|
Mr Crustacean posted:Yeah the engineering is so ridiculously difficult that it seems it's significantly harder to make a top tier Jet Engine than it is to make a nuclear weapon. As long as you're only talking about a gun or simple implosion single stage atomic weapon or even a basic boosted fission design and not something more exotic, this would be a correct statement. As evidence compare the list of countries that have produced a nuclear weapon with those that can produce jet engines that don't suck. Hell, even the Chinese have produced a two-stage fusion weapon and they still can't make decent jet engines.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
A bomb only has to work once, a jet engine needs to have at least a minimal serviceable life span.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:A bomb only has to work once, a jet engine needs to have at least a minimal serviceable life span. Not only that, that service life spent is under tremendous internal and external stresses, where a nuclear bomb spends 99.9% of that time in as benign an environment as possible. Add in the fact that even microsopic flaws in an engine often lead to catastrophic failures if pushed too far. poo poo's hard to do. But yeah the biggest difference is that we have quite the head start on China, especially in terms of manufacturing experience. They'll likely catch up relatively quick, a lot faster then the USSR ever did. Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
If half the time you try to set off a nuke it fails, people still fear you. If half the time you try to fly you crash, nations laugh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Not only that, that service life spent is under tremendous internal and external stresses, where a nuclear bomb spends 99.9% of that time in as benign an environment as possible. Institutional knowledge and experience: it matters
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:It was metallurgy more than anything else from what I recall. According to my copy of the Aerofax book on the MiG-25/31, the Foxbat's engines were originally rated for 25 hours of service life (later improved to 1,000). Interestingly, the book also claims that the MiG-25 initially took 3x the man hours to produce the -21, but "this was later reduced by ten times." I'm highly skeptical that a Foxbat would ever take 30% of the time to produce the Fishbed did, unless the Soviets underwent some sort of industrial revolution in the 70s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
I love this gif 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:According to my copy of the Aerofax book on the MiG-25/31, the Foxbat's engines were originally rated for 25 hours of service life (later improved to 1,000). Interestingly, the book also claims that the MiG-25 initially took 3x the man hours to produce the -21, but "this was later reduced by ten times." I'm highly skeptical that a Foxbat would ever take 30% of the time to produce the Fishbed did, unless the Soviets underwent some sort of industrial revolution in the 70s. I think that improvement to service life was caused by them going, "Don't take it above Mach 2.8, mkay?" I'm talking from memory of something I read, so I may be way off, though. e: maybe Mach 2.5 or something, but well below its "top speed" Unreal_One fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 01:29
|
|
Unreal_One posted:I think that improvement to service life was caused by them going, "Don't take it above Mach 2.8, mkay?" I'm talking from memory of something I read, so I may be way off, though. Yeah. It's a good engine lifetime for intercepting Edit: \/\/\/ Yup That Works fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
In a nuclear war an interceptor aircraft is best thought of as the first stage of its A2A missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:In the Swedish case it should be noted we don't make the engines ourselves and never have. Making good jet engines is really hard. Was the RM12 manufactured abroad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Groda posted:Was the RM12 manufactured abroad? License built version of a GE motor (F404). Final assembly is in Sweden but there's a 50/50 split between GE and Volvo (or GKN now I guess) as far as who manufactures the individual subcomponents. I'm willing to bet that all the really fiddly bits are manufactured by GE. Saab is doing the same thing with the F414 for the Gripen NG.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:According to my copy of the Aerofax book on the MiG-25/31, the Foxbat's engines were originally rated for 25 hours of service life (later improved to 1,000). Interestingly, the book also claims that the MiG-25 initially took 3x the man hours to produce the -21, but "this was later reduced by ten times." I'm highly skeptical that a Foxbat would ever take 30% of the time to produce the Fishbed did, unless the Soviets underwent some sort of industrial revolution in the 70s. Well the thing about the Foxbat's engines is that they were derived from a single-use engine originally intended for the Tupolev Tu-123 long-range reconnaissance drone. A service life of 25 hours for one of those was just fine; not so much for a manned fighter aircraft. Tumansky ultimately ended up redesigning the engine almost from the ground up as flaws were uncovered in the MiG-25's development. Also you are right to be sceptical of the man-hours statement; the MiG-25 was, as we know, made primarily of steel that was largely TIG welded together, as opposed to bonded and riveted like how just about every other metal aircraft was made. Even if you don't give a flying gently caress (  ) about weld quality, it's going to take a long loving time and a lot of man-hours to make the several kilometres of welds needed to assemble a MiG-25.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
http://defensetech.org/2015/06/11/three-russia-aircraft-crash-in-past-week-two-fleets-grounded/ A Tu-95, Mi-29 and Su-34 have all crashed in the last week. A Russian military expert at the UK’s Royal United Services Institute posted:“This could be an interesting sign of the overstretching of Russian armed capabilities, because the maintenance template for these vehicles does not take into account the much higher operational tempo they have been operating under lately,” he told the magazine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Speaking of accidents, another Hungarian Gripen had a landing incident the other day. The nose wheel would not lock in the down position, so the aircraft was belly landed. Pilot ejected when it started veering off the runway and made it. Initial appraisal says the aircraft is probably repairable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n69Quhf2SSY Looks remarkably intact to me, but fixing that kind of thing probably requires a huge amount of work just to check out everything that could potentially be damaged. 
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Unreal_One posted:I think that improvement to service life was caused by them going, "Don't take it above Mach 2.8, mkay?" I'm talking from memory of something I read, so I may be way off, though. I've read a similar thing. Mach 2.5'ish was fine. You could sustain Mach3.0+ for one flight, then you'd have to throw the engine away and put in a new one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:I've read a similar thing. Mach 2.5'ish was fine. You could sustain Mach3.0+ for one flight, then you'd have to throw the engine away and put in a new one. I can't help but have a kind of admiration for a steel loving plane able to go Mach 3.0.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:07
|
|
mastervj posted:I can't help but have a kind of admiration for a steel loving plane able to go Mach 3.0. Weren't they using titanium on all the leading edges etc? Not that it matters, lots of steel all the same. Just thought I remembered that somewhere.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Under the category of Russian screw ups, they also botched two rocket flights in the last month or so. One the same problem on the third stage that messed up a flight last year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:I've read a similar thing. Mach 2.5'ish was fine. You could sustain Mach3.0+ for one flight, then you'd have to throw the engine away and put in a new one. I read that pilots were told to not exceed Mach 2.5 because at about Mach 2.8 the mechanical fuel pump started producing too much pressure to be regulated by the throttle and then it would just run wide open until it ran out of fuel or an engine ripped itself apart. Admittedly, that sounds like it might be bullshit though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:I read that pilots were told to not exceed Mach 2.5 because at about Mach 2.8 the mechanical fuel pump started producing too much pressure to be regulated by the throttle and then it would just run wide open until it ran out of fuel or an engine ripped itself apart. Admittedly, that sounds like it might be bullshit though. If I had to pick a way to die, that's got to be way up on that list.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Raytheon recently finished lab tests of the AMRAAM-ER, mainly destined for use with NASAMS. Apparently it uses the motor from the ESSM. http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2015-06-10-Raytheon-completes-lab-testing-on-AMRAAM-ER-NASAMS-integration?sf9720991=1 Doesn't really mean a whole lot, but it does mean the US Army has some developed options should they need something like NASAMS in the future (+ they already use some around DC). The whole system would be pretty easy to incorporate since we already use the Sentinel and such. Actually, if you piece it together, it seems the army is interested in keeping the program alive but on the back burner, looking at things like integration into the HIMARS as a common launch platform. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Raytheon recently finished lab tests of the AMRAAM-ER, mainly destined for use with NASAMS. Apparently it uses the motor from the ESSM. Why on Earth would you call a project NASAMS when you could call it SLAMRAAM?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Why on Earth would you call a project NASAMS when you could call it SLAMRAAM? If I'm understanding it right the missile is called the SLAMRAAM while the entire battery level system including launcher, vehicle, comms, etc. is called NASAMS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Then call it the SLAMRAAM-X, the X standing for Extended. I mean Jesus, you're just leaving a PR-goldmine on the table here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If I'm understanding it right the missile is called the SLAMRAAM while the entire battery level system including launcher, vehicle, comms, etc. is called NASAMS. I think the N was Norwegian instead of Raytheon's "National", as Norway/Kongsberg are a primary partner. SLAMRAAM I think is still the more common US name for that whole program. NASAMS is the much more active variant though, and what Raytheon tries to sell to other interested parties, since SLAMRAAM sort of died off in comparison. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
SLAMRAAM is dead and isn't going to be revived. Blame the USN and USAF for this as they decided for some baffling reason to make the 120D missiles cost like $1.5mm a shot which is significantly more than even the upcoming "affordable" Patriot interceptors. The short range system in development for the US right now is about-to-be-renamed IFPC, which is a dual counter air and counter-RAM setup that uses the much more affordable Sidewinder. The reason we're using NASAMS in the NCR is Avenger/Stinger is worthless and Patriot is too big and expensive to run so we instead rent SLAMRAAM-lite from the Norwegians. It hasn't been an overwhelming success thus far and I think we would have done better to just use Patriot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The reason we're using NASAMS in the NCR is Avenger/Stinger is worthless . Oh, just you wait until the White House gets attacked by some low flying helicopters or a SU-25 on a gun run and you'll totally eat your words.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
I know this was indirectly linked a few posts ago, but just for those that didn't click through.....quote:At the airbase near Voronezh on approach turning, multi role jet Su-34 Fullback with number red 28, overrun runaway / crashed. After the routine training flight, drag chute did not deploy, so Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback finished on his back. Neither of the plane’s crew-members were seriously hurt. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
I like to imagine the drag chute fired right after it had settled in a comical fashion
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
More than likely they draped the bag over the nose to obscure a potentially new radar. The Russians have been putting a ton of secret sauce into their Fullbacks of late.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Do you think thats an airframe write off?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
It's hard to know without seeing all sides. Finnish Air Force rammed trees with a F-18, bought a nose from Canada and made it a trainer. Then rammed more trees many years later, this time writing it off. So, a definite maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Command, a game about cold war naval warfare is 50% off this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
wkarma posted:I know this was indirectly linked a few posts ago, but just for those that didn't click through..... It looks so sad lying on its back with its paws up in the air like that... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
wkarma posted:I know this was indirectly linked a few posts ago, but just for those that didn't click through..... The toilet... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Command, a game about cold war naval warfare is 50% off this weekend. hey that looks cool and wtf is with that price even
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:hey that looks cool and wtf is with that price even Matrix Games, lords of the Grognard Game, are basically insane. For a long time their theory was because they made niche games, they needed to charge a buttload because so few people would buy them. Then they were anti-steam, because steam would hurt they're business. Then some of their games went onto steam, but they refused to have sales until(IIRC) steam threatened to cut them off the golden tit. Now they're on steam and actually having sales, though their prices are still insane. With any luck, they might even start pricing things sanely and their business might be able to spend money on things like 'having a post-1990 user interface'. They really are kings of the grognard game though. They're insanely, stupidly detailed, and usually extremely good. Just, y'know, pricey as all hell and impossible to get into unless you're stubborn as a motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Command, a game about cold war naval warfare is 50% off this weekend. Which pisses me off a bit since I thought the 33% off a few months back was going to be the end-all-be-all.  Oh well, I spent like $15 more. vOv bewbies posted:hey that looks cool and wtf is with that price even Most people like their war games to look like Call of Duty or Battlefield. It makes developing ones those people would find 'boring' all the more expensive. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:With any luck, they might even start pricing things sanely and their business might be able to spend money on things like 'having a post-1990 user interface'. Hey now, Distant Worlds had a solid 2001 interface. It should also be stated that Matrix is the publisher, they don't actually develop the ridiculous grognard games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 03:58
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.