|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Re: helicopters with wings. What are the downsides--why haven't they been explored or used before? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Re: helicopters with wings. What are the downsides--why haven't they been explored or used before? They have been. The AH-56 Cheyenne is a good example. Issue is that you don’t have much wing area so the wings don’t do much unless you’re going pretty fast already, and the rest of the time they’re just more weight and less payload. It’s hard enough to take off high and hot already without some useless-at-hover wings attached. They also tried it with a Chinook.  glynnenstein posted:Speaking of nuclear testing, North Korea may not have handled their's with rigorous modern safety standards. Man I hate science reporting. quote:The ministry tested them and found radioactivity levels in their bodies exceeding 250 mSv, which is enough to trigger chromosomal abnormalities. Sieverts aren’t a level of activity, they’re a measure of dose. You can’t find a radioactivity level of 250 mSv in anyone’s body. You might find indications that they received a dose of 250 mSv. bewbies posted:I can't remember if it was this thread or some other thread but someone posted an absolutely awesome piece of revisionism explaining how gulags were actually quite pleasant, something more akin to a country spa It Happened On Twitter: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/11/soviet-labour-camps-compassionate-educational-institutions-say/ 
Phanatic fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
Unreal_One posted:Milhist thread, pretty sure. I stopped reading that thread when the nutjobs in it tried to tell me the great terror wasn’t actually much of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:I stopped reading that thread when the nutjobs in it tried to tell me the great terror wasn’t actually much of a thing. It’s generally a very good thread, though, and when that guy does poke his head it he gets his head beaten in pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
I feel like I read somewhere about stub wings making it harder to hover? IDK it's probably specific to certain designs.drgitlin posted:I stopped reading that thread when the nutjobs in it tried to tell me the great terror wasn’t actually much of a thing. I'm pretty sure Ardent Communist got banned from the thread, so I think the worst of that is over now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The Canadian Army was called the Royal Canadian Army for a long time too. It's never been called that. E: The RCN and the RCAF have had a Royal prefix for most of their existences, aside from a terrible, dark time known as Unification. They became Maritime and Air Command until 2011, when the old titles were resurrected. The Canadian Army was also renamed during this period, becoming officially referred to as Mobile Command in 1968 and Land Forces Command in 1989. But it's never had a Royal prefix for the service as a whole. Fearless fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I feel like I read somewhere about stub wings making it harder to hover? IDK it's probably specific to certain designs. They block a certain amount of airflow from the rotor so it would make sense, aerodynamically. As was said, it's also simply a function of excess weight and drag - if you're going to add it, why? Pylons for armaments, sure, but otherwise there are very few use cases for wings on helicopters. The V-22 Osprey is one exception, and the Sikorsky/Boeing SBD-1 or whatever is another that I can think of. However the V-22 is only a helicopter part of the time, and while the SBD-1 is a helicopter it does away with a traditional tail rotor and tilt rotor assembly and replaces it with a rear facing rotor for forward speed, a coaxial rotor up top, and the wings are there for lateral control via winglets as well as lift when at speed (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
They just need to make the Havocs and Venoms from Gpolice and be done with it
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 08:00
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:They block a certain amount of airflow from the rotor so it would make sense, aerodynamically. As was said, it's also simply a function of excess weight and drag - if you're going to add it, why? Pylons for armaments, sure, but otherwise there are very few use cases for wings on helicopters. The V-22 Osprey is one exception, and the Sikorsky/Boeing SBD-1 or whatever is another that I can think of. However the V-22 is only a helicopter part of the time, and while the SBD-1 is a helicopter it does away with a traditional tail rotor and tilt rotor assembly and replaces it with a rear facing rotor for forward speed, a coaxial rotor up top, and the wings are there for lateral control via winglets as well as lift when at speed (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Just make the wings into full-movement horizontal stabs and put them vertical during hover, how hard can it be? bewbies posted:I can't remember if it was this thread or some other thread but someone posted an absolutely awesome piece of revisionism explaining how gulags were actually quite pleasant, something more akin to a country spa Also the awesome memories of that soviet rocket guy (Boris Chertok) have a small paragraph on how the guys in siberia had a better life than his very hectic factory work and accomodation. He was a believer in communism, a party member, and willing to accept stalin's rule if it was sold to him as the path toward communism. karoshi fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 09:07
|
|
|
karoshi posted:Also the awesome memories of that soviet rocket guy (Boris Chertok) have a small paragraph on how the guys in siberia had a better life than his very hectic factory work and accomodation. He was a believer in communism, a party member, and willing to accept stalin's rule if it was sold to him as the path toward communism. I gotta bracket that statement with a few caveats. First, Chertok visited Glushko (IIRC) when he had set up a prison design bureau, so Glushko wasn't coal mining in Vorkuta. Korolev *did* spend about a year in the, shall we say conventional Gulags, and I think he lost his teeth just from malnutrition. Second, Chertok was looking at his living conditions after he and his family (and his factory) had been evacuated to just West of the Urals in the fall / winter of 1941, so this is a very particular emergency situation, not at all normal. Also he *was* a party member but was kicked out of the party in the mid 1930s as his mom had been a Menshevik and his family was ethnically Jewish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:I stopped reading that thread when the nutjobs in it tried to tell me the great terror wasn’t actually much of a thing. I feel you 100% but that thread actually is good on stomping on such notions, just FYI e: https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1178720442586222592 Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I feel you 100% but that thread actually is good on stomping on such notions, just FYI The question really become were the f35 running reflectors or going full stealth?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
