|
Nebakenezzer posted:So it looks like the F-35 still has the following problems: I wish Canada had bought Rafales. I think they're better-looking than the Eurofighter and more practical (twin engine, carrier-capable) than the Gripen. And they're 
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
FMguru posted:Mines in the US and Canada were considered a “good” prospect if they could yield ore with 0.03% uranium. At Shinkolobwe, ores typically yielded 65% uranium. The waste pile of rock deemed too poor quality to bother processing, known as tailings, contained 20% uranium. Little Boy contained 65kg of uranium. I love the image of a guy pushing a wheelbarrow with 100kg of rocks out of the mine, up to a bunch of scientists in lab coats and g-men in suits, being like "yep that much oughta do'er" yes i know it has to be enriched
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:There will be some g forces happening, but freight trains take a looong time to stop, and even relatively light passenger stuff is hardly fast. for the record that deceleration is 0.045g. Prooooobably slow enough that you wouldn't have trouble getting up and walking out of the cab, even if you were an arthritic old geezer. For a point of comparison, it is the same acceleration you would experience if you are a 70kg man standing on a frictionless (let's say ice) surface inclined at 2.5 degrees from horizontal. Like "am I moving? I think I might be sliding." Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Aug 6, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
Passenger trains weigh far less than freight trains, though. Like 10 cars mostly full of air vs 200 cars full of coal and gravel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
LRADIKAL posted:-106 Starfighter I believe off the top of my head. The F-104 Starfighter. And it got a lot of press for how many of them were lost in low-altitude ditch-digging, though a lot of that was because it was designed explicitly as a high-altitude high-speed interceptor and then Lockheed sold them to a bunch of European nations as fighter-bombers. Those teeny little wings don't give you much margin of error when you strap on a bunch of bombs and start pulling Gs a few thousand feet off the ground. But plenty of fighter planes got called "lawn darts" because they're mostly pointy and a lot of them ended up in the ground. Particularly in the 50s through 80s. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Aug 12, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
hasn't it been sitting in the caspian sea for forty years? i dunno that getting beached for another week really qualifies as "wrecked" e: ok i guess it was only sitting unused for about twenty years
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
Yeah the only real advantage of operating in ground effect is that you can carry more payload for a given amount of engine thrust or wing area. So there's a cost/efficiency argument to be made, but as with most designs that try to be good at several things, they are better described as being worse at any one thing. If you want to conduct high-speed strike attacks, an airplane is faster and harder to hit. If you want to carry a ton of ordnance, a cruiser is much tougher and better armed. If you want to do an amphibious landing, a regular assault craft is much cheaper to operate and less fragile.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
I couldn't shape the strategic environment, honey. Back in those days I was investing in Eastern Poland
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2020 02:04
|
|
|
Q_res posted:I would have thought the MiG-21 would hold the "most ubiquitous" title. Though I could see the 15 or 17 beating it. I know that the MiG-21 is the most ubiquitous supersonic aircraft. You're probably right about the MiG-15 or -17 beating it out for most ubiquitous jet fighter; certainly if you count them both as one model (the -17 was heavily based on the -15) it would be, and with all the license built versions there's no question.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
oh nice i love starcraft
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning is having a really hard time grasping why China would build a smaller aircraft carrier rather than a bigger one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
I'm gonna say they're just planning to go all-in on drones. They probably recognize that building up a full-on manned carrier aviation capability is a long and expensive process, and drones are getting better and better and are plenty good at menacing around the Taiwan Strait. So why not just have a baby carrier that can launch twenty little UCAVs rapid-fire, and who cares about flight deck efficiency because they're unmanned drones with like a 20 hour loiter time and if you lose one in the ocean oh well whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Langley started her life as a collier, named USS Jupiter. Her sister ships were Cyclops, which disappeared without a trace in World War I, Proteus, and Nereus, which disappeared on the same route as Cyclops in World War II. Man, ships' names used to be so much better. Good names: Mythology, abstract concepts, animals (Proteus, Le Téméraire, Constellation, Sailfish) Acceptable: Heroic deceased sailors, women, battles (Roald Amundsen, Sally Ride, Valley Forge) Bad: Everything else, especially regular sailors and not particularly heroic politicians (Gerald Ford, Carl Vinson) Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Aug 24, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
