Jump to content

Mighty_Zuk

Members
  • Content Count

    1,067
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mighty_Zuk

  • Rank
    Crew

Recent Profile Visitors

359 profile views
  1. There aren't many countries that would be better suited with only one type.
  2. The sheer complexity of modern systems is what makes development take so long. Back in the 80's there were already some complex systems, but not as much. Now you need to certify far more systems, and for ever evolving levels of interoperability.
  3. Israel: Multiple blasts in nuclear facilities, destroying sensitive equipment. Later another blast that shuts facility down for months. Iran: Can't even retaliate properly in a video.
  4. That is not public information. However, the David's Sling is no longer seen as a replacement for the IDF's Patriot, and the IDF continues to buy additional GEM-T missiles, with no plan to retire the Patriot. That depends on the configuration. Every user can choose to have its batteries composed differently. One can have more radars, another can integrate a whole new radar, another can have double the launchers, etc. The S-400 system is not homogenous. One battery in one division can have all the available options, and another battery in another division will have half the launche
  5. There is a very clear separation between the tools Iran and its proxies dedicate to each of their adversaries. Against Assad's opponents, Iran and proxies may, for example, dedicate many actual fighters, their elite even. As well as light high mobility vehicles, some light AFVs in some extreme cases, some very light artillery, and short range weaponry like ATGMs, and basically focus on close range fighting. They advance, seize territory, and conduct military operations in a very conventional way, because they're fighting peers or near peers. Against Israel the balance totally shifts.
  6. The remaining rebels are not ISIS, and Israel's objective is not to overthrow Assad.
  7. So the US has, in fact, NOT funded, and completed the development of systems like the Patriot, THAAD, Aegis, and GMD? Neither are part of the S-400 system. They're just sometimes deployed with it. There is no point in talking about layers when the discussion is about a specific layer. Yeah, the Patriot, according to your logic, is layered as well. It can be supported by various assets like Iron Dome, IM-VSHORAD, Avengers, and LAV-AD, depending on what kind of forces are tagged with the Patriot. Stingers are still there as well, and there are some anti-drone systems operational.
  8. Russia maintains presence there to provide Assad with various new military capabilities through a technological edge, securing a steady but slow victory over the rebel bois. The air defenses are there just in case. Israel has an agreement with Russia - but its bases could become threatened by others. Best to have air defenses just in case, than not having it and regret it later. It's okay, you have plenty of time to clarify this very wrong statement. Delilahs aren't cheap. JSOWs aren't cheap. Cruise missiles in general aren't cheap.
  9. Same. When designing an AFV from the ground up, with systems included, you need to spend much more time and effort to actually make the electronics and the digital architecture. Importing some know how and the tools to make complex metallurgical processes is easy in comparison. One takes maybe a few years to produce something. The other will take years even if you already have all the know-how and experience, or well over a decade if you don't. One takes an order of tens of millions to do, and the other in the order of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. To make the sys
  10. I think you missed the point here. The entire process of building the metallic frame, and installing armor on it, is very simple, quick, and cheap, when you compare it to other aspects of AFV design, that have more to do with generic military capabilities than AFVs.
  11. The world of defense is very dispersed. You'll rarely see one company doing one major system on its own. Tanks, ships, aircraft, usually have industrial and R&D input from many different sub-contractors. Many companies are growing to become conglomerates, and they can house lots of different tech vectors, and then in turn they set up subsidiaries in other countries and transfer their tech for local production. There are probably quite a few countries that can utilize their current expertise in various systems relating to aviation or other ground elements, to build a new MBT and d
  12. Does it include the bloating effect of adding training, simulators, C2 stations, spares, and technical support?
  13. 400K a pop based on what?
  14. Literally top attack missiles, dear Stuart.
  15. Most APCs and IFVs today have sponsons at the rear, which prevents the use of a door, as it would limit the width of the hole and make it more difficult to mount and dismount. And since the rear still has to be armored, opening or closing a thin and unpowered door would be awkward in certain angles. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eQNPu6zzxaU/S7ehYoHHhVI/AAAAAAAAqVA/K6AbFa1s6mc/s1600/march2720102.jpg And of course doors interfere with the exterior of the vehicle. If there are exhaust pipes or vents, tools, or anything that could bend and or break, it's best not to use a door that sold
×
×
  • Create New...