/k/ - Weapons

>>644350

>i'm using pia vpn going through a western european country. Why would i be showing up as russia?

You're using a VPN from the future.

The first reason why helicopters are scary is that they could be anywhere. An airplane has fixed landing fields that a guerilla can ignore, or at least knows the direction of the attack.

Second reason why theyre scary is that they can hang around, their ordnance is multidirectional, have tight turn radiuses, and can apply pressure to troops continuously. Airplanes simply go too fast, they have to take "runs" at infantry, which can displace and move during each attack run. Plus if its a bad angle of attack the airplane is fucked, whereas the helicopter just changes position.

I think gyrodynes are the future, theyre less complex than helicopters and offer all the benefits plus extended range. Cheyenne was ahead of its time…

>/k/ builds a gunship

Take Cessna 208 caravan, quest kodiak or similar turboprop skydiving plane.

>lots are used commonly for short-haul cargo and skydiving in 'murica

>cessna 208 is already being picked up by a couple militaries for cointel, including iraq and lebanon

>they even made a 208a attack caravan with hardpoints and flare tubes

>4000lbs load, 2000 after fuel

>fuckhuge door out the side for door guns

>underbelly cargo pod for electronics and flir

>take 105mm pack howitzer, pic related

>range of 4 miles(on land at least)

>2000lbs w/ trailer, hopefully half that without it

>1000lbs remaining for shells and optional minigun

>fly to battle

>remove

>>644436

Do you mean firing it from the plane? That would fuck up the plane man.

>>644448

>For those who are interested, check out the Bensen B-8.

The design is from the 60's and there are other, more modern tube frame gyrocopter designs out there; the Hornet just off the top of my head.

What motor were you planning on using? The go-to used to be Dr. Porche's Flat Four, but those are getting hard to come by.

>>644440

Not really.

>>644438

>/k/ommandos take a fucking Cessna meant for civilians, and re-purpose it into a warmachine capable of genocide

>>644453

Rhodies already did that alongside a bunch of mercs in Biafra

>>644452

planes are made of soft aluminum and bolts which can only take stress in a few specific directions. recoil force of that cannon can break granite rock into pieces, if it goes off in the airplane it will yank itself out of any kind of restraint and probably take half the airplane with it.

>>644478

Sounds like a job for the masked man.

>>644478

I would've suggested a recoil-less rifle. Or just load it down with 'dumb' rockets.

>>644528

>hooked cessnas to trucks and drove them to within a few dozen miles of a massive airport under camo nets and the cover of darkness

>hurry_ivan_we_will_miss_air_battle.oldasfuckmeme

How long does it take to bolt the wings back on a Cessna 152? Or does anyone make a sport aircraft with folding wings like a carrier aircraft? You could load the whole thing, fully armed, into a box trailer and go all Fresh Fruits on their asses.

>>644453

Cessna already manufactures the cessna 208 attack caravan with hardpoints and flares. its the pic in the post you replied to, you can see the hardpoints. it even says 'air force' on the side.

>>644478

I'm sure the frame could be beefed up enough to support firing a (lower power, shorter brass) 105mm shell. If not, then you can mount any 20 or 30mm autocannon/chaingun you can get your hands on.

Targeting systems would be easier than people realize, precise electric motors are cheap on ebay/alibaba/amazon and FLIR sells the same IR camera turrets that police helicopters use to civilians too.

>>644469

the finest italian engineering

>>644545

>does anyone make sport utility aircraft with folding wings?

hangar space aint free my dude. tons of planes are designed to be easily trailer-portable either by folding or detaching wings. >>644545

>>644528

FRESH FRUITS

>>644685

A low power 30mm autocannon has about 15kN of force, that's still quite a lot. I think you could reinforce it but what's the point?

>>644692

Afghanis do the same thing, bomb bases with rockets all the time, the problem is that they're retarded and don't know how to aim or hit valuable targets. Why do you think our bases there have thick concrete or massive sand bags.

>>644824

it also has two fuckhuge engines to go with it.

for basic shitting on things below oneself with a cessna, basic HEFI rockets or a set of 50. MGs with API would chew through everything you find, just be sure to have tracers on the belt so you can see where your aiming

>>644478

Use carbon steel fasteners and ribs to strengthen it enough to where it won't self destruct

>>644831

>more forward force means significantly smaller net reduction when canon is shot

So you just need to add several solid rocket boosters to the Cessna that trigger a second before the canon fires and jettison after burning their fuel.

Just mount an rmk30 on it. Slightly more muzzle energy than the shell from the A10, none of the recoil.

>>644824

A fucking WWII airplane is made of steel with steel ribbing. Cessnas aren't.

Now quit posting CIA tracker images you giant fucking faggot.

>>644836

it could be dual purpose. like a volley of rockets + HEAT shell

rockets with extended fuel compartments attached to the plane activate and can only be shot off via activation from trigger pull of the cannon.

kinda like most modern missiles, turn them on to spool it up then launch, with the main difference being the spooling up bit is them boosting the plane and then launching them as the cannon is fired.

ITT we take cessnas and turn them into warmachines

>>644859

>what is duraluminium

>>644859

>mosquito

>>644943

Muh. Dik.

>>644713

>>644859

Its not your uncles rental cessna, this is a turbine powered commercial short-haul cargo transport plane. it has a much tougher structure and much more powerful engine than a standard general aviation aircraft. Though not up to military standards, these larger cessnas are tougher than they look and could (and do) easily fly cointel missions.

Also most non-direct-combat ww2 aircraft were made of aluminum.

>>644943

the idea was to shoot a 105mm shell out of the side of the plane, ac-130 style. The plane can carry the weight easily, its a question of beefing up the recoil dampening system enough for the structure to take it. I'm sure it could be done, not sure if it would be cheaper than sticking rocket pods under the wing. The tactical advantage a side gun gives is big imo(orbiting and watching a spot with guns trained, rather than having to line up for a strafing run or use expensive guided missiles)

In the event of a civil war, how hard do you guys think it would be for an organized rebellion to get away with stealing/commandeering planes from airlines? Probably by the point they are capturing airports, foreign support(no rebellions are grassroots) should be giving them enough funds to operate the commandeered aircraft as they are.

How would you militarize an a320, or any large civilian aircraft? be more creative than 'long-range strategic bomber' pls. load up with explosives and fly it(remotely, we're not sandniggers/japs) into the enemy? That would turn it into a stupidly expensive intercontinental cruise missile. But hey, you didn't buy the jet.

>>644909

Why take the risk? Simply pack the "recoil space" with more rockets. Rockets are cheap and simple, even /k/inder can make it.

This is the recipe for rocket fuel:

- 2x Saltpeter

- 1x Sugar

And this is a recipe for warhead mass:

- 2x Saltpeter

- 1x Diesel fuel

Get a 2 inch diameter PVC pipe, two yards long, with screw caps for both sides. Pack 9/10ths of the pipe with the fuel, and the upper 1/10th with the warhead mass. Screw caps on both sides. Drill a hole in both caps. Put a nail gun blank on one side as a detonator, and two wires leading to your launch switch in the other.

A single store bought bag of fertilizer can make about 40 rockets.

Granted this is a shitty rocket and you can get better results by putting pottassium perchlorate in the fuel mass and aluminum dust in the warhead mass, or other such performance improvements. But the basic one isn't even hard.

Now imagine how fucking difficult for a rebel it is to make a cannon, repair it if it gets broke, cast the shells so they're perfect and have no flaws, etc….

>>645114

Its a 1:1 with the first.

t.guy who has an uxo zone.

>>645129

Then why aren't we seeing more cannons on aircraft nowadays?

>>645086

Only having 200 rounds is a pretty low load, with the AN/M2s rof you have about 12.5 total seconds of fire before you’re out. Being .50 cals and not machine canons, means you’ll only really be effective against unarmoured trucks, shooting at infantry seems like a waste of time as the vast majority if not all of your shots will go to waste and sending out cas just to suppress infantry for maybe two minutes total and likely get 0 kills seems like a waste of the plane. Restricting it just to convey raids also would be a waste as that’s an entire plane you need to supply and maintain for such a specific role whereas a more versatile nigger-rigged vehicle would be more useful. I really can’t think of any use that would benefit a small force, even dogfighting with other makeshift combat planes would be tough as those 200 shots will be gone fast. Most WWII fighters carried a few hundred if not over a thousand of rounds for MGs, and if they had canons usually a few hindered rounds for those too.

>>645151

Governments don’t have the budget of a /k/ommando force fighting niggers in Africa, and smart missiles are much more efficient.

>>645189

Oh, right, it's the distinction between "rockets" and "smart rockets" I was missing.

>>645151

Because MUHssiles!

>>645117

That just creates more reaction mass, most of it is unburned. But you're right you can play with those values pretty safely.

>Rockets are xbawx hueg, in the same space and weight you could carry 100 shells you'd be lucky to have 5 rockets of the same yield.

First of all that's not true, it's about a 3:1 ratio not 20:1. Second of all you aren't counting the weight of the cannon and reloading system, which counterbalances that completely.

>3. Rockets by default have shit accuracy and cost a hell of a lot more to have them be able to land in the same areacode.

That problem was solved a long time ago by spin stabilization.

