Talk-Polywell.org

Meh. . .http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/f35.asp

GIThruster wrote:This doesn't need its own thread so I'll stick it here. Y'all know I'm no fan of the F-35, but even I have to admit this is extremely impressive:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10150113735642761

The only problem is that this is a fake'
It has bee dissected on other forums. It is a computer animation.

The not-quite-real quality of the graphics, the paucity of crewmen on the flight deck, and (especially) the health/ammunition status indicator in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen give this clip away as a sequence from a video game, in this case Battlefield 2. The following clips show similar sequences from that game:

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/f ... 5Y6PeD5.99

Dan Tibbets

GIThruster wrote:I suppose but compared to an Exocet, most ships have glass jaws. Point is, it operates primarily as a carrier for these other craft that do the confrontation, and if it needs to get involved, it has a gun with range far greater than any shoulder mounted weapon that would otherwise be a threat.

Well, not like this. And I am more refering to dumb mine like weapons.

ladajo wrote:Most of the cost run up is not for crew, it is for shock requirements that were not there in the original. It essentially meant a redo of the entire design to meet the Congressionally mandated increased survivability requirements (shock rating). This also added weight, which in Naval Engineering (and many other) terms equals speed and endurance.

And I could tell you how well they were meeting that shock requirement, but then I'd have to shoot us both.

KitemanSA wrote:

GIThruster wrote:I suppose but compared to an Exocet, most ships have glass jaws. Point is, it operates primarily as a carrier for these other craft that do the confrontation, and if it needs to get involved, it has a gun with range far greater than any shoulder mounted weapon that would otherwise be a threat.

Well, not like this. And I am more refering to dumb mine like weapons.

I can't speak to or analyze that issue since I'm not familiar with the details of those weapons, except to say minesweeping is one of the packages for these new Corvettes. I think, but am not certain (Iadajo can jump right in) most modern minesweeping is done by helo, so again the ship itself is not at risk. Were we to field another 20 Arleigh Burke's rather than 50 Corvettes, I doubt the Burkes would be able to take direct hits from mines as they'd be just as vulnerable, and they certainly would be in less than half as many places at once, and traveling 20% slower between missions. They'd also be carrying missiles not needed for those missions and not carrying the best mission packages available for those missions.

GIThruster wrote: I can't speak to or analyze that issue since I'm not familiar with the details of those weapons, except to say minesweeping is one of the packages for these new Corvettes. I think, but am not certain (Iadajo can jump right in) most modern minesweeping is done by helo, so again the ship itself is not at risk.

Of the last 5 US ships damaged dring hostilities, one was damaged by missiles and 4 were damaged by underwater or water surface explosion threat. UNDEX has long been the largest real threat.

Are the aluminum hulled ships at significantly greater risk from mines? I thought they were good for anything short of a carrier.

Any commercial standard ship construction is more susceptible to damage than Navy standard construction.

GIThruster wrote:Are the aluminum hulled ships at significantly greater risk from mines? I thought they were good for anything short of a carrier.

If the mine has a magnetic influence trigger the aluminum hull may be less vulnerable.

Looking at materials structurally, high grade steel is about 3 times stronger than high grade aluminum alloy, but also about 3 times denser. Meaning an aluminum hull can be a lot thicker for the same weight, the better to resist bender and buckling. On the other hand, steel has effectively zero metal fatigue at good structural margins, while aluminum suffers fatigue at some level at even light dynamic loading.

Yes but given mines are capable of breeching the hull of steel ships as easily as aluminum, if most ships die to mines, then making hulls of aluminum is in no way a deficit, and it does make the ships far faster and non-magnetic. The down side is aluminum is more expensive to machine and weld, but Musk's new stir welding process developed for the Falcons solves that quite nicely.

GIThruster wrote:Yes but given mines are capable of breeching the hull of steel ships as easily as aluminum, ...

Turns out this is not the case.

New threat: http://gizmodo.com/why-americas-navy-is ... socialflow

Comparing LCS against Arlene Burk destroyers for most missions of course does not favor the lighter ship. But, a comparison that is just as valid, and perhaps more so, is to compare them to coastal minehunters which they replace. Along with helocopters and possibly surface drones, these ships are much more capable, faster/ greater ranging, and survivable than their predecessors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osprey-cla ... minehunter

Dan Tibbets

Friction-stir welding goes back way before Musk and Falcon.

SpaceX designed their own fixturing and drive mechanisms in house, and this is what saves them huge pesos. Pretty sure they patented this.

http://www.thefabricator.com/article/sh ... neur-style