|
TsarZiedonis posted:Didn't it turn out that most super high tech "composite" armor was just layers of steel and rubber? And for American tanks maybe some DU plates on the front? Not at all...they use several different compositions of ceramic and steel, titanium, rubber, aluminum, and tungsten/DU. The materials aren't really the tricky/secret part, it is the way they are assembled and layered that is the super complicated materials science project. It is also a continuous ongoing project....a bunch of different concerns all over NATO spend a lot of time and money constantly evolving heavy armor.
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Was phone posting so I didn't really get a chance to really look over the sources. The first outlet reporting on it was the Washington Free Beacon afaict. The facts about the missile test are likely true such as the speed and location, but the conclusions regarding it may be a bit off base and overhyped to emphasize the fact that the Americans aren't (openly) doing something like this and we should all be afraid. Typical Conservative Hawk stuff basically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike It may or may not be a dumb idea but everyone is working on it. CarForumPoster posted:So rather than say "they have a knockoff" you should probably think of it as "they literally wrote the book on it": Didn't Chobham armor come out of research done in the 60's? Unless Ze Germans also are masters at time travel I would guess that knockoff is probably appropriate. They didn't do their research in a vacuum.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Not at all...they use several different compositions of ceramic and steel, titanium, rubber, aluminum, and tungsten/DU. The materials aren't really the tricky/secret part, it is the way they are assembled and layered that is the super complicated materials science project. It is also a continuous ongoing project....a bunch of different concerns all over NATO spend a lot of time and money constantly evolving heavy armor. Well, we know the original T-64 had a steel/fiberglass sandwich. T-64a used a matrix of ceramic balls suspended in steel and then later switched to angled plates of the same materials. T-64B (and T-80) seems to have used layered ceramic, steel, and rubber in thicker inserts. For Russian composites up until 1985 T-64B/T-72B) just take a look at photos from Ukraine showing split sections of armor on destroyed vehicles.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Is the idea of using rubber so that the really hard ceramics move with an impact, and that helps deflect a KE penetrator?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Murgos posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike That's like saying the m16 is a knockoff ak because the Russians had a intermediate cartridge assault rifle a few decades before Stoner. You can take a stab at a similar concept and arrive at a similar place via different means without it being a knockoff.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is the idea of using rubber so that the really hard ceramics move with an impact, and that helps deflect a KE penetrator? It's to support the "I am rubber, you are glue" argument
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Glue armor is a bitch to keep clean.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is the idea of using rubber so that the really hard ceramics move with an impact, and that helps deflect a KE penetrator? Not a materials science guy, but think of it being like a ray of light interacting with several phases of matter with different refractive indexes. It's the sudden switching from different kinds of materials that makes the penetrator go all wonky.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is the idea of using rubber so that the really hard ceramics move with an impact, and that helps deflect a KE penetrator? Basically yes; the steel or ceramic material suspended on or in the rubber has some "give" that disrupts both a penetrator or a HEAT metal jet. You can think of it as being vaguely similar to sloped armor, except the sloping happens as it is hit rather than being built-in, so to speak.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Not a materials science guy, but think of it being like a ray of light interacting with several phases of matter with different refractive indexes. It's the sudden switching from different kinds of materials that makes the penetrator go all wonky. Yeah, I reading the wikipedia article now; it's interesting stuff. I'm not really understanding it 100%, but still 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
