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.
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
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.
4
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!)
 
5
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?

6
Aerospace / Re: Aerion SBJ
« Last post by NUSNA_Moebius on Yesterday at 07:14:17 pm »
That bypass is huge for something expected to be supersonic.  Can the special mixing nozzle somehow be adding energy to the bypass flow via entrainment of some sorts?  Maybe there is a variable bypass system GE is keeping hush hush, or the double fan stage actually is producing the bypass air velocities needed to deliver supersonic achieving thrust, which may require some advanced convergent shaping.  The use of a carbon fibre outer casing might be a clue to the kinds of pressures (or technically lack there of taking Bernoulli into account) it's expected to endure with two powerful fan stages driving such an insane amount of bypass air, at supersonic RPMs like some high bypass turbofans do at takeoff power.  The noise is of course contained within the casing.

I think the secret is the bypass shoving air down fast enough (read: fast) so that the hot core mixing can keep it energized enough to maintain fast mixed flows.  It explains the special core exhaust nozzle shaping.  Just look at how deep the exhaust grooves get, almost touching the nozzle cone.  What I assume is the slower bypass air flowing along the core casing is being given the most entrenchment into the exhaust so it's given the most exhaust energy.  The top of the nozzle tips almost look like they're trying to keep the outer bypass flow from mixing too much, or it could be for efficient bypass flow for subsonic flight.

Too bad GE will probably keep it secret for the meantime.  But it's quite 'purdy  B)
7
Military / Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Last post by Colonial-Marine on Yesterday at 07:07:22 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.
8
Military / Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHIR 2 & CHALLENGER 1 MBT
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Yesterday at 07:04:35 pm »
Didn't the Shir and the Challenger have different engines/gear boxes?   I also believe their FCS were different.
9
Wasn't Lockheed Martin prohibited from lobbying for continued F-22 production at some point?

I'm not saying Robert Gates had a Dick Cheney-esque vendetta against the F-22 like Cheney with the F-14 but it does sometimes look that way.
10
Military / Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Yesterday at 07:03:17 pm »
There are many who'd argue a MBT-weight IFV is too heavy but considering that you already have to be equipped for those MBTs in logistics matters perhaps those concerns are overstated. They will admittedly be more expensive than a lighter design however.

Not necessarily more expensive.  Economies of scale come into play.  When you order a thousand of one vehicle, it costs usually "x".   When you order two thousand, it usually costs "x+0.5".  When you order three thousand, it costs usually "x+2.5" and so on down the track.   Your logistics costs are reduced as well, as you only have to carry one set of spares, instead of two or three.   Overall, an MBT based MICV becomes much cheaper, the more you produce of the same hull.

As already suggested, in the field, the commander has an easier time.  He needs only one route for his force, which the one type of vehicle can use.   He only has to carry one sort of supplies and one set of spares.   His infantry carriers can keep up with his MBTs.  His MBTs are not handicapped by his infantry being in a different sort of vehicle.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10