Questionable endeavours in military technology

Juan Ward
Juan Ward

This is a bread to discuss military concepts, prototypes and final products apart from everyone's favorite 5th gen multirole fighter following questionable theories/doctrines with great investment put behind them only to end up as massive wastes of time, money and resources for everyone involved.

What was the RLM thinking when they not only wanted to make a strategic bomber, but make it an dive glidebomber so it needs to be twin engined because drag except we don't have any engines powerful enough so let's put two DB601s in each nacelle sharing a single propeller through an autistically complicated gearbox while negating any potential advantages regarding engine redundancy on top of creating considerable difficulties in engine cooling.

Attached: he177-dl-aq.jpg (92.56 KB, 900x657)

Other urls found in this thread:

tanks-encyclopedia.com/cobra-ifv
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/belgium/acec-cobra-tank-cobra-25-and-90
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_service_in_Hungary_during_World_War_II
army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/sobaka-mina.shtml
quora.com/Why-did-the-USSRs-space-shuttle-the-Buran-look-so-much-like-the-US-shuttle-Was-this-a-result-of-espionage-or-just-outward-imitation/answer/Konstantin-Zhiltsov
leonardocompany.com/en/-/strales
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altimeter#Pressure_altimeter
rbth.com/arts/2015/06/16/khrushchev_ordered_battle_moles_to_blow_up_america_43677
atomic-skies.blogspot.com/2012/07/those-magnificent-men-and-their-atomic.html
strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/VS 5.htm>>654079
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant#Defense_of_John_Demjanjuk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_Alley
archive.fo/F5XZq
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight
youtube.com/watch?v=A9faCP4rZbg

Blake Lewis
Blake Lewis

spoiler
Then the F-111.

Similarly the XB-70 that even though it was a good design it was unfortunate to be made in the era when it was thought that ICBMs would soon fully replace strategic bombers.

Attached: zrzh0oykie7im6555fdg.jpg (58.63 KB, 1000x442)
Attached: xb-70-douglas-castleman.jpg (52.98 KB, 900x530)
Attached: 061122-F-1234P-012.JPG (218.95 KB, 1360x1110)
Attached: 42030491462-480858bffa-b.jpg (100.56 KB, 1024x523)

Adam Robinson
Adam Robinson

1: The Blish Menace and 2: The Return of Blish.
Very small scale compared to other wastes, but I can never get over the entire concept.

Attached: 1.jpg (132.22 KB, 1280x620)
Attached: 2.jpg (49.54 KB, 1800x303)

Elijah Jones
Elijah Jones

Leopard 2R
armored mine-clearing vehicle that is presumably supposed to move infront of tanks and other things, meaning that it's probably going to get shot at more than your average tank
yet it is equipped with light turret armor, which probably can be penetrated by 12.7mm rounds
no guns except for a single 12.7mm machine gun without a gun-shield or anything else that might protect the guy supposed to be using it
<atleast it looks kinda cool though

I have hard time figuring out as to under what circumstances this vehicle was considered to be a good idea.

Attached: qr2FvZq.jpg (733.8 KB, 2048x1514)

Jacob James
Jacob James

Not nearly as silly and impractical as the T15E1
we gotta get rid of these mines!
how about we just put on so much belly armor that it shrugs off those AT mines so you can just clear the field by hitting all of them!
It at least never saw actual field use, but I cant imagine what they would have to bribe the driver with to get him to do such a stupid job.

Attached: 1.jpg (45.78 KB, 640x480)

Ethan Adams
Ethan Adams

Can't be as goofy as the Aunt Jemima

Carson Mitchell
Carson Mitchell

Those weren't for clearing minefields, they were for finding the edge of the minefield so you could move the flail and plow tanks up to the front (and possibly also penetrating some distance into the minefield to cover the flail tanks while they worked).

Camden Cooper
Camden Cooper

Perhaps my favorite oddball, the YFM-1 Airacuda, an American interwar bomber hunter armed with a pair of 37mm autocannons. Features include:
cannot taxi under own power as engines will overheat
too slow to catch the bombers it was intended to hunt
loader/gunner pods fill with smoke when guns are fired
if either engine fails, the aircraft goes into an immediate spin
auxiliary generator powers everything, if it fails the plane effectively turns off entirely
loader/gunners can't bail out unless props are feathered
even when everything was fine, they still controlled like shit
I still love them.

silly and impractical minesweeper
You've got nothing on the Germans.

Attached: Airacuda-Bell-XFM-1-(15954491367).jpg (132.55 KB, 1000x603)
Attached: ClipboardImage.png (173.84 KB, 442x332)

Blake Ward
Blake Ward

Aunt Jemima was goofy and nearly impossible to steer, but it could at least clear a safe path through a road or field as it had the fuckoff wide rollers to sweep with. This thing just has its standard width treads.

How is a vehicle with no weapons but possibly a hull gun that never saw service supposed to cover for flail or roller tanks that actually retained their armament? The only book I have that mentioned it said it was simply to clear mines by hitting them so I would like a source on this other tactic.

Attached: 2.jpg (23.12 KB, 500x233)

Carter Kelly
Carter Kelly

Airacuda
Its problems almost mirrors the F35.

Nolan Taylor
Nolan Taylor

Of course amerimutts would come up with such retarded things. Is there anything they can do right?
Oh wait. They can't.
THEY'RE MUTTS

Luis Cox
Luis Cox

Muttspammer is the real mvp. Much better than the antigun supporting spergook/spermutt meme lord tbh

Brandon Collins
Brandon Collins

The whole idea of Landships in the interwar era, at points they even considered giant movable "land docks" that the tanks would dock in for repairs.

Attached: IWM-KID-109-Vickers-Independent.jpg (49.91 KB, 800x575)
Attached: 1024px-HOG-II-(4536666194).jpg (134.95 KB, 1024x768)

Austin Turner
Austin Turner

Aerodynamic and Rocketry studies aside I can't really think how plane related was ever supposed to be viable in its intended role outside a fantasy world where the concept of bomber escorts didn't exist.
They should've put their effort into RATO instead, but alas.
The naval Battleship autism of the 1920s made sense considering that Aircraft only became a serious threat to big boats during the late 1930s, but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

Attached: messerschmitt-me-163-a-0-me-163-b-komet-fighter-01.png (229.69 KB, 1001x611)

Jacob Johnson
Jacob Johnson

Every source I could find describes the T15 as being simply a mine-resistant M4A2 rather than a dedicated mine-clearing vehicle, which to me suggests a role more along the lines of the British Matilda/Valentine AMRA.
The bit about fighting in minefields was just speculation on my part. Most of the flail and roller tanks couldn't defend themselves effectively because the mine-clearing gear blocked fire across most of their frontal arc, and in the flail's case also blinded the crew while it was running.

The worst part about that whole design is that almost all of the problems you listed could be fixed by one simple modification (moving the guns from the nacelles to somewhere in the fuselage).

Aiden Flores
Aiden Flores

but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

I get the feeling the people who thought landships were a good idea are the same people who think Mecha's would be a good idea today.

Jace Harris
Jace Harris

You have to remember that the tank doctrine of the interwar period only knew infantry and cavalry tanks. Even the Germans used it, as the Panzer III was meant to be the cavalry tank, and the Panzer IV's job was to support the infantry. Then the soviets made the T-34, a cavalry tank that could spearhead an attack or support the infantry, and that started an arms race that led to the MBT. But in the interwar period all of it was completely unimaginable, and you didn't even have light, medium and heavy tanks. In that context it wasn't that insane of an idea to make a mobile bunker.

Daniel Ramirez
Daniel Ramirez

land dock
I'm going to need some recommended reading material on this. Also sponsons should never have gone away.

Jacob Torres
Jacob Torres

moving the guns from the nacelles to somewhere in the fuselage
Apparently the gunners in the nacelles weren't even the ones firing them. They had the ability, but it was normally done by someone in the central fuselage, and the gunners just loaded the thing, which as far as I know is a role that usually isn't necessary. Meaning the entire concept of the crewed nacelles was useless in the first place, which in turns means you could make it tractor-driver and avoid the shitty flight characteristics and heating issues of a pusher, on top of saving two crew members' worth of weight, possibly making it fast enough to do its job.
The APU was just irredeemably retarded. There's no reason for it to be that way.

Robert Cox
Robert Cox

I'm fairly sure it was J. F. C. Fuller (interesting guy actually, big Hitler fan and occultist) who had the idea but I'm not 100% sure, I've read about it in a book years back but it comes up in this video at some point as well.

Jackson Gomez
Jackson Gomez

It didn't cost a whole lot of money, time or resources to make but I think it still counts.
Was there anything better in terms of ghetto tank design New Zealand could've devised from locally available resouces that would've been capable of destroying/annoying invading Japanese tankettes?

Attached: semple-tank.jpg (62.62 KB, 700x554)
Attached: semple-rear.jpg (84.67 KB, 700x537)

Nicholas Jones
Nicholas Jones

What was the RLM thinking
"Gee, wouldn't it be cool if we had a long-rang, high payload strategic bomber with divebombing accuracy?".
Same reason the early E series Do 217s had a tail mounted air break for dive bombing which was discontinued because it had a nasty habit of ripping the whole tail from the aircraft.
The biggest issue the Greif had was not immidiately ditching the dive bombing and redeveloping it into a four engine design (something that was explicit forbidden yet done by Heinkel on their own dime).

Except bomber escorts were powerless against the rocket and jet aircraft, the real problem the 163 had was the small engagement window with the heavily arcing Mk108s, the nasty propellant and the short burn time.
Two of these could be rectified by giving it different guns and the more advanced version was supposed to be fitted with a seperate cruise engine with 8mins of fuel.

Josiah Scott
Josiah Scott

bomber escorts were powerless against rocket aircraft
They weren't so powerless once the Me 163 had to glide back to base after expelling all of its fuel in a mere 7 minutes.
Two of these could be rectified by giving it different guns and the more advanced version was supposed to be fitted with a seperate cruise engine with 8mins of fuel.
Don't forget actual landing gear.

Kayden Edwards
Kayden Edwards

They may have been useless but i still love the concept, imagine on of those giant trucks they use for mining but with armor and turrets, slowly moving towards the enemy, have an enemy behemoth also approach to duel the first, would've been cool as fuck.
Also airships, but those are even less realistic.

Joseph Brooks
Joseph Brooks

airships
I'm still sad things like pics related weren't around during the great war.
If the Akron and Macon hadn't crashed with no survivors and lived to see Pearl Harbor, would they have had any viable use at that point in time?

Attached: USS-Macon-docked.jpg (414.98 KB, 2000x1181)
Attached: USS-Macon-lewd.jpg (611.22 KB, 2000x1601)

Jason Russell
Jason Russell

use
Yeah to be scrapped for the valuable aluminum frame like every other airship of the time.

Xavier Evans
Xavier Evans

Why is the world so cruel to rigid airships.

Attached: bullied-so-hard.jpg (144.69 KB, 537x452)

Asher Carter
Asher Carter

Because navy faggots need to stay on the ocean, don't need them gaying up the sky any worse than the chairforce does already.

