Military Contracts Up for Bid [Archive]

Carbandia

08-11-2006, 21:31

"Best tank in the world", you say..I beg to differ..

As a counter offer, I offer you this design. She may be slower than the requirement (so is the Challenger2), but she meets all other requirements, and then some.

Armament:
The mod had specified a unusual caliber, a 122mm gun had not been seen on a mbt since the T10M tank from the 1950's, but AWW knew full well the reasoning behind this. The reasoning being that the rounds for the usual 125mm guns were getting on the ridicoulous side, and so decreasing the caliber, while increasing the muzzle velocity, was a usefull, if not the technically easiest way of solving this.
The first decision to make was simple: rifled, or no? AWW quickly decided on the latter, as the pros of a large bore rifled gun are debatable at best.
After 3 years of trial and error, finally a 122mm gun, 45 calibers in length, was successfully test fired, and earmarked for the new design, with this difficult step completed, AWW could move on to designing their new mbt around it.

Armour and self defense
Although the Matador had used the T72's more basic armour the idea of using this for their new mbt was immediately discounted, instead AWW decided on 2nd generation Chobbam armour, with explosive reactive back up. Also placed on the sides of the large, well sloping, somewhat rounded, turret were a total of sixteen smoke launchers, as the decision had been made not to include the T72's ability to generate smoke through its exhaust.
Coaxial with the main armament was placed a signle KPV heavy machine gun, just as the ministry's requrement, with a second one in a pintle mount on the commander's cuppola.

Engine, Gearbox, Transmission
The first choice to make was simple: diesel, or gas turbine. Again AWW made the choice with barely a second thought. Turbo powered diesel it was. A quick look over the country's less used tanks (mostly one offs left over from the liberation war) netted them the Iveco V12 diesel that powered the Ariete mbt. This was quickly copied, and placed in this new tank, giving it a impressive amount of power. Coupled to this was, unsurprisingly, the Ariete's gearbox, but the suspension was home grown, based on the T72's, just with the necessary modifications for the Merkúr's heavier weight.
The single most unusual thing about this configuration was that, after the success of that configuration in the Matador, the decision was made to put the engine up front, and with the turret well to the rear.

Electronics& fire control
Starting out with the most advanced computerized sighting system they could develop, ironically helped by the extra time taken to develop the main gun, AWW went forward with designing the rest of the Merkúr's electronic suite. A full stabilasation for the main gun was a obvios, and soon done, choice, as well as a ballistic computer, full sights for both commander and gunner, as well as periscopes for both, full nbc protection for the entire crew, a muzzle reference sensor, and a laser range finder, the latter also being able to range in shells for the Mauler, as accurate fire support can never be a bad thing.

Merkúr
type: Main Battle Tank
combat weight: 69,5 tons
crew: 4, commander, gunner, driver, loader
length: 10m (gun forward) (32.8 ft), 8,8m (front to back, not including the gun's extra length) (28.8 ft)
width: 4,5m (14.7 ft)
height: 3,1m (10.1 ft)
armour equalients; front: 1500mm, sides: 1200mm, rear: 800mm, top: 200mm, bottom 150mm (chobbam, with era)
Main armament: 122/45 smoothbore tank gun (this is a completely new gun, not one of the guns used in the past of same caliber)
secondary armament: 14,5 mm coaxial machine gun(directly linked to the main gun, so they always point in the exact same direction)
14,5mm machine gun (pintle mount)
ammo capacity:
main gun: 55rounds
14,5mm: 1000 rounds
powerplant: AWW V12 turbocharged diesel (copy of the Ariete's), 1500 bhp
suspension: extensively modified Christie type, with return rollers
speed: 55kmh
range 500km
power to weight ratio: 21.582

cost: 5m$
As mbt's go she isn't the cheapest in the world, but she is, imo (well..I am biased, after all it is my own design), a better design than the Challenger.

Franberry

08-11-2006, 21:44

OOC: Talk to the player called "Macabees" he has a storefront "Krizengimer" (sp) which sells the best armoued vehicles in MT.

The Macabees

08-11-2006, 22:08

The Nakíl was fast on her way to becoming the most widely exported tank in the world, and certainly Kriegzimmer and Atmos were looking for more clients to export the design to. Therefore, Tolven's offer was jumped on immediately.

Communiqué
Atmos and Kriegzimmer believe that they have a tank that fits your needs perfectly. We wish to bring your attention to the Nakíl 1A1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478771) (the link will take you to the official write-up; I understand that you may not want to read all of that, so I will summarize in a nutshell in this post how the tank fits your requirements), the current top of the line main battle tank. It has been exported widely across the world with 612,790 sales to date, making it perhaps the most widely exported tank in history. Nevertheless, statistics mean little and we'd like to offer you a perspective on why the Nakíl would be the best tank for your defense force's requirements.

The Nakíl's 120mm L/57 dual calibre liquid propellant high breech pressure cannon, armed jointly with the Macabee XG.784 'Atmos' APFSDS, can penetrate some of the toughest front plates you will come up against. The tank also offers the ability to fire a variety of other types of munitions listed under the category of ammunition in the main write-up. To put the power of the gun into perspective let's compare the M1A2's M829A3 APFSDS and the XG.784. The 120mm L/44 main gun of the M1A2 will fire the M829A3 with a muzzle energy of ~7MJ (KE = ½mv²), while the XG.784 is propelled by a muzzle energy of no less than 28MJ! Although this muzzle energy has probably been surpassed on other tank designs it important to realize that the Nakíl achieves this ability through very conventional technologies and is the most lightweight and inexpensive tank in the category of its abilities. Indeed, it has been often times called the best tank in the world.

In terms of protection the Nakíl offers some of the most advance ceramic composite technologies and explosive reactive armour concepts in the world. It achieves a very high RHAe rating with a very low real thickness. It can protect against any 120mm/125mm APFSDS fired from a conventional solid propellant main gun, no matter the length, and can protect against over half of the ammunition used in our world from the more advance tank cannons used, including electrothermal-chemical guns. In fact, there is not one tank round that has been able to perforate the front turret plate and the upper glacis plate yet. Just as important, the entire armour is modular, making it very easy to replace.

It, unfortunately, cannot reach a velocity of 75km/h on the road. However, we beg you to take into perspective this account. Off-road, where the majority of engagements will be done, the velocity will be equal to, or greater than, the off-road velocity of any other tank. Furthermore, we think that any lethality and protection advantages offered by the Nakíl far outweigh any deficiencies in mobility. Finally, at some point in the future the Nakíl 1A1 will see an update designed specifically for export which will include a power pack upgrade.

In terms of logistics, Kriegzimmer is able to supply enough spare parts for entire years, if required. The logistic cost is only marginally more expensive than that of the M1A2 Abrams. Finally, it has a crew of three, not four, but we'd like to persuade you about the superiority of autoloaders in tank designs. We genuinely believe that the autoloader is what is held in the future. The autoloader makes the tank cheaper, and unlike a human loader it's not subject to g-forces while the tank is movement and weight fatigue. Furthermore, the two autoloaders are mounted in an armoured bustle, and each cell is individually armoured to avoid ammunition fires. The autoloader on the Nakíl is not dangerous to the crew; this misconception of autoloaders is truly only applicable to the poor placement of the casette and korzina autoloaders in the Soviet T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 designs.

Just as important as anything else, Kriegzimmer does not leave its designed in the dust. The Nakíl will remain the principle tank of Kriegzimmer and Atmos for many decades to come. Of course, it will be upgraded and that is another advantage of the Nakíl. While other nations will design brand new tanks, costing you more to replace your own tanks, the Nakíl will constantly be upgraded to allow to remain the best main battle tank in the world. The Nakíl 1A2 is already in service with the Empire, and soon the 1A1U upgrade will be offered for export which will bring the 1A1 closer to the 1A2 (which is not exported on a wide scale for various reasons).

