|
Arglebargle III posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in an economy with investment dollars sloshing around with nowhere to go, record low labor participation, and the most serious existential threat to human civilization in a thousand years clearly in sight, it's insane that nobody is prepared to take action.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
priznat posted:I was going to say it would be cost inefficient but then I thought the alternative is probably getting some CAS which would probably cost even more Yep, absolutely. With what ordnance they have available in this case (some old syrian artillery and US air support) it's probably a great option. I'm just pointing out that it fills a niche that is useful enough to warrant a number of new systems dedicated to doing it better/cheaper. A tank would do the job too, but those are few and far between in case and have to tread very carefully thanks to the proliferation of ATGMs several generations newer than the tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 22:49
|
|
(depending on the plane delivering the package).
|
Xerxes17 posted:Post is from the ME thread but I have a question, why aren't Anti-Personnel Guided Missiles a thing? Like others have noted they are kind of a thing, but I think what you're getting at is some sort of small arms replacement that uses guided rounds. The answer is...everyone likes this idea, but the tech readiness level isn't there yet. Tons of vendors come out with stuff like this at every conference and seminar and trade show, but they always suffer from three big problems: 1) The rounds are too fragile. Miniaturized seekers and guidance are very hard to make tough enough to handle the average grunt's disdain for his gear while still being light enough and small enough to be practical. At this point, you can have light and small, or you can have rugged. 2) Power generation. Systems like this take a TON of power. Dudes are already having to haul around a shitload of batteries for the gear they have now; there just isn't much room for more mobile power. So, you often see a setup that looks super cool, and the vendor is like "it only weighs 13 pounds"* *without battery ...and then you come to find out it needs a 2 lbs lithium-ion battery replacement every 3 shots or something like that. 3) Guided rounds don't solve the issue of target detection, which is really the bigger problem for this sort of fighting. 99.99999% (my personal estimate, may not reflect reality) of the time in ground combat you don't see who is shooting at you, and without detecting the target, a guided round isn't a whole lot more useful than an unguided round. This stuff might change if and when 1) miniaturized stuff gets tougher, 2) power generation gets lighter, and 3) some sort of passive or after-launch detection and guidance becomes feasible. 1 and 2 are just a matter of time, 3 will take a whole lot of smart folks coupled with a whole lot of the military trying to figure out how to employ such a system relatively safely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I'd really like to see some decorated military representatives walk into the appropriate halls of government and start letting rip. I'd also like to know if the Democrats are doing anything with this free pass to rip on the Republics about this? Those are expensive bullets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:What side are they even on? West Side.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
http://taskandpurpose.com/russia-terminator-tank-syria
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Given that the Russia army has basically shitcanned the Terminator and Terminator 2 (expensive, vulnerable to small arms fire, not especially better than a BMP-3) this is probably an attempt to drum up some foreign sales (not domestic sales as the article concludes).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Given that the Russia army has basically shitcanned the Terminator and Terminator 2 (expensive, vulnerable to small arms fire, not especially better than a BMP-3) this is probably an attempt to drum up some foreign sales (not domestic sales as the article concludes). Domestic sales? How many oligarchs and mobsters would want to buy them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Domestic sales? How many oligarchs and mobsters would want to buy them? The article is concluding that if it does well maybe the Russian army will buy some. It's more likely they're trying to drum up interest from places like India and the gulf states. The Russian army already has a variety of cheaper platforms that can fill the roles this thing has without being, as the article puts it, "a tank that isn't a tank".
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
BMP-3s, now there is a vehicle they probably should of poo poo canned; those things just love to explode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:BMP-3s, now there is a vehicle they probably should of poo poo canned; those things just love to explode. Yeah, but they already bought them all. This thing isn't much better in that regard, anyways. The front armor is great, while the side and rear armor is still too thin to matter against any AT weapon from the past 50 years just like the T-72/90. Except, like the BMP-3, it has a shitload of ammunition magazines scattered around inside to catch fire when something pokes a hole in it. I guess on the plus side it won't explode in an earth shattering KABOOM like the T-90, just incinerate the crew with propellant fires. So essentially it's a tank escort that's vulnerable in the same situations the tanks are vulnerable in and only better than the IFVs if the enemy is nice enough to shoot the front hull of the thing rather than the incredibly vulnerable turret, sides, and rear. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It's incredibly inefficient from a cost perspective, but yeah, an ATGM can be incredibly accurate out to several thousand yards and will murder things directly behind just about any wall it hits. They also often come paired with infrared optics that can make spotting an otherwise hidden person at great distances possible. They're also pretty drat hard to see coming at long range and the target likely won't see or hear it until it hits. priznat posted:I was going to say it would be cost inefficient but then I thought the alternative is probably getting some CAS which would probably cost even more
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
I have read about upgrades to old stocks of Malyutka missiles being converted with anti-personnel warheads, but i can't seem to find the source again. Anyway the thing with using ATGM versus infantry is that even with appropriate warheads you end up with a system that is simply too heavy to be worth the capability it adds. People use them because they have them and need to have them around for anti-tank defense anyway, but lugging it around for the sole purpose for blowing up a couple of dudes 2km away isn't terribly attractive when in a low intensity scenario you can call an artillery or air strike on the position. And in a high intensity conflict where those assets may be interdicted you really want to be carting around the anti-tank version anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:It's too big and complex to really make a hard call about what the tipping point is. Considering current US Gov't attitudes about climate change, under Trump, it's likely we're hurtling very close to it. But it would require a large, internationally coordinated effort to really impact it at this point and I don't know if anyone has the will for that. If China, and India don't play ball. It's not clear to me that much of a difference could be made. Part of me agrees with an op ed that Arnold wrote, urging the climate change discussion just be approached from a pollution angle. We also need better baseline power generation capabilities. So that means nuclear, or a magic development in battery technology that would let us economically store solar, and wind generated power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
A thought about NK occured to me today. Why do we only talk about NK as though China is the only influencer? They share a (small) border with Russia only 80ish miles from Vladivostok. I'd think Russia would be sneaking NK whatever technology they want on the down low to keep American troops >80 miles from ending their capabilities in the Pacific. Big difference between a base ~500 mile of water away in Japan and 80 miles right on the loving border.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:If China, and India don't play ball. It's not clear to me that much of a difference could be made. Part of me agrees with an op ed that Arnold wrote, urging the climate change discussion just be approached from a pollution angle. We also need better baseline power generation capabilities. So that means nuclear, or a magic development in battery technology that would let us economically store solar, and wind generated power. The number one thing people can do to combat climate change is stop having kids. Birthrates in a lot of the west are already below replacement values.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:A thought about NK occured to me today. Why do we only talk about NK as though China is the only influencer? They share a (small) border with Russia only 80ish miles from Vladivostok. I'd think Russia would be sneaking NK whatever technology they want on the down low to keep American troops >80 miles from ending their capabilities in the Pacific. Big difference between a base ~500 mile of water away in Japan and 80 miles right on the loving border. Because China is by far NK's largest trade partner, the route through which the vast majority of NK trade passes, and is a large regional power who historically supported North Korea. This support also very likely included help with things like the missile program. They even launched the latest missile from a Chinese TEL. China embargoing North Korea is realistically the only way Kim Jong Un's fancy cheese supply is going to take a hit. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
In the past the Kims flip flopped between China and Russia, playing them off against each other. I wonder if Russia would be open to that again if China did try to sanction NK.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:In the past the Kims flip flopped between China and Russia, playing them off against each other. I wonder if Russia would be open to that again if China did try to sanction NK. Difficult to say. Russia is pretty much up for anything that damages the international order. They could sidle up to NK - and then really abruptly just stop helping them and close their borders. The resulting anarchy and famine would be big trouble for China, SK, and Japan, not to mention the USA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The number one thing people can do to combat climate change is stop having kids. Birthrates in a lot of the west are already below replacement values. That seems to be the trend, long term. Though TBH this is only helpful if everybody does it, much like stop generating electricity with coal. Good argument against trying to restrict birth control and women's health initiatives worldwide, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The number one thing people can do to combat climate change is stop having kids. Birthrates in a lot of the west are already below replacement values. LOL not having quite as many excess people as we could have means still being hosed for several generations. We already have too many people as it is to sustainably support everyone at a first world standard of living. Even if every country in the world dropped to European birth rates today, populations would still be increasing as those people accessed modern medical care that lets people live extra decades (unless we're somehow suppressing fertility while withholding access to modern medicine.) And old people don't stop consuming resources once they leave their child bearing years, so long term we are still utterly hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Yeah, but they already bought them all. This thing isn't much better in that regard, anyways. The front armor is great, while the side and rear armor is still too thin to matter against any AT weapon from the past 50 years just like the T-72/90. Except, like the BMP-3, it has a shitload of ammunition magazines scattered around inside to catch fire when something pokes a hole in it. I guess on the plus side it won't explode in an earth shattering KABOOM like the T-90, just incinerate the crew with propellant fires. So essentially it's a tank escort that's vulnerable in the same situations the tanks are vulnerable in and only better than the IFVs if the enemy is nice enough to shoot the front hull of the thing rather than the incredibly vulnerable turret, sides, and rear. Funny thing about the Terminator 2s, they actually have reduced armor protection compared to the base modules they're built from. So the front of the hull is just as vulnerable to AT weapons as the rest of the tank. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Difficult to say. Russia is pretty much up for anything that damages the international order. They could sidle up to NK - and then really abruptly just stop helping them and close their borders. The resulting anarchy and famine would be big trouble for China, SK, and Japan, not to mention the USA. I dunno if I'd agree that Russia is looking to damage the international order, so much as they'd like to be on an equal or dominant footing to the US and (maybe) China.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
The guy who said Russia is a collection of gangsters and stazi controlling a GDP the size of Italy got it right. They need the international order to be weak and feckless to remain relevant on the world stage. Why else would they be working so hard to help the American ultra-rich/right political machine turn the US into a banana republic? They need everyone else to be on their level because a real, popular, shared vision for international policy from the West would steamroll them. These people see Russia's irrelevance in the 1990s as a disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Some Taiwanese website posted some pictures of China's sole aircraft carrier  Claims this indicates poor maintenance but I dunno enough about aircraft carrier maintenance to know if that's true or not. The thing is pretty ancient though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
taiwan number one
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
If rust is an indicator of lack of combat effectiveness please don't ever look at our cruisers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Some Taiwanese website posted some pictures of China's sole aircraft carrier Below the waterline is typically covered in rust and barnacles, which is why US naval vessels undergo a stay in drydock every so often to scrape and paint what they can't do at sea or at a regular dock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
"Real boats rock"
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
What's funny is that the second picture is of the USS George Washington
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:What's funny is that the second picture is of the USS George Washington Yeah I was gonna say, I was like waitaminit aren't those EA-6Bs and E-2s on deck there?? Also the big "73", the chinese carrier is something like 001A.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:What's funny is that the second picture is of the USS George Washington lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:We already have too many people as it is to sustainably support everyone at a first world standard of living. [citation needed] People sure say this a lot, but it's not at all clear that it's true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:[citation needed] Blaming population is the go to for old white men as its the one and only cause of climate change they can point to and say "not my fault". Replacing all conventional power plants with renewables (and nuclear I guess), and then bringing in electric cars as fast as possible would make a huge difference even if China and India don't play ball. But it's easier to point the finger elsewhere and do nothing. edited: I said coal when I meant nuclear because I'm dumb I guess Splode fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Don't you mean replace the coal stations with renewables?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:[citation needed] Mostly said by people who have a little list already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:[citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
You know i tend to think of mass death as a problem not a solution. Carbon neutral civilization is technically achievable right now, but it means replacing the industrial base at a pace even faster than 1880-1940.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
Drydock photos of the Fitzgerald showing the below-the-waterline collision damage. https://news.usni.org/2017/07/12/new-dry-dock-photos-show-extent-hidden-uss-fitzgerald-damage 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
that's a strange place for an entry port
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:59
|
|