Jack Richardson
Jack Richardson

airships are giant seamen balloons

Attached: seaman.jpeg (29.11 KB, 480x360)

John Davis
John Davis

I'm willing to give a very hesitant maybe. They had damn long range and were considerably faster than any surface ship, so I suppose using them as a dedicated scout carrier isn't actually that bad of an idea. Problems I see is that with aircraft maintenance I don't see you being able to maintain their ability to do so unless you want to scout with the airship itself, which to me seems like inviting disaster. And of course, their materials were in high demand and I don't see two of them being enough.

Nathan Carter
Nathan Carter

sponsons should never have gone away.
That reminds me: modern weapon stations should be armoured, so that they look like small turrets.

Camden Cruz
Camden Cruz

Another questionable endavour would be Ferdinand Porsche and his attempts to build a tank with a gasoline-electric drive system.
While idea (simplify the drive system by omitting the gearbox transmission) was sound, all his attempts were hindered by high gasoline consumption, resource shortages and overheating problems.

Still these would be alleviated by installing the new rocket motor with the cruise engine and pretty much all the redesigns (Me163 C/D and the 263) replaced the skid with proper landing gear.
The skid was a holdover from the aircraft being the result of glider research.

Attached: VK4501-Tiger(P).jpg (116.73 KB, 1280x810)
Attached: vk3001p.png (651.94 KB, 1327x658)
Attached: image002.jpg (17.16 KB, 478x202)

Angel Taylor
Angel Taylor

There were attempts even during ww1, but the technology was simply not there. What's even worse is that it's been ready for decades, just nobody bothered with it.
tanks-encyclopedia.com/cobra-ifv
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/belgium/acec-cobra-tank-cobra-25-and-90

Jaxon Jenkins
Jaxon Jenkins

Would they be any more resource intensive or vulnerable to attack than a surface ship of similar capability? The Macon carried five planes and had a length of 785 feet. I do wonder, for the planes carried, what would their minimum runway distance be on a traditional aircraft carrier?

We know from the Zeppelin bombing campaigns of WWI that a rigid airship, even a hydrogen one, can sustain a lot of small arms fire before going down. It wouldn't stand a chance against modern missile technology, but would it fare any worse than smaller navy vessels? How effective would CAWS systems be mounted on an airship? Are we in the wrong direction, and an airships true martial calling is as a floating artillery platform?

Justin Ross
Justin Ross

Burger airships were filled with Helium so they wouldn't have Hindenburg'd themselves even when hit by incendiary rounds, though I doubt they'd last long against 1940s autocannons.

Would the Macon have made for decent transport and supply ship/FoB for seaplane patrol bombers with most of its parasite aircraft removed?

David Diaz
David Diaz

EVERY. SINGLE. THING. MADE BY MUTTMERICANS.

Lucas Wood
Lucas Wood

Why not just modify existing bombers into gunships for this role?

Gabriel Cruz
Gabriel Cruz

They would have been lost to storms in the pacific if they were deployed there. Much like how all other rigid airships were lost to storms anywhere else during peacetime. The navy used non-rigid blimps to spot submarines and sweep for mines in all theaters with a VERY strict do not engage policy on surfaced ships and for good reason. The only blimp dumb enough to attempt attacking a surfaced U-boat was shot down by its 20mm AA-gun. Though as I stated before, that particular craft was a modern blimp and not rigid. They were mainly used to supplement the PBY fleet by taking tasks the float plane couldn't do such as hunting during the night with its radar and mine sweeping.

Attached: blimp-landing-on-carrier.jpg (77.38 KB, 864x691)

Brody Taylor
Brody Taylor

A bipedal gun carrier wouldn't be all that crazy in an urban warfare environment, if it had a compact enough and powerful enough engine.

Still, it'd be a small niche outside of which it would make no sense at all to field.

Cooper Davis
Cooper Davis

The idea at the time was that fighters would be useless at intercepting bombers unless they had a 40-50% speed advantage. This was in the infancy of radar, so it was assumed fighters would be launched in response to sightings and would mostly be doing tail chases.

Parker Cox
Parker Cox

Would they be any more resource intensive or vulnerable to attack than a surface ship of similar capability?
Resource intensiveness I have no idea. Since they were twice as fast as any surface ship, as long as they kept their scouts in the air and don't get surprised by a wing of Zeros they'd probably be pretty difficult to pin down.
The Macon carried five planes and had a length of 785 feet. I do wonder, for the planes carried, what would their minimum runway distance be on a traditional aircraft carrier?
The Independence-class light carriers were 623 feet long and carried about 30 planes. Keep in mind though, is that the Macon and Akron were limited to small biplanes rather than the modern fighters and bombers the carriers were.
airships true martial calling is as a floating artillery platform?
Don't like it. Carriers took over for battleships because people realized that the value of not exposing yourself to enemy fire outweighed simple volume of fire. Using an attack airship in the period accomplishes neither.

Would the Macon have made for decent transport and supply ship/FoB for seaplane patrol bombers with most of its parasite aircraft removed?
Maybe. My vision was to have them patrolling a few hundred miles ahead of the carrier fleet while keeping their scout aircraft patrolling in an arc in front of them. Best case scenario would have one of the scouts spot the Japanese fleet, then scamper off using it's speed to avoid retaliation. At that point, the carrier fleet can launch a strike while safe from attack.

They would have been lost to storms in the pacific
Yeah, that's probably the worst part.

Why not just modify existing bombers into gunships for this role?
Perhaps you would be a fan of the YB-40. Just cram as many .50 cals (or up to 40mm) in a B17 airframe as possible and turn the entire bomb bay into an ammunition magazine. Toss some extra armor plating on then put them in your bomber groups to protect them. Then realize they're too slow for the most part.

Attached: 0118c99f11b29ab69853562680a598db.jpg (53.49 KB, 834x544)
Attached: p-JW9c-XH.jpg (12.91 KB, 338x230)

Zachary Peterson
Zachary Peterson

Attached: I've-seen-things-that-have-killed-lesser-men.png (465.08 KB, 832x602)

Sebastian Jackson
Sebastian Jackson

There's actually no technical reason why an Akron-sized zeppelin couldn't be fitted to instead recover 3-4 F2As or F4Fs. The Macon's planned replacement would have even carried SBDs, exploiting the airship's own speed and altitude to launch planes with fuel and weapons loads that would be impossible for surface ships without the use of a catapult (which was a huge deal in 1935).

Asher Allen
Asher Allen

A cruel Vicker's thesis

Aaron Nelson
Aaron Nelson

They were cool but they were always novelties. Only thing they could have been used for is to drop tanks on the decks of Jap ships

Ryder Nelson
Ryder Nelson

paradropping heavy armor from zeppelins directly onto the decks of battleships
This is the future we could have had.

Eli James
Eli James

Why is everything you post so cute

Oliver Johnson
Oliver Johnson

~uguu

Brandon Campbell
Brandon Campbell

blish lock thompsons are a million times nicer than m1a1s and later versions.

Levi Green
Levi Green

You make it sound like you think dropping tanks on the decks of Japanese ships isn't an important tactic.

Grayson James
Grayson James

I like soviet aproach to getting thru minefield. Dont use specialised equipment. Just drive forward with battle tanks. Yes, you propably lose some percentage of vehicles, but you dont stall assault, doing so you negate main purpose of minefield.

Yes, I know that soviets had mineclearing tanks in WW2

Joseph Nelson
Joseph Nelson

Pretty good, but could be better.
Instead of your own tanks, just force prisoners that you were probably going to execute anyway to form columns and march across the minefield.
You get to clear the field, save money that could be spent on repairs or new vehicles, and get rid of undesirables all at once. Three benefits in one! What a deal!

Gavin Reed
Gavin Reed

We did something that was a lot less drasting, as they had to clean the minefield without dying on the process, but we still used undesirables to clear minefields.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_service_in_Hungary_during_World_War_II

Nathan Campbell
Nathan Campbell

Human weight is not enough to trigger AT mine. El Goblino could, but it's not high tech like some 10 trillion DARPA project.

Caleb Reed
Caleb Reed

Just force feed el goblino or other prisoners enough lard so they'd be heavy enough to trigger the AT mines.
Hm. Is there a way to weaponize fat as hell goblins? Like stuff them with explosives and disease before launching at your enemies via catapult? Might as well try to get all use you can out of them, yeah?

Josiah Reyes
Josiah Reyes

but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?
I imagine the idea was something along the lines of
"It will be a moving fortress. Steel ten metres thick so that no artillery can even dent it; it'll be an invulnerable machine of death"

Jeremiah Bell
Jeremiah Bell

The US Airforce has already perfected dropping tanks onto the enemy via airplanes.

Attached: 8832f31aa49a34d8445d0f6698abca04.jpg (51.27 KB, 718x480)

Nathan Walker
Nathan Walker

be Soviets
be inhuman filth
want to train dogs so they carry explosives to german tanks and then run away
delayed fuzes don't work
fuck it let's just put an impact detonator on the dog and call it a day, dogs aren't even human so it's fine
start training dogs loaded with explosives to run under tanks
train the dogs with surplus tanks standing around inna field
Barbarossa happens
ohfug.jpg
send out heroic socialist patriot dogs to crash the nazis with no survivors
doggos get scared by machine gun and cannon fire, run back to their trenches killing everyone inside
those that don't run away refuse to duck under the enemy tanks
they try to run towards waiting for them to stop only to get shot and die
other dogs run towards Soviet tanks instead of German ones due to being trained on Soviet tanks with diesel engines
dog trainers quit en masse after having to shoot their frightened dogs so they don't run back towards friendly lines
NKVD removes filthy traitors from service
anti-tank dog training continues until 1996

Attached: Soviet-anti-tank-dog.jpg (44.31 KB, 629x383)

Elijah Cruz
Elijah Cruz

Is there a way to weaponize fat as hell goblins?
Let them migrate into the rival country.

Landon Nguyen
Landon Nguyen

What does better fit and finish have to do with the core concept of the system not physically working?

Nathaniel Wood
Nathaniel Wood

not physically working
Just because the Blish principle is complete fiction doesn't mean the guns didn't work, it just means they were actually interrupted-thread-delayed blowback.

Lucas Davis
Lucas Davis

bullshit myth, it worked most of the time with very few friendly fire incidents. they just ran out of dog, and it takes longer to breed and train a dog than a single grenadier that can attack multiple tanks

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez

unknown flag

Daniel Stewart
Daniel Stewart

google translate of army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/sobaka-mina.shtml - selected passage starts with "Первая группа собак-минеров…"
The first group of miner dogs (30 dogs, 40 instructors, 4 cooks, 6 drivers, 10 soldiers of the miners) was sent to the front in the late summer of 1941.
Already at the front, they tried to train dogs on real terrain against real tanks. As a result, of the twenty dogs released, no task was completed. The dogs scattered across the field and hid. Four of them could not be found. Two [were] crushed by tanks.
The report of the group of the miner dogs captain Viporassky (Vinogradsky (?)) In the GUVI, written by hand and dated October 16, 1941, has survived:
"… 1. Most dogs refuse to work immediately and strive to jump into the trench, endangering infantry (six accidents).
2. Nine dogs after a short run in the right direction began to rush from side to side, were afraid of breaks artillery shells and mortars. , tried to hide in craters, pits, climbed under shelters. Three of them exploded, two were not revealed, the rest, because they began to go back, had to be destroyed with rifle-and-machine-gun fire
3. The fascists destroyed three dogs with guns fire and zab Ali himself. Trying to fight off and get killed by the dogs do not.
4. Presumably four dogs exploded near the German-fascist tanks, but confirm that they have disabled the tanks do not have … "

Nicholas Martinez
Nicholas Martinez

How retarded would it have been if the Germans tried to convert Mk108's to be used on the ground against infantry? It seems it would be a little to heavy to transport for infantry, but on vehicles it would be extremely effective I would think. Would there be any political issues of obtaining an air weapon for ground use?