Most of your complaints don't make any sense…

>>645151

f-35 has a 35mm cannon

>>645086

I think its a better idea to just stick a flir IR cam/sensor pod on it and use it for recon. You can actually buy those things as a civilian, but they're extremely expensive(10k+) and apparently power hungry, but that just means a larger alternator or maybe even an APU.

>>645306

The pilots job wouldn't be made *that* much harder, assuming the gun is positioned properly. You should be able to position it so the recoil mostly pushes the plane sideways instead of inducing yaw. I think that's why the 120 is the furthest forward on the c-130, so its closer to the center of lift and sideways cross-section(total sideways drag from the push). From my experience flying ga planes, its generally below the flaps and behind the center of lift. Maybe the cessna 208 isnt the right plane, you kinda need a strutless wing for a gun to go under it.

The main advantage imo for side-mounting the 105 is standoff range. You can stay just outside your enemies effective range (or just inside your own) and 'supress' the enemy with shelling.

Using a .30cal or even a .50 makes this advantage pretty slim against standard infantry and make the plane rely on rockets/bombs to suppress harder targets. A cannon in the air is still necessary for CAS, the question is what caliber. If you ask me, bigger is better.

You may be right about kit-builds, especially stol planes w/ folding wings. A trailer-able plane that can takeoff/land on basically any flat and open quarter mile of road with could be effective(if vulnerable to small arms) air support.

>>645456

biggest advantage is price and ammunition onboard. 3:1 ratio of ammo(is this measured in firepower as in explosives/mass sent downrange?) will still better than rockets as long the gun doesnt weigh any more than 2/3s the useful load. And the cannon will be far cheaper per lb of boom sent to remove the enemy.

>>645480

>as long the gun doesnt weigh any more than 2/3s the useful load.

This is very rare, especially for air to ground cannon. Also an airplane has only time to do one or two runs, there's no point in carrying more ammunition than it takes to do that.

>>645480

>f-35 has a 35mm cannon

Wat?

>>645480

>f-35 has a 35mm cannon

Can it be operated for more then 100 rounds without needing a mandatory gunsmith inspection?

>>645654

Better yet having an entire airframe inspection.

>>645659

How can every single aspect of this plane (I know that word implies a vessel capable of flight but I don’t know what other word to use) be so god damn awful? You’d think by accident they would have made a single good or even acceptable part, but it never ends.

>>645658

Better make the inspection quick, the fuel truck is waiting on the runway to refuel, and it’s only got a few more minutes before it explodes.

>>645654

>>645659

>>645480

>gun pod

>nonfunctional

>lowest velocity available

>"aduurr it has a 35mm gun"

No it has a 35mm grenade launcher to aid in braking while landing.

By the way if having a fucking pod meant you could say an airplane "has a gun", by that logic a 747 has a 100mm naval cannon because theoretically it could fly with the cannon bolted to the airframe.

Also lol

>discoveries

Like they're venturing into an unknown continent, instead of something with billions of engineering hours before it even got off the paper.

>>645675

Nobody is going to end the program, so the more broken shit they have, the more money gets thrown at lockheeb.

>>645654

>>645647

I lied/typoed it's a 25mm gatling, and only on the f35a and c, not the vtol. Carries 180rds.

>>645151

1. "Muh rawkets r duh futur" retardation.

2. (((They))) want you to buy a $500,000 smartlaserthermoquided rocket to blow up a turbanhead's house, rather than a shell or bomb that costs maybe $100.

3. They still have cannons on airplanes because despite "G-d's chosen" wanting countries to waste money on their shit, the military still wants at least one effective weapon per vehicle.

>>645314

I see the blatantly obvious implication goes right over your autistic head.

"Budget" rockets only work enmasse because their accuracy is worse than a shotgun in a vidya gaem.

Easiest, most effective air support will be Cessna 172 or Caravan loaded with a crew of AR-10 streloks. Brass catchers mandatory. You have rounds with a decent chance to do damage, you can fire off axis, no modifications to the airframe, no recoil concerns, and eliminates the danger of "homemade" explosives/materials associated with rockets or bombs. Thermal sights on the AR's, NVG trained pilots, stick to night missions and there's a decent little gunship. If you need a helicopter, R-22 or 44 with 3 AR-10 streloks. Taking any actual weapons/munitions delivery functions away from the pilot/s allows for safer operation in almost every mission profile. Simplicity is key.

>>645909

Okay but what about the casualties form friendly fire? Surely those will outweigh the positives, plus the weight of even 6 fat ass streloks plus ~10 kilograms of unnecessary gear and butplugs/dragon dildos will alone account for more weight then might be handled.

