Author Topic: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh  (Read 904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Freelancer
  • *****
  • Posts: 27232
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2015, 03:21:34 pm »
Wait that goofy thing from MGS3 was real?
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline PatMan33

  • Mass Effect Reaper
  • *****
  • Posts: 40590
  • M I RITE? STICKERS?
    • View Profile
    • Google
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2015, 04:05:02 pm »


"Oh that's where I left it."
"Video games are meant to be just one thing. Fun. Fun for everyone!" - Satoru Iwata

Offline Mr. Wizard

  • Ballblazer Plasmorb
  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
  • Totally Innocent.
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2015, 04:54:07 pm »
Lego! I was wondering when I'd see you again! I wanted to show you this whole Youtube channel that is right up your alley!

Forgotten weapons, a bunch of ancient firearms and the mechanisms that made them work.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwP3Dm52Ls" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwP3Dm52Ls</a>
Man, that Wizard.

Great DM?

Or Best DM Ever?

Offline Legodragonxp

  • Goddess of Phobos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5016
  • Now for some real user power...
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2015, 03:55:06 pm »
The X-Jet and other flying platforms were neat ideas, but there were several issues with them including:

Noise - They can literally hear you coming from a mile away. Small jets are insanely loud, loud enough to cause hearing damage for the operator and make radio communications almost impossible.

Stability - While a modern attempt would probably be incredibly stable (ala Segway) the early attempts required incredible amounts of attention to maintain safe flight. I remember seeing footage of one of these concepts with a rifle being fired off the top and watching is rock around.

Operational issues - They could only carry one guy. What do you do with wounded? What do you do with the wounded man's flier? Instead of maintaining 2 engines for a 12 man squad on a helicopter you now have 12 engines to maintain. What happens if a flier is broken but the man is OK? Does he walk? Helicopters are more practical.

FOD- Foreign Object Damage - Hitting a branch or a bird while in a helicopter is a minor issue, in these things, fatal. Sand ingestion on such a small motor could also be a major problem. The jet wash from the engine can also loops back in to the air intakes. In certain conditions the hot air from the jet could get ingested, which is less dense and therefore reduces power.

Price - High performance engines are $1 million plus these days.

Range - Basically none. Anything with enough range is a flying gas can.

Safety - A helicopter engines fails you can auto-rotate. If these have an engine problem you become a lawn dart.

So they are cool ideas, but they need a major reliability and fuel consuption boost before being worth investing in as anything other than one-shot vehicles. I can actually see a case for these for a Navy SEAL operation, but not day-to-day.

-Lego

p.s. I LOVE forgotten weapons channel.




Offline PatMan33

  • Mass Effect Reaper
  • *****
  • Posts: 40590
  • M I RITE? STICKERS?
    • View Profile
    • Google
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2015, 05:53:39 pm »
How long can a helicopter survive while auto-rotating?
"Video games are meant to be just one thing. Fun. Fun for everyone!" - Satoru Iwata

Offline Legodragonxp

  • Goddess of Phobos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5016
  • Now for some real user power...
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2015, 04:01:47 pm »
Until it hits the ground.

Autorotation is an emergency actions where altitude to traded to keep the rotors spinning. The pilot kills most of the lift in the blades so they continue to rotate (minimize drag) until they are near the ground. Once near the ground the pilot pulls up on the collective, thereby increasing rotor blade pitch, and uses the stored kinetic energy in the rotors to impart lift and slow the helicopter's decent to reduce the impact with the ground. Helicopters with skids are designed to 'straighten the skids' on a hard landing to make the landing survivable. Other helicopters have specially designed seats and landing gear to fold up or collapse to protect the crews and passengers.

Funny thing is that, done right, the landing won't damage the aircraft. You HAVE TO demonstrate this to get your pilot's license for helicopters in most countries. You keep the engine on and disengage the transmission for the demonstration.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EklDfZw-NrU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EklDfZw-NrU</a>

-Lego

p.s. I am working on another post for here, but I have it on another computer. Soon(tm)

Offline MasterChiToes

  • Turkey Shoot Terminator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3172
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2015, 04:17:50 pm »
'straighten the skids'

When will you bigots learn that skids' orientation is not a choice but just how they were born.

