xthetenth

Standard Aircraft Characteristics pages:

F4H-1 Phantom SAC 1 February 1963

F4H-1 Phantom SAC 30 April 1960

F-4B 1 July 1967

RF-4B 1 July 1967

F-4J August 1973

F-4S May 1984

Just now, LostCosmonaut said:

 

Actually, he's increasing the noise/signal ratio.

 

Pedant-man away!

Good point, thank you for the correction.

29 minutes ago, MrCatKK said:

What do you mean?

Our priorities are actual facts. Facts don't give a damn about game balance. You are attempting to pick a fight because your pixel tanks aren't good enough and the documentation of facts is inconvenient to you. As it stands, the only thing you provide is an increase to the signal/noise[sic] ratio on a forum that strives to reduce it at every step.

Hopefully you take the gracious gift of my time in the spirit it was intended and contribute signal in the future.

Thanks!

I found a ballistics nerd on my travels. He knows the ways of the content sharer.

I think that is in fact the case, which meant that the CdG's reactors were designed with ideas of exportability in mind (at least by proxy).

Ah. Now I get it. If you hadn't been involved I would be horrified by the prospect that that event was noteworthy enough to mention.

Is that permanent? I can't imagine a thought process by which that would be irrevocable, but that's not what this thread is for.

Addenda based on looking at sources:

First off, somehow the ability to reverse polarity on a turboelectric drive to instantly obtain full reverse power didn't satisfy the Germans. I'd want confirmation but I would not be surprised to hear that the contract had been written in such a way as to accidentally preclude it. Also, in 1914, a GE electric system was $162,441 less than a direct drive. Another thing that I think is possible with them is significantly better resistance to two damage modes, flooding of the vitals, and a PoW style disembowelment (not actually preventing it but allowing for shorter shafts that deposit less energy less deeply into the hull). Also turboelectric lets you steam astern continuously for much longer in case of bow damage.

Machinery was a big problem, literally, in that the Tennessee had one of her generators break down and removing it for repairs was very difficult.

Regarding turrets, the advantages of the US design over UK practice were the elimination of shell rooms (with more than half the shells stored inside the roller path support and ready use shells in the turret and on the horizontal transverse platform at the end of the guns, simplification through a fixed loading angle, and not using a platform or supports behind the barbette armor. This meant a US triple 14 or twin 16 required an inner diamater of the barbette of 31 feet versus the 30.5 feet of a British twin 15".

On the other hand, Director of Naval Ordnance was much happier with the British designs, which used entirely hydraulic power, compared to US designs, which used more manpower than mechanical power in the transport of shells. The US turrets also used electric and air power, while the British preferred hydraulic, which they felt offered better reliability, simplicity, ease of repair, and quick detection of defects.

One possible consideration for the US is that machinery adds displacement while larger turret crew wouldn't necessarily be as expensive.

I have been remiss, and not been through this thread in a while.

Turbo-Electric was largely a curiosity. Kind of cool, lets you do some nifty stuff, but reduction gears kept getting lighter in a way that tons of electrical gear didn't. Considering its main home was the USN, and up until the start of WWII they didn't make a design where weight wasn't limited (pre-treaty ships were limited as a proxy for budget), this really limited its adoption.

During the treaty period, where everyone's ships were weight limited, yeah nobody was very interested in a bunch of weight in return for some smallish benefits.

They would have been perfect for the Bismarcks, but the Germans were idiots had interesting requirements tangential to actual combat capacity (in this case they required the ability to go from full ahead to full astern within one minute for reasons.

They actually do show up once more in warships, in an unlikely place: the Buckley class destroyer escort. Much like the glorious Sherman, the Destroyer escorts used a variety of engine technologies in order to avoid various bottlenecks. So the Buckleys have turbo-electric, and the Cannon class were diesel-electric. This is because reduction gearing was a bottleneck. 

