|
The Cold War was basically the best time to be an aerospace engineer, there are so many cool/crazy/obscure concepts dreamt up by guys with slide rules and pocket protectors I have to wonder why we don't have even more awesome stuff being designed now we have modern CAD/CAM tools. Maybe engineers have more common sense these days? In those days, I suspect that if you said it could carry nukes or tanks or anything else good for giving the Reds a black eye, you could get funding for it. Some never got beyond crude sketches and illustrations, others went all the way to full-blown flying prototypes. Anyway, here's a few neat innovative ideas that all didn't pan out for one reason or another, along with a few random things at the end. (Click images to embiggen) The Bell D188A. Eight engines, Mach 2 capable, VTOL/STOVL fighter-bomber and interceptor. Never developed beyond a full size mockup (below). 4 turbojets in the tilt-pods on the ends of the wings, 2 in the rear fuselage for forward thrust and 2 mounted vertically behind the cockpit, used in conjunction with the wing pods for VTOL flight.  One of the proposed applications is depicted in the artwork below; hide a bunch of the things in woods around West Germany, then when the Red Army comes pouring across the border they'd take off vertically, zoom in at Mach 2 and nuke the poo poo out of the Russians before they knew what the gently caress. Not sure how well a VTOL craft is going to do taking off from an unprepared surface, I don't think clouds of dirt are very good for jet engines.  Flight test footage of a 1/8 scale model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p7UJEDG4E0 XB36 prototype  And its radioactive brother, the NB36H which has already had a post about it. Didn't see this image though, the radiation hazard trefoil is pretty ominous.  But if nuclear powered planes are too mainstream, how about a nuclear powered helicopter?  Proposed by Bell in 1960, I swear they wanted to stuff a fission reactor into anything in those days. 100 metres long, 200mph top speed, 250 tons. Reactor went in the extreme rear, the crew in the nose to reduce that whole 'crew dies of radiation sickness' problem. The more distance you have between squishy humans and radiation hazard, the less weight you have to waste on heavy shielding. Hughes Rotorwing /Y-wing. Jet exhaust spins the rotorwing from vents at the tips for hovering, then is redirected out a conventional tailpipe for forward flight. Apparently its downfall was terrible fuel efficiency in hover mode. Sure looks like a UFO though!   Although not as much like a UFO as these Martin saucer-wing designs from the late 50s. Unfortunately I don't have much info on these beyond that they're described as atomic or 'photon' powered. I think these wouldn't look out of place on Star Trek.  Credible Sport. Take one C-130, cover it in solid rocket motors and you've got a cargo aircraft capable of landing and taking off from an extremely small area. Developed during the Iranian hostage crisis, the plan was to land it in a soccer stadium across the road from where the hostages were being held.  One set of rockets fired to provide lift at very low speeds, followed by a forward facing set to rapidly brake the aircraft after touchdown.  One last set of rockets provided thrust for a short takeoff run to get the plane airborne again. The problem was with what happened if you fired the braking rockets before you touch down:  And that was the end of that plan. Completely awesome video these caps are from (can't embed unfortunately): http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=fSFjhWw4DNo A little more modern than this other stuff, but a wind tunnel model of the F-117 with external stores is pretty neato. These are conformal, stealthy cruise missiles with flip out fins.    And with LGBs. I don't know how useful this would have been, carrying the weapons externally would have blown your stealth to poo poo, negating the whole point of using an F117. Why not just use an F-15E or something and carry way more bombs, way faster, on a platform that can defend itself?   XB-46. So sexy.  XB-51. Not as sexy. Also, orange.  This is pretty cool. Allied drawings of Axis aircraft are common, but here's a Japanese drawing of a B-29. Looks pretty accurate!  And lastly, this totally awesome artwork of Titan III boosting Dyna-Soar. While everyone else was dicking around with ballistic capsules, the USAF had an honest-to-God orbital spaceplane in 1963. Which was cancelled just as spacecraft construction had begun  . Most images clickable for fullsize!
