Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2024 9:05 pm
History, Politics And Current Affairs
Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
https://tboverse.com/
OOC Thread
Page 12 of 14
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2024 11:27 pm
Or this.
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 1:27 am
I think those of us on the other board have felt that way since those two showed up.
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:19 am
Retroburger seems to be getting the point, thankfully, but Tok’ra Operative needs more forceful reminders about the established canon…
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 7:06 pm
Spiegel1 brought up the idea of Randall Flagg (The Walkin’ Man) being afraid of Slenderman. Thoughts? Should that particular Creepypasta be added to the canon?
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:05 am
Query regarding RD+20 fighter development: did the F/A-18E/F ever get made ITTL? In our history, it was a McDD ‘just-in-case’ project that ended up replacing the (cancelled) A-12, not to mention its own previous A-D models, and buying time-in-service for the next ‘clean-sheet’ fighter design (the JSF) to begin and finish its (excessively-protracted and -painful) development process.
For context: I’m trying to plot what birds might have been available in the post-WWIII environment as potential replacements for the RNZAF’s A-4Ks. Per word of Guru, the Kahu upgrade programme was butterflied by the start of the war and being insufficient RoI (much as I’d like to post a ‘pre-war’ photo of one, a ‘flying tech-demonstrator’, in the Art thread). It was established on the old board that wartime-rate production of ‘teenaged’ fighters continued after the Armistice to replace airframes lost, wrecked, or simply fatigued-out by war’s end. Presumably the USAF and USN ‘next-generation’ programmes like the F-22 and A-12 (A-6 replacement) were suspended for the duration, though I’m sure the would-be builders were making copious notes about lessons-learned, and I expect those lessons went directly into the next-generation replacement fighters (the F-24 and F-25, this timeline’s version(s) of the JSF). I’m further presuming that, as open and unwavering supporters of the US throughout the buildup to WWIII and staunch comrades during the conflict itself (unlike many states in Europe, who ‘wavered’ under the neutralist governments), New Zealand’s political capital with the US government would be high enough that extremely favourable terms would be extended if we wanted to replace our A-4Ks in the mid-late-’90s with some model of F-16 or F/A-18, then get in on the ground floor of the F-24/F-25 project.
However, would the funding, political energy, and technology have existed to get the alt!JSF into service soon enough to butterfly away the need for an ‘interim’ Super Hornet? Or would there have been enough of a ‘capability-gap’ in the USN, similar to the one that existed IOTL, that the Super Hornet got off the drawing board and out into the fleet? (After all, even in a post-WW3 environment money and political energy are not infinite, especially with a lot of rebuilding to be done on American soil, and if a ‘Super Bug’ was ‘good enough for now’ compared to the relatively ‘gold-plated’ alt!JSF....
For context: I’m trying to plot what birds might have been available in the post-WWIII environment as potential replacements for the RNZAF’s A-4Ks. Per word of Guru, the Kahu upgrade programme was butterflied by the start of the war and being insufficient RoI (much as I’d like to post a ‘pre-war’ photo of one, a ‘flying tech-demonstrator’, in the Art thread). It was established on the old board that wartime-rate production of ‘teenaged’ fighters continued after the Armistice to replace airframes lost, wrecked, or simply fatigued-out by war’s end. Presumably the USAF and USN ‘next-generation’ programmes like the F-22 and A-12 (A-6 replacement) were suspended for the duration, though I’m sure the would-be builders were making copious notes about lessons-learned, and I expect those lessons went directly into the next-generation replacement fighters (the F-24 and F-25, this timeline’s version(s) of the JSF). I’m further presuming that, as open and unwavering supporters of the US throughout the buildup to WWIII and staunch comrades during the conflict itself (unlike many states in Europe, who ‘wavered’ under the neutralist governments), New Zealand’s political capital with the US government would be high enough that extremely favourable terms would be extended if we wanted to replace our A-4Ks in the mid-late-’90s with some model of F-16 or F/A-18, then get in on the ground floor of the F-24/F-25 project.
However, would the funding, political energy, and technology have existed to get the alt!JSF into service soon enough to butterfly away the need for an ‘interim’ Super Hornet? Or would there have been enough of a ‘capability-gap’ in the USN, similar to the one that existed IOTL, that the Super Hornet got off the drawing board and out into the fleet? (After all, even in a post-WW3 environment money and political energy are not infinite, especially with a lot of rebuilding to be done on American soil, and if a ‘Super Bug’ was ‘good enough for now’ compared to the relatively ‘gold-plated’ alt!JSF....
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:13 am
What’s all this Texan ‘nationalist’ stuff that keeps popping up on the board on the other site? Isn’t a foreign invasion likely to lessen supply for secession?
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:16 am
I have no idea.Bernard Woolley wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:13 am What’s all this Texan ‘nationalist’ stuff that keeps popping up on the board on the other site? Isn’t a foreign invasion likely to lessen supply for secession?
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:26 am
The E/F program did go forward. The C/D Hornets were being worn out, even with peacetime ops and three wars (Fall of Rump USSR, Baja, Cuba Uprising), and with delays to the F-24 (OTL's F-35, NAVAIR decided to go ahead with a McAir proposal for a Super Hornet. The Navy did NOT solicit the proposal, but McAir had one ready, and even built a prototype with their own money. Export orders from Kuwait and Australia followed, and so did Congressional approval. The E directly replaced the C models on carrier decks, while the F serves as a two-seat trainer, a recon aircraft (the RF-18F) and the EA-18G Growler as a EA-6B replacement.Matryoshka wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:05 am Query regarding RD+20 fighter development: did the F/A-18E/F ever get made ITTL? In our history, it was a McDD ‘just-in-case’ project that ended up replacing the (cancelled) A-12, not to mention its own previous A-D models, and buying time-in-service for the next ‘clean-sheet’ fighter design (the JSF) to begin and finish its (excessively-protracted and -painful) development process.
For context: I’m trying to plot what birds might have been available in the post-WWIII environment as potential replacements for the RNZAF’s A-4Ks. Per word of Guru, the Kahu upgrade programme was butterflied by the start of the war and being insufficient RoI (much as I’d like to post a ‘pre-war’ photo of one, a ‘flying tech-demonstrator’, in the Art thread). It was established on the old board that wartime-rate production of ‘teenaged’ fighters continued after the Armistice to replace airframes lost, wrecked, or simply fatigued-out by war’s end. Presumably the USAF and USN ‘next-generation’ programmes like the F-22 and A-12 (A-6 replacement) were suspended for the duration, though I’m sure the would-be builders were making copious notes about lessons-learned, and I expect those lessons went directly into the next-generation replacement fighters (the F-24 and F-25, this timeline’s version(s) of the JSF). I’m further presuming that, as open and unwavering supporters of the US throughout the buildup to WWIII and staunch comrades during the conflict itself (unlike many states in Europe, who ‘wavered’ under the neutralist governments), New Zealand’s political capital with the US government would be high enough that extremely favourable terms would be extended if we wanted to replace our A-4Ks in the mid-late-’90s with some model of F-16 or F/A-18, then get in on the ground floor of the F-24/F-25 project.
However, would the funding, political energy, and technology have existed to get the alt!JSF into service soon enough to butterfly away the need for an ‘interim’ Super Hornet? Or would there have been enough of a ‘capability-gap’ in the USN, similar to the one that existed IOTL, that the Super Hornet got off the drawing board and out into the fleet? (After all, even in a post-WW3 environment money and political energy are not infinite, especially with a lot of rebuilding to be done on American soil, and if a ‘Super Bug’ was ‘good enough for now’ compared to the relatively ‘gold-plated’ alt!JSF....
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:26 am
My estimate (speaking as a guy who has done program management for legacy systems that were supposed to be replaced Real Soon Now) is that wartime experience with the F/A-18 revealed a bunch of shortcomings (particularly range and loiter time), and there was a desire to see those issues fixed.Matryoshka wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:05 am Query regarding RD+20 fighter development: did the F/A-18E/F ever get made ITTL? In our history, it was a McDD ‘just-in-case’ project that ended up replacing the (cancelled) A-12, not to mention its own previous A-D models, and buying time-in-service for the next ‘clean-sheet’ fighter design (the JSF) to begin and finish its (excessively-protracted and -painful) development process.
