Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/08/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points

    Bash the J-20 thread.

  2. 1 point
    T-34-85 in fight against Houthis, Yemen
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point

    The BFR Thread

    Falcon 9 upper stages are going to be made similar to BFR. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1060253333116473344 Musk says it could be used to test reentry tech; https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1060265065276825601
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    Bold Prediction: Given Trump’s predilection to poaching popular Democrat policies (immigration, tarriffs) this could signal a change regarding drug and prison reform.
  7. 1 point
    I'll have to take your word for it. I have been avoiding this thread for the past few weeks, so I haven't read all the posts here. Anyhow, here are my observations thus far. I don't think any of these are particularly controvertial or original: 1) Trump continues to be a polarizing figure, driving up voter turnout both amongst his supporters and opponents. 2) The historical trend of Party holding the presidency losing seats in congress holds true, although the Republicans were able to avoid trouble in the Senate due to a very favorable election map (repubs were defending far fewer senate seats than dems). 3) Holding onto the Senate allows the Republicans to continue dominating high court appointments, something that has been a priority for them, and will continue to cause Dems great consternation. 4) Gaining control of the House allows Dems to proceed with more investigations against Trump. Whether this tactic will ultimately hurt or help them remains to be seen. 5) While I haven't seen detailed breakdowns of the voting demographics, it would appear that the electorate is becoming more polarized along rural/urban lines and race and gender. Certainly the election rhetoric was some of the most highly charged that I have seen in my lifetime. 6) Republicans should probably be concerned that they lost so many House seats despite the strength of the economy. They did not seem to be able to capitalize on the economy issue as much as one would expect, although its been a weird sort of recovery in which real wages for working people have not been going up as much as overall economic growth would suggest. Trump seemed more interested in promoting divisive social issues than in running on the strength of the economy, which probably plays well with his base but less well with the middle. 7) Democrats still have yet to come up with a really compelling, unified vision. They can't just run against Trump, they need to figure out a way to stop letting Trump take up all the oxygen in the room. They also need to make sure the Clintons go away, never to be heard from again. 8) There is a lot of chatter that there may be a good deal of turnover in the Whitehouse following the midterm. Personally, I hope General's Mattis and Kelly stay onboard, they seem to provide a stabilizing influence on President's Trumps somewhat mecurial and unpredictable tendencies. 9) Be prepared for a couple years of congressional gridlock. 10) I have no idea how the situation at the Justice Dept and the Mueller probe will eventually play out. Does Trump try to clean house? If so, does it turn into a modern "Saturday Night Massacre"? Does Mueller actually have the goods to get more indictments? What legal powers does he even have to pursue indictments against a sitting president? Will Trump play the pardon card if push comes to shove? There are so many x factors regarding this stuff that I could see it going in all sorts of different directions. It's going to be an interesting couple of years. And by interesting, I mean my consumption of Alka-Seltzer will probably keep increasing. What times we live in....
  8. 1 point
    I'm happy that here in Michigan, we overwhelmingly passed three state ballot initiatives that a lot of people had been working on. Recreational pot is now legal in Michigan, Michigan citizens are now automatically registered to vote when they get their drivers license/state ID, and the creation of voting districts will now be in the hands of a non-partisan citizen board, which should reduce gerrymandering.
  9. 1 point
    guided artillery shell and GLATGMs
  10. 1 point
    AH-4 Superlight 155mm artillery
  11. 1 point
    The full title of this work is "Weaponeering - Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness" by Morris Driels, who teaches at the USN Postgraduate School, and the cover of the edition I have in hand can be seen below. The book aims to "describe and quantify the methods commonly used to predict the probably of successfully attacking ground targets using air-launched or ground-launched weapons", including "the various methodologies utilized in operational products used widely in the [US military]." Essentially, this boils down to a series of statistical methods to calculate Pk and Ph for various weapons and engagements. The author gave the book to my mother, who was a coworker of his at the time, and is of the opinion that Driels is not as smart as he perceives himself to be. But, hey, it's worth a review for friends. I will unfortunately be quite busy in the next few days, but I have enough spare time tonight to begin a small review of a chapter. I aim to eventually get a full review of the piece done. Our dear friends @Collimatrix and @N-L-M requested specifically chapter 15 covering mines, and chapter 16 covering target acquisition. Chapter 15 Mines The mine section covers both land mines and sea mines, and is split roughly in twain along these lines. The land mine section begins with roughly a