which video are you watching right now?

[CommanderAlex]

I've been watching a couple videos after seeing der8auer's video with his ASUS RTX 4090 dying on him and getting it sent to this company that does GPU board repair. 

 

Pretty damn cool ngl. 

 

[sub68]

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

 

That’s not how that works.  That reasoning on why the US does what it does militarily seems straight out of the third grade or something.  Ronald Reagan’s explanations of that stuff was… simplistic at best.  There’s an interesting point made though: while th hawk isn’t as convenient, requires a larger crew, and has more possible points of failure, it is more or less the same thing, just much much more expensive.  The hawk is already using a machine gun to kill a fly.  It’s merely a really cheap machine gun that wasn’t being used for anything else.  The Iranian drone missiles are using wave tactics.  Huge numbers of cheap crappy weapons.  Much like mayflies or schools of fish.  The solution to that isn’t more pelicans, it’s a net.  It might be there aren’t enough hawks, and hawks AND patriots might produce the necessary numbers, but these are things that more resemble ww2 German buzz bombs than anything else.  They’re actually a lot slower, though possibly more maneuverable.  There is apparently a German mechanized  anti aircraft gun that is really good at dealing with them, and would be a better weapon than a patriot for this, but it uses Swiss guns and the Swiss won’t sell Germany more ammo.  It’s still one million dollar missile for one lawn mower. (The Iranian flying bombs are powered by what amount to lawnmower engines with props). It’s just not real efficient.   There was an interesting afghan tactic used against the Russians in Afghanistan.  The taliban would use logs against armored combat helicopters. They would throw the log into the air and it would break the rotor blades causing the things to crash.  The Iranian drones have rotors too.  Maybe what we need is something more like this air powered net throwers designed to take out little quad copters. Those of course wouldn’t work.  Not enough altitude.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Bombastinator

[sub68]

40 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

That’s not how that works.

Well you could argue that or I could ask my dad that has worked on these systems when it was first started to roll out. I also know a air force munitions expert that currently works on these systems.

40 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

just much much more expensive.

Like 90% of the rest of the military since about 80's I wanna say. Did you know that like a year of the war in afgan is more than the whole war in vietnam or smth like that.

[Bombastinator]

21 minutes ago, sub68 said:

Well you could argue that or I could ask my dad that has worked on these systems when it was first started to roll out. I also know a air force munitions expert that currently works on these systems.

Like 90% of the rest of the military since about 80's I wanna say. Did you know that like a year of the war in afgan is more than the whole war in vietnam or smth like that.

Re: systems

i was referring to his explanation at the very beginning of US use of force and it’s reasoning.  Made me think more critically about everything he said later.
 

re: parental expertise

I wonder if there’s anything else in the US or world arsenal that would be better at this.  The Sargent York was a (it turned out to be garbage and was never produced) version of that German thing.  There aren't any though.

 

The way the British dealt with buzz bombs in world war 2 was misdirection (which won’t work here unless it will.  How are those things guided I wonder?  The British had suborned the German forward observers and did things like paint fake damage on buildings. The other tactic simply running them down with their fastest aircraft.   These things are hoopties.  They don’t need better stuff they need more worse stuff.  Who’s got the stuff the is army ditched in the 50’s?  Talk to say Paraguay and say “we’ll trade you a dozen nice shiney patriots for 150 of those things you got there”
 

There is definitely echoes of the blitz here.  I wonder how you say “keep calm and carry on” in Ukrainian?

[sub68]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

I wonder if there’s anything else in the US or world arsenal that would be better at this.

Nope....

Because most systems evolved from the PATRIOT.

There is development for laser systems (but its kinda dumb on satellites) I have heard of it on.

Wanna hear something on how stupid accurate the PATRIOT system is, the only miss ( in the first 10 years) was due to 1/3 of a second due to the guidence computer time drift resulting in a miss of 600 meters. Also a SCUD can go like ~3,000 KMPH

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

i was referring to his explanation at the very beginning of US use of force and it’s reasoning.  

ok... I see, from your intial comment, I would call these low altitude things (Not a UAV) different from a drone that your thinking) which are (usally) IDK as I haven't known enough) easily seen and are slow and these are usually fired pretty near a base or the high value target so a CIWS (though these are still autoguidence with almost same setup just smaller I think a entire setup can fit on a semi trailer)the price would be cheaper as its a lie 40,000 of .50CAL rounds) would light that up over a patriot system I hope this answers you question BTW I am not good at reading wall of text.

a patriot system is meant for higher altitude like a airplane (hijaked or kamakazai) also funfact the US has never used on a airplane only Israeli) or a SCUD.

