|
BearsBearsBears posted:https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1748440686842487289 lmao
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 10:57 |
|
HMS Shiddingpants
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 00:39 |
|
Someone call his majesty to tell him about his ship.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 00:41 |
Frosted Flake posted:The amount of collisions across NATO sea services in the past 15 years certainly feels like it’s on the rise, but that may just been recency bias Could this also be visibility bias because of the internet? I feel like you'd have to be in the Navy or have access to publications by and for the Navy in order to hear about any of this stuff. Now there all kinds of outlets talking about it and going over the otherwise overlooked and unknown government reports, and you can take pictures of ships arriving at port in HD and it isn't considered espionage (in the US).
|
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 00:56 |
|
skooma512 posted:Could this also be visibility bias because of the internet? I feel like you'd have to be in the Navy or have access to publications by and for the Navy in order to hear about any of this stuff. Now there all kinds of outlets talking about it and going over the otherwise overlooked and unknown government reports, and you can take pictures of ships arriving at port in HD and it isn't considered espionage (in the US). That seems likely. While it's hard to hide something like an entire ship sinking or a massive fire like the Bonhomme Richard, but in the age before smartphones and security cameras everywhere, we might not see things like port bonks or even the Admiral Kuznetsov losing a fight with a crane or its other follies the way we can see publicly now. Injuries/fatalities are dropping over time in the US Navy, at least. But some of that is going to be modern engines/electronics being more reliable and safe than older systems. Not sure what all changed to make falling overboard in non-combat conditions so much less likely today than 50 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10389337/ In the US Navy, seems like 70s/80s a worse time, when it comes to crashing into things or catching fire. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-...754)%2C%201969. mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 01:07 on Jan 20, 2024 |
# ? Jan 20, 2024 01:04 |
|
is that by percent or total? The US navy has a lot less people in it than it used to (like half-ish of what it had in the 90s from what I can tell). I'd also be curious about how much time ships spend in dock now compared to decades ago. I'd presume a lot less people fall overboard in dock
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 01:09 |
|
FuzzySlippers posted:is that by percent or total? The US navy has a lot less people in it than it used to (like half-ish of what it had in the 90s from what I can tell). I'd also be curious about how much time ships spend in dock now compared to decades ago. I'd presume a lot less people fall overboard in dock In this study, you can see that the injury rate per 100k sailors is going down over the years. It is a lot safer to be a sailor now than it was 50 years ago. Now, one would hope so... safety rules and reliability and healthcare and so on have all gotten better, so even if the incidence per sailor per year rate stayed dead level for 50 years, that would be bad safety news. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10389337/ Collision deaths do make up a large percentage of mortalities in the 2010s. Partly from a couple notable collisions, and partly because, even though it was less than the collision death TOTAL in the 1970s, stuff like fires or whatever kill less sailors in the modern era. mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 01:14 on Jan 20, 2024 |
# ? Jan 20, 2024 01:12 |
|
I'm sure the sailors will be even safer when there are no operable surface units left in the theater
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 01:18 |
|
There was a story a while back about sailors stuck in dock perpetually because of broken ships tend to be really depressed. Might need USO tours to San Diego
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 01:27 |
|
BearsBearsBears posted:https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1748440686842487289 Rule the waves.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 01:35 |
|
so north korea has a proven underwater nuclear attack drone now. what does the usn have to counter a silent unmanned nuclear attack from below?
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 01:51 |
|
Real hurthling! posted:so north korea has a proven underwater nuclear attack drone now. Vapourware 2.2 inch guided shells which never miss that don't have either fins or a ring of tiny Apollo capsule maneuver rockets to change direction.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 02:15 |
|
tactical vibes?