Angel Torres
Angel Torres

igor living inside his fantasy world again

Caleb Green
Caleb Green

If they had used it it would definitely have been vehicle mounted. The army would have had trouble getting them, however. Göring didn't want anything getting in the way of Luftwaffe procurement and would not have agreed to give up the guns very easily. The Wehrmacht generally took precedence when it came to manufacturing time, however and may have overruled him. The interservice rivalry for materials support was intense and it no doubt would have worsened with this request. It may have panned out differently toward the end of the war when the planes were grounded for lack of fuel anyways, but I'm not so familiar with that period. I did find a reference saying that Luftwaffe MG81s were transferred to ground use toward the end of the war, however how this occurred and the politics of such is unknown to me.

Cameron Foster
Cameron Foster

They already had 20mm and 37mm autocannons mounted on half-tracks and tanks, and they were used against ground targets. Oftentimes those AA units were attached to the main group of an attack, so they were certainly effective. But the problem is that you'd introduce an aircraft weapon that can't be used as an AA weapon from the ground. Best I can imagine is mounting it on a Sd.Kfz. 250 or 251.
It's like you forgot the most glorious ground troops known to man: the Luftwaffe Field Divisions. I'm sure if Göring got serious about ground troops you'd see all manners of aircraft weapons used by the boys-in-blue. I can even see them using grounded aircraft as assault vehicles. Yes, it would be a horrible idea that is incredibly wasteful and ineffective, but so were those divisions.

Elijah Wood
Elijah Wood

I think it would arc too much for use as an ai gun. I was thinking more in the role of the ags 30 or an autocannon mounted on a troop transport vehicle

Carson Martinez
Carson Martinez

heavily armed aircraft flying within ground effect in order to bring autocannon fire to the front line while avoiding detonating landmines
Ayyyy

Lucas Perez
Lucas Perez

To be fair, the F-111 did a few things well and some not so well. I mean how can you expect a plane to do everything from A to Z? The lancer is still in use to this day, so it couldn't have been that bad.

William Rogers
William Rogers

Had said that could also become the case for F-35 if they turned it into a devoted ground attack aircraft but the .pdfs do not leave much ground for hope given its overheating and weapon bays shaking issues.

Mason Martinez
Mason Martinez

The F-111 was actually great as far as actual performance went, it was just a huge pain in the ass to maintain. Even the fighter variants probably would have been fine, it just had the misfortune of being developed while USN leadership was still freaking out about our early-Vietnam WVR losses and wanted dogfighting capabilities on a fleet-defense interceptor that should never be allowing hostiles into visual range in the first place.

Adrian Young
Adrian Young

Even the fighter variants probably would have been fine
fighter
Interceptor*. It would suck as a fighter. Plus the Navy's demands created the F-14, an air superiority fighter that if modernized would outperform all existing fighters even today (and unlike the F-35 and F-111 could be a true multi-role).

Christian Cruz
Christian Cruz

Would parasite fighters have been a viable addition to Battleships or was the whole concept a meme?

Attached: McDonnell-XF-85-Goblin-USAF-(Cropped).jpg (1.21 MB, 1338x765)
Attached: XF85-Goblin2.jpg (75.22 KB, 800x588)

Ethan Long
Ethan Long

Parasite fighters were theoretically the most agile dogfighters back in the 70s.

Attached: 240de49a1e04626063ffc49052e-med.png (49.29 KB, 640x300)

Xavier Cruz
Xavier Cruz

Hans learning about WW2 from Enemy at The Gates and CoD

Mason Thomas
Mason Thomas

They still are. Most fuel is used raising to altitude, and then traveling to the enemy and back. Having something larger carry you there means you can remove two thirds of the fuel stores. And not having to land on the ground or deal with the stresses of landing means removing half the structural struts and the very heavy DEAD WEIGHT of the landing gear.
In other words it makes the aircraft more than TWICE lighter, so if it's using the same engines as the land variant, it's going to have OVER TWICE the thrust-to-weight ratio! Meaning being faster and being able to travel at higher altitude, it can feed more power into a turn meaning tighter turns as well, and it can tell missiles to fuck off. At the same cost.
There's a reason industry > crafts, there's a reason rocket staging > SSTO, splitting a task or operation into smaller bite sizes rocket staging is efficient, the same reason airplane staging would be more efficient.

Owen Jackson
Owen Jackson

Russian inferiority complex never fails to deliver.
<I don't care if its obviously retarded, we must show everyone that we can do it!
Now let's have a turret farm on treads, where the bustles and barrels block egress, with isolated fighting compartments without internal comm, and give it the steering and gearbox of a light tank! That will show them!

Attached: t-35.21205.jpg (549.13 KB, 2589x2002)
Attached: t35-f69050e20462215cd400063c9c40b278.jpg (228.22 KB, 1024x768)
Attached: t-35-iz-67-tp-34-td-3.jpeg (1.33 MB, 3543x2181)
Attached: t35szembol.jpg (65.21 KB, 591x423)

Hunter Murphy
Hunter Murphy

A shame instead of some crappy and barely useful mechas we get the F-35

Jayden Cooper
Jayden Cooper

Also, let's not armor it enough to stand up to anything but distant AT rifles, because otherwise it won't even be able to move.

Cooper Bailey
Cooper Bailey

Some more manifestations of this pathology.
The Buran was meant to work as an orbital bomber, because they speculated the STS was too stupid to work as anything else but a military project.

Attached: Tupolev-Tu-4-01-red-(10255123433).jpg (3.99 MB, 2761x1841)
Attached: tu-144-0790453.jpg (413.47 KB, 1024x688)
Attached: buran-Gateway-to-space-2016,-Budapest,-Buran---Russian-reusable-space-plane-(model)-2.jpg (972.35 KB, 1994x1944)
Attached: buran-b-image01.jpg (44.89 KB, 720x412)

Ayden Lewis
Ayden Lewis

Tu-144 looks upon the jeering crowd in disdain.

William Morgan
William Morgan

Whats with people and curved barrels? did they ever work?

Attached: Curved-Barrel.jpg (51.59 KB, 377x480)
Attached: LMG11.png (146.69 KB, 383x501)
Attached: PPSh-Curved-Barrel.jpg (28.3 KB, 660x340)
Attached: XM106-prototype.jpg (20.71 KB, 800x333)

Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner

They do work, but some of the kinetic energy is lost if I recall.
Decent enough for closer ranges.

Jason Flores
Jason Flores

They worked until they barrel wore away. 300 or so rounds as the Germans found out.

Charles Cook
Charles Cook

God damn that PPSH made me laugh. Fucking pure autism just get rid of the barrel jacket.

Chase Campbell
Chase Campbell

copy of B-29
equivalent of Concorde with smaller range
equivalent of Space Shuttle but better
"pathology"

Jose Perez
Jose Perez

I think the FW 190/ Ju 88 Mistel is one of the most questionable last ditch efforts by the luftwaffe to stall the allies. After seeing quitea bit of footage of it being used in Il-2 against a bridge and trying to use it myself, I wonder why they couldn't have just used a large bomb against a bridge. I heard it was also used against shipping, I could see reasonable use here given a good angle of attack because it would be much faster than a torpedo and thus it could be launched at somewhat of a greater range I assume.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (233.39 KB, 650x378)

Easton Lewis
Easton Lewis

They would work if pansies would suck up their pride and go back to the tried and true round balls

Dominic James
Dominic James

Wouldn't a musket ball work fairly well considering the range? I guess it would have shitty terminal effects though.

Aiden Campbell
Aiden Campbell

And would it work with a shotgun? The breakup of the wad as it goes around the bend seems like it would be an issue there.

Sebastian Martin
Sebastian Martin

Toss bombing always seemed to be rather questionable.

Those things…I remember as a kid trying to knock out a bridge in the mission you use them and getting utterly screwed every single time. My worst experience, one that has stuck with me forever, went like so:
fifth or so try attempting to hit the bridge
decide I'm making it happen this time, no matter what
approach the bridge from a higher altitude than normal
go into a 45 or so degree dive
"ah hah" my brain thinks, "even if I miss the bridge the impact with the water will set the warhead off"
release bomb and pull off, activate autopilot
swap camera to bomb
trajectory looks to be almost perfect
just a hair low, but it'll crash almost directly below the bridge
nose and fuselage miss edge of bridge by a couple feet
vertical stabilizer hits edge of bridge, snaps off
impact jolts nose upward
bomb almost skims surface of the water
watch bomb fly serenely off into the distance
exit mission
never attempt mission again

Attached: B1Hc-h5CEAAPE3d.jpg (63.39 KB, 599x864)
Attached: indexfgadfgad.jpg (18.06 KB, 514x258)

Noah Young
Noah Young

I wish I had the childlike persistence, I tried about 3 or 4 times, I was pretty good about lining up with the road, but most of my shots were low and as a result I blew myself up before I could peel away.

Carter Sanders
Carter Sanders

I wonder why they couldn't have just used a large bomb against a bridge

Because bridges are small targets easier to hit with guided bomb

Charles Jenkins
Charles Jenkins

One might wonder why nobody picked up the ground-effect vehicle after the Soviets.

<copy of B-29
A reverse engineering effort that was equivalent of five original bomber projects in work hours because the commissar insisted they have to copy every piece of equipment instead of using off-the-shelf domestic ones.

<equivalent of Concorde with smaller range
It was a bullshit vanity project rushed through development because the commissar wanted to shout "FIRST"

<equivalent of Space Shuttle but better
Equivalent of the Soyuz and UR-500 systems already in service, but worse. Glushko went out of his way to build anything but a copy of the idiotic burgerplane, but the commissar wanted it to resemble, because "otherwise the world will think we can't build a proper space shuttle".
quora.com/Why-did-the-USSRs-space-shuttle-the-Buran-look-so-much-like-the-US-shuttle-Was-this-a-result-of-espionage-or-just-outward-imitation/answer/Konstantin-Zhiltsov

Attached: ekr-lun-tumblr-nw2uec3qRl1r94kvzo1-1280.jpg (198.29 KB, 1280x960)
Attached: ekr-lun-tFelIPu.jpg (207.66 KB, 1373x900)
Attached: Ekranoplan.jpg (49.11 KB, 833x486)
Attached: ekrano-04136402.jpg (134.65 KB, 1800x925)
Attached: ekr-lun-original.jpg (112.01 KB, 1240x696)

Jace Foster
Jace Foster

One might wonder why nobody picked up the ground-effect vehicle after the Soviets.

Attached: 1542133995749.jpg (100.32 KB, 795x941)
Attached: ded.png (4.94 MB, 1900x1280)

Lincoln Murphy
Lincoln Murphy

Women are indeed a strange piece of military hardware. The loons who want to see them everywhere are even stranger.

