|
I get that the MiG-15 had heavy hitting 23mm and 37mm cannons vice the F-86s .50 cals, but it still is crazy to me that the Mig only carried 200 rounds of ammunition total.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
wkarma posted:Enough about a plane with an optional gun, let's talk about a plane with 6 guns. Enough about your 6-gun plane. Here's an 8-gun.  (Took this on my 13th birthday at the Pima Air and Space Museum. I got photos of this thing and the Pregnant Guppy, but not the SR-71.  )
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
The Atlantic has some good Falklands War photos up. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/03/30-years-since-the-falklands-war/100272/
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
grover posted:Hey, at least it's 1/3 of what UK is paying for the Typhoon, so it's a relative bargain... Where the hell are you getting that price from, I'm finding 90 million Euro which certainly isn't $300 million.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:To repurpose an old joke about waiters, bartenders, lovers, pop singers, and cops: And in purgatory everything is made by Lockheed-Martin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The Atlantic has some good Falklands War photos up. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/03/30-years-since-the-falklands-war/100272/ One of the only good lines Tom Clancy ever wrote was "And if you'd had a full-size carrier that useless little war would never have happened."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:And in purgatory everything is made by Lockheed-Martin. Don't even ask how much indulgences cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
I always thought the Sabre was a pretty appropriate name. It's not fancy, ornamental, or flashy. But it gets down to business doing the work that needs to be done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
And then they had to go and roll out the F-100 Super Sabre to flashy it up!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
I'm still disappointed that they didn't go with Mithras for the F-4, or even more controversial Satan  . And then the USAF almost called it the Spectre with the F-110 number.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Now why the gently caress did they call a plane "Aardvark"? What's so variable-geometry about a pig with a long snout that likes digging?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 13:11
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Now why the gently caress did they call a plane "Aardvark"? What's so variable-geometry about a pig with a long snout that likes digging? It's cockpit/nose section do look rather Aardvarkish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's cockpit/nose section do look rather Aardvarkish. And it's got TFR for playing down in the mud. Terrain-following radar, not this forum, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
grover posted:I was using a bit of rhetoric; C-RAM doesn't use DU shells. Navy doesn't even use them in CIWS anymore. DU itself is no more dangerous than a lead slug; it's when it strikes something hard (like tank armor) and burns/oxidizes and creates dust that can be inhaled that it becomes a potential health risk to people. Small quantities of that dust coat everything around the gun after every firing and make it a huge issue to decontaminate. Someone mentioned a couple pages back that they'd buy a T-38 if they won the lottery. Personally, I'd be tempted by the adorably stubby M-346:  Oh, who am I kidding, I'd want both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:Someone mentioned a couple pages back that they'd buy a T-38 if they won the lottery. Personally, I'd be tempted by the adorably stubby M-346: That reminds me of Jim Bede's abortive attempt at creating a supersonic kit plane, the BD-10. The engines never ended up being up to snuff and three of the planes disintegrated in mid-air. Looked like a small F-15 though, which was cool. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:Someone mentioned a couple pages back that they'd buy a T-38 if they won the lottery. Personally, I'd be tempted by the adorably stubby M-346: Since they include hard-points for dropping training bombs, several nations are considering using them as inexpensive ($27M) attack aircraft as well as trainers. LP97S posted:Where the hell are you getting that price from, I'm finding 90 million Euro which certainly isn't $300 million. Since Canada's investment in the F-35 R&D is so low ($160M or so), the difference between flyaway cost and total cost is small, like $3M per aircraft. It's fair to say UK is paying roughly 3x more for each Typhoon than Canada is paying for each F-35. grover fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Mar 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Well written article about Operation Mikado from The Telegraph:quote:Five in the morning, May 21 1982, seven weeks into the Falklands conflict. The Argentine radar operator at Rio Grande airbase, on the island of Tierra del Fuego, is looking forward to his bed. Outside, rain is blowing across the deserted airfield. Operation Mikado always reminds me of the LRDG's Operation Caravan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 10:00
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/WB1GlTKdRXs Just found this, has some good clips from soviet ground exercises set to agood jaunty tune 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:http://youtu.be/WB1GlTKdRXs You gotta love old Soviet propaganda - I like the guys at 1:05 who are running down a hill, hip firing their AK's for the camera. I do hope they used blanks. As for the era, T-72s, Mig 23s and Hind Ds makes me want to say mid 70s?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
I got to thinking about history, Swedish tanks, Soviet
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
I wonder what the equivalency in inches of pykrete to inches of say, Chobham armor is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:You gotta love old Soviet propaganda - I like the guys at 1:05 who are running down a hill, hip firing their AK's for the camera. I do hope they used blanks. As for the era, T-72s, Mig 23s and Hind Ds makes me want to say mid 70s? I'm pretty sure we're seeing later model T-62s from 0:44 onwards (Obr. 1972 with the DShK machine gun?) and T-64As with the 'gill' side armor at around 2:00 so depending on how much they wanted to show of their then high tech vehicles I'd say the vid could have been shot anywhere from around 1972 till the late seventies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:I got to thinking about history, Swedish tanks, Soviet Not really. Apart from tensile strength it doesn't have any real advantage over concrete (and is actually a harder material to do construction with) and isn't as durable in the long term (i.e. it still melts).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
