|
Sagebrush posted:Water bomber. Fire bombing is something entirely different 
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Water bomber. Fire bombing is something entirely different Lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Water bomber. Fire bombing is something entirely different Then what was the Amerikabomber supposed to do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Water bomber. Fire bombing is something entirely different You're bombing fire though. If you were bonbing the ocean or a lake I could see it
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
They're Air Tankers you nerds  Except they don't transport air .. idk I just worked the fire line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2023 05:04
|
|
|
If there's no water in them, they are transporting air. Checkmate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
They obviously transport tanks through the air.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2023 06:52
|
|
|
Clearly this is an air tanker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2023 07:03
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:Clearly this is an air tanker. I thought that was a Tank Airer
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2023 09:48
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I thought that was a Tank Airer This evaluation may have been in airer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:If there's no water in them, they are transporting air. Checkmate. The empty space is for the chemtrail fluid
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:Clearly this is an air tanker. Can someone with more knowledge than me tell me what would happen if the tank fired a shell while flying in the air in that aircraft? Not through the aircraft, but if the cargo door was down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
I Miss Snausages posted:Can someone with more knowledge than me tell me what would happen if the tank fired a shell while flying in the air in that aircraft? Not through the aircraft, but if the cargo door was down. That's the front of the airplane, so I don't think it would end well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
Or start well. The middle part would suck, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 04:09
|
|
|
I Miss Snausages posted:Can someone with more knowledge than me tell me what would happen if the tank fired a shell while flying in the air in that aircraft? Not through the aircraft, but if the cargo door was down. Well for starters, it'd be real hard to fly the plane with the nose in front of the cockpit. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 04:10
|
|
|
Something like this, but faster and louder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr2_cKfr8Sk
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 04:11
|
|
|
I Miss Snausages posted:Can someone with more knowledge than me tell me what would happen if the tank fired a shell while flying in the air in that aircraft? Not through the aircraft, but if the cargo door was down. Assuming you had a special hole to let the shell out without compromising the aerodynamics, the plane would probably be barely affected. The M1 Abrams' main gun is 120mm. The AC-130, a much smaller airplane than the C-5, has a 105mm howitzer pointed out the side (among other guns) and has no trouble firing it in flight. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
I Miss Snausages posted:Can someone with more knowledge than me tell me what would happen if the tank fired a shell while flying in the air in that aircraft? Not through the aircraft, but if the cargo door was down. Depends on if there is a treadmill involved
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:Well for starters, it'd be real hard to fly the plane with the nose in front of the cockpit. hotdog in a hallway
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 06:19
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Assuming you had a special hole to let the shell out without compromising the aerodynamics, the plane would probably be barely affected. The only difference I can think of is, in the former case, the fuselage of the plane is acting kind of like a suppressor. It would have to deal with the combustion gasses coming out of the tank's barrel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 06:52
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:The only difference I can think of is, in the former case, the fuselage of the plane is acting kind of like a suppressor. It would have to deal with the combustion gasses coming out of the tank's barrel. Crack a window and let the slipstream take care of that. It's science, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 07:00
|
|
|
... Recoil and blast is a pretty large issue when applicable to airplanes, we are in agreement here right? The 105 on the Herc is a low(er) pressure version that's not firing full velocity field gun charges. While you possibly could mate performant large high velocity cannons to airplanes and make them technically effective today, it's trouble. And it's trouble that no one but a very desperate nazi germany ever tried. Airplanes need to be light for their size and reinforcing their structures is wasteful for most design goals. That is the big reason why airplanes have managed to carry tons of bombs and every other weapon known to man, but not battleship artillery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 07:28
|
|
|
that's all true, but i still think that a c-5 galaxy could probably handle the overall forces involved in firing the 120mm. the specific scenario of firing from an m1 abrams inside a plane could cause problems for sure. for instance, unless you cut a hole and swung the turret over to put the muzzle of the gun outside the plane, the blast would probably shred the fuselage:  and somehow the recoil would have to be transmitted to the plane as well. presumably some of it would go into the gun's own recoil system, and into compressing the tank's suspension, but the rest -- the part that's supposed to be absorbed by the ground -- might skitter the tank around inside the cargo bay, or snap the tie-downs or something, neither of which would be good. however, i believe that with the proper installation, you could absolutely put a forward-firing m256 120mm cannon into a c-5 and fire full charges in flight with no damage to the airplane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 09:18
|
|
|
hellotoothpaste posted:Depends on if there is a treadmill involved Do the tank treads count as a treadmill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 09:22
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:that's all true, but i still think that a c-5 galaxy could probably handle the overall forces involved in firing the 120mm. For a C-5? I absolutely do not believe that, guessing wildly. The recoil doesn't disappear into f.ex. the suspension, the suspension uncompresses back bracing against the ground normally. The thing that recoil systema does is transform the time over what the forces operate, ie total vs. peak. It's still movement energy, it doesn't radiate away. On a plane in flight, that force goes against the wings being pushed up by the lift. Hence the entire thing about "stable shooting platforms" etc. If the forces produce very different vectors, strains, more than the structure can carry, it's going to rip the wings off when they bend and/or crack. I don't know anything about how robust the wing spars are on a galaxy. I do know that a rheinmetall L44 makes about 2½M Newton under recoil. If that's off center from the other aerodynamic forces, there's going to be a pitching motion, and if instantaneous it could be very sweaty for the structure to handle, already being stressed between gravity and lift and common decency. Not being instantaneous? That would need a potentially very large and heavy mechanism to transform out over time. Recoilless is interesting but then you get twice the blast effects. Tanks are thick. Airplanes are as thick as tin cans at best. I do think it's scientifically possible to make a cannon airplane with a proper tank gun, but I do not think it would be possible to cheaply make that plane out of anything else flying today. But I am guessing, and I'd "love" (no. Hell no.) to be proven wrong in matlab though ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Dec 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 10:16
|
|
|
Tired: Firing a tank's gun from a C-5 Wired: AC-5
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 10:42
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7SQ546xRk
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 10:51
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Tired: Firing a tank's gun from a C-5 CAT-5. Cargo: Anti-Tank
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 11:02
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
I believe the Neptune and the Catalina are both from HARS. I have to imagine that if the RAAF is paying for their avgas they would jump at the chance to fly them to photo ops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 11:49
|
|
|
If a tank fired out of the back of a Hercules, how much extra airspeed would the plane gain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 12:07
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:For a C-5? I absolutely do not believe that, guessing wildly. The recoil doesn't disappear into f.ex. the suspension, the suspension uncompresses back bracing against the ground normally. The thing that recoil systema does is transform the time over what the forces operate, ie total vs. peak. It's still movement energy, it doesn't radiate away. I wouldn't think the recoil would be significant compared to the forces wingspars handle while keeping the plane and cargo in the air, or the force they handle when the plane hits the runway. The cargo space floor is probably strong enough to handle the recoil. It's designed for tanks to drove over it and to hold the cargo at least during lesser crashes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:If a tank fired out of the back of a Hercules, how much extra airspeed would the plane gain? None, because a C-130 can’t carry an Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:None, because a C-130 can’t carry an Abrams. The question said "a tank", though, and an Abrams is a big boy (a T-64 would be like a third lighter). OTOH C-130 seems to be in 19-20t cargo capacity range, so you would probably need a WW2 light tank to fit, and not any MBT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:... Beyond the herc having a custom recoil setup for its 105, the 105 (105x372mm) on AC-130s has less than half the energy of a 120mm tank round (120x570mm). The 105 on the AC-130 is based on a short-barrel field gun, not on the 105mm tank gun. So the 105 round is generally lighter, and much slower (about 1/3 an Abrams' muzzle velocity). The standoff from muzzle to aircraft for an Abrams to fire would be significant. Just firing it out the back with the door open would shred and overpressure all kinds of internals. Plus probably not good for the floor of the airplane for a tank to fire vs the dedicated recoil systems of the 105 in an AC-130. General overpressure warning of an Abrams is 50 meters in all directions from muzzle, with a major hazard area to the side and forward of the muzzle. So tl;dr: Firing an Abrams out the open door of a C-17 or C-5 would likely total the aircraft. M102 gun on which the AC-130 gun is based during live fire (but with special recoil mounting)  Abrams firing. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:I wouldn't think the recoil would be significant compared to the forces wingspars handle while keeping the plane and cargo in the air, or the force they handle when the plane hits the runway. I agree. As noted you'd of course have to spread the recoil over a longer period of time to minimize the peak force, but the muzzle energy of the shell (8 kg projectile, 1800 m/s) is only about 13 MJ. This is approximately 1/1000 of the total kinetic energy of a loaded C-5 at cruise speed; it's not like the plane is going to get thrown off course or anything. Or for another point of comparison, the 2.5 MN force mentioned earlier is about 2/3 of the force that the wings are carrying when the loaded plane is in level flight. Transport category airplanes also have to withstand at least 2.5 positive G, meaning the wings are rated to at least 8.5 MN (maybe more, idk the C-5's g-limits). Applying the force instantaneously could be disastrous, but use a big hydraulic damper or something and the plane would barely notice. Just like how there's no danger in having a 300 pound person lean against the side of the fuselage, but hitting it with a 4 pound hammer can make a hole. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Dec 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
[quote="Sagebrush" post=""536770053"] Just like how there's no danger in having a 300 pound person lean against the side of the fuselage, but hitting it with a 4 pound hammer can make a hole. [/quote] I feel like there's a story, or at least a sign, there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
madeintaipei posted:I feel like there's a story, or at least a sign, there. The sign covers the hole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
So, sounds like Ukraine is going to have F16s within the next couple months. What's the best guess on what effect they're going to have? Russians doing less sorties? Or go absolutely whole hog on viper hunting with sams?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
I think the sudden influx of a full squadron of modern fighters is going to have far more of an impact than the fact that they’re F-16s. First rule of air combat: Bring an aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
Yeah but the first rule of naval combat is to bring a navy, and look at what Ukraine has accomplished in that domain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 04:57
|
|
