|
Nebakenezzer posted:Now here is a dumb question: is the Blackbird black naturally, thanks to its Titanium alloy? Or is it painted black? Paint. Titanium is normally a pale silver, as i recall.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Now here is a dumb question: is the Blackbird black naturally, thanks to its Titanium alloy? Or is it painted black? It is actually kind of an interesting question, and the answer is that it is painted with a ferrite paint to absorb radar, and also to radiate heat. Black absorbs radiation better than silver/white, but it also radiates it better, so at altitude and speed, a black blackbird has better thermal performance than an unpainted one. Though this presents a problem for preservationists, because the paint doesn't look right till it has been baked on at mach 3. So, if you need to repaint your blackbird, you either paint it with the wrong paint that looks right, or you paint it with the right paint, and have it not look all charred-matte like that, or so I was told by the director of the Virginia Aviation Museum who has an outdoor Blackbird to care for. bunch of unpainted A-12's, the paint adds weight, so it was an open question if they wanted to use it on the non-leading-edge surfaces. Decided in favor, eventually, but tried both for years. 
Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Black absorbs radiation better than silver/white, but it also radiates it better, so at altitude and speed, a black blackbird has better thermal performance than an unpainted one. Isn't this more a function of being 'black' at specific (presumably infrared) wavelengths, or is it just easier to do it for the entire visible spectrum while they're at it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks. I had no idea if it was done for thermal reasons, or if that was the paint choice because 'black is difficult to see at night' sorta thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
If night visibility was a concern they'd gone with a dark blue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
If night visibility was a concern I'd think they'd have to do something about the tremendous twin pillars of flame erupting from the afterburners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
All proceeds benefit the Susan G. Komen foundation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:What's the point at having a stealth cruise missile if the B-52 (and not the B-2) is your launch vehicle? Because normal cruise missiles can be spotted, tracked, and engaged. They generally fly slow, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Isn't this more a function of being 'black' at specific (presumably infrared) wavelengths, or is it just easier to do it for the entire visible spectrum while they're at it? He's quoting specifically radar in terms of radiation I believe. The visible spectrum is almost a footnote, the ferrite paint itself is black and it creates the thermal/radar absorption properties. Infrared wasn't a consideration for the SR-71 as far as I'm aware.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
It's about shedding heat from supersonic drag, not EM stealth. The radiation would be thermal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Because normal cruise missiles can be spotted, tracked, and engaged. They generally fly slow, too. The "normal" cruise missiles that the AGM-129 was to replace are the only ones in the US inventory now though. Heck, they're now set to be used until 2020 or later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The "normal" cruise missiles that the AGM-129 was to replace are the only ones in the US inventory now though. Heck, they're now set to be used until 2020 or later. Because after the end of the Cold War high end programs lost funding. That went doubly so for anything nuke related. See Midgetman, Peacemaker, B-2, Seawolf-class, probably something with the Army that I'm forgetting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Comanche?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Comanche? M-8 armored gun system
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
/\ SGT. York I bet the captains of the three Seawolf class subs feel like pretty hot poo poo, always looking down at LA and Virginia class skippers. I'm legitimately surprised that the US wouldn't be fielding more, and newer stealth cruise missiles. Seems like a handy thing to have if you need to assassinate a dude or take out a target that likely has radar and air defences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I bet the captains of the three Seawolf class subs feel like pretty hot poo poo, always looking down at LA and Virginia class skippers. Well of course they'd look down on submerged subs when theirs is tied to the pier broken Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I'm legitimately surprised that the US wouldn't be fielding more, and newer stealth cruise missiles. Seems like a handy thing to have if you need to assassinate a dude or take out a target that likely has radar and air defences. JASSM is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Flikken posted:M-8 armored gun system The M8 AGS looks really cool but when I google it I get links to Mike "Gavin" Sparks and his various youtube accounts, which makes it seem suspect to me. e: not like, its existence or something, but if he likes it then maybe there's something wrong with it
