|
Forums Terrorist posted:Oh my god is that a carrier-battleship  Of course, in this case, they weren't for attack (because it's stupid to put your aircraft carrier within gun range), but as artillery-spotting aircraft. Catapult launch, and sea landing return; the ship would turn across the wind to create a calm landing area, and then crane them back onboard. After WWII, they were converted to carry helicopters instead.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:There are plenty of laser-guided bombs and missiles that are fully capable of attacking moving targets, even rapidly-moving, maneuvering targets. Phanatic posted:The laser's putting a certain amount of power onto the target. If you put crud like dust or fog in the path of the beam, the laser will put a smaller amount of power onto the target. If full power at a given range enough to kill the target in, say, 1 second, then 20% power is probably enough to kill the target in about 5 seconds, or if you close to a closer range you can still kill the target in 1 second. First, are there examples of a maneuvering fighter being successfully painted with a laser? Second, isn't it much harder to use a laser as a weapon (instead of a designator) since you have to hit a consistent spot on the target? Even a second is enough time for the target plane to roll and spread the beam across its surface. Also, I can't find any news about the F-35 laser from the last 5 years. Is there a real reason to believe it's not vaporware? Is HELLADS the candidate system? Have they even gotten that thing up to full power yet? hepatizon fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
I also did the math; firing the laser would reduce the thrust/weight at loaded weight from 0.86 to 0.82. Not that big, except the F-35 has the kinematic performance of a sack of potatoes strapped to bottle rockets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:First, are there examples of a maneuvering fighter being successfully painted with a laser? Starstreak. Laser-guided hit-to-kill MANPAD. quote:Second, isn't it much harder to use a laser as a weapon (instead of a designator) since you have to hit a consistent spot on the target? Even a second is enough time for the target plane to roll and spread the beam across its surface. Works for a CW laser, not for a pulsed laser. Pulsed laser, all the energy in the pulse is arriving in an instant. You can't do a ballet pirouette in front of a rifle and expect your spin to protect you from the bullets. quote:Also, I can't find any news about the F-35 laser from the last 5 years. Is there a real reason to believe it's not vaporware? There's a Class 5 bullshit-hurricane surrounding the F35 program so I'm gonna go with "no."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Alaan posted:We should really be thankful that the Axis powers tried so hard to help defeat themselves when it came towards ludicrous military equipment that drained resources from other way more reasonable projects. I thought we were done talking about the F-35? Phanatic posted:Starstreak. Laser-guided hit-to-kill MANPAD. This reminds me, what prevents a similar, high terminal velocity rocket from being used as a kinetic-kill ATGM?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Alaan posted:We should really be thankful that the Axis powers tried so hard to help defeat themselves when it came towards ludicrous military equipment that drained resources from other way more reasonable projects. The Japanese had a long standing interest in mixing aircraft with naval vessels, initially as a way of getting the most bang for the buck under naval treaties. They also had many submarines that could launch and recover their own aircraft - early in a sub launched airplane became the only axis aircraft in WW2 to bomb North America. Late in 1942 the I-25 launched a floatplane which bombed the forests of Oregon in an attempt to start a forest fire. Cold War note: At the end of WW2, Japanese submarine and torpedo technology was coveted by the Allies. While the more conventional stuff was begrudgingly shared with the Soviets, the I-400 series of strategic submarines was definitely not conventional. After assessing the I-400's capabilities, the I-400 and I-401 were scuttled to keep their design secret. It's really too bad, since they were revolutionary boats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:
Nothing. Starstreak has been tested in anti-surface mode and could probably take out a lightly-armored vehicle, but doesn't have the penetration to kill a tank, at least not from the front. But HEAT is a really good way to penetrate armor, HEAT penetration scales as some multiple of the warhead diameter. Inert penetrator, it's going to scale with KE, which scales with the square of the velocity or linearly with mass. So to increase penetration with a metal dart, more of your rocket fuel needs to go into giving it more KE, or to just delivering a larger warhead at a lower velocity. Tanks want to carry around APFSDS rounds because they need to kill other tanks that are protected by armor that's very effective against HEAT, but it's totally impractical to put enough of that armor to make a difference on things that aren't tanks. So if you're designing a rocket that you want to be able to blow up anything you shoot it at, which might be a tank but almost might be a bunker or an IFV, HEAT's a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:I thought we were done talking about the F-35? It's been done! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-166_LOSAT
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Starstreak. Laser-guided hit-to-kill MANPAD. Good example. Phanatic posted:Works for a CW laser, not for a pulsed laser. Pulsed laser, all the energy in the pulse is arriving in an instant. You can't do a ballet pirouette in front of a rifle and expect your spin to protect you from the bullets. Are there any pulsed lasers that have enough power to shoot down a projectile or plane? That sounds like it'd be decades away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
We had this discussion before, there's also ADATS which is a laser guided missile that can be both anti air and anti armour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System There's also a Swedish system too. Having said that I thought most of these MANPADS aren't really that effective against fighter fighters and are only useful for helicopters and low flying, slow moving stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:We had this discussion before, there's also ADATS which is a laser guided missile that can be both anti air and anti armour. I'd really love to see exactly what the ADATS warhead is like. Anti-Aircraft warheads are generally some variation on an annular fragmentation warhead, to maximize the area impacted by high-velocity shrapnel, which is bad for airplanes, whereas an antitank weapon uses a glorified shaped-charge to direct a LOT of energy into one spot, to punch through armor. AT weapons would of course be devastating to aircraft, but I would imagine their PK would be kinda terrible, unless the guidance was spot-on, every time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I'd really love to see exactly what the ADATS warhead is like. Anti-Aircraft warheads are generally some variation on an annular fragmentation warhead, to maximize the area impacted by high-velocity shrapnel, which is bad for airplanes, whereas an antitank weapon uses a glorified shaped-charge to direct a LOT of energy into one spot, to punch through armor. I always assumed the dual-use systems were for things like Hind helicopters that are more heavily armoured than fighters but a lot easier to hit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
The real use of military lasers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTx_qTwQqjU POWER. OF. DECISION. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2v0YuDatpc
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:We had this discussion before, there's also ADATS which is a laser guided missile that can be both anti air and anti armour. Ah, the perfect system with which to engage low-flying M113s. It even says so right on the tin. MrYenko posted:I'd really love to see exactly what the ADATS warhead is like. Anti-Aircraft warheads are generally some variation on an annular fragmentation warhead, to maximize the area impacted by high-velocity shrapnel, which is bad for airplanes, whereas an antitank weapon uses a glorified shaped-charge to direct a LOT of energy into one spot, to punch through armor. As far as I know, there's nothing keeping you from wrapping an expanding-rod type fragmentation jacket around an explosive that also happens to have a conical shape to it and a metal liner on the inside of the cone. It would be sub-optimal and have lots of wasted weight for whatever it isn't being used on right then. So does a Swiss Army knife.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Vindolanda posted:I always assumed the dual-use systems were for things like Hind helicopters that are more heavily armoured than fighters but a lot easier to hit. Plain old stingers did just fine knocking Hind's down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Starstreak. Laser-guided hit-to-kill MANPAD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:There's also a Swedish system too. Having said that I thought most of these MANPADS aren't really that effective against fighter fighters and are only useful for helicopters and low flying, slow moving stuff. In the technical sense, modern MANPADS are effective against fighters which are within the engagement envelope of MANPADS even when the fighters are employing countermeasures. In the practical sense, it can be really hard to effectively employ even modern MANPADS against high performance aircraft, because their engagement envelope is so small that engaging aircraft moving at typical jet attack run speeds of Mach .7-.9 requires the crew to be very quick in acquiring and firing in order to avoid the attacker masking or simply outrunning the interceptor. This is why so many modern MANPADS are deployed in conjunction with radars or tactical data links. It allows the gunners to be cued to to a threat so they can be sitting with the launcher up and running just waiting for the aircraft to enter view/range. Alternately, planes can just fly high. MANPADS can't reach all that high up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The real use of military lasers HAHAHAHA oh god everyone needs to watch this. It's loving hilarious, especially in the last half.  LAUNCH OPERATION QUICK STRIKE!**48 hours later**  Sir, for the last 36 hours all nuclear detonations have been inside the Soviet Union. Of 100 airfields 96 are destroyed and 4 are heavily damaged. We have lost only 6 aircraft, and we believe those to be operational, not combat losses. We have received a dozen independent requests for cease fire. Supreme Headquarters Europe reports soviet troops in disarray and retreating. They have no choice. We have the Air. We have the Power. And they KNOW IT.God the whole thing is just an hour of early 60s SAC circle-jerk material. Lemay and Power must have beat themselves raw until their eyes popped out of their skulls when they saw that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Earlier today I saw a twin boom aircraft flying out near the airport, and I couldn't figure out what it was. Looked kinda like a C-119 Flying Boxcar, but that doesn't really make sense. Of course, it's hard to judge scale when you see something flying overhead. We've got a Coast Guard training facility there, but it didn't match anything that I normally see flying out of there. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/atcmobil/Tradiv/tradiv.asp Any ideas what I might have seen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
It does state 60 million American dead/wounded and very little of the bomber force survives. Always surreal to see B-52s as the primary weapon system surrounded by liquid-fuel ICBMs, Snarks, slide rules and the new-hotness B-58. Also even post-apocalypse the Air Force is still drowning endless man hours with PowerPoint
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:Ah, the perfect system with which to engage low-flying M113s. It even says so right on the tin. M830A1 HEAT-MP-T has been around for quite a while. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m830a1.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 02:23
|
|
I just read the wiki talk page on the M113 "Gavin". Why is this guy so loving obsessed with giving the M113 the name Gavin?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
To add, why is he so obsessed with the M113?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 02:32
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Guys, guys, I got the solution to all our S/VTOL woes right here This was amazing
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Why is this guy so loving obsessed with giving the M113 the name Gavin? Isn't he also the dude who's convinced every soldier should have a Tapco'd SKS as a backup weapon for when the 5.56 runs out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
I looked and he's actually changed from the SKS to something dumber.quote:An American M113 Gavin light infantry company is spread out on high ground on the reverse slope awaiting a CHICOM human wave attack. The M113 obsession is because he thinks it is as seaworthy as an AAV, can somehow operate in mountainous terrain and be airdropped into combat from a C-130 while being more protected and well armed than a Bradley. Also it can operate behind enemy lines for extended periods somehow. He wants to name it after General Gavin because he thinks it was designed to be airdropped.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I'd really love to see exactly what the ADATS warhead is like. Anti-Aircraft warheads are generally some variation on an annular fragmentation warhead, to maximize the area impacted by high-velocity shrapnel, which is bad for airplanes, whereas an antitank weapon uses a glorified shaped-charge to direct a LOT of energy into one spot, to punch through armor. quote:The combined fragmentation and shaped charge warhead weighs 12kg and has demonstrated penetration of over 900mm of Rolled Homogeneous Armour (RHA) Sounds like a larger version of the HEDP round in the M203. If you have a shaped charge going off anyway, it's not too hard to pack fragmentation and a bit more explosive onto it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
razorscooter posted:I looked and he's actually changed from the SKS to something dumber. Is he... assuming that AKM magazines fit in a stock M16 lower? Or is his fantasy 'A5' based on the SR-47?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
he does know that Stanags are capable of being fed with stripper clips right? RIGHT? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Everything that guy thinks up is a fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Flikken posted:he does know that Stanags are capable of being fed with stripper clips right? RIGHT? He wants the UPPER to be able to accept stripper clips, which is apparently somehow faster than swapping a mag, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
Arrath posted:He wants the UPPER to be able to accept stripper clips, which is apparently somehow faster than swapping a mag, I guess? It's faster than breaking down all the ammo crates of 7.62x39, already in stripper clips, that you'll be taking from the supply trucks of your slain enemies  edit: If he wanted his fanfic to be more accurate, after the troops reported Green for liquids in their LACE report, they would have been yelled at for not hydrating enough and the 1SG would have started making them drink water. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Arrath posted:He wants the UPPER to be able to accept stripper clips, which is apparently somehow faster than swapping a mag, I guess? So he wants the upper to be like the VZ-58 but then have the magazine stay still or what? Here's the Vz-58  Also, just to make myself clear about some posts in here: I don't really think that the Skyraider should be brought back, I'm just mocking what the Navy does for the most part and thinking that they don't need a $1 trillion turkey to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
