Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Army Projects / Re: Sentinel ACIV
« Last post by Abraham Gubler on Today at 11:45:10 pm »
Quote from: Basilisk link=topic=8514.msg290729#msg290729
I agree with you, there are so very many things wrong it those videos they are of limited usefulness.

I did get a chuckle when he said the external fuel tank isn't connected to the internal tank, when even as he says this you can see what appears to be the perished remains of a rubber hose going through the engine cover to connect to the internal fuel tank.

I can't say I watched all of the vid just the start of part 1 and part 2 up until the electrics comment. I was turned off immediately by the smug rejection of what he labeled as a 'chute' on the turret top that went to a port below the turret. He couldn't understand what it was for based on his intuition so rejected it immediately. The worst of post modern anti expertise. He never asked why would such a useless feature be fitted therefore it must be something else. Just assumed the Australian tank engineers wanted an under armour chute from the outside top of the turret to the outside top of the hull. And were therefore complete idiots deserving of his scorn.

It was pretty clear to me that this chute is most likely an air vent for the turret. Fresh cool air in the bottom and hot fumy air out the top. With, most likely, a hard to see from outside vent in the interior side of the chute. It even has a freakin grill over the top of it. Like every air vent everywhere.

Quote
Not completely true, during testing the tank's traverse didn't work very well beyond about 16 degrees however it was also apparent that there was something wrong with that particular tank. They got a second tank and it worked just fine at an angle of 30 degrees.

Hoisted by own petard. Here I am complaining about someone elses ignorant compaints and I do the same from some half remembered factoid. My apologies.
2
Army Projects / Re: Sentinel ACIV
« Last post by Abraham Gubler on Today at 11:30:36 pm »
Here's a very bad scan (not my fault) of a blue print of the planned AC3 production tank. Has quite  different turret shape to the AC1.

That's a very interesting drawing I've not seen before are there other views and can copies be obtained? I'm looking to build a Sentinel I, III & IV as soon as I can collect the information.

The torsion bar suspension looks remarkably like that trialled on the Sherman right down to the rear idler mounting arrangement



Sorry just noticed this post. If I had more imagery I would post it here for sure. There is no doubt a lot more data on the AC program in the ANAO files in Melbourne. But I'm 1,000 miles away and I'm no Proclaimer.
3
Honestly, without access to a lot of sensitive test data, there's really no way to know.

The concept is better. That is if it can defeat the target (see sensitive test data). Intercepting the incoming missle further away theoritically gives you a chance to re-engage if your intercept is unsuccessful. The further away the interception the more likely the missile or parts of it won't hit your ship and cause damage which could be mission critical. Also using the 76mm as an ASMD capability is more deck space/volume/mass/cost efficient that having seperate systems for multiple roles. The 76MM is also an effective ASuW, AAW and NGS weapon. Those Horizon class DDGs with three OTO guns would be very lethal in a littoral knife fight with FACs and the like. Compared to say a German DDG with one 76mm and two RAM launchers.
4
Theoretical and Speculative Projects / Re: Jet Submarine of 1949
« Last post by covert_shores on Today at 11:08:46 pm »
AIP submarines of that time used chemical reactions to create motive force, but then drove a propeller. E.g. HTP.

There was at least one chemical engine tested on a Royal Navy minisub in 1960s. Again it didn't function like a jet engine.

Aerojet scientists were very credible so this cannot be completely nonsensical, from a science perspective, but I cannot imagine why they needed the intake to be jet like. There's more than enough water for the reaction?


7
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 09:09:28 pm »
Carter: Investment Shows Commitment to Nuke Forces

—Brian Everstine9/27/2016

Defense Secretary Ash Carter speaks at Minot AFB, North Dakota, Sept. 26, 2016. DOD photo.

​Minot AFB, N.D.—Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Monday kicked off a multi-day, multiple base visit to the USAF nuclear enterprise, telling B-52 and Minuteman III crews at Minot AFB, N.D., that while their mission isn't highly visible to the public, those in the Defense Department will place increased emphasis on its health in the face of increasing aggression from nuclear powers abroad. “All together, you are part of something vital and special,” Carter told a gathering of Minot personnel on Monday. “After all, there's a lot that goes into this mission—because while deterrence may seem like a simple, even elegant concept, it rests on a complicated, human-intensive, and technology-intensive process.” A healthy nuclear deterrence is dependent on how it is perceived, and if potential adversaries believe the US nuclear triad is healthy and credible. “How we deter cannot be static; rather it must adapt as threats evolve, while continuing to preserve strategic stability—reinforcing nuclear restraint, rather than inviting competition or attack,” Carter said. The US has underinvested in its nuclear arsenal since the end of the Cold War, a trend the administration is seeking to end with the Fiscal 2017 budget. Previously, the Defense Department spent about $15 billion per year as a “modest investment in basic sustainment and operations.” The budget request calls for $19 billion for 2017, which is part of $108 billion over the next five years to “sustain and recapitalize” the nuclear force.

FIP Beginning to be Felt at Nuke Bases

—Brian Everstine9/27/2016

​Minot AFB, N.D.—Defense Secretary Ash Carter's miniature tour of the Air Force's nuclear infrastructure kicked off at Minot AFB, N.D., a base that is home to two legs of the nuclear triad and has seen modest improvements under the service's push to revamp its nuclear community. Decades of underinvestment in the nuclear community led to out-of-date facilities and related low morale in the nuclear career fields. Since Air Force Global Strike Command’s Force Improvement Program launched in February 2014, there's been increased spending on quality of life improvements and infrastructure that is needed. During a speech to airmen at Minot, Carter highlighted these investments: a repaired runway, expanded childcare options, 24/7 fitness centers. “It's created new incentive pay and special assignment duty pay for military personnel,” Carter said. “It's helped increase locality pay rates for civilians. And importantly, it reflects how we're taking steps to replace the helicopters that help ensure our ICBMs are secure.” Airmen with the 91st Security Forces Group here have seen a few increases in quality of life since the FIP, including new Operational Camouflage Pattern uniforms, Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights for M-4s, and improved plates and protective vests. Security forces airmen have seen increased specialty pay, since they spend extended amounts of times deployed to missile alert facilities across the service's sprawling missile bases. There is still room for some quality of life improvements, especially on some things that aren't really considered on the policy level. Lt. Col. Jared Nelson, commander of the 742nd Missile Squadron at Minot, said one improvement he'd like to see is new chairs in the missile facilities. The missile facilities, and cushioning of the chairs, dates back more than 50 years.

A Cultural Change, 85 Feet Underground

—Brian Everstine9/27/2016

​Minot AFB, N.D.—The biggest change from the Air Force's attempt to revitalize the morale of its the nuclear community hasn't been money spent on new equipment, it has been the change away from intense inspections to more personal accountability, airmen in the service's missile fields say. Lt. Col. Jared Nelson, commander of the 742nd Missile Squadron at Minot AFB, N.D., said since the move away from regular, intense inspections where airmen felt pressured to always post perfect scores, he has seen an improvement in both morale and overall performance of his airmen. “We're better today,” Nelson said. The Air Force's missileers for years felt intense pressure to receive perforce scores on inspections, a culture that reached a breaking point in 2014 when almost 100 missileers at Malmstrom AFB, Mont., were caught cheating in their proficiency exams. After that incident broke, the Air Force began a grassroots effort to review morale issues in the nuclear community, called the Force Improvement Program, that focused on what airmen said needed to be changed. One of the first changes was a move away from constant testing and inspections, to pass/fail tests and a system where airmen can use more personal accountability to track their proficiency. Airmen are less stressed about the exams, and in turn have been able to focus on improving in their jobs. About “85 percent of what was wrong” with morale has been fixed by issues raised in the FIP, Nelson said.

A Changing Nuclear Threat

—Brian Everstine9/27/2016

​Minot AFB, N.D.—While there isn't a looming threat of a nuclear exchange between global powers, the threat of nuclear attacks is still high and in different ways that the US must be prepared for, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Monday. While visiting missileers and B-52 crews at Minot AFB, N.D., Carter said there is a reality that potential nuclear adversaries, such as Russia or North Korea, could take an “unwise resort to smaller but still unprecedentedly terrible attacks” as a means to coerce a conventionally superior opponent to back off or abandon an ally during a crisis. This threat is growing following recent activity by Russia, such as its 2014 incursion into Ukraine. “We cannot allow that to happen, which is why we're working with our allies in both regions to innovate and operate in new ways that sustain deterrence and continue to preserve strategic stability,” Carter said during a troop event at Minot.

In Europe, Carter said the US and NATO is “refreshing” its nuclear playbook to integrate conventional and nuclear deterrence “to ensure we plan and train like we'd fight.” This includes the basing of B-61 and dual-capable fighter aircraft at bases across the continent. “Moscow's recent saber-rattling and building of new nuclear weapons systems raises serious questions about its leaders' commitment to strategic stability,” Carter said. The US needs to make needed investment now, because while the military was avoiding serious spending on its nuclear infrastructure since the end of the Cold War, other countries have increased spending. “We didn't build new types of nuclear weapons or delivery systems for the last 25 years, but others did, at the same time that our allies in Asia, the Middle East, and NATO did not, so we must continue to sustain our deterrence.” While Carter called out Russia and North Korea for its unprofessional actions, he said some countries have “shown responsible behavior,” including India, Pakistan, and China. Iran, even, has constrained its nuclear aspirations under the recent nuclear accord that “as long as it continues to be implemented, will verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”
8
Aerospace / Re: Air Force Could Pursue Stealthy Aerial-Refueling Tanker
« Last post by Sundog on Today at 08:16:34 pm »
It seems to me that this could be one for NG to have the advantage on, by modifying the B-21 into a tanker. It may not be ideal for the specs, but if they can offer it at substantially lower cost due to using a common airframe, since it will be going into production, it would also lower operational costs. BTW, was it Northrop that demonstrated the unmanned hose and drogue refueling technique?
9
Aerospace / Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX UAV Programs
« Last post by Sundog on Today at 08:10:43 pm »
So they (NG and GA) do get a chance at it. Of course, removing the LO spec's I think also gives General Atomics a better shot at the contract as well, in terms of experience. Hopefully, since LO isn't involved anymore, we'll get to see all four designs that end up being submitted.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10