We are happy to reply to any questions you may have on our tank,

Kind regards

[signed]Atel D'minto, Kriegzimmer Board

Granate

08-11-2006, 22:34

Snip
I think we all know who we would pick. The Nakil looks amazing and I can't wait for the next model.

I suggest you go with that. It's well written and most players know what it is.

Crookfur

08-11-2006, 23:26

To:Richard Finch, Minister of Defense, Commonwealth of Tolven
From: Andrew Haraldson, Head of Sales, Crookfur Arms Land Vehicle Divsion
Re: IFV contract.

Dear Minister Finch,

If I may be so bold I would like to present to you one of the latest additions to the Crookfur Arms product inventory: the LAFV-23 Jager Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

CFAM LAFV23 Jager IFV

http://www.meatballs.terminator.org.uk/crookfur/images/neoifv.jpg

Weight: 28tons
Length: 7.4m
width: 3m
height: 2.49m
Crew 3 (driver, gunner, Commander)
Transport: 8 troops
Engine: CFPW T358 Multi fuel turbine rated at 550horse power (410Kw)
Water drive: 2 water jet systems (steer able)
Max speed: 75kph
0-30kph: 6 seconds
Range: 1000km
Weapons: 40mm CTA gun and 1 coaxial SX26B 8mm machine gun, 2 Launch tubes for M12 ATGMs, optional external Pintle mounts
Ammunition: 40mm rounds: 70 ready plus 100stowed, machine gun ammo: 400ready plus 1200stowed
Survivability: Layered titanium and rubber main layer with replaceable Chaotech outer panels and Armourfelt spall liner, provides protection against 30mm APFSDS rounds in the frontal arc and STANAG lvl 3 (14.5mm) to the sides and rear.
Electronics: fire control computer, tactical and command level voice/data links, direct integration with infantry com links, threat warning receiver, driver and gunner EO/IR vision systems, commander’s independent EO/IR sensor turret.
Estimated cost: $3.3million

The LAFV-23 Jager is the newest IFV in the Crookfur inventory and occupies the lower end of that class’s size scale. Designed to support lighter forces such as the Crookfur Marines the Jager balances exceptional manoeuvrability and terrain crossing ability with firepower that can be considered more than adequate. Primary lethality is provided by the G75A2 40mm gun. Using Cased Telescoping Ammunition the G75A2 offers impressive firepower in a very compact package, the gun’s rate of fire is fixed at 240rpm and it is used to fire a mixture of rounds, an APFSDS round capable of defeating 155mm of RHA at 1500m and a General purpose programmable pre-fragmented high explosive round that can be used as an airburst munition against soft targets or as a penetrating blast fragmentation weapon for dealing with structures. The main gun is supplemented by a pair of launch tubes for M12 ATGMs, capable of defeating most tanks at ranges of up to 9km.
The modular armoured skin of the Jager provides with protection against most automatic weaponry employed against such light targets and if required additional heavier schemes can be fitted, at a resultant cost in manoeuvrability and fuel economy, an active protect system can also be fitted to enhance survivability against heavy weapons.
Electronics wise the Jager features a full suite of communication and navigation systems, fire control and targeting data is provided by a multi band Electro optical and Infra red sensor system that offers full day and night targeting capability with integral laser and digital stereoscopic range finding. The targeting system can be used against a limited array of airborne targets as well as the usual ground targets. The main fire control sensor is supplemented by the commander’s independent sight (CIS), largely similar to the main fire control sensor the CIS has full 360 degree arc of movement and allows the commander to indentify and designate targets for the gunner to engage, in emergency the CIS can be used to provide targeting data and engagement control for the M12 ATGM launch system, allowing the commander to deal with one threat while the gunner deals with another using the main gun.

As you can see the Jager meets or exceeds all of your requirements, particularly in terms of firepower. We do of course accept that some of the more unique bits of equipment, in particular the coaxial machine gun, might not fit your military and as such we are willing to offer a version with a modified weapon's fit, inclduing if absolutly required (although we would strongly recommend agaisnt it) replacement of the 40mm CTA gun with a 30mm gun system of your choice.

I hope you find the Jager satisfactory and I am eager and willing to answer any questions you may have.

Yours Sincerly
Andrew Haraldson,
Head of Sales, Crookfur Arms Land Vehicle Divsion

Tolven

09-11-2006, 07:15

[NS]Pushistymistan

09-11-2006, 07:19

[ Damn you, you caught me just as I was trying to work up my economy so that my nation could feasibly have the T-97 I designed for it.

:x ]

Tolven

09-11-2006, 07:21

Crookfur

09-11-2006, 18:03

We prefer the 30mm round as it already used on our Marine AAVs and our Motorised forces use 30mm armed LAV IIIs, thus ensuring logistical commonality. We will take your proposal under study though.

Would I be correct to assume that the gun in question is the MK44/ Bushmaster II gun system? if so then we can easily modify the turret to acommodate it.

Hurtful Thoughts

09-11-2006, 18:18

though my country only reffers to armored vehicles as either "light" (IFVs included) or "heavy" (MBT range) I'll offer you our two standard models.

The MBT we offer meets all your criteria, except it carries an autoloader in an osiosolating turret, a retrofit /w/ a standard non-autoloading turret is also feasable.
HT-106

For an IFV, we offer you the HT-101 light "tank", it comes in many models, one even sports a 105 mm gun.

10 internal dismounts, plus optional seating atop the tank for additional 10 troops during high speed travel (handholds, 'sling seats'/safety harnesses optional).

Standard model carries a 35 mm cannon, a .50 caliber machine gun, flamethrower, rapid (unguided) repeating rocket launcher, ATGMs and other weapons can be mounted as well.

Doubles as a light tank and air-defense platform.

Follow the storefront (in sig) if you are interested, feel free to ask questions.

Vault 10

09-11-2006, 19:32

MBT:

120mm gun or larger
Armored against 120mm tank rounds and ATGMs
Speed of at least 75 kph on road
Good offroad mobility
Reasonable logistic and maintenance demands
Crew of 4, we do not favor the use of autoloaders

Your requirements are quite interesting. For comparison, none of our companies would ever consider purchasing something without an autoloader. The actual question is how you design the turret, not how you load, and performance of autoloaders, even on T-80, reaches 10 rounds per minute, well above human capabilities.

To The Macabees:
The 120mm L/44 main gun of the M1A2 will fire the M829A3 with a muzzle energy of ~7MJ (KE = ½mv²), while the XG.784 is propelled by a muzzle energy of no less than 28MJ! Although this muzzle energy has probably been surpassed on other tank designs it important to realize that the Nakíl achieves this ability through very conventional technologies
An interesting comparison. We were going to inquire about the specific technology used, however, upon discovering that it's a design for around 2020, the comparison is probably not representative, as M1 will be but a forgotten piece of history at that time, given the required tech advance rate.

The Macabees

09-11-2006, 20:38

Communiqué to Kriegzimmer

Your tank is certainly impressive, however given the small size of our nation and currently limited military budget, we feel $9 million per copy may be out of our range.