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Holy poo poo. Awesome post, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, that nuclear powered helicopter, while insane, looks awesome. Got anymore details on it? Also, it's sad that the DynaSoar program didn't go further.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
themachine posted:Holy poo poo, that nuclear powered helicopter, while insane, looks awesome. Got anymore details on it? Unfortunately not, I suspect that image is from an unsolicited design proposal or feasibility study, and whoever the Bell engineers showed it to said "you guys are crazy!" and told them to get back to work designing more practical aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:
My guess is that they were just trying to see how unfeasible it was so that they had the data on file somewhere when a big wig decided to ask. Especially since it looks like someone just glued some LGB's onto the conformal cruise missiles in that picture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
When I was a kid I went to an air show that feature a JATO equipped C-130. Loudest loving thing I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
 They don't have to build it into the walls, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Ygolonac posted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this about the "thing" that was found in some knick-knack given to the american ambassador or something. I just remembered some passing reference to it in a Popular Mechanics like, back in 99' Looked it up, Popular Mechanics April 1998, "Secrets of the Cold War revealed" trying to find the specific article now. Well poo poo, didn't find it, but there was some neat stuff anyways. http://www.theexperiment.org/?p=239 Stuff like, how the DOD wanted to use the new NASA agency to perform military missions, how we had planned to do a conventional first strike on China's weapons labratory, and other goodies. Well, finally found it, thank you for reminding me about this part of cold war history and sending me on an internet detectivery. http://www.spybusters.com/Great_Seal_Bug.html djdanno13 fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jan 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Quote this if you had the ever loving gently caress freaked out of you by watching "The Day After" at too young of an age. I LOVE "The Day After"! I'm a sucker for background news coverage as a way to advance plot. Lots of folks have heard about "Threads", but I'm a fan of the rather haunting "testament".
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:My guess is that they were just trying to see how unfeasible it was so that they had the data on file somewhere when a big wig decided to ask. Especially since it looks like someone just glued some LGB's onto the conformal cruise missiles in that picture. The LGBs I don't understand, as those aren't a standoff weapon, but the cruise missile kind of makes sense as a way to increase the F-117's combat load. You launch the cruise missile from a ways away and then punch the pylons to regain your low observable signature. Admittedly, that was probably a bit of a stretch for the first generation aircraft like the F-117, but the F-22 uses a similar concept for its external tanks...they use the tanks to extend their range and then punch tanks/pylons before entering the threat envelope of the enemy air defenses, going back to their normal LO state. There is (in theory) going to be the same thing on the JSF with the JASSM stealthy cruise missile...external carry with launch from far enough away to avoid detection, then jettisoning the pylons before coming within range of enemy radar. Scratch Monkey posted:When I was a kid I went to an air show that feature a JATO equipped C-130. Loudest loving thing I've ever heard. The Blue Angels' Fat Albert, more than likely. Sadly, they no longer do the JATO demo as they ran out of rockets. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Quote this if you had the ever loving gently caress freaked out of you by watching "The Day After" at too young of an age. Actually Sy-fi, the old sci-fi channel has played it a couple of times now within the last year or two. I've caught parts of it before going to work. (I'll be 40 next year)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 08:00
|
|
|
By 1986 or so 55% of all pop culture had to either start (Mad Max) or end (99 Luftballons) with the inevitable nuclear apocalypse. Nothing like air raid drills in elementary school to really make you focus on your future.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