Attached: hultgreen.png (70.99 KB, 669x441)
Attached: hollygraf.png (1.2 MB, 1353x3592)
Attached: fitzgerald-collision.png (62.12 KB, 734x468)
Attached: women-in-military.webm (6.96 MB, 320x240)

Zachary Brooks
Zachary Brooks

I know I've seen that webm posted before, but please tell me its some celeb they have on there for a stupid show or something.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross

Ground effect is a very specific thing that will only work in calm waters in specific parts of the globe. Such as the seas around Russia. They don't do bad weather and they have a terrible tendency to suddenly nose down if you hit a bad pocket of air meaning you are flying on pins and needles the entire time. Though we also adopted a fast moving anti-ship missile platform in the Pegasus class hydrofoil as it had much better seakeeping in open ocean than ground effect craft. Granted its role was to fire harpoons at small missile corvettes like an extra fast frigate whereas the erkranoplans were to be used as extra fast missile corvettes.

Attached: Navy-Hydrofoil007-copy-e1340108987598.jpg (157.2 KB, 1024x689)

Joshua Hughes
Joshua Hughes

Dear lord why did they scrap those things? The only things they needed extra were a pair of anti air missiles and they would have been excellent border patrol boats.

Also if the arsenal ship actually came to life they could have had a target designator for it

Robert Nelson
Robert Nelson

They were actually proposed to be operated in the gulf of Mexico for that purpose after the cold war ended but Clinton put a stop to that in a hurry.
mfw one still survives today as a private yacht

Attached: bang.jpg (43.24 KB, 680x408)

Noah Hill
Noah Hill

Would Ground Effect vehicles work in the Sea of Japan or the Mediterranean?

Leo Adams
Leo Adams

Ground effect is a very specific thing that will only work in calm waters in specific parts of the globe.
This. Is. Bullshit.

Ground effect exists everywhere, it happens because the air is trapped between the wing and the ground and thus produces a compression resistance in addition to usual lift.
This happens to every aircraft trying to land ever the ground effect is well known as something the pilot fights against every time he lands.
It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land. No such thing as "bad air pockets", that isn't how it works.
It doesn't stop a few inches off the ground either, ground effect is there 6-10m off the ground, which is sea state 6-8. A ground effect aircraft can fly over virtually all seas much better than any ship connected to the fucking water.
Oh, and any aircraft that can fly in ground effect can also rise out of ground effect and fly normally. It's just wastes as much fuel as a normal aircraft when it does that, which kind of defeats the purpose.
The Wright Brothers likely made their first flight entirely in ground effect.
WIG can even land on water and sit there like a trimaran boat doing everything a boat does.

The literal only downside of a WIG over a boat is that the WIG can't move as fast once it lands.

Austin Jenkins
Austin Jenkins

They would probably work in the med as I believe I read somewhere that some fuckoff money Saudi was planning on making a ground effect cargo liner across it. The sea of Japan is a bit iffy as its still mostly connected to the Pacific which is not a calm ocean despite the name.

Why do you have the absolute worse reading comprehension out of anyone on this entire site? Aircraft trying to land do so over flat ground or very calm seas you dipshit. This is why pure ground effect only craft can only operate in calm seas or very flat plains like salt flats. I can't believe the lengths you go to in misunderstanding to get upset at people here.

Attached: dude.PNG (26.03 KB, 132x213)

Caleb Smith
Caleb Smith

a pair of anti air missiles and they would have been excellent border patrol boats
The Italians have been developing some pretty nifty shells for that 76mm gun, therefore I think it wouldn't even need those missiles. Of course we don't know how much of this is just marketing.
leonardocompany.com/en/-/strales
if the arsenal ship actually came to life they could have had a target designator for it
Not just that, if you use it to patrol your own waters, then you can use them together with anti-ship missiles to get rid of anything from smugglers to invading fleets.

Samuel Campbell
Samuel Campbell

It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land.
<his speed management is so poor he has to actively push the nose down on landing
<he's never landed a taildragger
Sasuga leaf-kun, you never fail to disappoint.

Attached: takagi-smug.png (122.54 KB, 292x389)

Ethan Adams
Ethan Adams

It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land.
<his speed management is so poor he has to actively push the nose down on landing
apply lift force DOWN
<actively push the nose down
has to actually point nose at the ground in order to apply aerodynamic force at the earth
is riding in a 18th century 11-winged failplane
has never heard of flaps
The fuck are you trying to prove?

This is why pure ground effect only craft can only operate in calm seas or very flat plains like salt flats.
BUT THAT IS PATENTLY FUCKING WRONG YOU FAGGOT!!

Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!

Jayden Morris
Jayden Morris

No its not you double nigger, air pressure is significantly lower the higher you go up

Jackson Torres
Jackson Torres

at any given altitude
First learn to read. Then pick up a middle school science textbook.

Xavier Brooks
Xavier Brooks

Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!
You are one dumb nigger. Have you never looked at a weather report where they talk about pressure systems? Have you never wondered why altimeters are adjustable? If pressure was uniform at a given altitude, then there would be nothing causing the air to flow horizontally. You know, that "wind" thing. Pressure would be uniform IF THE ATMOSPHERE WERE IN EQUILIBRIUM, WHICH IT IS NOT. That is why weather exists.

It doesn't stop a few inches off the ground either, ground effect is there 6-10m off the ground, which is sea state 6-8
Your entire argument here is based on the idea that the vehicle will maintain exactly the same altitude at all times, and it can be considered "safe" as long as nothing is taller than that exact altitude. That's a load of bullshit.
If the ground isn't flat you'll get turbulence that will bump you around. If turbulence is bumping you around, your height will change. If your height is changing, you might hit things that are sticking up from the surface. And since you are flying less than 10m above the surface, you have absolutely no time to react. Even if your craft can land on the water, flying through waves at full speed is not a good thing.

Jeremiah Howard
Jeremiah Howard

delete this picture in an instant

Joseph Garcia
Joseph Garcia

VPNs are a fucking cancer

The air pressure that makes weather systems doesn't change the density of the air enough to drop an aircraft out of the sky. It does not work that way.

muh turbulence
Ekranoplans are uniquely suited to deal with it, they have larger control surfaces, mass more, have stub wings and more engine power than necessary. This isn't an issue.

Isaac Rogers
Isaac Rogers

Show me where the Pilots use downforce outside the elevators to make their planes land and how flaps decrease aerodynamic lift somehow.

Liam Lee
Liam Lee

Holly Graf
Interesting that her Wikipedia article has a notice at the top saying the entire article may get deleted because it doesn't meet "notability guidelines". I'm sure there's no other interests at play there.
For instance, while she was commander of the Churchill, a propeller snapped just as it was leaving port, leaving it dead in the water. Graf grabbed the navigator and dragged him to the outdoor bridge wing while cursing at him. According to chaplain Maurice Kaprow, many Churchill sailors, knowing that Graf's career would have ended if the Churchill had run aground, started jumping for joy and singing Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead on the fantail.
Ultimately, the entire crew broke out in cheers when she was relieved in 2004.

Chase Ramirez
Chase Ramirez

Alright, generally speaking using bombs on a airstrip is generally effective especially If it's made of concrete. If you bomb a dirt/grass field it cam be quickly repaired, so what if we mined it? Mines can be launched from the ai, getting near an airstrip would be tough especially with engine noise. I figure you could turn your engine a way off from the target and glide in, drop your ordnance, and leave. This would be done at night, of course. I reckon this process could render an airstrip unusable thus forcing enemies to either relocate without being able to ferry aircraft, wasting time and logistics vehicles. At best it could blow off the gear of a returning or taking off aircraft. This is in more of a world war 2 context

Adrian Green
Adrian Green

During WWII (and in other wars I'm sure), bombing airfields usually consisted of impact bombs combined with time fuzed ones. These fuzes could be anywhere from minutes to days long, which made attempting to repair the field hazardous. As far as mines go, I don't see it being that helpful, since I'm 90% sure airstrips would be inspected prior to use.

Brody Ross
Brody Ross

Do you see that giant thing hanging off the back of the airplane? It's called a flap, it increases drag and creates nose dive pitch, both of which reduce WIG.

6-7 seconds you can see him struggling with WIG effect, he bounces in the air twice trying to set it down.

Nathan Stewart
Nathan Stewart

It's called a flap, it increases drag and creates nose dive pitch, both of which reduce WIG.
While not entirely wrong, you are certainly not right either.
Flaps increase the surface area of the wings and increase the angle of attack on the rear portions of it too. This generates more drag but also generates a lot more lift. This is why flaps are used for landing and takeoff procedures. Using them in fast flight would generate so much lift that the wings would rip off. The drag they produce is not generally used for slowing down. You can see this especially immediately after touchdown. Pilots often immediately retract flaps after touchdown to decrease lift and give the wheelbrakes more weight on them.
Because wings are mounted near the center of gravity of any aircraft, flaps will generate very little extra Torque on the aircraft.

You could possibly be thinking about airbrakes, which are meant to produce drag and not lift, in order to slow the plane down.

WIG (Wing in ground, or ground effect) is not really a major issue for most fixed wing aircraft. A wing generates lift by increasing the static air pressure underneath the wing and increasing the dynamic pressure above. This causes an imbalance of forces acting upon the wings and generates an upwards force.
If the aircraft is close to the ground the pressure below the wing will be even greater, because air has no way to move out of the way downwards. This generates even greater lift even if the wing is moving slower than normal.
If pilots encounter this problem shortly before touchdown they can usually glide it out and wait until they have slowed down enough, or deploy airbrakes. Pulling up slightly increases AoA and makes the plane slow down a little faster, so it's not a bad idea, as long as you don't stall entirely or manage to tailstrike.
If you are still far too fast near ground it is recommended to do a go around. What speed is too fast is determined per model of aircraft individually.

Joshua Murphy
Joshua Murphy

If you could get the shells to work well, they could certainly do as a high caliber CAWS. The reason I said a pair of AA missiles is because it uses existing munitions and launchers, and would reduce the contractor sponging to a minimum. You could even attach a towed sonar bouy, a targeting system and swap two of the harpoon missiles for asrocs and you have an all purpose, cheaply made, fast as all fuck fighting boat.

James Gutierrez
James Gutierrez

sensible, cost effective shit that works
Why bother with such unprofitable fallacies of theoretical military engineering instead of buying a fleet of these?
:^)

Attached: Independence-class.jpg (2.94 MB, 2100x1500)
Attached: Freedom-class.jpg (1.4 MB, 2700x1795)

Leo Thomas
Leo Thomas

Exactly. That's why we also use flaps during takeoff, where the goal is to minimize both speed and lift.

Connor Kelly
Connor Kelly

This generates more drag but also generates a lot more lift.
No, it doesn't. If it generated more lift that way, the airplane would rise into the sky not land.
Lowering flaps just maintains some level of lift and control at a lower speed, so you aren't stalling and falling like a rock. This is obvious because even with flaps down you're still reducing altitude, so it can't be producing "more lift". Once you're in WIG mode it's just for drag, and they get popped up when the wheels touch the ground to prevent flipping the aircraft over. You can see this on some much larger aircraft which don't reduce the flaps when wheels touch the ground, as they're too massive/stable to flip over.

Because wings are mounted near the center of gravity of any aircraft, flaps will generate very little extra Torque on the aircraft.
What? Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

Using them in fast flight would generate so much lift that the wings would rip off.
It would just nose you over into a rapid dive.

