The only downside of the thrust vectoring on the F-22 is that it's only two-dimensional. The Su-37 has three-dimensional thrust vectoring which would give it pretty much a total advantage, if a dogfight was to ever occur.bigdroo wrote:
Just a side note...
I've seen here several mentions of the F-22's and F-35's thrust vectoring mentioned in the same sentence as Steath. Well, that's not it's main purpose. Thrust vectoring is used more for the maneuverability of the aircraft. An F-22 can make a much sharper turn in a dogfight than a fighter with conventional thrust, such as a MiG-29. Assuming the pilot can handle the Gs, thrust vectoring gives him an ENORMOUS advantage over his advisary.
Yep, its not just missile lock ons, but the ability to evade those lockons. I wonder if guns will return to prevelance. think about it, missiles will be easily out maneuvered before a lock on. So a gun will have to be the only solution. Or very fast arming and lock ons of missiles. I'm thinking both.
Anyone interested in anything other than Warplanes, lol? Like some good Ancient/Medieval Chinese warfare or anything of that sort?
Anyone interested in anything other than Warplanes, lol? Like some good Ancient/Medieval Chinese warfare or anything of that sort?
...thrust vectoring missiles...
..is what the j-10 seems to haveRAIMIUS wrote:
...thrust vectoring missiles...
So someone was asking earlier about some medieval sort of equipment. Well, its a lot of armor, crossbows, short bows, longbows, spears, maces, clubs, axes, swords, and pikes. There's once section of almost uncovered military history that no one in the US knows much about (they think they do, but they don't).
That is medieval Scotland and Ireland. I've been digging around trying to find some suitable pictures to display to those with text phobia, but I have had little success.
So I'll start out by saying even though everyone imagines the Scots as the Kilt wearing people, kilts only started to be worn in the late 16th early 17th centuries. Before that, soldiers and commoners all wore leggings and shirts that were loose fitting, but not baggy, like the Celtic people before them. Wealthy men would wear plaid cloaks into battle, as well as chain mail armor, and later plate, depending on the wealth of the guy. The Highland nobles and chiefs were naked (in terms of armor) for the most part. Maybe wearing a mail coif with leather padding, but the majority of the land owning/farming Gaels went into battle with leather or metal caps depending on fortune, and wielded swords or axes. The lesser troops were servants and lower farmers, drafted as militia in emergency. These men wielded spiked clubs and axes.
In the lowlands, the feudal system took sway, and the Scots there organized themselves into pike militias, wielding long spears. These men would form schiltrons, circular groups of men with spears bristling out. Likewise, these lowlanders wore no kilts, and never did. The lowlander Scots also were more in tune with new technology, like armor, and their nobility could afford the more expensive equipment. All in all, technology wise, the Scots were vastly inferior, in terms of armament per soldier in the wars against England.
That's a rather well to do soldier, a highlander, and most likely up in the islands in Orkney and around those regions. These regions were hotly contested with the Norwegians, who were a constant scourge to the Scots.
That's an example of the swords the Scots would be wielding. Note the Viking influence in the pommel (counterweight, bottom of the sword).
And speaking of Norwegians/viking influence, these are gallowglasses, Irish soldiers who had Viking blood in them. Because of their warlike background, they were valued in battle. They would wield huge clubs, axes, or swords.
And there is a Hebridean warrior, fending off an attack from an Anglo Norman knight. Note his distinct helmet. It is a reconstruction of the ones found in the area of the time.
These are Irish kerns, commoners who wielded swords, axes, just about anything they could fight with. They were skirmishers, known for chucking spears about.
This picture depicts the uprising of Wallace, note his developed tactics included massed spearmen to counter the English mounted superiority. The archer on the right in the plaid is inaccurate to some extent. Vibrant colors like that would be far above his station.
That is medieval Scotland and Ireland. I've been digging around trying to find some suitable pictures to display to those with text phobia, but I have had little success.
So I'll start out by saying even though everyone imagines the Scots as the Kilt wearing people, kilts only started to be worn in the late 16th early 17th centuries. Before that, soldiers and commoners all wore leggings and shirts that were loose fitting, but not baggy, like the Celtic people before them. Wealthy men would wear plaid cloaks into battle, as well as chain mail armor, and later plate, depending on the wealth of the guy. The Highland nobles and chiefs were naked (in terms of armor) for the most part. Maybe wearing a mail coif with leather padding, but the majority of the land owning/farming Gaels went into battle with leather or metal caps depending on fortune, and wielded swords or axes. The lesser troops were servants and lower farmers, drafted as militia in emergency. These men wielded spiked clubs and axes.
In the lowlands, the feudal system took sway, and the Scots there organized themselves into pike militias, wielding long spears. These men would form schiltrons, circular groups of men with spears bristling out. Likewise, these lowlanders wore no kilts, and never did. The lowlander Scots also were more in tune with new technology, like armor, and their nobility could afford the more expensive equipment. All in all, technology wise, the Scots were vastly inferior, in terms of armament per soldier in the wars against England.
That's a rather well to do soldier, a highlander, and most likely up in the islands in Orkney and around those regions. These regions were hotly contested with the Norwegians, who were a constant scourge to the Scots.
That's an example of the swords the Scots would be wielding. Note the Viking influence in the pommel (counterweight, bottom of the sword).
And speaking of Norwegians/viking influence, these are gallowglasses, Irish soldiers who had Viking blood in them. Because of their warlike background, they were valued in battle. They would wield huge clubs, axes, or swords.
And there is a Hebridean warrior, fending off an attack from an Anglo Norman knight. Note his distinct helmet. It is a reconstruction of the ones found in the area of the time.
These are Irish kerns, commoners who wielded swords, axes, just about anything they could fight with. They were skirmishers, known for chucking spears about.
This picture depicts the uprising of Wallace, note his developed tactics included massed spearmen to counter the English mounted superiority. The archer on the right in the plaid is inaccurate to some extent. Vibrant colors like that would be far above his station.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-26 20:18:52)
For some reason that bottom picture looks like it is off the cover of Mad.
Mad?Arcano-D.E.S wrote:
For some reason that bottom picture looks like it is off the cover of Mad.
ROFL! Yeah, kind of.Arcano-D.E.S wrote:
For some reason that bottom picture looks like it is off the cover of Mad.
Those were some huge swords by the looks of it! Do you have a number for average length back then? It seems like those would be almost unwieldy in combat, considering the average male was smaller back then.
The average male was smaller in medieval times by a few inches.RAIMIUS wrote:
ROFL! Yeah, kind of.Arcano-D.E.S wrote:
For some reason that bottom picture looks like it is off the cover of Mad.
Those were some huge swords by the looks of it! Do you have a number for average length back then? It seems like those would be almost unwieldy in combat, considering the average male was smaller back then.
The spears would be around 13 feet long. 14 feet is around a pike's size.
And what the hell is MAD anyway?
The American AIM-9X Sidewinder and the Russian R-73 already have thrust vectoringRAIMIUS wrote:
...thrust vectoring missiles...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms01tITXz3k Yeah youtube sucks but the only place I could find it...
Thrust vectoring aircraft only gain an edge in a gun fight. Just because a jet can do crazy thrust vectoring maneuvers doesn't mean the jet puts off less heat against an IR missile or less of a radar cross section against a radar missile. The only counter measures against missiles are
1. Stealth
2. Chaff (Radar missiles)
3. Jammers
5. Flares (IR missiles)
4. Air launched Decoys
Maneuvering against a missile does play a part but this is a last ditch defense and against these new thrust vectoring missiles I doubt it will do much good
Last edited by Souls (2007-05-27 19:57:19)
So yah, I'm bored, so I'm going to post a pic of random crap I like.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-28 11:42:30)
churchill crocodile
chuchill infantry tank
garand carbine?
lee enfield
crusader
chuchill infantry tank
garand carbine?
lee enfield
crusader
The middle pic is an M1 Carbine.Vernedead wrote:
churchill crocodile
chuchill infantry tank
garand carbine?
lee enfield
crusader
Makes you think how eventually missile tech and defense will reach a point where they stagnate. Resulting in people having to go back to old school "find them with your eyes" and gun them down. It's pretty hard to outrun and out maneuver a well placed and timed bullet...
