That's before we even talk about help from the rotor disc, and before we talk about the statistically low likelihood of dual simultaneous engine failure.

ITT: anon just wants to sling memes and hurr hurr but reality bitchslaps him in the face

Another golden /k/ moment

>>32837061
>60 years is untrue
>Look at this stuff from 58 years ago

also
>NRO
C)CIA/Skunkworks/NASA tech

>>32836999
>DoD/DARPA/military funding:
>GPS
>F-117
>B-2
The DOD was used as a conduit for funds by the CIA to fund secret programs.
DARPA is a largely autonomous agency beneath the DOD umbrella.
Calling DARPA DOD is like calling the USMC Navy.
If it was up to DOD, USAF, and Lockheed, stealth would have been killed in the cradle.

>most of the 5th gen/F-35 software and avionics hardware
>most of the currently operating tech on modern SSNs and SSBNs
>most modern variants of PGMs and A2G sensor guidance packages
>PESA and AESA
>Aegis
>C4SIR node
All this is incremental
B) updated old design with new tech

>AWACS
>Boeing E-3 Sentry: 9 February 1972
45 years is still a long time

>the MBT in design and operational concept
Oh, please.
The US was trailing Soviet tank design between <1940 and ~1985.

>>32837361
More than 60 years old.

>>32836745
>The DOD is incapable of innovation.

No. The thing they are mostly incapable of is common sense.

I won't bother with your list, almost all of that is complete bullshit.

>>32836960

The reason Blackbird stayed flying as long as it did is US Navy. They wanted time critical intel from Soviet naval bases, well visible from edge of Soviet airspace. Satellites are predictable, stuff can be hidden

>>32835661
>implying thats wrong
That is exactly why that stand-in AG was fired, she tried to get in the way of the White House because of feels, there was no legal justification.

>>32836002
lmfao for real all these dump lickers have the iq of 10 and will fall for anything

>>32838155
>The DOD was used as a conduit for funds by the CIA to fund secret programs.
>DARPA is a largely autonomous agency beneath the DOD umbrella.
>Calling DARPA DOD is like calling the USMC Navy.
Wow. What a bunch of nitpicking bullshit.

Just because a defense program or piece of hardware eventually falls under CIA or NSA operational direction has nothing to do with the fact that it was developed by the same defense/contractor network that developed everything else of note ever used by the US military.

Also, DARPA is set up and funded FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AND FUNNELING TECHNOLOGIES INTO DEFENSE PROCUREMENT in addition to certain strategically critical industry sectors you complete fucking moron. They're basically the blue sky research arm of the DoD.

>If it was up to DOD, USAF, and Lockheed, stealth would have been killed in the cradle.
Holy fucking shit, you are one dumb nigger. Lockheed and the USAF are the ones that made modern stealth/VLO possible. If they didn't take Ufimtsev's math, and let Overholser blow costly computer time and work hours on refining and simulating it, the F-117 would have NEVER HAPPENED, ditto if the USAF had failed to fund Have Blue and then the F-117 on basically a, "Fuck it. It'll never work but if it does we'll be gods" basis.

>All this is incremental
You stupid motherfucker, ALL TECHNOLOGY IS IN SOME WAY INCREMENTAL.
However, the fact that you believe Aegis, 5th gen software/avionics and the modern C4SIR node structures to be primarily incremental and involving no leap of concept anywhere shows just how little you know about any of them.

>45 years is still a long time
You're spending all this time nitpicking. You said 60 years. Good for the goose, good for the gander motherfucker.

CONT

>>32838155
>>32838300
>The US was trailing Soviet tank design between <1940 and ~1985.
This has absolutely fuckall to do with why the MBT was clean-sheet and has as much to do with the M4 Sherman as a VW Beetle does with an F1 racecar. Aside from the fact that the moment the US introduced the M1, they were no longer behind the Soviets in any way.

All that said, you're clearly too stupid to actually learn anything. I think I'm done trying to educate the willfully stupid.

>>32838294
>only pretending to be retarded guize!
got that shit in right before I was going to inb4 with it. donkeyfucker.

>>32838155
>Calling DARPA DOD is like calling the USMC Navy.
It literally stands for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

It's designed for, funded by and created to service the DoD first and foremost.

You are really fucking dumb.

>>32838155
You are the one being an autist Fuck.

Get blow the Fuck out

>>32838329
Just like the marines are there largely to prevent boarding actions and to snipe from the tops of ships?

>>32836891
>Also the JLTV is not an updated old design.

JLTV isn't exactly rocket science. It is your average MRAP, unlike previous MRAP's it is just a standardized multi-version design. Add some marketing spin and fancy acronyms to confuse politicians and general public that it is massive upgrade to everything that came before it. American public loves all kinds of superlatives.

MRAP's procured for Afghanistan and Iraq wars were panic buys. US military bought all kinds of MRAP's from all suppliers to meet urgent demand without ever bothering with logistics. There is a reason why they gifting a lot of MRAP's to allies and law enforcement agencies, they are trying to build more uniform fleet of MRAP's. Leave couple legacy model MRAP's to inventory, complement and eventually replace all of those and humvees with JLTV.

>>32836950
>Handheld ATGM

Handheld ATGM that is radically different from previous generation designs, envisioned during Cold War and end of that cut development funding leading to delays and cut down purchases drove up unit cost.

>>32838377
What the fuck does that have to do with the darpa being considered apart of the DOD or not?

Darpa is directly connected to the DOD.

>>32838403
JLTV is different from the mraps bought, even oshkoshes own M-ATV.

>>32838060
The Osprey is not taking fire when its flying in forward flight at 10,000 feet

But deploying troops under fire as is done regularly? The Osprey is totally unfit for

It's also loud as fucking hell, which is why they ran into an ambush the second time around.

>>32837638
>implying that's even possible
The guy who died was on his 12th fucking deployment and he was almost 40, the best outcome is a guy like Pat Mcnamara who is insane but happy teaching other people and intensely photographing birds and eating rainbow trout from rivers.

>>32838476
>The Osprey is not taking fire when its flying in forward flight at 10,000 feet
MANPAADS
SAMs
AAA
etc.

Are you stupid?

>But deploying troops under fire as is done regularly? The Osprey is totally unfit for
Yet it has a lower mishap and crash rate than anything else also delivering troops under fire. Fucking explain that please.

>It's also loud as fucking hell, which is why they ran into an ambush the second time around.
Jesus Christ. Are you fucking kidding me here?

>>32838433

It is just another MRAP as far as engineering goes, it is not a radical departure from existing concept.

Fuck. Abrams is different from M60, but both of those are fucking MBT's.

>>32838494
Osprey is too expensive and altogether SHIT

USMC osprey crashed? Marines do shit aviation maintenance.

File: 1444763277512 (1).jpg (1MB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1200px

>>32836684
>>32837175
>>32837629
>>32838300
>>32838309
Anon, I don't know what it is you do, or if this is just a hobby. And while it is not as intimate as his knowledge was, please do some Oppenheimer-style threads about general military technology, because you clearly know your shit and so many people are misinformed anymore.

Like, wtf I love the Osprey now

>>32838530
>if I scream it enough times, eventually it will be true

Ladies, Gentlemen and Fuckpuddles, I give you Autism.

>>32838549
It's just reality
You won't see the army buying a tilt rotor, because they suck in lots of ways.
You can still USE them, but they are suboptimal + more expensive.

>>32838496
It's not another mrap though, unless you think armor and 4 wheels equals mrap

>>32838578
>it's just reality

All data disagrees, faggot.

>>32838581
...wait, it's not.

>>32835126
Until it encounters its natural enemy dust in the air.

>>32835101
They fly beautifully but their engines are extremely sensitive to particles in the air. You know like sand particles kicked up by landing in a desert....

>>32838598
he is using Alternative Facts

>>32838544
>And while it is not as intimate as his knowledge was, please do some Oppenheimer-style threads about general military technology, because you clearly know your shit and so many people are misinformed anymore.
Sorry bro. Most of what I post is in response to correcting misinformation. I've done a few threads exploring the history of various types of platforms, but nothing like aviationhistoryfag - that guy is on it.