I'd imagine rebuilding pykrete every time you did work on it or the weather got warm would result in not much savings for inferior protection unless you had huge, heavy globs of it on your tank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Yeah, pykrete's only useful in naval applications since it floats and you can afford to fit the refrigeration systems to keep it from melting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
pykrete is a curiosity and nothing more. maybe the innuit could get some advantages buitling their traditional ice houses from it, but you cant seriously consider using it in a military application, unless fighting a land war in artcitc conditions and use it to reinforce foxhole cover or something. You couldnt send a carrier made of ice into the persian gulf. I dont care if youve got cooling equipment onboard, you would have to design the hull with an ablative surface and run freon tubes throughout to keep the outer layers cold. it sounds like a horrible plan for force projection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Pykrete could be useful for setting up shelters that can be dotted around Antarctica but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
B-52 over Hanoi, watch this part first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ECGKCD-pqiM Here's the bomb run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9A0851AEsLk Other parts are on youtube linked from those vids. Found in this post: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Audio-of-a-B-52-Mission-Over-Hanoi Some crazy anecdotes in the comments
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:B-52 over Hanoi, watch this part first: The number of SAMs being fired is loving unreal. Having to stay on course in that big-rear end B-52 hoping that your countermeasures are effective and/or the guys trying to shoot you down are ineffective would be nerve-wracking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
Nerve-wracking is being one of the civilians on the ground getting the poo poo bombed out of them. At least aircrew get paid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Nerve-wracking is being one of the civilians on the ground getting the poo poo bombed out of them. At least aircrew get paid. The amount of ordinance those BUFFs dropped in Vietnam is unreal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 11:48
|
|
|
Odd question: does anyone know how hard it is to detect an ekranoplan in ground effect flight? I imagine going low is good against radar im general, but I don't know poo poo about how low you'd have to be to dodge a modern naval radar setup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 13:20
|
|
|
Gatac posted:Odd question: does anyone know how hard it is to detect an ekranoplan in ground effect flight? I imagine going low is good against radar im general, but I don't know poo poo about how low you'd have to be to dodge a modern naval radar setup. Anyone who knows for sure is probably going to shut up and not talk about it, but I don't imagine it would be difficult. The point of staying low is to (a) stay below the radar horizon and (b) maybe lose yourself in ground clutter. Modern naval radars are going to be pretty good about rejecting clutter, and the e-plan has an RCS about the size of a mountain, so once you're close enough for LOS you're going to be seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
BadgerMan45 posted:The number of SAMs being fired is loving unreal. Having to stay on course in that big-rear end B-52 hoping that your countermeasures are effective and/or the guys trying to shoot you down are ineffective would be nerve-wracking. One of my dad's friends was a B-52 pilot who flew up north during the Vietnam war. He said if you want to know what the SAM coverage was like, take your fingers in front of your face and point them towards you. Now, move them at your face slowly at first, then really quick. At the last moment, spread your fingers apart and have them just zip by the sides of your face. It was kinda like that, but with supersonic telephone poles full of explosives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Anyone who knows for sure is probably going to shut up and not talk about it, but I don't imagine it would be difficult. The point of staying low is to (a) stay below the radar horizon and (b) maybe lose yourself in ground clutter. Modern naval radars are going to be pretty good about rejecting clutter, and the e-plan has an RCS about the size of a mountain, so once you're close enough for LOS you're going to be seen. My guess is that thing would be really easy to see. Plus moving objects really stand out from clutter; it's iow you tell the fishing boat from the line of crab pot buoys he's just dropped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
I'd imagine if they had a Hawkeye airborne they would pick that sucker up way out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
The question is, if they did detect it what could they do about it? Can standard missiles intercept stuff that low? Can harpoons hit a target moving that quickly? Could be the best defense would be the 5" gun in that case. Only problem is that would be well within range of whatever surface to surface missiles it had on board and could let rip. (not counting if there was air defense up at the time) priznat fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Apr 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
priznat posted:The question is, if they did detect it what could they do about it? Can standard missiles intercept stuff that low? Can harpoons hit a target moving that quickly? Yes, you could shoot a SAM at it. Missiles like the Standard are designed to hit cruise missiles and low-flying aircraft; from the missile's perspective, a ground-effect craft is just an airplane that happens to be flying very low.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Do Sidewinders have a minimum altitude they are programmed to work with or will they just merrily go after hot things at low levels? I'd imagine a missile up your engines would not be a happy day for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
They didn't look very heavily armored to me, and they travel very fast at very low altitude. Imagine if a wing snags the surface. Whloump. I always imagined they'd be picked off by high and fast enemy planes unless they had really good friendly air cover. I can perfectly understand why they were mostly shelved, because there's a mountain of very possible, very serious survivability problems with the whole platform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 20:21
|
|