Stryker/C-130 Pics

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:43:45 +0100, Nick Pedley wrote:

"Paul Austin" wrote in message
.. .

"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)

The Stryker Armoured Vehicle is named after two US Medal of Honor recipients
(one WW2, one Vietnam), as widely reported at the time.
https://www.bctide.army.mil/newpages/medalofhonor.shtml

Nowt stupid about that spelling, I think.

Though it is confusing that the name is similar to a British
armoured vehicle, the Striker.

I'd have called it the Piranha, as vthat was it's original name.

--
"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
. ..

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...

L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

"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

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from now,
let alone 30.

"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.

Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't it?

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:35:56 +0100, (phil hunt) wrote:


Oh, the rifles, have always worked... it's just they were prone to
not working if they got dirty. If I'd been the MoD, I'd have
specified burying them in sand overnight then firing them as part
of the acceptance tests.

Rather than taking them in sealed plastic to kuwait, unwrapping them on a
range with plastic sheeting on the ground, firing 3 magazines and then
ticking the box which said it passed desert tests.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

"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 14:47:07 +1000, L'acrobat wrote:

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from now,

Ever heard of Moore's law?

I've got a pretty good idea. A typical PC now has a 2 GHz CPU, and
about 256 MB RAM.

Assume these double every 18 months. 10 years is about 7 doublings
so in 2003 we'll see PCs with 250 GHz CPUs and 32 GB of RAM.


--
"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 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
spectrum.

OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
frequency in advance.

BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
into how many bands, roughly?

It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR
that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed
to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the
AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can
use is 58,000.


Both radios have to be loaded with the same frequency hopping (FH)
plan, and then they have to be synchronized by time. When SINGCARS
first came out the time synch had to be done by having the net control
station (NCS) perform periodic radio checks (each time your radio
"talked" to the NCS, it resynchronized to the NCS time hack); failure
to do this could result in the net "splitting", with some of your
radios on one hack, and the rest on another, meaning the two could not
talk to each other. I believe that the newer versions (known as
SINCGARS EPLRS, for enhanced precision location system) may use GPS
time data, ensuring that everyone is always on the same time scale.

That would make sense.

If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.

The fact is that the direction finding (DF'ing) of frequency agile
commo equipment is extremely difficult for the best of the world's
intel folks, and darned near impossible for the rest (which is most of
the rest of the world); that is why US radio procedures are a bit more
relaxed than they used to be before the advent of FH, back when we
tried to keep our transmissions to no more than five seconds at a time
with lots of "breaks" in long messages to make DF'ing more difficult.

So transmissions of 5 seconds tend to be hard to DF? Of course, with
the battlefield internet, a text transmission will typically be a
lot less than 5 s (assuming the same bandwidth as for a voice
transmission, i.e. somewhere in the region of 20-60 kbit/s).

ISTR the old guidance was to keep transmissions no longer than 5 to 7
seconds without a break (a break normally was announced as part of the
message, followed by release of the mic key, then rekeying and
continuing the message).


transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not. Otherwise we would
have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel
programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by
our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the
top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key
generation" using input from that source) are not
unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be
reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind
of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the
crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them, but it will probably take
them a while, not to mention the time to get the data into their hands
in the first place.

Brooks