|
Trumpler Syndrome
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
He'd make the Martians pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russias-kirov-class-battlecruiser-fleet-is-expanding-an-1763392754 We cannot allow a ship's cat gap! Seriously, though, do USN ships still carry a cat? And if so, do they dress it up in little sailor suits?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:51
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
A ship's cat in a little sailor suit would lead to a dangerous outbreak of morale and cheer and so is strictly prohibited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
The ships cat from the Bismark was adopted by the Royal Navy. The next two British ships the cat was on were sunk by the Germans. Cat wanted payback I guess.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
From a while back, but I was going through this list of air to air kills in Gulf War 1 http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aakill/By%20Weapon/ Feb 2 1991 an F-15c strafed an Il-76 on an airstrip and was credited with an air to air kill. Is this a thing? Does it count as an air to air kill as long as it is an aircraft regardless as to whether it's flying or not? Or does it just not matter, a kill is a kill?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:To be fair, that cat looks like he doesn't like cats either. The USS Winston S. Churchill keeps a pet Brit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the idea of the shuttle wasn't always "steal this satellite" and was more along the lines of "jump up to this satellite and modify/destroy it". Ideally, you'd be in and out without them noticing you did something. Munnin The Crab posted:From a while back, but I was going through this list of air to air kills in Gulf War 1 http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aakill/By%20Weapon/ IIRC the Il-76 was near the end of takeoff
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:On a more serious note, is there a publicly available write up of the USAF's satellite borrowing plan anywhere? I just can't make sense of it. I kind of love the idea that the shuttle would rendezvous with the satellite to be nabbed, grab it, land it, mate to a new set of SRBs and tank and then launch without anyone noticing and do all this within the counting clock of a normal orbital cycle (90 minutes max? Much less when you get into radar and observatory coverage). The best part is that even though the idea is utterly idiotic at first glance it was a major driver of requirements. edit: ^^^ I think you are missing the point that it was the cross range capability driving requirements that were the problem, not any potential rendezvous itself. Murgos fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Basically the Space Shuttle requirements are based on the following flight plan: Pop up into a polar orbit. Screw getting a boost from the planet's rotation, we've got delta-v for that. Circularize. You know the claw game in arcades? Play a round of that in space. Stuff it in a big box. Or maybe just do some maintenance, void a warranty or two, who knows! Deorbit burn. Hit atmosphere and oh gently caress the planet's been turning and we need to catch up with only our wings, the atmosphere and a lot of energy. Not pictured: A complete orbit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I'm pretty sure the idea of the shuttle wasn't always "steal this satellite" and was more along the lines of "jump up to this satellite and modify/destroy it". Part of the requirement was definitely to capture and bring it inside the bay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:
Per that history of post-Vietnam kills book referenced earlier, this may be two incidents conflated. One of the pilots talks about finding an IL-76 AWACs like aircraft (maybe not a Mainstay, maybe homebrew) on an airfield and being directed to strafe it. They then found some regular IL-76s nearby and strafed them, getting in trouble. A different pilot had a legitimate shoot-down of an IL-76 flying to Iran.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:Per that history of post-Vietnam kills book referenced earlier, this may be two incidents conflated. One of the pilots talks about finding an IL-76 AWACs like aircraft (maybe not a Mainstay, maybe homebrew) on an airfield and being directed to strafe it. They then found some regular IL-76s nearby and strafed them, getting in trouble. Iraq didn't get the Mainstay, they built their own (nicknamed Baghdad-1 and Baghdad-2, IIRC.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
So naturally I've been reading now about the Kirov's, and goddamn those are monsters. They displace about what a late-WWI/interwar battleship/battlecruiser displaced, but without the massive amount of armor and heavy guns. That is a whole lot of goddamn ship. It'd be quite a sight to see the USN/NATO go after one of those full-bore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So naturally I've been reading now about the Kirov's, and goddamn those are monsters. They displace about what a late-WWI/interwar battleship/battlecruiser displaced, but without the massive amount of armor and heavy guns. That is a whole lot of goddamn ship. It'd be quite a sight to see the USN/NATO go after one of those full-bore. Got any good links? I'm making a model 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:45
|
|
bewbies posted:So naturally I've been reading now about the Kirov's, and goddamn those are monsters. They displace about what a late-WWI/interwar battleship/battlecruiser displaced, but without the massive amount of armor and heavy guns. That is a whole lot of goddamn ship. It'd be quite a sight to see the USN/NATO go after one of those full-bore. I fuckin sank the poo poo outta that thing in Red Storm Rising and Harpoon. 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Also: It's international Women's day, but the Russian government has decreed everything be militarized. The solution, welp...
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So naturally I've been reading now about the Kirov's, and goddamn those are monsters. They displace about what a late-WWI/interwar battleship/battlecruiser displaced, but without the massive amount of armor and heavy guns. That is a whole lot of goddamn ship. It'd be quite a sight to see the USN/NATO go after one of those full-bore. That's what fast-attacks are for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also: It's international Women's day, but the Russian government has decreed everything be militarized. Why do I feel like we're going to be marching on Moscow in Oct 2017?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also: It's international Women's day, but the Russian government has decreed everything be militarized. I don't see the problem. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:I fuckin sank the poo poo outta that thing in Red Storm Rising and Harpoon. Strangely it may have been easier in reality than it was in those games. The Kirov's lowest altitude SAM coverage would have been the SA-N-6, which aside from being a less than idea short range missile had a minimum engagement altitude of over 25m. The other options were much worse than that so the SAM systems were actually pretty useless for that kind of threat. The old CIWS, meanwhile, had problems with picking out low altitude targets and actually shooting things down until it was replaced in the early 90s. I remember in Harpoon they were a bitch to sink because you had all the different SAM systems that'd just salvo missiles at everything you shot at them with. NATO's focus on sea skimmers made a lot more sense after I found out about the above gaps in capability. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:That's what fast-attacks are for. Yeah, like those things haven't had a Los Angeles Class trailing behind them every time they've left port. e: VVV Yeah, but what if we put NUCLEAR LASERs on the Iowa? Murgos fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Got any good links? I'm making a model You know perfectly well this is what everyone has been wondering about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Oh god. This may be the joke but isn't this like pitting a Tiger II against a Abrams?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Oh god. This may be the joke but isn't this like pitting a Tiger II against a Abrams? Only if Reagan had outfitted the Tiger II with missiles in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Oh god. This may be the joke but isn't this like pitting a Tiger II against a Abrams? It is exactly that. An Iowa, even with Tomahawks, wouldn't stand a goddamned chance against a Kirov unless it had a decent AAW screen and/or got teleported into 16-inch range of the Russian ship. Inside 16-inch range the Iowa will be able to shell the poo poo out of the Kirov for a few minutes until the missiles hit, in which case the best outcome is mutual annihilation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Well modern fights like that are silly because if the standard is which will beat the other its that they'll both be blown to smithereens when they both launch missiles as fast as possible and the point defense systems don't work 100% as advertised.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
So, those microdrone discussions we've looped back to a couple times now? Turns out the US is working on them Apologies if it's been posted already, admittedly terrible video in the link.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
I mean in an all-up 1980s World War III you could probably find a way to kill a Kirov with an Iowa. Knock out the Kirov's sensors and missile launchers with an airstrike and then send in an Iowa to put her down with gunfire, but that's a solution looking for a problem because if the Kirov is crippled already just sending another airstrike in would be way more sensible. Hell, this basic scenario already happened in 1945 when Spruance had a SAG standing by to sink the Yamato if his airstrikes didn't do the job. They did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I mean in an all-up 1980s World War III you could probably find a way to kill a Kirov with an Iowa. This documentary is all the proof I need
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:So, those microdrone discussions we've looped back to a couple times now? I think we all know where they got that idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgphpiO0L8
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Someone in this thread was asking about Russian intervention if North Korea used nukes, so I thought this might be of interest: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/russia-warns-north-korea-nuclear-strike When even the "little green men" are telling you to step the gently caress down, it's prooooobably a good idea to listen...
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:Someone in this thread was asking about Russian intervention if North Korea used nukes, so I thought this might be of interest: Interesting. "We're with you on the fundamental issues but you are stepping way over the line" is not something I'd expect Russia to say. Also laffo at that sidebar, "the pariah alliance"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:It is exactly that. But Iowa's armor will surely be able to withstand direct, repeated hits of one ton warheads traveling at supersonic speeds!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Part of the requirement was definitely to capture and bring it inside the bay. Oh, I know, I'm just saying that the mission profiles that make the most sense in the real world resembled drive-bys, most likely. I'd imagine NSA Wizard would frown on this
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:"the pariah alliance" "The parlliance"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:Someone in this thread was asking about Russian intervention if North Korea used nukes, so I thought this might be of interest: while you guys are on this again, NK has claimed (not for the first time, mind) to have miniaturized their nukes to the point they could put them in a missile- this time though, with pictures:  https://www.nknews.org/2016/03/n-korea-publishes-pictures-of-miniaturized-nuclear-weapon/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter I have no idea what a miniaturized warhead looks like, and whether this disco ball thing is a hilarious misstep by them à la that Iranian stealth fighter from a few years back or if it's actually deeply concerning; can anyone shed some light?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
it's a loving cartoon bomb, complete with fuse what the gently caress do you think
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Koramei posted:while you guys are on this again, NK has claimed (not for the first time, mind) to have miniaturized their nukes to the point they could put them in a missile- this time though, with pictures: Unless they show it next to a pile of enriched uranium big enough to fill that sphere, that's about as threatening as a rolled up newspaper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:But Iowa's armor will surely be able to withstand direct, repeated hits of one ton warheads traveling at supersonic speeds!  , I thought it was designed to do just that. Won't be enough to deal with 20 7,000 pound Granit missiles, but still.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:50
|
|
