|
This might be one of the few threads in existence I would actually find interesting enough to read through 200 pages. Did it over the last few weeks or so whenever I had to kill time. Had a bunch of questions/comments too but I sure as hell wasn't going to quote 60 pages back. Anyways, question about those new USN Bechtel reactors if the information is out there: What makes them so much more powerful? Is it a new reactor design or just higher energy density? And why don't they need the lifespan cut-out like previous reactors? My knowledge is pretty limited of the science but I enjoyed the hell out of what I understood in the previous discussions.
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I know, but 14.5mm is much more powerful than 12.7mm as an example. Did the PTRD/S shoot the same 14.5mm round the KPVT does? Either way, can you even find those rifles anymore? They aren't exactly AKs. Also, it seems like a lot of the armor descriptions you read armor up to 14.5 (or used to) because of that KPVT threat. But yeah, I cant see why it wouldnt work against trucks/humvees and the like if you could actually find one to shoot. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Apparently they cancelled funding for the MEADS program today. I'm sure mlmp has something worth reading to say about that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
The Iranians also configured their F-14s to shoot HAWKs. They pretty much strapped everything they could find to those things. It's kind of amazing they kept even some of them flying, idk if it was here or somewhere else I read a real good article about that. Also, that SHORAD laser thing is a bit more interesting when you consider the Israelis are really interested in getting them in the mix because of the cost of interceptors vs your average RAM attack. "Iron Beam" is basically RAFAELs name for MTHEL. There is a lot more incentive to move forward over there if it shows real promise. It's pretty amazing to me how effective we've been at scaling this whole system down, looks like it fits on the back of HEMTT now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Ok6DICyzk EDIT: I just realized that video was posted 2 days ago. Good timing for this I guess. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:Speaking of, sorry if it has been asked before but how does the PAK-FA stack up to other high performance fighters? It's got some very interesting design features, but honestly past that point we know very little else other then it seems a lot like a Su-27 with better RCS shaping and other modernization. It'll be interesting to see how the cost situation works out since I'm pretty sure it's avionics are a lot more complex then anything they built previously. The thing has 4 radars in it IIRC, the nose AESA supplemented by 2 wing mounted L-Band AESA and one in the tail (is that still a thing?), along with a full IRST module. Another point of interest is apparently India is realizing how hosed up their budget is, which makes their contributions to the program less guaranteed. Also, I'm not sure they ever actually produced its engines yet. It has a lot of potential though, the Su-27 was and is a drat good airplane.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
The defense expert fox talked to for that article in said India should really be after revolutionary aircraft like the F-35B.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
I think part of the argument is that if you look past the obvious Russian bullshit about a fighter better then the F-22, it's still an evolutionary step in the Su-27 family of fighters. It doesn't have to be an F-22 killer if it actually comes in at a semi-reasonable price and the Russians are willing to export it. Modern variants of the Su-30 already give a lot of F-15s a run for their money, so when you consider the current state of western air purchases and how the F-35 is shaping up you can still see how the PAK-FA is a credible concern. Until we know just how much of a poo poo heap it is (or isnt), it's a problem western planners have to consider. I don't think anyone with a brain actually thinks it's going to be an F-22 killer, but if it turns out to be a solid aircraft with decent RCS reductions, a reasonable payload and good kinematic performance, then it's still a pretty loving big deal. Especially for all our friends who might have to go up against it without the leverage of an F-22, or for Boeing/LM who have to compete with it on the export market to countries like India, Brazil, etc. To boil down what I'm saying; it doesn't need to be this giant gold plated monster to be a credible threat. Hell, IMO it's actually more concerning if it isn't because that probably means they end up in a lot more hands then the 10-15 the Russians would actually buy. Mazz fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
