|
Sperglord posted:Yeah, but that sounds like a ton of expenditure to achieve a meaningful dent on the incoming rocket rounds. The Iron Dome is a viable solution because most incoming rounds miss, hence not requiring an intercept. Otherwise, it would be ruinously expensive for the US / Israel. I'd think that an offensive system is better for dealing with rocket fire. You might be over-estimating the amount of functioning artillery pieces the North Koreans have that: 1. can reach Seoul 2. are positioned within range of Seoul rather than elsewhere on the DMZ. Most of their artillery is not that long-ranged; much of the rest is probably broken. Of the ones that can fire, many of the shells would miss and many of those that hit would be duds. When they shelled that island something like a quarter wound up not exploding. In any case I think the best use for Iron Dome would be to protect the equipment that you use for counter-battery fire/air defense in the first place. The best defense of course is the fact that we could flatten them if we got sufficiently pissed off, and they know it. (e: which also suggests that future altercations will be of the "shelling the island" form where the volume of fire isn't that huge) Mortabis fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jul 10, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Supplemental oxygen doesn't work above a certain pressure altitude. Hence Everest's "death zone" The Armstrong limit is way, way higher than Everest. If you could haul enough supplemental oxygen with you for Everest, you'd have no problem (except for wind, terrain, weather, cold, avalanches, crevasses, etc.), but you can't really carry enough to breathe just from a bottle your whole way up. The "death zone" is where you'll start to die without bottled oxygen, not with it. The Armstrong limit is where atmospheric pressure drops low enough for the water wetting your alveolar surfaces to start boiling off, at which point no amount of supplemental oxygen will result in oxygen getting into your bloodstream, and you need a pressurized environment. But that's somewhere north of 60,000 feet. Not many planes can make it that high. At around 45,000 feet, you're at a pressure where breathing pure O2 from a bottle is delivering as much PPO2 as you'd get breathing normally at sea level, so if you go above that without a pressure suit you can start getting hypoxic. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jul 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
6 AMRAAMS and 2 JDAMS sounds like party time for the F-35
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:You might be over-estimating the amount of functioning artillery pieces the North Koreans have that: 1. can reach Seoul 2. are positioned within range of Seoul rather than elsewhere on the DMZ. To start with, the percentage of duds is irrelevant to the cost issue, the Iron Dome will intercept before one knows if the round is / is not a dud. As for the second half, South Korea's counter-battery is already mobile. It doesn't need a fixed point defense. South Korean military bases are either within range of enough rocket artillery to not make a difference or within range of TBMs, at which point Iron Dome is useless. The Iron Dome is a weapon system designed to solve a particular political issue, I don't think it really has a great usefulness outside of the particular political situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:At around 45,000 feet, you're at a pressure where breathing pure O2 from a bottle is delivering as much PPO2 as you'd get breathing normally at sea level, so if you go above that without a pressure suit you can start getting hypoxic. I was about to add this caveat but you beat me to it - the Armstrong limit (which is a cool term I hadn't heard of before) isn't really as relevant as the fact that you'll get hypoxic even on pure oxygen well below that threshold. B4Ctom1 posted:6 AMRAAMS and 2 JDAMS sounds like party time for the F-35 How is that starboard JDAM supposed to work? Maybe it's just the angle, but it looks like it would have to shoot or jettison the two AMRAAMs underneath it before dropping it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
iron dome does not have the capability to intercept large tube artillery raids
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:6 AMRAAMS and 2 JDAMS sounds like party time for the F-35 That looks photoshopped...
