Dragonstriker

All these "assault" belt feds are a bit of a joke. I am glad they're trying, at least.

*whelmed noises*

HOLOCAUST DENIER REMOVED!

Have you read the paper I co-wrote on the subject? http://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ARES-Research-Report-No.-7-Cased-Telescoped-Ammunition.pdf

The propellant in Textron's CT ammunition is heavily compressed, and as far as I know that's how they achieve consistent seating. According to Kori Phillips (you can read my interviews with her here, here, and here) their ammunition is somewhat more accurate than regular Army ammunition so it seems to work ok.

Textron's design uses a rising chamber. You can see a reasonable approximation of how it may work here: 
 This is partially based on the ARES design, to which it is related.

You can see how the machine gun works here:
 
 

It's possible that Ajax (or just turreted scout variant) has been cancelled...
British Defence journalists:
 

 
 

Is this 100 percent confirmed? What a sh*t show

I missed this when I first went through it, but this old canard is beloved of the Military Reform crowd (when they were busy bashing on supposed survivability shortcomings of the M1) and is just as wrong now as it was in the 1980s.
 
A flash point is not a general indicator of flammability.  It refers to something very specific; it is the lowest temperature at which fumes of a liquid will ignite if exposed to an ignition source.  JP-8 has a lower flash point than some diesel fuel, but because JP-8 has much more precisely formulated than diesel fuel is.  The flash point of commercially available diesel fuel is a wide range that straddles the flash point of JP-8.  JP-8 and diesel just aren't that different; they're very slightly different average molecular weights of hydrocarbon, and JP-8 has a number of additives which mainly improve shelf life.  Look at a destructive distillation diagram for petroleum cracking; jet fuel is based on C10 to C16 while diesel is C14 to C20.  They're just not that different.
Moreover, flash point is not generally indicative of flammability.  It is a component of flammability, but it refers to a specific circumstance under which ignition can occur; namely when there are fumes present and the fumes are exposed to an ignition source.
 
And the fumes are exposed to oxygen.
 
The fact that diesel fuel usually ends up burning when military vehicles are hit does not prove that the fuel was the source of the fire.  There's plenty of other shit on a tank that burns, like lubricants, hydraulic fluid (which was enough of a fire hazard that it was re-formulated after the great 1973 Arab-Israeli rematch), and of course the ammo.
 
I don't see how you jump from the idea that anything that can penetrate an MBT will automatically vaporize and ignite JP-8, especially when the availability of oxygen is in question.

Ah that is correct. But that's because the engine bay doesn't have an AFSS. 
As for the AFSS in the crew compartment:

Which follows on to this:
      
tl;dr:
- Where there's an AFSS the chance of a sustained fire is zero.
- Sustained fires can only happen in locations where there is no AFSS and where there the fuel is actually in a form in which it can form a sustained fire.
 
And with that in mind the only place where sustained fires can happen are the REFC, LEFC and EHY. All of which are in the engine bay.
 
Furthermore, all this is based on calculated probabilities, with the actual calculation not mentioned in the paper:

 
Also, only steel/aluminium armours were considered in the paper, for as far as I can see. While currently we obviously have NERA and ERA which will result in different terminal ballistics.
 
Reading further on in the paper, there is some data that's outright wrong, based on actual tests I've attended. But for (hopefully) obvious reasons I can't discuss the tests nor the results of the tests. And the more I read this paper, the more I'm raising my eyebrows. Here are a few quotes:
(!!!)(!!)  
...these aren't things I want to read in a report.

It must have been like shooting down poorly trained Luftwaffe conscript pilots shoved into a flying Kraut death trap with less than 10 hours flight time.

The P-40Q would have been far and away the Luftwaffe's best plane if it had been German.