I just don't feel the need to tripfag and my information isn't more specific than a hundred other anons with connections and service in defense who post here regularly. Opp's knowledge was incredibly specific and his credentials were necessary to back some of the "trust me because info is sensitive/take too long to explain" nature of his points. Not so anything I'm throwing out there.

>>32838578
See >>32836684
again. Tell me about reality one more time. Please.

Safer. Longer ranged. More versatile. Period.

>>32838626
Once again, I conduct you to >>32836684 which suggests, using real world facts, that you're completely full of shit. Have a nice day.

>>32838626
Nope, it operates in dust and sand all the fucking time.

File: 1375718329584.jpg (11KB, 220x263px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 220x263px

>>32838631
swear to God they need to hang that incompetent cunt Conway from the rafters for giving them that awful fucking meme

>>32836020
well they are also flying high stress missions that are 10x more dangerous than regular forces, almost always at night while under the pressure of time. not to mention that with the skill that that special forces, both soldiers and pilots, often comes a level of arrogance that disregards safety.

>>32835112
Bait

>>32836051
I didn't hear anyone complaining about the hundreds of civilians that Obama's strikes caused.

>>32838543
could've been a USAF Osprey, theirs only fly missions for SF.

>>32838155
>Oh, please.
>The US was trailing Soviet tank design between <1940 and ~1985.


If nothing else, this alone should convince everyone that you're retarded.

>>32838725
How have you not heard any of it?

>>32838725
Hardly anybody reported on them. The only source I can think of that did a piece (actually a spectacular one at that) was Greenwald's The_Intercept. It was actually kind of funny because then I heard complaints that The_Intercept was right wing propaganda. (Greenwald is pretty lefty).

File: IMG_4730.jpg (67KB, 440x331px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 440x331px

>>32836745
Tell that to the Amtrackers

>100% American invention, P7 model going strong for 40 years

Lol just kidding they're outdated and like to explode too but hey, it was my outdated and prone to exploding vehicle for 3 years

>>32837077
>Weeeelll... acktchuwallyyyyy.....

File: JLTV_Config1.jpg (58KB, 800x721px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x721px

>>32838581
>It's not another mrap though, unless you think armor and 4 wheels equals mrap

I have heard a nasty rumor that there might be even MRAPs with 6 wheels around....

Is a light truck with mine and ambush protection (aka armor) that comes in three main variants. A general purpose utility version. Slightly bigger version with sub-variants for general purpose use, weapons carrier, systems carrier and whatever they can fit into it. Third being once again bit bigger and will be used as cargo truck and ambulance... at least initially.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm talking with retard, assburger or just someone that got confused by marketing.

Its differences to older MRAPs are very comparable to differences between two model generations of a same car model, more advanced materials here and there, maybe new engine or entertainment system.

JLTV isn't about radically new technology on vehicle, it is more about unified fleet of vehicles and replacing unprotected variants of light utility trucks with mine and ambush protected one... aka MRAP.

>>32838761

It was USAF Osprey.

File: darpa.jpg (286KB, 934x625px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 934x625px

>>32838309
>he moment the US introduced the M1 they were no longer behind the Soviets
It took the soviets entering a death spiral for America to break ahead. Whew.

>>32838329
>It's designed for, funded by and created to service the DoD first and foremost.
I never said the American defence industry hasn't made breakthroughs, I said the DOD hasn't.
DARPA is independent from the DOD.

>>32838785
>The shells don't load themselves
Outdated in 1950

>>32838839
The original point was they hadn't made anything in 60 years.
55 years isn't far from 60.

>>32837077
>past 60 years

>>32838300
>The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) gave Skunk Works permission to discuss with DARPA on the stealth characteristics of the A-12 and D-21.
>"Our old D-21 drone has a lower radar cross-section than that goddamn diamond"
>Lockheed and the USAF are the ones that made modern stealth/VLO possible
Lockheed takes orders from USAF. USAF takes orders from CIA.

>ALL TECHNOLOGY IS IN SOME WAY INCREMENTAL.
The specific type of incremental I was referring to was superseding a piece of equipment with another piece of equipment with negligible differences in design and function.
So in this case "Incremental" would be opposed to "evolutionary" (or revolutionary).