grover posted:and the half-assed attempt at stealth adds weight which hurts performance, payload and range. So just like the F-35 then. All jokes aside, unless you can actually pull some sources for this argument (Suhkoi patents indicate a significant amount of RCS changes over previous designs but with performance still being a primary factor), and also these manuverability and weight issues, I'm going to disagree that we should find it so easy to dismiss. I don't look at this the same way as the J-20, this is Sukhoi, they've built good airframes for a considerly long time, and a Russian government that has a lot more money to throw around then they did 10-15 years ago. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Okay, I should clarify that I'm not arguing about how stealthy the design actually is, just that it does have a lot of specific RCS improvements over legacy fighters while being as worried about flight performance as it is RCS in a lot of its design. I'm not arguing it's ever going to be as stealthy as the F-35, let alone the F-22, I'm just arguing that what grover is doing is seemingly dismissing the entire aircraft because of what he sees in pictures, without actually reading into Sukhoi design philosophy. And that really boils down to them opting for performance in as many places as stealth, and freely admit the compromises they've had to make. I personally think this is a pretty logical argument when you consider the advances in sensors (especially IRST) and how the engagements of previous air wars have often played out once poo poo actually hit the fan. If they can keep costs semi-reasonable and make even some of the avionics/engine improvements they've stated, there's really no way that's not something worth considering a credible threat, both in in the sky and on the export market. http://www.janes.com/article/32190/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published http://m.indrus.in/blogs/2014/01/16/patent_analysis_shows_how_pak-fa_differs_from_f-22_in_air_combat_philos_32309.html EDIT: VVVV And an argument like that has a ton of merit, I'm just not comfortable with dismissing it so quickly, especially in comparison to the F-35, not the 22. And I think that's an apt comparison given the future of aircraft procurement options. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Koesj posted:So I guess we're all broadly in agreement? PAK-FA won't ever reach F-22 levels of all-aspect stealth, probably needs some kind of highly innovative solution to get the compressor blades out of the way with regards to radar returns, and there won't be an optimal engine during its initial production version(s) at least? Yeah, I was more or less arguing that there's potential in the PAK-FA to be a reasonable concern to western air forces, not so much because it was a super plane, just that's its an evolution of the flanker family whose design makes enough sense if you're not going balls deep on stealth. There is a lot of obvious problems yes, but at the same time it's got a lot of potential/creativity/logic there in a world where Russia isn't quite as flat loving broke as they were 10-20 years ago. I never considered it a real concern for us (especially because I don't see that conflict remotely happening any time soon), just more that if it shows up at a reasonable point it's a pretty good competitor on the export market. You could probably find customers interested in it who want to dick wave a "5th gen" stealth fighter to their neighbors and its coming in a good 20-30m below the flyaway of the F-35. I asked specifically about the weight/performance Grover mentioned because all the figures I've seen put it at very comparable in weight to the Su-35 but with payload reduced by the internal storage and supposedly a far greater fuel range (idk if that's with or w/o external tanks). At the same time I don't outright trust those numbers so I'd be completely open to more if there are any. I also view it as more credible then the Chinese offerings because the Chinese barely even have things like a domestic engine industry. But yeah, there's really no way I see it being a true competitor to the 22, at least not any time soon. Maybe the f-35 on an individual airframe comparison, but that's a pretty speculative comparison considering both are still more or less in the "loving mess" of the design phase. But I definitely second the sentiment that planes need be strictly judged on how they perform in Ace Combat. I'm still really sad that last one is an MMO or whatever. 4+5 are two of my favorite games ever. Mazz fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
quote:Mazz: extended range for certain combat loads is a plausible claim for a stealth aircraft due to the reduction in drag from carrying the ordinance internally. If they're referring to supercruise, that's a bit more sketchy of a claim as even when an aircraft CAN supercruise, it burns more fuel from the extra drag of high supersonic flight, and range is reduced vs a subsonic profile. The stealth profile forces a number of compromises in aerodynamics and structural strength, though, which leads to additional weight & drag vs a comparable non-stealthy aircraft. These problems are not necessarily impossible to overcome, but it takes a shitload of time, money, and understanding, and PAK-FA appears to be pretty much an Su-35S with an F-22 costume and I do not expect it to have all-around inferior performance to the Su-35S in every way but a slightly reduced RCS. Like Godholio said, maybe you detect it at 150 miles now instead of 250, but that's not really "stealth" in the way we think of it. I was actually just referring to straight ferry range over the Su-35, which is really the only number I can find, and it's a good 1000 km further. This isn't something I'm