N-L-M

Still very much a work in progress, but seeing as I haven't posted all that much in this thread, I thought I'd post it as-is.
The add-on armor is still very rough, and is missing the turret ring armor.
You'd be surprised how well armored a BT-5 can get if you put your mind to it.

My submission: "P 28/32" 
 

 
 
I used the T-28 hull and modified it by reworking the entire front and widening the turret ring to the side of the hull (it is now ~1.85m wide). The gun is an leFH 16 or leFH 18/1, German stock that is probably phased out of service by 1942-43 (the 16 was definitely not in front line service).  Also, by this time, HEAT shells were starting to be added to inventory, which gives the tank the ability to engage the Sherman from the front, and from any range. As you guess by the name, the P means this tank is meant to support the M13s, 14s, and 15s in service by engaging targets the smaller M series would have difficulty with (bunkers, and the M4 Shermans). The 28 is an homage to the tank it's based on (T-28), and the 32 is based on the expected weight. 
 
Still working out details, but the vehicle is suppose to be about 32 tons, with a 30mm glacis plate (50mm drivers visor), 45mm turret front, mantle, and copula, 30mm turret sides and rear. Other armor is the same as the T-28. There are 5 crew: Commander and gunner in the right of the turret (gunner forward, commander behind), 2 loaders (both left side of the turret), and the driver (front and center of the hull). The rear of the turret houses the radio (behind the commander), the machine gun magazines (1-2 8mm Breda mod. 38, stored next to the radio), and the 105mm shells (taking up half of the back of the turret). The propellant and rest of the shells are stored on either side of the driver, and in a "ready rack" in the center of the turret, beneath the gun breach (2 or 3 full propellant charges). Engine, suspension, and transmission are all the same as the T-28. 

OK so, road trip is over.
Reading from my (almost illegible) notes I wrote a couple weeks back:

1. Of the available tanks, the BT-5 is, IMO, the only reasonable choice.
1.1. The T-28 cannot be reasonably made a real opponent to the Sherman and is rare, with a spares issue just waiting to happen.
1.2. The various French light tanks and T-26 are disasters on tracks, with no armor, no real option to improve armament, and very poor automotives (low power to weight and low speed suspension).
1.3. Of the guns available, only the 7.62 cm PaK 39(r) can reliably kill a Sherman with AP, and that is neither in service nor will the Germans willingly part with them or their ammo in large quantities; Also, the case is that of the PaK 40, which cannot fit into any of these turrets anyway. Therefore any Sherman killing must require HEAT or some other means of defeating the tank without getting through the armor directly.

2. Why the BT-5 is a good choice
2.1. Most of what made the BT-5 a poor tank IRL are "soft" factors which can be fixed fairly cheaply and quickly, if the goal isn't to go up against Shermans.
2.2. The BT-5 is uniquely suited to being weighted down, owing to the frankly ludicrously over-specced drivetrain.
2.3. The added weight of the BT-7 vs the -5 did not by any source I've found adversely affect reliability, and again as far as I can tell the suspension was not heavily modified.
2.4. For going up against light tanks, the 45mm is quite good and perhaps does not require replacement at all, for a low-end option.
2.5. The sheer number taken intact by the Germans, as well as the large number of spares salvageable from disabled ones, allows a large and capable fleet.

3. Proposed BT-5 upgrade:
3.1. Mobility
This is in fact a bit of a downgrade, to cope with the increased weight to be mentioned later.
3.1.1. Increasing the preload of the springs by spacers in the spring wells, to retain ground clearance.
3.1.2. Installing volute bump stops on first and last road wheel stations to prevent over-stressing springs, at cost of some of the very generous travel.
3.1.3. Installing drive wheels with 5 rather than 6 drive nubs to raise final drive ratio  - prevents over-stressing drivetrain at the cost of reduced speed at all gears. Even at a 5:6 reduced speed, the BT-5 is silly fast.
All in all, very easy to do, requires light welding work to install bump stops and requires fabricating new drive wheels - not hard at all. Should allow a weight of around 15T vs the original 12T or so. Ground pressure in Italian terrain is also not that big of an issue, and the BT-5 has silly low MMP ground pressure anyway thanks to the massive track pitch.



