Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

DIADES

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DIADES

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Not a PUMA fan, but I agree. Except we want a 50mm and we want...and we want..... and it can't be heavier
  2. Correct, well certainly shouldn't. If you want to estimate it yourself, pretend you are a spotty teenager and go around the web copy paste every threat you can find (lint ballistic to 30mm) = OMFV threats to be defeated. Specification development by window shopping.
  3. as I understand it - not a single requirement but the conflict between having to fly two in a C17 and a 360 degree protection level beyond laughable. The Requirements aren't strictly the problem - the problem is the engineering and technology development to meet them had to be done in a stupid timeframe and also had to be mature.... DoD clearly a victim of salesmanship over engineering. I have seen the docs but not sure if I have access to a copy.
  4. and again and again and again - I've lost count. Bradley will be in service til the next millennium.....
  5. I saw performance data for the Diehl APS in 2015. Could deal with KE 30mm and above. 25mm too small to reliably detect. The 120mm gets bent or knocked off axis. Still a mighty bang on impact but no penetration. But - Diehl did a diehl with IMI and Iron Fist is the outcome. The performance of that is very much less.
  6. Who fought? T55 V Leo 1?
  7. Yes. This thread has always had Phase 3 in its title. Ph2 is wheeled, Phase 3 is tracked. Ph2 is semi-MOTS, Ph3 is developmental.
  8. yeah, I am old.... Not so much the TAAs but how the vendors use "its ITAR" Much like Classification, everybody defaults too high, too wide etc, The clear motive in the ITAR case is to tie customers into equipment that they must purchase (in a support sense) from the OEM in perpetuity with the associated immense cost.
  9. Me too, slightly longer but different (about 25 years) experience on the receiving end in Australia. Always injects big chunks of lost time and the rues are applied idiotically for maximum revenue tor US primes. Got a cable connecting two ITAR items? Congratulations, that is also an ITAR item and now costs 100 times a non-ITAR cable doing the same job, A drawing of that cable (2 conductors in a sheath) is also ITAR controlled. Ridiculous. The organizations I work with these days go out of their way to eliminate any US ITAR related components at the design stage as far as possible. Quite often cost dollars but significant de-risk. The money spent drives competitive non-US solutions. Any kind of dependency on the US is a risk - and we are bloody allies! And a chuck of that experience was with night tubes...
  10. There used to be but one of the outcomes of the idiotic arrogant ITAR rules was the US lead being eroded. I agree, state of the art, no lead for anybody.
  11. Good accurate summary of what is. I am far from an expert but I have a deep interest as my partner has one of the neuro-degenerative conditions. But this thread is about possible futures not actual nows. Building on what we have. So, yes, very high complexity in genetics and the manipulation thereof. But our level of knowledge in this domain is increasing exponentially and other domains cross pollinate and or enable. Our present ability to generate a genetic profile arose from advances in computing and automation. Research and development in nano-scale materials technology breeds tools able to wok at the required scales for direct intervention in biological mechanisms at the cellular level.. The step change in computational power that is coming from the quantum realm (the real one, not the delightful Ant Man version) will allow us to address orders of magnitude greater complexity = genetic manipulation. The hard parts are neurons (and a few others) as they do not regenerate. You can grow new ones but old ones are not replaced as other cell types are. Our wiring can be added to but is not self replacing. So a defect in neurons cannot be simply gene edited in a individual. But, there are ways and mean. A neuron contains sub-systems, organelles. These are responsible for the inner workings of the cell that result in its outer functionality. There are also mitochondria - our symbiotic energy critters. They do replicate/replace within cells. So editing their DNA can edit the performance of their host cell. My view is that many possible futures feature significant genetic engineering at all scales. In parallel, there will be significant cyborg style human/machine engineering. There should be a new term (or maybe there is one I don't know) that fully covers all mods, genetic, electroc-mechanical, brain chip augmentation etc.
×
×
  • Create New...