wargames posted:The question really become were the f35 running reflectors or going full stealth? Wearing reflectors, squawking a mode S code, flying a known route, and talking on the radio. It’s a garbage article.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They have been. The AH-56 Cheyenne is a good example. Issue is that you don’t have much wing area so the wings don’t do much unless you’re going pretty fast already, and the rest of the time they’re just more weight and less payload. It’s hard enough to take off high and hot already without some useless-at-hover wings attached. Re: re: re: wings on helicopters The Cheyenne is actually not an ideal example, because it had a lot more going on than just the wings--a pusher prop, and a hingeless rotor, all optimised for high-speed flight. The V347 (that mutant Chinook) is a better one, as is the Mi-6 "Hook", which had removable wings depending on if it was doing flying crane work or long hauls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
Could also be referring to a case of inhaling/consuming contaminated material, at which point they have emitters inside their body you could measure dosage from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
Madurai posted:Re: re: re: wings on helicopters The Cheyenne is also a great example of the political fuckery between different divisions of the military and why we can't have nice things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Germany is currently having a defense whoopsie in that our Tornados have completely surprisingly reached the end of their service life and we need something to replace them. A sticking point is, there is probably a specific English term for this that I do not know, nuclear sharing, ie the capability to drop a US nuke, apparently the B-61, off of the replacement plane. Neither the F-18, Eurofighter, nor F-35 are apparently rated / equipped for this, so now the replacement has to be hurriedly rated for it in order to not have a multiyear gap in our theoretical ability to do this. How does this work, is dropping nuclear bombs from pointy jets still something that doctrine calls for in some situation or is this some sort of theoretical "ability" with mostly political implications? I guess it would be a way to tactically deliver a nuke without making everyone really antsy on the strategic nuke triggers, does that play into it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
If you don't have other delivery methods, airplanes will still get the job done. It's probably somewhat more political than practical, but at the same time in order for "we have nuclear sharing capability" to be of political value you actually have to be able to execute on the delivery of the bombs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Neither the F-18, Eurofighter, nor F-35 are apparently rated / equipped for this Huh, so Super Hornets are not nuke-capable? I thought USN would want to keep carriers able to deliver nuclear weapons but apparenty not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
The NATO nuclear sharing agreements might be a treaty requirement that has to be taken seriously unless it's amended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
I've sometimes wondered exactly how "nuclear capable" is defined for bombers and such. Isn't any airplane that can pick up a small metal cylinder "nuclear capable"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Greece and Canada dropped out of nuclear sharing years ago; Germany could just do the same. The whole thing became obsolete anyway with the end of the Warsaw Pact. Russia is not going to invade Germany, it has enough troubles trying to invade a little chunk of Ukraine. Captain von Trapp posted:I've sometimes wondered exactly how "nuclear capable" is defined for bombers and such. Isn't any airplane that can pick up a small metal cylinder "nuclear capable"? Dropping the nuke is not enough to make it explode. They need to be armed first, and for that you need special black boxes that do all the encrypted electronic stuff required for arming the bomb. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
The F-35 is absolutely capable or will be in the future of carrying the B-61. Maybe it’s an extra feature on the export models but the US birds will absolutely be nuclear capable just like the F-15E, F-22 and F-16 are. IIRC the only USAF fighter/bomber that can’t are the F-15C (not a pound for air to ground) and the B-1 (arms control treaty).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
A-10 can't I think?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
How serious of a capability does it need to be? Can they lease a single F-16 from the USAF to have sitting around?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Who in their right mind would lease a plane to the German air force?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Make it a wet lease with full ACMI What could go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Dropping the nuke is not enough to make it explode. They need to be armed first, and for that you need special black boxes that do all the encrypted electronic stuff required for arming the bomb. Yeah, at least for the B61, you need: 1. A dual-key arrangement/unlocking of the weapon from the secure storage locker, which requires keys from US and authorized host country personnel, 2. The codes to arm the device, which are released by the NMCC at the behest of  ,3. The plane has to have a hardpoint that's wired for the weapon to, 4. Interface with the PAL on board said aircraft. The nuclear sharing agreement really only works if war is thought to be inevitable (as it was during the entire Cold War), because it's by no means a quick and easy system to employ, and should either be ended or changed. If we really wanted to do meaningful  nuclear sharing , we should allow adequately-cleared NATO naval officers to serve on SSBNs and NATO pilots to train on/fly alert B-52s (but not B-2s).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Wearing reflectors, squawking a mode S code, flying a known route, and talking on the radio. It’s a garbage article. I've always been skeptical of the "passive radar" claims because they work off of broadcast TV and FM radio frequencies. Which is like okay that just means the local broadcast stations are going to be hit by more glide bombs/cruise missiles than before and now your passive radar is useless. Also the accuracy claims from Hensoldt seem... unimpressive. They say it gets 500 meters accuracy at 250km with VHF FM signals and 100m accuracy at 100km with UHF DAB/DVB-T signals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Dropping the nuke is not enough to make it explode. They need to be armed first, and for that you need special black boxes that do all the encrypted electronic stuff required for arming the bomb. Yeah, but you can fit crypto on a chip. You certainly could put it in big elaborate packaging, but I don't know how you'd prove it to Russia's satisfaction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
One of the selling points for F-35s to the Luftwaffe thing that was talked about a few months ago was specifically that the F-35 will be B61 capable. The fact they need it right now does sour that but apparently it’s been a thing on the radar for some time; the Typhoons have no plans for that capability and it doesn’t come cheap. Kinda surprising the F-18 can’t since it carries drat near everything else but I guess the Navy didn’t see a lot of purpose paying for that capability, which is a surprisingly intelligent move. There are like zero places a B61 from a CVN launched F-18 makes sense. Mazz fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Who in their right mind would lease a plane to the German air force? Paint some broomsticks and let them pretend they’re nukes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Wearing reflectors, squawking a mode S code, flying a known route, and talking on the radio. It’s a garbage article. This!!!! That said I think passive radar will have its place. There are real commercial and space research uses of distributed, good-enough-for-interferometry of RF signals-clock syncing. Someone will figure it out one day cheaply and it will enable passive/distributed radars to be a useful thing. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Madurai posted:Re: re: re: wings on helicopters I had thought about doing a bit of an effort post when this came up (sorry, I just started a new job and have no time!), but the BV-347 and Mi-6 were exactly the two helicopters I was going to use as examples, because they're were truly designed as winged helicopters, as opposed to helicopters with stub wings useful more for carrying external stores. The main reason very few helicopters have real wings is not so much weight, but the aerodynamic download. For a large enough wing to be useful, download can easily approach 10% of the total thrust of the rotor system; that corresponds to something more like 25% of payload, and likely more when you add the weight of the wing. Remember that helicopters are essentially sized for hover, since vertical lift is a very energy intensive operation, so there's really no performance to spare in this flight regime. That's a huge hit to take, for what are pretty modest benefits. Across most of the speed range of a helicopter, the wing is going to be a net negative to performance. Where it starts to come into play is when the main rotor starts to approach stall, since the lift offset by the wing at higher speeds will offload the rotor and increase your stall margin. This can let you travel slightly faster, by delaying stall, but the helicopter would still be pretty inefficient at such high advance ratios. More practically, and why wings were added to the few helicopters to have them, is that the increased stall margin allows for a) higher load factor maneuvers (the reason for the wing on the BV-347) or b) operations at higher altitudes (most likely the reason the Mi-6 was optionally equipped with wings). Stepniewski goes into this in Volume 2 of his (free!) helicopter aerodynamics book. He's worth listening to on the subject, seeing as he designed the BV-347. The BV-347 avoided much of the download hit by equipping a variable incidence wing, which went to up 90 degrees in hover. Of course, this added a considerable amount of weight and complexity, and ultimately was not worth the price. Oh! One more winged helicopter worth menthining is the original Sikorsky "Blackhawk," the S-67.  Again, the wings are here for better maneuverability, not for speed or efficiency. Also to carry weapons. One cool trick was that those enormous speed brakes could be used to control the fuselage pitch attitude in level flight, allowing weapons like rockets to be ideally positioned for strafing. Contemporary video with period-appropriate soundtrack here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iniXBYFLybs
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
De-fanged it for this airshow, I see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 09:27
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I've sometimes wondered exactly how "nuclear capable" is defined for bombers and such. Isn't any airplane that can pick up a small metal cylinder "nuclear capable"? I asked the same question, I think it's not down to shielding or the fact it's a nuclear device at all in physics terms, it's entirely "If the the pilot and command structure want to fire this thing, they can. If the pilot and command structure don't want to fire this thing it'll never, ever, under any circumstances trigger in any way". There was a really interesting paper that Sandra national laboratory put out in GWBs second term (that I can't find online now for the life of me) when Rumsfeld was trying to push for a nuclear ground effect weapon that explained how they've designed those systems. The subtext of it was "Right, we've spent 50 loving years making sure these things won't explode, and you've just done an edict that means we'd have to take all the safety systems off to make the thing light enough to do what you've asked. gently caress you".
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
Meanwhile in the UK, the equivalent freefall nuclear bomb, the we177, could be armed with a quarter turn of a key very similar to a bike lock, on an unsecured panel of the bomb pictures and details of the arming systems of a few nuclear bombs are on here
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Meanwhile in the UK, the equivalent freefall nuclear bomb, the we177, could be armed with a quarter turn of a key very similar to a bike lock, on an unsecured panel of the bomb That’s still better than giving POTUS unilateral authority to launch a nuclear first strike.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 18:12
|
|