|
Cuttlefush posted:if you lose 1/1 engines you're also in an unrecoverable state. is the roll actually important in the time it'd take to eject? i've seen this brought up but not in a way that sounded like it was really the case. didn't look to hard though. it was apparently a big enough deal for Yakovlev that they had to do a redesign of the Yak-141, I'm just going off what I could read though, so I'm happy to defer otherwise
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 09:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Heh China is making this to supply the SCS islands. gat drat, that's one thicc plane
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 09:58
|
|
|
after we lost the Big Plane at Kiev, there had to be a new Big Plane
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:so thrust vectoring only, two engines only?  the nostrils on that plane
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 10:28
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:if you lose 1/1 engines you're also in an unrecoverable state. is the roll actually important in the time it'd take to eject? i've seen this brought up but not in a way that sounded like it was really the case. didn't look to hard though. also the way the f35 liftfan system works looks like it could probably compensate if it was the same thing with two engines assuming that there's no issue with having two inputs to however the gently caress that lift system works. I guess the logic is there's a certain chance an engine goes to poo poo. If you have one engine that's your chance to lose the plane. If you have two then both would have to die. But if you do vtlo then losing either engine will kill your plane so you're much worse off than with just one. genericnick has issued a correction as of 10:35 on Apr 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 10:28
|
|
|
cant wait untl the f-35 is aded to warframe
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 10:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The compromises of the JSF made sense in the context of US procurement. By 1990s, the Marine Corps obviously needed a replacement to the Harrier Or just don't give the Marines jets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 11:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:it was apparently a big enough deal for Yakovlev that they had to do a redesign of the Yak-141, I'm just going off what I could read though, so I'm happy to defer otherwise oooh, thanks. i didnt even notice that fuckin lockmart assisted with that? what the gently caress. so yeah anything learned there would be a lot more concrete hilariously and not really unexpectedly there's a dcs thread (https://forum.dcs.world/topic/288786-yak-141/) on the yak-141 that has source text that was not on the nasa citation page from a conference preceding (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950059269) and what look like maybe a useful article from another lockmart guy that specifically talks about the yak-141 and xm35 program (https://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=137). the proceedings with that nasa citation are also at https://archive.org/stream/DTIC_ADA323575/DTIC_ADA323575_djvu.txt. format is hosed, sadly. quite a bit of the xm35/f35 seems like it was already done by that point and i didnt notice anything specifically about the yak engine out/roll stuff but that was also a double lift engine + single thrust engine configuration. pretty interesting connection though. the codeone article is pretty interesting and points out the nozzle design link between a 60s design, the yak, and the f35. it doesn't bring up any issues with the two lift engines on the yak, but the swivel nozzle design might just preclude two engines close enough together (or at all). https://sci-hub.se/https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2002-6018 is a paper on the actual flight control poo poo needed to coordinate the nozzle/flight surfaces and 1. lol and 2. this all seems like it traces back to a single engine swivel nozzle design prototype from the 60's with more work built onto it. a double engine/double nozzle design would be a significantly worse starting point so it might just be inertia here or there might be some fundamental problem with two nozzles (or their failure modes). ill poke into the rabbit hole more if i stay curious. it's interesting to finally find some stuff about the f35 history that isn't all total bullshit in either direction for once. also the more i look at the swivel nozzle the more i see goatman and notice that the dimensions/range of motion would make the plane body wide as gently caress if it had the same kind of nozzle design. the fact that none of these papers, including a bigass development paper from lockmart (https://sci-hub.se/10.2514/6.2018-3517) ever actually bring up multi-engine/nozzle designs at all is a bit weird. maybe the answer lies in the 60s...
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 11:40
|
|
|
Weka posted:Or just don't give the Marines jets. They already had a fleet of amphibious light carriers...so something needed to go on them. The more expansive the goals of the US military, the more resources are needed to be "used efficiently," to the point where you eventually create a monster like the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 11:41
|
|
|
the navy's army's naval aviation
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 11:49
|
|
|
 i should just stopped here tbh
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 11:54
|
|
|
Weka posted:Or just don't give the Marines jets. Skyraiders, Broncos, and Mohawks only
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:41
|
|
|
How about instead of VTOL they just fire the jets straight up using a rocket sled or rail gun and then the jets land in the water and they pick em up with a crane? Seems like that would allow you to make the jets a lot cheaper plus the idea of shooting out jets like they were munitions is funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:48
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:How about instead of VTOL they just fire the jets straight up using a rocket sled or rail gun and then the jets land in the water and they pick em up with a crane? Seems like that would allow you to make the jets a lot cheaper plus the idea of shooting out jets like they were munitions is funny. one of the earlier ideas for a VTOL aircraft was simply having it stand on its tail for take-off - you'd just blast the regular engines hard enough to make the plane take off like a rocket the problem was how do you land it
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-length_launch These could land again fine, but the whole idea was abandoned as complicated and outpaced by offensive weapons. Mat testing was much more dangerous landing, due to the forces involved in landing a plane on high friction mats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-length_launch Uh it doesn't seem like they landed fine quote:ZELMAL (ZEro-length Launch MAt Landing) They just slammed the nuclear strike jet into a rubber mat like it was at fuckin WrestleMania and snapped a couple dudes' spines
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 14:07
|
|
|
The ones that landed at regular airfields could land fine. vertical landing and mat landings, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
A lot of drones use that slingshot to launch. I think a big one can work. I think the Marine should just shut up and ask for a electronic upgrade of the harrier. Harrier is cool because Arnold used it to push cop car and kill brown people in True Lies. F35 is not cool because Bruce Willis killed one with a truck in Die Hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:the navy's army's naval aviation america's navy's army's navy's airforce
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
Tired: American Civil War Wired: America's Army Civil War may the best branch win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/plunketsubprime/status/1650164294749679618
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
amazing
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Hilarious
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
tired: artillery workshops wired: boutique artillery workshops inspired: antique boutique artillery workshops
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
heritage
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:heritage not howitzers
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:democratic centralism, democrat centrism, what's the difference there is none. facts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
lol and lamo
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:tired: artillery workshops The plan next year is that the US is going to move its military production to colonial Williamsburg
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
👏 👏 👏
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1651243518008991747
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
loving black powder? My dad made that himself when he was a kid (different times). It's not hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Why does a tomahawk need black powder? Aren't the warheads c4? That's made outta RDX
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:Why does a tomahawk need black powder? Aren't the warheads c4? That's made outta RDX pyrotechnic effects. looks badass
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:loving black powder? My dad made that himself when he was a kid (different times). It's not hard. Pretty sure the guy who shot Abe made it himself too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Lol you weirdos they need megatons of powder that meets reliability guidelines, and that means a factory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Lol you weirdos they need megatons of powder that meets reliability guidelines, and that means a factory. no it doesnt
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:Why does a tomahawk need black powder? Aren't the warheads c4? That's made outta RDX Fuses. Idk how much I'm supposed to post about explosives ITT, but black powder is usually used in detonators, fuses, ignitors, fuse lighters etc .  It's a low explosive, so not used for warheads but for other parts of the explosive train, booster charges, pyrotechnics and the like. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 17:40 on Apr 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
mycomancy posted:Lol you weirdos they need megatons of powder that meets reliability guidelines, and that means a factory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 17:37
|
|