You're also using your elevators during takeoff which make sure your nose is up, and your engines which pump power into the system which otherwise would be crashing. For fucks sake…

Jacob Stewart
Jacob Stewart

Lets get the absolute basics established.
Chord Line
Draw a line from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge, that is a chord line.
Angle of Attack
Difference between the chord line and the Relative Wind. The larger AoA you have, the more air you are scooping with the wing. Larger AoA = more lift.
Flaps
Trailing edge device that adjusts the Chord Line, and thus increases the AoA. Flaps are used in landing because they allow a pilot to approach at a steeper decent angle while maintaining a slow speed.
Once you're in WIG mode it's just for drag
So you've never done a soft-field takeoff, have you?
they get popped up when the wheels touch the ground to prevent flipping the aircraft over
It would just nose you over into a rapid dive.
What the fuck? Have you ever flown an airplane, this is the exact opposite of what happens.
Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…
Which is my ailerons, elevators and rudders are all mounted as close to the center of an aircraft as possible, right?

t. pilot

Attached: airfoil-terminology-2.png (38.68 KB, 692x313)
Attached: flapsonangle.jpg (58.18 KB, 657x230)

Carter Campbell
Carter Campbell

At this point I hope you're just baiting, and not actually this stupid.
If flaps tend to flip the aircraft over, then why are they left extended for soft-field landings? If flaps increased lift, then keeping them extended makes sense, since it stops your wheels digging into the ground (which actually could cause you to flip over), but since you insist they don't then what's the reason?
If flaps only increase drag and not lift in ground effect, then why are flaps particularly extended for short-field takeoffs? If they increased lift and reduced the stall speed, then it makes sense since you'd have a lower takeoff speed, and thus need less runway. But since you insist they just increase drag when in ground effect, you would accelerate slower, and need MORE runway to get up to speed, making flaps counterproductive.
even with flaps down you're still reducing altitude, so it can't be producing "more lift"
What are you even trying to say? With flaps extended you produce more lift than you would with flaps up in the same conditions. That is true when you are ascending with flaps extended during takeoff, and it is true when you are descending with flaps extended during approach.
Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…
τ = r x F you absolute nigger.

Thomas Butler
Thomas Butler

posts a picture that proves full flaps cause a more rapid descent
The absolute basics for you guys seem to be "when something is falling down, it isn't achieving more lift than when it's flying level"

τ = r x F you absolute nigger.
Grab a hammer by the bottom of the grips. Lift the head, note how difficult it is.
Now grab it by the head, closer to the center of mass, and lift the handle.
Which is easier?
Applying force closer to the center of mass produces stronger results, this is why swords are balanced so the center of mass is near the tip of the grips ffs.

How do you fail at things babies can figure out.

Jason Martin
Jason Martin

You don't understand the point and you don't know what you're talking about, flaps in the landing position generate more lift but also generate a lot more air resistance, slowing the aircraft down. Make a guess why there's takeoff and landing flap positions, and why takeoff is somewhere around half the angle of landing.

Attached: 220c62c98c8449b24ede1b9b9985e60dc734def3e49686357a244ce358788e07.gif (3.21 MB, 400x225)

Aaron Scott
Aaron Scott

I could never understand it, why didn't they made the front turret to be a main armament of some heavy fighter. If there's a front turret it's always some shit machinegun, usually 7.62 mm, some have 12.7 mm but that's it, just barely sufficient to scare off some fighters in frontal hemisphere. They should've put B-17 ball turrets in there, with targeting computers and shit, but equipped with a pair of belt fed 20 mm autocannons and a 35 mm coaxial auxiliary gun. And they did had heavy twin prop fighters with a shitload of frontal guns in the nose, yet they didn't took one more logical step of turning that shit into a turret so that the aiming is not limited by airplane's maneuverability. No, they just used the turrets for defense and put super shitty guns on them too, and when they seriously attempted this concept they did it in the most retarded possible fashion like you have there, it baffles me.

Attached: 1455588303328.jpg (30.68 KB, 449x546)

Cooper Miller
Cooper Miller

Take these two pictures of a fighter and a bomber, completely out of context. It doesn't takes a genius to immediately see that if a bomber can benefit from having articulated frontal guns, a fighter will too and to a much greater extent.

Attached: Vickers-Wellington-Mk2.jpg (192.68 KB, 1011x548)
Attached: BeaufighterUSAAF1.jpg (149.75 KB, 1600x702)

Ryder Walker
Ryder Walker

low fuel efficiency
heating issues
Probably was winding the motors for too much speed, so at low speed they ate shitload of electricity and produced shitload of heat for very little mechanical power output. Or he did something retarded like using resistive voltage regulator instead of simply controlling motor RPM. Something simple like generator directly connected to the engine, wired through a breaker box to the sprocket-driving universal motors, would have no problems whatsoever bar minor arcing in the breaker and on the motor brushes.

Connor Cox
Connor Cox

No, it doesn't. If it generated more lift that way, the airplane would rise into the sky not land.
I seriously hope you don't belive that.
Airplanes already slow down a lot during approach. It's travel speed is a lot faster than it's landing speed.
Deploying flaps allows you to
maintain[s] some level of lift and control at a lower speed
because it increases lift drastically. Without deploying flaps you would be close to stalling and certainly pushing the nose of the aircraft much higher than with flaps. This would make landing harder for the pilots and designing the landing gear much more difficult for the engineers, because you still have to prevent a tailstrike.
What? Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…
Yeah, this is bait.
he doesn't know the difference between force and torque
This is hilarious.

Joshua Williams
Joshua Williams

posts a picture that proves full flaps cause a more rapid descent
Except that's not what the image shows, which you would know if you understood the mechanics behind flaps and their effect on flight.

The Blackburn Roc and the Boulton Paul Defiant were kind of close to what you're talking about, but I would assume that having a rotating pair of 20 mils and a 35(?)mm would take up too much space as opposed to a fixed mounting.

Hudson Clark
Hudson Clark

To their credit, they actually made a superior version of Shuttle, and again to their credit, they realized it was a complete and total waste of money as early as its maiden flight and pulled the plug on it.
Limited operability at sea. It can't fly in stormy weather for crap, can't swim either. It can rise to aircraft altitude but if it can't land on water then it's utterly fucked. Also very poor fuel efficiency - these 8 giant engines are not for show.

Attached: 1437633101688.jpg (145.67 KB, 654x539)

Christopher Jackson
Christopher Jackson

Put a rubber ducky in a bathtub and poke it on the beak and tail and notice that it pitches up and down easily when poked there! And if you poke it on the center of mass it won't pitch!
How do you fail at things babies can figure out.

The problem on putting articulated guns on a fighter is simple. Who's gonna aim them? Especially during an engagement. Aiming the plane is going to be easier than a pilot trying to aim the plane and a gunner presumably lying down trying to make frantic corrections at the same time instead of just leaving one man in the equation. When it comes to modern jets with radar assisted aiming, the added weight and cost of adding on the gimbals and servos along with the deicing equipment to keep it from locking up far outweigh the advantage of gaining maybe a 30 degree cone of fire in front of your fighter for those once in a million year gun battles that occur. Also the length of your average fighter mounted auto-canon would restrict your cone of fire or risk inciting some serious drag and wonky aerodynamics in the middle of an engagement. Articulated guns are for aircraft that target things that can't move, or can't move themselves.

Attached: 0de.gif (104.13 KB, 625x626)
Attached: 75105-B-52H-61-0036-left-rear-M61-Vulcan-gatling-gun-l.jpg (60.57 KB, 756x504)
Attached: YOV-10D-prototype-in-flight.JPG (91.7 KB, 707x551)

Leo Collins
Leo Collins

The P-61 is actually a pretty decent example of this concept. It served in the last years of WWII to pretty good results.

Attached: Northrop-P-61-green-airborne.jpg (707.69 KB, 3144x2400)

Owen Perry
Owen Perry

Yeah, but its a night fighter which applies to it working on aircraft that target things that can't move.

Mason Rivera
Mason Rivera

Who's gonna aim them?
They had this figured out since WW2 and is far more advanced now.
A quick demonstration /watch?v=nskFayhBcy0
And a period explanation of the system /watch?v=yABTembGYhg

Attached: Apache-Turret.webm (474.79 KB, 1280x720)

Noah White
Noah White

Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift, it has to do with control. They have to present a larger surface area to the incoming airflow, or else they won't have enough bite in the air mass, and won't be able to turn the aircraft. During landing the drag is a nice benefit that reduces airspeed. The reason why they're in half position when taking off is because you're not as willing to risk the drag, but still need controlability at the low speeds.

I can't believe I'm arguing the existence of WIG with some basic bitches.

Rubber ducky is experiencing buoyancy, which is a different force. Are you serious?

Juan James
Juan James

Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift
You are a fucking retard.
They have to present a larger surface area to the incoming airflow
They increase the angle of attack by adjusting the chord line.
won't be able to turn the aircraft.
If you have to make dramatic turns during a takeoff or a landing, something has gone seriously wrong. >inb4 you claim the traffic pattern as a defense
The reason why they're in half position when taking off is because you're not as willing to risk the drag, but still need controlability at the low speeds
No, the reason you'd use flaps in a takeoff is to increase the amount of lift your wings generate at a given airspeed, allowing you to lift off the ground sooner. In a soft-field takeoff, for example, you'd then remain in ground effect until enough speed had been built up at which point you'd climb out and retract the flaps.

Attached: adsfxcb.PNG (83.08 KB, 576x562)
Attached: flap.gif (23.06 KB, 710x533)
Attached: ClipboardImage.png (18.05 KB, 507x294)

Mason Parker
Mason Parker

Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift, it has to do with control. They have to present a larger surface area to the incoming airflow, or else they won't have enough bite in the air mass, and won't be able to turn the aircraft.
flaps have to be able to turn the aircraft
I'm not convinced you even know what flaps are.

Mason Robinson
Mason Robinson

Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift
When landing you fucking moron, because clearly it doesn't produce lift enough to prevent the aircraft from landing. When you are actually taking off, the engines feed power into the system which counteracts drag. How are you even bringing taking off into a discussion about the effects of WIG on landing? But quote more out of context, I'm sure if you slime bullshit around enough, some useful idiots will believe you. Too bad I don't care what idiots believe, so it doesn't affect me in any way.

Carson Bennett
Carson Bennett

When landing you fucking moron, because clearly it doesn't produce lift enough to prevent the aircraft from landing.
Who the fuck ever said anything about "preventing" an aircraft from landing? How are you not capable of understanding the simple fact that flaps increase the angle of attack, which increases the amount of lift a wing generates AT A GIVEN SPEED. By putting flaps in during a landing, the plane may be slowed to a point that it would normally stall in a 'clean' configuration while also allowing a steeper decent.
When you are actually taking off, the engines feed power into the system which counteracts drag.
We call this thrust. But it's the first element that you seem to actually understand, so point to you.
How are you even bringing taking off into a discussion about the effects of WIG on landing?
The discussion has expanded since you've proven beyond all doubt you have no idea what you're talking about.
Too bad I don't care what idiots believe, so it doesn't affect me in any way.
Outright stating that your plan is to clap your hands over your ears and yell "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is an interesting tactic, but not one I see playing out too well for you in the long run.

