Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Mike E

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mike E

  1. Since when has Zuk been on this forum, lol. 


    The first diagram Met749 posted is probably the most accurate in regards to T-14. It would make no sense for the layout to be otherwise (ie heavily sloped like the T-64 and onward) because of the new use of ceramic composite armour. I suspect that the external ERA is mounted upon a thin outer layer of metal/armour, which is then followed by spacing and finally the composite. It makes the most sense. 

  2. Anonymous of the internet claimed the "T-90MS Proryv-3" at the most recent Russian Arms Expo had it, which required some fact checking.

    Yes, I have been seeing this popping up as well.

    A guy named U.W.A. kind of claimed recent MS' were Proryv-3 of sorts and had the 2A82, which is false.

    We don't have confirmation it is even possible to fit the 2A82 other than a diagram showing there might be enough room to do so (per Gurkhan).

    There's a lot of misinformation surrounding the "T-90M" to begin with: the T-90AM never existed anywhere but paper IIRC and Sputnik recently claimed they were in service.

    We may never see it if Armata gets off to a good start.

  3. I like the idea of basically turning radioactive waste (specifically Plutonium products) into glass with the help of blast furnace slag as mentioned:


    here... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022311513010313


    and here: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/nuclear-research-sheffield-university-fukushima-1.324913


    Dramatically reduces the waste's volume and its radioactivity while being reasonably affordable. 


    Outside of this, breeders (as some have brought out) are a massive help in disposal and could be much more so in the future. 


    IMHO MSR burner designs are also supposed to burn through large amounts of waste.


    You could not support either one, but oh well. 


     Apparently this dates back to the 2011 Russian elections. Clinton said they were rigged, Putin said they weren't and accused Clinton of spurring protests

    You do not have to support either in all honestly. Assad will come out on top (which is honestly the more desirable situation) if the "rebels" simply are not funded and supported by the US and allies. 


    Putin has said the goal is reinforcing Assad and then holding snap elections once the situation is cleared...honestly not a bad plan, especially w/ foreign observers. 


    I don't think it was Clinton (State Dept.) as much as the liberal opposition itself, which was later supported (and probably earlier as well) by the US. TBH there is no opposition party in Russia, it is United Russia, their allies (Lib. Dems and arguably the Commies who are not that anti-Putin to begin with), and the West backed parties. 

  5.  Yet, he speaks relatively positively for cooperation with Russia and backing of Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes like Assad's. I don't see how that is much different from American backing of Saudi Arabia and then cooperating with our allies like the UK and France. 


    In the long run, you'll probably get the same results. 


    Hypothetically you could get Europe, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc all allied with the US without tensions tearing that alliance apart to defeat terror, but that's basically something that will only happen in some dorky alt-history scenario. 

    Assad is not in favor of a caliphate, that is one of the big differences. SA wants to expand outside of their borders, if not by taking territory -- by spreading ideology. This is why they publicly (basically) supported ISIL, Nusra and other such terrorist groups. Assad is not a nice guy, but he is not as sinister. I'd argue he'd be tame under Russian control regardless, too much to sacrifice if he is not. 


    I think Russia has a good chance of uniting Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Maybe even Turkey if they are lucky. Saudi Arabia is a wildcard and always has been. 

  6. Contrary to most accounts, I'm not sure that the point of the precursor charge in a tandem charge warhead is to trigger the ERA.


    ERA turns out to be pretty insensitive stuff, which is by design.  It would be bad if the ERA detonated when it was being installed or handled, or even if the tank were hit by small-arms fire or something weak like that.


    So a lot of tandem-charge rounds appear to be designed with a relatively small precursor charge; small enough that it won't (usually) set off ERA.  This makes a hole in the ERA through which the main charge can pass.

    Most probably true. I know that the explosive charge 4S24 (used in Relic and can be equipped with Kontakt-5) is supposed to be dramatically more sensitive than 4S22 when it comes to HEAT charges and such. 

  7. Article from the most reliable source ever: http://izvestia.ru/news/636502

    The only reason I even bother posting it is because the information contained is basically a known: Armata will use an updated variant of the Kalina FCS as seen on the T-90MS. The article claims the T-72 and T-90 will receive but that's kind of unlikely for both unless the latter gets updated.

    This plus other news basically means T-14 has a comparable FCS to any of the Western beasts (for the first time since the 70's on a Russian tank tbh). TC can designate targets that are then relayed to the Gunner's screen, said targets can be automatically tracked (and most likely that includes tracking prediction) with all important variables accounted for. I may be mistaken but it also seems like the TC can designate multiple targets in a specific order: so they can be automatically engaged once the last one has been destroyed/engaged. Gunner only has to press fire :P almost.

    LoooSeR, you know anything more on the ammunition situation? One article made it sound like APFSDS was still in development when another claimed it was already being produced, or something like that. I know the guys at Otvaga discussed this but the translation barrier is very tall.

  8. Could you elaborate on this point?

    Going off of a report I saw a while back, rods over a certain length, say 1100 mm, begin to become noticeably impractical versus shorter counterparts. Basically, the longer length makes them more fragile and likely to shatter on impact (and against ERA). The solution around the issue is to make the rod thicker, but this dramatically increases weight and reduces its aerodynamic efficiency.

    Interestingly enough, this new rod appears no thicker, maybe even thinner, than the 63A1's. Most likely b/c it is a mock up.


    Maximum muzzle energy, IIRC.

  • Create New...