|
hailthefish posted:It would be much easier to nullify PGMs by being hard to find, than by somehow nullifying the GPS system. Or attracting them with elaborate maskirovka in the spirit of the inflatable tanks used before d-day to fool Hitler.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
That sort of thing is why I really prefer walking out the anchor on the windlass. It's slower but why run the risk of losing your ground tackle and getting your guys hurt or killed? The Navy really has a hardon for tradition, though. They love dropping from the hawse which is something a merchant ship would only do if they didn't have time to walk the anchor to the water's edge. We didn't see the let go so I'm wondering if they did it with the brake or if they still use that horribly dangerous pelican hook and guy with a sledgehammer method you see in the deck manuals.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
I come bearing .gifs  F-4s and F/A-18s go to the circus  Hot R-27 on F-4 action I've gotta go to bed now but I'll pull some more .gifs out of the Area 88 OVAs tomorrow. Polikarpov fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
"Northern Steel" is a pretty  name for a sub.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I think the idea of converting an Iowa into an LHD was a pipedream of someone, but it never got off the ground. It's funny to see a guy advocating for turning a commercial hull into a pocket amphib because its exactly what the navy ended up doing with the Mobile Landing Platforms.  quote:Unlike the first two Mobile Landing Platforms, MLP-3, MLP-4, and MLP-5 will serve as afloat forward staging bases (AFSB) vessels to support special forces missions, counter-piracy/smuggling operations, maritime security operations, and mine clearance, as well as humanitarian aid and disaster relief missions. Also forget those limp-wristed hybrid Iowa conversions, lets go full fleet carrier with this thing! 
Polikarpov fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Surprisingly, not one Gundam. On the other hand their Gepard clone is supposedly nicknamed the "Guntank"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:You can't occupy planets with orbiting ships, smartass. And what else are you gonna call soldiers carried around in ships? I mean besides seasick. Mobile Infantry, maybe? 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:They won't loving stop building M1's, preferring to park them in rows in the desert. I agree, give them something useful like an M1 chassis APC to build. Put a Bushy on top of it for good measure. You could probably build a pretty badass urban warfare turret for the M1 ala the Russian BMPT. Couple autocannons, a RWS with a .50 and Mk19, maybe a few recoil-less rifles on the side of the turret for fun poo poo like canister rounds.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:It seems pretty dangerous. If an F18 can see a chinese or russian ship, then it can see the F18. If so the F18 can be shot down pretty handily. Its just a cheap and cheerful way to give the TACTOM an anti-shipping capability using its existing hardware.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:A-10's look much better dirty. I agree, their natural camouflage is soot from burning third world armor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Everyone who likes sci-fi and tank defense systems needs to read David Drake's Hammers Slammers series of books if they haven't already. He was a tanker in Vietnam before writing the book series. Hammers Slammers is pretty rad, the tanks all have a terminal defense system that is basically a strip of space claymores laid around the hull- they can be automatically activated by the onboard computer to intercept AT weapons or manually triggered by the tank commander as a close in anti-infantry weapon.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
block51 posted:I'm at a loss for words... Aww, look at their little hats!  
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Yeah from what I've heard they were maintenance queens by the end of their service life here, let alone with no parts line or outside support. I'd love to see the either horrified or admiring look of engineers that worked on it as they check out how they stand today. I expect it'd be like that one episode of Black Sheep Squadron where they get inspected and the poor inspector can't decide whether to be horrified or impressed that there's a Japanese carburetor in one of the Corsairs. raverrn posted:I'm pretty sure Fishbed is the NATO name. According to Wiki the Russian pilots nicknamed it the "Balalaika" and the Poles called it the "Pencil". Polikarpov fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Makes sense to me, all Comrade-Seaman Shmuckovich has to do is turn around and look at the bulkhead when he's standing lookout. If you don't issue him a fiddly recognition book he can't drop said book overboard.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
http://youtubedoubler.com/g6sH
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
I don't know about you but a vertical zoom-climb on a pillar of chemical fire is exactly how I wanna travel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A shameful article, written by a bad person. Dude doesn't seem to grasp that ramp space was/is one of the major limiting factors on air operations, or the costs associated with standing up a new combat aircraft, or the importance of all weather capability in a country like Afghanistan. My favorite comment is the one calling for a railgun A-10 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:It was the worst loving thing ever Where's that gif from the wargame thread that had about a dozen dragons drunkenly weaving and missing a truck?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I know I know comments on open-source Yahoo articles are always stupid and ridiculous but the comments on that page are particularly hilarious clearly the answer is to unmothball all the battleships and arm them with cruise missiles and railguns There's still a few hardcore reactivationists out there, though they've become rarer since the USNFSA closed its doors.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:How does that work against wire guided missiles though? Surely the operator just has to keep aiming at the cloud of smoke? (While the barrel of the main gun swings towards him!) TOW knows where the missile is
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