Tank design:
>Incremental
105mm gun -> 120mm gun
1000hp engine -> 1500hp engine
1000mm RHA equivalent -> 1500mm RHA equivalent
>Evolutionary
4 crewmen -> 3 crewmen
125mm Tank shell -> 125mm ATGM
Slat armour -> Sloped armour

>You said 60 years. Good for the goose, good for the gander motherfucker.
You seem to be desperately clinging to that number despite the fact it's completely arbitrary and has little impact on the substance of the point.

>>32837060
As the newest they often have higher due to pilot unfamiliarity.
As errors happen they are either fixed mechanically or instructors inform new pilots of known quirks of an airframe reducing repeat incident rates.

These factors result in reducing incident numbers as pilot familiarity, and therefore instructor familiarity grows.

Athe some point mechanical failures begin to show due to age, these rapidly spike the incident rate until they become widely known

File: THE-COMBAT-STATISTICS-FOR-ALL-THE-AIRCRAFT-CURRENTLY-IN-USE-Air-to-air-kills-–-Air-to-air-losses-–-Losses-to-ground-fire.png (2MB, 2473x4847px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2473x4847px

>>32839046
>It took the soviets entering a death spiral for America to break ahead. Whew.
Cute theory. Except it doesn't explain the fact that the Soviets, in spite of small, temporary and scattered successes, were behind in development of nearly every other major combat platform class. Pic definitely related.

>DARPA is independent from the DOD.
No, you fucking moron, they are not. Literally the first words on the DARPA website description when you type DARPA into google:
>Commissions advanced research for DoD
The were created by, funded by and work for the DoD. Literally a branch under the DoD umbrella. Can we please stop being a complete retard now?

>Lockheed takes orders from USAF. USAF takes orders from CIA.
Ballpark figure, just how much time do you spend eyefucking Alex Jones on a daily basis?

>with negligible differences in design and function.
And you think this applies to 5th gen sensor fusion/processing/software/avionics/VLO/operations? Aegis? PESA and AESA? Modern C4SIR? PGMs? God damn, but you're a moron.

>You seem to be desperately clinging to that number despite the fact it's completely arbitrary and has little impact on the substance of the point.
Oh the ironing, when in the same exact post you say:
>>past 60 years
Fucking jackass.

>>32839046
>DARPA is independent from the DOD

Wrong.

>The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by the military.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA

>This is an official U.S. Department of Defense website sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

>http://www.darpa.mil/

You are wrong, bad, should feel bad.

Stop posting immediately.

>>32839046
>doubles down on DARPA being seprete from the DOD
>a simple, 5 second google shows this is not the case.

And yet, you expect us to be swayed by your other, zero research, shit tier opinions.

Fuck off, vatnik.

>>32839279
>>32839324
>>32839372
>under the DoD umbrella
The USMC is part of the Navy
Yet they are considered an entirely different branch.

Jesus Christ, why is it so hard for you guys to understand the concept of functional autonomy?
It's not that complex a concept.

>>32839429
No, they are not functionally autonomous, they are not structured like the marines, they are commissioned for every project, and every project gets go/no go from the DOD senior management.

You are wrong. You are bad. You should feel bad.

Stop.

Posting.

>>32839452
>every project gets go/no go from the DOD senior management.
You mean a rubber stamp.
The DOD has little say in how DARPA is run and almost as little say in what it is doing.
DARPA has been doing as much or more at the CIA's behest for the past 50 years than at the DOD's.
The DOD has little say in what it does and how it does it, how it organizes itself, and DARPA takes direct orders from other government branches.

>You are wrong. You are bad. You should feel bad.
Jesus. fucking. Christ.
Do you know what a "nominal" relationship is? I can't believe you're having so much trouble with the concept. NOMINAL is different than REAL. That is true 1000x over when you're dealing with the CIA.

>>32839452
Also YOU should feel bad for not being able to understand rudimentary organizational quirks.
This isn't complicated stuff.
you should have picked up on this stuff just from a couple movies about the CIA.