And still a Kornet will just chew right through it and still have enough punch to blow it to pieces? Never putting my feet in armour again, which I guess I've been saying since 1998 or so when I first saw what an Eryx could do to a T72.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:That's like saying the m16 is a knockoff ak because the Russians had a intermediate cartridge assault rifle a few decades before Stoner. 6.5 Arisaka isn't really an intermediate cartridge. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Force de Fappe posted:And still a Kornet will just chew right through it and still have enough punch to blow it to pieces? The composites just drastically increase the effective protection vs a chemical effect like HEAT compared to a similar thickness of pure steel, they don't make it immune. So yeah, some monster like the Kornet with enough penetration can still go through complex layered composites. This is also the reason KE and HEAT are often seperate values on armor diagrams, with KE generally being lower (until you get into later gen ERA). The RPG-29 penetrated the lower front plate of a Challeger 2 in Iraq as a recent example. Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:36 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:That's like saying the m16 is a knockoff ak because the Russians had a intermediate cartridge assault rifle a few decades before Stoner. You can take a stab at a similar concept and arrive at a similar place via different means without it being a knockoff. Oh, I didn't know that Stoner had been given information by Kalashnikov on the design. In that case your analogy would be pretty apt. Does the joint US & German MBT-70 project ring a bell? Composite armor on that, right? The US & Germany, requested and received information on research with what would become Chobham armor in the mid-1960's as part of that effort. They were well aware of what direction the British were going and that their own efforts hadn't been as successful. Knock-off might be a bit strong but Ze Germans didn't come up with the concept independently and had investigated Chobham thoroughly before starting their own effort.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV5PKkp194o Brazil is making their own helicopter bourne Exocets apparently. ...I was going to be somewhat patronizing about the age of the technology but actually the heli could probably get close enough to be a real threat. 100nmi may well be out of range for surface radar. (The type of radar being intentionally ambiguous because  )
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
That was a Penguin.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
"I don't think these are real [North Korean] doctors," he tells the interpreter. "Can we find some real doctors for the Nobel laureates to talk to?"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Heard my first ever sonic boom last night after the RAF QRA went to help an airliner: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36188979 I thought the noise was the neighbours doing their usual noisy job of putting their recycling boxes out, some aviation nerd I am. Also resulted in a ton of mouth-breathers stinking up facebook with their assertions that the RAF should send out text messages if they're going to make a bit of noise, sigh.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:"I don't think these are real [North Korean] doctors," he tells the interpreter. "Can we find some real doctors for the Nobel laureates to talk to?" I like Prince Alfred. What's that? I'm heading an group of respected scientists on an international mission? I guess I should dress up, hmm, yes, the blue polo should do nicely. Untucked I think. e: That is also how I dress for work. Feels good to know that my daily attire is on par with semi-formal European Royalty. Murgos fucked around with this message at 13:15 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
I wish he'd gone the other route, with all the flair. Just to force the the regime to step it up a notch and outdo him with meaningless shiny things.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I like Prince Alfred. What's that? I'm heading an group of respected scientists on an international mission? I guess I should dress up, hmm, yes, the blue polo should do nicely. Untucked I think. Did they make them have to go through the
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a20604/china-successfully-tests-hypersonic-weapon-system/ I am anti-China and not worried about Chinese missiles at all, hypersonic or not. The media loving loves hyping up Chinas missile arsenal in particular due to a combination of uncritical acceptance of CCP propaganda and the fact that hyping up anything but the opaque Chinese missile program is a nonstarter. What would the Chinese actually do with hypersonic weapons that wouldng result in nuclear retaliation anyway? Do they think they are going to have to drop a turd somewhere in the middle east on a half hours notice like the US?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Heard my first ever sonic boom last night after the RAF QRA went to help an airliner: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36188979 I'm loving all the comments on the British papers to the effect of "as is the proper way to greet the French".
