Lord_James

Stayed up late to get pictures of Artemis 1 going up. This is the first time I've ever used my phone camera at night, so some of the pictures didn't come out very good. All the pictures are at 4x zoom. 

It's very impressive to see a second sun coming up from the north. This intensity didn't last long though. 

@Ramlaen @Sturgeon

She lifted off. Will post pics tomorrow after I wake up

On 11/14/2022 at 7:09 PM, LoooSeR said:

 

He’s got several about the katana, and the nunchucks 

6 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

1:04 in the morning is what I just read on NASA’s site. If it doesn’t launch soon after, I’m going to bed. 
 

Edit: yes, I’ll take pictures if applicable. It just stopped raining here so more likely. Will post when I wake up. 

Ok, after a lot of thought on the subject (and absolutely 0 research ), I see 2 ways this could still work out for them. I will clarify that this is a pragmatic approach where both parties benefit insomuch that they still have an MBT industry after this takes place. 
 

1. Both nations build the tank with their respective industries. I was generally under the impression that the companies were arguing over who’s ideas the other would have to build, like “one nation proposes one thing. The other: another; and they would bid between those options”, or something sensible like that. Now? I don’t know what they’re doing. 
    
2. If the situation is only one nation should build the new euro tank (as hilariously retarded as that would be, but is what I’m understanding from that article alzoc posted), the industry should obviously go to France. Germany already has the massively successful leopard 2 which will keep their industry alive and busy for another 2 decades. The leclerc is not as successful, and although the Caesar is an export success, that won’t replace the jobs and whatnot required by the industry. 
    

I know I’m missing some context, and I know I could very well have this whole situation backwards and nothing I said makes any sense, but I (possibly deludedly) think it’s a good idea to have an idiots opinion on the subject. After all, if you can’t effectively explain something to an idiot, how could it possibly be explained to a politician 

So should these projects be added under “failed French-German cooperation projects: part 2: revengance!”? 

Question (probably for @Sturgeon), how does the trigger connect to the bolt in a bullpup rifle so it can shoot? Is there some kind of extension rod or a clever bolt design? 

9 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

If you are talking purely anti-tank gun inside a turret it would be a 105 mm on the Israeli M-51 :

  Reveal hidden contents

 

During WW2 there was also a 105 mm howitzer version :

  Reveal hidden contents

 

If you are a talking about Sherman based vehicles during the war it would be the 90mm of the M36.

If you are talking about base Sherman hull and turret only it would a 76 mm.

Finally you have all the open-top artillery versions where calibres are all over the place.

 

Alternatively you could be comparing not only calibres but penetrating power, and in that category the Chilean tanks equipped with an OTO-Melara high velocity 60mm deserve a mention :

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I'm sure I forgot a variant somewhere, but @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks will remedy to that^^

You can visit his site in the meantime : https://www.theshermantank.com/

They supposedly also mounted an M26’s turret on a Sherman to. 


 

I do have my doubts if this could be done, though. 

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

lol it basically means Mercury has not quite rounded itself, its gravity is not strong enough to overcome the rigidity of the material it is composed of

I remember something about mercury not being very circular because of the massive tidal forces acting on her from the sun, in a similar manner to how Io and Jupiter interact. I’ll have to sit down and read that thing you posted when I get the chance. 

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Or sell books.

 

I think it would have been a lot more honest to simply say objects in the Asteroid and Kuiper belts are not planets than selectively applying the rules used to define a planet. Mercury is not in hydrostatic equilibrium.

 

If was smart enough to understand some of this science jargon, I might agree with you. Instead I’ll just silently nod my head as you talk 

2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

A lot if you don't use arbitrary qualifiers designed to exclude Pluto.

I detect a hint of salt in there. But people like to (if not love to) draw lines in arbitrary places to make them feel special, and science is no different. 

18 hours ago, speziale said:

 

Sorry, if my question will be stupid, but this table suggests there is no better armor material than the "good old" steel.

 

According to my understanding ME efficiency shows the armor efficiency when we keep the plate' thickness constant, and TE efficiency shows the armor efficiency when we keep the late' mass constant.

Take an example:

in the case of SiC a 20mm plate has a 20*0.34=6.8mm protection. In the case of TE efficiency 20*(7.85/3)=52.2mm thick plate has a same mass than a 20mm steel plate. 52.2*0.34~18mm which gives us 18/20=0.9 TE coefficient

 

So, why the hell makes anybody armor out of anything other than steel? Especially if we take into the account that HHS gives us around 1.1 ME/TE coefficient.

 

Is it possible that use a backing plate and appropriate interlayer material in a structure something like this, improves the ceremics' performance drastically?

Or just me understand wrong something int he abovementioned table?

 

One thing that I do know is that the materials, and how they react/interact with the projectile, can also interact with other materials in the armor. The easiest armor to see this is reactive armors (explosive reactive or non explosive): the inter layer of rubber or explosive is often a terrible armor material in its own right, but it’s effects on the other layers in the array cause both ERA and NERA to be nearly ubiquitous today. This is a more niche and simple example than some of the interactions that may or may not go on with these other materials, but I use it as a precedent for how all the layers in a complex array work with one another. 
 

Another example I can think of is the XM60’s silica filled front plates, or Russian STEF sandwiches. Both silica and STEF (fiberglass) are poor for large kinetic projectiles, but they have some beneficial properties when combined as such, even if their raw ME or TE numbers are not impressive. 

I cried laughing watching this: 

Excellent memeing and deadpan. 

8 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

It’s about time they put a ramjet on a shell. My personal thoughts were they would be more suited for AP projectiles than HE because you don’t have to deal with the filler in AP shot anymore, and you want your AP to go about as fast as the ram can take it. 

5 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

Impressive weight reduction, though I have to ask how many rounds are in that carousel and whether they did consider using the turret basket as additional ammo storage space. The M1 CATTB had two extra horizontal, non-ready carousels in the hull to replenish the turret bustle's ready carousel upon depletion, but using a vertical carousel in the basket could potentially make it a ready carousel.

 

For reference, a SEP v3 should clock in at around 73.6 US tons.

Is the demonstrator armored?

54 minutes ago, Atokara said:

 

Most of the flight path of these missiles is spent during its flight stage at high altitude on a simple sustainer booster which gives ample time for intercept.

 

What’s going to intercept them at high altitude? APS range is like 8 meters at most, and if you think you’re going to reliably take down an ATGM with machine guns at range, you’re huffing paint. 
 

Edit: the only thing that’s gonna get a top attack ATGM at a distance is maybe a strong laser, but I’m not read up on new military lasers so I’ll wait for someone else to comment. 

6 hours ago, Atokara said:

top attack missiles are typically slower than most other ATGMs with a much longer flight time.

I think the flight time difference comes from the missile having to fly high above the target to get the “top attack” portion of its name, and the actual decent phase of the missile is quite fast being gravity assisted and all. 

On 10/4/2022 at 5:23 PM, LoooSeR said:

I can title  Dead Space Remastered as “Dead space: remastered”

 

So, from the trailer, it looks like they’ve changed some things. Nice they didn’t just do a lazy reskin, but I’m wary if these changes are for the better. 
 

Still gonna buy it when I can. 

Humanity is a mistake. Also, these guys are funny. 
 

17 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

I can title  Dead Space Remastered as “Dead space: remastered”

 

2 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

@Ramlaen: Is that an AN/VVR-4 LWR jutting out just behind the turret cheek?

 

 

Another render of the new Abrams.

 

TTB-like, three-men-inside-hull + unmanned turret + main gun autoloader + hybrid diesel/electric configuration confirmed.

That sounds like a completely new tank, or a really expensive modification. Why are they still calling her Abrams? 

19 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

Oooooo, you could title this “Dead space: remastered” and I wouldn’t think twice. Very interested 

8 hours ago, N-L-M said:

The Eitan was already said to weigh in at around 35-40 tons, and a big boy turret likely weighs in at 7 to 10 tons at a minimum. Given practical limitations on weight for an 8x8 being around 40 tons, makes me wonder what must have been removed to allow this thing to go forwards.

 

And in any case the CG must be extremely high, and the risk of rollover commensurately so.

 

Another great example as to why friends don't let friends make tanks on APC hulls.

*angry M1128 noises* 

Joke aside, her turret is relatively lightweight compared to most other things on the market, but that does beg the question as to why no one else is even trying to use a lighter turret on their wheeled death traps. 

On 9/17/2022 at 6:46 AM, LoooSeR said:

Putin Kekbar design bureau strikes again

 

So they turned a MRAP into a VBIED, Syria style? 

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

Things were sort of following that "go higher fly faster" mantra until the 70s, when it became clear that turbofans could offer much greater longevity and serviceability than turbojets, and at the same time transistors had all of a sudden gotten cheap and efficient, replacing vacuum tubes.

Transistors offered the potential for aircraft to become far more autonomous, as well as significantly improving the accuracy of radars (and reducing their size... without which fox-3s wouldn't be possible).

 

All of this contributed to the extension of air combat beyond the visual range, largely accomplished with long range radar guided missiles, and that's why stealth is such a hot commodity, for the few nations with industrial bases strong enough to produce stealth aircraft. To date only the US , China and Russia have done so.

Yeah, I tried to break up my points to reflect several of the major milestones in aviation history, but I guess that’s what I get for trying to simplify a complex topic while on lunch break. 
 

1 hour ago, watch_your_fire said:

 

I sort of doubt that, I think aircraft will be burning fossil fuels long after the last gas car has been retired. Even the lightest battery has nowhere near the energy per weight as good old aviation fuel, and weight is the primary concern with any aircraft.

 

Nuclear aircraft may become feasible, though they would need to be absolutely massive, and would be naturally suited to long sorties. Nuclear powered aircraft could in theory remain airborne for years at a time, so I'm positive when they do show up they'll be crewless.

 

I'm sort of imagining a giant flying drone with onboard nuclear reactors, perhaps functioning as a 24/7 AWACS over a combat area, maybe providing high resolution footage of ground targets as well.

 

A ha! But you have forgotten the all important buzz word: HyDrOgEn!!! It doesn’t matter that hydrogen is difficult to produce, annoying to contain, highly reactive to a lot of things you might not want it to react to, AND leaves behind steam which is not only visible to infrared, but also to radar which can completely nullify any stealth features an aircraft might come with, it’s the FuTuRe!!! 
 

On a less satirical note, I wasn’t even going to try and claim that they will try to phase out fossil fuels from aircraft; I already know that’s completely retarded. I was more remarking that jet engine designers might be forced to conform to some emissions standards like in the civilian market. Although that thought is also retarded, sadly it’s not above the realm of possibilities, from my outside perspective at least. Though, if “full stealth” (B2 or F117) were a more industrialized option, that can be scientifically estimated and exploited, slower flying “fighter jets” might still be just as capable as aircraft today.