/k/ - Weapons

Weapons, militaria, outdoors

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB


(used to delete files and postings)

US Air Force claims to have built a superplane in secret Strelok 09/20/2020 (Sun) 18:17:35 No.5846
Revealed: US Air Force Has Secretly Built and Flown a New Fighter Jet The new digital tools that designed the full-scale flight demonstrator could herald a sea change in weapons acquisition. >The U.S. Air Force’s disclosure that it has secretly built and flown a prototype fighter jet could signal a shift in how the military buys weapons and who builds them. >Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, revealed the existence of the new jet, which he said was part of the service’s Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD, project. “NGAD right now is designing, assembling, testing in the digital world, exploring things that would have cost time and money to wait for physical world results,” Roper said during a video presentation at the Air Force Association’s Virtual Air, Space & Cyber Conference on Tuesday. “NGAD has come so far that the full-scale flight demonstrator has already flown in the physical world. It’s broken a lot of records in the doing.” >Roper provided no more details about the jet, which is presumed to be the Pentagon’s first attempt to build a “sixth-generation” tactical aircraft after the fifth-gen F-22 and F-35 jets. He even declined to name the company or companies that built the jet. But he said the digital design technology used to build the new plane could increase competition and increase the number of American military jet makers. >“Digital engineering is lowering overhead for production and assembly [so] you do not have to have huge facilities, huge workforces [and] expensive tooling,” Roper said on a video conference call with reporters after his presentation. “It is letting us take aircraft assembly back to where we were in the [19]70s and prior to it — back when we had 10 or more companies who could build airplanes for the United States Air Force, because you could do it in hangar-like facilities with small, but very good teams, of engineers and mechanics. We're going back to that. It's super exciting.” >Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the only two U.S. companies that currently build fighter jets. >The Air Force in July revealed that it received 18 bids for a new drone that could fly in formation with manned fighter jets. While Boeing, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics won contracts, much smaller Kratos, which has been the subject of acquisition speculation, also received a contract. “We're...surprised there were 18 bidders,” Cowen & Company analyst Roman Schweizer, wrote in a July 24 note to investors. “Having five competitors for a decent-sized program is pretty solid, in our opinion, particularly when you consider three or fewer is the norm for most platforms, weapons or systems.” >Another reason for disclosing the NGAD project: Roper wants companies to invest more in digital design technology. In recent years, the Pentagon writ large has been trying to tap into innovation, particularly commercial technology, that could be adopted for the military. >Roper declined to give many additional details about the NGAD project because it is classified. But he said part of the reasoning for disclosing the existence of a test aircraft was to prove to naysayers that combat aircraft could be fully designed and tested on computers before they’re physically built, much like the way Boeing and Saab built the T-7 pilot training jet in recent years. “I've had many people in the Pentagon and elsewhere, say, ‘I see how you could apply that approach to a trainer like T-7, but you could not build a cutting-edge warfighting system that way,’” Roper said. “I've had to listen to that and just nod my head and say, ‘Well, you may be right,’ knowing in the back of my head that you're actually wrong because of what NGAD has done.” >In addition to the NGAD and the T-7, Northrop Grumman is using digital design and testing in building new intercontinental ballistic missiles and it’s also being used on two new satellite projects, Roper said. “My hope is to create greater credibility and the process, at least within my my own team for many who are not read in to NGAD, so that they will know to get smart on this technology because we're going to train on it, we're going to drill on it until this is the way we do business,” he said. >Digital design technology is already being used by the automotive industry and Formula One racing. https://archive.is/b1rGq https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2020/09/usaf-jet/168479/
>>6498 So, since we already have fusion nuclear weapons, would it really be of much practical interest?
>>6513 That's fission anon. No one has publicly admitted fusion weapons.
>>6520 Not really. Fission is just the trigger to reach the required energy-density for the fusion reaction to go. We've had it since the late 50's Anon, aka Hydrogen Bomb.
>>6522 Irrelevant, that other strelok was talking about pure fusion weapons.
>>6532 The energy output ratio of the fission part is less than 2% of the total. These are fusion bombs. And the 50-megaton yields couldn't care less about pedantic pandering to sci-fi. 40's-era scientists and engineers solved this problem already -- and much cheaper than 'pure' imaginings have to offer tbh.
>>6558 The point is that hydrogen bombs require a regular atomic bomb to squeeze and heat the fuel to touch off fusion. If you had pure fusion, i.e. without the plutonium powered primary, then the entire proliferation landscape changes.
>>6567 If you can make a pure fusion bomb without radioactive elements you just opened up a new age of warfare where countries just fusion bomb the shit out of each other since there's little worry of permanently salting the earth. The current versions are fine and should be the standard, see >>6558
>>6579 >you just opened up a new age of warfare where countries just fusion bomb the shit out of each other Yeah, that's the point.
>>6285 Alright which one of you fags works at MIT: >Two and a half years ago, MIT entered into a research agreement with startup company Commonwealth Fusion Systems to develop a next-generation fusion research experiment, called SPARC, as a precursor to a practical, emissions-free power plant. Now, after many months of intensive research and engineering work, the researchers charged with defining and refining the physics behind the ambitious tokamak design have published a series of papers summarizing the progress they have made and outlining the key research questions SPARC will enable. >Martin Greenwald, deputy director of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center and one of the project’s lead scientists, says the work is progressing smoothly and on track. This series of papers provides a high level of confidence in the plasma physics and the performance predictions for SPARC, he says. No unexpected impediments or surprises have shown up, and the remaining challenges appear to be manageable. This sets a solid basis for the device’s operation once constructed, according to Greenwald. >SPARC is planned to be the first experimental device ever to achieve a “burning plasma” — that is, a self-sustaining fusion reaction in which different isotopes of the element hydrogen fuse together to form helium, without the need for any further input of energy. Studying the behavior of this burning plasma — something never before seen on Earth in a controlled fashion — is seen as crucial information for developing the next step, a working prototype of a practical, power-generating power plant. >"The MIT group is pursuing a very compelling approach to fusion energy." says Chris Hegna, a professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who was not connected to this work. "They realized the emergence of high-temperature superconducting technology enables a high magnetic field approach to producing net energy gain from a magnetic confinement system. This work is a potential game-changer for the international fusion program​." >The SPARC design, though about the twice the size as MIT’s retired Alcator C-Mod experiment and other similar research machines currently in operation, would be far more powerful, achieving fusion performance comparable to that expected in the much larger ITER tokamak being built in France. The high power in a small size is made possible by advances in superconducting magnets that allow for a much stronger magnetic field to confine the hot plasma. >The analysis done so far shows that the planned fusion energy output of the SPARC tokamak should be able to meet the design specifications with a comfortable margin to spare. It is designed to achieve a Q efficiency factor of at least 2, essentially meaning that twice as much fusion energy is produced as the amount of energy pumped in to generate the reaction. That would be the first time a fusion plasma of any kind has produced more energy than it consumed. >The calculations at this point show that SPARC could actually achieve a Q ratio of 10 or more, according to the new papers. While Greenwald cautions that the team wants to be careful not to overpromise, and much work remains, the results so far indicate that the project will at least achieve its goals, and specifically will meet its key objective of producing a burning plasma, wherein the self-heating dominates the energy balance. >“We’re still aiming for a start of construction in roughly June of ’21,” Greenwald says. “What we’re trying to do is put the project on the firmest possible physics basis, so that we’re confident about how it’s going to perform, and then to provide guidance and answer questions for the engineering design as it proceeds.” >Many of the fine details are still being worked out on the machine design, covering the best ways of getting energy and fuel into the device, getting the power out, dealing with any sudden thermal or power transients, and how and where to measure key parameters in order to monitor the machine’s operation. So far, the diameter of the tokamak has been increased by about 12 percent, but little else has changed, Greenwald says. “There’s always the question of a little more of this, a little less of that, and there’s lots of things that weigh into that, engineering issues, mechanical stresses, thermal stresses, and there’s also the physics — how do you affect the performance of the machine?” >The publication of this special issue of the journal, he says, “represents a summary, a snapshot of the physics basis as it stands today.” Though members of the team have discussed many aspects of it at physics meetings, “this is our first opportunity to tell our story, get it reviewed, get the stamp of approval, and put it out into the community.” >Greenwald says there is still much to be learned, and once this machine is up and running, key information can be gained that will help pave the way to commercial, power-producing fusion devices, whose fuel — deuterium and tritium — can be made available in virtually limitless supplies. https://archive.is/b5RYO
>>6593 My personal take is that SPARC will run into more issues. Possibly with how the new superconductors might pose issues, these are brittle and act like crematics when forming iirc. Question is how long will the YBCO last when its getting blasted by radiation at that intensity? I'm not sure.
>>6617 Ceramic superconductors are fine so long as you don't move them.
