Jump to content

For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread


Skyler4856
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 12/2/2022 at 10:03 AM, kerbiloid said:

Were created only as "EC" (colloquial- Emergency Capability) to have something before a solid-fueled one gets ready (irl in 1954).
The real Soviet one came in 1955, but was not put in production.
So, a really nuke war could begin by 1956+ (like the Dropshot'49 plan had presumed, in 1957).

Until then, a conventional but assisted with nukes could take place.
In such mostly-conventional war the Soviets didn't have enough nukes and planes to bomb US, while the Americans had two hundred tactical nukes to bomb mostly nothing, because the USSR was still living in a semi-war mode, with distributed industry, and population living in almost war conditions, building nothing but factories, shelters, and residential wooden barracks (because why build good if it anyway will be bombed in several years).
In 1956 (XX congress of the CPSU) it was officially decided to start a peaceful international competition instead of preparing to immediate global war, the army was decreased, the prisoners from labour camps were mass released, the residential construction turned to more comfortable multi-storey houses (aka "khrushchevka", a cheap 5-storey building), the urbanization ran faster (causing economical problems by higher QoL standards), the propaganda got much softer ("Khrushchev's Thaw"), the first international festival took place in Moscow, and several years later, after the Cuban Crysis, then-modern ICBM were put on duty.

Exactly at that time first long-range ballistic missiles (IRBM, ICBM, SLBM) came on service, and the sides decided to make better defence on the Earth and to start competing in space.

1957..58 - ICBM delivered first satellites (coincidentally matching the then-modern nuclear warhead mockup mass and dimensions).
1958 - US moved from projects Horizon and Lunex to less ambitious but necessary Apollo superproject.
1960s - space race, finished with cost-to-efficiency parity by mid-1970s, and limiting the space usage only with civil (i.e. spy and perspective military R&D) needs, later expanded with global communications.

Had no idea the Soviet was running an war economy until 56, that is 3 years after Stalin's death. 
But yes staying decentralized would help a lot  but I don't think that worked as well for mega projects like plutonium production. 
And know Stalin wanted WW 3, who he wold loose and the US if they knew probably thought it was drunk ramblings but the production plans would be scary. 
One benefit of nukes is that it was much easier to take out an point targets. Probably better to use them tactically on transportation hubs and heavy fortified front lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, magnemoe said:

One benefit of nukes is that it was much easier to take out an point targets.

During the Korean War (1950-53) from 16 (US info) to 69 (SU info) B-29 were destroyed by then-modern MiG-15.

So, it makes to doubt even that a lot of atomic bombs could be delivered.

But even if so, the Urals are 3 000 + km away from the British airbases, so this would mean that several cities in the European part of the USSR would be destroyed, and several bombers could perform suicidal attacks some farther.

As most part of the industry since the WWII was located beyond Urals, it would unlikely destroy the industrial capabilities.

On the other hand, the war would expand and run on the territory of Western Europe, where since 1948 the US business was running the Marshall Plan (basically, reset of the European economics and industry, restoration of residential and financial capability, with US as main goods provider and bank creditor).
So, while US territory maybe would not be affected directly, a crash of this profitable plan would mean nothing good for American economy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that modern / ahead-of-the-curve guns use an induction system of some sort to wirelessly set timed fuses as the shell exits the barrel. Is there a restriction on the rate at which the system can do this?

I'm wondering if we may see "bullet hose" style of AA firing slugs or impact-fused shells be replaced with larger-bore "smartguns" that can do the same job with a handful of slightly larger time and/or proximity-fused shells.

Edited by DDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DDE said:

[ Asking about modern fuzes. ]

I think most developments in fuzes since the 1980's have been evolutions rather than revolutions.  Even then, it was mostly improving on previous features and combining functions.

For artillery proximity fuzes, there's been a long development since the original ones in the 1940's.  I imagine they've improved in the same way proximity fuzes on anti-air missiles have.  More likely changes are improvements in being certain about the close approach point to the target just before it happens and setting the delay offset to that prediction.  The variation with target is likely dealt with by the number of rounds fired.

More info here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_fuze

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DDE said:

It is my understanding that modern / ahead-of-the-curve guns use an induction system of some sort to wirelessly set timed fuses as the shell exits the barrel. Is there a restriction on the rate at which the system can do this?

I'm wondering if we may see "bullet hose" style of AA firing slugs or impact-fused shells be replaced with larger-bore "smartguns" that can do the same job with a handful of slightly larger time and/or proximity-fused shells.

If you can imagine it - someone will build it. 

There is a cost/efficacy issue with AAA.  Cheap is to throw a bunch of dumb rocks out of a smart system.  Expensive is to throw a smart rock out of a smarter system. The only thing is that you really want to hit the airborne threat... So I think it will be a while before we see one shot one kill of missiles with bullets. 