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Oh lord, isn't that John Ringo? Yuiuuuuuup. SEALs strapped into the rotery racks of a B2 for a halo drop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
bewbies posted:iron dome does not have the capability to intercept large tube artillery raids Let's start with the basics: can the Iron Dome intercept artillery?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:Let's start with the basics: can the Iron Dome intercept artillery? yes, the limitation is saturation and magazine depth
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:How is that starboard JDAM supposed to work? Maybe it's just the angle, but it looks like it would have to shoot or jettison the two AMRAAMs underneath it before dropping it. I think it's photoshopped. The shadows don't really make sense, there's no mounting hardware where those two 120s are, and the configuration is actually one AIM-120 and one JDAM per bay. The 120 on the door is legit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Yeah that top bay has the same 120 three times
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I think it's photoshopped. The shadows don't really make sense, there's no mounting hardware where those two 120s are, and the configuration is actually one AIM-120 and one JDAM per bay. The 120 on the door is legit. But but but, F-35 will carry enough internal MRAAMs... Right? EDIT: It's a stupid photoshop. By all accounts, the USAF has given up on getting more than one AMRAAM per F-35 bay. Instead, research has turned to investigating smaller / more numerous weapons for internal carriage to bring up rounds per mission capability. Sperglord fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jul 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Looks like Russia is making use of a small old carrier for basing bombing attacks into Syria It probably has a Chinese Admiral on board as an observer who, after the first symbolic sortie on Syria, says "We'll take it!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Yeah definite photoshop, look at the shadow on the top two missiles then on the actual outboard one. I think the last roadmap I saw for the F-35 had a high capacity AtA loadout in like 2025, and it was pretty reliant on the either a later mark or the follow up missile to the AMRAAM being a better fit. The goal is 3 per bay though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yeah definite photoshop, look at the shadow on the top two missiles then on the actual outboard one. I really think that this line of thinking has gone away in the USAF. Current research seems to be pushing for a small A2A missile, around the size of a SDB, for high volume packing inside a F-35. If you read the CSBA paper on future of air combat, they posit a role for LRAAMs. The SCO's suggestion of an arsenal plane also requires a LRAAM. Lastly, look at AAM development outside the US, Russia, China, and Europe have AAMs with significantly longer ranges than the US. All of the above suggests that AAMs will diverge, something small for multiple packing in F-35, and something larger for LRAAM role.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:I really think that this line of thinking has gone away in the USAF. Current research seems to be pushing for a small A2A missile, around the size of a SDB, Modern aircraft really have gotten loving huge if you can fit an entire Dauntless into the interior bays on a F-35
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The piston-engined helicopter absolute altitude record is still held by a Cessna. This caught my eye. Wikipedia posted:Production was ended in December 1962. The company indicated that this was due to the civil aviation market not being ready for this type of aircraft, although CH-1 owner Rex Trailer claims that it was due to catastrophic transmission failures. WHO'S RIGHT
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
bewbies posted:yes, the limitation is saturation and magazine depth I think his argument is that it wouldn't be saturated as the North Koreans don't actually have a lot of guns that can reach downtown Seoul. As far as tube guns go, only the biggest guns can reach Seoul across the DMZ and only if they use rocket assisted projectiles. This basically limits it to the ~500 170mm Koksan guns, minus some number supplied to Iraq and Iran. Each can fire 1 round every 2.5 mins. Even if half didn't function or weren't parked right at the border with Seoul that's still a lot of shells in the air. Then you've got the rocket artillery. I don't think it'd be enough to flatten Seoul, personally, but you'd need an awful lot of Iron Dome batteries to make a dent in it. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jul 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Modern aircraft really have gotten loving huge if you can fit an entire Dauntless into the interior bays on a F-35 That's an SBD.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Someone at Raytheon is going to see that Photoshop and get a hard-on. Especially since according to Wikipedia, the unit cost on the -120D (which still isn't fielded yet) is ~$1.7m.
