Advertisement
by Licana » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:20 pm
Puzikas wrote:Gulf War One was like Slapstick: The War. Except, you know, up to 40,000 people died.
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.
Senestrum wrote:How are KEPs cowardly? Surely the "real man" would in fact be the one firing giant rods of nuclear waste at speeds best described as "hilarious".
by Kaukolastan » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:22 pm
Licana wrote:K-Stan, use your words to write new CD/20mins posts. :/
N. Enartio, Justifying his Nuclear Powered, "EMP Laser" Shooting, Nazi Flying Saucer wrote:It isn't bad, i used science.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:22 pm
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Transnapastain » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:29 pm
Licana wrote:K-Stan, use your words to write new CD/20mins posts. :/
Use your words to write new CD/20mins posts
WRITE NEW CD/20MINS POSTS
by The Corparation » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:35 pm
The Corparation wrote:In response to the above posters fears of crashing nuclear powered aircraft, I would like to put forth all of the incidents where the USAF fucked it up and crashed aircraft with full payloads of nuclear weapons without too serious an incident. Several of these incidents were over foreign soil and didn't cause anywhere near the extreme incident you put forth. Since a reactor the size of what Golomun proposed wouldn't contain that much more nuclear materials then a few high power nuclear bombs, I'm doubtful that the nuclear materials involved in a small reactor would create an insurmountable problem in the event of a crash.
The Corparation wrote: Since a reactor the size of what Golomun proposed wouldn't contain that much more nuclear materials then a few high power nuclear bombs
The Corparation wrote:more nuclear materials then a few high power nuclear bombs
The Corparation wrote:more nuclear materials then a few high power nuclear bombs
Additionally, nuclear weapons are designed NOT to blow up. They're solid weapons that are specifically designed to only do anything reactive if a precise series of events are carried out. A reactor would be, by its nature, RUNNING during flight, which means more chance for "bad things" (but not a ka-splosion - THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN, see Axis Nova's post). Even then, you are correct. The amount of actual damage done by a sudden dispersion of radioactive materials over a metro center (you know, near airports) would be very minor, speaking in terms of raw population and infrastructure loss. However (and this is a big "however"), people do not operate on sheer numbers and cold logic. Just think how this will play out. Three Mile Island was a minor nuclear accident. Fukushima was an "Accident with Local Consequences" (4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale) until international pressure caused Japan to re-evaluated it to a "Major Accident", and no single reactor ever crossed over a 5. Three Mile stagnated American nuclear process. Fukushima sent the nuclear industry in Japan into a tailspin.
Oh, and as for "incidents where the USAF fucked it up" you mentioned? Let's look at the most recent. In 2007, the US accidentally flew (flew, not crashed) six AGM-129 ACM nuclear cruise missiles were loaded onto a B-52 and transported from Minot to Barksdale. The "without too serious an incident" you mentioned? Let's look at the list of the People Who Done Got Smacked:For those of you not from the USA, that list caps with the top officer of the entire Air Force and the civilian leadership of the Air Force (who only answers to the Secretary of Defense and the President). I'd call that list pretty damn serious.
- Fifth Maintenance Group Commander - fired
- Fifth Bomb Wing Commander - fired
- Second Operations Group Commander - fired
- Four Unnamed Senior NCOs in Fifth Bomb Wing - fired
- ENTIRE FIFTH BOMB WING - stripped of certification to handle nuclear materials, special weapons, and carry out missions
- Chief of Staff of the Air Force - fired
- Secretary of the Air Force - fired
[/quote]Now, let's look at how many civilian nuclear incidents there have been in the past twenty years: Wikipedia says 9.
Compare this to aircraft crashes. There were 130 in 2010. There were 211 in 1999. Let's be generous, and go with the lower number. 130 crashed per year.
If you're putting nuclear engines in planes, each of those crashes will have one to four engines on it. Let's be nice and assume one reactor per plane.
That's 130 nuclear accidents a year.
Oh, yeah, that will go over well.