More video fun: Bit O' Lace - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krhi5qPld9Q Cool WWII color footage of 8th Air Force bomber operations. "Wing to Wing" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k05RhUYinxM&feature=channel Great shots of RAF aircraft from the late '40s/early '50s, including some "Washingtons" (B-29s) wearing RAF colours. RAF Fighter Tactics Against the B-29: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMog3T3CAc&feature=related The fact that the Soviet Tu-4 (revealed a year before this video) was a carbon copy of the B-29 was a coincidence, I'm sure. Nuclear War Alert Simulation - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPbz53u1Ds&feature=related Interesting look at what SAC's procedures were like in the pre-ICBM era. I was chuckling a bit at the "How much time do we have? About two and a half hours" exchange. NF-5 landing on Autobahn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQPuRr2_MFg Exactly what it sounds like, the related videos include a variety of other NATO aircraft doing the same thing, including some relatively heavy ones (F-4s, for example). High Flight - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTms_G1yYPc Good color footage of the F-104 Rocket sled ejection seat tests - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgq4Ejp9BnM&feature=channel Features dummies being hurled off cliffs at supersonic speeds. Landing at Kai-Tek - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtnL4KYVtDE Crosswinds? What are those? C-130 report - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abe-WmCGwgs Interesting video on the first production C-130s from 1955...those early -A models without the extended radome look goofy as hell. Takeoff, Drop, Land - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq_beR0Yr3A Brand spankin' new C-130J flies an airdrop mission out of Kandahar. Check out the glass cockpit and the HUDs. FAC supports Army troops - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjMb9RKH1o Interesting footage of a Bird Dog FAC in Vietnam Fini flight of the F-15 up here at Elmendorf - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOlPldvSx2E Pretty cool footage of flying around Alaska...know there were more than a few damp eyes when the last one left for good later that week. Pretty sure they had to restrain a couple of the crew chiefs that were watching to prevent them from running out and grabbing on to the landing gear as the jet taxied for takeoff. F-4E air defense scramble - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqBXqb6LP8&feature=related 5 minute alert (from horn to wheels up) in West Germany during the Cold War. F-22 airshow demo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFM8FHR56PY Having seen this demo in person, I can say that it is just as impressive as it looks. Of course, the most impressive thing about that aircraft is that if it ever has to use anything that was shown in that demo, it is having a REALLY bad day. 1967 Paris Airshow - Fashions of the Air - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwLAU0QD6cI Some of those demo team maneuvers...holy poo poo, looks like the term "energy toward the crowd" hadn't been coined yet in 1967. NADGE Part I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT3B4ETlZnU&playnext=1&list=PL1B6605F807A7F44D&index=1 NADGE Part II - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW5h03LwqPQ&feature=related ALL OF EUROPE IS WORKING TOGETHER TO ENSURE COLLECTIVE AIR DEFENSE--LET ME HIT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH THAT POINT EVEN HARDER, BECAUSE THE VIDEO HITS IT PRETTY HARD. WHY AM I YELLING? BECAUSE THE SOUNDTRACK TO THESE VIDEOS IS SO loving LOUD THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HEAR ME OTHERWISE. (Seriously, the soundtrack is loving ridiculous...they're worth watching for that alone. James Bond brass and some sweet rock guitars for some reason.) The Indispensables - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_H5f16rM8U Features the phrase "this old bird" being used to refer to a KC-135...in a video that was filmed during the Vietnam War.  Also, check out the third guy's 'stache in the interview segment...you can tell he served with Robin Olds.William Tell Competition - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw74Oy1gM94&feature=channel Features F-4s, F-106s, and some Canuck F-101s. Six turnin' and four burnin' - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wvEzhyY9F4&feature=related If you haven't watched the movie "Strategic Air Command," you are missing out. The Strength of SAC - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbZWyKxLvZY&feature=channel Considering it was produced in 1966, this is a pretty good realistic look at the SAC of the time. Also, I think "vicious sentry dogs" (on the warning sign outside the alert facility) has a much better ring to it than "military working dogs." The bit at the end about how the men of SAC were human reminded me of the old joke, "To err is human, to forgive is not SAC policy." TAC on Target - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egeEkbcZ3ow&feature=channel In keeping with its fighter pilot nature, the TAC video is quite flashy and showy compared to the SAC quiet professionals. It features, among many other stupid things, using the F-104 in a ground attack role and the F-105 in the air superiority role, and the GAR-8 AIM-9 missile and the F-110 F-4 fighter. Both were weapons originally designed by the Navy and adopted by the AF, but god forbid we call it the same thing. Oh, and those