|
Dandywalken posted:How is Russia regarding airborne ECM anyways? Is it still mainly pods slung on specialized Fencers? Russian airborne ECM is not something to underestimate or to assume is less capable because "lol Russia." Also this is always worth reading regarding Russia: http://www.thepotomacfoundation.org/russias-new-generation-warfare-2/
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:That's an X-29 knockoff you dorks Yup, I got my x-numbers mixed up for some reason
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Russian airborne ECM is not something to underestimate or to assume is less capable because "lol Russia." Well, can't nitpick the EW portion but it indicates the T-90 has a hard-kill APS system and that's not actually true. Arena was tested on two modified testbed tanks but never fielded on the T-90, only on the BMP-3M. This is, admittedly, kinda a common claim to hear if you get information from the RT adspace or Russia Stronk internet stuff. The points about the T-72B3 are also a bit overstated. It is essentially a T-72 with capabilities the T-90 and T-80UM had in the 90's. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:That's an X-29 knockoff you dorks That's a B-25 hanging out behind that sad little plane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
That Works posted:Not sure if this had been posted before or not. Well I know what I'm doing tonight during work
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Yup, I got my x-numbers mixed up for some reason Same. Sorry about that. Yeah, stubby little lifting body is a Mig-105/Project Spiral. Drop tested it a few times, but never made it to space.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:That's an X-29 knockoff you dorks Glad I'm not going crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Do we have any open source data on general effectiveness of truck mounted ECM vs airframe mounted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
 No.Edit: Nothing you could really rely on, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Like, general characteristics of one vs. the other, not tied to any specific systems? Ground based jammers can have giant generator trucks plugged into them and thus put out more power to defend fixed positions. Airborne jammers will have better line of sight and can move with other aircraft that they're trying to defend. They're really used for very different purposes, to be honest, so comparing the two is kind of spurious. If you're talking about any particular systems, then Godholio posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Russian EW is something they've taken pretty seriously and shown to be pretty excellent at in the Ukraine. Assuming their airborne or air related systems are worse is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
For any and all major DoD policy change announcements, please refer to @realDonaldTrump
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/garlandgates/status/890198721379610624
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
EMALS issue fixed with software update.quote:NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) team completed testing at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, early this summer, validating a software fix that will ensure safe launches. Launch all the fuel tanks. Note that this is different than the issue with the F-35 bouncing the pilot around like a rag doll during launch due to the design of the nose gear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Great article about the USS Savanah, the US's only nuclear powered cargo vessel and Cold War as gently caress. Seriously, look at the pictures of the interior. The dining room is like something out of Fallout. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/aboard-the-ns-savannah-americas-first-and-last-nuclear-merchant-ship/
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
We had one of those as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship) I am not aware of anything very interesting about it except that the guy who wrote Das Boot (Lothar Buchheim) wrote a novel about the ship's last journey. I have it on the pile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:We had one of those as well
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
 Apparently a picture of a Chinese missile test taken by a surprised 747 pilot. https://jpcvanheijst.com/blogs/2017/07/596970-rocket-launch-over-china
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO_zXuOQy6A 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
What's all the smoke from? Has it been a standard chemical cannon dressed up fancy this whole time 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Great article about the USS Savanah, the US's only nuclear powered cargo vessel and Cold War as gently caress. Atomic cocktails  This is also very 1950s: quote:All of those were built by the atomic energy and bowling equipment powerhouse American Machine and Foundry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:What's all the smoke from? Has it been a standard chemical cannon dressed up fancy this whole time It's shooting projectiles that are going mach 8, the initial acceleration creates enough friction in the air to ignite it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Trump's transgender policy tweets briefly had the Pentagon worried he was declaring war on North Korea
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:What's all the smoke from? Has it been a standard chemical cannon dressed up fancy this whole time Railguns require line contact to deliver the current. The smoke is made up of molten steel from the sabot. How much of that is due to friction and how much due to joule heating is anyone's guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Rotacixe posted:Railguns require line contact to deliver the current. The smoke is made up of molten steel from the sabot. How much of that is due to friction and how much due to joule heating is anyone's guess. I'd really be curious to see a cite for that. Using a steel sabot seems completely counterintuitive to me. If you need a sabot at all, I'd expect you to use something nonconductive and low-friction. Using a steel sabot and reducing it to a molten state in the process of accelerating it to Mach 8 seems like a process guaranteed to lead to a whole lot of arcing and significant rail erosion. Yes, you need a conductive path, but there's no reason the sabot would need to be part of that. A conductive baseplate would do the job, and you wouldn't want to melt it, you'd want to to turn to plasma as fast as you can manage it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
One step closer to the railgun armed dreadnoughts we all know we need.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I'd really be curious to see a cite for that. Using a steel sabot seems completely counterintuitive to me. If you need a sabot at all, I'd expect you to use something nonconductive and low-friction. Using a steel sabot and reducing it to a molten state in the process of accelerating it to Mach 8 seems like a process guaranteed to lead to a whole lot of arcing and significant rail erosion. Well, this earlier test (albeit with a far less aerodynamic projectile) travelled around 4500mph and clearly shows ignition from the projectile rather than the gun:  The early projectiles were (iirc) just big hunks of aluminium, which admittedly takes quite a bit of heat to actually burn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:Well, this earlier test (albeit with a far less aerodynamic projectile) travelled around 4500mph and clearly shows ignition from the projectile rather than the gun: That's not what's going on there
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's not what's going on there My apologies, I misread your post 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I'd really be curious to see a cite for that. Using a steel sabot seems completely counterintuitive to me. If you need a sabot at all, I'd expect you to use something nonconductive and low-friction. Using a steel sabot and reducing it to a molten state in the process of accelerating it to Mach 8 seems like a process guaranteed to lead to a whole lot of arcing and significant rail erosion. I wouldn't think you'd want to conduct across the projectile itself since you run the risk of melting it/reducing its aerodynamic qualities, so a sabot would serve as a sacrificial conductor. You'd want a minimum of resistance, meaning you'd want a highly conductive material in the path, and a large cross-sectional area. If you can afford the added weight then it seems like making the whole sabot out of it is better than just a base-plate. You'd want it to be as light as possible, but that's probably a distant concern. You would want it to maintain contact/conductivity/integrity through the launch, so have a high enough melting point to survive travel down the rail. Varying suitability of Steel (~1300'C), copper (~1000'C), aluminum (~600'C). I have no idea what would make something easier to turn into a conductive plasma than something else, but I don't see how that would be good since it seems like you'd lose mechanical connection to the actual projectile to transmit the force and would put additional wear on the rails? I guess you're right that "a conductive baseplate" would do the job, but the baseplate I'm envisioning is going to end up looking a lot like a sabot
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I'd really be curious to see a cite for that. Using a steel sabot seems completely counterintuitive to me. If you need a sabot at all, I'd expect you to use something nonconductive and low-friction. Using a steel sabot and reducing it to a molten state in the process of accelerating it to Mach 8 seems like a process guaranteed to lead to a whole lot of arcing and significant rail erosion. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navys-newest-weapon-kills-at-seven-times-the-speed-of-sound/ Not much of a cite as i based in on this CBS article and it is pretty old too. But the part i took home was that the majority of the pajazz was of metallic origin. Not due to air igniting. And it is beyond my understanding if and when the process involves ionization or just ohmic heating. Shouldn't have said that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Hubis posted:I guess you're right that "a conductive baseplate" would do the job, but the baseplate I'm envisioning is going to end up looking a lot like a sabot Light, conductive, withstands high temperatures? Sounds like graphite to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Rotacixe posted:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navys-newest-weapon-kills-at-seven-times-the-speed-of-sound/ Yeah, it's definitely not the air igniting. And that bit about "sheds its steel casing" sure sounds like a CBS reporting trying to describe a sabot. I really can't believe that it's really molten metal, though. Just think about what a mess that would make on the deck every time you shoot. Hubis posted:I wouldn't think you'd want to conduct across the projectile itself since you run the risk of melting it/reducing its aerodynamic qualities, so a sabot would serve as a sacrificial conductor. The issue I have with a conductive sabot is that it sounds like a risky approach. Consider that the force on the armature comes from the current passing through it interacting with the magnetic field set up by that current. Basically anything carrying current is experiencing a Lorenz force; the force vector just points down the barrel for current moving from one rail to the other since it's a cross product, ILxB (I = current, L = length, B = magnetic field strength). If you've got a conductive sabot around the projectile, that's a pretty complex shape and current's going to go through it in different directions at different points along it and you're going to wind up with a bunch of different little ILxBs pushing different parts of the sabot in different directions. I mean, you can just built the sabot to be strong enough to handle it, but since the sabot doesn't help you kill targets I'm not sure why you'd take that approach. quote:I have no idea what would make something easier to turn into a conductive plasma than something else, but I don't see how that would be good since it seems like you'd lose mechanical connection to the actual projectile to transmit the force and would put additional wear on the rails? Less on the rails actually because of frictional force. The idea is that the metal baseplate flashes to plasma from the enormous current pulse you dump through it, but plasma's conductive so it continues to conduct, and the Lorenz force just keeps pushing it down the barrel and it pushes even a totally non-conductive projectile ahead of it You don't lose a mechanical connection to the projectile anymore than you do if you fire one using gunpowder. quote:I guess you're right that "a conductive baseplate" would do the job, but the baseplate I'm envisioning is going to end up looking a lot like a sabot Yeah, that might be what the CBS article is describing, too. In which case the superheated gases flying out of it are what's left of what got vaporized, but it's not molten steel. I'm imagining sailors out there on the deck with needle-guns chipping off all the little bits of hardened steel after each engagement. Which, hey, it's the Navy, it's not unbelievable, but I'm not thinking it's likely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
I refuse to acknowledge anything as a rail gun until they make firing it sound like "veeeyooooh" instead of just a boring old "boom." 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
So here's a question. The video showed them charging the capacitors up before firing, and the two shots gave a kind of rough idea about what a ROF for that particular gun would look like. Is there any reason you couldn't store multiple charges in a big rear end bank of batteries and rip off a string of rapid fire shots? I'm sure the raw size of the battery bank that would be required would make it prohibitive now, especially on a boat, but I"m more wondering if there are any limits on the gun itself that would preclude this. Mostly I just want deck mounted rapid fire rail guns that you feed a battery pack into when empty. If the battery pack poops out the top with a pinging noise all the better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:So here's a question. The video showed them charging the capacitors up before firing, and the two shots gave a kind of rough idea about what a ROF for that particular gun would look like. Assuming unlimited charge capacity the limiting factor is probably overheating the barrel and other equipment, same as any other gun. e. I wouldn't be shocked if it charges that fast because of heat concerns, rather than a raw limit on charging speed. Just a guess though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Is there any reason you couldn't store multiple charges in a big rear end bank of batteries and rip off a string of rapid fire shots? Kind in mind that the Navy's main focus for railguns right now is as long range anti-IBM/anti-ship missile defense system, so a system with a high rate of fire to deal with multiple high level threats is key in their mind. They've already designed a round for it that flakes bomblets as it goes, creating a literal wall explosives by the time it hits it's target which perfect for dealing with air threats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
The temperature of the rails would be the limiting factor, you'd quickly run into problems with erosion of the contact surfaces. I wonder if they are planning to use serialized sabots of increasing sizes to combat the barrel wear, like they did on the other kinds of rail guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
bewbies posted:One step closer to the railgun armed dreadnoughts we all know we need. I was more thinking battle cruisers. I doubt if you can armor anything enough for trading shots to be a reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Kafouille posted:The temperature of the rails would be the limiting factor, you'd quickly run into problems with erosion of the contact surfaces. I wonder if they are planning to use serialized sabots of increasing sizes to combat the barrel wear, like they did on the other kinds of rail guns. So.... Gatling rail gun or quad-pom-pom style?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:44
|
|
