Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Military / Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHIR 2 & CHALLENGER 1 MBT
« Last post by Grey Havoc on Today at 01:27:19 am »
The Shir 2 had better NBC protection overall than the Challenger (the poster child for Treasury corner cutting one could argue). Another major difference is that the main gun of the Shir 2 was, if I'm not mistaken, intended to be the L11A7, complete with an Electro Slag Refined Barrel. The Challenger 1 had to make do with the L11A5, which caused more than a few problems.

EDIT: Technically speaking, the IFCS was developed (or, arguably, downgraded) into the Challenger's Computer Sighting System. It in turn was significantly different from the CSS developed for the Khalid, all due to yet more ill-advised 'efficiencies' by HM Treasury and the MOD.
2
Military / Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHIR 2 & CHALLENGER 1 MBT
« Last post by PaulMM (Overscan) on Today at 01:10:06 am »
The Shir-2 was intended to use advanced "Chobham" type armour - then codenamed "BURLINGTON" - as material at the National Archives shows. The version for Shir-2 was codenamed "PAGEANT" but it's clear from comments in the files this was really a ruse so the British could tell the American's that the Shir-2 didn't use "BURLINGTON" armour with a straight face.
3
Naval Projects / Re: PA NG - next gen French Aircraft carrier program
« Last post by Hood on Today at 01:05:15 am »
It will be interesting to see what aircraft they choose for PA NG. If a new carrier is built and ready around 2025, then it places it in the same ballpark timeframe as SCAF. And adding naval capability to SCAF will probably need to be decided sooner rather than later.
4
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Blohm und Voss P.185
« Last post by Arjen on Today at 12:25:12 am »
I once read about the Corsair - forgot where - that the gull wing attached at right angles to the fuselage, causing cleaner airflow around the wing root than would have been the case with a low mounted straight wing.
5
Military / Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHIR 2 & CHALLENGER 1 MBT
« Last post by Light Blue Job on Today at 12:21:15 am »
The Shir 2 and Challenger had identical 1200hp CV12 engines both coupled to TN37 gear box. The Shir 2 Fire Control was the same Marconi IFCS introduced on the Chieftain and the Challenger. The sighting systems are different. The Challenger 1 had TOGS when eventually fitted. The Shir 2 had the Pilkington PE/Condor Day/Night Sight as fitted on the Shir 1/Khalid MBT. Other than the sight, I canít find much different between the Shir 2 and Challenger 1. It seems strange then that the FV numbers were changed if there was not much change in the design. FV4030/3 vs FV4030/4. Did we fit a different Chobham armour to the Shir 2? Obviously theres not much info on the thickness of tank armour post Chieftain and books with info on the Shir programme are pretty none existant.
6
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Blohm und Voss P.185
« Last post by Kuno on Yesterday at 10:18:10 pm »
Flitzer's aircraft profile was posted today in a Facebook-Group... as usual the origin of the prifile was not shown/cut away (at least the posted did not pretend it to be its onw work).

Anyhow - it made me aware of this thread in this forum (where else would I find it...)

Two questions, if I am allowed:

A) Above original (?) drawings appear to not show a fully glazed cockpit, only the forward section, less than half seems to be glazed to me

B) Normally if an aircraft has a "gull wing", then the reason is to keep the legs of the undercarriage short whilst still having enough ground clearance for the propeller (examples are the Ju 87 and the "Corsair") - here the "gull wing" brings the propeller even closer to the ground... whould could be seen as a reason to design this aircraft with a "gull wing"? 
7
Military / Re: F-22s may have been lost as a result of Hurricane Michael
« Last post by JeffB on Yesterday at 09:48:31 pm »
Out of curiosity, why did people not worry about Michael turning into a hurricane? Are tropical storms too common to generally take seriously?

It revved up from TS to hurricane unusually fast, is how I remember it being discussed. Storms are funny. Predictive models usually do pretty well but sometimes they don't get it right in the end.

The storms pick up energy when they pass over warm water.  Predicting exactly how warm the surface of a section of ocean is going to be is not an exact science and so the storms can occasionally surprise us.


Suddenly had a vision of future air force transports converted to flying ice makers and seeding the oceans ahead of big storms with ice cubes. (Pat. Pend. Ha!)
 
8
Army Projects / Re: M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 09:35:46 pm »
I wonder why the US Army is suffering so badly from NIH Syndrome?

Because they're smart?

Possibly.  However, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.

What evidence?  Do tell.

Mmmm, the F-22 versus F-23 shenanigans.  The littoral ships controversy. The MBT70 debacle. The M2 Bradly armour problems.   Going further back, you have the M60 GPMG, the M14, the M16, the SPIW debacle, the ACR debacle, need I go on?  There many, many examples of programmes that didn't work out for the US miltiary - partly because of politics and partly because of incompetence.

Aside from the MBT70 those are debatable and Germany shared the blame there. Killing off your own industrial base and buying foreign, for big ticket items, is idiocy of the highest order. YMMV.
9
Military / Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Yesterday at 08:04:36 pm »
Using common chassis and components with the MBT would immediately raise the question of "how heavy and well armored do you want your MBT to be" and I don't think the Army is prepared to decide yet after so many false starts.

The US Army is a beast with many heads, it would appear.

It is quite willing to adopt removable armour modules for airborne tanks but appears to dislike the idea for MBTs for some reason.  I wonder why?

You do realise that the whole idea of using an MBT chassis for an MICV is that it protects the infantry as well as the crew in the MBT are?

10
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Fairchild M-185F
« Last post by RAP on Yesterday at 07:30:23 pm »
Photo from old Aviation Week of a model the M-185F.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10