|
movax posted:This is one time I'll borrow from Tom Clancy: I have a gun pointed at your head with a full 13 bullets. I dump out 7, still feel safe bro? I guess the Soviets had it in for Canton, Ohio. They must not like Pro Football or vacuum cleaners. Maybe it was the Steel and Roller Bearing factories 
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
goddamned bearings are gonna be the death of us all, every time there's a bombing, it's a bearing factory
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Both sides of the nuclear debate usually color the discussion with exaggerations either way. Nuclear winter probably doesn't mean the extinction of the human race, or even the end of civilization as we know it. It most likely would set our development back a few hundred years, though. The interesting thing about this time in history is that setting back development by a few hundred years is likely to result in permanent collapse. This is due to the depletion of natural resources (the most direct examples are metal ores, or petroleum) that can be harvested at that level of development and which are necessary to produce the next level. There is no high-purity Swedish bog iron ore to turn into the steel of a second renaissance, there is no shallow-lying Pennsylvania crude that can be extracted with early 20th century technology. If we fall, it is forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
I'd say we are more ingenious than that. There are lot of resources in Africa and South America, and we'd start digging out the landfills for materiel.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
There would also be drastically less people for drastically less resources, and a mind boggling amount of scrap waiting to be recycled at the surface. We'd also probably have some of the records of our past surviving, hopefully allowing us to recreate something of a civilization. Even if it's only age of sail type technology, it's still civilization and promise still lies in that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
That map/explanation is fairly inaccurate...the ICBM sites aren't in nice neat rows like that (as the google map that was recently posted shows) and Dense Pack was never actually implemented. It was supposed to be part of the survivability scheme for the MX missile, but it had a fundamental flaw: MIRV'd missiles could deliver a time on target barrage where all of the warheads on a given missile would strike their targets simultaneously, negating the idea of the explosion/cloud from one ground burst preventing the other warheads from getting through to the strengthened silos. They finally decided to deploy the MX in a rail basing scheme for survivability purposes, where they would hide in plain sight among the nation's rail system, but this was never implemented because the Cold War ended.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 07:44
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:They finally decided to deploy the MX in a rail basing scheme for survivability purposes, where they would hide in plain sight among the nation's rail system, but this was never implemented because the Cold War ended.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
Video of that living museum of the atlas site in Arizona people talked about earlier in the thread. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5bb_1311641968 daskrolator posted:Around 4 years ago I was digging up some old documents at work and found a bunch of marketing material for rail-based MX. Brochures, glossy booklets, key chains, was all very funny. Didn't snag any unfortunately. The "Rail Garrison" was going to be based here in Cheyenne from FE Warren AFB. I was part of some security ergonomic testing for this program. Our peacekeepers were going to park here and then sometimes, like during heightened tensions, or just random times they travel around the country on trains. This would make them impossible to track. If you attempted to track them real time, such as following in a car etc by using humint they would be able to catch spies. would you like to know more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeper_Rail_Garrison_Car I would like to point out that where I live would be, would have been pretty toasty in the event of nukes flying.  Why so many? well there is a nuke field here. Sure, some of the plan is to trying to "dig up" some of the nukes. But it goes beyond that.. their plan was to cast so much soil and dust into the atmosphere that it would destroy the missiles. Just so that you understand. When a missile takes off, it quickly accelerates to many times the speed of sound. Passing through only air alone the top of the missile will get glowing hot from friction. Imagine a shooting star but going up instead. Adding only a small amount of material to the air such as dust, the missile would be shredded apart on its way to apogee. No material in the world could handle the friction of that forceful extrusion through the dust filled air at that velocity. How many nukes for you? Check your state. http://portland-or.com/survive/nuclearsurvival/list.