Think about it. Soon enough, stealth will make missiles useless. So what next? Find them with your eyes, gun them down. It will only be a matter of time before "both sides" get to a level of stealth where radar and missiles will simply not work. I wonder if the missile and radar tech would be able to keep up. Or is it the other way round?
Think about it. Soon enough, stealth will make missiles useless. So what next? Find them with your eyes, gun them down. It will only be a matter of time before "both sides" get to a level of stealth where radar and missiles will simply not work. I wonder if the missile and radar tech would be able to keep up. Or is it the other way round?
Almost...m2 Carbine. .30 Calibre Automatic, light, and favored by Light Army and Marine units in WW2 to Vietnam.Tromboner999 wrote:
The middle pic is an M1 Carbine.
Radical maneuvers can work against missiles. The goal is to significantly change your direction so the missile overshoots (it can't make the turn). This can only be done at the last second, and requires precise timing. Thrust vectoring missiles just make this technique much more difficult.
How can you tell the difference between an M1 Carbine and an M2. I've always used the mag to tell (which isn't very reliable).
"Mad" is humor magazine (with a very distinctive mascot character).
How can you tell the difference between an M1 Carbine and an M2. I've always used the mag to tell (which isn't very reliable).
"Mad" is humor magazine (with a very distinctive mascot character).
M1 Carbine has more of an arch, and uses straight magazines, whereas the M2 *usually* has bannaclips as well as less of an arch. (This one uses a straight one).
Although come to think of it, those aren't the best pics. Up close, you could see a switch. The switch lets you go between automatic and semi fire. The automatic fire has a bit of bitch recoil.
Although come to think of it, those aren't the best pics. Up close, you could see a switch. The switch lets you go between automatic and semi fire. The automatic fire has a bit of bitch recoil.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-29 17:54:06)
P-51Mustang>A6m Zero>F4F-3 WildcatacEofspadEs6313 wrote:
A6m Zero>F4F-3 Wildcat, sadly enough.
Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2007-05-29 18:01:04)
I'm going to discount the P-51 statement, because the P-51 came out in '44, and it's not comparable to the A6m2(standard zero) maybe the Shiden Kai, but not the AM62.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
P-51Mustang>A6m Zero>F4F-3 WildcatacEofspadEs6313 wrote:
A6m Zero>F4F-3 Wildcat, sadly enough.
In terms of Speed and agility, the Zero wins. Its top speed of 553(speed could be higher, but rarely exceeded that) vs the Wildcat's 320mph as well as climbing and agility was good for one v ones. However, the Wildcat was better able to dive, because the flaps didn't lock up when going straight down like the Zero's did. The Wildcat had excellent armor, and even when the bullets did penetrate, the Wildcat had self sealing tanks, rubber devices that when oil leaked out of the aircraft, the rubber would get expanded by leaking oil, and because of its expansion, the bullet pierced oil tank would be covered up for the moment. It prevented Japanese tracers from blowing the thing up.
The Americans were also able to use their aircrafts armament to devastating the Japanese aircraft. That and the teamwork like the Thach Weave employed by the Americans were able to defeat the Japanese.
The Zero could NOT go 553mph! Maybe the Me-262, but I don't have the exact number offhand.
The German Schwerer Gustav railgun was the largest railgun ever built and remains the largest gun ever created.
Weight of gun and mounting: 1,350 t
Length of gun: 47.3 m
Height of gun: 11.6 m
Width of gun: 7.1 m
Barrel diameter: 0.8 m
Barrel length: 32.48 m (L/40.6)
Barrel weight: 400 t
Barrel service life: 100 shells
Propulsion 2 x Oil Electric D311 691 kW (926 hp) locomotives (DRG class V188)
Maximum elevation: 48° (or 65°; sources differ, may refer to different mountings)
Weight of propellant charge: 2,500 lb (1134 kg) in 3 increments
Rate of fire: 1 round every 30 to 45 minutes or typically 14 rounds a day
Accuracy: 20% (10 out of 48) of shells fell within 60 m of target point. Worst error was 1 shell landing 740 m from the target point. Assuming normal distribution, this gives a CEP of 190 m.
Crew: 250 to assemble the gun in 3 days (54 hours), 2,500 to lay track and dig embankments, which would take 3 - 6 weeks depending on the geography of the land. 2 Flak battalions to protect the gun from air attack.
High Explosive
Weight of projectile: 4.8 t (4,800 kg)
Muzzle velocity: 820 m/s
Maximum range: 48 km
Explosive mass: 700 kg
Crater size: 30 ft (10 m) wide 30 ft (10 m) deep.
[edit] AP Shell
The main body was made of chrome-nickel steel, fitted with an aluminium alloy ballistic nose cone.
Length of shell: 3.6 m
Weight of projectile: 7.1 t (7,100 kg)
Muzzle velocity: 720 m/s
Maximum range: 38 km
Explosive mass: 250 kg
Penetration: 264 ft (80 m) of reinforced concrete was claimed, but this seems extremely unlikely. In testing it was demonstrated to penetrate 7 metres of concrete at maximum elevation (beyond that available during combat) with a special charge
Info courtesy of wiki
Weight of gun and mounting: 1,350 t
Length of gun: 47.3 m
Height of gun: 11.6 m
Width of gun: 7.1 m
Barrel diameter: 0.8 m
Barrel length: 32.48 m (L/40.6)
Barrel weight: 400 t
Barrel service life: 100 shells
Propulsion 2 x Oil Electric D311 691 kW (926 hp) locomotives (DRG class V188)
Maximum elevation: 48° (or 65°; sources differ, may refer to different mountings)
Weight of propellant charge: 2,500 lb (1134 kg) in 3 increments
Rate of fire: 1 round every 30 to 45 minutes or typically 14 rounds a day
Accuracy: 20% (10 out of 48) of shells fell within 60 m of target point. Worst error was 1 shell landing 740 m from the target point. Assuming normal distribution, this gives a CEP of 190 m.
Crew: 250 to assemble the gun in 3 days (54 hours), 2,500 to lay track and dig embankments, which would take 3 - 6 weeks depending on the geography of the land. 2 Flak battalions to protect the gun from air attack.
High Explosive
Weight of projectile: 4.8 t (4,800 kg)
Muzzle velocity: 820 m/s
Maximum range: 48 km
Explosive mass: 700 kg
Crater size: 30 ft (10 m) wide 30 ft (10 m) deep.
[edit] AP Shell
The main body was made of chrome-nickel steel, fitted with an aluminium alloy ballistic nose cone.
Length of shell: 3.6 m
Weight of projectile: 7.1 t (7,100 kg)
Muzzle velocity: 720 m/s
Maximum range: 38 km
Explosive mass: 250 kg
Penetration: 264 ft (80 m) of reinforced concrete was claimed, but this seems extremely unlikely. In testing it was demonstrated to penetrate 7 metres of concrete at maximum elevation (beyond that available during combat) with a special charge
Info courtesy of wiki
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-05-30 13:56:01)
Its 533mph, my bad. Here's the sourceRAIMIUS wrote:
The Zero could NOT go 553mph! Maybe the Me-262, but I don't have the exact number offhand.
And the early jets such as the ME were not that much faster than the prop aircraft because of G pulling problems.
So while the ME 262 could max out at around 870mph, he couldn't always, because he'd be crushed into his seat. However, they were very maneuverable, and had very nice climbing and diving speeds. This would have given them tremendous advantage had they been able to field and sustain them all.
Germany on Deathmatch mode would have owned the allies.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-30 19:32:51)
You should probably use Max Speed, not Never Exceed, as you would only normally reach N.E. in a sustained power dive. (you still put 533, btw)
Well, the Wehrmacht did manage a 1.2:1 ratio of combat effectiveness per man...but we still had quantity!
Well, the Wehrmacht did manage a 1.2:1 ratio of combat effectiveness per man...but we still had quantity!
True, and in this case, we had bombers, good bombers. Despite our heavy losses, they would have been much worse if we'd used German type bombers.RAIMIUS wrote:
You should probably use Max Speed, not Never Exceed, as you would only normally reach N.E. in a sustained power dive. (you still put 533, btw)
Well, the Wehrmacht did manage a 1.2:1 ratio of combat effectiveness per man...but we still had quantity!