|
Psion posted:dear lockmart, hire me and I can solve this: Due to the new Tu-160s we restart the FB-22 discussion, use it as a backdoor to produce more F-22s. Everyone believes you implicitly when you say 80% parts commonality, after all. Dear Lockmart, hire me instead. You know that littoral combat ship is a terrible failure, right? Well, I have an alternative for you: supersonic flying boats.  Also I've discovered something that the F-35D absolutely needs: hydrofoils. (LO hydrofoils?) 
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
not enough tilt-rotor on that F-35D, application denied
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Psion posted:not enough tilt-rotor on that F-35D, application denied That's the F-35V, which will have similar modular mission units to the LCS, which include an AEW module, and a buddy refueling module. It'll be a drop-in V-22 replacement with a .95% parts commonality with the other F-35 (non-B) models.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
I kind of wouldn't be surprised if over a 50 year lifecycle a 2-seat F-35D came about, if it's possible to fit a second person in there somehow. e: a quick google finds a paper from a US military officer on the topic, and you'll never guess what branch he's part of! https://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/needforf35twoseatvariant2008.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Part of me loves this line about tanks, only because it points out the distances involved in modern tank combat. Effectively striking a target with a direct fire cannon at 2300m is pretty bananas. I shall write a book about a hypothetical mass tank war in 1918, rife with exact technical details of the tanks that are falling over, sinking, catching fire or going over an obstacle and concussing their crew. No main gun rounds fired with have any lethal effects, except for those exploding due to breech failures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dear Lockmart, hire me instead. You know that littoral combat ship is a terrible failure, right? Well, I have an alternative for you: supersonic flying boats. How is that thing supposed to land on the water?  Its wings are long enough that I dont trust them not to make the plane wobble if theres a good breeze at sea level, especially with the pontoons(?) pushing the fuselage floor nearly 10 feet high.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
It's also a flying boat; I think the hydrofoils are for taking off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:How is that thing supposed to land on the water? My guess is that pontoon is going to be fully immersed when the plane is stopped, with the wing pontoons resting on the surface. It's gonna be hella stable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Tu-22Mchat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-MHEiOUK6c
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
I usually don't care that much for Russian planes, but holy poo poo that sound 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Red Army is great because Peters remembered that war loving sucks at the sharp end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
"The Blackjack is Rodina's strap-on."
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Really? Like seriously worse than a design made in the 1950s? That takes some doing. The KC-135 may be a design from the 1950s, but the engines on almost all of the tankers are CFM turbofans. I don't know if the military gets to enjoy any of the incremental efficiency benefits that come from being mounted under almost every 737 in the world, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:I usually don't care that much for Russian planes, but holy poo poo that sound Seriously, it sounds like an F1 car as it approaches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
I want to like the F-35. But 220 rounds doesn't seem like a lot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:I want to like the F-35. why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:and they're evidently so satisfied with them that they're building islands instead. lol Mortabis posted:I kind of wouldn't be surprised if over a 50 year lifecycle a 2-seat F-35D came about, if it's possible to fit a second person in there somehow. disband the marine corpse imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:I want to like the F-35. But 220 rounds doesn't seem like a lot. Compared to previous US fighters like the F-15 and F-16 it's not a lot, no. Compared to something like a Eurofighter Rafale, Gripen, MiG-29 or Su-27, it is. (mind you those all use higher caliber rounds) but really - I can't bring myself to care about the gun on the F-35. It's probably not going to win at knife fight ranges unless you're popping off a -9X so ... it's almost like Lockmart is being realistic for once 
Psion fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
At the max rate of fire for that gun, 220 rounds lasts something like 3.5 seconds. It's proportionately the same ammo as an AKM with one 30-round magazine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:At the max rate of fire for that gun, 220 rounds lasts something like 3.5 seconds. It's proportionately the same ammo as an AKM with one 30-round magazine. In this analogy the AKM is your service pistol. Why carry an extra magazine for your never used sidearm if you could carry one for your main weapon?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Psion posted:dear lockmart, hire me and I can solve this: Due to the new Tu-160s we restart the FB-22 discussion, use it as a backdoor to produce more F-22s. Everyone believes you implicitly when you say 80% parts commonality, after all. 1. Buy FB-23 2. USAF realizes it needs to replace F-15s with something that isn't F-35. 3. "Good thing we just cleaned off all this F-23 related tooling." 4. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
Psion posted:popping off a -9X Just to reinforce how cool HOBS heaters are, have that AIM-9X video from 15+ years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:1. Buy FB-23 Isn't half the tooling for the F-23 other planes tooling anyways? They used a lot of parts like the F-15's front wheels and F-18's landing gear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
Koesj posted:gently caress, every piece of fiction I've seen on that kind of stuff, outside Red Army and Chieftains!, had a drawn-out, relatively low optempo conflict going on. The former was basically a well-written Team B manifesto for investment in conventional forces, and the latter is kinda scattershot, but at least they get 1980s-ish modern warfare right. I downloaded the kindle version of Chieftains the other day out of curiousity, that ending  (not sure if the physical editions are the same but the kindle book appears to have been lifted from an unproofed copy, the text is full of glaring errors and contradictions)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Isn't half the tooling for the F-23 other planes tooling anyways? They used a lot of parts like the F-15's front wheels and F-18's landing gear. The YF-23 would resemble a production F-23 about as much as the YF-22 resembles the F-22A. That is to say, not loving at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:I downloaded the kindle version of Chieftains the other day out of curiousity, that ending I was really quite nerd-upset when I saw the characters in the book refer to the blowpipe as an AT missile, amongst other errors. Also the ending, which reads a lot like "ehhhhh...gently caress it". Like half the plot threads are simply left unsolved because, eh, gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:At the max rate of fire for that gun, 220 rounds lasts something like 3.5 seconds. It's proportionately the same ammo as an AKM with one 30-round magazine. For aerial engagement the cannon is set to fire in adjustable bursts. So he's not going to rip off a 3.5 second chain of death. He's going to get 15 rounds per trigger pull or whatever, and since the computer is aiming the gun based on radar it's probably going to put half of them on target.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Godholio posted:For aerial engagement the cannon is set to fire in adjustable bursts. So he's not going to rip off a 3.5 second chain of death. He's going to get 15 rounds per trigger pull or whatever, and since the computer is aiming the gun based on radar it's probably going to put half of them on target. When you say radar controlled, is there any detail you can share? Does it move in its mount like the Su-27 or is the burst restricted in any way By targeting? Just curious as I never read about that for US fighters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I don't think the cannon actually moves, but rather the computer controls the piper on the HUD using radar input. That wasn't well-worded in the previous post. The pilot aims, based on what the computer tells him based on what the radar tells it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I don't think the cannon actually moves, but rather the computer controls the piper on the HUD using radar input. That wasn't well-worded in the previous post. The pilot aims, based on what the computer tells him based on what the radar tells it. Yeah that makes sense. I was curious if they went with something new this time, but the mount looked pretty static in that video. Although it makes you wonder if they could set an automatic mode where the pilot toggles it on and the gun spins up, waiting for the radar to see a firing angle. Probably way more trouble then it's worth, but an interesting thought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
The HUD gives you a little "this is where the bullets will go" symbol. Based on how the target moves, you line yourself up so that the symbol tracks the thing you want to shoot and squeeze a burst off. Assuming no weird movements, the burst will hit. source: dcs and falcon bms
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yeah that makes sense. I was curious if they went with something new this time, but the mount looked pretty static in that video. Make it like in GI Joe: Rise of Cobra where you shout something in Irish Gaelic to fire a set burst.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:The HUD gives you a little "this is where the bullets will go" symbol. Based on how the target moves, you line yourself up so that the symbol tracks the thing you want to shoot and squeeze a burst off. Assuming no weird movements, the burst will hit. On the JA 37 (fighter version of the Viggen) there was an aim assist mode where the autopilot would take over and aim the gun at the radar-locked target for you, but only in two axes - it'd show you on the HUD what you needed to do in the third axis, and then you only needed to pull the trigger. I don't know if it was actually a good idea or not though because as far as I know the Gripen doesn't have it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I was really quite nerd-upset when I saw the characters in the book refer to the blowpipe as an AT missile, amongst other errors. Also the ending, which reads a lot like "ehhhhh...gently caress it". Like half the plot threads are simply left unsolved because, eh, gently caress it. Mind you any WWIII story that doesn't end that way is pretty unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Mazz posted:When you say radar controlled, is there any detail you can share? Does it move in its mount like the Su-27 or is the burst restricted in any way By targeting? Just curious as I never read about that for US fighters. Wait what? How did they manage to pull that off without completely loving up the aerodynamics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Gun sighting works with a computer predicted funnel projected onto the hud that moves and adjust in real time. Put the funnel borders to touch the enemy aircraft wing tip to wing tip and let loose a burst. Hail Satan
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Although it makes you wonder if they could set an automatic mode where the pilot toggles it on and the gun spins up, waiting for the radar to see a firing angle. Probably way more trouble then it's worth, but an interesting thought. Like this thing? http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-rifle-brings-auto-aim-to-the-real-world/ quote:To shoot at something, you first "mark" it using a button near the trigger. Marking a target illuminates it with the tracking scope's built-in laser, and the target gains a pip in the scope's display. When a target is marked, the tracking scope takes into account the range of the target, the ambient temperature and humidity, the age of the barrel, and a whole boatload of other parameters. It quickly reorients the display so the crosshairs in the center accurately show where the round will go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
tbh id be surprised if there isnt already some sort of auto fire mode where as soon as you put the nose in the correct place relative to the target you just marked, your already spun up gatling gun spits out a burst
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
I assume it has a "mean rounds between failure" in double digits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:The HUD gives you a little "this is where the bullets will go" symbol. Based on how the target moves, you line yourself up so that the symbol tracks the thing you want to shoot and squeeze a burst off. Assuming no weird movements, the burst will hit. I know about that for the most part, I was thinking something closer to what Fluff mentioned where the computer does more of the work/pulls the trigger on firing solution. Pretty unrealistic because it's a complex solution to a dumb problem, but an interesting thought since if refined it takes out any elements of pilot error due to adrenaline or whatever. bitcoin bastard posted:Wait what? How did they manage to pull that off without completely loving up the aerodynamics? I can't find a single decent source now, but I read somewhere about a flexible mounting for the GSh-30 (I think this thread?) that allowed the gun to pivot in its mount, so the gun could acquire targets effectively in a cone shape instead of directly in line with the barrel. Doesn't seem like it was a production thing or any details if it worked now that I'm looking again. Then again though, the 30-1 is a single barrel so it's not completely crazy in theory. Mazz fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:38
|
|