>>32839528
>you should have picked up on this stuff just from a couple movies about the CIA.
This right here is why, anon, you are such a fucking retard. Instead of researching, googling or even *gasp* reading a fucking book, you consume the information which informs your opinions from Hollywood blockbusters. And then you shit your opinions out here and get all pissy when it turns out you're a completely misinformed jackass.

Go. Fuck. Yourself.

>>32839503
>The DOD has little say in what it does and how it does it, how it organizes itself, and DARPA takes direct orders from other government branches.

Absolutely wrong. Full stop.

>DARPA is independent from other military research and development and reports directly to senior Department of Defense management.

Do you know what "stop posting" means? I can't believe you are having trouble with this concept. STOP POSTING is different from KEEP BEING A FAGGOT. This is true 1000x over when dealing with vatniks.

>>32839528
>DUDE WATCH SOME MOVIES LOL

I bet you think Pentagon wars is a 10/10 documentary.

>>32839555
>reports directly to senior Department of Defense management.
They're a government agency. They have to report to a department. That's how it works.

The FBI is independent, despite the fact they're organized under the DOJ.

How do you people have such beligerent lack of comprehension of how your government works?

>>32839549
Don't give me that read a book bullshit.
wait...do you understand that hypocrisy is actually an UNDESIRABLE trait?
it's a bad thing to be a hypocrite.
for example, it's bad to tell people to read a book when you won't even bother reading their entire post.

>>32839613
>The FBI is independent, despite the fact they're organized under the DOJ.
Except that the retard said here >>32838155
>DARPA is a largely autonomous agency beneath the DOD umbrella.
Which is patently not true. All big DARPA projects are either proposed by or vetted by the DoD before they are begun, and reviewed at every major step. They have some, but not very much discretionary funding. They are about as far from "largely autonomous" as you can get.

That phrase "largely autonomous" does not apply to the DoJ and FBI, either. DoJ sets policy, standards, vetting, and even decides whether and how far to pursue certain large cases through the AG's office. If the FBI is the ship, DoJ is the hand on the rudder.

>>32839613
The DOD has direct control over darpa projects.

Let me type very slowly and in big letters for you.

DARPA PROJECTS ARE COMMISSIONED BY THE DOD.

DARPA. WORKS. ON. COMMISSIONED. PROJECTS. FROM. THE. DOD.

THE DOD HAS TOTAL CONTROL OVER WHAT DARPA IS DOING DUE TO THIS.

THE. DOD. APPROVES. EVERY. SINGLE. PROJECT.

>>32839680
>THE. DOD. APPROVES. EVERY. SINGLE. PROJECT.
Not only that, but they review each project at every goalpost and decide if continued funding is called for and how much, as well as whether or not to adjust the direction of the research to emphasis different aspects of the area in question.

>>32839613
>The FBI is independent, despite the fact they're organized under the DOJ.
>FBI
>INDEPENDENT
>DOJ
Jesus Fucking Christ. We're discussing institutional structure with a fucking infant.

>>32839691
To long anon, you will only confuse the poor vatnik more.

Please stop. He is a simple man with a simple mind. Small words, big letters.

(but yes you are right, dod gives them projects and tells them if it's possible, if it is it's a go till DOD cuts funding. There is a darpa proposal component where they will approach the DOD with "wouldn't this be cool")

>>32837638
Yep, you hear it on the com chatter. Got the transcript right here.

"This is my last mission guys. Got a ring ready to propose to my girl when I get back."

(first gun shot) "He is dead, he is dead, so we don't all need to die, right?"

"You had to ask that question (second gun shot). Shit now we are short two men, but we are safe."

"Mayday, Mayday, May..."

>>32836603
It would be great if we could get out of this shit and work together without having a civil war. Trump is a destabilizing force in the triepedal stool of government. Currently were just wobbling a little, but if this keeps up something is going to come loose or break. The only way to fix things is to increase the dialogue between the parties, act together in a more bipartisan way, communicate, and compromise. The government has been moving further towards partisanship since the end of the cold war and this seems impossible to prevent.

Personally, I split my ticket, favoring candidates that were more likely to compromise on important issues. This meant voting for some candidates that had different opinions that my own. Despite the point messiness of it, I voted for Johnson.

