|
Neophyte posted:Getting a real Xakura posted:They should really just get Don Rosa to draw those M. C. Escher: 
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Haven’t seen an F-35B in person yet but Harriers are a new definition of loud.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
TCD posted:Being that they are strike length 41s, I'm guessing you're going to see some tomahawks or SM-6s on there? I'm curious if they'll equip Tomahawks on any FFGs since those times we seem to need tomahawks we have a few days-weeks to gear up and get other assets in place with much larger magazines, especially once Virginias with VPMs are around. That, and it starts to eat up the limited tube space pretty fast because how often does the Navy fire like 2 Tomahawks and not 40. I think your second loadout makes a lot of sense though. Mazz fucked around with this message at 19:11 on May 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Sorry for posting a tweet with a link to an article, but it’s easy on mobile. This article contains a lot more context to the F-35B/C afterburner plus supersonic limitations. https://twitter.com/valerieinsinna/status/1263893314132115456?s=21 tl;dr - the issue was discovered in some pretty brutal high speed testing conditions and the limitation is intended to keep aircraft working for 40 years, not avoiding the aircraft just failing in flight if someone really had to break the limits for combat reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:tl;dr - the issue was discovered in some pretty brutal high speed testing conditions and the limitation is intended to keep aircraft working for 40 years, not avoiding the aircraft just failing in flight if someone really had to break the limits for combat reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
So that's where the budget for the rest of the Zumwalts went.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:Haven’t seen an F-35B in person yet but Harriers are a new definition of loud. I believe F-35s are the loudest fighter in the world. They seem louder than F-15s and 22s. Way louder than 16s.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
The loudest fighter in the world is a Super Hornet landing about 30 feet away from you on an aircraft carrier deck. Though I guess the 35C is probably set to take that record.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
When the F-35A pulls back hard for a near-vertical afterburner departure it just shakes you to the core because of how much burner is being pounded straight into the runway and then reverberating toward everyone on the ground. F-22 has a lot more thrust but seems a bit less ridiculous coming from twin engines.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:The loudest fighter in the world is a Super Hornet landing about 30 feet away from you on an aircraft carrier deck. Easily.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/USPacificFleet/status/1263932322048434176 LAZORS
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
That legitimately looks photoshopped to me, I am shocked if that's real.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
It honestly looks so blatantly fake that I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually real, but gently caress if I know what kind of camera and filter you use to get something that looks like that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:It honestly looks so blatantly fake that I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually real, but gently caress if I know what kind of camera and filter you use to get something that looks like that. If it's real, it looks like a FLIR (ship is black) that gets overloaded by UV, I'm guessing UV anyway from the bloom. It's all digital so it's hard to guess why the colour response goes the way it does, could be programmed and colour mapped any way they want. That beam was firing towards and sort of close to the camera, you can tell by the beam divergence, it was just to the left of the camera and taken by a telephoto lens else it couldn't spread so much in picture.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:I was one of ~70,000 people to get a B1 flyover at a football game a few years ago (It was the only good thing that happened that night). No other flyover I've witnessed has come close to just the pure awe of a B1. It was incredible. Some time in the 1990s I got to see a Vulcan and Concorde do a flyover together at some air show in SE England and it was amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I'm curious if they'll equip Tomahawks on any FFGs since those times we seem to need tomahawks we have a few days-weeks to gear up and get other assets in place with much larger magazines, especially once Virginias with VPMs are around. That, and it starts to eat up the limited tube space pretty fast because how often does the Navy fire like 2 Tomahawks and not 40. Right - I figured I'd mirror the load out of a non-VPM Virginia but you don't have a lot of room left. The one thing that could be of interest is the new new maritime tomahawks - which would give this thing a loving huge anti surface range plus NSMs for closer in or when you want it to be more discrete. There was "talk" of getting the ship to 48 cells on USNI but with 16 NSMs, I guess they figured 32 would be enough with quad packed ESSMs
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:Some time in the 1990s I got to see a Vulcan and Concorde do a flyover together at some air show in SE England and it was amazing. "Sorry, you'll have to repeat that, I've got a ringing in my ears. Been that way for 30 someodd years now." "Oh...how'd it happen, if you don't mind my asking?" "From too much awesome flying overhead."
