|
baupdeth posted:Hell yes Seconding this!
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Wired.com has a pretty nifty article on the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and what a goofy feature creep will do to an otherwise good idea: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/future-warship-ran-aground/all/1 Too big, too fast (fuel efficiency sucks), the modular weapons bays a bit of a fiasco..
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
priznat posted:Wired.com has a pretty nifty article on the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and what a goofy feature creep will do to an otherwise good idea: Obligatory, check out the Zumwalts. The very definition of cluster gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Stories like these really freak me out about what's going to happen with the Canadian Joint Support Ships if those ever go ahead. Probably will be incapable of Arctic transit and can't fit into Halifax harbour or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
priznat posted:Wired.com has a pretty nifty article on the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and what a goofy feature creep will do to an otherwise good idea: They build the Austal ships here, and it's cool seeing them built. It's a shame that they're undergoing some development pains. Austal is expanding here to build additional ships, which is great for the local economy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:They build the Austal ships here, and it's cool seeing them built. It's a shame that they're undergoing some development pains. The trimaran ones are pretty nifty looking I must say. There's some talk that the CF might just get a couple French Mistral ships, which probably would be cheaper and much less of a clusterfuck. But I'm sure there will be something to muck it up, local screwups in the shipbuilding yards or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
Ridgewell posted:Seconding this! Hell yeah. Nukes are interesting as hell, and their effects are one of the biggest reasons why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
priznat posted:The trimaran ones are pretty nifty looking I must say. So you think the Provincial-class destroyers are dead, huh? God knows we need something desperately to replace those tribals, they're 40 loving years old.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:So you think the Provincial-class destroyers are dead, huh? God knows we need something desperately to replace those tribals, they're 40 loving years old. Oh I was talking about those joint support ships that have been bandied about forever, the replacement for the Iroquois is a whole other kettle o wax I'm sure. Those definitely need a replacement. Seems like that'd be a much better idea to replace those with something decent then to get a whole new class of ships with the JSS/Mistral. Are the destroyer replacements in that massive 35billion bid that the BC shipyards are vying for? Hope they get it, the industry here could use a shot in the arm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 08:24
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted: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: My favorite part of the whole titanium thing was that a large chunk of the titanium used in the SR-71's body was actually sourced from the Soviet Union and purchased through front companies. Supply-chain management just got a whole lot more complicated...
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
movax posted:Also good to know the Soviets considered Detroit worthy of destruction, go Michigan! Ann Arbor, too. Not that I was living here during the Cold War (but then, I was in the UK which would have been wall to wall nukes anyway). Anyone know why they'd target it, other than just on general principles as a reasonable-sized city? Detroit I can see because it's presumably where a lot of tanks/other armour/trucks get assembled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
The "Aggressor Forces" used by the US Army in training during the 50s and 60s was mentioned by Burning Beard on page 2 in this thread, but back then he couldn't find very much about them. It turns out Google must have gotten better since then because it served me this gem on a silver plate when I tried the same thing today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op-VkgXBZys A full half our long, genuine 50s documentary on them! This stuff is pure gold and deserves more than the mere 67 viewings it has right now. Besides being hilarious, it's also rather interesting. Among other things the Aggressor Forces clearly aren't based on the Soviet Union - the prevailing enemy at the time - as much as one would think. Rather, in style they are far more reminiscent of Nazi German and Fascist Italian forces. The absurdity of it all makes it a comedy more than anything. But for those with better things to do, I pulled a few screen grabs of the funnier stuff. Before I saw it I had not idea how balls-out the army actually went with the concept.  Welcome to Ft Riley, Kansas! Home of the 1st Infantry Division, the "Big Red One". Lesser known: home of Americas enemy, the Aggressor Forces. The "triangle within a circle" is the official state, or at least military, insignia of the Aggressor Forces nation.  The Aggressor Forces (on second thought: screw it, I'll refer to them as AF from now on) basic uniform. The documentary narrator mentioned something about them updating it to modern standards as time passes, but here they are clearly inspired by the Prussian style worn by Nazi German soldiers, if so on a budget. The helmet was made by fixing a wooden plume onto a standard army helmet.  