My bad. Yes I was referring to the Doug Skyraider an ugly (at least to me) but very effective plane.

Off-topic, think I'll be leaving military nuts forums since the current posts have been, to my mind, a lot of pure drivel actually. What happened to all the nice intelligent posters whom always had interesting things to say and definitely almost always learnt something new (and some hilarious stuff). It seems as if it's degenerating to the "whose imaginary long dong is bigger" arguments again.

There's also more NS stuff going around which isn't exactly what I thot military nuts was about. I ORDed in '96 so forgive me if all this whining about NS stuff is tiresome since I've heard it all before and did it myself almost a decade ago. I'm going back to the NNTP newsgroups and some other forums.

Originally posted by I_am_PeTe_Parker:

The first thing that came to mind when SPAD are mention is WW1 biplane.
But I guest you are actually refering to the Douglas Skyraider A-1 which is sometimes nicknamed SPAD. Yes, I believe the skyraider were used during the Korean war.

Building a warship is an exercise in engineering and if you've never encountered engineering issues before here's the deal. Engineering is an exercise in compromises. Nobody these days works with unlimited funds unless you're working for Marvel Comic's S.H.I.E.L.D organisation. So we can chuck out any solutions with nuclear-powered powerplants and stick with diesel turbine engines.

Let's do a review of your emphasis on armor.
More armor = more mass on a ship

As any physics guy will know,
more mass = need more power to drive that thing and maneuver

more power = bigger/more efficient/more powerful engines/powerplants

Also since you're carrying more weight and need more power, it's safe to assume it should consume more fuel than a less armored warship of similar size and same powerplant.

more fuel = more space needed to put in fuel = less space for weapons and personnel and other cool stuff you need to make war = less capable ship.

Since we're assuming missile attacks which can cut any thickness of armor down to size, the best compromise is to make the hull just a little more thick enough for structural integrity for operational parameters. Or at least make the "armor" thick enough to withstand small arms fire.

All these are factors which are addressed by engineers and designers. Navies deliver specs; designers deliver a design based on specs and engineers do the hardwork of trying to figure out the actual implementation from the designs. And all have to be within the Navy's budget.

From my very simplified analysis, armor doesnt work. The only credible implementation I can think of to increase warship safety when hit by a missle is to have a double hull, a lot of compartmentalisation, and a crew which is highly trained in damage control just like they do in Typhoon class submarines.

Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:

ECM doesn't work 100% and A-MM doesn't always hit the missile

The last bet would be a ARMOR , if u got thicker armor , more lifes saved , thin armor more pple die

using a M1 Abrams and a Bionix as a example ,
which tank would u prefer to sit inside in time of a war?

A M1 tanks in which has been tested with RPG 7 and Bullets and cannons

or a locally built ST Bionix 17.5 tonnes newbie?

i'll take the M1 Tank , thank you =) just compare the thickness of the armor!

anyway the delta frigates are definitely going to be made of plastics..

anyway i believe the bionix was build to counter rifle shots and pistol fire
and not for countering RPG -7 ...

Anyone here did a TESTING of RPGs on Bionix?
care to share a little of the results?

my bet would be the rpg would completely vaporize the bionix

Admit it, you're a closet gay just like most of us *wink wink nudge nudge*. We wont tell anyone.

Originally posted by the.raven:

rod of god has nothing to do with u what, why u keep talking about it, extra sia

and also I dont think the final name will be "rod of god" thats just gay.

I'm putting my name down as Finance Minister in your new cabinet. Dont be angry if I siphon a few percentage points of the economy and place it in my super secret Swiss bank account (it's for my kid's college education).

Part of the nation's finances will of course be rolled into R&D to conceive a Dr Evil type "Freakin' LAZZZEEERRR" weapon. Let China tremble in their panties now.

The part where the Marine pilots taunted the Japs really did happen if you read the historical books. It went something like Pappy Boyington on the radio saying to the effect "Come on up you yellow bastards!" whilst flying over a Jap base with the Jap fighters still on the ground and the Jap replied back "Why don't you come down Major Boyington" all in plain English. Radio security is a funny thing as even my friend's father has described how during the Konfrontasi time, each side was listening in to each other's tactical radio messages (Malay regiment versus Indonesian soldiers).

