ProfessorBooty posted:

I visited a Japanese sub on my visit over there, and at the time I kind of thought all their brilliant organization was try hard, but maybe in retrospect they had a more robust maintenance, mentoring, and training programs.

Zadok Allen posted:

Wasn’t “psychohistory” in the Foundation novels essentially an anemic knock-off of Dialectical Materialism?

The Oldest Man posted:

dune's a way, way better take on the same basic idea

Frosted Flake posted:

They're going to lose their minds, because there's barely anyway to get someone who was attached or supporting them to not be a sulking little bitch when they go back to their infantry battalion. There is no way these guys are going to cooperate and go back to Big Army, they'll have to release and be cops or YouTubers or whatever.

tatankatonk posted:

Alpha battery troops set up their big guns in March 2017 in a dirt field in Syria within sight of the enemy-controlled city of Raqqa and almost immediately started firing. They rarely stopped for the next two months.

Frosted Flake posted:

Electronic firing has proven to be a problem with lots and lots of money thrown down the drain chasing that dream.

Slavvy posted:

No, that is literally the fake made up feelgood reason nobody used chemicals in WW2.

They didn't use them because they're not useful, nobody gave a flying gently caress about escalation when everyone was already firebombing cities and/or involved in a war of total annihilation, depending on who we're talking about.

They got used in WW1 as an attempted substitute for conventional ordinance because that was in short supply. They simply are not very effective despite everyone's best efforts. That's it, there is no escalation prevention reasoning to it at all.

FuzzySlippers posted:

What happens to your network centric warfare if global communications are disrupted? The Chinese idea of having an extra guy in a fighter plane nearby seems a hell of a lot better.

skooma512 posted:

Had to have an excuse to use a two-seater so Maverick can have Goose Deuce with him. As bad the -35 is, I doubt jamming is a no fly condition.

stephenthinkpad posted:

Also you don't need a 2-seater in the plot, because they only need the Iranian Tomcat to be the 2-seater.

Kazzah posted:

What about a single generic tank model, which then customises itself based on what type of infantry gets into it? so if it's like a rifleman then it gets a big chaingun, and if it's a guy with a javelin it gets a missile launcher, or if it's a punk-rocker-type dude then it gets some sort of sound-cannon and a snazzy paint job

fits my needs posted:

https://x.com/MilitaryTimes/status/1727096783015145521?s=20

DancingShade posted:

A leman russ tank but it has to be 50 tons. That's eldar technology.

Stairmaster posted:

how many 155mm shells does the USA actually have anyways? i know it's gonna take more than five years to replace the stuff sent to ukraine but how big of a dent is that anyways

DancingShade posted:

An unsourced random Google search told me 28000 155mm shells per month as of October. I make no assurances about accuracy.

A good amount for peace time training and building up a reserve.

DancingShade posted:

I suspect anyone who knows the specifics for the USA has caveats trying their tongue but that is a pretty good article, thanks for linking.

quote:

The report details a stockpile of 5.5 million cluster munitions containing about 728.5 million submunitions.10 This figure, however, does not appear to be a full accounting of cluster munitions available to U.S. forces. In particular, the tally does not include cluster munitions that are part of the War Reserve Stocks for Allies (WRSA).11 Human Rights Watch has previously reported that the U.S. inventory, including WRSA, totaled about one billion submunitions.

quote:

Cluster munitions are particularly ubiquitous in the stores of U.S. ground forces. According to the DoD report, the Army has about 638.3 million cluster submunitions (88 percent of the total inventory) and the Marine Corps has about 53.3 million (7 percent). The report states, “Cannon and rocket artillery cluster munitions comprise over 80% of Army fire support capability,”13 and they “comprise the bulk of the Marine Corps artillery munitions.”14 The Air Force stockpiles about 22.2 million air-delivered cluster bombs (3 percent of the cluster inventory) and the Navy about 14.7 million (2 percent).

quote:

AUFOSS, Norway—At a factory in rural Norway, engineers are perfecting an artillery shell they say will be able to travel many times farther than the traditional ammunition currently pounding the battlefield in Ukraine.

The work is part of a broader trend among arms companies to increase the range, precision and lethality of artillery shells that have remained largely unchanged for decades.

The technological advances, giving some shells capabilities similar to missiles but with a lower cost and quicker production time, promise a dramatic change for artillery as it plays its biggest role since the Vietnam War.

quote:

Norway-based Nammo, in partnership with Boeing, is testing shells in Raufoss that use so-called ramjet engines that it says will eventually be able to travel up to about 90 miles—more than the distance from Philadelphia to New York. Standard-barreled howitzers have a range of around 15 miles with a conventional round, with longer-range cannons reaching just over 30 miles.

“This is a game changer,” said Øyvind Lien, program director for advanced tactical propulsion at Nammo. “You are putting a missile into a gun,” he said, amid the noise of grinding metal on the factory floor.

quote:

The company’s ramjet technology works by allowing air to enter through the front of the shell at high speed. The air is compressed and oxidizes the rocket fuel, allowing it to burn. Using outside air means ramjet shells don’t need to have oxidizer as part of their propellant, meaning they can cram in more fuel.

quote:

Nammo is developing shells fired by tanks where the operator can decide on the type of effect. For example, the shell could be programmed to explode in the air above a target or to penetrate its armor. Other companies are exploring the possibility of being able to adjust how much of a shell’s warhead detonates at the target, to potentially reduce collateral damage.

quote:

Both the U.S. and Europe produced about 300,000 artillery shells last year, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The European Union believes its producers can increase production to one million shells by next year and the U.S. is looking at a level of 1.2 million.

quote:

Manufacturing shells can be a lucrative business. Germany’s Rheinmetall said this month that it expects operating margins of 25% this year at its newly acquired Spanish shell maker compared with 8.4% for its wider business.

quote:

An advantage artillery shells hold over missiles is that they are quicker and cheaper to make.

