Federal Judge rules male only draft unconstitutional

[DC Tom]

14 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Tom. I like what you you do here. but your conclusions are from reading reports.

She caused the compressor stall, which was never proven, by the way, by jamming full left rudder during an overshoot of the center line of the carrier.

This is a Cessna move, and she had done it before.

She had dis-qualled before for the same reason.

She jammed the rudder, never done in a jet airplane, stalled the airplane and the RIO command ejected the both of them.

She was totally incompetent, and the F-14, again, was a relatively easy airplane to get aboard.

 

 

I already said it was pilot error.  I know she caused the compressor stall - she banked left, and disrupted the airflow to the left inlet.  Her big mistake wasn't that, it was increasing thrust to the other engine, which was a big no-no because it induced yaw beyond rudder control.  In her case, at landing speeds, it stalled the port wing.  All obvious from the film.

 

What I did not know was if it was a one-time panic, or if she was truly unqualified.  Which you just answered by saying she'd done it before.  That makes it pretty obvious incompetence: if I know you don't firewall the remaining engine on an F-14A, it's not exactly an obscure point, and a pilot shouldn't even have to think about it.

 

 

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Of course I know.  I-400 class, carried two M6A Serian planes.  They were specifically designed as special-operations subs for the sole purpose of attacking the locks in the Panama Canal.  Stupid idea, even for the Japanese - lots of effort put in to a plan that was militarily pointless.

 

"Carrier submarines" are a non-starter, for a few reasons.  Incompatible doctrinal mix, incompatible logistical needs, the technical needs of either are incompatible with the other (how are you going to quietly maintain planes?)  Ultimately, the point of a carrier is to operate an air group, which at its simplest means "generating 180+ sorties per day," which you can't do from a submarine.

 

I don’t know if the idea is outdated, but if you had modern versions of these subs, and heavy bombers, I’d make em. Imagine being able to pop-up and launch heavy bombers, then dive and rendezvous at another point. Huge. But I might be outdated.  

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

I already said it was pilot error.  I know she caused the compressor stall - she banked left, and disrupted the airflow to the left inlet.  Her big mistake wasn't that, it was increasing thrust to the other engine, which was a big no-no because it induced yaw beyond rudder control.  In her case, at landing speeds, it stalled the port wing.  All obvious from the film.

 

What I did not know was if it was a one-time panic, or if she was truly unqualified.  Which you just answered by saying she'd done it before.  That makes it pretty obvious incompetence: if I know you don't firewall the remaining engine on an F-14A, it's not exactly an obscure point, and a pilot shouldn't even have to think about it.

 

 

 

If she panicked over that, what would she do in combat? 

 

Im telling you dude, I’ve seen women lose their damn minds, on FOBs, when they hear something go boom. I’m talking ready to surrender. Imagine women during an artillary barrage...

 

A battlefield is no place for a lady.  

[B-Man]

MICHAEL WALSH ON OPENING UP SELECTIVE SERVICE TO WOMEN:

 

 

 You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby — or Have You?

 

 

 

.

[Kevbeau]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

I already said it was pilot error.  I know she caused the compressor stall - she banked left, and disrupted the airflow to the left inlet.  Her big mistake wasn't that, it was increasing thrust to the other engine, which was a big no-no because it induced yaw beyond rudder control.  In her case, at landing speeds, it stalled the port wing.  All obvious from the film.

 

What I did not know was if it was a one-time panic, or if she was truly unqualified.  Which you just answered by saying she'd done it before.  That makes it pretty obvious incompetence: if I know you don't firewall the remaining engine on an F-14A, it's not exactly an obscure point, and a pilot shouldn't even have to think about it.

 

 

Sherpa and yourself would know better, but I would imagine that the distance between the engines on a 14 would exacerbate the situation compared to another twin engine fighter where the engines are next to each other (15/18)

 

sherpa, I had read something along the lines that in order to keep the F-14 moving in a somewhat straight direction on one engine, the pilot almost had to go full rudder to compensate. Is that true?

