|
Better hope you're not riding unbuttoned when the A-10 comes in.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:it wouldn't be worth trying because close-in defenses are a world apart from what was around when the A-10 was designed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
It was made to soak up AAA shots and near-misses by missiles. And it works. Still yes the all out ww3 dream would most likely have made even Red Storm Rising look tame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
I'm genuinely surprised that the committee that designed the F-35 didn't try to make a variant with a GAU-8.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:Plus, I've read some (probably Russian) poo poo saying that the 30mm bullets out of the GAU-8 aren't even enough to penetrate most modern MBT armor unless it gets a perfectly angled hit on a weak spot, making the gun itself pretty pointless https://medium.com/war-is-boring/cold-war-coloring-book-taught-a-10-pilots-to-kill-soviet-tanks-a26385113bf0
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
good thing they set zebra already! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Im not a military guy but I love this thread. After seeing those gifs, is naval warfare at the point now where a ship can be taken down by a single missile? I hope a ship's armor is a bit better than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:I hope a ship's armor
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Im not a military guy but I love this thread. After seeing those gifs, is naval warfare at the point now where a ship can be taken down by a single missile? I hope a ship's armor is a bit better than that. By the ships armor you mean the other ships in the carrier group who act as ablative armor soaking missiles that would otherwise hit the carrier right. Also you're not stopping an anti-ship missile moving mach 3 with armor, you need to shoot it down, make it miss or die
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke0S77m32N4
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Im not a military guy but I love this thread. After seeing those gifs, is naval warfare at the point now where a ship can be taken down by a single missile? I hope a ship's armor is a bit better than that. Well the top image in an older Excocet missile. The bottom is a new-ish P-270 Moskit, or SS-N-22 Sunburn. Flies exceptionally fast and close to the water. Also comes with optional nuclear warhead, ask your dealer about availability before purchase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Im not a military guy but I love this thread. After seeing those gifs, is naval warfare at the point now where a ship can be taken down by a single missile? I hope a ship's armor is a bit better than that. Put your faith in ciws and DC. Or put it in the Lord above because modern symmetric warfare is deadly as gently caress. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Put your faith in ciws and DC. Or put it in the Lord above because modern symmetric warfare is deadly as gently caress. IIRC The only time a CIWS was used in combat it locked onto a chaff cloud from a battleship during the gulf war and mulched some poor gently caress on the bridge
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Bolow posted:IIRC The only time a CIWS was used in combat it locked onto a chaff cloud from a battleship during the gulf war and mulched some poor gently caress on the bridge I think during a test it hit the bridge of another ship when it re-engaged a target drone it had just hit, killing someone on the bridge. In the Iraq war incident no-one was injured or killed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I think during a test it hit the bridge of another ship when it re-engaged a target drone it had just hit, killing someone on the bridge. In the Iraq war incident no-one was injured or killed. Wasn't the test one where it attempted to reengage the drone and blew up the plane towing it instead?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Bolow posted:Wasn't the test one where it attempted to reengage the drone and blew up the plane towing it instead? Clever girl...
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
And in 1992 we killed a bunch of Turkish sailors and wrecked their boat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCG_Muavenet_%28DM_357%29 quote:As the drill progressed, the missile system operator used language to indicate he was preparing to fire a live missile, but due to the absence of standard terminology, it was failed to appreciate the significance of the terms used and the requests made. Specifically, the Target Acquisition System operator issued the command "arm and tune", terminology the console operators understood to require arming of the missiles in preparation for actual firing. The officers supervising the drill did not realize that "arm and tune" signified a live firing and ignored two separate requests from the missile system operator to clarify whether the launch order was an exercise. As a result, shortly after midnight on the morning of 2 October, Saratoga fired two Sea Sparrow missiles at Muavenet. The first missile struck in the bridge, destroying it and the Combat Information Center. The second missile struck in the aft magazine but did not detonate. The explosion and resulting fires killed five of the ship's officers and injured 22. Nearby US Navy ships responded in aid to the Turkish ship which was now without leadership. Fire and rescue teams boarded the ship and put out the fires in the bridge and the aft magazine preventing any secondary explosions.   
