Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Son of Rodney
Feb 22, 2006

ohmygodohmygodohmygod



Inspector 34 posted:

Ideally the length of the wielder's arm span, typically 4 to 5.5 feet? I get that average height has been on the rise, but seriously, when in human history could 4 feet tall have been remotely typical?

Dude, you literally say armspan in your own sentence. As in, the amount of space between your fingertips when you put your arms out to your side.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gyro Zeppeli
Jul 18, 2012

sure hope no-one throws me off a bridge


Son of Rodney posted:

Dude, you literally say armspan in your own sentence. As in, the amount of space between your fingertips when you put your arms out to your side.

Your armspan and height are directly connected.

raverrn
Apr 5, 2005

Unidentified spacecraft inbound from delta line.

All Silpheed squadrons scramble now!



KillHour posted:

Lockheed Martin built a thing to intercept ICBMs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM

Why are we even bothering any more? Who is going to attack us with better weapons than the ones we already have?

Because 1. That's how we got to 'better weapons than everyone else' in the FIRST place and 2. Think of the non-military applications.

Solice Kirsk
Jun 1, 2004

.


raverrn posted:

Because 1. That's how we got to 'better weapons than everyone else' in the FIRST place and 2. Think of the non-military applications.

A fire spitting hover rescue bot?

Kazinsal
Dec 13, 2011



Solice Kirsk posted:

A fire spitting hover rescue bot?

Robocop drones.

"Dead or alive, you are coming with me." *burns crook's face off with hover thrusters*

KillHour
Oct 28, 2007






raverrn posted:

Because 1. That's how we got to 'better weapons than everyone else' in the FIRST place and 2. Think of the non-military applications.

This made sense when our "enemies" were superpowers with massive standing armies and R&D budgets. Now they're some just some random dudes with cold war leftovers. I'm not saying stop all military R&D, I'm saying "Why the gently caress do we need ICBM interceptors and billion-dollar air superiority fighters?"

As for your second point, it's not like we have to burn the money if it's not being used for bigger explosions. We can fund non-military R&D directly.

Plinkey
Aug 4, 2004

The Trump thread is not happy with me--that's okay, I'll still keep eating that garbage.


KillHour posted:

billion-dollar air superiority fighters?"

...but you get about 6 of them for 1 billion. Never mind the total program cost, most of that was just practice.

KillHour
Oct 28, 2007






Plinkey posted:

...but you get about 6 of them for 1 billion. Never mind the total program cost, most of that was just practice.

The 1 billion figure included the cost of getting the software working correctly.

Also, the payouts to the pilots' families when they fall out of the sky like rocks.

DumbparameciuM
Feb 23, 2015

TOASTIN CONES AND BLASTIN FOES
LOWER HOUSE | LOWER SIXTH


KillHour posted:

This made sense when our "enemies" were superpowers with massive standing armies and R&D budgets. Now they're some just some random dudes with cold war leftovers. I'm not saying stop all military R&D, I'm saying "Why the gently caress do we need ICBM interceptors and billion-dollar air superiority fighters?"

As for your second point, it's not like we have to burn the money if it's not being used for bigger explosions. We can fund non-military R&D directly.

The excuse they're choosing to use is that everyone else is still developing gen 4+/++ air fighters

That being said, it feels very much like the end-of-3rd-gen period ('Nam) to me - like the plane itself is getting less important, it's just about how much of what weapon system you can bolt to it. And, nowadays, how small you can make the radar profile. Kind of strikes me as the "end of days" for air superiority fighters. Why make something that requires a squishy, weak, fallible human to actually sit inside it, when you could be making bigger, faster drone fighters? Seems very much like fighter jets are losing the race against AA/SAMs more and more each day.

The F-35 needs to die in a fire, for real. I can't believe the Australian government has committed $720+ million USD AUD$11.12B for 72 planes that can't fire their weapons systems or take warm AvGas.

E: Forgot about the price rise. And maths derp.

DumbparameciuM has a new favorite as of 06:01 on May 19, 2015

Inspector 34
Mar 9, 2009

DOES NOT RESPECT THE RUN

BUT THEY WILL


Hijo Del Helmsley posted:

Your armspan and height are directly connected.

