|
Applesnots posted:The HMS Dreadnought is still the best ship name ever, closely following it is Sinky II Hell yeah!
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:Hell yeah! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
That Works posted:This is wild. Any more details? Not that I can find, other than most Soviet/Eastern Bloc warplans seem to think there will be a sudden NATO invasion where they start dropping big ones everywhere and the USSR will retaliate? You see that thinking in Seven Days to the River Rhine as well, so I’m guessing fear of surprise attack is just seared into Soviet military planning from that whole Barbarossa thing. And I’ve found a few things that suggest the USSR said “no first use” unless they could prove a strike was coming, so the USSR hollering no first use as they turn Denmark into a crater is certainly an alternate reality Top Hats Monthly fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
It's interesting how France is unscaved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's interesting how France is unscaved. I imagine nuking a nuclear power was a bridge too far for the Soviets
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Watching Germany and the SU go up in nuclear fire has got to be like one of the top five best conceivable ways to spend a day for a Pole.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
I was at an event with lech Walesa as a speaker and he drew the exact opposite sentiment. He was stoked about Europe and Russia being more friendly (this was ca 1999 or so) because Poland was tired of being where the Russians and Germans hashed their poo poo out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
I've heard it more than once, but there is a apocryphal story about one of the first joint NATO/Polish exercises where there's a non-polish tank or AFV or whatever parked near a farm and the elderly owner comes out and asks if they're the Russians or the Germans come back again.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I imagine nuking a nuclear power was a bridge too far for the Soviets
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:28
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I was at an event with lech Walesa as a speaker and he drew the exact opposite sentiment. He was stoked about Europe and Russia being more friendly (this was ca 1999 or so) because Poland was tired of being where the Russians and Germans hashed their poo poo out. I'm jealous. I read his biography (autobiography maybe?) about 10 years ago and enjoyed it quite a bit. Seemed a very interesting person.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:04
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:Not that I can find, other than most Soviet/Eastern Bloc warplans seem to think there will be a sudden NATO invasion where they start dropping big ones everywhere and the USSR will retaliate? You see that thinking in Seven Days to the River Rhine as well, so I’m guessing fear of surprise attack is just seared into Soviet military planning from that whole Barbarossa thing. I mean, to be fair, this is exactly what NATO feared from the Soviets too. Neither side was apparently preparing for an unprovoked invasion, each side's propaganda to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:On the other hand, Trump will probably have it changed to the CSS Franklin Buchanan. There have already been three US destroyers named after that dude so theres precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:. . . of course now we just named a CVN after an enlisted man who won the medal of honor so time to add another set of exceptions and see whether this becomes a whole new thing or if it becomes a new parenthetical where we have to explain the hyper-partisan political scene in 2020, the Trump administration, and growing discomfort with naming carriers after recent presidents who happen to only be from one party. My favorite USN ship name just might be CV-38; U.S.S. Shangri La. After the Doolittle Raid, FDR was joking that the bombers took off from the fictional land of Shangri La. We built enough of the Essex class carriers that we could name one after a joke the president made. History does not record if IJN Intelligence got the joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:There have already been three US destroyers named after that dude so theres precedent. I should have known better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I haven't seen this video about the Sprint missile yet, and given the thread's hard-on for it, it's definitely pro-click as it shows *failed* launches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk9mvLFNqMQ Thanks, it's been a couple of years since I last fell into a 1960s ABM rabbit hole. HIBEX was even crazier: http://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/DARPA/DARPA_II_HIBEX.htm And there's now a cool virtual tour of the Safeguard site in North Dakota: https://seekbeak.com/v/g531BorKzBL?utm_source=SRMSCorg&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=Launch I desperately want to visit it but it really is in the middle of loving nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
That's only 90 minutes from Grand Forks. Maybe next time I'm there I'll go and take some pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
Is there no modern value to that kind of acceleration shown with Sprint? Seems like nothing new is comparable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Is there no modern value to that kind of acceleration shown with Sprint? Seems like nothing new is comparable. Since the thing used a thermonuclear warhead to kill an incoming warhead (an actual "hit" was far beyond the capabilities of the time), the priority was to get it as far away from the ground as possible, as quickly as possible, and make that interception at very high altitude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Is there no modern value to that kind of acceleration shown with Sprint? Seems like nothing new is comparable. accelerating something that quickly in the lower atmosphere is an incredibly inefficient use of rocket fuel. More modern interceptors are way, way more efficient when it comes to the use of their fuel. there really isn't a whole lot of reason to go much past Mach 5 until you're in the upper atmosphere assuming you're interceptor is tied to a powerful modern radar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
That Works posted:I'm jealous. I read his biography (autobiography maybe?) about 10 years ago and enjoyed it quite a bit. Seemed a very interesting person. Yeah, he was a supremely interesting and very funny guy. He told an extended joke by way of introducing us to the historical problems of polish statehood. I'm going to mangle the gently caress out of it, but it basically went "Poland is a wonderful country. We have lots of good farm land, many beautiful rivers, and wonderful plains. Just beautiful countryside, the sort that farmers want to grow food in and lovers want to picnic in. It's so wonderful that everyone loves to come to Poland! The Germans come, the Russians come . . . and we're happy to have visitors! We just ask that you clean up after yourselves and leave eventually."