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Just so that you understand. When a missile takes off, it quickly accelerates to many times the speed of sound. Passing through only air alone the top of the missile will get glowing hot from friction. Imagine a shooting star but going up instead. I thought it was the other way around..? That incoming warheads would be destroyed before they could actually reach the ground to do a ground burst and the dust would still be passable for a launching missile? Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChhYOO1s-nY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQgE3uHLUI slidebite fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jul 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
Couldn't dense pack be defeated by a very precise time-on-target?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
I think the theory is that the pack would need multiple, super precise ground impacts. Their launching times would also be staggered enough so that they would be protected by the cloud of dust created by the earlier strikes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
slidebite posted:
quote:Take particular note of the skills of the helicopter-based videographer: at 2 seconds after lauch the missile is moving at 3 times the speed of sound That sounds like some bullshit right there. Minuteman III. 32,000kg launch weight, 80,700kg thrust. SigmaF=ma Forces up: Thrust (791396 N) Forces down: Weight (313812 N) Net force on the rocket is 477584 Newtons acting on a mass of 32,000 kilograms, a=F/m, a~=15m/s/s. That's 1.5Gs. To make Mach 3 in 2 seconds it would have to be undergoing 50G acceleration. That acceleration would, in 22 seconds, get the rocket to escape velocity. In actuality, the MMIII first stage burns for 60 seconds. Sorry to 'sperg. Youtube claims bug me. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Jul 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
My house is about 3/4th of a mile beyond the flight line of the 106th air rescue wing NY ANG base, which is a pararescue facility today but was once a fighter interceptor air wing. At least 2 squadrons (4 I think) of special operations capable personnel, and one of the eastern most heavy-lift capable runways that can land B52's or C5's in the us means I'm pretty well hosed in a nuke Exchange. I'm glad the cold war has ended. But if there were an invasion, or resource war our air wings runway, plus long islands barrier beaches and natural harbors I always figured the Russians would want to take the area intact, as a foothold into the eastern us theater of war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 19:51
|
|
LavistaSays posted:My house is about 3/4th of a mile beyond the flight line of the 106th air rescue wing NY ANG base, which is a pararescue facility today but was once a fighter interceptor air wing. At least 2 squadrons (4 I think) of special operations capable personnel, and one of the eastern most heavy-lift capable runways that can land B52's or C5's in the us means I'm pretty well hosed in a nuke Exchange. I'm glad the cold war has ended. Long Island had a shitload of tertiary targets through the '80s what with the Grumman facilites and airports. Go back far enough and you've got the nike-hurc sites in Long Beach and the radar at Montauk.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
Used to be a missile complex about 5 miles up the road. The sheriffs use the silos for blowing up confiscated fireworks today. I figure jfk and lga were both smoking holes, either the Russians were already targeting them, or our own forces would crater the runways and blow the fuel depots while withdrawing in a conventional fight. The same goes for the big suspension bridges out of LI, and NYC's tunnels. New York city would be a huge mess with numerous economic targets. There are some fighter wings and ground forces but not much armor around in the decisive first few hours. With such a lack of forces I could see a couple ekranoplans slipping across the Atlantic, coming into the protected peconic bay and rolling tanks down sunrise highway. About 7 miles from beachhead to the 106ths flight line. Then they pull plays from the old Afghanistan invasion and ride troops in while transmitting as airliners.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
New York is a really lovely location for an invasion, anyway. The Russians would have pounded LI with nukes, sure, but the only realistic avenue they had for invading the continental US was through Siberia, over Alaska, and down through Canada. You really don't want to land your main force in the major industrialized, populated region of a nation with lax firearm laws and a population ready to use them. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jul 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:
...but I thought we were talking about New York.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:...but I thought we were talking about New York. 30-60 minutes outside of NYC there are hicks that would scare the guys from Deliverance. e- plus all Cold War discussions take into account 1986 and the AWB, I figure. gently caress 10 round capacity 
Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jul 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:30-60 minutes outside of NYC there are hicks that would scare the guys from Deliverance. Yeah, but if they blow the Jersey bridges...  For me, it wasn't so much "HI TARGET HERE TARGET HERE", but being in the *middle* of a zone of counterforce targets. Early-Warning horns go off, all it means is you get to listen to them while waiting, because you're not getting out of the missile fields in what time there is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:30-60 minutes outside of NYC there are hicks that would scare the guys from Deliverance. Plus having potentially tens of millions of personal vehicles coming at you ANFO'd up the wazoo. Then they'd have to try and pry out their conscripts out of every store carrying blue jeans. Which is why these scenarios never work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
The US is really well located for not getting thrashed in a conventional war. There really is no good way to heave a giant force our way in one solid chunk. Your two main options are some sort of massive sea landing force that has to fight carrier battle groups. Or some hellacious crawl through Alaska and Canada. Which still gives you a sea based supply line while SSNs and land based aircraft murder you in the bering sea. I guess you could island hop Iceland/Greenland. Or take over Mexico first.. But still not a good option. Which is of course why both sides had their death walls of tanks and tactical aircraft shoved in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. (DuPage County) In the event of a strike I'd be dust in the wind. There are rail-heads and freight yards, (Aurora / Hodgekins), refineries (Romeoville), Joliet Army Munition Plant, Great Lakes Naval Training Base, O'hare and Midway airports, and a couple of nuclear plants (Zion and Dresden).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Long Island had a shitload of tertiary targets through the '80s what with the Grumman facilites and airports. Go back far enough and you've got the nike-hurc sites in Long Beach and the radar at Montauk. Speaking of the rader site in Montauk, camp hero is a neat place to walk around on a nice day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
Ever since I got night vision I've been looking for a friend to explore the bunker complexes interior with, most of mine are too chicken though. I've been around the exterior of the sites once or twice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 15:15
|
|
|
I posted this a while ago in AI under the aeronautical thread, but I've discovered that your TFR goons are really spectacular (thanks again for the M1 help), and I think you'll get a kick out of this. I'm a huge SR-71 fanboy. I often make jokes connecting the usual struggle to find meaning in adulthood to the fact that I always wanted to be an SR-71 pilot and lost my direction in life when the program was canceled. In high school I formulated my "ultimate road trip" that consisted of visiting ever SR-71 on display (save for the UK), which would take us through pretty much every interesting state in the country. The idea was shelved for nearly ten years, and then suddenly started to happen. I've taken an average of two road trips each year since 2009, and have currently visited 15 out 29. 7975 - March Air Force Base - Riverside, California - December, 2010   7961 - Cosmosphere - Hutchinson, Kansas - September 2010  6925 - USS Intrepid Museum - New York, New York - September 2010   7972 - Smithsonian Udvar Hazy Museum - Washington, D.C. - September 2010  7968 - Virginia Aviation Museum - Richmond, Virginia - September 2010   6930 - US Space and Rocket Center - Huntsville, Alabama - September 2010  7973 - Blackbird Air Park - Palmdale, California - July 2010  6924 - Blackbird Air Park - Palmdale, California - July 2010   6927 - California Science Center - Los Angeles, California - July 2010  7976 - USAF Museum - Dayton, Ohio - September 2009  I want this picture so loving bad. It's like 4 feet tall!  6935 - USAF Museum Annex - Dayton, Ohio - September 2009  9764 - SAC Museum - Ashland, Nebraska - September 2009   6933 - San Diego Air and Space Museum - San Diego, California - July 2009  These are not my pictures, but I have seen the following aircraft. I plan on revisiting them soon. 7956 - EAA Fly-In - Oshkosh, Wisconsin - August, 1997, saw the fly-by!  6940 - Boeing Museum of Flight - Seattle, Washington - June, 1997  7977 Cockpit - Boeing Museum of Flight - Seattle, Washington - June, 1997  6931 - CIA Headquarters - Langley, Virginia - September, 2010  I managed to spot the tail of this A-12 while we were sneaking around the rear access roads for the complex. I could probably have snapped a picture but we didn't want to wear out our welcome since we had to be in New York later that night... Hopping rails at the Smithsonian to touch the nacelle of your favorite plane --> exhilarating!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:How many nukes for you? Check your state. Also, lol holy poo poo Y2K safehouse directory!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