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Flikken posted:M-8 armored gun system  (Quality thread, btw).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:JASSM is a thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't AGM-129 only nuclear while JASSM is (right now) purely conventional? Would go towards why we are getting one and retired the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't AGM-129 only nuclear while JASSM is (right now) purely conventional? Would go towards why we are getting one and retired the other. Yup on both counts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:The F35 program is getting so expensive that it will be soon cheaper to bomb with blackbeard era gold dobloons. Stealth CMs are more or less the toughest target set that there is to defend against outside of high-end longer ranged ballistic missiles. They're...extremely useful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Would-be cruise missile assasination targets probably won't be relying on their national air defence grids entirely for protection anyway. Simpler stuff like not telling anyone where you are and moving frequently from secret location to secret location would still work. The Russians bagged a number of Chechen leaders by attaching an Iridium satellite phone signal seeker to a long range SSM. "We used pencils", etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Well of course they'd look down on submerged subs when theirs is tied to the pier broken I didn't hear anything about them having issues? Was there a design flaw in the class?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Would-be cruise missile assasination targets probably won't be relying on their national air defence grids entirely for protection anyway. Simpler stuff like not telling anyone where you are and moving frequently from secret location to secret location would still work. There are about a thousand useful targets for a cruise missile besides a generic drone strike recipient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't AGM-129 only nuclear while JASSM is (right now) purely conventional? Would go towards why we are getting one and retired the other. The 129 was supposed to get an upgraded B version and a conventional C version but since the whole program was apparently such a clusterfuck that their budget got zeroed out twice they never bothered with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I didn't hear anything about them having issues? Was there a design flaw in the class? They require far more frequent and expensive maintenance than the Virginia-class, but the lead ship recently had a two year maintenance period that kept it out of service. Just a hallmark of 'makin' 'em like they used to.' And yes, the AGM-129 was only nuclear-armed, but the Air Force is fighting tooth and nail to get the LRSO pushed through to replace the ALCM and CALCM because they know they're losing the 'cruise missile' money to the Navy and the mission itself to UCAVs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Oh man, I just looked up LRSO and the article on Janes mentioned the Long Range Strike Bomber. I'd forgotten that proposal even existed. now if the AF were sort-of-smart, they'd tailor this to the FB-22 so they could, oops, look at that production line that's open, maybe we should get some more Raptors. on the other hand, that means handing Lockmart a new contract so maybe they shouldn't. Psion fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I didn't hear anything about them having issues? Was there a design flaw in the class? They only built three of them. They have a considerable amount of components unique to the class (i.e. almost everything.) As such the spare parts supply is nearly non-existent, meaning to send one out to sea you often need to pull necessary parts off of the others. That's true to some degree of the other submarine classes, but there's enough of those that you can grab parts off a boat that was stuck pierside for other reasons. Combine this with normal first-boat issues and development, then factor in the Jimmy Carter's unique capabilities and importance, and you get the Pierwolf and Building 22.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
/\/\ Never considered how such an "abridged" production run could affect a class so much. \/\/ Speaking of abridged production runs... Psion posted:Oh man, I just looked up LRSO and the article on Janes mentioned the Long Range Strike Bomber. I'd forgotten that proposal even existed. F-22/35 gossip: I had a chat with my uncle this weekend (he's an aerospace engineer for Honeywell (formerly Alliedsignal/Garrett) and has done a lot of work with Lockmart over the years) and I asked him what he knew about the F-22 and the chances of it being produced again. He said that middle-management employees at Lockmart told him in so many words that they believe the F-22 will never begin production again, because it is something that has already been made, and there is no money in that for a unit like the F-22. Not to say that LM doesn't like moving aircraft, but not the F-22 at the price the government would expect them to be made now that they've been in production. Essentially, LM likes the research portion of aircraft development the best, as it's the easiest part of the development cycle to make money disappear. While actual production has things like nuts and bolts and assembly worker time cards that make a much better paper trail than, "50,000,000 man-hours R&D". Apparently the normally chatty/gossip prone people he usually deals with at LM will not even breath a word about the F-35, as any talk about the dollars involved (R&D/Production/Profit Margin) is pretty much grounds for instant dismissal due to the scrutiny the program is currently under.