The main issue is that airborne stuff usually changes trajectory - which mitigates towards multiple shots - because until the bullet can change trajectory once fired... I don't think the traditional systems will disappear 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The main issue is that airborne stuff usually changes trajectory - which mitigates towards multiple shots - because until the bullet can change trajectory once fired... I don't think the traditional systems will disappear 

I'm sure there are material science reasons for why this is a hard and/or expensive problem to solve, but the modern AA shells travel at speeds where you don't need much of a lifting surface to adjust trajectory. If you can modify the shape of the projectile, you can generate enough body lift to steer the projectile into the collision. There would definitely be a limit, and if target starts pulling high-G turns for avoidance, even small wings on cruise missile or a dart will be able to outmaneuver a shell using body lift only, but you typically want to surprise an air target with AA anyways. And yeah, I don't imagine the shell can have its own guidance outside of terminal, so it would have to rely on a ground station, which also requires communication that doesn't make for a juicy anti-radiation target. Perhaps a THz range narrow beam that guides the projectile, then shuts off as the projectile switches to terminal? These can be made virtually indistinguishable from background outside of the very narrow beam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2022 at 12:54 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

If you can imagine it - someone will build it. 

There is a cost/efficacy issue with AAA.  Cheap is to throw a bunch of dumb rocks out of a smart system.  Expensive is to throw a smart rock out of a smarter system. The only thing is that you really want to hit the airborne threat... So I think it will be a while before we see one shot one kill of missiles with bullets. 

The main issue is that airborne stuff usually changes trajectory - which mitigates towards multiple shots - because until the bullet can change trajectory once fired... I don't think the traditional systems will disappear 

Such a system already exists actually! @DDE @K^2


https://www.leonardo.com/en/press-release-detail/-/detail/the-strales-76mm-system-with-dart-guided-ammunition
 

The manufacturers of the DART guided 76mm rounds for the OTO Melara 76mm claim it is still cheaper than SAMs. Colombia has bought a bunch of them, to give you an idea of how fiscally easy it is to procure.

It has a 40G maneuver limit, utilizes a combination of canards on the rotating forward half of the shell and fixed fins on the rear half to maneuver, uses command line-of-sight all the way to the target, utilizing the Ka-band for its radio guidance.

I think land-based large caliber anti-aircraft artillery is a bad idea though. These don’t have a self-destruct system like a SAM, which would either result in bombs raining down on friendlies or the planting of mines on one’s own territory if it misses. Another reason I don’t think we will necessarily see widespread adoption of large caliber AA over small caliber is that it is not as great against aircraft compared to MANPADS. Why build guns and shells when we can just build a few more of the tube thingies we’re giving to our dudes in the bushes?

I have to wonder though, if Italy had adopted the OTOMATIC SPAAG that utilized the 76mm, would we see them being sent off to *that place* today?

Considering the speed of *those slow targets that are a hassle in that place*, the fire rate of the 76mm (120 rpm) should be more than enough to suffice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It has a 40G maneuver limit

Ok, I was picturing something in a few Gs limit. But I guess, that's why the canards/fins. This is impressive if they can deliver on quantity, reliability, and price.

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

These don’t have a self-destruct system like a SAM

I was still picturing this as some sort of flack. But yeah, if they're pure kinetic kill, probably naval use only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think land-based large caliber anti-aircraft artillery is a bad idea though. These don’t have a self-destruct system like a SAM, which would either result in bombs raining down on friendlies or the planting of mines on one’s own territory if it misses.

There's no reason they can't have a self-destruct system.

A common fuze design has 3 main stages to provide detonation safety only after being fired:

  • Set back, where part of the fuze recoils back when the round is fired.
  • Rotate, where that part is allowed to rotate and thus as the rifling has the round spin, the fuze part turns with respect to the rest.
  • Creep forward, where a spring pushes the part back forward.

Only when all three have taken place is the fuze armed for the other components like timed and contact.  This also effectively delays the earliest the fuze can detonate, giving clearance from the weapon firing the rounds.

A safety self-destruct could be an independent high-reliability timer off the main fuze safety train as detailed above.

Edited by Jacke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2022 at 9:00 PM, DDE said:

It is my understanding that modern / ahead-of-the-curve guns use an induction system of some sort to wirelessly set timed fuses as the shell exits the barrel. Is there a restriction on the rate at which the system can do this?

I'm wondering if we may see "bullet hose" style of AA firing slugs or impact-fused shells be replaced with larger-bore "smartguns" that can do the same job with a handful of slightly larger time and/or proximity-fused shells.

The Oerlikon SkyGuard system can put out 550 individually programmed AHEAD rounds per barrel in a minute. That's the only number I can find in a quick search session. I think this rate is adequate for a "bullet hose," especially as these barrels traditionally come in pairs. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerlikon_GDF

9 hours ago, Jacke said:

There's no reason they can't have a self-destruct system.

Even the ubiquitous 23mm AAA ammunition - that's too small for a proximity fuze - has a self destruct feature. This is exactly to protect whatever happens to be on the ground where the shells would otherwise fall down. So there is absolutely no reason why 76mm smart round should not have such a protective self destruct feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, monophonic said:

The Oerlikon SkyGuard system can put out 550 individually programmed AHEAD rounds per barrel in a minute. That's the only number I can find in a quick search session. I think this rate is adequate for a "bullet hose," especially as these barrels traditionally come in pairs. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerlikon_GDF

I didn't understand your point upon first reading, so went Googling myself, and the result was quite interesting. I didn't quite realise that the same 35 mm gun was this prolific. Nor did I realize that a pair of 550 RPM gas-operated guns were enough to produce a ripping 'bullet hose' sound I've heard in combat footage of the Gepard from you-know-where.

It also revealed a very simple bias: my point of departure was the 2A38, a twin Gast-type 30 mm gun that outputs at least 2500 RPM. And all the non-paper designs (Tunguska and Pantsir) use two of them.

As you can guess, shooting down a quadcopter with those could prove staggeringly wasteful.

Edited by DDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Whether some fuzes didn't have self-destruction on miss?

They explode in air, and the ones which I'm aware of, always had this.

if it explodes, that's a fuze doing it.  That's the safety self-destruct fuze, triggering after a time delay after firing the round.

 

9 hours ago, DDE said:

As you can guess, shooting down a quadcopter with those could prove staggeringly wasteful.

I would imagine AAA adopting in miniature the warhead design of later AA missiles, continuous rod, rings of metal folded up around the charge. so when it detonates, a mostly continuous ring of metal expands out.  With miniaturized proximity fuzes and radar direction and prediction, I can see one-burst kills on drones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jacke said:

I would imagine AAA adopting in miniature the warhead design of later AA missiles, continuous rod, rings of metal folded up around the charge. so when it detonates, a mostly continuous ring of metal expands out.  With miniaturized proximity fuzes and radar direction and prediction, I can see one-burst kills on drones.

Continuous rod seems to sacrifice coverage for thorough damage, a small craft can luck out and avoid the expanding circular field of metal altogether.

1522425009_sterzhnevaya-bch.jpg

Whereas AHEAD is the reinvention of shrapnel and is probably more thorough in perforating anything in the kill zone.

Anyway, we all know what the cheapest quadcopter solution is.

Spoiler

Just keep in mind that I've seen both sides lay claim to the victorious drone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DDE said:

Continuous rod seems to sacrifice coverage for thorough damage, a small craft can luck out and avoid the expanding circular field of metal altogether.

....

Whereas AHEAD is the reinvention of shrapnel and is probably more thorough in perforating anything in the kill zone.

Why not both.  Design the casing of the round to fragment, as well as incorporate more frags inside.  Also, why not thinner continuous rods and pack in 2 or 3 of them.  Whatever fits in the projectile.  Then honest test firings to determine how well different projectiles work against different targets.

I'm reminded of a long-ago early fragmentary artillery round, German I think.  They had a major safety failure on a range firing and rounds detonated near some spectators.  Who were barely affected by the "lethal" rounds.  The design wasn't as lethal as thought.

Edited by Jacke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows more about astronomy than I do? If stellar collisions are supposed to be rare, how come there's so much talk about neutron stars whanging into each other? Is this the end-fate of lots of binary pairs due to that gravitational drag thing I don't really understand? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Who knows more about astronomy than I do? If stellar collisions are supposed to be rare, how come there's so much talk about neutron stars whanging into each other? Is this the end-fate of lots of binary pairs due to that gravitational drag thing I don't really understand? 

While the numbers I found varied, mainly based on publishing date, there only seems to have been 100 or so gravitational wave events recorded so far.    In what, less than ten years?       
 

On one hand, that’s not a lot.   On the other, that’s a whole lot of them for something that was only theoretical.    
 

But space is big.    And there’s many many stars out there.    There’s always some colliding that are big enough to be detected.   It’s basically just the law of large numbers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Is this the end-fate of lots of binary pairs due to that gravitational drag thing I don't really understand? 

Gravitational drag is only a factor once the two objects get very close together. Much closer than the stars normally can get to each other. Until then, for ordinary stars, it's just regular old drag. Very often, if two stars orbit very close together, one of the will be siphoning the atmosphere off the other, converting angular momentum of the binary into intrinsic angular momentum of the star.

But yeah, the angular momentum is the key here. Any two random stars that happen to pass each other in the depth of space are just statistically likely to have a high angular momentum when considered as a pair. And for a collision to happen, the angular momentum needs to be very close to zero. So a collision of two stars that weren't spiraling into each other is very unlikely. And if two stars are spiraling into each other, it's going to take a very long time. That time is shorter for particularly large stars, but in that case, you're likely to end up with a pair of neutron stars and/or black holes by the time they collide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...