Which is basically good luck at manually seeing. The SCUD missile is a ICBM with guidance systems.

[sub68]

6 minutes ago, sub68 said:

Because most systems evolved from the PATRIOT.

Ok, Most people copy it due to how reliable PATRIOT is.

As for cost IDK any good system that are cheaper.

Maybe THAAD, but its only meant for ICBM's not flexible....

Japanese version of the patriot, but japan never exports it so...

The iron dome is meant for short range.

[Bombastinator]

25 minutes ago, sub68 said:

Nope....

Because most systems evolved from the PATRIOT.

There is development for laser systems (but its kinda dumb on satellites) I have heard of it on.

Wanna hear something on how stupid accurate the PATRIOT system is, the only miss ( in the first 10 years) was due to 1/3 of a second due to the guidence computer time drift resulting in a miss of 600 meters. Also a SCUD can go like ~3,000 KMPH

ok... I see, from your intial comment, I would call these low altitude things (Not a UAV) different from a drone that your thinking) which are (usally) IDK as I haven't known enough) easily seen and are slow and these are usually fired pretty near a base or the high value target so a CIWS (though these are still autoguidence with almost same setup just smaller I think a entire setup can fit on a semi trailer)the price would be cheaper as its a lie 40,000 of .50CAL rounds) would light that up over a patriot system I hope this answers you question BTW I am not good at reading wall of text.

a patriot system is meant for higher altitude like a airplane (hijaked or kamakazai) also funfact the US has never used on a airplane only Israeli) or a SCUD.

Which is basically good luck at manually seeing. The SCUD missile is a ICBM with guidance systems.

CIWS is an interesting thought.  It’s sort of by definition very short range though.  I could see them possibly being useful in very specific situations.  Defending electrical junction boxes and turbines and whatnot.  My memory is the device it competed against was produced anyway though and bought by a few countries. I think it was called “goalkeeper” it had a fairly limited arc of fire iirc. They’re around though.

 

I didn’t know the patriot was also wildly accurate.  Still pricey though.  The other thing that bugs me is it’s actually a front line US system, and giving people a look at what radar band it’s using and whatnot could make the thing possibly less effective in the future.  Might not be a thing though and Israel has had em for years, and fired a bunch of em even, so it’s not like there’s much potential security loss.  Might make me want to do an update though.

[sub68]

14 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

think it was called “goalkeeper”

A goalkeeper is a CIWIS its very capable. Hexk its the same minigun as a A10 warthog.

 the ciwis in The video is most likly a Phalanx.

20 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It’s sort of by definition very short range though.

Yeah but the stuff you describe would be affected by a ciwis or a C-RAM.

21 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Still pricey though

Yes but is it worth protecting people? 

Not a singler person but houndreds or thousands, that one miss was affected like 150 people. 

Also something cheaper is hard and i personal dont think its a good idea.

22 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The other thing that bugs me is it’s actually a front line US system, and giving people a look at what radar band it’s using

Its fine radar is so heavily used even that band to detect normal aircraft. 

Also idk any way of tracking besides radar. 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

A goalkeeper is a CIWIS its very capable. Hexk its the same minigun as a A10 warthog.

 the ciwis in The video is most likly a Phalanx.

Yeah but the stuff you describe would be affected by a ciwis or a C-RAM.

Yes but is it worth protecting people? 

Not a singler person but houndreds or thousands, that one miss was affected like 150 people. 

Also something cheaper is hard and i personal dont think its a good idea.

Its fine radar is so heavily used even that band to detect normal aircraft. 

Also idk any way of tracking besides radar. 

Re: price

It’s not the price so much as the number.  You could have a lot of good expensive ones or a lot of not-so-good not-so-expensive ones. It’s the “a lot” that is the operand.

 

re: bats use sonar.  Eyes use “phodar”. Also there’s LiDAR though I understand that has range difficulties.  It’s all basically the same thing.  It’s just a question of wavelength.  The only thing I know of that might be different is this pressure wave over-the-horizon thing.  Canada or Australia or some other physically large former colony that isn’t the USA came up with a thing that detects air pressure waves or something because they had so much space to defend they needed an over the horizon capability.  It apparently also completely negates stealth too.

 

the more I think about that CIWS thing though the more I like it.  Maybe 4 per high value structure.  Mount them on the building corners of power plants or something.  The thing I wonder about is these things apparently do this  high altitude loiter thing.  Maybe they’re waiting for a target to be painted, or something.  Might be a range and angle problem because of that though.