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jul 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
bewbies posted:iron dome does not have the capability to intercept large tube artillery raids
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:I think his argument is that it wouldn't be saturated as the North Koreans don't actually have a lot of guns that can reach downtown Seoul. The better argument is: instead of buying a purely defensive weapon, why doesn't South Korea spend that money on improving short / no-response deep counter-battery fire? Increase counter batter radar coverage, develop a fast response computer network to shorten response times, use rocket deployed UAVs to quickly reconoitter launch sites, and develop or purchase medium range (40 - 80km) guided missiles to hit the sites when they're detected. Remember that each Iron Dome round costs ~30k - 50k. A dozen rounds probably pays for a simple guided ballistic missile. The volume of fire is going to be large, why not improve the ability to silence that fire as soon as possible? The Iron Dome was created because Israel did not want to be pushed into bombing Gaza after every single rocket. The Iron Dome raised the price of success for rocket attacks to high enough levels to buy Israel better geopolitical maneuvering room. That political situation in no way applies to a South Korean scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:6 AMRAAMS and 2 JDAMS sounds like party time for the F-35 Those are my AMRAAMS. Give them back you are a second rate fighter. They don't even fit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Someone at Raytheon is going to see that Photoshop and get a hard-on. Especially since according to Wikipedia, the unit cost on the -120D (which still isn't fielded yet) is ~$1.7m. SOP with that loadout would have been jettisoning 2-3 AAMRAMS per JDAM drop. If I worked for raytheon i would have the hardest boner
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
McNally posted:My understanding is that when a carrier pilot touches down on the deck, he goes full throttle in case he missed the wires or the wire breaks. ..and the deceleration experienced while waiting for the wire to break wasn't such that you're not going to get far once you leave the deck again. I'm pretty sure one of the old pilots at the USS Midway  Museum said that you had a good chance of ending up in the drink if a wire broke. I guess you don't have long to work out whether you can save it or if you need to eject either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:How is that starboard JDAM supposed to work? Maybe it's just the angle, but it looks like it would have to shoot or jettison the two AMRAAMs underneath it before dropping it. It is the perspective. The compartments are mirror image. The angle makes it look like the JDAM is in an AMRAAM cage, but it is the same as this other side.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Finally got a copy of "Chieftains" that wasn't incredibly overpriced and I really enjoyed it, it's reasonably well written, seems plausible and doesn't clancy-wank over hardware or nationalism much at all, and the ending made more sense than "Red Army".
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...ic-state-sukhoi Wrap it up, isisailures
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
So we've bagged on the F-35 a lot - can we talk about the Ford class carriers? From some cursory reading, they seem to be plagued by the same kind of wishful thinking as the F-35. EMALS (the launch system) and the arresting gear aren't as effective as promised, though I can't figure out how they compare to their Nimitz-class counterparts. I also can't seem to find much information on budget/schedule for these vs. the F-35. Is this program in the gutter, or is it just the usual growing/teething pains of any major military acquisition? Obviously the ships being replaced are far older than anything the F-35 is replacing, and we're building far fewer of them so it's hard to do an apples to apples comparison - but is there a highlight reel of expected cost effectiveness, mission effectiveness, etc. out there that I'm not seeing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
The F-35 program seems to have run into a good problem lately. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016Test/OT&EPanel.pdf 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 13:35
|
|
OfficialGBSCaliph posted:http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...ic-state-sukhoi I suppose it's a positive step forward from a cold war when we are testing new weapons / tactics on a lesser enemy in Syria instead of by direct proxy against each other. Silver linings.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Modern aircraft really have gotten loving huge if you can fit an entire Dauntless into the interior bays on a F-35 Going purely by payload weight, the F-35 actually could carry almost 3 Dauntlesses (or just about one empty F-16).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Rotacixe posted:The F-35 program seems to have run into a good problem lately. Frankly this has been a big problem for the entire USAF/USN flying community for years. The problem is just further exacerbated with the new fighters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Going purely by payload weight, the F-35 actually could carry almost 3 Dauntlesses (or just about one empty F-16).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Two Russian pilots killed by IS when their MI-35 is shot out from under them http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e26_1468094759
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Frankly this has been a big problem for the entire USAF/USN flying community for years. The problem is just further exacerbated with the new fighters. There's a USMC, crack this nut, underage Japanese national joke in here somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:To be fair, so could another F-16. I want to see the "He's not heavy; he's my brother" ferry strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
I wouldn't be flying in Venezuela anytime soon https://warisboring.com/venezuela-is-shooting-down-civilian-planes-65ec41015b97
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 17:39
|
|