I took some pictures today. Continuing with Cold War CAS from another part of the world. The Alpha-XH1, the prototype proof of concept for a chin turreted tandem gunship.  Derived from the Alouette III, later test beds would be based on the far more powerful Puma Medium Lift Helicopter. These would become known as the Puma-XTP models. Recognition for outstanding efforts supporting ground troops - Korea.  Aermacchi MB-326K aka Impala MkII.  Buccaneer Gunpack.  Business end of an Mi-25 chin cannon.  Mig CAP with Kill. Mirage F1.  I am hoping our resident munitions man can shed some light on this...  The aircraft carrying the dual stores. Atlas Cheetah, based on the Mirage III. Development heavily influenced by the Kfir.  23mm 
ming-the-mazdaless fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jul 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:I posted this a while ago in AI under the aeronautical thread, but I've discovered that your TFR goons are really spectacular (thanks again for the M1 help), and I think you'll get a kick out of this. drat, that's a lot of SR-71s. I've only seen the one in Dayton, OH and the one in Kalamzoo, MI. I also happened to see one land and take off at an airbase by just random chance back in 1993ish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
Question about the SR-71: everyone knows about the jet leaking fuel on the runway due to design issues, but how exactly did this work? I'm wondering what would typically be the fuel tank on a plane like this. The description on wiki for example seems to indicate the fuselage panels themselves would contain the fuel, and their fit allows it to pour out. Wikipedia posted:To allow for thermal expansion at the high operational temperatures, the fuselage panels were manufactured to fit only loosely on the ground. Proper alignment was only achieved when the airframe heated due to air resistance at high speeds, causing the airframe to expand several inches. Because of this, and the lack of a fuel sealing system that could handle the thermal expansion of the airframe at extreme temperatures, the aircraft would leak JP-7 jet fuel onto the runway before it took off. The aircraft would quickly make a short sprint, meant to warm up the airframe, and was then refueled in the air before departing on its mission. Cooling was carried out by cycling fuel behind the titanium surfaces at the front of the wings (chines). On landing after a mission the canopy temperature was over 300 °C (572 °F), too hot to approach. Non-fibrous asbestos with high heat tolerance was used in high-temperature areas. Does anyone know the technical details of how this worked? I've always wondered what design problems kept them from being able to use a bladder or internal tank. On that note, anybody got a recommendation on a book that would discuss technical aspects of the plane's development? Will probably pick up the Skunk Works book that is referenced in the Wiki article. Currently reading this as Kindle version was on sale for like $4 awhile back: http://www.amazon.com/Flying-SR-71-Blackbird-Cockpit-Operational/dp/0760332398
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
Just picture a panel fitted with a rubber gasket, then remove the gasket. The panel would be slightly loose when tightened down and cool, but it would expand to self-seal at temperature. Traditional gaskets or sealant would just burn off at mach 3, and I think the low pressure environment prevented traditional rubber fuel bladders, but I'm not sure. So you'd put the fuel in a metal tank with no gaskets, let it pour out while you took off (quickly), cranked it up to build heat in the panels and seal the tanks. then you refueled and went on your mission. e- as far as exact details on why they did this and how it was laid out, I think that's still classified Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:I am hoping our resident munitions man can shed some light on this... Awesome pictures...what museum is that? The SAAF Museum? I can honestly say I've never seen a set up like that, with an external tank that has a hardpoint for mounting stores underneath it. The closest thing I've seen is the FAST pack CFTs that the Strike Eagles fly with that have several hardpoints for both missiles and bombs, but that looks like an actual jettisonable fuel tank, which would increase the complexity a bit as you'd have to have communication between the hardpoint and the aircraft while still being able to jettison the entire package. Not really that hard, as a lot of PGMs and missiles face the same issue (and usually use an umbilical connector), just more complicated. On another note, I bet that thing had a shitload of interference drag. As for the munition itself...I was a bit stumped originally. I'm most familiar with U.S. munitions, and while the bomb resembled those, it also had a few distinct features that