It is kind of funny to imagine a 7 foot tall dude with a 4.5 foot armspan though. Would probably need his 5 foot girl friend with an 8 foot wingspan to grab stuff off the top of the fridge for him.

Wild T
Dec 15, 2008

The point I'm trying to make is that the only way to come out on top is to kick the Air Force in the nuts, beart it savagely with a weight and take a dump on it's face.

DumbparameciuM posted:

Why make something that requires a squishy, weak, fallible human to actually sit inside it, when you could be making bigger, faster drone fighters? Seems very much like fighter jets are losing the race against AA/SAMs more and more each day.

Because drone pilots aren't sexy enough to make General THE HUMAN ELEMENT will never be surpassed, haven't you ever seen Stealth for Chrissake?

C.M. Kruger
Oct 28, 2013


I figure that by Block 20-30 the majority of the problems with the F-35 will be fixed. And unlike the Rafael or Typhoon it'll have better chances against modern SAM systems.

Aphrodite
Jun 27, 2006



KillHour posted:

This made sense when our "enemies" were superpowers with massive standing armies and R&D budgets. Now they're some just some random dudes with cold war leftovers. I'm not saying stop all military R&D, I'm saying "Why the gently caress do we need ICBM interceptors and billion-dollar air superiority fighters?"

As for your second point, it's not like we have to burn the money if it's not being used for bigger explosions. We can fund non-military R&D directly.

That's just what all of our enemies are waiting for.

As soon as we stop they'll reveal they were working on superweapons in secret, and then we're screwed.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


C.M. Kruger posted:

I figure that by Block 20-30 the majority of the problems with the F-35 will be fixed. And unlike the Rafael or Typhoon it'll have better chances against modern SAM systems.



Atleast the Rafael or typhoon might stay airborne long enough to get shot at. I suppose the plan is to deny the enemy any kills by ensuring that all planes self destruct a maximum of 10 minutes into their flight. Think of the economic benfits to the MIC for contracts for all these planes to replace the ones that tried to take off!

KillHour
Oct 28, 2007






Aphrodite posted:

That's just what all of our enemies are waiting for.

As soon as we stop they'll reveal they were working on superweapons in secret, and then we're screwed.

It's pretty telling how DARPA went from "We're funding robots to help troops on the battlefield carry heavy poo poo" to "We're funding robots to pull people out of collapsed buildings" in just a few years.

3D Megadoodoo
Nov 25, 2010

- Ska du ha maito i kaffet?


KillHour posted:

This made sense when our "enemies" were superpowers with massive standing armies and R&D budgets. Now they're some just some random dudes with cold war leftovers. I'm not saying stop all military R&D, I'm saying "Why the gently caress do we need ICBM interceptors and billion-dollar air superiority fighters?"

As for your second point, it's not like we have to burn the money if it's not being used for bigger explosions. We can fund non-military R&D directly.

The US is totally going to war with Russia and/or China within the next 30 years over Arctic regions.

e: not that it matters of course, since most R&D is for poo poo designed to spy on and kill civilians.

Gyro Zeppeli
Jul 18, 2012

sure hope no-one throws me off a bridge


KillHour posted:

It's pretty telling how DARPA went from "We're funding robots to help troops on the battlefield carry heavy poo poo" to "We're funding robots to pull people out of collapsed buildings" in just a few years.

"Yeah, we're funding robots so we can avoid any more human deaths in warfare!"
"But wouldn't that make every soldier in the armed forces redundant?"
"I MEAN, ROBOTS PILOTED BY HUMANS TO SAVE OTHER HUMANS. PLENTY OF HUMANS."

Son of Rodney
Feb 22, 2006

ohmygodohmygodohmygod



Hijo Del Helmsley posted:

Your armspan and height are directly connected.

I did not know that!

Wild T
Dec 15, 2008

The point I'm trying to make is that the only way to come out on top is to kick the Air Force in the nuts, beart it savagely with a weight and take a dump on it's face.

Son of Rodney posted:

I did not know that!

Have you ever seen the Vitruvian Man?

