Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/26/2018 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    My current belief is that the evidence points towards the leaks being deliberate, at least in part. I suspect that probable leakers are fed stories; one story per probable leaker, and when the stories make it to the press, the responsible party is fired. It's also worth noting that the leaks have become less common and less accurate. There was no warning whatsoever about Rex Tillerson being fired, for example. There was a false alarm way back in November of 2017, but it's not like anyone had the inside scoop on it in March 2018, and Trump waited for Tillerson to get back from a trip abroad before the announcement, which means that the decision was made in advance and there would have been several days for it to leak. It didn't. You have to contextualize the Trump presidency the way I do for my views to make sense. Washington D.C. is a world unto itself. I have classmates who have jobs there. They are intelligent, kind and thoughtful people and they do not live in the same world as you or I do. Washington D.C. is what happens when you make a theme park that is totally divorced from that like in The Gods of the Copybook Headings "if you don't work you die." Obviously, people in D.C. have jobs. But they don't work. Hustle would be a better verb. The difference is that in D.C. the degree to which any enterprise is rewarded is a function of perceived righteousness rather than market value. This is how they can have ridiculous things like the initiative to train moderate rebels in Syria that spends half a billion dollars and ends up training five dudes. Could you imagine a recruiter for a hypothetical mega-PMC spending that sort of money and getting those sorts of results? They would have to invent new kinds of torture for the fool. D.C. is completely insulated from reality. The only reason it interacts with reality as much as it does is because the majority of the people ho have jobs there are intelligent, kind and thoughtful. But that only goes so far as they push themselves. If some new, idiotic intellectual fad sweeps the District, it has no immediate feedback from external reality and thus no strong defense against trendy nonsense. One idiotic intellectual fad that has swept the District is to hold blue-collar white males in absolute contempt. The Democrats are more guilty of this, but the Republicans do it too, especially if they are Republicans who have spent significant time in the District. Humans are naturally amicable creatures, so if you spend a lot of time with people their views will begin to color yours. If you spend a lot of time with an insane death cult, you can quite easily end up as a perfectly sane, easy-going individual who will casually slip up and go on tangents about the necessity of blood sacrifice to Moloch in casual conversation. That's basically your typical Beltway Republican; they really, really want to fit in with the cool kids. The cool kids believe some kooky things, including that the Beltway Republicans' voting base is Satan. The Beltway Republicans, for years, would simultaneously pander to the views of their voting base while simultaneously avoiding doing anything that would piss off their cool friends who have jobs in the District. The Republican base was completely aware of this dynamic, by the way. It's not like this was some big secret. Rush Limbaugh would speak at length about it. The Republican Party may have thought that they were tricking their voters, but their voters were only humoring them because they didn't see a better alternative. And so it would go, year after year, the Republicans became a little more indoctrinated with whatever was the trendy ideological fad in the District, and the trendy beliefs of the District drifted ever apart from anything that makes goddamn physical sense. And then Trump happened. If it were President Zodiac Killer or President Low Energy any of the other Republican candidates except Trump, I would agree with your assessment. But Trump is different. Very different. Trump brings a completely different in-group out-group dynamic to politics. In previous years it was simple; for Republican voters the Republican Party was the in-group, and the Democratic Party was the out-group. This year is not like that. For Trump supporters Team Trump is the in-group, and Everyone Else is the out-group. "Everyone Else" includes most Republicans. Establishment Republicans hate Trump and always have. Team Trump hates Establishment Republicans and always has, but they are not above the idea of a temporary alliance until such time as they can all be shipped off to gulags. US news media is squarely on the side of the District. I think that should be obvious; US news media is extremely pro-establishment. In previous years, the Republican Party would try to get on the good side of the District by compromise, so if a Republican president was taking a lot of heat from the media, that meant that their attempt to get the cheerleader in bed by being nice to her and opening doors for her and buying her flowers cajole the District by compromise was not working, and the Republican base would get disappointed and see their whole party as a joke and just not show up. Trump doesn't want to compromise with the establishment. He wants to burn the motherfucker to the ground. If Trump is taking a lot of heat from the US news media his supporters see that as a good thing. An authentically populist candidate should get lots of hate from the establishment. Trump does get lots of hate. To Trump supporters, the fact that there is so much hue and cry proves that everything is proceeding according to plan. Trump supporters don't bite their nails about the mainstream media polls in 2018 showing that Trump has low approval ratings. They don't care any more than they cared about the projections showing that Trump had only the slimmest chance of victory in 2016. To them, 2016 shows that the people doing these polls are incompetent at best and enemy propaganda at worst. If CNBC releases a new scientific study showing that Trump is the worst president since Hitler, Trump supporters will scoff at it the same way you or I would scoff at videos from ISIS. Trump supporters simply do not get their information from the channels that are strongly anti-Trump. If Trump were to somehow magically acquire dictatorial powers after the 2016 election, Paul Ryan would have been one of the first against the wall. Paul Ryan hates Trump, was probably working to undermine him, and the contempt is completely returned. It's like @Belesarius said; the real drama isn't Trump vs. the Democrats, it's Trump vs. the Republicans. Paul Ryan retiring is most likely a victory for Team Trump.