>>645979

please excuse redditposting

>>645979

The primary problem I see is that recoilless rifles have pretty poor muzzle velocity and range. That'll make hitting a distant target much more difficult, since you've got to remain out of small arms fire since you plan on orbiting the target. Secondly, you're going to be moving at high speed laterally to the target, a motion that will carry over to your projectile. So unless you've got a co-axially mounted spotting rifle with identical ballistics to your main projectile, your chances of landing direct hits on a target are basically nil. It might work if you plan on just firing HE/fragmentation rounds at enemy infantry, but at that point you could probably just use a ground-based mortar and use the plane to spot and correct.

I like the idea of an autogyro-based ground support force, but there are some drawbacks when compared to helicopters. One of the major drawbacks of an autogyro is their inability to take off truly vertically or to hover in place.

One solution to this problem is to use temporarily power the main rotor mechanically and use the rudder to deflect the wash from the pushing rotor to balance the torque.

Another, perhaps better system for temporary hover would be a tip jet system. These are not as fuel efficient as a direct mechanical connection, but if it's only being used for brief periods during take off, landing, and hovering, it shouldn't significantly impact the overall flight time of the aircraft.

One alternative to using an air compressor is to use small engines or motors mounted on the rotor tips. While there have been a number of experimental helicopters that used some sort of jet engine, such as a pulse-jet or micro-turbine, these seem like overkill for intermittent use and may not start immediately, especially in adverse conditions.

Rocket motors can be made quite small while maintaining an excellent power to weight ratio. The one downside to rockets it their abysmal fuel efficiency. This would make them unsuitable for long duration flights, but if it's only being used in a temporary hover or during take off it shouldn't be a problem.

A more conventional powerplant will still be needed for the push rotor, and a second tank containing a liquid oxidizer would be needed for the tip rockets, but it could work and give an autogyro the abilities of a helicopter when needed without extra mechanical complexity.

>>645996

>The primary problem I see is that recoilless rifles have pretty poor muzzle velocity and range.

A non-propellant countermass can be used to reduce the amount of propellant wasted in the backblast. This setup would also work with a tube-based rocket launcher.

Your other points are spot on.

>>646048

Pure retarded speculation, but could a similar system be made with electrical differences and insulators rather than compressed air, à la electrostatic induction method?

>>645675

>Unless you’d say pic related

The stuka aircraft itself didn't have cannon, a stuka with cannon duct taped to it had cannon.

>>645675

AND CAN YOU STOP POSTING CIA FILENAME IMAGES

>>645766

You are confusing the term "rocket" with the term "missile".

>>646048

>One of the major drawbacks of an autogyro is their inability to take off truly vertically or to hover in place.

Gyros can take off vertically. The main rotor blades are pre-spun by a machine on the ground (or often an apu that can't be used in flight) and they have weighted tips to save the momentum of the spin. The pilot then just angles the blades and the entire vehicle lurches upward. This is known as the "jump" system. They can also land on a dot.

Hovering in place isn't really useful, it was mainly an idea in the Fulda Gap where Apaches were supposed to hide under the tree line safe from enemy eyes and weapons, then pop up to fire a few missiles, and pop down to hide again from counterfire. The germans invented a crane system that does the same thing for 1000x less cost, the crane raises a weapons platform above the treeline, takes a shot, then winches it down to safety.

It has no real use in regular combat.

>>645766

>They still have cannons on airplanes because despite "G-d's chosen" wanting countries to waste money on their shit, the military still wants at least one effective weapon per vehicle.

Modern air-to-air combat takes place at ranges so great the human eye cannot see the enemy. If an instrument guided missile can make a hit minutes before the combatants close to gun range then the man with the guided missile will win against the man with the gun.

Guns are really only useful in either a ground attack role or as a weapon of last resort when you've run out of guided missiles and guided bombs. Insisting on guns as a primary armament in modern combat birds is like giving front-line infantry pistols instead of rifles.

>>645064

remove all internals (except avionics, navigation ,etc) down to the bones, use existing rear hatches for paratroops (after possibly rigging up a static line?)

and that's about it. a big difference between a c-130 and any select passenger jet is that the c-130 is designed to move bulk stuff anywhere and carry all the things. and compared to a passenger jet it just has more overall torque and power. the wings are also much more general purpose, airliner wings are made for long hauls.

airliner would do best in its slated role (in military terms) of troop transport + their shit, as well as general supply transport (that may be limited depending on max take off weight.)

>>645086

it would be better suited to an autocannon, if thats the weight of the armament, then you may aswell go with something that is a little more forgiving in the marksmanship department, use any extra payload to armor up, although I can't see it doing much good. give the pilot a flak jacket and a steel pot helmet, pre-install a tourniquet on both arms and legs and at varying points (if you care about the difference of a half or whole leg). also don't forget probability, most rounds coming at him (with the exception of mounted/dedicated AA) will be tyrone and friends taking pot shots at him, 90% of which are guaranteed to miss, of the few (if any) that score a hit, they will already be slowed down due to gravity + mechanics or whatever of the plane moving, unless it was a solid hit without a large difference in angle (between 60 and 90 degrees) it would likely deflect.

