|
LibCrusher posted:I maintain that hellfires are a dogshit choice for air defense. They are too fat, too slow, and can’t maneuver enough. Their WEZ is not appropriate for surface to air. The sooner they replace them with something like a beefed up stinger the better. I agree about hellfire being comparatively slow and having short legs for a modern, medium range air defense missile. But it's very cheap, extremely accurate, and has plenty of energy/range to be extremely dangerous for a nice big chunk of the air threats out there. A fire-and-forget millimeter wave AESA RADAR guided hellfire is going to be an extremely capable missile for hitting something like low altitude attack helicopters or mid-size recon/loitering munition drones. But yeah, hellfire is not a good choice at all for fixed wing fast movers, missiles, tiny drones, or the big high altitude combat or recon drones. Which is probably why this system is modular and meant to incorporate a nasty directed energy component and some more capable dedicated SAMs in the future. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 19:20 on May 2, 2021 |
#
?
May 2, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
ulmont posted:Huh...only 5-10 years out? 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ap_oddities/status/1388895045940662273?s=21 It’s a KC-10! It has to have a gas station brand as a call sign, not a pop culture reference!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
There is no fun allowed in the USAF.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
USAF humor is rocking a four year old meme very publicly for the bro cred.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Funniest poo poo Ive ever seen.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Satellite microwave power abandoned because too many engineers learned it had a 100% accident rate from sim city. It’s just on a timer. Delete it forty‐nine years after construction and build another one.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There is no fun allowed in the USAF.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 05:02
|
|
|
More whimsical than official FAA fixes? eg 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 05:10
|
|
|
Slightly less whimsical than that, because our planner wasn't that clever. I guess our bosses thought we should be more serious than the FAA.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 05:16
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There is no fun allowed in the USAF. There's literally an approved list of callsigns to choose from so I don't know how they managed to do this in the first place. Probably just wrote what they wanted on the flight plan and rolled with it. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Ukraine is opening a nuclear waste site at Chernobyl. Not a bad idea, really. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Ukraine is opening a nuclear waste site at Chernobyl. I thought the Soviets did that 34 years ago 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Ukraine is opening a nuclear waste site at Chernobyl. Finally, a place without NIMBYs
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Finally, a place without NIMBYs One weird trick
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
tangy yet delightful posted:One weird trick I mean, it's already an exclusion zone due to radiation.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
It honestly is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There's literally an approved list of callsigns to choose from so I don't know how they managed to do this in the first place. Probably just wrote what they wanted on the flight plan and rolled with it. I was on a choose-your-own-callsign type of sortie on an Apr 20 years back. The crew was throwing some ideas back and forth until the ranking person (O-5) who happened to be the AC went 'how about <callsign> 69 so we can 69 on 420?' So we did. I don't even remember what the word ended up being but the numbers will stick out forevermore.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Finally, a place without NIMBYs I get transporting nuclear waste can be risky, but would there be some other downsides to the entire world just throwing their spent rods and other radioactive waste in there?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Discussion Quorum posted:Random trivia question that just bubbled into my brain: has the US ever shot down a hostile warplane with a SAM? Have ground/sea-based US anti-air defenses engaged or poo poo down any manned hostile aircraft since Korea? Late to the party, but IIRC, Long Beach was credited with a Talos kill of a MiG at extreme range, too.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
zoux posted:I get transporting nuclear waste can be risky, but would there be some other downsides to the entire world just throwing their spent rods and other radioactive waste in there? The entire world? It's just the Ukraine, my friend (Unless I *really* misread something)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
He’s asking why we don’t just make Cernobyl the worlds nuke dump and only pollute that area forever. Probably sunk cost?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
We shouldn’t inter more radioactive trash at Chernobyl for the same reason we shouldn’t do it a Hanford. Yeah the sites are already contaminated and the immediate area is depopulated, but geographically and geologically, there are better places to put repositories.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Yeah, for example, states have compacts with other states to store low-level radioactive waste - stuff used for medicine, smoke alarms, whatever. So, for example, here in Texas we have a deal with Vermont where they pay us to store that waste way out in West Texas where very few people live. The people who live in that county love it because they get paid by the compact to store it. I think almost all spent fuel rods (certainly in Texas but I think almost everywhere?) are stored on site at the nuke plants. Anyway, the issue that comes up is transportation, obviously a train loaded up with a bunch of cobalt-60 pellets derailing would cause some issues. So I guess the question is how safely could such waste be transported and are there any consequences for concentrating that much waste in a single location?Platystemon posted:We shouldn’t inter more radioactive trash at Chernobyl for the same reason we shouldn’t do it a Hanford. Places of honor? Perhaps commemorating some highly esteemed deed?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:He’s asking why we don’t just make Cernobyl the worlds nuke dump and only pollute that area forever. Probably sunk cost? Because it's on a tributary of the Dniepr just 30 miles upstream of Kiev.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