Offline Legodragonxp

  • Goddess of Phobos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5016
  • Now for some real user power...
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2015, 10:04:32 am »
Ok, we all know about the A-10 by now, the star of CAS (Close Air Support). Basically an armored glider with two jet engines built about a cannon the length of a Cessna. This beast was developed to have reversible parts (left aileron could be used on the right), land without landing gear deployed (that is why the wheels in the wings stick out a little),and the engines protected by the tails to get the pilot's assets back to base.

The Plane:


The Ammo:


But that is not what this post is about.

CAS support aircraft are the general term for an aircraft designed to fight close to the front line in direct support of friendly troops:
A-10 in the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan
Skyraider in Vietnam
Surplus WWII aircraft in Korea
Stuka dive bomber in WWII (top pilot Rudel was actually interviewed when they designed the A-10 to make sure they got as much input as possible).

Today we are dealing with smaller wars, brush wars, bandits (ala ISIS which I prefer to call Daesh as ISIS legitimizes their status... they're thugs), FARC, etc...

Larger modern warplanes are not only overpowered for such operations, but insanely expensive. There is actually a type of aircraft for this that is commonly referred

to as COIN (COunter INsurgency). While more modern military groups used helicopters (still an over powered/expensive solution in many cases) or drones (expensive and

tech heavy)

Now there are a lot of light planes adapted to this role, from something as simple as a Cessna with a rocket pod to purpose built aircraft like the Pucara (Argentina).



But for today we are going to set the way-back machine to the Vietnam war and the Dragonfly.

The T-37  Dragonfly was designed by Cessna for the USAF as a pilot training aircraft back in the the days when props were going away. A simple aircraft it was easy to fly and very forgiving. Its tiny engines made a very high-pitch noise and the plane earned the name Tweety Bird.



With the losses of A-1 Skyraiders and no replacements available (they actually debated starting up production again, no small task) the USAF opted to build modified T-37 Dragonfly as A-37s. There was a minor variant (A-37A) and the production variant (A-37B).



The A-37A was a totally bizarre program in that weapons testing and combat capability was developed in Vietnam under live-fire conditions(unlike the seemingly endless testing we see today with aircraft like the F-35). While it never flew in to North Vietnam it did make a name for itself supporting the South with the lower (hah) intensity conflicts (spelled no SAMs).

The plane could actually carry more weight in bombs that plane weighed, could mid-air refueled, and had a mini-gun in the nose. It was also the only plane in the USAF that was allowed to turn off an engine while in flight to save fuel. It was cheap (1/4 the cost of a fighter) and took far fewer hours to maintain (2-6 times less than an F-4).



Operational bases for the A-37 were simple airfields in the middle of nowhere of if they operated from normal airfields their take-off run was so short that they were about enemy fire before clearing the end of the runway.

The planes were loved by the troops on the ground as much as the A-10 would be loved in modern times. Their small size and unusual speed and flight profile made them hard for enemy gunners to hit. They could take a lot of damage, their wide landing gear made them very forgiving on takeoffs and landings.



A typical pilot in an A-37 might fly 1000 sorties while on rotation in Vietnam, whereas a typical fighter pilot in an F-4, F-100, or F-105 would fly 400 sorties. Many of the pilots in the A-37 were not from the ranks of fighter pilots and the USAF fighter groups all but shunned the Tweety Bird pilots. Most of the pilots were Navigators or cargo plane pilots looking for something more interesting. The USAF gave almost no real credit to these guys and very few ever went on to attain any notability in USAF leadership. Minigun in a training aircraft just didn't spark interest, never mind the fact that these guys did twice as many missions and probably saw five times as much ground fire.



After Vietnam the US kept the A-37 operational in a few reserve squadrons, but all were gone from US service in the early 90s (none saw service in Iraq).

The US Army handles this mission now mostly by using helicopters. The USAF has the A-10 and armed drones. Future conflicts will probably use drones more and more for close in work while 'fast jets' will attack from altitude.

Will we ever see another Tweety Bird? Probably. There are several companies working on armed light aircraft for low-intensity combat areas. Of interesting note is the Air Tractor, now offered as a COIN aircraft and a 9000 pound bomb load.



-Lego
« Last Edit: September 25, 2015, 10:39:11 pm by Legodragonxp »

Offline PatMan33

  • Mass Effect Reaper
  • *****
  • Posts: 40590
  • M I RITE? STICKERS?
    • View Profile
    • Google
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2015, 08:52:17 pm »
That was a really great read! Thanks for posting, as always.

