Vanilla Ice Q&A

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

  1. Honestly, maybe not that much. Mean ocean temps would not move that far - the oceans are massive - and the water that was vaporized would quickly precipitate back down into liquid water again. Water on Earth is on a three-state equilibrium, which is a hugely stable system. All the agricultural and industrial output of humans over the last ten millennia has only recently started to **** with that equilibrium. The isotopes you put into the water wont change much radioactivity because water is a pretty good radiation shield too. Maybe you kill off aquatic mammals by defining them, and that might upset the ecosystems and maybe that leads to a food crisis? Or an over/under-abundance in some trophic level? But by this link in the chain any guess you can make is too uncertain to be worth anything without investing a lot in serious modelling.
     
  2. would a nuke detonated underwater create a massive tsunami
     
  3. Sure, all energetic underwater events will make waves. Probably not large enough to even be measured though. The 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake that caused that massive tsunami was of magnitude 9.3, which is something around ~10^23 joules. That's ~10^13 tons of TNT equivalent - a million times the energy of Tsar Bomba or thereabouts (humans ain't shit compared to geology). Although most hydrogen bomb designs have no theoretical upper limit on their yield, so you could conceivably make a weapon that large if you really wanted to.

    Alternatively, and this has been something that has actually been studied, you could look for a region that is already vulnerable to a massive landslide, or produce such a scenario with a large earthworks project, and plant nuclear weapons to trigger the landslide. The landslide itself can contain many orders of magnitude more energy than the nuclear weapons themselves, and can thus trigger a much larger and more deadly tsunami. Aren't humans wonderful?
     
    SEABEE likes this.
  4. I like these boats
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    A smaller one
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Sea Slice
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. You could bomb the poles and melt all the ice...
     
  6. #181 Vanilla Ice, Dec 27, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2017
    Merchants of Death

    One of the biggest news stories this year in Canada was a major $15-billion sale of armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia. This was conflicting, because Canada views itself both as a champion of human rights (weather that's deserved is a major debate in itself, for another time) and as a reliable supplier of arms and technology. In no small part to this contract, Canada became the second-largest supplier of arms to the Middle East - second to the United States and leapfrogging both Russia and France - and the sixth largest arms exporter worldwide:

    Country..............Defense exports, 2016 (USD millions)
    1. United States....$24,407
    2. Russia............$7,682
    3. France............$6,033
    4. Germany...........$4,781
    5. United Kingdom....$4,380
    6. Canada............$4,312
    7. Israel............$3,011
    8. Italy.............$2,488
    9. Spain.............$1,802
    10. China............$1,623


    I was a bit surprised by this news all in its own right, since the United Kingdom, for instance, is a much larger country and is known globally for its defense industry and its defense products. And they sold just $68m more on the global market than Canada of all countries? In turn, I thought it might be interesting to sort these ten countries in a couple other ways:

    Country..............Defense exports, percentage of GDP
    Israel...............0.95
    Russia...............0.60
    Canada...............0.28
    France...............0.24
    United Kingdom.......0.17
    Spain................0.15
    Germany..............0.14
    Italy................0.13
    United States........0.13
    China................0.01

    Country..............Defense exports, fraction of defense industry
    Canada...............21.8%
    Israel...............14.5%
    Spain................10.8%
    Germany..............10.4%
    Russia...............10.0%
    France................9.8%
    United Kingdom........8.3%
    Italy.................8.2%
    United States.........3.8%
    China.................0.7%


    For the second list, all defense spending is included in the 'defense industry'. So items you don't normally associate with arms (like providing healthcare and housing for the dependents of soldiers, and soldier salaries and benefits) is included as the 'defense industry'. If you just look at just the industrial products of war, all of these fractions would go up.

    Most European NATO countries seem to be clustered around the same numbers: arms exports contributed around 0.15% of their economies, and about 10% of the arms they produce end up overseas (in turn this implies around 1.5% of GDP goes to defense, which sounds about right). The global arms market has an outsized role to play in the economies of Russia and Israel, which again is totally intuitive (nearly a whole percentage of the Israeli economy). China, which isn't really known for its arms products, is a large exporter simply because of its large economy (a small fraction of a large number is often still a larger number, after all), and again this makes sense. Arms trade has an outsized role to play in France. This should surprize absolutely nobody, since they're well known for selling Exocets to anybody with a million euros and a pulse. "Exocet" may as well be a metonym for shady arms deals. So it was a bit surprising to see Canada ahead of France on both counts - especially since the only 'global arms product' I can think of Canada selling is the LAV III, and that's only been sold in numbers of Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, and the United States (as the Stryker). A full fifth of Canada's defense products head overseas.

