Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TokyoMorose

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was referring to that thread, and from the evidence in there the performance seems dismal enough to say it's not working as advertised and certainly no improvement over Kontakt 5 outside of a few hypothetical edge cases.
  2. Is he though? One of the key points for saying it is better is that the new T-64 update mounts Nozh instead of the old Kontakt-5 applied to the B3s, but Nozh doesn't work as advertised. I thought the general consensus of evidence is that K-5 is better than Nozh given its multitude of issues?
  3. I'll back up EE here, that's what I've been seeing for some time now as well. I didn't bring it up as I figured Loooser would notice.
  4. Come on, Serge - that is an exceedingly silly thing to say. As if the French or pretty much any nation are wonderful sweethearts who only deliver fin-stabilized sunshine & rainbows.
  5. Oh, I'm entirely aware of what has been produced in labs or in 1 or 2 pound test batches, but I was more generally speaking about mass-produced armor steel that they could build a large number of turrets right now out of. Some of the maraging sintered alloys that have come out are remarkable (well over 700 Brinell!), but these haven't moved to mass production of plates and likely wont for some time.
  6. Steel is basically steel. RHm can claim newer steels, but to be honest the improvements in most regards are in the order of 1-5% over the last 20 years - it's mostly marketing wank. Steel metallurgy is simply mature and has been some time, so with the exception of niche alloys/properties major improvements just aren't going to happen. That said, I do agree that re-use of sub-components does not make a new turret merely a variant of an old one. The earliest batches of 76mm Sherman turrets re-used the vast bulk of sub-components with the then-current 75mm turret models, and nobody says it isn't a new turret. The Keiler-derived Leopard 1A3 turret initially shared most sub-components and systems with the 1A2 cast turret, and nobody says they are different variants of the same thing. Correct, the M1IP introduced the "Long" turret compared to the earlier "Short" turret on the M1 Vanilla. It re-used most subsystems and was based on the same overall design, but was structurally an all-new unit.
  7. At least nobody puts the C1 in that competition!
  8. But my own math didn't? The only math I did was comparing BFSC of the V908 with a representative figure for a current fielded-in-number diesel. And I just realized there was a major flaw in my math too (this is what I get for getting nosleep...), the V908 power figured I used was in Gross, not Net. Which is going to knock a good deal off of it. It's actually a pain to get the exact fuel consumption figures for that old thing. I did no math comparing the new engines simply because there's no way to. I'd love to see the BFSC numbers of the new engine, but they don't exist - and their only claim for "improved efficiency" is end-user efficiency (i.e. Bradley will be 25% more efficient with the engine, which could likely be met with zero increase in thermodynamic efficiency, instead merely getting rid of parasitic drag and having a more engine reserve power so it isn't constantly floored amongst others...).
  9. But it is, the turbodiesel improvements aren't drawing-board level things. It's small improvements like coatings and the like. Which this engine doesn't currently have either because they aren't production ready. The current state of the engine is I'm 100% certain less efficient than a current standard engine, and the final production engine will be less efficient than a 2020 or whenever year engine. The improvements aren't really design related that are coming. They do have a heat rejection advantage, but they come with many other issues with incomplete combustion, lubricant in the combustion chamber, and lots of extra gears or levers to mate the piston cranks to a common output shaft that all hurt efficiency. There's a reason in an age of ever increasing efficiency, no major company has gone into the two-stroke piston business despite this technology being nothing new.
  10. No, it's not really, considering it's not production ready yet and conventional diesels are already planning improvements that'll be ready by the time this is. The only big upside to this engine over say "Generic V8 Turbodiesel 2020 #23436448" is really the power density from the very compact layout.
  11. Which is within a few percent of their 20% claim (always account for PR puffery), and that's just with improving the combustion efficiency of the old design. Many other things contribute to overall "end-user" efficiency, and improvements in those should drive the numbers way up. As I've said, commercial diesels have gone further just in the last 20 years already overall.
  12. Honestly, I'd say at least 50% - and that's just looking at other mass-produced diesels through the years. In the last 20 years, we've seen alone total >20% improvements in fuel economy, so given this is a half-century old design (it's a low-pressure fuel injection design!) there are tremendous savings to be had. Based on some simple math, the V903 has a (at peak efficiency) brake specific fuel consumption of 222 grams per kilowatt-hour. Modern diesels are capable of a peak ~190, and that's just pure core thermodynamic efficiency changes more or less meeting their changes. Of course, a 1000hp engine will be more lightly loaded, and won't be pushed much beyond the peak compared to the old engine. It also won't be pushed as hard running all of the accessories. That said, I do believe the goal of this engine is power density, not pure efficiency. The better efficiency is merely a byproduct of it being a modern design.
  13. Honestly, if they want better agility/lower weight at the cost of armor, the CV90-120 does make more sense than the LeClerc or really any other vehicle - the CV90 is operated in large numbers throughout the force, and is a domestic product. But other than that, the only hot lines are indeed the Leopard 2... and the M1, and I don't see any case where they decide to operate both.
  14. That fuel efficiency stat worries me, the V903 is not a modern engine in any sate of the term, and they are only aiming for 20%-25%? Sure, they are majorly boosting power (although being a opposed piston two-stroke, that peak power figure is likely in a *very* narrow power band) - but the first V903 was laid down in 1967! This has all the markings of the L60 & Kharkov diesels written over it, I at least hope they are reliable even if the efficiency and power bands end up garbage.
  15. As far as I am aware, it *is* a Norinco tank, being the warmed over Type 90-II... which form part of a bigger family consisting of the Type 90s, the VT1A/MBT-2000, the VT4/MBT3000 (I do like VT names much better, that was a good move), and the whole 98/99/99A domestic family. Pakistani involvement in the Al-Khalid is basically limited to final assembly and the name, although they have long been wanting to increase the amount of domestic content (such as locally producing gun blanks instead of importing them).
  • Create New...