Richard Finch
Minister of Defense
Commonwealth of Tolven

Communiqué to Richard Finch, MoD, Tolven

That's understandable. However, 9 million is actually comparably cheaper than most tanks that are of less quality than the Nakíl. You can purchase an M1A2 Abrams for $5.6million a piece. However, the Nakíl will be able to consistently knock out the Abrams at ranges of 4,000km+ given the fact that the APFSDS round it uses doesn't lose velocity over range given the rocket assist (a concept tested in Sweden, mind you), therefore allowing high penetration rates at ranges previously thought impossible! The Nakíl would consistently knock out various numbers of lower quality tanks at higher ranges, before that tank could even respond! We think that this quality is worth the cost given that you can have a comparatively smaller quantity of Nakíls and still have the same lethality as a larger number of other tanks.

[signed]Atel D'minto

An interesting comparison. We were going to inquire about the specific technology used, however, upon discovering that it's a design for around 2020, the comparison is probably not representative, as M1 will be but a forgotten piece of history at that time, given the required tech advance rate.

Communiqué to [insert name here]
[OOC: The technology on the tank is at most 2015. It, of course, is based largely off concepts for the future main battle tank.]

The gun is a dual caliber high breech pressure regenerative liquid propellant gun, based largely off the XM291. To be completely honest, it uses the regenerative liquid propellant quality as a 'high velocity' propellant, as it also uses a standard solid propellant casing. The XM291 achieved muzzle energies of ~17MJ, the liquid propellant and the fact that its accelerated by a rocket thereafter as well (RAMjet) achieved muzzle energies of ~28MJ. Consider the average muzzle energy ~25.5MJ with a standard deviation of 2.5x. The AGS 225, which will be featured on the Nakíl 1A2, will not use a solid propellant but will achieve higher muzzle energy (required as well, as the round will be twice as heavy as existing ammunition). The entire gun system is a bit complicated to explain, but beyond what has been mentioned the solid propellant is also less effected by ambient temperature and has a smoother burn and expansion process. (The write-up should explain it all)

[signed]Atel D'minto

Carbandia

09-11-2006, 21:06

ooc: The Merkúr is entirely possible in real life..The only real "new" technology used in it is the gun..And it's entirely conventional..So conventional, in fact, that I've been tempted to design a new mbt to replace her..But that's irrelevant here..

If you want my ,2c, then Mac's Nakíl is the tank to go for. While it may not be the cheapest of the options, it is definetly one of, if not the, best one, so far..Certainly better than the Merk (pricier, though, but that's what comes with capability)

Red Tide2

09-11-2006, 23:22

Official Message from Tech-Com Corporation to Tolven Goverment
"We offer two fine tanks for your convenience. First is the mainstay of the Red Tidean Armored forces: the MBT-66.

The MBT-66(nicknamed the Hydra) is armed with a 122mm ElectroThermal-Chemical(ETC) Gun using Liquid Propellants. This allows the gun to have a decent muzzle energy of 23 MJ, in comparison with the Abrams 7 MJ . The gun can fire Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding SABOT(APSFSDS) round, High-Explosive Anti-Tank(HEAT) rounds, and High-Explosive Fragmentation (HE-FRAG) rounds. The reason for the odd choice of caliber was more logistical then anything else, with the primary self-proppelled and towed artillery pieces of the Red Tide Military also being 122mm, it allowed HE-FRAG shells from any one of those artillery pieces to be used on the MBT-66 and vice-versa. The tank is also armed with a 6.8mm co-axial machine gun and a 15.5mm mounted heavy machine gun.

The MBT-66s armor consists of 500mm of 3rd generation Chobham Armor at its thickest point, giving it a pretty good RHA value, with a average slope of 85 degrees. The latest version(which is the version we always have up for sale) have the REA-20 Reactive Armor in order to provide better protection against HEAT shells and warheads. Finally, in order to help defend against Rocket Launchers and Anti-Tank Missiles, the Hydra is outfitted with an ARENA-2 Anti-Missile/Rocket System that destroys the rocket/missile in flight.

The tanks auto-loader is better and safer then any of those found on Russian tanks, but is decent when it comes too modern(OOC: Modern=NS) tanks. This reduces to a crew of three(gunner, driver, commander). The tanks fire control, sensors, and targetting systems are up to date with standard modern designs.

All in all, the MBT-66 is a decent, solid, all around tank. We are offering them for a price of 7.6 million Universal Standard Dollars(USD). But, as a bonus, we will not charge anything for any future upgrades to each individual tank.

Next we have the APC-45.

The APC-45 is Red Tides standard Armored Personnel Carrier. Armed with twin 30mm auto-cannons capable of targetting both surface and aerial targets, the APC-45 is a good weapon for carrying troops into battle AND providing aerial protection.

The APC-45 comes in four variants. The APC-45A, which is the standard transport. The APC-45B, which is the recon variant. The APC-45C, the command variant. And the AAPC-45, the amphibious variant.

The APC-45A has an ATGM-4 Top Attack Laser Guided Anti-Tank Missile Launcher, plus the capability to hold 10 passengers in addition to its crew of two(gunner and driver). The APC-45B has a reduced transport capacity of five passengers and no ATGM launcher, but carries extra sensors and communication equipment, a very good choice for a recon screen.

The APC-45C is a good choice for carrying Platoon, Company, and other smaller unit(IE: Below 300 men) commanders. The C version retains the ATGM launcher, but completely radically reduces passenger space to 3, this gives space for a commander to properly overview his troops. The AAPC-45 is no different from the A variant, except its amphibious.

All variants have the same measure of protection, 200mm of 3rd generation Chobham armor with a 60 degree slope, plus a light amount of REA-20 Reactive Armor. It is also equipped with the ARENA-2 Anti-Missile/Rocket System.

We are selling this for 4.2 million dollars per vehicle. Our special offer on the MBT-66 extends to this vehicle too."
End Message

Tolven

10-11-2006, 01:24

After much consideration we have decided to purchase 450 Nakil 1A1s at a cost of $4,050,000. We also request technical assistance in modified some of the vehicles into CEVs and AVLBs for our combat engineering forces.

The IFV competition is still open at this time.

Richard Finch
Minister of Defense
Commonwealth of Tolven

Otagia

10-11-2006, 01:50

Pale Rider Arms would like to put forward the Nezumi Oni IFV. Along with its variants, such as the Kinezumi Minelayer, we believe it would serve both mechanized infantry and your engineer corps extremely well. While the default model does not carry ATGMs, it can easily fitted with them.

Length: 6.9 meters
Width: 3 meters
Height: 2.7 meters
Tread Width: .45 meters
Ground Contact: 5.58 sq. meters
Mass: 30 tonnes
Ground Pressure: 6.63 PSI
Crew: 2 (Commander/gunner, driver)+8

Armor: Proof against up to 40mm front arc, 20mm sides
Active protection: Shuushi APS (Otagian version of ARENA)
Passive protection: Slat armor

Power Plant: PRA 540 kW Diesel Engine
Top Speed: 80 km/h
Top Swim Speed: 10 km/h
Fuel Capacity: 700 liters
Range: 500 kilometers

Primary Armament: 30x150mm caseless automatic cannon
Secondary Armament: Front mounted 13mm HMG
Primary Ammunition: 350 rounds
Secondary Ammunition: 800 rounds

Unit Cost: 3,000,000 USD

The Macabees

10-11-2006, 02:07

Communiqué to Richard Finch, MoD, Tolven
We're glad that you have chosen the Nakíl main battle tank as your tank of choice. The order for 450 Nakíl 1A1s has been processed at $4,050,000,000, or four billion and fifty million Universal Standard Dollars (USD). These vehicles will be shipped in four shipments, with one shipment coming every two months - thereby ending the order within eight months. Although there is no mass produced combat engineering vehicle available yet (due to my lazyness, rather than lack of interest) it would be possible to convert many existing vehicles into CEVs. The Ejermacht (my Army) does this, or coverts older MBTs to save money. However, we do offer a mass produced AVLB named the SRE.14 Fernántes, although we call it a TLB (tank launched bridge). We can provide technical assistance to convert existing Nakíls sold to you to the Fernántes, or you may buy them seperately. We also offer production rights for the Fernántes, so that your nation may produce them as needed. Each individual vehicle can be procured at $2.6 million a piece, or production rights may be purchased for $260 million.