  2. 6 points
    Molotav_DIGITANK

    Israeli AFVs

    Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese): Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》(The basic technology of armor protection), and others are come from this issue: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-BQZS200108004.htm The main author of these two sources is one of the chief tank designers in China. Mr.Zhang has presided over a design of front-engine tank scheme under the frame of Chinese 3rd gen MBT, but there was little info refer to these history) Photo of Mr.Zhang and General Tal. The cast turret base and weld frame. Special armor covered, those colored parts most likely are heavy NERA or Built-in-ERA structure modules, while others are lighter module I guess. T-3/4 module before shooting by a HEAT warhead of HOT missile. According to previous picture, it should be the side armor of the turret. So we can assume that the front arc of Merkava III's turret, looks likely ±30°,which can withstand more than 700mm even 800mm penetration from CE threat. Still the T-3/4 module,before hitting by a RPG warhead. I am confused this number as T-9/4 at my first look, but it is more likely a distorted "3". There are some reasons: (1) Its thickness doesn't seem to fit on top of the turret. (2) In this pic the threat is RPG warhead, moreover, its incidence normal angle is smaller than the previous HOT warhead, which can be used as a useful basis for judging. Built-in ERA structure, the left side is Israeli scheme, and Russian scheme at right side. The armor layout of tank Merkava Mk III. The solid line is base steel armor's equivalent thickness, including spaced armor array inside the hull( The table above shows the thickness and inclination of the base steel armor, unfortunately many notes are missing in the PDF) and the dotted line is the special armor's protection capability against KE ammunition, up to 450mm RHA on turret front and 350-400mm on the UFP. Hope you guys will enjoy this post
  3. 5 points
    BMPT that is offered by UVZ isn't even most optimised designs of BMPT-like vehicles (some of Soviet prototypes made more sense that UVZ creation for claimed job). 1) BMPT inflate manpower of the unit. For 2 BMPTs you need 10 people to train and support in the field. Russian tanks and current/future IFVs allow you to have 3 vehicles per 9 people. Army is saving money on every fucking bolt (T-72B3 pic should be here for no apperent reason), inflating number of people needed to crew a unit of vehicles isn't best decision from economical POV (salaries, social benefits and so on in peacetime, especially during local conflicts). Moreover, vehicle carry 5 people into battle, and simple logic speaks that this will increase chances of higher casualties per vehicle, especially because they are intended for urban warfare. One critical mistake done by single vehicle - more people would be at risk that in a 3-man tank. Best decision would be decrease number of humans in unit that you send on a frontline to risk their lifes, to decrease overall casualties. I wouldn't mind higher number of soldiers (per vehicle) send to place where they have high chance of being killed if that vehicle provided serious increase in chances to win fight. 2) BMPT from UVZ isn't usefull in open fields. Everything what BMPT can do in field tanks can do better. BMPT's autocannons have inferior range and firepower than 125 mm gun, 125mm cannons also can be used to suppress enemies from max 12 km range using HEs with indirect fire. In open fields using ATGMs such as Ataka (which cost more than your usual Fagot or Konkurs that you got from free from Soviet Union) against infantry isn't best idea either. Instead of bying BMPTs designers could upgrade existing T-72B3s by installing programmable HEs and probem more or less solved. 3) In urban-ish conditions tank gun is still more usefull than 2 30 mm autocannons - for example in Syria militants in Eastern Ghouta created serious defensive lines with hardened MG nest, observation points and so on. 30 mm would have hard time to punch through it, thats why tanks or even 152 mm SPG like Akatsiya in direct fire are used to break through. Only useful role that BMPT can occupy is suppression, that is currently occupied by Shilka. But you don't need 5 guys to do this job. 4) In big cities with tall buildings ("true" urban warfare) tanks could be supported by infantry moving through buildings around it. Soviets in late part of WW2 developed and used rather effective tactics to do that. I don't think that problem of not being able to aim at enemies is frequent, but problem of spotting their movement and positions first - is. Moreover, enemies are usually trying to not engage targets from tall structures and keep themselfs closer to the ground so they will have higher maneuverability, ability to move through multiply buildings is easier to achive on ground/underground levels. The more they stay in same place, the higher is a chance to get smacked by something more serious than autocannons or tank cannon. So AFAIK main problem with enemy infantry in urban fights is ability to detect enemies first, before RPG gunner or other AT weapon team will engage you. After they fire it is either too late, or they are already running away, as fire from RPGs and ATGMs are not particularly noiseless and unnoticeable events, they will draw fire from every other vehicle/infatryman that saw that anyway. BMPT doesn't have anything more in that aspect than modern tank have. Thermal imagers and panoramic sights are not locked to BMPTs only. And problem of firing at targets beyond main gun elevation can be solved by RCWS with AGL in it, like Turkish upgrade of M60T apprently have, or Chinese RCWS. In fact our tanks already were tested with 30 mm autocannon in RCWS, they could just put AGS instead and problem with high recoil of 30 mm AC will be solved. So instead of buying BMPTs engineers could put RCWS with AGS and add more sophisticated 360 degrees observation system with cameras/thermal imagers with software to detect movement, probably intergrate it into digital battlefield management system on top of that. UVZ's BMPT simply doesn't have any aspect that can't be intergrated on existing systems, without bloating human count per army unit. If they want BMPT/BMOP anyway, they should change design. What would i like to see instead of current vehicle is 2-3 man AFV with tank level of armor (including sides and rear, higher level protection of roof), armed with 40-60 mm autocannon with medium-high velocity shells and programmable HE-frags in unmanned turret. Vehicle will be able to engage infantry in trenches/cover with fragmentation (OICW on tracks, basically), can detect and destroy drones, and even ATGMs (like Pantsir claimed to be able to do), so it will have a place on open field combat of frontline SPAAG/APS with ability to suppress and kill lower priority targets like infantry (non AT teams), light AFVs, technicals and so on at same distances as tanks in direct contact to leave more important targets for tanks. Moreover, lower number of people inside of this vehicle will allow to decrease internal volume and this "BMPT" could be made smaller, and weight savings could be used to put more armor on this thing. That AFV needs serious protection from tandem HEAT from sides, rear and roof also should be able to hold direct hits from mortar rounds and light AT at considerable angles. Unmanned turret also should be able to hold well against 23 - 40 mm autocannons and RPG/ATGMs. Some sort of short range APS will be usefull. Vehicle should have serious package of passive sensors that are able to detect small drones at distance (including suicide drones) and ATGMs (incl. top attack) and destroy them with high probability. Same package of sensors will be usefull to detect and destroy infantry in fields/forested areas/villages/towns. Combination of weapon and sensors will make this "BMPT" capable to do things that no other AFV can do - tanks can't engage drones and ATGMs, Pantsir (or other SPAAGs) can't be deployed to frontline to cover them either without high risk to a crews. In urban warfare high caliber autocannon can deal with VBIEDs, technicals, an destroy infantry in protected areas (thanks to higher penetration of AP rounds than 30 mm and programmable HE-frags) and not just suppress them.
  4. 5 points
    ...You want everyone to be disarmed so that you can get beaten with fists by drunken soccer fans? From my perspective - and the perspective of many other Americans - effective weapons like knives and especially guns are protection against "tossers", and de-escalate situations where bad men do bad things. The only way they wouldn't be is if good people aren't willing to take their defense into their own hands. I can certainly understand how, in societies where good people are expected to stand by while men in hats handle things, guns and knives would be frowned upon. After all, good people don't do own them, so if you do then you're a bad person and no good person on Earth wants to arm bad people. And since only the men in hats and those with their explicit approval are allowed to do anything, any consensus has to be codified into law, or else how is it enforced? QED, they outlaw weapons, and grunt in satisfaction afterwards. But fists are fine, of course. But I don't think that way, and I don't want to live anywhere where everyone else thinks that way, either. That sounds like a bad country for good men and a good country for bad men. No, I want to live in the country where people can kill others. And I do live there. It's great. Losing faith in your government after having surrendered all your authority in weapons must put you in a bit of a tight spot. My innocent British friends must be patient with me, because frankly, I deeply enjoy the turning of the tables here. I've been told my country is awful and wrong and horrific and how ashamed I should be by folks with funny teeth and funny accents my whole life. Payback.
  5. 5 points
    Mighty_Zuk

    Israeli AFVs

    Israel's artillery-oriented magazine shared an interesting article by Lt Col Rafi Almagor that shares insights from the past development of the Sholef, that could be implemented in the development of the new, yet-unnamed howitzer in development. Lt Col Rafi Almagor was one of the heads of the Sholef program. The article is in Hebrew and translated to English by me:
  6. 5 points
    Laviduce

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Hi Xoon, I do not have all the information you requested but this might be of interest. According to Krapke: For the Leopard 2(A0-A4) the gun laying system or Waffennachführanlage (WNA) is known as H22. It is a electric-hydraulic retarder control eqipped hydrostatic motor where an electric motor powers a coaxial piston pump which pumps the hydraulic fluid out of the reservoir into hydro storage cell. Here is the diagram of the WNA H22:
  7. 4 points
    Walter_Sobchak

    General AFV Thread

    I cobbled this together from the video I took last September at the open house at the tank farm in Nokesville VA. It made me realize how far I have to go in terms of working on my video camera and editing skills.
