Jump to content

Cajer

Members
  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

223 profile views

Cajer's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. The VL was introduced in 1977 so that’s 50 years old. Also the Cold War has been over for 30+ years so there’s been no immediate need for large performance increases. If you want data here tungsten + Cu composite liners perform significantly better than pure copper: Link. Moly liners perform better than pure Cu. Triple layer and double layer liners have also shown better performance than single layer: Link. Construction quality such as surface finish can also have a significant impact on performance, and I'm willing to bet the VL doesn't have great surface finish. Crystallographic texture also has significant impact, and I'm also betting that wasn't well controlled on the VL. There’s also no need to have a long pointed nose for aero and fusing if you remotely trigger, and you can have the round go perpendicularly through the roof armor instead of diagonal with the bottom slung rpg warheads currently in use.
  2. Nowhere did I say it shouldn't be made of metal, there's many other ways to reduce mass. With a different design constraints, you can have ones which use say thinner walls for change in other variables like cone/explosive geometry, or just use different higher performance liners/explosives Also with the ability to do dynamics models vs when the VL was designed you can also over build things less/put mass in more intelligent places, more complex wave shaper geomerties, and use different types of metal.
  3. That's true however a newly designed shaped charge for drone applications would have a different set of constraints particularly in mass/shape and would look very different from rpg charges. Namer also doesn't have the top attack protection you're looking for, and it likely doesn't have the same frontal KE protection requirements. It also doesn't have a turret with auto cannon which seems to be a requirement for IFV's today. Developed militaries won't be tying rpg rounds to off the shelf Chinese drones. FPV drone are also incredibly sensitive to jamming, so you will want terminal guidance which already makes them not off the shelf. So they will have a system specifically designed for this. See the swtichblade or similar. I have difficulty in believing the 50% value, as in papers and simulations any damage or even obstruction of the shaped charge dramatically reduces its performance. If the intercept is successful (any significant fragments or energy hits the shaped charge) performance should be dramatically reduced. Additionally as said many times in my hypothetical ifv, there would be 30mm full bore protection along the sides. With a different APS system, that can be solved with larger explosives, different type of explosive, and a better intercept geometry as you mentioned. Additionally as I said Iron Fist and Trophy are both 15+ years old. Additionally hard kill drone protection isn't limited to only things similar to things similar to current active protection systems. Things such as volume search eots or radars with an airburst 30mm cannon are also options and have been proposed as part of abramsx.
  4. You mentioned part of it, casing can be removed, muntion can be used as a structural element to the drone instead of hanging off the bottom, round can be integrated with the airframe aerodynamics/parts can be nestled around it. There's allot of games that can be played. On the warhead side, more stand off can be achieved by a magnometer or simple ranging radar triggering round earlier giving better performance. An additional tiny EFP or precursor can be triggered via the same method to get through ERA.
  5. Do you have any evidence to back those numbers up? In testing trophy claims "well above 90%" and some sources say above 95%. Also you want to design an entirely new HIFV which will take 5-10 years, but you are stuck using a 15+ year old APS instead of a new design? What happens when they use purpose designed munitions for drones with tandem warheads that perform better than the rpg-7vl's that are currently in use? Are you just going to add another 10 tons to the roof? Considering no MBT has anywhere near that level of protection and western designs are 70 tons this is not anywhere near realistic. Additionally the protected volume for a HIFV is going to be similar if not larger than MBTs due to dismounts. So you'd accept a 90-100t heavy IFV, that can't be transported easily, can't cross most bridges, consume absurd amounts of fuel, and requires and entirely new recovery vehicles and bridging vehicles/systems? Improvised instead of a purpose designed munition for drone usage, which would be allot smaller/lighter for the same penetration or the same size for much greater penetration. This is a controls issue more than a ID problem software will do a much better job flying a drone to a target. In the future with purpose desgined systems and more prevalent/better designed jamming systems, there won't be humans in the loop either way. You'd have terminal guidance.
  6. That makes sense. But that's also because they are human guided (so have hard time consistently hitting the weak parts) and they are using improvised munitions strapped on, instead of modern munitions designed for this.
  7. If you smash the heat linear and explosives you don't need to defend against residual penetration. Also in what I proposed you have 30mm full bore protection on sides to protect against BMP-2 and similar rounds. So you want heavy RPG level protection across the entire top of the tank? As militaries will start putting better shaped charges on their drones when they make them. That's absurdly heavy and unrealistic. The only drone solution is hard kill, soft kill won't work at all when they have terminal seeking. Is this a conversion? It seems like new builds/a different design that shares some parts with the VT-5. Please give us some loss numbers after the bradleys are in fully service as you're making the claim. Also please keep in mind that there's many more BMP's than bradleys and they are used differently.