Thank you for your time and for your business. We appreciate the ultimate choice. We guarantee that the Nakíl 1A1 will not let your armed forces down.

[signed]Atel D'minto

Vault 10

10-11-2006, 04:47

The XM291 achieved muzzle energies of ~17MJ, the liquid propellant and the fact that its accelerated by a rocket thereafter as well (RAMjet) achieved muzzle energies of ~28MJ. Consider the average muzzle energy ~25.5MJ with a standard deviation of 2.5x.
Thanks. This way it is understandable and likely feasible by 2015, if 140 mm caliber is used. The only correction is that, as the ramjet works after leaving the barrel, it would be more precise to speak about maximum energy of 28 MJ, not muzzle. Normally muzzle energy equals the maximum, but not here. It's in fact even better, as the energy decreases less prior to reaching the target.

This tank might be considered for limited purchase by Vault-Tec at at some later point (once we move out of the pure MT timeline we're in now). However, we're worried about operating and repair complexity, which would unfortunately not let it to become a replacement for the older tanks. The round cost is also a problem, as even normal ATGMs easily cost twenty thousands per unit, and a ramjet withstanding powerful shock in the barrel has to be much more expensive. As so, we are interested, how much does each ramjet-equipped round cost, and are any included in the tank price?

Eric Verner,
Vault-Tec Security Department.

Tolven

10-11-2006, 07:38

Communique to Atel D'minto

We at present only require 30 each of the CEV and AVLB variants, and we prefer to use a common chassis to simplify maintenance and logistical issues.

[NS]Pushistymistan

10-11-2006, 08:47

[Too tired to write a proper letter. Will format later.]

To: Tolven Ministry of Defence
From: Ohlopkov-Galagan Design Bureau, PSH
Subject: ICV contract bid

+++In reply to your request for a new infantry combat vehicle for your nation's military, our enterprise would like to put forward our BMP-5 (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/BMP-5) vehicle (specs attached). We feel that this ICV surpasses the proposed Nezumi vehicle produced by Pale Rider Arms, Incorporated, in that it possesses both a lower profile and has more stopping power to its main thirty-millimetre autocannon, and is also considerably lighter, allowing for easier transport by air.

With regards,

[signature]

Matvei Vanchurov

Vault 10

10-11-2006, 13:16

Pushistymistan;11927790']
In reply to your request for a new infantry combat vehicle for your nation's military, our enterprise would like to put forward our BMP-5 (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/BMP-5) vehicle (specs attached). We feel that this ICV surpasses the proposed Nezumi vehicle produced by Pale Rider Arms, Incorporated, in that it possesses both a lower profile and has more stopping power to its main thirty-millimetre autocannon, and is also considerably lighter, allowing for easier transport by air.

OOC: Good work. It's really relieving to see something without all these "it has the UberTec armor" wanks. I hope they won't appear, and have some suggestions while the description is incomplete.

IC:
Greetings.

Our force might be interested in your vehicle in the close future. However, we would suggest to mount a slightly more powerful engine, since DE transmission is somewhat less efficient. Also, I don't exactly understand the need for 5-gear DE transmission. It would likely be more efficient to use less gears, 2 or 3 at most. Electric motors provide very good torque at low rpm and don't need lower gears as badly; one for climbing, one for rugged terrain and one for soft/road would be sufficient. The need for gear 2 is eliminated, and the 1 might be unnecessary, as its force could surpass maximum traction, making tracks the limiting factor.
Other than that, we find this a viable base for improvements.

Kenzo Hirukawa,
Aerospace Logistics Consulting CEO.

The Macabees

10-11-2006, 21:14

Sorry about not answering it in-character.

Thanks. This way it is understandable and likely feasible by 2015, if 140 mm caliber is used.

The caliber of the gun is irrelevant to how it works. The XM291 worked in 1989, and liquid propellants have worked since the end of the Second World War. The gun technology is really not that advanced, just rather unknown.

The only correction is that, as the ramjet works after leaving the barrel, it would be more precise to speak about maximum energy of 28 MJ, not muzzle.

The RAMjet engine has nothing to do with muzzle energy for the penetrator, just keeping round velocity and muzzle energy at ranges of 2,000m+, so unlike your standard APFSDS it still has maximum penetration ability at 2,000m, making engagement range less important that it would normally be.

However, we're worried about operating and repair complexity, which would unfortunately not let it to become a replacement for the older tanks.

150 Abrams cost ~$450 for every mile of manuever. The Nakíl costs ~$ 750. The price increase is not as bad as one would think, and suspension components can be easily swapped for a logistically saner suspension, such as a torsion-bar suspension.

The round cost is also a problem, as even normal ATGMs easily cost twenty thousands per unit, and a ramjet withstanding powerful shock in the barrel has to be much more expensive.

ATGMs actually cost ~$150,000, even older Soviet ATGMs. This APFSDS would only be marginally more expensive than a standard APFSDS. Well, perhaps double the price. But to be honest, it's well worth the cost.

As so, we are interested, how much does each ramjet-equipped round cost, and are any included in the tank price?

Price of the ammunition is not included. The ammunition is sold with the amount of tanks you buy for no additional cost - you are allowed to manufacture them in your own country. At first this wasn't a possibility, but with the introduction of a new round for the Nakíl 1A2 there is no longer much of a 'secret'.

~~~~

Communiqué to Tolven
All of the vehicles we offer with the Nakíl, including the Regisnar use the chassis of the Nakíl. Since the Nakíl's armour is completely modular we can add new panels as we see fit, and not have extremely heavy and expensive chassis.

[signed]Atel D'minto

Otagia

10-11-2006, 21:24

Pushistymistan;11927790'][Too tired to write a proper letter. Will format later.]

To: Tolven Ministry of Defence
From: Ohlopkov-Galagan Design Bureau, PSH
Subject: ICV contract bid

+++In reply to your request for a new infantry combat vehicle for your nation's military, our enterprise would like to put forward our BMP-5 (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/BMP-5) vehicle (specs attached). We feel that this ICV surpasses the proposed Nezumi vehicle produced by Pale Rider Arms, Incorporated, in that it possesses both a lower profile and has more stopping power to its main thirty-millimetre autocannon, and is also considerably lighter, allowing for easier transport by air.

With regards,

[signature]

Matvei Vanchurov

OOC: A nice design, and probably superior to the current make of the Nezumi (it IS my first IFV, after all), but I noticed a slight problem. If your short tonnage is right, your long tonnage should be 26.958 tonnes, or 20.5 short tons if the other way around. That and the Nezumi actually has a smaller profile than the BMP (8.1 square meters when compared to 8.8 square meters from the front, assuming both are rectangular solids).

Crookfur

10-11-2006, 22:11

Otagia: It not that good, seeing as it a basic copy paste of a BMP-3 with a few NS tech things thrown in and about 3-4times the armour added at the cost of 1 transported troop and a whole 200kg of weight growth...

Vault 10

10-11-2006, 23:50

(semi-OOC)
Abrams cost ~$450 for every mile of manuever. The Nakíl costs ~$ 750. The price increase is not as bad as one would think, and suspension components can be easily swapped for a logistically saner suspension, such as a torsion-bar suspension.
We're actually more concerned with the barrel. Actually, the need for a titanium barrel seems not exactly clear, as it is under tension load, where titanium might be not at its best. But, given very high stress of firing rounds at 28-MJ, and vulnerability of all titanium alloys to crack development under shocks, this must be a sensitive part. So difficulties with obtaining replacement and impossibility to rapidly produce it at versatile steel machining equipment may be undesirable for us.

(OOC: I just don't get the idea. Engine, tracks, hull, whatever - it has been tried for many things, but if there's place where no RL company will ever use titanium, it's something designed to withstand shock tension loads. Titanium alloys are only marginally stronger than steel for that purpose, but feature neither steel's durability and longevity, nor its technological and maintenance properties.)

ATGMs actually cost ~$150,000, even older Soviet ATGMs. This APFSDS would only be marginally more expensive than a standard APFSDS. Well, perhaps double the price. But to be honest, it's well worth the cost.
Yes, that's what we're talking about - that even a ATGM, featuring a simpler and cheaper engine, costs $20,000-$200,000. (ooc: Javelin shot is $100k, older Soviet are cheaper, unlike newer ones). The round features a ramjet operating under much more harsh conditions and with higher speed and power; it is unlikely to be cheaper, even cutting non-engine ATGMs parts. So the cost of rounds is an important consideration if tanks are to operate intensively.

Price of the ammunition is not included. The ammunition is sold with the amount of tanks you buy for no additional cost - you are allowed to manufacture them in your own country. At first this wasn't a possibility, but with the introduction of a new round for the Nakíl 1A2 there is no longer much of a 'secret'.
Strictly speaking, it's not like producing one's own rounds is free - and Vault-Tec needs them in the first place for defense reserve, so service life, ease of maintenance and operation, fast and technically undemanding repairs and resupplies are our major concerns. Since we are not sure that the original supplier will exist at the moment these tanks are required, due to massive NBC exchange being likely background, we can not rely on external sources.
We're also interested about the situation with 1A2 round.

With respect,
Eric Verner,
Vault-Tec Security Department.

Notice: That doesn't mean that none of other companies will consider this. Corporations of Vault 10 are completely independent, feature very different doctrines, and may even give military assistance to both warring sides. However, the military doctrine of Aerospace Logistics Nonconsensual Delivery Department strongly discourages against symmetric warfare and head-on tank battles, rather relying on highly coordinated application of weapons which specifically exploit recipient's vulnerable points and which the recipient is particularly ineffective against. Other corporations at the moment are experiencing less favorable financial conditions.

OOC:
~~~~ WP habit or from elsewhere?

The Macabees

11-11-2006, 00:40

We're actually more concerned with the barrel. Actually, the need for a titanium barrel seems not exactly clear, as it is under tension load, where titanium might be not at its best. But, given very high stress of firing rounds at 28-MJ, and vulnerability of all titanium alloys to crack development under shocks, this must be a sensitive part. So difficulties with obtaining replacement and impossibility to rapidly produce it at versatile steel machining equipment may be undesirable for us.

Chrome plated guns have already been tested successfully by Rheinmetall. Whatever titanium's susceptibility is to shock it's irrelevant given that it's titanium cored chromium. Irregardless, newer titanium alloys have been considered for steel replacement and their susceptibility to mechanical shock waves is not as profound as you make it out to be. From papers I've read titanium should have 90% the effectiveness of steel, and newer titaniums should be superior to steel - these are, of course, titanium alloys. It should be an important consideration that the majority of the plating of the gun remains chromium, and not titanium, as well. Titanium has been tested widely for jobs such as this. For example, gamma titanium aluminide has been tested for gas turbine construction, and titanium-aluminum alloys have achieved states in which fatigue crack growth is no longer a major issue with manufacturing. It should also be noted that WHA/titanium alloys are used extensively for materials for penetrators, which have to withstand high shock by definition.

I think the issue with using titanium more widely in the real world isn't the fact that it can't be applied, but the cost that goes along with it. More recent manufacturing techniques have decreased prices exponentially, however.

Yes, that's what we're talking about - that even a ATGM, featuring a simpler and cheaper engine, costs $20,000-$200,000. (ooc: Javelin shot is $100k, older Soviet are cheaper, unlike newer ones).

Soviet tank launched guided missiles such as the 9M112 Korbra used by the T-64B and the T-80 were $150,000+. Soviet tanks normally only carried four because the missiles outweighed the cost of the tank!

The round features a ramjet operating under much more harsh conditions and with higher speed and power; it is unlikely to be cheaper, even cutting non-engine ATGMs parts. So the cost of rounds is an important consideration if tanks are to operate intensively.

Muzzle velocity of the ammunition is not dramatically increased. The DM63 has a velocity of ~1,750m/sec+ according to Rheinmetall. Although the write-up does state velocities of 2,200m/sec+ optimum penetration velocity is actually closer to 1,980m/sec (see graph below). The future APFSDS used by the Nakíl 1A2 will actually exist at around 2,000m/sec. The fact that it uses a ramjet also allows much slower exit velocities which can then be accelerated through cold acceleration outside the barrel, allowing much more mass to the round and therefore potentially better perforation of an enemy target.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8571/voptimum2rr.jpg

Km/sec should really be m/sec.

Irregardless, on NationStates tanks really begin to have impenetrable armours, with RHAe ratings of 2,000mm+. It will take a more expensive round to knock out a more expensive tank, whether this is aesthetic to you or not. An APFSDS for double the price is worth it when it's able to perforate the enemy when a cheaper APFSDS won't be able to. And this round will still be cheaper than an ATGM given that guidance is non-existant, or smaller since it's not as complicated, the engine is also smaller since initial velocity exists and the RAMjet doesn't need to be big enough to accelerate to these high velocities in the first place, and the warhead (the penetrator) is cheaper than your common ATGM HEAT warhead.

Strictly speaking, it's not like producing one's own rounds is free - and Vault-Tec needs them in the first place for defense reserve, so service life, ease of maintenance and operation, fast and technically undemanding repairs and resupplies are our major concerns.

It's not free, but it's considerably cheaper to produce them in large quantities yourself than to purchase them off the original manufacturer.

We're also interested about the situation with 1A2 round.

Although the new gun will remain relatively as complicated, most likely, the new round will be much less complicated. I can't divulge much information on the new ammunition given the level of secrecy sorrounding the tank and the amount of copying which has been done on Macabee technology in the past (OOC: read Lame Bums). However, current tests prove that penetration of enemy targets is superior to 2,700mm of RHA! It will, in other words, be able to penetrate any target. Unfortunately, the new round will not be offered for export except to five already chosen nations.

[signed]Atel D'minto

[NS]Pushistymistan

11-11-2006, 05:31

[ @Otagia, tonnage: Yeah, you're right. Musta overlooked that when I was editing.

@Otagia, profile: Actually, I was referring to the height, something that US Army troops criticise about the Bradley.

@Vault: Thanks for the critique. However, according to my understanding, DE is even more efficient than straight-up diesel. I could be wrong, but if you could show me a chart or something, if you have one? I actually intended the five gears to be "Forward (Road), Forward (Country), Overforward, Reverse and Climb." I dunno. Maybe those aren't right.

@Crookfur: I take offence to your accusation that I copy-pasta'd from the BMP-3. Of course it's similar--it's a development. What did you think an ex-Soviet bloc nation would do; make up an entirely new design? As for the armour, the BMP-5 originally did have some titanium-encased ceramic armour, but I decided to drop that in favour of something cheaper. I had the armour values on another page, and transferred them to the individual article sometime earlier, but forgot to edit it, and for that I apologise. On the weight, I for some reason actually decreased the weight. I'll edit that, as well.