page of technical description of AT vs AP, M-Kill vs K-Kill, and lists common US FAmily of SCatterably Mines (FASCAM) systems. The section includes decent representative diagrams. The chapter then proceeds to discuss the specification and planning of minefields, beginning with the mean effective diameter of a mine. Driels discusses a simplified minefield method based on mine density, and then a detailed method. The simplified method expresses the effectiveness of the minefield as a density value. Diels derives for the release of unitary mines from aircraft NMines = Fractional coverage in range * fractional coverage in deflection * number of mines released per pass * reliability * number of passes and for cluster type NMines = FRange * FDefl * NDispensers * Reliability dispenser * NMines per Dispenser * Reliability Submunition * number of passes and then exploits the evident geometry to express the Area and Frontal densities. Most useful is the table of suggested minefield densities for Area Denial Artillery Munition and Remote Anti-Armor Mine System, giving the Area and Linear densities required to Disrupt, Turn, Fix, and Block an opponent. Whereas the simplistic method expresses effectiveness as a density, the detailed model views the targets and mines individually, assuming the targets are driving directly through the minefield perpendicular to the width and that there is only one casualty and no sympathetic detonations per detonation. The model computes the expected number of targets destroyed by the minefield, beginning with the Mean Effective Diameter and the PEncounter based on distance from the mine. Driels derives the number of mines encountered which will be encountered, not avoided, and will engage the target. I can't be arsed to type the equations in full, so here you go. The section concludes with an example calculation using the detailed mine method. Overall, this shows the strengths and weaknesses of the book fairly well - it is a reasonable derivation of open-source statistical methods for predicting Pk and Ph and the number of sorties required, but US-specific and limited in scope and depth. The treatment of Sea Mines begins by describing the various types and uses of said mines, importantly noting that they have both defensive and offensive uses, and that the presence of the threat of mines is equally important as the actual sinking which occurs. There are three classifications of sea mines, contact, influence, and controlled. Shallow water mines are treated trivially, considering them equivalent to land mines with Blast Diameter in the place of MED, and assuming that the mines cannot be avoided. Deep water mines are approached in a similar manner, with the desire to determine the number of mines needed to achieve the required probability of damage, and planning missions from there. Two features of sea mines must be considered, however - mine actuation by passing of the target, and mine damage to the target. The probability of activation is, unfortunately, dependent on the depth of the mine and distance, forming a series of stacked bowls as below. The mean value of PActivation is the statistical expectation of the curve. Because I don't feel like screencapping another equation, the Width of Seaway where an actuation can occur is qualitatively merely the area under the actuation curve calculated for a specific mine and target combo. The damage function is also of interest - because we require the mine to both actuate and damage the target, this limits our earlier area under the curve to that area integrated to the limits of the damage function. The selection of mine sensitivity plays a very large role in the effectiveness of our mines. A high setting will lead to many more actuations than damages, which can be indicated by the ratio of the actuation area and the damage area from earlier. Setting the actuation distance equal to the damage distance means that every actuation causes damage, but the probability of actuation is only around 42%. The compromise which selects some Areadamage / Areaactuation of around .8 to .93 is generally preferred. This gives us several useful terms - PA+D = Reliability * Areadamage / Widthminefield . The probability that the first ship to transit a minefield is referred to as the threat, or Threat T = 1 - (1 - PA+D)^NMines = 1 - (1 - Reliability * Areadamage / Widthminefield ) which can obviously be solved for NMines to get the desired number of mines for a desired threat level. Anti-submarine mines are an interesting subset of deep sea mines, as they turn the problem from two-dimensions to three. Driels accounts for this by replacing the mine damage width with the mine damage area, to no one's surprise. Driels claims that the probability of actuation and damage is PA/D = Damage Area / (Width * Depth of minefield). Despite my initial confusion, the reliability term safely reappears in the threat definition below. T = 1 - (1 - (Reliability * Area damage)/(Width * Depth of minefield))^NMines, with a solution for number of mines for given threat level fairly easily taken out as before. Lastly, there is a summary of topics for each chapter, though unfortunately they are qualitative descriptions. Including the final derived equations in this part would be a major benefit, but is overlooked. Ah well. They are quite good for review or refreshing the material. As before, this is a relatively interesting if shallow engagement with the statistical methods to calculate Pk and Ph and the number of sorties required. Going more into detail regarding selecting Threat values or common (unclass) parameters would be interesting, but is lacking. Assuming I don't slack off tomorrow, I should have most or all of the Target Acquisition chapter covered.
  12. 1 point
    typical gas station in Norway during the NATO exercise #WhereIsTheFuelThereWeAre
  13. 1 point
    About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was a mention of some 58-ton heavy IFV, called SAIFV, which was described as vehicle baised on Abrams chassis, and they also claimed that a prototype was biult and tested. (which seems dubious to me now) Than, two years ago, I've stumbled across this article about SAIFV https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-wanted-to-replace-the-bradley-38-years-ago-dffb6728dd11 which has 3 drawings - "artist conceptions". Than, half a year ago I was reading some US DOD bidget hearings transcripts about MICV/IFV development, and stumbled across mentions of 50-55 metric tons $800,0000 - 1,000,000 SAIFV of Crizer study, and than I've googled a Mobility analysis of IFV task force alternatives (1978-07) report (which is allmost the same as Appendix D of that report which is described below). Unfortunatelly there weren't any proper pictures, (and also i've thought that those 3 drawings from medium.com article are modern "artist conceptions", not one from 1978). Than several things happend in the right time and place, which invlolved twitter, AUSA-2018, NGCV-OMFV, and author of that arcticle at medium.com, and when I asked him about that article - it turned out that there is a report about SAIFV, which is readily available on the internet there http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16635coll14/id/56079/rec/1 884 pages, with 7 normal chapters and chapter 8 which consists of 6 appendices. cost figures from Appendices F and B: things like those cost figures, coupled with deceiving percents like this (Ch. IV p.17): (there were also other versions mentioned in Senate hearings of FY1978-1980s - 91.6%, 92%, 95%, and also they've mentioned soviet motorized rifle division instead of tank regiment) apparently saved Bradley. Although in 1979 those $370,000 turned out to be $472,000 (in same FY1978 dollars), - and later according to FY1983 bidget hearings - $1,350,000 (which is about $880,000 in 1978 dollars). ... btw, GAO's report "Army's Proposed Close Combat Armored Vehicle Team" (12 dec 1977) has following thing on page 23: and that was BFV project manager's responce (hearings on military posture and h.r. 10929, part 2 of 7, p.183) several mounths later (somewhere in feb-apr 1978):
  14. 1 point
    Seeing that Damian still keeps posting his crazy theories about the M1A1 AIM/M1A2 SEP having DU armor in the hull, here is a rather recent document (answer by the NRC to a licence request for storing and using DU armor by General Dynamics): www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1505/ML15057A184.pdf Note that there is no mention of the hull, but the turret is specifically mentioned. Applied for the renewal of the licence on 13th of June 2014, letter dated 16th of December 2014, fully approved on 25th of February 2015.
  15. 1 point
    It's worth noting that many manufacturers, even some well regarded, choose to include M-Lok only on those surfaces and angles they deem most useful, using other (presumably cheaper or stronger) cutouts in other locations. Imo, this artificially limits the modularity of the rifle, which is one of the AR-15's many claims to fame. From what little I know, the ability of the rail to hold zero is - for aluminum or steel rails - determined mostly by the length and rigidity of the barrel nut. Flex of the rail itself is, if memory serves, less of a concern. That said, post 2005 any new rifle design does need to bear in mind that the laser, not the optic, is the primary aiming device for 50% of the life of the weapon, if not more, so paying additional attention or accepting additional weight in service of that fact is wise.
  16. 1 point
    Another Israeli variant of the good ol' Sherman. In 1958, Isaac Jacobson, commander of the 2nd maintenance center in Tel Hashomer, proposed to shorten the Sherman (I don't know which variant) by 30 centimeters, to make its silhouette somewhat closer to that of the T-54. The new tank was called 'Degem Yud' (Model Yud). Yud is a Hebrew letter that sounds somewhat like Yehudi (Jewish), which symbolizes the circumcision the tank underwent.
  17. 1 point
    its almost like, and bear with me hear for a second, a good stock of voters that support any candidate are good natured folks that are voting for what they believe will make America a better place and arent goosestepping nazi's or pink haired feminists despite what the internet will have you believe shocking
  18. 1 point
    It is silly, but it works. Duke hasn't officially said 'I endorse Trump to be president', but is supporting his campaign for "strategic reasons" and says voting against Trump is equivalent to being a traitor against your heritage. So there's that. Worrying about which xenophobic talking head is supporting/endorsing Trump does take away from bigger issues. For one thing no one really cares that Clinton was thrilled to give the goddamn Saudis a bunch of F-15s. But thanks to Trump no one gives a damn about how horrible a person Clinton is.
  19. 1 point
    The strongest argument for Hillary Clinton is that she's so obviously incompetent and increasingly senile that she would immediately buckle under the stress, and everything would actually be done by her charismatic husband. Sort of a reverse madame Mao situation. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Slick Bubba Dog! A vote for Hillary is a vote saying that women can be successful provided that they are puppets of their much more capable husbands! A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Patriarchy!
  20. 0 points
    1 officer dead, 7 shot after serving a warrant in South Carolina. https://www.cp24.com/world/seven-officers-shot-one-fatally-serving-warrant-in-south-carolina-1.4120858
  21. 0 points
    Given his girth, I think you mean Herman Goering edition silk panties.
  22. 0 points
  23. 0 points
  24. 0 points
    Vilayat Ameriki, our brothers hope for new Sheikh Abu Ibn Al-Trumpi winning Allakh's preference instead of dirty Hilariwi Ali Clintoni abu-Iraqi women who don't follow islam and do haram. We, the Vilayat Rusy make fatwa on Ali Clintoni.
  25. 0 points
    Kasich looks to be #2 in NH. The Kasich/Rubio/Bush/Christie 4-headed "establishment" GOP abomination has about 45% in NH at the moment, this is why I still doubt a Trump nomination It is just a matter of time until those 4 combine into a single candidate and get the nomination like a Voltron of old white men.