|
VikingSkull posted:I know they are horrible weapons and all, but I'd really like to watch a test of a nuke one day. Maybe I'm sick. Don't worry, I've been thinking the same thing in past. I'm sure they could make boatloads of cash with broadcasting rights and DVD/online sales of selling a hi-def broadcast.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
I wouldn't say it's really sick, they are quite a beautiful and awesome sight. Unfortunately what they do is the polar opposite, but I understand where you're coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
What they -do- is make a lot of heat really quickly. It's what people might use them for that's questionable. I mean most of us see massive unquenchable fusion fire every day and only the gooniest look up and go MY GOD THAT'S SO HORRIBLE
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
1953 LIFE: Hydrogen (bomb) age is upon us - it brings a new magnitude of problems
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
I can't watch nuclear missile launches after seeing Threads at an impressionable age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:What they -do- is make a lot of heat really quickly. It's what people might use them for that's questionable.  v
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
I'm sure most of you have probably seen this picture, but if not... (click through for huge) Time lapse of 8 MIRV'd RVs from a Peacekeeper impacting at Kwajalein.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
I have always been fascinated by the various cold war ABM strategies. The fact that they had such a system going back to the '60s is incredible. I recently got a book US Strategic and Defensive Missile Systems 1950-2004 by Mark Berhow. It's full of pictures, diagrams and maps. I have a few of the Safeguard, hope its not a repost of anything. Safeguard antiballistic missile defense engagement  MSR = Raytheon Missile Site Radar PAR = phased-array Perimeter Acquisition Radar (it had a range of approx. 1000 miles) Proposed Safeguard deployment, 1969  Spartan, three-stage long-range inteceptor, flying at Mach 9 to 300 miles altitude to detonate a W-71 5 megaton warhead 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Seems a good time to repost this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Missiles hitting missiles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4KFB54DwrM THAAD is so accurate that it's just ridiculous. also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkMj1V5npfw
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Missiles hitting missiles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4KFB54DwrM These are awesome. Looks like you can see the THAAD maybe adjusting its course on the way in, in the first video?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
hannibal posted:These are awesome. Looks like you can see the THAAD maybe adjusting its course on the way in, in the first video? Yeah, it has a pile of motors to adjust course during end-game. I can't recall whether or not they're cold gas motors like the PAC-3 is. The end of this video shows pretty clearly the PAC-3 interceptor firing off a pile of attitude control motors to make it's last instant adjustments before getting a kinetic kill on its target. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnWpJZkvq0o
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
poo poo like that is crazy. Think for a moment about the sort of "long range" shooting that just about every member of TFR could probably do. Say, ringing a six inch gong at 200 yards with a properly sighted in AR. Now think about all the different variables that go into that fairly simple and easy task. Lining up the sights, having elevation properly dialed in for 200 yards, establishing a good support for the weapon (whether standing or proned out), etc. Let's assume that you're using match grade ammo out of a match upper so it's all on you - no fliers due to Wolf having a lovely day at the factory or whatever. Even with making everything as easy as possible, if you gently caress up and end up aiming at a point more than 1.5 degrees off from the center of the target, you're going to miss - and that's for a pretty loving easy shot. The target isn't moving, it's straight ahead of the shooter, etc. Now think about the variables and math involved in smashing one object that's going something crazy like Mach 7 or 8 at an oblique angle to the "shooter" with another object that is in a completely different location from the shooter that itself needs to fire, hit mach 9, and course-correct in mid-air to smash something that is, in the grand scheme of things, loving TINY and in all likelihood is deploying countermeasures. And, despite all that, they manage to actually score some hits. loving hell. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
No, Cyrano, it's no biggie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bby5pOVZJ0 I know this is a repost, but it's pretty good. edit: not to mention, your system needs to do constant RCS/size/separation/trajectory/impact point/drag tests in order to avoid wasting missiles on decoys, boosters, various missile parts, debris, etc. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jul 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:No, Cyrano, it's no biggie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bby5pOVZJ0 This sounds like a Laurel and Hardy sketch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Slamburger posted:This sounds like a Laurel and Hardy sketch. Abbott and Costello?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Don't worry, I've been thinking the same thing in past. I'm sure they could make boatloads of cash with broadcasting rights and DVD/online sales of selling a hi-def broadcast. I really want to see a nuke go off in space. See how close they get to a spherical shape.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Pretty spherical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEILIf8VkgI
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
darnon posted:Pretty spherical: Space nukes, gently caress yeah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pILXoPluHtw
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Seems a good time to repost this video: Sprint missiles are loving insane. Someone needs to make more of them and launch them off periodically just because they are so cool. Edit: Minus the nuclear warheads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Those intercept altitudes look to be just comically low. Sheesh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Yeah. We're talking hosed vs. totally hosed. Having a high-radiation weapon firing above your own turf is no joke, but if it means you can miss a shockwave and fireball above some strategic point you might decide it's worth the cost. Make no mistake though, in a nuclear war we all die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Thought I'd take a break from lurking the thread to brag about the books my girlfriend ordered for me for no reason.  She knows me so well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
Man I'd love to own 'The Soviet War Machine' just to count the number of references they make to such vaunted planes as the Tu-26 and the Su-19.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
"Inside the Soviet Army" by Suvorov (I think) is a great read, partly because it shows that the soviet army was almost as rife with horrible bullying and drugs and general russianness as the russian army is today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Here's some cold warriors rusting away. Some BIG cold warriors. And a cat. http://translate.google.com/transla...om%2F17486.html 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
I will never cease to be amazed at the sheer size of those things. Shame they're letting them just rust away like that, but some great photos at least. I would love to see one for myself one day, but not bloody likely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
It's borderline cliche at this point, but whenever I see pictures like that I can't help but think what Western intelligence agencies would have gone through to get pictures like that 25 years ago. Of course, the more things change  the more they stay the same.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 08:36
|
|
|
wkarma posted:Here's some cold warriors rusting away. Some BIG cold warriors. And a cat. If you haven't seen this, it's worth watching the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSDYOdQ9YiQ There's like six meta-levels of crazy in it
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
I keep meaning to do a longer British cold war post but keep getting sidetracked. In the meanwhile... had everything gone all hosed up during the 60's, this is what would have been issued to every UK household- Civil Defence Handbook No.10 "Advising the Householder on protection against nuclear attack"            It was the forerunner to the "Protect And Survive" manuals meant for distribution in the late 70's/80's
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 13:17
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:I keep meaning to do a longer British cold war post but keep getting sidetracked. In the meanwhile... I've got a Swiss civil defense manual and it's a bunch of the same stuff. "How to survive if Zürich gets nuked" coupled with a bunch of different ideas for how or why Switzerland might end up in a war. It's hilarious how optimistic it is about survival rates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I've got a Swiss civil defense manual and it's a bunch of the same stuff. "How to survive if Zürich gets nuked" coupled with a bunch of different ideas for how or why Switzerland might end up in a war. The thing here is that I don't believe the governments were at all naive about survival rates, I think the tone of this documentation (and indeed, all of the machinations of civil defence organisations around the world) was all done despite them knowing the reality all too well. I'm pretty sure the government really wished that the survival rate in the published literature was true as much as anyone reading it - the reality was that it was basically the equivalent of the oxygen masks on a crashing 747 keeping people calm. Also, here's a random GIF for no reason: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
Is there any veracity to the claims that peeing on the bomb bay doors of a B-17 would cause the doors to freeze shut?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Is there any veracity to the claims that peeing on the bomb bay doors of a B-17 would cause the doors to freeze shut? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3492028&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post405580735 quote:Flying Forts posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:If you haven't seen this, it's worth watching the whole thing: I'd like to know what the orchestral theme that plays a few times is. I swear I've heard it before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3492028&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post405580735 Like an actual citation. I suppose I could go to the library and get the book but I work in a library and this requires effort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
wkarma posted:Here's some cold warriors rusting away. Some BIG cold warriors. And a cat. I really expected it to be a bit more high tech than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
wkarma posted:Here's some cold warriors rusting away. Some BIG cold warriors. And a cat. Knowing that someone built a multi-billion dollar nuclear-powered steel bubble to lurk hundreds of feet under the ocean and await orders to destroy the world, for months on end, and then put a swimming pool inside it, is just the best thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
The Proc posted:Knowing that someone built a multi-billion dollar nuclear-powered steel bubble to lurk hundreds of feet under the ocean and await orders to destroy the world, for months on end, and then put a swimming pool inside it, is just the best thing ever. Because they're Russian. To add:  This thing had a cot in the back. Why? Russians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
TBF that should help with crew endurance, same goes for the swimming pool on the sub. Not that the Su-34 will get that far without tanker aircraft or that a Typhoon will go on a particularly long mission.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 00:08
|
|