 

Theres a thing perhaps: mount a CWIS in a truck bed (might have to be a big truck) and just drive em to where they are needed.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Bombastinator

[sub68]

9 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Theres a thing perhaps: mount a CWIS in a truck bed (might have to be a big truck) and just drive em to where they are needed.

I said that

12 hours ago, sub68 said:

though these are still autoguidence with almost same setup just smaller I think a entire setup can fit on a semi trailer)

 

9 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

bats use sonar.

Sonar is only used in water in air applacations it falls short

9 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Eyes use “phodar”

Problem, you can't really track these in the air with light clould cover

9 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Also there’s LiDAR though I understand that has range difficulties.

Yeah thats a no, from tesla testing and problems I think its a bad idea

 

The thing with radar yes you can detect it but since the patriot system is so fast and tracking is so fast the reaction time for the pilot is to fast to compreheand.

9 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

It’s not the price so much as the number.  You could have a lot of good expensive ones or a lot of not-so-good not-so-expensive ones. It’s the “a lot” that is the operand.

Ok I see what you mean. yes it does take alot to operand, but since patriot systems has entire maintenance crews I don't think its a problem.

 

Let me take this back to afganastan war we as the US had thousands of humves, while the terrorists have Hiluxs and what ever.

A single humvee (with full armour) is like 280,000 USD while a hilux is like a normal truck prices.

The humvee requires alot more maintenance compared to a hilux but since the army has entire companies just to maintain them its not a problem.

This is due to how orginized the miltary is that this just works.

 

[Bombastinator]

56 minutes ago, sub68 said:

I said that

 

Sonar is only used in water in air applacations it falls short

Problem, you can't really track these in the air with light clould cover

Yeah thats a no, from tesla testing and problems I think its a bad idea

 

The thing with radar yes you can detect it but since the patriot system is so fast and tracking is so fast the reaction time for the pilot is to fast to compreheand.

Ok I see what you mean. yes it does take alot to operand, but since patriot systems has entire maintenance crews I don't think its a problem.

 

Let me take this back to afganastan war we as the US had thousands of humves, while the terrorists have Hiluxs and what ever.

A single humvee (with full armour) is like 280,000 USD while a hilux is like a normal truck prices.

The humvee requires alot more maintenance compared to a hilux but since the army has entire companies just to maintain them its not a problem.

This is due to how orginized the miltary is that this just works.

 

It’s true that a humvee is generally a lot better than a hilux, in ww2 the axis had better tanks than the Allies, but there weren’t as many of them, so the allied tanks swarmed the tigers or whichever, and sure they got killed 3 to 1 or more so there needed to be more than 3 times as many of them, but the Allie’s could field that.  The problem is that with missiles everything is one-to-one.  There was a recent wave with I think over 70+ drones.  That means that the Ukrainian army would have to shoot 70+ times. Can they?  Was just watching a video on Poland having just developed a thing that looks a lot like a land CIWS specifically designed for shooting down drones of varying sizes.  Poland is a reasonably safe place to put patriots.  I wonder if patriots could be trade maybe even just two for one (though it’s probably more) even though the polish weapon is much shorter range it might be what is most useful. Bullets will always be cheaper than missiles even if it’s a lot of bullets, and the polish weapon fires a cheaper round at a lower rate than the CIWS does.  Most importantly though the round is a acquireable.  The best solution is more rounds for those German things I think, but if they can’t be gotten, the polish weapon may be interesting.  An absolute shit ton of them would be needed of course.  A shit ton of almost anything it seems, but as before, lots is the operand.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Bombastinator

[sub68]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

 Poland is a reasonably safe place to put patriots.  

Poland has been training on the system for alittle bit.

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Bullets will always be cheaper than missiles even if it’s a lot of bullets, and the polish weapon fires a cheaper round at a lower rate than the CIWS does.

Yes and no, for drones yes.... but when your considering the stupid amount blastic missile could happend that why SAM's are important.

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, sub68 said:

Poland has been training on the system for alittle bit.

Yes and no, for drones yes.... but when your considering the stupid amount blastic missile could happend that why SAM's are important.

Fair enough.  I’m sort of wondering about all those old biplanes Russia is lining up.  Over 40 of them.  Apparently a lot of them are old air ambulances.  I’d hate to be a Siberian oil rig worker who needs to be medevacced right about now.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Bombastinator

[sub68]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

 I’m sort of wondering about all those old biplanes Russia is lining up.  Over 40 of them. 

I bet a combo of CIWIS and sam's or aircraft intersections.

[Quackers101]

ATX12VO, PCworld at intel.

Sadly motherboard pays the price, Sata power connectors? more and less cables

Edited December 18, 2022 by Quackers101

[xAcid9]

Again, the production quality and presentation is 

 

Meanwhile, Matt from Carwow just did a sub 8sec in an electric car with top speed limited to 150mph.

Also this car can go around corners very quickly, not just in straight line. 

 

[Quackers101]

recent views and updates, again back with personlised "cancer vaccines".

"lower the risk of melanoma returning"

 

to maybe some other stuff, pills to focus on cancer cells? (australia + new zealand)

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-capsules-aim-effective-cancer-drug.html

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Quackers101

[Bombastinator]

47 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

recent views and updates, again back with personlised "cancer vaccines".

"lower the risk of melanoma returning"

 

to maybe some other stuff, pills to focus on cancer cells? (australia + new zealand)

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-capsules-aim-effective-cancer-drug.html

 

These seem to be individually formulated so a tablet seems unlikely due to the way tablets are made.  Also stuff in tablets has to both withstand the gut and be absorbed.

[Bombastinator]

5 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

Again, the production quality and presentation is 

 

Meanwhile, Matt from Carwow just did a sub 8sec in an electric car with top speed limited to 150mph.

Also this car can go around corners very quickly, not just in straight line. 

 

That fan thing is interesting.  I wonder if there are rules limitations preventing them and if there is a net bonus in power use.  If they’re too expensive to run in either weight or power they wouldn’t get used in f1 even if they were legal.  They’re apparently not used, so it’s either illegal, uneconomic, or both.  I think it quite unlikely that merely “no one thought of it”

[Bombastinator]

that’s a third of a fire and forget missile. All there is left is an integral direction system and a payload. Why do I suspect we’re seeing future missile designers in the making?

 

stingers built with a 3d printer in someone’s bedroom.  I am terrified.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Bombastinator

[sub68]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Why do I suspect we’re seeing future missile designers in the making?

Thats bassicly aerospace engineer 

 

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

stingers built with a 3d printer in someone’s bedroom.  I am terrified.

Tbf i think this person wanted to make a guided model rocket by the looks of it. Also this person is from hong kong so i highly doubt he is going tonstrap sone explosives and i am going to assume its a passion project. 

 

To be fair what he is doing is stupid hard even normal (homade ones)  model rockets are really complicated sometimes, i have launched two with raspberry pi for data collection, i also know some peole in my group that want to do two stages 

[Bombastinator]

43 minutes ago, sub68 said:

Thats bassicly aerospace engineer 

 

Tbf i think this person wanted to make a guided model rocket by the looks of it. Also this person is from hong kong so i highly doubt he is going tonstrap sone explosives and i am going to assume its a passion project. 

 

To be fair what he is doing is stupid hard even normal (homade ones)  model rockets are really complicated sometimes, i have launched two with raspberry pi for data collection, i also know some peole in my group that want to do two stages 

Yeah that whole photography gimble stand kinda said to me “I don’t always launch at 90°”

 

I kinda know how TOWs work.  Or maybe it was dragons. It’s terribly complex.  There’s a series of little tiny solid motors, almost squibs, more or less covering the thing, and as the rocket flies it fires them when needed to keep on target. They spin it so they can get multiple shots from the same point. Microsecond timing.  Sort of a meltybrain spinbot kind of thing. 

I’ve done a few Estes things.  Balsa wood and paper tubes, etc..  the whole making your own rocket motors is where I draw the line myself. I did see some fairly neat looking arduinos on what looked like 1” or 1.5” disks though that were apparently designed to be stacked inside a rocket body. 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Bombastinator

[sub68]

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

’ve done a few Estes things.  Balsa wood and paper tubes, etc.

Yeah, the thing I am dealing with isnt c motors its mostly F motors.

 

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

. I did see some fairly neat looking arduinos on what looked like 1” or 1.5” disks though that were apparently designed to be stacked inside a rocket body. 

Yeah those look like custom, made to be in the tube.

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Yeah that whole photography gimble stand kinda said to me “I don’t always launch at 90°”

Well some times its fun to launch at other degrees.

or you launch into the wind so it comeback to you when parachute depolys.

also that is a tripod, I would use a tripod more than a normal stand, a normal stand sucks to put up also harder to get it to be even.

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I kinda know how TOWs work.  Or maybe it was dragons. It’s terribly complex.  

Yeah it bassically a TOW.

I will say putting expolsives into the noose cone can and will make that rocket very unstable 

[sub68]