There was one time when Saburo Sakai, Jap ace, did aerial aerobatics over an American airbase with another Jap pilot.

And yes I agree Thunderbolts were one of the most understated aircraft. I guess ugly aircraft like the Jug didn't get as much credit as clean lines Mustangs even though they were used extremely well by the Allied European Theatre aces. Still in the Pacific Theatre, it was the P-38 Lightnings which did major gruntwork. Corsairs are still my favourite WW2 fighter next to the Focke-Wulf 190 Doras.

One question, were Spads already available and deployed during the Korean conflict (the piston engine aircraft you almost always see in Vietnam war flicks)?

Originally posted by panzerjager:

So the Koreans were like Black Sheep Squadron in the movie....? The old 70s series about US Pacific fleet land-based fighter aces against the Japs. Funny thing in that show was that the Yankees traded 'friendly' taunts with the Jap pilots over common radio frequency, in English! before they proceed to dogfight. 'Friendly' as in the same attitude between drunken sailors/airmen (on the same side) brawling over beer-fight in club

Anyway the Thunderbolts were indeed the understated ultimate fighters of WW2, everyone just seem to like the Mustang, Spitfire etc just because of the elitism they won through air-air combat. The real hard and dangerous fight was just above ground level and that's where the Thunderbolt was at home, among Typhoon, Schturmmovik, Mosquito, Beau-fighter etc

Singapore - The island state has taken the first step into converting her Army into a 3G army with the introduction of 3G mobile phones to all current and new NS men for the duration of their service. Army spokesperson Corporal(NS) Tan Koo Kooh said today, "We've been emphasising 3G for quite some time and now it's great that we can finally provide world-class equipment with the best quality of service thanks to Singtel providing us with a solid 3G network. It'll also provide a great tactical advantage and force multiplier now that unit commanders can communicate with their men via their mobile phones."

Many parents of NS men have applauded the move; many saying that now their sons can now call them, especially when going through the very stressful BMT period. Said one parent, "It's great! Now I can provide better emotional support to my son who's had a very difficult time adjusting to the food in camp and the constant teasing by the other recruits."

Other NS men has found other uses for their 3G phones. Corporal Eric Song said, "I totally love my new phone. It was good to be able to place bets for the Euro 2004 football matches from the comfort of my bunk. What's better is that I don't have to use my own personal handphone and incur costs calling my girlfriend in NUS"

Even with the new 3G phones, there has been some criticisms from both the public and NS personnel. Some have complained that only Nokia models were given out and not other models. Army clerk Sergeant(NS) Sam Tsung said he would have liked it better if there had been a larger variety of phone models to choose from; "I've always been using Samsung phones for quite some time and it's disheartening to be using a Nokia. I believe their standards of design has fallen." Others have complained about the MINDEF's misallocation of resources. Man on the street Mr. Ahmad Alqaed, "Giving all those phones to NSmen is wrong. They could waste it all on chatlines which I hear is very popular with teens. They could have used the money and spend it on more serious things like a redesign of the awful Army uniforms or good Nike boots or more PCs so that they can practice combat skills using CounterStrike and Battlefield Vietnam". - Reuters

Been rereading my old copy of “Blood, Tears & Folly : An Objective Look at World War II” by Len Deighton. An excellent read and highly recommended.

Developing a game? Need help? If it's a DirectX platform I can help do the 3D modelling plus conversions and maybe mapping.

Originally posted by ziezoe:

That set is $300+, but like what I say, I don't need a throttle.

I am not going to fly sim, I am developing war-game, real battle-field kind.

Sorry, most of my older titles are now under the ownership of my 14 year old nephew. The rest are either abandonware I downloaded (Red Baron, Gunship 2000, SEAL Team, etc.) or the newer titles I'm playing.

Originally posted by |-|05|:

u have ar?? lend me leh

I think most of us have tried Call of Duty. It's fun, a total blast but not really realistic; a direct evolution of the Medal of Honour series. The scenarios are played like puzzles to be solved or are almost totally linear, the AI isn't as good as Op Flashpoint (or so it seemed to me). I won't deny the quality of the work though, it's definitely A+ with good entertainment values.

