N-L-M
-
Posts
732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by N-L-M
-
-
looks a bit familiar....
For some unknown reason the renderer crapped out on me so I had to change the coloring on the Norman.
Anyhow, short of vents and rough shapes of equipment in the engine bay, the Norman is DONE. Some details are stand-ins for things I don't have the time to model properly; for example, the loader's MG should be on a skate ring, not a pintle, and the commander's MG is supposed to have linkages for elevation and firing (enabling its use under armor, Abrams-style). Also the bustle stowage rack is not modelled.
I may not have time to properly model a light tank, which means I might have a low-visuals submission for that part.
Full writeup will come later, when I again have time.
By the way, if anyone's wondering, the frontal turret spaced armor isn't a shot trap, as it's the same thickness as the hull roof underneath it, and therefore anything capable of penetrating the roof after bouncing will penetrate the spaced armor, not bounce. -
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a524619.pdf
The option to enlarge AB destroyers by lengthening the hull with a plug, and the effects thereof. -
1 minute ago, Xlucine said:
I'm not sold on Main Battle Ships - ASW, AAD and GP constabulary work have pretty different requirements. A hull to do all three will be much too expensive for the GP work, and taking out the stuff you don't need is basically a redesign of the ship (e.g. adding a bit mast with a big radar on top for AAD has a big effect on the ship, and same for a proper quiet machinery installation for ASW). One class of ship to properly do everything would be cool, but that's a lot of money to burn
Just like MBTs aren't the only class of ground vehicle, I would expect there to still be smaller ships. The point is replacing the "medium battle ship" (Destroyer) and "heavy battle ship" (Cruiser) with a joint design. The different kinds of ship and their roles, needs, and outlines are part of the planned effortpost.
1 minute ago, Xlucine said:Fuel consumption per unit weight of cargo and overall fuel consumption are not the same thing
True, but increasing the fineness ratio by increasing length can actually reduce the *overall* fuel consumption. This is established hydrodynamics, just like longer bullets have lower drag while being heavier.
I didn't come up with this idea, it's already been studied:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a524619.pdf
Skip ahead to page 55 if you just want the graph. -
Necro-threading a bit, but I'd rather not start a new thread.
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/28/navys-next-large-surface-combatant-will-draw-ddg-51-ddg-1000-dont-call-destroyer
The USN, despite its failed development programs, needs new ships as older ones (Ticos) wear out, and to increase fleet numbers to the desired 355. As the Zums were cancelled, and replaced in procurement by the ABIII, This still leaves a need for Tico replacements. And as the ABIII pretty much maxes out what the AB hull can do (unless you want to extend the hull with a plug, which is possible and even increases fuel economy thanks to better fineness ratio), A new bigger hull is needed. I note that other than some command facilities, a tail, and larger VLS capacity there isn't really all that much different between the flt IIA Burke and the Ticos. So it's possible that the next ship will be a "main battle ship", as it were, replacing both the Ticos and older Burkes.
I currently don't have the time but I fully intend to return to this thread for an effortpost about large and small surface combatants and what I see as being their roles, requirements, and uses in both war and peacekeeping. -
Boeing won the MQ-25a competition.
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/30/navy-picks-boeing-build-mq-25a-stingray-carrier-based-drone
-
Good explanation of Extended Kalman Filtering, as used in GPS-INS systems. Borderline voodoo, but it works.
https://home.wlu.edu/~levys/kalman_tutorial/ -
It's probably used as a gun-testing platform for upgrades to the 120mm gun or for ammunition.
A damaged barrel from a failed test or just wear from over-use would see it removed for inspection before replacement. -
I like the Sabra prototype they have parked there. Looks like the one that was in many of their brochures a decade or so back.
-
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
USAF Beetle robot, designed to safely handle lightweight partially-shielded airborne reactors.
Best known for this photo:
-
Judges, am I correct in assuming that small details like headlights, radio antennae, and tow hooks need not be modelled?
-
4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
I didn't quite understand the warhead part.
Yeah, I know Rafael patented a new warhead design and that some of the guys I met that are somewhat close to the program have talked about it being perhaps the most unique aspect of the missile, I never quite understood the idea there. What really separates it from traditional fragmentation warheads?
If it really is a bunch of linear shaped charges, it'd be able to penetrate warheads and set them off. Blast-frag probably has more limited capability and would end up destroying the rocket but leaving an intact warhead to fall somewhere.
-
-
105 and 145mm guns compared:
-
Turret ready ammo is in.
40 in the hull and 16 in the turret brings me to 56 rounds of 105, all separated behind blowoff panels. -
Got the hull ammo separated ammo rack to hold 40 rounds:
The driver fits in his hole, looks pretty comfy:
-
I hope you like submarines.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a059747.pdf
The submarine equivalent to Technology Of Tanks. By the chief engineer at Kiel when Germany restarted production. I know a few mechanical engineers involved in subs who say that this is about as good as books on the subject get.http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/342338.pdf
Unconventional sub propulsion methods.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a213542.pdf
Submarine electric propulsion -
Looks like the standard "10 kg AT mine under first road wheel" test.
