|
That's what happens when you confuse "Hound Dog" with "hot dog".
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:I had Biesty's castle and man o' war books, too. The castle and man o' war books were awesome too because they had those cool "Where's Waldo" things with the spy and the stowaway. The Star Wars take on those books were pretty awesome as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Indonesian aerobatics team fox-fours during LIMA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8iXSA2uB0I All four crew survived.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
 "Stabulum non securum" ~ "A not untroubled brothel"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Hubis posted:
I met an Iraqi general who flew those once. He had exactly zero charisma.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Random question; how much detection range would an early 1960s Soviet radar have against a B-52 sized target at extremely low level (~50m AGL)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Random question; how much detection range would an early 1960s Soviet radar have against a B-52 sized target at extremely low level (~50m AGL)? Did they even have pulse-Doppler look-down / shoot-down radars at that time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Did they even have pulse-Doppler look-down / shoot-down radars at that time? I don't think the Soviets did (afaik the set on the XF-108/YF-12 was one of the first American ones). So, I guess I was asking how much range the Soviet equivalent of DEW would have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:I don't think the Soviets did (afaik the set on the XF-108/YF-12 was one of the first American ones). So, I guess I was asking how much range the Soviet equivalent of DEW would have. That's a straight mathematical calculation, since it's generally limited by line-of-sight due to the curvature of the earth. LOS range is 4.12 * (sqrt(radar height) + sqrt(target height)). So if your EW antenna is, say, 10m high, it gives you about 92 km at which you could detect an aircraft flying at 50m. Beyond that it gets a lot more complicated. Normally your EW radars are going to be placed out at the edge of your defended territory, so you should have more warning than that for the actual strategic targets. Your enemy can attack the EW sites themselves, but that obviously tips you off that something is going on. I don't know where the Soviets had their EW sites, but I'd assume they had them set up to provide more than a 5 minute warning against incoming bombers. Then you're getting into command and control communication links, integrated air defense plans, and lots of other factors that make things fuzzy. e: originally had the equation for feet/miles, fixed to use metric units. Wingnut Ninja fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I don't know where the Soviets had their EW sites, but I'd assume they had them set up to provide more than a 5 minute warning against incoming bombers. Depends. On their western border, stretching into the Warsaw Pact nations, yes. Same goes for the Baltics, and same goes for their southern borders with Turkey and Iran (for the most part). However, when you get further east as well as into the Arctic it gets a lot sparser...the "back door" into Siberia was left open for a very long time, and I don't think it ever really got closed. That's one of the reasons why they developed long range interceptors with powerful radars...the other would be to help provide a mobile capability in the vast interior of the country that was basically a radar dead zone. Of course their air defense systems were a little less capable against Cessna-sized targets. \/ We commissioned a study (I should probably put "study" in scare quotes but it was really a thing that Air Staff did) about putting nukes on an A-10. Someone less lazy than me can provide a link to it, one of the "defense" bloggers did a piece on it a month or two ago \/ iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
So how much money did the USAF spend on trying to fit nukes on Cessna 172's?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Also, remember that when you say 1960s you're talking about the decade when the very first long range EW radars worthy of the name were starting to be widely fielded. When you say "low level," every other assumption goes out the window: digital signal processing was in its infancy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:I still have this book. I kept it when I gave away my other kid books cause this one is going to my kids. You are the best man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, remember that when you say 1960s you're talking about the decade when the very first long range EW radars worthy of the name were starting to be widely fielded. When you say "low level," every other assumption goes out the window: digital signal processing was in its infancy. I doubt there was a fighter radar on the planet until...probably APG-63 that could pick something out at 50 feet AGL unless it was also under 10,000 (where fighters don't want to be, because they run out of fuel REAL fast). There's a lot of clutter. If you've got everything opened up (which given the lack of quality processing, you probably would) you're seeing loving trees. Cars. Trains. Flocks of birds. Maybe moisture in the air.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
All right, thanks for the replies, y'all. Much appreciated. (For reference, me and a couple other people were trying to figure out whether the Soviets would have had any capability to intercept an operational version of Pluto).
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:(For reference, me and a couple other people were trying to figure out whether the Soviets would have had any capability to intercept an operational version of Pluto).
