Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Alzoc last won the day on June 4

Alzoc had the most liked content!

About Alzoc

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Nuclear engineering
    Military technology

Recent Profile Visitors

541 profile views
  1. That is, I think, the only thing we can safely assume right now. I can relate to the fact that some of the public institutions that ought to be neutral are politically biased and that it can be annoying at time because they are not here to do politics but to serve the state and the people. I don't know exactly how bad it is in the US (apparently pretty bad if I listen to the members of this forum), but personally I tend to prefer to bear with that kind of (IMO) minor annoyance and to act on it by small touch than a great cleansing at once which could result in a great deal of instability and troubles down the road. I'm not sure how applicable would that analogy be but the political cleansing of the officers in Soviet Russia just before the start of WWII led to a largely ineffective army leading to a great deal of unnecessary losses in the first years of the war. The Soviets ultimately prevailed (having strategical depth is great) but at what cost? My point is that all the soft power being destroyed right now will take a great deal of time to be rebuild and will be unusable in the meantime, Trump or not.
  2. Well maybe apart from Russia, NK, Israel and Saudi Arabia I guess that almost all the other nations in the world have the same line of though : "The sooner Trump is neutralized the better." Kicking the US out of all multilateral organizations would be a fun sight^^ And I'm sure that Trump would be perfectly Ok with that since he abhor multilateralism, and that it's true that the US is largely funding most of those organizations. Problem is that those multilateral organizations need somebody to enforce the collective rules, and it used to be the US (to their great benefits I may add), but now they want to stop fulfilling that role. You know what you lose you don't know what you'll get. Now that Trump is methodically destroying US soft power (be it on the monetary system, or through the UN) soon the only thing left will be hard power. In that configuration China could very well decide to create a casus-belli once they feel that they have amassed enough hard power to take on the US (not too soon I agree). Easiest way to do that would be to stop buying US debt with an economical war on top of that, that would hit American economy quite hard. China's economy would be hit badly as well but the public backslash they'll suffer obviously won't be on the same level than in the US. That's both the beauty and the weakness of globalization: Interdependence mean that if somebody does a stupid move, everybody will be affected to various extent thus safekeeping the current world order through mutual deterrence. But if somebody start trashing around like an elephant in a porcelain shop without a care for the consequences global damages will be unavoidable... You could argue that on top of that economical MAD, there is the MAD through nuclear weapons which is still relevant even today, so we may not see a direct conflict but various proxy wars, just like during the cold war (plus maybe various cyber attacks). When that happen I really hope that the EU will have amassed enough power of it's own to remain somewhat neutral, instead of being the prize for the victor or the staging area.
  3. Number of incidents (Nation wide) following the national fest and the WC final have been published by the ministry of the Interior: 845 cars burned, 508 arrests compared to last year with 897 cars burned and 368 arrests. (Plus an unconfirmed number of accidental death, and broken showcases). Love how the spoke person for the ministry flatly comment on that: "No major incident to deplore" Yeah, it was alright ^^
  4. Alzoc

    General AFV Thread

    I'll leave the link to the 14th of July parade in case somebody is interested: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/france/14-juillet/direct-regardez-le-defile-militaire-du-14-juillet-avec-pour-la-premiere-fois-des-images-4d_2845251.html Edit: The actual parade start around 2h35 time mark (or rather the opening animation).
  5. Alzoc

    General news thread

    And now he's calling dibs on the UK and that the wouldn't mind seeing his fellow clown (British version) take May's place.
  6. Were there cases where you used the adjustable suspension with the 10RC?
  7. Alzoc

    European Union common defense thread

    True to both. The variety of the situations between European armies are huge. You have army like the UKs or France which have a rather broad spectrum of capability and overall good operational readiness but which lack resilience because of their relatively small size, compared to the US army. You have army like Germany's which are somewhat larger but with supbar operational readiness and vehicle availability. The Italians have a good navy but their other arms aren't on the same level. You have small country (typically in eastern Europe) which are doing quite well for their size but are quantitatively dwarfs. Etc So if at least we could improve the mobility of those army on the continent (by making it easier administratively and by pooling our transport assets), increase the overall availability of vehicles by having standardized equipments, train together more regularly and measure of the like, even if the spending don't increase dramatically (they should, but it's not sure that we will get there immediately) those kind of initiative ought to make our armies more capable as a whole.
  8. Alzoc

    European Union common defense thread

    Yep, that's reality^^ Combining all EU country (so without the UK), their total spending only amount to about 27% of the US spendings (and even if I added the UK that would only go up to 35%). One more reason to strive to standardize the equipments, we don't spend much already compared to our combined economical weight and what we spend is way less efficient than on the US side because of economy of scales. Some says that the US also waste some money due to the strength of the defense industry there leading to inefficient contracts passed through lobbying but even taking that in account it won't reduce the gap that much.
  9. As @SH_MM said, in theory it is possible to make a torsion bar system that have the same or better performance than your average hydropneumatic. But they'll need to be a bit fancier than plain basic torsion bars. Also when driving in a rough terrain, while dampening is important vertical travel is just as much as it will determine the maximum height of an obstacle the tank can pass without transferring the choc to the hull. So as Collimatrix said, it really depend on what kind of hydropneumatic or torsion bar your are talking about. Personally I tend to prefer hydropneumatic as they are completely external (so in general easier to replace on the field) and add a bit more material on the tank's side armor (granted it's not much but it's always welcome), but the most important point is that they allow to reduce the overall height of a tank. As for the ability to kneel, I don't think that it is really a critical asset for an MBT. It can be useful when you want to dig in and wait in defense, but that add a bit of delay when you want to retreat, so it would only be really useful for country that have almost no strategical depth and where the tank cannot really retreat. The fact that most MBT with adjustable suspension comes from SEA country would tend to support this idea. However I consider it a useful addition for recon AFV which strive to observe without being seen and will in general open fire as a last resort only.
  10. Alzoc

    Britons are in trouble

    Sure but you can't really put a Challenger 2 with a simple upgrade of sights and FCS in the same league than an upgraded Leopard 2. Be it in firepower, mobility or protection a Challenger 2 with such minimal upgrades cannot compete. I should have been more precise with my statement. When I said cheaper I was comparing it with a Challenger 2 which had it's barrel replaced by a more modern smoothbore, and on top of the fact that it didn't solved the problem of it's protection and severely limited the amount of ammo it could carry, IIRC replacing the gun to adress the firepower issue was so costly (although I don't remember the exact figure) that it would have been better to buy new tanks all together. So strictly speaking you are right, it could be cheaper to upgrade the Challenger 2 but the level of capability reached would be far below than the one of a Leopard 2 brought up to A7V standard. So on a "per capability" basis buying off the shelf tanks would be cheaper, however as you said MBT are probably not one of the most pressing concern of the UK MoD, thus they could decide that they can make do with minimal upgrades until the Challenger 2 is replaced. I honestly have no idea, possibly from a country that wished to sold back it's Leo 2 to cut down expenses? If KMW proposed a deal to the UK and were capable to put a price on it, I guess that they ought to have had a good idea of were to procure those tanks (otherwise calculating the cost would prove difficult). @SH_MM certainly know more than me on that topic.
  11. Alzoc

    Britons are in trouble

    True that the Leopard 2 would have needed to be brought up to standard, but the same would be true if they bought M1 (which would most likely be storage M1A1 brought to A2 xx standard). Point is no matter what the British chose it will be old tanks (M1, Leo 2, CR2) upgraded to a more recent standard, they need an interim solution to last until 2030-2035. The big difference is that for both the M1 and the Leopard 2 the R&D costs of the upgrades have already been paid for and their most recent iterations are recognized as capable. That's not the case with upgrading the CR2 which require to develop a new solution with the afferent costs (and for minor improvements I may add). It doesn't matter if they buy M1 or Leopard 2 it would be cheaper and bring them more capability than trying to upgrade the Challenger 2.
  12. Alzoc

    Britons are in trouble

    That would most likely be more expensive than buying off the shelves M1s anyway (and would probably make the tank even more overweight than it already is) The Germans also proposed them to buy second hand Leopard 2 at some point which would have been cheaper and more effective (from a combat potential PoV) than upgrading their CR2 but it was shot down for pride reasons apparently. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ministry-of-defence-mod-german-tank-deal-manufacturer-krauss-maffei-wegmann-leopard-2-tank-fear-a7510681.html
  13. Alzoc

    Aerospace and Ordnance discussion/news.

    At the end (3:05) of a short promo video by Dassault we see what could be a first concept of the future fighter for the European SCAF program: Twin engine, stealth, no direction governs (thrust vectoring?) Other than that I leave more knowledgeable peoples dissect this initial design.
  14. I think that with that kind of system, it would mean that this ERA would need to work even faster than an APS. The ERA tile need to detect that the sensor has been triggered, set off the charge and aggress the incoming warhead even before the jet had the time to form. I don't really know what kind of speed we are talking about put probably way below the ms for the entire chain of events. In comparison this system would probably have an easier time dealing with kinetic penetrators (even if they are already in contact you could still try to break and tilt them). Finally that kind of system would also probably be quite useless against ATGM setting off on proximity fuse (on way or the other). So it's certainly a good idea as the whole system is passive (which is an advantage in electronic warfare), probably quite cheap and can deal with several type of threats. It is interesting on it's own, but like Zuk I feel that it is the most interesting when incorporated in a layered defense. However the technological hurdles to make that technology a reality probably weren't small and that may be why we see it appearing only now.
  15. A public health organization don't just "happen" to change their mind on a topic where there is a worldwide consensus. Breastfeeding is better for both the infant and the mother's health, pretty much everybody agree on this. This is on the same level of stupidity than his tweet on climate change being a Chinese conspiracy https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385