-
The 64 has narrower knife wheels, which remained intact and effectively 'cut' the track. The 219 has wider wheels, the outer one of which got wrecked. The wider wheels support the track more against uneven loading, and the energy spent on breaking the wheel prevented it from breaking the track.
Again, this is just informed conjecture.
-
Single-pin tracks are much harder to break by torsional forces on the track, thanks to the large number and size of points where the pin is subjected to shear forces under such a loading.
Double-pin tracks are easier to break by loading like this as they only have the center guide connector and end connectors.
That in my opinion is the case. I Don't have any hard evidence to back it up right now.
This is also in my opinion why single-pin tracks are preferred for hard, broken ground where the track is liable to ride on large rocks unevenly, applying torsion to the track.
-
The real trick isn't it being optical, it's being uncooled. Cooled IR is expensive as fuck, but gives better performance. The Stunner has an exposed optical window in the nose, which must be cooled. This would explain why the Stunner runs around 500k more after accounting for size differences.
-
Command guidance is out of the question at least for the terminal phase, you cannot get the required accuracy- your accuracy is limited by the accuracy of the fire control radar, which has both range estimation errors the the target and interceptor, and time delay (long pulses for good gain at range and things)
Lower quality standards may account for it, but Sidwinders, AMRAAMs and ESSMs are also mass produced. Just how much did RAFAEL throw QC into the trash to literally make a missile an order of magnitude cheaper?
Or are Sidewinders just not that expensive?
Having just gone through GIS, I note the following: the opaque ogive on the Tamir is split into half clamshell-style, and it looks like the halves can separate to expose the seeker.
If so that'd mean that when switching to terminal the seeker head gets exposed, but until then it's not, which keeps it cool. This would allow the use of uncooled IR seekers, which are indeed much cheaper.
Combined with the peripheral IR, this could also solve the odd engagement geometry fuzing problem critics like to harp on about.
Like the seekers in the Spike-SR, which is cheaper than Javelin. With a terminal engagement range of 1-2km, that's good enough.
That nose seeker is either a small uncooled IR head or a very small simple SARH reciever. And I'm currently tending towards the first.
-
I highly doubt the Stunner is hypersonic with its structure. A first stage DTRM isn't that expensive.
It's possible that the Iron Dome interceptors are really cheap and shitty and only *just* good enougf for their job (which is of course good engineering), but numbers like 20:1 compared to a Stunner is.... stunning. To the point where I'm really suspicious that at least one of the numbers is a lie.
Cost is an issue for other missile systems as well, and yet the Tamir is Sidewinder-sized and reportedly costs a whole order of magnitude less? This sets off bullshit alarms.
-
And why is the Tamir that much cheaper than the Stunner? These numbers don't seem to make sense, which has been my problem all along.
If you have a source for those numbers I'd like to see it. -
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498195.pdf
CIA T-72 breakdown, includes loads of details
Corvettes and Cruisers - Surface Combatants in 2015 and Beyond
in Naval Discussion
Posted
No, and that's part of my point. The last true US cruiser built was the CGN-41. The Ticos are a majorly upgraded Spruance destroyer design, to carry AEGIS and later VLS. The "Cruiser" designation was chosen to justify the crazy cost ($1B at the time) to Congress.
There are very few practical differences between the AB and Tico in terms of capability-
The Burke has a better RCS and probably lower CG, steel superstructure, and is wider and therefore probably more stable. 90/96 cell VLS, Flight I and II have 8 Harpoons, TACTAS and no hangar, Flight IIA and III have twin hangar but no Harpoons or TACTAS. 2 CIWS (1 on later ships), 3 SPG-62 illuminators.
The Tico has 122 VLS cells, 8 Harpoons, TACTAS and a twin hangar, two guns, 4 SPG-62 illuminators.
Both are propelled by 4 LM-2500s driving twin propellers to around 30+ knots.
Ticos have more command facilities and the radars are slightly higher, but on the whole they just aren't that different.
There were plans for a Zumwalt-style "CG-21" or "CG(X)" with various sizes, propulsion plants, and armaments proposed, but that was cancelled nearly a decade ago.
unless there's a specific job a cruiser is intended to do which a small modification to the Burke follow-on can't do (or indeed the Burke follow-on itself can't do), there's no justification for 2 separate follow-on designs for what are such similar ships.
You seem to have misconstrued what I was saying as advocating solely for 10kton+ ships. This is not the case, I strongly believe that there is a need for a ship in the 4-5kton range, as well as both larger (carriers, supply ships, amphibs) and smaller (OPVs, USVs) surface ships. I just see the US destroyers and cruisers converging into a single design.
I should have an effortpost up in a week or so as to why I believe things are this way and what I see the future as being. But suffice to say for now that the reason US cruisers and destroyers are master-of-most-trades oriented is cost and capability.