C-130E models that it mentions are just starting to enter service in 1962? Yeah, some of them are still in active service with the USAF. USAF staff report from 1979 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzmxTkWrWNk&feature=channel Includes features on the A-10, Cobra Dane radar, GBU-15, MX, F-16, NAVSTAR GPS, E-4, Space Shuttle, E-3 AWACS, F-15. It definitely feels like a blast from the past to see A-10s and F-16s releasing large amounts of dumb ordnance given just how ubiquitous PGMs have become. I'm pretty sure that whenever an F-16 loads up with a bunch of bombs, John Boyd rolls over in his grave. As far as NAVSTAR goes, it's amazing to me just how prescient the voiceover in the video was. Usually when you're viewing stuff like this 30 years on you can point and laugh at some of the stuff they predicted would come true, but with GPS is all came true and then some. I think what's probably most striking is that with the exception of the MX, all of these systems are still in active service today, 30+ years later. Planar wing LORAN guided GBU-15 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJr0iof48w4 More on that planar wing GBU-15 that never was...apparently it was also supposed to use LORAN as a sort of proto-GPS guidance system, something I had never heard of being used in a weapon before. I got most of these from two channels - http://www.youtube.com/user/jaglavaksoldier http://www.youtube.com/user/airboyd Both are well worth checking out as they've got a trove of military/aviation related videos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 10:20
|
|
|
Well, there goes my morning. That F-22 video really shows off some pretty cool low-speed maneuverability. Also, those bastards look huge. Two of them flew over our motorpool and while I know in my head that they are virtually the same size as the F-15 they always strike me as just looking big.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
Here's some more XB-36 stuff, colour photography and some drawings. The XB-36 is so sleek and uncluttered, definitely one of my favourite aircraft based on sheer looks alone. Click images for fullsize! Engine trouble? Inboard engine on the starboard wing seems to have stalled and the propeller looks feathered. Could be a sign of the engine problems the B-36 became notorious for.   The XB-36 had huge single tyres instead of the four-wheel bogie of the production model.   The largest tyres ever manufactured at that time, they were 2.7 metres tall, 1 metre wide and weighed 600 kilos. The design was changed because the single tyres placed so much pressure on the runway there were only two USAF airbases it could operate from!  Very early cutaway of the 'Model 36', the original design that would eventually become the B-36. Dated from 1941, it was designed with retractable turrets carrying 37mm cannon and .50 cal guns.  And an illustration of the Model 36 from 1942. The most obvious difference with the later aircraft is the twin tails.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Well, there goes my morning. That F-22 video really shows off some pretty cool low-speed maneuverability. Also, those bastards look huge. Two of them flew over our motorpool and while I know in my head that they are virtually the same size as the F-15 they always strike me as just looking big. Having seen both of them up close in person, I think this perception of being bigger comes from a few things. Number one, the fuselage is canted outwards for LO and to provide room for weapons bays as opposed to the slabsides of the F-15. While it's still roughly the same size, being canted out will give the appearance of being larger, especially when combined with number two, which is that the F-22 has a considerably larger wing area than the F-15 (a couple hundred square feet more), which is going to make it look bigger even if the overall length/wingspan/ dimensions are similar. Here's a cool picture:  Sunday Punch posted:
Nah, it's not on fire yet.  Nice pictures, the B-36 is a pretty cool aircraft. Edit: iyaayas01 posted:More video fun: Hahahaha, holy poo poo, I hadn't finished watching this one yesterday, and even if you don't watch the whole thing you need to forward till about halfway through (~8 minute mark). There's a dude that must be TFR's granddad, because he's got like three shoulder holsters and two thigh holsters all rigged up in the most comedy ridiculous way possible; the shoulder holsters have a couple of bigass revolvers and a M1911, the thigh holsters are carrying some sort of combat knife, I think. Anyway, it's pretty funny. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The Indispensables - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_H5f16rM8U Well, the 'stache thing wasn't specific to Olds. I know a guy named Ed Rasimus who flew F-105s in '65-'66, well before Robin Olds went to Ubon. After his first real mission up north, Rasimus' boss ordered him to grow a mustache. "It's a fighter pilot tradition," he said. "Makes you bullet proof." One guy who flew with Raz couldn't grow a decent mustache to save his life. Grew out thin, scraggly, and blonde. He was about to go on R&R to Bangkok and the other guys told him not to shave it off while he's there. "There's going to be stewardesses there," they told him, "and you're going to want to shave it. Don't do it, man. It's not worth it." He comes back a couple weeks later cursing at them, because the stews wouldn't even talk to him with that pathetic thing on his upper lip. Having fulfilled his promise to not shave it while gone, he promptly shaved it off when he got back. He was shot down his next mission. (but he was rescued, so it's okay) You can tell the guy in the video served with Robin Olds because he talked about flying out of Ubon when General Olds was wing commander.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
