|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Newsflash: Russia's most advanced bomber, which can supposedly/definitely/almost assuredly completely destroy the entire U, S, and A with just one aircraft and the entire world with the fleet will be able to do something the B-1B's been able to do since IOC, not that it should ever have to: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se.../9541471356233/ article posted:According to the developers, the new engine will help the plane fly up to the stratosphere at an altitude of 60,000 feet. Ah, the Gary Powers strategy. If these bombers ever have to strike targets in the early 1950s, they'll be set. aphid_licker posted:Is the target those warehouses? It kinda looks like they miss. The only Tu-22 variant that can carry non-dumb bombs is the M3M, of which there are maybe a handful. Russia doesn't have very many PGMs.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Is the target those warehouses? It kinda looks like they miss. It's OK, I'm sure they got a hospital, water treatment plant, or crowded marketplace. But yeah, it looks like they missed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Russian Scientology Russian Timecube?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It's OK, I'm sure they got a hospital, water treatment plant, or crowded marketplace. Kind of a let down after JDAM videos which are mainly "everything that looks vaguely important blowing up all at once."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I don't know if any of you milgoons are or have been part of the KC-135 community, but part of the Pacer Fin modifications of the late 1960s, where the larger vertical stabiliser was fitted, was a series of bands around the aft fuselage to reinforce the structure of that part of the aircraft; this was necessitated in no small part by the sonic fatigue from the J57 engines. "Ribbed for her pleasure" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:The only Tu-22 variant that can carry non-dumb bombs is the M3M, of which there are maybe a handful. Russia doesn't have very many PGMs. Is there a particular reason for this? I can't imagine Russia looking at Desert Storm (or just late Vietnam) and not going "oh wow, PGMs are useful, time for a doctrine shift", in the same way China went "oh god, Western tanks trash everything, we need to reassess!" and changed up its land military doctrine after Desert Storm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Ah, the Gary Powers strategy. If these bombers ever have to strike targets in the early 1950s, they'll be set. Beggars can't be choosers. Their average wage is now lower than China's. At least it should give their nuclear cruise missiles a bit more reach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Is there a particular reason for this? I can't imagine Russia looking at Desert Storm (or just late Vietnam) and not going "oh wow, PGMs are useful, time for a doctrine shift", in the same way China went "oh god, Western tanks trash everything, we need to reassess!" and changed up its land military doctrine after Desert Storm. some combination of: - the Ruble has been poo poo, is poo poo, and will always be poo poo - it's not like I'll ever have cause to use them in a war I'm going to fight, clearly my government does not give a gently caress about collateral damage and if you're bombing people in a permissive environment for the purpose of putting down an uprising a stick of unguided 250 kg bombs works as well (if not better) as a couple of JDAMs for like 1/50th the cost - we live in a country where people literally die of alcoholism and/or freeze to death in significant numbers annually - better to spend money on weapons that will serve as showpieces of Russian military might and intimidate the evil imperialists (like bombers employing the best in early '50s tactics to avoid air defenses) as opposed to spending sizable sums of money on boring tiny guided bombs that kill terrorists without slaughtering the entire block
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Also funny they say no anti-aircraft weapon can reach it since I think neither Patriot or any of the Standards would've have any problems with an air breathing target at 60k 20 years ago
Mazz fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Is there a particular reason for this? I can't imagine Russia looking at Desert Storm (or just late Vietnam) and not going "oh wow, PGMs are useful, time for a doctrine shift", in the same way China went "oh god, Western tanks trash everything, we need to reassess!" and changed up its land military doctrine after Desert Storm. Cost and also one of the advantages of not caring about soft power and having a pliant state controlled media is you never have to care about collateral damage. in fact... Warbadger posted:It's OK, I'm sure they got a hospital, water treatment plant, or crowded marketplace. this is on purpose russia is deliberately targeting civilians to force them out of syria and into europe, which destabilizes the eu and nato member countries by helping loon right wing parties (like ukip, pis, fn and so on) that are in putin's pocket you may have noticed that this strategy is working! re: brexit and Actual Candidate For President And Useful Idiot Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Yes, sonic fatigue is very much a thing, and it's something that all aircraft, especially jet aircraft, need to deal with. Now admittedly my understanding of the subject matter is a little murky, but as I understand it, most of the issue comes from low frequency sound waves hitting the aircraft and making the skin or structure resonate locally. It's more about high-frequency fan noise. Here's probably more than you ever want to know: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADB004600
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Cost and also one of the advantages of not caring about soft power and having a pliant state controlled media is you never have to care about collateral damage. in fact... Cool conspiracy theory
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
fickle poofterist posted:Cool conspiracy theory
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 11:11
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Poutine isn't an idiot, he knows a beefy stream of refugees helps him along. Poutine isn't an idiot, he has Kurds and gravy to help
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
That Works posted:Poutine isn't an idiot, he has Kurds and gravy to help Came here to post that, drat YOU
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Russia has a ton of precision munitions, they just aren't the same kinds of precision munitions we have. Also I've spent the last week and a half and a seminar talking about how very scary a conventional conflict in Eastern Europe versus the Russians would be. I feel like it is 1947 all over again, at least in the brains of military higher-ups
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Haven't the Russians cooled on GPS guided munitions after Georgia?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Russia has some serious PGMs. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
That Works posted:Poutine isn't an idiot, he has Kurds and gravy to help
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:37
