Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/24/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point

    Britons are in trouble

  2. 1 point
    David Moyes

    Britons are in trouble

  3. 1 point
    David Moyes

    Britons are in trouble

    It isn't. It's actually very good but on some vehicles to get it to fit they had to install it upside down, which it wasn't designed for. This caused a bunch of issues and led to it's negative reputation.
  4. 1 point

    Britons are in trouble

    I might not be able to do that, but Rheinmetall just did that. During upgrade and rebuilding processes, turrets of Abrams and Leopard 2 MBTs have been completely stripped down, meaning all internal and external components have been removed. There is no reason why this should be impossible with the Challenger 2. The rest is a bit of engineering work that any medium-sized military vehicle integrator should be able to carry out. Technical documentation, specifications and blueprints were likely provided by the British military when the two Challenger 2 tanks were handed over to Rheinmetall (even if this didn't happen, they'd be able to do that by themselves). During the early stage of the Leopard 2 development, three different construction mechanisms were used to create the turret shells for the prototypes. There really isn't any magic required to move from a cast to a welded construction. As for the armor I can only point towards to Grant Turnbull's article, which mentioned this aspect: the Challenger 2 LEP is a program focused on obsolescence management. Replacing the gun or improving the armor protection isn't part of it and the figures released by Rheinmetall during its Capital Markets Day 2018 suggests that the company is banking on an increased budget for the gun replacement, so many changes to the armor aren't financially feasible. Most likely the statement from Turnbull's article is a reference to the changed in turret bustle protection and/or improved protection via using welded steel. A new armor package would require an extensive qualification program on side of the British MoD (risking delaying the whole program) and likely would have looked more similar to the other offers from Rheinmetall: Why would the gun mantlet and original turret front shape remain unaltered, when the steel citadel is replaced and a whole new armor package is added? I never said that. I posted a picture showcasing why it is not a brand new turret, you just added your own interpretations to it (at first "that guy considers everything obsolete that the guy marked" and now "that guy things everything is unaltered that is marked in the picture"). You notice that I never said anything along these lines; instead I even pointed out in my last reply, that the Thales Orion sight is now fitted. The identical location of the gunner's sight and commander's cupola, which leads to a weakspot is worth nothing, showing that this isn't exactly brand new. But well, maybe you should go for your own suggestions and play "wait and see", rather then registering to this forum because you were trigged by your own interpretations of my picture and made rash opinions.
  5. 1 point
    The Main Battle System. A TARDEC concept that would move crewmen from the tanks into command vehicles, enabling weight and crew savings over a 4-tank unit of Abrams by 50 percent. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1015742.pdf
  6. 1 point

    General news thread

    No longer a rumor. https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1088146315979251717
  7. 1 point

    The BFR Thread

    Popular Mechanics interview with Musk on the BFR https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25953663/elon-musk-spacex-bfr-stainless-steel/
  8. 1 point
    As long as it's enforced and not used as a loophole to stuff the country with illegals for political or economic gain, then I agree. I don't think so. A better idea would be to curtail or even end the practice of funding the vampiric college system. Of course I think workers of all types should have a pathway to the US that is much more navigable than it is now, but treating immigrants as a labor force strikes me as too volatile a policy to support. Much to the chagrin of the DNC leadership, if true. I'd trade intervention in the Middle East for a renewed Monroe Doctrine in a heartbeat, but weren't you one of the guys who complained about Trump pulling the troops out of Syria? Or was that just Bele? Honest question. Anyway, way I see it we have interests all over, and we must pick and choose where we intervene. Unbridled military activity around the globe is not financially sustainable. The issue is that rogue Mexican Army units in the pay of the Cartels can come over the border and kill Americans, dude. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11226144/ns/us_news-security/t/mexican-incursions-inflame-border-situation/#.XET9ilVKhhE https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/17/feds-armed-mexican-troops-police-jump-border/ https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-dhs-records-detail-mexican-government-helicopter-crossing-border-and-firing-on-border-patrol/ About any other country in the world would be at war with Mexico right now. You can stare at statistics (whether right or wrong) all you want, but don't close your eyes to this shit. I thought Trump's wall was actually a fence. Eminent domain is a sticky issue as it's necessary for some security programs (yes, like the Wall, but also the Interstate Highway System) yet at the same time it's easily abused. I share your concern about it. But basically, you support a wall (or fence, whatever terms you prefer), you just don't support The Wall. Why do you think that is? Then we agree that the country should aggressively tackle voter fraud of any kind. At the end of the day, I want a country that works. The US doesn't work. Democrats are evil, and the Republicans don't have the spine to fight them (also they are evil too). I know not what kind of creature Trump is, but at least he's a vertebrate, and hates the Democrats.