Second, regarding triple turrets, the US turrets were space efficient, their triple 14"s were pretty close in diameter to the British twin 15" (New Mexico vs. QEs). This was at the cost of a greater use of manpower rather than machinery, which is potentially troublesome. I'd have to see if it was Friedman and look up the actual numbers and points brought up in British commentary. (I should also probably check in at some point whether there were any refits between then and Surigao and whether they actually missed many salvoes, but I remember that being almost entirely a function of the radar carried. I'll see if I have that much effort in me.)

30 minutes ago, roguetechie said:

Wow... Thanks!

 

Your references to putting in the cuts and the classified structural shenanigans this requires opens up a new perspective on several things.

Ever since the Midways, every carrier's ship girder has been carried up into the flight deck. The Essexes were the last major carriers to have their hangar deck be the main structural deck (Incidentally, the Essexes and before had armored decks, just at the hangar deck rather than the flight deck, which is part of why I say confidently that the hits the Franklin took wouldn't have been stopped by a British style armored flight deck.) Basically, the hangar exits, island location and catapult tracks can tell you a lot about how well the ship design's been able to reduce stress to free it up for those things. Now I'm kind of wondering whether the Fords have more stresses so the island couldn't go between the elevators, or they're doing it to free up space forward.

14 hours ago, Domus Acipenseris said:

USN carriers are lightly armed for several reasons.  One is that the tonnage and deck area is put into aircraft.  A second is that a jet fuel spill/fire could soak a VLS while it cannot easily reach the launchers in the position they are in on US carriers.  A third is that the vertically launched missile exhaust plumes can damage aircraft, especially stealth coatings.  In addition, the defensive systems have radars that emit and give away the location of the carrier.

Every single ton of carrier you put into a single hull gives you more capacity than the last one. It takes a lot of tonnage to be able to launch even one plane, let alone launch, maintain and arm one plane. If you compare the air wings of light carriers to supercarriers, the latter have a lot more air wing per ton because things like maintenance, seakeeping, launch facilities and deck space are amortized over more planes. Big missile batteries end up on their own platforms with their own superstructure optimized for radar and so on for very good reasons because the USN can afford the tonnage to make their carriers part of a task force. Lastly, VLS cells are a non-trivial cut in the flight deck, which is part of the strength deck and has to have four long cuts in it for catapults, as well as the cuts in the ship girder for the hangar exits onto the elevators. The cuts that already exist are only possible due to classified structural shenanigans of the deep wizardry sort. The Charles de Gaulle has to have a weak spot in her deck because the reactor needs refueling more frequently. As a result, when their new short catapult designs turned out to only work with literally neck-breaking accelerations, they had to cut down to two cats, and the island is way the hell forward, which sucks because that's prime real estate for spotting planes before launch. The Zumwalts are the first missile focused ships to not need the VLS cut to be in prime centerline real estate, and the way they talk about that development indicates that it's bigger than you'd think.

On 1/6/2018 at 10:32 PM, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

 

Considering a new upper build. I have a Cavalry Arms polymer lower receiver built. I'd like an equally light-weight (ish) upper for it. Kicking this build around in my head.

I've got a cav arms lower full of KE arms goodies that's rock solid. I used a Faxon pencil barrel and carbon fiber handguard and an Aero upper with no FA, but if I were doing it again, I'd be tempted by Sionics' upper sans handguard and the Faxon carbon fiber, since that means the upper QA process is more than me with a dumb look on my face. If I were trying to go cheaper, I've got a very favorable impression of ALG handguards as a budget sensitive solution.

Has there ever been a time where custom work could ever get you as much money as you put in?

16 hours ago, roguetechie said:

 

It's nothing all that exciting. Just your average pretty vanilla g26 with g19 barrel and slide, Goshen hexsites (because they work for me), and +2 round base plates with the "pinky hook".

 

The gun set up this way fits my body shape, preferred carry options, and wardrobe in a nice inoffensive way. It's a gun i can carry daily without tailoring my wardrobe or etc to the gun, yet can still shoot proficiently to much more than 21 feet if I were to ever really need to.

 

For my life and my needs it's about perfect. It rides around with me at all times and leaves me that nice warm feeling of dependability /  reliability that condoms and full coverage car insurance give me. 

Ah okay. That sort of mutant. What I'm trying to do really warrants a dismissive "it's the platform for a system with these cool things, let's talk about those because they're cool".

4 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Everyone think's their the shit until you put them on a shot timer. 

 

It is the great humbler.

I give myself something like odds of finishing a stage before the par time. Maybe. If I do well.

15 minutes ago, Khand-e said:

 

Well the difference is I actually have experience in USPSA/ISPC and IPDA unlike most of the people that shit talk big like that who have never entered a competition in their life. Hell, I have an entire section in my walk in safe dedicated to nothing but competition pieces.

That'd be awesome, you should totally give it a go.

31 minutes ago, Khand-e said:

 

You know, I know it's a really arrogant thing to say but, assume they actually participate in the event and don't just host it, I legit think I can beat Ian and Karl in a 2 gun match.

Do it. They're participating in that event (They're in squad one), and (disclaimer) I think their events are really cool and want them to succeed (end disclaimer). As a heads up, they are both running Classic division. If you'd like, I can ask what they'll be running again since I don't remember it off the top of my head. I'm going to be in their squad. Considering my firearms experience consists of a few hours on the twelfth, I'm probably going to do terribly.

Plus, believe me, Karl gets much worse than "I legit think I can beat them". I think the ones that really bug him are the armchair commandos that talk shit without being willing to put their skills on the line. Hell, he'll be the first one to admit he's not shooting as well with the time he puts into IRTV and not focusing on a single gun the way some of the other dudes can.

I'm probably not going to get into IPSC, the matches that Ian and Karl run are more what's got my interest.

"Mutant" is a loaded way to say "centerpiece of a modern secondary weapon system".

I'll be interested to see how effective it is.

Yep. Plus, I'm trying to get it together before a 2-gun match at the start of February so things like waiting on custom holsters and stuff isn't happening. Instead, I got a holster that was in stock, mags that were on sale, and so on and so forth.

In the land of the universally competent pistol, the broad ecosystem is king.

That is cool, how do you like it, and what do you think it does better?

I'm committed to getting a G19 because it is the default choice considerably easier to get accessories and support for, and by the time I've bought more mags, a happy stick, a red dot, a milled slide, a comp and a light, support for those and a holster to fit it all (especially custom safariland kydex from valhalla) is a major trait of a gun as a part of the system.

10 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

The P-10 has reportedly had a bunch of teething issues, although once these are resolved I expect it to be a quite solid market offering.

 

Trigger is nothing special tho.

I'm not surprised one bit. The Glock trigger seems to be perfectly acceptable, and absolutely fine once broken in. The main thing CZ talks about is basically breaking theirs in beforehand. If you've fired one, is that roughly how it feels?

What teething issues incidentally?

Gun painting and Gorka outerwear.

I have a Gorka jacket like the dude on the right. Nice outer layer, I quite like it.

CZ, noted purveyors of not-Glocks with hammers and other things won a victory over themselves:

It's a glock, with milling on the top of the slide to decrease felt recoil, and a focus on making the trigger feel good and be broken in.

Also, it has friend backstrap.

Most notable:

" Take-down of the P-10 will be familiar to most fans of striker-fired guns, and even more pleasing will be holster compatibility with some of the most common guns on the market. "

The sights look reasonably nicer than Glock standard too, and at a reasonable price. I think in a way that makes it one of the truer glocks that actually tries to be different in that it tries to improve without the addition of fiddly things.

I like CZ's lack of pretense about the whole thing. It's a Glock after common aftermarket mods. There ya go.

It looks like Remington's had a response as well in the RP9. They omitted the key features of a striker, actually reliably working with NATO ball ammo, and the only reason I know about it is my habit of looking up pistols that end up on deep sale. I also think that its ambi slide release only actually works from one side because it's weak stamped metal. In a firearms market where exciting new developments are slight elaborations upon the Glock, a Slovenian CZ99 descendent that's best described as "a lot like a P226 that's a bit more efficiently made" and the few daring souls still willing to make guns that aren't actually good, this is technically an exciting release.

