|
Deteriorata posted:IMO you probably can. A large slug of fuel is incompressible and far more massive than the prop is designed to handle. It could easily bend one. Why would a drone with a ONE slightly bent blade be forced to crash into the Black Sea. There has to be way more damage.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
quote:Uh, I think one thing to keep in mind here is that the prop is made of metal and the surrounding airframe is made of much weaker carbon fiber composite War in Ukraine: Jet fuel can't bend steel props, Debrateriorata
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
What are we even arguing here? That the drone wasn't actually damaged enough to need to ditch so ... ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:IMO you probably can. A large slug of fuel is incompressible and far more massive than the prop is designed to handle. It could easily bend one. All 4 of the blades are damaged. It would take way more than a spray of fluid to to do that to them. Otherwise no plane would fly into a storm. Granted, that's not a good idea if you can avoid it, but a strong fluid spray isn't gonna do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:IMO you probably can. A large slug of fuel is incompressible and far more massive than the prop is designed to handle. It could easily bend one. Dumped fuel is going to be essentially at local atmospheric pressure at the drone, and rapidly losing cohesive, applied pressure. It would not have been nearly enough to damage a blade. You can spray your car with water from a garden hose with greater applied force than that blade saw from that fuel dump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Moon Slayer posted:What are we even arguing here? That the drone wasn't actually damaged enough to need to ditch so ... ? "There was no contact, the prop was damaged by the liquid fuel" is my interpretation. Which I don't think is correct because that's what a prop hitting the ground looks like, and it's similar damage to what we can see in that frame 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
Alright, what other news do we have? This seems a bit of a sidetrack with "can a plane's propeller be impacted by liquid"? Is this significant? http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...-drone-wreckage Or is this another case of "here, take our old poo poo"? quote:Here’s a bit more from Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, who has just announced that his country will send Ukraine at least four MiG-29 fighter jets in the coming days. Speaking at a news conference, Duda said Warsaw would hand over four of the Soviet-made warplanes in the coming days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:Alright, what other news do we have? This seems a bit of a sidetrack with "can a plane's propeller be impacted by liquid"? In a fair condition, 4 jets that Ukrainians can use and service right away is meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
Jet fuel can't…bend propellers? I'm getting a strange sense of déjà vu from that planned Polish plane package. Haven't we been here before?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Not at all. Ya if the drone was a secret or was carrying anything America couldn't afford or would embarrassed to lose they wouldn't be publicizing its loss in any way. Every major country has surveillance drones and these particular ones aren't hidden on bases or anything, there are public photos that have been put out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Jet fuel can't…bend propellers? You're not the only one. https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/poland-reportedly-delivered-mig-29-fighters-to-ukraine-as-spare-parts I guess from last year there was a deal that got cancelled: https://www.yahoo.com/video/us-stopped-poland-giving-ukraine-124100005.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
The drone isn't worth recovering. It's not stealthy and the engine and airframe are nothing special. The only parts with value are the radios with their encryption chips and any mission-specific intelligence-gathering gear it may have been carrying, and those things almost certainly bricked themselves while it was going down. Whatever encryption keys it was using got crossed off the list immediately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:Why would a drone with a ONE slightly bent blade be forced to crash into the Black Sea. There has to be way more damage. The prop would be spinning at a high speed and damage to one blade can throw it out balance enough that continued running of the engine will damage the aircraft or the efficiency/effective output of the engine will drop enough that there is not enough fuel to make it somewhere safe. The prop being bent is the only damage we are aware of. The collision could have damaged the engine itself or other parts of the drone and the only option was to crash into the sea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:Why would a drone with a ONE slightly bent blade be forced to crash into the Black Sea. There has to be way more damage. Ever driven a car with an unbalanced tire? Now imagine you only have one tire. And the vibration is enough to destroy your transmission Also if that plane did actually hit the drone, it would have destroyed at least one of the tail-fins on top of the drone, which we can't see in the video since the camera is on the bottom. Thing would be completely uncontrollable without one of those rudders (elevators? ruddervators? whatever you call it with a V-tail).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
torpedan posted:The prop would be spinning at a high speed and damage to one blade can throw it out balance enough that continued running of the engine will damage the aircraft or the efficiency/effective output of the engine will drop enough that there is not enough fuel to make it somewhere safe.  the mq-9 uses a TPE331 which spins at a fixed speed of 1591 rpm so you know exactly how fast actually.https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Garrett-TPE331-turboprop-engine-based-on-18-p-15-3-A-main-shaft-engine-shaft_fig1_356952998 You call the v-tails ruddervators (cause they do both).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
torpedan posted:The prop would be spinning at a high speed and damage to one blade can throw it out balance enough that continued running of the engine will damage the aircraft or the efficiency/effective output of the engine will drop enough that there is not enough fuel to make it somewhere safe.  It seems likely that if you apply sudden force to a moving propeller blade then some of that force will be transferred to the propeller shaft, bearings and other connected parts which are already under stress and are not designed to take sudden extra shocks. Also that Telegram post makes it tie nicely to Nord Stream conspiracy theories. Ah yes, the drone was there to facilitate a US terror attack on the South Stream pipe so Russian fighters had to take it down...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
I didn't kill that man, the massive blood loss from a high velocity slug of lead did. Who cares? Russia downed it, that's all that matters in the political calculations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Enough about the fall of the drone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Looks like Ramstein conversations were to a meaningful end. Scholz is pushing for group manufacturing-procurement for Ukraine's needs. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deut...95-b066e1705567 Not sure I'm super optimistic about the timelines, given that, according to some maths I saw recently, Ukraine needs 360k 155 mm shells per month, for instance, when the EU manufactures 430k per annum, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
Okay but: War in Ukraine: The Fall of Drome (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Dumped fuel is going to be essentially at local atmospheric pressure at the drone, and rapidly losing cohesive, applied pressure. It would not have been nearly enough to damage a blade. I don't spray water at my car while traveling at 500mph (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Looks like Ramstein conversations were to a meaningful end. Scholz is pushing for group manufacturing-procurement for Ukraine's needs. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deut...95-b066e1705567 I can't get over the sheer number of shells that are being fired. I feel like this conflict is going to drain entire supply chains of raw materials at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I can't get over the sheer number of shells that are being fired. I feel like this conflict is going to drain entire supply chains of raw materials at some point. That article, which was on FT if I recall correctly, compared the intensity to El Alamein, since Russia is estimated to be firing 0.6-1.5 million shells per month at Ukrainians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Looks like Ramstein conversations were to a meaningful end. Scholz is pushing for group manufacturing-procurement for Ukraine's needs. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deut...95-b066e1705567
Even the Polish jets... are just four. Which is great! But, but did it take a year to fix up four jets? Did they just sit in a hanger until last week when the decision was finally make, and if so, what was the deal last year when they said they'd transfer them at any moment? It just seems the political decision-making process is completely dysfunctional, which is like whatever if we're arguing about acceptable banana curvature but kind of frustrating when it's literally a matter of life and death.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:That article, which was on FT if I recall correctly, compared the intensity to El Alamein, since Russia is estimated to be firing 0.6-1.5 million shells per month at Ukrainians. So let's call it 2m total. The world is not producing 2,000,000 shells per month. What a clusterfluck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
I did not have "the front only starts moving because both sides completely run out of artillery ammo" on my bingo card when this all kicked off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Well it's better than nothing! Oh, absolutely agreed. I just feel like Scholz is getting a bit ahead of himself with how much the German MIC is ready to do now. cr0y posted:So let's call it 2m total. It's probably closer to 1 million, since 0.6-1.5 million, where stuff just spikes to the quoted 50k/day when Russian officers are hurting for an opening salvo on something. Still, that is A Number.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
The hopeful optimism is as we supply artillery that can fully work with smart munitions the amount needed for counter battery file would go down considerably at the least I'm guessing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
How many shells were being made during peak ww1?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How many shells were being made during peak ww1? quote:Between 1914 and 1918 every country involved in the war as a participant or a supplier dramatically increased shell production. In Germany, shell production of all calibers increased from 343,000 a month in 1914 to 11,000,000 a month in 1918 (according to Salavrakos, below). In Britain in 1915, the “shell scandal” erupted after it became clear that the high rate of artillery fire on the battlefield could not be sustained by the limited production of shells back home. From 1914 to 1918, Germany and Austria-Hungary produced up to 680 million shells and the industries of the Allies France, Britain, Russia (to October 1917), Italy, the U.S. and Canada, produced up to 790 million shells (the statistics vary greatly). The U.S. produced between 30 million and 50 million of these shells. Note that artillery calibres were far more varied back then, ranging from light mortars to siege guns, so comparison in tonnage might be more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anecdotes-from-the-archive/war-of-the-manufacturing-machines-1916/ Even now 155 is hardly the only size --- there is 152, 122, 105, mortars, Grad rockets, etc. Also counting just 155 still misses 152, 122,
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Even now 155 is hardly the only size --- there is 152, 122, 105, mortars, Grad rockets, etc. This is nothing compared to WW1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The question this raises, again, is why are we getting to this point only now, a year into the war. I just don't understand that if we were actually committed from the start, why this didn't happen at least after Kharkiv. Might have something to do with some/all of the following messaging presented. 1- Russia running out of ammo starting back in March last year. If it turned to be true, there is no need for any ramp up of production. 2- The Russian economy will collapse because of the sanctions. If it happen, the Russian army cannot be sustained so there is no need to ramp up production. 3- The sanctions will raise internal political pressure until the state has to back down or collapse. If it happened, there is no need for ramp up. 4- The Russians are getting beaten as demonstrated in Kherson and Kharkiv. Now, we know 1,2 and 3 didn't happen at least until now but if the decision making was based on these points and the messaging was the expected truth and not actual propaganda, then it makes sense to not ramp up. Number 4 is more debatable as we know the Russian changed to situation with a call-up wave which seem to at least have patched up some of their manpower problem allowing them to hold ground and even do some offensive actions. On top of that, no country in the west has fought a war with this level of intensity recently. The past few wars were closer to policing action against completely overmatched enemies in the middle-east. The US never had to fire 10k shells in a day, let alone 50k even for an offensive and the other side never really had the means to get anywhere close to that. If you want factories to run 24/7, you have to pay for it at the capitalism price because it was mostly all privatized. Running a national armory to produce shells at a deficit is probably easier to pass as opposed to signing contract to GDLS to produce ammo at whatever price they ask including of course a healthy profit margin for a war you are "already winning".
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
Absolutely no one credible thought that Russia would run out of artillery ammunition, that the Russian economy would "collapse", or that sanctions would lead to regime change. Nobody made decisions thinking these things were true. There is a very simple problem with industrial production, especially modern one. It takes time to scale up, especially if you don't transition to a war economy. Personnel takes time to train, factory lines take time to retool, tools have long lead times, contracts need to be signed to make the investment worth it. Things have been slowly scaling up. I think people just underestimate how much time industrial stuff takes. Unless you are advocating for transitioning into a war economy with government intervention, but that's a whole other discussion. Large tenders for artillery ammo should've been put up many months ago, though. In the grand scheme of things, guaranteeing a return on investment for companies building new production lines wouldn't cost that much money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
That seems like the opposite of reality - at the start of the war western sources widely thought that Ukraine had no chance in a conventional war with Russia and that it would fall far too quickly for ammo production concerns to come into play. It's taken a long time to adjust to the Russian army's consistent failures and the reality that they could lose this war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:That seems like the opposite of reality - at the start of the war western sources widely thought that Ukraine had no chance in a conventional war with Russia and that it would fall far too quickly for ammo production concerns to come into play. It's taken a long time to adjust to the Russian army's consistent failures and the reality that they could lose this war. Guessing how long the war will last and how much ammo will ultimately be needed remain nagging questions, because ramping it up is slow and expensive, and once the war is over demand drops back to zero.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
There is no political will to make shells. And no political will means lack of urgency. Everything else is excuses. It was obvious about 10 months ago that it will be a long war. But there is no Western roadmap, just some masturbation sessions in Ramstein
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/hQuYd2q.mp4 audio enhances (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2023 08:26
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Absolutely no one credible thought that Russia would run out of artillery ammunition, that the Russian economy would "collapse", or that sanctions would lead to regime change. Nobody made decisions thinking these things were true. I absolutely agree with you on all of that, the problem is that a lot of the general public believed (hoped) that it was gonna get solved in a couple of weeks. And exactly as with covid, a lot of politicians didn't have the courage to explain that this was gonna be a long and very complicated process. And so it gets dragged out, everybody passing hot potatoes from their desk to the next one, which slows down everything even more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2023 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:How damaging is it going to be if Russia gets their hands on the drone? It sounds like the US isn't going to be able to get the wreckage back. The fun part is, the Reaper is one of the systems we haven't been giving to Ukraine because we didn't want to risk the Russians getting their hands on one. If they have one... fuckit, Ukraine gets all the Reapers we can spare. So Russia actually has to weigh what China will pay them for a recovered MQ-9 against what Ukraine getting a bunch of them means to their chances on the battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2023 09:35
|
|