F-35 eats shit after (allegedly) suffering mid-air collision with refueler. What the fuck were they doing? Looking forward to billion dollar super planes becoming one with the Earth as well. https://twitter.com/vladwlad777/status/1311349515300024321
>>6624 Ahhh the F-35 in its natural state.
>>5851 >>6643 Reminder
>>6593 >might >may >could >should Until something concrete has been produced, this is all just hypothetical speculation of no value. >>6624 It's called being stealthy. You cannot be detected by air surveillance radars if you become one with the ground.
>>6654 The only reason they would go public with this design is if glow-in-the-darks already have something better in the closet.
>>6583 The proliferation of cold fusion weapons that could produce the same yield as your standard ICBM driven H-Bomb still doesn't get around the fact that other countries wont threaten to permanently salt the earth with their plutonium made bombs. Nowadays proliferation is about how good your delivery mechanism is and not how much yield you can get over the materials needed for a reaction. Which is why the Soviets didn't bother making more Tzar Bombas and everyone has a suit case bomb.
>>6652 >worked on whether or not a plane can fly >it crashes >designed algorithms to protect GEO satellites from hostile action How much do you want to bet that the "algorithms" designed to "protect" geo satellites are nothing more than a case statement of all the conditions in which the satellite would de-orbit. Crash. >The US Air Force has built and flown a mysterious full-scale prototype of its future fighter jet https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/
>>6677 I wonder if the Air Force made this shit in secret to protect it from people like the above.
>>6677 I'm pretty sure the faggot is lying out its ass, since for one thing admitting you did that role in public (if they actually did it) is a multi-million dollar breach of contract for around 30 years after the fact.
Why is the AC-130 still kept around when everyone's wanking over muh stealth? It seems a bit out of place considering the capabilities of current day air defense systems to be employed in a symmetric military conflict.
>>6690 The AC-130 is only for use when friendly Air Superiority (or, more preferred, Air Supremacy) has already been achieved. It's not meant for Air Parity or Air Denial skies.
>>6691 Given the increasing availability of sophisticated MANPADs among sandnegro militias wouldn't it be cheaper and safer to launch a small disposable recon drone or an F-35 if you want to waste shekels to paint targets for Artillery/cruise missiles/A-10s to take down?
>>6691 This. Big parts of America's arsenal are not meant for war, they are for policing already pacified vassal states.
>>6677 >"I don’t think it’s smart thinking to build one and only one aircraft that has to be dominant for all missions in all cases all the time" I had no idea there were such intelligent people in the US military.
>>6695 No, because the AC-130 is fully capable of engaging from 20,000ft or higher and the most prevalent MANPAD families are the 9K38 Igla and FIM-92 Stingers, which have a flight ceiling of 11,000ft (purportedly 15,000ft in the newest iterations) and 12,500ft respectively. It's really only vulnerable to medium and heavy SAMs and ADA, which are a little bit bigger than what manpower can drag around, and human stupidity such as the pilots flying lower than they actually need to.
>>6704 >tfw no Flak 36 technicals in Afghanistan >tfw no airships for gunboat diplomacy I hate this timeline.
>>6285 >>6330 >>6333 I don't know anything about cold fusion, but inertial electrostatic confinement fusion is probably the best route to actually obtain a stationed fusion reaction. The Polywell design for IEC is probably what would get us to fusion power the fastest. It's one of the cheapest avenues to build and test. Costs 100s of thousands instead of 100s of millions/billions like the big toroid faculties cost (like the Tokamak). I think the goal of the Powers That Be is to push us in the LEAST likely and most costly directions for fusion. Forcing us into further debt, but also giving them the opportunity to benefit from the technology that needed to be produced (high powered plasma chambers and the like) in order to even build things like the Tokamak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell NO ONE is funding Polywell fusion, even though it would be the cheapest and even the most likely to give us actual fusion power.
>>6769 >Current research by the University of Sydney seems to show that the design is impractical (or impossible) in practice.
>>6778 There are many who say the opposite, if you look beyond the Wikipedia article. I only posted it as a brief overview.
>>6778 According to the people who actually worked on Polywell, they solved that problem right before the program was shut down. https://archive.fo/PAUW3#78.8%
>>5851 Get bent schlomo.
>>6066 >or F-36. Was that based on the X-36?
>>6171 Nigger are you implying that the B-2 was not a direct aerodynamic derivative of the YB-35/49?