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 Golomun » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:25 pm
by The Soviet Technocracy » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:39 pm
Axis Nova wrote:A fusion reactor could possibly be made smaller and lighter, but imo only relatively compared to a nuclear reactor. I think having fusion reactors that would fit in an aircraft are really high PMT, verging on FT almost.
Now, a spacecraft, on the other hand, is another thing entirely; indeed, I have a spaceplane that uses a combined cycle fusion engine. Also, for operating in space, fusion torches rock.
That being said don't try to launch directly using a torch or you will melt your spaceport.
by Kazomal » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:35 pm
by Golomun » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:02 pm
Axis Nova wrote:No, you fail, because that engine setup is on a heavy bomber, not a fighter like you want.
Axis Nova wrote:because that engine setup is on a heavy bomber, not a fighter like you want.
Kazomal wrote:So, right now I've got an MBT, an Urban Combat Tank, and an IFV. I'm making the IFV a bit of a monster, specifically designed to engage multiple targets at multiple elevations in an urban environment, with a 40mm CTWS gun for hard targets, 2 7.76 MGs and a box for AAGM/ATGM. It has a good deal of armor, for an IFV, with all-around 45mm protection, add-on REA, and an active protection system. I'm still trying to figure a realistic carrying capacity for that much hardware.
Should I ditch the AAGM and leave that to my more mobile and numerous Humvee-type LAVs and dedicated AA vehicles?
Also, I'm trying to set it up so that I have both a tank and an "escort tank" type thing, similar to the Russian BMPT in urban environments. My MBT is 4-5m wide, depending on add-on armor and skirt. Do I even need a dedicated urban combat tank, or will my MBT make the nut? Is it too wide to be practically used in urban warfare? Can my IFV fill the role of "escort" tank in urban environments, or should I let my IFV be an IFV and make my urban combat tank my escort tank?
By the by this is a rich nation with a first-rate military in a slightly PMT region with frequent conflict.
by The Soviet Technocracy » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:02 pm
Axis Nova wrote:No, you fail, because that engine setup is on a heavy bomber, not a fighter like you want.
by The Corparation » Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:43 am
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 Samozaryadnyastan » Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:59 am
Kazomal wrote:So, right now I've got an MBT, an Urban Combat Tank, and an IFV. I'm making the IFV a bit of a monster, specifically designed to engage multiple targets at multiple elevations in an urban environment, with a 40mm CTWS gun for hard targets, 2 7.76 MGs and a box for AAGM/ATGM. It has a good deal of armor, for an IFV, with all-around 45mm protection, add-on REA, and an active protection system. I'm still trying to figure a realistic carrying capacity for that much hardware.
Should I ditch the AAGM and leave that to my more mobile and numerous Humvee-type LAVs and dedicated AA vehicles?
Also, I'm trying to set it up so that I have both a tank and an "escort tank" type thing, similar to the Russian BMPT in urban environments. My MBT is 4-5m wide, depending on add-on armor and skirt. Do I even need a dedicated urban combat tank, or will my MBT make the nut? Is it too wide to be practically used in urban warfare? Can my IFV fill the role of "escort" tank in urban environments, or should I let my IFV be an IFV and make my urban combat tank my escort tank?
By the by this is a rich nation with a first-rate military in a slightly PMT region with frequent conflict.
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Kazomal » Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:12 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Kazomal wrote:So, right now I've got an MBT, an Urban Combat Tank, and an IFV. I'm making the IFV a bit of a monster, specifically designed to engage multiple targets at multiple elevations in an urban environment, with a 40mm CTWS gun for hard targets, 2 7.76 MGs and a box for AAGM/ATGM. It has a good deal of armor, for an IFV, with all-around 45mm protection, add-on REA, and an active protection system. I'm still trying to figure a realistic carrying capacity for that much hardware.
Should I ditch the AAGM and leave that to my more mobile and numerous Humvee-type LAVs and dedicated AA vehicles?
Also, I'm trying to set it up so that I have both a tank and an "escort tank" type thing, similar to the Russian BMPT in urban environments. My MBT is 4-5m wide, depending on add-on armor and skirt. Do I even need a dedicated urban combat tank, or will my MBT make the nut? Is it too wide to be practically used in urban warfare? Can my IFV fill the role of "escort" tank in urban environments, or should I let my IFV be an IFV and make my urban combat tank my escort tank?
By the by this is a rich nation with a first-rate military in a slightly PMT region with frequent conflict.
4.2m wide is considered very wide for a tank. Many are typically under 3.8-3.9m. Even the legendary MCA-7 series is only 4.2m wide, which is the same width as the British Challenger 2 with fat skirt armour plates.
Giving Main Battle Tanks SAMs or anti-air guns is regarded by many as diluting their role, and giving them specific firepower for a foe they need rarely face and that can be done better by specialised AA vehicles that should be attached to your armour units anyway. ATGM boxes on tanks is also hit-and-miss if you listen to the patrons of NS's MBT thread. The preferred method is internally-carried GLATGM (Gun-Launched ATGM) rounds. It reduces capacity of regular rounds, but a GLATGM is far more valuable and capable than a regular tank round in the anti-tank role. Some are able to target helicopters too.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:21 am
Kazomal wrote:Samozaryadnyastan wrote:4.2m wide is considered very wide for a tank. Many are typically under 3.8-3.9m. Even the legendary MCA-7 series is only 4.2m wide, which is the same width as the British Challenger 2 with fat skirt armour plates.
Giving Main Battle Tanks SAMs or anti-air guns is regarded by many as diluting their role, and giving them specific firepower for a foe they need rarely face and that can be done better by specialised AA vehicles that should be attached to your armour units anyway. ATGM boxes on tanks is also hit-and-miss if you listen to the patrons of NS's MBT thread. The preferred method is internally-carried GLATGM (Gun-Launched ATGM) rounds. It reduces capacity of regular rounds, but a GLATGM is far more valuable and capable than a regular tank round in the anti-tank role. Some are able to target helicopters too.
My IFV has a 40mm CTWS gun. Can that fire a GLATGM that can actually do it's job?
I'd like my IFV to focus on infantry and light armor threats, hence I would rather not sacrifice regular main gun ammo for anti-tank ammo, but I would like the capacity to exist, hence the box with quartet of TOWs, or some such.
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Kazomal » Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:43 pm
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Kazomal wrote:
My IFV has a 40mm CTWS gun. Can that fire a GLATGM that can actually do it's job?
I'd like my IFV to focus on infantry and light armor threats, hence I would rather not sacrifice regular main gun ammo for anti-tank ammo, but I would like the capacity to exist, hence the box with quartet of TOWs, or some such.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were going to strap ATGM boxes to an MBT. No, they're perfectly acceptable for an IFV, especially if you want it to resemble a BMP-T in role. 40mm is too small to mount even HEISAP rocket warheads on 'GLATGMs', they wouldn't be worth it at that size. IFVs, if more BMP-T than BMP/M3, could also suitably mount SAMs in place of a dedicated and generally vulnerable SPAAG/SPSAM platform.
by Galla- » Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:04 pm
The Corparation wrote:The Soviet Technocracy wrote:
Is this bomber the size of a house?
It's going to end up looking like a Pregnant Guppy tbh.
Just do fission. At least that has been done on aircraft before.
Hey the Pregnant Guppy is an excellent aircraft, with stylish lines. Much nicer then the nerwer Air Bus beluga. Poor thing looks like it snapped its back carrying heavy loads unlike the Guppies which stand tall and proud.
Fashiontopia wrote:Look don't come here talking bad about Americans, that will get you cussed out faster than relativity.
Besides: Most posters in this thread are Americans, and others who are non-Americans have no problems co-existing so shut that trap...
by Abruzi » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:37 pm
by Arkania 5 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:11 pm
Allanea wrote:evil shithole of a country
Advertisement
Return to International Incidents
Users browsing this forum: Aeyariss, American Pere Housh, Generic empire, The Astral Mandate
Advertisement