For context: I’m trying to plot what birds might have been available in the post-WWIII environment as potential replacements for the RNZAF’s A-4Ks. Per word of Guru, the Kahu upgrade programme was butterflied by the start of the war and being insufficient RoI (much as I’d like to post a ‘pre-war’ photo of one, a ‘flying tech-demonstrator’, in the Art thread). It was established on the old board that wartime-rate production of ‘teenaged’ fighters continued after the Armistice to replace airframes lost, wrecked, or simply fatigued-out by war’s end. Presumably the USAF and USN ‘next-generation’ programmes like the F-22 and A-12 (A-6 replacement) were suspended for the duration, though I’m sure the would-be builders were making copious notes about lessons-learned, and I expect those lessons went directly into the next-generation replacement fighters (the F-24 and F-25, this timeline’s version(s) of the JSF). I’m further presuming that, as open and unwavering supporters of the US throughout the buildup to WWIII and staunch comrades during the conflict itself (unlike many states in Europe, who ‘wavered’ under the neutralist governments), New Zealand’s political capital with the US government would be high enough that extremely favourable terms would be extended if we wanted to replace our A-4Ks in the mid-late-’90s with some model of F-16 or F/A-18, then get in on the ground floor of the F-24/F-25 project.
However, would the funding, political energy, and technology have existed to get the alt!JSF into service soon enough to butterfly away the need for an ‘interim’ Super Hornet? Or would there have been enough of a ‘capability-gap’ in the USN, similar to the one that existed IOTL, that the Super Hornet got off the drawing board and out into the fleet? (After all, even in a post-WW3 environment money and political energy are not infinite, especially with a lot of rebuilding to be done on American soil, and if a ‘Super Bug’ was ‘good enough for now’ compared to the relatively ‘gold-plated’ alt!JSF....
Another issue is that the projected Hornet fatigue life was overestimated compared to real world experience, and that would be massively exacerbated by a four year high intensity war.
It's worth noting that in @, there was a "Professional Note" in the August 1987 Naval Institute Proceedings for a "Super Hornet" that, with minor cosmetic differences, looks a LOT like the F/A-18E/F in terms of performance.
My estimate is that the Super Hornet would likely be accelerated and probably begun in earnest some time around 1986, with first flight likely in 1990 and IOC in 1994-95.
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:34 am
Yes and no.Bernard Woolley wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:13 am What’s all this Texan ‘nationalist’ stuff that keeps popping up on the board on the other site? Isn’t a foreign invasion likely to lessen supply for secession?
The first deliverable for any national government is security from foreign invasion. Fail to deliver that within the framework of the United States Constitution (with the several states retaining a great deal of sovereignty over their affairs), and the relationships between the federal government and the invaded states will show up on Facebook as "It's Complicated." The states would hold a lot of power over defense and security policy.
Where I suspect this issue would really gum up things is with respect to the Occupation Zone in Northern Mexico. On the one hand, the states that were occupied would be quite happy to have a buffer zone, but on the other hand would not be happy with their relative power declining.
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:44 am
Matt Wiser, poohbah, thank you both. Now all I have to do is figure out enough about Paint.Net or PhotoShop to grab a pic of an -18E and recolour it in RNZAF livery. It should only take me about thirty years.... 
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:00 am
I just checked one of our usual sources, and he hasn’t done an RNZAF Super Bug. Oh, and Matt, the recon Super Bug is the RF-18J.
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:08 am
It would have to be another letter: "J" usually means "Japan (F-4EJ, F-15J, F-104J, etc.)
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 4:18 am
Not always. F-4J was an incremental improvement to the F-4B.Matt Wiser wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:08 am It would have to be another letter: "J" usually means "Japan (F-4EJ, F-15J, F-104J, etc.)
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 am
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:07 pm
No. Alone, unarmed, and unafraid.clancyphile wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 amDoes it still have Shrike/HARM/AMRAAM/etc. capability to fight its way in/out?
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 1:59 pm
Yes, though without the gun, but it usually only carries a pair of Sidewinders on the wingtip stations… VMFP-3, OTOH, uses the full range of the weapons capabilities…clancyphile wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:42 amDoes it still have Shrike/HARM/AMRAAM/etc. capability to fight its way in/out?
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:02 pm
Some posters on AH.com are trying their best to get the thread locked with the images they are posting.
Re: OOC Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 4:10 pm
I’ll post a reminder about this.