|
GoldenNugget posted:There is one in D&D: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3647975 holocaust bloopers posted:DnD having themselves a circlejerk over the F-35 program is the absolute last thing I wanna read.  It's me, I touched the poop.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
look, here in the gun forum people know a lot more about planes
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Baracula posted:look, here in the gun forum people know a lot more about planes An unironically true statement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Considering how many people post here and in the Aeronautical Insanity thread in AI (complete with grognard acronyms!), I'm inclined to agree. Also, GBS has an F-35 thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
I feel obligated to repost my best content from the GBS F-35 thread. Again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Welp, it looks like the M113 'Gavin' is going to soon be officially retired and phased out with the new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (or AMPV), which is just a 30 some odd years later, the Bradley now fills the role it was originally intended to.   http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/24/bae-wins-1-2b-contract-to-build-m113-replacement/
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Richard Schiff is gonna be stoked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:09
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Welp, it looks like the M113 'Gavin' is going to soon be officially retired and phased out with the new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (or AMPV), which is just a First comment quote:Glad to see the Bradley idea won out, some hint of common sense at work. I'd be happier if their was a model that would be sporting some kind of mobile land based anti-ship missile. Then the Army would actually start to be relevant in the western Pacific as compared to now. We need all four branches to be a deterrent to China, and with the Army trying to design a new 70 ton IFV, and the Congress forcing M1s onto them they don't want or need, I have concerns about that coming to pass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
......holy loving poo poo I.... I just posted what I thought was peak dumb about the Bradley, and the net trumps me in under a minute
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
I was going to say, if we're talking Bradley someone had better post some Pentagon Wars. It was a new experience for me watching that movie with a bunch of other T&E guys....our DT brethren came up to visit us at OT before Christmas and we knew they were okay when once of them whipped out his external HD and asked us if we wanted to watch some Pentagon Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
The army getting its own navy now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
quote:What the Army really needs is a platform to launch Manpads. As they retired the Linebacker. Removing the turret will allow for more FIM 92 launchers to placed on the top. Since a certain failcraft has no IRST or infrared makers. The Army will have to deal with enemy aircraft in the future. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:First comment That's it, time to go home. We've gone full circle here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Has a mobile land based anti-ship system existed? Logic would tell me that's best left to a jet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Welp, it looks like the M113 'Gavin' is going to soon be officially retired and phased out with the new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (or AMPV), which is just a I know this is gay, but I REALLY want a surplus gavin. With a home built turret, and a semi auto M2. Basically I want to build a lol mini/civilian version of a lovely Bradley out of a shittier Gavin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Has a mobile land based anti-ship system existed? Make the Bradley amphibious, let the Army take the fight to the enemy Navy. E: Littoral Fighting Vehicle
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Finally, a useful littoral combat vessel! ^^^ drat your edit
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Has a mobile land based anti-ship system existed? A lot of them, many using US systems.  I just finished writing a paper about land-based anti ship fires last week, it is actually a concept that I think has a lot of utility particularly in the western Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Has a mobile land based anti-ship system existed? There were/are ground-based Harpoon systems. They're mobile in the sense that a e: Changed the analogy, Patriot was probably an exaggeration since it's not like the land based systems have to take the time to stand up radars/network all the different components together/etc. Probably more analogous to a MLRS or mobile artillery...configure vehicle to fire, fix location, get targeting data, commence firing. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
hovercraft variant with ASM and AA capability
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
We use mobile Hellfire launchers operated by missileer squads mounted on Sb90, a jet-powered motherfucker of a littoral/river/shallow fast assault craft that can literally stop in 2.5 boat lengths from a top speed of 50 knots. It's pretty awesome. Coastal forts are just targets. Boat unloads, grunts carry heavy poo poo quietly to position and set up cover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:There were/are ground-based Harpoon systems. They're mobile in the sense that a Patriot battery is mobile. I think a bunch of the Baltic states had them during the Cold War. There are also Exocet based systems, and of course a shitload of Chinese and PACT systems over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:I feel like Charles Mann's 1491 and 1493 read a lot like a rebuttal to Guns, Germs, and Steel in some ways. That is one loving sexy plane. It is like the daddy of both the F-111, F-14, and F-15. I just watched a few videos, and its landing gear and its spacing/arrangement seem barely to maybe insufficient for the airframe. I could not find a picture or video of it actually firing or dropping anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Welp, it looks like the M113 'Gavin' is going to soon be officially retired and phased out with the new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (or AMPV), which is just a Why didn't they do a Namer-like APC using the M1 chassis? That way we could use the pre-existing line and Congress can be satisfied. General Dynamics pushed a Stryker chassis instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Congress can be satisfied. hahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Why didn't they do a Namer-like APC using the M1 chassis? That way we could use the pre-existing line and Congress can be satisfied. General Dynamics pushed a Stryker chassis instead. The chassis they are talking about actually just started production as the new paladin. So, actually are using an existing platform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Why didn't they do a Namer-like APC using the M1 chassis? That way we could use the pre-existing line and Congress can be satisfied. General Dynamics pushed a Stryker chassis instead. IIRC the Merkava has the engine in front which makes it much easier to turn into an APC. Not so with the Abrams. Sjurygg posted:That's it, time to go home. We've gone full circle here. I sincerely hope that comment was a joke/oblique Pentagon Wars reference but I'm not sure. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:I know this is gay, but I REALLY want a surplus gavin. With a home built turret, and a semi auto M2. Basically I want to build a lol mini/civilian version of a lovely Bradley out of a shittier Gavin. Don't lie to us, you just want to build the Aero-Gavin; we've all thought about it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Land-based mobile antiship systems... A bit pre-cold war, but how about this? Since nobody would probably believe this otherwise, I'll just cite the relevant sources: combinedfleet.com posted:The submarine-related part of YU-GO was called "Tatsumaki Sakusen” (Operation Tornado). The submarine launched torpedo carrying light amphibious tank attack is the most interesting - or bizarre - component of the operation. The plan was for five cruiser submarines; I-36, I-38, I-41, I-44 and I-53, each equipped to carry two Type 4 "Ka-Tsu" amphibious tanks on its afterdeck. Yup. Submarines, launching amphibious tanks, that drive over land and back into the sea to launch torpedoes at carriers.  Although, if the tank is underwater when it fires, does that still count as land-based?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:e: Changed the analogy, Patriot was probably an exaggeration since it's not like the land based systems have to take the time to stand up radars/network all the different components together/etc. Probably more analogous to a MLRS or mobile artillery...configure vehicle to fire, fix location, get targeting data, commence firing. I know this is still slower than MLRS, but Patriot is ready to move from being fully set up in 45 minutes, and it's fully in the fight in an hour* *if and only if you're using basically UHF for all of your data links and/or have internet set up ahead of time to accept Patriot, nothing breaks, you're actually allowing the Patriot crews to roll around with missiles organically loaded up instead of having them transported in some other way (rare in peacetime, but not unheard of very much the plan in combat), and you're strictly talking about the weapon system, maintenance vehicles, and a few support vehicles rather than actually having troop life support set up and operational or anything more than maybe a 10-20 troops with M16s, SAWs, and a couple crew serve weapons for force protection unless you provide outside support. It's also a hell of a lot easier if you've already built the database for your new location ahead of time, but it can still be done in an hour if you have to do manual data entry; it just sucks to have to do that. Still, even with all those caveats, I had a Navy O-5 and O-6 straight up accuse me of making poo poo up when I told them that was the standard until they went and found a senior NCO and a warrant who vouched for me. But to get to the original point, if you think about it, somewhat mobile anti-ship platforms make a hell of a lot of sense, and a lot of anti-ship missiles really aren't that big, compared to other platforms, especially if you're looking to keep one particular straight or passage covered with missiles that don't need to be very long legged and if you don't need bigass sensors to cover a huge swath of open ocean, but instead to pick up warships outside of specific defended assets/areas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
food-rf posted:Yup. Submarines, launching amphibious tanks, that drive over land and back into the sea to launch torpedoes at carriers. Being stuck underwater in a 1940's era tank sounds like a great reason to become claustrophobic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
A Handed Missus posted:I feel obligated to repost my best content from the GBS F-35 thread. Again. Speaking of GBS thread, there was an interesting point raised and I wonder how much merit it has. etalian posted:The whole being already over the mass, electrical and thermal margin means it will be much harder to upgrade. The main source for that assertion seems to be Air Power Australia (of "aerospace version of herpes" fame) so I'd like to see a more objective confirmation/contradiction. From what very little I know, mass margin part seems credible given all the weight reduction campaigns that were taken and allegedly sacrificed safety redundancies to achieve. The thermal margin part seems probable in given situations, what with the white fuel truck thing, but not as a general case. As for electrical margin, no idea. If it's true, it makes things like the EOTS being outdated that much more serious. (Obviously, if it's not true, then who cares.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
I doubt anyone outside the program office really knows, but their occasional requests to change how KPPs are calculated don't bode well for having excess capability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Speaking of GBS thread, there was an interesting point raised and I wonder how much merit it has. As far as the margins themselves go, mass yes, thermal probably, electrical I don't know. Basically for the reasons you laid out...the -B being overweight drove the SWAT effort, which in turn meant they shaved weight everywhere they could and even then the thing is still riding on the razors edge of its weight margins. Thermally there are some clear issues with thermal management, probably tied to compromises made in the ECS (white fuel trucks are evidence of this)...while the white fuel trucks might indicate it's only a problem on the ground, it's really evidence that the thing has issues on the ground in its current configuration because the margins are so slim. Change that configuration and the issues could spread into other flight regimes. Electrical I don't have any knowledge one way or the other. I'm not aware of any reported significant issues with the system's ability to provide electrical power (nothing in the latest DOT&E report and if there was a problem I'd expect it to be in there). People will tell you that the non-STOVL variants could use the lift-fan drive shaft for power generation (Grover was fond of using this to justify pew-pew lazers), but the -B model engine is completely different in that respect from the -A/-C model engines so it would be a pretty involved upgrade. That said, as far as whether or not the margins in question are going to effect the ability of the thing to receive upgrades...completely dependent on what the upgrades are. Not all upgrades automatically mean you're increasing the thermal, electrical, or even mass burden on the aircraft. It's entirely possible for a hardware upgrade involving an increase in performance to not necessarily increase the total mass of the airframe (if it is lighter than a component it is completely replacing, for example). Same logic goes for the other margins. So yes, in the context of "let's just bolt more poo poo on this plane until it does what we want it to do" type upgrades, being on the edge of those margins means those upgrades would be more difficult, but that isn't the only way to upgrade a system. e: But that said, doing things in a non-"let's bolt more poo poo on this plane until it works" fashion usually means more money/effort/time is put into the upgrade than doing things in that fashion, so it's likely that will be the preferred approach for any notional upgrades. So in the real world, yes, I suppose it is reasonable to draw a conclusion that being on the edge of the margins will likely increase difficulty of doing upgrades. Also regarding KPPs, anyone know what the specs are for electrical generation capability? e2: I went back and looked at the DOT&E report...there's not much in there regarding thermal or electrical, but there is a fair amount of info regarding weight. tl;dr is that the weight margins on all three variants are exceedingly slim. In order to ensure the airframes don't bust the do not exceed weight (beyond which they will be too heavy to meet a whole plethora of performance requirements), the -A can't grow by more than 1.16% a year, the -B can't grow by more than 0.62% a year, and the -C can't grow by more than 0.35% a year. All three variants are already within a couple hundred pounds of their max weight (in the ~30K lbs range for all three.) So yeah, weight margins are pretty narrow. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 01:18
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:There were/are ground-based Harpoon systems. They're mobile in the sense that a Uh, pretty sure the Baltic States didn't have Harpoons in the Cold War, unless you're talking about Cold War 2: Putin Boogaloo
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Uh, pretty sure the Baltic States didn't have Harpoons in the Cold War, unless you're talking about Cold War 2: Putin Boogaloo Cold War 2: Putin cut off your gas supply in winter Even then, don't see a lot of baltic states with the Harpoon on hand. A quick google on this subject led to, among other things, perhaps the most poorly written article I've ever found on Wikipedia. I don't mean poorly written in that it has bad ideas or is false based on classified info where smuglords can laugh without ever calling it out; I mean the English is so tortured and it jumps topics so widely that the whole thing becomes rather nonsensical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_vehicle
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Uh, pretty sure the Baltic States didn't have Harpoons in the Cold War, unless you're talking about Cold War 2: Putin Boogaloo Yeah brain farted, meant Nordic states (Denmark I know had some, I think Norway or Sweden had some or a similar land based system) who intended to use them primarily in the relatively close confines of the Baltic (since a land based ASCM system only really works if the geography forces the ships close to the land). e: I don't think any of them still have the systems in service...I know Denmark decommissioned theirs at the beginning of the last decade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Why didn't they do a Namer-like APC using the M1 chassis? That way we could use the pre-existing line and Congress can be satisfied. General Dynamics pushed a Stryker chassis instead. Well this vehicle is just a turretless Bradley with a modified V-hull. BAE says they can tool the Bradley line to make these with a relatively easy transition. That Namer is also a frontline APC with MBT levels of protection, this thing is replacing M113s of basically all varieties, from medical vehicles to mortar carriers. A Namer doesn't make much sense for most of those roles. EDIT: Also, if we wanted a Namer, it's probably easier to just buy Namers then build something like it out of the (unsuitable) M1. I'm pretty sure Lima was contracted out to build Namers for a bit even. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
DoD Procurement Mucky Muck Come over BAE Systems Can't, working on messing up the QE/F-35/what have you DPMM My oversight committee isn't home BAE Systems 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 06:00
|
|