This also brings up air doctrine, if he flies high then small arms fire effectiveness will be reduced greatly, but it also opens him up to dedicated AA and other aircraft/missiles (this also has the problem of it being a dedicated CAS aircraft, not a high altitude bomber/fighter)

If he flys low then there will be a small window of fire against him, it will however be more likely to penetrate.

overall assuming the enemy doesnt have everyone unload on him then he should be OK

>>645163

hey thats nice what song is this?

>>646141

I can't believe I'm explaining basic logic, but there's a difference between saying "an apple has a worm" and "apples have worms".

>No, not when mobile posting,

You can rename it, so why don't you?

Obvious fuck.

>>646155

It's bullshit, their CEP was comparable to aircraft fired cannon even in WWII, so much so they used the same sights.

The problem is that rockets are fired at ~1km on approach, of course at those ranges they aren't going to be headshot noscope. Even a good sniper rifle would stretch its performance at those ranges.

Skyknight pilots are just used to shooting at 50km not 1km, so they think rockets are inaccurate. It's like a rich person not knowing the value of money. I've never heard a US Marine pilot complain about rockets.

>>646155

>how have there been recorded incidents of air to air kills with Zunis in vietnam?

[citation needed]

>>646198

Purportedly a guy in an A-4 smacked a MiG 17 with one, incidentally it was the only Air to Air kill of a Skyhawk during the whole war.

>>646202

Couldn't A-4s hold sidewinders back then?

>>646205

I guess the pilot was blasting ground gooks when air gook showed up.

>>646235

> it doesn't matter if those guns are mounted on the inside of the frame or not

It actually does today. External gun pods dramatically increase drag, tend to misalign by their own recoil, even at smaller calibers, and in the case of the F-35B they cancel stealth.

>>646235

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and not assume you're a glow in the dark nigger. Those image names are designed to be tracked online, it's not a coincidence your phone forces them. The phone remembers where it was uploaded, sends the address with the image code to NSA servers. NSA then knows you're connected to this website. They don't log all traffic because it doesn't matter if someone accidentally presses a link and ends up on a "right wing" website, or if someone just browses it. But if you care enough to post it's enough to make the list Then five days later when someone here downloads it and posts it on facebook or some gun forum, google crawlers log the image name and send the same metadata to NSA. The NSA then knows there's at least 1 connection between here and whoever it was that posted it, and the website where it ended up. That's just basic social connections, they also track the spread of "memes" to figure out how to influence culture in general by controlling the "letters" a culture uses to form ideas.

Basically don't post images with your phone then. I don't give a fuck that you're endangering yourself and your family, that's your right, but you don't get to endanger this board without pushback.

I will call you out every time I see this.

>>646264

Is part of your training to break cover as often as possible?

>>646267

We already went over this when I posted a North American stop sign and a km/h speed limit, with obvious North American architecture, evergreens and snow, unless you can name a single other place that uses English, metric speed limits and is in North America. Not everything is a conspiracy, that’s just your aspergers. Now please take your memegenerator image macros you just made back to reddit. I may occasionally be a phoneposting faggot but at least I have been here longer than 3 months, and actually own guns. Now piss off.

>>646270

Aw dang you got me, now that my plan has been foiled guess we’ll have to delete the file we’ve built up on you. I’ll have to tell my supervisor that we’ll need to cancel the entire 8chan surveillance operation because one sperg found it out. Thats 4 years of data gone now, and your file in particular, with it’s thousands of reddit posts we have logged, will have to be deleted because you called us out. Good job on being the smartest anon on the website. Who would have thought it would take a single newfag to figure us out and topple the entire NSA 8chan division?

>>646275

That’s basically what ISIS is doing, but burger, and therefore NATO doctrine is to pretend they actually care about their troops. And besides, Schlomo isn’t going to make as much by selling dirt bike technicals, and by selling 10 Tonne 10 metre wide armoured vehicles.

>>646279

>dont wanna

I am not able to as far as I can tell

>muuuuh ceeeeeell

If I were a NEET or home more often I would, phone posting is shit, but it’s basically the only way I can access the Internet for 80% of my free time.

>uuuuuh noooooo

Yeah

>youre endangering everyone

Really?

>Because that's normal behavior of a normal guy

Well most normal people are busy, as a student I’m at uni most of the day so I can’t quite bring my PC with me can I? I suppose I could give up visiting image boards but I’d rather not.

