Xlucine

More dakka on the mini turret? Or a grown up telfare device?

On 8/7/2019 at 8:25 PM, LoooSeR said:

   NK new "Iskan-cho" (KN-23) missile launch, 8th from May of this year.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

   Inside of cabin operators stations are visible:

 

kek

Hwaskander

On 8/10/2019 at 11:47 PM, LoooSeR said:

   More Best Korean missile tests - this time another new missile. 2 were lauched, both flied for about 400 km.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

HWATACMS

Wouldn't a snorkel leak flood the centre compartment, bringing the sub down evenly?

1 hour ago, Serge said:

The barrel MUST be free floating. Otherwise, you change the ballistic. 

This isn't a small arm where the user is leaning the handguards on walls and such, so you don't need to isolate the barrel from any loads applied to the firearm structure. The ballistics in this case are going to be dependant on the barrel harmonics (i.e. where the nodes & antinodes are), and using the structure to force a node right by the end of the barrel should improve the shooting consistency.

34 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said:

its free floating.

It's not a thermal shroud (due to the holes), and it's not to reduce radar cross-section (also due to the holes) - the only other use left is structure, and cutting holes in a structure like that is a good way to improve the mass efficiency.

The heterogeneous heating of gun barrels is primarily due to sunlight (as the heat from firing is evenly distributed around the circumference), so it's odd to see a thermal shroud with holes in (which would allow sunlight onto the barrel, especially the holes in the top). The shape is also inefficient as a thermal shroud, normally they're wrapped tighter around the gun to minimise the extra weight. My money's on it being a structural support only

A dozer with a root rake is pretty close to a full-width mine plough

On 7/16/2019 at 9:02 PM, Lord_James said:

Would counter rotating propellers provide the same benefits on ships as they do on aircraft? 

There's no need to worry about supersonic tip speeds on ships (with c0 = 1.5 km/s), but the rest of the aero/hydrodynamics is pretty similar

8 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

"we have an inferior product and cannot compete"

Hah

Quote

At least one firm has expressed unhappiness that the requirements emphasize the ability to carry out first strikes on targets abroad, a strength of the F-35, said the sources.

"It's unfair to expect a fighter jet to fight, ours are ideal for recent wars in afghanistan NO STOP LOOKING AT THAT TUCANO"

Quote

In May, Ottawa changed the rules to allow Lockheed Martin to submit a bid, prompting Boeing to take the unusual step of announcing publicly it was surprised.

"We tried to twist their arm into excluding lockmart on a technicality, but it didn't work"

18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Then I beg to differ. One of the Pantsir's key strengths over the Tunguska is the ability to leverage easily manufactured and abundant vehicles, perfect for attrition. 

No need to design from scratch a new vehicle for every little thing.

 

On transportability I agree.

How is producing a large truck a limiting factor in replacing an advanced AA system?

UK F-35 on ops over syria&iraq:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/history-made-as-uk-f-35s-complete-first-operational-missions

They deployed to cyprus as an exercise to show that the plans for deploying away from main base worked, and it went so well they decided to buzz syria while they were there.

Quote

“We created the hull, using spaced armor. I personally shot this machine from 30 m with a SVD with a heat-strengthened core bullet. The material was not penetrated” the company’s CEO told to Zvezda.

Sort-of-direct translation of "hardened", or were they talking about steel cored AP? Seems to me that "hardened" could include WC cores, but "heat-strengthened" suggests just steel (and steel cored 7.62 at 30m seems kinda dull, with the gerpercers the US is looking at)

I hope Rafael is getting good cancellation terms in these agreements

5 hours ago, Belesarius said:

RAF Quick reaction Typhoons have scrambled and are ciricling London. Whatever is happening was urgent enough for them to go supersonic.

 

 

Just a "disruptive passenger" on a commercial flight

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-48732642

Quite a response for a drunk woman

Called off strike has been officially confirmed

3 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

Not to mention, if Iran does it again, it will be a million times harder to play it off as “a mistake”. I hope it doesn’t come to war, because Iran will get absolutely rofl stomped, and also I don’t think many people would want another ISIS popping up in a country with possible nuclear weapons capability. 

"rofl-stomping" doesn't fit in the usual list of goals in conflict. Iran's likely goal is to be the biggest pain in the arse possible, and they have the deck stacked in their favour:

21% of the worlds oil flows through that strait, and it'll take anywhere from a week to a month to clear the mines (a week for a narrow, sort-of-safe channel, but what insurer would accept a 10% chance they lose the ship?). That's without iranian forces interrupting the MCM, or targeting tankers in other regions near the iranian coast (ASM launchers won't last longer than their first salvo, but that's a lot of missiles in the air. You can't reliably get them before they fire either, as iraqi scuds proved - and scuds are larger than ASMs). For reference  the 1979 oil crisis only involved a 4% drop in oil production, and lead to a doubling of the price of oil.

The US options to respond are pretty short of a rofl-stomp - they can muster a small air & naval campaign at best with the forces available. The first gulf war involved thousands of aircraft (compare to the few squadrons moved to the region recently), and even with a ground campaign saddam wasn't replaced. They could sink most of the iranian naval assets, probably enforce air superiority over the important bits, pop most of the ASM launchers, and might as well strike the nuclear facilities, but what's the end-state? How do they get the iranians to stop fighting, short of a total occupation (something that would be several times larger than gulf war 2)? ASMs have shown up in the hands of non-state actors, so a bloodied state actor like iran could dangle the credible threat of ASM strikes on nearby shipping for the foreseeable future even with a constant US fast jet presence.

Autonomous mine countermeasures has the potential to greatly improve MCM speed, but it's not ready today in the numbers needed and doesn't solve the ASM issue.

On 6/18/2019 at 11:21 AM, LoooSeR said:

And yes, it have a crane

That is an odd thing to include

On 6/18/2019 at 10:37 PM, LoooSeR said:

M69 was very serius boomstick by 1960s standarts

Quote

/.../

   Due to the increased length of the gun barrel (9045 mm), the initial velocity of the armor-piercing-sabot non-rotating projectile was 1710 m/s, and the direct shot range at the target with a height of 2.0 m reached 2050 m. The maximum pressure in the barrel was 392 MPa (4000 kgs/sm²) . A projectile weighing 11.66 kg at a distance of 3000 m punched vertically positioned armor plate with a thickness of 310 mm. The gun had an ejection system for purging the bore after the shot and a slit-type muzzle brake, thanks to which the maximum recoil length was only 300 mm. To ensure high rate of fire, shots were placed in a drum ammorack, and the barrel was automatically brought to the loading angle for the period of loading.

/.../

   The ammunition for the cannon consisted of 22 shots with armor piercing sabot rounds and HE-fragmentation shells. Aiming during the day was done with the TS-22 telescopic sight, and at night with the aid of a periscopic night sight.

/.../

That's serious by modern standards

SCAF has DSI, the turkish jet does not. What happened to them stealing all the F-35 secrets?

On 6/14/2019 at 6:41 AM, Priory_of_Sion said:

Well, that's definitely a boat. I don't know about the rest of that at this time. 

It looks a lot like an iranian boat

http://parstoday.com/en/news/iran-i5290-iran's_speed_boats_delivered_to_irgc

I'm convinced that the iranians did it, based on the footage, unless someone manages to find footage of a really good vis-modded boat that looks like that in a saudi port

Doesn't look too bad, most MBT's need the driver to stand on the seat as he enters after all.

I wonder if you could SLM metal into similar shapes as the foam? It'd still be expensive, but at least it would be consistent

21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Altay?

Licence production isn't the same thing as joint development - Altay, K-X and Merk all relied on external designs, but they were exclusively national programs (unless the US buys the K-X or merk, or SK buys the altay). This is a key distinction, because the infighting over workshare and who's requirements to design the vehicle to is generally fatal for a proper international program.

16 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Less of a need than today, because the tanks they would replace would be only about a decade old when the program was already shut down.

The MBT-70 program began somewhere in the 60's and cancelled in 1971.

The M60, on the other hand, was introduced in early 60's. I think 1960 was first unit delivery.

Today you're looking at tanks whose core structure was designed close to 50 years ago, and their structural age is in the 20-40 years range on average.

 

The Cold War is not a serious factor here. An arms race exists even today, and the likelihood to use these tanks on the battlefield has remained high enough.

 

If neither Germany nor France field a production-ready tank by the set deadline, they are basically going to get a British castration for their armored forces.

Oh and that's not only going to be them, but all their other European allies, unless they in turn choose American tanks. In which case a huge economical loss in the defense market is to be expected.

 

Had they set a deployment date for 2025, and not 2035/2040, then I would totally agree with you that there is room for failure and reconsideration.

With MBT-70, the threat was rapidly changing from T-55/62's (which M-60 was designed against, possibly not even considering the 115mm) to T-64/72/80 (along with big improvements in and proliferation of ATGMs). Leo 2 and Leclerc were designed against T-72's, and the threat is changing to T-72B3 mod 2016 mk53 (until we see volume production of the T-15)

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

KE.

Specifically the skirts on Nazi tanks were there to counter the Soviet 14.5mm, and the meme wedges on the Leo are NERA reportedly mostly optimized for breaking LRPs.

Also 3" HE for the WW2 skirts IIRC

Can anyone name an international tank programme that was big enough to not be killed? The first europanzer, MBT-70, MBT-80... and I'm drawing a blank

Looks like we get a flamethrower that functions like the chainsaw, only dropping armour instead of ammo

Reposting:

Bat-winged dino with teeth and feathers!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1137-z

Artist's impression:

http://fav.me/dd6kjv6