Kenlon
Jun 27, 2003

Digitus Impudicus


KillHour posted:

This made sense when our "enemies" were superpowers with massive standing armies and R&D budgets. Now they're some just some random dudes with cold war leftovers. I'm not saying stop all military R&D, I'm saying "Why the gently caress do we need ICBM interceptors and billion-dollar air superiority fighters?"

Because building new, cutting edge military tech is difficult and expensive as hell. Catching up to what someone else has already made, even without stealing it directly via espionage, is nowhere near as pricy. If we want to maintain our position as the unrivaled military superpower (which we do, for a variety of reasons), then we have to spend the money.


Then you add in the fact that the defense contractors basically own the procurement process and

C.M. Kruger
Oct 28, 2013


And of course then Congress won't actually approve money for new airplanes to replace 30-40 year old fighters that are falling apart in mid-air.

Fun fact: The litigation resulting from the cancellation of the A-12 Avenger II (a stealth bomber that would have theoretically replaced the A-6 Intruder to the JSF replacing the F-16 and F/A-18) in 1991 went on until 2014 and outlived McDonnell Douglas by 17 years.

ElMaligno
Dec 31, 2004

Be Gay!
Do Crime!



Cat Hatter posted:

You're thinking of the USCGC Mellon:


The story is that the head of the Coast Guard wanted to make his own miniature Navy so he had Harpoon anti-ship missile and anti-sub warfare capabilities installed on a cutter. Unfortunately (because its less interesting) the story about the keel breaking is just an urban legend and the missiles were removed because they were too expensive.

http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcmellon/history6.asp

While looking that up though, I came across this bit about the Mellon's service in Vietnam:

So I guess at one point it wasn't as insane to imagine the Coast Guard attacking other ships, but it still seems weird (to me) to send cutters out to assist the Navy in blockading a foreign nation, even though if you replace "Vietnam" with "Florida" and "guns" with "drugs" you basically have their current job.

The keel didn’t break, the keel bent, also totes true scrub .

Source: Me as I served on that cutter for a year about five years ago.

The thing that gets me salty as gently caress in the CG is Admiral Yost, the guy wanted to shift the CG priorities into coastal defense and acquiring weapons. Hence we attempted to put missiles our cutters and put CIWS on the large cutters.

Fun Fact 1: When the CIWS fires is sounds like loving literal evil hellish bees that hate you and want to kill you. On a firing exercise the 76 knocked a bolt out from somewhere in the ceiling and ended up hitting my head. I loving love those goddamed guns.

Fun Fact 2: The USCGC MELLON is 378 ft long and are classified as high endurance cutters, but they also wanted to install a CIWS on the Medium Endurance Cutters like the USCGC TAHOMA which is 100 ft shorter. No, I have no idea where the gently caress they would put that gun.

Fun Fact 3: Admiral Yost not only made the Coast Guard waste a poo poo ton of tax payers money, he also was the admiral responsible to end beards in the Coast Guard. Thank you Admiral!

Wild T
Dec 15, 2008

The point I'm trying to make is that the only way to come out on top is to kick the Air Force in the nuts, beart it savagely with a weight and take a dump on it's face.


So basically, ADM Yost is to the Navy as a tacticlol mall cop is to the Army?

RavenKrows
May 29, 2008


KillHour posted:

This made sense when our "enemies" were superpowers with massive standing armies and R&D budgets. Now they're some just some random dudes with cold war leftovers. I'm not saying stop all military R&D, I'm saying "Why the gently caress do we need ICBM interceptors and billion-dollar air superiority fighters?"

As for your second point, it's not like we have to burn the money if it's not being used for bigger explosions. We can fund non-military R&D directly.

Have you not been paying attention for the past decade? Russia and China aren't napping when it comes to military technology. Our spending process is hosed up so we have definite unnecessary losses but you can't nap on this poo poo or else you play even more expensive catch up if you actually need a new system (expensive in lives and financial costs).

Our ICBM interceptors could always use more work by the way. It's not like their success ratio is particularly in our favor, it would sure be nice if we had a hope in hell of stopping more missiles in a nuclear exchange.

ElMaligno
Dec 31, 2004

Be Gay!
Do Crime!



Wild T posted:

So basically, the entire Coast Guard is to the Navy as a tacticlol mall cop is to the Army?

Fixed, because let’s not kid ourselves here as a single navy aircraft carrier has more fire power than the entire coast guard fleet.

My pet theory is that when the Admiral was a wee officer during the Vietnam War he got in a beard growing contest. A chief or some other higher ranking enlisted saw the pathetic attempt of the young officer to grow a beard, so the chief did what all chief do he gave the guy a good ol’ fashioned ball busting.

Then the young officer laughed but secretly cried while plotting his revenge, “If I ever become the Commandant” he muttered under his breath while holding his nerdy tears back “I will ban beards! Forever! Also put missiles on cutters because that is cool as gently caress bro!”

And that’s my story, thanks for reading

Gravitas Shortfall
Jul 17, 2007

Utility is seven-eighths Proximity.



My favourite weapon system is small boats, motorcycle messengers and a massive amount of cruise missiles

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

quote:

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

moller
Jan 10, 2007

Swan stole my music and framed me!


Gravitas Shortfall posted:

My favourite weapon system is small boats, motorcycle messengers and a massive amount of cruise missiles

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

You've just invoked the wrath of subforum who will tell you that guy was a cheating no-good glory hound who violated the laws of physics and undermined esprit de corps.

Gibfender
Apr 15, 2007

Electricity In Our Homes

Oh man, we made it 7 pages

Welp, see you in 20

Ferrosol
Nov 8, 2010

Notorious J.A.M


Gravitas Shortfall posted:

My favourite weapon system is small boats, motorcycle messengers and a massive amount of cruise missiles

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

So your favourite weapon is cheating, Since red won by having motorcycle couriers who can teleport from place to place and small boats that can launch cruise missiles bigger than the boat carrying them. Of course when someone pointed out these minor discrepancies to the red commander he threw a massive shitfit and complained to the media. Now would american fleets be vulnerable to that kind of tactic? probably but any enemy capable of that kind of strike would probably have their poo poo bombed to pieces before a fleet sailed in range.

ElMaligno
Dec 31, 2004

Be Gay!
Do Crime!



moller posted:

You've just invoked the wrath of subforum who will tell you that guy was a cheating no-good glory hound who violated the laws of physics and undermined esprit de corps.

That post has bad grammar and only mentions one weapon system. But since its only mentions one weapon system, the usage of "is" instead of "are" is justified.

Still a shameful as gently caress post.

overeager overeater
Oct 16, 2011

"The cosmonauts were transfixed with wonderment as the sun set - over the Earth - there lucklessly, untethered Comrade Todd on fire."





Gravitas Shortfall posted:

My favourite weapon system is small boats, motorcycle messengers and a massive amount of cruise missiles

That strategy is eerily similar to Eurisko's:

The New Yorker posted:

In 1981, a computer scientist from Stanford University named Doug Lenat entered the Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron tournament, in San Mateo, California. It was a war game. The contestants had been given several volumes of rules, well beforehand, and had been asked to design their own fleet of warships with a mythical budget of a trillion dollars. The fleets then squared off against one another in the course of a weekend. “Imagine this enormous auditorium area with tables, and at each table people are paired off,” Lenat said. “The winners go on and advance. The losers get eliminated, and the field gets smaller and smaller, and the audience gets larger and larger.”

Lenat had developed an artificial-intelligence program that he called Eurisko, and he decided to feed his program the rules of the tournament. Lenat did not give Eurisko any advice or steer the program in any particular strategic direction. He was not a war-gamer. He simply let Eurisko figure things out for itself. For about a month, for ten hours every night on a hundred computers at Xerox PARC, in Palo Alto, Eurisko ground away at the problem, until it came out with an answer. Most teams fielded some version of a traditional naval fleet—an array of ships of various sizes, each well defended against enemy attack. Eurisko thought differently. “The program came up with a strategy of spending the trillion on an astronomical number of small ships like P.T. boats, with powerful weapons but absolutely no defense and no mobility,” Lenat said. “They just sat there. Basically, if they were hit once they would sink. And what happened is that the enemy would take its shots, and every one of those shots would sink our ships. But it didn’t matter, because we had so many.” Lenat won the tournament in a runaway.

The next year, Lenat entered once more, only this time the rules had changed. Fleets could no longer just sit there. Now one of the criteria of success in battle was fleet “agility.” Eurisko went back to work. “What Eurisko did was say that if any of our ships got damaged it would sink itself—and that would raise fleet agility back up again,” Lenat said. Eurisko won again.

As for weird weapon systems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Bgb4SGTgDY

Pneub
Mar 12, 2007

I'M THE DEVIL, AND I WILL WASH OVER THE EARTH AND THE SEAS WILL RUN RED WITH THE BLOOD OF ALL THE SINNERS

I AM REBORN


Vlad the Retailer posted:

That strategy is eerily similar to Eurisko's:

Ah, the ol' "Brannigan's Gambit".

The Zombie Guy
Oct 25, 2008


Got an unruly mob that needs dispersing? Want to make people leave the area without resorting to tear gas / rubber bullets?

Fire up the ol' Active Denial System!



This fun little gizmo takes directed energy similar to a microwave, and uses it to heat up and excite the water and fat molecules in your skin. The result is the sensation that your skin is on fire. People instinctively flee the area, and with no harsh after-effects!*

*(A few of the volunteer test subjects have suffered 2nd degree burns. Ooops!)

It's interesting to see the videos of people getting the beam fired at them. It seems even determined people who know what's coming are unable to stand up to the pain sensation for more than a few seconds. The downside is that some of the testing shows that the beam is only effective against exposed skin, so thick clothing, or hiding behind metallic objects can defeat the effect.

Here's a video showing the ADS in action, and explaining how it works.

DumbparameciuM
Feb 23, 2015

TOASTIN CONES AND BLASTIN FOES
LOWER HOUSE | LOWER SIXTH


Turns out the Naval AWS/Laser weapons don't loving work: http://thebulletin.org/navys-new-laser-weapon-hype-or-reality8326

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



DumbparameciuM posted:

Turns out the Naval AWS/Laser weapons don't loving work: http://thebulletin.org/navys-new-laser-weapon-hype-or-reality8326

Well, they haven't managed to almost sink the ship they are mounted on, so they are still better than the f-35

DumbparameciuM
Feb 23, 2015

TOASTIN CONES AND BLASTIN FOES
LOWER HOUSE | LOWER SIXTH


Tiberius Thyben posted:

Well, they haven't managed to almost sink the ship they are mounted on, so they are still better than the f-35

AND YET http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/lasers-on-a-plane-air-force-wants-fighter-firing-100-kilowatts-by-2022/

occluded
Oct 31, 2012

Sandals: Become the means to create A JUST SOCIETY



Fun Shoe

I just don't get why you would want a weapon that sucks up enormous amounts of power and doesn't work when it's foggy. When did firing big lumps of stuff at high speeds become unfashionable?


Content: My favourite weapon system has always been the rocket propelled, runway cratering Durandal bomb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-buvo3dj4

Carlos Lantana
Oct 2, 2003

yiff me, senpai

Fun Shoe

Here's a thing, basically an agricultural tractor mounted with 6 106mm recoiless rifles firing those beehive rounds mentioned earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos

NVA often shat themselves and ran when it turned up. Smart move.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

moller
Jan 10, 2007

Swan stole my music and framed me!


DumbparameciuM posted:

Turns out the Naval AWS/Laser weapons don't loving work: http://thebulletin.org/navys-new-laser-weapon-hype-or-reality8326

Has the venerable (34 year old) Phalanx CIWS system that LaWS is an evolution of ever proven to be effective in any way? Googling about its operational history just keeps bringing up the same few incidents in which it failed to engage or engaged the wrong target when used in a combat situation.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Beardless
Aug 12, 2011

I am Centurion Titus Polonius. And the only trouble I've had is that nobody seem to realize that I'm their superior officer.


tardwrangler posted:

Here's a thing, basically an agricultural tractor mounted with 6 106mm recoiless rifles firing those beehive rounds mentioned earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos

NVA often shat themselves and ran when it turned up. Smart move.



The biggest problem with the Ontos is that you have to get out of the vehicle to reload the guns.

  • Locked thread