Cruise missiles can cost millions of dollars, and the rockets used in U.S.-guided missile systems, like Himars, cost $150,000 each. By contrast, a standard 155-millimeter high-explosive shell costs about $800 and a more-sophisticated guided Excalibur shell is about $68,000, according to CSIS.

quote:

BAE and Nammo haven’t disclosed how much their new shell will cost once in production, though the latter has said its ramjet shells could be considered high cost in comparison with other artillery products.

quote:

The increased complexity of shells also has its downside. For instance, guided shells have been vulnerable to Russian electronic warfare, Ukrainian artillery operators say. And new innovations, including ramjet rockets and guidance wings, take up space from explosive materials.

“There is a trade-off, as even a small ramjet engine in a shell changes how much explosive matter you can get in there,” Kotlarski said.

Skaffen-Amtiskaw posted:

No need for RDX when we can just have bigger KE impacts from bespoke, artisanal ramjet power plants in each shell, lovingly 3D printed for mere thousands of dollars.

stephenthinkpad posted:

Isn't ramjet vaporware? Is there a working ramjet product?

Malleum posted:

2008 was just another flareup from ultranationalists in tblisi, but this time they thought uncle sam had their back because they were doing joint exercises with NATO.

gradenko_2000 posted:

it'll use "AI" to scan the snip for text, and then you'll get a further two buttons to select from. Click the one on the left, "Copy all text"

Centrist Committee posted:

this post is wearing a fedora

skooma512 posted:

Yeah, if I were trained on an aircraft, particularly one as unique as the V22, I’d be fairly proud of it and fanboy about it too

poisonpill posted:

hahaha yeah totally obvious…. can you just say what those are, for, uhhh, anyone that’s afraid to ask

FuzzySlippers posted:

I enjoyed listening to that book many years ago. Listening to that book's description of Midway made me consider how we frame costly victories. The early waves of American attacks were rough and inconclusive due to deficiencies of equipment and training (like those useless torpedoes), but the Americans just kept piling on and eventually wore down the Japanese so they started to make an impact and ended up sinking those ships that swung the K:D ratio way in favor of the US. For a Western military we'll call this something like bloody mindedness and grit. If it were a Soviet or Chinese military we'd say they were just communist bug people who don't recognize casualties and kept marching to their doom like ants unthinkingly following a scent trail.

For all their propagandist tone I've been happy to watch the Chinese Korean war movies because at least someone is making movies about the forgotten war and only the Chinese would admit they didn't just swarm over US positions and win by virtue of their endless Asiatic hordes. They had more forces (there is an advantage to a war fought on your border instead of the other side of the globe), but they won because they fought with skill learned over long years fighting the Japanese and the KMT.

Slavvy posted:

I wonder what the Russian and Chinese fighter planes have for uploading mission data or whatever

gradenko_2000 posted:

the carrier-posting in the other thread got me thinking: is there a weapon and/or a defensive protocol for destroying torpedoes?

FuzzySlippers posted:

Didn't know their air defenses were that good. Though in the past the US has generally been cavalier about firing off some cruise missiles to "send a message". Even if they don't hit anything important they can still look muscular on cable news. I wonder if the reluctance here is material (they don't have the missiles to waste) or diplomatic (hoping to find a solution that doesn't antagonize them or others in the region further).

Slavvy posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

War Thunder leaked classified information again

This time on the M2 Bradley

What was it?

Slavvy posted:

The Bradley is an unusually huge but otherwise run of the mill ifv. It isn't even that heavy I don't think.

Delta-Wye posted:

its extra funny to me because its completely solvable. there is no reason to intercept a shahed with a million+ dollar missile, im sure there exists a solution to this problem


it just doesn't make the right people richer & more powerful

lol, lmao sucks to be a sailor

DancingShade posted:

I think the shells for naval deck guns cost a bit though. Maybe not as much as a missile but probably still multiples of a flying lawnmower looking to drain the magazine.

You know what. Reflecting on it there isn't a solution because anything that can be implemented is simply going to not be cost effective because of the inherant grift required for such a project to see fruition.

thechosenone posted:

I mean I'm sure there's someone on Musk's payroll who would love to be part of a way less lovely space program.

The good thing about scientists, is that they don't need to be attached to some guy's name to do good: what they need is to be attached to an organization/economic system that isn't completely feckless and doesn't destroy 90-95% of their effort.

Edit: So like I dunno maybe NASA will get a bone one of these days.

atelier morgan posted:

BitcoinRockefeller posted:

Wow, so much data!

gradenko_2000 posted:

You ivory tower intellectuals must not lose touch with the world of industrial growth and hard currency. It is all very well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive. You must justify your existence by providing not only knowledge but concrete and profitable applications as well.

FirstnameLastname posted:

the one other non spacex launch would be the Artemis test launch using the SLS, which is literally 'wasn't that big fuel tank they launched with the shuttle cool looking? what if we just launched that '

literally

same rockets, same thiol solid rocket boosters

for 23 billion dollars

it has launched once and there's as many spare RS-25 engines as there are planned launches before retiring the project (loving two lol)

we cant build more, ofc

Gunshow Poophole posted:

hahaha

DickParasite posted:

It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management.

...

since the Shuttle is a manned vehicle "the probability of mission success is necessarily very close to 1.0."

DancingShade posted:

(puts on top hat and monocle, swirls brandy)

Rather that re-introduce school lunches to combat malnutrition during an enlistment shortfall crisis and thus spend good money on those filthy disgusting poors I suggest we simply re-introduce cannibalism as the solution, so long as they only eat other poor people of course.