|
I thought planes were aluminum and titanium and generally non ferrous?
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
why don't they just build extremely basic supertankers and fill them to the brim with missiles. like those hedgehog depth charge things posted earlier, except it's the entire boat, and it's a thousand rockets. I bet you'd only need like 15 people to operate the thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
leave 'em in the salt spray, get 'em rusty
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:I thought planes were aluminum and titanium and generally non ferrous? Ironically it's the radar-absorbent materials on the F-35. Which raises a lot of questions because I'm sure this isn't good for their stealth properties either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
yeah the cancerous poo poo they paint the planes with oxidizes and gets ruined easily. luckily they can sell you a repaint for mucho dinero
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
like the end of star trek vi where they rig a torpedo to track the exhaust of the cloaked ship except it’s the pla following the trail of rust and toxic chemicals from disintegrating us ships
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
yellowcar posted:i would go even further and say that any surface vessel is basically a big fat target for the cheaper anti-ship ballistic missiles Surface warships are vulnerable but like, the Burke-class is a pretty capable combatant and the US operates 70 of them compared to 11 carriers, each costs about 10 times as much and that doesn't even include the cost of the air wing which pushes it up to something like 20x. The concentration of military capital in an aircraft carrier is astounding. Like for what those things cost (and all the training for the extremely specialized folks that operate them - nuclear techs, carrier pilots, etc.) they better loving win in every situation unconditionally or a peer opponent will just bury them in 20 billion dollars worth of other stuff. And keep in mind, the US isn't an unstoppable industrial overmatch compared to its rivals anymore so it can't just bury China in production or even easily make good its own losses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:It's loving insane to me that the most basic element of life in a steam navy is being neglected. I mean, the Victorians took it a little far by requiring captains to buy their own paint beyond the provided I think 4 coats a year, and the amount of brass that needed to be polished, the buff and white paint in tropical waters, but letting major warships rust is ...lol. *stretching suspender straps with thumbs* eeryyup that's what happens when you don't get the clearcoat. folks, don't let it happen to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:yeah the cancerous poo poo they paint the planes with oxidizes and gets ruined easily. luckily they can sell you a repaint for mucho dinero It's just funny to think of when you remember that Truman became Vice-President almost entirely because of his work going after these guys    More of the aviation report here, it's a great read I think this might be the full report, but it includes things like building highways and sourcing copper, so it's a bit of a snooze
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:no one ever got passed up for promotion by reducing maintenance costs, I assume Loads of people got passed up for promotion because the ship wasn't shiny enough, that's why they never fired their guns in peacetime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
sullat posted:Loads of people got passed up for promotion because the ship wasn't shiny enough, that's why they never fired their guns in peacetime. Royal Navy officers despised gunnery practice for this reason lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Surface warships are vulnerable but like, the Burke-class is a pretty capable combatant and the US operates 70 of them compared to 11 carriers, each costs about 10 times as much and that doesn't even include the cost of the air wing which pushes it up to something like 20x. there's a reason why countries like iran are investing all their time and money into developing missiles and drones rather than try to match the USN ship for ship. sure an aegis system can intercept up to 10 targets but all you have to do then to beat that is to launch 20. it's not to say surface vessels are now obsolete but rather they're just becoming more and more a liability so building your navy backbone around those is no bueno
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
indigi posted:why don't they just build extremely basic supertankers and fill them to the brim with missiles. like those hedgehog depth charge things posted earlier, except it's the entire boat, and it's a thousand rockets. I bet you'd only need like 15 people to operate the thing The USN studied this concept a couple times in the 90s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_ship Congress killed it though, more aircraft carriers
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
yellowcar posted:there's a reason why countries like iran are investing all their time and money into developing missiles and drones rather than try to match the USN ship for ship. sure an aegis system can intercept up to 10 targets but all you have to do then to beat that is to launch 20. "All submarines all the time" has its own problems
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:16
|
|
|
