Dragonstriker

It's not that crazy:
 
-YF-17 was a Northrop bird.  Ostensibly it was their entry into the LWF competition, but actually they'd been working on an F-5 replacement for years before the competition was announced.  This used YJ101 "leaky turbojet" engines.  This lost to the YF-16 for the LWF bid, but some genius had meanwhile decided that the Navy would have to buy LWFs as well, not realizing that carrier birds are much, much better off if purpose-designed.
 
-F/A-18 was the ultimate result of this foolishness.  Although the YF-16 was the better design in most respects, the YF-17 was drastically better suited to carrier operations thanks to twin engines, much wider landing gear and lower landing speeds and AOA.  However, Northrop had no experience making carrier birds, so they partnered with McDonnell Douglas, who had the entire phantom/banshee/demon/phantom II family of carrier fighters under their belt.
 
The changes from YF-17 to F/A-18 were quite major.  F/A-18 was going to be a multi-role aircraft, not just a simple day fighter.  to that end a whole mess of new avionics were added, chiefly a much bigger and better radar and also the most advanced cockpit of the time, were added to the aircraft.  Because the aircraft would be tasked as a fighter and as an attack aircraft, a lot of work went into designing cockpit instruments that could display lots of information in a smooth, efficient way.  
 
The structure was reinforced to withstand carrier operation and anti-corrosion coatings were added where needed to survive being next to the ocean all the time.  The engines were now the godly GE F404; hands down the best fighter engine until the F110.  Weight went up enormously (about 30%) and the wings were enlarged to compensate.  To try and minimize weight increase, a large percentage of composites were used to replace traditional aluminum structure.  Initially, F-15 style dogtooth leading edge vortex generators were added to the wings and horizontal stabilizers, but these were later deleted.  The gap between the LERX and the fuselage was also eliminated, except for a small slot for boundary layer air from the inlets.
 
F/A-18L:  McDonnell Douglas and Northrop agreed to share production responsibilities on the F/A-18, with some parts coming from each company.  In the meantime, however, Northrop was given full responsibility and ownership of the F/A-18L design, which would be a de-navalized F/A-18.  The advanced avionics, new engines and aerodynamic refinements would stay, but the structure would be made lighter and some of the special corrosion-resistant materials would be removed in order to save weight.  The aircraft was never built; Northrop simply dressing up the YF-17 prototypes to play the part.  Canada and a few other countries seriously flirted with the idea of buying these, but in the end all prospective buyers either bought regular F/A-18s or F-16s.
 
-F/A-18E/F:  In 1987, McDonnell Douglas submitted a series of proposals for developments of the F/A-18 under the name "Hornet 2000."  Configuration 1 was a fairly simple upgrade with uprated engines, a more powerful radar, and some updates to the avionics and cockpit.  Configuration 2 was similar, but further featured some structural improvements to the wings, and an extended fuselage spine to house extra fuel.  Configuration 3 took configuration 2 and added a larger wing and tail and even more fuel.  Configuration 4 was a new aircraft altogether; a canard-configured hornet intended to lure away members of the then-troubled Eurofighter program.
 

 
None of these proposals ever proceeded, but the spectacular failure of the USN's A-12 program did create a need for some sort of stopgap until the NATF arrived (NATF also failed).  The superhornet was thus created.  Shornet is similar to configuration 3 of the hornet 2000 proposal, but with some further elaborations.  The engines are the new F414, which is based on the F404, but incorporating changes intended for the engines of the A-12 as well as changes made by the Swedes for the gripen.  The latest version of the F414 produces over double the thrust of the YJ101; the engine that the core was originally based on.  The radar is new, additional weapon stations have been added, the LERX have been redesigned to clear up some nagging issues with the vertical stabilizer interacting with the vortices, and the inlets have been redesigned to accommodate the new engines as well as to reduce radar cross section.
 
Since the super hornet is literally the only fixed wing carrier-based aircraft to be designed since the 1970s, it's been forced to do all sorts of other things like tanking and EW.  Thus, the buddy tanking system and the EA-18 Growler.
 
In the meantime, McDonnell Douglass merged with Boeing, which is why the shornet is a Boeing bird now.

You missed the "family" part, didn't you?

I am definitely talking about the Growler. The Prowler is not a Northrop bird, nor is it related to the Fang.

https://www.gao.gov/docket/b-420766.1
LoneStar has filed a protest against the Army, almost certainly about the NGSW.

ADATS, good pic of bradley spaced side skirts 

Slovenia, not Slovakia. 

No. That was offered to Slovenia, not to us. In our case it's tanks. That is officially confirmed. 

Beer=Czechia 
German Idio--uhm I mean politicians and armchair experts proposing ring-exchanges before asking somebody who knows shit= Slovakia 

trollface.jpg

As they continue to fall apart, yes:

Well the A-10 costs about 50% more to fly than the F-16 so...

In addition to that:



 

Rheinmetall is basically in Qld's labor premier's electorate, and has been keenly supported by the Qld premier, as a Qld I have had the impression that Dan Andrews ignored Redback until very recently whereas, Annastacia has strongly supported the Lynx the entire bid.  Fed minister of defense is indeed about 2 electorates away from Rheinmetall, so ready commuting distance, but nothing too special.  To tour the facility would be easy for him, so Lynx is far more real for his reality.
 
