Mr Crustacean posted:Not correct. It's a play on words not a statement of fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_Silent,_Run_Deep_(film)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
That Works posted:It's a play on words not a statement of fact. Sure, but it's also a pretty OK description of WW2-era anti-ASW tactics for subs. Run as silent as you can to avoid detection by hydrophones and run as deep as you can to try and get under the thermal layer to gently caress with enemy sonar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
At least it’s not Comic Sans or Papyrus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Because the reactor was cooled with molten lead, it couldn't be shut down and thus never refueled.  were the crews recruited solely from suicidal people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
Cooling a reactor with molten lead isn't a stupid idea, and has some significant safety advantages over ordinary pressurized water reactors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
JcDent posted:
Liquid metal coolant has a lot to recommend it from a safety perspective, especially on a submarine. Chiefly, that it's a liquid at high temperatures and ambient pressure so you don't have to pressurize your reactor to a level where the coolant will explode if there's a leak. If there is a leak, the coolant rapidly solidifies. In the case of lead, the coolant itself has a secondary function as gamma shielding. You can use electromagnetic pumps, which have no moving parts or shaft seals to leak, to move the coolant around. And you can't really overpressurize your reactor by letting it get too hot, because the boiling point of the coolant is so high. The US tried hard to make it work as well, but we were trying a liquid sodium alloy and Rickover was (for understandable reasons) vehemently opposed to having a coolant that ignites on contact with air and explodes on contact with water being used to cool the reactor on a submarine. The lead-bismuth alloy in the Alfa reactors doesn't have that problem. We put a sodium-cooled reactor on the Seawolf, but she had so many steam leaks in her superheaters that they were just bypassed, so the extra efficiency and power density of the reactor plant was more than made up for by the lack of superheaters, and the whole idea was scrapped at Rickover's insistence and Seawolf's reactor was cut out and replaced with a regular PWR. And by design, the idea was that you *could* shut the reactors down, because when you were docked you'd hook the system up to a heater on shore and it would keep the system warm. Trouble was that the funding/training wasn't there for the maintenance of those systems, so the coolant heaters broke down, and the workaround was "just keep the reactor running." And as for "the reactor could never be refueled," refueling a naval reactor is such an expensive proposition that modern naval plants are designed to last for the life of the ship from the outset. When the reactor's out of fuel, your ship's out of service life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
The reactor could be shut down, but required specialized shore power in the form of high pressure steam to keep the core liquid. This became an issue as the inevitable maintenance issues of “non-critical” shoreside equipment piled up, and Alfa boats sometimes were forced to spend their downtime tied up with a full reactor crew at an appreciable power setting, just to keep the core liquid. This lead to cascades of deferred maintenance on the boats themselves.
MrYenko fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jan 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And as for "the reactor could never be refueled," refueling a naval reactor is such an expensive proposition that modern naval plants are designed to last for the life of the ship from the outset. When the reactor's out of fuel, your ship's out of service life. In the US, yes. In other navies, not necessarily. The K15 used by the French navy for its submarines and its aircraft carrier are designed to need refueling every 8-to-9 years, these are scheduled to correspond to planned major overhauls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:In the US, yes. In other navies, not necessarily. The K15 used by the French navy for its submarines and its aircraft carrier are designed to need refueling every 8-to-9 years, these are scheduled to correspond to planned major overhauls. Yeah, good point. They also use much lower-enriched uranium, so presumably they feel that the refueling expense is compensated for by not needing to enrich the fuel to 90%+.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
If you've got a bismuth-lead reactor, wouldn't it make more sense to simply design your sub for easy removal and substitution, instead of refueling? Get the core out, get another in, 15 more years. Yeah, of course it is far more complicated than that, bit still. The Alphas were designed with no easy way to either re-fuel or remove the reactor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
What's cool and Cold War-y in Huntsville?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:What's cool and Cold War-y in Huntsville? Alabama? US Space and Rocket center is pretty neat IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:What's cool and Cold War-y in Huntsville? A Saturn V hanging from the ceiling sure counts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
Im sure it probably deserves a full day, but I've got a couple of hours during business hours to kill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
Why are you doxxing mlmp08 like this
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
My favorite graphic from an air defense manual shows a Cobra helicopter unmasking from behind trees to engage a Tiger I tank. Also this image. The manual is from 2016.  edit: ATP 3-01.18 "Techniques for Combined Arms for Air Defense " (how non-air defense can defend itself form air threats) has a bunch of funny graphics because it's obvious the doctrine writers were told to rapidly publish/update it because of drone or other aerial threats, so it's got a bunch of repurposed old images and copy-paste advice where someone just did a find and replace of M60 to M240, etc. It has unlimited distribution and is approved for public release, so you can find it online easily. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jan 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:If you've got a bismuth-lead reactor, wouldn't it make more sense to simply design your sub for easy removal and substitution, instead of refueling? Get the core out, get another in, 15 more years. “Designed to go thousands of feet underwater” and “has a big removable plug in the hull” are extremely at odds with each other as design goals. Pretty sure titanium is one of those real hard to weld metals so making hull cuts and repairs probably doesn’t work well. A big enough difficulty on regular hulls made of steel that new US designs are supposed to never be refueled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Rob Rockley posted:“Designed to go thousands of feet underwater” and “has a big removable plug in the hull” are extremely at odds with each other as design goals. Pretty sure titanium is one of those real hard to weld metals so making hull cuts and repairs probably doesn’t work well. A big enough difficulty on regular hulls made of steel that new US designs are supposed to never be refueled. Yeah I can get that. The thought originally came from our experience here in Greece with the 209 boats. We essentially cut one in half (S118 Oceanos), added a 6m AIP section in the middle and then re-assembled the sub.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Im sure it probably deserves a full day, but I've got a couple of hours during business hours to kill. Keep in mind I moved from there 13 years ago, but the museum is a pretty quick trip. There's an A-12 right out front, btw. Can you get on base? There is a helicopter museum there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Does increased depth and it's associated greater pressure have any effect on water friction and subsequent performance. Like if you're running your engines at the exact same power and rpm at 150' and 1500' is there going to be a difference in speed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Liquid metal coolant has a lot to recommend it from a safety perspective, especially on a submarine. Chiefly, that it's a liquid at high temperatures and ambient pressure so you don't have to pressurize your reactor to a level where the coolant will explode if there's a leak. If there is a leak, the coolant rapidly solidifies. In the case of lead, the coolant itself has a secondary function as gamma shielding. You can use electromagnetic pumps, which have no moving parts or shaft seals to leak, to move the coolant around. And you can't really overpressurize your reactor by letting it get too hot, because the boiling point of the coolant is so high. The US tried hard to make it work as well, but we were trying a liquid sodium alloy and Rickover was (for understandable reasons) vehemently opposed to having a coolant that ignites on contact with air and explodes on contact with water being used to cool the reactor on a submarine. The lead-bismuth alloy in the Alfa reactors doesn't have that problem. We put a sodium-cooled reactor on the Seawolf, but she had so many steam leaks in her superheaters that they were just bypassed, so the extra efficiency and power density of the reactor plant was more than made up for by the lack of superheaters, and the whole idea was scrapped at Rickover's insistence and Seawolf's reactor was cut out and replaced with a regular PWR. Very cool post, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Very cool post, thanks! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
I mean, if you can successfully weld a Hip fuselage to a Kamaz, why can't you simply swap a bismuth lead reactor?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
It took me way too long to figure out what I was looking at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
That's a picture from south Portland, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Ok, I'm going to post a political horse race tweet but PLEASE IGNORE THAT PART. https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1221827357276807169 When was the last time "a ruthless modern army armed with cluster bombs and napalm" beat partisans? I'm really having trouble coming up with an example in the 20th century. Spanish civil war?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
Basically every time. the trick was the partisans usually were smart enough not to do this
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Ok, I'm going to post a political horse race tweet but PLEASE IGNORE THAT PART. https://twitter.com/JugheadJinsoul/...genumber%3D1532 https://twitter.com/dinosaurthe3rd/...genumber%3D1532
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:When was the last time "a ruthless modern army armed with cluster bombs and napalm" beat partisans? 2nd Chechen War? Other various Soviet uprisings like the Hungarian and Romanian ones were quashed too. If the partisans were supplied by wealthier states though, it's hard to come up with examples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Basically every time. Actually yeah, that "on open ground" is actually important there. Thats how Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc all went. Suicide Watch posted:2nd Chechen War? Thats probably the best answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Love lovingly detailed imagery of the military massacring people coming from some ageing fuckin chickenhawk
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
“Open field” being the operative words. That’s loving suicide for partisans vs regular troops/air force etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
Is this photo of anyone in particular? I don't recognize them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Is this photo of anyone in particular? I don't recognize them. THOT
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Is this photo of anyone in particular? I don't recognize them. Ho Chi Minh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
Huh. Guess I'd never actually seen a photo of him then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
 E: Also that's a -real- bad ps of Ho smiling fyi https://www.amazon.ca/Selected-Works-Ho-Chi-Minh/dp/1466482672 ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jan 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
That's some Black Hole Sun poo poo going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Ok, I'm going to post a political horse race tweet but PLEASE IGNORE THAT PART. Examples of insurgents/partisans getting crushed pretty hard in recent history through a variety of modern army, weaponry, or other state technical/numerical superiority: ISIS (not gone, but severely rolled back) Muslim Brotherhood in Syria getting smashed by Hafez al-Assad (father of Bashar al-Assad president) in 1982 using artillery and air-power followed by a ground clearing operation (and massacre). Hukbalahap Rebellion Dhofar Rebellion Xinjiang conflict Mau Mau Uprising We remember the successful insurgencies because they are notable and costly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 22:54
|
|