Kal
-
Posts
347 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Kal
-
-
-
This is a big win for SAAB. The T38 was operational for 60years, so the T-7 could also be in operation until the end of manned fighters!
Marketing wise, there are also interesting possibilities, Saab marketing to euro centric states, Boeing marketing for rest of globe.
Perhaps a lot of porting from gripen/super hornet to T7A cab also occur for other operators.
-
https://www.boeing.com/defense/t-7a/
I know its not Northrop, but it reminds me of a scaled down YF-17 with only 1 engine. A spiritual successor to the T-38.
Ie T38-F5-YF17-FA18-FA18F-T7A
-
back of napkin cals
a 100g cartridge of explodium is about 25mm dia and 185mm long, at 2.30 MJ/kg is about 230KJ
An APFSDS might also be 25mm, if we very very crudely approximate the energy at 200mm offset, we get 1/66th of the energy available to induce some yaw, so thats about 3.5KJ. lets drop it down to 2.5kJ. This is approximately 5 baseball bat hits.
but time left for momentum of yaw to take effect is perhaps 8m distance divided by 1600 m/s, so 1/200th of a second.
so, yeah, thats enough to introduce some yaw, not much, but probably enough for 2-4 degrees of yaw.
-
2 hours ago, Zadlo said:
I don't think that represents how tanks would use DU as an armour. Thats more academic level study.
-
-
On 10/17/2019 at 2:01 AM, Bronezhilet said:
Nicely shows why it's difficult to intercept APFSDS.
Shit's fast yo.
dunno about that, if a computer can intercept a nasty at 800m/s, it can intercept a nasty at 1,600m/s
question is, does the intercept reduce said nasty's penetration. Obviously an ATGM is far more fragile to attack than a solid rod of tungsten/DU etc.
-
the best tank and being the benchmark tank often are quite different.
Leopard 2 is a "better" tank than the T90/T72. doesn't mean that the T90/T72 isn't the global benchmark tank.
Abrams is probably a "better" tank than a Leopard 2, doesn't mean that the Leopard 2 isn't the western benchmark tank.
Egypt is supposedly buying some T90, despite getting near free Abrams, whatever the politics, I suppose ongoing costs are also large. just how much training can a non oil state afford with an Abrams.
-
On 10/26/2019 at 11:23 PM, Ramlaen said:
The leftmost vehicle has an M2 .50 cal.
yeah, you are right.
I'll just have to be patient, and wait for a photo to come up.
Australia and UAE both seem to have M230LF, UAE's are thought to be mounted on an THeMIS unmanned ground vehicle. https://johnmenadue.com/mike-scrafton-facilitating-repression-abandoning-values/
but this is off-topic, although M230LF is an USA (Californian) product?
-
On 10/19/2019 at 4:41 PM, Ramlaen said:
No one seems to want to bite on 30x113 on light vehicles.
-
Whatever is accessible in the front. Is design with hinges for easy accessibilty.
-
On 10/19/2019 at 6:35 PM, 2805662 said:
I *think* there’s been a middle eastern customer who has.
EOS has sold RWS that support 30x113 to UAE, but those RWS are somewhat separate from the guns they carry.
The australian ABC would lead us to believe that they have, personally I would expect that payment for the gun goes to a separate entity than payment for the RWS.
-
comparing the AS21 to K21 they seem quite different, possibly the rear half is similar, but the front half appears really quite different.
Do the lifting hooks reveal the weight distribution ? If so the weight is biased to the aft.. I can't see the equivalent on the Lynx.
-
On 10/16/2019 at 2:14 AM, David Moyes said:
That photo suggests the APS can fire from either side of the turret to reach where the photographer stood. -
-
maybe its an illusion, but this turret looks wide, that Iron Fist look like it overhangs on base configuration, so is that 3.4m width?
-
18 hours ago, DIADES said:
Unfortunately, Australian BOXER is much heavier and does have very significant change in the drive module to deal with higher loads due to higher GVM
perhaps that is why the boxer won, the underbelly blast seemed such a critical factor for its success.
But even so, its far cheaper to option in scope change before contract sign-off rather than as a variation later. Particulary if the vendor considers the vehicle a cow to milked even after sales.
-
Australian government procurment is generally very skeptical of Australian manufacturing. Particularly federal bureaucrats are skeptical. EOS being located in Queanbeyan and Mt Stromlo is going to be very mentally discordant for them.
(Queanbeyan is seen as the backward bogan town adjacent to enlightened Canberra)
(Mt Stomlo is inhabited by elvish CSIRO magi who spend all day playing sudoku with interstellar quasar maps)
-
Its largely to do with ownership. European companies really nickel and dime you if you want to make any modifications, American companies would be just as bad except the Pentagon gives us, hand me downs at mates rates. (Often the depreciated USA hand me downs are equivalent to EU latest and greatest). (Ie fighter radars)
Case in point Poland has some excellent ceramic ERA, but Germany wont allow installation of polish ERA on polish leopard 2 tanks. Despite the need for those to have it.
Australia likes to optimise their equipment for local requirements, that will get really painful (expensive) if we go the German route. Boxer is unique, there is a clear partition between hull and mission module, so as long as we dont touch hull, its much better.
More thoughts later.
-
18 minutes ago, 2805662 said:
I don’t think Rheinmetall will get much of a say in the matter.
That will depend on the precise wording of the contracts. But if phase 3 goes to Hanwha/EOS, then a clean swap of additional boxer hulls in lieu of the 133 lance turrets would be a pragmatic option.
(And one that Rheinmetall would resist).
Just how much $$$ did Rheinmetall consider those Lance 1 turrets to be worth?
-
'firepower with 30-40mm high performance cannon, 30mm lightweight cannon, and up to two 7.62mm GPMG'
https://www.eos-aus.com/defence/
so 4 guns + missiles can be on T2000 turret for a single mission. (actually its more, there is piccy out there where the EOS R400 has whats looks like M230 LF + 7.62 GPMG + MK 47 all installed together)
-
3 hours ago, 2805662 said:
I can see that T-2000 turret being back cast onto the Phase 2 vehicles, a possibility called out in the Phase 3 RFT.
not a chance that Rheinmetall will walk away from the 133 Lance turrets on order, but DOD may have a lot more room for negotiation for remaining turrets, particularly as EOS will be common between MRAP , APC, IFV and Tank for ADF.
the T2000 turret is a 2 man turret, but just do a quick visual between the Namer turret (page 12
) and the T2000 turret.
hmmm, re arrange/expand the layout for 2 man operation, throw an EOS R400 where the mortar sits, and drop one of the sights because its redundant due to EOS fire control system (FCS), sensors, and user interface from the EOS Remote Weapon Station (RWS).
the T2000 looks new, but is a nice optimum of battle tested components between EOS, Elbit and ATK https://www.defence.nioa.com.au/supply/view/6/8/supply/weapon-systems/orbital-atk-medium-calibre-chain-gun-systems
-
it seems to me, my 2 favoured options are proceeding to the next round.
some thoughts
the EOS T2000 turret seems quite wide, probably wider than lance turret.
also the EOS R400 can be configured with combined M230 LF/ 7.62 GPMG https://www.eos-aus.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/EOS-Brochure-R400S-Dual.pdf
although considering main turret weapon is also 30mm cannon, its kinda redundant to add a M230 LF up top, but it could make sense, if it can quickly return fire to ATGM teams. (to be clear, M230 is not default on land 400 phase 2 or 3.)
both the lynx and the redback seem very competent upgrades for Australia, especially compared to what they are replacing. getting an 'Australian' turret would be a major boost for local industry, although I suspect it has a lot of Israeli and Korean supervision, it should provide aussie ownership for additional growth without paying eurpoean companies whatever they think the upgrades are worth (as opposed to whatever the upgrades cost)
also, logistically useful that the redback has commonality with the Abrams transmission and the K9's engine. since the K9 is coming to Australia (on again, off again, on again) and Australia has Abrams, thats a plus.
i do wonder if 8 lynx will be priced like 9 redbacks, ie same price per dismount, but more bang per firepower buck from redback, vs 9 dismounts from lynx.
-
thanks for Toxn's simplification, MBT 456 (45.6 tonne)
Turret front:
- KE: 120mm gun (500mm) (statistical OK)
- CE: ATGM (360/960mm) (FAIL main charge)
- CE: ATGM (300/600mm) (FAIL, hmmm, not satisfactory)
Turret sides:
- KE: 105mm gun (247mm) (curent fail, but pass if 25mm Texto replaced by 25mm HHA)
- CE: ATGM (255/679mm) (tandem charge fail)
Turret rear:
- KE: 155mm HE (45mm) (OK)
- CE: DPICM (160mm) (FAIL)
Turret, roof:
- KE: 155mm HE (45mm) (OK)
Hull belt front:
- KE: 120mm gun (500mm) (OK)
- CE: ATGM (360/960mm) (OK)
Hull front upper glacis:
- KE: 120mm gun (500mm) (significantly OK)
- CE: ATGM (360/960mm) (significantly OK)
Hull rear:
- KE: 155mm HE, (45mm ) (OK)
Hull floor:
- KE: 3x10kg mines (~50mm) (OK)
Ammunition
48 x 120mm, loaded. (1 tonne)
2,400 x 30mm HEDP, loaded. (1 tonne, inclusive links)
also
cost effective, novel, hybrid 120mm ammunition, to deal with the Norman menace.
Active Protection System (APS) for tanks
in Ballistics Science Discussion
Posted
Another MBT APS, not suitable for use near infantry, so not suitable for IFV etc