DIADES
-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by DIADES
-
-
8 hours ago, MRose said:
Iron Fist is a result of earlier cooperation, don't think they had anything to do with each other by 2015.
Interesting. That may explain the performance discrepancy
-
On 1/2/2020 at 11:56 AM, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:
can do KE reliably.
I saw performance data for the Diehl APS in 2015. Could deal with KE 30mm and above. 25mm too small to reliably detect. The 120mm gets bent or knocked off axis. Still a mighty bang on impact but no penetration. But - Diehl did a diehl
with IMI and Iron Fist is the outcome. The performance of that is very much less.
-
1 hour ago, heretic88 said:
ld fashioned 100mm full caliber AP hits from T-55 would almost always result in penetration (from any range), and catastrophic kill.
Who fought? T55 V Leo 1?
-
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
s there really a reason to split Australia's LAND program into separate threads?
Yes. This thread has always had Phase 3 in its title. Ph2 is wheeled, Phase 3 is tracked. Ph2 is semi-MOTS, Ph3 is developmental.
-
51 minutes ago, 2805662 said:
are now
yeah, I am old.... Not so much the TAAs but how the vendors use "its ITAR" Much like Classification, everybody defaults too high, too wide etc, The clear motive in the ITAR case is to tie customers into equipment that they must purchase (in a support sense) from the OEM in perpetuity with the associated immense cost.
-
35 minutes ago, 2805662 said:
I’ve had no issues working with ITAR. Having almost two decades of firsthand experience exporting controlled/military technologies from the UK, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Israel, Canada, & the US, for both government & private entities, I’ll take ITAR/EAR any day of the week. There’s a lot of ignorance/assumptions/old wives tales about ITAR, generally by people who think that they can bypass/outsmart process process monkeys & fail dismally.
Me too, slightly longer but different (about 25 years) experience on the receiving end in Australia. Always injects big chunks of lost time and the rues are applied idiotically for maximum revenue tor US primes. Got a cable connecting two ITAR items? Congratulations, that is also an ITAR item and now costs 100 times a non-ITAR cable doing the same job, A drawing of that cable (2 conductors in a sheath) is also ITAR controlled. Ridiculous.
The organizations I work with these days go out of their way to eliminate any US ITAR related components at the design stage as far as possible. Quite often cost dollars but significant de-risk. The money spent drives competitive non-US solutions.
Any kind of dependency on the US is a risk - and we are bloody allies!
And a chuck of that experience was with night tubes...
-
On 11/3/2019 at 9:57 PM, SH_MM said:
Technologically, there is no lead on either side.
There used to be but one of the outcomes of the idiotic arrogant ITAR rules was the US lead being eroded. I agree, state of the art, no lead for anybody.
-
5 hours ago, alanch90 said:
(16 rounds)
Yep, and I assume they are thinking bigger that 120mm
-
On 10/4/2019 at 3:56 AM, Toxn said:
the state of the art right now
Good accurate summary of what is. I am far from an expert but I have a deep interest as my partner has one of the neuro-degenerative conditions. But this thread is about possible futures not actual nows. Building on what we have. So, yes, very high complexity in genetics and the manipulation thereof. But our level of knowledge in this domain is increasing exponentially and other domains cross pollinate and or enable. Our present ability to generate a genetic profile arose from advances in computing and automation. Research and development in nano-scale materials technology breeds tools able to wok at the required scales for direct intervention in biological mechanisms at the cellular level..
The step change in computational power that is coming from the quantum realm (the real one, not the delightful Ant Man version) will allow us to address orders of magnitude greater complexity = genetic manipulation. The hard parts are neurons (and a few others) as they do not regenerate. You can grow new ones but old ones are not replaced as other cell types are. Our wiring can be added to but is not self replacing. So a defect in neurons cannot be simply gene edited in a individual. But, there are ways and mean. A neuron contains sub-systems, organelles. These are responsible for the inner workings of the cell that result in its outer functionality. There are also mitochondria - our symbiotic energy critters. They do replicate/replace within cells. So editing their DNA can edit the performance of their host cell.