McNally posted:Well, the 'stache thing wasn't specific to Olds. I know a guy named Ed Rasimus who flew F-105s in '65-'66, well before Robin Olds went to Ubon. After his first real mission up north, Rasimus' boss ordered him to grow a mustache. "It's a fighter pilot tradition," he said. "Makes you bullet proof." Okay, BESIDES the fact that he name dropped flying out of Ubon when Olds was the wing commander. And that's a pretty good story...aren't Rasmius's memoirs (When Thunder Rolled and Palace Cobra) supposed to be pretty good? I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but I've heard good things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
They're pretty awesome, yeah. It's probably why Olds let help his daughter organize his memoirs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
I will now post a link to a history project/paper I did last Spring, it was for a basic American history class and I put it together the night before/morning it was due. Please go easy on me (I think there's at least a few interesting things in it for you all). https://sites.google.com/site/finalhistoryproject/ Skunk Works - Impact During the Cold War Years Thesis: During the Cold War, Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development Projects (better known as Skunk Works) pioneered, developed and produced several key technologies that kept the United States on the forefront of military aviation. The impact these technologies had shaped the United States foreign policy and were pivotal in bankrupting the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 08:41
|
|
|
Someone needs to come with me on this tour: http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/view.php?pg=10 I can convince my fiance to do the one hour tour, but four and a half hours of climbing around a missile complex is beyond her interest level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
I would totally do that if I could get over to the US any time soon. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
I like turtles posted:Someone needs to come with me on this tour: http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/view.php?pg=10 I would love to own that. t makes my 50 BMG look boring by comparison
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
I like turtles posted:Someone needs to come with me on this tour: http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/view.php?pg=10 Should have told me about this in oct/nov dammit
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
I like turtles posted:Someone needs to come with me on this tour: http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/view.php?pg=10 That is awesome as hell. Looks like I now have a reason to go to AZ. I think I mentioned this before, but there is a National Monument in SD outside of Rapid City that is the same sort of thing with a Minuteman complex. It's not nearly as in depth, but they have an LF (silo), the above ground LCF, and the below ground LCC (control capsule), all preserved. On an unrelated note, I'm glad that this thread has been chugging along slowly but surely without me as of late. I will try (emphasis on try) to get the finale of my Skyraider/A-X/A-10 post up tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Why did the East Germans not rebuild their arms industry like the West Germans did? Instead they seemed to go entirely with your standard Combloc arsenal. Did the Russians do that good of a job in stripping the country for war reparations or did the Russians just never encourage the Germans to rearm themselves?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 07:13
|
|
|
Senor Science posted:Why did the East Germans not rebuild their arms industry like the West Germans did? I think it was probably equal parts of combloc arms logistics. There were East German AK47's. The main difference, like basically all combloc ak's from different nations were things like pistol grips and flash hiders. The other side is probably the result of a dictatorship posing as communism discouraging private citizens from owning firearms. Also, iyaayas, where is that minuteman museum exactly!? I go up to Rapid all the time and actually have to be up there on the 8th and would like to swing by.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 08:52
|
|
|
