What would a third world war really look like?

Oh noes it's a 57 year old turboprop, I hope it doesn't crash on the submarines XD

Seriously we scrapped better planes than that in 2010 to save money :p

We should station some Spitfires in Crete to shoot it down

Not sure if you joking or not, but... pretty much every day modern air force are using turboprop planes. It's not a fighter plane, it's there to drop dept-chargers, bombs and torpedos stored in it's bomb bay.

They are old planes, but they work well. The insides are modern.

The Americans main anti-asw plane is a four turboprop plane which is just as old as this one. :rolleyes: But to give them credit, they are replacing them with new ones.
 
Not sure if you joking or not, but... pretty much every day modern air force are using turboprop planes. It's not a fighter plane, it's there to drop dept-chargers, bombs and torpedos stored in it's bomb bay.

The insides are modern...

The Americans main anti-ship plane is a four turboprop plane. :rolleyes:

They were built in the 60's and have a top speed of 400mph, how do you know they're modern in the inside? I appreciate the B-52's are also old but I doubt Russia has put very much into keeping these very upto date like they have with the equivalent planes which are in service with their pacific fleet.

They're hunting $2bn submarines which probably have systems in place to avoid being detected funnily enough, especially by older tech.
 
The point was very clear, not only is that junk antiquated compared to a modern equivalent like the Americans use (and we will too in 2019) but it's antiquated compared to the ones we scrapped out in 2010.

They were built in the 60's and have a top speed of 400mph, how do you know they're modern in the inside? I appreciate the B-52's are old but I doubt Russia has put very much into keeping these very upto date like they have with the equivalent planes which are in service with their pacific fleet.

They're hunting $2bn submarines which probably have systems in place to avoid being detected funnily enough, especially by older tech.

The plane was built in the 60's, but the plane isn't what hunts the submarines or tracks air targets. It's the equipment it's equipped with.

They been modernised, the old systems have been replaced with newer systems.

This information isn't really a secret or anything, world security, military news, weapon manufactures news sites talk about this stuff.

Even without the equipment, you can learn about ship movements, even the submarines because people spot them on the surface. lol
 
Even without the equipment, you can learn about ship movements, even the submarines because people spot them on the surface. lol

I've not really looked into submarine stuff so much but during peacetime a lot of the military shipping and air traffic is trackable due to mixing in with civilian traffic, etc. while you don't tend to get much other traffic under the sea heh. Though you can tell the rough position of some subs when you know they are attached to certain surface fleets, etc.
 
I've not really looked into submarine stuff so much but during peacetime a lot of the military shipping and air traffic is trackable due to mixing in with civilian traffic, etc. while you don't tend to get much other traffic under the sea heh. Though you can tell the rough position of some subs when you know they are attached to certain surface fleets, etc.

And that's one of the keys, since a lot of this information is public, it gives an other military a rough area to know where to look.

It's no different for the Russians, we are able to track their movements as well, it's a two way thing.

That said, they still submarines, so they not tracked 100% all the time, they get lost.
 
The point was very clear, not only is that junk antiquated compared to a modern equivalent like the Americans use (and we will too in 2019) but it's antiquated compared to the ones we scrapped out in 2010.
the point isn't clear at all, they still do their jobs perfectly or they wouldn't use them. same as many 747s still flying from the 60s. calling them junk just displays your ignorance.
 
the point isn't clear at all, they still do their jobs perfectly or they wouldn't use them.
No the point is clear, the fact you don't want to believe the facts doesn't change them.

They don't do their jobs perfectly well anymore, they don't even do them as well as the Nimrods we scrapped out in 2010, the reason they still use them is the same reason they still use a lot of obsolete junk: They can't afford modern replacements.
 
Yes, here we go. Knew the armchair generals would be out in force soon.

I bet a lot can't *WAIT* to be drafted..... ;) Maybe coming soon.

Talking of academics and so called experts this Mail article brought the level of those The Guardian proudly cited as top academics to heel:



Just as Jeremy Corbyn was on the ropes this week over his woefully inadequate response to the anti-Semitism row engulfing Labour, he received an unexpected message of support. It came in the form of a carefully co-ordinated intervention from an impressive sounding list of 42 academics.

In a letter published in the Guardian (where else), the academics leapt to his defence, claiming he was being subjected to an 'unfair trial by the media'. And these were not any old dons, according to the Guardian, they were 'senior academics'.