On 4/26/2017 at 5:17 PM, roguetechie said:

 

Ramlaen,

 

Not being a naval systems guy, other than a fascination with with Umoe surface effect ships (skjold class) small watercraft like the riverine warfare guys etc use anything really high speed WIG's concrete submarines and amphibious warfare systems, I tend to separate naval weapons into long range stuff like harpoon and SM series missiles and CIWS stuff like rolling airframe missiles and Vulcan guns.

 

With this in mind, with all the mark 41 VLS cells in a carrier strike group is a pretty substantial punch IF you're loaded up 80/20 or 75/25 defensive missiles to offensive systems. My assumption is that most of the time this would be the case for a carrier strike group's entourage.

 

But then we get to the close in antimissile and small boat knife fighting systems which a nuclear super carrier itself and her entourage carry, they're just not all that well armed compared to Russian equivalent platforms. Someone actually posted a picture somewhere on the SH forum showing the difference between kuznetsov and American nuclear super carriers. The graphic showed the number and location of missile and gun systems as well as the arcs each item covers and the difference between the two was very evocative!

 

Honestly, modern American naval vessels are really lightly armed on a tonnage basis from the LCS all the way on up to super carriers!

Ships haven't been tonnage critical since a little bit after WWII, instead they're volume critical. That's why a modern warship is an apartment building full of computers and coated in radars on top of a hull full of missile and engine. (Also this is a major factor in armor being obsoleted). Discounting the VLS and AEGIS is also probably a mistake. It allows very rapid engagement by a single coordinated system rather than Soviet/Russian style multiple systems, and packs a huge wad of missiles ready to go rather than having to wait for them to be readied from the magazines. You also get things like the Standard Missile being useful in offensive and defensive roles by dint of being a good long range anti-air missile with a lot of energy.

Also the USN is more worried than any other navy afloat about things like being able to spend as much time as possible at sea. Steaming to and from their destination is time spent with sailors and ships being used but producing none of the value that's their reason for existing. So seakeeping is a huge priority for the USN, and they tend to take it very seriously.

Given the proud tradition of secondary navies tending to use a greater fraction of displacement for armament and sitting in port until needed, the USN is doing pretty well.

On 4/26/2017 at 5:19 PM, Collimatrix said:

US supercarriers have modest point defense systems, but they are going to traveling as part of a strike group that contains at least one aegis cruiser.  Smaller navies which can only deploy smaller strike groups have thicker defenses mounted on the carriers themselves.  INS Vikrant has short and long range SAMs, 76mm autocannons and 30mm CWIS, for example.

 

The tradeoff is that the Nimitz/Gerald R. Ford class carriers utterly dwarf all other carriers in sortie generation rate.  The Nimitz class can surge to 230 sorties per day for four days and sustain 120 sorties per day for extended periods.  The Navy was initially optimistic that the Gerald R Ford class could manage a 33% increase in sortie generation rate, but some newer sources are saying that it will only manage a 25% increase, at least initially.

 

The surge rates for the Queen Elizabeth class and the Charles de Gaulle are something like 120/day and 100/day respectively.  So even going all out, the next biggest non-US carriers can't even match a Nimitz's sustained sortie generation rate, much less a Gerald R Ford's.  Kuznetsov and her kin are lower still.  Not sure about the new Vikrant.

 

There appears to be an economy of scale that heavily favors really big carriers.  The US supercarriers appear to roughly match the best of their smaller peers in terms of maximum sorties per day per tonne of displacement, and appear to pull far ahead in terms of sustainable sorties per day per tonne of displacement (the figures for the CDG's latest cruise in Syria are not flattering, 12/day or something).  On top of that, the US supercarriers are a few knots faster than all the other carriers.

 

In short, giant, nuclear-driven American firepower for the win.

