Stryker/C-130 Pics

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message k.net...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om
Think of it as another system using the same
concept as current spaced armor and ceramic composites, which also
hinge upon diffusing the jet over a larger area, a;beit one with
extremely fine tolerances for successful initiation.

As I understand it, the system actually self-initiates -- the plasma jet
actually bridged the gap and shorts out the capacitor on impact. No timing
mechanism required.

OK, I can see where that would complete the circuit, though now you
are left with a plate capacitor with a hole in one plate, if I am
understanding this properly--how well is it going to work a second
time? How much power is required? How are other systems to be
protected from your own protective capacitance discharge? Sorry, but
this does not sound like the most promising of developments against
the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective against
a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project that
sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?


Again, you seem to have the defeat mechanism wrong, from the way I
read it. And pray tell what this wonderful system does to a shaped
charge using a non-conducting liner (glass (which is a liquid in its
customary "solid" state, as we know it...) is a not uncommon alternate
liner in place of the usual copper)?

In the very heated, very compressed sonditions of a shaped charge plasma
jet, I suspect you'll find that even glass is conductive.

Mea culpa. You are right, Tom; I was a bit surprised to find that this
is true for glass, which apparently has some level of sodium in its
structure.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
k.net...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om
Think of it as another system using the same
concept as current spaced armor and ceramic composites, which
also
hinge upon diffusing the jet over a larger area, a;beit one with
extremely fine tolerances for successful initiation.

As I understand it, the system actually self-initiates -- the
plasma jet
actually bridged the gap and shorts out the capacitor on impact.
No timing
mechanism required.

OK, I can see where that would complete the circuit, though now you
are left with a plate capacitor with a hole in one plate, if I am
understanding this properly--how well is it going to work a second
time? How much power is required? How are other systems to be
protected from your own protective capacitance discharge? Sorry, but
this does not sound like the most promising of developments against
the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective
against
a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project that
sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?

It seems far-fetched to me as well although for long rod rounds. I
went back and re-read the article and the jet "is virtually
instantaneously dispersed by the high temperatures and powerful fields
generated by a pulsed power system carried by the vehicle". A Warrior
was used as the testbed and it was subjected to multiple attacks with
no major damage.

As far as holes in the capacitor are concerned, an enemy may have
difficulty hitting the same spot twice. I would have said "unlikely"
except last week's AwWeek mentioned that two JASSMs hit the same spot
in rapid succession without benefit of a LASER spot. If the optical
tracker used for precision targeting for JASSM can do that, a similar
seeker can do that for ATGMs. Which also means "let reactive armor
designers beware".

Power apparently isn't a problem. The IDR article says that the
electrical load is "no more arduous than starting the engine on a cold
morning"

If you're interested, the (brief) description is found in the current
IDR (September) on page 55.

"Paul Austin" wrote in message . ..
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
k.net...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om
Think of it as another system using the same
concept as current spaced armor and ceramic composites, which
also
hinge upon diffusing the jet over a larger area, a;beit one with
extremely fine tolerances for successful initiation.

As I understand it, the system actually self-initiates -- the
plasma jet
actually bridged the gap and shorts out the capacitor on impact.
No timing
mechanism required.

OK, I can see where that would complete the circuit, though now you
are left with a plate capacitor with a hole in one plate, if I am
understanding this properly--how well is it going to work a second
time? How much power is required? How are other systems to be
protected from your own protective capacitance discharge? Sorry, but
this does not sound like the most promising of developments against
the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective
against
a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project that
sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?

It seems far-fetched to me as well although for long rod rounds. I
went back and re-read the article and the jet "is virtually
instantaneously dispersed by the high temperatures and powerful fields
generated by a pulsed power system carried by the vehicle". A Warrior
was used as the testbed and it was subjected to multiple attacks with
no major damage.

I would imagine a significant discharge is required; do we really want
that kind of discharge going off around our nifty battle command
computer, computerized weapons sight, radios, etc.? Not to mention the
effect on the now-ubiquitous Palm Pilot found in many, if not most,
platoon leaders shirt pockets...g


As far as holes in the capacitor are concerned, an enemy may have
difficulty hitting the same spot twice. I would have said "unlikely"
except last week's AwWeek mentioned that two JASSMs hit the same spot
in rapid succession without benefit of a LASER spot. If the optical
tracker used for precision targeting for JASSM can do that, a similar
seeker can do that for ATGMs. Which also means "let reactive armor
designers beware".

Actually, I was thinking more along the line of degraded capacitor
performance due to a hole being in one of the two plates, not so much
the "in the same spot" issue.


Power apparently isn't a problem. The IDR article says that the
electrical load is "no more arduous than starting the engine on a cold
morning"

OK, makes sense.


If you're interested, the (brief) description is found in the current
IDR (September) on page 55.

I stopped getting IDR many years ago; it was good, but it was also
rather pricey.

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.
And how do you bleed off the capacitors if they are not used? That
would be one heck of a nasty shock awaiting the troopie who shorts it
out with his rifle muzzle or wrench.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Paul Austin" wrote
"Kevin Brooks" wrote

OK, I can see where that would complete the circuit, though now
you
are left with a plate capacitor with a hole in one plate, if I
am
understanding this properly--how well is it going to work a
second
time? How much power is required? How are other systems to be
protected from your own protective capacitance discharge? Sorry,
but
this does not sound like the most promising of developments
against
the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective
against
a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project
that
sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?

It seems far-fetched to me as well although for long rod rounds. I
went back and re-read the article and the jet "is virtually
instantaneously dispersed by the high temperatures and powerful
fields
generated by a pulsed power system carried by the vehicle". A
Warrior
was used as the testbed and it was subjected to multiple attacks
with
no major damage.

I would imagine a significant discharge is required; do we really
want
that kind of discharge going off around our nifty battle command
computer, computerized weapons sight, radios, etc.? Not to mention
the
effect on the now-ubiquitous Palm Pilot found in many, if not most,
platoon leaders shirt pockets...g

Yes, I don't think anyone has done any EMI compatibility surveys yet.


As far as holes in the capacitor are concerned, an enemy may have
difficulty hitting the same spot twice. I would have said
"unlikely"
except last week's AwWeek mentioned that two JASSMs hit the same
spot
in rapid succession without benefit of a LASER spot. If the
optical
tracker used for precision targeting for JASSM can do that, a
similar
seeker can do that for ATGMs. Which also means "let reactive armor
designers beware".

Actually, I was thinking more along the line of degraded capacitor
performance due to a hole being in one of the two plates, not so
much
the "in the same spot" issue.

Since the external "capacitor" isn't where the energy is stored but
rather is a set of all-enveloping contacts, I don't think that's a
problem. The thing seems to work with a separate energy store like a
homopolar generator or internal capacitor bank.



Power apparently isn't a problem. The IDR article says that the
electrical load is "no more arduous than starting the engine on a
cold
morning"

OK, makes sense.


If you're interested, the (brief) description is found in the
current
IDR (September) on page 55.

I stopped getting IDR many years ago; it was good, but it was also
rather pricey.

Every year when I'm faced with renewal, it's a struggle.


I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.
And how do you bleed off the capacitors if they are not used? That
would be one heck of a nasty shock awaiting the troopie who shorts
it
out with his rifle muzzle or wrench.

There are_lots_of problems with this and frankly, I doubt it will ever
be fielded. If it were perfected, it would confer immunity to shaped
charge attack, leaving KE projectiles to be delt with by other armor.
The system does seem to be light though.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:35:11 -0400, Paul Austin wrote:

There are_lots_of problems with this and frankly, I doubt it will ever
be fielded. If it were perfected, it would confer immunity to shaped
charge attack,

I doubt it, but it would give improved protection. Modern
shaped-charge weapons have two warheads, one at the front to break
through the shaped-charge defences, and one at the back to break
through the main armour.

One must also bear in mind that many shaped-charge weapons (I'm not
including lightweight ones such as the RPG series or 66) are
primarily designed to disable MBTs; a much lighter vehicle such as
the Stryker is always going to be easier to destroy.

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

On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with
a limited traverse.

--
"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 in message ...
On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with
a limited traverse.

If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head with a
tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
because that in the end is what it is going to be used as, and TD's
have a rather lousy record in that regard. A TD has usually been seen
as a defensive weapon, and most armies realize that offensive action
is usually required, even in the defense (i.e., the counterattack), to
secure victory. The Bundeswehr was the last western user of the TD,
and they even finally gave them up.

Brooks

On 25 Sep 2003 10:03:00 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with
a limited traverse.

If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head with a
tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
because that in the end is what it is going to be used as,

That's a good point. No reason you can't have both, of course.

--
"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 in message
. ..
On 25 Sep 2003 10:03:00 -0700, Kevin Brooks
wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or
for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and
30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are
more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in
other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably
have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper
(no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong).
Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun
with
a limited traverse.

If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head
with a
tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
because that in the end is what it is going to be used as,

That's a good point. No reason you can't have both, of course.

The only cost advantage that a Jagdpanzer would have over a
conventional tank would be the turret and training mechanism which in
a modern tank is relatively small beer. The propulsion, electronics
and gun would be the same. Tanks using the Rheinmettal gun are almost
always limited by sight line rather than ballistic performance for
lethality so I don't see a lot of advantage to up-gunning to say, a 14
0mm tube. Since a Jagdpanzer gives up a lot in anything but a
set-piece defensive engagement compared to a tank, I don't think
there's much advantage-now-.

During WWII, the deletion of the turret speeded up production because
that was a bottle-neck item in German production and up-gunning one
size was a real advantage.