yellowcar posted:there's a reason why countries like iran are investing all their time and money into developing missiles and drones rather than try to match the USN ship for ship. sure an aegis system can intercept up to 10 targets but all you have to do then to beat that is to launch 20. Part of that is also the asymmetry. It's very easy for the United States or Israel now to strike at Iranian shipyards or I suppose even warships in port. Suppose they did want to build Slava class cruisers and Udaloy class destroyers, which would be pretty formidable in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf and have definite advantages for the Iranian state. Unless they're built in Russian yards, they're vulnerable to disruption from the time they're laid down to the time they're commissioned and their sensors and weapons are fully operational. The ability of the United States and Israel to strike at them means they're more vulnerable than their counterparts, whatever their fighting value. Then, even in service, compared to their counterparts, they would be operating in a much more hostile environment. It wouldn't be as big a deal if overnight they could have a late-Soviet task force of cruisers and destroyers backed up by submarines and backfires, but assembling each element of that has to happen under the guns of the US and Israel, and I think that makes it unfeasible. Whereas China went from a brown-green water navy of modest warships to a well-rounded surface fleet plus 3 carriers in about 20 years. Naval buildups trigger pretty intense responses from the major players, and it makes for a very tense situation all around. Suppose Iran considered a surface navy programme to, if not match than effectively counter, the US Fifth Fleet. Nobody knows what the Americans would do, but it probably wouldn't be great, and would happen sometime before Iran completed the buildup. Not only could the US trivially transfer ships from the Sixth Fleet in Naples to stay ahead of Iran, but they can outspend Iran any day of the week and have resources Iran just couldn't match, even in the theatre. Now, ideally, some things might change, Russia might recover a fleet building program, China's shipyard capacity might keep growing, so Iran might be able to have more opportunities to acquire ships, and diplomatically might edge closer to security arrangements with those navies, which would come closer to balancing the scales, but of course that would trip a dangerous and unpredictable response from the US too. Rewinding the clock, part of the reason the High Seas Fleet was able to catch up to the Royal Navy, and later the IJN to the eastern forces of the RN and USN was that the new innovations of the dreadnought and aircraft carrier levelled the playing field, even the major maritime powers were essentially starting at 0. On a smaller scale, this was the interwar race of large destroyer type ships (terminology is complicated) between France and Italy during the interwar period as well. The Soviets took a commanding lead in missile armed ships during the Cold War for this reason, which made up for being massively outnumbered in terms of gun-armed WW2 era ships. That was important because there were hardly any Russian surface combatants laid down after 1930 for a variety of reasons, and since they had fought a very hard war, hardly any ships at all in fighting condition in 1946. Had navies remained armed with guns - the state of the art in 1946 - I doubt the Soviets could have ever caught up, but they built a (very good, as 2 recent books from USNI show) very different kind of navy to close the gap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Rover829/status/1641174760770895872?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:Mortars have a muzzle velocity around 90 m/s, howitzers fire at 830 m/s. It's similar to how a silencer for a pistol reduces muzzle velocity below the speed of sound, so you could think of a mortar as a tiny silenced howitzer Suppressors don't slow down the bullet down, rather they give the muzzle gasses a controlled place to expand and depressurize. Basically instead of having a poo poo load of gas squeezed into the barrel and letting it fly off everywhere at extreme pressure (and volume) after the bullet leaves the barrel you have the same amount of gas and let it expand ~20x more before letting it out in the wild, with a corresponding drop in pressure. You need subsonic ammunition or there will still be a supersonic crack from the bullet. Frosted Flake posted:Ironically it's the radar-absorbent materials on the F-35. The middle guy looks like he's got a missile on the wing hardpoint so they must just be going YOLO no stealth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
suppressors are baffling
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
they sound badass in goldeneye 64
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
all i know is being a sailor is probably a death wish lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:You need subsonic ammunition or there will still be a supersonic crack from the bullet. I interpreted that to be the point he was making, since mortar bombs are, essentially, subsonic ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:47
|
|
|
yellowcar posted:i would go even further and say that any surface vessel is basically a big fat target for the cheaper anti-ship ballistic missiles forums poster Yooper has been running a game of Command Modern Operations in the LP subforum, and in the last scenario that was covered, a Chinese airstrike on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle almost failed despite being shot at with over a hundred anti-ship missiles due to the efforts of the carrier's two escorts, the Forbin and the La Fayette. It wasn't until the escorts were sunk by torpedoes that the CdG's defenses were overwhelmed. I guess what I'm saying here is that while it is possible to sink a carrier with ASMs, it's not a trivial / easy task to do so, and the Arleigh Burkes escorting a USN CVN need to be dealt with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:It's just funny to think of when you remember that Truman became Vice-President almost entirely because of his work going after these guys 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 03:04
|
|
|
The Marine Nationale rules in CMO, glad someone else is taking the time to learn about and use them. Malafon gang for life. Then again, the Italians built a cruiser that could launch Polaris ballistic missiles which is one of the most bizarre and interesting concepts in CMO, and relevant to this discussion. gradenko_2000 posted:dive bombers were still the correct tactical aircraft when fighting Japanese carriers I think it was more the extent to which they hosed up every step of development, testing and production compared to the Avenger, Hellcat and Corsair. Truman really went after these guys, and clearly took the time to learn about the military equipment in question, from jeeps to flying boats, so he could figure out where the grift was. Compared to politicians now who are easily wowed by Raytheon presentations, it’s night and day. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 03:13 on Mar 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:forums poster Yooper has been running a game of Command Modern Operations in the LP subforum, and in the last scenario that was covered, a Chinese airstrike on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle almost failed despite being shot at with over a hundred anti-ship missiles due to the efforts of the carrier's two escorts, the Forbin and the La Fayette. It wasn't until the escorts were sunk by torpedoes that the CdG's defenses were overwhelmed. "Almost failed" meaning the Chinese blew it up, both its escorts up, and its entire air-group for the cost of like a squadron or two of strike aircraft. Really makes you wonder if a Ford-class carrier full of fat amys is going to be worth the cost of protecting it
