Xoon

3 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

What is this? 

 

Side view of Europanzer, a failed Franco-German tank project, predecessor to the Leopard 1 and AMX-30.

Same tank that Zuk posted.

41 minutes ago, Monochromelody said:

direct ancestor of EMBT

On 6/2/2018 at 1:35 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

As things currently stand I'm starting to wonder if the EU is going to be around long enough for this to become an issue.....We're out already, Italy could go at just one more wrong call from Germany, Spain is fracturing, Greece has been looted.....Basically the EU is fucked!

According to this guy, that wrong call already came. 

Thoughts @Alzoc?

Also, does anyone have a link to the new directive he is talking about in this video? 

26 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

 

In the very long term, you might end up saving money this way, yes, but if you’re trying to pitch this idea to the politicians, they’re going to be less interested in the notion that it will be less expensive in 30-40 years from now than the fact that they’d have to make space/ find additional billions of NOK for such an acquisition in the current budget.

So we are not phasing out the old M113 in the near future?

42 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

 

I can imagine that the shape and layout of the ACSV (and the M113 design) might lend itself more favorably for a configuration seen in the image. You probably won't have that much space left in a CV90 with its lower hull and well sloped glacis plate if you cut away that much of the  superstructure. That said, for the EW variant you probably could use the CV90 Mk I hull  as is, and if it's somehow possible to put the launcher and radar on top of the hull , it could also take over the SHORAD role. Since Norway still has about 30 or so of these hulls sitting around  afaik, it might not be that much more expensive either.

 

On the other hand, the ACSV based vehicles are almost certainly going to be lighter and cheaper to operate than a CV90 based variant, and since the Norwegian Army were probably going to have to order a number of these vehicles anyway (for the reasons stated above, otherwise you'd not only have to buy more CV90s, but probably also ask Hägglunds to redesign the CV90 for those roles, and that would be very expensive), it might have made more sense to just opt for more ACSVs.

Won't having two different platforms cost more in the long run? 

2 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Posted A minute ago

Having looked at the ACSV image for a while, I now wonder how much of the old M113 is actually left in this design. The suspension seems to be ripped from the G5 (I did not notice this initially), and the hull/superstructure looks different enough from the M113 that it probably has to be built from scratch.

 

What was initially intended to be a stretched M113 might have turned into a new vehicle from the looks of it. I guess we'll be able to tell for certain once the completed prototype is revealed.

Why not use the CV90 as a platform instead? 

12 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

Thanks for telling us Iceland is, in fact, an island.  

Having fun are we? 

49 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Probably anything capable of full auto fire. That's what counts here in the states.

So anything from SMGs, automatic pistols, assault rifles, HMGs?

10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Shooting, allegedly involving a 'machine-gun' in the UK:  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/stonebridge-shooting-man-fighting-for-life-in-hospital-after-being-shot-in-northwest-london-a3852751.html

 

Suspect it will prove otherwise, but you never know.....A bunch of reactivated MAC-10s & Skorpions surfaced not so long ago.

What counts as a machine gun in the UK?

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Fair comment.....I still stand by my statement in the broader picture, there are quite a lot of rather disgruntled homeless people just to the south of the lines I depicted, I suspect that some of them might have 'designs'.

Visegrad group is certainly working on that part, being a huge thorn in the EU's back. 

Not sure if anyone has posted this:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=a9Xm2_1527726253

Can't manage to embed it. It is a video of the parkland shooter planning his attack. I think it is pretty easy to see what motivates school shooters. 

22 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Personally I reckon your entire threat axis is wrong.....I'd be looking at Turkey & the Med.

 

PS - @LoooSeR Any indications Vlad is planning on invading us at all?

If you are referring to me, then my point was not to defend against Russia, just to simply ease up the growing pressure from the EU and NATO on Russia. 

For North Europe, Turkey and the middle east is not really relevant. 

4 hours ago, Toxn said:

Yeah, not being allowed to report on the identities of persons standing trial until after the verdict is actually pretty common. You know, in case it turns out that the accused is not, in fact, a rapist or whatever and you've just spend the last year publically vilifying an innocent person.

Here in Norway we have a famous case of a woman going on a nacht (after party, party) with 2-3 other guys and getting high on MDMA.  They had intercourse, and the woman later accused them of rape. This case got huge media coverage. The media and the people siding with the woman.  The court found the men not guilty however. The woman did not like the verdict and doxed the men. This caused them to receive a massive wave of harassment and being forced to isolate themselves. They got their life ruined. 

Which is why the identity of the person is protected. 

2 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yes. The dude who made it said he didnt like boxy cars.

Does this actually have to do with protection, or is it just for fashion? Because I feel a lot of armored car producers try to make their vehicles cool over practical in some cases:

On 5/19/2018 at 7:00 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Mantis 4x4 ATV in the under 9 ton category:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: To be fully unveiled in Eurosatory (mid-June).

Does the vehicle have a reason to look so funky?

15 hours ago, Alzoc said:

To come back on electrical propulsion and whether it would be better to have one electrical engine per track or one central engine and a transmission.

I was at a conference-debate about electrical mobility this evening and one of the contributor was a regular participant of the Monte-Calro eRallye (for 100% electric or hydrogen cars).

 

According to him, last year one of the electrical car which entered the competition had motor-wheels which gave it quite fantastic performances, compared to more common vehicles with a single central engine.

However the RPM of an electrical engine being vastly greater than the one of a wheel (or a track) a reductor was still needed and it was under heavy stress which led to a high wear rate.

He also claimed that it increased the noise generation quite a lot.

 

Increased noise would be irrelevant for a tank since I guess that the tracks would make way more noise on themselves anyway.

A high wear rate could be more problematic.

 

Since I'm not really well versed in mechanics I don't know if his claims are valid or not.

 

Edit: I think he was talking about this particular system (maybe others layout bypass the problem)

 

 

There is really no point in having a transmission for a series hybrid electric tank. The PWM motor controller works as the gearbox, the gearbox would only cause a drop in efficiency and take up considerable space. 
All motors should be geared, as it is more efficient than adding poles to reduce the RPM and increase the torque. This is accomplished by the final drive.

For wheeled death traps, it can be a pretty huge thing. Being able to remove the drive shafts under the crew compartment would mean a much lower vehicle. Being able  to move the motors outside the chassis and inside the wheels would greatly increase space. Also, the vehicle can effectively torque steer. 

However, it comes at a cost. You can only fit a so and so big motor and reduction gear inside the wheel, limiting power. The motor and reduction gear is also more exposed to damage and the outside environment, leading to more wear and tear. Cooling can also be a issue. 

I would not expect more than 600hp combined. So no super heavy wheeled death traps.

1 minute ago, Alzoc said:

 

Dont think so, the D9-500 seem to be a boat engine.

In the video @skylancer-3441 posted the spokeman say that it is a Renault engine (at 1:36) couple with a ZF automatic gearbox.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

So it's most likely a motor coming from Renault Truck which happen to belong to Volvo.

Basically it's a truck engine customized for military uses.

 

My bet is the DXI 13:

 

 

https://corporate.renault-trucks.com/fr/les-communiques/considere-comme-la-reference-en-termes-dehellip.html

 

6 cylinders

13L

368 kW (=500 hp)

2450 Nm between  1050 and 1400 rpm

Works in a 80°C range (Temp between the coldest and hottest environment where it can work)

Can still work at 4500m of altitude (Chili)

 

I guessed it was Volvo Penta, since they had produced engines for tanks in the past, IKV 90 for example. The CB90 and CV90 shares engines by the way, as a example.

But a Renault engine makes a lot more sense.

3 hours ago, Alzoc said:

Some more minors infos on the Jaguar:

 

65, 40mm rounds ready to fire and 115 more stocked for a total of 180 on board.

7,8m long ; 3,5m high ; 3m wide

500hp volvo engine for a top speed of 80-90 km/h (on road I guess)

25t for 500hp meaning 20 hp/t

Is the engine, the Volvo Penta D9-500?

I am curious, why do we see so many tanks in cities? 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

I think that's why the easiest way to do it is by starting with a few core country and expanding on a voluntary basis.

If we try to get an agreement with the 27 it will be nigh impossible.

Also technically I guess that Sweden signed the mutual defence clause when joining the EU, though it's only a defence close much like NATO.

"This obligation of mutual defence is binding on all EU countries. However, it does not affect the neutrality of certain EU countries and is consistent with the commitments of EU countries which are NATO members."

I believe this is why Sweden signed it. Not sure what this line entails, but the only way of not affecting the neutrality of a nation, is that they can't promise to help. 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

That's my personal view on the subject, and why I always though of Brexit as an irrational decision. Basically the way it's going they'll keep some level of defence cooperation going, keep paying to access the open market but won't have any say on various EU policy they'll have to respect to enter the common market.

But well, that was a democratic decision so we'll just have to roll with it.

I am honestly not sure what the British were thinking with the "Norway model". They won't really get to take advantage of leaving the EU without another model.  Unless they wanted to reduce immigration. 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

That's also the point of view of the government in France.

Macron is pushing for an EU government both to improve the efficacy of the institution and to create a feeling of citizenship of the EU.

It's mostly on a good way for my generation, much less for older generations.

The sociology of the Brexit referendum is an excellent indicator of that trend.

Creating an "EU army" could also potentially strengthen the feeling of an EU citizenship.

Hopefully the EU will continue this development. 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

As for the fear of Imperialism and of France/Germany taking over the EU, those are legitimate concerns and the institutions will have to be build in such a way to prevent that.

Most natural way to do that would be through an European constitution (the timing will have to be chosen wisely to avoid repeating the 2005 fiasco).

A constitution better be made openly for people to critique and improve. There are so many ways a constitution can be exploited and used for evil. Simply copying the US constitution won't work this time. 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

For this one, I don't really get it since richer country financial support is basically the only thing that keep some country like Poland or Greece afloat.

That this financial support comes with strings attached however is true, for Poland that would be respecting the rule of law and for Greece very severe cuts on public spending.

I perfectly understand that it can be perceived as a form of imperialism by the populations of those country but nothing is free.

Part of the problem is the lack of protectionism for the member states. In my area for example, it is very common for a huge German business to sweep in and buy up a local company with a revolutionary new technology.  Then move the company abroad, to Germany or Eastern Europe for cheaper labor. Then the local company is gone, the workers lose their job, and country loses another income source it has spent lots of resources developing. 
This really kills any industry development in the region, forcing us to import from abroad, which again, Germany which is one of our biggest trade partners, profit from. 

For the Eastern European countries, they get all their factories bought up by foreign companies.  Essentially having everything bought up and dictated by foreign investors. 

A huge fear in Norway is that, large European companies could sweep in at buy up critical infrastructure like the energy sector and jack up the power cost. 

Ironically, the EU is extremely trade protectionist against outside members, meaning it conserves the companies that reside inside it, meaning the bigger companies in the more industrially advanced and technological advanced countries eat up the smaller ones in the smaller members without any competition from similar sized or larger companies outside the EU. 

As you said, nothing is free. Free trade creates large profits for the companies in the joining member initially, then it gets eaten by a bigger foreign company, killing local business. 
This is what the workers fear. 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

For example if I dislike the fact that the EU is relying solely on the US for it's protection, I completely agree with Trump when he says that EU country can't just have the benefits of this protection without participating proportionally to their resources (the 2%).

While this is true, the US has a very good reason for keeping military presence in Europe. It makes a collective or regional less attractive (Nordic Defence Union, European Army). They provide protection for favorable trade deals and political support. It gives them political leverage in the countries in the affected countries, just watch when the US goes on another War on Terrorism or similar, right behind is the countries they provide protection for. We like to call them the coalition. If a country refuses, the US can pull out its military support, making the country vulnerable, and at the mercy of other regional powers (Russia for example, in the case of Europe).

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Sovereignty transfer will obviously have to be done if we want something operational by the end of the day.

Saying the contrary would be lying, you can't have any sort of federalism without sovereignty transfers to the federal entity.

The fear is that the region loses any saying in laws and politics, and suffers economically as a consequence.

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

But my personal opinion is that in the long run, outside the EU there will be no sovereignty anyway, without a proper political union able to make it's own decision on the international stage (and any significant international policy must be backed by a credible military force). Outside the EU I fear that we are doomed to become/remain a protectorate of either the US or China in the long run.

This is a very sad truth.

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

I think that it would satisfy Russia and it could possibly work for Nordic country (for some time at least).

It would ease the tension in the Baltic sea and the killzone up in Svalbard. Though, the arctics are becoming increasingly more valuable and more and more nation are arguing over their claims. 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

I'm not sure Eastern country populations would be happy however to be used as buffer states between Russia and the EU without their consent.

The idea was not to make them buffer states, but a large Neutral Union would make the Russians more at ease. Being trapped in the Baltic, or in at the Danish strait, or in North Sea encourages them to invade their neighbors to secure their core. 

Here is NATO's border with Russia. As you can see, they are completely boxed in:

Blue= NATO.
Light Blue= Possible Future NATO member.
White= Neutral
Orange= Russian Allies not forced to join a war with Russia. 

Here is the EU border with Russia, they in-boxing is even worse:

Green= EU
Yellow= EFTA/possible future EU members.

Nordic Union, Russia suddenly has some breathing space in the North (economically), and the front line is only Latvia:

Neutral= White
Green= EU
Orange = Russian Allies.
Light Blue = Possible Future NATO.

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

That's why the idea of @Carscan to place some command structure of an European defence in eastern Europe would be a strong guarantee that any attack on those country would de facto become a direct attack against the EU and give them confidence that the common defence will be activated.

This is a great idea. 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

As for the different view on what should be the missions of an "EU army" maybe we can reconcile both by placing some command structure and forces in country neighbouring Russia and Turkey and simply turn the French army (and other voluntary military forces) into an EU expeditionary corp with the other member states providing logistical support (because, realistically, no ambitious international policy can be credible without being backed by projection capability).

This sounds like a good start.

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Finally on the immigration problem I'm a partisan of simply following the law as it exist.

The biggest issue is the fear that the member country will lose control over the immigration into its borders. 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Those who can benefit of political asylum should be integrated (ideally assimilated) those who are economical (illegal) migrants should be sent back to their country of origin.

If the ratio is the same in France than in the rest of Europe it would be approximately 1/3rd of political refugee and 2/3rd of economical migrants.

The problem atm is that those who can't have the refugee status are not effectively sent back to their country of origin.

As long as the country can reliably handle it. Taking in too many only results in poor integration, which leaves many with poor language skills, poverty or homelessness. 
Also, refugees, as in people fleeing war, needing a asylum until the war or event in question is over, should not travel past several countries that give them asylum just to get to the richer welfare states. 

36 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

A common defence is a complicated problem really, but also a vital (I might go up to existential) necessity.

Equipment commonality is a good start. Fighters, ships, AFVs, infantry equipment etc. 

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

 

This is exactly why that will never happen: The EU gets off by blaming everything on Russia. Whom are they going to blame when Russia is a friend? 

Probably the US or China. 

I am honestly very skeptical of the European Union. I love the idea, but it has several weaknesses that I can't ignore. 

Why hasn't anyone considered Sweden or Finland? 

Sweden has always been strictly neutral (ignoring their trade of course). They refused to join NATO, so why would they approve a European Army Alliance? 
Most EU members are a part of NATO, which are obliged to help any other member that is attacked. I assume the same would be for a European Alliance.  This would break one of Sweden's core policies. Same goes for Finland, which will not join NATO, unless Sweden does, and I assume the same of a European Alliance.  

Post-war,
Norway, Sweden,Denmark and Finland almost entered a Scandinavian Defense Alliance.  However, because of Soviet influence on Finland, American influence on Norway, and Swedish neutrality, this failed.   
So I am not sure if EU will succeed. 

Though Norway is not part of the EU, we are part of the EØS/EFTA. Anti-EFTA and Pro-EU sentiment is growing. Some people want to leave EFTA, since they claim it controls too much of our trade and that we can benefit from controlling our own trade. Some people also feel it removes our sovereignty, because EU law supersedes national law. Simplified, it is a Brexit/Norxit question. 

On the other side, people want to join the EU, because they feel EFTA is basically like being a EU member without having a saying. They claim by becoming a fully fledged member, we can become more influential and profit even more from the trade with the EU. 

But most do not care, and are happy with the current situation. 

I for one am not very sure.  The EU lacks unity, a proper leader and a solid economic system. 
Common issues people have seems to be:
-Too much power around Germany/France.
-Richer countries profit off poorer countries.
-Lack of unity, no group identity, no nation building, people seem to scattered. 
-Lack of a known head of state, or government. People have no idea who leads the EU. The closest figure is Merkel. 
-Lack of consistency from politicians between countries. People don't trust politicians when they make grand promises in, for example France, while much milder suggestions in Eastern/Northern Europe. 
-Fear of imperialism. The EU for some feels like a power grab by larger European powers. People are afraid that agreeing will eventually lead to loss of sovereignty and and all power.
-EU Immigration policy.
-In the case of Norway, we have been the Danish sphere of influence until 1397-1814, the Swedish sphere of influence from 1814-1905, the English sphere of influence from 1905-1918, the German sphere of influence from 1918-1945, and currently under the American sphere of influence. Being transferred to the EU sphere of influence would not really be that attractive. 

I fun though experiment would be if Sweden,Denmark and Finland left the EU, and joined in a Nordic Union with Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Åland, Faroe Islands, Gotland and Svalbard. With combined economy, military and politics. Regarding the Baltic states (Lithuania, Estinoia and Lativa), I am not sure. Estinia has really tried to make itself a Nordic country, but it might crash with a European Union Army. 

Why this would be a fun though experiment is that a Nordic Union could declare Neutrality, acting as a huge (in size) buffer-state, and as a bridging state, improving relations between Russia and the EU. The same may be for the US and Europe, considering how relations are souring. Though not sure if this would ever happen. 

I wish for the EU to succeed, as long as it does not become the Franco-German union diplomatically annexing Europe. 
 

On 5/16/2018 at 4:43 PM, Alzoc said:

 

Depends on what you mean by hybrids with electrically assisted turbochargers.

If it is what is described on the fig 1 of that paper then it's simply an hyperbar engine with an added battery (the turbine already serve as an APU in the Leclerc so there is no reason that would forbid turning the generator into a motor if needed).

Yes, it was what I was thinking. But wouldn't the electric motor give a much faster spool up time? 
Also, hooking it up the the main battery of the vehicle, it could use excess energy to power the motors, or use regenerative breaking the power equipment. 

On 5/16/2018 at 4:43 PM, Alzoc said:

 

  Hide contents

 

If we are talking about adding electrical engine to drive the tracks at low speed while the diesel gets up to speed, then yes the turbine turbocharger becomes useless since an electrical engine will gives an even better acceleration.

Not necessarily, combining the power of the electric motor, with zero turbolag would be the best. 

On 5/16/2018 at 4:43 PM, Alzoc said:

 

Edit: Maybe you were thinking about removing the turbine completely and drive the compressor of the turbo with an electrical engine only. It is also a possibility.

Idea was to eliminate turbolag. But a electric compressor is also a great way of getting short bursts of power. 

On 5/16/2018 at 4:43 PM, Alzoc said:

 

Where there is a question however is in how compact the whole powerpack will be. One of the big advantage of the hyperbar engine is it's insane power density.

Given the size of current battery I think that's it's unlikely that an hybrid engine (Diesel-electric) plus it's battery would be more compact than an hyperbar engine (especially when considering than in the V8X the turbine is the APU and thus doesn't necessitate to add one).

What about a electrically assisted hyperbar turbo engine, with a electric starter/generator/regenerative break/electric motor. When the driver presses the accelerator, the electric motor in the turbo spools the turbo up to optimal RPM istantly, while the starter motor on the crankshaft provides high torque while the motor reaches its optimal RPM. The turbine helps the motor keep the turbo at optimal RPM. 

When the vehicle slows down, the excess energy in the turbo is scavenged, and the regenerative break recovers some of the energy and stores it in the battery. A exhaust scavenger system could also be used. When on overwatch, the turbine would power the equipment, and when one wants to silently change position, one can use the electric motor and battery for short, slow and silent movement. 

On 4/24/2018 at 5:29 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Just last week I was talking to my dad about this engine.  His memory is crap these days but he still remembers work stuff pretty well.  Back in the 90's he was in France and got to see a demonstration of this engine.  He said it was awesome to see it go from 0 to 1500 HP in "2 seconds".  I don't know if that's the actual time it takes, but that's how he describes it.  For sake of reference, I asked him how long it takes an AVDS-1790 (M60 tank engine) to go from 0 to full power (750HP), he said 17 seconds.  Again, no idea if these figures are correct, but that's how he described it. 

Just out of curiosity, doesn't hybrids with electrically assisted turbochargers make the hyberbar engine obsolete? 

2 hours ago, Toxn said:

It should be a bit better than improvised solid armour, because it won't transmit the shock wave very well and uses up a significant amount of energy in dispersion.

 

If you mean instead that its mainly a psychological comfort rather than something practical, I think you should remember that explosive injuries are less all-or-nothing than kinetic ones. Anything you do to disperse or redirect the blast and associated shockwave results in less injuries. Sling seats, for instance, have been shown to have a measurable effect in reducing blast injuries despite doing very little to directly protect the occupants of the vehicle. Instead they function by providing a few more centimetres of standoff and lowering transmission of the shockwave through the body.

I was thinking about the fact that filling the wheels with water would reduce the effectiveness of the wheels, and the sandbags would weigh down the vehicle. 
Also about the psychological part, if the troops feel safe, then it is good enough makeshift measure.

Reminds me of how the Norwegian Armed Forces used to sometimes fill the empty cavity in the doors of their cars with sand for extra bullet protection in the middle east.