Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 437
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For the mean time:     Updated Special Armor Locations:                            

AMX Leclerc Series 1 Special Armor distribution in the hull and turret (not including the spaced heavy side skirts). Once the model is complete i will use it to do some vulnerability modelling along t

French 140 mm smoothbore gun firing :      

Just now, Laviduce said:

Thank you for the feedback. I used a variety of sources, including Nexter/GIAT drawings of a Leclerc UAE hybrid and plenty of reference images to generate the models:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

LecXXI_UAE_top.jpg.74e8690eefc19e6f3e693

  Reveal hidden contents

LecXXI_UAE_front.jpg.e6dc68657324b9165a3

 

As well as image references and Dark Labor's work:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

chassis-214-34feb8e

  Reveal hidden contents

chassis-215-34febc8

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Leclerc_WIP_01.png

 

Sorry I didnt know u were the author of it.

I'm not sure about DL 3D rending for front turret but okay

One thing, on S2 the block armor under the VTI is slighly thicker than S1


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chanou said:

Sorry I didnt know u were the author of it.

I'm not sure about DL 3D rending for front turret but okay

One thing, on S2 the block armor under the VTI is slighly thicker than S1


 

That's ok. Constructive feedback is good.

 

You mean the special armor block in front of the gunner's sight has been thickened on the S2 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Laviduce said:

That's ok. Constructive feedback is good.

 

You mean the special armor block in front of the gunner's sight has been thickened on the S2 ?

Yep
Just a bit if you take look at picture
You will find it out on my drive if you still have it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Chanou said:

Yep
Just a bit if you take look at picture
You will find it out on my drive if you still have it ?

Yes, I still have it. I am looking at the images now. It is difficult to see with certainty. I will keep looking. Maybe you can find a specific image or diagram that will confirm more clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
3 hours ago, BaronTibere said:

https://www.nexter-group.fr/en/actualites/nos-dernieres-actualites/nexter-prepares-future-battle-tank-armament.html

 

I also did this while talking with someone else:

  Hide contents

unknown.png?width=292&height=760

 

It would seem to be a similar if not identical case diameter to current 120s and the Rh130. (obviously a good margin of error on those dimensions)

 

It's also a similar pressure according to them, which explains the 10 MJ standard muzzle energy (which is actually inferior to the L/55A1 if I remember right), and scales to just 13MJ... which is barely superior if at all. They seem oddly confident that 13MJ will be enough for the next 50 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

It's also a similar pressure according to them, which explains the 10 MJ standard muzzle energy (which is actually inferior to the L/55A1 if I remember right), and scales to just 13MJ... which is barely superior if at all. They seem oddly confident that 13MJ will be enough for the next 50 years.

They talking maybe bout the energy at impact and not during firing

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chanou said:

They talking maybe bout the energy at impact and not during firing

 

That's possible, but according to Rheinmetall the Rh-M-120 L/55A1 is already a 15MJ muzzle energy gun (technically 14.95MJ, taken from the known 13MJ launch energy of DM-53 out of the L/55 and adding 15% to meet Rheinmetall's claimed 15% energy increase). You would have to lose over 15% of your muzzle energy to have a 13MJ impact energy with a 15MJ shot out of the L/55A1  - and in what circumstances is an APFSDS going to lose 15% of its energy mid flight?

 

I would wager they don't lose 10% of their energy mid flight (other rounds are much draggier and lose more, but energy isn't really important for non-KE rounds).

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Chanou said:

They talking maybe bout the energy at impact and not during firing

Definitely not. That doesn't make any sense, because energies on impact will differ. Gun performance in MJ is practically always measured at the muzzle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DM 53 is 13 MJ at the muzzle - with sabot. For penetrator only it would be about 8,5 MJ at muzzle, and a bit less of impact energy at 2000 m. It seeems that Ascalon gives 10 MJ penetrator's energy (muzzle or 2000 m) from the start.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

That's possible, but according to Rheinmetall the Rh-M-120 L/55A1 is already a 15MJ muzzle energy gun (technically 14.95MJ, taken from the known 13MJ launch energy of DM-53 out of the L/55 and adding 15% to meet Rheinmetall's claimed 15% energy increase).

 

The 15% figure has been quoted for the change from L/44 to L/55 barrel retaining the same ammunition. Muzzle energy is 12.8 MJ for DM53 fired with the L/55 gun.

 

For the L/55A1 gun firing the KE 2020 Neo round, a 20% increase in performance has been projected - leading to 15.36 MJ muzzle energy.

