History UsefulNotes / YanksWithTanks

23rd Jul '17 4:00:38 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Supersonic flight--first verifiably done by [[DangerDeadpan the US Air Force]][[note]]anecdotal accounts of breaking the sound barrier by pilots of some of the more high-performance fighters in WW2 do exist[[/note]], if only so the Red Air Force didn't do it first. Admittedly this one has no direct practical civilian applications since the shut-down of Concorde (obviously many military planes around the world are still supersonic, and the indirect effects of the Air Force research helped with both space research--for which see below--and with designs for modern "transonic"[[note]]"Transonic" means traveling within the range of Mach 0.8 and 1.2; modern airliners are often in the bottom end of that range, flying between Mach 0.80 and 0.85. This range of speeds is important because it means that although the plane itself isn't flying at supersonic speed, some of the air traveling around the plane is, which has some weird aerodynamic effects.[[/note]] jet airliners), [[RuleOfCool but it's still pretty cool]].

to:

* Supersonic flight--first verifiably done by [[DangerDeadpan the US Air Force]][[note]]anecdotal accounts of breaking the sound barrier by pilots of some of the more high-performance fighters in WW2 [=WW2=] do exist[[/note]], if only so the Red Air Force didn't do it first. Admittedly this one has no direct practical civilian applications since the shut-down of Concorde (obviously many military planes around the world are still supersonic, and the indirect effects of the Air Force research helped with both space research--for which see below--and with designs for modern "transonic"[[note]]"Transonic" means traveling within the range of Mach 0.8 and 1.2; modern airliners are often in the bottom end of that range, flying between Mach 0.80 and 0.85. This range of speeds is important because it means that although the plane itself isn't flying at supersonic speed, some of the air traveling around the plane is, which has some weird aerodynamic effects.[[/note]] jet airliners), [[RuleOfCool but it's still pretty cool]].
9th Jul '17 10:58:20 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The US military is ''so'' powerful because theirs is the world's single-largest economy, and the equivalent value of 4% of everything bought and sold in the country is spent on the military[[labelnote:*]]4% of GDP, about twice the figure of similarly well-developed economies[[/labelnote]]. The USA's spending on its military has generally remained above this level since about 1940, when it first decided to field a military on the same level as the other Great Powers of the day, and the cumulative effect of this high spending has been an increase of its capabilities. The USA's WorldWarTwo and [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp Cold-War military budgets were much higher]] than today's, and when paired with US belligerency scared the Soviets so much it nearly resulted in WorldWarThree on two notable occasions[[labelnote:*]]the 'Cuban Crisis' of '62 and 'Able Archer Exercise' of '83[[/labelnote]]. After the conciliatory atttitude of UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan laid Soviet fears of annihilation to rest, the USSR's long-term high military expenses (previously needed to keep up with the US) caught up with her and contributed to her relatively peaceful self-dismemberment and suicide.

to:

The US military is ''so'' powerful because theirs is the world's single-largest economy, and the equivalent value of 4% of everything bought and sold in the country is spent on the military[[labelnote:*]]4% of GDP, about twice the figure of similarly well-developed economies[[/labelnote]]. The USA's spending on its military has generally remained above this level since about 1940, when it first decided to field a military on the same level as the other Great Powers of the day, and the cumulative effect of this high spending has been an increase of its capabilities. The USA's WorldWarTwo UsefulNotes/WorldWarII and [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp Cold-War military budgets were much higher]] than today's, and when paired with US belligerency scared the Soviets so much it nearly resulted in WorldWarThree on two notable occasions[[labelnote:*]]the 'Cuban Crisis' of '62 and 'Able Archer Exercise' of '83[[/labelnote]]. After the conciliatory atttitude of UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan laid Soviet fears of annihilation to rest, the USSR's long-term high military expenses (previously needed to keep up with the US) caught up with her and contributed to her relatively peaceful self-dismemberment and suicide.



