Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Kal

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kal

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Drones are not hype, even a basic drone can provide profound real time reconnaissance for artillery.
  2. The full 57mm seems more future appropiate to me, as rounds get more electric and high tech, the bigger round becomes more sensible, and the full 57mm is more of a antiair/naval round. Future threats of drones and atgm will be easier to defend against using the full 57mm. Particularly the army can share a programmable airburst with the navy. (Or even a hypothetical steerable round) Think syria/libya/ukraine. Good accuracy at limit range of atgm is good. Valid airdefense capacity against uav is good. Indirect artillery support based on uav spotting is good. The short 57mm in can is also a valid round, cheap and cheerful. A different class of cost, a different class of use, more of a see it with naked eye type range use.
  3. Where have i seen that before
  4. This time around, “the Army is not requiring any bid samples prior to contract award,” yesterday’s release makes clear. “The Army is still drafting the M&S [Modeling & Simulation] test plan which may require vendors to build early surrogate platforms” (emphasis ours), but any “surrogate” will be only “a low-level mockup (e.g., digital, wood, etc.),” not anything nearly as expensive as an actual drivable vehicle. Sheeesh, paper tigers There should be enough mostly real, very current options available now to test, (and americanise) including Namer Redback Lynx All of these probably have significant surviveability vs other IFVs and infantry. And are either real, demonstrable or approaching demonstration
  5. Would the 120mm wombat's HESH round be suffice vs Norman? Its a 12.8kg projectile supposedly rated at 400mm RHA. (27.2 kg complete round) Apparently there was also a Flechette round.
  6. Kinda, but plenty of those images are where other tanks have even less armour. but for the turret, the sloped geometry allows Merkava to omit the buster plate (Challenger, Abrams) and use a thin N?RA instead. It appears optimised for precursor/RPG 7 size, and when main charge goes off, it is trashed. thing is, Merkava armour modules are field swappable, same level of repair for Abrams/Leclerc would require the tank sent back to manufacturer in a different continent. high cost in availability and time. After about 4 years, an Abrams tank needs about $1m in field repairs in that year (and increasing each year), vs a reset is also about $1.2m. they just expensive to maintain, it doesn't take much Abrams maintenance to fund new tanks from alternatives
  7. That is not perforated armour, its a modesty bra for merkava N?RA. Its a type of NERA, each line of slots presume an airgap between sandwiches. So 4 rows of slots indicate 5 NERA sandwiches. Good thing about Merkava iv, no other tanks visually exposes so much of whats underneath as a merkava iv. Cant really tell whats in a forty year old abrams, but merkava is really unmodest. Israels need to recycle tanks and crew if yom Kippur war re-occurred. Merkava iv is optimised for field repair.
  8. http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BWA0-0055-0001/c/httpwww_bg_utp_edu_plartpm42012nr204120garbarzburian20marcisz20wic59bniewski20pm202920s_207-22.pdf The Nano-Duplex NANOS-BA Steel for Application in Construction of Armors
  9. A fatwa on the journalists' head?
  10. General query If anyone has contacts in commercial casting and heat treating nano bainite please pm me. I have a consumable product approx 25mm by 50mm that i'm considering transitioning to that variety of production.
×
×
  • Create New...