https://www.janes.com/article/84297/us-navy-considering-re-introduction-of-sub-harpoon

Quote

US Navy considering re-introduction of Sub-Harpoon

The US Navy (USN) is looking at the re-introduction of the submarine-launched Boeing UGM-84D Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missile after a successful live fire demonstration at the ‘Rim of the Pacific’ (‘RIMPAC’) 2018 exercise.

Harpoon is really getting old, it's looking like a missile version of the B-52

1 hour ago, Peasant said:

Is German tank inferiority in France a myth, overblown, or real?

 

Pz II, 38t, Pz I, (and heavier) Pz III, are more mobile (in terms of fuel range) than their French counterparts?

 

Why does the Pz III get such a bad rep in wehraboo circles? 

Anyone who thinks a tiger 2 was a good tank is bound to favour the impenetrable-even-after-being-surrounded french white elephants over tanks that could actually win battles

Rocket fuel (hydrazine) is used to stop boilers rusting, by scavenging the oxygen in the heated water

10 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

  

It was designed to be cheaper primarily. There was no technical reason the gun-in-hull design was "better".

 

Also my post was more generally about all of the German gun-in-hull designs, not just the STuG. 

Mid-30's german motivation was different to german motivation during the war - the other casement designs and late stugs were intended to make the most out of obsolete chassis, but the 1935 stug was intended to provide a mobile 3" (at least more mobile than the horse-drawn stuff used in the last war) that was no higher than an average soldier (so it wouldn't stand out). The osprey book is pretty clear on it being designed to fill a certain role, rather than to make the most from the Pz3 chassis (with a Pz3 gun tank being very respectable for the era), although I haven't read my copy for a while so can't quote page numbers to support my point atm.

21 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

  

In both cases the purpose of those vehicles was to put as many guns in the field as possible using existing production lines. Neither the Panzer III nor the T-70 could fit their respective guns inside a turret, so they each had to have a gun-in-hull design. The other assault guns for each country were the product of the same design pressure.

 

After the war, the US and USSR produced only a handful of gun-in-hull types. The ASU-57 and ASU-85 and the M56 Scorpion were all constrained not by existing production lines, but by the need to be light enough to be air dropped from the cargo aircraft of the time - in each case the vehicle could only weigh a handful of tons.

The original stug was custom designed to provide mobile artillery support to fast moving infantry (after all, the original stug gun fit in the Pz3 turret). Later on the stug turned into an effective way to get a long 75mm into the field, but stug is a thoroughbred mobile artillery for infantry support

1 hour ago, skylancer-3441 said:

Picking 2nd percentile troops is getting pretty desperate

On 10/27/2018 at 9:39 PM, Alzoc said:

 

I guess they propose it as an upgrade on the Scorpène (possibly as a retrofit?) drawing from the experience they've got on the Barracuda:

 

Old Scorpène:

 

 

Barracuda/Shortfin-Barracuda:

 

Though that does raise the question of why they didn't directly copied the new propeller.

Open propulsors are meant to be a bit more efficient, which should be useful for an SSK (the extra wetted area of the shroud means more drag). It's interesting to see someone choose to not use a ducted propulsor for a better reason than "it's more expensive than turning the handle on the old design codes for open propellers"

On 10/27/2018 at 9:39 PM, Alzoc said:

 

Supposedly this shape is hydrodynamically more efficient and thus stealthier:

 

Minimising surface area is the main driver for minimising drag underwater, so that means circular cross sections and ducts on propellers are only as long as they have to be - I suspect the extensions on the leading edge of the ducts for the propulsors aren't worth their area

Wot, no shrouded propulsor? That cover is far too irregular to hide a duct

5 hours ago, A. T. Mahan said:

So, something nobody's mentioned is that Chinese air-launched cruise missile threats are nowhere near as dangerous as those posed by the Soviets -- they've got fewer, slower, shorter-ranged launch platforms with smaller, slower missiles, and the US Navy developed extremely effective methods of countering the threat of land-based air power during the Global War Game series -- they determined that the more aggressively a carrier group is fought, as long as there are two or three mutually supporting CV(N)s present, even in confined waters like those of the Norwegian Sea, the more likely it is to survive -- the number of missile carriers and missiles is comparatively limited and the adversary is unable to produce more in a timely manner, while the USN can fairly quickly replace lost aircraft and aircrews, and the quality of the US Navy's integrated air defense system is second-to-none. Furthermore, the USN has only improved it's air defense capabilities since the late-1980s, with the wider fielding of Aegis-equipped ships and the Mark 41 GMLS. The DDG-51 and ESSM revolutionized the US Navy, and ESSM Block II will further advance the ability of the average naval vessel to kill air threats. 

 

Oh, also, if you try to fight a light carrier like a CdG or Kuznetsov or what have you like it's a fleet carrier, you'll get killed. The sortie generation rate, speed, and sustainability of the lighter carriers is disproportionately smaller than the cost savings, to the point of breaking the price-performance curve in the wrong direction (IE they have a relatively very high price for their decidedly lackluster performance).  

2-3 mutually supporting supercarriers is probably in the top 10 largest airforces by numbers of deployable fast jets

Light tanks for scouting shouldn't be trying to prepare firing positions, they should find the enemy and then get to somewhere where the enemy isn't. Turret means you can shoot backwards, which is a plus (maybe archer was onto something?). Mobile artillery for infantry support is a different thing (stug, SU-76 as Toxn pointed out).

On 10/31/2018 at 1:08 AM, Peasant said:

True you could not stabilize the gun

If it elevates you can put the M3A1's stabiliser on it*

*some assembly required

Quote

Kanev, who lives in self-imposed exile in Europe, told The Associated Press he uncovered the identities by using databases purchased on the black market from Moscow police, traffic police or security agents. He said he cross-checked them with open sources and discussions with security sources. Other Russian journalists have described using similar methods.

Getting people to sell semi-innocuous stuff like car registration databases seems to be a very effective tactic for finding russian agents

On 10/23/2018 at 6:39 PM, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

 

This is fucked up. 

 

I post this to say that campus PD is a bunch of ineffectual bullshit. Heart goes out to her family.

 

People are shitters.

Jeez, it's a shame the perp offed himself before the cops could get him.

Why do US universities have their own police? Anything like this in the UK would be the responsibility of the proper police

The resonances in the shafts would have been an interesting problem to deal with

Direct vision blocks? in 2018? The swing down cover is cute, I guess it's just there to stop the glass from getting cracked by rocks and such?

There's a lot of interest in hydraulic transmissions for wind turbines, although I don't know how widespread they are. That's very high torque low speed continuous-ish operation (probably easily continuous over several hours, which is more than long enough for heat to be an issue).

Check out the third pic - I haven't seen an open stator/rotor combo on a sub before, I like it

I've also seen this concept from euronaval 2018:

I would like some of their drugs

I'm not convinced by AIP systems, they're a bit naff (enough for a couple weeks at ~4kn per janes, and then you need to go back to port to refuel) and strong oxidisers on submarines have a long history of killing people - I can see why aus wouldn't want one on their subs. Li batteries would also add a lot to the cost, you could easily be looking at hundreds of tonnes of batteries on board (and that'll need replacing in a few years).

IMO a big RTG is a much superior option for low speed, if you can't get a full SSN, but it would cost a lot

10 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

It's not showing up until the 2030s, but it's not too late to start building hype for the Virginia replacement; https://news.usni.org/2018/10/19/analysis-of-navy-shipbuilding-plan-hints-at-return-to-blue-sea-great-power-competition?fbclid=IwAR0tKJVKVAQu-2OKocVkRG_6t9zKDX7JY3vZaZMqXdPy_39_SEZq64Y6Dn8

 

At least at this early stage, this new sub looks more like a Seawolf successor than a simple Virginia improvement (though the article does mention that the new boat will replace the Block VII Virginias). I'm curious about whether it will use the S1B like Columbia (S1B-2?), or a new S1F reactor.

 

Also linked in that article is that the USN is considering SSGNs; https://news.usni.org/2017/11/02/navy-considering-mid-block-virginia-class-upgrades-ssgn-construction-late-2030s

 

Quote

 

However, the new SSN(X) will take the place of a Block 7 Virginia-class, and the planned design appears to prize increased torpedo storage over the VPM vertical launch capability. The new SSN(X) plans do not include VPM capability. When compared to the Block V Virginia-class submarines – the first built with the VPM – the CBO states the new SSN(X) will have 25 more torpedoes and Tomahawk missiles in the torpedo room.

No vertical launch at all? Odd, I don't see how space for a VPM precludes ASW capability

The "modern batteries" dig is a little harsh, given that AFAIK japan is the only nation to improve on lead-acid (and then only recently):

https://www.janes.com/article/83625/japan-launches-first-soryu-class-submarine-equipped-with-lithium-ion-batteries

The whole procurement is a joke though, they're costing twice what an astute boat does

On 10/18/2018 at 6:20 PM, Xlucine said:

 

The F-35 behind them has a paveway on one of the wing pylons

And a day later:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-bombs-dropped-by-f-35-jets-launched-from-hms-queen-elizabeth/

Quote

First bombs dropped by F-35 jets launched from HMS Queen Elizabeth

The first bombs have been dropped from F-35 jets conducting trials on board HMS Queen Elizabeth, say the Royal Navy, say the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy say in a release, the inert GBU-12 Paveway II laser guided precision bombs were dropped off the east coast of the USA. Adding the 500lb bombs to the jets for take-off has enabled the trials teams to see how the jets behave when carrying various weights, gathering crucial test data.

COMMONWEALTH T26 USER GROUP GO. Are the canucks using S2087 like the UK & Aus, or do they have their own solution? A common sonar system over 3/5 eyes sounds handy.

This takes the number of T26s and derivatives to 32, which is significantly more than FREMM (unless the US buys it)

13 hours ago, Scolopax said:

I derped on the Koalitsiya, but I figure there is still a compromise on armor amounts.

Don't forget the BMPT, that has 3 crew in the hull and is more likely to be designed to a similar armour basis as a gun tank

1 hour ago, Krieger22 said:

 

The F-35 behind them has a paveway on one of the wing pylons

I wonder how big the cab le is between the seeker and autopilot? Obvious solution is to stack the missile seeker-fins-autopilot to get the fins closer to the nose, so there must be a good reason they didn't just do that

On 10/15/2018 at 1:57 PM, LoooSeR said:

...NoClip made a documentary about development of DooM 2016, with footage from working prototypes of "Call Of Doom". 

Ooh, I hadn't heard of that one - thanks

(should be the playlist for the whole documentary)

"rolling". It looked pretty vertical, I guess they'll play with higher speeds once they're more comfortable with it