** Their ''absolute'' logistics capability has never been greater, but their unnatural edge over the rest of the world (c.5% of world population, c.30% of world GDP in 1945) has faded over the years. During WorldWarTwo, more than 90% of the Wehrmacht's transport pool was comprised of horse-drawn buggies and carts; if they could not hitch a ride or take a train, regular infantry had to march to the front lines. By contrast, the United States Army was ''entirely motorized'', and practically every man who was within friendly territory could count on not having to walk over 50 miles to get where they needed to be. That being said, the ability to transport millions of tonnage across three thousand miles of ocean is no mean feat, even today.

to:

** Their ''absolute'' logistics capability has never been greater, but their unnatural edge over the rest of the world (c.5% of world population, c.30% of world GDP in 1945) has faded over the years. During WorldWarTwo, UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, more than 90% of the Wehrmacht's transport pool was comprised of horse-drawn buggies and carts; if they could not hitch a ride or take a train, regular infantry had to march to the front lines. By contrast, the United States Army was ''entirely motorized'', and practically every man who was within friendly territory could count on not having to walk over 50 miles to get where they needed to be. That being said, the ability to transport millions of tonnage across three thousand miles of ocean is no mean feat, even today.
9th Jul '17 8:27:28 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


As you can see, it's an enormous tangle, with rank, service and experience all getting involved. Fortunately, there's the UsefulNotes/CommonRanks page on this wiki and a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._uniformed_services_pay_grades List of United States uniformed-services pay grades]] on TheOtherWiki, which lists comparative ranks across many services, to help us keep things straightened out. The thing we're going to spend time on is the issue of "Generals" (Army, Marines and Air Force) and "Admirals" (Navy and Coast Guard). There are five ranks of General/Admiral, indicated by the number of stars on your uniform:

to:

As you can see, it's an enormous tangle, with rank, service and experience all getting involved. Fortunately, there's the UsefulNotes/CommonRanks page on this wiki and a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._uniformed_services_pay_grades List of United States uniformed-services pay grades]] on TheOtherWiki, Wiki/TheOtherWiki, which lists comparative ranks across many services, to help us keep things straightened out. The thing we're going to spend time on is the issue of "Generals" (Army, Marines and Air Force) and "Admirals" (Navy and Coast Guard). There are five ranks of General/Admiral, indicated by the number of stars on your uniform:
28th May '17 1:30:24 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Does a Colonel from the Space Forces outrank a Naval Captain? [[labelnote:Answer]]No, but only because Captain Eisen is ''[[TheCaptain The]]'' [[TheCaptain Captain]] of TheBattlestar; under other circumstances, Blair's rank would equal his. Additionally, Blair is also [[MarkHamill Luke Skywalker]], which probably gives him seniority over some judge who [[Film/LiarLiar sentenced Jim Carrey]].[[/labelnote]]

to:

* Does a Colonel from the Space Forces outrank a Naval Captain? [[labelnote:Answer]]No, but only because Captain Eisen is ''[[TheCaptain The]]'' [[TheCaptain Captain]] of TheBattlestar; under other circumstances, Blair's rank would equal his. Additionally, Blair is also [[MarkHamill [[Creator/MarkHamill Luke Skywalker]], which probably gives him seniority over some judge who [[Film/LiarLiar sentenced Jim Carrey]].[[/labelnote]]
10th May '17 2:12:08 PM CV12Hornet
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In the 60's, the Pentagon decided to take a new tactic in its aircraft design and deployment. Secretary of Defense Robert [=McNamara=] was an avid fan of "joint-service" solutions, feeling that standardizing around a single type significantly reduced development costs (the same philosophy was used in the adoption of the M-16 assault rifle). During the third generation, a single workhorse fighter, the [=McDonnell=] Douglas F-4 Phantom II, emerged as JackOfAllStats of American airspace, and was deployed by the Air Force, the Navy ''and'' the Marines over the skies of Vietnam in just about every mission imaginable. It was even flown by both the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels. Unfortunately, all this combat fielding just led to the fighter's weak points (and it had plenty of them) becoming exposed more quickly. In addition, rumors out of Moscow told of the upcoming MiG-25 Foxbat, and the accompanying grainy photographs suggested a very fast and very maneuverable aircraft [[note]]It was actually a dedicated "interceptor" with little or no maneuverability; the huge wings were merely to keep it from falling out of the sky, as we found out when a Soviet pilot defected with one to Japan[[/note]].

