It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I must disagree with your classification as an APC type vehicle, from what I can see it is very much a tank.
The current status of the FCS? Very much delayed. I don't think we will be seeing anything like that come online until after 2020.
EDIT: Oh, and the plastic tank is a joke to me. Its too radical for anyone to fund and from what I can see not very effective.
Originally posted by Army
One main bad thing about autoloaders in MBT's, is that the TC or gunner cannot immediately change ammo for the given situation.
...snip...
(BTW, it takes less than 10 seconds for a human loader to swap out ammo types in the M1A1. Autoloaders may take up to 30 seconds)
By plastic I’m thinking they mean high density ceramic composites, and unless some major nanotech breakthrough has been achieved I can only doubt how far they can go with that.
A 2006 editorial written by Marc Monthioux and Vladimir Kuznetsov in the journal Carbon has described the interesting and often misstated origin of the carbon nanotube. A large percentage of academic and popular literature attributes the discovery of hollow, nanometer sized tubes composed of graphitic carbon to Sumio Iijima of NEC in 1991.[2]
In 1952 Radushkevich and Lukyanovich published clear images of 50 nanometer diameter tubes made of carbon in the Soviet Journal of Physical Chemistry.[3] This discovery was largely unnoticed, as the article was published in the Russian language, and Western scientists' access to Soviet press was limited during the Cold War.
en.wikipedia.org...-1
Diamond is in the news, and this is good news for nanotechnology. Diamond is a prime candidate material for building nanomachines for several reasons: the tetrahedral geometry of its bonds lets it be shaped in three dimensions without becoming floppy; it is made of carbon, the chemistry of which is well understood; and carbon atoms make a variety of useful bonds with other types of atoms. Diamond research may therefore advance nanotechnology even when it is pursued for its short-term commercial potential. Progress in understanding and making diamonds has been driven mainly by work done in the Soviet Union
www.islandone.org...
In the 1950s, while American industry started manufacturing diamonds at 2,000 degrees C and 55,000 atmospheres pressure, Soviet scientists developed a vapor deposition method for growing diamond fibers at 1,000 degrees C and low pressures.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet group improved on this process, aiming to produce diamond films.
The technological implications of diamond films have recently been realized in Japan and the U.S., and so a race has begun to develop this technology. Dramatic discoveries are being made:
At the University of Texas 10-nanosecond laser pulses are being used to vaporize graphite, which then deposits as a film 20 nm thick over areas as large as 10 square centimeters. The film is diamond-like, but may turn out to be something new. [3]
Soviet researchers report the discovery of a new form of carbon much harder than diamond, called C8. They use an ion beam of low energy to produce thin films of the substance. Carbon atoms in C8 appear to have tetrahedral bonds, but the lattice is somehow different than in diamond--it may simply be somewhat random, resembling a glass rather than a crystal.
Much of the new interest in diamond is motivated by near-term commercial applications like diamond-coated razor blades, scratch-resistant windows and radiation-resistant semiconductors for nuclear missiles. The C8 results, however, are of special relevance to nanotechnology, showing us that diamond is just the default form of more general tetrahedral bonding patterns for carbon. Choosing from among the many possible departures from crystalline regularity may turn out to be an important of nanomachine design.
www.islandone.org...
Originally posted by northwolf
reply to post by buddhasystem
Its a whole different thing to swap 30mm rounds than 125mm... you cant get it moving that quick with resonably sized hydraulic components.
Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by BlackWidow23
I’m just looking at the track with/roller wheel size and they do not have a profile of a tank.
They are obviously either full rubber or ‘live tracks”, which are used for airborne droppable vehicles. Actually M60 used live track as well, which was a major pain.
MBT is a made up classification, which was devised in order to create a confusing category which blurred the clear line between heavy and medium tanks.
If judging properly, so far only Merkava, Lecler and Type 90 are the Western counterparts to Soviet medium tanks.
Anything over 50 tonns is a heavy tank.
So by weight FCS fits in the medium class, but its tracks put it in the light class, so who knows.
I doubt that by 2020 T-95 will not be replaced with a more advanced design. I bet they had something like T-2000 in the works for years already, since T-95 has been around for almost a decade.
By plastic I’m thinking they mean high density ceramic composites, and unless some major nanotech breakthrough has been achieved I can only doubt how far they can go with that.
I do not debate that it fits in the medium class of tanks. I merely disagree with its classification as an APC. I see what your saying about the treads, however I am more inclined to "believe" the look of the video than the other concept pictures on the web that basically show an APC with a tiny gun on top.
I don't doubt a T-100 either, in fact I'm positive that it will be around by the time FCS comes out.
If were being hypothetical however I also would consider that the FCS isn't using today's technology either, its using 2020 technology just like the T-100. I wouldn't be surprised to see electrified armor and railguns, but this of course is specualtion.
average impact velocity of 1500m/s
Current estimates put a 140mm gun at well over 20MJ, and the way I see it if the M839A3 can penetrate upwards of 1,000mm of RHA than twice that muzzle energy can penetrate twice the armor. Thats 2,000mm or RHA..
The T-90 has armor thickness equivalent to 900mm of RHA with Konakt-5 included, so I would bet that the T-95 can withstand 1400 or 1500 at the current, amazing rate of Russian armor advances. Even so, its not going to block a 140mm round even from the front.
Again, largely speculation.
And I am positive that the FCS will be a part of the adventure. I can't see why you think that the FCS is designed without leaving enormous room for future technology. For instance, the F-22 was designed in 1990, but it entered service with 2005 technology. Congruently, the FCS was designed in the past few years yet it will also enter service up-to date.
Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by BlackWidow23
Actually M829A2 should be referenced since it’s the current round with its 1680 m/s velocity.
A2 was specifically designed to counter K5, while the latest Kaktus defeats the A2.
originally posted by iskander
I’m not sure how you conclude such an average. A2 specs are very clear;
At 2000 meters it penetrates 570mm RHA a 0 degrees, and 670mm RHA at 60 degrees.
Given the actual specs of A2 round, what would be the required mass/density/velocity in order to penetrate 2 meters of RHA at 2000 meters?
While muzzle energy might be considered as a constant, impact velocity is definitely a variable.
Actually gun caliber has little to do with SABOT rounds because SABOT is the part that separates from the fin stabilized penetrator dart. SABOT only holds the penetrator in place while it’s accelerated in the barrel.
Currently K-5 is obsolete. Kaktus is the modern armor system, and its performance does not take into account the effect of Arena APS system, which is capable of not only intercepting and destroying HEAT rounds, but also altering the trajectory of KE rounds, which in turn is further deflected by Kaktus.
Actually F-22s main systems are manufactured by Japanese companies, and that’s why major concerns over the amount of control Japanese enjoy over the project have been raised for years.
Quite simply put, if relations with Japan sour, by default they are in the position to practically stop the Raptor in its tracks with out ever having to fight it.
With the "Arena" System it will.
Can it stand up to the 140mm gun on the FCS? I doubt it. Thats a lot of kinetic energy. I can't really say without seeing RHA figures. But I can calculate probably kinetic energy somewhere in the ballpark. If KE=1/2mv Squared, and the weight of the M829 is a hair under 4 KG, with an average impact velocity of 1500m/s, than KE= or 11,250,000 or 11.25MJ. Thats the current Abrams gun round (M829A3) at 120mm DU. Current estimates put a 140mm gun at well over 20MJ, and the way I see it if the M839A3 can penetrate upwards of 1,000mm of RHA than twice that muzzle energy can penetrate twice the armor. Thats 2,000mm or RHA. The T-90 has armor thickness equivalent to 900mm of RHA with Konakt-5 included, so I would bet that the T-95 can withstand 1400 or 1500 at the current, amazing rate of Russian armor advances. Even so, its not going to block a 140mm round even from the front.
Again, largely speculation.
The ARENA is designed to defeat projectiles with a speed of 70-700m/s. A KE penetrator is significantly faster.
My point is that ARENA isn't fast enough to engage a KE penetrator regardless of how destabilizing it would be if it did, which is likely not as severe as you think.