Beer
-
Posts
1,394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
26
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Beer
-
-
On 6/7/2021 at 3:38 PM, terry88 said:
I`ve recently found an interesting article about 3D printer which is used in aerospace area. Have you heard anything about that? This machine allows printing multi-composite parts simultaneously from several materials, which is infeasible in other types of aerospace 3d printing.
What kind of different materials? There is number of existing solution for multi-material 3D printing. It's rather commonly available for plastics but you can find metalic or ceramic ones too, albeit I guess that those are crazy expensive. Just google and you'll find a lot of reading about different technologies from different companies.
- Lord_James and terry88
-
2
-
On 6/5/2021 at 2:50 AM, Korvette said:
Defusing an old RPG fuze is one thing but doing it reliably and also defending against other things is another. As this raises up an important point. Looking at the Stryker or CR2(Another thing is that the Stryker also can mount ceramic composite packages over the wheels and hull itself for additional protection which I'm not sure if the Jaguar has), these are very thick cages on them, but the Jaguar's looks almost like wire. I wonder if the cage itself seems to be strong enough to stop an oncoming projectile, and that is it even worth it to have the cage just for really old fuzes, while insurgents and terrorists/whatever probably only have old fuzes, we've seen tanks face up against RPG-29's and have damage inflicted to them even though the only expect threat was RPG-7's.
I remember seeing somewhere that statistically in Afghanistan or Iraq around 95% of projectiles fired on the vehicles have been RPG-7 hence it still makes a lot of sense to defend against the old threats if those are the far most common ones. The issue is that anything able to stop more advanced rounds is way more expensive than simple slats. In the end if one of hundred RPGs fired is RPG-29 it makes no real impact on the operation even if it sucks for the particular crew whose vehicle was hit by it.
-
1 hour ago, Korvette said:
Would this cage change anything? Sure it will prematurely detonate the incoming warhead (maybe) but would there be enough armor on the vehicle itself to stop the rest of the warhead?
As N-L-M wrote the principle of slat armor is different, it cuts the fuze of very old HEAT warheads like PG-7 or LAW-66 (I think). There is very little effect on HEAT warhead if it detonates at standoff distance offered by the slat armor. Something like 30-50 cm standoff distance can help if there is heavy tank armor behind but it has basically no protgective effect on lighter vehicles. There used to be a video on youtube of an RPG-18 (which is an old weapon with just 64 mm calibre) easily penetrating a BTR protected by slat armor all the way through in and and out.
-
14 minutes ago, mr.T said:
Some of these israeli projects fully qualify for the Jihadi workshop section , , box welled on top pf a tank hull.
Nagmachon says they did much better job in the past
-
6 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
Aside of the budget issues, the Puma would be the perfect solution for the British military, as it is optimized for air-transportablity via A400M. In that sense it would fit much better to the British Army than the German one...
Doesn't Ajax have a manned turret and seven men strong squad?
-
26 minutes ago, McRocket said:
I know it's really late.
But I just saw this and signed up today.
I thought about this myself, a couple years ago (but after 2016 - so you beat me to it - lol).
I think it is a fantastic idea.
Not only is crew protection massively enhanced? But escaping from the vehicle is INCREDIBLY easy.
And - if you are prepared to lose the tank to save the crew? All protection can be concentrated in the very front and on the crew module (just 20mm/splinter protection for the rest).
And - it would be simple to manufacture heavily armoured APC's/IFV's from this design.
Finally - Just expand the tank rearward 5 or 6 feet? And you have a combination MBT/IFV all in one.
I think your way is the future for MBT's.
It's not a fantastic idea. Not at all.
A powerful enough engine is much larger than that box on the picture.
Cooling of an engine in front is extremely painful (Izraelis know).
The armor protection of the engine is compromised by the size of the engine and by the requirement to make engine and gearbox accessible for mainteanance or replacement (!) and by the need to put exhaust somewhere.
The volume requiring heavy protection is larger, not smaller than with the conventional layout, i.e. the vehicle is a lot heavier.
Such vehicle would be most likely very front-heavy which compromises driving performance and brings potential issues with suspension or tracks.
Driving of such vehicle is entirely dependent on cameras, there is no way to drive it by head sticking out of the hatch even in emergency. Crossing of rough terrain would likely be pretty awkward.
Etc.
-
I wonder why modern military vehicles tend to have so unnecesarily compicated shapes of everything. To me it just feels very wrong and unefficient design.
-
Alleged video of an Azeri Su-25 being shot down by NKR MANPADS. It looks legit to me.
-
If the pilot (LNA veteran of brigadier general rank) didn't die, this would be somewhat funny sketch...
First
Later
-
First photo of the new Czech army modular multi-band jammer STARKOM on armoured Tatra chassis (VHF, UHF, SHF). The army ordered eight systems. It shall be able to jam also various datalinks, missile guidance or drones.
-
More photos and video. So far all vehicles fulfilled all requirements. What is left is climatic and EMC tests. Also interesting info about criteria for the final selection. 55% weight goes to the contract price. 30% to technical parameters and 15% to the offset offer.
- David Moyes, LoooSeR, N-L-M and 1 other
-
4
-
Nice gallery from Czech IFV trials from today (opened day for media) inlcuding a video at the end (some driving and firing). A lot of details inside. Also the competitors were invited to prepare their final bid before the 1st July.
-
A Swiss F-5 Tiger II crashed today, pilot ejected. It was a plane of Patrouille Suisse used as OPFOR in a dogfight with F/A-18. The interesting thing is that the crash was caught on photos and mainly that the plane landed in a thick snow staying relatively intact
-
-
New livery for the annual NATO Tiger Meet.
-
Another short video from Czech IFV trials.
