Dragonstriker

https://ldpdl.engr.tamu.edu/combined-laser-and-particle-beams-for-self-guided-beamed-propulsion/
 
 

Oh god they're still trying to do this retarded thing?

Interesting bird was spotted during latest events in A-stan:

   Stealth BlackHawk? I'm not sure.
 
 

Some concept art/fan art for Anthem. Interesting general concept (an alien worlds so hostile that you need an exosuit to survive outside of bases) that could have been base for whole unique game universe if handleded by good enough writer, but development problems-related changes and end product were meh. Would like to see a more "realistic" take on that idea and less fantasy magician shit with tech-looking skins applied on top.
   Gameplay wise ability to Iron Man around is fun, weapons that can't be handled by normal humans opens even more interesting mechanics if devs bothered with level destruction and more sophisticated enemy damage model/gamedesign of bad guys.
 
   I do like exosuits as an idea for sci-fi show, but man those are overdesigned in few places and some models are too stylised for my taste.

 
 

 
 

Ewww
 
Dakkas

 
 

I think this beats out that Ukrainian T-55 / T-64 hybrid for ugliest tank. 

“What is cyber punk, friend? Never heard of it! Why do I need to know about air rights or Kowloon city or socio-economic disparity?” 

In what amounts to one of the most prolonged examples of capability edging, we’re reentering the decision/announcement window for 400-3. 
 
RUMINT has some interesting points of speculation, noting that this is a mix of industry, CASG, AHQ, & think tank chatter. 
 
Options reportedly discussed:
- a reduction of 400-3 to 100 vehicles, with 400-4 being a follow-on buy of an unspecified quantity. 
- up to 1/3 of of the procured number of vehicles, whatever that number is, being fitted for, but not with a turret, having a RWS instead to reduce costs. Additional turrets would be procured during -3 sustainment. 
- all ‘manoeuvre support vehicle’ variants being deleted, with the capability need being met by the Heavy Armoured Capability System M1150 breachers & M1110 AVLB. 
 
Time will tell, but the predicted post-election turbulence has come to pass. 
 
The minister for defence/deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has recused himself from the selection process, given the implications for his electorate. The selection will be proceeding regardless of the Defence Strategic Review. 

That's magical thinking.

Unless the ASCALON is firing ammunition that burns at lower pressure than what the breech can handle, being lower pressure doesn't imply more growth potential.  That would imply that they're making the initial gun much stronger, which means thicker and heavier, than it needs to be for the initial ammunition offering.  That makes no sense.

If you haven't read colli's post, do so. He's entirely correct.

So, it's worth pointing out for this generation that the above situation is why Jeff Cooper is important. I've said a lot about what a weirdo Jeff is, and how stupid his scout rifle idea is (OK, realtalk: Just because an idea has an internally consistent train of logic does not make it a good idea), but he was one of the first to concern himself with the idea of the fighting civilian. The scout rifle is like the FBI crouch: It's not really a great idea, in retrospect, but the scout rifle has its origins as far back as 1966 - so even then Cooper was thinking about the problem of, basically "what happens if there's something like Ruby Ridge?" almost thirty years before that actually happened. And yes, the Bren Ten handgun is goofy and stupid, but it was an answer to a question that was brand new at the time.

For people interested in tanks, you can draw parallels between this situation and that which resulted in the American tank destroyer doctrine. I was walking through the Barksdale Air Power Museum about a week ago with my father, and we were talking about Butterfieldian historiography and the Apollo program, and as an example he brought up the American tank destroyers. "I was reading an article," he said "about the tank destroyers, and what they were trying to do. Nobody had stopped the Blitzkrieg at that point, but they knew they needed to. I tell you what, they didn't end up using them quite that way, but somebody was really thinking when they came up with that idea."

Indeed. Here's to you, Jeff Cooper. For thinking where few else did.

Looking at CVR(T), specifically the turret. 
 
Any pointers for references for turret geometry/layout would be welcome. 
 
The only information I’ve got is “Metal Plate, Aluminium Alloy, Armour” ranging in thickness from 3/4” to 1 - 1/2”.
 
Diagrams, sections, drawings welcome. Looking to draw up a basic shell in CAD. 