  8. 4 points
    ApplesauceBandit

    Your Gun Porn Thread

    It's raining baguettes! For the approximate price of a dollar bill hi point, I've gotten myself a second rather interesting French pistol. Judging by some of its features, like the uniquely shaped safety lever and its serial number, I'm suspecting that this was a pistol made after the liberation of France and for the French military, but prior to the end of the second world war. Perhaps someone here might know the answer, but I've not got an idea of what that marking on the trigger guard is though. Haven't bought any books on this gun.
  9. 4 points
    Going through the stuff I pulled out of my father's house, I found a document on X1100 transmissions. It's basically a paper copy of a powerpoint so it's a bit light on info, but I have scanned a few pages that had interesting data. There is a lot more, let me know if you want more scans of details.
  10. 4 points
    Monochromelody

    Transmissions and final drives

    Share some less-known information about cold war period tracked vehicle transmission Mithubishi transmission MT75 for STB, later known as Type 74. The basic layout of MT75 is similar to the CD-500 transmission on M41 light tank, used by JGSDF in a short period after war. But the Japanese tank designers prefer mechanical gearbox rather than hydramatic gearbox, they use a electro-mechanic high-low range instead of a torque converter. The high-low range part is described as "1次変速"(range first stage). The steering mechanism is a single-radius, double differential type, operated by engaging steering clutch, also resemble the CD-500. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allison X-700 transmission, a 800-hp class transmission to replace XTG-411 on T95 medium tank in 1960s. Trials were successful but finally never adopted. The Army decided to develop a 1500-hp class transmission for XM803. X-700 then evolved into X-1100 transmission. The X-200 and X-300 were basically smaller variants of X-700. X-1100 users: M1 and its variants; Korean K9 "Thunder"; Turkish T-155 "Firtina" X-300 users: Warrior IFV; CV90 series X-200 users: M113 upgrade (A2 standard) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allison XHM-1500-B2, a hydrostatic-mechanical transmission developed in early 1970s. A competitor against X-1100 but less successful. Different parts were shown in different color. Orange: power input and forward-reverse shifting mechanism; Blue: hydrostatic-mechanical speed range (mechanical planetary gears were not shown in cutaway); Red: hydrostatic differential steering system; Green: output shaft and planetary gears. Hope you enjoy these pics.
  11. 3 points
  12. 3 points
    If I remember correctly, we were issued 2 M3A1s per tank. I swear that picture could have been from a unit I was in. At least we did look like that in 1984 when I was in Germany, C Co 1/70 AR part of 4th BDE 4th ID in Wiesbaden. Dirty winter coveralls and rubber boots, check. We had a M3A1 get eaten by the turret monster once, bent it to about a 90 degree angle. Turned it in to the armorer, he just shrugged and told us that they wouldn't even charge us for the damages. The grease gun was so cheap the Army didn't care if one was destroyed. Another time I was in a small arms demonstration class (in1987) and got into an argument with the sergeant instructor about the grease gun, he was saying that they weren't in use any more, & I was telling him that I was issued one just a few months earlier.
  13. 3 points
    I'd assumed, based on the title, that there was a bit of light hearted-teasing going on in this thread.....Thought I'd share the love. But you seem kind of touchy, Snowflake.....Maybe head for your safe space and then the nasty 'different people' can't wind you up and confuse you?
  14. 3 points
    So #NeverTrump Kevin "All Working Class Americans Should Just DIE Already" Williamson was fired by The Atlantic for holding the belief that all women who get an abortion should be hanged and for refusing to recant said belief after being given numerous attempts to do so by the magazine's editorial board. http://thehill.com/homenews/media/381823-the-atlantic-fires-conservative-writer-after-audio-reveals-he-called-for-death https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kevin-williamson-fired-atlantic_us_5ac66563e4b09d0a1191532b This warms the cold, cold cockles of my heart considering what a miserable human being Williamson is, and how he actually worked to get Hillary Clinton elected in order to punish us Deplorables for not supporting his guy in the GOP primary.
  15. 3 points
    J-10 Testbed for WS-10B with Serrated Nozzle and TVC
  16. 3 points
    Laviduce

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Hello Xoon ! Here are the translations: red - Operational Pressure orange - Control Pressure/Actuators yellow - Pre-control pressure green - Recoil white - N2 white - Air These should be about right.
