Military Photo Thread (Discussion)

Bobby Baccala

Thanks for that dave and that website is something else:)

andy_g

Was not aware the B-1B had come back into service with the F4 i know boeing are currently testing a new version of the F4 but that aint it?

Lemming

andy_g wrote: »

Was not aware the B-1B had come back into service with the F4 i know boeing are currently testing a new version of the F4 but that aint it?

I'm sure they keep a few of them knocking around for evaluation & trials. Considering they're testing out air to ground weapons in that photo, doesn't surprise me that there's an F4 there with its insane vertical climb rate. B1B ... handy for larger payloads I guess, and cheap to maintain as there are plenty of spare parts to cannibalise from various USAF bone-yards.

TommyKnocker

If I met this young lady on a battle field I am surrendering to her, as there is no way I could shoot her. She is beautiful :o

OzCam

Denmark goes MultiCam. No word yet on whether it's just for the Afghanistan deployment or for the whole Danish Army.

Pretty soon the only way to tell them apart will be the flags.

Maybe there'll be plenty of M/84 surplus on the market soon, at least that's good news for us.

Puding

conspiracy theory ''world army on the way, next step for war on terror''

thermo

oddist rifle grenade ever.................

Lemming

Are those wings above his PDF name-tape?

thermo

thats not the name tape the name tape is over the right chest pocket. that tape only says "defense forces ireland" its on the new shirts, smocks and fleeces.
and yes the wings are worn by parachute qualified troops.

Lemming

thermo wrote: »

thats not the name tape the name tape is over the right chest pocket. that tape only says "defense forces ireland" its on the new shirts, smocks and fleeces.

Hence I specified 'PDF' rather than just name-tape. Could have made it more obvious but I was being lazy

and yes the wings are worn by parachute qualified troops.

What combat-arms units besides ARW are eligible for parachute qualification in the PDF? Besides RTU'd former members of the ARW.

thermo

there are combat parachuting courses run all the time and all soldiers are allowed to apply for it and if sucessful do the course. once passed they are entitled to wear the wings.
thats how it works in the army, not sure about the other branches of the DF.

Mr. Tezza

As said above parachute courses are open to ALL member of the defence forces, this includes RDF personnel but I think that only a small number of spaces go to reservists. I know a good many NCO's that have "ice cream cones" on their shirts... I believe that they have/had RDF instructors on it too

Decoy

F-86 Sabre, undoubtedly one of the most beautiful aircraft ever. Along with the F-16 Falcon possibly my favourite combat aircraft.

Is it just coincidence that some of the best-looking combat aircraft were also among the very best at what they did for their time? I'm thinking about the likes of the F-86 & F-16 mentioned above, Spitfire (later variants), P-51D Mustang, P-38 Lightning, A-10 Thunderbolt. I will be probably be lambasted for this but I love the look of the AH64D Apache. I would have included the F-22 Raptor as it is simply gorgeous but the entire programme appears to be bogged down with major issues.

Lemming

Decoy wrote: »

F-86 Sabre, undoubtedly one of the most beautiful aircraft ever. Along with the F-16 Falcon possibly my favourite combat aircraft.

Is it just coincidence that some of the best-looking combat aircraft were also among the very best at what they did for their time? I'm thinking about the likes of the F-86 & F-16 mentioned above, Spitfire (later variants), P-51D Mustang, P-38 Lightning, A-10 Thunderbolt. I will be probably be lambasted for this but I love the look of the AH64D Apache. I would have included the F-22 Raptor as it is simply gorgeous but the entire programme appears to be bogged down with major issues.

Always liked the Apache. Anyway, it's great to see a Phantom with its 'classic' pattern camoflague and the shark emblem on the nose. I had an airfix model just like it when I was much younger so I have a soft spot for the plane (and its extensive use in Vietnam so .... I'm a bit biased :pac: )

Stealthirl

Always loved the A-10's myself,i think modern fast movers have to full fill many different mission types but specialize in none.
as the saying goes jack of all trades master of none

Evade

Stealthirl wrote: »

as the saying goes jack of all trades master of none

There's a more relevant saying, over-specialise and you breed in weakness.

Puding

tbh the a-10 is one of the most specialist direct action fast movers I can think of in terms of its design and functionality

edit: actually fast if actually a little off compared to other jets

Lemming

Evade wrote: »

There's a more relevant saying, over-specialise and you breed in weakness.

The A10 is doing alright; it's as old as warfare at this point and still excels at what it does ...

Evade

Lemming wrote: »

The A10 is doing alright; it's as old as warfare at this point and still excels at what it does ...

Yes, it's probably the best tool for it's very specific job but a multi role aircraft could do ground attack almost as well but with a much greater air to air capability.