A more detailed article on the ASCALON :
 
https://lasd.online/140-ascalon/
 
 
 

More technical details on the ASCALON :
 
https://www.forcesoperations.com/ascalon-du-concept-aux-champs-de-tirs-portugais/
 
Energy of an APFSDS rod at the muzzle of 17 to 20 MJ Increased energy attained by increasing the volume of the chamber which is doubled compared to the Leclerc. For comparaison Rhm went the other way with their 130 mm, they kept a small chamber volume (15L) and increased the peak pressure, so we can assume the volume of the ASCALON's chamber is probably around 30L 20L (thanks @SH_MMfor the correction). Lower peak pressure in the ASCALON may (if the gun can handle it) indicate more growth potential by increasing the peak pressure in the future. Peak pressure in the ASCALON's chamber is lower than in the Leclerc (GIAT CN120-26). For comparaison the nominal pressure for the Leclerc firing an OFL 120 F1/DM43 at 21°C is around 4160 bars (don't know the peak value associated). Gun lenght of 7,3 m (40 cm more than the Leclerc's 120 mm L52 and 10 cm more than Rhm's 130 mm) Mass of around 3 tons (roughly the same than Rhm's 130 mm) The semi-telescoped APFSDS round is 1,3 m long for a mass around 30 kg.

The chamber volume of a 120 x 570 mm smoothbore gun is 10.2 litres. So ASCALON's would be ~20 litre-ish (while basically the whole sabot of APFSDS rounds would be included in that).

Everybody knows that Abrahamanus is the worst tank in the world, but Challenged 2 is best because it have rifled gun and fire HESH! Very Strong! 

It is also possible that this is yet another consequence of the British mucking around the feed system (don't quite remember the particulars) instead of using the one that was designed for the gun. For example, could the chamber not sealing properly (wrong ammo positionning) cause this kind of reduction of barrel life (asking the question as I don't know)?
 
The minimal goals for barrel life was 10 000 rounds if I recall correctly. I have a hard time believing that the DGA would accept a gun that can't even reach a 1/20th of the minimal specs.
 
It could also be the simple explanation : If you want to kill your dog, accuse him of having rabies.

No, the size of both guns is pretty much comparable. Also both of them have the same quoted weight (3,000 kilograms). The breech block of the current ASCALON prototype is bigger than Rheinmetall's, but it is supposedly to be changed in the future.
 

 
I guess the polygonal shape of the thermal sleeve make the barrel appear thicker, so the gun might seem shorter/smaller in relation to that. However the overall length of the ASCALON gun (including muzzle brake) is greater.
 
 
Not entirely for scale, just estimated based on the rough figures given for barrel lenght.

Hello all,
 
Gripen here. Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I'm drinking Founder's Breakfast Stout and come bearing documents about railguns (is there a preferred method of posting/uploading documents?):
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bZeNQNqLwoOxyGORELf7H80qI0ENFJ5M
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fdHpxVGdvaFdpR28
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QUAUdaP_QGBmA9DTby6pWYINon8XZFn_
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fWHJRdHZIdGlRWDQ
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fQjVyYkpWaG1CRkk
 
And for the inductively minded:
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fZDM3SHM3SWE5N2M
 
Did I do it right? 

Footage from a training session using the Type 93 against a towed target from a BQM-74E. The towed target was 1m long traveling at 1000km/h. Both missiles were considered hits against a full size target.

The 3 main competitors for the bid are the Mitsubishi MAV, LAV 6.0, and AMV XP. I've barely seen the LAV talked about at all so it seems like its the least likely to be picked. It still has a chance, but I don't see the AMV XP winning in this competition. The chosen APC would be replacing the Type 96 in infantry divisions, the ICV variant would be directly integrated into Japan's RDR which primarily use MCVs, and the RCV would go into the reconnaissance combat battalions of which all but 1 use the MCV.
With that being the case, the AMV XP is fighting a steep uphill battle competing against a MCV based hull with parts commonality to heavily integrate with units already using the MCV.
However it's still nice to see that Japan is opening up a bit to the international market and trying to stretch their limited budget.

Yeah, I never quite understood the hype surrounding light tanks based on IFV hulls. if you want a tank in the 40-50 tonnes range, there are modernized T-72s, and the Type-10 looks like the better Western option. If you want an actual proper light tank, there is BAE’s MPF proposal and Sprut-SD/SDM1. If you want your tanks and IFVs to be on the same chassis, you either go heavy or you go home imo. The medium weight concept is not going to work out very well (this concept was looked at by the Norwegian Army a few years ago, and ultimately rejected in favour of acquiring new MBTs).

It's a quite and dirty google translation, but it would seem that yet again, ASCOD 42 is pure bone hurting juice when driving. There is something fundamentally wrong with the vehicle.

Also, given that there's a war going on, long term concerns about spares availability is at best a second order concern, and at worst of only academic interest.