Domus Acipenseris

Try consulting a steam table. The issue is how much steam will condense to produce water droplets under given conditions. This is why the terminology dry and wet steam and superheated vs saturated exist. My guess is that the temperature and pressure conditions in an aircraft engine will not condense much, maybe really any, steam into droplets. I've never seen it referred to either in turbos or jets. Edit: Added the below. https://www.tlv.com/global/US/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html I put in 50 bar for pressure. This is an extreme case based on the highest OPR I've seen for an engine. I ignored the velocity of the stream of fluid and Bernoulli because I'm just looking to show that the pressure is too low to condense the steam. The calculator says the saturation temperature is 265C which is way below the turbine inlet temperature of engines.

Some links on naval nuclear power. I'm still looking for the original report from the '60's. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/05-12-nuclearpropulsion.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-98-1/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-98-1.htm https://www.gao.gov/assets/psad-77-74.pdf https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20070613_RL33946_6de321a5ef541cbe3eea291e0954285becb24966.pdf Edit: I found the old paper: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001622850 Apparently it costs around $400 million per shaft for nuc power on a surface ship. (I've also seen 400 mil per ship). The next gen ships need massive power for DEW, railguns, and sensors. Their endurance on fossil fuel will be less unless innovations like electric propulsion and recuperated GT's can make up the difference. Nuc ships cost more and require more personnel. Some of the personnel are more expensive. They can transit at top speed and do not need to slow to refuel. Oil fired ships actually require very little time to refuel but cannot transit as fast as nucs without using lots of fuel. Before life of ship nuc cores the nuc ships required longer refits. The debate seems to have settled on subs needing to be nuc, aircraft carriers being better with nuc, and surface ships being oil fired. The aircraft carrier debate was still going in the '90's and for the same $ more oil fired carriers can be had. Maybe it was stack gas corrosion that made the decision. One of the docs I found showed not much advantage for nuc carriers vs oil fired. One intriguing idea that was not in the docs I found was making the replenishment ships nuc or even using excess power to make synfuels on the replenishment ships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRlt1vbnXhQ Watch the part with John Mearsheimer. The AUKUS sub deal is about so much more than subs. Australia may also get a 1000+ mile range hypersonic missile. Mearsheimer is interesting for sure. He predicted the USSR would not make a conventional move because they knew a breakthrough was unlikely. After the Cold War, Soviet docs showed plans for massed nuke strikes at the outset of a war. Mearsheimer also predicted the 1991 Gulf War would be a cake walk for the US because of Iraq's 3rd World status, lack of mobile warfare ability, air inferiority, artillery inferiority, and bad defensive dispositions. Most others were saying it would be a bloodbath.

40+ years old but the only new thing I've seen in torpedo propulsion tech is hybrid. https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ADA079034.xhtml

Strategic ASW and Naval Strategy http://kashti.ir/files/ENBOOKS/pdf. Strattegic antisubmarine warfare & naval strategy.pdf Almost 40 years old but very interesting. Appendixes have much good info. Why was the Trident II missile given silo busting accuracy? The author speculates that increasing the threat to Soviet land based missiles would force the USSR to use more naval assets to protest SSBNs, preventing these assets from being used to interdict NATO SLOCs. Speculation about the size of the Typhoon class. Elsewhere I have read that they carried 16 SLBMs and 4 satellite launchers, 2 commo, 2 surveillance. They would stay underwater for a year, put the satellites up, send surveillance data and find any rebuilding activity in previously nuked countries. They would then nuke it bouncing whatever was being rebuilt on the rubble. This, and some other stuff I've read make it clear why the Seawolf class was limited to 3 vessels. The Seawolf's major sensor innovation, a large sonar array, would have its range cut by Soviet sub quieting and would therefore not be able to search for subs very much faster. Elsewhere I read that the Virginia was better at everything except ASW than the Seawolf. As Virginia was improved further it caught up to Seawolf in ASW as well. Also, the swim out torpedo tubes on the Seawolf would work for electric torpedoes but not so well for thermal torpedoes with toxic exhaust like the MK-48. 50 torpedo capacity would mostly mean more torpedoes in Davy Jones locker in a real war. Larger sub to carry 50 torpedoes meany higher cost or lower performance for the other capabilities. Exercises showed that USN subs had a 3:1 advantage over Soviet subs in getting off the first shot. Assuming all torpedoes hit meant a 3:1 kill ratio. If torpedoes miss, then the Soviets would be in much better shape given higher sub speeds, higher firepower, and better battle damage resistance. All those advantages were magnified in shallow water and under ice, exactly where the US would need to go to hunt Soviet SSBNs. Had the Cold War continued quiet Soviet subs would have made it too difficult for the US to hunt Soviet SSBNs and forced the US to find another way to protect SLOCs besides forcing the USSR to hold back its entire navy to protect SSBN bastions. Author assumes Soviet SSBNs could be tracked but US SSBNs could not be tracked. Today there is some controversy over whether Chinese SSBNs should be tracked in peacetime and threatened in war. Apparently they can be tracked. https://carnegietsinghua.org/2018/10/24/u.s.-anti-submarine-warfare-and-its-impact-pub-77495

This site deal with APFSDS. Lots of graphs and info. http://www.longrods.ch/start.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c1JyfY9rVU Here is a channel with various armors: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3ADzIJhFVyOIVjcHuKRirQ/videos

Tungsten vs DU: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25367911.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA395913.pdf

An abridged history of the attack helicopter program (1975). https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/Abridged_history_of_the_Army_Attack_Helicopter_program.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gbZi2YTxyc The MiG-23 is not as well known as some of the other MiG models. It is not as fast as the 25 or as cost-effective as the 21. The video linked above says that the 23's reputation was built by the early models and that the late models were much better. Little is ever reported about the PVO interceptor MiG-23P. It was the Spitfire to the Su-15's Hurricane although the Su-15 got all the "action" if shooting at airliners can be considered action. The MiG-23BN was an interim model before the MiG-27 ground attack model appeared. The MiG-27 was the Typhoon to the Su-17's Hurribomber. The MiG-23 was the top of the line model during its heyday although it was much reviled in the Western aviation press. It would have been very interesting to see what the USSR would have produced if they had not insisted upon better field performance than the MiG-21. A MiG-21 upsized to use the MiG-23 engine with a solid nose and MiG-23 style intakes would have been really cool. Some interesting facts: The cannon's muzzle velocity was only 670m/s. The nose probe was used to generate vortices to improve AoA performance in some models. The later models could set the wing sweep at any angle at least according to some sources. The R-23 missile design was chosen over cloning a Sparrow captured in Vietnam. The R-60 missile is the smallest air-to-air missile aside from some planes mounting Stingers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu0wPgZVkyw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38MnOxQokM4 Millennium7* has some videos on the F-35. If you have not seen his channel yet, it is excellent. He is an aero engineer and goes into actual depth with facts and stuff. He's like the anti-Blacktail anti-Matsimus YT channel.

Technical Challenges of the US Army's GCV Program https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=725800 Why the US Army Wants a vehicle to carry 9 troops Tracked vs Wheeled for the Australian Army

Limitations of guns as a defence against manoeuvring air weapons https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a426717.pdf "But, but, it goes BRRRRRRT. I like when it goes BRRRRRRRRRT."

Dassault Rafale design process https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p005676.pdf

A little off topic but I have read that aircraft production stats in WW2 Germany were inflated because they counted aircraft destroyed at the factory and rebuilt twice. I forgot the source on that. Maybe someone else has knowledge of it. Adam Tooze is the source for this. The limiting factor on German WW2 armaments production was steel. They could not produce more ships, planes, tanks, shells, or machine tools without lowering production of one or more of the others. This is despite conquering the steel production of most of Europe. It seems like grossly incompetent management. I posted a video a few weeks ago that contains an analysis of German management of their piston aeroengines. TLDR: Gross incompetence on a staggering level. As for the Panther, does anyone have the source comparing the number of hoses and number of different diameters of hoses in a Panther engine vs a Sherman? I saw it on YT (forgot which vid) and it was staggering how much more complex the Panther was. I'm an older guy and most of the books we had access to back in the day were implicitly pro-German. Seeing the internet was like being the unfrozen caveman from Saturday Night Live. Even neanderthals like us Gen X'ers can see the facts and make good analysis now that we have the internet. I don't see why so many guys who grew up with the internet admire the German equipment.

MK 108 testing https://imgur.com/gallery/HkGqW

WW2 Fighter engine development. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImEpk1s-Vk0

T-55 live fire tests. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AlWU24NcjQo6JoprENtiZbIaX9osgs_T/view Edit: Add this link: Comparative Effectiveness of Armor Defeating Ammunition https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954868.pdf U vs W for penetrators https://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/Military_Tech/TAS_107/Tank_Ammo_Sec_107_JUN-1980.pdf

HEAT vs HESH https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/714898523497431111/772723493241749504/unknown.png Has anyone seen the actual memo?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343180584_Radar_Detection_and_Stealth_Bomber_What_Future_for_Stealth_Technology http://secure.afa.org/Mitchell/Reports/MS_RadarGame_0910.pdf https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Five_Priorities_For_The_Air_Forces_Future_Combat_Air_Force_Web.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCAR4wPrwrg Video showing Safran engine production in the 1980's.

Bell P-39 and P-63 aerodynamics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296648796_Aerodynamics_of_the_Bell_P-39_Airacobra_and_P-63_Kingcobra/link/5f971bd692851c14bcea6e10/download

Northrop F-20 Tigershark case study. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a228122.pdf

1970 article on RN gas turbines. https://www.swzmaritime.nl/pdf-archive/1970-edition-24/

War college thesis summarizing naval SAM tech. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a154243.pdf