|
You guys see this story? http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/07/24/navy_man_started_nuclear_sub_fire_to_leave_work_early_.html Slate.com posted:A New Hampshire man faces life in prison for allegedly setting a fire that caused more than $400 million in damage to a nuclear submarine—all because he apparently wanted to leave work early. Dude named Fury is a painter/sandblaster? What a fuckin' waste.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Minto Took posted:Because they're Russian. I really want to think that the cot is in the rear radar pod.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
theclaw posted:I really want to think that the cot is in the rear radar pod. No, its in the cockpit. Along with a galley and a toilet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:I really expected it to be a bit more high tech than that. Newer stuff is catching up, but the interior of the Typhoon is pretty typical considering it's 30 years old now and 10-15 of those years were spent struggling to even keep the sailors fed, let alone upgrade the boats. I'm actually surprised they managed to keep them afloat during the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:I really expected it to be a bit more high tech than that. This is the interior of the most advanced SAM/Missile Defense system in the world:  That's actually an older build, but the new builds that are actually released for use look almost exactly the same. Imagine a slightly different printer in the middle and a little tabletop shoved between the two main consoles with a laptop on it for reports.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Wow. I kind of assumed SAMs would mirror their targets by going with fuckoff MFDs everywhere; thanks for showing me otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
rossmum posted:Wow. I kind of assumed SAMs would mirror their targets by going with fuckoff MFDs everywhere; thanks for showing me otherwise. We're working on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dymCjQD0B3Y Btw, that video is hilarious for so many reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
There are some pictures of the Russian S-400 SAM here and its console looks about like what I would expect from a modern system (given that I know nothing about missiles).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Koesj posted:TBF that should help with crew endurance, same goes for the swimming pool on the sub. It would help if they TRUSTED the crews for long missions
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:We're working on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dymCjQD0B3Y The lady looks like she is picking out menu items off of a McDonald's point of sale. I like to imagine the Patriot battery is just spewing missiles everywhere like some bad video game mod.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:We're working on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dymCjQD0B3Y like the pony tail halfway down the girl's back and lack of a helmet, protective eyewear, gloves and reflective belt?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Aciid c0d3r posted:The lady looks like she is picking out menu items off of a McDonald's point of sale. I like to imagine the Patriot battery is just spewing missiles everywhere like some bad video game mod. Missile Command is far more than a bad video game mod.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Flikken posted:like the pony tail halfway down the girl's back and lack of a helmet, protective eyewear, gloves and reflective belt? Nah, that's all pretty accurate, except the pony tail. In fact, that the guy on the left is wearing all sorts of gear is much more hilarious. They should either be in just ACUs or wearing MOPP gear. Mostly what's funny is that the video blatantly shows Iran launching missiles at UAE, fucks with fast motion in order to make it harder to see what's going on, they're fighting the battle so far zoomed out you can hardly see poo poo if there are more than 20 aircraft in the air, they left the hilarious color maps on (later, the woman has them turned off, making it possible to actually see what's going on), and more. Oh, also the guy goes to hit touchscreen buttons and nothing happens. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Nah, that's all pretty accurate, except the pony tail. In fact, that the guy on the left is wearing all sorts of gear is much more hilarious. They should either be in just ACUs or wearing MOPP gear. I was making a joke 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Flikken posted:I was making a joke I am tired 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Nah, that's all pretty accurate, except the pony tail. In fact, that the guy on the left is wearing all sorts of gear is much more hilarious. They should either be in just ACUs or wearing MOPP gear. You mean you don't like seeing the terrain to the point of not actually being able to track anything? And I got a pretty big kick out of the Iran bit too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
rossmum posted:Soviet weaponry in general seemed pretty low-tech in comparison, but could still do a lot of the same things. The US has a big thing for poo poo like fly-by-wire and computer displays... the MiG-29s everyone swoons over? Mechanical controls and analogue gauges. WWII technology, and yet still one of the most agile fighters ever built. Russian design philosophy always seems to favour getting something done as cheaply and simply as possible, while the US will go with more complex solutions. I believed too much of what I saw in Hunt for Red October.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I'd like to know what the orchestral theme that plays a few times is. I swear I've heard it before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kdwxFsthI
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 08:32
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Mostly what's funny is that the video blatantly shows Iran launching missiles at UAE, fucks with fast motion in order to make it harder to see what's going on My folks moved closer towards Minhad only a couple of weeks ago, just six miles now
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
No the other one with a bit of menace to it with the strings. As if I would not know the glorious anthem already 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 09:35
|
|
|
AstuteCat posted:Also, here's a random GIF for no reason: Fail-Safe? Or Trinity's Child (did they make a movie of that?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
rossmum posted:Soviet weaponry in general seemed pretty low-tech in comparison, but could still do a lot of the same things. The US has a big thing for poo poo like fly-by-wire and computer displays... the MiG-29s everyone swoons over? Mechanical controls and analogue gauges. WWII technology, and yet still one of the most agile fighters ever built. Agile, but lovely to fly, with awful ergonomics. After the wall came down and Germany re-unified, West German pilots did not have many good things to say about the East German MiG-29s they got their hands on (other than the HMS which was apparently pretty damned good, but also distinctly *not* WWII technology). There's more to an aircraft's capabilities than mechanical factors like thrust-to-weight and wing loading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Agile, but lovely to fly, with awful ergonomics. After the wall came down and Germany re-unified, West German pilots did not have many good things to say about the East German MiG-29s they got their hands on (other than the HMS which was apparently pretty damned good, but also distinctly *not* WWII technology). There's more to an aircraft's capabilities than mechanical factors like thrust-to-weight and wing loading. And of course there's more to a system's potential than the handling characteristics of a single one of its components. Bill Odom posted:I would think that if I were a Russian officer, I would want to see this catalogued in history, because you achieved some remarkable force development goals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
movax posted:Fail-Safe? Or Trinity's Child (did they make a movie of that?) I wanted to find out too, and a quick google for "cap 811 moscow" told me that it indeed was Fail-Safe. Is it any good? Watched a few clips on youtube and it seems decent enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Churchill posted:I wanted to find out too, and a quick google for "cap 811 moscow" told me that it indeed was Fail-Safe. Is it any good? Watched a few clips on youtube and it seems decent enough. The original fail-safe is a great movie, and the remake from 2000 is also well worth watching. The remake was done as a live TV broadcast and works well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Agile, but lovely to fly, with awful ergonomics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Churchill posted:I wanted to find out too, and a quick google for "cap 811 moscow" told me that it indeed was Fail-Safe. Is it any good? Watched a few clips on youtube and it seems decent enough. Yeah, it's pretty solid. If I recall correctly, George Clooney did the remake because he liked the original so much, and even threw in some of his own cash to get it made. Or I'm dumb and mis-remembering the last part, but I know the 2000 one definitely has Clooney.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Churchill posted:I wanted to find out too, and a quick google for "cap 811 moscow" told me that it indeed was Fail-Safe. Is it any good? Watched a few clips on youtube and it seems decent enough. I caught it on TCM one night, and it's both excellent and disturbing. It was released the same year as Dr. Strangelove and deals with similar material (IE an unauthorized nuclear attack), but it was not the big success like Strangelove. I can understand why. Just dealing with accidental nuclear war straight was probably too intense for most audiences back in the day. Henry Fonda is the President, Walter Matthau is a Kissinger-esque National Security Academic, and recently passed Ernest Borgnine is flying a B-58 Hustler straight to Moscow. Dead Reckoning posted:I'm pretty sure the Soviet military thought "human factors" was a way of calculating how many people would die when assaulting a fortified position. According to people who have been hands-on with later model MiGs, the designers were absolutely terrible about control layouts; hiding safe/arm switches behind sun shades, putting panels out of the pilot's line of sight near the floor, having associated groups of controls on opposite sides of the cockpit, having readouts on a separate panel from the related controls, etc. In Soyuz space capsules, there are two switches next to each other. Once does a task that is routine that you have to do frequently (like stir the oxygen tanks or something); the other fires the parachutes, which if you fire before the right time, will cause you to die. Both switches are unlabeled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:In Soyuz space capsules, there are two switches next to each other. Once does a task that is routine that you have to do frequently (like stir the oxygen tanks or something); the other fires the parachutes, which if you fire before the right time, will cause you to die. Both switches are unlabeled. citation needed
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
I am not a pilot, but having sat in the cockpit of a Mig-29, SU-22, Mi-8, and MI-24 as well as an F-16, F-15, A-10, and UH-1, I can say that it's just really hard to see out of the FSU aircraft, the controls are in weird loving places and it's just uncomfortable as gently caress for me compared to the US models, and I'm not very big (71 inches, 175 pounds). That goes doubly so for the FSU MBTs, BMPs, and BRDMs I've been in compared with US MBTs, LAVs, APCs, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