>>6935 No, the B-2 was in fact derived from the YB-35 and YB-49; but the YB-35 design predates the Ho229's by several years. Jack Northrop tried to get Douglas to pursue a flying wing bomber design back when Douglas controlled part of Northrop Corp, submitting a proposal as early as 1933, but Douglas balked at the unconventional design and wouldn't fund it. These designs still exist. When he struck out on his own again in 1939, Northrop once again returned to the eventual YB-35 design, which the US Army officially requested in May of 1941, and Northrop officially submitted - two whole years before the Ho229 was requested. If the YB-35 is directly derived from the Ho229, why is it that the blueprints are older than the Ho229?
>>6947 And just to go farther, the 1933 proto-YB-35 design was directly derived from Northrop's Flying Wing X-216H, which first flew in 1929 - before the Horten brothers successfully built a single large glider. Jack did admit to hearing about the Horten brothers trying finless designs, which sparked his inspiration, but that was the extent of the connection.
Engineering converges much like evolution does. Stuff is built to fit a niche so there's a high chance it will look similar even if designed by two different engineers on opposite sides of the globe if they need to meet the same conditions.
>>6973 I mean, consider a icthyasaur, dolphin/whale, fish, and shark have all converges on the same design in the ocean as a comparison despite being from different families of animals and suddenly stuff looking similar begins to make a lot of sense since it has to all fulfill the same goal.
>>6975 >stuff looking similar begins to make a lot of sense since it has to all fulfill the same goal. Designers often re-use designs and also re-use modular components with slight variations.
Fusion anons, what do you think of the room-temperature superconductor? Room-Temperature Superconductivity Achieved for the First Time >Physicists in New York has discovered a material that conducts electricity with perfect efficiency at room temperature — a long-sought scientific milestone. The hydrogen, carbon and sulfur compound operates as a superconductor at up to 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the team reported today in Nature. That’s more than 50 degrees hotter than the previous high-temperature superconductivity record set last year. >“This is the first time we can really claim that room-temperature superconductivity has been found,” said Ion Errea, a condensed matter theorist at the University of the Basque Country in Spain. "It’s clearly a landmark,” said Chris Pickard, a materials scientist at the University of Cambridge. “That’s a chilly room, maybe a British Victorian cottage.” >Yet while researchers celebrate the achievement, they stress that the newfound compound — created by a team led by Ranga Dias of the University of Rochester — will never find its way into lossless power lines, frictionless high-speed trains, or any of the revolutionary technologies that could become ubiquitous if the fragile quantum effect underlying superconductivity could be maintained in truly ambient conditions. That’s because the substance superconducts at room temperature only while being crushed between a pair of diamonds to pressures roughly 75% as extreme as those found in the Earth’s core. “People have talked about room-temperature superconductivity forever,” Pickard said. “They may not have quite appreciated that when we did it, we were going to do it at such high pressures.” >Materials scientists now face the challenge of discovering a superconductor that operates not only at normal temperatures but under everyday pressures, too. Certain features of the new compound raise hopes that the right blend of atoms could someday be found. >Progress took off in the 2000s, when supercomputer simulations let theorists predict the properties of various hydrides, and the widespread use of compact diamond anvils let experimentalists squeeze the most promising candidates to test their mettle. Suddenly, hydrides started setting records. A team in Germany showed in 2015 that a metallic form of hydrogen sulfide superconducts at −94 F under 1.5 million times the pressure of the atmosphere. Four years later, the same lab used lanthanum hydride to hit −10 degrees under 1.8 million atmospheres, even as another group found evidence for superconductivity in the same compound at 8 degrees. >Dias’ lab in Rochester has now shattered those records. Guided by intuition and rough calculations, the team tested a range of hydrogen compounds searching for the goldilocks ratio of hydrogen. Add too little hydrogen, and a compound won’t superconduct as robustly as metallic hydrogen does. Add too much, and the sample will act too much like metallic hydrogen, metalizing only at pressures that will crack your diamond anvil. Over the course of their research, the team busted many dozens of $3,000 diamond pairs. “That’s the biggest problem with our research, the diamond budget,” Dias said. >The winning recipe proved to be a riff on the 2015 formula. The researchers started with hydrogen sulfide, added methane (a compound of carbon and hydrogen), and baked the concoction with a laser. “We were able to enrich the system and introduce just the right critical amount of hydrogen necessary to maintain these Cooper pairs at very high temperatures,” said Ashkan Salamat, Dias’ collaborator and a condensed matter physicist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. >But the fine details of the hydrogen-carbon-sulfur potion they’ve cooked up elude them. Hydrogen is too small to show up in traditional probes of lattice structure, so the group doesn’t know how the atoms are arranged, or even the substance’s exact chemical formula. Eva Zurek, a computational chemist at the University at Buffalo, belongs to a group of theorists loosely affiliated with Dias’ lab. Earlier this year they predicted the conditions under which one metal that might have formed between the diamond anvils should superconduct, and they found different behavior. She suspects that high pressures instead transformed Dias’ substance into an unknown form whose superconductivity is especially robust. >Once Dias’ group can figure out exactly what they’ve got on their hands, theorists will build models exploring the features that give this H-C-S mixture its superconducting power, in hopes of further modifying the recipe. Physicists have proved most two-element hydrogen hybrids to be dead ends, but the new three-element blend marks a potentially significant advance into the world of complex chimera materials. One of the elements involved seems particularly promising to some. >“What I like about this work: They bring carbon into the system,” said Mikhail Eremets, an experimentalist at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry lab that set the hydride records of 2015 and 2019. https://archive.is/EvV62
>>7481 Cool but useless for now. >That’s because the substance superconducts at room temperature only while being crushed between a pair of diamonds to pressures roughly 75% as extreme as those found in the Earth’s core. Hopefully it leads to better discoveries though.
>>7506 You know, one thing about that doesn't seem to add up to me. How could the localized point temperature of a substance under such tremendous pressure be 'room temperature' (supposedly ~65F) ? Unless the surrounding substrate of the material is cooled with liquid helium, it seems to me the temperature would be thousands of degrees under such pressures.
>>7507 Here's additional detail from the abstract of the paper if it might help: >One of the long-standing challenges in experimental physics is the observation of room-temperature superconductivity1,2. Recently, high-temperature conventional superconductivity in hydrogen-rich materials has been reported in several systems under high pressure3,4,5. An  important discovery leading to room-temperature superconductivity is the pressure-driven disproportionation of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to H3S, with a confirmed transition temperature of 203 kelvin at 155 gigapascals3,6. Both H2S and CH4 readily mix with hydrogen to form guest–host structures at lower pressures7, and are of  comparable size at 4 gigapascals. By introducing methane at low pressures into the H2S + H2 precursor mixture for H3S, molecular exchange is allowed within a large assemblage of van der Waals solids that are hydrogen-rich with H2 inclusions; these guest–host structures become the building blocks of superconducting compounds at extreme conditions. Here we report superconductivity in a photochemically transformed carbonaceous sulfur hydride system, starting from elemental precursors, with a maximum superconducting transition temperature of 287.7 ± 1.2 kelvin (about 15 degrees Celsius) achieved at 267 ± 10 gigapascals. The superconducting state is observed over a broad pressure range in the diamond anvil cell, from 140 to 275 gigapascals, with a sharp upturn in transition temperature above 220 gigapascals. Superconductivity is established by the observation of zero resistance, a magnetic susceptibility of up to 190 gigapascals, and reduction of the transition temperature under an external magnetic field of up to 9 tesla, with an upper critical magnetic field of about 62 tesla according to the Ginzburg–Landau model at zero temperature. The light, quantum nature of hydrogen limits the structural and stoichiometric determination of the system by X-ray scattering techniques, but Raman spectroscopy is used to probe the chemical and structural transformations before metallization. The introduction of chemical tuning within our ternary system could enable the preservation of the properties of room-temperature superconductivity at lower pressures. https://archive.is/jfrBc
So they started playing Simpleplanes?
>BREAKING: Israel does not object to the the sale of F35 jets from the U.S. to the United Arab Emirates, PM Netanyahu & MoD Gantz say in a joint statement https://archive.is/NbDCi What the fuck was it made for?
>>7885 Any chance you could post an archive that isn't behind cuckflare anon?
>>7890 Yep, thanks I can see it fine now.
>>7890 The heebs want the UAE to take them because know the Fail35 is such a massive flying pork barrel that fielding some will actually reduce the UAE's air effectiveness. After all, they're the ones making the money from it.
>>7890 >Was the F-35 a multi-billion dollar export monkey model? Yes, they've been pretty open about that at defense industry trade shows from the start. LockMart themselves were semi-openly pushing the US DoD to fund NorGru returning to fighter production and standardizing the YF-23 as the US fighter, since they (NorGru) still have the equipment to make them — and NorGru already did the Open-Architecture software work on their systems for the YF-23 when they tried converting it to a bomber. Obviously hasn't really been an option for 10 or so years now, but people fail to realize how much LockMart's Skunkworks hates the F-35.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?