>Nah you can keep wasting your time, but I will bring your paycheck up every time you post just to annoy you.

I ducking wish I got a pay check to post mobile images on /k/. If you know a guy I’ll sign up right now, maybe I can eat more then ramen and afford good Wiskey for the first time in a year.

>dude in the bitch seat with an RPG

So they finally learned that backblast can kill friendlies? I didn’t know they were capable of learning.

>and they can scatter too fast for a single apache to kill more than a few vehicles.

mfw Aussies heli pilots get flashbacks to emu war when trying to kill shitskins on mopeds Well to humour you I won’t post pick related but think of a laughing jpeg.

>>646190

Darude Sandstorm

>>646138

>You are confusing the term "rocket" with the term "missile".

>>646155

And how far up the enemy plane's tail pipe was said rocket launched from?

>>646772

Yes, dummy, the missiles are guided and the rockets aren't. A rocket is just a missile without the expensive parts.

The average solid fuel a rocket uses is less expensive than the propellant for any kind of cannon, and the rest of it is just a casing and some RDX in the nose.

>>646247

Let's set aside the question of whether your claims about the process are actually true or not.

>The phone remembers where it was uploaded, sends the address with the image code to NSA servers. NSA then knows you're connected to this website.

If they know you're posting here it doesn't depend on the filename. They'd know even if you had no file at all.

>it doesn't matter if someone […] just browses it.

Yet that is exactly what you're claiming they're tracing in the end, people who've browsed the site and saved images without necessarily posting.

>Then five days later when someone here downloads it

At which point the image will not have the filename in question anyway.

>and posts it on facebook

lol

>or some gun forum, google crawlers log the image name and send the same metadata to NSA. The NSA then knows there's at least 1 connection between here and whoever it was that posted it, and the website where it ended up

How disastrous! You mean the NSA will be able to figure out that people who post on gun enthusiast sites sometimes post on gun enthusiast sites? What ever will we do?

Your explanation does not involve filenames in the slightest. If they are tracking uploads from phoneposters (or rather, phoneposters specifically using one brand of phone, since others don't do it at all), then they are tracking uploads, and changing the name isn't going to do dick - except stop YOU from knowing it's, allegedly, part of this scheme. If you're that worried about the NSA knowing you post on oriental cartoon boards, then consider not using fucking Facebook holy shit.

Stop being a schizophrenic autist anytime.

>>647732

There is no speed problem, think of the gyro's main "rotor" as a parachute. It's the same function and concept, it can just be folded easier, it works in rougher weather, and can take more explosions and punishment than a nylon parachute. But in the end it's just a parachute! You aren't going to turn it into a mach one fighter.

The entire point of an autogyro is trading raw paper performance for efficient practical performance, it is a feature not a bug.

Drone swarm.. yooo

>>653078

this is pinacle of helicopters. you might not like it but thats how peak performance looks like

l wonder how cheap we could make it if we scraped all unnecessery parts like floor and walls and cargo compartment

>>653079

>scrap the floor

What will the soldiers stand on?

>scrap the walls

So they're going to be constantly buffeted by freezing wind while in flight?

>>653116

>Rockets are as accurate as cannons

After playing some Jane's simulators I have an extreme aversion towards unguided rockets, they certainly don't seem anywhere as accurate as guns.

>>653176

>Understate the hitting power of a rocket, I'm sorry but that's just a fact.

They are good at creating superficial damage by non-direct hits, something not accounted in even realistic simulators due to only kills mattering, but a 25-30mm autocannon has a much greater chance for a direct hit and therefore a confirmed kill at the same distance.

>>653179

Doubt that pod-borne rockets have the muzzle velocity and even less so rate of fire of any type of autocannon, until not up to Desert Storm era.

>>653181

>until

*at least

>We have to get cheap, guys

>I know let's just take all those dime-store 155mm artillery pieces and strap them to a Cessna hur-hur

Can't afford a plane you're not going to be getting a bunch of fucking autocannons and arty. OP was right, just drops homemade dumb bombs from a swarm of autogyros or homebuilt ultralight fixed wings. Could even mount a GPMG, but anyone who thinks you're going to CHEAPLY put an autocannon or artillery piece on a civilian aircraft and have it work out okay is a retard.

>>653436

could we make like, rifled rockets? dont russians have arty rockets that spin like that? tornado l think or something

>>653436

The conversation has largely lost focus as to the terms of what we're designing. Half the people here are discussing how to design a modern CAS vehicle, while the rest are talking about improvised stuff. I personally am alot more interested in the improvised topic, where I feel the rockets have a definite advantage in almost all regards.

>>653443

It's referring to Hydra rockets. Look at the source

>>653432

The rate of fire and ammo capacity is indisputably in favor of autocannons.

>>653472

>>653432

And with a quick wiki Hydra's muzzle velocity is 700m/s while M230 is 850, Shipunov 2A42's is 950, GSh-30's is 900 and GAU-8's 1010 m/s.

>>654332

That image can't be real. Post vids, and give me a model name for that insanity.

>Dinghy full of helium

>>654332

Apologies for double post

>IT'S FUCKING REAL

http://www.seair.com/flyingboat.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQs6R1Bc-D4

>>668501

Is it really that strange?

I guess if you've never been to the everglades that kind of shit would seem bizarre.

>>668506

No, I find it more strange that regulations haven't made the entire endeavor illegal.

>Rubber vehicle

>Flying

>No radios to call a control tower

>VFR only, no flight plan

>Costs $20k from a factory

>You could build it yourself with $1k of parts

>Totally legal

This is why I'm surprised.

>>668511

In the US you can fly "experimental" aircraft with very little regulation. The vehicles range from professional kits that companies sell for you to build and shit cobbled together in some crazy cunt's shed. There are some flight restrictions.

>>648033

>cheaper than shells, as accurate as a cannon, and carries as much bang as a missile

>>669416

what plane/gun is that

what is that writing on the wing, where is this thing?

>>653078

Now this shit was fun to fly in battlefield Vietnam. Its a god damn shame it sucks ass in heliborne

>>653086

>2500 pounds went back into the ACH-47A for armor plating

<no armor

What?

>>653436

>>653441

Rockets do spin. Their fins are shaped in a way that will induce a stabilizing spin. As mentioned before, they are as accurate as cannon and use the same sights for them.

>>669470

Gun appears to be a 20mm M193 vulcan. Very popular gun on helicopters.

>>669470

Fairchild AU-23. We bought a few for Vietnam, but the pilots kept bitching that it was too slow for them so we sold them all to Thailand (where they're used to this day).

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

>>653081

pic 1 is just a hind with no walls

>>668501

>maximum payload about 400 pounds

>two manlets

>gunner has 4x PSA ARs nigger rigged for full auto, and equipped with D60 drums, 1:1 tracer mix

>one pass only

>blaze until the gun is empty, next

This would be amazing

>>669908

Why even bring guns?

>Nothing but hand grenades

>Fire bomb the Ghettos

>Cleanse Detroit

>The fire rises

>>669470

Thailand.

>>669932

can you make a foldable ebike?

>>669954

You could start with a folder and add a hub motor, or a friction drive.

If you're doing an electric paramotor, you could use the same battery for both vehicles, saving some weight on the parabiker concept.

>>669954

Ebikes are ridiculous.

Take a $150 bike, add a $30 motor and an $55 battery, suddenly its worth $3000.

Fuck ebikes.

>>669954

They had folding gasoline scooters in WWII there's no reason they couldn't make an electric bicycle fold.

>>669985

Ok then do that and sell them for $2000. You should be a millionaire by next fall, right commie?

>>669954

electric anything has shit range, although refueling in-field is simple enough, with a small foldable solar panel or a friction drive.

the pedal paraglider bike would replace rucking, so we're talking 16 hours of constant use. that electric system will be dead weight in an hour if you're trying to power a prop with it.

better to just not have what is essentially a short-lived luxury. extra weight, extra complexity, extra cost, very little gained.

soldiers will only benefit from it for a very short time, and it causes more problems for procurement, maintainance, and storage.

>>669528

>As mentioned before, they are as accurate as cannon and use the same sights for them

Feel free to provide proof, because the post you're replying to has a source explicitly contradicting this

>>670070

>a paraglider with unlimited range

How do you possibly imagine this? Your range on a bicycle is limited by your supplies.

>cross country rollerblades

I imagine you'll have a hard time reacting to a sudden contact on those; bailing out is an extra operation and they don't have brakes. A bicycle you can at least bail off of in a hurry, and you can put the load on the frame instead of your back.

They train soldiers in skiing because trudging through snow is even worse. Cross country rollerblades aren't directly analogous in a combat environment.

>>670082

when i say unlimited range, i mean you don't need to gas it up. just pedal and go.

the way we teach soldiers to react to sudden contact while skiiing would be no different to how we teach them to react to sudden contact while rollerblading.

the rollerblades do have brakes, that's what those things above the rear tires are. they work like scooter brakes.

when you ski you put the load on your back. the rollerblades aren't a replacement for the parabike idea, they're an expansion of the skis that we already service.

walking is worse than rollerblading, and you can rollerblade much faster than you can ski.

what do you mean by "not directly analagous"? analagous to what? skis? yes they are. cross country rollerblading and skiing methods are identical. all that's changed is the season.

