Vanilla Ice Q&A

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by HippoCrushEverything, Aug 13, 2017.

  1. A Bahraini official actually supported Israel's right to defend itself. Didn't we use to have a Bahraini prince on He was actually quite active and knowledgeable.
  2. Assad has been fighting ISIS/rebels/I don't know anymore right around the Israeli border. This week the IDF fired, for the first operation time, a couple of ABM/SAM missiles from a new system called David's Sling. Basically, it's supposed to replace the old Patriot in defending mid-range threats such as manned/unmanned aircrafts and ballistic missiles such as the Syrian-owned Tochka (which is what Assad used). One of the David's Sling missiles was detonated in Israeli airspace and the other's fate is unknown - they were "pulled back" when it became clear that the Syrian army was not firing at Israel.

    Then the other day, the IDF shot down a Syrian Sukhoi Su-22, using a Patriot missile. The pilot was 2km into Israeli airspace due to a navigation error and apparently was not responding to warnings. This is a very rare occurrence.
  3. Are the Syrians pretty mad about that
  4. They didn't respond. They have other things to worry about. But we should be careful not to accidentally take down an actual Russian plane.
  5. Just blame it on the rebels. It works for the Russians.
  6. No need to blame anyone. Israel has made clear that it will not allow any action that may risk its safety, whilst taking advantage of Assad's inability to respond.
  7. I wanna say it was TurboFREAK(?)
  8. Look who hit the water today:

    There is still quite a lot of fitting out to do. Radars and combat systems are yet to be installed, there are no hotel services (meaning on-board production of hot and cold water, HVAC and electricity), and the interior is unfinished. This will take some time - sea trials aren't expected to begin until early next year with, assuming successful trials, commissioning into the Navy by the end of summer.
  9. The Type 26, to nobody's surprise, was selected winner of this competition, with Lockheed Martin Canada as lead contractor, BAE as major partner, and Irving Shipbuilding (Halifax) as the site of construction. Current expectation is $60B for 15 hulls, replacing 12 Halifax-class FFGs and 3 Iroquois-class DDGs. $40B is expected for procurement, including required infrastructure development by both the shipbuilder and Navy, and $20B for lifetime maintenance. This brings Type 26 orders to 32, with the original user - the Royal Navy - ironically being the smallest user, with eight hulls to the Royal Australian Navy's nine, and Royal Canadian Navy's 15.

    Between this project, the purchase of new supply ships, and the arctic patrol ships, Canada's naval re-capitalization seems to be going well. Sore spots worth fixing should be replacing the Victoria-class with a modern AIP submarine (a joint-buy with Australia on the DCNS Barracuda should be explored), and replacing the Kingston-class with a proper corvette or offshore patrol vessel (since these are vintage mechanical minesweepers that were just forced into offshore patrol roles).
  10. Now with Canadian flag renders and, more interestingly, what look like AESA arrays distinct from either the British (which have no AESA array) or Australian (which have AESA arrays in a different layout) designs.

  11. Which class of vessel is this?
  12. My last two posts were supposed to be one. Blame the 10-minute edit timer. That is a render of Lockheed Martin Canada's current (winning) proposal for the Single-Class Surface Combatant project, based on the British Type-26 / City-class Frigate. In Australian service, the type will be known as the Hunter class. A lead ship has yet to be named for Canadian service, so we have only the generic program title for now. (Although there are some whispers that it will be a 'tribal class', named after first nations).

    I wanted to point out the AESA array for a few reasons, though:
    1. Although the British are tasking the Type-26 almost exclusively as an anti-submarine frigate, BAE designed this ship from the outset to be multi-mission and modular (with the option for different sub-classes, including general-purpose and air-defense)
    2. Neither the British nor the Australians have a need for an air-defense frigate, due to the Type 45 and Hobart class destroyers, respectively
    3. Canada is planning to replace both it's anti-submarine frigates and air-defense destroyers with one class, hence the program title.
    The CAMM missiles found on the baseline Type-26 (in both British and Australian service) are a step up from the ESSM on Canada's old Halifax class FFG, but are nowhere near as capable as the SM-2 that was found on the Iroquois-class DDGs. Also, current public documents are just disclosing the combat management system as Lockheed Canada's CMS 330 - which is primarily an anti-submarine / anti-surface suite (the Hunter sub-class will be using the Aegis suite, while the British use their own Type-45-derived system). This doesn't seem to match the proposed role of the ship, nor plunking down a big AESA array on top. Since they clearly want to upgrade the radar, I'm imagining that there is a lot undisclosed about the anti-air capabilities that this ship is proposed to have.
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  13. The difference between a frigate and a destroyer, and destroyer and cruiser, seem to be more and more blurred. I just read the Australian Type-26 is expected to displace about 8800 tons? That's as more than early flight Arleigh Burke destroyers in the US Navy, which were considered cruiser-sized when they were built. The American Tico cruiser are "just" 9500 tons.