  17. 3 points
  18. 3 points
    Boxer with CT40 turret and ATGM launcher. The UK wants a total of ~800 Boxers (but supposedly currently plans with only ~500, because money is limited), which could make it the largest single Boxer contract yet. Saudia-Arabia was close to order a total of 928 Boxers including some very exotic variants, but the contract was never signed due to politics. It was apparently very close to be signed - Rheinmetall even requested an export licence for an initial 200 vehicles, but it was denied. The Saudi deal would have included 119 anti-tank Boxers with 105 mm main gun in a turret, 100 Boxers with dozer blades to break through barricades and 60 Boxers to transport up to four VIPs each (probably to evacuate the Saudi-Arabian royal family in case of a revolt/war) incorporating sinks, fridges and safes. The German government didn't want to approve such a deal and an attempt to circumvent this (by selling the licence for the Boxer to some Spanish company and making the vehicles there) failed. This is why Saudi-Arabia ordered the LAV 700. The UK wants 10 variants for the MIV: armored personnel carrier command and control vehicle armored recovery vehicle mortar carrier ambulance armored engineering vehicle joint fire control vehicle infantry fighting/reconnaissance vehicle 155 mm self-propelled gun carrier short-range air-defence vehicle Apparently this makes the Boxer the best option, because all variants are either (to be) ordered or fielded already. Germany is interesting in a SHORAD system based on the Boxer (NNbS; Nah- und Nächstbereichsschutz), an artillery variant with RCH 155 turret, a Boxer for the JFST and a fire-support variant with 30 mm gun. Slovenia wants to buy IFV/recce vehicles and mortar carriers, Lithunia ordered IFVs and scout vehicles with the Samson Mk II RWS, Australia buys turreted CRVs and apparently some ARVs. The 155 mm artillery variant seems to currently be an unique selling point of the Boxer, because other 8x8 wheeled vehicles have not been demonstrated in such a variant. The armament of the APC variant is supposed to be a a Kongsberg Protector with Javeling ATGM. This is why the Dutch variants (already fitted with the Protector RWS) are meant to be the basis for the British variants. According to Nicholas Drummond on Twitter, the ambulance variant of the Boxer was well-received (although he doesn't specify which ambulance variant - Germany and the Netherlands use different ones).
  19. 3 points
    "does it have a penetrator (ala SS109)?" Yes, every single round since the original DBP87 with the exception of some concept match grade round named DBU141 has a hard cast lead over hardened tool steel core. It's shorter in the DBP87/95 but very long in the DVP88 and DBP10. And the odd man out. The middle one is actually DBP95, however the only actual differences between DBP87 and 95 are the the powder used (It's burns cleaner) and the primer. (from corrosive to non corrosive) so it's a very small change. "What’s its BC?" for which rounds exactly? either way I'll have to give rough calculations on some unless another member already has them. "Is there an AP variant?" yes, DVC12, 85gr projectile with a hollow tip and a 54gr Tungsten core with a small lead ball between the tip and the nose to act as a "cap" and keep it stable in flight, appears to use the same very thick, hard H90 alloy jacket as DBP10.
  20. 3 points
    So the Mars was a thing, and two are still around. The videos will give you an idea how huge these beasts are, and why they are not flying anymore, at least as firebombers. The logistical tail to keep them flying and just operate them is insane. The view count on these videos being under 1000 makes me really sad. For a fun tour of these MONSTER planes, check these out.
  21. 3 points
    PLA tank fleet, link stolen from Otvaga https://mega.nz/#!TYERyQpQ!UuZtPHiTAuopCeSIz5_IEA5k9f5suJypcsmjiA-0MSY
  22. 3 points
    LostCosmonaut

    Advanced MiG-3 Variants

    Intro The MiG-3. All flying aircraft today have been re-engined with the V1710, and look slightly different. The MiG-3 was one of the first fighters developed by the famous Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau. An improvement on the troubled MiG-1, the MiG-3 was designed for combat at high altitude. Introduced in 1941, it gained less fame than its contemporaries like the Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters. Germany's virtually nonexistent strategic bomber force, and the low-altitude nature of combat on the Eastern Front meant the MiG-3 was forced out of its element, and its performance suffered. Combined with the MiG's difficult flight characteristics and the horrible strategic situation for the Soviets in 1941, this meant the MiG-3 achieved little success. While the MiG-3 did not spawn a successful series of fighters (like the Yak-1, Yak-9, and Yak-3, for instance), numerous variants were considered, and many of them were built in at least prototype form. However, for many reasons, such as lack of need or nTheonavailability of suitable engines, none of these variants entered large scale production. I-230/MiG-3U The resemblance to the baseline MiG-3 is easily seen. via aviastar The I-230 was one of the more straightforward developments of the MiG-3. Development on the I-230 (also known as the MiG-3U) began in late 1941, with the objective to correct numerous flaws identified in the MiG-3. First was the armament; the MiG-3 had only two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns and a single 12.7 Berezen (BS) machine