Stryker/C-130 Pics

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
m...
"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...

It's a term science fiction readers use to describe overwhelming
technological advantages that make the plot come out the way the
author intents. US forces combine superb training (often overlooked by
people who focus on equipment too much), doctrine and systems that
seem like MagicTech to our opponents.



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.

Perhaps I expressed myself badly. The "Digital Battlefield" systems
are in no way temporary and stopgap but_are_here and now. FCS is
intended to fully exploit the advantages of enhanced battlefield
digitization by making recon ubiquitous and every present and by
extending the logic of automated systems to all levels of the
battlefield. The remarkable thing about FCS is what a small part the
replacements for current Bradley, Abrams and artillery system are
within the complete FCS.

I agree with you about the perils of simulations but there are lessons
to be learned from them. In the case I cited, the Marines demonstrated
an obvious counter to the FCS approach.


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.

Read more closely about the physics of shaped charges. The jet in a
shaped charge is actually composed of a stream of solid particles. The
article in IDR describing the "electric armor" didn't go into details
about mechanism but a shaped charge's jet doesn't have anything like
the penetrating power if the jet is turned into a liquid. In this
case, liquid copper. The "electric armor" notion, still unproven in
the field is that a jet shorts out two plates of a very high value
capacitor and the resulting current melts the jet before it can travel
into the armor array proper. Actually building such a vehicle
encompassing capacitor in such a way that it 1. doesn't electrocute
the crew or the attending infantry and 2. can be recharged reasonably
quickly is left as an exercise for the development engineers.




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...

Yup.

Brooks

"Paul Austin" wrote in message . ..
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
m...
"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...

It's a term science fiction readers use to describe overwhelming
technological advantages that make the plot come out the way the
author intents. US forces combine superb training (often overlooked by
people who focus on equipment too much), doctrine and systems that
seem like MagicTech to our opponents.



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.

Perhaps I expressed myself badly. The "Digital Battlefield" systems
are in no way temporary and stopgap but_are_here and now. FCS is
intended to fully exploit the advantages of enhanced battlefield
digitization by making recon ubiquitous and every present and by
extending the logic of automated systems to all levels of the
battlefield. The remarkable thing about FCS is what a small part the
replacements for current Bradley, Abrams and artillery system are
within the complete FCS.

I agree with you about the perils of simulations but there are lessons
to be learned from them. In the case I cited, the Marines demonstrated
an obvious counter to the FCS approach.


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.

Read more closely about the physics of shaped charges. The jet in a
shaped charge is actually composed of a stream of solid particles. The
article in IDR describing the "electric armor" didn't go into details
about mechanism but a shaped charge's jet doesn't have anything like
the penetrating power if the jet is turned into a liquid. In this
case, liquid copper.

Some references go so far as to label it a "plasma jet", and yes, it
really is, for all intents and purposes, a fluid (it even behaves IAW
the rules governing fluid dynamics, IIRC). The detonation of the
filler behind the cone inverts it under extremes of both temperature
and pressure (mostly the latter), forming the jet. As another poster
has noted, you seem to have the defeat mechanism a bit off; it
involves distorting the jet through the use of strong EM fields, *not*
"melting" it (if the latter were the case, what would it do to the
surrounding armor...?). 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.

The "electric armor" notion, still unproven in
the field is that a jet shorts out two plates of a very high value
capacitor and the resulting current melts the jet before it can travel
into the armor array proper. Actually building such a vehicle
encompassing capacitor in such a way that it 1. doesn't electrocute
the crew or the attending infantry and 2. can be recharged reasonably
quickly is left as an exercise for the development engineers.

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)? As you said before, panaceas are
hard to come by...

Brooks





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...

Yup.

Brooks

"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.

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.


--�
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 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 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