    I spoke some time earlier about the strategic limitations of Canada not possessing a tier-1 defense integrator of its own, but after some digging it seems in turn that Canada's defense industry has leveraged itself as a component supplier to great effectiveness. A lot of defense products don't sound like standard defense products, and others are clearly niche expertise that others find too expensive to replicate. Some of the biggest defense exports were:
    - Aircraft engines and parts
    - Diesel engines and parts
    - Speciality composites and machined parts
    - Chassis-cab vehicles (drivable vehicles without a body, ready for a third-party to add)
    - Green aircraft, rotary and fixed-wing ('green' meaning unfinished, ready for a third-party to install weapons or combat systems)
    - Satellites and satellite components
    - Satellite operation, services and ground stations
    - Defense electronics and software (radar, sonar, combat management systems, communications systems, command and control)
    - Flight simulation technology
    - Flight instruction and weapons training
    - Maintenance, repair and overhaul (aircraft and ships)

    If this all seems meandering, it's because I feel like I left this adventure feeling like I had a loser grasp of the defense industry than when I started.
     
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  7. It sucks, but it's a great way to make money, give people a reason to be smart and advanced, and employ them. In our case you also end up more protected, which is important.
    The downside is of course the stuff you don't hear about, like African governments and militias fighting each other with the same weapons, or some Saudis shooting up a bunch of Yemenites.
     
  8. #183 HippoCrushEverything, Dec 28, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
    Lih'd @"well known for sellling Exocets to anybody with a million euros and a pulse". That about sums it up.

    Edit: When it comes to relatively recent shady arms deals and development programs, 3 countries really stand out: France, Israel and South Africa. These three countries have also been the source of numerous ex-SADF, IDF or FFL mercenaries during the Cold War, and have sanctioned some quite controversial covert ops, the kind of which the UK or Germany wouldn't have even considered. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior comes to mind.
     
  9. #184 HippoCrushEverything, Dec 28, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2017
    The geopolitical situation in Israel's near-sandniggerdom is such that you'll be needing a strong military for a long ass time.

    If you look at the equipment that was used in the early conflicts in the 40's, the Suez Operation, the Six-Day War or the Yom Kippur War, almost none of the weapons systems were domestic. Israel was operating an odd mix of French, British, American, Soviet, Belgian and whatever weaponry. Vintage Super Shermans and AMX-13/75s with KwK 42 -derivatives (the gun from Pz V and JgPz IV) were firing at hordes of T-55s well into the 70's.

    The situation IDF was in 50 years ago required a lot of ad hoc-solutions, modifying inadequate foreign equipment to suit the specific needs of the mission, and caused a lot of logistical issues with spare parts and ordnance. All of which cost Israeli lives.

    You guys built a thriving defense industry from nothing, and that in itself is something to be proud of. Where the government chooses to sell what kind of weapons, and how those weapons are used is a whole another matter. Just like having a thriving lithium-ion battery industry is generally a positive thing, but some issues might arise if used batteries are dumped in the local water reservoir. One can make the effort to have one of those things without the other.

    Fun facts: the Finnish defense industry and Israli defense industry had quite a bit of cooperation during the 60's and 70's. Soltam, a manufacturer of self-propelled and towed mortars and howitzers was a collaboration between Solel Boneh (Israel) and Tampella (Finland) > Soltam. We got the 155 K83 out of that deal and you got the M-71, the Sholef prototype and a bunch of mortars. You sold the M-71 to South Africa where it entered service as the G4, which was then replaced by the G5 based on a Canadian design by the (in)famous Gerald Bull. Some say that Israel had something to do with his death.

    The Galil-series of assault rifles is also a derivative of the Finnish Rk-62, which is a derivative of the AK-47 (not AKM).

    Edit: godverdomme typos
     
    IdoL, ETB4U and ScoRpFerrari like this.
  10. Did you just pull all of that out of your general knowledge? That's impressive.

    I haven't been in the army for a while now, but I do remember how the local tech was always considered the best in terms of quality and ability. The Galil was heavy as hell but it was also sturdy and super reliable (wouldn't jam as well). The Tavor came a little after my time and I never even got to touch one. I can only vouch for its cool factor.
     
  11. I'm not autistic enough to accurately remember Israeli or South African artillery designations. Google was used.

    Forged/machined rifle parts always have a quality feel over stamped sheet metal parts, but they are more expensive to manufacture and heavier to carry.

    It's very difficult to get something stuck inside the chamber of an AK in such a way that a pulling the charging handle and rattling the rifle around a bit wouldn't free the round/casing. I'm not sure if anyone knows the mean time between failures of any AK (with what sort of ammunition), and I strongly suspect that there are several designs that perform better in this area. It's just that clearing those malfunctions is often a matter of seconds, unless the rifle/ammunition is seriously defective.

    I have yet to meet a professional/enthusiast who would dispute the claim that Galil and RK series of assault rifles are at the very top end of the quality and reliability spectra of the AK family.
     
  12. In related news, the US Navy has put a number to what it's willing to pay for each hull in the FFG(X) program. That number is one billion dollars. Its worth noting that the US Navy accounting is significantly different than Australia or Canada's recent surface combatant purchases, as it only includes capital costs and not lifetime recapitalization and major maintenance. Some attention is looking at Canada's Surface Combatant competition as essentially a preview of the American competition, as they have extremely similar requirements, and many of the same bidders will be at play (the Type 26 from the UK, FREMM from France, and the Type 105 from Spain). In fact, since both will want "Americanized" sensors, combat systems, and missiles, and a similar number of hulls, the sensible thing would be a joint design-and-buy, but sense isn't common in either Defense/Defence department.

    America currently operates battlecruiser-sized cruisers, cruiser-sized destroyers, no frigates, and no proper corvettes. Right at the bottom of capability of surface combatants is the corvette-sized Littoral Combat Ship, although they have limited utility. The issue with this is that the US is sending cruiser-sized destroyers at great expense to go into non-combat constabulary missions, like drug interdiction, anti-piracy, and similar roles. The purpose of FFG(X), in turn, is to provide a cheap multi-role vessel to accept mid-level threat missions on its own (freeing destroyers for higher-threat missions), or potentially integrate into a larger fleet in combat. For this reason, it's looking at off-the-shelf designs, mostly from Europe. Unfortunately, many European navies seem to be beginning to suffering a similar problem of ships creeping up in displacement, and operate outsized frigates because they simply can't afford to run a large number of hulls - the FREMM and Type 26 are both destroyer-sized, in the 6000-ton range. In fact, the French Navy, despite marketing FREMM as a frigate internationally, internally classifies them as destroyers with "D"-prefixed pennant numbers. This only seems to continue the American problem of over-capable platforms for low-threat missions, adding to battlecruiser-sized cruisers and cruiser-sized destroyers with a new fleet of destroyer-sized frigates.

    The Navy seems to have learned its lesson from the DD-21 and LCS programs, innovating too much too fast and losing track of the base mission, and instead they're very sensibly going for a very mundane (if oversized and over-capable) frigate design. However, there's still room at the bottom for fill the roles the LCS were meant for and can't fill, and following America's propensity in both naval architecture and fast food to make everything one-sized larger than the rest of the world, why not a frigate-sized corvette to fill that gap? There's even a great American design that's already under construction that would work.

    [​IMG]

    The US Coast Guard's National Security Cutters are essentially a frigate without the weapons systems. But that doesn't mean the weapons systems were never considered. It has space allocated for, combat systems ready to integrate with, and power provisions for a 16-cell Mk41 VLS with a mix of ESSM and SM-2 missiles for the anti-air role, Harpoon missiles in the anti-ship role, a handful of torpedo launchers for anti-submarine warfare, as well as towed sonar and more advanced radar. It already has hanger provisions for a standard maritime helicopter, and a large gun for constabulary duties and shore bombardment (although the calibre can be quickly upped from 57mm to 76mm).

    The National Security Cutters were meant to be quickly integrated into the Department of the Navy in times of emergency, meaning provisions to cut open a hole and drop in a VLS in a matter of days or weeks, instead of months. In fact, Huntington Ingalls is actively marketing the Cutters as frigates on the international market, with a few countries reportedly making real considerations. By no means am I the first to have this thought, but I don't foresee anybody getting a promotion out of such a program, so it's a bit stillborn.
     
