|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Yes, but they're the same ones used in the Space Shuttles, which are the only remaining sources of those jacks left on the planet.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i've been here too long, i can't tell if this is a joke or not I feel better that you spoke up first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:Tank Square. 40 tanks moving so close the tread guards touch, guns pointed every which way. Rear files of tanks are driving backwards, panning their turrets around frantically. Combat is closing to point blank and attempting to parry the other tank's guns by swiping them with yours. The side with the stronger rack-and-pinion linkages emerges victorious Has anyone tried to mount bayonets on tank guns? I think there's potential here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
NFX posted:Has anyone tried to mount bayonets on tank guns? I assume this question is rhetorical
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i've been here too long, i can't tell if this is a joke or not It's a joke, but the F-22 really is unbuildable now for lack of parts and manufacturers. Modern mil tech is such a weird landscape nowadays, I wish there air superiority fighter-making guilds with bespoke airframes instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 07:53
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How much has technology advanced in your mind for this to be feasible? I was thinking about basically modern technology, with the exception that we somehow have Expanse-esque drives that allow us to accelerate for a long-rear end time, which is basically the prerequisite for doing Space poo poo that isn't just kind of gently pushing your way from one orbit to another and waiting for months or years. With near-modern propulsion technology space combat becomes even more just a game of orbits and waiting for months and years. Like, if you pointed modern-day NASA at something the size of an F-16 in a erratic orbit near Jupiter constantly doing high-G burns to gently caress with it's own orbit, they could probably track it forever if they dedicated the resources to do it. Once you know where a thing in space is and it's trajectory, it's going to follow a predictable trajectory so you basically just need to check in on it every now and again to update it's trajectory to compensate for any accelerating it's been doing. Even if a thing could do 100g acceleration, that'd just mean that you had to check a relatively tiny envelope of space for where it could possibly be. Put a image processing supercomputer into something like the Hubble space telescope and it could scan that envelope relatively quickly. And if you keep your militarized Hubble pointing at the thing constantly, you don't even need to scan to find it again, because you never stopped looking at it. Geisladisk fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Sep 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
Tracking something that’s firing an engine inside the solar system is easy. Imaging something that’s just moving through space, far from any star, is not. The Expanse gets this hilariously wrong on the first page of the first novel. Iit is said that “a good scope” can see the drive inventor’s cold, dead yacht, which has been cruising at 5% of c for over a century. Even if it the yacht were the size of an ocean liner and we had a telescope with an aperture the size of the Moon, we’d be lucky to catch a single photon from it in a year, unless it drifted near Proxima Centauri. With today’s technology, we can only barely tell that there’s a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, and only because it’s massive enough to perceptibly perturb Proxima itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 10:08
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not saying that you could keep eyes on something cruising through interstellar space easily. But in the context of the solar system, especially the inner solarsystem, even with modern technology you can't really hide poo poo. We've meticulously cataloged thousands of asteroids down to a couple of meters across. And even across interstellar distances, assuming that any drive technology gives off a large amount of radiation (visible light or otherwise), you wouldn't have to constantly observe a ship to know exactly where it is - It's enough to observe it as it maneuvers, and note it's trajectory. When it's not maneuvering, it's just a rock falling at a predictable and constant rate. If I observe your ship making a trans-solar acceleration to go from system A to system B, I will know exactly where it is until it maneuvers again. Anyway, this is obviously all super hypothetical and everyone that isn't me probably has had enough of this derail, and if a future propulsion method won't give off any appreciable amounts of radiation, this all goes out the window.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 10:29
|
|
|
I haven't read the book but I assumed it was visible because of it's drive plume
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 11:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EmbassyofRussia/status/1173876109034819585
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 11:56
|
|
|
Why would they even post this, who are they trying to convince (who doesn't already side with them unconditionally)? It's in English, so it's not just for internal consumption.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 12:01
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:I was thinking about basically modern technology, with the exception that we somehow have Expanse-esque drives that allow us to accelerate for a long-rear end time, which is basically the prerequisite for doing Space poo poo that isn't just kind of gently pushing your way from one orbit to another and waiting for months or years. Technology that allows us to handle that much energy is by definition highly applicable to weapons development. So you really have to define the drive tech before you can do anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 12:11
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:Why would they even post this, who are they trying to convince (who doesn't already side with them unconditionally)? It's in English, so it's not just for internal consumption. There are tons of super stupid people in this world who will believe whatever they read, see, or hear
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 12:24
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:Why would they even post this, who are they trying to convince (who doesn't already side with them unconditionally)? It's in English, so it's not just for internal consumption. They probably just believe it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 13:05