[sherpa]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I already said it was pilot error.  I know she caused the compressor stall - she banked left, and disrupted the airflow to the left inlet.  Her big mistake wasn't that, it was increasing thrust to the other engine, which was a big no-no because it induced yaw beyond rudder control.  In her case, at landing speeds, it stalled the port wing.  All obvious from the film.

 

What I did not know was if it was a one-time panic, or if she was truly unqualified.  Which you just answered by saying she'd done it before.  That makes it pretty obvious incompetence: if I know you don't firewall the remaining engine on an F-14A, it's not exactly an obscure point, and a pilot shouldn't even have to think about it.

 

 

 

You are not quite right on this Tom.

You are reading the accident report, which was a gross attempt to inoculate her from blame.

Watch the Youtube of the overshoot and the ejection. It's easily available, as all carrier launches and recoveries are filmed.

But the most interesting thing about it is the comments below the video.

Not the usual uninformed knuckleheads who always comment but credible folks who knew.

Extremely unusual for people to write what they wrote, and be very discerning.

There are people in those comments who were so incensed over this this that  they pointed out the facts, and her history, and left their names attached to it.

Very unusual.

 

Still, there is no proof there was ever a compressor stall, and it didn't matter. 

She didn't "bank left." She jammed the left rudder down and yawed left to try to save an un-salvageable situation.

At that point the airplane "departed controlled flight," and there was no possibility of recovery.

She then jams the throttles full forward to zone 5 afterburner, and the right engine responds, creating a gross asymmetry.

But it didn't matter. It was already too late.

And as I said, she had demonstrated" this technique before and had dis-qualled.

 

This isn't the first time this had happened.

The Navy wanted to get another minority guy as the first one to fly a single seater from a carrier.

Didn't work,  and he killed himself in the same way.

During the accident investigation, when his training records were reviewed, it was obvious he was being moved ahead when others would have been taken out.

I'm extremely familiar with that accident, and it still irritates me.

 

 

[sherpa]

2 hours ago, Kevbeau said:

Sherpa and yourself would know better, but I would imagine that the distance between the engines on a 14 would exacerbate the situation compared to another twin engine fighter where the engines are next to each other (15/18)

 

sherpa, I had read something along the lines that in order to keep the F-14 moving in a somewhat straight direction on one engine, the pilot almost had to go full rudder to compensate. Is that true?

 

Ya, the more distance between the engines, the greater the thrust asymmetry when one isn't working.

How much rudder ti takes to keep going straight is a function of how much thrust you ask of the good engine.

I have not flown the F-14, fought it a hundred times, so I can't answer the question from experience.

 

But for sure, you wouldn't want to be in full burner on one side with a failure on the other, and you would never do it, if you wanted to live.

[DC Tom]

10 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

I don’t know if the idea is outdated, but if you had modern versions of these subs, and heavy bombers, I’d make em. Imagine being able to pop-up and launch heavy bombers, then dive and rendezvous at another point. Huge. But I might be outdated.  

 

 

No, just stupid.  You don't just "pop up" and launch "heavy bombers."  Carriers run continuous operations, of various different types of missions that are either integrated with other service missions according to the Joint Command's ATOs, or integrated into strike packages that take time to arm, spot, and launch - which requires the carrier to fly other operations in defense and support while spotting and launching the strike.

 

The mission you're describing - pop up, launch a strike, dive deep, pop up somewhere else later - is wasteful.  Because why not launch a strike of autonomous vehicles and skip the recovery in that case?  Which is one of the missions submarines execute - they launch TLAMs.  Your idea is not just boneheaded, but was superseded before you were even born.

[The_Dude]

26 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, just stupid.  You don't just "pop up" and launch "heavy bombers."  Carriers run continuous operations, of various different types of missions that are either integrated with other service missions according to the Joint Command's ATOs, or integrated into strike packages that take time to arm, spot, and launch - which requires the carrier to fly other operations in defense and support while spotting and launching the strike.

 

The mission you're describing - pop up, launch a strike, dive deep, pop up somewhere else later - is wasteful.  Because why not launch a strike of autonomous vehicles and skip the recovery in that case?  Which is one of the missions submarines execute - they launch TLAMs.  Your idea is not just boneheaded, but was superseded before you were even born.