  8. I would even go one step further and say that armor based RPG protection isn't strictly needed, just use APS systems. As time goes on we will see reduced numbers of low pen rpg's, making protecting solely for those continuously less valuable. Forgoing that could lighten things up quite a bit. There is a big gulf between current IFV and what you seem to be proposing as a heavy IFV, MBT level protection frontally and MBT+ around the sides. If that's what you are proposing, I don't think heavy ifv are needed at all. The logistical strain of heavy IFV are going to be mulitple times that of MBT's just due to the much larger number of IFV's in formations than MBT's. Do you have recent loss rates for bradleys vs bmp's in ukrainian service?
  9. How much protection do we need before it's called a HIFV. I would think 40mm frontal arc + 30mm full bore (BMP2 protection) + APS would be all you need/want. No need to try and stop 120/125mm.
  10. So you named one of the only MBTs with a forward mounted engine, where they determined conversions didn’t make sense and changed to new builds. And another, which was designed to share the same engine from the beginning and has an entirely different chassis, and which was also done as new builds not conversions. So you picked the only vehicle where it makes sense (yet they decided to go with new builds), and one which is not a conversion. You’re moving the goal posts away from conversions… Please tell me how this would work on existing Western, Soviet, or eastern MBTs.
  11. You need a different power pack, if you want to have rear dismount. So now the engine needs to be in front, the transmission now needs to connect to the engine in a different place, different exhaust/intake/radiator mounting and access to the outside, and you’ll need different fuel tank plumbing too and it might even need to move to give better ergonomics to the dismounts. I never mentioned anything about suspension, but that might also need to change due to new geometric constraints and to free up internal volume to put soldiers in effectively. So now you've move all the heavy bits inside the chassis, meaning you need different reinforcement in different places to support the new heavy vibratory bits. At that point you already have any entirely different chassis.
  12. It seems that enough modifications would be necessary to a MBT that a bespoke design would make more sense. Western militaries would at minimum want rear dismount, which means entirely different hull, new fuel tank locations, likely a different power pack, different transmission, and different driver positions. Removing the turret or going to a much smaller non-penetrating one means all the electronics have to be relocated including: coms, battle management systems, and sensors. You might even need to elongate the chassis to allow for your preferred number of dismounts. At that point you've designed a new vechile which shares next to no manufacturing low parts commonality with the MBT one beyond things like road wheels and tracks. If you try to re-use the MBT you're just going to end up inheriting a ton of bad (old from 70s) design and reliability issues plus what comproises was needed to make it work as a IFV.
  13. The future for the US, is satellite based sensing, and the Chinese have already demonstrated live tracking of an aircraft with sats.
  14. I wouldn't rule it out. It's a larger diameter (> 7 inches vs metor at 7), maybe longer, doesn't have a draggy inlet, likley a dual pulse or staged motor, and has the things you mentioned previously. After all CUDA was prototyped with a staged motor. They might have even went for a more exotic composition in the solid motor too.
  15. These aren't going to be carried around by most CAP aircraft if at all. They will be carried by one or two aircraft or an aircraft with them will be launched when a target presents itself. An aircraft that carries around 4-6 SM-6 sized AAM doesn't exist, because the economics of that didn't make sense until very recently as the capability wasn't needed. A SM-6 is ~5 million a pop with the AAM version likely being a bit more. The super hornet makes much more sense than what you're suggesting, as no one is wanting to upgrade the super hornet for service into the future. Whereas you still want a 50+ year old core design to serve for another 10-20 years, with all the accompanying legacy baggage of the original 14 design (as large parts of the aero and other design elements would have been kept with a redesign). That's a very dangerous assumption, air supremacy after week one and the corresponding destruction of enemy aircraft, fleets, and IADS. With the assumption that stealth is not needed past week one. If we wanted a cheap aircraft for low intensity conflicts, using the extant F18A/C would make much more sense. Additionally the F35 is affordable now with new buys being cheaper than the 15EX. Additional aircraft types were always an issue, and just becomes a larger issue with modern designs and their increased design complexity, costs, and lower quantities. More types leads to smaller production quantities, lower effiency of scale, and more sustainment burden. A redesigned 14 would still have the primary reliability issue of the swing wing and various other carried over issues from the 14. A better answer to the range and payload question is not an updated F14, but the the successful acquisition of a slightly larger A-12 with avionics for a missileer role.
×
×
  • Create New...