|
Yep. I've hung on to all of my pubs. That bag is as-is from my last flight. A bottle of Afrin is still in a pouch.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Since we're talking about that AC-17, what's the feasibility of using a heavier aircraft like that to allow you to mount larger, heavier weapons/payloads, like a 57mm or lightweight 76mm? The intent being much better accuracy/velocity from a higher, safer attitude while still being cheaper then a ton of glide bombs. Gotta look past the much higher airframe cost to keep it interesting I'm assuming. Or are all those options too slow and huge to avoid the newer MANPADs even at much higher orbits? Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Well, the AC-130 already mounts a 105, so using a 57 or 76 would be a downgrade. Artillery on a plane is kind of overkill anyway, you get a significant amount of energy (hence, range) from just being in the air and firing down. Glide bombs or (guided) mortar shells would provide stand-off and/or more efficient hits per round than a 105. as I understand it the hot poo poo these days with an AC-130 is guided munitions anyway - so Viper Strike, SDB, Griffin missiles, etc etc. Direct fire from a cannon doesn't let you do stand-off attack and isn't really the most efficient/effective thing overall for a bunch of reasons. I remember there was a proposal to re-gun AC-130s with a 120mm mortar instead of a 105 which would've been a better fit but then I think that got canned for going all-in on PGMs, which are apparently getting really, really cheap. Price isn't just how much it costs to make, it's how much it's going to cost if your air support misses. I can understand in those terms the mania for PGMs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I know about the 105, I should've made it clearer I was referring more about stepping up from the current 40mm and future Bushmaster II plans to something like a stripped down 57 or 76mm super rapid. Something that allows that high volume of fire of the mid caliber choices. I know on the more recent 130Js they didn't plan on keeping the 105 at all, but have plans for the 30 sooner or later. Cheap PGMs certainly make the most sense, but what I'm asking specifically is if something like an AC-17 with better optics and a larger gently caress off naval cannon like that could actually operate from a safe altitude. Also, the idea of a C-17 at like 20k shooting 90rpm of air bursting, stabilized 76mm is an incredible thought. At least until the plane breaks apart from the recoil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8%22/55_caliber_gun Slap a 8" MK16 in? Thats probably the biggest naval caliber gun you could shoehorn in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Oh great, 8 inch support for aircav  that's peak sparky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Can I get a namechange to 8 inch support?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8%22/55_caliber_gun So are we just designing the AC-5?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8%22/55_caliber_gun How far could it launch an AeroGavin?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:How far could it launch an AeroGavin? Actually when I made that AC-17 page, someone reminded me of the insane gavin guy page. I hope my optimism for an AC-17 concept doesn't come across as insane as thinking that aluminum barely-armored tracked cans are miracle vehicles. In the end we hear that the AC-130 is getting or has Viper Strike and maybe DAGR, so obviously I was on the right track with my thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Actually when I made that AC-17 page, someone reminded me of the insane gavin guy page. http://www.combatreform.org/ac17.htm quote:The inevitable conclusion to this is that we need a new gunship aircraft that can accompany the Paratroop-carrying 400-mph C-130J Hercules and faster 500 mph C-17 Globemaster IIIs from beginning to end of mission---a gunship version of the C-17 that can fly at the same speeds/altitudes as the C-17, and another for Army helicopters. Another possibility would be a modified C-141B Starlifter or the new C-27J "Mini-Herk" or Army rotorcraft as Super theorist Sam McGowan envisions a smaller B-26 Invader-type aircraft with multiple rows of machines guns and directed-energy laser weapons like used on Bradley Fighting Vehicles equipped with the "Stingray" system to defeat MANPADS optics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:I hope my optimism for an AC-17 concept doesn't come across as insane as thinking that aluminum barely-armored tracked cans are miracle vehicles. In the world of military acquisitions or pitches to be acquired that aren't picked up, there is no insane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3F0mQJfraU
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Holly bloopers do you just keep all the old E-3 manuals in your closet? It really doesn't help that most engineering students probably only get a single course in programming C++ and the rest they're supposed to pick up on the fly with Matlab. That was my school at least. Sometimes I wish I had been a chemist instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Please enjoy the relevant combatreform page: I feel bad to possibly have inspired this. At least my page comes with the title "More total crap by B4Ctom1" But I did coin the name Spectre III ! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:In the world of military acquisitions or pitches to be acquired that aren't picked up, there is no insane. If you're going to go down that route you might as well make a modern day version of the greyhound with a 20mm turret controlled from the passenger seat. Back Hack fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:If you're going to go down that route you might as well make a modern day version of the greyhound with a 20mm turret controlled from the passenger seat. I assume you're talking about a different platform, but I'm now imagining an AC-2 Greyhound in all of its ridiculous glory. Filling that all-important "organic low-speed CAS" role for the carrier, with all kinds of guns sticking out the side. It'll be a good complement to the AE-2 Lazer Hawkeye, where the radar is replaced with a Grover Laser to zap planes and missiles out of the sky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8%22/55_caliber_gun The difference is instead of pure size, I mean something that just shoots way too fast for its caliber. There's something very entertaining about that volume of 76mm. Jump to 2:30 http://youtu.be/1usCv4PFSjs
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I assume you're talking about a different platform, but I'm now imagining an AC-2 Greyhound in all of its ridiculous glory. Filling that all-important "organic low-speed CAS" role for the carrier, with all kinds of guns sticking out the side. Ok boys, scrap the F-35 and F-22.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I assume you're talking about a different platform, but I'm now imagining an AC-2 Greyhound in all of its ridiculous glory. Filling that all-important "organic low-speed CAS" role for the carrier, with all kinds of guns sticking out the side. M8 Greyhound
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Hey, we'd give you the internal tool we use to do it for us in the office, but then you'd expect us to test it. Obvious solution is just pay the engineers to run the thing for you 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:In the world of military acquisitions or pitches to be acquired that aren't picked up, there is no insane. I love how when they overlay the caption "SILENT DRIVE CAPABILITY" there's a dude wailing away with the minigun. Take the guns off and that thing would be pretty fun in the Baja 1000 I reckon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Scut posted:
Whaaa? It'd be fun as-is. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
RavenKrows posted:It really doesn't help that most engineering students probably only get a single course in programming C++ and the rest they're supposed to pick up on the fly with Matlab. That was my school at least. Sometimes I wish I had been a chemist instead. You youngsters and your C++. It used to be a single course of FORTRAN 77 and the assumption that other languages would be self-evident once you had seen one of them. I am now a chemist, sometimes my colleagues still use FORTRAN and I must explain to the children why their input scripts specify that the program output is to be punched.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
RavenKrows posted:It really doesn't help that most engineering students probably only get a single course in programming C++ and the rest they're supposed to pick up on the fly with Matlab. That was my school at least. Sometimes I wish I had been a chemist instead. That really depends though. If you're a EE you have to take at least some programming classes, you'll most likely still program like an engineering but at least you'll understand how classes and OO works a bit. The thing that really bothers me is all the guys that write their tools like they do the RTS for the radar systems. It's not time sensitive and we could have had it done 1000 man hours ago if you would have picked up a book on C# instead of insisting on using MFC in VC++ 2005 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
The glory of the Soviet Navy shall never die!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The glory of the Soviet Navy shall never die! So patriotic
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Knew what this was going to be before I clicked it. Still clicked it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Many of you are likely familiar with the story of Nicolae Ceauşescu's state orphanages, but if you're not you should read this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:You youngsters and your C++. It used to be a single course of FORTRAN 77 and the assumption that other languages would be self-evident once you had seen one of them. I am now a chemist, sometimes my colleagues still use FORTRAN and I must explain to the children why their input scripts specify that the program output is to be punched. We started teaching budding physicists and mathematicians Python instead. Smartest loving thing we ever did. They've got a library that embeds FORTRAN into Python so hardly anyone needs to touch that decades old poo poo again unless it's to tweak some constant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Ugh everything scriptable at my work is TCL and changing to Python will never happen due to having to redo everything. Never mind we are already having problems and can't upgrade from TCL 8.4 because newer versions break everything. gently caress TCL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
The only time I ever had to touch that thalidomide baby was dealing with a wireless network simulator. If I'm ever asked to review, rewrite or - Odin forbid - create new TCL code I quit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
priznat posted:Ugh everything scriptable at my work is TCL and changing to Python will never happen due to having to redo everything. Sup FPGA bro. e: momentarily confused as to why Tcl was mentioned in the AIRPOWER thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
It's 2014. Writing in low level languages unless you ABSOLUTELY have to is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
The worst thing I ever had to do was code in COBOL on an IBM z/OS mainframe with ISPF*. It deserves every bit of its horrible reputation. Also gently caress JCL and the entire concept of writing programs to run my programs. *This includes the programs I have written in MIPS assembly. e: RavenKrows posted:It really doesn't help that most engineering students probably only get a single course in programming C++ and the rest they're supposed to pick up on the fly with Matlab. That was my school at least. Sometimes I wish I had been a chemist instead. I have come to the conclusion that everyone should have to take at least a year's worth of introductory CS courses, period, no exceptions, given how pervasive computers and computer programming are in all aspects of industry. It should be a general requirement for undergraduates the same way things like writing seminars and a math sequence are requirements. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Even a class on how to rigidly specify things would be a godsend. Make it high level pseudocode where magical gremlins do exactly what you specify or whatever but at least enough to do things like remember to specify defaults and mandatory fields if and only if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I have come to the conclusion that everyone should have to take at least a year's worth of introductory CS courses, period, no exceptions, given how pervasive computers and computer programming are in all aspects of industry. It should be a general requirement for undergraduates the same way things like writing seminars and a math sequence are requirements. I can see writing seminars but if the Math component was a first year requirement I never would have went to university. I can appreciate the basic utility of CS courses for most forms of engineering but from what I've seen they've already stuffed all sorts of cruff like advanced engineering math that because 1) is not taught properly and 2) its just piled atop a already very heavy workload, so all that poo poo has to be grade-curved as hell because the class average is 35% I can assure you that if some heavy CS requirements were thrown ontop of that, it would follow the same pattern of "looks good on paper, is actually useless" Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
It's funny because midway thru 3rd year of the CE/EE program you get a bunch of folks who realize they have 90% of the credits for a Comp Sci degree and they don't have to go through another 3 semesters of the engineering grind. That's dumb as hell though because once you get through 3rd year 4th year is actually pretty fun with the projects and such. Anyway in actual Airpower news, With the F-35 price tag on the rise, Canada will be faced with ponying up an extra $1B or cut back purchase. 80% of my concern with this procurement is how hosed up the budget is rather than if the planes are up to snuff. I'm sure they're good planes but god drat the prices are out of control. The predictable "get a quote from the russkies for their planes!" in the comments too. Every loving article on the F-35 I swear to god.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
priznat posted:The predictable "get a quote from the russkies for their planes!" in the comments too. Every loving article on the F-35 I swear to god.  if someone thinks that Rosoboronexport doesn't come asking for money to cover "unforseen expenses" partway through contracts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
I bite my tongue when someone brings that up in conversation to not go through, in detail, why that is a stupid plan technically, politically and economically. I just nod and say "The
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0DbgNju2wE LASERS
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 12:44
|
|
