| Author |
Topic:
The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
2/3 2:28pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Yeah, I've fired/carried M4s off and on for five years now and I've had a generally good experience with them. My only gripe is all the stupid little parts in the bolt; why the hell couldn't Stoner have made them like two or three pieces is beyond me. 
Glad to see this thread is making a revival.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
2/5 8:45pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
- Date Edited:
2/5 8:46pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Alpha-Red
|
|
Hmmm, has the Stryker Combat Vehicle been discussed in this thread? I just saw this video on YouTube yesterday vehemently blasting the "propaganda" campaign behind the Stryker and saying how useless, redundant, and dangerous the thing is.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
2/5 9:07pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
The Stryker has been discussed somewhere, I don't remember if it's been in this thread. Actually, Stryker Brigades are the most successful units in Iraq, having been organized to fight in urbanized environments.
Nevermind, after the author of the Youtube piece compared the Stryker to the M113 tracked vehicle, I just shut it off. The guy from Youtube knows that the M113 was first fielded in 1960, has no digital capability, and uses aluminum armor right?
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
2/6 2:57pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
hah! Stryker brigades aren't the most effective conventional unit on the battlefield. My battalion placed 3rd behind a special forces group and a ranger bat last time we were here for combat-effectiveness. 
But yeah, comparing the M113 to the Stryker=lolzers. The M113 stopped being a front-line combat vehicle twenty years ago when the Bradley came on the scene.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
2/23 1:22pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Officers from the UK Royal Navy are visiting the Raytheon faciltity in Tuscon AZ this month to select an upgrade to their Phalanx ship protection systems.
The Phalanx, which is also nicknamed the "R2D2," (because the radar dome looks a lot like it's namesake) is a rotary cannon system designed as a close range weapon to shoot down missiles. It's a larger caliber version of the minigun Arnold used in Terminator 2, and also used in Predator.
The British also place their Phalanx cannon on ground mounts and use them as base protection, which would be quite an interesting sight to see being used.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
2/23 4:14pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
Do those fire depleted uranium rounds?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LtNOWIS
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
2/23 6:17pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS <--Wiki says depleted uranium.
Yeah, after missiles hit all those British ships in the Falklands War, those became real trendy. Almost all modern ships have close in weapons systems now.
As for the Stryker, there was a notable piece in the Washington Post saying what a crappy vehicle it was. But than a lot of soldiers defended it. In Iraq, it certainly fills an important role between Humvees, tracked vehicles, and MRAPs. My buddy in the infantry is a big fan of the Stryker, since it's so comfortable to ride in.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
2/24 7:06am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
I have been within 50 feet of a CIWS test fire. It's cool as hell even though it is only seconds long and quite loud despite hearing protection.
My view was the same as seen here.
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
2/24 11:53am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
The stealth bomber crs
Ash in Guam was interesting news.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
2/24 2:45pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
...I don't think I've ever seen a typo like that before.
Well, shrugs. They're flown by people. Of course one's gonna crash eventually.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
2/24 4:13pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Relating to the above British officers who are visiting AZ, the RAF has also selected Raytheon to upgrade British Tornado bombers with "block IV" precision guided bombs. The British government has spent about 20 million GBP (about 40 million dollars) in Tucson over the last 2 weeks.
It looks like Britain is upgrading key components in systems that are typically deployed or used in power projection.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
2/26 2:50pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
Sounds reasonable. Nice to see that England is dragging herself out of the late 1970s militarily between JSF and the new carriers they're building.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
2/29 6:37pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
Any discussion on the Pentagon air-refueling tanker deal? I heard some senator was crying about it because Northrop Grumman's design used a French airframe and would be outsourcing jobs....but if the Strike Eagle and Super Hornet were essentially new planes stuffed into old airframes, how much does this count for?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
3/1 12:29pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
- Date Edited:
3/1 12:47pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
I'd say some larger political issues had to came into play here. It seems to be a replay of when the M1 Abrams tank was being improved, and the German 120mm gun was selected over the British 120mm gun in order to extend basing deals in Germany. It's been speculated that due to cost overruns and delays to Airbus' own A380 civilian jetliner, Airbus was in danger of going bankrupt if it didn't win this.
There is a touch of irony for both sides that a US military order is what could end up saving Europe's largest aircraft manufacturer.
Now, the Northrop/EADS Airbus tanker is a superior plane. The Airbus holds 25% more fuel than the Boeing 767 tanker and excels in other areas like range- but:
1)Boeing specifically built their proposal to be backwards compatible with the outgoing tankers. The problem here is that the Airbus has a wingspan that is 67 feet longer than the Boeing, so hangars, runways, etc.. are going to have to be modified before the new plane can use them. The cost to upgrade the infrastructure hasn't been revealed or included in the price.
2)Airbus is most certainly going to cede some control to the US for this. The US military isn't going to spend 35 billion (yes, with a B) dollars and then not have a say in the production of the airframes over in France. I'm not sure how segments of the population are going to react to this.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
3/8 1:28pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
For an interesting bit of military technology this week- On March 6, the Defense Research Agency awarded the initial contract for the new "fractionated" spacecraft system. Lockheed Martin Space Systems is the primary contractor.
Instead of using large single unit satellites or vehicles, a fractionated spacecraft uses clusters of small, remotely linked modules that operate together.
Each module can be independently reconfigured, and if one burns out or fails, it can be replaced on its own, instead of having to replace an entire satellite.
Is anyone familiar with factionated spacecraft, or have any in-depth knowledge on the subject?
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