gun, firing through the propeller. On the I-230, these were replaced with two 20mm ShVAK cannons (again synchronized to fire through the propeller). Outwardly, the I-230 looked very similar to the production MiG-3, although the new aircraft was made mostly of wood instead of steel tubing and duralumin. The wing area and wingspan were increased (to 18 m^2 and 11 meters, versus 17.4 m^2 and 10.2 meters for the production MiG-3), and the fuselage was lengthened by .37 meters. Soviet engineers originally intended to fit the I-230 with the AM-39 engine. However, by the time the I-230 airframe was completed in early 1942, the AM-39 was not yet available. As a result, the first I-230 was forced to use an engine built from both AM-38 and AM-35 parts (designated AM-35A). This engine was roughly 40 kilograms heavier than the intended engine, but produced a respectable 1350 horsepower. Even with such an odd engine, the I-230 flew by the end of 1942, achieving a top speed of over 650 km/hr at altitude. (Some sources say the I-230 first flew in May 1943, this is likely for the machines with AM-35A engines). Four more prototypes were built with AM-35A engines. These aircraft would serve in defense of the Moscow region while undergoing flight testing. While the design showed promise, by this point the AM-35 was obsolete and out of production. Additionally, some other deficiencies were identified. The I-230 was found to be difficult to land (a flaw shared with the MiG-3), and the engine tended to leak oil into the rest of the aircraft at high altitudes. As a result, the I-230 was not built. I-231 The I-231 was a further evolution of the I-230, using the AM-39 engine that had originally been intended for use in the I-230. One of the I-230 aircraft had its engine replaced with the more powerful AM-39. This required modification of the cooling system; the radiator was enlarged, with another secondary radiator installed. There were also a few other modifications, such as moving the horizontal tail surfaces downward slightly, the fuselage fuel tank was enlarged and some modifications to the radios. Armament was the same as the I-230; two 20mm ShVAK cannons. First flight of the I-231 was in October 1943. However, in early November, the prototype was forced to make an emergency landing after the supercharger failed at high altitude. Two weeks later, flight testing of the repaired I-231 resumed. The prototype, with the more powerful AM-39 (1800 horsepower), reached a top speed of 707 km/hr at an altitude of about 7000 meters. It also climbed to 5000 meters in under 5 minutes. Flight testing continued in early 1944, and in March, the I-231 was damaged after overrunning the runway during landing. The program suffered another setback when the repaired I-231 suffered an engine failure, damaging the precious AM-39 engine. Following this last mishap, work on the I-231 was discontinued. The similarities between the radial and inline engined models are still visible. via airvectors I-210/MiG-9 M-82 I-210 with radial engine. via airpages.ru The I-210 was a more substantial modification of the MiG-3 which began in the summer of 1941. Production of the Shvestsov M-82 radial engine had recently begun, and many design bureaus, including MiG, were instructed to find ways to incorporate the engine into their designs. In the case of the MiG-3, this was especially important, as the Soviet government sought to discontinue the AM-35 to free up production space for the AM-38 used by the all-important Il-2. In theory, the M-82, with 1700 horsepower, would provide a significant performance increase over the AM-35. Soviet engineers projected that the M-82 equipped MiG-3 (now known as the I-210) would reach nearly 650 km/hr at altitude. It was also projected that performance would be massively improved at low altitude, important for combat on the Eastern Front. The new aircraft was received the designation “MiG-9 M-82”, denoting that it was a substantially new type (this designation would later be reused for a twin-jet fighter in the late 1940s). In addition to fitting of the M-82, there were several other differences between the MiG-3 and the I-210. Armament was increased to three 12.7mm UBS machine guns (two 7.62mm ShKAS were fitted initially, but soon removed). Several systems related to the engine, including the oil coolers and fuel system were also updated. The fuselage was widened slightly to accommodate the new engine. The I-210 first flew in July 1941. However, it became quickly apparent that it was not meeting its performance targets. The top speed at an altitude of 5000 meters was a mere 540 km/hr, far inferior to to projects (as well as the production MiG-3!). Part of this was due to having a different model of propeller installed than what was intended. However, wind tunnel testing and inspection showed that the engine cowling was poorly designed and sealed to the rest of the airframe, causing significant drag. Several months were required to correct the various defects, and it was not until June 1942 that three I-210s were ready for trails. During testing, the three aircraft were assigned to the PVO for use on the front. State trials began in September, and the I-210 fared poorly. Maximum speed was still only 565 km/hr, far inferior to existing types. Overall, the I-210 was judged to be unsatisfactory and inferior to the La-5 and Yak-7. The aircraft did not enter production, although the three completed prototypes would serve in Karelia until 1944. I-211/MiG-9E The failure of the I-210 was not the end of efforts to install a radial engine into the MiG-3 airframe. In late 1942, work on the I-211 began. A new Ash-82 engine, an improved variant of the M-82 installed on the I-210, was fitted. With the help of the Shvetsov bureau, the aerodynamics of the engine and its cowling were substantially improved. Further modifications reduced the empty weight of the “MiG-9E” by 170 kg. The three 12.7mm machine guns were replaced by two 20mm ShVAK cannons. Testing of the I-211 began in August 1942 (other sources variously say that testing did not begin until early 1943, my interpretation is that this is when state trials officially happened). Performance was markedly superior to the I-210; the I-211 reached a top speed of 670 km/hr, and was able to climb to altitudes in excess of 11000 meters. However, the La-5, which was already in production using the M-82 engine, had similar performance. Moreover, the La-7 was in development, and was felt to have better potential. In all, only ten I-211s were built. Interestingly, at least one source claims that a variant of the I-211 equipped with a Lend-Lease R-2800 engine was considered. There is no evidence that such an aircraft was actually built. I-220/MiG-11 The I-220 (and the rest of its series up to the I-225) were substantially different from the production MiG-3, sharing little aside from the basic design and concept. These aircraft took the original mission of the MiG-3, interception of targets at high altitude, to the ultimate extreme. The initial request that led to development of the I-220 was issued in July 1941, in response to high-altitude overflights by Ju-86P reconnaissance aircraft. These aircraft, capable of operating at over 13000 meters, were outside the reach of almost any Soviet fighter. A few Ju-86Ps at slightly lower altitude were intercepted by MiG-3s before the start of the war, so the MiG-3 was a natural starting point for a high-altitude interceptor. Work on the I-220 prototype began in late 1942. Originally, it had been planned to install the AM-39 engine, but it was not ready at the time construction began on the prototype. Instead, one source (OKB MiG, Page 48) states anAM-38F engine was installed, which still provided more power (1700 hp) than the AM-35 on the MiG-3. However, it had the drawback of losing power at high-altitudes; the AM-38F would be an interim installation at best. A different source reports that an AM-37 was the first engine installed. In addition to the new engine, the wingspan was lengthened by .80 meters, with a slight sweep added to the outer portion of the leading edge. The radiator was relocated from the belly of the aircraft to inside the wing center section, with new air intakes added at the wing roots. Armament was increased to four ShVAKs, making the I-220 one of the heaviest armed Soviet fighters. The I-220 first flew in January 1943. Testing of the aircraft proceeded, as the AM-39 was still not yet ready. Despite being handicapped by the AM-38F engine, the I-220 prototype was still able to reach 650 km/hr during testing in January 1944. It was agreed that the aircraft had potential, but would need the AM-39 to reach its maximum performance. The second I-220 prototype was eventually fitted with the AM-39, but by that point it had been decided to substantially redesign the aircraft. I-220 vs. I-221 I-221/MiG-7 While the I-220 had done well, it had not been able to reach the altitudes its designers had hoped for. Numerous changes would be required to get the best possible performance out of the airframe. The most obvious area for improvement was the engine. Rather than the AM-38F, an AM-39A with a turbocharger was installed. Not only was the AM-39 more powerful than the AM-38, but the twin turbocharger would allow the engine to continue developing power at altitude. Additionally, the wingspan was increased further, to 13 meters. Armament was reduced to two ShVAK cannons, to save weight. Significantly, the I-221 was fitted with a pressurized cockpit, to allow the pilot to survive at extreme altitude. By the time the I-221 made its first flight in December 1943, the Ju-86 threat had disappeared. One of the high-altitude intruders had been intercepted by a Yak-9PD (a high-altitude version of the Yak-9 designed and built in three weeks), though it had not been destroyed, overflights ceased. Nevertheless, the Yak-9PD was very much an interim solution, armed with only one ShVAK and requiring 25 minutes to climb to 12000 meters. So, development of the I-221 continued. The test program of the I-221 was cut very short. On the eighth flight of the aircraft, in February 1944, the pilot bailed out at altitude, after seeing flames coming from the turbocharger and smoke in the cockpit. The pilot survived unharmed, but obviously the I-221 was completely destroyed. I-222/MiG-7 Side view of I-222. via ruslet.webnode.cz The I-222 was a continued development of the I-221. Not only did it have several additional performance improvements, but it was the closest of MiG's high altitude fighters to a “production ready” aircraft. The AM-39A engine was replaced with a more powerful AM-39B, with twin turbo-superchargers, plus a new four-bladed propeller. An improved intercooler was also installed (clearly visible under the central fuselage). To improve the I-222's potential utility as a combat aircraft, 64mm of armored glass was installed in the windscreen, and the cockpit pressure bulkheads were reinforced with armor plate. The fuselage contours were also modified to give the pilot better rearward visibility. Armament was two B-20 