|
Interesting writeup of the Canadian Naval lieutenant guilty of spying for the Russians and why he did it. Pretty sad, really.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I don't know, there's just something about it where you look at the thing and go "yup, this is the logical conclusion of a road that had the P40 ,P51, P80, etc. on it." It just feels like the obvious final iteration of an era, while the stuff after it feels like the beginning of something new. Yes the Sabre is a beautiful machine. But I think you have something with all the Brownings, it also has it's own style. I really dig GUNS ON PLANES, and it's interesting to see the different designs and philosophies. For instance the preference of putting many smaller caliber guns on a plane versus a few big ones. Such as the F-86 with six .50 cals compared to the MiG-15 with two 23mm cannons and one big rear end 37mm one. You can see that in Axis versus Allied planes in WWII as well. Hell even today, America may only have one gun on their jet but there is still six barrels. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
priznat posted:Interesting writeup of the Canadian Naval lieutenant guilty of spying for the Russians and why he did it. Pretty sad, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Hell even today, America may only have one gun on their jet but there is still six barrels. The Avenger has 7 barrels.  Also I love when little planes play in the jet wash of bigger ones. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:The Avenger has 7 barrels. Pretty sure he's referring to the M61. You know, the other gun 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
The Harrier has 5 Barrels But Yes I know he was referring to the 20mm. Hell the F35 went back to 4 barrels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
quote:Barrel Talk Why? Is it saving weight on the steel/ammo or more a cost saving measure?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Bigger shells and having less tougher, lighter barrels allows for a higher rate of fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Someone say guns? On planes? Saw one of these fly last week too 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
A-4s are neat. Sweet muzzle doodad!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Yes the Sabre is a beautiful machine. But I think you have something with all the Brownings, it also has it's own style. I really dig GUNS ON PLANES, and it's interesting to see the different designs and philosophies. For instance the preference of putting many smaller caliber guns on a plane versus a few big ones. Such as the F-86 with six .50 cals compared to the MiG-15 with two 23mm cannons and one big rear end 37mm one. You can see that in Axis versus Allied planes in WWII as well. Pssh, quad 20mm or 30mm are way better! Even the americans realized this for the Sabre and later planes. Although they didn't quite get it down... quote:The F-11 Tiger is noted for being the first jet aircraft to shoot itself down.[3] On 21 September 1956, during a test firing of its 20 mm (.79 in) cannons, pilot Tom Attridge fired two bursts mid-way through a shallow dive. As the velocity and trajectory of the cannon rounds decayed, they ultimately crossed paths with the Tiger as it continued its descent, disabling it and forcing Attridge to crash land the aircraft; he survived.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
priznat posted:Interesting writeup of the Canadian Naval lieutenant guilty of spying for the Russians and why he did it. Pretty sad, really. Man, that is just  ._firehawk posted:Also I love when little planes play in the jet wash of bigger ones. Guy I work with now was a crew chief up at Eielson when that happened...the first time:  Here's video of the second incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fWoqa5nGmk (For those too lazy to click the link, that is the same tail...in '03 it jumped chocks during a maintenance engine run and slide on the snow (because it was at Eielson in February) until it came to rest in that position; in '07 it got blown over by the Bone during a RF-A, still at Eielson). iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Oct 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
The poor plane just wants to dance!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 14:08
|
|
|
grover posted:Su-37 is a ton bigger than the Mig-29. 72x48' vs 57x27' and weighs about 50% more, too. F-14 is kinda in the middle between them, 64x38'. It never ceases to amaze me that single seat fighters nowadays are as long as a b-17.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
Holy poo poo! http://video.boeing.com/services/player/bcpid1173939806001?bckey=AQ~~%2CAAAAukPAlqE~%2CoAVq1qtdRjwBrIkHYj2MSytJiEK9s5fy&bctid=1913200772001
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
AntiTank posted:Holy poo poo! Did...did that computer just eject a CD/DVD at :42? "OH GOD IT HURTS WHY DOES IT HURT SO MUCH?" *puke*
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
gently caress that might be a better weapon than a nuke. Just fly a drone over your opponent's industrial centers and shut them all the gently caress down. I exaggerate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:gently caress that might be a better weapon than a nuke. Just fly a drone over your opponent's industrial centers and shut them all the gently caress down. You do? Because you're exactly right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
I wonder if I could get Boeing to test that bad boy on my neighbors the next time they leave their stereo blasting away at four in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I wonder if I could get Boeing to test that bad boy on my neighbors the next time they leave their stereo blasting away at four in the morning. http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:gently caress that might be a better weapon than a nuke. Just fly a drone over your opponent's industrial centers and shut them all the gently caress down. Not in the first wave. The first thing to go are command facilities and air defense centers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:It never ceases to amaze me that single seat fighters nowadays are as long as a b-17. Any handy photos of a 4.5 gen fighter next to a B-17 on the ground or in the air? I can see on wiki that: B-17G: 74 ft F-15C: 63 ft F-16C: 49 ft P-51D: 31 ft Not quite as long, but still enormous considering that a modern fighter is close in size to a heavy bomber from 30 years ago (from design start of the -15/-16).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
We already sort of do what this EMP cruise missile is supposed to accomplish. I remember back during the NATO air war over Yugoslavia we were dropping bombs full of graphite strips on power plants in order to short circuit and temporarily knock them out. It took out electricity for quite a large section of the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
movax posted:Any handy photos of a 4.5 gen fighter next to a B-17 on the ground or in the air? I can see on wiki that: I'll have to look for some, but I know an su-35 is 74 feet long as well. Don't think I"m going to find a pic of a flanker and a b-17 flying together though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