 

10 minutes ago, TWMSR said:

DM 53 is 13 MJ at the muzzle - with sabot. For penetrator only it would be about 8,5 MJ at muzzle, and a bit less of impact energy at 2000 m. It seeems that Ascalon gives 10 MJ penetrator's energy (muzzle or 2000 m) from the start.

 

At the current time, this remains speculation. Nexter has not revealed any specific details regarding the ASCALON concept, not even the caliber/bore diameter (Jon Hawkes initially tweeted that it would be a 140 mm gun, but he later corrected this claim).

 

As stated by Nexter, the 10 MJ muzzle energy are achieved at pressures below the current operational pressures of the 120 mm smoothbore gun family.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

At the current time, this remains speculation. Nexter has not revealed any specific details regarding the ASCALON concept, not even the caliber/bore diameter (Jon Hawkes initially tweeted that it would be a 140 mm gun, but he later corrected this claim).

ASCALON is a general tank ammunition devoted concept. Everybody is talking about the 140mm because nobody’s giving attention to the NEXTER press release. 
ASCALON can be offer in whatever calibre the customer wants. So the point now is to determine the optimum one. It can be 130, 140, 133 or any other figure. Let us remind the beginning of the French CTA. It started at 45mm. It was reduced to 40mm and it’s still a CTA. 

So, the main point to take into account is the French analysis : « more powerful than today’s 120mm can no more be off a classical design. » « Rheinmetall 130mm is doomed ». It means too « the 140mm FTMA can’t be a solution ».

The French communication around the 140mm FTMA was made to save time against a premature decision in favor of the German 130mm. 

 

The battle for the next NATO standard is juste starting. It will be bloody. 
 

And at last, ASCALON is by no means a CTA design. It’s closer to a Supershot one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a direct response to Rhm announcement that they were developing an autoloader based on an "asian design".

 

I think Nexter know that the chances of their 140mm being chosen for the MGCS are slim compared to Rhm's 130mm.

So they are edging their bets by reminding Rhm that as far as autoloader goes they have more know how than them, and choose a scalable (Autoloaded and SCALable Outperforming guN) solution to make sure that it may work with Rhm's gun as well.

 

The fact that Nexter chose a CTA solution is also probably a way to push Rhm out of the munition supply for the MGCS (as Nexter can arguably claim to have more experience on CTA ammo thanks to the 40mm CTAS).

 

But as several person said, there is the fact they seem to think that ammo with a maximal length of 130 cm and 10-13 MJ will be enough for the next 50 years, which is debatable...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Well, lets hope they can produce an actual demonstrator in a more timely fashion than the CTA gun...

I don’t know why but I think Nexter knows its job. 
They are serious in tank barrel and ammo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TWMSR said:

DM 53 is 13 MJ at the muzzle - with sabot. For penetrator only it would be about 8,5 MJ at muzzle, and a bit less of impact energy at 2000 m. It seeems that Ascalon gives 10 MJ penetrator's energy (muzzle or 2000 m) from the start.

 

 

If the DM53 wastes 35% of its total energy on the Sabot, the ammunition team needs to be rounded up and fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

If the DM53 wastes 35% of its total energy on the Sabot, the ammunition team needs to be rounded up and fired.

 

Great idea ;) It is so silly to put parasitic mass into design, why do not use zero-mass sabots instead? And why waste so much energy on muzzle blast? All energy should go into penetrator, it must be easy task.


Rheinmetall-MBT-Gun_02.jpg
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      For those of you who are not familiar with him, Robert Zubrin is an American aerospace engineer and author of some note. He is probably best known for his advocacy of the 'Mars Direct' proposal, although he's also done quite a bit of work in the nuclear spacecraft propulsion field (he's the guy that came up with the NSWR). His wiki page says he's also written on other vaguely political topics, but I'm not familiar with them.
       
       
      Personally, I find his work on spacecraft propulsion highly interesting, and it's good that we've got somebody putting forth cogent ideas for space exploration. However, I feel that some of his ideas are a bit too optimistic, especially in regards to his Mars Direct approach. I feel that it would be more optimal to gain more experience with long term off-planet living in a location such as the moon before proceeding to Mars, while also using that time to mature techniques such as nuclear rockets to actually get to Mars. On a related note, I showed his NSWR paper to a guy I know who has some not insignificant knowledge of nuclear physics, and he was a bit skeptical. Still, in my opinion, it's infinitely better to have somebody be a bit overoptimistic about how well their ideas will work, and keeps push them forward, then a bunch of limp wristed pessimists who are afraid to send anyone beyond LEO because it might cost a few million dollars.

×
×
  • Create New...