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:Came here to post that, drat YOU 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Re: the Tu-160M2 60,000 ft thing - I figured what was meant is that the combination of speed, altitude, and munitions range would make it harder to hit. If you draw a triangle from the target to the plane where the base is along the ground, increasing both the weapon range and altitude would increase the hypotenuse (i.e. the distance a SAM has to cover). If it's booking along at Mach 2 that seems like it would make it even harder. I mean, wasn't this what the SR-71 used to avoid danger? Fly high and fast enough that they can't detect and intercept it in time? Although if Wikipedia is to be believed, the previous ceiling was 51,000 feet so it doesn't seem like that massive of a boost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
david_a posted:Re: the Tu-160M2 60,000 ft thing - I figured what was meant is that the combination of speed, altitude, and munitions range would make it harder to hit. If you draw a triangle from the target to the plane where the base is along the ground, increasing both the weapon range and altitude would increase the hypotenuse (i.e. the distance a SAM has to cover). If it's booking along at Mach 2 that seems like it would make it even harder. I mean, wasn't this what the SR-71 used to avoid danger? Fly high and fast enough that they can't detect and intercept it in time? The SR-71's max speed and service ceiling was Mach 3.3/ 85,000 ft though. That's a big difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
david_a posted:I mean, wasn't this what the SR-71 used to avoid danger? Fly high and fast enough that they can't detect and intercept it in time? Maybe if you're a noob https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGa6i-DudIQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:The SR-71's max speed and service ceiling was Mach 3.3/ 85,000 ft though. That's a big difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
It's the same idea, but neither fast enough nor high enough to actually have the result they're bragging about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It's the same idea, but neither fast enough nor high enough to actually have the result they're bragging about. They should at least have the common decency to outperform an XB-70 before making that sort of claim. I'd love to know how those things would've fared.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Maybe if you're a noob Target speed, altitude, and maneuverability decrease a SAM's effective range, but even back then strategic SAMs were a non-trivial threat to the SR-71. "Just hit the throttle and outrun it" is popular legend, not historical tactical reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:30
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Target speed, altitude, and maneuverability decrease a SAM's effective range, but even back then strategic SAMs were a non-trivial threat to the SR-71. "Just hit the throttle and outrun it" is popular legend, not historical tactical reality. quote:The Blackbird had outrun nearly 4,000 missiles, not once taking a scratch from enemy fire. http://b.johnwurth.com/the-famous-sr-71-sam-outrun-story/
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
quote:On a weekly basis, the SR-71 kept watch over every Soviet nuclear submarine and mobile missile site, and all of their troop movements. It was a key factor in winning the Cold War. Were there actually routine SR-71 flights penetrating Soviet airspace? That seems needlessly provocative, but I guess that's probably true about most things during the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:26
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Well if the SR-71 was flying at a set speed, altitude and heading, I'm sure an SA-2 could get it eventually. Problem is they had a throttle and could, you know, turn. By the time you recalculate your intercept, especially back in the day, your target is like a country away. Modern ABMs with the precision for actual hit-to-kill terminal intercepts could probably make the Blackbird's job a lot more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Also IAD. It helps a lot when you can pre-launch into the the target instead of firing from the site of the initial acquisition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
The Blackbird couldn't really turn at those velocities, not as quick as a SAM could, anyway. It got away on brute power. Even the stories of SAM's being countered with turns are always preceded by "so we pegged the throttles". The turns were just to throw another variable into the SAM's targeting system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
I can't imagine that a defensive turn done at those altitudes and airspeeds would be particularly effective against a SAM. Outrunning makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Yeah. Handling at those speeds with the thinner atmosphere is pretty rough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:I can't imagine that a defensive turn done at those altitudes and airspeeds would be particularly effective against a SAM. Outrunning makes more sense. It's minor, but it's another set of parameters the missile has to deal with. Every little bit helps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
I mean keep in mind the plane cruised at mach 3.2, it make sense that it could go noticeably faster for short bursts. Probably damages the plane due to heat after a few minutes/sucks down fuel even faster, but when the alternative is becoming chaff, you know, whatever you gotta do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
I can't remember the guy's name, but the famous Libya evasion story hints that it could go much faster. He was over the Med when he looked down and saw the Mach @ 3.4 and still climbing with little effect on the flight of the aircraft. He cut the gas somewhere near Corsica and still overshot his tanker at Gibraltar. e- here it is Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
an Sr 71 would be easy meat for a 40n6 or MSE
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:It's minor, but it's another set of parameters the missile has to deal with. Every little bit helps. I don't want to get too detailed and accidentally invoke the OPSEC wizard but that's not really true. If the parameters aren't altered to a large enough degree than there realty isn't much adjustment that needs to be made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
david_a posted:Whoa, this is a thing? Does it only happen with certain frequencies? Is it a resonance thing? Now I'm wondering if this is an issue with other notoriously loud planes like the B-1, Tu-95, Tu-160, etc. Yes it is definitely a thing. Especially when aerial refueling in planes where you may have elevated temps+sonic fatigue. I am a few pages late but can probably answer basic questions. While not this type of fatigue, vibration/thermal cycling failures in avionics is a love of mine. Its a huge thing in rockets. Its a "yea we got a guy that looks at it" thing in subsonic planes. Bullet points: -Prop planes - ~140db, Jet - ~150db, Rockets ~180db. -Remember: +6dB = double the amount. -Loudness creates "Sound Pressure Level" which is meant literally. It creates an oscillating pressure on the big flat sheets aircraft are made of. -Sound > 140dB starts to be a concern -When you have a large flat sheet (like plane flaps or body) it has a low natural frequency which is likely to get excited but the generally low frequency content of jets and props -Here low frequency of the jet engine sound output is < 500Hz and much less for the natural frequency of the aircraft skin. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:43
|
|