Aiden Bennett
Aiden Bennett

because clearly it doesn't produce lift enough to prevent the aircraft from landing
You are making such a bizarre leap of logic that I'm skeptical it would be possible for anyone to ever actually believe this.
Claiming that flaps can't be for lift because the aircraft can descend with them extended is as stupid as claiming that wings must not be for lift for the same reason. Even if the lift isn't enough to stop the aircraft from descending, it is still more than it would be without them, and that increase is very significant.

Carson Price
Carson Price

Well done, you failed read the rest of my post like the other person and posted a system similar to what pic 3 in my post is which is for targeting things that can't move. IE ground targets and bombers.

totally ignore that the duck pitches easily when experiencing control inputs at the ends and stays stable when the same inputs are applied to the center of mass to state that its in water
You are totally hopeless and just as retarded as that one guy who tried to say barrel harmonics are a myth no matter how much evidence was pushed in his face.

Attached: bright-chew.gif (140.98 KB, 500x400)

William Baker
William Baker

Autism

James Anderson
James Anderson

you failed read the rest of my post like the other person
user I was agreeing with you. My example of the P-61 was in response to articulated guns being used as anti-bomber weapons.

Justin Morris
Justin Morris

fug :DDDD

Attached: Poppy-bros-suicide.gif (263.88 KB, 148x111)

Zachary Powell
Zachary Powell

For a moment I thought the white stripes on the first one were windows, now I’m disappointed the soviets didn’t built a larger P1000 Ratte landship.

Easton Watson
Easton Watson

Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!
I’ll have to apologize for my fellow countryman. I’m sure you all understand what it’s like to be a leaf but I still must apologize for this particular example.

Gavin Taylor
Gavin Taylor

You said it's producing MORE LIFT with flaps down, than it did with flaps up. Given that knowledge, how the fuck is it landing with flaps down?

mentions stall
still refuses to accept that flaps are down to prevent stall on control surfaces
lol yeah ok, stay in school.

Except you morons are stating the wing is producing MORE lift as a result of the flaps, not less. I'm the one stating that flaps down produces no increase in lift compared to flaps up. Those are the two positions so far argued, which I've gathered from all these mobs of (you) being retarded and not understanding basic flight physics.

For example,
it is still more than it would be without them
You are saying:
LESS LIFT - FLYING LEVEL OR RISING IN ALTITUDE
MORE LIFT - DESCENDING IN ALTITUDE AND LANDING

whhhhhaaaaa? I didn't know that all Wright brothers had to do is build a vertical wall of a wing to rise into the sky.

Yes but that isn't the center of gravity of the duck, because it's experiencing buoyant forces there. How stupid do you have to be?

And I'm very sorry you have to see this example of Canadian education joining in with examples of other Western-nations cucked educational systems trying to grandstand on a booster seat.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altimeter#Pressure_altimeter
A pressure altimeter is the altimeter found in most aircraft, and skydivers use wrist-mounted versions for similar purposes.

Attached: k-aircraft.png (24 KB, 794x710)

Carson Rogers
Carson Rogers

And I'm very sorry you have to see this example of Canadian education joining in with examples of other Western-nations cucked educational systems trying to grandstand on a booster seat.
Are you actually retarded? The very first fucking sentence from the link you posted, says you’re wrong
Altitude can be determined based on the measurement of atmospheric pressure. The greater the altitude, the lower the pressure.
Surely this is all for (you)s right? You cannot be this dumb.

Andrew Hernandez
Andrew Hernandez

You said it's producing MORE LIFT with flaps down, than it did with flaps up. Given that knowledge, how the fuck is it landing with flaps down?
LESS LIFT - FLYING LEVEL OR RISING IN ALTITUDE
MORE LIFT - DESCENDING IN ALTITUDE AND LANDING
You seem to be under the impression that the amount of lift produced by the wing is the be-all, end-all of altitude control. You are completely wrong.
Consider a glider with extendible flaps, and in weather with no thermals (I'm sure the idea of a localized, rising column of air is inconceivable to your perfect equilibrium atmospheric model). It clearly must be descending, regardless of how much lift its wings are producing, since the reason it moves forward at all is by trading gravitational potential for motion. If it extends its flaps, lift increases. However, so does drag, meaning the aircraft has to trade more altitude to maintain its speed. This means it has to have a steeper flight path, even though it has more lift at a given speed. This is not a contradiction. Now assume that instead of being a glider, this aircraft had an engine that we had left on a low power setting, so that the previous cases still hold. You could, if you wanted, increase thrust to counteract the drag instead, meaning you don't have to nose down to trade altitude for speed. In that case, you instead have a shallower (or potentially level or climbing, with the right power and attitude) flight path, still at the same speed as the other two cases.

all these mobs of (you) being retarded and not understanding basic flight physics.
You have multiple actual pilots in this thread telling you you're a retard who doesn't know fundamental theory of flight.

He's an idiot, but you're also misunderstanding what he said. He claimed that if you pick an altitude (say, sea level) then the pressure is uniform at that altitude everywhere. He's not claiming pressure doesn't depend on altitude.
He is wrong though, since air has flows and eddies that cause and are caused by differences in pressure. This is true on scales from large weather systems (which is why pressure altimeters have an adjustment knob, and why weather reports always provide sea level pressure) down to scales that affect aircraft (turbulence due to wind around buildings, trees, etc).

Hunter Foster
Hunter Foster

since the reason it moves forward at all is by trading gravitational potential for motion.
This isn’t true, gravitational potential only changes into downward kinetic energy, gravity only accelerated downwards. A bullet accelerates downwards while it’s x velocity it constant, of course there is air resistance so actually the bullet accelerates down and backwards after leaving the barrel, but x, y, & z components of motion are all independent. The glider moves forward because like a bomb it had the same foward velocity as the plane that carried it forward, only lift decreases gravitational acceleration (which I suppose is heavily dependent on forward motion as a glider dropped from a static helicopter would just fall downwards)

you're also misunderstanding what he said. He claimed that if you pick an altitude (say, sea level) then the pressure is uniform at that altitude everywhere. He's not claiming pressure doesn't depend on altitude.
Ah, I see.

Jonathan King
Jonathan King

downward kinetic energy
Energy is not a vector; there is no such thing as "downward" energy.
To give a more detailed description of what's going on, gravity pulls the aircraft down, but interactions with the air flow are what pushes it forward as well. If you simply drop a glider, it still ends up with some forward motion for that same reason. Try it with a paper airplane. The lift vector isn't in the same direction as the gravity vector; when the glider is descending there is a forward component as well as a vertical component, which is what serves as thrust. In general for an airplane, level flight is not when lift counters gravity, but when the vertical components of lift and thrust counteract gravity. It's convenient for basic explanations of theory of flight to treat the four forces as direct pairs (thrust directly opposite drag and lift directly opposite gravity, and with a common centre for each pair) but they're not really.
The reason I wrote in terms of energy transfer instead of forces is for that very reason. Overall that is what's happening, but if you express it in terms of forces it's more roundabout.

If a glider's forward motion just depended on its release, then it would constantly be slowing down due to drag. In reality the speed of a given glider depends simply on attitude, not on the time of flight on the speed when it released from tow.

Logan Rivera
Logan Rivera

If a glider's forward motion just depended on its release, then it would constantly be slowing down due to drag
That doesn’t happen? I thought gliders has to nose down slightly to build up speed to maintain lift.
Energy is not a vector; there is no such thing as "downward" energy.
Well energy isn’t really a “real” thing, it more of a book keeping means. At least in a physics sense. But gravitational potential will only convert to kinetic energy when an object has a downward component of its motion.
The lift vector isn't in the same direction as the gravity vector; when the glider is descending there is a forward component as well as a vertical component, which is what serves as thrust.
Admittedly I only vaguely know how planes work since we learned that in grade 6 or 7, I’m first year in uni physics so it’s mostly Newtonian physics in simple situations, like we learned in early high school physics, just replacing formulas with claclulus. I suppose I shouldn’t have commented since I hardly know shit about flight.
In general for an airplane, level flight is not when lift counters gravity, but when the vertical components of lift and thrust counteract gravity.
Ah, I thought lift from the wings was the only opposition to gravity and lift was only achieved by a forward velocity. Pardon the retardation

Brandon Baker
Brandon Baker

Nuclear subterrenes.

The “Battle mole" project was more classified than even the Soviet nuclear project, and details about it remain sketchy. What is known, however, is that Nikita Khrushchev, who led the USSR through much of the ‘Cold War,’ actively supported the project.

That a secret underground plant for production of subterrines was built in Ukraine is also known. And, in 1964, the first Soviet subterrine nuclear reactor, dubbed "Battle mole" was unveiled.

Little information is available about this reactor except that the subterrine had a stretched titanium cylindrical body with a pointed end and a powerful drill. According to sources, the size of the atomic subterrine ranged between three and almost four metres in diameter and 25 and 35 meters in length. The speed at which it could move underground was between 7 kms / hour and 15 kms / hour.

Also, available data indicates that the nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov was involved with the creation of this machine, possibly with development of the original soil crushing and propulsion system technology. The ‘cavitation’ flow created around the battle mole’s body reduced friction and enabled it to bore through granite and basalt.

The crew of the "Battle mole" consisted of five people. The machine could additionally carry up to 15 paratroopers and about a ton of cargo; explosives or weaponry. These combat vehicles were designed to destroy fortifications, underground bunkers, command posts and missile launchers located inside mines. The "Battle moles" were prepared to carry out a special mission.

According to the Soviet Union’s military command, the plan was that if relations with the United States deteriorated beyond a point, the subterrines could be used for an underground strike on America.

The “Battle moles" would be brought on submarines to the coastal waters of the seismically unstable California to drill underground inside the USA and install underground nuclear charges in areas where American strategic facilities were located.

The activation of the nuclear mines in the region would provoke powerful earthquakes and tsunamis, all of which would be considered natural disasters.

According to some reports, test runs of the Soviet nuclear subterrine were carried out in different geological conditions; in suburban Moscow’s soils, in the Rostov region and in the Urals. Witnesses who observed the tests were most struck by the capabilities the subterrine demonstrated in the Ural mountains. The "battle mole" easily bit into hard rock and destroyed the underground target.

However, a tragedy occurred during the repeated trials. For reasons unknown, the machine exploded deep within the bowels of the Urals, killing the entire crew. Shortly thereafter, the project was shelved.

rbth.com/arts/2015/06/16/khrushchev_ordered_battle_moles_to_blow_up_america_43677
atomic-skies.blogspot.com/2012/07/those-magnificent-men-and-their-atomic.html

Attached: subterrene1648276.jpg (83.88 KB, 800x522)
Attached: subterrene18-забытых-изобретений-1200x675.jpg (112.29 KB, 1200x675)

Anthony Lewis
Anthony Lewis

I want to call bullshit simply because it's so cartoonish, but frankly I don't know enough about the physics or technology involved to do with with any real justification.
If it ever worked to any appreciable degree, what are the odds the project was really discontinued? Or that the US continued it?

Cooper Harris
Cooper Harris

US have similar technology, they use them to build DUMBs

Juan Ortiz
Juan Ortiz

Id say its kinda bullshit since the drills would get fucked after one kilometer of digging or so

Charles Wood
Charles Wood

Yeah, it reminded me immediately about the theories involving those supposed nuclear tunneling machines that build these DUMBs stuffed full of aliens who eat homeless people.

