/k/ - Weapons

>>335001

This plane was some next-level slav shit.

> 12 engines just for VTOL alone

> Capable of high-altitude flight and efficient ground effect flight AND landing on water.

> looks like a 70's sci-fi spaceship

> designed to zip around the ocean hunt freaking polaris carrying US navy subs.

>>335043

>what happened to ambition

Long term piece between major powers has killed the type of innovation that can only be fuelled by fear of the other guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartini_Beriev_VVA-14

>The VVA-14 was designed by Italian-born designer Robert Bartini in answer to a perceived requirement to destroy United States Navy Polaris missile submarines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ludvigovich_Bartini

>Bartini was born in Fiume, Austria-Hungary (now Rijeka, Croatia).[2] He was the son of an unmarried 17-year-old girl. When the natural father of the child, a married man, refused to recognize the baby as his son, the young mother drowned herself. Her aunts and tutors, impoverished aristocrats originally from the city of Miskolc, North-East of Budapest, granted custody of the child to a peasant family.[3]

Damn, with a more ambitious government we would have a fuckton of mad scientists making next-level shit for us.

>>335043

You don't get to be ambitious when only shekels matter. But more importantly, what is the story behind those pictures?

Also, rate my airplane idea:

>wait until fusion power becomes practical

>make a nuclear powered airplane, like the ones the USA and USSR wanted to build, but this time with a fusion reactor

>equip it with lasers

>let a dozen of them constantly cruise the planet, shooting down anything you don't want to fly

>>335057

No point in going with fusion unless you want to make a fucking enormous 21st century spruce goose.

>>335057

>It logged 107 hours

Holy shit it worked? What manner of Slav Black Magic Science managed to make that shit fly?

>>335057

> Why not just a sattelite

>>335065

THE VTOL was never tested and I'm skeptical of that but there are definite inflight photos.

The pontoons were available in both rigid and inflatable so that probably saves a lot of weight, but otherwise yeah, slav black magic.

>0

>>335067

I found video. It simultaneously looks like it should be able to survive re-entry and that it shouldn't be able to fly at all.

Considering it offers 400% improvement in performance, but is basically unheard of, yeah I'd say it's pretty underrated.

>>335065

>Slav Black Magic

Is a bad meme, their engineers just don't think the way western engineers do.

>>335061

Well, would fission work with 21st century technology? Back then it looked like that those planes will irradiate everything around them due to inadequate shielding.

>>335067

>> Why not just a sattelite

Because a satellite has a fixed orbit, so you can't concentrate all of them into a single area, or spread them around the globe. It's rather slow, so targeting them is easy, and then you just have to overwhelm them with sheer number of projectiles.

And I'm not sure that firing lasers from orbit is better than shooting them while both the laser and the target is inside the atmosphere. Not to mention all those pesky laws about not brining weapons to space.

http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Bartini_Beriev_VVA-14

Turns out they were in METOWL GURR

>>335090

>too unsafe

GLORIOUS SOVIET UNION LAUGHS AT CONCEPT OF SAFETY

seriously though a lot of the wonder projects the commies made would have been more deadly for them than their enemies.

>>335094

I think the main concern was that the multitude of VTOL engines would make a ridiculous amount of noise, which would damage the ears of passengers and nearby people, and make life uncomfortable for people even much farther away.

>>335079

>400% improvement in performance

What performance? In that close-to-the-ground mode?

>>335090

>new technology

>>335097

That sounds something the Swedish would come up with.

>>335057

You're forgetting one important bit there, Strelok: fusion reaction produces shit ton of radiation. That limits application to exactly 3 places: power plants, submarines and large ships.

>>335108

>Russian

>has a problem with flying submarines

I'm actually waiting for General Fusion's design to prove itself. If it works, then we'll have an excellent way to shield all that radiation. If it doesn't work, then Canucks just wasted a lot of shekels.

>>335116

Strelok, you should know by now that there's exactly one way to shield from gamma radiation, and that is putting absurd amounts of matter between radiation source and you.

>>335108

>>335118

This is reading like STALKER dialog.

>>335118

Yes, and that makes the generator heavy. But if it has enough power to run an engine strong enough to lift off the vehicle, then it's not a problem. Remember, we are speaking about a strategic weapon, which can cover the airspace of whole continents, not some flimsy interceptor. It can be BIG.

>>335122

Y… you too…

>>335123

You know what do they say, the bigger they are the harder they fall. We're past the age where artillery couldn't fire high enough to take down zeppelin bombers.

>>335124

I never claimed that this is the weapon to surpass Metal Gear, it's just something that crossed my mind. These machines should fly high enough that you need either rockets to shoot them down, or space cannons. They could try to shoot down the rockets, and maneuver away from other projectiles. With all that energy and effort you can even try to install something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth

The basic idea is something like this:

>build planes

>have some show the flag operations time to time

>when a nuclear war is coming, let them cruise the nearest ocean to the enemy country

>missiles start to fly

>these planes fly to the enemy country and try to shoot down as many as they can

>then dismantle all air defences

>and lastly burn down any major city still standing after the first nuclear exchange

>and just use those lasers in anything that might present a threat in that country for the next decade

Of course at point they'd face nuclear AA weapons.

