Alzoc

Random stuff won't stop neither an APFSDS nor a HEAT jet. A broken long rod or a messed up jet they may help, but (mostly) intact?

With a bit of luck it just lost pressure, and it's stuck?

Guess Erdogan wanted a good war against the Kurds to improve his standing but It might end up backfiring if the Turkish army show poor results like they did recently (not even mentioning the lives lost for the sake of his personal agenda).

Well that would make sense since they all launch from Kourou which since it is very close to the equator is very suitable for GTO launches.

Thanks for the info. I did the same thing for some rockets of the Ariane family, trying to use the same methodology than you did and I get significantly worse payload to mass fraction. I don't know too much about rockets so maybe I am comparing apples to oranges here. (Sorry for the low res) Could you please cross-check if you get the same results, and tell me if you have any insight on why the difference is so great (or if I am simply indeed comparing things that cannot be compared).

Well, I guess this goes in the "non explosive infantry stuff" thread then.

Story is rather good, scenes are often too "Disney like" And they keep introducing new concept where after seeing it you are like "Wtf didn't you do that before?"

The main problem with the low tier french tanks is that they are using vintage ammunition and are facing upgraded versions of the Pz II, Pz III etc. So the opposition have armor upgrades added after the battle of France to counter said low tier french, and on top of it has access to more advanced ammunition that were introduced late in the war While the bad penetration makes sense (never had the time to develop better ammo or upgun our tanks), their armor (which should be their selling point) appear obsolete because they have to face ammunition that didn't even existed at this time.

But as Ramlaen pointed out, their military strategy still make absolutely no sense Overall the film was good even if too "Disney like" in the scenography (the "cavalry" charge on the salt planet is a good example of what I mean). The plot was however good, in the sense that they didn't left too much obvious loopholes and they were a few plot twist as well as some scenes that were just for the sake of character development (without bringing anything to move the plot forward).

I don't have any example on top of my head, but I think that it is used in both body armor and armored vehicles. It's true that Boron is great neutron absorber too and that B4C is one of the material we think we'll use in gen IV fast reactors. But still it's amongst the hardest material known to man so it's use for armor plating is obvious. The only problem is that it is quite brittle so it has to be encased in small compartment.

Since this thread is more or less our general armor thread: http://www.opex360.com/2017/12/17/pme-francaise-a-mis-point-blindage-plus-resistant-et-deux-plus-leger/ B4C ceramic claimed to have 20% more hardness than the typical B4C while being twice as light. To achieve that they start with a nano powder of B4C and to keep the grain at a nano scale they use a flash sintering process (Pulsed current in a high pressure environment) claimed to be 20 times faster than usual process (so the grain don't have time to grow I guess). No idea about the maximum size and the shape of the finished product.

A video of the VEXTRA during it's development (I don't think there are much images left of it) Those of you who consult the AW forum may have already seen it.

About Trump administration reducing the size of protected lands: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/13/why-are-palaeontologists-suing-trump If you want to move the post elsewhere, feel free. The linked article have both political and scientific content.

WT can into scat jokes! H39 Cambronne BR 1.3 premium tank So if you are wondering, cambronne is polite/fancy word for shit. The legend want that Pierre Cambronne, who was a general in the napoleonic imperial army, told the British to go fuck themselves (Merde!) when they asked him to surrender at Waterloo. It then passed down into popular culture as the "word of Cambronne" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Cambronne#The_hundred_days_and_Waterloo

Nothing wrong with the tranche 2 planes, just that the retrofit was afaik expensive and that a lot of involved country cut down their orders because of that (which mean higher unit costs, etc, etc). More a problem of poor management by both Airbus and the involved country. Anyway there is no doubt that low detectability is the way to go for future aircrafts/systems and saying otherwise is stupid, just as thinking that those aircrafts are basically invisible is. "Everything that is excessive is insignificant" to quote Talleyrand

Gotta love the administrator spouting BS on the front page of the comments: Smin1080p Administrator 8 hours ago Danomaly, The "Revalorisé" didn't actually exist. No tank was ever called that and its made up. If you mean the M-51 Israeli Super Sherman, then sure There are several modification under the term revalorisé (renewed/upgraded): The M4A4 T, witch ditch the Chrysler multibank engine for either a continental or a wright R 975. It also add episcopes on the commander hatch The M4A1 FL10 M4A4 canon de 75 V° 1000 M4A1E8 canon de 105mm L51 They were all designed Sherman Revalorisé, just like the AMX 10 RCR is an AMX 10 RC(Revalorisé), or the VAB revalorisé, or the Au F1 revalorisé, etc Revalorisé is quite a common term in the French army and it just designate an upgraded version of an equipement (even if they are several modifications under the designation), generally an end of life upgrade before removing it from service. And AFAIK while the M51 was the correct designation in the IDF, the Super Sherman thing wasn't official (Zuk could confirm/infirm that)

Well that would mean that Europe wouldn't have a blue water navy anymore. Possible, I just hope this won't be the case. Good point. Air force isn't really my thing, the best answer I could come up with would be opportunity targets (but UAVs are here for that).

I doubt that this program will go through anyway. I mean I'm all for European procurement but both the calendars and the needs are way too different. One of the reason we backed out the EF program and went on with the Rafale was that we needed a carrier capable aircraft which would have only increased the production cost for the country which didn't needed the capability. This hasn't changed. The Tornado certainly not. It start to show it's age but a 5+ gen aircraft with a proper ground mapping radar maybe. But you could simply send more F-35 with bombs in the closed bay to do the job anyway.

True, but couldn't the overall lower maniability be a problem at this point? I mean the whole concept of the F-35 revolve around being able to shoot before it get detected, both through stealth and advanced data-link. If you increase the RCS you could pass above a certain threshold and be shoot at before the contrary happen, and the F-35 will most likely do worse on low altitude terrain following than planes designed for it, so it won't have a good way to get in range undetected.

Problem is the Eurofighter is a poor bomber (good interceptor though) and they want it to replace the bomb truck the Tornado is? On the other hand the F-35 would most likely have to ditch stealth anyway to carry as much bombs as the tornado. Hom many change of mind from the German mod does it make now? -At some point it was supposed to be a Franco-German project led by Airbus which would have replaced the Eurofighter, the Rafale, the Tornado and the M2000 (but only by 2025) -Then the F-35 (possibly the F-18) -Now the Eurofighter What next?

VBC 90 : VAB based 90mm gun used by the Gendarmerie Mobile for inner security (Admitted it's a rather obscure one, but still went into service) VAB MEPHISTO (x4 HOT missiles in 360° turret: 12 missiles total)

Why not, give a free pass on what kind of pedagogy to apply over the course of a few year, and compare result with a standardized exam at the end. Well it comes from the idea that the public service is here to serve the people, not make profit. Anyway the schools are in general more underfunded than the contrary, so any left over money is in general used on sensible purchases. No problem

Isn't an heli based system much less capable than a plane based system? I am thinking about the max detection range, and the max altitude (which correlate to area coverage AFAIK). Still much better than nothing though.

Well STOBAR will never have the same capability than CATOBAR, so even when the F-35B will be a thing (it will be at some point) the HMS Queen Elizabeth will merely remain a "Porte Aéronefs" and not a full fledged "Porte Avions" I can understand the reasoning that even with a reduced range or payload the aircraft launched from a STOBAR can still defend the aero-naval group and that the F-35 have a greater effective range than what the specs suggest, since it can fly straight to the objective without risking being detected. But not being able to launch an AWACS is a big blow to the credibility of an aero-naval task force, since it will be much more vulnerable.

I will dig back the book where I found that tonight when coming back from work, but as far as I remember the explanation was the following.: Tracks themselves are inherently heavy, as well as their suspensions (be it torsion bars, coil springs, or hydro-pneumatic) so as soon a you choose to use that type propulsion you have to cope with the weight. But as you said they intrude less in the hull, which mean a smaller vehicle and so a lighter vehicle at equivalent level of protection. As for wheeled vehicles, past a certain weight (10 ton is a rule of thumb) wheels suspension need to become more complex, the wheels gets bigger to keep the ground pressure to a reasonable level. That mean that if you want to keep a decent vertical travel your vehicle will be taller and the suspensions more complex (and generally heavier). Now if you want to use high pressure gun on a wheeled IFV, you have to deal with the recoil and part of it will have to be absorbed by the suspensions. Especially when you want to fire your gun with the turret at 90° from the hull, you have to deal with a force applied on top of a very tall vehicle, suspensions will have to be rather complex to deal with the recoil and prevent the vehicle from tipping over. Tracks having a bigger ground contact area and making the vehicle lower have less problem dealing with side shot (force applied closer to the center of gravity of the vehicle and more friction with the ground). This is really a technological problem, the higher the weight of a wheeled vehicle, the more complex it's suspensions, and in that case more complexity often mean more weight. Suspensions for tracked vehicles are much less sensitive to weight change, the technology used scales up much better. In the past the rule of thumb was: m < 10 ton : Wheels 10 < m < 20 ton : Tracks or wheels, depending on the usual track vs wheel debate (Cost, tactical mobility vs strategical mobility, type of terrain, etc) m > 20 ton : Tracks But with technological advance the lines are getting blurred and the grey area is expanding, you have behemoth wheeled vehicles like the VBCI or the Centauro II using fancy supsensions and reaching around 30 ton and on the other end of the spectrum you have light IFV that start using rubber tracks (vastly reducing the inherent weight of a tracked system).