@Chrome/titanium: He's right. Titanium is good; chrome is the best. It increases accuracy, but adds more cost (like many other things). ]

Tolven

11-11-2006, 07:09

Vault 10

11-11-2006, 12:26

OOC:
I'll just discuss these things OOC here. Please don't take this as offense, criticism of the tank or whatever like that, but rather as a pure technological discussion.

To [NS]Pushistymistan:
Chrome is fine. I'm about titanium.
Considering gears, DE systems have some losses in the generator and motors, and the overall efficiency can be lower or higher, depending on various factors; generally, though, it's still a better choice for an IFV. A slightly more powerful engine, say, 600-700 hp, won't hurt in any case, since speed is becoming more and more important. I've forgot about reverse, so five gears including it are probably OK.

Chrome plated guns have already been tested successfully by Rheinmetall. Whatever titanium's susceptibility is to shock it's irrelevant given that it's titanium cored chromium.
Now it's somewhat different, but... Still, why use titanium for the barrel? The weight decrease achieved could be only very marginal, given that the major load is barrel pressure (quadruple compared to M1A2), producing tensile load, where high strength steel still remains has been the material of choice.

For example, gamma titanium aluminide has been tested for gas turbine construction, and titanium-aluminum alloys have achieved states in which fatigue crack growth is no longer a major issue with manufacturing. Yes, titanium has long been is used in gas turbine alloys. But here the consideration is its high thermal endurance, not shocks (which aren't there).

It should also be noted that WHA/titanium alloys are used extensively for materials for penetrators, which have to withstand high shock by definition.
High shock - but a single time. Titanium isn't exactly brittle, but just tends to have crack problems in the long term. It's low crack development energy.

For instance, if you take a carbon steel wire and bend/straighten it, it will normally take a lot of cycles to break it, and under lower magnitude it will stand for ages. Take an aluminium wire of the same gauge and it will usually take just several cycles; or, for as many cycles, incomparably lower magnitude. Titanium isn't used for wires, but, if it were, even with that low magnitude it would only stand a few cycles. Despite being stronger normally, titanium would quickly break under a dynamic load which aluminium would stand for longer, and steel can survive for ages even under weight-proportionally higher load.
While metal of the barrel isn't bent, it withstands a similar kind of loading, as bending is actually compression and tension. When the propellant burns, the barrel is subjected to force of expanding gases. With multiple use - and the gun has to be fired in training and exercises - the barrel is under very dynamic loads, which provide good conditions for microcracks expansion. Steel is almost immune to cracks compared to lighter alloys.

Of course, that can be countered by extra thickness, but it kills the very point of having titanium barrel. Under tensile loads titanium isn't much stronger related to weight than steel, especially HY steel which exceeds titanium alloys in tensile strength.

I think the issue with using titanium more widely in the real world isn't the fact that it can't be applied, but the cost that goes along with it. More recent manufacturing techniques have decreased prices exponentially, however.
Typical titanium alloys cost about $20/kg. The Soviet Union had built a number of submarines with titanium hulls, including not only Lira / Alfa class and Komsomolets / Mike, but also the Akula / Typhoon class, the largest subs ever.
Some of the titanium subs were decommissioned due to hull cracks, even despite being enclosed in light hulls (made of steel) and not subjected to shocks - almost perfect conditions for titanium except for static load.
Of course, manufacturing is more difficult, but some parts of a boat are not less complicated than a gun.

Soviet tank launched guided missiles such as the 9M112 Korbra used by the T-64B and the T-80 were $150,000+. Soviet tanks normally only carried four because the missiles outweighed the cost of the tank!
Ah, these, barrel-launched.are expensive I meant the infantry ones; and actually emphasized that they are expensive.
BTW, T-80 costs about $2,500,000, and T-64 is expected to have comparative costs around $1,500,000-$2,000,000. The costs of the T-64, as well as Soviet ATGMs, are estimates only, due to non-market economy.

Muzzle velocity of the ammunition is not dramatically increased. The DM63 has a velocity of ~1,750m/sec+ according to Rheinmetall. Although the write-up does state velocities of 2,200m/sec+ optimum penetration velocity is actually closer to 1,980m/sec (see graph below). The future APFSDS used by the Nakíl 1A2 will actually exist at around 2,000m/sec. The fact that it uses a ramjet also allows much slower exit velocities which can then be accelerated through cold acceleration outside the barrel, allowing much more mass to the round and therefore potentially better perforation of an enemy target.
So, at which speed or at which energy does the round exit the barrel? That's just mostly of academic interest, but still.

Irregardless, on NationStates tanks really begin to have impenetrable armours, with RHAe ratings of 2,000mm+. It will take a more expensive round to knock out a more expensive tank, whether this is aesthetic to you or not.
No doubt. I was just meaning the question is how much specifically would that round cost, given that ramjet in a tank round is an expensive system. My guesstimate would be around 50-100k.
(note: since not all rounds carried should be AP, as tanks' primary targets include a lot of less armored vehicles, this doesn't need to be multiplied by total load; still, it is of interest for determining actual amount that needs to be spent on each unit).
However, that's not a deterrent, of course.

P.S. Again, this is about suggestions, maybe for 1A2, rather than criticism.

Crookfur

11-11-2006, 12:47

We are pleased to announce that we have chosen the LAFV-23 Jager Infantry Fighting Vehicle as the winner of our IFV contract. We require 800 LAFV-23s for a total of $2,640,000.

We thank all participants who offered vehicles for consideration.

Richard Finch
Minister of Defense
Commonwealth of Tolven

Many thanks for choosing Crookfur Arms.
Devlieries of your vehicles will commence within 3months and be completed withing 4-5years.

Yours Sincerely
Andrew Haraldson

(I assume you still want the MK-44 modification)

OOC:

@Crookfur: I take offence to your accusation that I copy-pasta'd from the BMP-3. Of course it's similar--it's a development. What did you think an ex-Soviet bloc nation would do; make up an entirely new design? As for the armour, the BMP-5 originally did have some titanium-encased ceramic armour, but I decided to drop that in favour of something cheaper. I had the armour values on another page, and transferred them to the individual article sometime earlier, but forgot to edit it, and for that I apologise. On the weight, I for some reason actually decreased the weight. I'll edit that, as well.
Well when msot of the stats are exactly the same it is a copy n paste job and msot of your modifications would require at least soem changes in various dimesions by the time you start adding an entirely new drive system, power supply unit for the ETC, larger ammo storage system, revised troop compartment and completely different armour you would be as well designing a new vehicle. Such a design would likely still look a bit BMPish in the same way that the new chinese IFVs do.
I'm sorry if I came over as more agressive than I intended.

Southeastasia

11-11-2006, 13:48

[OOC: Check out Sarzonia's Portland Iron Works (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457777) to fill in whatever contracts you desire.]

The Macabees

11-11-2006, 20:25

tensile load[/B], where high strength steel still remains has been the material of choice.

Barrel pressure is not necessarily quadrupled. Just because I have about 3 times the amount of muzzle energy should mean that barrel pressure quadruples. A liquid propellant will actually exert less pressure than a solid propellant, and the majority of that pressure should be at the end, since unlike a solid propellant a liquid propellant continues to build up pressure (on the other hand, given that velocity increases a solid propellant will lose pressure at the end). Furthermore, the solid propellant used on the Nakíl should expand much more smoothly, meaning it would exert less pressure than the solid propellant used by current conventional 120mm smoothbore guns.