    Especially in Europe, the FREMM frigates are given destroyer pennant numbers in France, and in Italy the near-identical ships are given pennant numbers of frigates. The Spanish F105 design was the basis of submissions to both its Hobart-class destroyer and Hunter-class frigate tenders - which the Spanish obviously consider a frigate (frigate number 105).

    Western, especially NATO, navies seem to have settled on this 7000-ton range for do-all classes. I'm not convinced this is a great idea. The United States was the first to go through with this, when they axed the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate without replacement (with a lot of life left on the hulls - a lot sent overseas as aid), leaving the 9000 ton Burke's as the smallest major surface combatants. While this did allow for a larger Burke purchase, it also meant that low-threat operations overseas (like anti-piracy, policing, or freedom of navigation cruises) were incredibly expensive. And for long, slow-burn 'conflicts', like hunting for Russian submarines in the North Atlantic (and lets be honest, that's just going to become Chinese subs in the South China Sea), they can't cover as much ground and are more expensive to operate than a small dedicated anti-submarine craft. This lead to the littoral combat ship program for the low-intensity conflict role, which has proven to be a disaster, and has lead to the FFG(X) program to play catch-up on a frigate class that ought not to have been axed at all (and will likely just end up a weaponized set of Legend Class cutters pulled from the Coast Guard).

    For the non-American members of NATO, obviously there's a different story. By comparison, the USAF needs (and can afford) many different types of combat aircraft, European NATO members have to use multi-role aircraft by necessity, just due to size and budgets. If I'm the Dutch Navy, its not clear if a class of five frigates and two destroyers is better than a class of six destroyer-sized frigates.
  14. how is china hacking our ships and making them crash
  15. They might not have the best products on the industry, but SAAB probably does have the best promotional videos in the industry.

  16. how close are you to making nuclear weapons if you can make nuclear power plants?
  17. In a strict technical sense, if you can make an economically viable nuclear power plant yourself, without outside assistance, you are pretty much already able to build nuclear weapons. To build a commercial nuclear reactor by yourself means you have:
    1. A strong scientific and engineering base
    2. Advanced metallurgy
    3. Industry capable to making large workpieces at high precision in advanced materials
    4. A nuclear supply chain to produce fuel, and, perhaps most importantly,
    5. Cash
    You may notice that these are the same prerequisites needed to build a nuclear weapon, and most of the prerequisites required to build a delivery system. Not only that, but producing a reactor only you control can provide you with nuclear material for weapons. For the original four nuclear powers (the US, USSR, UK, and France), the time between building a reactor and building a bomb was only a couple of years - and that was the 40s and 50s before we worked most of the technical stuff out. In addition to them, it was the CIA's view that Germany, Sweden, Japan, and Canada would all be industrially, financially and technically capable of building a weapon and delivery system by the early 1960s.

    If you just happen to have a reactor that someone else supplied, like the current kerfuffle over Saudi Arabia, then things are a little different. There may be some technology transfer agreements in place, or you may be able to gather technology surreptitiously. If you operate the reactor yourself, you can use it to produce nuclear weapons material. Famously, India used Canadian-supplied reactors (using American-supplied heavy water) to produce plutonium for its first nuclear test, Smiling Buddha, in 1974, prompting the formation of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Alternatively, if an outside power operates your reactor or controls your fuel cycle, as is the case in Iran (with Russia's Rosatom basically running the show under the nuclear deal), you may have little opportunity to siphon off much technology or material.

    Without risking another dumpster fire thread, the Saudi situation is worrying, not only because there was a lot of technology transfer, and not only because Saudi Arabia already has delivery systems appropriate for a regional conflict (possessing a number of Chinese-supplied IRBMs with throw-weights on the order of a ton), but because of the political rhetoric from the United States and Russia - the traditional guarantors of the nuclear status-quo in the Middle East - with Trump asking aloud if Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, et al, shouldn't 'take care of their own affairs'. Saudi Arabia also would have the support of another nuclear power, surprisingly, in Israel. Although they don't have official relations, Israel and Saudi Arabia both view Iran as their primary regional rival and threat, as they previously jointly viewed Iraq, and are willing to work together on the matter. (As they almost certainly did previously with respect to Iraq).

