Xoon
-
Posts
548 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Xoon
-
-
7 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:
Poland eh? I was under the impression they were gonna try to do their own indigenous design after that whole Leopard 2 deal fell through.
I remember some talk here on the forum about Poland being interested in the program.
-
10 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:
Has any country actually expressed interest in this thing? Seems kinda unnecessary since most European countries seem to operate the Leopard 2.
Norway, and maybe Poland.
-
4 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:
Hydraulic fires are fun, right?!
Depends on your belief in KISS and how much you are willing to pay.
If you believe hydraulic fires are a big enough hazard for the crew, even if the crew is isolated from the hydraulics, then electric actuators are the way to go. Though, big as high current cables can be fun too. If you have ever welded, you know the deal.
-
23 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:
You should take a look at linear actuators. They're basically hydraulics but electric, but also retardedly quick. 50 kg pushing force at 1 m/s is standard for these things. Add a lever action or gearing or whatever and suddenly you can open and close heavily armoured shutters in milliseconds.
Hydraulics are better suited, much cheaper, the same performance for simple dead stop applications.
Electric linear actuators are more suited for precision, were they justify their price. Though they might be preferable to avoid a hydraulic aggregate.
-
38 minutes ago, N-L-M said:
If the enemy's tank has shutters, you're going to need some pretty massive darts to damage stuff, and that means you're going to need a pretty massive rocket. and what you get for your trouble is limited destruction of external equipment, with no guarantee of a mission kill. For example, an Abrams-style secondary sight location and reserve panoramic cameras renders any "optics kill" approach unworkable.
And if you're already resigned to flinging LOSAT sized rockets, you may as well make a proper LOSAT as that's more liable to actually kill the target. Carting around large numbers of dumb rockets to maybe annoy an MBT isn't a good way to go around countering them.
I am very certain those shutters are made to resist fragments and small arms fire. I am pretty sure flechettes could punch through that. Though it is for the most part brainstorming. The success rate could be low.
A even more crazy idea would be a gunk shell. Pretty much a shell with a substance that would cover exposed optics, making them unusable, and try to jam shutters. A type of smoke shell, could also work, if it blocks the view from the thermal sight. I believe similar tactic was used by the M4 crews on the western front?
Honestly, shit tons of missiles sounds like the best idea. A MBT build around the missile concept would be interesting. What is the cost effectiveness of a 120mm gun compared to a missile? The gap can not be that big in modern times, considering that electronics are dirt cheap and that modern anti-tank guns are not just a steel tube.
-
What about a simple mission kill round?
Use a shell or rocket with a small shotgun charge and flechette that detonates outside the APS's range, covering the enemy vehicle in high velocity flechettes that ruin all exterior equipment. To maximize range, a tiny charge would separate the flechettes downrange so that they cover a wider area.
Something along the same line as kinetic energy ATGMs, or a air burst. Just way more powerful.
How hard is it for a FCS to dumbfire a volley of rockets at a enemy MBT at 4km?
-
-
1 hour ago, holoween said:
If the gunner spots a targtet he will call it out and the tc gives order to engage.
If the tc spots a target he will give the command to engage and the gun is automatically alligned with the tcs sight. From there on the gunner engages.
Usually the tc never pulls the trigger but after assigning a target immediately goes back to looking for more targets.
I meant that the gunner pulls the trigger. In a automated system, the commander would "pull the trigger" by marking a target for the system.
1 hour ago, holoween said:Machine learning needs a shitton of rated attempts to be even somewhat reliable. so its something that would have to be done before any conflict and it might immediately break down once the opponent camoflages their vehicles. or installs some sheet metal to change the vehicles silouhette.
The entire point of machine learning a image recognition software is to be able to adapt to small changes. Something basic vision systems fails at. In the same time you would use to open your computer, print out some photos of enemy vehicles, and given it to the recruits, a machine learning system could have already gone though hundreds, thousands, even millions of of attempts. The only limit is the computer budget of the developers.
We have already developed very good facial recognition software, recognizing and military vehicle should be a piece of cake in comparison. Camouflage would impact a human eye just as badly, a human eye might even do worse because of how the brain processes images.
1 hour ago, holoween said:If the FCS needs ot ask permission from the tc after its aleady assigned a target it will be simply slower to engage than a human gunner and on top take the tcs awareness away from finding new targets. So at that point the tc might aswell simply engage on his own.
this also leaves the issoew of half the eyes looking for targets compared to having a gunner.