... and just like that, my posting time for the day has run out.
What will N-L-M do with 3 tons of extra weight on a BT-5?
Tune in next time for another exciting episode of...
pimp my tank!

OK so, road trip is over.
Reading from my (almost illegible) notes I wrote a couple weeks back:

1. Of the available tanks, the BT-5 is, IMO, the only reasonable choice.
1.1. The T-28 cannot be reasonably made a real opponent to the Sherman and is rare, with a spares issue just waiting to happen.
1.2. The various French light tanks and T-26 are disasters on tracks, with no armor, no real option to improve armament, and very poor automotives (low power to weight and low speed suspension).
1.3. Of the guns available, only the 7.62 cm PaK 39(r) can reliably kill a Sherman with AP, and that is neither in service nor will the Germans willingly part with them or their ammo in large quantities; Also, the case is that of the PaK 40, which cannot fit into any of these turrets anyway. Therefore any Sherman killing must require HEAT or some other means of defeating the tank without getting through the armor directly.

2. Why the BT-5 is a good choice
2.1. Most of what made the BT-5 a poor tank IRL are "soft" factors which can be fixed fairly cheaply and quickly, if the goal isn't to go up against Shermans.
2.2. The BT-5 is uniquely suited to being weighted down, owing to the frankly ludicrously over-specced drivetrain.
2.3. The added weight of the BT-7 vs the -5 did not by any source I've found adversely affect reliability, and again as far as I can tell the suspension was not heavily modified.
2.4. For going up against light tanks, the 45mm is quite good and perhaps does not require replacement at all, for a low-end option.
2.5. The sheer number taken intact by the Germans, as well as the large number of spares salvageable from disabled ones, allows a large and capable fleet.

3. Proposed BT-5 upgrade:
3.1. Mobility
This is in fact a bit of a downgrade, to cope with the increased weight to be mentioned later.
3.1.1. Increasing the preload of the springs by spacers in the spring wells, to retain ground clearance.
3.1.2. Installing volute bump stops on first and last road wheel stations to prevent over-stressing springs, at cost of some of the very generous travel.
3.1.3. Installing drive wheels with 5 rather than 6 drive nubs to raise final drive ratio  - prevents over-stressing drivetrain at the cost of reduced speed at all gears. Even at a 5:6 reduced speed, the BT-5 is silly fast.
All in all, very easy to do, requires light welding work to install bump stops and requires fabricating new drive wheels - not hard at all. Should allow a weight of around 15T vs the original 12T or so. Ground pressure in Italian terrain is also not that big of an issue, and the BT-5 has silly low MMP ground pressure anyway thanks to the massive track pitch.



... and just like that, my posting time for the day has run out.
What will N-L-M do with 3 tons of extra weight on a BT-5?
Tune in next time for another exciting episode of...
pimp my tank!

I do not have much time for 3d modeling or professional image editing, so I made a rather primitive photoshopped line drawing
 
So, my choice was the T-28, despite its limited availability.
French stuff werent considered at all, they are hopeless junk. Panzer II is a nice tank with lots of good properties, but its crew compartment is too compact for a bigger gun. So only the soviet tanks left. Sadly both the BT-5 and T-26 are too lightly armored, and the BT is also too narrow inside thanks to christie suspension, so I chose the T-28.
 
The first thing I did, is to get rid of the stupid mini turrets. Then, I reshaped the area near the driver's position, added two sharply angled, 30mm thick plates where the turrets were. This also created more space for the driver, and also optionally more ammo/stuff for crew/maintenance tools can be stored in the new free space.
Next, I improved the armor protection. The nearly vertical surfaces of the front hull (upper & lower) received 50mm add-on plates. Turret front and frontal part of side also received an 50mm add-on, rear part got a thinner 30mm plate, but this was just to keep the whole turret (somewhat) balanced. Frontally, the tank became immune to 37 and 40mm guns, and resistant to 6pdr.
 