 

 

Entirely agreed, but don't neglect to multiply those putative 'sorties' that lesser carriers manage by some fractional factor to represent how a ski jump leaves you choosing between a reasonable range or an actual weapons load (and if you take the latter by the former, multiply out by a factor to represent the fantastic odds of your carrier being close enough to be found and killed by real opponents).

On 4/27/2017 at 12:14 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't see carriers going extinct anytime soon. To the contrary - I can only see them growing in size and capability.

 

The Battleships are gone because their armament became obsolete in the face of newly arrived technologies, and sufficient armament became possible to carry in much smaller packages (e.g Destroyers, Corvettes, Frigates|| Cruisers are now also rare). Carriers do not face such threat because they merely carry the platforms that deliver the weaponry, thus are far more flexible to changing realities. As a class they do not provide a tactical capability, but a strategic one - power projection. This is something that is needed in at least some form. 

 

Unless someone figures out how to make a flying carrier as seen in Marvel movies without wasting a sheer amount of fuel and money on just a single take-off, or turns every military vehicle into some form of aircraft, I don't see carriers going anywhere.

It's probably worth considering that the battleship was obsoleted by the Essex class. Why, you might ask, is an evolutionary design what put the battleship out of business rather than some revolutionary new system that ? 24 hulls. By the end of that class, naval power was capable of tangling with land based air power if it was concentrated and well run. Coordinating with land based air was and is a huge help, but without that, the critical mass to just hunt and utterly destroy a battleship wasn't necessarily there and things like a guerre de course with battleships going into important areas at night (There's a reason Guadalcanal was a nightclub par excellence for surface fleets) were honestly totally viable.

The thing is that by 1945, the war wasn't about weaksauce raids into and out of enemy air cover, and careful island hopping, it was about "fuck you, we're the USN, and we're going to deploy the first proper integrated air defense setup on the high seas and dare you to come at us enough to make it count, which means mass attacks by guided munitions (human or otherwise)" And after the war, either you're deploying with or against that massed naval air power, or you don't matter (Sorry Argies but you got taken down by the British. The British. That's a geopolitical corgi-mauling considering what passes for a carrier over there).

On 12/8/2017 at 11:39 AM, Xoon said:

IQ is the best indicator of success we have found. Meaning, that it has the biggest impact on your life, and is set in stone from birth. 

 

But yes, it should not be the only indicator, as we still we people high in IQ that do nothing in their life or even worse than the average person.

I'd be interested to see sourcing on IQ being set in stone from birth.

I'd also be interested in entertaining the notion that IQ is criticized for a bunch of things that make it an imperfect match for natural intellectual aptitude, but that increase its capability as an indicator of success. Rather than just saying that IQ isn't a perfect indicator of natural intellectual aptitude and trying to come up with something better at that, do that with an eye towards looking at IQ's imperfections and what they say about society.

Didn't notice this earlier.

When mentioning weaknesses, don't forget that you literally cannot get Israel prototypes and exceptional optics recon in the same deck. Their recon lineup is a bit awkward overall because of that and it makes things a lot trickier than a lot of other decks would be if they had the same ATGM units. Maglan are quite expensive, 21 AP is okay but not great, they mainly serve to make a point resistant to cursory probing. Dorban-LR is where it's at for real area denial, it's hard to deny that a group of cheaper tanks or a top end tank could drive up and hammer the Maglan with HE fire position if needed although they might not be points efficicient doing it.

The heavily armored APCs are cool and make an interesting contrast with the utter inability to get any unit with good AT in an armored transport for city assaults, especially for mech decks. The Givati get access to a (slow) 2 front 2 side AV transport, but that's it for assault vehicles, and other than that it's down to line infantry with mediocre STAT lmgs and maybe those FIST grenade launchers.

Israel decks are incredibly short on good tanks. The only deck that really does worse for depth of high end tanks is Red Dragons and they're weird asymmetrical something or other that really can't play by the same rules of other decks, and kind of run a similar deep ATGM gimmick.

I like them as their own coalition, they feel nicely distinct, and they have some real serious tradeoffs.