arguing though because this number is WAY too non-specific. There could be a whole host of things contributing to and against this number, like extra internal space (and weight) for more fuel, to reduced drag from the 6 internal hardpoints, and none of that is remotely clear yet considering it's not even using it's real engines, so I'll just leave it at that. I'll just end my posting on this whole thing here for the sake of saving everyone from this speculative bullshit (I do enough of that in the wargame thread). It'll be interesting to see how it, the F-35, and the J-20/31 unfold over the next 10 years. I still kinda hope they restart the F-22 line, but that's more of a personal love of that thing then anything else. These are two of my favorite pictures ever: (Tempted to photoshop those testing things off the nose at some point)  
Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:I agree with you, Mortabis. I was always surprised how little the conformals do bother me, since they do break the line as you said.  For some reason that looks completely fine to me. It just fits. This was always a picture I liked, really highlights just how state of the art the F-22 looks: 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Is there any scenario in which a Raptor would mount AMRAAMs on the wings? I always was curious as to why F-22 would need to do this if they could link this information back to F-15s. I always looked at the F-22 as just being an invisible spotter in this regard, especially since the F-15 can carry a shitload of AMRAAM in just a missile truck loadout. I don't have any idea how feasible that is, but it just seems like the most useful structure for the drastically few F-22 we ended up getting, especially in a numbers game with China over the Pacific. Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Ah, I was under the impression 22s can share target data between them, so the lead could have the radar info and feed it to the AMRAAMS of the flight. Figured it'd only be ideal to carry over to 15s as well, assuming those 15 could be several kilometers behind. Kind of let you project the 15s AMRAAM farther ahead through the 22 as a designator. That's the reason I left the AWACS out too. I'll take your word on that though, I've never looked into it in any detail. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
I was really hoping they get a little goofy and give us the Black Eagle or T-95 in Wargame RD, but oh well. Chinese armor was a bit strange, there first few tanks are based heavily around the T-54/55 design, with the follow ups being much the same but swapping out new guns (the NATO standard 105mm L7) and engines. In the mid/late 80's they actually received some 72s from the middle east and found their tanks surprisingly vulnerable to the 125, hence the big modernization of the 90s with the Type 90 and 98/99, which were technically indigenous designs but with very obvious connections to the Soviet design philsophies. The very latest Chinese tanks are supposedly pretty capable, but like anything else from the Chinese, it's hard to find great sources. They were heavily influenced by the 72s though, even if not directly related in design. Also, in the modern Chinese tank fleet, the Type 96 is the 72 and the 98/99 the 80s if making a cold war era Russian comparison. Mazz fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Feb 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
So I'm driving down Lake Shore Drive a minute ago and I catch a plane in the corner of my eye real low over the lake. There's a god drat V-22 maybe 200 off the lake doing a lazy circle. I realize it's gotta be the president in town, and start hoping I'll catch his support helos on the ground like I have before in the McCormick/Soldier field parking lots. Ive seen the Sea Knights there before, pretty drat cool since the Drive is only like 100 yards away with a clear line of sight. When I come up from under the pass by Soldier, I see his VH birds taking off and then I see them: 2 more Ospreys on the ground at full blast, probably 70 yards from me. As I pass by the closer one lifts off and starts the forward transition. I'm incredibly pissed I couldn't get to the shoulder from where I was in equally distracted traffic to get some video, but drat was that some incredible timing. I saw a pair of vans on the shoulder so I'm really hoping someone got it on film, it is not a regular occurrence for them to leave that stretch of road open when they are tooled up like that. Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:That would be better than the bug apocryphally in the first iteration of the F-16 fly-by-wire (if it existed, the story is that it was caught in simulation). Allegedly, the earth was modeled as a hemisphere and on crossing the equator there would be a sign change to the latitude variable and all would be well. The way the math was coded, the plane would try to execute a snap half-outside-loop and continue on the inside of the hollow hemisphere. Dear god that's amazing. Now I can't get the picture of something like this happening to the test flight of a 737 though. Which brings me to a question, can you even right a large body aircraft when it does something that extreme? Will the airframe even allow it? Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:More seriously, as long as you keep 1g on the airframe so the fluids run the same way, and don't run out of airspeed or altitude, there's nothing inherently impossible about aerobatics with a large aircraft. Yeah I didn't see any big reason why not but I realized I've never actually seen/read about that and would get a more interesting answer here then google. Now I really want to see a red bull demonstration team in an old jetliner though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
