|
We don't currently have a frigate class to build. Soooooo, more LCSes!
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Murgos posted:That article is all over the place timeline wise. In the end I'm not even really sure what it is that it's claiming the CIA did. I didn't see any stated evidence but they went with the CIA being behind the investigation of the ISRO administration/scientists in an attempt to derail the cryo development. The writing is super casual and a little wonky from translation at best though. E: the bit on "the Russian scientists just felt SO BAD for us so smuggled us engines" smells real fishy. Alaan fucked around with this message at 18:28 on May 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, has died aged 89.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:We don't currently have a frigate class to build. Soooooo, more LCSes! It's too bad that none of our allies build ships of that type that might fit our needs.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Yes it is http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/05/20/time-arm-us-tanks-israeli-anti-missile-tech.html
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Flikken posted:It's too bad that none of our allies build ships of that type that might fit our needs. I'm pretty sure Donald Trump's budget blueprint isn't going to include buying defense products manufactured overseas.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Flikken posted:Don't we need new frigates not more lcs's? I thought it was just tons of Arliegn Burkes.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm pretty sure Donald Trump's budget blueprint isn't going to include buying defense products manufactured overseas. Could always offer to build some FREMMs in US shipyards; just like the Shortfin Barracudas are going to be built in Australian shipyards.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:We don't currently have a frigate class to build. Soooooo, more LCSes! Bring on the all CVN+Arleigh Burke navy.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Crossposting from aeronautical insanity thread: I found this YouTube channel a couple of months ago. Basically a bunch of cool old people who are way into airplanes get these industry guys to come in and talk. They're all fantastic watches. Here's one of a Northrop Grumman engineer discussing the design evolution of the Tomcat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUCixAeZ0A
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
There are proposals to can the LCS as it is and put at least 8 VLS in the one hull type as a more true FFG. I'm pretty sure it's even Lockheed behind the design proposal. Getting even 8 VLS on those things would make them a lot less lovely, since you could quad pack some ESSMs and carry at least a couple LRASMs at that point (since it's not going to happen for like 10 years). At least that way it can defend itself against more than a couple speedboats.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:Crossposting from aeronautical insanity thread: This is good stuff. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is good stuff. Should have painted the Tomcat in black livery too.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Should have painted the Tomcat in black livery too. It's a dark navy blue, but agreed. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Murgos posted:That article is all over the place timeline wise. In the end I'm not even really sure what it is that it's claiming the CIA did. It's suffering from some obvious ESL problems, but the gist is that back in the 1990s when the Indians were trying to get a handle on cryogenic liquid-fueled rocketry, the CIA sabotaged the Indian civilian space program by getting a bunch of the lead scientists working on the project framed as spies for Russia. The resultant loss of the project leads and their expertise set the program back by over a decade and prevented India from build a low-cost space industry to compete with United Pork Alliance (which coincidentally also allowed SpaceX to happen and get well ahead of any other low-cost programs). The author notes that if they wanted to attack India's ICBM capability, they should have gone after the military R&D bureau responsible instead of the scientists at the civilian ISRO space agency. Reading between the lines, it sounds like CIA was basically insuring that foreign money would keep coming in to Boeing and LockMart. Cool if true but I don't know how real any of it is.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
If it were a legit Russian-Indian project with government sanction on both sides then what were the "leading scientists" charged with? Russia and India have done a lot of collaboration so it seems odd to me that suddenly the government would decide that it was illegal this one time and then go right back to signing up for more joint projects.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's a dark navy blue, but agreed. Either the Tomcat in Pacific Theater livery or the propcats in this scheme would be amazing: 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Murgos posted:If it were a legit Russian-Indian project with government sanction on both sides then what were the "leading scientists" charged with? I got a "somebody got caught with their hand in the cookie jar" vibe. Alaan fucked around with this message at 02:05 on May 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Either the Tomcat in Pacific Theater livery or the propcats in this scheme would be amazing: That looks mean as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's a dark navy blue, but agreed. Checking in to say Tigercats are drat cool looking. They sound pretty nice in flight as well.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
And now for some news that will surprise no one: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10738/russias-plans-for-new-nuclear-carriers-and-destroyers-on-indefinite-hold
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
Mazz posted:There are proposals to can the LCS as it is and put at least 8 VLS in the one hull type as a more true FFG. I'm pretty sure it's even Lockheed behind the design proposal. Getting even 8 VLS on those things would make them a lot less lovely, since you could quad pack some ESSMs and carry at least a couple LRASMs at that point (since it's not going to happen for like 10 years).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:What acquisition/fire control/guidance system is it going to launch those? Probably the Burke and/or Triton that'll be required to shadow it, assets and sea state permitting.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:What acquisition/fire control/guidance system is it going to launch those? They would have to pair it with something like a scaled down AMDR, but that's one of the selling points of AMDR in general: it's built so you can just stack the individual processing blocks together to scale system performance. Also cooperative engagement capability is a thing as mentioned. The point is though that right now the 26 LCS have one option in any actual engagement: run away. Their offensive capabilities are one 57mm gun, potentially some Hellfires, and SeaRAM. They might get the Naval Strike Missile but I'm not even sure about that. They bring almost nothing to the table in any Asian conflict and very little in the Persian Gulf at this point since they cant even mine sweep since those modules never turned into anything yet. They are glorified Coast Guard Cutters that are demonstrably worse than the current cutters we're building. Throwing a SPY-1F style radar and a 8 block of VLS would go a long way to making the thing feel like it has value in any real scenario since 8 VLS gives it access to SM-2s, ASROC, hopefully LRASM increment 2 if that ever happens, etc. If they can do the Strike length cells that's even better. whether that's on a modified LCS hull or a new design is kinda irrelevant, but a real FFG is a lot more reasonable to build than more LCS. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:56 on May 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
They're pretty big ships. How can they not manage to fit useful armament?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:They're pretty big ships. How can they not manage to fit useful armament? Because the PowerPoint slides were already full of other buzzwords, like littoral and paradigm.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5qEhY3XD6Q 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Not AIRPOWER but very much Cold War: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK9KpGO3ClM
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Oh nooooo :'(
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Just watched a B-17 takeoff nice
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Just watched a B-17 takeoff Nice. It's cooler to watch from inside, though 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:19
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Nice. It's cooler to watch from inside, though Just because I can't gently caress the actress is no reason to stop watching porn
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Just because I can't gently caress the actress is no reason to stop watching porn Fair point.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Probably the Burke and/or Triton that'll be required to shadow it, assets and sea state permitting. Making a ship completely reliant on CEC for fire control is such a hilariously bad idea I'm shocked it's not already a part of the LCS conops.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
That sucks. Hydraulic issues apparently prevented the gear from being lowered. Hopefully they can get it back to flying condition.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:What acquisition/fire control/guidance system is it going to launch those? Just blindly fire based on radio'd GPS coordinates. I'm sure nothing will go wrong. Better comedy option: 
hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Making a ship completely reliant on CEC for fire control is such a hilariously bad idea I'm shocked it's not already a part of the LCS conops. "No, you see, the LCS is the less-costly asset that was designed to operate ~in the littoral~ so we don't have to hazard a Burke! Losing a half-billion dollar ship with the armor of a Budweiser can to a fast boat suicide swarm is *way* better than losing a ship that costs $800 million! A bunch of Wall Street guys told us that makes financial sense, but we were all military history majors so money stuff confuses us."
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Just blindly fire based on radio'd GPS coordinates. I'm sure nothing will go wrong. ♪ Copter has only got one ball ♫ Sung to the tune of "Colonel Bogey March"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
It's not a tumor!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Losing a half-billion dollar ship with the armor of a Budweiser can to a fast boat suicide swarm is *way* better than losing a ship that costs $800 million! Is it not $300 million better to lose a half-billion dollar ship than it is to lose one that costs $800 million?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 23:43
|
|
