|
They have a technology that puts the radio parts out of water.
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
Sounds like the thing Ukraine is building is a bit like Civil War monitors - a ship that floats but is almost entirely underwater is hard to spot and hard to hit, but still avoids most of the problems of a submarine. Lots of drag, though, so the low visibility has to be good enough to make up the difference vs the super fast speedboat-style designs.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
Just hire some folks that build narco subs, but swap out the coke for torpedoes.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
Pine Cone Jones posted:Just hire some folks that build narco subs, but swap out the coke for torpedoes. cia shifts in their seat uncomfortably
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
Wonder why they sent those out in broad daylight?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
underwater coms always suck a gently caress there are certain ways to do it reliably over long distances but it would not work for anything resembling timely remote control far more easy to have the unit pop an antenna up
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 03:51
|
|
|
Worse still, underwater Xcoms.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
Some would say encountering a lobsterman in a cruise ship bathroom is a pretty rough way to start a relationship, said people do not understand the importance of strapping on a drill and wrasslin'.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1661382232190140416 https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1661724151520849920?s=20 They didn't get all of them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
JudgeJoeBrown posted:https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1661724151520849920?s=20 Did someone else get promoted to submarine?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1661508713981571073quote:Russian "Veteran's Notes" channel describes a problem preventing Russians from using counter-battery fire near borders - there's too much Russian EW which suppresses Russian drones (mavics) preventing artillery adjusting. Meanwhile, Ukrainians are switching to other frequencies en masse to bypass Russian EW.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:Did someone else get promoted to submarine? Internet said that it isn't really optimal place for torpedo to hit, so its probably not in the Black Sea submarine fleet yet, but if that drone detonated that thing isn't going anywhere on its own power for the rest of this war.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Internet said that it isn't really optimal place for torpedo to hit, so its probably not in the Black Sea submarine fleet yet, but if that drone detonated that thing isn't going anywhere on its own power for the rest of this war. Still would like some confirmation that it did go boom effectively.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Still would like some confirmation that it did go boom effectively. Unless that wasn't the last of three, it's unlikely Ukraine can provide that, and Russia probably really don't want to, so the only real possible confirmation is the inverse, if Ivan Khurs is later spotted intact.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:Unless that wasn't the last of three, it's unlikely Ukraine can provide that, and Russia probably really don't want to, so the only real possible confirmation is the inverse, if Ivan Khurs is later spotted intact. I'm sure the US or allies has imagery of the boat either intact or with a hole. Until that is released I'm going to stay optimistic but not believing.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 18:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/UnseenOps/status/1661499544297717762?t=KRn_DRjyz58NMurlD9ExnQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
That poo poo fucks hard.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
That's Eastern Orthodox as hell.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:https://twitter.com/UnseenOps/status/1661499544297717762?t=KRn_DRjyz58NMurlD9ExnQ&s=19 This is hardcore.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:https://twitter.com/UnseenOps/status/1661499544297717762?t=KRn_DRjyz58NMurlD9ExnQ&s=19 I would absolutely jump on that poo poo if they sell it for charity
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
Sitting above them all: the plate that, against all odds (and I do mean all odds), stopped a 40mm shell and kept a man intact and unhurt*, instead of a rapidly-expanding red cloud. *his pants were probably a total loss, but such is war 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Still would like some confirmation that it did go boom effectively. the video of it shows a successful attack. it approaches the ship to within a meter or two and the signal dies[because it blew up]. that's a successful attack I would love to know how effective it was though Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 23:28 on May 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:the video of it shows a successful attack. it approaches the ship to within a meter or two and the signal dies[because it blew up]. that's a successful attack It will be interesting to see whether it actually does any damage. On a purely intuitive level, it feels like the vast vast majority of the blast would be going into the water and air. Some fraction of the blast energy would reach the ship, but only after dissipating by the inverse-square law. On the other hand, I'd imagine a tank or a building might not do so hot if a 500 kg bomb goes off 2 meters away.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Approximately a quarter ton explosives were used for the USS Cole attack and it did significant damage with considerable loss of life. It then took over a year before she was repaired and returned to service.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
