|
I know the F-35B jokes seem like they write themselves but a removable triangular box isn't quite as crazy as a supersonic vertical lift aircraft.
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:I know the F-35B jokes seem like they write themselves but a removable triangular box isn't quite as crazy as a supersonic vertical lift aircraft. And what unobtanium is this "removable triangular box" going to be made out of? It has to take 70,000 lb traveling at what 130knots?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And what unobtanium is this "removable triangular box" going to be made out of? It has to take 70,000 lb traveling at what 130knots? Mattresses.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And what unobtanium is this "removable triangular box" going to be made out of? It has to take 70,000 lb traveling at what 130knots? Uh, steel? You don't pancake the jet into a brick wall at the end of the runway. Draw the free body diagram. It has to take 70,000 lbs plus a little for redirecting some of the forward motion of the jet upward. It's just a ramp. I'm suggesting that it's possible you could bolt something to the end of the flight deck that could be un-bolted, and that this could take the force of the jet taking off. You probably don't have a lot of weight limitations either. Like I said before, it might not be trivial but the technical complexity is probably somewhere between a fiberglass kayak and a supersonic STOVL aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Uh, steel? You don't pancake the jet into a brick wall at the end of the runway. Draw the free body diagram. It has to take 70,000 lbs plus a little for redirecting some of the forward motion of the jet upward. It's just a ramp. I'm suggesting that it's possible you could bolt something to the end of the flight deck that could be un-bolted, and that this could take the force of the jet taking off. You probably don't have a lot of weight limitations either. Like I said before, it might not be trivial but the technical complexity is probably somewhere between a fiberglass kayak and a supersonic STOVL aircraft. what if we got the marines VTOL fiberglass kayaks 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Makes sense. I wonder if it'd be possible to have a collapsible/removable ski ramp that could be set up if expecting a bunch of fixed wing flights. Probably impossible, definitely unaffordable
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
They're heeeeeeeeeee-eeeeeere. quote:China has for the first time landed bombers on disputed territory in the South China Sea, its air force said, prompting fresh US warnings that it is destabilising the region. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-44180773
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Uh, steel? You don't pancake the jet into a brick wall at the end of the runway. Draw the free body diagram. It has to take 70,000 lbs plus a little for redirecting some of the forward motion of the jet upward. It's just a ramp. I'm suggesting that it's possible you could bolt something to the end of the flight deck that could be un-bolted, and that this could take the force of the jet taking off. You probably don't have a lot of weight limitations either. Like I said before, it might not be trivial but the technical complexity is probably somewhere between a fiberglass kayak and a supersonic STOVL aircraft. No, we need a system of articulated plates and pistons so that the ramp can be folded and unfolded at any time, with different curve profiles if desired. More seriously, though, I'm reminded of the Spanish Juan Carlos-class that was sold to Australia and where they couldn't redesign the thing without the ramp, but they could redesign it with a non-functional ramp. So the Aussies get the worst of both worlds, a ramp that takes up valuable deck space but that can't be used to assist rolling take-offs. I figure that whatever reason they had why they couldn't flatten it would also cause problems for a design with a removable ramp.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
BadgerMan45 posted:The kindle edition of "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" is on sale for $1.99. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-T...tin+can+sailors On sale for 99p on UK Amazon too. (How on earth is, well, anything cheaper on UK than US Amazon?)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 12:33
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Uh, steel? You don't pancake the jet into a brick wall at the end of the runway. Draw the free body diagram. It has to take 70,000 lbs plus a little for redirecting some of the forward motion of the jet upward. It's just a ramp. I'm suggesting that it's possible you could bolt something to the end of the flight deck that could be un-bolted, and that this could take the force of the jet taking off. You probably don't have a lot of weight limitations either. Like I said before, it might not be trivial but the technical complexity is probably somewhere between a fiberglass kayak and a supersonic STOVL aircraft. The USMC actually has requested ramps going back to the 80's citing increased operational capability and improved safety. They Navy has denied these requests, contrary to what the bright stars in this thread think the ships the Marines take passage on are designed and built by the Navy to Navy requirements and are operated and commanded by the Navy and exist within the Navy's fleet plan and operations plans. The Navy's reasoning is that a ramp will use up helicopter landing space and the primary purpose of an amphibious vessel is to move troops and equipment from sea to shore as rapidly as possible. Air support is a secondary mission that in any but a low intensity environment will be supported by a CVBG. IMO the 'low intensity' mission is the one that an Amphibious Ready Group is going to spend the vast majority of it's life supporting and a few extra tons of helicopter lift per day during an 'poo poo just got real, yo' scenario just doesn't seem worth the trade-off. If one extra CH-47 is the line between success of failure of an amphibious assault the whole op never should have happened. Meanwhile, extra range/loiter time and extra armament to support CAS or CAP for all the months of operations where the CVBG is off doing it's thing while having less safety incidents is going to be useful all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
Can anyone give me more information on that incident during the cold war where russian radar technicians were blasted by their radar? A colleague of mine is dubious so I'd like to find the details for him (and check them again myself). From what I remember, the soviets were embarrassed by Mathias Rust landing in red square, and demanded 100% radar uptime. This led to someone being ordered to turn on a radar array that was still being serviced, blasting the techs who all had horrible injuries like internal steam burns and blindness. My colleague (who knows a lot about rf stuff) is unconvinced that even a huge early warning radar actually has enough power to hurt someone that badly: while it's a lot of Watts across the whole antenna, the antenna is huge, so the wattage per cubic meter isn't that high.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
I have a coworker who was unknowingly blasted by the B52's strat radar for ~20 mins. He got blisters/burns over the whole side of his body that was facing it and was sterilized. He got 100% disability out of it when he retired at least. I'd imagine a ground based one would do even more much quicker.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
Splode posted:Can anyone give me more information on that incident during the cold war where russian radar technicians were blasted by their radar? A colleague of mine is dubious so I'd like to find the details for him (and check them again myself). I guess it depends how close you were. This is what 800Watts in the Wi-Fi range does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIU8WZR9DNA. How close would you put your eyeball to that thing? fe: iirc the story you are referencing it was a huge array, like ballistic early warning huge, so you'll be close to a bunch of smaller antennas, much like in that video.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
poo poo you find in Server Rooms in former Russian states. quote:Update #2:
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
It’s strongly possible that the story was damage from an arc flash not from microwave radiation
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
RF energy can and will gently caress you up. My hand cooked a bit near to an improperly configured TWT assembly; no lasting damage but a reminder than electromagnetic energy existed. When we get around to Sci-fi levels of energy storage and delivery bring on the energy weapons. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
Splode posted:Can anyone give me more information on that incident during the cold war where russian radar technicians were blasted by their radar? A colleague of mine is dubious so I'd like to find the details for him (and check them again myself). I remember that article, but I can't find it. It was grim.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Akion posted:poo poo you find in Server Rooms in former Russian states. This needs to be copied over to the appropriate thread in SH/SC.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Splode posted:My colleague (who knows a lot about rf stuff) is unconvinced that even a huge early warning radar actually has enough power to hurt someone that badly: while it's a lot of Watts across the whole antenna, the antenna is huge, so the wattage per cubic meter isn't that high.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Splode posted:Can anyone give me more information on that incident during the cold war where russian radar technicians were blasted by their radar? A colleague of mine is dubious so I'd like to find the details for him (and check them again myself). https://www.quora.com/Would-anythin...is-the-greatest is the closest I can find right now, that guy seems to have read the same as us. I'm pretty sure it was posted in this thread, or maybe the military history thread, or if not those then perhaps an aviation thread.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
I don't read the milhist or aviation threads and I have read the article about the radar incident, so it must be in this thread somewhere (for what little that helps).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The USMC actually has requested ramps going back to the 80's citing increased operational capability and improved safety. They Navy has denied these requests, contrary to what the bright stars in this thread think the ships the Marines take passage on are designed and built by the Navy to Navy requirements and are operated and commanded by the Navy and exist within the Navy's fleet plan and operations plans.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Some googling led me to a reddit repost of text by permabanned copied from this thread, I guess, so.... apparently, it was a translation from Russian: https://www.reddit.com/r/disasterdocumentaries/comments/49qizy/soviet_radar_disaster_translation_of_av/ quote:Found on the Something Awful forums. Credit goes to user permabanned (permabanned's notes on the text/his translation retained)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:They're heeeeeeeeeee-eeeeeere. Not that it really required the abilities of Nostradamus, but I'm sort of pleased with myself for calling almost step-by-step this exact scenario back in 2009/10, after seeing a 9-dash line mockup in the Beijing Military Museum. The only thing that I got wrong was the PLAAN/PLAAF firing on Vietnamese/Philippine ships/aircraft to scare them out of the region. I guess you don't need to fire warning shots of nobody really challenges you when you take over their territory.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If the low intensity scenario is the one that the ARG is going to support, then they don't need the stealthy, supersonic strike fighters that necessitate ramp construction in the first place, so the Corps can eat my whole rear end in a top hat. LOL, so edgy.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Everything old is new again and the Swedish authorities are now sending out readiness booklets with style and content very faithfully copied from 1950's and 60's equivalents. A short version of this same info was on the last few pages of the phone book as late as when I was a kid in the early 1990's, but it seems the end of history only lasted for about 20 years. e: Full brochure, in English. We're getting with the times here, it used to be Swedish only. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:15 on May 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Hans has a long mustache. Hans has a long mustache. The raggmunkar are against the wall. The raggmunkar are against the wall.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
In other news,..propaganda time!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRrciNuCmZw Most footage taken for the parade and exercises last month.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Murgos posted:LOL, so edgy. Is he wrong though? And in a low-intensity conflict can't the jets just base themselves at an airfield if they need more payload?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:And in a low-intensity conflict can't the jets just base themselves at an airfield if they need more payload? Thats how the USMC loses STOVL aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:In other news,..propaganda time!! Sounds like the audio was recorded via a phone.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Mzuri posted:Some googling led me to a reddit repost of text by permabanned copied from this thread, I guess, so.... apparently, it was a translation from Russian: Thanks
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
Mzuri posted:Some googling led me to a reddit repost of text by permabanned copied from this thread, I guess, so.... apparently, it was a translation from Russian: I just wanted to say holy gently caress. Also if the only consequence for AWACS crew is more daughters than sons then it seems they're lucky.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Is he wrong though? And in a low-intensity conflict can't the jets just base themselves at an airfield if they need more payload? It takes time to set up, man and supply a forward airbase. Also, more critical is when withdrawing, it's much better to be able to evacuate the on shore bases and maintain air cover. It's also much harder to defend a lightly manned base from asymmetrical attackers than an LHA miles off the coast.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
But but but but Henderson Field oorah devil dog semper fi!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
They had to take and hold Henderson Field no matter what, to keep the Japanese from using it. At that point, using it for Marine aircraft just made sense.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:They had to take and hold Henderson Field no matter what, to keep the Japanese from using it. At that point, using it for Marine aircraft just made sense. The actual battle of Henderson field in October was pretty nuts when you consider the numbers involved and the casualties on the Japanese side. The marines were sitting in a very nicely defended position (usually elevated, other side of a river, prepared defensive positions including trenches, bunkers and lots of sandbags, and their mortars and artillery were set up in a way to defend from any possible side) while the Japanese had to carry everything with them through 20+ km of jungle. The footage of the Japanese bayonet charge across an open river against ready and waiting marine MG and Mortar positions was pretty surreal. (can't find the footage, but watch the National Geographic documentary on Guadalcanal's Ghost Fleet which features footage from the engagement) The marines had 23,000 men The Japanese had 20,000 men Japanese casualties were 2,200–3,000 killed and the loss of a cruiser, while the marines suffered 61–86 killed and the loss of a tugboat.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Blistex posted:The actual battle of Henderson field in October was pretty nuts when you consider the numbers involved and the casualties on the Japanese side. The marines were sitting in a very nicely defended position (usually elevated, other side of a river, prepared defensive positions including trenches, bunkers and lots of sandbags, and their mortars and artillery were set up in a way to defend from any possible side) while the Japanese had to carry everything with them through 20+ km of jungle. The footage of the Japanese bayonet charge across an open river against ready and waiting marine MG and Mortar positions was pretty surreal. (can't find the footage, but watch the National Geographic documentary on Guadalcanal's Ghost Fleet which features footage from the engagement) That's always impressed me, and is one of my favored "this is how conditions can drastically alter the picture painted by raw numbers" examples. My point was simply that Henderson Field doesn't alter the "carriers of some sort are often more practical than establishing shore bases" argument, because of the strategic situation that led to it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Almost like the Marine Corps' massive throbbing boner for having their own fixed wing CAS able to operate off of short fields is also dumb!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
When is the last time a gator freighter operated in a hostile environment by itself anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 06:32
|
|
