|
An early CRAM prototype, obviously.
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Apropos of nothing, anyone want a Harrier? http://www.silverstoneauctions.com/1976-hawker-siddeley-harrier-gr3-jump-jet Can we pay for it with Pepsi points? Asking for a friend. DakianDelomast posted:The next component of the pack is the Deutium/Tritium booster in the weapon. Tritium specifically has a shelf life of only 11 years and needs to be continually replaced (much like night sights). After this it is likely that many warheads will still be lower yield weapons but several of the newest designs actually require the booster for a critical mass level of neutrons. Smaller warheads likely will no longer be effective and will probably only fizzle if set off. This goes for fusion warheads too but the thermonuclear reaction still has that same tritium half life consideration. This was a plot point in The Sum of All Fears. If nothing else, you all need to go read the "Three Shakes" passage, it's extremely detailed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Is there some advantage to the high-wing, negative-dihedral layout for cargo planes? Seem like every one that in service to day (that isn't a variant of an airliner) uses it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Sub launched cruise missiles hurrah! Things are happening in the KSP thread:   
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Yeah, the Mustang and Raptor probably have no problem flying together. These guys did, though (not cold war, but certainly old school AIRPOWER): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6PnKUEFX8g There's some technical stuff at the beginning if you're into that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Back when I was an air cadet there was a widespread rumour that when the RAF had theirs delivered, a pilot tried to barrel roll one and the radome literally fell off. Seems to be bollocks, but it's quite the mental picture Considering a barrel roll is a positive G maneuver... Now, an aileron roll, maybe.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
When the immortal god-emperor finally matures and his latent psychic powers manifest, allowing him to mind-control the world's population into peacefully coexisting, and the world's militaries are eliminated or merged and cut down for self-defense from extraterrestrial threats, I'm going to look back at this argument and laugh.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I'd like to think that if we faced a crisis on the level of world war 2 again, we'd throw half the rules out the window and make poo poo happen fast, but... Who knows how much pain we'd endure before we figured it out? If we faced a WW2-level crisis again, the ground infantry recruitment rate would be irrelevent, seeing as how that's when the Air Force and all those lovely long-range assets they hold would get their literal 15 minutes of fame. Shine bright like a
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Breaky posted:What are you talking about, Texas got pieces of one all over the state. Every once in a while, I'm reminded of why I still post here. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Pentagon to deploy 12 A-10s to Middle East Well they never would have been deployed unless we were able to ensure air supremacy by using the SIXTH GEN STEALTH Raptors to shoot down ISIS's air force. E: Serious question, how hard would it be to make a ground-attack craft using the F-35's airframe? That lift fan cavity could hold one hell of a magazine for an Avenger or similar type cannon. Fender Anarchist fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This is one of my more favorite things ever. Haha that's a MIDI version of "Hymn to Red October" playing at 0:58. How very 90s.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:UN/NATO compliance  They didn't start flying onboard exterior cams until after Columbia fireballed, a full 12 years after the Cold War ended.Always love that video, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Is the next in line already rolling before the one ahead is off the ground? Comedy option would be 2x GE90s... if the loving 11-foot fan could fit under the wing, that is. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:They sure do love their aileron rolls in Iron Eagle. It seems to be the general purpose "avoid everything" maneuver in every Iron Eagle film. A child flying a fighter, who thinks to himself "let's try spinning, that's a good trick!" it's like they predicted Episode 1.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Dark Helmut posted:Supposedly there was some big nitrogen tank on board. Am I wrong or is that why the explosion was so huge? Serious answer after all the razzing, gaseous nitrogen (N2) is extremely stable and unreactive, as it has a triple bond between the two individual atoms. Triple bonds are extremely difficult (read: take a lot of energy input) to break apart so nitrogen can be put into other compounds. Those compounds are notoriously unstable because of said input energy, it's still part of the atom by dint of the triple bond not existing. When those compounds decompose and the nitrogen atoms re-form that triple bond, all that energy that was put in to break it is released at once. See for example this blog post on a compound containing 6 Nitrogen atoms per molecule. A highlight: quote:...Making something like this that can actually be handled and stored is a real accomplishment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The Cold War-est thing was the TU-4 Bull with the early warning radar on it. A 1960's Chinese modification of a 1950's Russian built copy of a 1940's American strategic bomber. I'm amazed those engines don't snap their mounts and fall off from sheer leverage, those things have got to be hanging a good 5 yards off the leading edge.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I always have this image of the Eagle being this huge beefy thing from all angles, but it's actually pretty slim from the side.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Airpower!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
The issue with missiles isn't a technical one, it's an operational one. In all but the most permissive rules of engagement (ie all-out hot war), targets have to be identified and confirmed hostile before you can open fire, not just based on radar signature. For those, you need a plane that can operate in short to medium range, and that means maneuverability and/or stealth.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Come back when they mount the railgun on a ship and test-fire that. At least that's something we'll generally be able to come to a consensus on how awesome it is. That is to say, entirely.   e: WHOOPS that was huge
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:Apologies for the He specifically said Blackbird, which only refers to the SR-71. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
RE: 60s tech on the next spacecraft, realize that for the entire shuttle program we were sending up astronauts 7 at a time with no abort capability at all until the SRB's separated. Even if you survived an engine out pre-jettison that would lead to an RTLS (Return To Launch Site) abort, where the shuttle+ET flipped around with the engines still burning and slowly zeroed out eastward velocity, then burned back towards Canaveral while trying to gain enough velocity for a meaningful glide range once the tank was jettisoned. That was the sole abort mode for the first 2:30 of flight; after that the stack was capable of a trans-atlantic abort, landing in, say, Spain, which was obviously a much more feasible option than pulling a 180-degree backflip in a 900-ton flying brick. Give me a "primitive" conical capsule with an escape rocket that works in any phase of the flight, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
smh if you think you need more firepower than a few AN/M2s. FIDDY CALS
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Antti posted:Is it really what it looks like and not an illusion or camera angle fuckery? Honest question, because it looks so crazy. It is exactly what it looks like. Crosswinds (any wind not directly head-on or from the rear) blow the plane off course, so the plane has to yaw in the opposite direction for the engine thrust to cancel it out and keep the plane on course. Then they have to kick the nose back towards the direction of travel at touchdown to prevent too much side load on the landing gear (which can handle some, but not much.) This plane is traveling parallel to the runway centerline. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I recall reading that the engine itself is small enough, but it's too big with the packaging, and that the packaging is being redesigned. I can't find a link though. There's workarounds for some stuff, but there's parts that just can't be made smaller, like the diameter of the fans (both the first-stage fan and especially the lift fan on the -B variant). I believe GE and Boeing had similar issues with the GE-90; most of the engine is pretty narrow and can be carried on a standard 747 cargo lifter, but the fan's so fuckoff huge it can only be transported either by a rail car or something like the An-124. Obviously the F135 is a smaller engine, but then the V22 is a smaller plane.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:http://aviationweek.com/defense/bell-tests-v-22-jsf-engine-carrying-capability I've got it, we add a second lift fan and small stabilizing fins and make the engine self-flying. That way it can transport itself! Self-sufficient operation is kind of the Marines' thing, should be an easy sell. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Question about the A-10, and the Avenger specifically. In all those videos, both the gun firing and the shells impacting are audible from pretty far away. The cannon explains itself, but why is the impact noise so loud? Are they HE rounds going off, or do they just have that much kinetic energy?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Have we ever had a fighter with multiple guns since the M61 was developed? Gunpods notwithstanding.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
bewbies posted:A fighter pilot did a long interview with an Internet Site and it is pretty interesting. He's like pure fighter mafia through and through. Is there really any use for the F-15, though, in a perfect world where we're actually getting a full allotment of Raptors? Seems like the bomb truck/OPSEC air superiority duty could be handled pretty well by the F-16s, while the Raptor obsoletes the (non-Mud Hen) Eagle in every way, even with upgrades. Then again, the same could be said of a fully developed F-35, but in the real world we don't get to have both; I'd rather have Raptors and a fleet of new-build F-16s.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Mazz posted:On a side note, the navy really wants to put that BAE railgun on the third Zumwalt, probably so it actually looks like it accomplished something compared to the DDG-51s. Would that be fired at high elevation for maximum range, or used more as a direct-fire weapon where you can hit while the projectile is still supersonic?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
I still think the ground speed check story from Sled Driver is the greatest example of one-upsmanship ever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
F-35-113-B Gavin
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:I think that's it, actually  (not a combat plane I know, but just look at it)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Well gently caress. E: Buggati was named after an Italian, close enough.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The gently caress are 12 of them gonna be good for? Aerobatics teams. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
brains posted:technically pre-cold war but a good read about what happened to the third bomb made to be dropped on japan (emphasis theirs): I'd argue that Hiroshima was the first shot fired in the Cold War. Some people say that Japan was already putting out feelers to surrender, which were ignored so the US could make a statement to the Soviets. I dunno about all that, but I think we can all agree it was at least part of the reason behind the bombing, kind of a "Check this out, Ivan."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:I hope it's railguns just on the basis that the round when discharged creates a massive plum of fire upon of leaving the barrel as well as a string of ignited air in it's wake. Not even just burning air -- it gets so hot from the friction that it ionizes and forms a plasma trail, hence the technocolor glow you see in the slow-mo footage.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not wacky or uncommon. I dumped a lot of the taxpayer's fuel into the Gulf from whence it came because we could take off at a much higher gross weight than we could safely land at. It comes down to the power disparity between jet engines and disc brakes. The taxpayers demand to know why our "modern" fighter "aircraft" do not possess thrust reversers as have been standard on airliners for the better part of a century to stop wasting our fuel. Better yet, land the aircraft vertically on its tail, no brakes required and if you can take off you can land!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Regarding Gene Kranz:The article posted:The rule vesting ultimate authority in the flight director during a mission...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
It wasn't for scouts, but I had a field trip exactly like that in middle school, "crazy womens' wing" and all. I'm in Central Florida too, sensing a pattern here. Never go to Florida.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 08:28
|
|
who the hell signs boy scouts up for a 'scared straight' trip?