David Evans
David Evans

The He-100 is a pretty good example I'd say. The speed of a rocketship with the durability of a water balloon.

You said it's producing MORE LIFT with flaps down, than it did with flaps up. Given that knowledge, how the fuck is it landing with flaps down?
I like how you complain about being taken out of context, then proceed to ignore the qualifying phrase "at a given speed".
Except you morons are stating the wing is producing MORE lift as a result of the flaps, not less. I'm the one stating that flaps down produces no increase in lift compared to flaps up.
So NASA, the Smithsonian, the FAA and Wikipedia are all just wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_(aeronautics)
<Flaps are a type of high-lift device used to increase the lift of an aircraft wing at a given airspeed.

Attached: He-100.jpg (193.56 KB, 1920x1280)

Sebastian Watson
Sebastian Watson

So NASA, the Smithsonian, the FAA and Wikipedia are all just wrong?
Wouldn't be the first fucking time, quit arguing from authority.

Dominic Gomez
Dominic Gomez

Big-gun submarines, for all their impracticality had a damn good aesthetic.

Jesus fuck you're stupid. If you had just admitted you were wrong half a dozen posts ago you would have looked much more respectful.
quit arguing from authority
You've already shown you'll just flat out ignore people explaining the mechanics of flight to you, what else is there to do?

Attached: afgdcvbdfg.jpg (168.5 KB, 900x621)
Attached: afdbbvc.jpg (69.13 KB, 1024x535)

Caleb Carter
Caleb Carter

flat out ignore people explaining the mechanics of flight to you
And now you're arguing from what, ad populum? And trying for classic jew "quit doing what im doing" as well.

Anthony Jenkins
Anthony Jenkins

explaining the mechanics of flight is now a fallacy during a discussion of flight mechanics
Sure thing friend. Funny thing is, I haven't seen you provide a SINGLE source to back up your bizarre claim that flaps have nothing to do with lift, whereas I have provided multiple. Oh, right, you consider sources to be an argument from authority.

Brody Long
Brody Long

Is this the designated "science thread" now?

Jayden Lewis
Jayden Lewis

For Christ sake, your second source on the so called "soviet battle mole" proves the whole thing was an April fools joke from "popular mechanics magazine" and has no bearing in the real world.

every time someone tried putting big guns on submarines they ended up getting rammed by someone and sinking in peacetime
Feels bad man.

Noah Cruz
Noah Cruz

How can a Hungarian of all nationalities be so mathematically illiterate?

Christopher Gonzalez
Christopher Gonzalez

This video game me illiteracy.

Julian Rivera
Julian Rivera

Don't be racist, mate. Being mongoloid does not necessarily mean you're good at math.

Brandon Price
Brandon Price

That PPSH
"I swear this has never happened to me before comrade!"
"Let's just cuddle for a bit and see how I'm doing in ten minutes"
"No, of course it's not you! Look, I just had a hell of a day and maybe tonight's not the best night, you know"

Gavin Moore
Gavin Moore

Shitty post-soviet education system gives us the bad math.

Ryder Campbell
Ryder Campbell

those might have been pretty good against Jap infantry who lacked anti-armor weapons.>>638947

Colton Cooper
Colton Cooper

might have been good if their role as anti-commerce had ever happened.
sink freighters from nice safe distance fast using proven gun VS limited torpedoes.>>643700

Mason Wood
Mason Wood

this is what they should've stuck with. Had a few issues but nothing that sounds unfix-able (vibration in prototypes can be fixed) Top speed of 431mph! 3800mile max range (ferry range). Totally BTFO the Osprey. You could refuel this with a 707 tanker same time as you refuel a B-52 or F-4.
Not only can it takeoff massively overloaded due to ability to fully rotate wing, but if it gets shot or can't rotate for vert landing its still 100% GTO for normal landing.
First flight 1964 just before the 'copter assplosion in 'Nam.
But I guess unlike the "iconic" Huey it didn't have LBJ's Lady Bird as a major stock holder so military "lost interest".

Attached: XC-142-landing-on-USS-Bennington-(CVS-20)-1966.jpg (209.57 KB, 800x600)

Liam Howard
Liam Howard

Aerodynamic and Rocketry studies aside I can't really think how plane related was ever supposed to be viable in its intended role outside a fantasy world where the concept of bomber escorts didn't exist.

They should've put their effort into RATO instead, but alas.

638874

The naval Battleship autism of the 1920s made sense considering that Aircraft only became a serious threat to big boats during the late 1930s, but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

Me-163 much faster than any escorts (until it had to glide back to base) and (in theory) didn't have all the complex engine that required hi-grade gas.

Brits did study during WW2 and found that even the "more accurate than bombs" rocket equiped later model Hawker fighter-bombers missed even undefended tanks in an open field all day long. IIRC the post-WW1 idea was that a "moving fortress" would win an artillery dual against soft-target served field guns who couldn't function around even anti-personal shrapnel.

Nicholas Jones
Nicholas Jones

those sound actually pretty good IMO and only had a couple solvable issues.
One was the gap between max range of 152mm low vel gun and the min range of the 152mm guided missile the gun could fire, which the Gooks in 'Nam figured out how to exploit. Another was that the laser gun site was knocked out of alignment by the main gun's firing.
But it was airborne, could swim, was small and fast and could sport 2 .50cal in addition to big beefy 152mm for infantry support.

Attached: 91O5nQ9jZTL.jpg (591.82 KB, 2560x1894)

Lincoln Hernandez
Lincoln Hernandez

For fucks sake, where did you come from?

Jace Hernandez
Jace Hernandez

I like him, he is okay

Evan Ramirez
Evan Ramirez

hear is ah goot van!
9 BILLION dollars for a ship who's main mission was "shore bombardment" with 6" shells which themselves cost over a million EACH. But at around 100miles its still well within range of low end anti-ship missiles of all sorts.
One thing I don't "get" about these steath claims: "15,000ton ship with radar sig of fishing boat". Yeah? but the enemy missiles still know where it is, right?
Well, the ditched the shore bombardment with the multi-million bullets, but then it breaks down in the Panama Canal because the engines are crap. What you expect for 9 billion? You know all them beaners down in Panama were LMFAO at the big ugly 9 BILLION boondoggle.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (20.49 KB, 480x360)

Nathan Allen
Nathan Allen

then we got this POS that looks like it was designed as stop-gap by Indian and Pakis about late 1960s (and may well have been).
Modern air combat and ESPECIALLY carrier is all about RANGE and how loaded you can take off. Ski-jump means your boys are already way behind the curve since they can't launch with max fuel (or weapons). Even better, they only got one launch ramp, and the jets need a long run to use it. In contrast a REAL (USN since Korean War) carrier has 2 or THREE cats that can launch fully loaded jets regardless or which way the wind is blowing (yeah, that HMS Shit NEEDS to head into wind when launching 2nd rate not-quite mission ready jets…who need to refuel from another not quite full tanker).

Seriously, WTF is so god damn hard about putting a proper cat on a carrier in this day and age. I've run the numbers myself and a few dozen commercially available electric vehicles ganged together with their drive tires on a common shaft could spool a cable strong and fast enough to launch a REAL carrier plane like a Super Hornet. And a bunch of Teslas or WTF already got good electronic control that would easy to adapt to launching jets from 0-200mph in 200ft.

Oh well, I guess the ramp makes it less usable as a helicopter carrier, and that is something at least.

Attached: index.jpg (10.08 KB, 275x183)

Jace Scott
Jace Scott

VS 5 was an experimental semi-submersible torpedo boat (Versuchs Schnellboot) completed in 1941 and based on a 1938 patent by a Berlin dentist. The intended armament included two 21in torpedo tubes and two 2cm cannon. Its fate after 1941 is unknown.

Attached: v1.jpg (75 KB, 800x543)
Attached: v2.jpg (1.72 KB, 32x32)
Attached: v4.jpg (1.72 KB, 32x32)

Jordan Mitchell
Jordan Mitchell

strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/VS 5.htm>>654079

Owen Bennett
Owen Bennett

the krauts actually made a boot shaped boot

Attached: Grit-unsettled.jpg (10.56 KB, 320x320)

Carter Sanders
Carter Sanders

I'd like him if he replied to the posts

Isaiah Scott
Isaiah Scott

Maybe he's a boomer

Chase Hall
Chase Hall

WTF is so god damn hard about putting a proper cat on a carrier in this day and age.
Those F-35Bs won't sell themselves.
I'm still mad no one outside of France is using the Rafale-M, easily the best carrier fighter in active service and would've been perfect for the Queen Elizabeth regardless of CAT.

Brayden Lee
Brayden Lee

Shut up yank, let me dream of land submersibles silently hunting landships.

Liam Parker
Liam Parker

land submersibles silently hunting landships.
Your autism intrigues me. Do these landships and landsubs by chance have to deal landseamonsters such as giant landshark and montrous landsquids etc?

Attached: autistic-fascination.jpg (57.01 KB, 1280x720)

Thomas Wood
Thomas Wood

For Christ sake, your second source on the so called "soviet battle mole" proves the whole thing was an April fools joke from "popular mechanics magazine" and has no bearing in the real world.
That one is a clear fake but the soviets DID have a project like that, AFAAK it never went anywhere past the drawing board but the concept existed.

First nuclear landmines are definitely a thing.
Second nuclear tunneling is ALSO a thing (US project Plowshare, while the soviets actually did deploy some to make various earthworks en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy ).
Then tunnel boring machine do exist and they all use a tremendous amount of electricity.

So in the 1960's soviet "put nuclear reactors on everything" it makes sense, even for just civilian applications to make an autonomous tunnel boring machine (if you have to dig say a train tunnel in the middle of nowhere, which is Russia default mode, you have to bring the power supply with it so…) the same they had nuclear trains, nuclear ships and today nuclear mobile power stations that they at least looked into it.

Nolan Powell
Nolan Powell

For Christ sake, your second source on the so called "soviet battle mole" proves the whole thing was an April fools joke from "popular mechanics magazine" and has no bearing in the real world.

That one is a clear fake but the soviets DID have a project like that, AFAAK it never went anywhere past the drawing board but the concept existed.
Its like The Holocaust (tm)!
The Jews claimed the Nazis made them into lampshades and bars of soap, but then the Jews said that was all just made up.
But NOW….Jews are saying it has been recently discovered that some OTHER Nazi did indeed happen to do those exact same things somewhere else to some other Jews.
Same thing with that en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant#Defense_of_John_Demjanjuk
Wiki is not quite forecoming on the details. What happened in Israel is the case completely fell apart and even the Jews had to admit some other Jews were lying and it was wrong guy, etc.
Then, later, Jews in the US Govt found out he actually was a Nazi War Criminal, but at a completely different camp murdering a completely diff set of Jews!
Truly a story arc of Shakespeare proportions!
Any know of any prior use of this "guy wrongly accused of crime with entire world stacked against him, but in dramatic international trial he is found not just Not Guilty but fully acquitted as Mistaken ID….but then….after dogged detective work…he is found actually really guilty of exact same type of crime but at similar but diff location as story line? ???