Storkrasch posted:It will be interesting to see whether it actually does any damage. On a purely intuitive level, it feels like the vast vast majority of the blast would be going into the water and air. Some fraction of the blast energy would reach the ship, but only after dissipating by the inverse-square law. On the other hand, I'd imagine a tank or a building might not do so hot if a 500 kg bomb goes off 2 meters away. People have been bumping booms up against ship hulls for literally hundreds of years at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
Storkrasch posted:It will be interesting to see whether it actually does any damage. On a purely intuitive level, it feels like the vast vast majority of the blast would be going into the water and air. Some fraction of the blast energy would reach the ship, but only after dissipating by the inverse-square law. On the other hand, I'd imagine a tank or a building might not do so hot if a 500 kg bomb goes off 2 meters away. Well, as a reference point, on the high end they estimated the explosives used in the USS Cole attack to be less than 350kg and it did this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Not a bombologist, but from my basic (VERY basic, so if one of you is a Bombologist, feel free to correct me), maritime weapons have slightly different considerations. Ships are built to take hits, because if your tank gets killed, you can walk home- not so much at sea. They are designed to be broken and still float, so they are hard to kill. Armor belts, 100 years of lessons in Damage Control, and advances in tech and metallurgy make modern maintained war ships pretty drat hearty. The water creates issues with the physics of the explosive detonation- with smaller mines placed against the hull, it's beneficial, acting as a backer for the shaped charge. You can do neat things like cavitation charges that break the ship's keel. But with surface explosives, it does nothing but gently caress up your wonderfully crafted bomb. The movement of the water ensures you will not be pressed against your target. That space and standoff negates eats some of the force. Most of the explosive- just like on Terra firma- is wasted in atmosphere. It is a factor in why some ship's in naval combat can just eat hit after hit. But even the best built ship will sink if the hole is large enough or ignored enough.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
I would kill to know how Russian damage control drills and training and practices have changed since the Moskva.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:Not a bombologist, but from my basic (VERY basic, so if one of you is a Bombologist, feel free to correct me), maritime weapons have slightly different considerations. Counterpoint: the Moskva was the flagship of the entire fleet and was maintained worse than a garbage scow. It’s entirely possible this ship was storing barrels of nitroglycerin covered in black powder and matchsticks.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:Not a bombologist, but from my basic (VERY basic, so if one of you is a Bombologist, feel free to correct me), maritime weapons have slightly different considerations. To paraphrase conversations I've had with sailors: "Every Marine a rifleman, every sailor a firefighter." The stories of Cole and Stark get burned hard into sailors' memories. Contrast that to the Fitzgerald and the McCain though. Yikes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
The Cole is a damage control success story. Not the biggest (that'd be the Samuel B. Roberts, which was an essentially goddamned miraculous save), but far better than the cautionary tale of the Stark. Which was also a success (it saved the ship), but at a high cost.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
Even if it was a purely surface putting enough explosives up against the hull and then blowing it up is going to cause significant damage. Yes the cole is a success story of damage control but it was still out of service for like a year. Also as much as I like to give the navy poo poo they are clearly Superior at taking care of their boats then the Russians are. Also some of those drone images we've seen the explosive package may have been submerged and that changes the math. My point is just because it intuitively doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't work. It just means you don't understand how it can work. But clearly as evidenced by hundreds of years of naval warfare it does work.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
Don't almost all modern warships forego armor entirely in favor of weight and speed savings? Not that I know poo poo about crap, since my knowledge is based entirely on videogames and wikipedia binges.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
ArmyGroup303 posted:To paraphrase conversations I've had with sailors: "Every Marine a rifleman, every sailor a firefighter." I know what you mean now, but for a second I thought the USN was constantly drilling on what to do when the witch of November come stealin'
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:https://twitter.com/UnseenOps/status/1661499544297717762?t=KRn_DRjyz58NMurlD9ExnQ&s=19 This is loving incredible.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
Spoggerific posted:Don't almost all modern warships forego armor entirely in favor of weight and speed savings? Not that I know poo poo about crap, since my knowledge is based entirely on videogames and wikipedia binges. There are videos on the internet where the navy expends a hull to test how effective the design is at absorbing damage. They can take a lot of damage when built right even without the massive armor plate of 20th century battleships. They always go down to one hit from a mk48 though. Those things just hit different.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
Modern torpedoes don't damage ships by exploding on them. Torpedoes damage ships by exploding under them causing a massive water void which expands then instantly collapses, rocking the keel up and down, breaking its back, and snapping the ship in two. Armor doesn't help. You need a reinforced and flexible keel that can absorb the shock. And even then, the hull gets warped to hell and back. AlternateNu fucked around with this message at 02:17 on May 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
Spoggerific posted:Don't almost all modern warships forego armor entirely in favor of weight and speed savings? Not that I know poo poo about crap, since my knowledge is based entirely on videogames and wikipedia binges. There is no armor good to stop something the size of a AShM. The newest ones are Javelin's the size of a Volkswagen. You're defense is to break the kill chain, not to tank the hit. If you somehow take a 1000lb hit and still have your socks what keeps you floating is good compartmentalization and damage control. Water tight bulkheads and sealed structures, as well as modern high power dewatering pumps. And once you leave the air, nothing stops a Mk48.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 02:15
|
|
|
SECDEF and CJCS gave a press briefing after the 12th meeting of the Ukraine contact group. Not much concrete announced. Video here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?528333-1/secretary-austin-general-milley-news-conference Highlights / Parahrasing (transcript not out in a friendly format yet): -Netherlands and Denmark taking lead on training Ukrainians on F-16s, and there is discussion of maybe other 4th gen aircraft. No real idea of timeline, when fielded, how many, etc. There is a LOT that goes into standing up functional fixed-wing squadrons, with a new type of aircraft. -Continuing to work on building new or determining what air defenses can be donated to Ukraine. -Continuing to ramp up industrial base and production. -When asked why F-16 decision reversed and why US hasn't donated their own F-16s, Austin repeats similar comments to what were already made previously, essentially. Points out that the US has focused on the things that are most important and critical to defend themselves. Points out that air defenses have paid off well, and can be fielded faster and cheaper than something like F-16s. Also points out the 9 armored and mechanized brigades supplied and trained. Milley says the fastest, quickest, cheapest way to contest the airspace and deny air superiority to the Russians, as has been done. Milley states that fielding and sustaining F-16s is about $2 billion to buy and sustain 10 aircraft, and Russia has 1,000 aircraft, between 4th and 5th gen. Argues the GBAD was the smartest way to contest the air, but F-16s will have some role in the future. -Milley confirms there are no magic weapons in war. -Milley lays out that when determining how/what to give to Ukraine, there are cost, risk, benefit analysis. -Milley: USEUCOM staff is evaluating whether or not US equipment was taken into Russia on the recent raid. He can't say whether or not that was US equipment. He reiterates that the US has asked Ukraine not to use any US donated equipment to directly attack into Russia. The conflict includes the US and NATO training, advising, assisting, supporting defense of Ukraine in their war, but this is not a war between the US or NATO and Russia. Austin: the weapons donated are to defend Ukrainian sovereign territory. -As is typical, points out that it's an international effort, and some countries can and do provide weapons, others training, others funding. -When asked if the strategy is to help Ukraine get a decisive win or to get a better hand at a negotiated settlement, Austin says Ukrainians decide the goal, and the international community is supporting their significant fight and defense of their country. There is a balance to what can be provided for them to pull soldiers off the line to train versus remaining on the lines. Milley: All wars come to an end either with a clear victory or a negotiated settlement. Russia is not going to win this war, militarily. Ukrainian objectives to liberate all of Ukrainian territory occupied by Russian forces might be achievable militarily someday, but not in the near term.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
There is zero chance that the Russian Navy can do any damage control so bumping against a sea turtle could send one to the bottom. I imagine the pipe patching kits are all just rolls of toilet paper and cartoonishly large I.O.U. cards
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 03:13
|
|
