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

Alzoc

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Alzoc last won the day on February 2

Alzoc had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    France
  • Interests
    Nuclear engineering
    Geopolitic
    Military technology
    Anime

Recent Profile Visitors

3,146 profile views

Alzoc's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/3)

417

Reputation

  1. Roughly speaking the force [N] will be a product of the pressure [N/m²] (which varies with time but I assume that the figures are for the peak pressure) multiplied by the surface of the back of the recoil chamber [m²] -> It should be fairly easy to calculate a rough approximation for the force equivalent to peak pressure. The pressure itself will depends on the volume [m3] of the chamber and the energy [J] released during the combustion of the propellant (which depends of the mass [kg] of propellant and it's composition) and how fast the propellant react [J/s or W] (which depends on the composition of the propellant and the method of ignition) -> Will be very hard to come up with a reasonable assumption for all of those values The recoil length [m] will depends on the counter-force [N] applied by the recoil mechanism which can be assimilated to a spring. The force [N] of a spring can be calculated using the following formula : F = -k*x where : F is the force in [N] k is the stiffness constant of the spring [N/m] which you may have a hard time finding a reasonable assumption for it x is the displacement in [m] If the "spring" is fully compressed before reaching a force equal to the recoil force, then the gun will slam on the back of it's rails and the residual force will be transmitted to the trunions, turret and hull (in that order). The weight of the projectile is irrelevant for the recoil force however by integrating the force applied to it over the whole length of the gun you should be able to calculate it's kinetic energy and so it's muzzle velocity. The problem is that the force applied decrease with the pressure over time and as the volume increase and finding the pressure curve in the chamber over time will probably be next to impossible.
  2. SAPHIR (Séquence d’Activité et de Production de Haute Intensité et de Régénération - Sequence of Activity and of Production of High Intensity and Regeneration) 2024 : (Yeah the acronym is gibberish, even in french)
  3. Tucker Carlson interviewing Meloni :D https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGSoRGvXMAELl2R?format=jpg&name=large
  4. It's about trying to keep the rule of Law alive on the international level (at least for appearances sake). If a country on the permanent security council (which is supposed to make sure that international law are actually enforced) just plain don't care anymore what kind of message does it send to rest of the world ... It's about lifting a taboo which held pretty well so far all thing considered. If you want to live in a world where every wannabe dictator develop nuclear weapons and threaten to use them while invading their neighbours without being bothered (pretty much what Russia is doing) good for you. I personally don't. All you will achieve is that most smaller countries will be forced to also equip themselves with nukes to protect themselves from their imperialist neighbour. But in doing so it greatly increasing the risks of nuclear warfare on a global scale. If Ukraine had kept their old soviets nukes instead of surrendering them to Russia maybe the invasion wouldn't have happened. But if Russia had invaded anyway things would most likely have already escalated to the nuclear level. And that's the point the US actually have the capability to rebuild their nuclear weapons and to develop new ones. With this announcement, all Russia is doing is to cast doubt on their capability to do so (mostly on the developing new ones side) and are trying to find a weak "legalist" excuse to restart nuclear tests because they are incapable to do without. They will eventually prove that they are still capable of designing nuclear weapons when they manage a successful detonation (and I have no doubt that they will get there). But in the meantime? It is pretty much admitting that Russian deterrence is possibly unreliable. You categorically don't want to do that when speaking about dissuasion. I can't stress this enough. Dissuasion is not about having weapons but about convincing the rest of the world that they work reliably, that their delivery system will carry them to their intended targets and that you are willing to use them. Without all of those three points you don't have a dissuasion and nuclear weapons are nothing more than expensive paperweights. And I agree that AUKUS was a massive knife stab to the NPT. All the US and the UK managed to do is to create a precedent where any nuclear state could gift highly enriched fissile material to a non-nuclear state under the guise of "assistance in developing naval propulsion". As I said, if you want to live in a world where Russia can gift HEU to Iran and risking nuclear war in the middle east with Iran and Israel as the main protagonists, good for you. I don't. Sure Israel, India, Pakistan, NK have nuclear weapons, but so far they don't have (yet) the capability to deliver them all over the planet unlike the big fives. So for now proliferation was mostly contained. But if you drastically increase the number of states that have nuclear weapons, even short range ones, you increase the risk of nuclear conflicts that could drag the big fives into it by proxy. I'm not even talking about the fact the NPT was put into place by the big fives in order to try limiting the number of actors that could challenge them. Russia is literally sawing the branch on which they are sitting. It's so mind-numbingly stupid that all it says is that Russian leadership is scrambling to keep up the appearance of control (failing spectacularly) and stave off their fall. No matter the conclusion of the war in Ukraine, Russia has already lost on a strategic level. There are only 3 outcomes lefts : The Russian population wakes up, get rid of Putin and the mafias controlling the country through him. There will be some civil unrest but it will allow them to have a good hard look at themselves and what their passivity allowed their leader to get away with and maybe they will be able to get forgiveness and actually move on. That is the most desirable outcome but sadly, also the least likely since all organized political opposition in the country has long been eliminated and even having political opinions is viewed as distasteful and potentially dangerous (has been the case since the soviet era). The population don't put its' nose in politics and the state mostly leave them be and allow them to live relatively comfortable lives. That's the current social contract in Russia. Russia manage to get a stalemate/minor victory in Ukraine but is ruined and is slowly vassalized by China and milked dry of it's natural resources. It's the most likely outcome and the situation would be mostly stable but I don't envy the Russian population living through that. China is not a kind master. Major civil unrest happen (either from a coup by a rival mafia/faction or revolution of the various ethnics groups throughout Russia) and what's left of the Russian empire splinter into smaller nations-states. It could be positive for the populations in the long run but in the short terms it will be the USSR collapse 2.0 : Major risks of arms trafficking and criminals and terrorists getting their hands on WMD (either chemical, cuclear or bacteriological). That's probably the worst case scenario as far as world stability goes.
  5. Using older, proved designs is possible yes. Though, if you want to recycle the fissile material of older bombs, some testing/simulation will still be needed. Older designs are also sometimes difficult to recreate since some of the technology used isn't in production anymore and the know how to do it (mainly on the industrial side) lost. Entirely new designs though will absolutely require testing though (either through full scale detonation, or low scale fusion experiments to validate the simulations results). For example I don't know if Russia has variable yields warheads in it's current arsenal which would be particularly useful for Russia and it's doctrine of tactical first strikes in the hope of putting the fear of a full scale attack into the opponent (escalation/de-escalation doctrine).
  6. Russia signals intent to quickly revoke ratification of nuclear test ban treaty Translation : "Nuclear weapons we inherited from the soviet union are past their shelf-life and are now unreliable (or soon will be). Since we didn't built any facility similar to the NIF or the LMJ we'll have to resort to good-old test detonations to built the next generation or renovate the old ones." Aside from the fact that this is yet another blow to the image of global power Russia is trying to project this is mainly a serious breach against non-proliferation which is particularly egregious coming from a country which has a permanent seat at the security council (though to be fair they weren't the only ones, AUKUS was almost as bad).
  7. That's the way I always understood it. I think so. It is a rudimentary way of having an hunter-killer capability which needs a commander input (preferably from a stabilized sight) that can override the gunner commands and put the gun directly on target without the commander having to hand-over the target to the gunner manually (which takes precious time). The exact definition of an hunter-killer capability depends on who you ask but generally the goal is to shorten the time between target acquisition (commander) and firing on it (gunner or in an emergency directly the commander). More modern system allow the commander to queue targets in the FCS and the gunner can just switch from one to the next with acquisition done (mostly) automatically. It is a capability that most 1st and 2nd (and even some 3rd) gen MBT lacked (The Abrams only acquired it with the A2 version in the 90s for example). The system on the AMX-32/40 allow for shorter firing sequences (less than 10s as stated in the video) and "some kind" of gun stabilization when the tank is moving (by continuously slaving the gun to the commander sight). True it wasn't a full stabilization system since the tank still had to stop for the gunner to fire at longer ranges. But at "combat range" (<1000~1500 m) the commander could just fire on the move without any kind of elevation or (much) lead corrections since at that range an APFSD trajectory is mostly flat and will reach the target in less than 1s (minimal lead corrections required). It allowed the tank to react much faster in case of a close range encounter (assuming that it was the commander who spotted the target). Well remember that no tank had a full "fire on the move" capability until the 90s anyway. Mostly gun stabilization was a way to allow for a quicker firing sequence after coming to a full stop or was mostly limited to firing only in the frontal arc at a much reduced speed (see below at around 0:50) :
  8. AMX-32 archive film : https://imagesdefense.gouv.fr/fr/amx-32.html# Credits to @Sovngard for posting it on another forum
  9. Apparently UVZ want to restart T-80 production : https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/10/russia-might-restart-production-of-the-t-80-tank-dont-expect-it-to-happen-soon/ It's surprising that they want to go this way instead on focusing on T-72 and T-90 given that no new T-80 has been produced for over 30 years which mean that suppliers for the necessary parts are either long gone or don't have the production capability anymore. Possibly some bottlenecks in the T-72 and T-90 lines which limits the production while the war in Ukraine require more tanks to be produced to mitigate attrition? As the article point out, it is however possible that they still have some unfinished hulls in storage and simply want to use the existing tools to assemble them. They would however be limited by the number of hull in storage and how well preserved they are.
  10. Short video on the repairs done on la Perle since the fire back in June 2020 : The ship is now officially back in service until 2028 before the second Suffren class (Duguay-Trouin) enter service
  11. Apparently, next thing would be geometric internal components and crew, that you can place yourself. It won't change the way the vehicles handles but it will add more realistic constraints to the design instead of just having enough gross volume inside the hull or the turret : https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1674170/view/3669903800710929168 https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1674170/view/5320484387351341998
×
×
  • Create New...