Here at Sturgeon's House, it is our raison d'etre to bust the myth of Teutonic superiority surrounding German military equipment, industry, structure and strategy in World War 2 and beyond. As such, it surprised me that we didn't already have a thread devoted specifically to Nazi aviation. 
Until now.
For the time being, I intend to keep this introduction very short with only a short editorial on how it has always amazed me that Nazi Germany, with such a head start in terms of military spending prior to the start of hostilities, and with the entire resources of Europe at its disposal, lagged not only behind the United States in aircraft production and quality but also the island nation of Great Britain which spent the first third of the war under a U-boat blockade as well as the Soviet Union which either outright lost or had to move the preponderance of its factories, workers and manufacturing equipment. 
That is until one actually looks at how German industry worked.
This silent film shows the production of the Messerschmidt Bf 108 "Taifun", built in Bavaria, in the 1930s. And while Germany had not ratcheted up to wartime production and presumably more efficient manufacturing shortcuts were eventually adopted, there is little reason to doubt that the basic manufacturing techniques portrayed in this film were still used throughout the war. 
In the film you'll see the lack of a modern production line. Airplanes and their parts were built in place, often from the ground up. You'll see workers lazily wandering back and forth between parts bins as they lovingly, handcrafted these machines, fitting each part into place. Presumably skilled workers will finish installing a part and then stop what they are doing in order to physically pick up a part of the airplane in order to move it to another work station.
At the 1:20 mark, a worker uses a standard bandsaw to cut a part, using his Mark 1 eyeball as the only calibration instead of having a jig in place to make the cut.
At the 2:00 mark, superior Teutonic craftsman use sledgehammers of the like wielded by Thor himself to pound sheet metal body panels into shape.
Workers stoop and fetch pieces of sheet metal and push them on handcarts around the factory. Elsewhere, you'll see the same worker stop one project at a work station to jump to the next in order to accomplish a different task. Everywhere you see waste, inefficiency and sloth. The Bavarian Aircraft Factory more resembles a community college metal shop class than a plant meant to supply war machinery to the most powerful military on the planet at that time.
All in all, it is a wonder that the Germans were able to build as many planes as they did if this news footage is any indication of their manufacturing prowess.
 

U.S. Ordnance M2A2N with the new HMG-M softmount from Rheinmetall Norway. It will replace the older .50 cals (the oldest ones are from 1940) in the Norwegian Armed Forces.
 

Why are you wasting time on giving Sparky the time of day

^This.
 
Adding: people are generally pretty bad at coming up with something new, but pretty amazing at recreating something when they discover that it is possible. Often there is just a simple 'trick' to the thing that needs to be transmitted for the whole concept become viable. Chainmail was a good example for me, as I tried for a long time to come up with a usable weave without success before stumbling upon an approach to laying out 4:4 weave by stringing the first links up on a line. Ditto the concept of tillering - you only need to know about the idea of distributing stress evenly along the bow by thinning the limbs and everything else clicks into place.
 
Having the understanding that the Romans had all the tech needed to (for instance) make a primitive electrical grid, one has the strong suspicion that there are a huge number of other potentially game-changing inventions out there somewhere that we could pull off today if only we could think of them. At the same time, technologies tend to need the correct supporting infrastructure (including social) to become widely available and useful. So perhaps we're just not at the correct point for antigravity or whatever to make it.

My training as an academic proves to be my Achilles' heel again! Speaking of which, allow me to go into detail about the origins and metaphysical underpinnings of the myth of Achilles, as well as a brief discussion of its relevance in the modern discourse surrounding socio-political movements...

It is high but most engineers are not very good.
 

Believe me, as the designer of the F-7 Shinden, I am no stranger to these.
 

To a certain extent, yes! Or, he's very conservative, perhaps. But this is a formula for people who are not designing their own guns, but still want to make these sorts of assumptions.
 

Distance between bolt locked and bolt unlocked positions.

For the record, I just finished the F-8 Bearcat, which is a shortened version of the F-12 Archangel, and the ratio it ended up with was 1.925:1. However, Bearcat is not a scaled down Archangel, but more of an "Archangel that ran headfirst into a wall". So it retains the same bolt extension, bolt thrust parameters, etc.

You can see them compared here:

You're an idiot.
Hey, it worked! I do feel better about your idiocy.
 
Well, I actually thought you'd be sensible enough to cut and run. Apparently I'm cursed to overestimate people on the internet.

No it doesn’t. No F-35 model has any CAT 1A deficiencies at present. Are you surprised to learn that POGO and the media either don’t bother to differentiate CAT 1A from 1B deficiencies (the program office’s metrics) or use the Air Force’s definition of CAT 1 that is a lot broader and includes less serious deficiencies than those that represent a serious risk to the aircraft? 
 
Are you purposefully trying to conduct an impossible analysis to justify your preconceived notion that the F-35 is crap? Can you go back in time and apply today’s level of oversight and risk averseness to legacy programs?
 
I’ve already given you more of my time than you appear to deserve. You don’t seem to have realistic expectations or a realistic frame of reference. So rather than submit a few hundred FOIA request hoping to get that nugget of releasable info that will surely, surely change your mind, I’m going to enjoy the rest of my day. 

 
 

Feel free to show you are just pretending to be retarded and actually cite these 'official' sources.

Known idiot wanders in from another forum, spews decade-debunked bullshit, and then whines about being treated poorly. News at 11.

You continue to be a fucking idiot.

It's funny how you completely failed to notice the thread's title is ironic, or that nobody likes you because you're a dolt.

"we have an inferior product and cannot compete"