  13. whats so great about the design
     
  14. "Great" in this context means "appropriate for it's mission set". It's nothing special, but it's affordable, does everything it needs to, and has commonality with the USCG.
     
  15. the honda civic of frigates
     
  16. Sounds like Boeing Canada is having a good week.

    The U.S. International Trade Commission struck down the 300% tariffs against Bombardier, saying Boeing was in no way harmed by Bombardier's sale of aircraft to Delta Airlines. And more, Boeing elected to not attend an industry day hosted by the Future Fighter Capabilities program office (the CF-18 replacement program). The industry day was attended by representatives of the US and French governments, Lockheed, Saab, Dassault, BAE and the Airbus Group. Both Flight Global and Defense Industry Daily seem to think this is a strong indication that Boeing has no plans to actually bid either the F/A-18 E/F or the F-15SE into the competition, having been burned already by the Canadian government on its interim Super Hornet contract. This is deeply embarrassing, because the Super Hornet was basically going to walk away with the competition before they filed their complaint against Bombardier. This is good news for Lockheed, since its become a real option again (the Liberal Party was elected partially on promising to not buy the F-35). But so too for all the European firms - which were until now basically dark horse bids. Now all they have to do is show they're better value for money / have better industrial benefits than the F-35, really.
     
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  17. was in san diego over the weekend and saw two ospereys fly slowly overhead
    really cool sight. what a crazy vehicle
     
  18. Japanese officials have finally formally admitted that their "helicopter destroyers" were - as everyone on Earth already knew - designed for fixed wing aviation from the start.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. why would they not want to disclose that

    2nd question
    if you were going to design a flying ship why would it look like a water ship
     
  20. In their constitution, the Japanese explicitly disavow any right to offensive military capability. This is why their military is named the "Self-Defense Force". Aircraft carriers, especially with Japan's military history, were long assumed to be classical offensive weapons unbecoming of the Japanese constitution. In turn, the Maritime Self-Defense Force has maintained that its huge helicopter carriers were not, in practice, helicopter carriers. Rather, they claim the huge amount of Russian and Chinese submarine traffic in their region requires that an anti-submarine destroyer truly needs a flattop to generate the required sorties, and keep a sufficient number of helicopters in the air. To their credit, Japan genuinely utilize the ships primarily in the anti-submarine role.

    However, Japan is also known for maintaining low latency on certain technology as a matter of policy. Or in other words, Japan will avoid adopting certain technologies for diplomatic or political reasons, while simultaneously maintaining the ability to rapidly acquire the technology just in case they ever change their mind. For instance, Japan's space program has utilized solid-fueled launch vehicles - which are less efficient for orbital launch, but more valuable in missile systems - and has demonstrated steerable re-entry vehicles (whereas uncontrolled re-entry would be sufficient for their scientific objectives). This, along with their large stock of nuclear materials, is often called "the Japan option" in the context of nuclear non-proliferation. (Canada and Germany both also maintain extremely low - 3 to 6 month - nuclear latency, but neither as a matter of policy in the way Japan does).

    With respect to aircraft carriers, it is worth noting that this 'admission' came from military planners and not politicians. The hangers, elevators, and flight deck were all designed from the outset to accommodate the F-35B and MV-22. However, the planners stopped short of saying that there would ever be any political will to do so. In essence, this was a formalization of "the Japan option" with respect to fixed-wing naval aviation, saying it's the military's job to be prepared, but it's the politician's job to ever take the initiative on a decision. There is also some argumentation that, given China's area denial abilities, a survivable fixed-wing platform might have legitimate self-defense use, but that's a big hypothetical.

    Its hip hop, you wouldn't understand.
     
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  21. are people mad at japan? seems logical they wouldnt want to actually hamstring themselves
     
  22. [​IMG]
     
  23. At this point it's more of a domestic political concern than one forced on them by others. The United States permanently forward-deploys a carrier group to Japan, and it's overworked, with significant deferred maintenance. Japan and South Korea (and Australia) seeking F-35Bs for their helicopter carriers should be encouraged by the United States to solidify the "Western" influence in Asia and mitigate the rise of China and its own carrier ambitions.
     
  24. so there is a segment of the population that wants japan's military to stick to the self defense only role of the military?
     
  25. That "segment" being the bulk of the centre-left opposition, and a not-insignificant fraction of the current centre-right government, but yes.
     

Share This Page