Mighty_Zuk

The 2nd photo isn't a Merkava. Not sure what it is exactly.

A missile consists of, what? 4 segments? Seeker, flight computer, warhead, and motor+controls. An unguided rocket has only 2 of these: warhead, and motor which even then lacks controls. So it has, 37.5% of the components of a missile? 62.5% of the new system must be developed from scratch and then manufactured, so I call BS on it costing the same as an old S-13 you can get at your local supermarket.

From what I remember, it's supposed to be a hybrid between something like the Trophy and Iron Fist, in that it uses an MEFP warhead inside a grenade. It's also possible to see in the video that the warhead detonates in front of the approaching projectile, versus beside it in the Iron Fist.

A Hebrew article by a guy whose articles aren't worth reading, actually contained a small interview with a Rafael official. Most of it was meaningless, but they did confirm that they are still working on the 6th gen AAM they showed a while ago.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/syria-says-israel-carries-out-strike-claims-to-intercept-missiles/ Soon enough we should be getting photos from ImageSat showing the post-strike damage. What's interesting though, is that the video shown in the article, shows slowly descending objects that are constantly powered. If they're powered, they cannot be JDAM, SPICE, or SDB, i.e glide bombs. If they're descending from a great height, they cannot be cruise missiles. Or at least, unlikely. What should always be powered, however, are SAMs, for obvious reasons. We see no sign of a powered missile coming in the way of the alleged Israeli munitions. So this is quite a bizarre show.

It's interesting they've enabled the use of the Spike as an anti-air missile (anti-helicopters?).

That's a nifty idea! However considering the complexity of such systems, I thought a tethered drone would appear first.

How is the size of the aircraft relevant to the concept? Russia has built many different helicopters. Small and big alike. Which if it was true, would actually defeat your argument. I'm going to need an explanation on the "civil aircraft sucks" theory, and a further explanation on why the lack of in-service stealth aircraft is a factor in this debate.

Been reported before, but it does confirm some of my suspicions. Rafael and LM are now cooperating on the SPICE kit, will market it jointly: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/lockheed-adds-some-israeli-spice-to-kinetics-market/ Rafael needs it to integrate it to the F-35 and put it on higher priority within LM for that (many more munitions in queue). Will allow Rafael to better market its low-RCS SPICE-250 munition, which unlike the SPICE-1000/2000 was designed from the ground up as a stealthy munition and not based on existing warheads. Makes more sense to buy stealthy missiles/bombs when you have a stealthy plane, and tapping into the F-35 payload list is a strategic marketing advantage. Gives the US a gateway to a more complete solution to GPS-denied environments.

I'm not going to quote everything you said, but you're quite misinformed. 1. Jet engines on helicopters are a reality. Take a look at this one for example: This helicopter is Sikorsky's Absolute Chad 69, unofficially known as "CH-53". What are those things sticking from its sides? 2. Russia definitely CAN develop such things. The isolation during the cold war mostly hindered Russia's progress in computer technology. In some areas it was a decade behind, if not more. But in aviation? Nope. It could consistently put up a match to the west. 3. This is an iteration of the "compound helicopter" concept, except the rear engines are jet engines, and not a smaller rotor as you'd see for example on the S-97 (and its larger cousins SB>1 Defiant light/medium): 4. It seems a lot of your arguments are based on the assumption that Russia is all about propaganda. Believe me, I see Russia's classic propaganda efforts every day. On TV mostly (yes, I still watch Russian TV). But in every lie there's a bit of truth. When it comes to military hardware, they're usually not outright lying, but telling half truths and greatly exaggerating it. So when they come out with some new piece of hardware, they may come with an announcement that it's some world beating stuff that "has no analogues anywhere" for the domestic audience, but they're not going to make a paper tiger. It's still going to be something that they build with the intent to match an opponent's hardware, and will rightfully believe in its capabilities, even if they exaggerate it on TV. This greatly exaggerated hardware has proven itself over and over again to be capable in its own right. So it's important to both point out the propaganda, but at the same time acknowledging that propaganda is not the entire essence of it. It's a byproduct.

High chance this is what the Israeli Iron Beam will also look like.

Rafael pitching its SkySpotter system:

I think he's not a bad journalist. He's just not a professional one. He makes some rookie mistakes like publishing articles based on yet unconfirmed information, as if it was factual, without mentioning it's not yet confirmed. But overall still worth reading.

New footage from SPICE family bombs:

The Big Six, although a welcome change of paradigm and more focus on R&D and production of new kit over overhauls and life extensions of old kit, it's not exactly striking a good balance, from my POV. It's pretty much what the IDF did, but on a grander scale. We were so focused on constantly upgrading our AFVs and creating new ones, projects easily worth hundreds of millions on a regular basis, that we've neglected the technological improvements of the infantry, who inherently can make similar leaps in equipment-derived capability via much smaller investments (just let's not enter the whole stupid "for 1 X we could buy 200 Y" argument). It took a long time but now it seems our procurement agency has struck a better balance. The Big Six seems to me like it is one step behind in that regard and it frustrates me. But I'm not familiar with it enough so I could be wrong. Hopefully. My only remaining question for now is - Is the JLTV too big to kill? (In favor of a cheaper alternative, or for a redesign to fit the army's revamped strategy)

So to somewhat add to what AP said, what's exactly wrong with the JLTV in the aspect of a major power conflict? Is the desired route a larger battle bus like the VBMR Griffon?

Sometimes I'm almost inclined to say they need less transparency. If Apple starts being transparent with how many times their engineers had "oh fuck!" moments, I think people would not even consider buying their products, even though by release all these issues are eliminated.

All these issues with basically every major procurement program so far give me some doubts. Is this abundance of reports of deficiencies/issues, a result of unparalleled transparency within the procurement system? Or is the procurement not nearly streamlined enough to cope with major projects anymore? Is the Futures Command supposed to help streamline these processes? And if so, then by what degree?

Plasan are releasing footage of their brand new, still prototype, Storm Rider: Unlike the Sandcat, it's much closer to being a clean sheet design. The powertrain is still Ford's, but the chassis were designed independently. The SandCat was an F550 chassis with a mounted superstructure. It retains Sandcat's innovative kitted-hull, which is why overall it looks rather similar, other than the redesigned grill area, but grows in weight by a substantial margin, from 8.8 tons to 11.5 tons. Specs: Engine - V8, turbocharged. Volume/fuel type - 6.7 liters, diesel. Output - 330hp at 2,600RPM Momentum - 103kg/m at 2,000RPM. Drive - 4x4. Gearbox - automatic, 6 gears. Length - 642cm. Width - 258.4cm. Height - 265.3cm (does not include optional top mounts). Wheelbase - 368.3cm. Weight/GVW - 10 tons, 11.5 tons. Distance from ground - 41.8cm. Approach/Departure angle - 38°,36°. Troop capacity - 10. Couple of pics:

It's almost as if western procurement has moved into fitting the soldier to the tool, and not the other way around.

Imagine taking a ride on your favorite donkey for some alone time in the woods, and seeing this shit staring at you:

It didn't. At least, it would be impossible without changing the internal composition, which the armor upgrade did not do. That's why IBD are offering a similar armor upgrade to the Leopard 2A5 and later versions. It's up to the customer to decide whether they want the gunner's sight area to be up-armored. If they choose to armor it, they make the investment in altering the turret's structure to lift the sight to the turret roof.

This "it shouldn't happen in the first place" mindset is counter-productive. Over the past century of tank development, a lot of progress was made solely on the realization of "oh shit, it happened". The British built a sub-par tank because they probably didn't think Russia would field anything advanced enough until the Challenger 2 is replaced. The Israelis failed to invest in an APS because they didn't think guerilla AT units could hit their tanks' flanks with such (relative) impunity. The Indians have never finished the Arjun project because their entire acquisition process is just FUBAR, or at least was, for a very long time. None has exact knowledge of the side armor of the T-14. I'm willing to bet that it's adequate against autocannons. When it comes to the hull, basically every tank today is resistant enough against 30mm autocannons. Every family of tanks (i.e Merkava variants, Abrams variants, Leclerc variants etc etc) has a ready-to-install armor kit that would make it basically immune to fatalities from autocannons.

Of course trunnion position and breech length are important, but you talked specifically about the height of the whole turret as a unit relative to the placement of the gun. You said it's a negating factor and I corrected you by saying it's a contributing factor.

A PG-7VR rocket with modified fins (for vertical descent rather than horizontal flight) was found on a UAV that was downed today near Gaza.