|
Oh, just for added F-35 hilarity, it's pretty fun hearing a Marine pilot explain all the loving problems with vertically landing a Harrier due to the intense heat, pressure, etc. required to keep the Harrier from smashing into the deck too fast and how it fucks up surfaces. Then I remember that the F-35 will way more than twice as much.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
I'd like to see two-dozen Hornets all daisy-chained together via buddy fuel. In a circle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
The Hornet Centipede
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
The answer to this fuel and range problem is obviously nuclear jet engines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
grover posted:Nuclear jet engines work on the same general principal as fuel-burning jet engines, but use high-temperature heat exchangers to cause thermal expansion instead of combustion. So, externally, they end up looking quite similar. I prefer Project Pluto's unshielded nuclear ramjet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
It's like dropping an endless supply of dirty bombs all the way to the target!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:How did they figure this was a nuclear powered aircraft when it clearly has jet engines? Or is that what nuclear aircraft engines look like? But here's a GE J-47, used by lots of jets in the 50s.    note the laterally running combustion chambers  But the combustion chambers on this pair of J-47s seem to run around the engine, as if the heated air/combustion part of the process could come in from somewhere external to the engine - like a turbocharger or something... grover posted:Nuclear jet engines work on the same general principal as fuel-burning jet engines, but use high-temperature heat exchangers to cause thermal expansion instead of combustion. So, externally, they end up looking quite similar. Or something. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
I put this in AI also but I did a quick pass through March Air Museum. 101 photos, in a Google Plus album. I set it public but I am not sure if it really is... https://plus.google.com/photos/100197456697982439322/albums/5723568998918250641
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
This seems like the best thread to get an answer to this question, but why launch missiles into the water first? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eVzaINBvWI
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Simplest answer would be so that they can use existing torpedo launching infrastructure which already exists on many ships.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:This seems like the best thread to get an answer to this question, but why launch missiles into the water first? Was that video a fabrication? grover fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
grover posted:I'm stumped on this one. This doesn't make any sense. The only reason to launch a missile like a torpedo is if you're a submarine. It's an insane amount of complexity in order to do this, and sub-launched missiles are derivatives of surface-launched missiles. The only reason they'd do this is for testing, but submarines fire different torpedoes that surface ships do; if you wanted to test a submarine-launched missile, you'd fire it from a submarine. Disguise the launch location from a stealth ship maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Flikken posted:Disguise the launch location from a stealth ship maybe? I thought that, too. But the missile only travels maybe 100 meters underwater, which wouldn't be that much of an advantage...would it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I thought that, too. But the missile only travels maybe 100 meters underwater, which wouldn't be that much of an advantage...would it? This might have only been a preliminary test
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
grover posted:Still, it's a bit disingenuous to say Navy has "no organic tanker support" when, indeed, it does. Even when it's just for topping off aircraft after launch, it still provides an important capability in the absence of USAF support. Obviously, it's better use of assets to use dedicated tankers for tankers when available. But Navy does have a strike range that well exceeds its standoff range, even with entirely organic assets. Fair enough. I should have clarified a little more what exactly I meant...bottom line is that outside of topping off aircraft after launch/a few other niche roles a Carrier Strike Group isn't striking anything with significant numbers at distance without USAF tankers, and this shortcoming is an incredible oversight on the part of NAVAIR. I don't really know what to say about that missile video.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Or it could just be a bullshit video. I'm not going to flat out say it's a fake, but the smoke from the launch wipes right to left in a very convenient way for obscuring changes in waves, reflections, etc. that would otherwise give away a set of spliced-together or otherwise faked videos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
The initial launch looks like a stock Mk46. You can even make out the fins and screw through the smoke in a few frames. All the actual sub-launched missiles of that size I'm aware of have a solid-rocket booster on the back. For reference: 
grover fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
I wish the uploader of the video had some context for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
grover posted:The initial launch looks like a stock Mk46. Are we seriously still using the Mk46? Didn't we bring those online in the early 60s? gently caress, I think those pre-date our involvement in Vietnam. . .
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Are we seriously still using the Mk46?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
So what was our plan for the quicker Soviet boats like the Alfa? Even if the Alfa is a bit slower than wiki says, and the mk 46 a bit faster, you'd drat near need to drop a 46 in front of it to hit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
Alaan posted:So what was our plan for the quicker Soviet boats like the Alfa? ADCAP. Or for a lightweight torpedo, the Mk 50. Fueled by liquid sulfur hexafluoride sprayed over a block of solid lithium. "Speed greater than 40 knots." Edit: If we're going for a naval digression, here's a fun test a friend of mine was involved in. Basically they hooked a shitload of sensors and a big data recording rig to the ex-USS Caron, and set a 500-lb charge off in the engine spaces, to see what happens. "What happens" turned out to be "the ship sinks, and takes all your sensors and data recorders with it so you don't actually get any useful data from the test." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFyt3bM_MJo Whoops. priznat posted:The Russians have some "Supercavitating" torpedo that will do 200 knots (~370km/h) Yeah, but it's not guided so unless you're (a) so close already that you're pretty much guaranteed to hit no matter what or (b) using a nuclear warhead, nobody really cares. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
The Russians have some "Supercavitating" torpedo that will do 200 knots (~370km/h)  Oh yeah and the Iranians have a version of it too, apparently. Eep. Shkval! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Edit: If we're going for a naval digression, here's a fun test a friend of mine was involved in. Basically they hooked a shitload of sensors and a big data recording rig to the ex-USS Caron, and set a 500-lb charge off in the engine spaces, to see what happens. Ugh, I get sad every time I see one of the Sprucans sunk in some sort of test/eval/training deal, because holy poo poo were those ships retired before their time...and we obviously could've used the hulls since it's not exactly like the Navy has a surplus of surface combatants at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
Manning... and I'm talking about the kind that's actually damaging US readiness not the mope they've got locked up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
grover posted:I'm stumped on this one. This doesn't make any sense. The only reason to launch a missile like a torpedo is if you're a submarine. It's an insane amount of complexity in order to do this, and sub-launched missiles are derivatives of surface-launched missiles. The only reason they'd do this is for testing, but submarines fire different torpedoes than surface ships; if you wanted to test a submarine-launched missile, you'd fire it from a submarine. Looks like 2 different things happening. First, the surface ship farts out the torpedo (sensor package perhaps??) and then a submerged sub launches a Tomahawk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwV-JucQktQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FEDvvZQPJQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 13:29
|
|
|
Are those the kind of rocket torpedoes that caused the Kursk to sink?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
NosmoKing: That close to each other?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:Looks like 2 different things happening. First, the surface ship farts out the torpedo (sensor package perhaps??) and then a submerged sub launches a Tomahawk. I believe this is a video of a Russian destroyer firing the RPK-2 Viyuga from a Udaloy II destroyer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-15 EDIT: Apparently there is only one ship in the Udaloy Class II line, the Admiral Chabanenko. So this ship is what we're looking at and I believe this to be the original video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHAvjfP7Qrk Surface launched submarine missile around 5:00 mark Styles Bitchley fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 13:46
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Are those the kind of rocket torpedoes that caused the Kursk to sink? Indirectly, yes. I believe the torpedo leaked fuel which resulted in an explosion. The horrifying part about the Kursk is that there were apparently several sailors who survived the explosion. They were waiting to be rescued when someone lit a match, which ignited the remaining air in their compartment.  Edit: Wasn't a match but it was an oxygen scrubber which combusted upon contact with sea water.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Nice sleuthing, Styles! Love the raked bow angle of the Russian ships. That and their predilection for putting buttloads of angled missile launchers along the sides. Looks more impressive than a bunch of vertical launch tubes sunk into the deck 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
I found a picture of this goofy fellow while attempting to expand my collection of Kfir photos: It looks totally ridiculous, with those tucked-in engines like a Draken, but it's a Handley Page Victor, one of the three "V-Bombers" (along with the Avro Vulcan and the Vickers Valiant) that made up Britain's nuclear bomber force during the Cold War. I think somebody a few pages back was asking about the RAF during the Cold War, so here's something to nibble on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Welp, leave it to the russians to launch a nuclear depth charge on a missile launched from a torpedo launched into the water from a surface ship. That's gotta add tons to the accuracy. But it sure looks awesome, doesn't it?  The shipboard instruments looked archaic, even compared to generally-pretty-archaic US shipboard radar displays, though. Granted, US only replaced tech of similar appearance in some ships about the same time that video was shot. Wonder if they've been updated since then? grover fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:I believe this is a video of a Russian destroyer firing the RPK-2 Viyuga from a Udaloy II destroyer. I guess something like ASROC would've just been too simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
TheNakedJimbo posted:I found a picture of this goofy fellow while attempting to expand my collection of Kfir photos: Jesus gently caress, it looks like someone saw a picture of the Bell X-1 and said "you know, let's make a bomber out of that."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Jesus gently caress, it looks like someone saw a picture of the Bell X-1 and said "you know, let's make a bomber out of that." It just looks so happy it can fly  (and rain down the destruction of humanity while it's at it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I guess something like ASROC would've just been too simple. Well, it's got the advantage of being able to be launched from a standard torpedo tube, ASROC needed a special launcher back before we adopted VLS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Well, it's got the advantage of being able to be launched from a standard torpedo tube, ASROC needed a special launcher back before we adopted VLS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Russia also has the XL 650mm dia torpedoes to outmanly puny 533mm ones. They are also available ribbed for her pleasure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
My father posed a strange question the other day that may raise some eyebrows. Here's the scenario: A commercial jet is traveling at subsonic speeds and is being escorted by a fighter jet. If the jet broke the sound barrier, would it potentially disorient or cause any harm to the fighter jet tailing it? This question is not intended to be taken absolutely seriously, however a logical answer would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 05:34
|
|