djdanno13 posted:I think it was probably equal parts of combloc arms logistics. There were East German AK47's. The main difference, like basically all combloc ak's from different nations were things like pistol grips and flash hiders. The other side is probably the result of a dictatorship posing as communism discouraging private citizens from owning firearms. Really, when you think about it the only Warsaw Pact country that went out on a limb when it came to weapons designs were the Czechs...everyone else was just making variations on the Soviet pattern weapons (even something like the AMD 65 is just an AKM with some goofy furniture). Here's the link to the national park services website on the monument: http://www.nps.gov/mimi/faqs.htm And here are the directions: http://www.nps.gov/mimi/planyourvisit/directions.htm The visitor contact station (where tours start) is right off of exit 131 on I-90...right by Badlands National Park if you want a point of reference. Since you mentioned you go to Rapid all the time, have you been to the aviation museum there? It's right outside one of the gates onto Ellsworth and it's well worth visiting. A lot of cool airplanes and some interesting ICBM stuff as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 09:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember someone mentioning that museum (was it you?) before. But as many times as I've been up there, I've never stopped by. Thanks for reminding me. Now I have two places to visit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 10:01
|
|
|
Why Can't America ever put cool Camo on their jets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:Why Can't America ever put cool Camo on their jets? We do... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 03:45
|
|
|
It's only sorta-kinda airpower related, but don't forget all the anti-air assets developed in the arms race. The USA worked under the AIR FORCE BLOW poo poo UP theory of air superiority for the most part. There were a few different SPAAG's and missile carriers fielded, but for the most part, the US's anti-air mobile assets kinda sucked. You had the old M163 Vulcan 20mm rotary cannon that was wedged into an old APC. Then along with that was the MIM 72 Chaparral system which was essentially 4 AIM-9 sidewinder variants strapped on a turret on top of the same old APC. Then the US tried to field a 40MM dual gun system, the Sgt. York. After eating up roughly a zillion dollars in defense $$$, it was abandoned as a failure. The USA had a few systems that were more or less haul around, then set up in a forward position (hawk, patriot which still exits), but not much in the way of a mobile AA "road march along with the tanks and IFV's" style weapon. There were lots of studies, proposed adoptions of foreign systems, stuff like strapping podded Stingers to Bradley's and Hummers, but nothing really developed. The Soviets on the other hand churned out a new gun system and especially missile system seemingly every other drat month. The later variants have some neat vertical launch capability with little directional change motors towards the nose of the missile. The missile gets farted out of the tube, the motor at the nose quickly tips the missile towards the target, and then the main motor ignites, zipping off towards said aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
Senor Science posted:Why did the East Germans not rebuild their arms industry like the West Germans did? Where were their major plants? Like Mauser and Walther etc? Were any on the east German side? If they started from scratch under the Russians it made sense to just copy their stuff. The Russians also preferred that and weren't thrilled with the Czechs making their own superior small arms designs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 06:21
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:There were lots of studies, proposed adoptions of foreign systems, stuff like strapping podded Stingers to Bradley's and Hummers, but nothing really developed. Uh, they fielded quite a bit of this in the form of the Linebacker system (now retired but saw action in OIF) and the Avenger system, which we still have today. Linebackers were discarded not so much because they were bad, but because when you put a stinger pack on a Bradley and tell a Brigade commander to use them for air defense, he quickly realizes there's little or no air threat and uses them as just another Bradley. Avengers are still around, and are basically a HMWWV with a turret on the back and shoot on the move capability. On the turret are 8 stingers and an M3P electrically fired .50 caliber machine gun which fires 25 round bursts far faster than an M2 can. An operator may also sit in the turret. It has FLIR and can be slewed to cue using EPLRS radios and Sentinel radars, but largely depends on operators picking up targets visually in order to complete an engagement. The system can be remoted out something like 50 or 100 meters away so that the soldiers operating it can be in a foxhole or bunker instead of sitting in the obvious target of the truck itself while it fires. In reality, these