How much of that is the F-35 specifically though and how much is just the SDB doing exactly what it would do if dropped from, say, a P-47
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
did ww2 nazi ships actually have a big swastika helipad on the bow
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
I think it was an interface problem. Something like the radar showed the vertical rate beside the trace with a number and a tiny arrow, up for a climb and down for a descent, and the sailors watching the radar forgot about the arrow and read an airplane in a climb as an airplane on an attack run.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
I think the X-Wing is pretty clearly the weird little helicopter on the cover. There were proposals in the 80s for helicopters with really fat, short rotors that would take off vertically and then lock them in position and cruise like a plane. I could imagine those being called X-Wings. e: yep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-72#The_X-Wing 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:If you have intermediate options all the way up to strategic nuclear exchange, then the Nash equilibrium for any significant confrontation is to jump straight to the ICBMs, so the intermediate options don't get used. But their presence is necessary to ensure the ICBMs get used. Nash had paranoid schizophrenia, and applying his mathematical theories to the real world requires that you treat humans participating in your systems like paranoid schizophrenics. He thought that everyone in the world was out to get him, so he built mathematical models that aligned with his delusions, and now we've built huge swathes of economic and diplomatic thought on those same flawed principles. They exclude basic human concepts like empathy and altruism. In every case where WW3 nearly started but didn't, like in 1983 when the Soviet satellites thought the rising moon was a strategic missile strike, the human race was saved because someone like Stanislav Petrov acted like a human being instead of a paranoid robot as the models "predict." The planners look at it and see a failure of the person; I see a failure of the model. It's time to give up on Nash
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
sorry, the 1960 one was where satellites detected the rising moon and thought the USA was launching a massive nuclear strike. the 1983 one was where satellites detected sunlight on the clouds and thought the USA was launching a massive nuclear strike.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 04:14
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Lmfao no it doesn't. Something tells me you have not studied this in any depth. Or possibly I have missed the part where the iterated prisoners' dilemma only has a solution when everyone is severely mentally ill There is an enormous difference between saying "yes, the math Nash came up with works out" and saying "so let's start running our society as if human beings do what the math says they should"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 08:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:First, won’t this apply to 99.9% of all aircraft and second, E modifier already existed and meant something else! Well this is just dumb as poo poo. What even is "digital engineering" and how is it different from the computer-assisted design we've been using since the 70s?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
Oh, I get it, like how we have the rF-16 that is riveted together, but the cB-2 is made of carbon fiber
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I swear I read an article about some joint designation office or whatever thats in charge of aircraft and other designations and how they'd had a bunch of stuff ready to go for the F-35 as the F-24 (F-25?) and randomly one day Rummsfeld or the secretary of the air force at the time was asked what the "real" designation for the X-35 was going to be and responded "Well, X-35? Thats the F-35!" There's always a story behind the designation, even if it's something dumb like that. There is no F-13 because of superstition. There is no F-19 because Northrop thought the name sounded too much like a MiG product. They specifically requested F-20 for their Tigershark fighter that never went into production. There is actually an F-21. In the 1980s, the USA leased a number of IAI Kfirs from Israel to use as aggressors, and assigned them the designation F-21A in USAF service. Good way to win a bar bet with plane nerds. The SR-71 is numbered that way because it was originally conceptualized (very early in the process) as a high-speed bomber, following the B-70. It kept the number when they changed the letters. The F-117 follows a sequence of numbers used as one-offs for captured Soviet aircraft under test at Groom Lake. First you had the century series (F-100 through F-106), then three experimental planes (XF-107/8/9), then there's the F-111 of course. F-110 was briefly assigned to what became the F-4 Phantom, then reused for the CONSTANT PEG program: quote:YF-110B Soviet MiG-21F-13 I don't know what happened to the F-112, -115, or -116 and would be interested to find out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
those bumps sticking out all over it would preclude any form of stealth, which is gonna be a basic requirement of any new secret designs
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
Notice To All Men: wipe your rear end
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:What's a B-3? I think that was what they were going to call the B-21 before they just threw out the idea of sequential numbers entirely
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:It’s amazing that he’s the first occupant of the White House who hasn’t visibly aged while in office. his appearance is entirely artificial. why would it change?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
I'd say hide a couple of torpedoes under some fishing nets and roll them off the stern ramp, yeah. though if the US ship has even like a 5 inch gun I'm pretty sure that counts as a suicide attack
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
i'm the scorch marks on the deck
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
Does anyone have that awesome effortpost about nuclear weapon safeties? I am specifically looking for the name of that twin-roller slider mechanism that some designs use as an inertial "dropped from airplane" detector.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:this one? Yep that's the one! and the word I was looking for was apparently "rolamite." thx
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
slothrop posted:I assume the belly landing is a deliberate decision in this case? Is it considered safer on soft ground? The answer is always "it depends," but it was probably intentional in this case, yes. A freshly ploughed field is squishy enough that the gear can sink in and pull the plane onto its nose, so if you already know you aren't flying back out because you are missing two engines, belly landing is probably the safer choice. In flight training you are told to select dusty old hard-baked fields instead of dark fresh irrigated ones for your emergency landings, if possible, for this reason.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
Aglet56 posted:I honestly don't know, but are E-6B flights unusual? Or is this just a routine thing Next to meaningless. Those planes are up all the time. They spend much of their time over the ocean where the submarines are, which means they don't usually show up on flight trackers like ADSBExchange because there aren't nerds with raspberries pi out in the middle of the pacific. It's just coincidence that one happened to fly in range of the coast when this guy looked it up. If you go to the site in the link and click UTC DAY PREVIOUS you can see that that particular airframe flies nearly every day, and there are half a dozen of them in the inventory.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2020 08:04
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:And some it was so cutting edge it got Nobel prizes decades later. which ones, exactly? physics? what year? there is no nobel prize in spy satellite engineering
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
It seems like aircraft gun designs are just one of those little things that are culturally different between the USA and Europe. In WW2 the Americans preferred six .50s while the Europeans tended to have a couple of heavy cannon. The fast-and-light/slow-and-powerful difference is still true with modern jets; European fighters continue to use 30mm revolver cannons and the like, well after the USA standardized on 20mm gatling guns. I think it's even been true with small arms at certain times; the Americans were the first to seriously use .22-caliber high-velocity battle rifles while all the Europeans were sticking with heavier-hitting .30-cal designs. FMguru posted:IIRC, you had be careful when firing it so that it doesn't push you under your stall speed. I have heard that that is exaggerated. It does measurably slow the plane down, but the recoil force is equal to slightly more than half of the airplane's total thrust so it's comparable to having an engine out. It's not going to drop you out of the sky, or even bring you close to a stall. Especially since you're only firing for a few seconds at a time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
That doesn't contradict what I posted 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 02:10
|
|
|
The Su-25 is significantly faster than the A-10. Just one more way Russia #1 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Regarding big plane gun chat: what was the rationale for putting a 25mm on the F-35 instead of the light 20mm used on the Raptor? It's to lol
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
LibCrusher posted:I interned at the DIII-D experimental tokomak fusion reactor in San Diego. It was pretty much 100% proven that a magnetic confinement fusion reactor is not the way forward for thermonuclear power. There may be other fusion technologies with a more promising future, but magnetic confinement tokomaks are a dead end. ITER unfortunately is a tok. I'm a big fan of stellarators
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
tangy yet delightful posted:These fringe benefits must be really great, lets check out how the younger generations are doing on accumulating wealth relative to boomers...oh poo poo they are doing terrible also lol @ including the value of employer-provided health insurance in total compensation when (1) it's not fungible and (2) it is comedically overvalued in america because of the absurd fees for treatment "see, you might have only made 55k this year, but we paid almost $200,000 for those three days you spent in the hospital with a broken leg, so really it's like you're making $255k! you're doing fine!!" lomarf get hosed
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 00:22
|
|