Jump to content

JoeSchmuckatelli

Members
  • Posts

    3,707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,921 Excellent

3 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    The Most Famous Marine Who Ever Lived

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We had those in my time - and we referred to them as R2D2 or AD (air defense) exclusively. Be interested to see the etymology of CIWS being the used term for those and the other systems - but I literally never heard CIWS from any of my Navy brethren
  2. Yeah - I recognized that in my original reply... But they are not the primary
  3. O. M. G. I had to Google 'CIWS' to discover that I have a hidden bias / blind spot! The acronym 'CIWS' in my mind was purely used for 'Commander's Independent Weapon System' - (an independent of the main weapon system used targeting pod to enhance offensive capabilities) but I discovered that it's presently used to mean 'Close In Weapon Systems' which are defensive (what I would have called AD 'air defense' - but the CIWS term (and targets /capabilities) has been been extended beyond merely 'A' threats to include boats, drones... Heck anything 'Close In' that a defensive 'Weapon System' might target. In light of this - my prior response reads as incomprehensible babble! Sigh. I'm out of date. SMH.
  4. Ok that works... Would the orientation be towards the planet or in the direction of the fall / orbit?
  5. I get that... but... Remember: I'm the resident neanderthal. What does that look like?
  6. ...and the stars look different from the 'tipped over lander' photo we saw last week. Hmmm....
  7. You know... now I'm worried about the 'random generation' thing. If you successfully land a rover amidst randomly generated scatter, where 'rocks above a certain size' are collidable, what happens the next time you load into that area? Will the rocks be in the same space? Or is it possible that once the system 'unloads' the area and has to reload (whether via a save or a subsequent landing) do the 'rocks above a certain size' get randomly distributed again? This brings up a possibility of rocks clipping into a previously landed ship - or even bouncing/knocking over the thing you managed to land or left the last time you were here. So many questions! Ummm... this picture doesn't say "Pre-Alpha Capture"
  8. Odd question (perfect place for these!) about the COM of off-shaped things: If you were to release a bowling pin (or a hand-axe, or anything really heavy on one side vs the other) in space adjacent to a free-falling ship... would it change its orientation relative to the observer? i.e. you release it as stably as possible, imparting no other spin or residual motion... would the initial orientation change? if it would move; would it settle heavy-end toward the Earth or in the direction of fall/motion? if it would not move/reorient... is that because of a lack of drag? This question arose b/c of @sevenperforce's comments on Shuttlecock behavior of a rocket during reentry. I understand how atmospheric drag works - I'm just trying to figure out what would happen with a tail-heavy rocket in freefall, in vacuum... whether it would sling the butt around (eventually) and 'fall' or travel heavy end forward in the absence of drag.
  9. I'm not actually describing continued use of legacy equipment with existing tail turrets. Certainly, nations retain old gear - and they generally retain some military utility, even if not top tier effective. (T-54 is still a tank... Effective vs trucks and APCs, etc.) But I read the question as 'can we use the concept of the tail turret and make it efficient /effective in the modern environment' - to which I'd answer 'no'. The only 'target' of such a defensive system would be AA missiles, whether SAM or A2A. Highly unlikely to be engaged with guns by a fighter these days... ...unless it's being used in some very backwater place. And by then you will have eliminated anything the enemy could fly - so it's a redundant upgrade. My 'thought experiment' version of this was a tungsten-BB auto chaff shotgun that could be used to hard kill incoming missiles - but a pilot friend told me that you'd be losing more than you gain trying to build that into a jet
  10. FWIW - there are a host of videos, most from people with 'Eastern' accented English (or using AI) that do speculation Sim-runs on 'How Could Russia /China Defeat an American Carrier?' or 'Could a US Navy Black Sea Fleet Take Rostov on Don?' and they all feature waves of planes going down via swarms of missiles. For the state of modern warfare to get to the point where tail-gun-needed bombers are used for anything but the AC-130 style (absolute Air Dominance) role... Most nations' current arsenals would be expended, they would be in the full wartime economy and just-shy-of-nuclear war stance where everything but the kitchen sink is being thrown at the enemy.
  11. Any idea how deep into the atmosphere the ship would have to get for the fairings to 'shuttlecock' the fat end around? Although - rereading, the image is wrong. Fat end of shuttlecock is fluffy, not heavy... Except Fluffy now means 'big boned'... And dense means stupid... What is happening with the language?
  12. What is the target of the CIWS / AD? (These are two different things, btw. CIWS is generally an offensive capability. AD, obviously, isn't... ... ... Um. Primarily. ) The image shown is an old-school bomber from the days when the bomber's threat came via bullets delivered by an aircraft that could see it. Visually. Up close and personal-like. So - given that those days are pretty much gone - you would be looking for a defensive anti-missile solution using an updated, automated rear turret... And the answer is 'maybe' and 'at what cost/tradeoff?'. Figure that you would need not only the gun(s) and ammunition, but also the turret mechanism, framing and sensor arrays... And you've got a massive redesign & shift of weight. Good engineering can solve this - so it again goes to the threat: will the bomber have a sufficient threat of 'up the tailpipe missiles' coming at it to justify the effort and expense? (Tail defense turret may be utilized for incoming rear and maybe side threats - at the cost of constant 'here I am' pinging with the sole hope of overwhelming electronically/kinetically. ) If you think about it - in the days of the tailgunner - military planning was to just 'throw Hit Points at the problem'. Lots of planes, tough planes, flying together, and maybe some make it to the target. In gaming parlance, the the Fighters would kite and the bombers, tank. Warfare, at least from the Western perspective is different these days. The CIWS idea is interesting - but also, already implemented... Except in the form of the weapons officer. The pilot's got control over the nose of the aircraft and modern missiles don't really need to be pointed in much more than the general direction of the target to go after it - its more of a conservation of energy thing than anything... So in multi person warcraft - the WO gets the independent targeting pods and associated weapons. Adding a new thing at the back of the plane for the pilot to play with isn't going to improve his /her SA & effectiveness... And if everything was done right up front - the tail gun is looking back on smoking wreckage. Where the addition of such a turret/capability comes in, then, isn't in F/A or traditional (modern) bombers - but in the lingering attack craft like the AC-130... and I think it's efficacy and limitations have been demonstrated.
  13. Yup. Next question: do these collidable rocks act like they do in Satisfactory? (i.e. teleport into position just as you get there?)
×
×
  • Create New...