|
Anta posted:I don't understand why people keep underestimating North Korea. At every turn there are people minimizing whatever the latest development is and saying they could not do the next step. Then when they do develop the next step there is no way they can do this next thing. For whatever its worth the DoD certainly hasn't ever underestimated the DPRK. I couldn't even estimate how many exercises and experiments I've played in and usually lost on the peninsula. At least in the near term the very simple deterrent is to blow up the missile on the TEL as they're fueling it, for hours, and hours. These missiles aren't button-push systems, they take a day or more to launch. Also today I learned that the Russians used liquid fueled missiles on their subs which is so very Russian.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
lol, russia called Britain's new carrier "a convenient target"
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Coal burning pot calling the kettle dirty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Coal burning pot calling the kettle dirty. Coal fired samovar calling the tea kettle "негр".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
I like how part of the Russian official's brag isn't that the Kuznetsov is good as a carrier, but that it can carry some sick anti-ship missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I like how part of the Russian official's brag isn't that the Kuznetsov is good as a carrier, but that it can carry some sick anti-ship missiles. Russian Ship Design Bureau: "What else would you do with a ship?  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
I mean, it's very nice of Russia to make their carriers form their own giant black arrow that says "drop bomb here".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Neat. After 10 years I still don't get this place. The military doesn't have the ability to heavy lift recover something like this? That seems like a bizarre job to spec out to a contractor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:The military doesn't have the ability to heavy lift recover something like this? That seems like a bizarre job to spec out to a contractor. The USAF doesn't have heavy lift helicopters. They'd have to ask the army to do it. Obviously hiring a contractor would be preferable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:The military doesn't have the ability to heavy lift recover something like this? That seems like a bizarre job to spec out to a contractor. The army's heavy lift capability isn't great. The CH-53K can carry a lot more, externally, than a modern CH-47. So you'd have to ask the Marines.  A CH-53K lifts 27,000 pounds in this photo. Meanwhile, you've got contractors who do this poo poo for a living. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coKmhn4-tWs
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
If pulling it out is a hassle I'm kind of surprised they don't send someone in with a bunch of explosives and just do some rapid scrapping. I mean, I assume that's always plan B, but I guess I didn't figure actual recovery of a banged up drone was that high up their priority list. I get that those things are expensive, but still I figure more of it would be a write off. Was it a relatively gentle landing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Global Hawks are super expensive and have a ton of sensitive sensors and communication equipment that may have survived. Alternately, they might just really want the "black box" equivalent and associated hardware and systems to prevent a future expensive accident, rather than looking for spare parts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
No, it started a small forest fire. Also there are radioactive elements (thorium impregnated optics for one) involved, so from an environmental standpoint they have to do some kind of recovery & restoration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Looking at the sectional for the area surrounding mount Whitney, and since it's obvious it crashed on a mountainside, and not in one of the valleys, I'd put better than even odds that the crash site is above 10,000ft MSL. (Peaks in that area are around 13k MSL, but it's not at the top of a mountain either.) Helicopters, even heavy-lift helicopters like CH-47s and CH-53s, can only do so much at those altitudes. The load weight combined with the altitude might literally rule out everything that isn't an S-64 or an Mi-26.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
The F-model chinooks can sling-load 26,000 lbs, that's not "a lot more."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The F-model chinooks can sling-load 26,000 lbs, that's not "a lot more." I almost posted them but wasn't sure if 26,000 was what they could sling load or could hold total. What I'm saying is, "thanks for the info, also gently caress you Marine Corps you're not the boss of me."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:No, it started a small forest fire. Thorium is pretty weak as far as radioactivity goes. You could buy thorium at walmart about 20 years ago no problems. It is an alpha emitter, just like your smoke detector and that is probably more radioactive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I almost posted them but wasn't sure if 26,000 was what they could sling load or could hold total. What I'm saying is, "thanks for the info, also gently caress you Marine Corps you're not the boss of me."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Considering one CH-47F was able to sling-load another, I think it can carry a Global Hawk. Global Hawks are some lightweight fuckers for their size, but that CH-47 is sling-loading a wingless, engineless shadow of a CH-47. I generally assume the reason the mission was contracted was less about mass and more about dimensions/scope/methods of the operation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Applesnots posted:Thorium is pretty weak as far as radioactivity goes. You could buy thorium at walmart about 20 years ago no problems. It is an alpha emitter, just like your smoke detector and that is probably more radioactive. Thorium's got a half life of 14 billion years, the specific activity is only 8 kBq/gram, the entire decay chain is about as innocuous as radioactivity gets. And yeah, a smoke detector has about 37 kBq of americium in it. Plus it's used as a dopant in glass, so the only alphas making it out of the glass would be those emitted immediately at the surface. If this thing crashed into a mountain you'd have more to worry about radiologically from the friggin' soil and rock. It's a total non-concern.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Thorium's got a half life of 14 billion years, the specific activity is only 8 kBq/gram, the entire decay chain is about as innocuous as radioactivity gets. And yeah, a smoke detector has about 37 kBq of americium in it. Plus it's used as a dopant in glass, so the only alphas making it out of the glass would be those emitted immediately at the surface. I'm the giant radioactive material warning sign on the room with compasses inside it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Tritium?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Tritium? Yup. Not even joking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Looking at the sectional for the area surrounding mount Whitney, and since it's obvious it crashed on a mountainside, and not in one of the valleys, I'd put better than even odds that the crash site is above 10,000ft MSL. (Peaks in that area are around 13k MSL, but it's not at the top of a mountain either.) Helicopters, even heavy-lift helicopters like CH-47s and CH-53s, can only do so much at those altitudes. The load weight combined with the altitude might literally rule out everything that isn't an S-64 or an Mi-26. So what you're saying is they'll need to have a bunch of airmen portage it down the mountain until a helicopter can get it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Wow! Ed: Tritium
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Does a Global Hawk weigh more than an F-15? (There are probably a lot of mitigating factors going on here.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
I prefer the glow in the dark lensatics to the ones with the tritium because 1. it's easier to see, just shine your flashlight into it for a bit and it'll be way brighter 2. honestly in the dark it's pretty goddamn hard to shoot azimuths to distant objects anyway. edit: in civilian orienteering everyone just uses baseplates though, so much more convenient. Especially if you're in the woods and you can't see that far anyway. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Does a Global Hawk weigh more than an F-15? Really want to imagine there was someone in cockpit going "Zoom! Pew pew!" The whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Does a Global Hawk weigh more than an F-15? Well, the missing control surfaces and the lack of engines probably helps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Question about the Queen Elizabeth, and British aircraft carriers in general: why the lack of angled decks? I was under the impression it offered serious operational advantages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:50
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Question about the Queen Elizabeth, and British aircraft carriers in general: why the lack of angled decks? I was under the impression it offered serious operational advantages. It's unsporting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Nelson didn't need them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:Well if Are Brave Boys want it we'll probably have to find another public service to sell or some hospitals to close. They'll burn the disabled as bunker fuel, thus cutting cost twice over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Question about the Queen Elizabeth, and British aircraft carriers in general: why the lack of angled decks? I was under the impression it offered serious operational advantages. An angled deck is only a benefit if you're doing arrested landings. An F-35B or helicopter landing vertically will never bolter, so you don't need a clear landing zone ahead of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
What they should have done was design the QE with 2 steam cats on the bow and an angled deck with a ski jump. You know, hedge their bets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Question is only tangentially related to the thread, but how communist is PRC? I understand that their economy is neither communist nor even socialist, but I want to know much people care or pretend to care about Maoism. Do they drill children? Is party activity a no poo poo thing for people on the street? Are there any true believers among the leadership, or does nobody care about it and just go their own way? A maybe more on topic question: so USSR has T-64, T-72 and T-80 being produced at the same time. What should be cut out/left out to optimize the tank production?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
In theory one of the requirements was that it was to be designed to support retrofitting cat and traps once EMALS is viable, whether or not that turns out to be true only time will tell (and when the Government did have a brief period in 2010 of deciding to go with cats and the F-35C, they changed their midns again on cost grounds.) As we're discussing it, here's a really boring but on-topic video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCpswbS04Ok
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
JcDent posted:A maybe more on topic question: so USSR has T-64, T-72 and T-80 being produced at the same time. What should be cut out/left out to optimize the tank production? The T-80, because why spend a small fortune on a more technologically complex tank when you can sink that money into forcing the enemy to procuring, storing, and eventually having to transport anti-tank weaponry to counter it? Besides, revisions to the T-64 make it comparably capable to the T-80.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
JcDent posted:A maybe more on topic question: so USSR has T-64, T-72 and T-80 being produced at the same time. What should be cut out/left out to optimize the tank production? Don't bother with the T-80 at all in the first place. Stop the T-64 production once the T-72 variants are on par(So around the T-72B).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:An angled deck is only a benefit if you're doing arrested landings. An F-35B or helicopter landing vertically will never bolter, so you don't need a clear landing zone ahead of them. Is the plan to always land them vertically? I guess now that I think about it that must be the case, since the B variant doesn't have arrester gear. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 23:06
|
|