My view is that many possible futures feature significant genetic engineering at all scales. In parallel, there will be significant cyborg style human/machine engineering. There should be a new term (or maybe there is one I don't know) that fully covers all mods, genetic, electroc-mechanical, brain chip augmentation etc.
-
Some detail on LYNX and OMFV. Consistent with what I had been told.
https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-nov-2019/flipbook/4/
-
2 hours ago, 2805662 said:
Computers is the 4th C
yep and that is what you correctly posted " Command, control, communications, computers, intelligence." It was originally C2 meaning command and control then some idiot added communications making C3 thus beginning the confusion between command and control and systems and technologies that enable command and control. Along come computers and now we get C4 etc, etc.
-
2 hours ago, Serge said:
Computer
-
On 10/29/2019 at 7:26 AM, Ramlaen said:
Quoting Kal by accident won't change the name to 2805662, you did tha
Please go back and reread - I absolutely did not change the name. I quoted text that 2805662 quoted thinking I had quoted Kal directly. The name was autopopulated as normal. I simply selected the wrong text.
-
5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
error.
Seriously? Obviously when I made the error (select text to quote) I chose the wrong post. I did not realise that until 2805662 responded. You seriously want to quibble on an apology? You want me to edit my post then 2805662 to edit his post as it obviously won't make sense after I edit mine? Need to point score much?
-
-
1 hour ago, 2805662 said:
Australia and UAE both seem to have M230LF,
Can't speak for UAE but Australia definitely does not have this gun on any LAND platform and I am pretty sure, no AIR or SEA platforms either. We do have the R400S Mk2 D-HD-3X remote which is claimed to be able to carry that gun. The remote will be on BOXER and whatever wins L400 Phase 3 (REDBACK or LYNX)
-
3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
I'm not sure you 1
I am certainly not any king of expert on US fuel logistics. I do know a little about that particular topic as it applies to the ADF. I can assure you that if our Abrams were ever deployed that we could not keep them fueled.
The total fuel required by an army is important but it is critical that any particular element, MBT for example, has the fuel needed as and when and where needed. In the case of an armored advance, it is very easy for MBTs to out run fuel supply - as history shows us, over and over. AFV fuel consumption is a tactical limit that translates directly into a strategic limit. An Abrams burns more fuel per tactical track kilometer than a Leopard or a T90 or anything else Diesel powered.
-
46 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:
LV100-5 l
Yep, would be a massive improvement but no matter what, turbines can't match Diesel efficiency under part loads. Yes, a turbine at its set point will have outstanding absolute efficiency but at all other load points efficiency suffers. Then lets talk air filter life....
Actually, we are headed off topic as this is a Leopard thread!
-
25 minutes ago, 2805662 said:
Interesting.
Indeed - yes we can make valid comparisons feature by feature. I would say the turbine power unit in the Abrams is a poor choice compared to the Diesel in Leo2. Pretty much only the US can operate Abrams effectively due to fuel demand. The US has the resources to lay fuel pipeline behind advancing armour - well at least if air superiority is held. There is an argument that the turbine is not really a limit in US context. In Australian context, the turbine is a dangerous limit - Australia cannot keep fuel up to Abrams in an serious advance.
-
Sorry, thought we were having an actual conversation, maybe another time.
-
1 minute ago, Serge said:
The world standard in India.
Nope. The actual world standard - as in the one that others are benchmarked against (on paper anyway). No nationalism in that assessment. Its all a bit rubbery anyway. What does "best " mean? There is no single answer, no valid answer that is all encompassing. Too many variables and too context dependent.
-
17 hours ago, Serge said:
the best.
OK, until we fight them against each other we won't know. And even then, how do we arrange a fair fight? So our judgements remain opinions and in my opinion, Leopard 2 is standard against which others are judged.
-
5 hours ago, Serge said:
happy birthday
and such a beauty - still the best despite her age
-
1 hour ago, 2805662 said:
link
Not Hanwha announcement - better
with IMI and Iron Fist is the outcome. The performance of that is very much less. 
NGCV/OMFV. Forwarding to... the past
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
and again and again and again - I've lost count. Bradley will be in service til the next millennium.....