The 42 signatories, including 17 professors, wrote: '…the debate on anti-Semitism has been framed in such a way as to mystify the real sources of anti-Jewish bigotry and to weaponise it against a single political figure just ahead of important elections.'
Jeremy Corbyn has received support from a group of academics


Ignoring the fact that much of the criticism came from within the Labour Party as well as Corbyn's own deputy leader, Tom Watson, the letter continued: 'We condemn anti-Semitism wherever it exists. We also condemn journalism that so blatantly lacks context, perspective and a meaningful range of voices in its determination to condemn Jeremy Corbyn.'

So who are these intellectual heavyweights, and why did they merit such prominent coverage in the Guardian? The paper published the letter the day after Corbyn provocatively attended a supper in London with a Left-wing, anti-Zionist group where some of the central tenets of the Jewish faith were mocked and where a poem that abused the Queen and Prince Philip was circulated.

Among those who signed the letter is one Jane Dipple, a lecturer at Winchester University school of media and film, whose blog highlights her contribution to the world of learning. 'My PhD Thesis is entitled: Zombies in Britain from cinema to counter-culture.'

Warming to her theme, she boasts: 'I have devised a third-year undergraduate module entitled 'Zombie Apocalyse: the rise in zombie culture'. Now in its sixth year it is currently the only academic [zombie] course in the UK.' There's a surprise!

A paper on her website is entitled: 'Rocking with the undead: how zombies infected the psychobilly subculture.' Ms Dipple goes on to tell us: 'Zombie culture is ubiquitous: the undead can be found lurking in a number of unexpected areas of popular culture.' Some might joke that one or two zombies can be found in Corbyn's Labour Party.

Another signatory is William Proctor from Bournemouth University, where he is a 'senior lecturer in journalism, English and communication'.

His academic achievements are listed online. 'He has published on a variety of topics including Batman, James Bond, Spider-Man, The Walking Dead, One Direction fandom, and the reboot phenomenon [whatever that means] in popular culture.

'William is Director of The World Star Wars Project, a five-year study of the franchise from multiple perspectives which will culminate in 2020 with a multilingual, mixed methods global online questionnaire.


The article goes on to list a lot more risibly unqualified lightweights cited by The Guardian, so fear not, their "senior academics" need not be Nobel Prize winning material by any stretch
wink.gif


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz5CRjDZyye
 
Last edited:
Did no one stop to think about why they still use turboprops for submarine hunting? as in better low speed efficiency, better time on station at low altitudes, etc. which is where they are often going to be working, difference in stall speeds, etc.
 
Hopefully I would see a big flash along with the taste of whisky and the lingering tingle of a kiss on my lips followed by insta death, if Nukes are ever used.
 
Hopefully I would see a big flash along with the taste of whisky and the lingering tingle of a kiss on my lips followed by insta death, if Nukes are ever used.

I live in a place that is probably not quite far enough away to really survive, probably close enough for a long lingering death, to the nearest potential targets for nuclear weapons.
 
Hopefully I would see a big flash along with the taste of whisky and the lingering tingle of a kiss on my lips followed by insta death, if Nukes are ever used.

It would be nice if nukes worked like that and it wasn't like being grilled alive. I'd suggest a less poetic approach where you seek shelter in a strong concrete building or a basement
 
It would be nice if nukes worked like that and it wasn't like being grilled alive. I'd suggest a less poetic approach where you seek shelter in a strong concrete building or a basement

Depends on your distance and the type of nuclear device used. Also many people aren't well disposed to the kind of existence surviving a large scale nuclear event would entail.
 
Don't forget you may be near enough to other sites of tactical interest to make life "interesting"

That is taking into account sites of tactical interest - there are two where I'm right on the edge of range for the likely spread of devices that would be used against them. (I'm also taking into account the likely range of fallout corridors for where ground burst devices might be used).

I'm too far from any city or major built up area that would be a target of itself.
 
This is good dialogue. May use it for my next game.

As long as I have a character in it and I'm in the credits :D lol

It does sound far-fetched enough to be a game but offers the path of least resistance and minimal return damage. If you can attack someone before they even know they are under attack you put yourself in a very promising position.
 
It would be nice if nukes worked like that and it wasn't like being grilled alive. I'd suggest a less poetic approach where you seek shelter in a strong concrete building or a basement

Yes, they just explode nicely with flowers and stuff....

Please in the following order....

Flash of doom (Headshot boom if close enough)
Sound wave (pressure of doom)
Fireball of doom
Third degree burns of doom
Fallout of doom (long lingering death from the inside)

Lets find an un-looted ALDI to try and survive of doom.

Sorry I will go with my rose tinted specs and being in zone 1 wherever possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom