|
vulturesrow posted:Dare I say it....fusion Gavin. Not only must we dare, we must go further than daring. Not only the Favin (fusion Gavin), but the AeroFavin. And we should launch it off a converted battleship with fusion powered 16 inch laser guns and also flight decks. In Sparks we trust e: sniped like a turret gunner
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Vindolanda posted:Not only must we dare, we must go further than daring. Not only the Favin (fusion Gavin), but the AeroFavin. And we should launch it off a converted battleship with fusion powered 16 inch laser guns and also flight decks. Why stop at a mere battleship? Fusion power given a near-limitless, highly efficient engine in the form of a fusion-powered turbojet, allowing the ship to achieve orbital velocity easily. Why have a battleship when you can have a space battleship?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Dare I say it....fusion Gavin. Not safe at 88 mph. Too much risk of rolling over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
All crew of the AeroFavins will use SKSs chambered in .fusion
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Why stop at a mere battleship? Fusion power given a near-limitless, highly efficient engine in the form of a fusion-powered turbojet, allowing the ship to achieve orbital velocity easily. Why have a battleship when you can have a space battleship? Space battleships that have giant fusion powered cannons that have AeroGavins as ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Fusion powered AeroGavins towed behind fusion-powered A-10s with but what we really need fusion power for is to power our prism tanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Space battleships that have giant fusion powered cannons that have AeroGavins as ammunition. What, is the wave motion gun just a fusion-powered railgun that fires fully loaded AeroGavins into enemy positions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
TsarZiedonis posted:On the subject of Lockheed, I just read Ben Rich's excellent autobiographical tale on the history of Skunkworks. Does anyone know if Skunkworks is still a no-bullshit independent miracle works? Or has even that venerable legend of aerospace design been wrecked by LockMart corporate policy? Blistex posted:I think the Skunkworks was a special seed that could have only grown under those very specific circumstances of the early-mid cold war. While it's true that it's nowhere near what it was in the days of Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich, and that they have been rolled somewhat into the idiocy of LockMart (an expanded Skunk Works/ADP were the ones who designed the Raptor and are heavily involved with the F-35), they were also responsible for the Beast, so I think they still have an independent miracle working wing, even if it's only a subsection of the overall "Skunk Works" ADP office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:I can't find the post now, but someone in another thread was saying that it looks like the pickup bed sized part was just the reaction chamber, you'd still need to house containment and the steam engine in something building sized. Still cool, but even if this happens, we aren't going to be transporting full fusion reactors on a flatbed any time soon. That was me and it was on the last page E: two pages ago, now
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Hubis posted:While I agree the Washington Times is awful, I think the general proposal is to free up US Navy assets from coastal patrol by having the US Army invest in more shore battery-type anti-ship capabilities. bewbies posted:Using land based assets to control/influence maritime areas where possible/appropriate, the idea being it keeps the navy's very expensive ships further away from the things that could be used to attack said ships. I'll leave it to you to imagine the geographic areas where this might work. I'll bite, because this whole idea seems odd. About the only thing the LCS is good for is coastal patrol, and it'll constitute a large percentage of our combat hull count under current capital plans, and I don't see this changing soon. DDG-1000 is also pretty much purpose-built for in-close fighting. I don't see the geographic areas where a destroyer would be in peril, but ground forces would be secure, or at least safer than an aircraft with standoff AGMs, or a submarine. This reeks of the Army's efforts to find some way to plug into AirSea battle to get that sweet Asia pivot money that never manifested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This reeks of the Army's efforts to find some way to plug into AirSea battle to get that sweet Asia pivot money that never manifested. You don't see how Army missile batteries that are more or less static, but have decent air defenses could free up things like CGs to move around and do their various missions? I mean, every single time we talk about using a DDG or CG for any kind of coastal defense or BMD, we get a loving treatise on how the Navy is MULTIMISSION and doesn't have time for defending people who live on land. And hypothetically, this minimizes the need for Navy ships to enter high-risk areas where the environment or political boundaries put USN assets at disadvantages, despite our naval strengths.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
I don't see how Army missile batteries that are more or less static last 5 minutes in the kind of A2AD context this is strongly suggested to apply in. Anti-air / BMD is far more your forte than mine. But the Chinese strategy seems to revolve around zerg rushing with cheap cruise missiles, that would rapidly overwhelm the AA loadouts of any ground facility that can't counter the attack by just being somewhere else. Your advantage in an anti-aircraft context over, say, a fighter jet, is that you don't depend on a runway that can be destroyed, but you aren't that much more mobile than the runway. I don't think this is focusing on AA anyway. Meanwhile, for antiship work, shore-launched Harpoons have the same issues got the sea-launched ones retired; they're too slow to have effective range against BVR targets that can, as above, be somewhere else by the time the missile gets there. It's one thing if you're the Danes and you can see the Soviet LSTs coming in across the horizon, but with the low level of Marine resources at current Chinese disposal I'm not seeing them D-Day'ing in until the beach is thoroughly pacified, and if they're not landing, they can just go around, it's a big ocean. Again, too, a Harpoon (or a more modern standoff AGM) is as much if not more effectively launched from an aircraft. If you're not talking China, but rather something more like the Southwest Pacific or Persian Gulf, a shore installation suffers the same terrible surface clutter from all the civilian traffic that warships currently do, so you have to get in close for interrogation and terminal guidance, either with a vulnerable surface ship (probably LCS), a drone, or a sub. Operating submerged blows rear end in these conditions; the drone remains the safest bet, but even assuming you're not just directly Hellfiring the target you've still got huge leeway in what's actually delivering ordinance. Recall that when the (looks this up) INS Spear was shot at by Hezbollah shore missile batteries in '06, one of the missiles instead acquired and killed an Egyptian freighter; there is essentially no scenario that the US Army could get away with such collateral damage or operate under rules of engagement that might allow the possibility. The newest Tomahawks can be terminal retargeted, but you need something within short range (a drone or LCS) to do the retargeting. You might as well have a far-off submarine launch the Tomahawks, or a close-in submarine do the targeting itself and use an ADCAP. This won't last forever but for right now the Chinese anti-submarine capabilities lag way, way, way behind their anti-air / anti-surface. It is more logical to load your CGs / DDGs that aren't Zumwalts with all the anti-air missiles they can carry, leave the ship killing to the SSNs and the Tomahawking to the SSGNs (and SSN VLS/VPM batteries.) The primary advantage of ground installations is going to be cost, first and foremost, but that's kind of missing the point if everything is smeared in the first day or two of hostilities. The second biggest advantage is that you can more cheaply / securely sell to your allies, who don't have Zumwalts and Virginias and Raptors, but then you're competing with third-party like BrahMos or one of any number of indigent Asian missiles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
So the Finnish are planning to replace their F/A-18 Hornets. The possible candidates are: F-35 JAS-39 Gripen PAK-FA SU-35 Rafaele And just looking at that list you know it's going to be the F-35, isn't it...
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Fingers crossed for Gripen but it won't be
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Come on, Gripen!  Sweden's right next door, Finland, so you can be single engine canard bros!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
The way this thread is highly invested in other countries buying specific fighter jets is kind of odd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The way this thread is highly invested in other countries buying specific fighter jets is kind of odd. How on earth is that odd? I don't have to be a Finnish citizen to want them to procure a good jet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The way this thread is highly invested in other countries buying specific fighter jets is kind of odd. Probably because the F-35 is a shitpile that progressively smothers the design and manufacture of non-American Western jet fighters with each new country that adopts it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Probably because the F-35 is a shitpile that progressively smothers the design and manufacture of
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:14
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Probably because the F-35 is a shitpile that progressively smothers the design and manufacture of non-American Western jet fighters with each new country that adopts it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Also because Dassault is whiny, and as good as the Super Flanker is, I don't want Finland breaking the spirit of the sanctions. So go go gadget Gripen!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This reeks of the Army's efforts to find some way to plug into AirSea battle to get that sweet Asia pivot money that never manifested. Yes, this. I do think that you can say with some certainty that it is easier to counter ISR and harden ground forces, both of which are pretty important in said scenario. The cost thing is the other potential advantage...a truck with a trailer is very cheap and very expendable compared to a modern surface ship. quote:Meanwhile, for antiship work, shore-launched Harpoons have the same issues got the sea-launched ones retired; they're too slow to have effective range against BVR targets that can, as above, be somewhere else by the time the missile gets there. It's one thing if you're the Danes and you can see the Soviet LSTs coming in across the horizon, but with the low level of Marine resources at current Chinese disposal I'm not seeing them D-Day'ing in until the beach is thoroughly pacified, and if they're not landing, they can just go around, it's a big ocean. Again, too, a Harpoon (or a more modern standoff AGM) is as much if not more effectively launched from an aircraft. Bear in mind that any of this is a long way off; hopefully some sort of integrated fire control will exist in this timeframe and thus it won't matter much what platform puts the munition into the air. Being able to launch from a hardened shore facility just adds some flexibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Yes, this. Also any kind of mobile launcher. Part of what makes the Scud such an effective TBM, it can be set up almost anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Also any kind of mobile launcher. Part of what makes the Scud such an effective TBM, it can be set up almost anywhere. Even a ship, theoretically. Wow this is a terrible animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz1-qAjWIm8
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Even a ship, theoretically. That animation is the worst. Also ship-TBM scare is funny and has been around forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:F-35 To be fair, the Finnish military has been pretty good about not adopting things that don't suit them. Not really sure how well that's going to translate to airpower procurement, but in the past most military hardware has been purchased from Germany, Sweeden or Russia. And the only reason Finland was buying soviet hardware to begin with was their treaty with the USSR after WWII. (My money is on the Gripen).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I don't know if you saw the link I posted a little bit back, but viable nuclear fission power reactors were a product of the genius and will of Hyman George Rickover, channeled through the indefatigable labors of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Which in many ways was the LockMart of its day. You give Rickover too much credit. He wasn't a technical genius, he was a raging rear end in a top hat and political genius. Compact fission power reactors had been a Navy project since even before the end of the Second World War, and got a much-needed boost during Korea. There was a fine, fine team of naval engineers working on the problem, but their CO retired or something. The Navy was pretty small at that point, and of the three engineering duty O-6s qualified to run the program, the only one available was...Rickover. The people who worked for him on Nautilus remember him as a taskmaster who was happy to take credit for their work, and many of them left the Navy after Nautilus commissioned rather than continue to work for him. Some of Rickover's development team believe that one of his O-3s killed himself because of the strain and stolen credit during the project. Is that true? Who knows, but they honestly believe it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Apparently there is a damaged Russian sub in Swedish waters. Sounds interesting. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/english-version-could-be-a-damaged-russian-submarine_4023511.svd
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Apparently there is a damaged Russian sub in Swedish waters. Sounds interesting. We do not need any help! *loses entire crew complement*
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Super Hornet ops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfOD2y_AD_w
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
That Works posted:Super Hornet ops. Negative Ghost Rider the pattern is full... *spills coffee*.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
That Works posted:Super Hornet ops. Nice to have a video that skips on the lovely music.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:So the Finnish are planning to replace their F/A-18 Hornets. The possible candidates are: I know what Canada's going to pick! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I know what Canada's going to pick! To play Devil's Advocate, Canada has the best *reason* of all of the potential F-35 customers. They're next door to the country that makes them. LockMart could put all the spare parts they'd ever need in trucks or cargo ships in the Great Lakes, and they can have techs there quickly enough to eat lunch there and be home in time for a late dinner. I'm sure Canada's buying into the F-35 also has a lot to do with the continued progress of the Keystone XL - Canada knows they're currently the biggest on-paper customer for the jet, since the Israelis have only committed to 19 thus far with a potential order for 75 F-35Is. They're also the least likely to ever need the jets for anything other than flying up and say "hey 'dere buddy how th' gently caress're ya doin', 'eh" to Russian bombers running FON flights. Finland has the same reason to go with the Gripen *or* SU-35/PAK-FA. And while I'd hardly call The Motley Fool a credible defense news website, have a read: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/19/did-china-just-render-americas-1-trillion-stealth.aspx (especially when they mention the F-117 shootdown and not the very specific particulars and lapses in judgment that led to it) If anything, it's impressive that it took only three comments before someone white-knighted the thing, then go down further and read the rant of a guy claiming to be a former AF Academy grad F-15 pilot who says we all have to have 'patients.' BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
Strapping into a single engine fighter for flights over the Canadian arctic is something I really wouldn't like to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:So the Finnish are planning to replace their F/A-18 Hornets. The possible candidates are: Wait, no Shornets?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
That motley fool article is sound bite bullshit. It's less valuable than a Carlo Kopp article.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Wait, no Shornets? I don't know what his source is, but the Hornets won't be retired according to current plans until 2025. The final decision will be made in the early twenties, so it'll be a while before an official candidate list comes out. Barring a major foreign policy realignment, any Russian birds won't be on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That motley fool article is sound bite bullshit. It's less valuable than a Carlo Kopp article.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I hear the current version of the PAK-FA has far fewer emitters than even the F-22. "Gentlemen, we cannot allow the Reds to overtake us in the key field of emitters. This emitter gap is a critical problem for national security." -- General Abrahamo Lincolni, 2260.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 21:13
|
|