to:

In the 60's, the Pentagon decided to take a new tactic in its aircraft design and deployment. Secretary of Defense Robert [=McNamara=] was an avid fan of "joint-service" solutions, feeling that standardizing around a single type significantly reduced development costs (the same philosophy was used in the adoption of the M-16 assault rifle). During the third generation, a single workhorse fighter, the [=McDonnell=] Douglas F-4 Phantom II, emerged as JackOfAllStats of American airspace, and was deployed by the Air Force, the Navy ''and'' the Marines over the skies of Vietnam in just about every mission imaginable. It was even flown by both the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels. Unfortunately, all this combat fielding just led to the fighter's weak points (and it had plenty of them) becoming exposed more quickly. In addition, rumors out of Moscow told of the upcoming MiG-25 Foxbat, and the accompanying grainy photographs suggested a very fast and very maneuverable aircraft [[note]]It was actually a dedicated "interceptor" with little or no maneuverability; the huge wings were merely to keep it from falling out of the sky, as we found out when a Soviet pilot defected with one to Japan[[/note]].
Japan. Though it was still very difficult to intercept for Phantoms, as the Israelis found out.[[/note]].



The original intent was a winged version of SwordAndSorcerer: the big beefy air-superiority fighters (F-14s and F-15s) would sweep the skies while the smaller strike fighters (F-16s and F/A-18s) slid in to pound ground targets and engage in close-range dogfights as necessary. This later became muddled, as micronized avionics made the "little" planes effective air-superiority fighters in their own right, and improved radars made effective strike fighters out of the big planes. But the end result are four classic American fighters, three of which are still in service today.

to:

The original intent was a winged version of SwordAndSorcerer: the big beefy air-superiority fighters (F-14s and F-15s) would sweep the skies while the smaller strike fighters (F-16s and F/A-18s) slid in to pound ground targets and engage in close-range dogfights as necessary. This later became muddled, as micronized avionics made the "little" planes effective air-superiority fighters in their own right, and improved radars and various targeting pods made effective strike fighters out of the big planes. But the end result are four classic American fighters, three of which are still in service today.



* The '''Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet''', despite the name, is largely a different airframe from the original Hornet, being 20% larger and considerably heavier (Carrier personnel refer to it as the "Rhino" to avoid confusion). It was designed to replace, or "neck down," a number of specialized aircraft carrying out missions the original Hornet couldn't manage, as well as replace the costly and aging F-14 Tomcat. Currently the top dog among American carrier aircraft, and will be until the F-35C sees widespread use. The Marine Corps have avoided the Super Hornet like the plague, fearing that adoption will cut into funds for the troubled F-35B STOVL variant.

to:

* The '''Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet''', despite the name, is largely a different airframe from the original Hornet, being 20% larger and considerably heavier (Carrier personnel refer to it as the "Rhino" to avoid confusion). It was designed to replace, or "neck down," a number of specialized aircraft carrying out missions the original Hornet couldn't manage, manage[[note]]Namely, the A-6E strike bomber and, via buddy tanking, the KA-6D tanker[[/note]], as well as replace the costly and aging F-14 Tomcat. Currently the top dog among American carrier aircraft, and will be until the F-35C sees widespread use. The Marine Corps have avoided the Super Hornet like the plague, fearing that adoption will cut into funds for the troubled F-35B STOVL variant.