I know air to air isn't really an issue at the moment but that doesn't mean it won't be at some stage.

Hande hoche!

Evade wrote: »

Yes, it's probably the best tool for it's very specific job but a multi role aircraft could do ground attack almost as well but with a much greater air to air capability.

I know air to air isn't really an issue at the moment but that doesn't mean it won't be at some stage.

The US air force already tried replacing the A10 with a variant of the F16. Didn't work out too well.

Puding

as you say it is working well, but then again airpower has been operating without any opposition in both theaters for almost a decade now, did read an interesting article about how the USAF experience of the last 10 years was driving development possibly in the wrong direction for any future conflict with a more advanced air defense network ( insert general conspiracy theory )

Hande hoche!

Good point, it's one thing to try and fight the USAF with fighters, quite another to use modern SAMs.

Evade

Hande hoche! wrote: »

The US air force already tried replacing the A10 with a variant of the F16. Didn't work out too well.

Did it fail in every way or was it just not quite good as a 30mm cannon with a set of engines and some bombs strapped to it?

Short of designing a new super specialised aircraft I don't think anything will ever be as good at what the A-10 does as the A-10. But it only really works when there are no air to air threats. If there were any threat of enemy fighters A-10s would need their own fighter escort or something that could deal with both air to air and air to ground would be sent instead.

Hande hoche!

Evade wrote: »

Did it fail in every way or was it just not quite good as a 30mm cannon with a set of engines and some bombs strapped to it?

Short of designing a new super specialised aircraft I don't think anything will ever be as good at what the A-10 does as the A-10. But it only really works when there are no air to air threats. If there were any threat of enemy fighters A-10s would need their own fighter escort or something that could deal with both air to air and air to ground would be sent instead.

It was basically a F16 with a 30mm cannon added on and extra armour. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html Can't help but feel a high/low mix of aircraft would be the best way to do things. Multi role aircraft for the scenarios you mentioned and something lower end for insurgencies and the like.

Puding

Evade wrote: »

Did it fail in every way or was it just not quite good as a 30mm cannon with a set of engines and some bombs strapped to it?

Short of designing a new super specialised aircraft I don't think anything will ever be as good at what the A-10 does as the A-10. But it only really works when there are no air to air threats. If there were any threat of enemy fighters A-10s would need their own fighter escort or something that could deal with both air to air and air to ground would be sent instead.

tbh it was unintentional but the a-10 ended up almost being tailor made jet for the style of low intensity conflict we're currently in

I find it interesting that this low level low speed approach is being taken further and prop airsoft have even started to pop up again for the ground attack role

Lemming

Evade wrote: »

If there were any threat of enemy fighters A-10s would need their own fighter escort or something that could deal with both air to air and air to ground would be sent instead.

Bear in mind; the A10 flies low and is very quiet-running. The tale is that armour targets don't even know its there until they start having 30mm rounds hammering their armour-plating.

Evade

Lemming wrote: »

Bear in mind; the A10 flies low and is very quiet-running. The tale is that armour targets don't even know its there until they start having 30mm rounds hammering their armour-plating.

That still doesn't change the fact that it needs a fighter escort in the event of an air threat. I've already said it's the best attack aircraft there is but my original point of over specialise and you breed in weakness is that it's so specialised towards ground attack it has almost no chance in an air to air situation because the things that make it an excellent ground attacker make it vulnerable to fighters.

sci-ops

jaysus...if looks could kill.....:D

Poccington

Lemming wrote: »

What combat-arms units besides ARW are eligible for parachute qualification in the PDF? Besides RTU'd former members of the ARW.

All members of the DF can apply for the Basic Parachute Cse. It should be noted, the DF doesn't have a "Combat Parachute" course, or indeed doctrine.

No Units outside the ARW have any kind of para tasking.

OzCam

sci-ops wrote: »

Also wearing an Air Force flag under the (Air Force) biscuit, and hasn't changed over her F88 ejection port for Left Hand Drive.

whydave

whydave wrote: »

HMS Sabre

HMS Sabre.
The vessel was escorting Type 23 frigate HMS Monmouth into the Mediterraean port.HMS Sabre together with sister ships HMS Scimitar form the core of the Royal Navy Gibraltar Squadron. The small team – the two Scimitar-class patrol boats, 19 personnel, and three Arctic 24 rigid-hulled inflatable boats – is one of only two permanently deployed sea-going units.
The only other is HMS Clyde on permanent station in the Falklands. The role of the boats and people of the Gibraltar Squadron is to safeguard Gibraltar’s shores, while contributing to joint operations.
In addition, the Gibraltar Squadron provides a maritime Quick Reaction Force to support ships in the local area, and keeps a watchful eye over shipping passing through the Strait of Gibraltar. The craft of the squadron are often busy supporting British and NATO exercises in the region, or indeed other nations’ maritime forces

sliabh

Evade wrote: »

That still doesn't change the fact that it needs a fighter escort in the event of an air threat. I've already said it's the best attack aircraft there is but my original point of over specialise and you breed in weakness is that it's so specialised towards ground attack it has almost no chance in an air to air situation because the things that make it an excellent ground attacker make it vulnerable to fighters.

But when is the last time the US faced a hint of a threat from hostile aircraft? The US hasn't had a confirmed loss to another aircraft since the Vietnam war. That's about half a century ago.

You can pretty much take it as a given that A10 pilots anywhere don't lose sleep worrying about threats from above them! :-)

Evade

sliabh wrote: »

But when is the last time the US faced a hint of a threat from hostile aircraft? The US hasn't had a confirmed loss to another aircraft since the Vietnam war. That's about half a century ago.

You can pretty much take it as a given that A10 pilots anywhere don't lose sleep worrying about threats from above them! :-)

My argument is purely hypothetical but with aircraft being kept in service for 50 or so years all eventualities have to be taken into consideration.

Evade

whydave wrote: »

The Estonians must be fairly relaxed about uniforms. The three guys in the foreground have four different patterns between them.

OzCam

Evade wrote: »

The Estonians must be fairly relaxed about uniforms. The three guys in the foreground have four different patterns between them.

Swapsies.

The Estonians were attached to the original British contingent in Helmand, then the USMC took over most of the province and now they're back with the British. Two of those shirts are British desert DPM, the slightly green one in the middle was one of those the squaddies tried dyeing green to operate in the Green Zone before they got MTP.

Not sure where they got the CadPat helmet cover though.

Evade

OzCam wrote: »

Swapsies.

The Estonians were attached to the original British contingent in Helmand, then the USMC took over most of the province and now they're back with the British. Two of those shirts are British desert DPM, the slightly green one in the middle was one of those the squaddies tried dyeing green to operate in the Green Zone before they got MTP.

I wonder what the higher ups think? It's not very uniform.

OzCam wrote: »

Not sure where they got the CadPat helmet cover though.

If the pants are Estonian camo I'd say the helmet cover is probably the woodland version of that, not CADPAT.

Manic Moran

Evade wrote: »

The US hasn't had a confirmed loss to another aircraft since the Vietnam war. That's about half a century ago.

Strong suspiscion that Scott Speicher was shot down by an MiG-25.

NTM

whydave

Manic Moran wrote: »

Strong suspiscion that Scott Speicher was shot down by an MiG-25.

NTM

Scott Speicher

Manic Moran

Those T-60s in the front there are brand, spanking new.

I took this photo of them under construction about three months ago. Not restoration, construction.



NTM

sliabh

Manic Moran wrote: »

Strong suspiscion that Scott Speicher was shot down by an MiG-25.

NTM

That's why I said "confirmed"

Bobby Baccala

Abomination.

thermo

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

Abomination.

WANT!!!

andy_g

thermo wrote: »

WANT!!!

Was thinking the same.

OzCam

HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- "Have Blue," shown here, is the predecessor of the Air Force's famed F-117A Nighthawk -- the first "stealth fighter" in the Air Force's inventory. On Dec. 1, 1977, HB1001 made its maiden flight, and history, as Lockheed Test Pilot Bill Park took it through its flight.

Bill Park must be one brave test pilot. The flight control software was borrowed, and buggy, so the aircraft (which is aerodynamically unstable to begin with) must have been a nightmare to fly. It's inability to fly in a straight line earned it another nickname: Wobblin' Goblin.

andy_g

whydave wrote: »

Navy Combat Camera’s standard-issue Nikon D700 and Nightstalker II night vision system by Tactical Solutions LLC.

What not canon? does that lens com in the canon version?
Me wants

Puding

andy_g wrote: »

What not canon? does that lens com in the canon version?
Me wants

Yes, if you get a second mortgage

Puding

the whole article of combat photographers, an interesting read

http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2011/11/front-lines-life-us-military-photographer

whydave

whydave wrote: »

U.S. Army,model their new robes

US Army to replace MultiCam !!!!!:D:D:D:D

sliabh

whydave wrote: »

US Army to replace MultiCam !!!!!:D:D:D:D

The mind boggles thinking of the environment the US military will now be deployed to where this is appropriate camouflage...

whydave

whydave wrote: »

Pfc. Legend curiously eye balls his M16A4 service rifle he was issued at the depot Armory.

''what NO MAGS !!!!!''