Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
GD_American
Jul 21, 2004

LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY AS IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT!

bulletsponge13 posted:


And the best version of the A10 was the Cobra Rattler

uh, did the Cobra Rattler ever score?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

bulletsponge13 posted:

I knew I had the number wrong.
Back in 2003, they were still running an airframe for Short Take Off/specialized missions. I don't know what the number was any longer- it was a prop driven smaller than a 130. My memory might be wrong, but it was a pretty big deal that they still existed when I was still in. They were US Army, not AF.

E- I think I am thinking of the C27 Spartan. Pics look right to my memory

Began with the Army, then the USAF shat itself because gently caress, the Army's taking our jobs! So transferred to the AF, who promptly realized hey, we don't actually want these things. So off to the desert go about 20 nearly new airplanes. The USCG picked up several, along with SOC as noted. One of the many recent procurement "success" stories.

in a well actually
Jan 26, 2011

dude, you gotta end it on the rhyme

Powered Descent posted:

A-10 chat reminded me that as a kid I had a GoBot that was an A-10.



With wing decals guaranteed to piss off the Air Force! :allears:

Somewhere, an AF general found a monkey’s paw and wished to get the a-10 off their books.

Loezi
Dec 18, 2012

Never buy the cheap stuff

CainFortea posted:

So about half the total armor kills for the F-111

Uuuh, am I blind and missing the number of kills for the A10 from those quotes? All I'm seeing is the number of sorties flown which I thought just means "someone took off"

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

bulletsponge13 posted:

I knew I had the number wrong.
Back in 2003, they were still running an airframe for Short Take Off/specialized missions. I don't know what the number was any longer- it was a prop driven smaller than a 130. My memory might be wrong, but it was a pretty big deal that they still existed when I was still in. They were US Army, not AF.

E- I think I am thinking of the C27 Spartan. Pics look right to my memory

There was an Army program in Afghanistan that was run by a crazy logistics MAJ which used DHC-4s to land on the drone runways at smaller FOBs. We were getting resupplied by it at Ghazni for a while; I'd never before seen an airplane go offroading until I saw that thing turn around in a rocky scrub field at the end of the runway

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

In Ukraine news, Russia has apparently started using Armatas, at least according to RIA.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-new-t-14-armata-battle-tank-debuts-ukraine-ria-2023-04-25/

So they must REALLY be running out of tanks.

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



psydude posted:

In Ukraine news, Russia has apparently started using Armatas, at least according to RIA.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-new-t-14-armata-battle-tank-debuts-ukraine-ria-2023-04-25/

So they must REALLY be running out of tanks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-opSlCGLGQ4

Amusingly, Russian tanks have been based upon the same Soviet V-2 diesel engine since the early 1930s, which is increasingly underpowered for the weight of a modern MBT, until the Armata, which uses an engine based on the one out of the Porsche Tiger, which kinda explains why it breaks the gently caress down all the time. Also amusingly, a lot of the video of the T-14 has them pointlessly spinning their turrets while driving for some reason.

steinrokkan
Apr 2, 2011



Soiled Meat

orange juche posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-opSlCGLGQ4

Amusingly, Russian tanks have been based upon the same Soviet V-2 diesel engine since the early 1930s, which is increasingly underpowered for the weight of a modern MBT, until the Armata, which uses an engine based on the one out of the Porsche Tiger, which kinda explains why it breaks the gently caress down all the time. Also amusingly, a lot of the video of the T-14 has them pointlessly spinning their turrets while driving for some reason.

FWIW, that video is pretty bad according to this response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyWAd1pQiwU

Anyway, those T14 stats are gonna remain just numbers on paper forever since Russia has nuked its ability to produce anything more complex than a toaster.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Apr 26, 2023

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



steinrokkan posted:

FWIW, that video is pretty bad according to this response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyWAd1pQiwU

Anyway, those T14 stats are gonna remain just numbers on paper forever since Russia has nuked its ability to produce anything more complex than a toaster.

That's a pretty good and detailed takedown from a tank nerd. At the end of the day somewhere between 15 and 30 T-14's exist in the world, which doesn't really make them any sort of a real capability in Ukraine. I'm sure that :nsa: would be absolutely tickled pink if one of them gets captured due to a breakdown/battle damage and abandoned without it being completely destroyed, though.

Comrade Blyatlov
Aug 4, 2007


should have picked four fingers





orange juche posted:

That's a pretty good and detailed takedown from a tank nerd. At the end of the day somewhere between 15 and 30 T-14's exist in the world, which doesn't really make them any sort of a real capability in Ukraine. I'm sure that :nsa: would be absolutely tickled pink if one of them gets captured due to a breakdown/battle damage and abandoned without it being completely destroyed, though.

I wonder if Uncle Sam will make sure that happens

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



Comrade Blyatlov posted:

I wonder if Uncle Sam will make sure that happens

I don't know how that would be possible, too many variables on a battlefield to guarantee a tank is abandoned without being destroyed. While I'm sure western intelligence would love to get their hands on a T-14 just to find out exactly how it works, just validating in combat that it can blow up will be good enough, so drone footage of a T-14 getting popped would be just as attractive.

jimmy mnemonic
Jan 9, 2007

Fun Shoe

Madurai posted:

Tim Mak, an NPR correspondent covering Ukraine, got laid off recently, and instead of going home, decided to stay and keep reporting. I've subscribed to his Substack account, hopefully turns into a decent pipeline.

https://counteroffensive.substack.com/

No content yet other than an introduction. I also hope it turns out to be decent.

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Loezi posted:

Uuuh, am I blind and missing the number of kills for the A10 from those quotes? All I'm seeing is the number of sorties flown which I thought just means "someone took off"

Most accounts give 900 for the A-10.
Here's a different article that explains how/why as well, though it uses tank/armored vehicle/ militiary vehicle loosely and doesn't link any sources.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you-know-the-f-111-killed-more-tanks-than-the-a-10-during-operation-desert-storm/

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007
The whole Fighter Mafia thing never ceases to boggle my mind. How did the guys whose entire gimmick was 'reforming' things to be cheaper and shittier ever get any kind of clout or prestige?

Carth Dookie
Jan 28, 2013

Kchama posted:

The whole Fighter Mafia thing never ceases to boggle my mind. How did the guys whose entire gimmick was 'reforming' things to be cheaper and shittier ever get any kind of clout or prestige?

Quantity being a quality all of its own has SOME appeal when you expect absolutely horrific losses due to flinging nukes. Also, it's nice to have a decent but simple (relatively) plane to sell to all the NATO nations and other allies. MIC likes money.

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



Quantity is a quality all its own is one of the most disgusting sayings ever because the side with the more technically superior equipment is going to make mincemeat of the opposing side, sometimes literally.

Ask the British when they were fighting Zulu tribesmen armed with clubs, spears and hide shields, and they had the gatling gun.

GD_American
Jul 21, 2004

LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY AS IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT!

Kchama posted:

The whole Fighter Mafia thing never ceases to boggle my mind. How did the guys whose entire gimmick was 'reforming' things to be cheaper and shittier ever get any kind of clout or prestige?

More affordability = more fighter planes = more fighter squadrons = more CO slots = more promotion potential for the officer class

JudgeJoeBrown
Mar 23, 2007

Kchama posted:

The whole Fighter Mafia thing never ceases to boggle my mind. How did the guys whose entire gimmick was 'reforming' things to be cheaper and shittier ever get any kind of clout or prestige?

Great marketing which luckily for us only really got them book deals and spots on RT.

boofhead
Feb 18, 2021

orange juche posted:

Quantity is a quality all its own is one of the most disgusting sayings ever because the side with the more technically superior equipment is going to make mincemeat of the opposing side, sometimes literally.

Ask the British when they were fighting Zulu tribesmen armed with clubs, spears and hide shields, and they had the gatling gun.

"Welcome to Whose Line Is It Anyway International Relations, the show where everything's made up and human lives don't matter!"

Splorange
Feb 23, 2011

JudgeJoeBrown posted:

Great marketing which luckily for us only really got them book deals and spots on RT.

That was the grift, there's always gullible fucks with limited domain knowledge to peddle your bullshit to.

Hyperlynx
Sep 13, 2015

Kchama posted:

The whole Fighter Mafia thing never ceases to boggle my mind. How did the guys whose entire gimmick was 'reforming' things to be cheaper and shittier ever get any kind of clout or prestige?

Lying, mostly, if our friend the pig is to be believed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDfdCj61dY

crusty
Apr 16, 2015

Crustacean

orange juche posted:

That's a pretty good and detailed takedown from a tank nerd. At the end of the day somewhere between 15 and 30 T-14's exist in the world, which doesn't really make them any sort of a real capability in Ukraine. I'm sure that :nsa: would be absolutely tickled pink if one of them gets captured due to a breakdown/battle damage and abandoned without it being completely destroyed, though.

I know Jack about poo poo, can a tank be taken out by an EMP?

(Not that this would realistically help them get one given all the other issues, just suddenly curious)

Valtonen
May 13, 2014

Tanks still suck but you don't gotta hand it to the Axis either.

crusty posted:

I know Jack about poo poo, can a tank be taken out by an EMP?

(Not that this would realistically help them get one given all the other issues, just suddenly curious)

All modern tanks still retain manual turret controls (crank handles) and manual firing mechanism for all weapons systems along with direct-telescope auxiliary sights. So no, but it would likely turn it into an immobile version (most modern power packs are, just like modern car engines, electronically controlled) of a world war 2 tank.

So yes, Tiberian Sun -style EMP cannon would work on a tank.

Xakura
Jan 10, 2019

A safety-conscious little mouse!

Valtonen posted:

All modern tanks still retain manual turret controls (crank handles) and manual firing mechanism for all weapons systems along with direct-telescope auxiliary sights. So no, but it would likely turn it into an immobile version (most modern power packs are, just like modern car engines, electronically controlled) of a world war 2 tank.

So yes, Tiberian Sun -style EMP cannon would work on a tank.

Ok but what if your tank engine was from the 30s :ohdear:

SirTagz
Feb 25, 2014

Valtonen posted:

All modern tanks still retain manual turret controls (crank handles) and manual firing mechanism for all weapons systems along with direct-telescope auxiliary sights. So no, but it would likely turn it into an immobile version (most modern power packs are, just like modern car engines, electronically controlled) of a world war 2 tank.

So yes, Tiberian Sun -style EMP cannon would work on a tank.

Isn't tank just a large metal box? Why doesn't that protect it when things like Faraday cages work?

SirTagz fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Apr 26, 2023

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



SirTagz posted:

Isn't tank just a large metal box? Why doesn't that protect it when things like Faraday cages work? Please explain I am dumb

EMPs generate thousands of volts in metal objects and circuits and unlike a faraday cage most aren't nearly well grounded enough to dissipate the charge. Also the charge from an EMP is generated everywhere in the circuit, and modern electronics will burn out from a voltage of slightly over 1VDC through critical components like CPUs.

Older military cpus might use 3.3VDC or even 5VDC if they're old enough. They still will toast under thousands of volts from an EMP.

crusty
Apr 16, 2015

Crustacean
Thanks!

Buncha classy goons itt.

bird food bathtub
Aug 9, 2003

College Slice
Biggest problem is that, as far as I know, we really only have one way of creating weaponizable scales of EMP and that method comes with some....really inconvenient side effects.

Pennsylvanian
May 23, 2010

Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky Independent Presidential Regiment
Western Liberal Democracy or Death!

Kchama posted:

The whole Fighter Mafia thing never ceases to boggle my mind. How did the guys whose entire gimmick was 'reforming' things to be cheaper and shittier ever get any kind of clout or prestige?

It seems like they benefit greatly off of the "simple answers to complex questions" dynamic. The amount of people that can understand over-the-horizon kills is much smaller than people who can boot up War Thunder.

Fivemarks
Feb 21, 2015
Don't forget their thing where they can get major motion pictures made based on their bald faced lies, like Pentagon Wars.

And also don't forget where they can point at the Osprey and compare its failure rate to fixed wing aircraft instead of other rotary wing aircraft and go "See this proves we're right."

bees everywhere
Nov 19, 2002

bird food bathtub posted:

Biggest problem is that, as far as I know, we really only have one way of creating weaponizable scales of EMP and that method comes with some....really inconvenient side effects.

Yup, and from what I recall the EMP effects from a nuke are often exaggerated, in reality most of the electronics that would be affected by the EMP would also be completely destroyed by the blast wave.

winnydpu
May 3, 2007
Sugartime Jones

Pennsylvanian posted:

It seems like they benefit greatly off of the "simple answers to complex questions" dynamic. The amount of people that can understand over-the-horizon kills is much smaller than people who can boot up War Thunder.

For what its worth, this was a time immediately after Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli wars had shown the previous generation of automated over-horizon fighters to be almost complete bullshit in real-world applications. They did not account for the impact of technical improvements and more importantly, procurement reform (I know, but the '50s and '60s procurement was an even bigger money fountain joke). They extrapolated the previous 10 years, and no one anticipated that the fighters they were designing in the '70s would have to last for the next 60 years.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

winnydpu posted:

For what its worth, this was a time immediately after Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli wars had shown the previous generation of automated over-horizon fighters to be almost complete bullshit in real-world applications. They did not account for the impact of technical improvements and more importantly, procurement reform (I know, but the '50s and '60s procurement was an even bigger money fountain joke). They extrapolated the previous 10 years, and no one anticipated that the fighters they were designing in the '70s would have to last for the next 60 years.

... Yeah but they wanted stuff that was like, WW2 at best stuff.

Fivemarks
Feb 21, 2015

CainFortea
Oct 15, 2004


Loezi posted:

Uuuh, am I blind and missing the number of kills for the A10 from those quotes? All I'm seeing is the number of sorties flown which I thought just means "someone took off"

No, the total tank kills for the A-10 weren't in the article. I just added it because the A-10's performance was pretty much the topic of conversation.

Tunicate
May 15, 2012

Kchama posted:

... Yeah but they wanted stuff that was like, WW2 at best stuff.

Radar is overrated

Artificer
Apr 8, 2010

You're going to try ponies and you're. Going. To. LOVE. ME!!
Didnt upgrades to the A10 improve its sensors so pilots werent literally looking out with binoculars?

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Kchama posted:

The whole Fighter Mafia thing never ceases to boggle my mind. How did the guys whose entire gimmick was 'reforming' things to be cheaper and shittier ever get any kind of clout or prestige?

They had a point. The heavy, gunless fighters of the early Vietnam period did much, much worse than anyone expected. Their influence helped de-bloat the F-15 and make it more agile.
However, time, money and tech was not on their side. They were better as a loyal opposition to remind designers that there were other, important considerations that were being ignored. They should not have become their own design studio.

see also, winnydpu

joat mon fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Apr 26, 2023

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



bees everywhere posted:

Yup, and from what I recall the EMP effects from a nuke are often exaggerated, in reality most of the electronics that would be affected by the EMP would also be completely destroyed by the blast wave.

A very high altitude nuclear detonation is really the only feasible way to create an EMP without subjecting the ground to blast wave effects. Something like Starfish Prime detonated over the continental US would absolutely loving murder most electronic devices in the continental US. When it went off, it knocked out electronics and streetlights in Hawaii, over 800 miles away. Detonated over the US, it would have a much stronger effect (approx 3x the kV/m) due to the strength of the magnetic field being higher.

Most modern CPUs have miles of circuits inside, so they'll generate thousands of volts of electricity from the EMP, and most electrical systems cannot handle the power surge from an EMP either.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

joat mon posted:

They had a point. The heavy, gunless fighters of the early Vietnam period did much, much worse than anyone expected. Their influence helped de-bloat the F-15 and make it more agile.
However, time, money and tech was not on their side. They were better as a loyal opposition to remind designers that there were other, important considerations that were being ignored. They should not have become their own design studio.

I'm pretty sure they did very little to 'debloat' the F15. I don't think any of their proposed changes made it into the F-15. Instead they proposed a radarless gun-plane that can only fly in clear skies in the middle of the day. Like, the problem with the gunless fighters was primarily that Vietnam wasn't a very good fit for them. But their proposed changes to the F-15 would have been an even worse fit.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply