Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[Shpaget]

20 minutes ago, insert_name said:

In hunger games, they shot down a bomber with a bow and explosive arrow.

20+ years too late.

https://youtu.be/pJsFhkb8e4Q?t=35s

Edited February 24, 2018 by Shpaget

[sevenperforce]

On 2/18/2018 at 9:49 PM, ARS said:

James Bond movie, Tomorrow Never Dies: 

Royal Navy frigate fires the cruise missile at the terrorist "flea market", M tells 007 he has four minutes to get clear. The target is 400 miles from the ship. A Tomahawk cruise missile (as shown) has a top speed of about 550 miles per hour. It should have taken the missile about 43minutes to get there. The novelization blows it even more thoroughly, with a Harpoon missile being launched, and traveling 800 miles in 4 minutes 8 seconds. First of all, a Harpoon (an antiship missile) has a maximum range of less than 100 miles, and second, it travels at about the same (determinedly subsonic) speed as the Tomahawk. To do 800 miles in 248 seconds, it would have needed to achieve about 11,600 miles per hour, or about 3.2 miles per second - about half of Earth's escape velocity. Also, any object traveling that fast at low altitude would burn up like a meteor hitting the lower atmosphere - plus what the shock wave effects would do to anything along its path on the ground

Someone upthread mentioned the inanity of the scene in G.I. Joe where the Arctic icepack is smashed with explosives and suddenly the ice floes begin sinking through the water like great boulders and destroying the Cobra submarine base. Which is pretty bad.

But, just a few minutes later, a ballistic missile is fired from the base. With two warheads -- one aimed for Moscow, and the other for Washington, DC. Because hey, that makes sense.

Then again, the missile is about twice the size of a Saturn V, so I suppose it has all the dV it could ever want.

But then the hero proceeds to jump into a hypersonic fighter jet and chase down both missiles. Separately. First the one going to Moscow, because it's "closer". Then, after shooting down that warhead, it turns around and flies to Washington DC and shoots down THAT one.

Oh, and to top it off, the jet doesn't actually have a control for its weapons. Its weapons are voice-activated.

[ARS]

48 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Someone upthread mentioned the inanity of the scene in G.I. Joe where the Arctic icepack is smashed with explosives and suddenly the ice floes begin sinking through the water like great boulders and destroying the Cobra submarine base. Which is pretty bad.

But, just a few minutes later, a ballistic missile is fired from the base. With two warheads -- one aimed for Moscow, and the other for Washington, DC. Because hey, that makes sense.

Then again, the missile is about twice the size of a Saturn V, so I suppose it has all the dV it could ever want.

But then the hero proceeds to jump into a hypersonic fighter jet and chase down both missiles. Separately. First the one going to Moscow, because it's "closer". Then, after shooting down that warhead, it turns around and flies to Washington DC and shoots down THAT one.

Oh, and to top it off, the jet doesn't actually have a control for its weapons. Its weapons are voice-activated.

Back then before we truly understand how crucial TWR and Dv in designing a rocket, most older movie, comic, books, etc. seems to include a villain with the intention of "I'll destroy city X with X", with a rocket that seems awfully tiny compared to today's regular cruise missile and underpowered for the task it's supposed to do

[DDE]

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

20+ years too late.

https://youtu.be/pJsFhkb8e4Q?t=35s

Rambo was never there.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, insert_name said:

In hunger games, they shot down a bomber with a bow and explosive arrow.

In this movie they don't need even a bow to kill helicopter, tank and other.
(If a chronoclasm is a sci-fi too).

P.S.
Also a retrofiction full of retroscience.

Edited February 24, 2018 by kerbiloid

[NSEP]

Really, can people think of anything other than bipedal humanoid Aliens?

I know i can't lol.

[ARS]

Some errors that's prevalent about aircraft in movies:

1. A plane that loses power to the engines still retains it's aerodynamic properties. They become a giant glider that can still be guided for long distance to make emergency landing. In movies, when a plane loses power to the engines, they instantly slows to zero speed and plummets. Even something as big as commercial passenger jet can be glided for a dozen of miles without engines (air transat 236 managed an unpowered flight for over 100 miles before crash landing with no fatalities)

2. Not all crash landing result in a fireball of death that consumes the plane due to the fuel exploding. It depends on pilot's skill in how to perform a crash landing with sufficient angle, speed, and adequate terrain to prevent the fuel from exploding. A skilled pilot can land a plane with no landing gear without igniting the fuel onboard if he/she knows how to do it

3. In NATO pilot speak, "bogeys" are for unidentified aircraft, while "bandits" are for hostile aircraft. This often gets reversed

4. Many movies and TV shows depict helicopter/ aircraft mounted rocket pods (usually Russian UB-16-57UMP or UB-32 rocket pods) as machinegun pods

5. An aircraft that loses one of it's wings will roll towards the direction of the missing wing due to the asymmetric lift. Somehow, it's common for movies to depict an aircraft capable of flying with only one wing because the pilot is skilled enough (or push the control stick hard enough). Some aircraft does have a flight model that allows it to perform limited flight with one wing (such as that F-15 incident where it loses one of it's wing. The pilot didn't even realized it!)

6. Modern air combat is often depicted within spitting distance of each other. BVR missiles be damned. Today, air warfare has been progressed to the point that the range of missiles is so great that the pilot might not even seeing an explosion from his/her own missile. Also, modern aircraft in movies often fires it's cannons for a much longer duration than it would in reality. Those onboard cannons have a rate of fire in thousands of rounds per minute to ensure that at least some of them will hit the target for a kill, but modern aircraft often have a maximum ammo capacity for less than a minute cannon firing, and even then, those cannons have a range in kilometers and only used when it's too close for missiles to achieve lock on enemy aircraft

7. When the aircraft being locked on by enemy missiles, a lot of movies seems to not understand the difference between "flares" and "chaff". Chaff is strips of metals designed to disrupt radar images, and only effective against radar guided missile, while flares is a burning compound used to fool the heat sensor of heatseeking missile

8. Movie's missile lock on tone of "beep... beep... beep... beep... Boooop!" Is never heard in real cockpit. The lock on tone for radar guided missile like AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, and AIM-54 Phoenix is continuous low pitch ringing tone. For AIM-9 Sidewinder, it's continuous low pitch growl

9. Russian planes in movies is almost always referred as MiGs. It's very rare to hear Russian aircraft referred as Tupolevs, Sukhois, etc.

10. Some movies depict some rocket launchers (most often LAW or RPG-7) as if they are anti aircraft launchers (they are not, both are meant to be used against tanks and armored vehicles (and occasionally low-flying helicopter)) firing guided missiles (they are not, both are unguided, and their rocket motors aren't even powerful enough to propel the warhead onto aircraft's flight altitude)

11. Blimps and airships is an unusual aircraft that seems to compound the Hollywood confusion about them. Unlike elastic balloons, they do not POP when you shoot/ poke a hole on it. The gas inside is barely under any pressure and they take their "torpedo" shape because of the internal frames. A lot of German airships during WW2 managed to limp back to the friendly territory after they are shot full of holes. Even today, blimps are often being shot by people who thinks it WILL pop. Many modern blimps and airships uses helium instead of hydrogen to avoid "Hindenburg v2.0", and even then hydrogen-filled blimps and airships is notoriously difficult to ignite due to the lack of oxygen inside the gas envelope to sustain the combustion, making hydrogen explosion extraordinarily rare (until British makes a special incendiary rounds to specifically ignite and sustain the combustion)

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by ARS

[YNM]

4 hours ago, ARS said:

Even something as big as commercial passenger jet can be glided for a dozen of miles without engines (air transat 236 managed an unpowered flight for over 100 miles before crash landing with no fatalities)

I guess this will only gets better as ETOPS rating increases. The accident you mentioned actually only managed 75 mi, but for current aircraft I guess it can go higher a bit.