AF had officer uniforms as well, here showing a contingent of AF officers on parade. Yes, they did actually incorporate parade discipline into the AF mythos. It doesn't show in the photo, but they march in a high-step style with the knees pulled almost to a 90-degree angle, almost creating the caricature of a fascist stomping march, which I'm not sure has ever actually been used by any military unit. Apart from marching with knees high, the discipline for some reason also incorporates holding the rifle at a very awkward angle, resting the butt or grip on your chest and pointing the barrel almost straight up, right in front of your face! In the background plays a somber march which might very well have been written as the AF national anthem - it returns later in the film. Finally, the photo shows the AF salute which is essentially the Nazi salute with a clenched fist: the right hand is thrust towards the chest and then thrust outwards in a 45-degree angle. It is used essentially the exact same way as the Nazi salute, or any military salute for that matter. There is also the matter of the AF state flag flying above the formation - as can be seen, it differs from the insignia in some respect. It consists of a dark-colored triangle resting on a white base surrounded by AF hieroglyphs. Really, I've never seen those characters before in my life.  The army pulled no stops with the AF uniform. This is the special winter edition, for use in arctic or otherwise snowy training.  Finally, the army wasn't satisfied with just fantasy uniforms. They invented fantasy equipment as well! This is the AF hand grenade, which is apparently a Mk 2 attached to a pointy metal handle. It's quite clearly inspired by the German Stielhandgranate. Again, the AF draws far more inspiration from the Nazis than the Commies. Equipment was marked accordingly in the AF assigned language, Esperanto. This was actually pushed to almost ridiculous limits: Esperanto was the official language of the AF so to the point that AF soldiers and officers was supposed to communicate in it! The documentary shows a speech given by an AF general to a group of soldiers early on - entirely in Esperanto!  While most of the AF heavy equipment was mock-up or even blow-up versions of the real deal, at times training did demand the real deal. Any such equipment was marked accordingly - here is a M4 Sherman, pressed into service for the enemy!  The AF was not content on restricting themselves to conventional warfare, training also involved irregular and even psychological warfare. This is a picture of a stack of flyers dropped from an AF aircraft on american troops in one exercise. The film also gave an example of a Hanoi Hannah-like loud-speaker pronouncement.  Training using the AF wasn't restricted to the Army, at times it also involved civilian volunteers. This picture shows the AF military marching through a for training purposes occupied town. The simulated occupation also included arrests of local leaders and public announcements. This was used both as a training scenario for the army and as a propaganda scenario for the civilians, meant to drive home the potential risks of war.  This is an other example of AF hieroglyphs on military equipment, this time a map used by AF officers. To wrap this up, some other information on the AF - included in the comprehensive back-story, there is the scenario that when the allied troops withdrew from Europe after WW2, the power-vacuum resulted in the rise of the AF which collected remnants of the European fascist powers and upstart East European nations under its banner. This supposedly explains it likeness to the WW2 Nazis and Fascists. Like I said earlier, this is actually an interesting aside since war with the Soviet Union was at everyones mind during the AFs existence but the Army - apparently out of a will not to antagonize the Soviets - based the AF on defeated, rather than future, enemies. Finally, an action shot of valiant AF soldiers advancing under heavy artillery bombardment:  Let us remember the brave men of the Aggressor Forces who fought in a factitious war, held factitious beliefs and died factitious deaths, all so that American forces could be better prepared in a less factitious potential world war with the Soviet Union! And thanks again to Burning Beard, who put me on the trail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:
 Of all the wonders of the US military T think this is the most under appreciated. Every officer from a non-US country I've ever communicated with who have visited NTC cannot stop raving about how impressed they are with the effort put into this kind of realistic training.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:
University of Michigan (and the associated companies around it; ex. Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, EOTech, DHARMA Initiative) did a lot of DoD research during the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
theclaw posted:University of Michigan (and the associated companies around it; ex. Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, EOTech, DHARMA Initiative) did a lot of DoD research during the Cold War. General Dynamics, NOAA and Pfizer, too. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Aug 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:My favorite part of the whole titanium thing was that a large chunk of the titanium used in the SR-71's body was actually sourced from the Soviet Union and purchased through front companies. Aha, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
I love it when the Blue Angels come to town
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:AWESOME STUFF That video is loving tits. Thanks for the screen caps! The official name of the Aggressor Forces was "The Circle Trigon Party". No poo poo. Found my old Aggressor Forces manuals when I was home in July. I kick myself for not picking up the Aggressor Forces helmet at a surplus shop in Rock Island, IL back in the day. Would have an awesome Halloween costume. The helmet was a regular M1 helmet liner with a wooden comb screwed to the top, just hilariously awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
I remember being told that the OPFOR unit at the JRTC got their Chaplin a copy of KGB field uniform and designated him the political officer. Not sure if it's true or not. I did meet some OPFOR guys who could sing the "internationale".