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 02:21 |
|
Real hurthling! posted:so north korea has a proven underwater nuclear attack drone now.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 02:45 |
|
We can defeat any opponent... In the metaverse. Just got to tweak the sim parameters a bit.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 03:26 |
|
The world is moving on. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/pakistan-claims-it-has-hypersonic-missiles-that-has-bolstered/ After Stealth Fighter, Pakistan Claims It Has Hypersonic Missiles That Has Bolstered PAF’s Warfighting Capabilities It is a weapon technology that the US military still struggles to induct into its arsenal. But the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) claims to have it. In a week when PAF has boasted of striking Iran within its territory, the force is claiming to have hypersonic missiles capable of flying at least speeds of Mach 5 with high maneuverability A statement attributed to Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Chief Zaheer Ahmad Babar says that the foundation for acquiring the Shenyang J-31 stealth fighter aircraft has already been laid, and it is all set to become part of the PAF’s fleet in the near future. It may fly in Pakistan, replacing the F-16. That would mean another dive into the Chinese basket. Pakistan ordered 25 J-10CE Vigorous Dragons, in December 2021, with an option for 11 more.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 03:44 |
|
https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/status/1747613838847909957 nobody prepared for the possibility that the us navy might need to replace the tomahawk stockpile lmao
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 03:45 |
|
Danann posted:https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/status/1747613838847909957 Only need to arm the ships you can crew. Alternatively the USA OR an ally can buy tomahawks but not both at the same time.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 03:51 |
|
Seems too cost effective to be allowed. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/dragonfire-laser-weapon-burns-down-its-1st-aerial/ At £10 A Shot, DragonFire Laser Weapon ‘Burns Down’ Its 1st Target; UK Joins Elite League Of Nations With DEWs
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 03:57 |
|
Danann posted:https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/status/1747613838847909957 In 2024, the Navy's funding of Tomahawks is focused on recertification of existing rounds so they don't expire. The USMC is acquiring new build tomahawk rounds in 2024 for their own systems, so department of navy but not navy the service. Then in 2025 and beyond, the Navy goes from recert of older tomahawks back to buying tomahawks. But that doesn't really fit into a tweet very well. quick reference card for those seeking to dig in, though this won't capture weird one-off funding mechanisms if they come to be: https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/24pres/DON_Budget_Card.pdf mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 05:06 on Jan 20, 2024 |
# ? Jan 20, 2024 05:02 |
|
mlmp08 posted:In 2024, the Navy's funding of Tomahawks is focused on recertification of existing rounds so they don't expire. The USMC is acquiring new build tomahawk rounds in 2024 for their own systems, so department of navy but not navy the service. Then in 2025 and beyond, the Navy goes from recert of older tomahawks back to buying tomahawks. But that doesn't really fit into a tweet very well. drat thats a lot of dollars that arent resulting in replacements for the missiles the navy is using to blow up rocks in yemen
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 05:32 |
|
Yeah, if they did this every day for a while, they'd run out eventually. Department of the Navy only buying 370 new-build tomahawks or so over the next few years as of now, so there's about 20% of that 5-year purchase gone in one day of strikes.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 05:38 |
|
"wait a minute why are the marines buying tomahawks" drat this really hits all the bingo squares doesnt it precision fires network warfare optimally manned (because the jeep is a remote piloted drone you see)
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 06:13 |
|
They seem a bit goofy. The marines' idea of putting anti-ship missiles on a smallish truck makes a bit more sense to me.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 06:18 |
|
the general idea (putting missiles on easily concealed vehicles) seems good
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 06:19 |
|
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/18/tata-steel-to-shut-down-port-talbot-blast-furnaces-3000-jobs-at-riskquote:theguardian.com anything the uk can't make with scrap metal steel can just be imported from the us
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 07:00 |
|
Megamissen posted:the general idea (putting missiles on easily concealed vehicles) seems good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9UufzGgYQ Fresh fruits.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 07:04 |
|
The Oldest Man posted:"wait a minute why are the marines buying tomahawks" this rocks Megamissen posted:the general idea (putting missiles on easily concealed vehicles) seems good kind of remarkable the payload on this kind of vehicle BRB driving out of a concealed position to launch an anti-ship missile.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 07:10 |
|
Who needs minuteman silos when you have a 1970s jeep with a tomahawk. Someone is unironically saying this somewhere.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 07:35 |
|
Those truck proportions make them look deceptively small. Still, very small compared to a ship or the army tomahawk launcher trailers they're building.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 07:47 |
|
DancingShade posted:Who needs minuteman silos when you have a 1970s jeep with a tomahawk. just put a tactical nuke on it, bro
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 08:13 |
|
tacticool nukes with rails and dot sights and awkward foregrips
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 08:27 |
|
I can't find a price tag on that thing, taking all bets
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 08:29 |
|
Real hurthling! posted:tacticool nukes with rails and dot sights and awkward foregrips Put a flashlight and bayonet on it.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 09:06 |
|
Real hurthling! posted:tacticool nukes with rails and dot sights and awkward foregrips under barrel Davy Crockett launcher
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 09:13 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Those truck proportions make them look deceptively small. Still, very small compared to a ship or the army tomahawk launcher trailers they're building. These mom SUVs are getting ridiculous
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 09:16 |
|
Danann posted:https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/18/tata-steel-to-shut-down-port-talbot-blast-furnaces-3000-jobs-at-risk complex tasks such as “making steel” are now lostech for the country that started the Industrial Revolution
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 09:55 |
|
Mr SuperAwesome posted:complex tasks such as “making steel” are now lostech for the country that started the Industrial Revolution owned literally and figuratively by a ex-colony
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 10:22 |
|
Mr SuperAwesome posted:complex tasks such as “making steel” are now lostech for the country that started the Industrial Revolution *adam curtis voice* and so a funny thing happened. the country that fenced off land for its sheep forcing its dispossessed to go conquer the world ended up turning right around and fencing itself off from the world Owlbear Camus has issued a correction as of 10:49 on Jan 20, 2024 |
# ? Jan 20, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 10:57 |
|
British hired an Indian banker PM to finish the deindustrialization for them. At this rate, they will get rid of their industries before they get rid of the monarchy. Amazing stuff.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2024 11:04 |