Mighty_Zuk

How very frightening.

@Ronny Ramlaen has somewhat touched on that issue but didnt explain it so I will. You can take it as a rule of thumb that the faster these missiles are in the first stages, they farther and higher they need to get. I repeat, farther and higher they NEED to get. The PRS-1M is a great example, much like the Sprint, as they both have a ridiculous first stage speed. This speed creates an extremely high temperature around the missile while it's in the atmosphere. This causes disturbances that make these missiles practically blind not only to external sensors and C2 systems, but also their own onboard active sensors. Current ABMs (counter medium range to ICBMs) deploy the final stage outside the atmosphere. Only there they no longer have disturbances, and communication with ground control is enabled. At the same time they are also finally able to activate their own seeking sensors. So unless the aircraft you are talking about are outside the atmosphere, an ABM can't do anything against them. All they have to do to counter an ABM is make a slight turn or slight change is speed, and that's it. That is, if the search radar doesn't automatically filter them out in the first place to save processing power. Only ABM that are built to defeat ballistic missiles in the terminal stage, have an anti-aircraft capability. This includes but is not limited to: S-300/400 PAC-2/3/4 David's Sling MEADS Arrow 2

You haven't contributed anything to this thread. Even if his posting is "bad" (IMO, it's not. He doesn't know how to take in the replies he gets, but makes generally interesting questions), that doesnt change the fact that in this thread your SNR is also 0.

Most existing ABMs lack the kinetic capability to do so, but it is possible in some layers. Flying at very high speed means maneuverability is also limited, and is only a counter to targets flying at a roughly equal speed. Thus, systems like the GMD and Arrow 3 are limited to ballistic missiles only, and operate only in the exo-atmospheric region. Systems like the THAAD and Arrow 2 could potentially engage aircraft, although probably limited mostly to high altitude aircraft. Lower level systems like the Patriot PAC-3 and David's Sling are actually marketed as multi-mission systems capable of engaging fixed wing aircraft as well as ballistic and other targets.

Any differences in the contracts other than the price? Also, are they talking about a 1000 vehicle contract or only the first batch of 250?

That's one of my early thought as well. Much easier to cut them into cylinders of varying thicknesses.

I believe it has to do with the chipping off effect, and the way the stress flows through the penetrator. With a sharp nose you would, intuitively, have the stress chip off pieces of the nose, and it would be more vulnerable against angled armor. Stress would flow sideways rather than through the center, which could change the trajectory of the rod in an unwanted way (modern armor types capitalize to a degree on the normalization effect of AP shell types). By chipping off less, you also retain more mass during the penetration, even if you begin with lower mass. But that's just my intuitive. I have no academic knowledge of mechanics whatsoever.

This guy stays true to the ways of Jihad, dedicating his precious bullets to Allah, not daring to waste them on that puny kafir target.

In Soviet states (and affiliated), best platform is many platforms.

Valid question. I also thought about it - the mission control computers themselves are more complex than the truck. And yet, when the unit is deployed, the largest logistical footprint is left by the platform itself, closely trailed by munitions.

Okay that's pretty kek.

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.

Should be the opposite. For a system like Tor, height shouldn't matter because of its longer range. But then you can argue there is no place for Tor when you have the Pantsir, or vice versa.

A small increase in caliber and larger increase in chamber pressure and volume, plus shell length, make more sense. And you don't want to start reducing loadouts with the proliferation of APS. A 152mm gun never made sense after the breakup of the USSR. I don't know why they kept telling people they'll do it despite having no intentions to make it.

IDF is getting a new personal sight for commanders down to platoon level, coupled with augmented reality, day and night vision modes (higher latency in day mode for some reason), and a BMS interface that will allow the users to see friendly and enemy forces, call for fire support on specific targets, and even chat with other users. This seems to be a variant of Rafael's Fire Weaver which works by the same concept of fire requests rather than simple designation, and an AR-based interface. Tanks have their own derivative system, which also shows the tanks' vital data like available ammunition, or maintenance issues, to determine which tank is ready or not ready for maneuver and which tank can fulfill a firing mission at the moment. The whole system weighs 6kg, with most of the weight owed to the batteries.