|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, I've seen that before plenty, but the other video with the darting just looks different. Could just be perspective plus the weird shape of whatever it is they're looking at, though. It's not enough go all Moulder over the video, but pretty weird looking.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Alaan posted:What kind of coastal radar range can you get for surface detection before curvature stops you? Distance to the horizon is about 3.57 times the square root of height if distance is in kilometers and height is in meters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:I’m glad I asked my question because it has been a rad digression. Crystalline metal turbofan blades. Hell yeah. Stuff like this is why we're massive nerds!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9selhGBPdek If I've learned anything from this thread it's that the Saudis firing a dozen patriots at an incoming scud is accurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
ought ten posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9selhGBPdek *insert your preferred Patriot joke about accuracy* Also I love that frigate. "Built for speed! (14 knots)"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
There’s a reason US forces use US patriot and crews for defense. One day we hope to change that, but not yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
simplefish posted:*insert your preferred Patriot joke about accuracy* Something something Malcolm Butler.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:An old school (read current GO) air defender with experience with the York said the York wasn’t so much a thing that couldn’t shoot down helicopters, just a maintenance, reliability, cost, and overland maneuver speed problem that worked together to kill itself. Shouldn't it have been relatively easy to re-adapt it onto an Abrams or Bradley chassis though? I feel like the sensor fusion is the hard part of that project, though followed by turret design I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 22:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
If by relatively easy you mean "redo basically every part of the project to the point where you're basically starting from scratch", then maybe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Should be rule #1 of the thread: nothing in military equipment development or procurement is ever easy. Rule #2 should be: adapting, repurposing or recommissioning old equipment is never a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
The one DIVAD project that was a GAU-8 mated to the Abrams chassis. That was the one to build.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
That one was super ammo limited I think, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
This is probably in my top 10 for favorite Wikipedia articles for that section alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
priznat posted:Should be rule #1 of the thread: nothing in military equipment development or procurement is ever easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Rifle? Oh look at Mr Fancy Pants here, with his impractical hi-tech solutions. What's wrong with it, old chap, is that it's simply Not Enough Gun  Mauser C-96 battery on an Austro-Hungarian recon plane, sometime in late 1915
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Rule #3: Performance and cost efficiency of military equipment is irrelevant for its procurement, it's all about how many pork barrels the manufacturer can provide. quote:I had a guaranteed military sale...renovation program, spare parts for twenty-five years... Who cares if it worked or not? Robocop, still the best movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:Cyrano seriously understated the complexity of the manufacturing processes involved in jet engines. Not only are your alloys far, far beyond what existed before jets started getting serious(like the 1940s, where basic steel alloys and aluminium were your main things), but modern turbine blades? They're a loving monocrystalline structure. Yeah, that's right. Every single tiny steel crystal in the damned thing is aligned on the same axis, basically making it into a single big fuckoff crystal Two page back  and fanatic touched it but but most monocrystaline turbine blades are nickel or Ni-Cr alloys with a ceramic (Often combos of AlOx, AlNx, SiOx, SiCx, TiX and a bunch of others) environmental barrier coatings, not iron alloys (i.e. steel). This is because of creep properties of nickel alloys that are not exhibited as well in steel save for a few examples, (e.g. A286 stainless alloy that has good creep properties)EDIT: I will stop editing now, drinkin and spergin on my first day of vacation. If you want to hear my ramblings about ceramic composites and aircraft engines let me know. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:These sorts of subs strike me as more of a naval vanity project than an effective weapon. At 5kts you're depending on either blind luck or massive incompetence on the part of the enemy to ever get a decent shot. And you better hope no ASW assets are left alive when your tubes are empty because even at an "oh gently caress!" sprint on batteries you aren't clearing the area before they start making GBS threads a million torpedos into the water. That's just how subs work dude. They can't go very fast if they're anywhere near something hostile with a hydrophone because they'll get noticed. Pre-nuclear subs just couldn't go very fast submerged at all, and certainly not sprint any significant distances. Intercepting a target with a sub in open water is a very tricky business that involves a fair bit of luck, and yet diesels historically managed to do it successfully quite often. A diesel boat with AIP is still a perfectly regular diesel with the usual battery banks; the AIP is just an add-on that enables almost completely silent power generation while submerged, and that used to be impossible unless you had a nuclear reactor. It's not a lot of power (hence the low sustained speed) but it's one hell of a lot better than nothing. The advantage a sub has over an ASM battery on land is mainly that it's much harder to hide an ASM battery, especially if it's moving. Something that can stay completely invisible for weeks at a time and reposition without ever being seen has a great value as a deterrent. Littoral subs also come with a bunch of naval mines in tow in addition to their modest torpedo armament, so they can be an even more obnoxious area denial tool, especially in shallower seas where navigational routes are limited. AIP isn't some unique Swedish special snowflake thing either - Kockums was one of the first to it as far as I know but everyone who is building non-nuclear subs has some kind of AIP technology now. The US Navy actually rented one of the Swedish Gotland class AIP diesels complete with crew to use as an aggressor back in the early 2000's, and it turned out it wasn't completely toothless (although I believe someone in this thread mentioned that the USN's sub hunting arm has atrophied badly since the Cold War). TheFluff fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Memento posted:What's wrong with it, old chap, is that it's simply Not Enough Gun Hey, DICE, get this into BF1 ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Memento posted:What's wrong with it, old chap, is that it's simply Not Enough Gun Does it shoot all at once like a shotgun or sequentially like a machine gun? How mad are his fellow officers going to be once they wake up and notice their sidearms were stolen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Does it shoot all at once like a shotgun or sequentially like a machine gun? Single trigger, they all fire at once. And what are they going to do about it? He's got all their guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Whats everyone think this is? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIciPSOWn_A
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Neither space aliens nor classified/foreign future tech indistinguishable from magic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Swamp gas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Weather balloon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Now that we’ve discussed the composition of jet turbine blades and since we are on the subject of submarines I was wondering if you all knew the exact composition of US nuclear submarine propellers? The angles and rotation speeds of the blades seem interesting too maybe we could discuss that next.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Toshiba puppet account spotted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
priznat posted:Rule #2 should be: adapting, repurposing or recommissioning old equipment is never a good idea. Contrary to common sense, this rule completely falls apart when it comes to airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Now that we’ve discussed the composition of jet turbine blades and since we are on the subject of submarines I was wondering if you all knew the exact composition of US nuclear submarine propellers? The angles and rotation speeds of the blades seem interesting too maybe we could discuss that next. Magic!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Now that we’ve discussed the composition of jet turbine blades and since we are on the subject of submarines I was wondering if you all knew the exact composition of US nuclear submarine propellers? The angles and rotation speeds of the blades seem interesting too maybe we could discuss that next. Submarines don't have propellers. They create small mass effect fields in front and behind them to move through the water silently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Now that we’ve discussed the composition of jet turbine blades and since we are on the subject of submarines I was wondering if you all knew the exact composition of US nuclear submarine propellers? The angles and rotation speeds of the blades seem interesting too maybe we could discuss that next. Would it be ok if I faxed you the technical docs at (213) 807-8088 or do you need a physical sample. Maybe a whole sub would work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
RaffyTaffy posted:Would it be ok if I faxed you the technical docs at (213) 807-8088 or do you need a physical sample. Maybe a whole sub would work. Huh I was expecting the Russian embassy not the Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
That was my first search.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Huh I was expecting the Russian embassy not the Chinese. The fax machine killed the Soviet Union. They’re not taking that risk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Huh I was expecting the Russian embassy not the Chinese. With that many 8s in the number it's definitely Chinese. Hey while you're at it can you ask them if Harold Holt was useful to them and if we can have his body back, please?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Whats everyone think this is? Honestly my first thought is that it looks weird but it wouldn’t have been released by the government if there wasn’t an explanation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mostly flew planes manufactured from 1958-1960. So imagine taking Uncle Avery's lovingly maintained 1958 Chevy Task Force from the farm, dropping in a Vortec V8, re-wiring it for the electronics in a 2004 Silverado, and driving it over the dirt roads of Afghanistan in the summer. Ask your mechanic what it's going to take to keep it going, keeping in mind that if the engine stops for any reason, you will likely die. Also note that your mechanic has all the original manuals for the 1958. And another manual for the mechanical and wiring changes to get the Vortec in. A separate set of manuals that have all the original wiring diagrams for the original AM radio, the AM/FM radio, the AM/FM/8-track, and that one stereo you wired in in high school that cut all the wires from the factory install, and the conversion kit that puts the '04 nav package in. Then you go "hey, I think one of the speakers sounds a little funny" but you can't really say why or when or in what way or what you were doing when you noticed and you wonder why your mechanic only thinks about drinking heavily and murdering you in your sleep when you helpfully add "I think it's the carburetor." Whoops, left the tab open WAY too long. I'm leaving it, because I'm a bitter mechanic and pilots are the worst. babyeatingpsychopath fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Uh, how many guys do we have, Active, Reserve, and Guard, with an active security clearance, current flight physical, all these SEIs, and an F-117 Form 8?" By the time we get to that point, where we're going, we don't need Form 8's to fly  Platystemon posted:Maybe not thirty thousand feet—few places in the ocean reach that depth—but can you imagine it? The glass-half-full way of thinking about it is, given the average depth of the ocean, you're never more than a couple miles away from land  Collateral Damage posted:Helicopter: A million parts rotating rapidly around an oil leak, waiting for metal fatigue to set in. My favorite one was 'never trust an aircraft whose wings travel faster than its fuselage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Maybe not thirty thousand feet—few places in the ocean reach that depth—but can you imagine it? Naw, drowning or hypothermia will kill you long before you reach crush depth in a sinking. Unless you're in a submarine but I am given to understand that an implosion is an instantaneous event (I was never a submariner).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Obligatory reference material That's with a one atmosphere delta. At even a modest 200m depth it's 20 times that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 03:45
|
|