-
4 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
I was taking years from my memory, i remember that USSR was working on autoloaded SPGs in 70s and even earlier. For Msta-S development years were in first half of 70s, at least that i had in my memory. I quickly checked now, it is 1976.
Anyway, it is still strange that nobody from big waepon manufacturers really pushed autoloaders for 152 mm SPGs in last 10 years until very recently. Maybe with exception of Chinese SPGs, but those are Msta-S inspired.
Aside of Dana and its derivates (nearly 1000 vehicles produced so not a small production at all) also Swedish Archer has an autoloader. It is in service since 2013 and in development since 1995.
-
26 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
Msta-S development started in early-mid 70s, Dana in late 70s IIRC.
Not that I would consider it of any importance but for the sake of facts.
Dana
- start of development 1969
- first prototype 1972
- first serial delivery 1979
Msta-S
- start of development 1980
- first serial delivery 1988
-
Armenian Mi-8 firing a volley of S-8 rockets during the conflict.
-
-
3 hours ago, SH_MM said:
Well, it depends on the exact armor layout. The problem is that the different slope will affect the effective protection provided by most materials (sloped steel being weaker against APFSDS rounds when sloped, unless sloped very high; NERA being less effective perpendicular to the threat, while ceramics are better in exactly the same situation).
If one does not account for these factors, the volume will be used less effectively. In case of the Leopard 2 (at least the Leopard 2AV) and the M1 Abrams, the shape of the hull armor cavities do not correspond to the actual shape/sloping of the armor arry. In case of British tanks, the shape of the armor cavities is less suited for such solution, hence the difference between the shape of turret and hull might be more relevant.
That is quite possible, though IMO the picture quality is too poor to make an accurate judgement.
British research on DU armor suggests that thin plates used in a NERA-like configuration are prefered, at least such an array (using very thin DU plates and poly-carbonate inter-layers) was revealed in a British publication:
Note that this armor is optimized for KE and each sandwhich plate is less than two inches thick. Both DU plates amount to less than half of the multi-layered plates thickness.
The US Abrams also apparently featured thin DU plates, at least in case of the M1A1 HA and M1A2. There is a 1995 report covering the SMC (Specific Manufacturing Capabilites) located at Idaho National Engineering Laborary, i.e. a facility run by Lockheed-Martin and the US Department of Energy specifically to manufacture DU elements for the M1A1 HA and M1A2 tanks. The reports speciifcally mentions that the shears (shears have to be used to prevent DU dust potentially contaminating the worker's lungs) are rated for DU plate thicknesses of 0.625 and 0.375 inches. This would suggest that at least some parts of the DU armor arrays of the M1A1 HA and M1A2 use DU plates with a thickness as low as 9.525 milimeters.
They are backplates, which is why it is extremely unlikely that they are made out of DU. DU is way to heavy.
How thick do you think is the backplate? To me it seems to be in the area of 40 to 50 mm (not accounting for slope).
The problem is that given the slope of the hull, you look at as much weight as a 188 to 235 mm thick steel plate (assuming a DU staballoy with a density of 18.5 kg/cm³). 188 mm thick steel weighs ca. 1,500 kilograms per m², a 235 mm steel plates weighs ca. 1,880 kilograms per m² . Given the size of the area covered by the backplate, that would already be more weight for the backplate than the Challenger 1 had for total Burlington armor on the hull front. Basically there would be no weight left for anything else (such as NERA layers required to reach the desired 800 mm protection against shaped charges). Without additional layers, the DU plate with additional steel front and back plates also would fail to reach the desired level of protection.
So either the backplate is not made of DU or there has been a massive, currently unexplained weight reduction in hull components and/or the existing steel armor.
The problem also exists for the turret. Turret armor slope is not as extreme, but the backplates are also fitted to the turret sides. Basically more than half of the turret armor's weight would be related to the backplates.
Other materials have to be used, as DU is simply to heavy.
Which other examples of DU being mounted as a plate for armor applications do you know?
Correct me if I am wrong but I think that DU can not be used as a structural material welded together with steel. I may have read an outdated info but I found only a diffusion welding with vanadium filler as a possible way how to weld DU and steel together (in relatively small thickness). I doubt it can be used for any large structures such as tank hulls or turrets.
-
3 minutes ago, BaronTibere said:
Do you have any info on the autoloader? I have an old elbit PDF but it mentions 6rpm for the gun system which seems rather long for a 105 autoloader in this day and age.
Sadly no.
-
Not realy breaking news but this is visualisation of Sabrah light tanks which were recently ordered by Philipines (their exact configuration may be different). They ordered 18 vehicles on ASCOD 2 chassis and 10 on Pandur II chassis (plus command and recovery vehicles on ASCOD 2 chassis). The main armament is Elbit 105 mm/L52 gun. The contract is to be delivered by Elbit, GDLS and CSG (Excalibur Army). It is likely that another contract will follow because the initial one was cut down from original 114 vehicles as a part of Covid measures.
- Lord_James and Stimpy75
-
2
-
1 hour ago, delete013 said:
I think it was rather "why are we so helpless without strategic bombers and naval artillery?"
That's seriously childish.
UAV thread
in Aviation
Posted
Yet it's very debatable for what country like Poland could use it. It's very effective for figting a guerilla or a weak military with terrible AD and no airforce but I fail to find an enemy like that for Poland. Countries with modern AD, EW means and airforce are not really vulnerable to slow drones like TB2. People tend to see the success of Azeris through the sexy videos from TB2 but it was loitering munitions and EW which cleared them way. The rest is quality marketing from Turkish side.
As for the little green men. In Europe those have been operating stricly in close proximity of Russian borders and Russians didn't really hesitate to decimate the Ukrainean airforce even by cross-border fire. I bet that shooting down combat jet planes is much harder than TB2.