>>670089

Snow covers pretty much the whole ground in an area. You can ski on MUCH more of the landscape where it's snowing than you can rollerblade on where it's not. You can't really rollerblade over tree roots and large rocks.

Plus taking a spill in the snow is much softer than taking a spill into dirt and rocks.

Plus you can comfortably and efficiently walk over dirt, rocks, and grass, while trudging through snow takes extra effort and slows you down.

Plus dirt and rocks aren't a ticking clock for your survival since they're generally not so goddamn cold.

Plus grit can get into your wheel bearings, while your skis don't have moving parts that can fail.

And that's just off the top of my head. The technique is similar, and that's it. In a combat environment, rollerblading is wildly different from skiing. There are several reasons you don't see soldiers skating across the countryside like it's a goddamn rollerdisco, and it's not because you're the first person to think of it. You're fucking insane.

next big war will be The Drone War.

Drones will be the game changer like machine guns were in WW1 and what shaped charge were in late and after WW2.

Mostly flying drones but don't count out surface land crawler drones.

There will be two main types of drones, hunter-killer(guns, rockets) and "suicide" (TNT).

Jamming drones will be a big thing. Suicide Drones will not attack where the laser is "painting", but rather a spot pre-programed maybe 20yrds directly west of the spot being painted. To defeat drone-radio jamming, drones will be controlled by linked line of sight. To control one drone 10 miles away and "around a few corners" you might need a string of 4 communications drones, using line of sight laser communications.

>>670165

>landscape

mountain bikes can handle it, typically by just going around them. and just as you would step over an obstacle while walking, you can jump over them while blading easily.

offroad rollerblades are purpose built for this terrain, and i'm sure the military contract stipulations for an overbuilt pair would be within reason for manufacturers if such a program had interest.

>spills

that doesn't stop the paratrooper bike from existing, and a spill on a bike hurts a lot more than a spill on blades.

>snow is hard to walk in

you already made this argument and i already responded to it

>hazardous climate

if i were in a really hot desert, i'd enjoy the wind whipping past me, keeping my cool, and i'd enjoy conserving water by getting where i need to go much faster.

low profile, man powered, man portable transportation can save lives or conserve energy and resources in any environment.

>grit

not a problem for bikes, not a problem for purpose built offroad rollerblades, especially not ones built to mil spec.

all of your concerns are either non-issues to begin with or won't be an issue in a set of rollerblades built for the military to their specifications.

>>670179

>Built to their specifications

I hope you like rocket boots made of platinum.

>>670273

>Holes in boots

I am aware. Those are the summer boots - they also have winter boots.

>Not having multiple types of clothing for your military

You must have gone full communist already, Canada. I bet they only issue one uniform instead of three!

>Can you imagine these chucklefucks invading Russia

Not in this lifetime. America would more realistically use nukes before ever doing a land invasion in Russia/China.

>>670273

>Its made to let water in.

It's made to let heat out and prevent water, you are a textbook Canadian, and I hate you.

>>670307

It's made to let water and lard in to nourish the fatmerican.

>>670273

>invading Russia?

>implying invading Russia is ever something you should aspire to

Retard leaf.

>>653084

Speaking of the designer at Kamov have hit the bottle again:

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6368633

Kamov JSC (part of the Russian Helicopters holding) has developed a conceptual design of a prospective high-speed helicopter of a synccopter (or synchropter) scheme with two main and one pusher propellers. The maximum design speed of the car reaches 420 km / h, follows from the presentation of the developer, a copy of which is available by TASS.

>A "synccopter" is a helicopter, in which two screws are mounted at a short distance from each other and rotate in opposite directions, while the trajectories of their blades intersect, the screws rotation "overlap". In order for the blades not to collide, their rotation is mechanically synchronized.

>>670179

>you can jump over them while blading easily

Sure thing, Tony Hawk. You're gonna kangaroo across consistently cluttered landscape?

>a spill on a bike hurts a lot more than a spill on blades

In what universe? Not this one.

>you already made this argument and i already responded to it

Where?

>if i were in a really hot desert, i'd enjoy the wind whipping past me, keeping my cool

You've clearly never motorbiked on a hot day. This doesn't work above about 100 F. Also rolling a wheel over sand takes a lot of work. Without a motor you will NOT be comfortably gliding over the dunes; you'll be working your ass off to get a couple hundred feet.

>not a problem for purpose built offroad rollerblades

I MIGHT give you this one, maybe.

>especially not ones built to mil spec

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

>all of your concerns are either non-issues to begin with or won't be an issue

Then why hasn't anybody tried it yet, you unbelievably deranged lunatic? It's almost as though you're incredibly mistaken about almost every aspect of this retarded idea of yours. Go ahead and take it up with the Pentagon and tell me how it goes.