4 hours ago, ARS said:

Unlike elastic balloons, they do not POP when you shoot/ poke a hole on it. The gas inside is barely under any pressure and they take their "torpedo" shape because of the internal frames.

Depends on the design actually. What is called "Blimps" (famous example) are non-rigid airships. Hindenburg was rigid while the current Zeppelin NT is semi-rigid. Difference between rigid and semi-rigid goes on the "stiffness" of the structure I guess. Non-rigid has a very thick flexible shell so it still won't "pop" but it will slowly deflate and deform and eventually plummet.

Edited February 25, 2018 by YNM

[DDE]

9 hours ago, NSEP said:

Really, can people think of anything other than bipedal humanoid Aliens?

I know i can't lol.

Not to toot my horn...

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmlSZuL0ax7C0BeCWHUc-KHd9jiA

9 hours ago, ARS said:

4. Many movies and TV shows depict helicopter/ aircraft mounted rocket pods (usually Russian UB-16-57UMP or UB-32 rocket pods) as machinegun pods

6. Modern air combat is often depicted within spitting distance of each other. BVR missiles be damned. Today, air warfare has been progressed to the point that the range of missiles is so great that the pilot might not even seeing an explosion from his/her own missile. Also, modern aircraft in movies often fires it's cannons for a much longer duration than it would in reality. Those onboard cannons have a rate of fire in thousands of rounds per minute to ensure that at least some of them will hit the target for a kill, but modern aircraft often have a maximum ammo capacity for less than a minute cannon firing, and even then, those cannons have a range in kilometers and only used when it's too close for missiles to achieve lock on enemy aircraft

7. When the aircraft being locked on by enemy missiles, a lot of movies seems to not understand the difference between "flares" and "chaff". Chaff is strips of metals designed to disrupt radar images, and only effective against radar guided missile, while flares is a burning compound used to fool the heat sensor of heatseeking missile

4. Might be a result of a paucity of adequate samples for the sound guys to work with. The post-production effects teams can be notoriously ignorant and add mistakes to a movie where they were none, such as the guided missile beeping on the AT-4 in Battle: LA.

6.1 Standard convention for all other forms of combat as well

6.2 Audiences don't like the BRRRRT, it sounds too much like farting noises

7. That can be easily forgiven because they're invariably used in tandem nowadays

8 hours ago, ARS said:

9. Russian planes in movies is almost always referred as MiGs.

Well, TBH the MiG Falcon 9 is cool.

Edited February 25, 2018 by DDE

[kerbiloid]

16 hours ago, ARS said:

4. Many movies and TV shows depict helicopter/ aircraft mounted rocket pods (usually Russian UB-16-57UMP or UB-32 rocket pods) as machinegun pods

And sometimes there are guns.
http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?topic=13070.0

[DDE]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And sometimes there are guns.
http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?topic=13070.0

Indeed.

[DAL59]

Also, how light would a helicarrier have to be to work?  

[Bill Phil]

12 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Also, how light would a helicarrier have to be to work?  

Very.

I remember seeing a drone helicarrier that some guys built. Some RC plane pilots were challenged to land on it.

[razark]

Helicarriers are dumb.

Let's look at this:

It's an aircraft carrier supported by four giant helicopter rotors.

Now, look at the landing area*.  If an aircraft misses the wire, the path is going to take it STRAIGHT OVER THE ROTOR!  The rotor provides lift by sucking air from above and blowing it down.  You've already missed the wire, and now you're taking your craft into a massive downdraft!  Who came up with this dumb idea?

 

 

*Why?  No, seriously, why does this exist?

An angled deck flight deck exists so that landing aircraft aren't using the entire length of the deck and plowing into the aircraft on the forward area.  But if you notice, the landing flight deck is elevated above the launching flight deck.  There's not even a reason for it to be angled in the first place.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

Indeed.

LOL,
Note that some stuff both look awesome and makes sense. 
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17233/russia-to-begin-testing-its-fearsome-new-pantsir-me-naval-close-in-defensive-system
Yes its look cool, it probably works well to, one option is to reload missiles from an magazine in deck. 
I would drop one gatling and put the other in center, increase magazine, preferable an easy way to reload from ship magazine. 