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:Why would they even post this, who are they trying to convince (who doesn't already side with them unconditionally)? It's in English, so it's not just for internal consumption. They're trolling. The Russian MFA's and Embassy's English language twitter does a lot of trolling. MFA also did this https://mobile.twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1173923474278158336 And https://mobile.twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1173930596516749312
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
When an official government account 'trolls', it's more accurate to say that it's spreading propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
Fangz posted:When an official government account 'trolls', it's more accurate to say that it's spreading propaganda. Right, but they're not really doing it, as I can see, to any purpose other than trying to get the Poliah government ruled up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
Weren't the Poles designing a stealth tank some time back
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Right, but they're not really doing it, as I can see, to any purpose other than trying to get the Poliah government ruled up. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/09/russia-declassifies-wwii-docs-relating-to-soviet-nazi-pact-a67211 Nah it's part of a concerted Ministry of Defense media campaign to reframe the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Most people are not gonna buy in to it but that tweet does have 177 likes from koolaid drinkers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Artillery was handled by the GAU, which was a directorate, same as the GABTU. The separate People's Commissariats/Ministries were for Armament and Ammunition. Armament would deal with production of all guns, tank or towed. quote:One way or another, Gaydukov had received instructions directly from Stalin to meet with the People’s Commissars. There were three choices: Shakhurin, So Chertok mentions that the Commissariates were going to be transformed to ministries post war. Now I know zero about Soviet government structure. What's the difference between a Commissariat, a Ministry, and a directorate? In my mind, I just thought "in order to administer and get resources effectively, you need to be under one of the industrial patrons." JcDent posted:So who was making and operating Katyushas? Katyushas had been developed pre-WW2, by the rocket scientists that were all thrown in the Gulag around 1937. During WW2, Katyushas were not part of individual divisions, but were directly under what I'm assuming is the Soviet joint chiefs. I'm not sure why the Soviets did this; maybe even the Katyushas had a lot to know to operate properly, and they didn't want Red Army commanders treating it like any personel pool? The 20th USAAF Air Force, the guys who flew B-29s against Japan, had a similar structure: they were not under theater commanders MacArthur or Nimitz, but answered to the Joint Chiefs. This was so the B-29 could concentrate on strategic bombing of Japan - it seems like they were hoping to finally prove the strategic bombing thesis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:It's a joke, but the F-22 really is unbuildable now for lack of parts and manufacturers. Modern mil tech is such a weird landscape nowadays, I wish there air superiority fighter-making guilds with bespoke airframes instead. It would be possible to restart the line but it would be incredibly expensive and would be basically starting over from scratch. It's not that we can't build F-22s, we can't build them economically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
Fangz posted:https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/09/russia-declassifies-wwii-docs-relating-to-soviet-nazi-pact-a67211 I liked it to bookmark it
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:I liked it to bookmark it Use the save to bookmarks
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
zoux posted:A drama about...the F-35 Some background to this: Aircraft (and ship) design has traditionally gone along the lines of: 1. Design ship/plane that has all of the latest bells and whistles, assume some development risk that tech may not work out 2. Build and test ship/plane over a very long period (relative to the design period...this varies a lot by era, obviously) and hope for the best, which may or may not actually happen 3. Ship/plane now does not have the latest and greatest bells and whistles 4. Begin lengthy upgrade/test cycle for new variants This model has gotten to the point of absurdity the last few decades, with the F-35 probably being the most famous example. In trying (again) to build a one-size-fits-all aircraft, they ended up extending the development timeline so long that there are now F-35 pilots who were born after the initial RFP and studies were done. In the end they appear to have created a pretty incredible aircraft, but I'm sure we're all familiar with the various missteps and hilarities that happened along the way. At the same time all this was happening with the F-35, the US Army was very quietly doing something mildly revolutionary. Their biggest programs by budget-- missile defense, specifically the Patriot and THAAD systems-- were going through their own development and upgrade cycles. Patriot was getting very long in the tooth, and so they went all-in on developing a wholesale replacement (the now-dead MEADS). At some point though, someone had the incredibly bright idea that 1) not all components needed to be upgraded, and 2) the software was the real heart of the system, and its most expensive component across the entire life cycle. Thus, the Army adopted a "system-of-systems" approach to upgrading Patriot which is just now starting to reach fruition. The USAF and USN both watched this whole process with some mix of interest and horror, and both seem to have decided that they kind of like the idea. Essentially, instead of trying to build a ship or plane that is Everything You Could Possibly Want, instead, take an "agile" approach to both physical and digital engineering. The result, is to come up with a basic engineering solution that is like...80% good, and then count on "agile processes" doing the rest. The Navy's first attempt at this is the Large Surface Combatant. This article is the USAF's approach. I personally think it is a good concept. Ship/aircraft/missile systems now are rapidly approaching being nothing more than containment devices for software and its associated sensors, so adopting a new approach that basically streamlines the upgrade process to software while sacrificing some near-term capability seems like a prudent trade to make. On the other hand, our current budgetary/acquisition process (and our general system of government overall) seriously incentivises pursuing the GIANT BIG BUDGET TOO BIG TO FAIL programs over smaller, less radical, iterative upgrade programs, so it may not work well without some fundamental changes to JCIDS and...well...our system of government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
