-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 20667)
Message
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 684 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here



File 146547055617.jpg - (3.28MB , 3712x2088 , P1000686.jpg )
20667 No. 20667 ID: 87888c
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629306/Royal-Navy-s-advanced-destroyers-break-Gulf-water-WARM-bungling-defence-chiefs-admit.html#ixzz4B1jexG4h

Really, guys? This isn't a Clyde ferry that's going to spend its life in nice cool water; this is a globally deployable ship that should be expected to spend time "east of Suez". Sufficient cooling capacity should have been built in.
Expand all images
>> No. 20669 ID: 3dc534
Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems are piece of shit corporations that don't produce anything worthwhile anymore. Why would the DOD, the politicians, or the admirals trust them?

>£1bn ships
>1.5 billion dollars
>for a single destroyer
These people are almost as retarded as the US navy.
>> No. 20672 ID: d4c8ee
It's to be expected of the British military.

>Enfield fails at making a bullpup AR-18 copy, H&K called in to fix the guns at great expense, the Bermuda Regiment does not replace their Mini-14 with them until 2016
>RAF buys Eurofighters that cannot drop bombs or fire radar missiles, would cost more to retrofit them than to buy new fighters
>RAF buys Eurofighters but wants to replace the gun with a block of concrete to save money, has to buy the guns anyways because it would fuck up the aircraft's center of gravity
>Expensive rebuild program for Nimrod sea patrol aircraft scrapped at 11th hour after it's revealed they explode in mid air, Royal Navy now has to call up the French to send a Atlantique out to to cover SSBNs leaving on patrol
>Attempt to build AWACS aircraft on Nimrod results in a garbage fire of a program that can't track anything and generates phantom contacts
>Royal Navy claims that it will totally be possible to refit new carriers for the F-35C, turns out this is a lie
>Engines on new destroyers keep breaking
>Build diesel submarines, submarines turn out to be terrible and are unable to fire torpedoes for 3 of the 4 years they are in service, sell submarines to Canada, submarines are almost never seaworthy and one catches on fire

>>20669
>These people are almost as retarded as the US Marines

FTFY
>> No. 20673 ID: ce2b82
  The Pentagon Wars https://youtu.be/iDYpRhoZqBY
34:32 - Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger complains of criticisim about poor weapon systems from Congressmen and reporters when his project development people in the Pentagon keep telling him that everything is going well https://youtu.be/iDYpRhoZqBY?t=34m32s
>> No. 20674 ID: 385f49
>>20667
I bet they are not designed for the cold either.
>> No. 20675 ID: 0d59ae
>>20672
>generates phantom contacts
OR it is so ahead of its game that it can detect UFOs.

Look up the arleigh burke price tag.
>> No. 20678 ID: ce2b82
File 146568229236.jpg - (134.64KB , 1280x834 , US Aegis Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Halsey .jpg )
20678
>>20675
That aegis air defense destroyer is a bit dated; 1988.
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
Cost: US$1.843 billion (DDG 114–116, FY2011/12)
- Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey (DDG 97)
>> No. 20680 ID: de0bec
  Since this thread is about poor nautical choices...
Someone posted this on 8/k/
>> No. 20681 ID: ce2b82
File 146608024133.jpg - (367.13KB , 1800x1379 , US M242 Mk 38 25mm chain gun, 175 rpm.jpg )
20681
>>20680
Missiles (look like Javelin anti-tank guided missiles) for use against swarms of small craft attacking ships? Why not just use the guns? The 3" or 5" main guns or the 25mm Bushmaster auto-cannons? The missiles have better range?

- US M242 aka Navy Mk 38 25mm chain gun, 175 rpm.
>> No. 20682 ID: ce2b82
File 146608063339.jpg - (365.05KB , 1800x1350 , UK WW1 37mm QF 1 pounder 'pom-pom' autoc.jpg )
20682
Back in the 1880s, quick-firing 1-pounder and 2-pounder (37mm & 50mm?) "pom-pom" guns were made based off the Maxim Gun for use as light infantry artillery and for mounting on ships for use against borders and swarms of small boats attacking the ships. These light auto-cannon were later used as anti-aircraft guns.

- UK pre-WW1 37mm QF 1 pounder 'pom-pom' autocannon, 1903.
>> No. 20683 ID: ce2b82
File 146608126019.jpg - (194.88KB , 1238x1024 , antique cannon US Maxim-Nordenfelt 37mm 1-pounder .jpg )
20683
U.S.S. Vixen, Maxim machine gun and gunner Smith. The gun appears to be a Maxim-Nordenfelt 37-mm 1-pounder autocannon, known to the British as a "pom-pom".
Date: between 1898 and 1901
>> No. 20684 ID: 385f49
  >>20680
This one is about as hilarious as improvised MRLS systems made from aircraft rocket launchers.
>> No. 20686 ID: ce2b82
File 146611772689.jpg - (126.67KB , 640x425 , African technical w a Russian Hind rocket pod.jpg )
20686
>>20684
Mount helicopter rocket pods on an AFV. But people have been tinkering with such things on Toyota trucks in Africa and the Middle East for years.
Ukrainian improvised 80mm S-8 MLRS System: An image posted to social media at the beginning of August shows Ukrainian troops atop a tracked 9K35 Strela-10 armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) (NATO reporting name: SA-13 Gopher), with two Soviet B-8 rocket pods fixed in an improvised turret arrangement. It appears Ukrainian forces have developed an improvised multiple-launch rocket system (MLRS) on the tracked vehicle. Typically launching 9M37 surface-to-air missiles, this vehicle has now been modified to fire S-8 series air-to-surface rockets, employed in a surface-to-surface role. The S-8 rocket, whilst not ideal for this role, may have some advantages in the current conflict.

Designed for aircraft, the B-8 rocket pod holds twenty 80 mm S-8 rockets, with multiple warhead variants available (see image below), including the S-8KOM (HEAT-Frag) which were thought to be used in a Ukrainian Air Force strike in Lugansk in early June, 2014.
>> No. 20687 ID: ce2b82
File 146611845816.jpg - (359.64KB , 1247x800 , Arab Libyan technical UB-32 Russian S-5 rocket lau.jpg )
20687
A Libyan technical sporting a Russian UB-32 S-5 rocket launcher.
These 32 rocket pods were usually carried by larger aircraft with smaller UB-16 pods for helicopters, but lately innovative people (without Sukhoi attack planes) have mounted them on trucks to be used as motorized MLRS.
>> No. 20688 ID: ce2b82
File 14661184914.jpg - (203.98KB , 1247x768 , Arab Libyan technical UB-32 Russian S-5 rocket lau.jpg )
20688
>> No. 20689 ID: ce2b82
File 146611852081.jpg - (231.33KB , 1247x815 , Arab Libyan technical UB-32 Russian S-5 rocket lau.jpg )
20689
>> No. 20690 ID: ce2b82
File 146611855685.jpg - (283.75KB , 1247x801 , Arab Libyan technical UB-32 Russian S-5 rocket lau.jpg )
20690
>> No. 20691 ID: ce2b82
File 146611857489.jpg - (290.25KB , 1247x804 , Arab Libyan technical UB-32 Russian S-5 rocket lau.jpg )
20691
>> No. 20692 ID: ce2b82
File 146611859370.jpg - (250.67KB , 1247x794 , Arab Libyan technical UB-32 Russian S-5 rocket lau.jpg )
20692
>> No. 20693 ID: ce2b82
File 146611870266.jpg - (300.67KB , 1247x732 , Arab Libyan technical UB-32 Russian S-5 rocket lau.jpg )
20693
Toyota must make very rugged trucks to represent so strongly in the rough parts of the world.
>> No. 20694 ID: ce2b82
File 146611903194.jpg - (3.15MB , 3648x2432 , Russian 220mm TOS-1 multiple rocket launcher May 2.jpg )
20694
I bet the Ukrainians would love to get their hands on some of these beauties, Russian Buratino 24-barrel 220mm rocket launchers on T-72 tanks. The fuel-air explosive (thermobaric or whatever) rockets are supposed to be very effective.
http://www.operatorchan.org/v/res/11223.html#11455
>> No. 20695 ID: 9723b1
>>20694
Some thermobarics have their fuel pre-mixed with oxidizer which ensures detonation, it's usually more humane, less powerful, and more expensive. It's humane because the detonation is ensured and usually faster, fast enough to kill by shockwave before people can register pain.

Fuel air is a type of thermobaric which has to mix the fuel with air before it can work. This means it has a much larger blast power per mass compared to a thermobaric, it's usually MUCH cheaper, but it's also inhumane.

The reason it's inhumane is first of all that fuel-air bombs deflagrate instead of explode, moving air more completely and causing a vacuum effect that can rupture capiliaries in lungs at a greater range. This is a very slow and painful death.
Secondly, Fuel-Air bombs sometimes undermix, in which case they act as a napalm canister, creating fire on and within the targets (instead of a deflagration). There are cases of examined dead bodies having such severe burns it cooked their bone tissue. Also it's common for survivors to have some minor (1st/2nd degree) thermal radiation burns.
And last of all, if a Fuel-Air bomb doesn't explode at all, the ethylene oxide fuel simply disperses in the air as an aerosol, acting as a chemical weapon. Over the course of an hour this first causes paranoia, followed by delusions, hallucination and eventual death. It is very difficult to treat.

Basically with just a slight fuse modification a Buratino system could be a regular bomb, a chemical weapon, or a napalm.
>> No. 20696 ID: 9723b1
>The reason it's inhumane is first of all that fuel-air bombs deflagrate instead of explode, moving air more completely and causing a vacuum effect that can rupture capiliaries in lungs at a greater range. This is a very slow and painful death.
ie blast lung.

It's possible to survive a FAE only to live with a lowered lung capacity and a scarred lung for years.
>> No. 20726 ID: 4cec2f
>>20667
apparently the MOD *forgot* to specify warm water operations to RR.

Unfortunately Britain props up BAe and RR as "domestic industries".
>> No. 21028 ID: f86534
>>20726
Those companies would be replaced by tons better ones the moment the monopoly was over. Just like Oshkosh raped AMG.
>> No. 21045 ID: 385f49
  >>20686
Rocked pods, especially for aircraft, have shitty aim even for the the initial purpose (they are designed that way to provide wide cone for maximum effectiveness). But on the ground, when they are starting without initial speed, they have even shittier aim then that, because more speed provides more stability for the rocket. I.e., the range of this firework contraption is probably below 300 meters compared to 1000+ for normal firing mode from plane.

In effect, this kind of "weapon" is only suitable for terror tactics like shelling populated areas or diversion tactics.

>>20695
>And last of all, if a Fuel-Air bomb doesn't explode at all, the ethylene oxide fuel simply disperses in the air as an aerosol, acting as a chemical weapon.
Interestingly enough, these kind of weapons can also be used for burning out chemical weapons - it's not like it's 100% effective, but better then nothing.
>> No. 21046 ID: 9723b1
File 146678773665.jpg - (107.70KB , 740x367 , CRV7-PG.jpg )
21046
>>21045
>more speed provides more stability for the rocket
This is because the rockets are launched smoothbore, then small fins pop out to spin the rocket in flight and give it some gyroscopic stability. The problem here is that during the initial period before the rocket is spun fully, the fins only produce WOBBLING in the air, which greatly harms accuracy.

tl;dr fin limitations cause rockets to suffer a lot from accuracy problems.

One way to cut on the wobble is to increase the speed of the aircraft, which shortens the period during which the rocket isn't spinning. But the REAL solution is to do what the Canadians did, internalize the fins into the rocket exhaust, which completely removes the wobble problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRV7
>Unguided rockets are normally spin stabilized, like a rifle bullet. The spin is imparted by small fins at the rear of the rocket body that flip out into the airstream once the rocket leaves its launch tube. The fins take a short time to open, and more time to start the rocket spinning. During this period the rockets can drift significantly from their original aim point. The CRV7 solved this problem by adding small vanes projecting into the rocket exhaust to start the rocket spinning even before it left the launch tube, greatly increasing accuracy. A salvo of CRV7's will impact the target area in one-third the footprint of older designs.

The CRV7 is the most accurate unguided aircraft rocket in the world.
>The weapon was originally quoted to have a dispersion of 4 milliradians, but testing with the CF-18 Hornet demonstrated it was even lower, at 3 milliradians.[4] This is considerably better than the autocannon that arm most aircraft; the widely used M61 Vulcan is rated at 8 milliradians, while the much larger and considerably heavier GAU-8 is rated at 5 milliradians.[5]

A CRV7 is just as accurate when launched from a ground vehicle, pic related it's actually as accurate as a 105mm light gun.
>> No. 21480 ID: bb86e7
>>21046
Interesting. I did not know that any kinetic energy armor piercing air launched rocket munition had gotten this far in development. To be fair though, they did do the initial development by accident.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason