Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Mighty_Zuk

Excommunicated
  • Posts

    1,631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Karamazov in Britons are in trouble   
    https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/bae-systems-unveils-upgraded-mark-2-challanger-2/
     
    Full text:
     
  2. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Alzoc in Britons are in trouble   
    Tis the picture, but that is not the case. I also want to make a correction, they're talking about these sights being added to both the gunner's and commander's sights.
    But what you see below the smoke grenade launchers is Elbit's laser warning system, as told in Shephard's article which I linked above.
    Appears to be the ELAWS
  3. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Alzoc in Britons are in trouble   
    https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/bae-systems-unveils-upgraded-mark-2-challanger-2/
     
    Full text:
     
  4. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Serge in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    And now with Trophy:

     
    Also seems to have some improved and much thicker side and front armor, with what also seems like space reserved for additional side armor modules.
    This probably means that Rafael is involved in the next-gen ERA project of the US Army, part of the VPS project which also involves signature management and laser warning at the moment.
  5. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from skylancer-3441 in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    And now with Trophy:

     
    Also seems to have some improved and much thicker side and front armor, with what also seems like space reserved for additional side armor modules.
    This probably means that Rafael is involved in the next-gen ERA project of the US Army, part of the VPS project which also involves signature management and laser warning at the moment.
  6. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Ramlaen in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    And now with Trophy:

     
    Also seems to have some improved and much thicker side and front armor, with what also seems like space reserved for additional side armor modules.
    This probably means that Rafael is involved in the next-gen ERA project of the US Army, part of the VPS project which also involves signature management and laser warning at the moment.
  7. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Scolopax in General artillery, SPGs, MLRS and long range ATGMs thread.   
    I get that they'd want a 300,000-men exercise to practice coordination between division sized formations and army sized formations, but this parade, along with just how shitty they made their tank park/staging area (barracks or tents are supposed to be set up first, and where are the fuel trucks, maintenance vehicles, and basically half the logistics?), shows that at least much of this exercise is purely for show and not for any meaningful capability gains. Plus with a crap ton of used live munitions including cruise missiles, it's one effing huge money dump. 
    I get that it's fairly common everywhere for high level figures like minister or secretary of defense to arrive, and sometimes even PM or president, and a little show has to be put for them, but just dumping there what could easily be an independent brigade, is excessive.
     
    And to be frank I didn't think the Shilkas were still in service. If anyone really thought they'd be good fire support vehicles, he needs to be sent to the Gulag, along with the dudes who sent open-cabin, unarmored jeeps with barely a medium machine gun on top, to shoot on the same range with tanks (seen on TV so don't bother asking for a source).
  8. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to Alzoc in General AFV Thread   
    My guess is that it works the same way than in the Leclerc where you can ask the autoloader to load the same type of ammunition immediately after firing and keep doing it until it exhaust this type of ammo, or tell the autoloader to keep the chamber empty until you press the button to ask for one type of ammo to be loaded.
     
    Either the autoloader will load on it's own without any input (auto) or you'll have to press a button to ask the autoloader to load once and then standby until you press the button again (semi-auto).
  9. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Scolopax in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    The Abrams M1A2SEPv3 and SEPv4 will now be called, respectively, the M1A2C, and M1A2D.
     
    Source: https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/new_designations_for_upgraded_m1a2_sepv3_and_sepv4_abrams_main_battle_tanks.html
  10. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Karamazov in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    The Abrams M1A2SEPv3 and SEPv4 will now be called, respectively, the M1A2C, and M1A2D.
     
    Source: https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/new_designations_for_upgraded_m1a2_sepv3_and_sepv4_abrams_main_battle_tanks.html
  11. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to LoooSeR in General AFV Thread   
    Stolen from otvaga, posted by GRU - apperently this is K2 for export (rumored to be Oman)

     
     
  12. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Ramlaen in Active Protection System (APS) for tanks   
    Yes. Apparently not a demonstration of it on a Samson turret but the existing 25mm turret of the Brad. Judging by past installation attempts it may be installed on the hull instead of turret.
    And it's supposedly extended a bit to early September.
     
    Demonstration on Stryker in November IIRC. If it's not going to be with the new turret as well, I'm going to be pissed.
  13. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from LoooSeR in ATGMs and RPGs for infantry - a thread for rebels around the world to choose their ATGM supplier.   
    As a follow-on to the Spike LR 2, Rafael are unveiling the Spike ER 2.
     
    Spike ER:
    Fiber-optic data-link. 8km range from air. 8km range from surface. Possibility to proceed engagement beyond 8km in F&F mode (no video feed or controls). 1,000mm penetration. Energy-efficient trajectory and moderate angle of attack. No Counter-APS. Spike ER 2:
    RF data-link for air, and extended fiber-optic data-link for surface. 16km range from air. 10km range from surface. RF data-link ensures FO&U (LOBL) and F&S (Fire and Steer, LOAL) are preserved for the entirety of the energetic envelope of the missile. * 1,300mm penetration. * Counter-APS mode with steep dive.  
    * In the Spike ER 2 column I added some un-confirmed improvements that officially exist on the Spike LR 2 but were not yet mentioned on the Spike ER 2 version.
     
    Janes: Rafael Unveils Spike ER 2.
  14. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from 2805662 in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    If I could meet you in person I would def stare sharply at you. 
  15. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to Sirpad in Israeli AFVs   
    Couple more of the Mk.3-based Ofek
     

     

  16. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to Collimatrix in Microfighters and other Air stuff coming from Romania   
    I don't think the microfighter concept is a strong one with current technology.  I also think that fighters designed by small countries are at a very large disadvantage because of the current state of engine technology.  This wasn't always the case, but it is the case now.  Sweden made fighters that were perfectly competitive with those of the USA and USSR throughout the Cold War, and during WWII small nations like Romania and Australia managed to turn out fighters that were perfectly competitive with those of major powers, at least for a time.

    I should clarify that I mean "small" in the sense of economic power, not land area.  The UK and Japan could both turn out decent fifth-generation fighters in the near future if they decided it was a priority (UK more easily than Japan).  

    The main problem is that state-of-the-art jet engines can only be made by a handful of companies.  Only those companies have the experience and expertise to design and produce the high temperature components of a top-of-the-line jet engine.  John Golan's Lavi book explains that the Israelis were confident that they could produce every single component of the Lavi except the engines.  The Lavi was not low-tech, far from it.  The entire fuselage was to be filled with Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jamming devices, the nose would contain a look-down-shoot-down radar, and the wings would be made of aeroelastically tailored carbon fiber composites.  All of this stuff was comparably advanced to anything the US or Soviets had airborne at the time, and in some cases (notably the wing composite structure and jammers) it was better.  But they categorically could not make the engines in Israel.  In fact, any license-production of the engines would amount to mere assembly of knock-down kits of engine components.
     
    In order for a jet engine to have better efficiency and power density, the core inside the engine needs to experience greater temperature gradients:



    The Y axis is pressure and the X axis is volume.  Pressure multiplied by volume is work, so the entire area enclosed by the diagram is the work the engine produces.

    Since a gas increases in temperature when it is compressed, improving engine performance necessarily entails the use of materials that can withstand greater temperatures.  Current top of the line gas turbine blades are made of mono-crystal nickel alloys, and those are a stone cold bitch to make.  Only a handful of companies worldwide can do it. 
     

     
    But these exotic, difficult materials aren't just a luxury.  They're fundamental to achieving a high performance thermodynamic cycle.  A jet engine can certainly be made that doesn't use these exotic nickel alloys, but they're bigger, heavier and less efficient than one that does.  Check out this comparison of a GE F404 with a GE J79:



    The earliest versions of F404 produced nearly as much thrust as the last versions of the J79, and later versions eclipsed it entirely, all while being narrower, much shorter, slightly more fuel efficient, and requiring enormously less maintenance.  Mono-crystal nickel alloy blades are the sine qua non of modern jet fighter engines.
     
    Off the top of my head, there's one company in the UK that can make these things, two in the USA, one in France, two in Russia and one in China, but they're still getting their feet under them.  The Japanese have enough expertise in industrial turbines and exotic materials science that I think they could figure it out if they threw a huge wad of money at the problem.  India is trying to develop independent expertise, but... it's Indian defense.

    This means that any country that wants to develop a new fighter that is not on the list above has to make do with engines from a country that is on the list above.  This means that a lot of the fundamental decisions about the aircraft are made for them.  At what altitude and airspeed will the fighter be most efficient?  A small country that can't design engines has to choose from a handful of already available engines and hope that the parameters of the existing designs closely match what they want.
     
    There is also the possibility that the small country doesn't get the engine they want at all.  SAAB is stuck with a weaker version of the General Electric F414 for the Gripen E/F that only produces 98 kN.  Since the Gripen E/F is quite a bit heavier than earlier versions, this leaves it somewhat underpowered.  General Electric had calculated that, with enough development money, they could develop a souped-up variant of the F414 capable of producing 120 kN of thrust.  They pitched this idea, called the F414 EPE, to the US Navy as an upgrade for F/E/A-18E/F/G-e-i-e-i-o fighters.  The US Navy was initially interested, but ultimately decided to spend the money elsewhere.  So SAAB is stuck with an underpowered Gripen E/F and can't do anything about it, as they're not really in a position to spend the megabucks that GE will want for engine development.
     
    Another problem is that the current air warfare paradigm doesn't really favor small fighters.  I wrote a post about the effects of scaling on fighter performance on another forum, so I'll copy-paste it here:

     
     
    From simple physical scaling effects, smaller fighters should have an edge in maneuverability but should be at a disadvantage in terms of range and speed.  With the fifth generation of fighter jets emphasizing supercruise capability and long range (in order to help compensate for small fleet sizes), a relatively small fighter is not looking like a great trade-off.  There are other problems with micro-fighters under the current fifth-generation paradigm.  Radar performance (range, resolution) is directly related to the size of the antenna.  Bigger fighters can support a larger radar.  Internal weapons bays are more or less a must for stealth, and a small fighter is going to have a much harder time supporting internal bay that can carry all the sorts of ordnance it might need to carry.

    The hybrid light strike/trainer concept has more merit, but I am not sure that this idea is a wise allocation of resources.  Combat aircraft designers have moved towards multi-role designs that double as fighters and as attack aircraft because individual aircraft have become more expensive and because mission electronics have become so much better.  But aerodynamically speaking, a multi-role aircraft is not an attractive idea.  In order to have the requisite agility needed for air to air combat, fighters need to have lots of features that compromise their efficiency.  Fighters have huge wings, proportionally speaking, so that they can produce lots of lift.  They have vortex generators like canards, dogteeth and LERXs to allow them to pitch to very high angles of attack.  They have gigantic vertical stabilizers, ventral fins and other auxiliary and oversize control surfaces to maintain control while they are performing extreme maneuvers.  All of this stuff improves agility, but adds weight and drag.  A light strike aircraft that doubles as an advanced trainer might be able to perform useful missions in a strike role (as the L39 albatross is today in Syria), but it won't do very much in an air-to-air role.  If, in any realistic war, it would just be killed in any sort of contested airspace, it makes more sense to stop pretending that it can double as some sort of fighter, and get rid of all of the features that make it more agile, and just use it as a light bomber.  Better still, make it a drone.
     
    I think that is the balance of considerations based on modern technology.  Changes in technology could change this balance a lot.  For instance, General Electric is working on silicon carbide turbine blades, since mono-crystal nickel alloy blades are nearing the limits of their potential.  Once the silicon carbide technology is mature, it might turn out to be much easier to produce than the mono-crystal nickel alloys.  It is also possible that computers and CFD software will improve to the point where institutional experience in engine design matter less, and small nations will be able to reasonably design and produce their own fighter jet engines.  But that is speculative.  For right now, I think fighter aircraft are really only competitive if they're fairly big, and if they come from fairly big nations.
  17. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from VPZ in Active Protection System (APS) for tanks   
    This dude (which is such a bore to hear) said something a little interesting at 3:23:
    "We are looking at the future APS of the US Army as well, it's going to be installed on IDF vehicles, and we have 2 other launch customers around the world that have already decided on this system".
     
    So, the fact that it's going to be installed on future IDF vehicles should be no surprise to ya'll. It's not going to be the full system, only the interceptors. They'll be used on the Merkava 4 Barak first, and will intercept KEPs, and the rest of the stuff will be Rafael and IAI.
    It's dubbed 'Trophy 2' by some, though I believe it will only be a real progress if they manage to install an auto-loading system for it as well, plus a larger ammo capacity, because a total of 4 interceptors per vehicle, with 2 per side, is just abysmal, especially considering the IDF has just reduced the platoon size from 3 to 2.
    If they install an auto-loader this will appease the Zucc.
     
    But he talks about it in a way that suggest they're pushing for that same APS for the US Army as well. Not for the current competition, but definitely something for the overall MAPS effort.
     
    Plus, two customers now? I only know of the Netherlands. Wonder who's the other dude. My bet would be..... Norway.
  18. Funny
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Steelninja333 in Active Protection System (APS) for tanks   
    Take this my dude:
     
    EDIT:
    Seems Trophy was, as shown previously, supposed to enter service more than a decade ago but failed to do so due to Raytheon's lobbying. Trophy VPS is said to be demonstrated on a Bradley this month (August), according to Defensenews, but is said in the context of the Stryker's Iron Curtain. If we also consider that the Trophy VPS is mounted on a turret that could be integrated to the Stryker as well, plus the fact that Israel already has several Stryker vehicles but no Brandons that we know of, then it is very possible that the demonstration will include a Stryker as well. ADS may be in a tough spot right now, as the slot for a new APS is being contested by RAFAEL's Trophy VPS for the Bradford and Stryker. 
  19. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Serge in Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV   
    Seems the Boxer is now out of the competition because they want a tracked vehicle:
     
  20. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from SH_MM in Active Protection System (APS) for tanks   
    Take this my dude:
     
    EDIT:
    Seems Trophy was, as shown previously, supposed to enter service more than a decade ago but failed to do so due to Raytheon's lobbying. Trophy VPS is said to be demonstrated on a Bradley this month (August), according to Defensenews, but is said in the context of the Stryker's Iron Curtain. If we also consider that the Trophy VPS is mounted on a turret that could be integrated to the Stryker as well, plus the fact that Israel already has several Stryker vehicles but no Brandons that we know of, then it is very possible that the demonstration will include a Stryker as well. ADS may be in a tough spot right now, as the slot for a new APS is being contested by RAFAEL's Trophy VPS for the Bradford and Stryker. 
  21. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Ramlaen in Active Protection System (APS) for tanks   
    Take this my dude:
     
    EDIT:
    Seems Trophy was, as shown previously, supposed to enter service more than a decade ago but failed to do so due to Raytheon's lobbying. Trophy VPS is said to be demonstrated on a Bradley this month (August), according to Defensenews, but is said in the context of the Stryker's Iron Curtain. If we also consider that the Trophy VPS is mounted on a turret that could be integrated to the Stryker as well, plus the fact that Israel already has several Stryker vehicles but no Brandons that we know of, then it is very possible that the demonstration will include a Stryker as well. ADS may be in a tough spot right now, as the slot for a new APS is being contested by RAFAEL's Trophy VPS for the Bradford and Stryker. 
  22. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from That’s Suspicious in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.   
    Those with rotating launchers, like Trophy, and Iron Fist do. They can be defeated with salvos with near simultaneous impact. 
    To defeat the Trophy or Iron Fist from the front or rear you need 3 missiles, or 2 to the sides where their coverage doesn't converge. They also need to be configured for each APS so there's not one anti-APS mode.
     
    i.e vs Trophy the missiles need to be parallel.
    vs Iron Fist they need to be in a line.
     
    Static launcher systems have different weaknesses and these are usually their coverage zones. They can usually be defeated by top attack munitions diving at certain angles of attack.
     
    i.e vs Afghanit it's just a guess but you need something along the lines of 30° or 40°. To ensure defeat against inclined targets, RAFAEL made the Spike LR 2 dive at 70°. They say it was designed this way to defeat APS. 
    Attack profiles can be configured via software, so just like this demonstration with Kornets, western missiles like Javelin, Hellfire, MMP etc can be configured for an anti-APS mode.
     
    Trickier systems like the ADS perhaps, may necessitate even closer to 90°. Although I don't really know of its configuration on available platforms.
     
  23. Funny
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to LoooSeR in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.   
  24. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to VPZ in Israeli AFVs   
    https://www.idf.il/אתרים/זרוע-היבשה/תערוכת-האמלח-בזרוע-היבשה/
  25. Tank You
    Mighty_Zuk reacted to 2805662 in Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV   
    As expected...some progress:
     
    ”LAND 400 Phase 3 Classified Briefing Registration
    The LAND 400 Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability Request For Tender (RFT) will be released shortly. The project will hold a classified briefing to vehicle OEMs and Primes who intend to submit a response to the RFT to detail classified technical requirements, specifically the protection requirements listed in the Technical Requirements Matrix (TRM), shortly after release. 
    Defence has a specific process for releasing official information outside of Defence. There are two main steps. The process is different for Australian companies and foreign companies.
    Step one – Australian companies 
    For Australian companies, the members attending the briefing will need to hold a Negative Vetting Level 1 or higher security clearance.
    Step one – Foreign companies 
    Determine if your nation has a Security of Information Agreement and Arrangement (SIA) with Australia. A Security of Information Agreements and Arrangement (SIA) is a formal commitment to apply reciprocal protection to official information exchanged between Australia and your nation. This protection is to meet agreed security standards outlined in the relevant SIA. You may need to contact the Department of Defence equivalent of your nation to determine if there is a valid SIA in place. The existence of an SIA does NOT provide blanket approval for the release of classified information. Approval must be granted by Defence on every occasion where a release of official information is sought. This approval will be granted by the LAND 400 Phase 3 Project Office.
    Step Two 
    Register with the LAND 400 Phase 3 Contact Officer with your relevant information to attend the briefing. The minimum details required by Defence are as follows: 
    The status of a valid SIA (for foreign companies), the names, DOB, position within your company, and Australian or foreign security clearance level of those Subject Matter Experts you wish to attend.
    Numbers will be limited to no more than four per company and the final veto for attendance will remain with the LAND 400 Phase 3 Project Office.
    Please register your interest to attend the classified briefing with all relevant details via the LAND 400 Phase 3 Contact Officer mailbox.
    If you are a foreign company that is not subject to a valid SIA and you wish to attend the classified briefing please contact the project via the mailbox as soon as possible.
     
    On 13 March 2018, Government provided First Pass approval for LAND 400 Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability, comprising, Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Manoeuvre Support Vehicle capabilities. This approval allows Defence to investigate options to replace Army’s M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) with a fleet of up to 450 modern Infantry Fighting Vehicles and also acquire up to 17 Manoeuvre Support Vehicles.
    Defence anticipates releasing the LAND 400 Phase 3 RFT in the second half of 2018.”
×
×
  • Create New...