|
Arglebargle III posted:Metal shavings in the lubricant oil were you not paying attention? Do they share an oil supply? That seems like a bad idea for exactly this reason. Your system is not very redundant if there's still a single-point of failure for everything.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
My guess is the system shut itself down automatically after detecting the shavings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If one engine breaks in such a way that one your sailors is injured and you have no idea why seems prudent to shut it all down and take a tow. I don't see anything about an injury, but I did catch this on the re-read: quote:Engineers cleaned out the metal filings from the lube oil filter and locked the port shaft as a precaution. In the early hours of Friday morning, the ship was conducting steering tests and lost lube oil pressure in the starboard combining gear due to the presence of the same metal filings in that filter. I'm not sure which is scarier, the idea of multiple systems grinding themselves away independently into their isolated oil supplies, or the idea of a single lube oil reservoir and filter for more than one system. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
at least there were no sailors fused halfway through a bulkhead when they got back, I guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Oh "engineering casualty" means "shits broken" on ships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Shakedown cruise has a couple of different meanings here.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
People who know about Swedish/Russian defense things, is this legit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Googling Sweden Mi28 brings up a few hits that report on the tests. I'd link but phone is being poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
That Works posted:Shakedown cruise has a couple of different meanings here. It IS a Lockheed-Martin product, after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been a lot better to design CATOBAR fleet carriers for the United states, and then let allies buy them. And maybe build some for the Marines too I guess if we're not just facing reality and saying "No, aircraft carriers are a NAVY thing." Or retrofit the Forrestals with more modern engines and electronics and sell those instead of sink them. The asbestos removal would be loving atrocious, though. Also, I'm pretty sure the stupidity surrounding an AEW Osprey is the fact that it's simpler to get an E-3 or P-8 on station given enough notice, and E-2s are pressurized so they can actually climb about twice as high as an Osprey could fly. And for our E-3 guys in the thread...wouldn't the massive rotors create two rather large blind spots? If an LHA wanted better radar coverage, that's actually something the F-35B could do. Just send them up with a minimal AAW loadout and sweep the skies with data-linked AESAs. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:If an LHA wanted better radar coverage, that's actually something the F-35B could do. Just send them up with a minimal AAW loadout and sweep the skies with data-linked AESAs. There's a joke here about the F-35's max-effort AAW loading being a minimal AAW loading, but I'm tired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npZGnStL6F0
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
I guess Lockheed's message is quantity = quality. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Also, I'm pretty sure the stupidity surrounding an AEW Osprey is the fact that it's simpler to get an E-3 or P-8 on station given enough notice, and E-2s are pressurized so they can actually climb about twice as high as an Osprey could fly. And for our E-3 guys in the thread...wouldn't the massive rotors create two rather large blind spots? It would definitely be a problem (but the Hawkeye deals with it reasonably well), and so would the lack of radar range due to lower altitude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:For what we're spending and would/will spend on F-35Bs, AEW/KV-22s, LHA's without well decks, etc, how many Fords could we buy and operate? My guess is that the number is greater than one. The Fords have their own problems though (mainly the cats being stupendously unreliable if I remember right)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The Fords have their own problems though (mainly the cats being stupendously unreliable if I remember right) I would honestly not be surprised in the least if the Ford doesn't become the world's first (and largest) drone carrier. It should be early enough for the Kennedy and *definitely* early enough with the Enterprise to figure this poo poo out or retrofit the old systems onto the new boat - which will only serve to inflate the current cost-per-boat of ~13b. MrYenko posted:For what we're spending and would/will spend on F-35Bs, AEW/KV-22s, LHA's without well decks, etc, how many Fords could we buy and operate? My guess is that the number is greater than one. So there's your figure. 13 billion (~12.8b if you want to be a stickler) per Ford-class. They were originally supposed to cost 8-9b, and the justification for not simply building more Nimitz-class (price tag of ~4.5b) is that the Fords were meant to be 'cheaper to operate over the lifetime of the ship.' Of course, that 4.5b and 12.8b figure is just for the ship itself. Crewing and equipping it, tack on another ~15-20b - then realize it costs about 25m/week to deploy and supply a Carrier Strike Group. Also, for the life of me, whenever I look at the ESSM mounts on carriers, I can't help but think: "Why hasn't someone suggested replacing those boxy pieces of poo poo with a VLS, of which four ESSMs can be crammed into each cell?" If you put an eight-cell in its place, that's 32 missiles instead of eight. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:People who know about Swedish/Russian defense things, is this legit? I looked into it, and checks out. Two week trials/30 missions in '95, AH-64A vs. Mi-28A. There's a summary evidently written by a non-swede quoted at http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=38209 . There's also some scattered references in swedish across the web but I haven't found the actual report
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:People who know about Swedish/Russian defense things, is this legit? It is a thing that happened but I can't speak for how legit the results as reported in the press are. But you know, since Russian secrets aren't secret here (see: the T-72 and T-80U terrain reports getting declassified) there's a chance I can get those test reports declassified - at least the ones for the Mi-28. Certainly worth a try, at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
TheFluff is SomethingAwfuls most efficient library spy. It's interesting to imagine some weird and not so plausible alternative history were Sweden ends up operating the T-80U and the Mi-28 (along with those BMPs we actually got).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Also, for the life of me, whenever I look at the ESSM mounts on carriers, I can't help but think: "Why hasn't someone suggested replacing those boxy pieces of poo poo with a VLS, of which four ESSMs can be crammed into each cell?" If you put an eight-cell in its place, that's 32 missiles instead of eight. Where are you going to put a VLS on a carrier? Supporting them and dealing with the stress concentrations properly is non-trivial in a way that severely constrains their placement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Where are you going to put a VLS on a carrier? Supporting them and dealing with the stress concentrations properly is non-trivial in a way that severely constrains their placement. You put them here:  Also, over there:  (The photo above shows E, you can see there's another set at A.) Alternatively, you can put them there (look next to the copter): 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Do they share an oil supply? That seems like a bad idea for exactly this reason. Your system is not very redundant if there's still a single-point of failure for everything. It's a design defect that can literally brick the engine. Do you want to be the guy who said, "Eh, just run the other ones, they're probably fine and not also suffering the same design defect." You wanna be the reason they're replacing every engine on that ship?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The Fords have their own problems though (mainly the cats being stupendously unreliable if I remember right) IIRC EMALS has been doing fine for a year or two now. e: and by "fine" I mean "hasn't blown up and had the resulting deaths blamed on the gays" Cabbage Disrespect fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Aren't they not consistently running it at full combat loads yet though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:IIRC EMALS has been doing fine for a year or two now. Last I heard, it couldn't launch fighters with drop tanks or full bomb loads because the impulse was too high and it would break things. Supposedly there was going to be a software fix but did that happen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Last I heard, it couldn't launch fighters with drop tanks or full bomb loads because the impulse was too high and it would break things. Supposedly there was going to be a software fix but did that happen? Google reveals http://defensetech.org/2015/03/30/navy-fixes-carrier-catapult-to-launch-jets-with-external-fuel-tanks/ tl;dr: it can launch them (according to the first paragraph, I guess?), but they're tweaking the control software so that the airframe doesn't have its operational life shortened
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:they're tweaking the control software so that the airframe doesn't have its operational life shortened EMALS testing (UNCLASS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2GoL25gCsw&t=32s Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:EMALS testing (UNCLASS): STOVL aircraft don't need functioning catapults. hmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:TheFluff is SomethingAwfuls most efficient library spy. I dig how the presented stuff is in a "Hey, these two choppers were both pretty sweet!" too rather than "This helicopter poo poo ON THIS ONE SO HARDDDDDDD"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Or retrofit the Forrestals with more modern engines and electronics and sell those instead of sink them. The asbestos removal would be loving atrocious, though. Yeah, in this hypothetical world where people like this fleet carrier idea, I don't think there is a duck pond in New Jersey big enough to accept all that asbestos. A clean sheet design would be a lot less messy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
When I think about how much a government drone costs then I see the power to weight ratio of this thing it makes me wonder what kind of payload it could carry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akoJ2zBwX1o
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:When I think about how much a government drone costs then I see the power to weight ratio of this thing it makes me wonder what kind of payload it could carry. That's pretty small for drones that carry any kind of payload more than a camera. For reference: Predator:  Global Hawk:  Unless you're talking the forward deployed things like this:  I just don't really see what it would be all that useful for that isn't already covered by something like the Shadow.  Its endurance probably sucks too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:When I think about how much a government drone costs then I see the power to weight ratio of this thing it makes me wonder what kind of payload it could carry. Guys, I'm (a little) concerned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:That's pretty small for drones that carry any kind of payload more than a camera. That's actually a Reaper, which is a fair bit larger than a Pred Point still stands though
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:That's actually a Reaper, which is a fair bit larger than a Pred I always mix them up, Predator tail goes down Reaper goes up right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I always mix them up, Predator tail goes down Reaper goes up right? Yup, also Reaper has a three blade prop powered by a legitimate turboprop engine while Pred has a two blade spinner powered by a Rotax snowmobile engine, also also Reaper is A-10-ish sized while Pred is closer to a C-172
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Where are you going to put a VLS on a carrier? Supporting them and dealing with the stress concentrations properly is non-trivial in a way that severely constrains their placement.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:Right in the middle of the flight deck. Where else? Okay, my  and  examples are way more sane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/u-s-army-refresh-some-old-skills-for-defense-of-europe-574633539695 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges sounds so happy to be back in a forest rather than some goddamn desert again
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
Plinkey posted:
Pictures rarely do the Global Hawk's size enough justice.  Also, it looks amazing in NASA livery, but what doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 18:48
|
|
