Advertisement
by Gallia- » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:53 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:54 am
Gallia- wrote:it should just build more burkes instead of uselses fremm tbh
by Velkanika » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:23 am
Gallia- wrote:Naturally this leads, almost inevitably, to a world where instead of asking serious questions like "what is the purpose of a surface ship of any variety in a world where submarines can routinely communicate with each other underwater and satellites can routinely monitor the littorals from orbit in real time" instead you get people seriously pondering the return of battleships with railguns and screaming about the threat of boghammars, Osas, and other ancient threats that were solved decades (or centuries) ago. Also they try to explain Eastern Thought Process with Sun Tzu and other bizarre, somewhat racist stereotypes instead of genuine knowledge. Perhaps because they lack historical perspective, perhaps because they focused on some specific niche like "supercomputer modeling" and branched out into history as a side gig, or maybe they're genuine charlatans, but it's so hard to tell that teasing out the difference is almost not worth the effort.
The last good "military science" book was probably Soviet Air Land Battle Tactics and that's only because COL Baxter genuinely knows what he's talking about and explains it in a way that makes sense to someone versed in American military thought. It seems we don't have those kind of people anymore, though. Very sad.
The necessity of a navy, in the restricted sense of the word, springs, therefore, from the existence of a peaceful shipping, and disappears with it, except in the case of a nation which has aggressive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merely as a branch of the military establishment. 1
by Immoren » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:29 am
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by The New California Republic » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:32 am
Velkanika wrote:You know, it's polite to just tell someone to go fuck themselves and save everyone some time.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:42 am
Immoren wrote:So what this thread is telling me is that because Finland is no longer bound by WWII peace treaties because SU fell, she should invest in carrier battlegroup.
by New Visayan Islands » Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:49 am
by Mitheldalond » Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:15 am
by Shanghai industrial complex » Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:20 am
by Shanghai industrial complex » Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:18 am
by Shanghai industrial complex » Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:47 am
by New Vihenia » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:23 pm
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:According to Russian sources, the green areas on the t-57 are AESA antennas(Type N036 AESA).The antenna at the nose has 1552 T / R modules, and the antenna on both sides of the nose has 358 T / R modules, which can provide the scanning capability of 270 degree airspace in front of the aircraft.An L-band AESA radar antenna is installed on the leading edge of the wing(Type N036L-1-01)Radar for wings and tails combines the L402 electronic countermeasure Suite.But I don't know the number of T / R modules in the wing and tail part of the radar.
Q:1.I don't think there will be too many t / R modules in other locations except for the nose part.Can it really find stealth fighters from all directions?Does AESA perform well in detecting stealth fighters?The message I got was that AESA could concentrate all of its power in one direction to detect stealth aircraft
2.Will radar antenna affect stealth capability?Whether installing so many radar antennas will greatly affect its stealth ability?
3.Are aircraft platforms more important or missiles and radars more important?I think if the large radar can find stealth fighters at a long distance, then the fighter team equipped with AWACS and advanced missiles can effectively counter stealth fighters
[/spoiler]
by Triplebaconation » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:28 pm
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:I realized that gliding bombs are unsuited for battleship.To make it work depends on highly precise positioning.But the water reconnaissance planes of World War II were unable to undertake this task beacause the ballistic calculation of high-speed projectile is too complex.So a heavy shell can't work like Fritz X.It will encounter many technical problems, most of which can not be solved in that era.
New Vihenia wrote:ah quick question... so the size of a runaway may determine what kind of aircrafts an airbase can host. I'm curious however if there is a relationship between airbase's occupied area and the amount of fighter aircrafts it can host.
E.g Airbase as big as Nellis can host 1000 fighters, but smaller airbase can only hold like 100.
by New Vihenia » Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:02 pm
by Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:05 pm
by Velkanika » Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:54 pm
Triplebaconation wrote:Re badposting I suspect people pitching railgun battleships are a greater threat to US national security than a bunch of fishing trawlers.
The necessity of a navy, in the restricted sense of the word, springs, therefore, from the existence of a peaceful shipping, and disappears with it, except in the case of a nation which has aggressive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merely as a branch of the military establishment. 1
by Triplebaconation » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:41 pm
by Velkanika » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:54 pm
The necessity of a navy, in the restricted sense of the word, springs, therefore, from the existence of a peaceful shipping, and disappears with it, except in the case of a nation which has aggressive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merely as a branch of the military establishment. 1
by New Vihenia » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:54 pm
Triplebaconation wrote:If I was China I'd encourage the US to buy even more dumb acronyms.
by The Corparation » Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:28 pm
Velkanika wrote:Commies love acronyms more than the Department of Defense does, and China is no exception to that.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Spirit of Hope » Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:34 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Gallia- » Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:36 pm
Velkanika wrote:You should probably stop living in the 80s and do some more reading before you try to tell me I haven't read enough. The Cold War ended 30 years ago, and China is the new serious adversary in case you haven't noticed.
Velkanika wrote:You have literally nothing important you can teach me that I do not already know, or could find out from someone more enjoyable and credible to talk to.
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:In many ways, ffgx is just a degraded version of Burke. But it's not much cheaper.Oh, Burke 3 will use AESA, and the cost of ffgx may become less than half of its cost.lol
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:I'm more concerned with the tower like masts of U.S. Navy destroyers and frigates.Why not use a totally enclosed mast?
Velkanika wrote:Commies love acronyms more than the Department of Defense does, and China is no exception to that.
Velkanika wrote: carrier aviation
by Triplebaconation » Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:47 pm
by Gallia- » Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:52 pm
by Triplebaconation » Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:06 pm
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Boainn BEZY, Gallia-, Saint Monkey
Advertisement