Russia vs Ukraine anyone watching this ignite?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    95,362
    113
    Merrillville
    Meh. Prototype destroyed. Not news.
    Prototype proves or disproves a concept.
    Sometimes used to prove or disprove a tactic change due to the new equipment.

    At which time, the prototype's future is ... ????

    Before the 688 attack submarine doctrine was adopted, the Navy was trying to determine the future of attack submarine engineering plants.
    Prototypes can only go so far on land, once the "concept is proved"

    So they built the Lipscomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Glenard_P._Lipscomb_(SSN-685) to try an electric drive.
    Electric drive was not new. WWII boats used battery power to drive the shaft. Basically the shaft became the rotor of a large electric motor.
    But Nukes had electric turbines to provide electricity, and main engine turbines that would then turn reduction gears, which would turn the shaft.
    The reduction gears are weight, a lot, and a source of noise.
    Also, everything is "redundant" with backups. Except the reduction gears. The gears make up a single point failure point, that will take the sub out of commission.

    So, after the Navy liked the Lipscomb, but like the Los Angeles class better.
    Well, after they start building 688s, they're not just gonna throw away the Lipscomb. It was a huge investment, and it does work.
    So, they continued to use it.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    Same could be said of the Seawolf. Not the Seawolf class they have now. But the second Nuclear Attack Submarine (SSN)
    Although fully armed, Seawolf, like the first nuclear submarine, Nautilus, was primarily an experimental vessel. Seawolf was originally thought of publicly as a hunter-killer submarine, but in fact was intended to be a one-off test platform for the SIR (aka S2G) LMFR reactor and future sonar platforms. Its future uses, after the reactor plant was replaced with a light water system, included covert operations in foreign waters, for which it was converted January 1971 – June 1973
    Nuke subs were a Novel Concept. Previous subs were basically Surface Ships, that could BRIEFLY submerge.
    With the advent of the SSN though, MANY concepts were being rethought. Equipment, Procedures, Tactics, Manning... EVERYTHING was being changed.
    So the Seawolf used a liquid metal coolant, and had several other major changes in the engineering plant.
    Also, new Sonar systems.
    It was a "proof of concept" that was not thrown away after the proof/disproof.

    In fact, the Albacore hull that came later, completely revamped the submarine hull.
    The Nautilus and Seawolf were basically WWII hulls, modified with concepts learned from captured German WWII hulls.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,294
    113
    Martinsville
    I keep seeing so many people on here that are appalled Russian POWs (might) be getting shot in the knee when many of the people on here have been saying from the beginning they wouldn't be taking any prisoners if we were being invaded here.

    Neither one is right as POWs should be protected but the hypocrisy is so loud it's laughable. Not saying anyone has specifically said both the "not taking prisoners" part and the "knee capping POWs is wrong" part but can't have it both ways y'all. Besides, the Ukrainian ranks have been filled by volunteers with maybe a week's worth of training. Clearly discipline is lacking, and unacceptable.

    Humanely killing them is one thing, knee capping them is kind of another. At least IMO.

    I get not taking prisoners, what are you going to do, bring them home and make them a bed and pray they don't kill you in your sleep? Civilians aren't really logistically equipped to deal with that.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    95,362
    113
    Merrillville
    Well, training, and what is your ability to deal with prisoners?

    What happened to some German prisoners when allied paratroopers took over pinch points?
    The paratroopers did not have the ability, in some cases, to deal with prisoners.
     

    Redhorse

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    2,124
    63
    I guess I'm not seeing how murdering unarmed prisoners is not a war crime but blowing their knees off is, or how the latter is some how worse than the former. Dead is dead.

    I'm just saying taking the high road by saying knee capping prisoners is wrong is voided if one also says they'd flat kill any and all enemy combatants. Wrong is wrong and splitting hairs doesn't somehow make it right.
     

    Mikey1911

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 14, 2014
    2,875
    113
    Newburgh
    Meh. Prototype destroyed. Not news.
    Prototype proves or disproves a concept.
    Sometimes used to prove or disprove a tactic change due to the new equipment.

    At which time, the prototype's future is ... ????

    Before the 688 attack submarine doctrine was adopted, the Navy was trying to determine the future of attack submarine engineering plants.
    Prototypes can only go so far on land, once the "concept is proved"

    So they built the Lipscomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Glenard_P._Lipscomb_(SSN-685) to try an electric drive.
    Electric drive was not new. WWII boats used battery power to drive the shaft. Basically the shaft became the rotor of a large electric motor.
    But Nukes had electric turbines to provide electricity, and main engine turbines that would then turn reduction gears, which would turn the shaft.
    The reduction gears are weight, a lot, and a source of noise.
    Also, everything is "redundant" with backups. Except the reduction gears. The gears make up a single point failure point, that will take the sub out of commission.

    So, after the Navy liked the Lipscomb, but like the Los Angeles class better.
    Well, after they start building 688s, they're not just gonna throw away the Lipscomb. It was a huge investment, and it does work.
    So, they continued to use it.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    Same could be said of the Seawolf. Not the Seawolf class they have now. But the second Nuclear Attack Submarine (SSN)
    Although fully armed, Seawolf, like the first nuclear submarine, Nautilus, was primarily an experimental vessel. Seawolf was originally thought of publicly as a hunter-killer submarine, but in fact was intended to be a one-off test platform for the SIR (aka S2G) LMFR reactor and future sonar platforms. Its future uses, after the reactor plant was replaced with a light water system, included covert operations in foreign waters, for which it was converted January 1971 – June 1973
    Nuke subs were a Novel Concept. Previous subs were basically Surface Ships, that could BRIEFLY submerge.
    With the advent of the SSN though, MANY concepts were being rethought. Equipment, Procedures, Tactics, Manning... EVERYTHING was being changed.
    So the Seawolf used a liquid metal coolant, and had several other major changes in the engineering plant.
    Also, new Sonar systems.
    It was a "proof of concept" that was not thrown away after the proof/disproof.

    In fact, the Albacore hull that came later, completely revamped the submarine hull.
    The Nautilus and Seawolf were basically WWII hulls, modified with concepts learned from captured German WWII hulls.
    Re: Seawolf (SSN-575):

    “If the oceans were made of liquid sodium, some SOB (at GE?) would want to use a pressurized water reactor.”

    —attributed to HGR (aka “The KOG”)
     
    Last edited:

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    95,362
    113
    Merrillville
    Re: Seawolf (SSN-575):

    “If the oceans were made of liquid sodium, some SOB would want to use a pressurized water reactor.”

    —attributed to HGR
    Also..
    In Rickover's words they were "expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair."


    He was a cantankerous son of a b****.
    But that was what was necessary to get the nuke program going while the Navy dragged it's heels.

    He also held the contractors feet to the fire.
    Made them do what they were supposed to.
    And called them out when they tried to gyp the government.
     

    Mikey1911

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 14, 2014
    2,875
    113
    Newburgh
    Also..
    In Rickover's words they were "expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair."


    He was a cantankerous son of a b****.
    But that was what was necessary to get the nuke program going while the Navy dragged it's heels.

    He also held the contractors feet to the fire.
    Made them do what they were supposed to.
    And called them out when they tried to gyp the government.
    My father saw HGR a couple of times when he was a machinist at Westinghouse. He said you never saw so many managers afraid of what the Admiral might say or do if he saw or heard something he didn’t like.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,570
    149
    Columbus, OH
    I guess I'm not seeing how murdering unarmed prisoners is not a war crime but blowing their knees off is, or how the latter is some how worse than the former. Dead is dead.

    I'm just saying taking the high road by saying knee capping prisoners is wrong is voided if one also says they'd flat kill any and all enemy combatants. Wrong is wrong and splitting hairs doesn't somehow make it right.
    Are civilian irregulars governed by the Geneva Conventions?

    Do SpecOps/Recon take prisoners?
     

    rooster

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Mar 4, 2010
    3,306
    113
    Indianapolis
    The scary thing is, because the turret is automated.. there is nothing to keep this thing from being made into a "Tank Drone", and future plans may include that.
    I’m kinda surprised that tank drones aren’t a thing yet. IMO that’s the next easiest thing to make unmanned after surveillance operations
     

    Redhorse

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    2,124
    63
    Are civilian irregulars governed by the Geneva Conventions?

    Do SpecOps/Recon take prisoners?
    Technically the majority of them are part of Territorial Defense Units, which have been loosely integrated into the Ukrainian armed services, so in theory they should be tied by the Geneva conventions.
     

    BluePig

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    May 10, 2012
    1,661
    113
    Middlebury
    They may have considered it a dead end, or not worth bothering with anymore.

    Because the Russians are working with something that may be the future, especially considering the ATGMs on the field.

    Meet the T-14 tank.
    T-14_prototype_from_above.JPG


    This is a blank sheet design, and is interesting in that. The turret is man-less. Its a three man crew that sit away from the boom boom stuff in the front of the tank. So if a Javelin pops the turret, the guys get out and get away.
    The scary thing is, because the turret is automated.. there is nothing to keep this thing from being made into a "Tank Drone", and future plans may include that. The crew drives to the battle, gets out just before, and commands the tank from the safe rear into battle.
    When I worked @ AM General during the Iraq war, we built a one off prototype that had some unique refinements done to it. Took about 3 months to get done. We shipped it out directly to SC and it was on a boat heading for the war zone. Government was anxious to try it out due to the IED losses happening. About 2 months later, I got called down to my bosses office (Manager of QC). He showed me a picture of our prototype unit with the front of it blowed all to he#$. I remember him saying "Back to the drawing board. "
    We did the same thing, so don't act like it is special. As long as you got the prints, you can build another one. It is just time and $.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    531,106
    Messages
    9,967,207
    Members
    54,986
    Latest member
    benw
    Top Bottom