Problem with the system is the huge size.
Staffing targets with fighter jets has actually become more common as you can link the targeting system and autopilot to get high accuracy. 200 25 mm shells is an very nice weapon.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, razark said:

Helicarriers are dumb.

Let's look at this:

It's an aircraft carrier supported by four giant helicopter rotors.

Now, look at the landing area*.  If an aircraft misses the wire, the path is going to take it STRAIGHT OVER THE ROTOR!  The rotor provides lift by sucking air from above and blowing it down.  You've already missed the wire, and now you're taking your craft into a massive downdraft!  Who came up with this dumb idea?

 

 

*Why?  No, seriously, why does this exist?

An angled deck flight deck exists so that landing aircraft aren't using the entire length of the deck and plowing into the aircraft on the forward area.  But if you notice, the landing flight deck is elevated above the launching flight deck.  There's not even a reason for it to be angled in the first place.

Carriers has an slanted landing deck so you want you fantasy weapon to have it too. And no elevating the landing deck makes no sense, if you are smart you have option for capture wires in the center so you could operate with reduced capacity if loosing the rear deck. 

And if you miss the wires you will go slow, passing over the turbine would not be an good idea  
 

[ARS]

Airship based aircraft carrier makes much more sense than having an aircraft carrier with giant 4 helicopter rotors strapped on it's side. There has been a real life airship carriers, but the project is slowing down when they realized carrying a lot of bombs makes much more practical for airships instead of just several aircraft, not to mention the difficulty of getting plane back on airship. The project was totally abandoned after the Hindenburg disaster and aircraft carrier becomes practical

Edited February 26, 2018 by ARS

[kerbiloid]

Helicarrier should have much bigger rotors, like any helicopter.
These four fenestrons look very optimistic.

[razark]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

These four fenestrons look very optimistic.

Especially if you keep sucking wreckage through one.

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, razark said:

Especially if you keep sucking wreckage through one.

I mean irl rotors would be much wider that the carrier itself, and blend or blow any craft trying to land.

[Bill Phil]

4 hours ago, ARS said:

Airship based aircraft carrier makes much more sense than having an aircraft carrier with giant 4 helicopter rotors strapped on it's side. There has been a real life airship carriers, but the project is slowing down when they realized carrying a lot of bombs makes much more practical for airships instead of just several aircraft, not to mention the difficulty of getting plane back on airship. The project was totally abandoned after the Hindenburg disaster and aircraft carrier becomes practical

Both large airship aircraft carriers (Akron and Macon) crashed before the Hindenburg did. This was around the early 30s.

It ended up being poor for offensive tactics, but had some potential for reconnaissance and searching for targets. Airships were used to help defend the US coast during WWII, but this was after the crashes of the Akron and the Macon and used small blimps, not rigid airships.

[p1t1o]

On 2/24/2018 at 11:14 PM, ARS said:

<snippt>

 

One of my favorite aviation errors are fighter jet cockpits. Often they are huge, big enough to get an office desk in there, the pilot reaching around for distant consoles (especially that one that he...just...cant...reach).

 

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

One of my favorite aviation errors are fighter jet cockpits. Often they are huge, big enough to get an office desk in there, the pilot reaching around for distant consoles (especially that one that he...just...cant...reach).

 

The large cockpit can be excused as giving the actor room to act. And the cameraman room to film.

Reaching for buttons is ridiculous however.

[p1t1o]

5 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

The large cockpit can be excused as giving the actor room to act. And the cameraman room to film.

True, true. Which also causes another major sci-fi thing that I hate - space helmets with internal lights that illuminate the wearers face.

[Superfluous J]

7 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

True, true. Which also causes another major sci-fi thing that I hate - space helmets with internal lights that illuminate the wearers face.

Related to that (but not sci-fi in particular) it also causes the main characters of a show to not wear helmets when going into a firefight, even though EVERYBODY ELSE present is fully armored.