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 03:20
|
|
|
bewbies posted:accelerating something that quickly in the lower atmosphere is an incredibly inefficient use of rocket fuel. More modern interceptors are way, way more efficient when it comes to the use of their fuel. there really isn't a whole lot of reason to go much past Mach 5 until you're in the upper atmosphere assuming you're interceptor is tied to a powerful modern radar. Doing 100gs in atmosphere is pretty  though 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Since the thing used a thermonuclear warhead to kill an incoming warhead (an actual "hit" was far beyond the capabilities of the time), the priority was to get it as far away from the ground as possible, as quickly as possible, and make that interception at very high altitude.  Actually the Sprint used a rather low-yield (but high enough if you could get it within the general vicinity of a reentry vehicle) to kill it either from the blast (~100m wide) or cook the warhead's circuitry with ~neutron flux~ up to ~1km (theoretically). It was, for all intents and purposes, a "nuclear CIWS" that could be used in the final seconds before impact.  It was the Spartan that used a huge fuckoff five megaton warhead, one that was tested underground in the Cannikin test in Alaska: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IrbuIIMY50 BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jan 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It was the Spartan that used a huge fuckoff five megaton warhead, one that was tested underground in the Cannikin test in Alaska: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IrbuIIMY50 Now that's a nuclear landmine to get excited about! IDGI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 11:22
|
|
JcDent posted:Now that's a nuclear landmine to get excited about! USN has at times had a problem with sex crimes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 11:37
|
|
|
bewbies posted:accelerating something that quickly in the lower atmosphere is an incredibly inefficient use of rocket fuel. More modern interceptors are way, way more efficient when it comes to the use of their fuel. there really isn't a whole lot of reason to go much past Mach 5 until you're in the upper atmosphere assuming you're interceptor is tied to a powerful modern radar. Speaking of radar, Sprint was controlled from the ground by a 1MW beam that could get through the plasma that surrounding it as it burned through the sky at mach 10.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 11:54
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, he was a supremely interesting and very funny guy. I love it. One of the bits I remember from his book was him mentioning that every now and then it's ok / a good idea to get really shitfaced to get your head around things or let your mind figure out where it needs to be, something along those lines.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
That Works posted:USN has at times had a problem with sex crimes. I thought it was about the Bureau of Personnel hack where everyone’s data got leaked, but that works too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 16:42
|
|
crazypeltast52 posted:I thought it was about the Bureau of Personnel hack where everyone’s data got leaked, but that works too. Oh hey yeah that also goes good.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
.
piL fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Goddamnit, Canada So Canada's spy agency is run entirely by CHUDs who are so fuckin' stupid they don't understand the value of people not identical to themselves e: question for Americans: is it common for your coworkers to prank you into thinking terrorists are about to murder you and your family for the lolz? Oh and all the other Muslim coworkers are similarly pranked/physically assaulted, and the management is just winking at the perpetrators Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
F-35 doing something actually pretty neatquote:Lockheed Martin announced in a press release that two US Air Force F-35s were integrated with the US Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, providing an airborne sensor capability to successfully detect, track and intercept near simultaneous air-breathing threats in a test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. In December 2019, the F-35s were used as sensors during an IBCS live fire test against multiple airborne targets for the first time. Linking F-35s to IBCS via the Multifunction Advanced Data Link provided enhanced situational awareness and weapons-quality track data to engage airborne targets. The proof of concept demonstration reportedly used experimental equipment developed by Lockheed Martin, including the Harvest Lightning Ground Station and IBCS adaptation kit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Goddamnit, Canada I've never personally seen it, but I've heard a few thirdhand complaints. Some about rudeness from co-workers, but more about the security side of the house. It's hard to say how much is prejudice and how much is that it really is harder to investigate someone with a background involving a potentially hostile country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Mazz posted:F-35 doing something actually pretty neat Something actually working as intended? In God’s America???
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
quote:near simultaneous air-breathing threats Could someone translate this to civilian? Does this means “lots of enemy planes”? Why only “near” simultaneous?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
To avoid false impressions “near” is often used in military parlance. For a different example, Link-16 is near-real time data. This is both because there is inherently some level of lag on a system transmitting via RF, Satellite, internet, serial line, or whatever and also because Link-16 works by giving each net participant a very tiny interval in which to use the net, so users are uploading in (very fast) sequence rather than simultaneously. To the user the lag may be all of a second or several, but that still is not true “realtime.” For this test could be anything from F-35 or IBCS system limitation, presentation of targets on the test range, or could be reference to Patriot launchers not launching missiles truly simultaneously, just in very quick succession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
It's the air breathing part I don’t understand, like jet engine intake?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 05:26
|
|
|
If DOD can figure out how to make disparate transmitters reliably agree on their version of reality then holy poo poo we just fixed a bunch of Very Hard(tm) computer science problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_(computer_science) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science) E: This was meant to be a polite dig at Platystemon's question, no offense meant because it wasn't a bad question. goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's the air breathing part I don’t understand, like jet engine intake? Oh. Has an engine that uses air to function. Jet, turbojet, piston, etc. Not ballistic ordnance or rocket engine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:accelerating something that quickly in the lower atmosphere is an incredibly inefficient use of rocket fuel. More modern interceptors are way, way more efficient when it comes to the use of their fuel. there really isn't a whole lot of reason to go much past Mach 5 until you're in the upper atmosphere assuming you're interceptor is tied to a powerful modern radar. The alternate wars article said that in-atmosphere terminal had the advantage of making target discrimination easier, lighter decoys would be stripped away. But you'd need a ridiculously fast reaction time to identify real targets, shoot, fly-out, and hit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
zoux posted:It's the air breathing part I don’t understand, like jet engine intake? F-35 still ineffective against the piscine menace. What a shitshow of a program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 05:38
|
|