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
Speaking of SR-71s, Anyone in Seattle: I'm checking this out today at the Museum of Flight http://www.museumofflight.org/event/sled-driver Maybe I can get a free signed copy 
Shnitzel fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Aug 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
Shnitzel posted:Speaking of SR-71s, Good luck - I've never seen a copy sell for less than several hundred dollars, if they give em out free I'd almost be willing to make the trip next year for a chance at one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
This thread has been a blast to read, but I see its slowing down now. I'm really looking forward to reading that writeup on the A-10 and other CAS, but really, the A-10 is where my heart lies. Screw people calling it ugly, its most beautiful damned thing to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 10:48
|
|
|
The A-10 might be the most valuable airframe in the US arsenal. It is exceptionally good at what it does now, and it proved in Desert Storm that it probably would have been exceptional at what it was originally designed to do. Also, I wouldn't call it ugly looking, I'd call it scary looking. I can't imagine what it's like to be a Taliban fighter and watching one line up on my position. Unlike some of the really fast movers, chances are its targets actually see it coming before they die. The Fulda Gap would have been a bloodbath. e- also the Su-25 is no slouch, either, but it lacked proper cover in Georgia and paid for it Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Aug 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
Seeing as we're probably talking early 80's I'd be making GBS threads my pants as an A-10 pilot coming up against every radar-guided SHORAD platform a Soviet motorized rifle or guards tank regiment can throw at me while SEAD/DEAD are duking it out over the Elbe and Oder bridges. Even then they'd be lucky flying fly pop-up profiles in central Germany seeing as every low-flying asset in the north would either be hitting power lines or eyeballed from any church tower closer than five miles away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
Yeah, it wouldn't have been a one-sided bloodbath..... Thank god that poo poo didn't happen, because that whole area would still be lightly glowing glass. I doubt the A-10's and the Soviet air defense network would have had long to engage each other before one commander or another started lobbing tactical nukes around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
As much as we like to think of the A-10 as an indestructible workhorse they actually took a lot of hits in Desert Storm doing low level runs. If I remember right them and Tornadoes ended up getting a 10k bottom altitude enacted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Tacnukes aren't the individual commander's to dispose of as fit, they remain tactical assets in the sense that their use must be sanctioned. Then again, Maggie Thatcher.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Tacnukes aren't the individual commander's to dispose of as fit, they remain tactical assets in the sense that their use must be sanctioned. Obviously a guy wouldn't go rogue and start launching on his own (we hoped), but there's a reason why the US and USSR never had a shooting war....because one side or the other would have resorted to allowing nukes to be used. I meant it in the loosest way possible, taking for granted that higher-ups would eventually give the order. The Soviets really had a thing for them, too, so I don't doubt a conflict in Europe would have resulted in their use within a short period after the initiation of hostilities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Yeah, it wouldn't have been a one-sided bloodbath..... NATO didn't even consider war in Western Europe doctrinally possible without almost immediately resorting to tactical nukes prior to the discussion/thought in the '70s that led to AirLand Battle in the '80s, along with all the technological advances that went along with the doctrine...PGMs such as LGBs, stand-off missiles, and ATGMs, improved and advanced NATO mechanized forces, advanced helicopter gunships (Apache) and the increased range that artillery forces now had (MLRS). So doctrinally speaking (much less in the real world), up until the 1980s any war in Europe would have gone nuclear a few hours after the first Soviet tanks rolled past OP Alpha in the Fulda Gap towards Frankfurt. Sjurygg posted:Tacnukes aren't the individual commander's to dispose of as fit, they remain tactical assets in the sense that their use must be sanctioned. Yes and no. That's the book answer today, but during much of the Cold War they were literally tactical assets which could be used by the local commander as he saw fit, assuming hostilities had commenced. However, their use was also often restricted by caveats from higher headquarters (if x happens, then you are authorized to use the weapons). A good example of this is the case of the Soviet submarine B-59 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is particularly true in the case of ground and naval units, where tactical weapons truly were tactical (think Davy Crockett artillery or an ASROC with a nuke warhead) as opposed to air units where a B61 with a yield ten times that of Hiroshima is still a "tactical" weapon. With PALs this lessened somewhat, but even then the most common posture was of control via PALs until hostilities were imminent, then releasing the codes with a caveat like I mentioned above. The "push the big red button" scenario where a command authority retains direct control over weapons is only possible if you have a robust C2 infrastructure capable of rapidly relaying orders. This simply isn't possible with a tactical weapon that is going to be employed on the front lines, under enemy fire, with limited to nonexistent communications with higher headquarters. So even if NATO didn't have the policy of using tactical nuclear weapons in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, things would have more than likely gone nuclear very quickly because of the distributed nature of the weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
I visited Newark Air Museum in Lincolnshire the other day, there are a few examples of Cold War aviation there so I thought I'd share some photos. I only have a bridge camera and I am a poo poo photographer so apologies in advance! As you can see the museum is more of the 'aircraft roped off in a field' variety, not the 'immaculately restored jets hanging from the roof of a purpose built facility' type! F-100 Super Sabre:  They even have Migs!!   My personal boyhood favourite:  Another boyhood fave, the Buccaneer:  And finally, the epitomy of UK Cold War power, complete with Stand-Off Nuclear Weapon  
monkeytennis fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Aug 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 11:38
|
|
|
great photos. I too am a huge fan of the lightning, they are just an imposing beast. I hope I didn't get this video from here but I was watching a video of the buccaneer. A late 70's careers video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4vkBWLmnZA. It looks a lot like they are flying out of Gib. That vulcan's looking a little sad. There were volunteers out today repainting the Vulcan gate guardian, one day when I've got time I'll ask to go up in the cockpit and take some pictures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
I'm working on a post about an airstrike during Desert Storm, but here's a cross post from the AI Aeronautics thread... Some T-50 shots from the MAKS show:  With the rest of the family:  Glamour shots time:    Setting aside any  discussion about its performance/development timeline vs the JSF/Raptor/Euro-canards/whatever, that is a very nice looking fighter. That last shot is goddamned gorgeous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
They may be dirty commies, but Russia knows how to make some beautiful fighters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:With the rest of the family: Every time I see an Su-34 I'm amazed that they took a Flanker and somehow wound up with a plane that could sit 2 people with room to lay down AND have a toilet for the crew to use. It's mind boggling. e. Seriously, look how roomy that cockpit is  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htZNLezBG60&feature=player_detailpage#t=40s, and on top of that it seems that you can move around above the landing gear area while you're in the air too.
Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Aug 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 06:54
|
|
|
So after reading this thread, and basically being really drat glad nothing boiled over into a nuclear shoot out during the cold war, are there any good resources on how to actually survive in a city that is being nuked? It can't be impossible, right? There was some talk a number of pages back about how some civil engineering study found that all the, "hide in the basement" ideas of the '50s and '60s wouldn't really protect you, but they must have had some thoughts on what can be done to increase the chances of survival. I know getting 30 miles out of the city is a great idea, but really when you are a civilian and you maybe got 20 minutes to think about it there has got to be something you can do in the city to survive. I'm really interested in knowing such things. I mean if a nuclear war does come along some day I at least want to live to see what its like afterwards (such a madmax/Fallout whore).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Every time I see an Su-34 I'm amazed that they took a Flanker and somehow wound up with a plane that could sit 2 people with room to lay down AND have a toilet for the crew to use. It's mind boggling. That would pretty much be the best RV ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
Holy crap I had no idea that thing was so huge.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:So after reading this thread, and basically being really drat glad nothing boiled over into a nuclear shoot out during the cold war, are there any good resources on how to actually survive in a city that is being nuked? It can't be impossible, right? There was some talk a number of pages back about how some civil engineering study found that all the, "hide in the basement" ideas of the '50s and '60s wouldn't really protect you, but they must have had some thoughts on what can be done to increase the chances of survival. I know getting 30 miles out of the city is a great idea, but really when you are a civilian and you maybe got 20 minutes to think about it there has got to be something you can do in the city to survive. Go watch Threads. I'd probably get up on the roof and watch the bombs come in rather than stick around for the aftermath.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:So after reading this thread, and basically being really drat glad nothing boiled over into a nuclear shoot out during the cold war, are there any good resources on how to actually survive in a city that is being nuked? It can't be impossible, right? There was some talk a number of pages back about how some civil engineering study found that all the, "hide in the basement" ideas of the '50s and '60s wouldn't really protect you, but they must have had some thoughts on what can be done to increase the chances of survival. I know getting 30 miles out of the city is a great idea, but really when you are a civilian and you maybe got 20 minutes to think about it there has got to be something you can do in the city to survive. Seconding Threads. It's a horrifying movie. Blast protection might work if one bomb goes off. Moscow probably would have received dozens within a 30 mile radius. Think about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
The best part of the cold war was Microprose games and the accompanying manuals. First game I ever bought was F-15 Strike Eagle, my favorites were Red Storm Rising, GS2K and M1TP2. The last was Gunship!, which suuuuuuucked.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 23:07
|
|