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
As much as "China doesn't have the type of boats that count" is an obvious cope by a spokesman of a declining power who doesn't like that China is rapidly becoming a peer competitor (actually it probably already is) after spending the previous century scorning it's "backwardness". There is a kernel of truth there. There's a reason navies used to count Pre and Post Dreadnaught Battleships separately, and China does indeed have a much different focus on its navy and ship types that has some disadvantages (but also advantages). But really with how many counter-measures and counter-counter-measures and counter-counter-counter-measures everyone is fielding but have never actually been used in an actual war, I simply don't think there's anyway anyone could possibly predict how a naval conflict would actually play out. There's simply too many moving parts that have never interacted with each other in real world conditions in an ever lengthening chain reaction with countless more moving parts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:forums poster Yooper has been running a game of Command Modern Operations in the LP subforum, and in the last scenario that was covered, a Chinese airstrike on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle almost failed despite being shot at with over a hundred anti-ship missiles due to the efforts of the carrier's two escorts, the Forbin and the La Fayette. It wasn't until the escorts were sunk by torpedoes that the CdG's defenses were overwhelmed. Does CMO have hypersonics? Frosted Flake posted:the Italians built ... bizarre and interesting Many such cases! galagazombie posted:As much as "China doesn't have the type of boats that count" is an obvious cope by a spokesman of a declining power who doesn't like that China is rapidly becoming a peer competitor (actually it probably already is) after spending the previous century scorning it's "backwardness". There is a kernel of truth there. There's a reason navies used to count Pre and Post Dreadnaught Battleships separately, and China does indeed have a much different focus on its navy and ship types that has some disadvantages (but also advantages). But really with how many counter-measures and counter-counter-measures and counter-counter-counter-measures everyone is fielding but have never actually been used in an actual war, I simply don't think there's anyway anyone could possibly predict how a naval conflict would actually play out. There's simply too many moving parts that have never interacted with each other in real world conditions in an ever lengthening chain reaction with countless more moving parts. When has concentrating a monumental amount of value and power in one big thing been a better strategy than spreading it out among many numbers of halfway decent things? It's not the more common mode imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
If someone wanted to hype a type of US ship in contrast with China, makes more sense to hype US undersea capability than carriers. Carriers aren't nothing, but they can be held at serious risk and kept pretty far away. Undersea is one of the areas where the US is still a significant step ahead of Chinese capabilities. And there are a significant number of them, so they're not such a singular huge target.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:forums poster Yooper has been running a game of Command Modern Operations in the LP subforum, and in the last scenario that was covered, a Chinese airstrike on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle almost failed despite being shot at with over a hundred anti-ship missiles due to the efforts of the carrier's two escorts, the Forbin and the La Fayette. It wasn't until the escorts were sunk by torpedoes that the CdG's defenses were overwhelmed. there’s a bunch of these sort of mechanistic simulations out there (grim reapers on YouTube do awesome simulations of carrier strikes in DCS) but I don’t think they bear much relationship to reality. they can’t model incompetence, rock bottom readiness, just straight up lying by the MIC etc. in real life situations where missiles have flown into ships it’s been very bad for the ships involved (Sheffield, Moskva) with a very small number of missiles. those are limited examples though and the only time we will know the truth about the effectiveness of naval defence is at the start of WW3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
like you can build the most perfect ballistic simulation of an SM6 hitting a BrahMos of whatever but it can’t factor in that the SM6 was built on a cost plus contract and is actually full of cheese, and the BrahMos costs too much for the navy to have more than 3 etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:When has concentrating a monumental amount of value and power in one big thing been a better strategy than spreading it out among many numbers of halfway decent things? It's not the more common mode imo there are lots of particular moments in time where "halfway decent things" have turned out to not really be up to the task vs. expensive stuff that takes a lot of investment (steel armor, ships of the line, ironclads, medium/heavy tanks over inter/early-war light tanks, etc.)? obviously it's easy to bring the countervailing boondoggles and failed wunderwaffen to mind, and I don't think anyone is particularly enamored of the way the US is currently structuring things, but it's a fair point that it's really hard to tell where that shifting line of overinvestment actually falls when you're talking about the relative effectiveness of a bunch of integrated/dependent stuff that hasn't actually been used at scale
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 05:06
|
|
|
Trimson Grondag 3 posted:like you can build the most perfect ballistic simulation of an SM6 hitting a BrahMos of whatever but it can’t factor in that the SM6 was built on a cost plus contract and is actually full of cheese, and the BrahMos costs too much for the navy to have more than 3 etc. *pushes SM6 launch button* *flag with "bang" on it comes out of vls cell*
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 06:16
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:suppressors are baffling hey, that's a pun
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 06:50
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I doubt the Soviets could have ever caught up, but they built a (very good, as 2 recent books from USNI show) very different kind of navy to close the gap. What are these books? I know nothing really about the Soviet Navy beyond the propaganda that they were going to be hopelessly outclassed by the freeeom navies
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 07:30
|
|
|
indigi posted:why don't they just build extremely basic supertankers and fill them to the brim with missiles. like those hedgehog depth charge things posted earlier, except it's the entire boat, and it's a thousand rockets. I bet you'd only need like 15 people to operate the thing at some point i guess you don't wanna cram all your missiles in one ship but the soviets were exploring the idea at least; the kirov cruisers were some of the largest combat ships on the planet (basically only eclipsed by modern carriers, iirc) and were packed with anti-air and anti-ship missiles
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 08:17
|
|
|
As far as hypersonic missiles go, you do want a platform to launch them from, which is why you need something that can hold multiple VLS launchers (which are just going to be more efficient than box launchers). In addition, if you going to the lengths of having at least a small capital ship, it probably doesn't hurt to have helipad/hanger on it (for ASW/resupply) as well as CIWS systems and possibly a traditional gun, at that point you basically have a frigate. Most of the US submarine fleet is geared toward countering the Russians, and the Chinese have always been considered an afterthought even though they have a large number of conventional submarines. More recently, the US has been panicking because the PLAN is building a whole new class of nuclear power attack subs and ballistic missile subs that is going to stretch American sub-building beyond capacity. In all honesty, I think the most likely scenario for Taiwan is probably still the island being gradually absorbed economically even if the Greens occasionally stir up trouble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 09:15
|
|
|
A big part of the reason PRC SSNs haven't been taken super seriously and haven't created panic, beyond monitoring progress, is that they have a boutique number and can sustain about 2 deployed at any given time using the ratio of 1 ship deployed to 2 in maintenance and training. Plus, Russian submarines, and even more so US submarines, are still a lot more capable than PRC submarines. PRC conventional subs count for something in regional fights, which is the most likely conflict, so it's not like their undersea force can be discounted wholly. They just aren't as tricky to locate and track than the more modern very long range subs of the US and Russia. But if there's any domain at all where the US still feels relatively comfortable with PRC capabilities now and for the relative near future (a decade plus), it's undersea in contrast with serious concerns about keeping pace with PRC advances in surface forces, air, space, fires, comms, supply lines, etc. But undersea is not an area where any major player (US, Russia, PRC) can really sit back and assume they're good to go without constant efforts to field and develop complementary capability. SSBNs are something to track, but nuclear deterrence is a separate mission, and China maintaining and modernizing the nuclear deterrent it has possessed for decades isn't as big a concern as escalation management in general and deterring conventional wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 13:35
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Does CMO have hypersonics? PE does, I believe the commercial version just got them as well. PE also has comms jamming and directional EMP, which is important to a lot of this naval stuff, either present or near-future, but for some reason (I'm guessing slightly classified?) is not in commercial. KomradeX posted:What are these books? I know nothing really about the Soviet Navy beyond the propaganda that they were going to be hopelessly outclassed by the freeeom navies Red Navy At Sea: Soviet Naval Operations On The High Seas Warships of the Soviet Fleets 1939-1945 21st Century Gorshkov: The Challenge of Seapower in the Modern Era Strike from the Sea: The Development and Deployment of Strategic Cruise Missiles since 1934 The Soviet Navy: Strengths And Liabilities Soviet Naval Doctrine and Policy 1956–1986 An interesting trend is that appraisals of the Soviet Navy (and Red Army) have a noticeable V or U shape. Very positive in the 80's, plummets at the End of History, has rapidly increased in the past 5 or 10 years. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 14:51 on Mar 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 13:49
|
|
|
sounds like China needs a new Toshiba-Kongsberg scandal
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:Suppressors don't slow down the bullet down, rather they give the muzzle gasses a controlled place to expand and depressurize. Basically instead of having a poo poo load of gas squeezed into the barrel and letting it fly off everywhere at extreme pressure (and volume) after the bullet leaves the barrel you have the same amount of gas and let it expand ~20x more before letting it out in the wild, with a corresponding drop in pressure. You need subsonic ammunition or there will still be a supersonic crack from the bullet. Interesting. Older rubber gasket suppressors do reduce muzzle velocity but modern ones have a series of baffles where the bullet does not have to pass through any additional material. So I guess you could create a suppressor for a mortar tube by drilling out a cylinder with baffles and have a silenced mortar and it wouldn't change how it fired. I wonder if anyone has made silenced artillery
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 14:23
|
|