What it does really, really good is keeping the action uptempo with movie-style theatrics (Saving Private Ryan & Enemy at the Gates(title?))

In other news, what in heaven's name was Portugal doing?!

Originally posted by the.raven:

u guys should try call of duty

The Russian Front was way too unbalanced for me. Once the tanks came on, it was almost impossible to get my infantry to get up close and everytime it seemd as if my anti-tank guns were way too exposed.

I preferred the Battle of the Bulge than either of the other two mentioned.

Originally posted by |-|05|:

dude you have that?! the russian front that is....can lend?

1) Operation Flashpoint
(except for the vehicle combat, tanks, helis and planes)

2) Il-2 Sturmovik - Forgotten Battles
(best, most realistic WW2 combat flight sim ever, online play is a BLAST!)

3) Sub Command
(best modern sub game with realistic acoustic modelling)

4) Falcon 4 with patches + Superpaks
(best modern flight sim)

My system is still a bit weak to play Lock-On : Modern Air Combat properly so I'll reserve judgement after a not-so-cheap systems upgrade.

Anyone tried Hearts of Iron? It's way too complicated for me.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=13715

Has a funny bit (to me at least) on the RSS Resolution's mess deck.

As for my thoughts on this "conspiracy" theories, I do not believe in them. The main failure of the United States was not in intelligence gathering, but in the systematic analysis of all these disparate pieces of info which would reveal a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and on other US interests.

Thus the impetus in drafting the National Security Act of 1947, creating the CIA tasked "with coordinating the nation’s intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence which affects national security."

On an unrelated note but interesting to WW2 fans, this little bit of trivia.

Cost of Manhattan Project : $2 Billion

Cost of B-29 bomber development programme : $3 Billion

As the saying goes, the best anti-sub weapon is.....another sub.

Originally posted by Langley:

But Fokkers are not doin anti-sub work right? Perhaps can configure them to drop sonar buoys out of their cargo doors, carry torpedos and depth charges etc. Then no need to buy dedicated ASW aircraft.

G Loading 101

Actually, pilots can sustain more Gs than airframe depending on aircraft IF we're talking about INSTANTANEOUS G and not SUSTAINED G loading. Formula 1 racers who crashed have survived in crashes in excess of 49 Gs, of course in a measured instant (several milliseconds or sumthing, I dont have the statistics with me).

Many airframes don't have such tolerances to such instantaneous G loads so if you're in a non-FBW aircraft, it's easy to stress or even destroy the airframe without having you killed by pure G (just pull on that stick really hard, very fast). FBW aircraft usually try to prevent these instantaneous G loads.

As for missiles, what's most important from my readings is turn radius which is a function of G + speed. Even with a high G (let's say 30G+) missile, due to it's high speed and hence high turn radius, a low G aircraft at a lower airspeed can still outturn a missile (u just have to have the Force with you to turn into a missile if the countermeasures fail). Air to Air missiles are also limited by rocket burn time (again I don't have figures), but i reckon by the time it reaches an aircraft (if fired at the limit of the missile range with good PK), the rockets would have been expended and it's coasting on pure kinetic energy which can easily bleed off when turning for final engagement.

As a final note, me being the unhealthy smoker type who hasnt exercised in 5 years I reckon I won't last long at 4Gs sustained.

(all my info is at least a decade old, so I may be wrong with the latest, greatest AAMs)

Originally posted by Viper52:

Yes, there would be high G-forces involved, but the Israelis are tight-lipped about exact figures. Anyway missiles traditionally can take higher G forces because they are not restricted by a man inside.

insomnia

Originally posted by |-|05|:

football

Dangerous Waters is a new sim from Sonalysts (Sub Command, Jane's 688, Fleet Command). It allows control of subs AND surface ships.

Here are screenshots from Gamespot
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/dangerouswaters/screenindex.html

It certainly looks and sounds interesting.