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:When it comes to unshielded nuclear ramjets flying at mach 3+ and making GBS threads thermonuclear death all over the place, the question rapidly shifts from whether you have something that can see it to whether you have anything that could catch it. Like, some cranes with nets on them. Preferably in some place you wouldn't mind something like that crashing. Also, unshielded reactors are going to be puking all kinds of wonderful noise all across the EM band, so it's less a matter of knowing it's coming to pinpointing the place to drive your gigantic butterfly net.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:When it comes to unshielded nuclear ramjets flying at mach 3+ and making GBS threads thermonuclear death all over the place, the question rapidly shifts from whether you have something that can see it to whether you have anything that could catch it. Pretty much this. In the 1960s, no way - the only system I can think of that would do it in the 70s would be Spartan, but that was a US system and it was operational for a very short period of time. No clue if the Soviets had anything comparable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
The closest soviet would be the rubber shoe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABM-1_Galosh Question being if it could depress enough for pluto. The Gazelle didn't come alive till well in the 80's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Pretty much this. In the 1960s, no way - the only system I can think of that would do it in the 70s would be Spartan, but that was a US system and it was operational for a very short period of time. No clue if the Soviets had anything comparable. You don't shoot down low-level missiles with a 60s/70s ABM system. And yes the Soviets had something comparable, hell they're still operating it - albeit heavily upgraded. e:  did NOT see your post ThisIsJohnWayne
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
If you want to know more about the technicalities of Soviet SAM systems, there's always the freeware SAM-Simulator: https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home It's one of those simulators that is more work than fun to "play", but you gain an in-depth knowledge of analog radar systems you can be loving sure to never have a real-world use for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ymWrOmeDg
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Default Settings posted:It's one of those simulators that is more work than fun to "play", but you gain an in-depth knowledge of analog radar systems you can be loving sure to never have a real-world use for. There's some russian separatists who likely wished they had played this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Depends. On their western border, stretching into the Warsaw Pact nations, yes. Same goes for the Baltics, and same goes for their southern borders with Turkey and Iran (for the most part). However, when you get further east as well as into the Arctic it gets a lot sparser...the "back door" into Siberia was left open for a very long time, and I don't think it ever really got closed. That's one of the reasons why they developed long range interceptors with powerful radars...the other would be to help provide a mobile capability in the vast interior of the country that was basically a radar dead zone. This one? https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-a-10-might-have-become-a-nuclear-strike-plane-8f065b09afe0
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Putting nuclear bombs on an A-10 is an idiotic idea. Resurrect the Genie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
poo poo, they strapped bazookas to small aircraft in WW2, you could probably fit a whole load of Davy Crocketts on an A-10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:All right, thanks for the replies, y'all. Much appreciated. I'd be interested to know what they were planning to do for an autopilot. We were flying Firebees in the 60s, but those weren't exactly zipping around at very low altitude. That said, the Pluto probably would have been as vulnerable to flak as any other aircraft, although it would have entered and exited engagement range relatively quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
I'm guessing that from head on, even the AA-2 would have been able to lock on to it. Unless the Pluto was programmed with waypoints, it'd be possible to extrapolate a likely target and intercept point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'd be interested to know what they were planning to do for an autopilot. We were flying Firebees in the 60s, but those weren't exactly zipping around at very low altitude. It was supposed to have a TERCOM system to enable it to hit multiple waypoints and multiple targets (remember, it was supposed to carry multiple nuclear bombs in addition to the whole unshielded nuclear reactor + kamikazeeing into the final target thing). Whether or not you think the US defense establishment could've developed a viable TERCOM system for a supersonic+ low altitude intercontinental cruise missile in the late '50s/early '60s is a different question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That said, the Pluto probably would have been as vulnerable to flak as any other aircraft, although it would have entered and exited engagement range relatively quickly. Also, there is the question of how fast can you traverse and elevate the gun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Whether or not you think the US defense establishment could've developed a viable TERCOM system for a supersonic+ low altitude intercontinental cruise missile in the late '50s/early '60s is a different question. They probably could have, it just would have run on superheated hydrofluoric acid and liquefied kittens or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Cool videos on the Su-34, including plenty of in flight footage in later parts. Note the recent addition of the wingtip self protection jammers - I think it really pulls the look together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It was supposed to have a TERCOM system to enable it to hit multiple waypoints and multiple targets (remember, it was supposed to carry multiple nuclear bombs in addition to the whole unshielded nuclear reactor + kamikazeeing into the final target thing). Please tell me that TERCOM stands for Terror Command and that this was an actual thing in the 50s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Turkson posted:Please tell me that TERCOM stands for Terror Command and that this was an actual thing in the 50s. TERrain COntour Matching, actually. ETA: First deployed in the late 50's, so it might be useful on PLUTO, but I suspect it'd be hindered by the lack of accurate RADAR contour maps of the Soviet Union. darthbob88 fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:Cool videos on the Su-34, including plenty of in flight footage in later parts. Note the recent addition of the wingtip self protection jammers - I think it really pulls the look together. I loved the point about the APU in the tail and how it was designed that way 'for the comfort of the pilots.' "Unlike previous plane, Su-34 was design in mind with happiness of pilots. In Su-24, plane give pilots occasional shock of electricity to manhood that was not serious enough for killing but was very painful. Was design feature to make men more alert. We omit shock on Su-34 and everyone much more happy. Except Dmitri, who is sexual deviant." BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
You know what would be a really great idea? Giving Israel B-52s and MOPs, so they can bomb Iran! - Dick Cheney, John Bolton and Joe Lieberman
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Surprise! This is one of the best airplane related pictures I've ever seen. Apparently taken from an A-20?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:You know what would be a really great idea? Giving Israel B-52s and MOPs, so they can bomb Iran! - Dick Cheney, John Bolton and Joe Lieberman Let's give nuclear armed Israel strategic bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons to Tehran without refueling. Signed, Your friends at LockMart, Boeing, and the American Enterprise Institute
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
An idea so terrible I'm amazed it doesn't have Paul Wolfowitz's signature on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:You know what would be a really great idea? Giving Israel B-52s and MOPs, so they can bomb Iran! - Dick Cheney, John Bolton and Joe Lieberman None of their names are on that article. They're just on the board of the organization that the men who wrote it work for. But don't let that get in the way of your narrative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:None of their names are on that article. They're just on the board of the organization that the men who wrote it work for. But don't let that get in the way of your narrative. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/14/1370746/-B-52s-for-Israel-Oy-vey Major Kong wrote on this. He mentions JINSA's traditional backers, but the only legitimate politician who's put his name to this stupid idea lately is Tom "Iran Letter" Cotton. He focuses far more on how the idea's dumb as poo poo on the grounds that B-52s wouldn't make it anywhere near Iranian airspace without escorts and jamming out the rear end. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 03:02
|
|