The barrel is still made out of steel; I don't think that was ever in question. It's just a matter of what alloy can withstand higher barrel pressures. Steel is necessary for barrel integrity and construction, but protecting that steel from heat fatigue and corruption is a completely different matter, and a titanium-chrome alloy, with higher levels of chrome, should do the job pretty well.

Yes, titanium has long been is used in gas turbine alloys. But here the consideration is its high thermal endurance, not shocks (which aren't there).

It also has to withstand the mechanical shocks of fuel detonation.

High shock - but a single time. Titanium isn't exactly brittle, but just tends to have crack problems in the long term. It's low crack development energy.

Which is why nobody here said the Nakíl is using pure titanium. There are differences in how titanium responds to fatigue and corruption when alloyed with different metals.

Titanium isn't used for wires, but, if it were, even with that low magnitude it would only stand a few cycles.

Titanium has actually been considered for wires for shipping.

Steel is almost immune to cracks compared to lighter alloys.

Not according to Rheinmetall.

Of course, that can be countered by extra thickness, but it kills the very point of having titanium barrel.

And, um, when did anybody claim the Nakíl was using a titanium barrel?

Typical titanium alloys cost about $20/kg.

Titanium costs have gone done by over 50% in the recent years, and titanium technology has undergone leaps and bounds since the Cold War so parallels are exactly relevant.

Ah, these, barrel-launched.are expensive I meant the infantry ones; and actually emphasized that they are expensive.

But a tank is not an infantry weapon, so it's better to compare the costs of tank ammunition, not tank ammunition to infantry ammunition.

BTW, T-80 costs about $2,500,000, and T-64 is expected to have comparative costs around $1,500,000-$2,000,000. The costs of the T-64, as well as Soviet ATGMs, are estimates only, due to non-market economy.

I don't think it's an issue of the T-64 or the T-80, but of the T-72. The T-72 price should be between $500,000 and $600,000.

So, at which speed or at which energy does the round exit the barrel? That's just mostly of academic interest, but still.

The current APFSDS should exit at around 2,000m/sec. The penetrator, as said before, has a muzzle energy of 28MJ.

No doubt. I was just meaning the question is how much specifically would that round cost, given that ramjet in a tank round is an expensive system. My guesstimate would be around 50-100k.

I think it would actually be at around $20,000, at the most. If mass produced in large quantities, like it's bound to do in NationStates, much cheaper than that.

(note: since not all rounds carried should be AP, as tanks' primary targets include a lot of less armored vehicles, this doesn't need to be multiplied by total load; still, it is of interest for determining actual amount that needs to be spent on each unit).

If you read the write-up, you'll notice that not all the rounds mentioned are anti-tank rounds.

Vault 10

11-11-2006, 20:55

The barrel is still made out of steel; I don't think that was ever in question. It's just a matter of what alloy can withstand higher barrel pressures. Steel is necessary for barrel integrity and construction, but protecting that steel from heat fatigue and corruption is a completely different matter, and a titanium-chrome alloy, with higher levels of chrome, should do the job pretty well.
That's different matter. However, at the moment the topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478771) doesn't mention that, only speaking about titanium.

Not according to Rheinmetall. Where exactly?

And, um, when did anybody claim the Nakíl was using a titanium barrel?
If I recall correctly, I've read it here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478771

"The introduction of new, lightweight, titanium alloys has been able to achieve a serious breakthrough in tank cannon construction technology and has certainly increased the logistic life of the 120mm smoothbore. Most importantly, it has made the cannon lighter, which has been the goal of the Arca project since it was first foreseen that a new tank would be needed to replace the vaunted, but not up to standards, Cougar."
"The barrel is made out a cold-worked, chrome plated titanium alloy core, increasing the amount of inner barrel pressure it could take to around 1,200 MPa, increasing the probability for a first shot hit."

But a tank is not an infantry weapon, so it's better to compare the costs of tank ammunition, not tank ammunition to infantry ammunition.

I don't think it's an issue of the T-64 or the T-80, but of the T-72. The T-72 price should be between $500,000 and $600,000.
Actually, about $1,300,000 - 1,500,000. T-90 costs around $2,500,000, and is closely based on T-72. While there was cost difference between the "strike" and "army" lines, it was mostly absorbed by quite different introduction dates and consequently major upgrades.

If you read the write-up, you'll notice that not all the rounds mentioned are anti-tank rounds.
Sorry to say that, but, at rough equivalent of 60-80 paper pages, the description is really long, so I've probably missed some points.

The Macabees

11-11-2006, 21:31

That's different matter. However, at the moment the topic doesn't mention that, only speaking about titanium.

No, the thread does mention the fact that titanium is not used as a stand alone element.

"The barrel is made out a cold-worked, chrome plated titanium alloy core, increasing the amount of inner barrel pressure it could take to around 1,200 MPa, increasing the probability for a first shot hit."

The idea was taken straight from the new Rheinmetall 105mm gun project. I guess I misworded it and should have included that the entire barrel was not made out of chrome and titanium, it just includes new cold-worked technology to increase the amount of barrel pressure it can withstand.

Where exactly?

It was on the Rheinmetall site. I can no longer find it.

Actually, about $1,300,000 - 1,500,000. T-90 costs around $2,500,000, and is closely based on T-72.

What's your source, especially on the T-90? The T-90 does feature a completely new turret which resembles that of the T-80, not the T-72, while armour thickness has more than doubled (according to Russian sources). The T-90 is not in the same league as the T-72, and they are not comparable. According to Steven Zaloga's book on the T-72 the cost of four tank launched missiles outweighed the cost of the tank itself. Given this information and the fact that each missile cost ~$150,000 dollars, then the tank would be cheaper than $600,000. According to a book on the Cold War which I can't remember the name of now, but will check out against on Monday when I go back to class, Soviet tanks were all under $700,000 until very recently.

To put armour protection into perspective, according to Russian sources, take a look at this graph:

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/239/tabl11od.gif

Vault 10

11-11-2006, 22:04

No, the thread does mention the fact that titanium is not used as a stand alone element.
Well, titanium is almost never used standalone. When it's said "titanium", some titanium-based alloy is assumed. Applies to my posts as well.

What's your source, especially on the T-90? The T-90 does feature a completely new turret which resembles that of the T-80, not the T-72, while armour thickness has more than doubled (according to Russian sources). The T-90 is not in the same league as the T-72, and they are not comparable. According to Steven Zaloga's book on the T-72 the cost of four tank launched missiles outweighed the cost of the tank itself. Given this information and the fact that each missile cost ~$150,000 dollars, then the tank would be cheaper than $600,000. According to a book on the Cold War which I can't remember the name of now, but will check out against on Monday when I go back to class, Soviet tanks were all under $700,000 until very recently.
Ah... I guess they used Soviet data for costs. These data are very warped, due to non-market economy. For instance, Antey/Oscar class submarines was considered to cost 200-something millions - and that's for something Ohio-sized. In that economy some costs were invisible and embedded in resources. When it came to market, the real costs became more apparent.

BTW, that's true, T-90 is far more advanced overall, but uses it the same main structure, and continued the cost/performance line; it's perfection which made it good.

Tolven

11-11-2006, 22:24

[QUOTE=Crookfur;11932882]Many thanks for choosing Crookfur Arms.
Devlieries of your vehicles will commence within 3months and be completed withing 4-5years.

Yours Sincerely
Andrew Haraldson

(I assume you still want the MK-44 modification)
QUOTE]

The money has been wired.

And yes we do still want the Mk-44 gun.

The Macabees

14-11-2006, 01:30

Well, titanium is almost never used standalone. When it's said "titanium", some titanium-based alloy is assumed. Applies to my posts as well.

That's because of the price of titanium. Recent breakthroughs in titanium have reduced price by several times.