movax posted:Any handy photos of a 4.5 gen fighter next to a B-17 on the ground or in the air? I can see on wiki that: The closest I could find was a B-25 and F-16 in formation, although even there it illustrates that a lightweight modern fighter is the same size as a midsize WWII bomber (bonus Hawker Hunter):  However, if you want real ridiculous size comparisons...  B-17 vs B-52  C-47 vs C-17 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
priznat posted:Interesting writeup of the Canadian Naval lieutenant guilty of spying for the Russians and why he did it. Pretty sad, really. Jeffrey Delisle posted:Guys, my girlfriend just admitted she only married me for security and now she's pregnant with another man's baby. Should I sever, or start spying for the Russians?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
AntiTank posted:Holy poo poo! I know modern tanks and aircraft are hardened to withstand the EMP created by a nuclear blast...would similar hardening work against this? How does this sorta hardening work anyway? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 03:06
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I know modern tanks and aircraft are hardened to withstand the EMP created by a nuclear blast...would similar hardening work against this? How does this sorta hardening work anyway? If you're curious, you can read up on the specifics here: http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/FEDMIL/std188_125_1.pdf Then, you run into other questions, like... what happens if the blast comes when someone is walking in the front door? grover fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Oct 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I know modern tanks and aircraft are hardened to withstand the EMP created by a nuclear blast...would similar hardening work against this? How does this sorta hardening work anyway? A breaker circuit on the inputs combined with a faraday cage or similar shielding around the devices themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
grover posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
grover posted:
That one is simple enough, a sally port type entrance would solve that problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Flikken posted:That one is simple enough, a sally port type entrance would solve that problem. Doesn't solve this though: Memento1979 posted:Or if you combined it with a small conventional munitions strike to breach the integrity of the cage? And honestly you wouldn't even need any explosives in the bomb, an inert concrete shape with precision guidance (so either JDAM tailkit or LGB) would more than likely be enough to breach the integrity without causing much damage compared to a live munition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
You win again, gravity!! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Ok but you're already presupposing that you're getting hit with enough explosives/kinetic energy to cause a pretty severe amount of damage. At that point how much sense does it really make to worry about the threat of an EMP versus everything there just getting blown up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
grover posted:Same way the cameras that didn't go out were shielded: faraday cages. You can build a faraday cage to just about any attenuation level of any frequency, it's just a matter of using the right thickness of material. The real trick, though, is in penetrations- power lines, communication antennas, ventilation intakes, etc. Ultimately, any holes (including openings in mesh screens and honeycomb covers) need to be treated as waveguide, and designed for attenuation at various wavelengths. The larger the hole, the deeper it needs to be to achieve the same level of attenuation. There is nothing terribly magical about it, but it does get difficult and expensive if you have to do entire facilities. This is giving me fond memories of training on Seawolf ESM systems in a SCIF out in San Diego back in the day. Signs reminding us to make sure the door is closed before powering on any equipment, etc... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
LGD posted:Ok but you're already presupposing that you're getting hit with enough explosives/kinetic energy to cause a pretty severe amount of damage. At that point how much sense does it really make to worry about the threat of an EMP versus everything there just getting blown up? They're overthinking the problem. Modern militaries are run via networks of systems. It's impossible to shield everything, and anything that gets taken down impacts the overall effectiveness of the system. Example: A well-designed integrated air defense system (IADS) is a scary loving thought, even to the USAF. China has an excellent one. Iraq in 1990 had one of the best, probably only behind Moscow. The US didn't bomb every missile launcher or radar site, we took out the C2 network that controlled it and cross-cued radar data. The sites were force to operate independently which drops their efficiency SIGNIFICANTLY. This type of weapon applies the same logic to the entirety of the military and beyond.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Just to add to the above: think of all the reasons why the US blew the gently caress out of Iraq's civilian power infrastructure in GW1. Even if all of the key military facilities have backup generation by default it still causes a big loving headache if most of the major cities go dark, and can really degrade all sorts of things. Same logic, just without needing to employ quite so many tons of HE. Really, the most exciting part about this, at least to my mind, isn't the potential for eliminating hardened military targets, but the potential for mega-loving civilian targets in ways that don't piss people off as much as, well, destroying the power generation/transmission capability of an entire nation because one dickhead keeps violating no-fly-zones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
Flikken posted:That one is simple enough, a sally port type entrance would solve that problem. LGD posted:Ok but you're already presupposing that you're getting hit with enough explosives/kinetic energy to cause a pretty severe amount of damage. At that point how much sense does it really make to worry about the threat of an EMP versus everything there just getting blown up? Also, regarding the collateral damage claims... if your target is buried in a residential neighborhood where conventional strikes would cause too many casualties, an EMP strike like this is going to destroy every civilian TV and computer in a pretty good radius. Still seems like collateral damage to me, though far more preferable since it won't kill anybody. grover fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Oct 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
Tell that to the WoW addicts!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
If your house gets blown the gently caress up along with the Ministry of Whateverthefuck that it shares the block with, your laptop is probably even more megafucked than if it got zapped by whatever that thing of Boeing's is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 16:43
|
|