There needs to be a way of countering partisanship and bringing American politics closer to the mean. Perhaps this could take the form of a universal mandatory vote with a minimal fine for non-compliance. Currently, both parties favor extreme candidates due to the primary system.

Voting is a basic right, but goes beyond that. Voting should be considered a responsibility for all eligible citizens. It is the most fundamental form of civic duty. Take a couple hours and have a say in the direc to of the government. With proper management, it could eliminate concerns of both voter fraud and voter suppression.

>>32838279
People are at each others throats and it's basically all out political warfare from all sides. You get hit you hit back, after all. What she did wasn't responsible or legally justified but political low cunning. Something to get people riled up about when she was going to leave anyway.

My initial response was to the deleted politics thread from last night. It isn't relevant specifically but was left in my phones quick reply box, so fuck it.

File: air force quality.png (352KB, 372x484px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 372x484px

Dirty airfags can't do anything right.

>>32836051

Nah, said civilians need to die.

Terrorist leaders keep their dozens of wives and kids with them and use them as shields.

>>32836016
slavshit is bad tho..

>>32839876
>The only way to fix things is to increase the dialogue between the parties, act together in a more bipartisan way, communicate, and compromise.

What a dumb fucking thing to say

>I voted for Johnson.
And what a dumb person you are

Why not just end it all and let everyone in the world vote in the US election, thats what you people want.

>>32839680
>THE DOD HAS TOTAL CONTROL OVER WHAT DARPA IS DOING DUE TO THIS.
What?
No, it doesn't.
First off, that's an extremely high level of control. If you commission me to repair your car, that doesn't give you much control over my behaviour, beyond that behaviour including fixing your car. It doesn't control who I hire to do that, it doesn't control what we wear while fixing your car, it doesn't control how I budget the money you have allocated me. In that capacity I have independence.
Second off, DARPA works on projects commissioned by the DOD, which can be commissioned on behalf of another agency in another department - like...I don't know....the central intelligence agency.

DARPA is inexorably associated with Lockheed Skunkworks. Per wikipedia "a skunkworks project is a project developed by a small and loosely structured group of people who research and develop a project primarily for the sake of radical innovation. The terms originated with Lockheed's World War II Skunk Works project."
Do you really think there's any association between "Department of Defence" and "Small and loosely structured"?

You guys don't understand what independence is. I think maybe you equate independence to like the declaration of independence, as "not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free"

Words can have more than 1 meaning and innumerable connotations.

"not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself"
"not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc."

DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.

As in
the CIA can take uniformed military personnel
and send them to do stuff
without the DOD even knowing

This is a meme right? Hundreds of Ospreys have been operated for nearly a decade now and there hasn't been much of a problem with them.

>>32841179
>If you commission me to repair your car...
If I own shop and the property it sits on, screen and vet all your hires, cut all your checks, decide which jobs you'll take and manage all your incoming money, then guess what? Yes I do. That's what the DoD is to DARPA, as multiple anons have been trying to tell you.

>DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.
No. All JSOC ops or mission sets are ordered and approved higher up the chain of command, even if it's as high as the joint chiefs or the President. What, you thought they all got together with a few beers, said "Hey, there are some bad guys in Somalia, let's go skullfuck 'em", jumped in the Nightstalker birds and flew away? Fuck no, and you're a retard for thinking this.

>As in the CIA can take uniformed military personnel and send them to do stuff without the DOD even knowing
What the fuck are you smoking? No. A thousand times no. A CIA operation may have uniformed or JSOC personnel attached. But they're attached after a conversation with the responsible commanding officers in the Pentagon. The CIA does NOT just up and walk off with US uniformed personnel without a by your leave from the Pentagon. Are you fucking 12 years old?

>DARPA is inexorably associated with Lockheed Skunkworks.
They have a working relationship. They are not the same thing, or even close to operating under the same aegis. DARPA has facilities at Groom Lake and elsewhere. Skunkworks has a facility at Groom Lake and elsewhere. DARPA often exchanges information and test results with LM, same as the DoD does with any other major contractor trying to build their shit.

You are beyond confused about how all this shit works. Conflating Skunkworks with DARPA just shows you really have no clue what you're talking about.

>>32841179
>DARPA is inexorably associated with Lockheed Skunkworks. Per wikipedia "a skunkworks project is a project developed by a small and loosely structured group of people who research and develop a project primarily for the sake of radical innovation. The terms originated with Lockheed's World War II Skunk Works project."
>Do you really think there's any association between "Department of Defence" and "Small and loosely structured"?
Skunkworks isn't DARPA you fucking moron. They're completely different entities, one MAJOR goddamn difference being one's private sector and one's public sector. They work together on some projects. That's about it.

Jesus Christ.

File: Fred Thompson knows youre a moron.gif (47KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 300x225px

>>32841179
ITT: Anon learns about the chain of command from watching Commando, Predator and other action flicks and tries to tell /k/ this is how it works in the real world

all my keks

File: proofs were a mistake.png (36KB, 537x416px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 537x416px

ITT

>>32841343
Telling /k/ about the real world is like describing colours to the blind.

You collectively struggle with the concept that a government agency can have free agency to independently pursue its purpose
Maybe since you're all unskilled labour you've never had contact with any leadership structure apart from "Go do this, go do that"

>>32835101

Turmp is leaking things to russia who is leaking things to locals who can then set up traps for them.

>>32841529
>You collectively struggle with the concept that a government agency can have free agency to independently pursue its purpose
You completely fail to grasp the concept that while there are burocratic branches set up this way, DARPA, JSOC, the CIA, the FBI, etc. are most definitely not. You can't even understand the simple verbiage which tells you this is the case.

You are the definition of autistic.

>>32841301
>Conflating Skunkworks with DARPA just shows you really have no clue what you're talking about.
I'm not conflating shit. I described them as inexorably linked, as in, the link between them is extremely strong, at leas insofar as during the declassified portions of their history.

>What the fuck are you smoking? No. A thousand times no. A CIA operation may have uniformed or JSOC personnel attached. But they're attached after a conversation with the responsible commanding officers in the Pentagon. The CIA does NOT just up and walk off with US uniformed personnel without a by your leave from the Pentagon. Are you fucking 12 years old?
So let's see
You completely ignore the accurate statement of how things work
and you latch on to the UTTER HYPER SIMPLIFICATION version of the statement
and you call ME 12?!

I said this
>DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.

And you utterly ignored that
Why?
Because you're fucking ignorant.
You ignore anything that you don't want to hear.
You saw the portion where I demonstrated understanding of how things actually operated and made a rational point based on the assertion
then, because you're IGNORE-ANT you IGNORED it
and you latched on to the facetious hypersymplification after it.

This is what I said

>DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.
>DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.
>DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.

>>32841301
DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.
>DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.
DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.
>DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.
DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus, the same way JSOC frequently operates independent from military central command, despite its constituents being entirely military.

>>32841557
>simple verbiage
are you joking? no, you're not. you're just using obscure words incorrectly in a pathetic attempt to sound intelligent or educated. verbiage is by definition not simple.

Again, I broach the point about NOMINAL versus REAL
NOMINAL is what it is by name - officially, on paper.
REAL is in actuality, and is often different than nominal.

Like I could found a militia regiment with a NOMINAL strength of 1000 soldiers.
But the REAL strength is me in my garage.

You are the definition of >American education

File: 1477684372801.png (228KB, 738x673px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 738x673px

>>32841659
>>32841678
>>32841752
It's... It's beautiful, /k/. It's autism in it's purest form. It's weaponized, six times distilled, Funyun-reeking basement dweller.

My God, the stars!

>>32841783
Calling me autistic is like making accusations of racism at a Trump rally.
Your argument doesn't hold any water and you can't even form responses to my points.

File: 1458434583120.jpg (7KB, 112x124px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 112x124px

>>32841852
Pretty sure your nonsensical "points" have been addressed several times in this thread already. All you're doing is screaming things repeatedly until anyone who disagrees with you goes away. Because you are actually autistic.

So have fun with that.