It was a alternative, for those that care about ethics. Not a requirement for the system. Though I am not disputing the situation awareness. This is why I am for a systems operator, who would take care of UAVs, drones and sub systems. In the future, he might be replaced by a bot, but that is a lot harder to do. Ironvision is a alternative.
1 hour ago, holoween said:Hit registration is notoriously difficult since the projectile will be at the target before the muzzle blast is cleared enough to allow observation of the projectile unless the shot is at long range.
On top of that you need your FCS to judge when a target has beeen destroyed since otherwise it will waste shots at a wreck or take the tcs attention away even more by forcing him to check the engaged target to make sure it has been destroyed.
This depends wholly on the standards for a normal crew.
-
The gun laying process and loading is already automated. What needs to be done is target recognition, and responding in a reasonable way.
If I remember the hunter-killer process correctly, the command assigns the targets and might provide firing data.
From there on out, the gunner needs to find the target the commander assigns, and pull the trigger.
The process from ammunition rack to target:
1. Commander marks a marks a target.2. The FCS turns to the targets general direction, and then uses the digital sight to locate the target.
3. Image recognition software is used for to locate the target. You can use machine learning to learn the system the new vehicles. By a sort of natural selection and data sharing between the vehicles, you can quickly improve target recognition and learning of new targets. Though, I would initially still have a operator to rate the image recognition software until the system properly learns to recognize the target.
4. The FCS starts taking measures to calculate the firing data.
5. The FCS requests the appropriate round from the autoloader.
6. The FCS lays the gun.
7. The autoloader signals to the FCS that the appropriate round is loaded.
8. The FCS fires. Alternatively, it will ask for confirmation from the commander.
9. Hit registration, if the target is hit, continue, if the target is missed, repeat step 4,6 and 8.
A automated driver is a lot harder in practice, outside of roads. Way too many factors and many sensors needed to even make it remotely practical, compared to a automated gunner. Look at modern self driving cars, they still have issues with poor roads, and they have a metric ton of sensors to boot.
A automated gunner only requires a plug in and a marking system for the commander in a modern MBT.
A updated BMS system and a upgraded on board computer is all that is needed in theory.
-
1 hour ago, Lord_James said:
Watch how fast the remaining EU will brand you as traitors or such if you leave and create a new (and/or better) northern EU.
Simply fortify the Kiel canal and Baltic forests, and let time do it's job.
Maybe ally the US and Russia.Scratch that, maybe ally visegrad group.
-
On 12/5/2018 at 10:17 PM, ApplesauceBandit said:
Was rather busy at the time so wasn't able to give the full video a proper watch through, but the person I originally got that from neglected to mention that the person speaking was some dude stretching things to intentionally make it sound bad. I couldn't really find much at the time of posting that to fact check with, including the actual document, but my time has freed up now. How bad it actually is probably depends on how pessimistic you are, but reads to me like it doesn't really change anything.
https://undocs.org/A/CONF.231/3
Relevant area is objective 17 "Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration"
I am honestly wondering if Norway could be become a US state.
I liked the EU. Liked.
Honestly, the EU seems to be going more and more to the shitter.
Oh well, maybe a Nordic Federation is a possibility now.
-
2 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:
Holy @%# the ship is a total loss? Dang I know water can cause alot of damage but to that extent? Well I guess a couple million taxpayer dollars went down with that ship.
Literally almost a years worth of budget for Sjøforsvaret. Roughly 508 million USD.
1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:That, and I guess the hull has probably quite some structural damage, both from when she was hit by the tanker and when she foundered on her side. And you have to replace a truckload of internal hardware that wasn't meant to enter in contact with seawater and get even slightly corroded (electronics, etc). So...yeah, at that point, the repairs could be so expensive and extensive it might make more sense to purchase a new ship of the same class.
She took a lot of damage from the impact, and even more from being stranded and rubbing against the rocks. It is assumed that all electronics, instruments, drive line components, generators, interior and anything that can get wet must be replaced. Considering this is a warship, it is basically screwed.
-
6 hours ago, Alzoc said:
@Xoon Could you tell us if the following exchange seem legit to you?
Sorry, for the little mix up, couldn't remember if you were from Norway, Finland or Sweden (It's Norway right?)
Yeah, I am Norwegian. This sounds legit, though badly translated.
The reason the warship sank by the way, is because they anchored the ship to land to keep it steady. But it was a poor job, a wire broke, and when they tried to reinforce it, it became too dangerous and they had to abort half way. Later other wires broke, leading to a chain reaction causing the reinforced wire to rip out a chuck of rock and the ship sinking.
Sjøforsvaret tells the media that it has no ship rescue capability "because they are not a ship rescue company" . That competence has to be outsourced.
The ship is unofficially declared lost and not Worth repairing.
A lot of memes about it:
(It says boat is given away, has to be picked up in Øygarden and the batteries for the GPS has to be replaced. A captain can come with for free.)
-
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:
the new mortar carrier?
-
9 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
Check Naval subforum.
yeah, I got LoooSeR'ed
-
4 hours ago, Collimatrix said:
So, what I learned in 2018 is that everyone's navy is incompetent.
Norway and US keep crashing into things. China's new carrier doesn't work. Russia's old carrier doesn't work, and the one drydock that can repair it is at the bottom of the ocean. The UK Navy site that stores Trident warheads can't keep electricians safe.
This is honestly incompetent beyond belief. The warship had several warnings well in advance and said that "it was under control".
This is a disaster for sjøforsvaret. Russia's northern fleet might as well be scuttled and then invest in some old cargo ships with reinforced bows.
-
Not sure if anyone noticed, but Norway recently lost a Frigate in a collision with a oil tanker during operation trident:
The Frigate apparently did not yield as it was supposed to do and collided with the oil tanker, tearing a 10m long tear in the side. This effectively sunk 20% of Norway's active frigate fleet and costs the armed forces millions.
The media absolutely loves this, and can't stop talking about the damn warship. Even the got damn engineering magazines talk about it.
-
I am curious about how the US could collapse?
Would a Kaiserreich esc thing happen?
Pacific States of America, Cascadia, New England, Texas and the US.
Only thing I could imagine would be a economic collapse that would hit critical mass on the political divide.
California breaking lose with Washington and Oregon, forming a sort of Pacific States of America, could be a possibility, but they would have to secure a sustainable water source to have a chance.
Cascadia could declare independence, being isolated from the US by PSA.
New England could break lose with the states between North Carolina and itself. Excluding Washington DC.
A nationalist Texas movement could take advantage of the situation and break lose and regain their lost territories.
A invasion from Mexico or Canada would probably be unlikely. Though, if the US lost a war, it could be artificial divided to weaken it. Like the plan for Germany after WWII:
.png)
To be honest though, apart from being divided by war, this sound a bit insane.
-
A road trip video a friend of mine made:
-
Here in Norway everything is slow as hell outside the capitol.
In my region, the highest road standard is "motor traffic road" which is a two lane road separated in the middle by a barrier, with sometimes a bypass/hill clime lane.
The highest speed limit is 80km/h, but usually 70km/h.
Only around the capitol do we have freeways with a incredible 110km/h speed limit!
Still the easterners complain about their four lane, 110km/h excellently maintained roads with excellent bus and train coverage is not good enough.
Meanwhile, where I live, out main artery is a two-lane 70km/h speed limit road, which alternates sometimes to 50km/h, with traffic jams running through the municipalities in the area.
I can physically feel when I drive into Norway, from Europe, and then again, when I enter my district.
It takes 41 hours (3000km) to drive North to south in Norway, from kirkenes to Stavanger, unless cutting through Sweden.
-
On 11/3/2018 at 12:29 AM, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:
It's a classic NPC if statement. It gets used whenever there's a male they dislike.
If: disagree = true
Then person = small penis
if disagree == True:
person = "small penis"
*
Just had to.
-
-
1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:
And I'm speaking about putting the US Army's 50mm gun in a CV90.
Taking the 50mm in the griffin and installing it in the CV90?
-
17 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
The 50mm gun on the Griffin III is not the 35/50mm Bushmaster III. A 35mm armed CV90 would need a modified turret to house the linkless ammo boxes attached to the gun.
Wasn't one of the big selling points of the Bushmaster III that changing from 35 to 50mm was easy?
Also, I am speaking about the CV90, not the Griffin.
I Learned Something Today
in Open Discussion
Posted
Today I learned that heated flooring is not a common thing in the US.