Oh well that's a different connotation from "NEW JET EVERY YEAR YALL"
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It's not that we can't build F-22s, we can't build them economically. What's that mean when you're talking about military hardware? Was the F-22 "economical" in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
Well, "new airframe" kind of the conclusion one has to make if one wants a truly "agile" process in aircraft design. If a new widget that you want reaches TRL 7 during development, the current solution is "redesign everything." They're suggesting now you just "build a new plane." That said, just as an example, an F-16 or F-18 today is basically a totally different plane from what it was in 1981, so the distinction is at best...fine. Ships have kind of a different approach, since it takes years to actually build a ship. Instead of building lots of different kinds of ships, you build ships that can exchange large components relatively easily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Technology that allows us to handle that much energy is by definition highly applicable to weapons development. So you really have to define the drive tech before you can do anything else. Energy output of your drive system is the minimal output of your dedicated weaponry. So, any tales of people actively using backblast as an area denials tool outside of friends and enemies thinking "don't approach from rear-facing cone"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:X-Wing Alliance actually. It's just real neat whenever I get a mission in the Sabra or Otana and I can get MK-09 to start shooting at a target while I'm either running away or maneuvering around to get a shot on it with the forward guns. Having to keep the turrets' range of fire in mind when manuevering kinda reminds me of swinging around for broadsides in Sid Meier's Pirates too, which I guess space combat tends to borrow from both air and sea combat. bewbies posted:Where does this mix of stuff come from? Like, how did we end up choosing these three historical periods to recreate, of sorts? Has there ever been any worthwhile study on it? Why people gravitate to these three periods and places and so on? Also, why do they all speak with English accents?  ".Fangz posted:I think if you accept the premise there, what would inevitably happen is that all the advanced space civilisations decamp to live on spaceships full-time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Once you figure out how to rotate and translate the universe around a point and how to harness anti-matter then all of the G force problems and energy problems go away. There's no need for dyson spheres or tossing rocks at people, that's pre-gravity emitter thinking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
The problem with the “new jet every five years” approach isn’t the aerospace industry being incapable of delivering on those kind of timetables; The problem is the USAF being the customer. The federal government is no longer capable of working on those sorts of timelines, because even a simple program decision cannot be made in a timely manner. Hell, I’d be surprised if the USAF could agree on a specification for the first round of new jets in less than five years, even if you started counting from today. It’s been eight years since the last Raptor was built. They’re still arguing about what shape the loving specification program will take for the next fighter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Is there hard evidence of the Soviets dropping cluster munitions disguised to look like toys during the Afghanistan invasion? Or is it a case of kids being curious and getting maimed by UXO and the story growing with each telling?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is there hard evidence of the Soviets dropping cluster munitions disguised to look like toys during the Afghanistan invasion? Or is it a case of kids being curious and getting maimed by UXO and the story growing with each telling? Why would the soviets use bombs like that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is there hard evidence of the Soviets dropping cluster munitions disguised to look like toys during the Afghanistan invasion? Or is it a case of kids being curious and getting maimed by UXO and the story growing with each telling? I'm going to suggest that they didn't do that purely because it's such a fanciful "evil empire" narrative that it sounds like it came from cheap fiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
A lot of time cluster bombs get played with by kids because they look like toys. It's not intentional...just that cluster bombs tend to be small and brightly colored, and kids are attracted to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is there hard evidence of the Soviets dropping cluster munitions disguised to look like toys during the Afghanistan invasion? Or is it a case of kids being curious and getting maimed by UXO and the story growing with each telling? The problem was that the Soviet mines were made of colored plastic, which looked toy-like. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drones-used-to-find-toylike-butterfly-land-mines/
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is there hard evidence of the Soviets dropping cluster munitions disguised to look like toys during the Afghanistan invasion? Or is it a case of kids being curious and getting maimed by UXO and the story growing with each telling? Hm. Good question. I remember reading a Reader's digest article (SHUT UP, I was 14) where one air-spread mine was a box with wings, so sorta toy-like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Is there such a thing as military without a county? I’m curious how to define terrorists vs. the military of another country. Or how do governments decide this isn’t the government of a country but just a bunch of terrorists that happen to be there physically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:A lot of time cluster bombs get played with by kids because they look like toys. It's not intentional...just that cluster bombs tend to be small and brightly colored, and kids are attracted to that. Children will pick up anything, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
No no don't eat that it's willie pete
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:29
|
|