movax posted:Yeah, it's pretty solid. If I recall correctly, George Clooney did the remake because he liked the original so much, and even threw in some of his own cash to get it made. Well found! Fail-safe is excellent - it's a real shame that it was released so soon after 'Dr Strangelove' that despite gaining critical acclaim, it fell into obscurity. It's a slow-burner but the tension is well worth every second you put into watching it - and the ending (I shan't spoil it) is brilliant. The 2000 one is okay, however I have a fondness for the 1964 film - Henry Fonda alone was enough to have me super-glued to my seat. AstuteCat fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Agile, but lovely to fly, with awful ergonomics. After the wall came down and Germany re-unified, West German pilots did not have many good things to say about the East German MiG-29s they got their hands on (other than the HMS which was apparently pretty damned good, but also distinctly *not* WWII technology). Also the R-73/AA-11, which frankly scared the poo poo out of Western air forces when they realized how much they had underestimated the missile's capabilities and how far behind they were with the AIM-9L/M, which was their standard WVR missile at that time. That (combined with the inability of the Western countries to agree on what the ASRAAM needed to be) is what spawned the IRIS-T and AIM-9X.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Keeping with the theme of 'let's look inside things!', here's a T-80BV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Not apparent is the fact that I sat in a T-80 and couldn't even close the hatch because my head stuck out the top, even though I wasn't even wearing a kevlar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Not apparent is the fact that I sat in a T-80 and couldn't even close the hatch because my head stuck out the top, even though I wasn't even wearing a kevlar. Petting Zoo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Petting Zoo? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
rossmum posted:Soviet weaponry in general seemed pretty low-tech in comparison, but could still do a lot of the same things. The US has a big thing for poo poo like fly-by-wire and computer displays... the MiG-29s everyone swoons over? Mechanical controls and analogue gauges. WWII technology, and yet still one of the most agile fighters ever built. Russian design philosophy always seems to favour getting something done as cheaply and simply as possible, while the US will go with more complex solutions. The Soviets never had a SSBN with reasonable survivability against American SSNs, and once American land-based passive sonars came online, they had no ability to hide. The Typhoon is no exception; in order to make up for its lack of stealth it was designed to be able to fire on the US from waters in the Artic Ocean and Barents Sea, where friendly ASW might keep the hostile SSN threat down. Soviet missiles with range adequate for this were enormous, so the boat itself ended up oversized. Until you get to Delta IV or so, the Soviet SSBNs weren't significantly better than the US 1st-gen boomers deployed in the '60s, while the contemporary Ohio class is a big leap ahead; similarly the Trident D5 noticeably outclasses the Soviet missiles. (I don't know anything about Borei and the Bulava.) This isn't really due to fancy electronics; if you stepped on board an Ohio in the '80s or '90s you'd find the computing equipment hilariously archaic as well. In fact, the Soviet boats were acknowledged to be have more advanced automation than US ships, a necessary cost of their less trained and trusted crews. On the other hand, the Ohios had the benefit of significant engineering for usability and ease of maintenance that the Russians seemed to blow off (just look in the Typhoon video of how much hassle simply loading food seems to be.) This sounds a lot like the gripes in the thread about the poor ergonomics of the MiG-29.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
I would really not be surprised if "ergonomics" as a word didn't even exist in Soviet military parlance. On the other hand, it does manifest itself in weird ways. For all the gripes about the MiG-29's cockpit and controls, the engines were easy as gently caress to replace owing to the fact they were basically just hanging underneath, as opposed to western designs where they tend to be doing insane things like "being buried inside the fuselage or wing roots". In fact, I would say about the only time a single iota of thought was given to the guys that had to operate this stuff was when it came to fixing something broken. No point having something flashy if your conscripts don't know which way up it goes! Similar deal with the AK... from a strictly ergonomics standpoint its controls are terrible, especially the safety, but it strips easily. Same with the 91/30, a pig to handle compared to its contemporaries, but stupidly easy to take apart. I'm not as well versed in subs specifically so I don't know how easy it would be to repair damaged systems on Soviet ones vs. American ones, but in terms of aviation and small arms, they seem to have designed them almost around maintenance rather than operation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
rossmum posted:...they seem to have designed them almost around maintenance rather than operation. Agreed - that, and mass-production.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Didnt they do conscripts with 2 year service times and have a very poor NCO community? So ive always assumed their equipment was designed to be operated by a retard with decent results, while western equipment is intended for well trained and skilled crews doing constant maintenence. Some anecdote in my head comes to mind of some middle eastern commanders complaining that american equipment was too fragile, when in reality they were used to soviet equipment and so just left the fancy toys outside in the rain, crewed them with men whove never turned a wrench or ran a wire in their lives, and yeah, the higher tech stuff would fail pretty fast in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 15:57
|
|