zoux posted:I get transporting nuclear waste can be risky, but would there be some other downsides to the entire world just throwing their spent rods and other radioactive waste in there? Cause if the waste leaks into the ground water, it feeds into the Dnieper and everything downstream, including Kiev, is screwed. Ideally you want to build your nuclear waste sites in sparsely populated bedrock like Yucca mountain, or chuck it into the middle of Australia. The absolute worst place to store it is a marshy swampland upstream of a major city.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:
Yeah, lets make the spiders radioactive. Great idea boss. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
Making places radioactive doesn't necessarily make them worse, Georgia before and after the aircraft nuclear laboratory seems about the same
shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 03:40 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
^ You try drinking radioactive water and let us know how that goesMRC48B posted:Yeah, lets make the spiders radioactive. Great idea boss. Ah theres nothing of value in Australia. Whats the harm
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:^ You try drinking radioactive water and let us know how that goes Heavy metals are the issue there, water is such a good absorber of radiation you can dive in those storage pools so long as you don’t actually touch the casks.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
Changing dirty Dniepers isn't fun for anybody.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 06:23
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:
Let's see what tune you're singing when they get smart enough to build rafts.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Let's see what tune you're singing when they get smart enough to build rafts. Hate to break it to you, but British Columbia is absolutely swarming with Australians so I'd say containment failed some time ago.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 07:01
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Cause if the waste leaks into the ground water, it feeds into the Dnieper and everything downstream, including Kiev, is screwed. So wouldn't the plan to use it as a nuclear waste site for just Ukraine be a bad idea too?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:So wouldn't the plan to use it as a nuclear waste site for just Ukraine be a bad idea too? Yes. However, the waste generated by a few reactors is nowhere near the amount that the world generates. Long term though, its still an awful idea. The land sucks, winters are harsh, everything contributes to decay. Heck, the original sarcophagus built for Chernobyl only lasted like 20 years before it started falling apart. Now granted that wasn't the most well built structure, but the point is that you ideally want to store waste in a ecologically dead place with little weather and on solid ground.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
ITER was supposed to be built and operating by now lmao.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
I wonder how much that graph accounts for Chinese research and development. The news from TAE seems promising reading the (paywalled) article in a private browser. Maybe it's trying to attract additional venture funding but if the results are there and given the Biden admin's promises for infrastructure funding and green energy maybe we finally start to see sustained progress.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
That chart's from 2012 I think, so it probably doesn't account for anything China has spent on research, at least not in the last decade. Hopefully we step up the effort to develop a reactor, but we could build clean and safe fission power plants right now and we're not doing that, either.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Heavy metals are the issue there, water is such a good absorber of radiation you can dive in those storage pools so long as you don’t actually touch the casks. What happens with the casks? Are they just really hot or toxic or touching gets a big fat radiation dose?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
priznat posted:What happens with the casks? Are they just really hot or toxic or touching gets a big fat radiation dose? "Cask" isn't the right word, what's in the cooling pool are bundles of spent fuel rods. These are very hot, thermally (which is why you need to cool them, so they don't melt), and radiologically (which is why sticking them in a big pool of water to cool them is a good idea.). Once they've cooled off enough (read: once the fission fragments in them have spent a long enough time decaying), they can be removed from the pool and placed in casks, which then get stored in a lot out behind the reactor building because we as a country are too stupid to put them in a geologic repository. Fortunately, space isn't exactly an issue. Here's the dry cask storage at Palo Verde, where every bit of spent fuel that this reactor complex has generated since it went online in the mid-80s is stored. Zoom out for context. https://www.google.com/maps/place/P...!4d-112.8762985 Phanatic fucked around with this message at 20:20 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 20:18
|
|