NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, setting aside that I'm not a fan of killing people under any circumstances, war being no exception, there are impressive machines that are...well, kind of neat.

This is a thread about that kind of thing, in the spirit of the best ship, and best plane threads of recent weeks.

I'll start off with a big artillery cannon that shoots 155mm shells at a rate of 3 rounds in 9 seconds on burst, 10 rounds a minute if pressed, and 5 rounds a minute for as long as there's ammunition. And it can cart around the place at 60km/h.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PzH_2000

A beauty, isn´t she :p

I've always been impressed by this Swedish beast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-tank)...

I've always been impressed by this Swedish beast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-tank)...
Hihihi...that looks funny. Like someone stepped on it. :D

I know, I know, boring...but a classic :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_II

Hihihi...that looks funny. Like someone stepped on it. :D

Yep...some people have very large feet :p

Hihihi...that looks funny. Like someone stepped on it. :DThe rate of fire is incomparable to other tanks, though... But that didn't save the S-tank from being replaced by "the classic"...:D

This thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130_gunship) sounds and looks like a madman's idea, but judging from what I hear from people that have seen it in action, it works.
(And if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.)

I've always been a fan of the Mi-24 Hind...gotta love an attack helicopter that also carries a squad of infantry. :D

Some pics...you have to scroll down...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mi-24-pics.htm

I've always been a fan of the Mi-24 Hind...gotta love an attack helicopter that also carries a squad of infantry. :D

Some pics...you have to scroll down...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mi-24-pics.htm

congratulations, you have found the single ugliest thing to ever take to the air

This thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130_gunship) sounds and looks like a madman's idea, but judging from what I hear from people that have seen it in action, it works.
(And if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.)

I love the idea of just mounting a 105mm artillery weapon from a lumbering old Hercules. Whoever thought of it was an evil genius. :p

congratulations, you have found the single ugliest thing to ever take to the air

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/hind2a.jpg

THAT doesn't need to be pretty...it just needs to kick ass! :D

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/hind2a.jpg

THAT doesn't need to be pretty...it just needs to kick ass! :D

I know, it's just that the russians have the incredible ability to make the ugliest helicopters in the world. Here are some more examples:

Mi-25
http://news.pseka.net/uploads/img/ARMY_PICS_MI-25.jpg

Mi-26
http://www.airforce.ru/show/gelendzhik2000/Mi-26.jpg

Mi-28
http://www.samolet.co.uk/jpegs/mi-28.jpg

Come on... Stridsvagn S is the stupidest tank ever built.
"There's someone behind us, kapten!"
"Skit! Get out of the tank, now!"

If you lined them up in a row on the frontline, and the enemy came at you from the exact direction the cannon was pointed, then it's a great tank. But all other scenarios leave the tank doomed.

This (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/images/olifant_tank1.jpg) tank however is cool. Not only is it sturdy and southafrican, it's also named after a fantasy creature!

I've always been impressed by this Swedish beast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-tank)...
That Stridsvagn 103 has a very, very low profile. Tankers love that, since they can go into "hull defilade" and virtually disappear! :D

Bloody hell, that thing's (Mi-28) got a bigger nose than Pinocchio!

I know, it's just that the russians have the incredible ability to make the ugliest helicopters in the world. Here are some more examples:

Mi-28
http://www.samolet.co.uk/jpegs/mi-28.jpg

DUDE!!! That thing rocks! I want one! :p

DUDE!!! That thing rocks! I want one! :p

The russian government'll sell you one for a few mil.

The russian government'll sell you one for a few mil.

*starts to save money*

Only $3,497,891.05 to go! :p

DUDE!!! That thing rocks! I want one! :p
Looks like someone just threw some Apache AH-64 parts together and prayed for a real helicopter! LOL!

I don't know, the hind is kind of pretty from certain angles (ok maybe i have been playing Operation Flashpoint far far too much).

In those pictures the Mi-26 looks a bit... Depressed, like a sort of sad cartoon character and the Mi-28 looks look a dog.

Now some of my favourite impressive military toys:
The An-72 (known to russian crews as "the mouse")
http://combatavia.info/an72.jpg

And the Beriev Be-200 multirole amphibian. I like flying boats as this is a particualrly cool jet example.
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/beriev_be-200/images/Be200_1.jpg


And finally soemthing that will likely never be biult but still pretty awesome:
http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/beriev/be/2500/be2500_e.htm

I still expect someone to pop up and throw the famous quote:

"men don´t grow up, only the toys are getting more and more expensive"

so far I have been disappointed :(

Otherwise, lol :D

And the swedish flatbread is definitely ugly...but cute somehow

The theory behind those ground effect aircraft is pretty cool. It's a pity no-one's willing commit to it & put it into production.

I always like the Mil 12. Even though they only built three.

http://www.scanliners.com/Serie100/Box142/14259.jpg

It could carry forty tonnes of cargo, and 120 passengers. Think about that in terms of logistics.

The russians have always been good at helicopters though.

The state of the russian aerospace industry is both entertaining and depressing.

Basically they keep coming up with all these wonderful ideas and rally cool models, unfortunatly they all come with the tag line: "If some one would just PLEASE (pretty please) give us some money we could build them and change the world."

The russians seem to be where the UK industry was in the 50s/60s/70s, lots of really cool world beating stuff, just never enough money or govenrment will to get them off the ground.

The russians seem to be where the UK industry was in the 50s/60s/70s, lots of really cool world beating stuff, just never enough money or govenrment will to get them off the ground.

Yep, the graveyard of most creativity

The state of the russian aerospace industry is both entertaining and depressing.

Basically they keep coming up with all these wonderful ideas and rally cool models, unfortunatly they all come with the tag line: "If some one would just PLEASE (pretty please) give us some money we could build them and change the world."

The russians seem to be where the UK industry was in the 50s/60s/70s, lots of really cool world beating stuff, just never enough money or govenrment will to get them off the ground.

It's a vicious cycle. The industry is in a shakey state, so people (commercial entities) don't want to buy there stuff because they are worried about parts, in-line maintainence updating AWB &t. But of course that just means that they can't sell enough stuff to become more stable.

And yes, I agree with you, it is like the UK, esp. in the 50s. Basically, the Russians are in many respects the world leaders in aviation, especially when it comes to large transports and rotor wing. Not to shabby with the fighters either. It's a shame for anyone who likes avaition to see the lack of support for their industry.

How about this:

Project 705 Лиpа
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_class_submarine

noisy as hell, but fast, and it can reach 600 m and live to tell about it.

I always like the Mil 12. Even though they only built three.

http://www.scanliners.com/Serie100/Box142/14259.jpg

It could carry forty tonnes of cargo, and 120 passengers. Think about that in terms of logistics.

The russians have always been good at helicopters though.

As an Afghan rebel backin the 60's once said:
"I am not afraid of the Russians, but I am afraid of their helicopters."

How about this:

Project 705 Лиpа
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_class_submarine

noisy as hell, but fast, and it can reach 600 m and live to tell about it.How about the new German 212A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine)?
It's the most powerful non-nuclear submarine out there.:D

Well at least the Russian and Ukrainian (as is the case for Antonov) are trying to support them, unlike UK govenrments who had a habit of decalring manned fighters obsolete and canceling pretty much finished projects to buy inferior US products (most notably buying the chinook instead of the Fairy Rotodyne) or in the case of the TSR-1 to waffle around and end up not buying anything at all.

I do understand the reasons behind it all, but it still anoys me, maybe if the EU and US would stop bitching about each other and pouring silly money into Airbus and Boeing then things might improve. Unfportunatly that will never happen.

How about the new German 212A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine)?
It's the most powerful non-nuclear submarine out there.:D

depends how you define powerful. that right there, it's totally silent and cant be tracked by temperature gradiant, but it's slow, and doesn't pack a huge punch.

An Alfa can probably outrun that thing's topredos.

How about the new German 212A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine)?
It's the most powerful non-nuclear submarine out there.:D

I´ve been living for some time in Kiel and seen the original in the picture...unpretentious on the outside, impressive technology...rocket fuel for submarines

I doubt the concept was ever going to really work in modern warfare, but I always liked the Kiev class "aircraft carrier"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_class_aircraft_carrier

depends how you define powerful. that right there, it's totally silent and cant be tracked by temperature gradiant, but it's slow, and doesn't pack a huge punch.

An Alfa can probably outrun that thing's topredos.

The point in being non-nuclear...also your russian-style reactor won´t blow at the most inconvenient moment...this is like comparing apples and spare tires :p

Well at least the Russian and Ukrainian (as is the case for Antonov) are trying to support them, unlike UK govenrments who had a habit of decalring manned fighters obsolete and canceling pretty much finished projects to buy inferior US products (most notably buying the chinook instead of the Fairy Rotodyne) or in the case of the TSR-1 to waffle around and end up not buying anything at all.

I do understand the reasons behind it all, but it still anoys me, maybe if the EU and US would stop bitching about each other and pouring silly money into Airbus and Boeing then things might improve. Unfportunatly that will never happen.

I'd forgotten about Fairey. :mad: That was cool. Stupid government white papers.

It's just the way the defense industry is though. I am surprised the Harrier sneaked through. Of course, you realize everyone is going to be forced to take those crappy ospreys as well.

I doubt the concept was ever going to really work in modern warfare, but I always liked the Kiev class "aircraft carrier"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_class_aircraft_carrier

Actually, the concept of putting airplanes on ships is quite well proven in modern warfare. The thing is only called an "aircraft carrying cruiser" so that Turkey will let it pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.

depends how you define powerful. that right there, it's totally silent and cant be tracked by temperature gradiant, but it's slow, and doesn't pack a huge punch.

An Alfa can probably outrun that thing's topredos.

Not if it loads out with spearfish.

I'd forgotten about Fairey. :mad: That was cool. Stupid government white papers.

It's just the way the defense industry is though. I am surprised the Harrier sneaked through. Of course, you realize everyone is going to be forced to take those crappy ospreys as well.

At least there is a more modern Rotodyne going for the US's new heavy lift VTOL project IIRC. its up against Boeing's 2 different entries (one is the quad tilit rotor the other is simply an up scaled osprey) and a couple entries from the lieks of lockheed. Basically it s hercules with a rotor on top...

The point in being non-nuclear...also your russian-style reactor won´t blow at the most inconvenient moment...this is like comparing apples and spare tires :p

The reactor will only blow if you do something phenomenally stupid, like running it all the way across the Atlantic at full speed like in Hunt for Red October. The Alfa's that are still in service have all been refitted with new coolant pumps and other reactor accessories that make them much safer and also help to cut down on noise.

It ultimately depends on the captain. Using extremely deep sprint and drift tactics, and Alfa could duck below the layer and sprint, then just sit and wait.


@ Lacadaemon
Yes, but so far, only the UK uses those.

Actually, the concept of putting airplanes on ships is quite well proven in modern warfare. The thing is only called an "aircraft carrying cruiser" so that Turkey will let it pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.

That was pretty clear defined in the link...but the construction set is somewhat different...maybe look at the photo :p

I doubt the concept was ever going to really work in modern warfare, but I always liked the Kiev class "aircraft carrier"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_class_aircraft_carrier

The russians aren't the only ones with anti shipping missiles on thier carriers, either the spanish or the italians have a bunch of OTOMAT launchers on thier (admittedly) much smaller carrier.
The french also had a "helicopter criuser" that was only recently retired. Also during ww2 the japanese had a couple of "battlecarriers": converted abttleships that retained thier frontal main guns, unfortuantly the ships were rubbish to begin with and the carrier deck didn't really help thier already existing structural problems, but in soem naval games (like navyfeild) they are pretty awesome.

and while we're on the subject of torpedos, check out what a Mk-48 can do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg

The reactor will only blow if you do something phenomenally stupid, like running it all the way across the Atlantic at full speed like in Hunt for Red October. The Alfa's that are still in service have all been refitted with new coolant pumps and other reactor accessories that make them much safer and also help to cut down on noise.

It ultimately depends on the captain. Using extremely deep sprint and drift tactics, and Alfa could duck below the layer and sprint, then just sit and wait.


@ Lacadaemon
Yes, but so far, only the UK uses those.

Maybe you also noticed that germany and the UK are somewhat...let´s call it allied, sharing technology and such?

And again, the primer was non-nuclear, what good is such a hulking beast in the baltic and the north sea (which is germanies typical sphere of military interst:rolleyes: )
great to go running from a torpedo in the heavily screened and about 100m deep baltic...maybe you get lucky and simply bounce off denmark, they accept refugees

sorry, I didn't look closely at the picture and thought it was of a different Russian carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which does feature a ski jump bow and appears similar at a glance.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov.jpg


my bad

Isn't it kind of strange that Germany is one of the most peaceful nations on earth these days, yet builds weaponry of all kind and exports it everywhere?

Isn't it kind of strange that Germany is one of the most peaceful nations on earth these days, yet builds weaponry of all kind and exports it everywhere?

Its called being european, its our favourite past time, just about all the european countries have export centred defence industries.

Isn't it kind of strange that Germany is one of the most peaceful nations on earth these days, yet builds weaponry of all kind and exports it everywhere?

Well Germany does have an outstanding reputation for engineering & quality.

sorry, I didn't look closely at the picture and thought it was of a different Russian carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which does feature a ski jump bow and appears similar at a glance.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov.jpg


my bad

No slight taken :)

Isn't it kind of strange that Germany is one of the most peaceful nations on earth these days, yet builds weaponry of all kind and exports it everywhere?

Yes, somehow the money has to flow back for closing all that tax holes :p

Looks like someone just threw some Apache AH-64 parts together and prayed for a real helicopter! LOL!

IIRC, both the Mi-28 and Ka-50 were designed to shoot down the Apache. (which is also one *ugly* beast)

Isn't it kind of strange that Germany is one of the most peaceful nations on earth these days, yet builds weaponry of all kind and exports it everywhere?

Actually, it's a habit of developed nations. Not just Europeans. Not just Americans (although we're not exactly peaceful).

The Chinese are rapidly replacing the Russians as the exporters of ammunition, small arms, artillery pieces, and used tanks.

How about the Israeli CARPET minefield breacher?

RAFAEL CARPET (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/mines/carpet/Carpet.html)

3.5 ton thing firing a salvo of 20 thermobaric rockets covering a huge area, detonating anything that's underground and burning anything that's overground to a crisp.

I am generally very fond of fuel-air technology. Nukes for poor, pretty much. Huge overpressures, huge temperatures, huge blast wave, and no radiation whatsoever.

Actually, the concept of putting airplanes on ships is quite well proven in modern warfare. The thing is only called an "aircraft carrying cruiser" so that Turkey will let it pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.

I know about the Russian designations of their aircraft carriers, thanks to the Montreaux Convention.

I am also fully aware that the concept of putting airplanes on ships is well proven in warfare (:rolleyes: :p )

The Kiev was just a bad attempt at an aircraft carrier.

The Kiev class was loaded with SAMs, Surface to Surface missiles and Torpedo tubes, and in that sense it was a very respectable heavy cruiser.

It's aircraft carrier capabilities, however, were downright pathetic. It could only carry about 30 aircraft. Half were helicopters, and the other half Yak-38 Forgers.

The helicopters were either the Ka-25 Hormone, or the Ka-27/29 Helix

You want to talk about goofy looking helicopters, check those out! :)

Helix (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ka27.jpg) Hormone (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ka-25-dnst8611142.jpg)

Forgers are similar to Harriers in speed and rate of climb, but only have 1/3 the payload capacity and range.

Basically, they took an half-assed Invincible class, and welded it to the side of a battlecruiser! :eek:

If that was the kind of aircraft carrying capacity the Soviet navy was truly looking for, they would have been better off making some larger versions of the Moskva (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/moskva-DNST9007632.JPG) Helicopter Carrier, more straight-up battlecruisers like the Kirov (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/kirov-DDST8606722.JPG) class , and making task forces out of them.

Silly Commies. :p

The helicopters were either the Ka-25 Hormone, or the Ka-27/29 Helix

You want to talk about goofy looking helicopters, check those out! :)

Helix (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ka27.jpg) Hormone (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ka-25-dnst8611142.jpg)


Yeah, there goes Kamov with their fixation on coaxial rotors.

Ka-50 "Hokum A"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/Ka50.heli.750pix.jpg

Yeah, there goes Kamov with their fixation on coaxial rotors.

You know, I've often wondered if it would be worth it to mount a rear facing turboprop engine on the tail of a coaxial rotor helicopter...

...definetly a speed and a rate of climb increase, although I bet manuverability at higher speeds would go out the window.

You know, I've often wondered if it would be worth it to mount a rear facing turboprop engine on the tail of a coaxial rotor helicopter...

...definetly a speed and a rate of climb increase, although I bet manuverability at higher speeds would go out the window.

Off hand, I would imagine it would mess up the main rotors mu ratio, and you'd get all kinds of flutter problems.

Also, sort of the point of co-axial design is that you can get nice little compact tails.

Off hand, I would imagine it would mess up the main rotors mu ratio, and you'd get all kinds of flutter problems.

Also, sort of the point of co-axial design is that you can get nice little compact tails.

Couldn't you put some sort of frame around the prop and negate the flutter problem?

Couldn't you put some sort of frame around the prop and negate the flutter problem?

The flutter in the main rotor would be caused by the extra thrust on the main fuselage I'd guess.

Think of it this way, in normal flight (no turbo-prop) the avergage velocity of the advancing blade is higher than the retreating blade, causing one side to generate more lift than the other. Normally this is okay as the rotor is hinged, but if the imbalance is too great, the blade begins to flutter (flap up and down).

Now; if you add an extra component to this - e.g. thrust from a truboprop, you are definitely going to increase the average velocity of the advancing blade, and although the absolute difference in average velocity between the forward and retreating blade remains the same, the difference in lift will almost certainly be increased, thus tending the main rotors towards flutter. And the more thrust the turbo prop adds the worse this will become. I would imagine this is why they don't bother with that type of boosting. (though this is just off the top of my head, I could be wrong and it is some other reason entirely).

Well, for me, it's got to be the Challenger II. Unlike the Leclerc, it has forward gears, heavier and more effective [iirc] armour than the Abrams, and it's easily comparable to the Leopard 2A6. However...it does have a rifled gun-.-

Another one was the HMS Vanguard; The last battleship ever made in the world, and it was British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(1944)

my fav gun here:

http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/index.php?id=642 :sniper:

CV-90 with AMOS double-barrelled mortar turret.

http://members.surfeu.fi/stefan.allen/cv90amos.html

Interesting light artillery - with couterbattery radar almost a given, the highly mobile nature of the beast is a definate plus.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as31-e.htm

Haven't had a chance to use this rifle yet, but it looks interesting.

Interesting light artillery - with couterbattery radar almost a given, the highly mobile nature of the beast is a definate plus.
Which one? The mortar or the original post?

Anyways, here's the Panzerhaubitze 2000 again:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pzh2000/

Does anyone know how long it takes one of those to get ready to fire?

THIS (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/) and THIS (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/apache/)

Which one? The mortar or the original post?

Anyways, here's the Panzerhaubitze 2000 again:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pzh2000/

Does anyone know how long it takes one of those to get ready to fire?
I was responding to the dual mortar carrier, but any artillery has to be mobile. The days of massed towed artillery hub to hub are long gone, nothing more than juicy tempting targets for couterbattery, airstrikes, etc.
The Paladin is OK, but the basic platform is dated. The MLRS is more interesting....