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:The F35 program is getting so expensive that it will be soon cheaper to bomb with blackbeard era gold dobloons. I remember the amazing stat that B-2 bombers cost more than their weight in gold, not even counting the R&D. The flyaway cost of a B-2 in 1997 dollars was listed in wiki at $737M (total program unit cost was over 2 billion each). Empty weight of a B-2 is 150,000 lbs, and the price of gold in the mid 90s was about $300 / oz, so... 150,000 pounds of a B-2 = $737 Million 150,000 pounds of solid gold = $720 Million
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Gold is generally measured in troy ounces (14.5833 troy ounces/avoirdupois lb) so your calculation is off and the plane's weight in gold would only be ~$656 million at $300/oz. But gold was lower than $300 at times, so that still could have been true, depending on the date.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Slamburger posted:I remember the amazing stat that B-2 bombers cost more than their weight in gold, not even counting the R&D. I have also heard this about the B-58. "The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school..." made of solid gold bricks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
It's obviously not a 1:1 trade, but to give an idea of the value of a deterrent force, today's turmoil has caused the US stock market to shed $160 billion in market cap (by lunchtime, possibly more by now) with similar drops elsewhere (Russia was like $60B and counting.) Even completely disregarding the incomprehensible human cost (and assuming there's anyone left), a real undeterred war would do far more and more long-lasting economic damage
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:today's turmoil has caused the US stock market to shed $160 billion in market cap (by lunchtime, possibly more by now) Oh come on, that's wholly routine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Oh come on, that's wholly routine. Still, the larger point about how expensive a no bullshit war between peers is stands. Just look at the figures for US spending between the 20s and the 50s - WW2 is this goddamned alpine spike in the middle of all that. And that's just for immediate government spending of one country that wasn't a battlefield. Factor in things like economic losses due to workers who are never in the economy (because they die during the war), and the sheer loss and devastation if you're unlucky enough to be either a battlefield or close enough to be subjected to strategic air power, plus the cost of rebuilding poo poo. . . gently caress, the Marshall Plan alone was something like $12B in 1950 dollars. And that's just engaging in the shallowest of thinking on it. I'm sure a real economist could talk about the cost of lost productivity during the years between the fighting and rebuilding, disruptions in trade networks, and all sorts of other poo poo I can't even think of. Deterrence isn't cheap, but it's sure as poo poo cheaper than fighting a war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
The whole Ukraine thing is going downhill faster than I guessed it would. I figured Putin would wait for SOME real excuse before he started moving rather than "Oh the government is TOTALLY going to oppress the Russian population(that we shoved there to forcefully change the demographics in the Cold War)." On the upside, all the pics are showing the Russians without mags in the guns so apparently someone in the chain is smart enough to try to lower the chance of one schmuck unloading on some poor Ukranian and exploding the place. Never mind he's demanding another sovereign state disarm their military in their own territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Slamburger posted:I remember the amazing stat that B-2 bombers cost more than their weight in gold, not even counting the R&D. It does have a bit of self-fellating going on since he was manager, but Ben Rich's Skunk Works gave a figure of $200 million/unit for Lockheed's own entry for the B-2. Northrop had gone bigger than specified in the bid and less stealthy, but government politics threw them the bone to spread around the stealth cash despite their bid being originally $480 million/unit which ballooned upwards with R&D costs and as the number of end units got chopped. I do wonder if the Skunkworks would have been a better choice there with a cheaper, medium bomber instead of the plane-the-cost-of-a-carrier that we've already crashed a few of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Interestingly, just saw an article about that the other day; http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheeds-senior-peg-the-forgotten-stealth-bomber-1534057907 Not sure how accurate it is (just briefly skimmed it), but hey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 23:03
|
|
