Mighty_Zuk
-
Posts
1,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Mighty_Zuk
-
-
@Ronny Ramlaen has somewhat touched on that issue but didnt explain it so I will.
You can take it as a rule of thumb that the faster these missiles are in the first stages, they farther and higher they need to get. I repeat, farther and higher they NEED to get.
The PRS-1M is a great example, much like the Sprint, as they both have a ridiculous first stage speed.
This speed creates an extremely high temperature around the missile while it's in the atmosphere. This causes disturbances that make these missiles practically blind not only to external sensors and C2 systems, but also their own onboard active sensors.
Current ABMs (counter medium range to ICBMs) deploy the final stage outside the atmosphere. Only there they no longer have disturbances, and communication with ground control is enabled. At the same time they are also finally able to activate their own seeking sensors.
So unless the aircraft you are talking about are outside the atmosphere, an ABM can't do anything against them. All they have to do to counter an ABM is make a slight turn or slight change is speed, and that's it.
That is, if the search radar doesn't automatically filter them out in the first place to save processing power.
Only ABM that are built to defeat ballistic missiles in the terminal stage, have an anti-aircraft capability.
This includes but is not limited to:
S-300/400
PAC-2/3/4
David's Sling
MEADS
Arrow 2
-
4 hours ago, N-L-M said:
Aight
I'm just gonna put this here so everyone can see it.
Your posting is bad and you should feel bad. Your SNR is a flat 0, you post nonsense and start useless threads in which you argue inane bullshit and just in general waste people's valuable time with questions a good 5 minutes googling would answer.
Your posts aren't even up to basic shitposting standards, let alone gudpoasting. Kindly meet the standard or you'll soon find yourself unable to post at all.
You haven't contributed anything to this thread. Even if his posting is "bad" (IMO, it's not. He doesn't know how to take in the replies he gets, but makes generally interesting questions), that doesnt change the fact that in this thread your SNR is also 0.
-
Most existing ABMs lack the kinetic capability to do so, but it is possible in some layers.
Flying at very high speed means maneuverability is also limited, and is only a counter to targets flying at a roughly equal speed.
Thus, systems like the GMD and Arrow 3 are limited to ballistic missiles only, and operate only in the exo-atmospheric region.
Systems like the THAAD and Arrow 2 could potentially engage aircraft, although probably limited mostly to high altitude aircraft.
Lower level systems like the Patriot PAC-3 and David's Sling are actually marketed as multi-mission systems capable of engaging fixed wing aircraft as well as ballistic and other targets.
-
Any differences in the contracts other than the price?
Also, are they talking about a 1000 vehicle contract or only the first batch of 250?
-
1 hour ago, Zadlo said:
That's not true. The best penetrators are the one with conical nose because the resistance of the armor causes that due to the material erosion the penetrator at the end of the process always has the conical nose. But blunt-nosed penetrator is much easier to produce by turning.
That's one of my early thought as well. Much easier to cut them into cylinders of varying thicknesses.
-
I believe it has to do with the chipping off effect, and the way the stress flows through the penetrator. With a sharp nose you would, intuitively, have the stress chip off pieces of the nose, and it would be more vulnerable against angled armor. Stress would flow sideways rather than through the center, which could change the trajectory of the rod in an unwanted way (modern armor types capitalize to a degree on the normalization effect of AP shell types).
By chipping off less, you also retain more mass during the penetration, even if you begin with lower mass.
But that's just my intuitive. I have no academic knowledge of mechanics whatsoever.
-
-
3 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:
Any reason that the Borsuk IFV wasn't considered for this role? Having the tank destroyer and IFV on the same basic platform seems like the best idea.
In Soviet states (and affiliated), best platform is many platforms.
-
11 hours ago, Xlucine said:
How is producing a large truck a limiting factor in replacing an advanced AA system?
Valid question. I also thought about it - the mission control computers themselves are more complex than the truck.
And yet, when the unit is deployed, the largest logistical footprint is left by the platform itself, closely trailed by munitions.
-
Okay that's pretty kek.
-
15 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
My point was how badly wheeled Pantsir chassis was designed and i used wheeled version of Tor vs tracked Tor as an example that AA system can be done in ~similar sizes between tracked and wheeled versions. I wasn't arguing about why both systems exists or that one of then should be pushed out of service, which would be another topic requiring detailed knowledge of systems that i don't have.
Also, height matter for Tor as much as for Pantsir - you need to fit those things into railroad system and into cargo plains.
Then I beg to differ. One of the Pantsir's key strengths over the Tunguska is the ability to leverage easily manufactured and abundant vehicles, perfect for attrition.
No need to design from scratch a new vehicle for every little thing.
On transportability I agree.
-
2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
Compare those Pantsirs and Tor system on tracked and wheeled chassis:
Not much different in height, unlike Pantsir vs Tunguska.
Should be the opposite. For a system like Tor, height shouldn't matter because of its longer range.
But then you can argue there is no place for Tor when you have the Pantsir, or vice versa.
-
3 hours ago, alanch90 said:
I guess there is not much sense in working in a 152mm gun until the next NATO tanks show up
A small increase in caliber and larger increase in chamber pressure and volume, plus shell length, make more sense. And you don't want to start reducing loadouts with the proliferation of APS.
A 152mm gun never made sense after the breakup of the USSR. I don't know why they kept telling people they'll do it despite having no intentions to make it.
-
IDF is getting a new personal sight for commanders down to platoon level, coupled with augmented reality, day and night vision modes (higher latency in day mode for some reason), and a BMS interface that will allow the users to see friendly and enemy forces, call for fire support on specific targets, and even chat with other users.
This seems to be a variant of Rafael's Fire Weaver which works by the same concept of fire requests rather than simple designation, and an AR-based interface.
Tanks have their own derivative system, which also shows the tanks' vital data like available ammunition, or maintenance issues, to determine which tank is ready or not ready for maneuver and which tank can fulfill a firing mission at the moment.
The whole system weighs 6kg, with most of the weight owed to the batteries.
-
Depends. Rafael is still, after all, a government owned company. And they do what the government tells them to do. Israel may still prefer not filing a lawsuit to avoid hurting the carefully built relations.
India is also known for pulling this shit off, for example when they cancelled a massive standard rifles purchase from IWI and going as far as blacklisting them and their parent company IMI, only to delist them about a decade later after no evidence was found.
IMI was also involved, by the way, in the Arjun project, adding 13 unspecified improvements (albeit minor), which only shows the great lengths India can go only to shoot themselves in the foot.
-
https://www.timesofisrael.com/india-again-reportedly-spikes-500-million-missile-deal-with-israel/
India again cancels massive Spike missile buy, favoring a DRDO contract.
Again they don't realize that they need to first produce capable missiles domestically before replicating to an indigenous design.
-
30 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
There is this thing called an Ajax...
It's being built in the UK...
It has an IFV variant...
Wonder if the Ajax with all its recon capabilities could detect its existence, and inform the MoD.
-
16 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
These are better than nothing but are still amusingly low energy and sad.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not cause you just sounded a lot like some Ruski troll I encounter a lot on defense sites, but yeah. It kinda is sad.
That low velocity gun is not going to be too useful especially considering how poorly the guns on the Pantsirs perform versus targets larger even than what this system is supposed to counter.
It will be somewhat more useful in self defense because these things will have to be dangerously close to AFVs to actually protect them, because those Stingers are not going to fly far. Even the Hellfires, because of their low velocity.
But it's interim so I cannot complain. I want to repeat again the claim, albeit unfounded, on an Israeli media network's video about Rafael's I-Dome, that the US is interested in that system.
It's great, but not perfect. It too needs a weapon to counter drones and for that I think a laser must be placed on the same truck, even if it makes the whole thing larger.
-
8 hours ago, alanch90 said:
Some heads should roll for the wasted £400m
Not exactly. A lot of money went to develop and buy the turrets, and then qualify them for use.
All that is left to do is buy more ASCODs and that's it.
-
6 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:
It would be absolutely hilarious if Trump just wants to resign the JCPOA without any changes except a new name.
Trump's gonna anger a lot of people if he does it.
It became widespread "knowledge" that the ME allies were against all deals with Iran, when in fact most if not all would have wanted the deal to be expanded to include ballistic missiles, not outright cancelled.
-
6 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
Any chance Raytheon is still going to be able to offer its Stunner? Even with a booster it is quite a thin missile. And its radar-EO synergy should be top notch.
-
Sorry for being almost a day late with it. This is the I-Dome. A completely independent and mobile Iron Dome system with 10 interceptors.
Together with the Drone Dome, this system will become known as the Gideon's Shield (because it was devised under the Gideon multi year plan), and will enter service in the IDF soon. Its structure is not yet revealed - whether it will be deployed in numbers per battalion, or as an element within a specific battalion per brigade, is unknown.
Also said in the video that the US is interested in this version as well, and not only the static version.
-
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:
Kollsman Inc. is a wholy-owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems.
https://elbitsystems.com/corporate-overview-major-subsidiaries/
That's interesting. Recent news in Israeli media talked about a recently created vacuum in the US MIC, I believe following the merger of United Technologies with Raytheon, that specifically Elbit wanted to exploit.
If they can produce turrets in Kollsman facilities, as well as their key market - avionics, then I wonder what market niche it is they want to occupy so desperately.
-
54 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
There are now six companies competing to put a 30mm turret on A1 Strykers.
General Dynamics Land Systems
Kollsman, Inc.
Leonardo DRS
Raytheon
Pratt & Miller Engineering and Fabrication, Inc.
EOS Defense Systems USA, Inc.
Will EOS, Raytheon, and Leonardo be competing as individual companies, or are teamups allowed?
Because it would only seem natural to me that Elbit and Rafael would want a piece of that cake, especially considering how Rafael constantly shows its turret on a Stryker in its marketing material.
Practicality of using ABM against fighters
in Aviation
Posted
How very frightening.