I would have loved to have sat in on the meeting to hear what advice Rudel gave them about the A-10. Also, having aircraft for lighter intensity types of conflicts seems smart. Is the US Military overly obsessed with tech in some ways? These lighter, cheaper aircraft seem like a really simple way to be effective without overrunning budgets.
"Video games are meant to be just one thing. Fun. Fun for everyone!" - Satoru Iwata

Offline Legodragonxp

  • Goddess of Phobos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5016
  • Now for some real user power...
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #24 on: September 25, 2015, 10:38:11 pm »
I'll see if I can find what Rudel said. It was in a book called Warthog and talks about the A-10 in Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

Actually the US military is looking at cheaper solutions, but they are leaning more on drones than piloted aircraft. Makes sense in most cases, but it boils down to the air guys not wanting to work with the ground guys (only the Marines have it right, but they get their own aircraft). Most military commands are now 'Joint Based' which means all branches work together on a small scale to reach a common goal. The big problem is that each branch has to fight for funding, so the military becomes a business in operating rather than a business of combat. The Joint concept doesn't scale up unless you are getting directly shot at.

It would never happen, but I would like to see all the branches unified as the "US Military" and be modeled mostly on the USMC.

Back to COIN aircraft, cheaper aircraft are bad for business and often are just warmed up last year's technology. It seems trivial today since the US hasn't suffered major combat casualties since Vietnam, but our technical edge keeps us ahead in the field, but the cost of maintaining that edge is becoming unsustainable.

The F-35 is not just a plane, it is a weapon system. It has to do almost every role, operate from almost every climate and airfield, and hold the technical edge in sensors and communications to be ahead of all it faces. The sensors and communications are the biggest part of the total cost. As gamers we take for granted the rate at which data is shared between units, but the F-35 and other modern systems are trying to make it a reality.

-Lego

Offline PatMan33

  • Mass Effect Reaper
  • *****
  • Posts: 40590
  • M I RITE? STICKERS?
    • View Profile
    • Google
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2015, 08:44:14 am »
So when the F-35 rolls out, what happens if a rival aircraft becomes superior in one aspect or another?

Does that blow the whole F-35 concept out of the water? Is anyone else remotely close to building something like the F-35? Just how great is the gap in "their" technology compared to the US? And is it something that the US could continue to sustain with some minor/major adjustments to how money is spent?

(lol simple questions right?)
"Video games are meant to be just one thing. Fun. Fun for everyone!" - Satoru Iwata

Offline Legodragonxp

  • Goddess of Phobos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5016
  • Now for some real user power...
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2015, 09:30:40 pm »
Not a simple question. Short answer is that the program gets cancelled. Long answer is that is all depends. EXAMPLE:  The B-1 bomber program was cancelled by the Carter Administration. When Reagan became president he woke it back up. Today the B-1 is on the chopping block (but the B-52 isn't.. all hail the slide rule). Why was the B-1 cancelled? Partly because the original flight profile was high altitude supersonic. But it was more because the new 'stealth technology' was going to make is obsolete.

Understand this one point: The USAF does not ever give up a combat or intel option unless something can replace it.

The B-1 became the B-1B as a low-altitude attack plane. Today it fills the role of the F-111 (which retired because they were worn out). Why did it come back? Partially camouflage for the USAF's F-117s and the plan for the B-2 (Aurora Project) but really more as politics. You see this with the F-35 as well. It is a US national construction project spanning the nation. Killing it would mean thousands of jobs. Reagan was from California (main production place for the B-1)... seems only logical to keep people employed, right?

-Lego

p.s. sorry for lack of random pictures, so I'll add one of th B-1B (there were only a couple B-1As).. nose gear failure, landed safely.


Offline Slinky

  • Sinistar Worker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
  • more like twink-y. or kinky. whatever
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2015, 07:13:09 pm »


gun
Quote from: Slinky
Is this vaporwave?



Offline Inkling

  • Wing Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 9000
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2015, 09:07:42 pm »
Is good gun.

Offline Pixxel

  • Lode Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2214
    • View Profile
Re: Lego's weapons and technology thread part Duh
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2015, 02:43:59 am »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5CBuyx1whw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5CBuyx1whw</a>

So, which is the best?
If you stop and think about it, Your life's longer as an old guy than a kid. Scary o.o