>>335124

>not using the idea of shooting down a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT against your enemies

Imagine, Strelok;

>flying one of these over Saudi Arabia

>Sauds have no idea what it is, think it's a cargo aircraft but just really really big

>they give you a warning to adjust vector out of Saudi airspace

>Silent non-compliance, Saudis threaten to shoot it down

>fly over Mecca, start channeling radiation into beams and shoot it on the pilgrims

>>335138

whoops, it posted before I could finish

>Saudis shoot down the aircraft

>A command is shot to the reactor upon impact of missile

>reactor detonates above designated target

>knocks enemy aircraft out of skies

>EMPs everything under it

>literally just air-burst a nuke over an entire city

>casualties ensue

If it could be made into an autonomous aircraft, the prospects are even better.

>>335083

> it's rather slow

Unless we are talking geostat here that's bullshit.

>>335173

"Slow" in the sense that it's incapable of evasion. Once a satellite has entered orbit, it's no harder to hit than a target bolted to the ground.

>>335181

That, and it can't really go any faster than normally, so you have to wait until it ends up in the right position to fire. Expect if it's geostat.

>>335116

>Russian

>has a problem with flying submarines

Behold! Boris Ushakov STROOONG!

http://englishrussia.com/2014/08/17/flying-submarine-awesome-soviet-project-never-brought-to-life/

>>335139

Reactors don't detonate. They're designed specifically not to detonate even when there is a mechanical failure of some kind.

Three Mile Island did not blow up. The partial meltdown was stopped and contained. The only result was damaged equipment that could be replaced but hasn't been because of cost and legal concerns. There was no uncontrolled or unauthorized release of material from the Three Mile Island plant, no environmental contamination, and no one was injured or exposed to more radiation than a single chest x-ray.

The Chernobyl incident was caused by the plant operators deliberately sabotaging the safety systems built into the reactor. If those system had been left intact the reactor would have automatically shut down before coolant pressure dropped enough for it to flash over to steam and go into a positive feedback loop. The explosion was a caused by steam pressure, it was not a nuclear explosion.

Fukashima was also not a nuclear explosion. When the backup generators were damaged by flooding the coolant circulation pumps stopped and the coolant flashed over to steam then broke down into a prefect mix of hydrogen and oxygen. Add a little heat to that mix and you get a chemical boom.

If you want to build a nuke you need to structure the core in a way that's the polar opposite of how you'd structure a reactor core. Even though a bomb is technically a reactor bomb cores are built as a single large chunk sharped like either spheres or ovoids to maximize the volume relative to surface area. Reactor cores are designed with the material broken up into small chunks, usually rods or prisms to maximize surface area relative to volume and those chunks are moved together or apart to control the rate of the reaction. If a reactor core gets too hot it doesn't explode, it melts and the flow of self-heated liquid metal is pulled down by gravity. It's incredibly dangerous if you happen to be in the room with it or in a room underneath it or adjacent to it with insufficient radiation shielding but the hazard is from the radiation killing you at the cellular level, not from an explosion.

>>335090

I read about that thing. It was supposed to be powered by "augmented" pulse jets. Pulse jets are notorious for having one of the highest fuel consumption rates of any jet propulsion engine. And the valves shatter after anywhere from 10 minutes to 1 hour of operation because they're all made of sheets of spring steel.

You could go valveless but then you're intake and exhaust need to point in the same direction and this will choke the intake when moving at speed.

This engine was popular during WW2 through the mid-1950s for cruise missiles because it was cheap and disposable. It has since been abandoned because it's noisy as fuck, guzzles avgas like nothing else, has low thrust compared to every other kind of jet, and is limited to subsonic speeds. Why Boeing would even consider them for anything today is mind-bogglingly dumb. If they designed their next fighter to look like a smiley face with wings it would not surprise me.

>>335345

Submarine carrier lol.

>>335341

Post-9/11 they all lost their fucking minds.

>Hey guys…listen guys

>We put….guys listen

>We put…listen…we put pulse engines

>We put an assload of pulse engines on a fucking giant fuselage

>Then…guys…then we market it as "new" technology

>…

>That's fucking brilliant, Martin! Have concepts draw up something and get the finance department to put in a request for $330M in developmental funding in the next DoD FY budget.

>Have our lobbyists let the Congressmen on the Armed Services Committee know that, our forces won't be able to dominate the battlefield without these. Minimum projections for purchase should be in the high hundreds, if not thousands…don't forget we'll need to stake out extra manufacturing locations in certain Congressional districts.

>Let's dig up some SME to help demonstrate how this will augment and eventually change how we wage war. Gen. Desk Fucker has always had an eye to the future, he helped get "Flying Piece Of Shit" onto the Air Force's radar, give him a call.

>>335369

Admiral Asslicker here. This is an accurate assessment of military procurement procedures.

>>335341

Because it's essentially a tube, it has very low weight, and ends up having the largest T/W ratio out of any engine. The F-22 engine has a thrust to weight ratio of 9:1, wheres a rinky-dink valveless pulsejet has thrust to weight ratios exceeding 10.

The damn things don't malfunction easily and they can also be integrated into the aircraft to be literally load-bearing structural components.

The only downside is fuel consumption and low use life. As long as VTOL flight isn't constant those shouldn't be a problem, in all other ways its the perfect VTOL engine.

>>335456

I've heard of the Pluto SLAM in hushed references, but actually seeing it's intended purpose and concept, it's fucking amazingly beautiful.

>>335514

>I've heard it even firebombed some forest in 'Murica, but the wood was too stupid to catch fire.

I'm going to go ahead with the lol.

Japs also built a bunch of balloons with the intent of burning America.

It's like they thought every country was a densely populated island nation with houses made of paper.