tend to be used for convoy security or FOB security because they have a .50 cal and FLIR. Personnel who are supposed to operate Avengers and Sentinels are also often called upon to operate C-RAM instead, since C-RAM sees WAY more usage than Avenger. As in, C-RAM has been fired at something and an Avenger has never fired a stinger at anything but a target at the range. Their main drawback is that the Stinger missile has a much shorter range than many, many weapons which could be used to target the Avenger, and a HMWWV is harder to hide than a guy holding a MANPADS. The SLAMRAAM (Surface-Launched AMRAAM) was supposed to replace the Avenger but it was canned just a couple weeks ago. quote:The Soviets on the other hand churned out a new gun system and especially missile system seemingly every other drat month. The later variants have some neat vertical launch capability with little directional change motors towards the nose of the missile. The missile gets farted out of the tube, the motor at the nose quickly tips the missile towards the target, and then the main motor ignites, zipping off towards said aircraft. Our HIMAD systems are pretty clearly superior to Russia's, but their SHORAD systems are pretty awesome. edit: Norway got a SLAMRAAM system to work, which is called NASAMS and is used to defend Washington D.C. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
I touched a Titan 2 missile today  The rocket fuel handler clothing outfits were loving nuts  Not my picture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 07:47
|
|
|
I like turtles posted:I touched a Titan 2 missile today My dad was a fuel handler on Titan IIs. The suits had positive pressure so fumes couldn't get in if it tore. He told me about a phenomenon called a BFRC, or Big loving Red Cloud, which occurred when fuel ignited. I tried Googling it for more information, but all I really got was that BFRC stood for Big loving Red Cloud and that if you saw a BFRC, run upwind of it as fast as you could. I think dad told me that a BFRC could melt your lungs, but I'm not sure how much of that was hyperbole, how much was what 18 and 19 year old fuel handlers told each other, and how much was fact. In any event, I don't imagine it was very healthy to breathe. Since you couldn't smoke around the fuel, a lot of the guys took up chewing tobacco. Dad then told a story about how he forgot to spit out his tobacco before putting on his suit, and then he had to swallow it. He had to try very hard not to throw up. "What would happen if you threw up in the suit?" I asked. "The life support guys might short you on oxygen next time. They didn't like having to clean it up." He also told me about a friend of his who died in a silo after a fuel leak. He couldn't see because his visor fogged or something, so he couldn't find the ladder out, and he was running low on oxygen. He died after breaking open his visor. Dad crosstrained out of that job after a couple years. A buddy of his who stayed in the career field made Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) after about ten years because so many people left the job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
McNally posted:My dad was a fuel handler on Titan IIs. The suits had positive pressure so fumes couldn't get in if it tore. He told me about a phenomenon called a BFRC, or Big loving Red Cloud, which occurred when fuel ignited. I tried Googling it for more information, but all I really got was that BFRC stood for Big loving Red Cloud and that if you saw a BFRC, run upwind of it as fast as you could. I think dad told me that a BFRC could melt your lungs, but I'm not sure how much of that was hyperbole, how much was what 18 and 19 year old fuel handlers told each other, and how much was fact. In any event, I don't imagine it was very healthy to breathe. It probably could. The oxidizer was apparently a substance that was extremely reactive with water, producing both heat and nitric acid, so getting that in your lungs would be a very bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
McNally posted:My dad was a fuel handler on Titan IIs. The suits had positive pressure so fumes couldn't get in if it tore. He told me about a phenomenon called a BFRC, or Big loving Red Cloud, which occurred when fuel ignited. I tried Googling it for more information, but all I really got was that BFRC stood for Big loving Red Cloud and that if you saw a BFRC, run upwind of it as fast as you could. I think dad told me that a BFRC could melt your lungs, but I'm not sure how much of that was hyperbole, how much was what 18 and 19 year old fuel handlers told each other, and how much was fact. In any event, I don't imagine it was very healthy to breathe. That was probably nitrogen tetroxide, which was and is used quite a bit as an oxidizer in rockets. If you're a rocket scientist, there are a lot of things to like about nitrogen tetroxide: there's a lot of oxygen packed onto those little molecules, there's even more energy in the nitrogen part, and it's hypergolic with many rocket fuels (that is, it spontaneously ignites on contact, so you don't have to worry about an ignition system to keep the fire going). Basically, it's one half of a simple, reliable, and very powerful rocket fuel. If you're one of the guys tasked with gassing up a rocket, on the other hand, there's a lot to hate. For one, if it's exposed to water (including the water vapor in air, and more significantly, the water in your lungs if you breathe it in), it'll react and make nitric acid. Needless to say, that's not a good thing. And, well, there's this bit: quote:Very concentrated fumes produce coughing, choking, headache, nausea, pain in chest and abdomen; otherwise, few symptoms appear at time of exposure. After symptom-free period of 5-72 hours, pulmonary edema gradually develops, causing fatigue, restlessness, coughing, difficulty in breathing, frothy expectoration, mental confusion, lethargy, bluish skin, and weak, rapid pulse. Since NOX interferes with gas exchange in lungs, unconsciousness and death by asphyxiation can result, usually within a few hours after onset of pulmonary edema. Space Gopher fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 08:54
|
|
|
Flanker posted:Where were their major plants? Like Mauser and Walther etc? Were any on the east German side? If they started from scratch under the Russians it made sense to just copy their stuff. The Russians also preferred that and weren't thrilled with the Czechs making their own superior small arms designs. Eh, it's a TAD bit more complex than that. If we were looking at a map of Pre-War or WW2 era Germany you'd see a poo poo-ton of arms plants in what later became E. Germany, along with an almost equal number in the west. Small arms production isn't exactly heavy industry, so you don't need massive infrastructure to have even a big factory. Hell, the original Mauser plant is in Oberndorf am Neckar, which was (and still is) a loving tiny cow-town of about 50,000 people. Off the top of my head, you've got a bunch of plants in and around berlin (Berlin Luebecker and Berlin Borsigwalde just for K98ks, pretty sure Spreewerke was in the city or the 'burbs for P38s as well), a bunch down in Thuringia near the Czech border (JP Sauer & Sohn in Suhl, ERMA in Erfurt, Walther in Zella-Mehlis, and Gustloff Werke in Weimar to name a few biggies), plus a handful up north along the coast. Then you've also got a few concentration camp factories, of which the productive ones tended to be in the eastern half of the country. After the war, however, almost all that poo poo - both in the east and the west - got totally torn down by Allies who wanted to completely dismantle the German arms industry. Mauser Oberndorf ceased to exist over night and most of their machines were sent to France, JP Sauer & Sohn had their poo poo sent to the USSR, etc. A lot of those companies re-founded a few years later when people figured the Germans needed to start making guns again because they were worried about those OTHER Germans getting armed. The thing is, you'll notice that a LOT of the companies re-founded in the West, even the ones that were originally in the East. Walther re-located to Ulm, JP Sauer re-located to Eckernförde, and a bunch of Mauser engineers founded HK right next door to the old Mauser plant in Oberndorf. The reason for this is that a LOT of engineers made a goddamned bee-line for the west with blueprints and plans when poo poo started falling apart, so most of Germany's small arms designing community ended up in the west. The machinery and buildings could be replaced, but the brains couldn't. So, we get a domestic industry in Germany that ends up having the same Mr. Heckler and Mr. Koch who worked on machine gun designs in the 40s making ugly guns for the W. German military in the 50s-60s. On the other hand, the engineers who the soviets DID manage to snag were all "relocated" to the USSR as "work volunteers" so that they could aid in Soviet arms design. One of the big names who they nabbed was Schmeisser, a guy who was basically a genius at figuring out how to make stamped metal guns and largely responsible for the switch-over to stamped from milled for post-1939 German SMG and LMG designs. Rather than designing new, E. German guns in the 50s, Schmeisser was outside of Moscow, helping Kalishnakov perfect a stamped metal production process for the AK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Their main drawback is that the Stinger missile has a much shorter range than many, many weapons which could be used to target the Avenger, and a HMWWV is harder to hide than a guy holding a MANPADS. Huh, I thought that those never got actually fielded. Learn something new every day. I thought the reason behind the cancellation was in your first sentence. mlmp08 posted:Our HIMAD systems are pretty clearly superior to Russia's, but their SHORAD systems are pretty awesome. I find it interesting to look back and see that you can see how the NATO forces were worried about tanks, so they built and tested piles of different anti-tank systems and the USSR was worried about aircraft, so they built mobile AA like crazy fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:07
|
|