|
Welp, time to add this to "list of drone problems" assuming it's real https://twitter.com/TripleSixGod/status/893243149417578496
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Welp, time to add this to "list of drone problems" assuming it's real I know of no commercially available drone that can carry more than 75lbs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Guessing either lightweight dummy or just straight up fake video editing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
This is what manned multis look like right now, and this thing gives me the fear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALYECvs06XI&t=193s
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:This is what manned multis look like right now, and this thing gives me the fear. That's what insane swede manned multis look like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At3xcj-pTjg This one is slightly less insane. e: The drone in the tweet looks way too small to carry a person, and the person in the hammock does not seem to move at all during the video. I agree that it's likely a dummy. Anta fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Aug 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
DÄNGER ZÖNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB6P8xP6pM
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Isn't this basically the GiP position?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Still more logical than most Brexiters
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
My Grandfather died on the 3rd. He was a pilot in the ANG for 37 years. He flew 5 fighter types, and 9 transport types. The longest he flew a single fighter was 10 years. My dad was a pilot in the same unit, also for 37 years, and he only flew two types, the A-7 and the F-16. It was a different world in the 60s through 80s. My grandpa's favorite was apparently the F-102, "I loved flying the 102, it was the sports car of the skies." I found this while watching youtube videos about the 102, It's about a U-2 intercept. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODGYsCLB4c
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:My Grandfather died on the 3rd. He was a pilot in the ANG for 37 years. He flew 5 fighter types, and 9 transport types. The longest he flew a single fighter was 10 years. My dad was a pilot in the same unit, also for 37 years, and he only flew two types, the A-7 and the F-16. It was a different world in the 60s through 80s. I love these videos. It's like hanging out with my dad, except that the stories are actually new for a change
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Isn't this basically the GiP position? Yeah
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:The longest he flew a single fighter was 10 years. Jesus. How many times did he have to tank?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
So you guys covered Clancy, Dale Brown and Stephen Coonts. How is it you missed Larry Bond and Barrett Tillman? :P Has anyone actually read any of these books recently? Did you regret it instantly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
I did a big purge on books in general but dad fiction in particular last year when my girlfriend moved in and I needed to shrink my physical book collection. Most of it had been lingering unused since late high school.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
KingPave posted:So you guys covered Clancy, Dale Brown and Stephen Coonts. How is it you missed Larry Bond and Barrett Tillman? :P I remember enjoying Larry Bond books when I was into techno thrillers a few years ago. They do fall into the trap where a war between South Africa and Cuba, the United States wins. In a war between France+Germany and Poland, the United States wins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Clive is like a reverse Mary Sue, he wrote a character who has an awesome car collection and goes underwater exploring and then he wrote enough bestsellers to become that person. That's loving awesome, can't hate on that. Was he on his own jokes of stories (Canada becomes part of the US thanks to a lost and now FOUND treaty signed in 1917)? I read his stories of looking for old shipwrecks and he seemed to have a sense of humour about him. Becoming his own character seems a good way to live. I can't think of any other writers of fiction who have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
There's a book where the Soviets and Americans have an infantry battle on the moon. There's a book where the hero intercepts and boards an enemy ship using a paddle wheeler supported by a bunch of civil war era Confederate reenactors. Neo-Nazis use Chinese sonic weapons to influence the price of Florida orange futures and i bet it took you a minute to figure out which of those wasn't actually a book
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
That's the fun of Cussler. He never pretended that he was writing anything except pulpy adventures. Also, the two books you are referring to are Cyclops and Deep Six.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:41
|
|
Gnoman posted:That's the fun of Cussler. He never pretended that he was writing anything except pulpy adventures. I distinctly remember reading one in junior high school where Dirk Pitt drives one of his many classic cars down a ski slope to escape the bad guys which ends when Pitt crashes into a piano bar, where he drops a hat trick comment of a song request / one liner / bon mot to end the chapter.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:There's a book where the Soviets and Americans have an infantry battle on the moon. There's a book where the hero intercepts and boards an enemy ship using a paddle wheeler supported by a bunch of civil war era Confederate reenactors. Neo-Nazis use Chinese sonic weapons to influence the price of Florida orange futures and i bet it took you a minute to figure out which of those wasn't actually a book I feel like the third would be a really interesting version of Trading Places
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:I distinctly remember reading one in junior high school where Dirk Pitt drives one of his many classic cars down a ski slope to escape the bad guys which ends when Pitt crashes into a piano bar, where he drops a hat trick comment of a song request / one liner / bon mot to end the chapter. That would be Treasure, and the car was a Cord L-29.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:There's a book where the Soviets and Americans have an infantry battle on the moon. There's a book where the hero intercepts and boards an enemy ship using a paddle wheeler supported by a bunch of civil war era Confederate reenactors. Neo-Nazis use Chinese sonic weapons to influence the price of Florida orange futures and i bet it took you a minute to figure out which of those wasn't actually a book Jokes on you, I've read all of his books and hoped real hard I forgot the first one, but alas, that one is the lie 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Jesus. How many times did he have to tank? You should know that this post was appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Hey guys I'm trying to calculate the energy released by a modern air-dropped bomb. Does anyone know in a general way what fillers are commonly used in modern bombs and what fraction of a nominal-mass bomb would be high explosive?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Hey guys I'm trying to calculate the energy released by a modern air-dropped bomb. Does anyone know in a general way what fillers are commonly used in modern bombs and what fraction of a nominal-mass bomb would be high explosive? Avatar / post combo of the week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Hey guys I'm trying to calculate the energy released by a modern air-dropped bomb. Does anyone know in a general way what fillers are commonly used in modern bombs and what fraction of a nominal-mass bomb would be high explosive? The filler weight tends to hover around half the total mass, and the filler is usually a mix of TNT/RDX and Aluminum powder for US weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Avatar / post / name combo of the week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:That would be Treasure, and the car was a Cord L-29. Undoubtedly Clive spent at least a paragraph talking about the Cord being front wheel drive and how this made for better snow traction, too, I'll wager.  I love Clive Cussler novels, and the fact that he has become his own character is awesome as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Thanks guys seems like for standard USAF iron bombs a good rule of thumb is 1 MJ per nominal pound of bomb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
That's a lot of Kirsten Dunsts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Hey guys I'm trying to calculate the energy released by a modern air-dropped bomb. Does anyone know in a general way what fillers are commonly used in modern bombs and what fraction of a nominal-mass bomb would be high explosive? That reminds me, I was watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-Fo44a5oOQ (I just search YouTube for "peninsula seniors" now when I want something to watch) which is about the B-2 flight test program. I'm not done yet so can't say it's amazing or anything, and no spoilers please  They have a slide in it showing differences since WW2 in how many bombs you had to drop to hit a target. I assume that the major problem in the past that meant you needed 1500 sorties was with accuracy, since CEP is the only thing they call out explicitly, but they also go from 250lb bombs to 500lb in Vietnam to 2000lb in more modern times, and I was wondering what the difference in destructive power is there. Wikipedia says the Mk 82 500lb bomb has 192 pounds of filling and describes various types of filing that have been used, and even has a section where they talk about variants with different filler. How much different were ye olde 250lb bombs from WW2 - was there not only less filling, but was it also less effective? Or has effectiveness of explosives (in MJ/kg or some measure, no idea how you'd measure it) not really changed that much over the last century if you ignore nuclear weapons?Vague answers are okay here to go with my vague curiosity, not looking for any classified information
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:How much different were ye olde 250lb bombs from WW2 - was there not only less filling, but was it also less effective? Or has effectiveness of explosives (in MJ/kg or some measure, no idea how you'd measure it) not really changed that much over the last century if you ignore nuclear weapons? Short answer: Not much, unless you count thermobarics. Long answer: TNT and RDX were the principal explosives used throughout WW2. Tritonal and Amatol, common TNT mixtures for filling weapons in WW2, had an RE of 1.05-1.10. RDX has an RE, relative effectiveness, of 1.6, which is the equivalent amount of TNT you would need to match a bomb of a given size; one kilo of RDX is 1.6 of TNT. Modern US bombs still mostly use RDX and TNT plus aluminum powder, as said above. Mark 82s use Composition H6 which has an RE of 1.35, making it a bit better than Amatol, but still comparable to war-time mixtures like Composition B or Torpex, both of which are around 1.3. HMX is used in some places, and has an RE of 1.7, which is less than 10% better than RDX. Newer explosives, like hepta- or octanitrocubane and HNIW, have REs around 2 but aren't manufactured in any appreciable quantities. Octaazacubane, just 8 nitrogens in a cube, has a predicted RE of over 5, which would put it on the order of thermobarics, but I don't think anyone has even really attempted to make it. Thermobarics use the oxygen from the air mixed with a fuel to create the explosion. With thermobarics, you don't have to carry around oxidizer, so you get a lot more boom per pound. The upside of that is you can get a lot of energy for not nearly as much explosive; the Russian FOAB had an RE of over 6. It also produces a more uniform blast over a larger area. The downside is that you get much lower detonation velocities, so you can't use it for, say, cutting charges. Also, looking at it, bombs had MORE filling in WW2; the 500lb class AN-M64 used by the US had 262 pounds of filling, compared to the Mark 82's 192, so like a third again as much. Unreal_One fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
It's kinda wacky that the whole reason you made the bomb for only accounts for 40% of the bomb's mass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
The scale of bombing in WWII is what really is striking. They would use 30-50 airfields to get a single raid up in the air in a reasonable time. People on the ground would watch the bombers stream over head for 2-3 hours. Remember that this is just to have a good chance for striking a single target! Think about the logistics trail that kind of effort needed in terms of fuel, parts and personnel and that there would be multiple raids launched every day from multiple locations around the globe. From an 'engineering a war' sort of viewpoint modern precision systems are so much more efficient it's almost impossible to compare the two. A squadron of B-1Bs (with tankers) and jdams could probably service the entire WWII strategic Pacific and European target lists in a small fraction of the time and be far more effective. I.e. The financial burden of modern war is actually decreasing rapidly despite the huge costs to develop the weapons systems. Economic theory indicates that this is likely to increase the frequency of conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Also, bombers didn't really carry that much in the way of bombs. A B-17 on a typical sortie could have twice as much weight in fuel and .50 ammo as it did bombs. And a B-17 at overload has almost the same weight of bombs as an F-4 Phantom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:It's kinda wacky that the whole reason you made the bomb for only accounts for 40% of the bomb's mass. A bomb that was all HE and no casing wouldn't be able to penetrate a hardened target and would have a much smaller effective radius. Point of the steel casing is that it gets turned into a bunch of flying lawnmower blades by the blast and that kills more people over a wider area than if you were relying on HE alone for lethality. SDB has an even smaller charge for its size, 38lb of HE in a 250lb bomb, with an eye towards minimizing collateral damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:It's kinda wacky that the whole reason you made the bomb for only accounts for 40% of the bomb's mass. The explosion doesn't do most of the killing. Framents of the casing do that. The explosive is largely there to shatter the case. Against haerder targets, the casing helps the bomb penetrate and release the blast in the right place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Unreal_One posted:Also, bombers didn't really carry that much in the way of bombs. A B-17 on a typical sortie could have twice as much weight in fuel and .50 ammo as it did bombs. And a B-17 at overload has almost the same weight of bombs as an F-4 Phantom. Yeah B-17 bomb bays are really, really small if you've ever been in one
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
For reference, the Alpha Jet (trainer/light attack) carries more bomb by mass than a long-range B-17 configuration, at least according to Wikipedia
simplefish fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 16:09
|
|