 

Really? Forgive me because I’m talking well out of my expertise, but I said that with China in mind. Sure we got Guam and Japan, but what if you could launch bombers from within miles. They could hit targets that the planes on Guam and japan couldn’t. Further, I realize we have other methods of attacking more distant areas, but with stealth? I’m not sure. Of course, I’ll admit as I am now I’m talking outside of my expertise (perfect set up for an insult there, Tom.)

[Koko78]

24 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Really? Forgive me because I’m talking well out of my expertise, but I said that with China in mind. Sure we got Guam and Japan, but what if you could launch bombers from within miles. They could hit targets that the planes on Guam and japan couldn’t. Further, I realize we have other methods of attacking more distant areas, but with stealth? I’m not sure. Of course, I’ll admit as I am now I’m talking outside of my expertise (perfect set up for an insult there, Tom.)

 

The idea is impractical, unworkable, and would be a colossal waste of resources to try to implement for a very minimal potential benefit.

[The_Dude]

8 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

The idea is impractical, unworkable, and would be a colossal waste of resources to try to implement for a very minimal potential benefit.

 

Surprise bombings are an excellent benefit 

[3rdnlng]

33 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Surprise bombings are an excellent benefit 

So are missiles launched from nearby submarines. You know, like what they were designed to do.

[The_Dude]

47 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So are missiles launched from nearby submarines. You know, like what they were designed to do.

 

Oh. Let’s scrap our bombers then. 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Oh. Let’s scrap our bombers then. 

Makes about as much sense as taking away rifles from snipers and giving them pistols.

[sherpa]

27 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Oh. Let’s scrap our bombers then. 

 

Missiles cannot come close to bomb effectiveness.

Way too much goes in to the thrust system, which does nothing to the target.

[The_Dude]

31 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Missiles cannot come close to bomb effectiveness.

Way too much goes in to the thrust system, which does nothing to the target.

 

I was being sarcastic when i said that. I like the idea of carrier subs. I love bombers. But I’m speaking out of my element. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by The_Dude

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Surprise bombings are an excellent benefit 

 

How big is this submarine carrier going to have to be to launch a significant number of bombers carrying a significant enough payload to make a difference? How is some massive behemoth submarine going to realistically remain undetected? How long are they going to have to surface and be vulnerable to launch and/or recover these bombers? How stealthy is it going to be while underwater? How many tens of billions of dollars is it going to cost to design both the sub and specialized bombers that will be compatible?

 

Why not just launch some ***** cruise missiles from existing subs for a fraction of the cost?

 

Impractical, unworkable, and a complete waste of resources for little to no benefit over existing technology.

[The_Dude]

9 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

How big is this submarine carrier going to have to be to launch a significant number of bombers carrying a significant enough payload to make a difference? How is some massive behemoth submarine going to realistically remain undetected? How long are they going to have to surface and be vulnerable to launch and/or recover these bombers? How stealthy is it going to be while underwater? How many tens of billions of dollars is it going to cost to design both the sub and specialized bombers that will be compatible?

 

Why not just launch some ***** cruise missiles from existing subs for a fraction of the cost?

 

Impractical, unworkable, and a complete waste of resources for little to no benefit over existing technology.

 

Sure, ok, but ask yourself this — would it be cool? Because while everything you said is solid, I just want one. Or twelve. 

[Koko78]

Just now, The_Dude said:

 

Sure, ok, but ask yourself this — would it be cool? Because while everything you said is solid, I just want one. Or twelve. 

 

***** this carrier sub nonsense. We need to start building SHIELD Helicarriers or a Death Star!

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

***** this carrier sub nonsense. We need to start building SHIELD Helicarriers or a Death Star!

 

Space Force!

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

 

Sure, ok, but ask yourself this — would it be cool? Because while everything you said is solid, I just want one. Or twelve. 

About as cool as the Green Dream. Whenever you try to make something do too many things it doesn't do any one thing well. Swiss Army Knives are great on camping trips but not so great in a knife fight. Amphibious cars are cool and great novelties but they're neither a real boat or car.