File: 1477540956847.jpg (75KB, 400x715px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 400x715px

>>32839750
nice

>>32839750
>Fucking Christ, is that a lucky rabbit's foot? EJECT EJECT EJECT!

File: 1477627349957.gif (1MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x180px

>>32839876
>I voted for Johnson.
kek great choice

>>32841179
>What?
>No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

>>32841678
>>32841659
>DARPA is independent from the rest of the DOD apparatus

Nope. Every single darpa project is commissioned by the dod. They are not separate at all.

Autisticly screaming that it is does not change that fact, nor does your hot opinions based on movies take negate factual evidence taken from darpas own site.

I'm sorry faggot. You are wrong. Bad. Should feel bad.

File: Osprey.jpg (132KB, 715x444px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 715x444px

>>32835101

File: US_Navy_040506-M-7034A-040_Lance_Cpl._Mike_Carro_holds_security_for_the_Marines_assigned_to_Battalion_Landing_Team_1-6,_after_disembarking_a_Marine_CH-46_Sea_Knight_helicopter_during_the_initial_surge_of_the_22nd_Marine_Expedit.jpg (173KB, 860x1204px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 860x1204px

They should've just upgraded the CH-46 like they did the CH-53.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion

File: p19i0qvjfui6m1tlul0r1ibr14jb6.jpg (150KB, 1000x568px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1000x568px

Nothing's wrong with it. Military aircraft are not designed to the same safety standards as airliners, because the military prioritizes performance over safety. Military aircraft crash all the time, but you never really notice it because, at best, the crash will get a few-second blurb on the news just before the weather. The only reason you noticed this Osprey crash is that you were looking for problems with the Osprey, and it's when you go looking for something that you notice it.

Keep in mind that the AW609, which is Bell's attempt at a civilian tiltrotor, has been in flight testing for 14 years, and still isn't ready for sales. Again, that's because safety standards in the civilian aircraft market are much, MUCH higher than they are for military aircraft. Bell isn't going to sell any AW609's until they're absolutely sure that they aren't going to crash (and thus cause astronomical liability lawsuits). But the military doesn't care - they just want the mission done. And as for lawsuits, read the fine print on your enlistment papers - if the military gets you killed, your family can't sue anybody over it, no matter how badly they fucked up. Them's the breaks.

So no, there's nothing wrong with the Osprey at all, and the military is perfectly happy with it.

>>32845257
holy shit, could you be any more of a shill? the same argument could be made for the T-72. it's not poorly armoured, the soviets just didn't care for their tank crews....

File: hahaha-now-go-great-post-tto-gulag-gulag-2591448.png (136KB, 500x549px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 500x549px

>>32845268
Both, actually. The T-72 is poorly armored *because* the Soviets didn't care for their tank crews. The Russians have always had precisely three battle strategies in their inventory:

1) ZERG RUSH!!!
2) Sit back and let "General Winter" take care of it.
3) All of the above.

To say that they see their soldiers as exponentially more expendable than the US military sees theirs is an understatement. Vhat, you don't vant to gave glorious death for Mother Russia, comrade?

File: 07-minister.jpg (10KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x225px

>>32845257
This statement brought to you by Bell Helicopter and Boeing Rotorcraft.

>>32845307

4: Artillery spam on everything followed by Zerg Rush

That's their main tactic

>>32845307
>le human wave meme xd

>>32845369

Meme isn't entirely baseless, but cases where it actually happened in WWII are few and relatively far between.

File: 1451544070002.jpg (168KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 720x720px

>>32836016
Russians and Chinese don't take on service things with crush rate that high.

File: Kursk.jpg (33KB, 480x387px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x387px

>>32846598

No. Russians or Chinese just would not care if it would have horrible accident rate, in unlikely case of people starting to bitch about it... they would simply suppress the debate and censor everything published about it.

Picture and video related... mother getting drugged after bitching about material conditions of her dead sons submarine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oeEIBRyfZo

>>32846598
>with crush rate that high.
See >>32836684
and tell us again about crash rate

>>32846853
Tell me about build\crushed machines rate.

>>32846890
What the fuck does that even mean? Can you try and run that through google translate one more time?