priznat posted:There was a plan with the CF to replace the Leopards with MGSes because who needs tanks etc. But a combination of a change of govt and the war in Afghanistan changed those plans for the better.  There's some great armor stories around from the COIN roles they got put in, like a story about Abrams HEAT rounds more safe then the commander's .50 for room clearing, because .50 liked to travel through walls and still be lethal several rooms/structures away. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Aaaaand we come full circle. To be fair, that's supposedly just a larger RWS which means you don't cut into the troop compartment/capacity like the Bradley did, although I can't find too much about it or any internal pictures. Mazz fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
priznat posted:Probably shelved due to budget cuts anyway Yep, already happened in the 2015 budget IIRC.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:I think given the number of roles they're attempting to shoehorn the same design into it may end up like the JSF or any number of "universal" vehicle boondoggles. Otherwise, eh, it's a tank concept that won't see the light of day until at least 2020 and the list of features when it comes to "being a tank" are almost less ambitious than the Black Eagle. While I agree this is the most likely, the Russians do seem to have a bit better reign on not trying to fit a an entire radioshack into the vehicles like we have with the GCV. This could be changing though, given the failure of stuff like the BTR-90. I'm most curious about the Boomerang and Kurganets 25, more so then the tank portion of the project. The Kurganets is the platform that is basically their GCV, including all the MT-LB variants. Mazz fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
I thought I remember reading somewhere that the J-20 was looking to be more of a long range strike fighter, while the Shenyang J-31 looks more like the F-35 or F-22, in some ways almost comically so.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
In a book like Red Storm Rising, you can swap any sort of relationship development for more poo poo like an F-19A skipping CBUs off a runway right into a Il-76 carrying the entire DDR General Staff and I don't think anyone would consider it a bad trade off. A book like that doesn't need any more character development then to set the scene for the next explosion. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:44 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Kelly's Heroes is an amazing movie and stands as the absolute loving pinnacle of 60s/70s era WW2 action movies. Half the cast looks like they just walked out of a vietnam war protest, and you have a young Clint Eastwood organizing an off the books bank robbery that involves blowing the loving hinges off a bank vault with a Tiger Tank. It's cartoonish, hilariously ahistorical, and frankly could have re-written as taking place anywhere from Ancient Rome to Las Vegas with only minor script revisions. I was a second away from making a post about Kellys Heroes, but I was going to say it really wouldn't fit because they said bad movies and Kellys loving owns. It's one of the movies they play all day on Memorial Day and it's worth catching at least once a year. Even just for Don Rickles alone. Also, for the whole fake weapon stuff, at least they gave an above average effort to make stuff look legit. The German tanks in most movies that era are just repainted M47s and the like. The best part about the Tigers is they are actually T-34s under all the makeup. That's a bit of a mind gently caress when you realize it. There's a scene looking down onto them from the tower where you can totally see the T-34 road wheels and how far forward the turrets are. Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:09 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
One more thing I forgot to mention above was that when you realize the movie was filmed in Yugoslavia in 1970, a lot of the details seem to make more sense. For instance, why import a M1903 for the sniper scenes when you can probably buy a M91/30 for like $3. Also, apparently Yugoslavia still had a bunch of Shermans in good condition at that point, which is a main reason they chose to film there. Given that, you really gotta give it a hell of a lot more credit then movies like Patton or Battle of the Bulge. Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:32 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Related question, I remember something about Chinese S-300/400 and their indigenous versions being able to reach into Taiwanese airspace, even to the point of engaging aircraft well over the landmass. What's the real story here, say in terms of realistic/plausible engagements? Again, something I can probably google, but this thread is a more interesting read.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
 Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
They need to get Iron beam working already because lasers
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Is it some kind of sperg indicator that the first thing I was interested in hearing about what the type of missile they used to engage a 777 at 33,000? When they said Buk I basically yelled "I knew it!" to myself, and then got a little sad I cared so much. But yeah, this is going to be a pretty big deal, Buks shooting at passing airliners is a real good way to get the UN and NATO more interested in your little situation. They are definitely in the area according to AP photos.  VVVV Yeah, Malaysian really isn't having a good year. I know most US carriers and Lufthansa have avoided the region, as per the news on the way home. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
One other thing about guided rockets vs artillery, ATK produces a GPS nose kit for 155 rounds and the costs of the M982 are getting lower and lower. They already have GPS kits for mortars as well, and the Israelis have an IR seeker head for hunting vehicles I guess, but I know very little about it. We're getting to the point that everything can be guided either by design or strapping a kit onto (most of) the old warheads. Which is preferable from that point on just comes down to cost and logistics as already discussed. The APKWS is another good example of how they worked out an add on kit that makes use of the existing dumbfire stocks. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
quote =/= edit
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Sub launched cruise missiles hurrah! That image was on imgur and there were more then a couple 'MERICAs and also complaints about our defense budget and wasting missiles in the comments. That's a Brahmos. Mazz fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Zapdos posted:I'm guessing it is supposed to turn itself sideways? Yeah the little thrusts after it clears the water are normal, and awesome looking. The Tor (SA-15 I think?) does the same thing to get proper heading after a vertical launch. What I was getting at is that's an Indian/Russian missile though. Probably one of my favorite distinctions of Cold War ideas is the USSR emphasis on anti-ship missiles/platforms and the US on aircraft carriers. Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Capn Jobe posted:So the president was in the Bay Area this morning; apparently he was taking a chopper from San Francisco to Los Altos Hills. I was on my way to work in SF just after 9am, and caught a flight of V-22s heading north along the bay (by the ballpark). Yeah, they are a part of his helo detachment now, they used to use CH-46s I think (thats what I saw last time). They have that distinctive green and white paintjob of the president's helicopters. I made a post a while back about seeing them real close right off of Lake Shore Drive, as he lands in the Soldier Field parking lots very often when coming to the city (they also shut down the entire Kennedy before for the VPs motorcade, that seems like the more problematic option). V-22s get a lot of poo poo, but man are they cool to see and hear up close. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Has anyone ever hosed on top of the radar dome? Don't even need birth control
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Flikken posted:I think he's gone or changed names, I haven't seen his posts in a while. Has the air force received enough 35As for a missing man yet?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Flikken posted:He was a US Navy Civilian not USAF Thanks to the wonder of modern procurement that is the F-35 one only needs to change 2 designations for that to still be a
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
khamul posted:It's actually not a bad idea, just very inefficient. You would have to put up quite a few and maintain them indefinitely. It would be easier to use a modernized version, which could be kept in a box until a threat was detected at a certain range, then deployed with compressed gas. Even this method would require an inordinate amount of balloons to protect a target, though. We'll as far as I understood it barrage balloons were about the steel cable loving up whatever happened to catch it, mainly stuff like shearing a wing off a fixed wing aircraft. I feel like trying to use this technique to stop targets the size of a Tomahawk or JASSM you'll basically have to build a steel fence in the sky. Considering we have weapons available now to just straight intercept them it seems like a ton of effort.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
I know it's completely off the wall, but satellite technology has always seemed like one of the only real elements of that "no poo poo 40 years ahead of the curve" thing that dumb people like to say about the military and/or government. I mean the NRO gave NASA that pair of telescopes more powerful then the Hubble because they didn't know what to do with them anymore. Not validating the story by any means at all, or what technique could allow them that can actually track a moving submarine, but hey, why the gently caress not. Mazz fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 03:26
|
|