Cameron Stewart
Cameron Stewart

The second picture isn't a curved barrel weapon. It's a wood and plastic mock-rifle from H&K. This was one their caseless weapons, an LMG if I'm not mistaken. You'd hinge it open to load a block clip of several hundred rounds. It was not related to the G11 operating system, just something they were looking into around that time. It didn't go anywhere.

I believe the fourth pic shows a prototype M16 with a quick-detach barrel for use as an LMG. There was a belt-fed GPMG variant of the AR-10 that was rejected for being too fragile, and there have been several attempts to turn the AR-15 into an LMG.

Brody Sanders
Brody Sanders

I do wonder what the tactical purpose of a downward curving barrel is. I understand around the corner barrels. Was it meant to fire down from height, or were you supposed to hold the gun kind of vertically to shoot it over the top of a trench or something? I would bet down from heights for urban fighting.

Isaiah Thomas
Isaiah Thomas

Maybe for shooting out from armoured vehicles?
Poke it out of a hole in the sloped part, and still be able to aim at guys on the ground nearby. It would let you use a smaller hole than a straight barrel, and one that would be harder for the enemy to shoot back through since they don't have line of sight down it. It would also save space inside the vehicle since the stock sticks out less in the cabin.

Attached: Untitled.png (161.25 KB, 688x584)
Attached: Untitled2.png (74.25 KB, 802x584)

Charles Powell
Charles Powell

How many guys would you need to produce enough cum filled balloons to be a useful psywar tool against … say … a large crowd of feminists?

I'm guessing the idea was to use it for trench warfare, or urban combat where you need to fire (blind) over a wall. You'd think they could figure out an angled mirror sight to make the fire a little less blind, and useful for more than 'Ivan, suppress things (badly) in that general direction'.

Holy shit, it's crazier and more autistic than I ever thought possible. That's what I love about this board.

Justin Martinez
Justin Martinez

or maybe, since its better to shoot low due to ricocheting or however the fuck its called, and these red fucks having limited time for training troops so they git gud had a bright idea to make a gun that shoots low ALWAYS so even your typical 80 iq siberian peasant could do that

Lincoln Diaz
Lincoln Diaz

It was for tankers to fire from the hatch in the turret. It was scrapped because it's a terrible idea and useless if you're outside of the tank.

Nicholas Hill
Nicholas Hill

SURE, anti-sub patrol anywhere outside of enemy aircraft range, particularly in the early years when U-boats had free reign in USA's heavily traffic South and East Coast routes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_Alley

These BLIMPS were well used and K-class not fully retired until 1950s.

If we'd had real airships that could shadow convoys all across The Pond until within range of RAF might have done a lot of good.

Wyatt King
Wyatt King

Blimps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-class_blimp#Specifications_(K-14)

Nathan Smith
Nathan Smith

Am I the only one who thinks the OTL Greif concept of glide bombing blockbuster levels of ordnance with low drag and high accuracy is perfectly sensible for a special production aircraft? The Me-261 Adolphine had no problems with the DB606 engine arrangement on cursory examination. Its engine nacelles extend further outside the wing and are visibly more ventilated, but don't seem any less robust. Nevermind the good sense in converting to a four-engined level bomber design for main Greif production; why not pursue the coupled engine glide bomber simultaneously, as a useful way to deliver mines, water skipping bombs, multiple torpedoes, or blockbuster bombs accurately? If you aren't constrained by jumping into mass production with an immature design while refusing parallel development of the four engine, then you're free to continue development until you get the coupled engine version right.

For that matter; the Adolphine itself. Why wasn't it developed properly? A super long-range recon craft, essentially a flying wingboard fuel tank with the eminent possibility of light bombing capacity on external mounts or in a small internal bay replacing the quarters for rotating crewmen on mega-ranged endurance missions. It can't mount wing guns, but it needn't and shouldn't anyways. It's not quite as long or winged as the Fw-200 but is a little taller, and citing the V3 prototype using the DB610 coupled engine, about 20% more powerful in raw engine capacity at 2133 kilowatts*2, 70% faster at a max speed of 620 km or 385 mph, 209% further ranged at 11,024km/6,850mi, has a 37% higher service ceiling of 8260m/27100ft, and cannot be in any way as fragile as the dodgily reinforced Condor, though I imagine pierced fuel tanks will be an epidemic annoyance. It also has mean tundra tires (with retractable gears so they aren't affecting flight) that'll chew up rougher airstrips in Norway. Or Russia, for that matter.

In other words, though this performance is all before additional bombload, it's the perfect super-range naval recon bomber and general fast recon craft developmentally available in this exact form in early '43 OTL, available in December 1940 in its only slightly lesser powered DB606 V1 & V2 forms, and concepted as early as 1937 as a carrier for the Olympic Flame, flying straight from Garmisch-Partenkirchen to Tokyo. This availability timeline was in spite of a feckless lack of interest outside of Hitler's direct early enthrallment with the concept, low apparent investment, and a near complete drop of work with the start of the war until late 1939 saw it resumed when somebody realized 'shit a super long range recon craft sounds useful.' If observed as useful and properly crash developed as a production aircraft, it handily replaces the Condor in the naval recon bomber role and can serve with exceptional distinction. And all the Condors that were used as fragile, awkward bombers and passable maritime patrollers can serve in their better role of heavy cargo craft.

That silly plane was still the Scourge of the Atlantic in Churchill's own words and wrecked shipping through low altitude bracket-bombing until the Allies had planes on the water to stop them from 1941 onwards. The militarized Adolphine, pending earlier development of a production ready DB 606 and final nacelle arrangement, will have a probably similar bomb capacity, with a massive boost to speed & range, similar or better maneuverability, and no doubt a better bombsight arrangement due to not getting an ersatz arrangement as a converted civilian liner design. It'll be able to continue bracket bombing with relative impunity with a lower exposure window and lesser target size, and I'll be bold in saying it's likely to simply outrun CAM ship Hurricanes as well as P-40s and possibly the early P-38s if they aren't burning WEP hard. A tanker sinking twin engined fly that can patrol over long range with near impunity and low interceptibility out to the deep Atlantic, sinking tens of thousands of tons all on its own before the submarines have been phoned in to get at the convoys, until sometime in 1943 where they'll have to play it cooler to avoid improving Allied twin-engines or extending fighter nets. Both problems in part mitigateable through its own operational successes in the shipping war.

Attached: beautiful-rangey-girl.png (41.31 KB, 800x407)

Alexander James
Alexander James

All you airplane fucks

The XF-84H was quite possibly the loudest aircraft ever built (rivaled only by the Russian Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" bomber[16]), earning the nickname "Thunderscreech" as well as the "Mighty Ear Banger".[17] On the ground "run ups", the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away.[18] Unlike standard propellers that turn at subsonic speeds, the outer 24–30 inches (61–76 cm) of the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards. The shock wave was actually powerful enough to knock a man down; an unfortunate crew chief who was inside a nearby C-47 was severely incapacitated during a 30-minute ground run.[18] Coupled with the already considerable noise from the subsonic aspect of the propeller and the T40's dual turbine sections, the aircraft was notorious for inducing severe nausea and headaches among ground crews.[11] In one report, a Republic engineer suffered a seizure after close range exposure to the shock waves emanating from a powered-up XF-84H.[19]

The pervasive noise also severely disrupted operations in the Edwards AFB control tower by risking vibration damage to sensitive components and forcing air traffic personnel to communicate with the XF-84H's crew on the flight line by light signals. After numerous complaints, the Air Force Flight Test Center directed Republic to tow the aircraft out on Rogers Dry Lake, far from the flight line, before running up its engine.[14] The test program did not proceed further than the manufacturer's Phase I proving flights; consequently, no USAF test pilots flew the XF-84H. With the likelihood that the engine and equipment failures coupled with the inability to reach design speeds and subsequent instability experienced were insurmountable problems, the USAF cancelled the program in September 1956.[20]

After manufacture at Republic's Farmingdale, Long Island, plant, the two XF-84Hs were disassembled and shipped via rail to Edwards Air Force Base for flight testing.[2] First flown on July 22, 1955, the XF-84F had incredible acceleration but soon its impracticality was discovered. It was unsuited to combat due to the engine's 30 minute warm up time but the most serious concerns were vibration generated from the 12-foot propeller diameter and mechanical failures of the prop pitch gearing.[13] The prototypes flew a total of 12 test flights from Edwards, accumulating only 6 hours and 40 minutes of flight time. Lin Hendrix, one of the Republic test pilots assigned to the program, flew the aircraft once and refused to ever fly it again, claiming "it never flew over 450 knots (830 km/h) indicated, since at that speed, it developed an unhappy practice of 'snaking', apparently losing longitudinal stability".[14] Hendrix also told the formidable Republic project engineer, "You aren't big enough and there aren't enough of you to get me in that thing again".[13] The other test flights were fraught with engine failures, and persistent hydraulic, nose gear, and vibration problems.[2] Test pilot Hank Beaird took the XF-84H up 11 times, with 10 of these flights ending in forced landings.[15]

Attached: Republic-XF-84H-in-flight.jpg (268.61 KB, 1800x1230)

Juan Wood
Juan Wood

Hendrix also told the formidable Republic project engineer, "You aren't big enough […] to get me in that [plane] again".

Attached: Bane.gif (118.18 KB, 95x79)

Isaiah Price
Isaiah Price

Is there anything on the internet about making your own DIY airship? The closest thing I can find is a description of the physics and such here archive.fo/F5XZq . But I mean a step by step walkthrough on how to do it and the best materials vs cost.

Carter Collins
Carter Collins

The best I could do is say look into dope and fab for the techniques of manufacturing aviation parts old school style, then using known good physics designs to make patterns to manufacture. you can reasonably build airplanes with wood and canvas.

Evan Bell
Evan Bell

These sorts of drive systems would've vulnerable to em pulses yes?

Kayden White
Kayden White

No. Since the 50s all tanks and IFVs are designed to be immune to the effects of an electronmagnetic pulse. It's because they were designed for a nuclear battlefied. And all modern vehicles have electric motors and generators inside them to begin with. Besides, those EMP weapons from science-fiction don't exist.

Landon Wilson
Landon Wilson

EMP is a fucking meme.
An EMP that is big enough to fry an electronic systems can only be generated from INSIDE the burning range of the atomic weapon.
An high altitude EMP could maybe take out a power grid… because a power grid is mostly airborne cables that act as one gigantic antenna.

Caleb Roberts
Caleb Roberts

That'd be enough to crash inner city SoCal with no survivors.

James Reyes
James Reyes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight

IMO this would be one of the best Bug Out options. Seriously. Launch at night and in a few minutes you will be out of rifle range. Sure its a little risky but with a bit of planning you will have choice of landing zones on several hundred mile strip away from trouble/population. I'd want as least one extra tank and balloons to do one landing and re-launch. Wait for winds to change after initial "get out of Dodge" escape, then re-launch.

I'm also planning to use balloon or kite to hoist small repeater.youtube.com/watch?v=A9faCP4rZbg

Leo Morgan
Leo Morgan

"We know he broke some part of the Federal Aviation Act, and as soon as we decide which part it is, some type of charge will be filed."
"If he had a pilot's license, we'd suspend that, but he doesn't."
New hard drive so I have no reaction image, so just imagine one of somebody laughing.

Levi Martin
Levi Martin

Thanks guys. Fairly informative and logical.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit