EnsignExpendable Posted December 24, 2017 Report Share Posted December 24, 2017 Priory_of_Sion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T___A Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 Somehow I doubt that: Quote Russia is in possession of an underwater nuclear drone capable of carrying a 100-megaton nuclear warhead http://www.newsweek.com/russia-drones-nuclear-weapons-pentagon-leak-781075 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 I don't know, Andrei Sakharov did once propose putting the warhead of the Tsar Bomba in a torpedo in the very early 60's before he turned into an activist, the idea being to clear a naval base or an area of a coastal city with a tsunami before an amphibious landing. As far I know the idea just stayed on paper though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 Er, this thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 If you're referring to Andrei's death wave torpedo, that "could" be something like it I guess, but this was back in the 50s-60s when Hydrogen Bombs were first discovered. It was called the T-15 and, while it was supposed to be carried on the outside of the delivery submarine due to the massive projected size (1500mm in Diameter), that's probably not it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 I'm talking about the recent newsweek claim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted January 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 Some news sites reported that India was going to get to produce its own F-35 JSFs. They were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Quote "Calm down everyone, there’s no plan to put an F-35 production line in India" WHY THE FUCK NOT? Can you just IMAGINE the potential comedy value that could come from this?! roguetechie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 LoooSeR and Collimatrix 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 It's an improved jagdtiger with upgrades to its mobility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 25 minutes ago, Khand-e said: WHY THE FUCK NOT? Can you just IMAGINE the potential comedy value that could come from this?! But then the issue of quality control gives fuel to the sputtering methane flame that is the TEH F-35 IS BAD crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted January 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 3 hours ago, Scolopax said: But then the issue of quality control gives fuel to the sputtering methane flame that is the TEH F-35 IS BAD crowd. But you gain all the weirdo Indian nationalists as F-35 fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted January 28, 2018 Report Share Posted January 28, 2018 On 1/23/2018 at 7:24 PM, Collimatrix said: It's an improved jagdtiger with upgrades to its mobility. And reliability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted January 28, 2018 Report Share Posted January 28, 2018 GODDAMNIT RUSSIA GIVE THOSE BACK! Priory_of_Sion and LoooSeR 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted January 28, 2018 Report Share Posted January 28, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T___A Posted January 28, 2018 Report Share Posted January 28, 2018 It's a period accurate caption. Xlucine and EnsignExpendable 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 Foxtrot Alpha tries to figure out what is a tank https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/thats-not-a-tank-an-explainer-1821996873 Quote There was a bit of confusion in the office today. What is a tank? As it turns out, many of the things that you think are tanks are, in fact, not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 The real tanks are the friends you met along the way. Edit: ahahaha Quote Tanks, first and foremost, are: Extremely heavily armored, often weighing upwards of 60 tons as a result. Equipped with a big gun, usually in at least 120mm caliber in modern tanks. Tracked, rather than propelled by wheels and tires. Leopard 1 is not a tank PzI is not a tank, and neither are any American tanks pre-1940s ish Ansaldo-Pavesi Wheeled Tank Modello 1925 is not a tank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 21 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said: The real tanks are the friends you met along the way. Edit: ahahaha Leopard 1 is not a tank PzI is not a tank, and neither are any American tanks pre-1940s ish Ansaldo-Pavesi Wheeled Tank Modello 1925 is not a tank T-55 also not a tank. And T-62. And T-72, T-80 and even T-90 are not tanks as they are less than 60 tons. And BTs also are not tanks, as the had tires/wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 2 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said: The real tanks are the friends you met along the way. Edit: ahahaha Leopard 1 is not a tank PzI is not a tank, and neither are any American tanks pre-1940s ish Ansaldo-Pavesi Wheeled Tank Modello 1925 is not a tank Not a tank: Can I call this misogyny? I'm calling this misogyny. EnsignExpendable and Sturgeon 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostCosmonaut Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 When you're writing a serious article about SLS and the KSP you snorted hits you hard; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3429/1 But why stop there? The SLS could be redesigned to go well beyond the 130-metric-ton LEO lift capacity planned for its problematic Block 2 configuration. The SLS core stage’s 8.4-meter diameter could be ringed snugly by ten Falcon 9 cores. Doing this would transform SLS from a would-be Saturn 5 into a truly ultra-heavy brute lifter. Using very reusable Block 5 Falcon 9 cores, such a beast would generate over 21 million pounds-force of liftoff thrust and could haul as much or more to orbit, reusably, as SpaceX’s 2016 Interplanetary Transport System concept. Anyone who thrilled to the sight of Falcon Heavy’s two side cores landing should be ecstatic at the prospect of seeing a kick line of ten of them landing in line abreast. Of course, such a beast would also have 98 engines firing simultaneously at liftoff. But, as the recent Falcon Heavy demo flight amply demonstrated, there’s no reason to be fazed simply by a large engine count. Engineering would actually be easier than for the Falcon Heavy as each Falcon 9 core in the booster ring would brace its adjacent neighbors as well as attaching to the SLS core stage. Much less scope for inimical vibration modes or aerodynamic flutter. Ideally, reusable SLS (R-SLS) should also have a recoverable second stage. That lets the currently envisioned EUS out. And its four RL10 engines are too dinky to sit atop the huge, and hugely revised, R-SLS. By the time R-SLS could be redesigned and built, the best choice of basis for an appropriately scaled 2nd stage would be SpaceX’s BFS—at least the freighter and tanker versions of same—which both should have been flying for some time by then. To carry the maximum mass which R-SLS could launch, the standard BFS design would likely need some beefing up of its structure, but most components should carry over without issue. Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostCosmonaut Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted April 12, 2018 Report Share Posted April 12, 2018 Xlucine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted April 13, 2018 Report Share Posted April 13, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted April 22, 2018 Report Share Posted April 22, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.