For those playing or thinking of Fleet Command, don't forget to grab the patches and the doctrine files from the downloads section of Subsim (http://www.subsim.com/)

I'm still concerned with the all-weather capabilities of this design. I have heard rumours that it can suffer a catastrophic failure in the rain. We need more funding in PaperWax(tm) technology.

Originally posted by Merkava MK4:

This craft must be the latest in UAV warfare right.

Not exactly related to military, but this will be good news to aerospace fans.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/02/private.space/index.html

Even if it's just a suborbital flight, mark June 21st on your calendar and here's wishing the team all the best.

Maybe, somehow i'll get a taste of the 100 km altitude within my lifetime.

But can it carry guns and AAMs and bombs? I believe you have misrepresented the thrust-to-weight ratio of this thing, not to mention range.

Originally posted by sgFish:
[b]

is much easier to produce...see below

Still, it's pretty classic design. Coincidentally I made a few rubber band powered paper missiles for my nephews just yesterday. Stick a few firecrackers with long burning fuses and chuck it across the Causeway and cause an international incident. What a way to war!

Agreed. US intervention brings with it the taint of political manipulation and commercial exploitation for their own interests, rightly or wrongly. The current guerilla warfare situation is an indication that the Americans are not winning "hearts and minds". Seems like the Americans are naive of local concerns as evident by the ground troops who keep saying, "We liberated them. Why the hell are they shooting at us?" Why indeed. Dude, you just invaded them, even if you thought it was right, it doesnt make it right in the eyes of the locals.

Apparently, the Brits are doing a much better job in their sector(s) pacifying the local population since they understand better how to win "hearts and minds".

Assuredly the Al-Qaedists are a small lot in this dispute and no Al-Qaeda guy will work with a Shiite. To most Americans this differentiation between Sunni and Shiite is lost and all get lumped together as fanatic Muslim terrorists working together.

I don't see how US can get out of this mess. They have interests in the region and oil is a strategic interest. The other is military bases to put their forces in (hence the continuing 100,000+ troops "invited" to stay in Iraq) and to preempt the possibility of losing their bases in Saudi Arabia. I'm willing to bet the 5 dollars in my wallet that within the next few decades, the House of Saud will go the way of the former Shah of Iran.

As it stands now, installing democracy in an unstable region is a boneheaded idea. Even me being a bleeding heart liberal would like to see a strong-arm local leader (LKY-style) take control of the situation and gradually (I'd say 30 to 50 years) move a self-sufficient and sustaining Iraq to a group of federated states consisting of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.

Originally posted by Viper52:

The problem in this case is, you cannot achieve a military victory over Al-Qaeda in Iraq without first winning the moral victory. There are 100,000 Yanks in Iraq, with a couple of thousand Al Qaeda (Again, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are NOT Al Qaeda). The Iraqis see the Yanks and the occupiers and the biggest problem, simply because they are more high profile. That does not mean they support Al Qaeda. Only by winning a moral victory and convincing the Iraqi people that they are working for Iraq, can the Iraqis see that the biggest threat to their country is from Al Qaeda.

Somalia was under UN Command, but the Americans in the Battle of Bakara Market were under US Command not the UN. Why pick Somalia as an example of UN inadequacy where there are success stories like Cambodia? And lots of US military interventions caused more problems than they solved.

What a beautiful way to bring down costs. But after we purchase this, RMAF will order the Sopwith Camel and Indonesian Air Force will get Spad XII.

As for my irrational choice RSAF. It's gotta be the following

BAC TSR 2
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/history.html

Lockheed YF-12
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/yf-12_blackbird.pl
Yummy Mach 3+ interceptor

Vought F8U-3 Super Crusader
http://www.cloudnet.com/~djohnson/superf8.htm

Sentimental choices would be F-14 Tomcat with strike capability and Flankers.

Will throw in my favourite Fw-190D (long nose Doras) for VIP flights.

Originally posted by ditzy:

Combat-proven since World War I.

The Fokker:

On a slightly related note (by a mile), does anyone know what China's nuclear weapons doctrine is (when and how will China use them)? How credible is it as a deterrent?

Also, do you think China will, within the next 5 decades, go down the route of the militarisation of space? Now THAT is a scary thought.