Stryker/C-130 Pics

"Paul Austin" wrote in message .. .
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, Paul Austin
wrote:

"Tony Williams" wrote

I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
carrying
limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?

By buying A400Ms?

Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for
C-130
compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The
MagicTech
remote sensing/remote fires stuff

What's this? Is it related to the "battlefield Internet" I've head
about?

FCS if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne recon
platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire combat.

Where does this term "MagicTech" come from? First I have ever heard of
it...


In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide distribution
of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and precision
fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot. The USMC completed
a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
communications and fire support elements. If they can be degraded,
then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
forces and are often defeated.

No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is merely
a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR, targeting, and C3
developments that we have already instituted. And be careful of citing
these battle simulations as "evidence"; as we saw last year during
that JFC simulation, these exercises are designed and managed to
acheive very specific goals, and even then are subject to anomalies;
having seen a mechanized engineer battalion (minus) (one still mounted
in the M113 battle taxis to boot) destroy the better part of an OPFOR
mechanized brigade during a combined division/corps WFX (and this
occured while the engineer unit was fleeing an overrun situation, for
gosh sakes), I can tell you that trying to draw finite tactical
conclusions is risky at best. Add in the fact that the usual process
is to weight things a bit towards the OPFOR, since the objective is
usually to stress the Bluefor, and you can see where this is anything
but a clean and neat process.


As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.

And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
ground fights is strongly suspect.



isn't ready yet, never mind
"electric armor"

And this?

Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
penetrators.

"Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into a
"jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass and
attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
Effect) work.



that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small

ITYM A400M.

Yup. The A300M is obviously the two-engined version intented to
replace the G.222

Mehopes that was offered tongue in cheek, as the G.222 is being
replaced by the C-27J, and IIRC the A300 was a commercial design
development...

Brooks

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul Austin" wrote in message
. ..
Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
penetrators.

"Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into a
"jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass and
attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
Effect) work.

It's an electrical effect. Dump a lot of electricity into the copper
jet, and you have current and motion: which produces a powerful magnetic
field, so the jet repels itself and flies apart. Or that's the way my
physics says it ought to work.

Works quite nicely in a carefully-controlled experiment. Might even be
useful in a fielded vehicle eventually. Won't arrive tomorrow, though.

http://www.dstl.gov.uk/pr/press/pr2002/01-07-02.htm


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:30:29 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

It's an electrical effect. Dump a lot of electricity into the copper
jet, and you have current and motion: which produces a powerful magnetic
field, so the jet repels itself and flies apart. Or that's the way my
physics says it ought to work.

Works quite nicely in a carefully-controlled experiment. Might even be
useful in a fielded vehicle eventually.

Maybe.

I can't help but feel it'd be a lot simpler just to put a 1 mm metal
plate a foot or so away from the main armour (and mayby use the
resulting cavity as storage space).


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul Austin" wrote in message
. ..
Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
penetrators.

"Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into a
"jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass and
attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
Effect) work.

It's an electrical effect. Dump a lot of electricity into the copper
jet, and you have current and motion: which produces a powerful magnetic
field, so the jet repels itself and flies apart. Or that's the way my
physics says it ought to work.

Works quite nicely in a carefully-controlled experiment. Might even be
useful in a fielded vehicle eventually. Won't arrive tomorrow, though.

http://www.dstl.gov.uk/pr/press/pr2002/01-07-02.htm

Using an EM field to distort/dissipate the jet I can buy; I was taking
exception to the idea of "melting" it (it is pretty much "melted" at
the point the liner is inverted by the explosive filler, and in fact
behaves as a liquid at this point). God only knows what the effect of
that kind of EM field will have on the crew, much less all of that
nifty solid-state equipment, not to mention the difficulty in
discharging the capacitors at *exactly* the right instant (I'd guess
the tolerence would be measured in much less than a millisecond, as
that jet will cover what, at least 5 or so meters in that MS?).

Brooks

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul Austin" wrote in message
. ..
Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
penetrators.

"Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into a
"jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass and
attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
Effect) work.

Well, the last I heard there were still people disputing the state of
matter the copper was at: something about etched patterns still existing
in the mass recovered after the blast...

It's an electrical effect. Dump a lot of electricity into the copper
jet, and you have current and motion: which produces a powerful magnetic
field, so the jet repels itself and flies apart. Or that's the way my
physics says it ought to work.

Heck, throw that kind of charge into the thing and electro-static
repulsion might be enough.

On 22 Sep 2003 08:49:13 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is merely
a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,

What's ISR?

As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.

And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
ground fights is strongly suspect.

Garbage in, garbage out.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

"phil hunt" wrote
Kevin Brooks wrote:

No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT
an
interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is
merely
a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,

What's ISR?

Yet another TLA. Information, Surveillance and Reconaissance, I
believe.

"phil hunt" wrote in message

On 22 Sep 2003 08:49:13 -0700, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is
merely a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,

What's ISR?

Intelligence, Surveillence, and Reconaissance. Often seen as C4ISR
(command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillence,
and reconaissance).


--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote
"phil hunt" wrote in message

On 22 Sep 2003 08:49:13 -0700, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is
NOT an
interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is
merely a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will
more
completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,

What's ISR?

Intelligence, Surveillence, and Reconaissance. Often seen as C4ISR
(command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillence,
and reconaissance).

Want to speculate how long before someone thinks up a fifth "C"? C3
was bad enough. Adding "Computers" was pretty stupid.

(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 22 Sep 2003 08:49:13 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is merely
a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,

What's ISR?

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance.


As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.

And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
ground fights is strongly suspect.

Garbage in, garbage out.

No, not so much GIGO as it is a matter of the goals of the simulation,
which is usually to stress the side being exercised. That retired USMC
GO who ran the JFC exercise last year was whining about how he could
not conduct true "free play", and that certain actions of his were
rescinded by the exercise controllers, but that ignored the fact that
the game had for one of its primary goals, for example, the validation
of the IBCT/SBCT as a tool for the JTF commander--sliming the APOD
that was to serve that unit might be a "real world" thing to consider,
but it is stupid to spend beaucoup millions of bucks on a massive
exercise like that and then see one of your exercise objectives
disappear before it can even get into the game and be evaluated at
*any* level (likewise, had he sent a nuke at the JTF command post on
day one and wiped it out, it would have been rather stupid to say,
"hey, I guess the exercise is over; sorry we wasted all of those unds
and resources..."). We saw the same thing at NTC during force-on-force
exercises; when I was with the OPFOR we got away with things that the
Bluefor could not hope to do, but the objective was to stress the
Bluefor, so some leniency in our direction was allowed as long as it
served that goal. The key is to remember that these large scale sims
are great at taking on the "big picture", just not-so-great at
modeling the action at the lower levels (we once ran a corps level WFX
that was classified at the time because we were using the actual "into
Iraq" CONPLAN then under development--we basicly got our clocks
cleaned by the OPFOR, which was unrealistic, but served the purpose of
stressing the staff and the plan).

Brooks