The minister of defense could not have avoided noticing the difference in support from the respective state governments for Lynx and Redback.  And would be far more confident that Qld would deliver, closer to on time, and on budget than Vic.   But the bigger issue is brand.  Rheinmetall is strong brand, who is Hanwha?
 
Having said that, by the numbers Redback should have superior ride (rubber band tracks have about double the tension as steel segment tracks, extra road wheel, wider stance, more depth due to suspension not having torsion bars reducing space), so anyone going for ride will immediately prefer redback, Ceteris paribus

No "they" were not.  There are 13 of the buggers 2 were in but I don't know what for.
 
Block 2 is on schedule as far as I know.
 
The gun is fully external to the turret crew space.  The gas issue was to do with the NBC system and hatch seals not allowing full over pressure - now resolved.   It has nothing what so ever to do with gas or chain operated.  Both types make the same volume of gas ex-propellant.  The real issue is if the weapon breeech etc is in the crew space or not.  LANCE weapon is not in the turret crew space.

Well, I think the Army is about to relearn some very silly lessons with NGSW, but one thing I doubt they'll regret is the M157 NGSW-FC.

The pressure isn't a problem in theory, but I have serious reservations about their case head design. I fear we'll start seeing case head separations once it enters service and ammunition production ramps up.

I also don't think the caliber is appropriate for an infantry rifle, and they're going to relearn some old lessons quickly.

 

Okay guess not then, thinking of someone else.

True Velocity definitely should have won.

LOL
LMAO
LOL

Tiger turned out to be a failure , and an obsolete design the day it rolled of the production line. scrap it make something new or get a licence for Apache and make EuroApache if we must.

The Trophy brochure available online mentions "significant" elevation angles.
How close to vertical "significant" means is anybody's guess.
There's nothing kinematically preventing missiles like Javelin from diving vertically (other than perhaps a reduction in range), and it may even be a software-defined parameter, so it's not exactly a question answerable by open sources.

I've got to agree with Ram on the subject of the Strykers. The DVH A1 is basically an all new vehicle, but that's the Army realizing that the requirements they set and therefore the vehicle they got isn't what they actually needed, not the vehicle as delivered being a shitshow and not working.

I wouldn't know, tbh, guns aren't my thing at all.

Panzerhaubitze 2000 was eliminated from the Norwegian SPG competition for not mobile enough (and according to rumors for being too expensive). Initial trials with the vehicle revealed an issue while driving on frozen roads/ice. KMW's solution was to increase the number of snow grousers from 8 to something like 48. Installation took less than an hour and fixed the problems, but that's obviously only a workaround at the expense of the crew's time.
 
Driving in deep snow revealed the downsides of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 greater weight & combat load. The fact that the Leopard 2 hull is already used in various applications by the Norwegian Army suggests that its performance is considered adequate, once the weight is reduced to similar levels.
 
KMW has proposed building new turrets for the German Leopard 2Ax project to reduce weight. Better materials and construction techniques allow reducing the weight of the turret without compromising protection. They also proposed replacing the optical gunner's sight with a purely electronic solution (akin to the Puma's WAO), again reducing weight and improving protection. If the Bundeswehr is really interesting in picking that up, it might enable KMW to make a very attractive offer to Norway aswell.
 
E-Technologie is used on the Leopard 2A4M CAN, their Kodiaks seem to use a different armor solution also designed by KMW (containers fillable with bulk material).
 
At the "recent" interview with the EDR Magazine, KMW's spokesperson suggested interest mostly in anti-KE ERA solutions (likely from DND or GST).
 
It is greater growth potential for the adoption of mission kits. The Norwegian ministry of transportation (that as far as I've heard indirectly set the weight limit) has nothing to say when tanks get deployed abroad. The Norwegian Army used add-on armor solutions in Afghanistan (e.g. on the CV90) that are not used domestically.
 
The K2NO was showcased with the size-reduced Trophy VPS, not the Trophy APS. The VPS does not have the same "combat proven" and "fully qualified and tested by other NATO members" labels as the full size APS.
 
Rheinmetall is not offering exclusive production to Australia in the LAND 400 Phase 3 program and they are also not playing "mid program catch-up". The test integration of the Soucy tracks were planned before testing was started and the trials are all conducted with steel tracks, which is the primary offer by Rheinmetall.
 
They did the same with the LAND 400 Phase 2 program, where different options were showcased on the Boxer CRV (including the Wotan 35 gun and the ADS), while the primary offer remained the initial Boxer CRV prototype with Mauser MK 30/2-ABM. At the time the AMV-35 had a 35 mm Bushmaster III gun.
 
Basically Rheinmetall is saying "if you like any features of our competition, we can add them to our offer". They have done that more than once and will keep doing so.

Ok so apparently there was a bit of an oopsie in the settings which allowed guests (without registration) to not only view but also post in this subforum specifically.
Should be fixed now, so we only get the regular spambots and not this special kind.

Sometimes it's hard to tell spambots from certain types of live human poster.