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Im not a military guy but I love this thread. After seeing those gifs, is naval warfare at the point now where a ship can be taken down by a single missile? I hope a ship's armor is a bit better than that. Missiles have advanced to the point where it's very easy to carry and launch ones that can annihilate enemy capital ships and the aforementioned ships can't feasibly carry enough armor to defend against them. The only way for a carrier to not get blown up by a missile aimed at it is to not get hit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:And in 1992 we killed a bunch of Turkish sailors and wrecked their boat. When I was standing TAO on a CVN we referred to the firing lockout as the "Saratoga switch"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Bolow posted:IIRC The only time a CIWS was used in combat it locked onto a chaff cloud from a battleship during the gulf war and mulched some poor gently caress on the bridge Yep, the Iraqi's fired a Silkworm anti-ship missile at the USS Missouri. An escorting US destroyer's Phalanx engaged the Missouri's chaff and sprayed the deck with shells. Luckily a decrepit old British destroyer shot the Silkworm down with a SAM designed in 1963, so brown trouser time. The missile it used was the Sea Dart which had a 10% hit rate in the Falklands so the Missouri lucked out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
You'd think a system like CIWS would have a feature like a "next target" button.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You'd think a system like CIWS would have a feature like a "next target" button. The Phalanx, from my understanding, is entirely automated. It has its own onboard sensor suite (so it can be used on ships with limited sensors of their own), but it doesn't actually have any form of IFF detector. It instead calculates the path and speed of potential targets to determine if they're inbound, aimed at the ship (or can potentially turn hard enough to aim at the ship), and falls within the operator-given minimum and maximum speeds. This lets it shoot down pretty much anything that's incoming without accidentally ignoring it, but also gives it the potential to shoot the wrong target. The incident that killed an American officer was when it shot down a drone but it was still on radar and still incoming, so it fired again as it crashed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The Phalanx, from my understanding, is entirely automated. It has its own onboard sensor suite (so it can be used on ships with limited sensors of their own), but it doesn't actually have any form of IFF detector. It instead calculates the path and speed of potential targets to determine if they're inbound, aimed at the ship (or can potentially turn hard enough to aim at the ship), and falls within the operator-given minimum and maximum speeds. This lets it shoot down pretty much anything that's incoming without accidentally ignoring it, but also gives it the potential to shoot the wrong target. The incident that killed an American officer was when it shot down a drone but it was still on radar and still incoming, so it fired again as it crashed. It's got auto and manual modes. Auto shoots at anything that meets the parameters, manual aims at it and the operator pulls the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:It's got auto and manual modes. Auto shoots at anything that meets the parameters, manual aims at it and the operator pulls the trigger. Exactly what's the upper limit on what you can expect a manual operator to hit with it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Exactly what's the upper limit on what you can expect a manual operator to hit with it? No one can or should answer that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
WHAT DID I TELL YOU ASSHOLES ABOUT OPSEC? LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS THAT'S RIGHT DICKWEEDS. \ 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:WHAT DID I TELL YOU ASSHOLES ABOUT OPSEC? LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS THAT'S RIGHT DICKWEEDS. lmao @ opsec leakage. save that poo poo fo your guys distended assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Exactly what's the upper limit on what you can expect a manual operator to hit with it? lets discuss your ethnic heritage friend. come right this way
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYyPJ3GBiA8
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:It's got auto and manual modes. Auto shoots at anything that meets the parameters, manual aims at it and the operator pulls the trigger. If I'm running poo poo and we're in a loving wartime situation, you better believe I've got somebody sitting at that station even if the cruise control is on. And I'm pretty sure everything posted so far was covered in greater depth by Clancy. I've never read a single official document on CIWS but I haven't learned anything on it from today's posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
I brought up OPSEC in reference to chitoyu's question. Questions better left unanswered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
America started up a program in the early 2000s codenamed 420GOKU to train a new breed of CIWS operators who don't even need a scope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:America started up a program in the early 2000s codenamed 420GOKU to train a new breed of CIWS operators who don't even need a scope. OPSEC YOU loving rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Why worry about Opsec anyways? Obammer has already sold all of our Gokus to the Chinese anyways 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
He didn't even sell them, they were just sitting on default root user servers with no encryption used whatsoever and China called up and was like hello yes I'm Bob from OPM I forgot the password to the server and then bam they got all our gokus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:He didn't even sell them, they were just sitting on default root user servers with no encryption used whatsoever and China called up and was like hello yes I'm Bob from OPM I forgot the password to the server and then bam they got all our gokus. I want to laugh at this as a hyperbolic joke. But given the "leet hacking" of important data systems... It might not be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:I want to laugh at this as a hyperbolic joke. one of the companies contracted by OPM to handle some part of it (possibly background checks) subbed out to chinese companies
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:I want to laugh at this as a hyperbolic joke. No, they were actually giving out admin accounts to a lot of users.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 06:31
|
|