 I could look at his site all day, it's fantastic. A while back, I read some article about a proposal to make an armed variant of the AW609 tiltrotor to escort Ospreys since helicopters and jets aren't really suited for it. Could anyone explain some of the bigger issues with converting an unarmed aircraft for this kind of role? I can understand issues with fragility, and maybe a lack of space and carrying capacity, but I feel like I'm missing a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
e: ^ Do I even want to know what that image is supposed to be of? I'll settle for a link to whatever fever-dream post spawned it.Oxford Comma posted:Guys, guy. We're getting caught up in the viability of Marine aviation. What we should be looking at is the viability of the Marines themselves. I say their time has come and gone, and the US Marines should become the 1st Amphibious Corps of the US Army. But without marines, how will you put down mutinies?  Speaking of Cold War mutinies, I just ran across the tale of the SS Columbia Eagle. Wherein, a couple of the crew of a U.S. merchant ship carrying napalm to Vietnam decided to wield arms and put the captain et c. in a lifeboat and sail to Cambodia. Their plan was to declare themselves anti-war refugees and receive a hero's welcome from the communist-leaning government. The coup that toppled Prince Sihanouk and installed Lon Nol was, from their perspective, ill-timed. Frozen Horse fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
razorscooter posted:
Escort Ospreys against what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:First, are there examples of a maneuvering fighter being successfully painted with a laser? Second, isn't it much harder to use a laser as a weapon (instead of a designator) since you have to hit a consistent spot on the target? Even a second is enough time for the target plane to roll and spread the beam across its surface. Ok, so I went to high school near White Sands Missile range, and there were some big lasers out there. We got to visit HELSTF and their MIRACL laser around 1993 or so. In front of the building, they had a cubic meter of concrete that they boiled to a depth of about 2" or so with a few pulses. Boiled. Concrete. At 20 miles, so they said. They showed us the tracker, sitting in a 5" mount. They said they were only a couple years away from fitting the whole laser system in the 5" mount, held up only by exhaust venting required because the laser burns some nasty stuff, and emits hydrofluoric acid and heavy water in its exhaust stream. Water vapor was a problem, but not so much as you'd think. A megawatt laser will get a small column of air very very hot, very very fast, and there's no more vapor. Higher power lasers have an audible report, kind of like tasers, as they make thin cylinders of air incredibly hot, incredibly rapidly. So all of this was very badass, and one of my classmates did his science fair project on it. What works better? Mirrors? Flat black? Given our very basic high-school physics of the time, we concluded mirrors would be the worst option, and flat-black paint the best. Mirrors reflect, and require twice as much energy to bounce the beam, flat paint would absorb. Well, he won regionals, and got the attention of the missile range. They did some tests, using his hypothesis, along with those of some of the rocket scientists there. Turns out a full-mirrored target died the quickest, followed by flat black, then one painted in IR-absorbing paint tuned to the wavelength of the laser, then any combination of these when spinning the target. This data, and the awesome videos he got from WSMR got him to Nationals, where I hear he did pretty well. Their targets were 8" sounding rockets, and all were successfully tracked and lased for periods up to fifteen seconds. These rockets are suborbital, and move at very high speeds, and the laser had no problem with them. Think of it this way: if you can get a camera to follow it, you can shoot it with a laser. We had camera systems that would reliably track the highest-performing aircraft at nearly any range in the fifties, using vacuum tubes and mechanical computers. quote:Is HELLADS the candidate system? Have they even gotten that thing up to full power yet? The follow-on to the MIRACL was the MIRACL on a truck (well, several trucks), also known as the MTHEL. It worked like a charm, from the videos I saw. They then made a smaller one, the HELLADS, which the White Sands people says works great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Escort Ospreys against what? Nazi remnant state Bf109s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Escort Ospreys against what? MV-22 would be an interesting platform for an AC-130 style gunship that I'm sure the marines would love. grover fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Vindolanda posted:Nazi remnant state Bf109s. I was going to say A6Ms, but ya, otherwise accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 12:06
|
|