Firepower: Both L-10 and KT-28 guns had to go, first because the poor performance, and second, the not guaranteed supply of ammo. The replacement is the 7.5cm Pak 97/38. The reasons of this decision: this gun is still quite compact, will not make the life of the crew miserable inside. It is also already in service in the army, so ammo supply is secured. Muzzle velocity isnt much better than the L-10, but the performance of AP shells are better, and good HEAT rounds are also available.
 
Mobility: I didnt change much. The original M-17T engine is barely more than a slightly modified BMW VI, so nothing wrong here. I only tuned it a bit, so performance increased by 50hp, I think it is enough, and also do not cause problems with reliability and service life. 
 
Other improvements:
- Panzer IV style commander's cupola, for good vision. 
- added fume extractor fan on turret top
- replaced soviet radios
- add-on armor now covers side vision slits, so the gunner received a replacement periscope
- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.
- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.
- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 
 

Encountered slight issues with using free internet 3d surface-based models in solid-based CAD, will require more work before I have something showable.

Encountered slight issues with using free internet 3d surface-based models in solid-based CAD, will require more work before I have something showable.

A quick reminder:

Done some basic "what do" thinking.
The problem, as posed, is extremely difficult to solve in a satisfactory manner, largely thanks to the (excellently picked) very poor selection of cast-off vehicles upon which to base designs. 
And when the reference point is a Sherman, even just a 75mm one, that's quite the tough nut to crack and quite a lot of gun to stop.

You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. 
 
However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. 
 
In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates.
 
Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons).
 
It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts.
 
The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures.
 
Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible.
 
The foreign vehicles available for modification are:
Renault R35 (already in service) Hotchkiss H35/39 Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes) T-26 BT-5 T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective) Panzer II Ausf.C  
The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:
15mm ZB-60 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t) 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t)
3.7cm Pak 36 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e) 45mm M1937 (53-K) 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t) 47mm APX 7.5cm Pak 97/38 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and  7.62 cm PaK 39(r) 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43  
Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture.
 
IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries.
 
Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed.
 
Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either).
If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.

WFEL's New Boxer Facility
 
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Boxer Variants


 
 

LAND 400 Phase 2 Variants









 
 

Thank you for your reply. Here is my rebuttal:
 
Lets focus on KE protection. The Leclerc Series 1 turret frontal arc protection is rated around 550 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. Where as the Leopard 2A4 equipped with C-Technology armor is rated at around 420 mm RHAe against KE projectiles.  The Leopard 2A4 (C) front hull is rated around 400-450 mm RHAe against KE projectiles, where as the Leclerc's seems to be around 500 mm RHAe for the same threat.
Sources: Lindström Presentation (Leclerc protection and Leo 2 protection) and declassified British Documents (Leo 2 protection). Marc Chassilan and DarkLabor's book mention that the compact design allowed for the use of the freed up mass to enhance the protection of the hull and turret of the Leclerc.
 
 
 
Here is a graphical explanation of the flat turret design concept protection scheme:
 

 

Although both turret concepts have the same volume (mass) the 2 man flat turret design increases its constructive depth (protection) from 600 mm to 850 mm at the front!   IMHO, against a generic frontal 700 mm RHAe KE threat I rather be in the flat turret design than the conventional  turret design.  
 
Here are the early EPC (Leclerc) design concepts:
 
3-man full turret:
 

 
and the 2 man flat turret:
 

 
TC3 has a projected mass of 58 metric tons where as the TC2 has a projected mass of 53 metric tons. These 5 metric tons (or less) could be allocated to increase the vehicles protection. That is the route the French went.
 
The K2 went to extremes it seems where the side turret protection was sacrificed to improve the frontal protection even more!  This would also partially explain how a 55 ton vehicle can actually stop a K279 APFSDS round fired from the Rh L55. Using the generic turret concept I was able to allocate the new volume to improve the frontal protection by around 73% from 600 mm to 1040 mm !
 
I hope this clears things up a bit!
 
P.S.: This would also make make the rumor more plausible that the K1 and K1A1 turret (cheeks) have a KE resistance of around 450 mm and 600 mm RHAe respectively while having a relative low overall vehicle mass of just around 51-53 tons.

Some naval aviation and arresting gear resources.
 
REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT PHASE I
 
Carrier Suitability of Land-Based Aircraft
 
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
 
CVN FLIGHT/HANGAR DECK NATOPS MANUAL
 
Arresting Gear:
 
Metallurgical Analysis of Arresting Gear Deck Pendant Failures
 
Development of [Arresting Gear] Cable Materials
 
Modern Sandvik 11R51 Alloy Datasheet
 
Analytical Study of Aircraft Arresting Gear Cable Design
 
Mark 7 Arresting Gear Training Manual
 
Useful Figures:
 

 


 

 

screenshots

 
 

https://cloud.mail.ru/public/9dEX/djuwzbp4V/_tmp/International Defense Review/
issues from 1983-1988 of IDR were photographed and uploaded (except those from 1983 which were photographed today, and will be uploaded tomorrow), though in not-user-friendly way only - without renaming, without deleting duplicates, without identifying and replacing blurry photos. All that takes a lot of time, and was postponed at least until September, as I'm trying to concentrate instead on one activity which actually requires visiting library - that of making photos, up to 9 hours a day, 6 days a week (on average somewhere around 6x6/7x6 though).
If I'll be able to continue to do that until end of this mouth, and not fall into laziness, I might photograph all IDR issues stored at RSL (1975-1991).

Object 326 SPG (Unofficial name - "Shayba"), was an initiative development by DB. 46 rounds, "double stack" in circular autoloader, crew in hull compartment outside of "turret". The gun, ammunition rack and loading mechanism are made in a single unit operating in automatic mode, providing a 360 coverage of fire. Vehicle was armed with 2S3 Akatsiya gun (152mm caliber howitzer).

 
 

Following a very productive use of my time in an extensive investigation, I have made a discovery that could very well tear apart our beliefs concerning Frank Roosevelt's true allegiance during the Second World War.
 
Below is a photo of the bathtub meant to help accommodate the President aboard the battleship USS Iowa as he traveled to Tehran Conference in 1943.
 

 
 
A harmless enough scene.  Sudsy water, various toiletries, some reading material, and a few bath toys to play with. Let's take a closer look at that plastic boat though.
 
 

 
 
It appears to be a fairly realistic-looking design, a warship of some type for sure.  It does not look like the Iowa or any other ship used by the US Navy though.  Perhaps it could be a vessel of another nationality?
 
 

 
 
This here is an Admiral Hipper-class heavy cruiser (taken from World of Warships for the sake of a similar viewing angle).  These ships were constructed in the late 1930's by Nazi Germany and saw use during the Second World War.  With the exception of the main battery gun count, you will notice that the cruiser shares several details with the toy boat from above.  A fair number of details really...
 
 

 
 
What was the president of the United States doing with a model of an enemy cruiser floating in his personal bathtub, and of such a relatively modern (at the time) vessel at that?
 
 

 
 

Very interesting book for me, as it quotes reports on Bradley ASTB (Advanced Survivability Test Bed) aka Col. Burton's Minimum Casualty Baseline Vehicle,

which (reports) seem to be unclassified but still are unavailable on the internet.
 

 
 

Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but I decided to throw this together and I hope everyone finds it interesting/informative. If I have made any mistakes please feel free to point them out and I will be happy to correct them.

At any rate, the issues with APA's Zero One Comparison Table or "ZOCT" are severe and numerous. Here are some of the more egregious ones based on open source information:
 
The Air Power Australia "ZOCT" is wrong about the F35’s radar.
 