The US is supposed to be working on a MALD variant that can autonomously search for and attack TELs and mobile radars with a big enough warhead to reasonably damage them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Especially latewar, there was actually a huge push to get as many director driven 40mm mounts as possible as well because they were the most effective mounts, especially against kamikazes. There was a really big scramble to get them on as many of the pickets off Okinawa and to get escorting destroyers with more modern AA suites as well. The 5" was a very effective gun in its role, but a lot of the value of heavy AA pieces like that was that they could shoot at bombers that weren't already pushed over in a dive, and making preparing for an attack a deeply unpleasant and hurried occasion has a great effect on the ability of enemies to attack effectively. You're thinking of the 3"/50 semiautomatic guns. Each one was radar directed, had proximity shells and could spit 50 rounds per barrel per minute.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What sort of surface strike capability do American carrier groups even have these days? I have heard a lot about the superbug having short range, and it seems like we're not buying harpoons anymore? I know there aren't six Japanese carriers running around out there that we need to sink, but are carrier groups only for bombing deserts these days? LRASM went into limited rate production in February 2014.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:It depends on a whole lot of factors. The best radar in the world isn't going to see something skimming the surface until it's within the radar horizon, which is not all that far for a ship. Having an airborne radar platform helps extend that radar horizon, but that's really beyond the scope of this discussion. Another cool thing about both the LRASM and the Kongsberg NSM is that their terminal seeker isn't a radar that will light up the target's RWR but rather a completely passive infrared seeker with image recognition and aimpoint selection. LRASM also does some freaky skynet poo poo where it networks with other missiles to find targets and can maneuver to avoid air defense zones or something. It looked very cool in the Lockmart animation, anyway. Edit: Oh yeah, JSOW-C also has anti shipping capabilities though its more of a fancy glide bomb than an ASM.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
HVP is a really neat round - by changing the sabot you can fire it out of a railgun or any of the 5" guns in inventory. The Navy wants to put a datalink into it so it can be actively guided against air targets by an AEGIS combat system.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Reminds me of that episode of Black Sheep Squadron where they get inspected and the guy wants to know why one of the Corsairs has a Japanese carburetor in it.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Hitting the tank farms and fleet oilers at Pearl would have done more damage to the USN's ability to fight than sinking every obsolete battleship in the harbor that day. The Pearl Harbor attack was launched to cripple the US pacific fleet while the Japanese southern operation secured supplies of oil, and they never stopped to think how a shortage of oil storage and transport could equally cripple the USN. This is gay black hirohito territory, but sink Neosho and Coral Sea can't happen for lack of UNREP, don't damage Shokaku and deplete the 5th Carrier Divisions air groups at Coral Sea and the balance of power at Midway starts to look real bad, if it even happens. Japan still gets buried under a pile of Essexes but it would probably take a while longer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Theoretically if you put a 155mm barrel on an M1 it could fire the datalink guided HVP (Hypervelocity Projectile) that the Navy is developing for their railguns.  
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Make it a nuclear shaped charge pointed downwards, eject the planetary core straight out the other side Make sure it hits the moon so you can get a clean sweep.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:And presumably also have the radios that can receive Guard frequencies mounted. There's a section on it in Norman Friedman's Modern Warship: Design and Development. They took an old Spruance hull and mounted simulated Arleigh Burke superstructure and systems on it, then towed it a few hundred yards offshore from a massive geodesic dome of C4 that they detonated to simulate an atomic blastwave.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Because Diego Garcia had a bunch of them stored there on ships. Fun fact: the Roy M. Wheat was built in the Ukraine just prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union. MSC bought her and converted her in the 90s. Her engines are an extremely obscure model of Soviet gas-turbine and the US Navy owns all the remaining examples left in the world. I did a breakout on her once and the engineers used to joke that they had to keep a bust of Lenin in the engine control station or nothing would work right.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
I've seen warships do some really dumb poo poo at sea - they're notorious for assuming merchant ships will get out of their way or forgetting that they're there. I had a British DDG suddenly cut across my bow once in the Mediterranean - collision in 12 minutes and their excuse when I called them on 16 asking intentions was that they needed to recover a helicopter. Ok, fair enough, but don't cut across a charted safety corridor and get in a constant bearing decreasing range situation with a 500 foot container ship loaded to the gunnels with ammunition and high explosives when you do it. That's a midsize container ship, rudder shift time is probably 30+ seconds and time to dead in the water from full ahead is going to be 10+ minutes. Tactical diameter for a turn in excess of a half mile. They don't stop on a dime.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
priznat posted:https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/875844601344655364 Wow it looks like the flukes of the port anchor sheared away? My gut is saying that they hit with the container ship in the middle of a turn to the right, since most of the damage is concentrated on the port bow. You can see where the bulwarks are bowed inboard- that's where the superstructure of the Fitzgerald struck them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
18.5 knots at the time of collision. Multiply by 40k tons of dead-weight and you get an idea of the kind of forces involved, even with a glancing blow. It was a glancing blow because if the Crystal had hit the Fitzgerald head on it would have either cut the DDG in half or be wearing it as a hat. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Its pretty clear that the Izumo has been designed to augment US CVBGs. A dedicated platform that you can push all your rotary-wing operations too and coordinate ASW and SAR ops from is pretty useful and lets the CVN focus on fixed wing stuff. Same way the USN used light carriers in WW2, let them deal with keeping your CAP and ASW patrol up so the big decks can focus on putting together strike packages.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
I've read at least one overview of Red Army tactics that mentions the use of tactical nuclear weapons to support attacks as small as a single Motor Rifle Battalion so I think they'd be flying fast and heavy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
Its really more of a report on the collision damage and post-collision DC effort, but still interesting reading.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Please keep your anime airplanes to an acceptable level of anime         And here's some Walt Disney as a palate cleanser  
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
I just re-read Red Army for the 342nd time and cry myself to sleep.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:The whole "jam optics" part of Shtora is like, the optics of what's lasing it right? Not the seeker of the munition. Come to think of it, would Shtora trigger off the rangefinder in a NATO tank? Automatic slewing to threat vector would be pretty useful in that case, and the dazzlers are probably pretty  through thermal sights at night.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 20:18
|
|
