|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yes, but it wouldn't give you the satisfaction of feeling like you're living in a William Gibson novel. Rig up an autoloader with an Arduino or Pi controlling it.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:Rig up an autoloader with an Arduino or Pi controlling it. Wasn't one of the many maniacs threatening to kill Lowtax saying that he was going to use a quad-rotor with facial recognition running on Raspberry Pi and an explosive payload?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'm pretty sure a ghetto mortar would be easier to rig up. Seriously, like if you rigged a mortar up in the back of an SUV shooting through hole in the roof into a full stadium? That would be horrifying. People seem to overthink terrorism sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Seriously, like if you rigged a mortar up in the back of an SUV shooting through hole in the roof into a full stadium? That would be horrifying. People seem to overthink terrorism sometimes. There's probably like a 99% chance you'd blow yourself up testing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:They're almost certainly going to nail down autonomous air-to-ground missions first, because "go drop a bomb on these coordinates and come back" or "go look for this emitter and drop a bomb on it" are much simpler to implement. This is basically what the X-47 and whatever Navy UCAV program it's associated with (I think it's UCLASS now?) is working towards Godholio posted:This is hilarious. I lol'd irl I'm still convinced that Eisenhower proposing Open Skies was at least partially motivated by enabling IR hilarity like this
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:There's probably like a 99% chance you'd blow yourself up testing it. IRA had it down to an art in the '70s
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Wasn't one of the many maniacs threatening to kill Lowtax saying that he was going to use a quad-rotor with facial recognition running on Raspberry Pi and an explosive payload? This seems like a very Cobra Commander Jr plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Timmy McVeigh filled a rental truck with fertilizer and diesel and killed ~150 people. A couple chemistry classes are massively more dangerous than some stupid quadcopter toy. I don't think McVeigh even had that. e: quadcopter drones are starting to sound like the terrorist equivalent of lean six sigma Mortabis fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This seems like a very Cobra Commander Jr plan. I was thinking more the most bootleg, ghetto, disappointing version of Scud the Disposable Assassin. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It could happen I guess but rifles are still pretty effective for that kind of mass casualty attack. plus the added benefit of politicians in a drat fine hurry to disarm the victims of your future attacks! xthetenth posted:I'm pretty sure a ghetto mortar would be easier to rig up. bewbies posted:Seriously, like if you rigged a mortar up in the back of an SUV shooting through hole in the roof into a full stadium? That would be horrifying. People seem to overthink terrorism sometimes. Mortabis posted:Timmy McVeigh filled a rental truck with fertilizer and diesel and killed ~150 people. A couple chemistry classes are massively more dangerous than some stupid quadcopter toy. I don't think McVeigh even had those. badass! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FYXllz3p8E
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Timmy McVeigh filled a rental truck with fertilizer and diesel and killed ~150 people. A couple chemistry classes are massively more dangerous than some stupid quadcopter toy. I don't think McVeigh even had that. He apparently spent a lot of time reading about explosives in the Army. This reminds me of the badly failed Times Square car bombing in 2010. quote:The team found in the rear of the vehicle: Read your books properly, kids.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
McVeigh used Tovex and nitromethane, which is way more destructive than your typical fertilizer / diesel explosive.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
I'll just leave this here. Pretty much confirmed that China is building a second carrier. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Seriously, like if you rigged a mortar up in the back of an SUV shooting through hole in the roof into a full stadium? That would be horrifying. People seem to overthink terrorism sometimes. That's just what the IRA used to do against barracks/10 Downing St back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Timmy McVeigh filled a rental truck with fertilizer and diesel and killed ~150 people. A couple chemistry classes are massively more dangerous than some stupid quadcopter toy. I don't think McVeigh even had that. Mortabis charges into the thread, his eyes scanning the columns for threats. There, what's that? Was someone treating warhead and delivery system as if they were different things? Not on his watch!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-revealed.html I know, DailyFail. Grover must be ecstatic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Well lasers have been something they've wanted to do since like the 70s, Grover or not it was gonna happen ASAP. Onto the Chinese carriers, I think they've more or less said they are working towards 2-3 indigenous boats. Should be interesting if they go CATOBAR with them, since it makes such a difference to the air wing. Also, I was reading about the MiG-17, 19, and 21 yesterday (blame WT) and where the hell does the US 12:1 kill ratio come from? It didn't seem like the numbers matched up at all from a glance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Where are you getting 12:1? I've never seen that before. It rose from roughly 2:1 to 10:1 later in Korea after the F-86 was introduced and the USAF/USN started getting serious about pilot training again. It dipped quite a bit in Vietnam, until again we got better aircraft and training (this is where Top Gun and the USAF FWS came from). But I don't think I've ever seen a kill ratio as high as 12:1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Where are you getting 12:1? I've never seen that before. Probably Korean war numbers. quote:After the [Korean] war the USAF reviewed its figures in an investigation code-named Sabre Measure Charlie and downgraded the kill ratio of the North American F-86 Sabre against the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 by half from 14:1 to 7:1
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Woah, I hadn't seen those stats before. Was the f-86 a much better plane than the mig-15? Or did it have something to do with pilot training?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Onto the Chinese carriers, I think they've more or less said they are working towards 2-3 indigenous boats. Should be interesting if they go CATOBAR with them, since it makes such a difference to the air wing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Splode posted:Woah, I hadn't seen those stats before. the mig had cannon which dropped off much faster than the .50s, the sabre had more ammo, and better visibility... but yeah, the main reason was training
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Splode posted:Was the f-86 a much better plane than the mig-15? Or did it have something to do with pilot training? They were very closely matched, if anything the MiG-15 was slightly better until the -F model of the F-86 was introduced. There isn't a lot of hard data on these two planes versus one another like there is for practically everything from WWII, but from what I've gathered over the years, the MiG was a better performer in most respects (due largely to its engine...THANKS BRITISH), but the F-86 enjoyed some key technological advantages that closed the gap almost entirely. The MiG had a better power:weight ratio, was faster at most altitudes, had lower wing loading and (thus was more maneuverable at low speeds), was smaller, and was marginally more aerodynamically efficient. The Sabre could out-maneuver the MiG at high speed and at low/medium altitude (thanks to its power boosted controls and G-suits), was a lot less fatiguing to fly, especially when maneuvering at high speed (same reason), had an outstanding radar gunsight versus the MiG's simple reflector, and had (arguably) a better fighter-to-fighter armament. The other thing, aside from pilot training, that worked in the F-86's favor insofar as kill ratio went is that the MiGs were used almost entirely as interceptors, while the Sabres were used as escorts, on fighter sweeps, and so on. In practice this meant that the MiGs preferred to go after Allied bombers and attack aircraft, while the Sabre pilots went after the MiGs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Where are you getting 12:1? I've never seen that before. Looking deeper, it appears to be the post-TOPGUN navy KDR, but if you factor in the whole war its far lower, like 2 or 3:1. The USAF is actually kind of awful if you factor in the all the 105s to get wrecked in the ground-controlled intercepts the MiG-21s were known for. I never really read about them in depth though, much more interesting than I thought. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
bewbies posted:MiG-15 vs F-86 The main thing I always see mentioned is the MiG had a higher service ceiling, which let them pick engagements vs the Sabre. This in turn is why the F-104 exists. Kelly said so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Looking deeper, it appears to be the post-TOPGUN navy KDR, but if you factor in the whole war its far lower, like 2 or 3:1. The USAF is actually kind of awful if you factor in the all the 105s to get wrecked in the ground-controlled intercepts the MiG-21s were known for. It starts making a lot more sense when you realize it was a "fighter" that was actually designed for high-speed, low-altitude air defense penetration for nuclear weapon delivery but was primarily used to carry literally more-than-a B-17's payload of conventional weapons on almost every sortie. They were rarely employed as fighters, and actually had fighter escorts (F-100s or F-4s, usually) most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Splode posted:Woah, I hadn't seen those stats before. They were roughly comparable in practice (though the MiG-15 had a heap of issues dealing with the two different guns and Yeager was scared as poo poo to test fly the thing) but the reason why the kill ratio jumps that high is the Soviets stopped flying in Korea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It starts making a lot more sense when you realize it was a "fighter" that was actually designed for high-speed, low-altitude air defense penetration for nuclear weapon delivery but was primarily used to carry literally more-than-a B-17's payload of conventional weapons on almost every sortie. They were rarely employed as fighters, and actually had fighter escorts (F-100s or F-4s, usually) most of the time. Much like (well, inverse to, I guess -- the Thud was on the rolls as a fighter and the Mudhen counts as a bomber for  )Edit: actually, has a Mudhen ever lost in an air-to-air fight, or have they all been from ground fire? (The bomber does have at least one air-to-air win -- one dropped a bomb on a helicopter unloading troops, but the helicopter took off before the bomb got there, the pilot queued up a Sidewinder and was about to pull the trigger, and all were quite surprised when the Paveway hit the chopper at 800 feet AGL. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:33
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Much like (well, inverse to, I guess -- the Thud was on the rolls as a fighter and the Mudhen counts as a bomber for Well, if we're counting shootdowns by AAA, SAMs, and running into terrain against fighters' air-to-air combat record it would be possible for all involved to have negative kill:death records. I'm pretty sure there are still zero air-to-air kills against F-15Es.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Correct, no air-to-air losses to an enemy for any F-15 model. Wingman fuckups don't count as enemy fire until the debrief.  If we're talking BVR, the E is every bit as capable as the C. Until recent years, the Mudhen actually had the better radar. Proficiency is another matter since that's all the C model dudes do, but the Es still practice air to air a reasonable amount. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
The mig-15 had a pretty good k/d ratio against the B-29 tho.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Crossposting this awesome link from AI. There are six parts totaling 250 mb all taken from a publication called US Army-Navy Journal of Recognition. Articles about the newest allied and enemy planes, ships, and tanks! Captured aircraft flight reports! Silhouette quizzes! Combat photography quizzes! What a dream  There are six parts total. http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll8/id/4123
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:The mig-15 had a pretty good k/d ratio against the B-29 tho. That makes sense though, as the B-29 was one of the big threats the Soviets had in mind when the MiG-15 was in development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:That makes sense though, as the B-29 was one of the big threats the Soviets had in mind when the MiG-15 was in development. It's also the reason for the MiG-15's dual heavy cannon armament vs. the F-86's 6 .50 cal machine guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:It's also the reason for the MiG-15's dual heavy cannon armament vs. the F-86's 6 .50 cal machine guns. More lead in a straight, flat line is pretty effective against small single-engine fighters. There is an American Korean War vet that summers in Northern Ontario who told one of my coworkers at the airport I used to work at that they had ammo coming out fast enough that they would aim well ahead of the Migs and let them fly through the stream instead of trying to get a perfect deflection shot (that would almost always end up passing behind the target). He said they didn't realize how much deflection they actually needed until one of the guys in his wing had an issue with his trigger and only managed to get off a fraction of a second burst before the mechanism stopped working. He was aiming (what he thought was) well ahead of the Mig and saw the cockpit shatter. When he landed they counted his rounds left and he only managed to get off about 2 rounds per gun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Noscope snypa 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:If they had a loving full-size carrier, would that war even have happened? Probably not. Falklands war probably goes down regardless. It's not like it was a well thought out decision on the Junta's part. It was more "Oh poo poo, we need a serious distraction that makes us look good, because our countrymen are looking thoughtfully at lamp-posts and trying to remember where they last saw that conveniently noose shaped rope. Oh wait, a short victorious war! That'll work out. "
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Six better fuses and the Brits would have lost.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Six better fuses and the Brits would have lost. My favorite (probably untrue of course) anecdote is the entire expedition's supply of Mars bars being loaded on a single transport and everyone worried as poo poo about it eating an exocet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Six better fuses and the Brits would have lost. There's actually a conspiracy theory that Hms Invincible was secretly sunk, and it was somehow covered up by replacing it with Hms Illustrious without anyone noticing. Yes I know. Yes I know. No that couldn't possibly. Yes it is isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:21
|
|