Jump to content

Technology Stats Help


Voodoo Nova

Recommended Posts

[quote name='MostGloriousLeader' timestamp='1352343401' post='3049988']
Anyone know when the timeframe for the availability of ETC weapons is? Same for rail guns. I've seen a couple of articles and there's a lot of different dates given out for operational use of such weapons. Just kind of want to clarify before I proceed.
[/quote]
I'd actually really appreciate ETC weapon timelines and armor penetration values as well, because I've seen the term passed around a lot but don't know how good it would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='MostGloriousLeader' timestamp='1352343401' post='3049988']
Anyone know when the timeframe for the availability of ETC weapons is? Same for rail guns. I've seen a couple of articles and there's a lot of different dates given out for operational use of such weapons. Just kind of want to clarify before I proceed.
[/quote]
As far as I see it, ETC is handled at year 2016. If anyone knows better, they may correct me. The last time I had a tank with ETC cannon, I was Vicidalia and imported them from Athens. So, I never bothered much.

Railguns are 2020 (3000 technology), where most people then start use first operational railguns, like what is planned for the US navy.

Penetration for a railgun is, with a single 150 mm projectile, pretty much any modern armor of any modern ship. It is said it can penetrate hardened bunkers as well. For the ETC gun, I only know of a study about upgunning tanks currently armed with 120 mm guns (i think the tank in question was the Leopard 2, the Abrams or both, but anyways) to either a conventional 140 mm gun, or an ETC 120 mm gun, where it was found that both had similar penetration values, but the 120 mm gun was naturally smaller and lighter.

If I'm wrong anywhere, correct me, but that is how I came to know it.

Edit: @Lord Zephyr: The 63 MJ are the muzzle energy. As I don't think you use it for direct firing (though it may be an effective tank destroyer, a tank can be disabled with less expensive systems), after some calculations, I get an impact energy of 37 MJ (that is, a 20 kg slug hitting a target at Mach 5).

Edited by Evangeline Anovilis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming there is no problem in development and all required parts come together, the US Army seems to be planning to use ETC guns around 2020. Of course, just as we've seen lots of delays in weapon development (F-35 anyone?), it will probably be around in 2025 or so, but since we allow theoretical weapons to be used in their planned date (6th generation fighters, for example), I think 2020 should be the minimum requirement.

As for the power of the gun, for a general idea a 105 mm gun will have the power of the 120 mm, and the 120 mm having the power of the 140 mm. Once we factor in caliber and other such stuff, the power might become higher, but for your general understanding think of it as 1.4~1.5 times the power of the regular gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Gloval' timestamp='1352882263' post='3052233']
Just a quick question: Is thermal camo for tanks even worth going after? I haven't been able to find much about it besides the BAE stuff.
[/quote]

I guess it has its values but I'm not sure it's worth the kind of maintenance and advanced systems it will require.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1352901048' post='3052276']
I guess it has its values but I'm not sure it's worth the kind of maintenance and advanced systems it will require.
[/quote]
http://io9.com/5837935/tank-uses-thermal-camouflage-to-transform-into-a-cow

It doesn't say anything about maintenance, that's the issue. Really it just has some video footage of what it can do, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Gloval' timestamp='1352918674' post='3052338']
[url="http://io9.com/5837935/tank-uses-thermal-camouflage-to-transform-into-a-cow"]http://io9.com/58379...form-into-a-cow[/url]

It doesn't say anything about maintenance, that's the issue. Really it just has some video footage of what it can do, lol.
[/quote]
Just hope you don't go to war against a nation that really want a steak, or a bunch of rednecks who try to go cow tipping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1352949399' post='3052574']
Just hope you don't go to war against a nation that really want a steak, or a bunch of rednecks who try to go cow tipping.
[/quote]
Just don't turn the system to cow when you're going at full speed. :P

"Sir, a cow is advancing on our lines at...terrifying speeds."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still doesn't nullify noise or electronics emissions. Need to figure that out somehow for it to be truly useful. Otherwise it is a cow that sounds like a tank which is giving off all sorts of radio traffic.

And here is one of the comments on the article you linked:

[quote]there's a fair amount of dissenting views on gizmodo as to whether this is even possible. the dissent boils down to the fact that regardless of what the panels on the side of the vehicle are showing to make it look like the vehicle is the same temp as the ambient temperature, IF the vehicle itself is hotter than the surrounding air you can't remove the increased temperature - it's still there, so the increased temperature is going to be visible *somewhere* - cool panels aren't going to help much if the vehicle in back of the panels is giving off higher temperatures that will clearly show in night vision.

if i am grokking the argument correctly you'd end up with the vehicle itself invisible but clearly visible exhaust or heat venting for anyone with night vision to spot. would be like an invisible coal powered steam locomotive. sure you can't "see" the train approaching you on the tracks, but there's still a huge plume of smoke and steam accompanied by the sound of a locomotive barreling towards you. [/quote]

I would suspect that at certain temperature the panels are no longer effective.

Edited by Tidy Bowl Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's like a principal of stealth. The focus of hiding from something is from the front, not from the rear, like how the F-15SE is designed. The back of the aircraft is still unstealthy; however, the front of the aircraft has a cross-section of an F-35. The thermal camo is give that slight edge of surprise to enemy forces that are being approached in a particular direction without being detected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Question: It is said the de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver has great STOL performance, which only increased over the years as modifications were made to many of the aircraft produced. I haven't yet found any specifications how long a runway has to be though, for the Beaver to take off. Does anyone know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

A sophisticated system of satellite sensor data, electronic listening posts, drone imaging data to work out the location of any hidden bunkers.

The war's over, but I'm still curious Triyun: I know it's possible to detect underground structures, but how do you tell the difference between a mine and a bunker built out of a mine from satellite and drone surveillance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget Rotavele's mines/bunkers, but in general: how do you tell the difference between bunkers, mines, bunkers in mines, and other underground structures from the air after construction has finished?

Edited by iKrolm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget Rotavele's mines/bunkers, but in general: how do you tell the difference between bunkers, mines, bunkers in mines, and other underground structures from the air after construction has finished?

Again extrapolation based on whats constructed around it, what moves in and out of the facility, where it goes, etc.  For example mines should have lots and lots of heavy trucks moving in and out of it, a secret bunker would not.  If it is not secret one can look for military defensive structures.  For example old Soviet facilities always had two layers of guard fences if they stored nuclear weapons.  Mines probably also are going to advertise being publicly existing in most countries in order to attract investment in them.  Mines for the most part are commercial enterprises.   There are many factors to do analysis from you can expand or narrow your parameters of confidence even if you aren't exactly sure.  

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but if an a good effort was made to make the surface of a bunker look active like a real, active mine with trucks driving in and out, etc. (or even put a bunker inside of an active mine), then aerial surveillance wouldn't be able see there was a bunker anymore?

(For my own education of course, Selenarctos won't be turning into North Korea... Or will it? :ph34r: )

Edited by iKrolm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, obviously once you're on site it would be pretty obvious 'oh hey, this isn't a mine after all' or if you start blowing up everything underground then it doesn't really matter what's hidden and what's not. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

If I fire a 83 kg heavy cylindric object with 6.1 metres length and 0.3 metres diameter at Mach 450 and assume for theoretical considerations it will not destroy itself due to friction heat...

 

a. Will it be able to receive GPS guidance?

b. If I fire this projectile at said speed at 80 decrees firing angle, will it follow a ballistic trajectory back on earth or will it overcome gravity and leave the planet entirely?

c. Assuming said object consists out of tungsten and we suspend the immunity to heat, how long would it need till the projectile dissolves itself?

d. Assuming said projectile would be fired by a railgun (for ease of calculation, we assume the rails are able to withstand the energy without melting), how much energy would be needed given realistic efficiency of the system.

e. If we drop the assumption rails do not integrate, how much energy would be required now, before the projectile either leaves the barrel or the railgun merely stops working.

 

No, I did not come up with this concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a. Nah, the plasma cloud it generates traveling through the air at Mach 450 would block pretty much all radio communication (link). The space shuttle transmitted out the top through a 'hole' in the plasma cloud during reentry, but it descended belly first and only in the Mach 20s. With a cylindrical projectile generating a much smaller hole you'd only pick up one or two GPS satellite of the four needed to plot a position or 5-6 recommended including geosynchronous WAAS satellites for more accurate readings.

Edited by iKrolm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...