- Greater radar aperture is advantageous if all else is equal, but it is not in this case. For example,  the ZOCT does not differentiate between the PESA technology in the Irbis-E on the Su-35 and the AESA technology used in the F35’s APG-81. The table does not adequately account for T/R module or LPI/LPD performance, electronic attack or passive detection functionality, radar sub-modes, ECCM and so on. The ZOCT fundamentally ignores the comparative technological sophistication of each radar, with no analysis of their actual capabilities.

- The ZOCT also incorrectly portrays the APG-81 as having the least capable, “medium power aperture". Generally speaking, a larger radar array on an AESA allows for a greater number of track/receive (T/R) modules, which enhances the radar’s detection capability. The ZOCT table is likely linked to APA’s false claim that the APG-81 only has ~1200 T/R modules.

- In reality, the APG-81 has over 1600 T/R modules, which is higher than their (also incorrect) figure of 1500 for the F22’s APG-77. Note that they classify the APG-77 as a “high power aperture” at only 1500 modules, so - using APA's own reasoning - the APG-81 would qualify as a "high power aperture" as well.

- It is also worth noting that the updated T/R modules fitted to the Raptor’s radar in the APG-77(v)1 upgrade were GaA T/R modules derived from the F-35’s own APG-81 (and not the other way around). Objectively speaking, both radars are world leading in their own right and are generally regarded as offering similar performance overall. You can get a reasonable sense of their dimensional similarity below:
             

 
The relevance of side-looking AESA arrays is debatable for a jet with AN/AAQ-37, AN/ASQ-239 and MADL

Much like thrust vectoring, the importance of side-looking AESA arrays to the F35 is debatable, and AFAIK (contrary to how the ZOCT portrays the issue), there are currently no solid plans to install them in any of the aircraft in the table aside from the Su57. It should be noted that, due to size and space constraints, these “cheek” arrays potentially force the main radar array further forward into the nose-cone, limiting the volume it can occupy.

When dealing with LO opponents, it may well be more effective to retain a single larger and more powerful forward-facing array (to maximise detection range vs low RCS targets) while using 360 degree passive sensors and/or offboard donors (via datalink) to deal with contacts outside of the radar’s field of view. The presence or absence of side-facing radar arrays is arguably more a matter of CONOPS than an outright advantage in every case.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about supersonic weapons delivery

“Supersonic launch of internal weapons, including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air to air missiles, is a feature of all F35s”.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s future engine growth

The potential for growth in the F35’s powerplant is far from limited. As a matter of fact, research into variable bypass engine technology has made the F35 a prime candidate for early implementation.

Pratt and Whitney have already proposed F135 Growth Options 1 and 2, with the latter introducing variable bypass technology that has the potential to decrease fuel burn by up to 20% and increase thrust by up to 15%. This would improve the jet's thrust to weight ratio from 1.07 at 50% fuel and a full weapons load to over 1.2. A completely new powerplant derived from technology found in the GE XA100 and/or PW XA101 variable bypass engines is another distinct possibility that is being actively explored. 
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s combat ceiling

It is not less than 45,000ft as the table claims, but greater than 50,000ft.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s RF stealth features

- The ZOCT’s description of the F35’s stealth features as “partial” is based on the disingenuous claim that its stealth shaping works best from the forward aspect, and is less effective in the beam and aft sectors. What APA neglects to acknowledge is that this is true for ALL the stealth aircraft in the table.

- In reality, both the F22 and F35 are all-aspect VLO designs, optimised to defeat the shorter wavelength fire control radars that are typically used to guide anti-aircraft missiles. Their actual radar cross-section values are of course extremely classified, but those few individuals that DO know what they are have long described them as being very comparable between the two aircraft.

- It is important to note that the ZOCT also completely neglects the vital importance of stealthy sensors and emissions control (EMCON) for stealth aircraft. Compared to the other aircraft in the table, the F35 has extremely sophisticated EMCON and passive sensing capabilities (LPI/LPD radar modes, MADL datalink, passive IR based MAWS, AN/ASQ-239, long range EOTS IRST) that are not adequately accounted for.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s non-RF stealth features

The F35’s non-RF stealth features are at least as sophisticated as those found on any of the other aircraft in the table and probably superior to most, if not all (with rough parity perhaps, to the F22). They include:

- The use of divertless supersonic inlets with serpentine inlet ducts to block the line of sight to the engine’s hot interior from the forward hemisphere.

- The use of fuselage air “scoops” to mix cooler outside air with the engine exhaust so as to rapidly cool it and in turn reduce the IR signature of the engine plume
 
- The use of onboard fuel as a coolant alongside IR suppressant coatings (p4) to reduce the IR signature of the airframe itself

- Recessed positioning of the nozzle so that the jet’s tailfins block a direct line of sight to it in all but the aft-most sector.
 
- The use of a serrated nozzle derived from the Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN) program to further reduce the signature of the engine and assist with mixing cool air with the exhaust plume (p4). Note that this fundamental design approach has been subsequently replicated in new nozzles proposed for the J20, J31, Su-57 and Su-75. 
 


 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal fuel.

The amount of fuel the F35 carries is irrelevant on its own. Being able to fly further for longer is certainly advantageous though. Hence, the relevant stat here is range, and the range of the F35 is comparable to that of the F22 that APA endorses. Again, this will only improve with planned enhancements to the F35’s powerplant.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal hard point stations

New F35s will have 6 internal hard points with the Sidekick weapons bay modification, not 4 as the ZOCT claims.
 
The ZOCT over-emphasises arbitrary aerodynamic features 

It is true, for example, that the F35 does not feature super cruise or thrust vectoring, but neither feature is a requirement for its specified mission set. The general consensus is that the F35’s aerodynamic characteristics combine the excellent low speed controllability of the Hornet, with the excellent subsonic acceleration of the F16. Unlike either of those aircraft, however, the F35’s ability to carry all of its weapons, EW gear and sensors internally means that it maintains its aerodynamic performance at full combat loads. Current indications are that this kinematic profile is extremely capable.
 
Due to its flawed binary design, the ZOCT gives equal weighting to features that are not "equal".

Compare, for example, TVC to VLO. APA have long claimed that non-TVC teen series fighters like F16 and F/A18 variants (along with the F35) ought to be an easy meal for a late-model TVC equipped Flanker, especially in the low speed BFM domain where TVC should be most useful. After years of DACT conducted with Flankers of this type, though, the advantage provided by TVC may not be nearly as decisive as APA would have us believe: 

Legacy Hornet Beats TVC Su-30MKM 3-0 in BFM

In reality, BFM is a highly nuanced, complex artform that favours the pilot who is most effective at playing to the strengths of their own aircraft. TVC may be useful here, but it does not appear to be a panacea - pilot training, experience and skill seem to be the real differentiators. Now compare this to the well documented effect that VLO has on a tactical aircraft’s lethality and survivability and it becomes clear that the weightings allocated to each category in the ZOCT are deeply flawed:

""I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

“We took off out of Madison (to join the fight),” said Lt. Col. Bart Van Roo, 176th FS commander. “We went to our simulated air field out in the far part of the air space. As the two ship from the Northern half of the air space we turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw the F-35A.”

"Everything they see becomes the F-35 out there. Every radar hit, every communication is about the stealth jet. They want to illuminate or eliminate a threat they can't handle. It has nothing to do with their skill or technology. They're at such a technological disadvantage. I've seen guys in F-18s turn directly in front of me and show me their tails cause they have no idea I'm there. It aggregates to a completely inept response to what we're doing in the air. People are so hellbent on shooting down the stealth fighter that they invariably make mistakes that I can exploit."  Retired US Marine Corps Maj. Dan Flatley
 
The ZOCT is missing important data

APA have also omitted a plethora of features that are just as (if not more) important than many of those listed in the ZOCT. For example

- Multi-spectral sensors - this refers to having RF sensors PLUS infra-red, EO and laser range finding. This is a feature that the F35 has and the F22, for example, does not.

- Spherical FLIR and missile cueing - AN/AAQ-37 provides the F35 with a permanent passive missile lock on every aircraft around it within visual range (and possibly further). This means the F35 can fire on an enemy aircraft regardless of where the F35’s nose is pointed or where the bandit is coming from - even if it is behind the F35. No other aircraft in the table (aside, possibly, for the J20 with its DAS clone) has an equivalent system.

- Sensor fusion - this refers to the capacity of the aircraft’s onboard computers to collect, assimilate, analyse and present data from the aircraft’s sensors to the pilot in a way that streamlines their workload and enhances their decision making. This data can also be shared via;

- An LPI, jam resistant, high throughput datalink - (eg. MADL on the F35 or the older IFDL on the F22) which, when combined with sensor fusion, allows for;

- Cooperative Engagement - the high quality of the F35’s sensor fused targeting data combined with the capacity of the MADL datalink allows it to share targeting information with other platforms (eg. Aegis vessels, Army/USMC MLRS units or other F35s) and subsequently use it to fire on desired targets without relying on their own onboard sensors.

- Cooperative EW - eg. cooperative jamming where members of a flight of aircraft can alternate/coordinate jamming emissions to enhance jamming effects and prevent hostile assets from pinpointing the source of the jamming.

- RF threat triangulation and geo-location (p6) - eg. networking the passive ESM equipment on multiple members of a flight of aircraft to passively triangulate and geolocate threat emitters like SAM sites, ISR assets and fighter aircraft.

- Cooperative IRST - eg. using a passive FLIR like EOTS cooperatively in conjunction with MADL provides another method of triangulating the location and range of hostile assets/aircraft without emitting any RF signals.
 
Suffice it to say that the F35’s unique combination of features is extremely potent:
 
 

In the Challenger 2, much like the Chieftain and Challenger 1, the ammo in the hull is stowed all over the place, but the 3 main bins of vertical propellant charges, if removed, provide adequate space for storing unitary ammo horizontally. Likewise, the frontal hull propellant racks, when removed, provide some more space there, though that likely requires rejiggering of the rest of the internal components there, as the unitary 120 is much longer. Perhaps that area wasn't touched, and the 15 are stowed horizontally where the 3 main bins were, nose to nose from 2 sides.
Such an arrangement would also make them fairly accessible to the loader, somewhat making up for the low overall load.

Gather round, ye posters of Mechanized!
Recent events have indicated that a refresher course on the posting standards of this forum is needed, and so:
Reminder that SH is primarily, first and foremost, a document-based forum. While there is a gentlemen's agreement kind of deal whereby you are not expected to post your sources with every post you make, it is implicitly assumed that you actually have such sources and that they actually say what you claim they do. Furthermore, it is expected that when requested, you post the relevant sources.
While it is known that not all the information relating to the subjects discussed on this forum is public domain, and that therefore informed speculation is a large part of any debate, it is expected that:
A. your speculation have some basis in reality (which can in turn be backed up with at least circumstantial evidence), and:
B. that it be presented as such.
Here is a very good example of how not to post:
 
You would note that the poster in question is extremely confident in their tone with no indication to the average reader that this is in fact complete bullshit, and has no basis whatsoever for the claims he is making. This is in fact the exact kind of posting that is not desired on this forum.
 
On the other hand, here is a good example of speculation done right:
 
The poster in question clearly explains, by analyzing available imagery and using basic logic, why in fact they have reached their conclusions, and backs it up with references to available literature on the topic. No wild assumptions are fielded as fact, nor are any major claims presented without at the very least circumstantial photographic evidence. And all speculation is presented as such- "a seems to be true", "b seems to be better than c", "I'd say d is the case", and so on. Even a poorly-informed reader can easily distinguish between what is implicitly assumed, what is actually known and what is fresh new (grounded) speculation.
 
For those of you who are new, or just rusty, the posting rules are fairly clear:
Kindly re-familiarize yourselves with the rules.
 
And last but not least, remember that the forum motto is  Referte avt morimini, link or die. Hiding behind sources that cannot be confirmed, that have mysteriously disappeared, or that "you seem to remember" do not count. While nobody is expecting you to have all your sources at hand at any given moment, it is expected that you either post them at the nearest possible convenience or back off the claims which remain unsubstantiated until further notice. Failure to do so is considered poor taste, to say the least. Many posters who are no longer with us did not heed the warnings and therefore chose themselves the "morimini" route.
 
The management thanks you for your voluntary cooperation.

I have accidentally came across this (more info and pictures under the link). 

It's relatively recently identified gem of the Czech military museum in Žižkov, Prague (atm it's still closed due to the ongoing reconstruction). For decades it was stored there but until few years back nobody knew what it actually was. In fact it's 1899 experimental machinegun of baron Adolf Odkolek z Újezdce, the original author of the design solutions used in the famous Hotchkiss Mle 1914 MG (Hotchkiss bought Odkolek's patents). Baron Odkolek (whose name is known in here mainly thanks to the bakeries founded by his uncle and existing till today) was a military officer and weapon designer, he was born near Mladá Boleslav, central Bohemia, but in the later part of his life he lived in Vienna where he also died in 1917. 
 
This particular weapon chambered in 7.92x57 Mauser has a serial number 1 and is functional although part of the sights is missing and the belt design is unknown. Its parts were patented in 1899 (in Germany) and 1900 (in Switzerland). It's surprisingly light, just 10,5 kg. 

Managed to catch convoy of military vehicles arriving to St.Petersburg for tomorrow's Victory Parade. Here are artillery vehicles and guns (nothing new, if you are looking for that kind of info).

   Nona-SVK
 
 
   Msta-S SPGs

 
 
   Towed artillery - D-30 122 mm guns towed by Urals and Bears with Giatsint-B 152 mm guns.

 
 
   Iskanders. They were the loudest non-tracked vehicle and their exhaust were creating their own local greenhouse effect and killing birds mid-air.

 
 
   Tornado-Gs

 
 

From: Mahapya Smith, Chief Engineer, SCHV department
To: Caliber Selection Committee, Rapid City Union Ammunition Plant
Enclosed is the final TDP for the new proposed round, 0.22 Rapier.
Following the Committee's advice, certain dimensions have been altered, to allow good growth margins, ease of manufacture, and low weight and cost, thus ensuring that this small but deadly bullet may best serve the needs of the scouts. Case head thicknesses have been reduced, as has case length, and the shoulder angle has increased to 25 degrees.
Following extensive field trials (see enclosed report), it has been decided to electrically bond the bullet core to the jacket. This advanced technological process ensures the best performance can be attained out of small bore bullets.
I and my faithful assistants, as the department, look forwards to your acceptance of this design; Initial batches have already been produced and tooling acquired for mass production, paid out of department funds.
 
From the personal diary of Mahpiya Smith
 When this RFP first came out, I was highly suspicious. While it's a common joke that nobody from the main offices would be caught dead in the "pest control" SCHV department, it appears to actually be true. For the past 4 years since I got the job of running the place (and it does get awfully lonely here sometimes), I have not seen anyone from the company other than the occasional runner. Were it not for the regular paychecks and occasional company-wide memos, one might even think I was shunted into a dead end job with no authority (or indeed employees), where the management can keep me out of both sight and mind. This RFP seemed tailor-made to be the final nail in my career's coffin. I must either submit a design, lose, and thereby lose my job, or fail to submit, be seen as useless, and again lose my job. In either case, the prospects are dim. A lone solution presented itself - deliver a nominally competitive design, but at minimal cost, while reporting moderate expenses. This approach means my pension fund will be, if not undamaged by my firing, at least strongly and creatively augmented. My totally-real-they-just-aren't-in-today assistants hired from the development budget, Gladys and Fred, have also aided the cause of moving project funds to where they actually belong.
Today I sent in the final draft. It'll take them a week to select a winner, another to write me a sufficiently patronizing letter of termination, and at least one more week to send in the wreckers to clear out the department shack and reclaim the tooling. By the time they get here, I should be long gone.