    If a nation has those five prerequisites above, there are a few options to stop proliferation. One, the preferred method for close allies and major partners, and the method used with Germany, Sweden, Japan, and Canada (and later South Korea), is to make it not worth their time: pull them under your nuclear umbrella so that the expense is hard to justify. For regional partners or countries with whom you aren't openly hostile, you first avoid any direct support, but you can threaten sanctions, or threaten to pull out your support, which was used to pressure South Africa into abandoning its weapons, and keep Saudi Arabia from acquiring them. Or lastly, the method reserved for Iran, Iraq, North Korea, et al., you actively attempt to sabotage their programs.

    Abandoning that is a mistake.
    HippoCrushEverything and SEABEE like this.
  18. How do fixed geometry intakes work in supersonic aircraft? How does one maintain a steady subsonic airflow to the compressor face throughout the flight envelope? I have an inkling of how this is done in aircraft with variable geometry intake ramps (F-15, MiG-25, etc.) but I don't get how the intake of, say, an F-16 works.
  19. Well think, compressors manage just fine with all flight speeds from Ma=0 to Ma=1, so once that is worked out, you just need a subsonic flow at your inlet, and all the previous engineering work you did can handle getting the flow nicely from inlet to compressor face. This is the purpose of the intake ramp (or inlet cone on older aircraft, or DSI on newer aircraft). This is done with shockwaves - across a shock, the flow slows down and increases in pressure.

    However, shocks are what's called "irreversible": there are thermodynamic losses across a shock that cannot be recovered, so you're engine isn't going to be as efficient (thermally; propulsion may or may not be another matter) as when it's flying subsonically. In order to maximize efficiency, a complex series of oblique shocks are used, rather than one big normal shock. This keeps these irreversibilities to a minimum. The purpose of a moving intake ramp is to keep these shocks optimally efficient, and moreover, to make sure the first oblique shock intercepts the inlet lip: if the shock 'spills' past the lip, then you're spending energy compressing flow that doesn't even make it into your engine.

    Fixed intake ramps still produce shockwaves, and still compress the flow to a subsonic speed, but they can't maintain these optimal conditions over a range of speeds - they have just one design point with maximum efficiency.
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  20. anybody have any smart brain thoughts about the boeing crashes
  21. I avoided this for some time as there was a dearth of information available in media reporting. However, if recent reporting by the Seattle Times is accurate, this may be one of the most serious breaches of professional ethics in the history of engineering:

    Its also worth noting that this article was written days before the Ethiopian Air crash, and Ethiopian crashed while the Seattle Times was waiting for comment from Boeing and the FAA. Read it. The whole thing. It's incredibly damning.
  22. bad engineering and letting the company run its own oversight
  23. This post as a retrospective
    SEABEE likes this.
  24. Giving this thread a 1.5 year bump, even though the last post not in 'last' for over a month ago and literally nobody will see it. What even is life.

    The current state of the Canadian Type 26 design was released:

    Several points worth noting:
    • There appears to be two VLS banks: Mk 41 at the front, all strike length, and a Sea Ceptor specific one behind the main mast. No word on the number of CAMM missiles it will carry. Australia decided against retaining the Sea Ceptor.
    • It appears that the RCN wants to be the third operator of the Tomahawk, after the US Navy and Royal Navy
    • The Naval Strike Missile has supplanted the Harpoon. As the JSM has been integrated with the F-35 but not the F-18 or Gripen, I wonder if this will play into the fighter bids.
    • The RCN will be the second-largest Aegis operator outside of the US Navy
    • SPY-7 was developed for the Groundbased Midcourse Defense system, and was later sold to Japan for Aegis Ashore, and is being proposed to the US Navy for Tico/Burke refurbs. This is a missile defense radar first and foremost. Between that and an Aegis CMS, its surprising there isn't a dedicated BMD missile like an SM-3 or SM-6.
    • Both Sea Ceptor and ESSM: it appears that there will be neither a Phalanx nor a SeaRAM fitted, with Sea Ceptor taking over *all* CIWS and point defense duties, as well defense against small craft
    • Larger than the UK's Type 26, with a hull-stretch. Especially with this much more substantial weapons load-out than the UK's Type 26, giving this "FFG" hull numbers is basically a political ploy.
    • Torpedoes. Neither Australia nor the UK seemed to want ship-launched torpedoes, both opting for helicopter-only.

Share This Page