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
Looks like the Trump admin is considering resuming nuclear testing, and alleging China and Russia have both conducted nuclear tests. I doubt they’ve done so because worldwide seismic monitoring that’s done by other than the DoD would have picked it up, and anyway our nuclear monitoring enterprise leaks like a sieve. But hey, maybe we can get some 16:9 4K UHD/HDR footage of nuclear tests. Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...foutputType=amp
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:Looks like the Trump admin is considering resuming nuclear testing, and alleging China and Russia have both conducted nuclear tests. I doubt they’ve done so because worldwide seismic monitoring that’s done by other than the DoD would have picked it up, and anyway our nuclear monitoring enterprise leaks like a sieve. The religious zealots in the GOP trying to fast-track Armageddon?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
Ok take the trump chat to cspam or d&d or YouTube comments or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Ok take the trump chat to cspam or d&d or YouTube comments or whatever. Uhhhh, resumption of nuclear testing seems rather prescient to the thread. Just because I mention that the trump admin is thinking about undertaking the effort isn’t trump chat. Trust me, I’m the last motherfucker that wants Trump chat. I wanna talk about how we’re maybe gonna set a nuke off, after a few years of tearing up nuclear arms / verification treaties put in place from the Cold War era and later. There is literally no higher form of Airpower than nuclear weapons. And it’s an extremely close to the Cold War topic. Maybe this line of conversation doesn’t need to be shut down because that orange rear end in a top hat gets mentioned? Just a thought. You do you though, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
TFR has a blanket no politics rule and trump chat turns toxic fast. Take it elsewhere. Just draw a line under this and move on.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:here is literally no higher form of Airpower than nuclear weapons. We're all game for nuke chat. Just only talk abut the nukes.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
You can discuss strategic weapons but not strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
TCD posted:There was "talk" of getting the ship to 48 cells on USNI but with 16 NSMs, I guess they figured 32 would be enough with quad packed ESSMs I bet the additional 16 strike cells (32 tons unloaded) might have been too much of an ask of the FREMM design without adding development costs. The Navy rightfully was trying to keep mods and therefore price to a minimum, and ended up picking what looks on paper to be a pocket Burke. Now if the Navy/DoD can also get to the unsexy tasks of fixing training cycles and improving maintenance/shipyards, it'd be in a far better place.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:On the bright side, I’ve always wanted to see a nuclear detonation. The monkey’s paw heard my wish.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 08:05
|
|
|
Memento posted:ha ha ha holy poo poo I just watched this, due to a discussion about the music in that show in another thread. Psst, hey there.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnBgMIYA874
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 08:09
|
|
|
https://www.csis.org/analysis/marine-corps-radical-shift-toward-china Seems to set upon getting marines out of tanks and policing and onto the beach and back into the Philippines (where I think they are happiest). Makes the FFG(x) make even more sense as well as explain for me why the Marines have been looking at tomahawks (not for attacking land targets as I had just assumed, but for projecting from shore to sea). A lot depends on how much Duturte keeps the US out of the Philippines versus China but from the Philippines, a lot of the recent island additions of China would be untenable if marine detachments were on say Palawan with a few truckloads of anti ship tomahawks - the Chinese not being able to keep track of all trucks versus keeping track of (thinly spread) DDGs. Between Taiwan, Malaysia and The Philippines controls access to the Pacific and Indian oceans. Also, the army can have more tanks if it is feeling short...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 12:43
|
|
|
ArmyGroup303 posted:I bet the additional 16 strike cells (32 tons unloaded) might have been too much of an ask of the FREMM design without adding development costs. The Navy rightfully was trying to keep mods and therefore price to a minimum, and ended up picking what looks on paper to be a pocket Burke. My guess is the FREMM and Navantia were the only designs remotely close to being able to hold 48 cells and they would have had Austal screaming bloody murder. 32 VLS and 16 NSMs and 6000nm range is still a lot of ship for most parts of the world. Once I add another FFGX or Burke in CMANO, the pair take a lot of ships or planes to get through.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
There’s always block II. If it can fit the extra cells they can uprev the design once it’s less costly/risky/etc.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
This is the weirdest captcha I've ever had to solve... c/o @Iceman_B1 on Twitter
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NuclearAnthro/status/1264430985694728193
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 07:57
|
|
|
Bet they were 222343/CH751/2642 keys too.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 09:10
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:https://www.csis.org/analysis/marine-corps-radical-shift-toward-china That's a return to form, the USMC Defense Battalions were a key factor in Plan Orange for doing the dirty work of holding islands against attack. It looks like the modern version is going to be armed with anti-shipping missiles to create an exclusion zone that enemy shipping cannot operate in. Ideally you'd land bulldozers, dig holes, emplace VLS cells, and dominate a 250nm radius.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 09:56
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:That's a return to form, the USMC Defense Battalions were a key factor in Plan Orange for doing the dirty work of holding islands against attack. It looks like the modern version is going to be armed with anti-shipping missiles to create an exclusion zone that enemy shipping cannot operate in. Ideally you'd land bulldozers, dig holes, emplace VLS cells, and dominate a 250nm radius. You need to be road mobile nowadays or you eat a ballistic missile with a 3m CEP. The Marines are buying WAY more HIMARS and also working on a truck mounted Tomahawk for mostly that reason. What’s interesting to me is do you also incorporate something like ESSM into the same general platform?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
The Marines haven’t been able to decide what they want to do for a better-than-interim ground-based air defense shooter for maybe the last... 20 years?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The Marines haven’t been able to decide what they want to do for a better-than-interim ground-based air defense shooter for maybe the last... 20 years? Yep, and the whole thing feels kind of a mess anyway looking into the wide range of ideas you can find. What makes sense to me is that you figure out some kind of HEMTT or (whatever the Marines call it) TEL that can hold VLS canisters. This provides commonality with any weapon the Navy is already buying. You need C3, but realistically you can tie in CEC and such, and you already have the G/ATOR in play as well. Hard to find a good size comparison of a single canister compared to something like a PAC-3 tube though, everything seems to be centered around the 8 cell Mk41 unit. It’s definitely longer but I can’t tell if prohibitively so. Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:54 on May 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Two weird stories: The video game industry and DARPA are an odd paring; they are developing software to break RTS/Strategy games Also: Boeing makes something good and reliable?!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
They probably looked at that team who trained an AI to be competitive in professional Brood War and thought "what if we did that for a real war game" which to be fair is an awesome idea and will in no way be a problem for the largest professional officer corps on the planet.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 20:39 on May 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Two weird stories: The video game industry and DARPA are an odd paring; they are developing software to break RTS/Strategy games Turns out the 737NG is still pretty good and easy to build
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 20:57
|
|