*** The reasons for retiring the A-10 have grown steadily more rational over the years. The Warthog's fabled wing payloads are exceeded by newer fighters and planned attack aircraft. The GAU-8, while formidable against light armor and softer targets, has been imeffective against tanks from most angles for a long time; more importantly, flying low to use it exposes the A-10 to short range AA systems, which have gotten much, much more dangerous, as recent conflicts have delivered sophisticated man-portable systems to even relatively small rebel groups. A-10's fabled toughness serves it well, but other candidates for these missions are fully configured to avoid shots instead of withstanding them by striking from safer altitudesand distances; A-10 can do this as well, but has a huge amount of weight on board that is designed for a more primitive form of war. Features like a titanium bathtub and a 30mm cannon with seven barrels have been rendered obsolete by low-weight, high-accuracy smart bombs that can deal with armored and unarmed threats from a safe distance, with a low risk of colateral damage.

to:

*** The reasons for retiring the A-10 have grown steadily more rational over the years. The Warthog's fabled wing payloads are exceeded by newer fighters and planned attack aircraft. The GAU-8, while formidable against light armor and softer targets, has been imeffective ineffective against tanks from most angles for a long time; almost since it was first built; more importantly, flying low to use it exposes the A-10 to short range AA systems, which have gotten much, much more dangerous, as recent conflicts have delivered sophisticated man-portable systems to even relatively small rebel groups. A-10's fabled toughness serves it well, but other candidates for these missions are fully configured to avoid shots instead of withstanding them by striking from safer altitudesand altitudes and distances; A-10 can do this as well, but has a huge amount of weight on board that is designed for a more primitive form of war. Features like a titanium bathtub and a 30mm cannon with seven barrels have been rendered obsolete by low-weight, high-accuracy smart bombs that can deal with armored and unarmed threats from a safe distance, with a low risk of colateral damage.
10th Mar '17 6:30:49 AM Taskmaster123
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In the Navy and Coast Guard, a Captain is the equivalent of an Army/Air Force/Marine Corps Colonel. They're often referred to as a "full-bird Captain", as well, to distinguish them from Army/Marine/Air Force Captains. This is also due to the fact that the commanding officer of a ship or installation is always addressed as "Captain," even if their ''actual'' rank is something else. (In the novel ''Literature/StarshipTroopers'', a Mobile Infantry Captain is addressed by Naval personnel using the courtesy title of "Major" to avoid addressing him by "[[TheCaptain the title reserved for the one and only monarch]]." The [=MIs=] themselves regard this as somewhat silly, and only do it when they're "forward of [bulkhead] fifty" ... i.e. in the Navy part of the ship, as opposed to the aft section where the [=MIs=] are quartered.) Like in the Army, similar ranks tend to be conflated: USN/USCG Lieutenant Commanders and Commanders are both generally addressed as "Commander," and both Lieutenants junior grade and full-on Lieutenants are called "Lieutenant."

to:

In the Navy and Coast Guard, a Captain is the equivalent of an Army/Air Force/Marine Corps Colonel. They're often referred to as a "full-bird Captain", as well, to distinguish them from Army/Marine/Air Force Captains. Navy Captains who visit Army or Air Force bases are used to being addressed as "Colonel", usually by very junior enlisted personnel who see the Eagle denoting their rank and simply don't have the experience to know the difference. This is also due to the fact that the commanding officer of a ship or installation is always addressed as "Captain," even if their ''actual'' rank is something else. (In the novel ''Literature/StarshipTroopers'', a Mobile Infantry Captain is addressed by Naval personnel using the courtesy title of "Major" to avoid addressing him by "[[TheCaptain the title reserved for the one and only monarch]]." The [=MIs=] themselves regard this as somewhat silly, and only do it when they're "forward of [bulkhead] fifty" ... i.e. in the Navy part of the ship, as opposed to the aft section where the [=MIs=] are quartered.) Like in the Army, similar ranks tend to be conflated: USN/USCG Lieutenant Commanders and Commanders are both generally addressed as "Commander," and both Lieutenants junior grade and full-on Lieutenants are called "Lieutenant."
8th Mar '17 10:38:17 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The '''M1 Abrams'''' is America's main battle tank. It was born to defend bottlenecks in West Germany like the Fulda Gap and Hof Corridor during the Cold War from the relatively inexpensive and even more numerous Soviet tanks. That's why the first iteration of the Abrams, rolled out in 1981, had features like Chobham composite laminate armor[[note]]Disputed. Some say it's only the original M1 that uses it, while others claim it always has been using another type of Depleted Uranium based armor that is very similar to the English Chobham armor. Nevertheless, the way the armor works is supposed to be very similar to how Chobham is described to work[[/note]], a FLIR sensor suite (''very'' expensive for the time), laser rangefinder and ballistic computer. It got the last piece of its original wish list with the [=M1A1=], replacing the older 105mm/L52 M68 rifled main gun with the [[{{BFG}} German Rheinmetall 120mm/L44 smoothbore main gun]], licensed-made as the M256. The Abrams is also powered by a gas turbine. It's so fast that the Army puts a governor on the engine to keep them from speeding. With the governor removed, it can reach 70mph on a decent road--even though it weighs 68 tons. That's putting the "lightning" in LightningBruiser. Unfortunately, this means it's also a gas guzzler (roughly 1 gallon per mile, and it takes 10 gallons just to ''start'' the engine), and its speed leads to problems like having an entire Abrams unit run out of fuel and wait for five hours for fuel trucks to arrive. [[note]]Oops...:The unit happened to be in downtown Baghdad at the time surrounded by hostiles and with only a few Bradleys as back-ups.[[/note]] On the other hand, its engine can accept most any commonly available flammable or combustible liquids as a fuel, compared to a diesel engine needing well, diesel. In a nonfiction book of his (Armored Cav), Creator/TomClancy recounted a story of an Abrams tank in the Gulf War. Having been immobilized by an enemy shot while deep in hostile territory, the crew of the tank found themselves in what military experts would call "a crappy situation". In the space of thirty seconds or so the immobilized tank destroyed four enemy tanks, two of which got shots off, hitting the tank but completely bouncing off of its proprietary DU-laced armor. When reinforcements arrived they decided it was too much trouble to lug the tank back, and decided to destroy it on site. The American tanks took turns shooting another 8 or 9 times before the turret was penetrated, detonating the ammo stocks--which had little effect due to the blowout hatches installed. The tank's turret was taken back to the US for analysis while the chassis was refit with another turret and returned to action in a week. That's some serious armor. In another example contained in David Zucchino's book, Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad, one of the Abrams was disabled by enemy fire. Forces attempting to destroy it on-site set off thermite grenades in the main hatch, detonating both the explosives and the ammunition stored in the tank. This was followed by the tank receiving a HEAT round from another Abrams, and then an AGM-65 Maverick anti-armor missile, as well as two AGM Hellfire missiles were fired via gunship into the tank. The end result? The interior of the tank was demolished, but its armor and exterior appeared relatively unharmed. This tank's a God-damned "[[MechWarrior Battlemech]]".

to:

* The '''M1 Abrams'''' is America's main battle tank. It was born to defend bottlenecks in West Germany like the Fulda Gap and Hof Corridor during the Cold War from the relatively inexpensive and even more numerous Soviet tanks. That's why the first iteration of the Abrams, rolled out in 1981, had features like Chobham composite laminate armor[[note]]Disputed. Some say it's only the original M1 that uses it, while others claim it always has been using another type of Depleted Uranium based armor that is very similar to the English Chobham armor. Nevertheless, the way the armor works is supposed to be very similar to how Chobham is described to work[[/note]], a FLIR sensor suite (''very'' expensive for the time), laser rangefinder and ballistic computer. It got the last piece of its original wish list with the [=M1A1=], replacing the older 105mm/L52 M68 rifled main gun with the [[{{BFG}} German Rheinmetall 120mm/L44 smoothbore main gun]], licensed-made as the M256. The Abrams is also powered by a gas turbine. It's so fast that the Army puts a governor on the engine to keep them from speeding. With the governor removed, it can reach 70mph on a decent road--even though it weighs 68 tons. That's putting the "lightning" in LightningBruiser. Unfortunately, this means it's also a gas guzzler (roughly 1 gallon per mile, and it takes 10 gallons just to ''start'' the engine), and its speed leads to problems like having an entire Abrams unit run out of fuel and wait for five hours for fuel trucks to arrive. [[note]]Oops...:The unit happened to be in downtown Baghdad at the time surrounded by hostiles and with only a few Bradleys as back-ups.[[/note]] On the other hand, its engine can accept most any commonly available flammable or combustible liquids as a fuel, compared to a diesel engine needing well, diesel. In a nonfiction book of his (Armored Cav), Creator/TomClancy recounted a story of an Abrams tank in the Gulf War. Having been immobilized by an enemy shot while deep in hostile territory, the crew of the tank found themselves in what military experts would call "a crappy situation". In the space of thirty seconds or so the immobilized tank destroyed four enemy tanks, two of which got shots off, hitting the tank but completely bouncing off of its proprietary DU-laced armor. When reinforcements arrived they decided it was too much trouble to lug the tank back, and decided to destroy it on site. The American tanks took turns shooting another 8 or 9 times before the turret was penetrated, detonating the ammo stocks--which had little effect due to the blowout hatches installed. The tank's turret was taken back to the US for analysis while the chassis was refit with another turret and returned to action in a week. That's some serious armor. In another example contained in David Zucchino's book, Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad, one of the Abrams was disabled by enemy fire. Forces attempting to destroy it on-site set off thermite grenades in the main hatch, detonating both the explosives and the ammunition stored in the tank. This was followed by the tank receiving a HEAT round from another Abrams, and then an AGM-65 Maverick anti-armor missile, as well as two AGM Hellfire missiles were fired via gunship into the tank. The end result? The interior of the tank was demolished, but its armor and exterior appeared relatively unharmed. This tank's a God-damned "[[MechWarrior "[[VideoGame/MechWarrior Battlemech]]".
23rd Feb '17 11:22:45 PM PsychWardWalker
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Leave us not forget the Lockheed '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning P-38 Lightning]]'''. It was originally meant to be a short-range, heavily armed interceptor - a flying anti-aircraft gun, if you will. Lockheed was initially planning on a limited run of the planes (based on the initial proposal, they expected that they would be constructing a mere 50 Lightnings), but the Air Force was suitably impressed with the performance of the prototype XP- and YP-38s that they saw fit to expand both its role in the war and the number of Lightnings to be constructed. In addition to becoming one of the first truly multi-role fighter planes - while its primary role was escort and interception, it also took part in dive-bombing, level-bombing, ground-attack, and photo-reconnaissance missions - it was also the plane used to "get Yamamoto".

to:

* Leave us not forget the Lockheed '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning P-38 Lightning]]'''. It was originally meant to be a short-range, heavily armed interceptor - a flying anti-aircraft gun, if you will. Lockheed was initially planning on a limited run of the planes (based on the initial proposal, they expected that they would be constructing a mere 50 Lightnings), but the Air Force was suitably impressed with the performance of the prototype XP- and YP-38s that they saw fit to expand both its role in the war and the number of Lightnings to be constructed. In addition to becoming one of the first truly multi-role fighter planes - while its primary role was escort and interception, it also took part in dive-bombing, level-bombing, ground-attack, and photo-reconnaissance missions - it was also the plane used to "get Yamamoto". The Germans refered to it as the "Forked-tailed Devil".
5th Feb '17 6:30:12 PM alezfilm869
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The US military is so powerful because theirs is the world's single-largest economy, and the equivalent value of 4% of everything bought and sold in the country is spent on the military[[labelnote:*]]4% of GDP, about twice the figure of similarly well-developed economies[[/labelnote]]. The USA's spending on its military has generally remained above this level since about 1940, when it first decided to field a military on the same level as the other Great Powers of the day, and the cumulative effect of this high spending has been an increase of its capabilities. The USA's WorldWarTwo and [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp Cold-War military budgets were much higher]] than today's, and when paired with US belligerency scared the Soviets so much it nearly resulted in WorldWarThree on two notable occasions[[labelnote:*]]the 'Cuban Crisis' of '62 and 'Able Archer Exercise' of '83[[/labelnote]]. After the conciliatory atttitude of UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan laid Soviet fears of annihilation to rest, the USSR's long-term high military expenses (previously needed to keep up with the US) caught up with her and contributed to her relatively peaceful self-dismemberment and suicide.

to:

The US military is so ''so'' powerful because theirs is the world's single-largest economy, and the equivalent value of 4% of everything bought and sold in the country is spent on the military[[labelnote:*]]4% of GDP, about twice the figure of similarly well-developed economies[[/labelnote]]. The USA's spending on its military has generally remained above this level since about 1940, when it first decided to field a military on the same level as the other Great Powers of the day, and the cumulative effect of this high spending has been an increase of its capabilities. The USA's WorldWarTwo and [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp Cold-War military budgets were much higher]] than today's, and when paired with US belligerency scared the Soviets so much it nearly resulted in WorldWarThree on two notable occasions[[labelnote:*]]the 'Cuban Crisis' of '62 and 'Able Archer Exercise' of '83[[/labelnote]]. After the conciliatory atttitude of UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan laid Soviet fears of annihilation to rest, the USSR's long-term high military expenses (previously needed to keep up with the US) caught up with her and contributed to her relatively peaceful self-dismemberment and suicide.
14th Jan '17 6:07:44 PM ZoeticRoo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The '''Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II''', aka the Joint Strike Fighter. A new multirole fighter, [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-int.htm co-produced with the UK, and several other nations]]. It's a return to [=McNamara's=] ideal of a single plane serving all branches of the armed forces, and has three different variants: a standard version for the Air Force, a carrier based version for the Navy, and a vertical take off/landing version for the Marine Corps. Like the F-22, it has stealth capability, though not to the Raptor's extent. The USAF intends for the F-35 to fill the "workhorse ground-attack machine" niche the F-16 filled in the Fourth Generation, with the F-22 replacing the F-15 the same way. Though initially billed as a bargain, recent developments suggests that due to delays (including some changes in weapon bay requirements), the plane won't be that much cheaper than the F-22. The estimated initial operating capability date is in the 2016-2017 timeframe.

to:

* The '''Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II''', aka the Joint Strike Fighter. A new multirole fighter, [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-int.htm co-produced with the UK, and several other nations]]. It's a return to [=McNamara's=] ideal of a single plane serving all branches of the armed forces, and has three different variants: a standard version for the Air Force, a carrier based version for the Navy, and a vertical take off/landing version for the Marine Corps. Like the F-22, it has stealth capability, though not to the Raptor's extent. The USAF intends for the F-35 to fill the "workhorse ground-attack machine" niche the F-16 filled in the Fourth Generation, with the F-22 replacing the F-15 the same way. Though initially billed as a bargain, recent developments suggests that due to delays (including some changes in weapon bay requirements), the plane won't be that much cheaper than the F-22. The estimated initial operating capability date is in the 2016-2017 timeframe. By this time, F-35 unit costs have fallen dramatically, with all three variants expected to fall near or below $100 million a pop once they reach full production.
This list shows the last 10 events of 410. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.YanksWithTanks