|
Now I want a movie made where USAF PJs HAHO parachute into Army bases and take all of their Apaches by loading them into C-17s that then use JATO for taking off.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Now I want a movie made where USAF PJs HAHO parachute into Army bases and take all of their Apaches by loading them into C-17s that then use JATO for taking off. Needs more LAPES.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
This made me remember the magic of the BMD airdropped armoured fighting vehicle. This was the bogeyman of the Cold War-era Norwegian Army planners, and even though I've thought about it before, I'd never imagined just how insane that operation would actually look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwizQfIiBuQ See those stains on their camo parkas? Some of those stains are brown. e: do you think packers look at that video when they jerk it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
What are the tiny parachutes near the bottom of the assembly for? They don't seem to be drogue chutes since they seemed to come open last.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:This made me remember the magic of the BMD airdropped armoured fighting vehicle. This was the bogeyman of the Cold War-era Norwegian Army planners, and even though I've thought about it before, I'd never imagined just how insane that operation would actually look. http://youtu.be/NOSK-7Vrijg?t=6m20s edit: gently caress all, I can't get the video to embed properly and start at the right time. Just click the link, it goes to the right time stamp that way. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:This made me remember the magic of the BMD airdropped armoured fighting vehicle. This was the bogeyman of the Cold War-era Norwegian Army planners, and even though I've thought about it before, I'd never imagined just how insane that operation would actually look. My old platoon leader told a story about the time he met some Russian BMD crewmembers - two enlisted soldiers and an officer. According to him, the officer got a three point safety harness and padding. "What about them?" he asked the officer. The officer barked an order in Russian, the two enlisted schlubs mimed a bracing position with their arms. In response to my PL's incredulous look, they both removed their hats to reveal some pretty gnarly scars from where their heads caught some equipment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RROr86sqiP8 yikes
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:What are the tiny parachutes near the bottom of the assembly for? They don't seem to be drogue chutes since they seemed to come open last. Probably there to make sure that all the bigger parachutes spread out properly as they inflate - using a dozen smaller parachutes is probably nearly as much of a headache as designing a single big one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:This made me remember the magic of the BMD airdropped armoured fighting vehicle. This was the bogeyman of the Cold War-era Norwegian Army planners, and even though I've thought about it before, I'd never imagined just how insane that operation would actually look. That seems like a ridiculous amount of silk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:That seems like a ridiculous amount of silk. I imagine they have to do a lot of cleanup and arranging the silk before rolling out in order to avoid having hundreds of yards of silk wrapped up in their tracks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I imagine they have to do a lot of cleanup and arranging the silk before rolling out in order to avoid having hundreds of yards of silk wrapped up in their tracks. I don't know, it seems like the bundle 'o chutes is pretty carefully designed to blow and settle outwards once the vehicle lands. It wouldn't surprise me if they usually have enough room between the lines to drive out unimpeded. I mean, if you are going to airdrop vehicles with crew in them it kind of defeats the whole purpose if the guys need to get out and clean up silk for 20 minutes after landing. The only advantage to having crew in there is that it is deployable immediately and you don't have to have the crews fight their way through a potentially hot LZ to their vehicles. If they need to get out and clear silk least they become immobilized in their first 15 seconds on the ground, then all the enemy needs is a couple well emplaced LMGs to effectively lock it down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
They may not have to, but even if it's dropped manned, that means the crewed vehicle can provide overwatch while supporting infantry clear lines as needed, since you shouldn't be using armor without infantry support anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:They may not have to, but even if it's dropped manned, that means the crewed vehicle can provide overwatch while supporting infantry clear lines as needed, since you shouldn't be using armor without infantry support anyway. Until a parachute lands atop the vehicle and no one on the inside can see out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The absurd lengths that Google/Amazon go to on these three points are well documented - hell, you can Google them - and don't require launching an appeal to authority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/how-an-indonesian-isp-took-down-the-mighty-google-for-30-minutes/ This has nothing to do with ensuring data integrity, which was the point being made. Yes, DNS and several other structural underpinnings of the internet are extremely vulnerable to attack or even one mistake in the wrong place, but Google can't - at least not this week - rewrite the entire foundation of how the internet works. Temporarily blocking access to and destroying data held by are two very, very different things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Psion posted:This has nothing to do with ensuring data integrity, which was the point being made. Yes, DNS and several other structural underpinnings of the internet are extremely vulnerable to attack or even one mistake in the wrong place, but Google can't - at least not this week - rewrite the entire foundation of how the internet works. Psion posted:Temporarily blocking access to and destroying data held by are two very, very different things. You don't say?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
I used to be really nerdy about military planes, thanks in no small part to the Discovery Channel. I've fallen behind, admittedly, but I'm still called on to identify planes during the Air & Water Show.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:It was an article of interest relating to the inherent problems faced datacenter operators that no amount of preparation regarding the earlier mentioned touchpoints will cover for. Holy gently caress, you must be a real riot to drink with. Sorry I can't read your mind and discern the context you didn't say at all, champ. Maybe next time you'll remember that part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
Cool photo gallery from some Russian aircraft repair plant. https://picasaweb.google.com/117990383296131038585/558_ARZ
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 14:02
|
|
|
So I've been trying for like the last month to take a day trip out to Castle Air Museum, inspired by the time I've spent reading this thread over the past year. Stuff keeps getting in the way, though. First my friend threw out his back, and then a couple weeks ago I had to cancel at the last minute due to the Giants making the World Series (couldn't leave town on a game day, naturally). A good problem to have, I know, but it's been frustrating. Has anyone been to this place? Maybe an anecdote could help tide me over until we have a rain-free weekend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
It has a B-36. How could you not? Also sometime in the next few months (sorry, I can't be more precise) I'll be visiting Seattle's Museum of Flight; if anyone has a particular request I'll see what I can do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
A video from the BBC about "Rubber Curtain", a key component in Russia's new carrier ability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ShACteRduY
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Watching Strategic Air Command starring Jimmy Stewart. Does anyone ever watch these 1950's depictions of the military as, well, overly militaristic and think that it must have been just miserable to serve back then? Also, I laughed at this entry in the IMDB: The B-36 and B-47 bomber aircraft showcased in the film were such powerful deterrents against Soviet aggression in the 1950's that neither plane ever had to be used in combat, verifying the Strategic Air Command's motto of "Peace Is Our Profession."
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:A video from the BBC about "Rubber Curtain", a key component in Russia's new carrier ability: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2012 12:39
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:A video from the BBC about "Rubber Curtain", a key component in Russia's new carrier ability: They obviously stole the technology from the US and then put some different paint on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:A video from the BBC about "Rubber Curtain", a key component in Russia's new carrier ability: Our air mattress landing strip technology is clearly superior. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Our air mattress landing strip technology is clearly superior. Which we copied from the British. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
I'm getting pretty tired of all these articles that proclaim that an 80-90% kill rate from Iron Dome is unprecedented and that no missile defense system has ever done that. As evidence, they tend to point to Patriot's failures circa 1991 rather than Patriot's nine for nine scorecard in 2003. Also, Iron Dome isn't intercepting missiles, it's intercepting rockets 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
I'd believe it if there's some super-spergy thing about something technically being a rocket or whatever, but when I think "intercpeting rockets" I think shooting at soviet surplus RPGs and the like. Maybe I'm just dense and/or ignorant, but it's my general gut impression. Those Fajr-5s that have been lobbed out of Gaza are on an entirely different magnitude. I mean for gently caress's sake, they're liquid fueled, 6 meters long, and launched from a dedicated vehicle launch platform. Whether or not that's still a "rocket" it's a loving hell of a step up from the normal katyusha-derriviative poo poo that used to be the staple of "angry people lobbing crap at Israel"
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I'm getting pretty tired of all these articles that proclaim that an 80-90% kill rate from Iron Dome is unprecedented and that no missile defense system has ever done that. As evidence, they tend to point to Patriot's failures circa 1991 rather than Patriot's nine for nine scorecard in 2003. THAAD and the SM-3 also had very impressive performance. ^Don't let D&D catch you suggesting anything shot out of Gaza is dangerous. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Nothing much said about life in the West Bank right now. Are they just chilling, shaking their heads at the trolls in Gaza or is poo poo about to go down there too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Nothing much said about life in the West Bank right now. Are they just chilling, shaking their heads at the trolls in Gaza or is poo poo about to go down there too? I haven't heard about anything going on there, and I suspect what's going on in Gaza is wrapping up soon as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'd believe it if there's some super-spergy thing about something technically being a rocket or whatever, but when I think "intercpeting rockets" I think shooting at soviet surplus RPGs and the like. Maybe I'm just dense and/or ignorant, but it's my general gut impression. The short of it is that rockets are unguided after launch. You set up an azimuth and angle and fire and it goes. Missiles have some kind of guidance system to speak of. Some do nasty things like maneuver in order to dodge intercepters and/or target an area you didn't expect them to target based on their trajectory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:THAAD and the SM-3 also had very impressive performance. Yeah, I just haven't used them because they have yet to shoot down anything in combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The short of it is that rockets are unguided after launch. You set up an azimuth and angle and fire and it goes. Missiles have some kind of guidance system to speak of. Some do nasty things like maneuver in order to dodge intercepters and/or target an area you didn't expect them to target based on their trajectory. So what's the story with platforms that can be either? I've been reading up on the Fajr-5's and apparently they can be equipped with basic guidance suites for anti-shipping duties. Nothing too amazing or high-tec, but good enough to be "minute of BB" rather than "minute of city" edit: not that Hamas has those (that I'm aware of), just getting spergy about technical distinctions. editx2: so would this make a V2 a rocket while those early He-111 wire-guided anti-shipping V1 derivatives were missiles?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
If it can be either, it depends how it's equipped. Note that I use rocket versus missile in the context of US air defense terminology. Brits will call a stone you throw a loving missile because they feel like it. The wireguided V1 derivatives would be missiles, and actually, I think we call the V2 a ballistic missile as well because it used gyroscopes and the like to stay on course and some even used radio control for launch course correction IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The wireguided V1 derivatives would be missiles, and actually, I think we call the V2 a ballistic missile as well because it used gyroscopes and the like to stay on course and some even used radio control for launch course correction IIRC.  I used the V2 example precisely because (again, from what I've been reading, heavy dose of "Jane's might not know everything about everything" and all that) it seems the Fajr-5 has some kind of basic dial-a-city guidance and/or rudimentary course correction, a la V2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Oops. I can't recall if it does or not. I could look it up, but the open source isn't very helpful and if I look it up at work tomorrow I can't post about it  edit: FWIW "Fajr 5 is a rocket rather than a missile. It is not guided as such. That is how we differentiate it," said Gareth Jennings, managing editor of IHS Jane's Missiles and Rockets. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/61088-fajr-5-five-times-the-range-of-home-made-rockets mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Which we copied from the British. Discovery Wings  That narrator owns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:As evidence, they tend to point to Patriot's failures circa 1991 rather than Patriot's nine for nine scorecard in 2003. It's like...if you actually redesign a system almost from the ground up to intercept missiles it will do a much better job than bandaiding an anti-air system to try and intercept ballistic missiles. Shocking! Cyrano4747 posted:
Are you thinking of spin/fin stabilization? It's not guidance but if it's implemented effectively (like the FROG-7 for example) it can get your CEP down to 500-700 meters, which is well within "dial-a-city" guidance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 06:05
|
|