cannons, replacing the ShVAKs. The I-222 made its first flight in May 1944. Relatively little testing was done before the aircraft went to the TSAGI wind tunnel for further refinement. It emerged in September and underwent further testing. Test flights proved that the I-222 had truly exceptional performance. A speed of 691 km/hr was reached, quite respectable for a piston-powered aircraft. The truly astonishing performance figure was the ceiling of 14500 meters, well in excess of any German aircraft (save for the rare and latecoming Ta-152H). Though the I-222 could likely have been put into production, Soviet authorities assessed (correctly) that by late 1944 there was little threat from high-altitude German aircraft. Nuisance flights by Ju-86s were of little consequence, and German bomber programs such as the He-274 universally failed to bear fruit. Testing of the I-222 continued through late 1945, when the program was cancelled. I-224/Mig-7 As can be seen the I-224 is similar to the I-222. From OKB MiG by Butowski and Miller The I-224 was a development of the I-222 with an improved AM-39FB engine. Several other minor improvements, such as an improved propeller and modified cooling system. The new aircraft first flew in September 1944. After five flights, it was heavily damaged in an emergency landing. Difficulties continued after the aircraft was repaired in December; the engine had to be replaced in February due to the presence of metal particles in the oil. Like the I-222, the I-224 demonstrated very good performance at altitude, also climbing to over 14000 meters and recording speeds over 690 km/hr. But by now, it was October 1945, and the war was over. It was decided to fit the I-224 with a fuel-injected AM-44 engine. This was not completed until July of 1946, and by then the time of the piston-engine fighter had passed. Both the I-222 and I-224 programs were shut down in November. I-225/MiG-11 From OKB MiG by Butowski & Miller The I-225 was born from the second I-220 prototype. Although the I-225 was still designed for operation at high-altitude, it was decided not to optimize the aircraft for such extreme heights as the I-222 and I-224. It was hoped that this would allow for a higher top speed and heavier armament, among other improvements. A turbocharged variant of the AM-42 engine (similar to that used on the Il-10 ground attack aircraft) was fitted, providing 2200 horsepower at takeoff. The pressurized cabin was deleted to save weight, and allow the cockpit to be optimized for better visibility. Armament was the same as the I-220; four ShVAK cannons. Armor was added to the windscreen, as well as the pilot's headrest. Improved instrumentation and a new radio system was also added. As predicted, the I-225 had exceptional performance. The aircraft was capable of speeds in excess of 720 km/hr, and demonstrated good handling characteristics. Unfortunately, the first I-225 prototype was lost after only 15 flights, due to an engine fire. A second prototype was completed with an AM-42FB engine, and first flew in March 1945. This second prototype was fitted with four B-20 cannons instead of ShVAKs, This prototype was also reported to be capable of over 720 km/hr, as well as able to climb to 5000 meters in under 4 minutes. However, due to continued vibrations, the AM-42 was replaced with an AM-44 in January 1946. This did not solve the issues though, and the I-225, like its predecessors, was not selected for production. All work on the I-225 was shut down in March 1947. Remarks While none of the advanced MiG-3 variants entered production, they did provide the Mikoyan-Gurevich bureau with valuable engineering and design experience. In a different world, one might imagine that some of their designs could have found a niche. The I-210/1 and I-230/1 would have little reason to be built in a world where Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters exist in the way they did. However, if Germany or another enemy had a developed strategic bombing arm, then the I-220 series fighters could have found a use. Either way, by 1945, it was clear that jet aircraft were the future. Even the Soviets, who had a relatively late start on jet engines, quickly developed aircraft like the MiG-9 and Yak-15 whose performance exceeded any of the MiG-3 variants. Sources: OKB MiG, a History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft, by Piotr Butowski and Jay Miller http://www.airvectors.net/avmig3.html http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/a_mikoyan-gurevich.php https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/a-i-mikojan-a-m-i-gurjevic/ (I-230, I-210, I-211, I-220, I-221, I-222, I-224, and I-225 pages) http://www.airwar.ru/fighterww2.html (I-230, I-231, I-210, I-211, I-220, I-221, I-222, I-224, and I-225 pages) http://soviethammer.blogspot.com/2015/02/mig-fighter-aircraft-development-wwii.html
  23. 2 points
  24. 2 points
    Abrams diesel? Do you mean diesel package proposed by General Dynamics a couple years ago? With the MT 883 engine? I'm not sure exactly what transmission they had the MT883 paired with, but I suspect it's something like this: http://www.allisontransmission.com/docs/default-source/specification-sheets/11119_atm_5250mx_sales_sheet.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  25. 2 points
    SPeaking about aidropping - BMD-4 already have pretty serious HE firepower, ATGM (Kornet/Konkurs/etc) and GL-ATGMs of the BMD-4s can deal with vast majority of targets in places where VDV is supposed to be used. UAF VDV got T-80BVs.
×