were confusing me. It appears to be around a Mk 81 250 lbs bomb in size, give or take (250 lbs/120 kg class of bomb). I know the SAAF actually used this class of bomb fairly frequently, so it isn't surprising to see it on a Cheetah (it would be rather unusual on a post-Vietnam US aircraft, as that was the last war in which we used that class of bomb regularly). So it's a Mk 81 type bomb...but that doesn't explain its big rear end. The normal tail fin for a Mk 8x low drag general purpose (LDGP) bomb would be considerably smaller than the one that is mounted on this weapon. This means it is one of a few things...a LGB spring loaded wing kit, a Snakeye style spring loaded retarder kit, a ballute style parachute/balloon retarder kit, or some type of booster for enabling toss bomb runs from further ranges (to my knowledge US forces never employed such weapons in a dumb/unguided configuration, but SAAF aircraft did). We can rule out the LGB kit pretty quickly, as all LGBs (other than the laser guided JDAM/GBU-54) have a conspicuous guidance section at the front that provides the seeker head homing and fins for necessary correction, and the shape/configuration of the wings on the back rule out a Snakeye retarder kit. So that leaves us with one of two options: either it is a ballute style retarder kit or it has a booster strapped on the back. As previously mentioned, its size/shape means it isn't a typical unguided slick LDGP fin kit. Also, it has a "remove before flight" streamer hanging from the back end, which means there is something back there that needs to be unsafed before flight, either a spring loaded fin/ballute/something kit, or a rocket engine for a booster. One other thing that was throwing me was the fact that the nose section is colored black...originally I thought this was some sort of opaque plastic, but now I think it is just painted that way. The reason it stood out to me is that normal U.S. style unguided munitions will have a nose support cup/nose plug that looks different from what appears in the picture. I'm going to just chalk that up to differences between the US and the SAAF. Beyond that, I can't tell the difference between a ballute style retarder and a booster. The US never deployed a ballute style retarder for the Mk 81, as at the time we were still using that bomb on a regular basis we were still using the Snakeye system of mechanical tail retarding devices. I can say that the fins on that weapon do not look the same as the Mk 82 style of ballutes but what significance that has I can't say, as this is a SAAF weapon and may be different from the US. Anyway, here's a picture of the Mk 81, Mk 82, and Mk 83 series of weapons in SAAF service:  As you can see, the Mk 81 bomb has a tail unit that extends considerably beyond the distance that a normal LDGP fin kit would (as seen by the fin kit on the Mk 82 bomb) Edit: Derp, in the picture I posted you can clearly see the bell of a rocket motor on the back of the Mk 81, so that's definitely a rocket booster weapon. I'm going to go ahead and say that the one that is hooked up to the Cheetah in that picture is also a rocket boosted weapon, as the shape of the fins doesn't really make sense for a ballute system and I don't see a door along the back that would let in air for the ballute to inflate. Sorry for the sperging, but this is like posting one picture of some obscure Mauser variant and asking Cyrano about it or hitting up Nosmo about airguns. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Aug 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 13:19
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Awesome pictures...what museum is that? The SAAF Museum? They're prefrags, there are two bombs fixed to the drop tank. It's just the mounting seems a bit odd I guess. I was trying to figure out the workings. RSA-3  RSA-3 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
Alaan posted:The US is really well located for not getting thrashed in a conventional war. There really is no good way to heave a giant force our way in one solid chunk. Your two main options are some sort of massive sea landing force that has to fight carrier battle groups. Or some hellacious crawl through Alaska and Canada. Which still gives you a sea based supply line while SSNs and land based aircraft murder you in the bering sea. I guess you could island hop Iceland/Greenland. Or take over Mexico first.. But still not a good option. Which is of course why both sides had their death walls of tanks and tactical aircraft shoved in Europe. Too bad this doesn't apply to Risk 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Does anyone know the technical details of how this worked? I've always wondered what design problems kept them from being able to use a bladder or internal tank. F1 engines seize up at room temperature, but they don't race at room temperature. VikingSkull posted:Just picture a panel fitted with a rubber gasket, then remove the gasket. The panel would be slightly loose when tightened down and cool, but it would expand to self-seal at temperature. Traditional gaskets or sealant would just burn off at mach 3, and I think the low pressure environment prevented traditional rubber fuel bladders, but I'm not sure. So you'd put the fuel in a metal tank with no gaskets, let it pour out while you took off (quickly), cranked it up to build heat in the panels and seal the tanks. then you refueled and went on your mission. quote:Most fuselage tanks showed reverted sealant. In other words, a normally hardened rubber type of substance was turning back into it's liquid state, and looked and felt like bubble gum. All the wing tanks showed this reversion, especially at the aft beams and fuselage seams. The wing tanks also showed a lot of blistering. So now, what to do with only 9 tubes of sealant available, and several more months of waiting for 3M to produce another batch? After many meetings, a decision was made on how to attack the fuel sealant problems. Since 971 was in the best shape, all 9 tubes would be used sparingly on that aircraft. We would identify all safety of flight areas, repair only those, and make the aircraft flight worthy, and nurse the jet along until the new batch of sealant arrived. That is from a page on the reactivation of the SR-71 in the 90s, really cool to read. http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/sr_reactivation/react-04.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
That is pretty cool, I never knew that. Also lol at them giving a goddamned SR-71 the shadetree mechanic treatment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2011 20:57
|
|
LavistaSays posted:Used to be a missile complex about 5 miles up the road. The sheriffs use the silos for blowing up confiscated fireworks today. This is what happens when you do drugs and watch Red Dawn.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:Yup, it's the Swartkops AFB museum. Yeah, like I said, I've never seen something like that before. The workings would be a little more complicated than a usual hardpoint, but not overly so. Just picture a hardpoint mounted inside the fuel tank, albeit not as sturdy since it has the structure of the tank to support the weight of the munitions. This obviously cuts into the capacity of the fuel tank, but I guess the designers figured that the increase in munitions capacity was worth the decrease in fuel capacity. The fact that most hardpoints use an explosive cartridge to actuate the suspension hooks would possibly be a little concerning, but it shouldn't matter since the fuel storage portion of the structure would be physically separated from the guts of the hardpoint. The only tricky part would be the connection between the hardpoint and the rest of the aircraft, but since you can keep the wiring relatively simple if you don't have the hardpoint wired for smart munitions, I don't think this would be much of an issue either. Snagged a copy of "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" as part of my most recent "buy a bunch of poo poo off of Amazon from my wishlist" buy. It included this:  Anyone interested in a mini-"Let's Read" in this thread? iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Aug 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:I posted this a while ago in AI under the aeronautical thread, but I've discovered that your TFR goons are really spectacular (thanks again for the M1 help), and I think you'll get a kick out of this. You have a problem EXCEPT THE FLY-BY OMG OMG OMG 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 08:20
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Waste of weight and space. Every nook and cranny in the plane was filled with either fuel, electronics, or flesh. It was designed on the very ragged edge of performance. When the plane was up to speed it didn't leak, so what's the problem? Thanks for the link! Just the kind of info I was looking to munch on. It seems that the fuel leak problem was more of an issue with the seals rather than the panels themselves expanding but will read on. I thought this was eye opening: quote:During the design phase Lockheed evaluated many materials and finally chose an alloy of titanium, characterized by great strength, relatively light weight, and good resistance to high temperatures. Titanium was also scarce and very costly. Methods for milling it and controlling the quality of the product were not fully developed. Of the early deliveries from Titanium Metals Corporation some 80 percent had to be rejected, and it was not until 1961, when a delegation from headquarters visited the officials of that company, informed them of the objectives and high priority of the OXCART program, and gained their full cooperation, that the supply became consistently satisfactory. That would have been an interesting meeting to sit in on. "We're facing thermonuclear war with the commies and this project is critical to national security. Get your poo poo together!" The more you dig the more you realize just how spectacular a feat it was to develop, maintain, and fly the SR-71.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Hell yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:13
|
|