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I am anti-China and not worried about Chinese missiles at all, hypersonic or not. The media loving loves hyping up Chinas missile arsenal in particular due to a combination of uncritical acceptance of CCP propaganda and the fact that hyping up anything but the opaque Chinese missile program is a nonstarter. there are Expectations of a great power; projection is one of them, and china wants to be a great power, therefore china get carrier and hypersonic dicks
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I am anti-China and not worried about Chinese missiles at all, hypersonic or not. The media loving loves hyping up Chinas missile arsenal in particular due to a combination of uncritical acceptance of CCP propaganda and the fact that hyping up anything but the opaque Chinese missile program is a nonstarter. If I were China and I wanted to start some poo poo, I'd begin with whatever aircraft carrier I could hit. Then Kadena and Kunsan. WHAT NOW, AMERICA?!?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:What would the Chinese actually do with hypersonic weapons that wouldng result in nuclear retaliation anyway? The biggest role is serving as a deterrent to US and friends' ability to build up forces in the western Pacific, much the same as their non-nuclear ballistic missile force. If it comes to a shooting war, it provides a very different interception challenge from what the bulk of US and friends' air and missile defense has been designed to defeat. Also I'm really not sure where the internet got the idea that the launch of any ballistic missile would immediately result in nuclear holocaust.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
Yeah, it's worth noting that China has a very public policy of not having any first-strike nuclear capability. I forget the details, but their missiles aren't really set up for ready launch. All they really have is a retaliatory capability, which is why they are able to go so whole hog on theater-level conventional missiles.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The biggest role is serving as a deterrent to US and friends' ability to build up forces in the western Pacific, much the same as their non-nuclear ballistic missile force. If it comes to a shooting war, it provides a very different interception challenge from what the bulk of US and friends' air and missile defense has been designed to defeat. Yes, a lot of ink has been spilled about China's land-based anti-ship missiles, but the Chinese have yet to demonstrate that they have the capabilities that the media attributes to them. Sinking a ship with a missile is not as easy as pointing and shooting, especially when you're talking about the western pacific, a colossal body of water, where even finding enemy ships is a challenge that I am not sure the Chinese are up to. WRT hypersonic poo poo, is that what these hypersonic missiles are supposed to be? Hypersonic anti-ship missiles? Because, uh, you'd really think that the Chinese would want to master garden variety ballistic missiles before moving on to hypersonic missiles. quote:Also I'm really not sure where the internet got the idea that the launch of any ballistic missile would immediately result in nuclear holocaust. What I meant was "what could the Chinese conceivably do with this (hypersonic stuff) that they cannot already do and wouldn't cause a nuclear escalation (which eliminates "strikes against another power's home soil") Godholio posted:If I were China and I wanted to start some poo poo, I'd begin with whatever aircraft carrier I could hit. Then Kadena and Kunsan. WHAT NOW, AMERICA?!? Wouldn't strikes against those targets be treated as strikes on US soil? If that happened then the Chinese mainland is now a legitimate target for conventional US strikes and whoops. Lots of people's analysis of Chinese military capabilities seem to go "China sinks a US carrier and hits a bunch of Western Pacific bases, thereby winning them the war, much like how Japan won WWII by attacking US pacific bases"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yes, a lot of ink has been spilled about China's land-based anti-ship missiles, but the Chinese have yet to demonstrate that they have the capabilities that the media attributes to them. Sinking a ship with a missile is not as easy as pointing and shooting, especially when you're talking about the western pacific, a colossal body of water, where even finding enemy ships is a challenge that I am not sure the Chinese are up to. don't you think you might be speaking a bit too much from a position of ignorance to say something like this authoritatively?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Koramei posted:don't you think you might be speaking a bit too much from a position of ignorance to say something like this authoritatively? I guess? I definitely wouldn't ignore the threat if I weren't an idiot goon posting on the internet if that's what you're saying. But every few months some article comes out talking up these anti-ship missiles as though they're one weird trick to defeating the navy of a superpower and I don't think skepticism is unwarranted.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
It doesn't have to be about sinking all of the USN west of Pearl Harbor just being able to project enough force that there is the threat of unacceptable casualties. The USN has very different ideas of how it can gently caress around in areas without a major threat vs one where loosing a CVN is a real possibility. Just making the waters contested changes US foreign policy in a huge way.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Has it changed US foreign policy?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I guess? I definitely wouldn't ignore the threat if I weren't an idiot goon posting on the internet if that's what you're saying. I assume carriers don't have Hawkeyes flying surveillance 24/7. Ships probably can't see "clearly" (i.e. gently caress the ionosphere) that far compared to aerial radar and it makes them big slow targets that can be engaged by fast missiles from beyond the horizon. All of this is quite old technology too. I guess what I'm trying to say is nice red text, buddy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:Also, the F-16 is still in production, where the A-10 hasn't been made for over 30 years. So restart production like the f22 then, got it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I assume carriers don't have Hawkeyes flying surveillance 24/7. Ships probably can't see "clearly" (i.e. gently caress the ionosphere) that far compared to aerial radar and it makes them big slow targets that can be engaged by fast missiles from beyond the horizon. All of this is quite old technology too. I think that you are underestimating how difficult it is to hit a moving target on the open sea with a mid-range ballistic missile launched from the land, and this is assuming that the Chinese can accurately locate and track these targets in the first place. Even if I have all the technical details wrong, which is possible, I don't understand why the Chinese wouldn't have demonstrated the ability to hit a moving target at sea with a missile at this point, especially considering the deterioration of Sino-US relations and the growing aggression of the CCP in the Western Pacific. quote:I guess what I'm trying to say is nice red text, buddy. Oh well consider me owned.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:
Yep. quote:Lots of people's analysis of Chinese military capabilities seem to go "China sinks a US carrier and hits a bunch of Western Pacific bases, thereby winning them the war, much like how Japan won WWII by attacking US pacific bases" Don't recall saying anything about winning a war, just how I'd start one. Also, define "win." Fojar38 posted:Has it changed US foreign policy? China's recent militarism? Yes. This specific technology they're pursuing? Not yet, probably. wargames posted:So restart production like the f22 then, got it. F-22 tooling was intentionally mothballed. A-10 tooling was destroyed before most people here were born. Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:08 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I assume carriers don't have Hawkeyes flying surveillance 24/7. Ships probably can't see "clearly" (i.e. gently caress the ionosphere) that far compared to aerial radar and it makes them big slow targets that can be engaged by fast missiles from beyond the horizon. All of this is quite old technology too. Airborne RADAR is less about seeing higher, further away as it is seeing lower, further away. Line of sight is a hell of a thing. The SM-3, for example, might be the most capable ABM/ASAT missile out there at the moment and is guided by ship-based RADAR. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:15 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Don't recall saying anything about winning a war, just how I'd start one. Also, define "win." I dunno, I'm just aimlessly angsting at bad military reporting wrt China, not at anyone in particular. As for how it's changed US foreign policy, in what ways has it done so meaningfully? The chief Chinese grievances with US foreign policy, namely treaty support for Japan, support for Taiwan, and USN presence in the South China Sea are completely unchanged. Maybe the pivot? If that happened in reaction to growing Chinese missile power is that really a net win for China? quote:China's recent militarism? Yes. Oh yeah that has for sure, but not in a way that benefits China.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yes, a lot of ink has been spilled about China's land-based anti-ship missiles, but the Chinese have yet to demonstrate that they have the capabilities that the media attributes to them. Sinking a ship with a missile is not as easy as pointing and shooting, especially when you're talking about the western pacific, a colossal body of water, where even finding enemy ships is a challenge that I am not sure the Chinese are up to.p Well, no one is "sure" of anything, to include the Chinese, but it isn't just "the media" that is concerned about it. Every military and intelligence service with equities in the matter is assuming China's ASBM capability is legitimate. You're right that detecting and locating something like a strike group is a huge challenge, which is why the Chinese have spent billions developing their ISR and targeting capabilities in the western Pacific. Also, bear in mind that strike groups aren't the only targets: you have a lot of airfields, seaports, other naval facilities, sustainment areas, prepositioned stocks, and a zillion other things you can target with long range strike platforms in order to undermine force buildup. Fojar38 posted:Has it changed US foreign policy? It has changed State Department policy subtly; it has changed DoD policies and strategies substantially. Effectively dealing with the peer A2/AD strategy is probably the biggest driver in DoD futures right now; HSGVs are now mentioned specifically in most future operational environment discussions.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:As for how it's changed US foreign policy, in what ways has it done so meaningfully?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 02:34
|
|