Ah... I guess they used Soviet data for costs. These data are very warped, due to non-market economy.

No, the low cost is due to the simplicity of the design and the amount of tanks that were produced.

BTW, that's true, T-90 is far more advanced overall, but uses it the same main structure, and continued the cost/performance line; it's perfection which made it good.

No, it doesn't use the same structure. The turret is completely different.

Vault 10

18-11-2006, 15:28

That's because of the price of titanium. Recent breakthroughs in titanium have reduced price by several times.
It was $5 per pound. To what, 1-2 bucks? No, they couldn't, it is still more expensive than aluminum.

And alloys are used because pure titanium has poor mech. properties.

The Macabees

18-11-2006, 19:02

Oh god, here we go again, arguing in circles.

It was $5 per pound. To what, 1-2 bucks? No, they couldn't, it is still more expensive than aluminum.

Aluminum was twice the price of RHA and titanium many times the price of aluminum. Recently they have decreased the price of titanium by at least 50%. If you want papers ask Nianacio on the Draftroom, he will provide them. And, no they couldn't do what? The price of titanium is irrelevant to whether or not they could use it. Titanium is already used, that isn't the issue. The issue is using it more widely, which was impossible before due to cost considerations. Obviously, cost considerations are not palled by the fact that cost reduction in titanium price has been very dramatic.

And alloys are used because pure titanium has poor mech. properties.

Umm, ok, that is completely irrelevant. Alloys are also used because it improves the characteristics of a homogeneous element. Steel doesn't have poor qualities, yet it's still alloyed. You are trying prove a non-existent point.

Hurtful Thoughts

18-11-2006, 19:21

Oh god, here we go again, arguing in circles.

Umm, ok, that is completely irrelevant. Alloys are also used because it improves the characteristics of a homogeneous element. Steel doesn't have poor qualities, yet it's still alloyed. You are trying prove a non-existent point.

Where did you learn your metallurgy?!

Steel IS A TYPE OF ALLOY!
Like Bronze and Brass.

The Macabees

18-11-2006, 19:35

Where did you learn your metallurgy?!

My mistake, a slip of the tongue. Yet the point still stands. And thank you for spamming the thread with the different names of steel and titanium. I'm sure that it's well appreciated, although it doesn't make you look any smarter - trust me. The point still stands that alloying is done to increase the characteristics of what it was originally, whether it was a compound or an element. You are simply arguing semantics.

Vault 10

18-11-2006, 19:40

Aluminum was twice the price of RHA
Actually, usually aluminum is many times more expensive than steel. Though not any steel. RHA can be different as well.

The issue is using it more widely, which was impossible before due to cost considerations. Obviously, cost considerations are not palled by the fact that cost reduction in titanium price has been very dramatic.
Not as it may seem, unless you mean Cold War times. The USSR built entire classes of submarines of titanium. That's hundreds of kilotons. Cost of titanium for such a small device as a tank gun is low, way below really considering in a tank.

Umm, ok, that is completely irrelevant. Alloys are also used because it improves the characteristics of a homogeneous element. Steel doesn't have poor qualities, yet it's still alloyed. You are trying prove a non-existent point.
If you mean iron, it has poor qualities by itself, and is used as steel or cast iron, both of which are alloys. Even though iron dominates there, a little carbon and sometimes other elements can change the properies dramatically, making steel range from mild and durable construction steel to HY180 tool steel.
Titanium isn't an exception. It, by itself, is quite soft material, but, for instance, titanium-tungsten alloy is one of the hardest. Pure titanium finds little use, due to mechanical properties, and alloys are (almost) always used instead.

The Macabees

18-11-2006, 19:52

Actually, usually aluminum is many times more expensive than steel. Though not any steel. RHA can be different as well.

According to Paul Lakowski's Armor Technology, it's twice the price, not many times the price. I didn't say 'any steel', I said rolled homogeneous armored steel (RHA).

Not as it may seem, unless you mean Cold War times. The USSR built entire classes of submarines of titanium. That's hundreds of kilotons. Cost of titanium for such a small device as a tank gun is low, way below really considering in a tank.

It's not low in any respect, and titanium is not necessarily used only in tank guns. It's used in tank armor, as well, to replace steel. Previously, titanium had an effectiveness of around 90% of RHA, however, according to papers that Nianacio can provide you titanium alloy should be superior both to RHA and IRHA.

And by entire classes you might mean the Alfa class and the K-278 Komsomolets. The latter, Mike, sunk due to reactor problems and neither the Alfa nor Mike class were cheap, in any definition of the word. IIRC, not all Alfa class submarines had titanium hulls, either.

If you mean iron, it has poor qualities by itself, and is used as steel or cast iron, both of which are alloys.

No, I meant steel. I realize steel isn't an element, yes, but it's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that both existing compounds and elements are alloyed or alloyed further to increase certain characteristics - it doesn't mean the original was worthless or weak, it just means the newer alloy is better. Furthermore, like has been said before in my arguments it's already been embossed that I'm using a titanium alloy, not pure titanium, so you are simply trolling by arguing in circles.

Even though iron dominates there, a little carbon and sometimes other elements can change the properies dramatically, making steel range from mild and durable construction steel to HY180 tool steel.

In terms of armor, tool steel is more or less worthless.

Pure titanium finds little use, due to mechanical properties, and alloys are (almost) always used instead.

Umm, nobody said anybody was using pure titanium. You are arguing in circles again, and getting nowhere. Your argument has no relevant to this thread anymore, and I don't know why you continue to post.

Vault 10

18-11-2006, 20:07

According to Paul Lakowski's Armor Technology, it's twice the price, not many times the price. I didn't say 'any steel', I said rolled homogeneous armored steel (RHA).
Ehr, what's the point of comparing steel armor (steel isn't normally armored, since it isn't needed) to aluminum?

It's not low in any respect, and titanium is not necessarily used only in tank guns. It's used in tank armor, as well, to replace steel. Previously, titanium had an effectiveness of around 90% of RHA, however, according to papers that Nianacio can provide you titanium alloy should be superior both to RHA and IRHA.
I've told that several times - the problem is not strength, it is durability and longevity under highly dynamic loads.

And by entire classes you might mean the Alfa class and the K-278 Komsomolets.
And Typhoon, the largest ever.

[/QUOTE]IIRC, not all Alfa class submarines had titanium hulls, either. [/QUOTE]
Yes. 4 out of 7.

Furthermore, like has been said before in my arguments it's already been embossed that I'm using a titanium alloy, not pure titanium, so you are simply trolling by arguing in circles.
Alloys have these problems. Pure titanium isn't used (but has problems as well), alloys are, and they suffer from rapid crack development.

Your argument has no relevant to this thread anymore, and I don't know why you continue to post.
No particular reason. I just have a habit to respond when someone speaks to me, that's all.

The Macabees

18-11-2006, 20:20

Ehr, what's the point of comparing steel armor (steel isn't normally armored, since it isn't needed) to aluminum?

Um, I wasn't. I was comparing the cost, which is relevant. Cost in tanks is very relevant.

I've told that several times - the problem is not strength, it is durability and longevity under highly dynamic loads.

Right, and I have rebutted this by saying that titanium alloys have already proven to be superior than any type of steel when used in engine components that need to be able to withstand constant and large mechanical shock waves during fuel detonation. Therefore, a titanium alloy used in conjunction with chrome should not suffer any fatigue or crack problems when used in a gun, therefore the argument is moot. Titanium has also proven to be superior against mechanical shock waves during long-rod penetration.

There isn't a problem, it has already been established.

And Typhoon, the largest ever.

And one of the most expensive, as well.

Alloys have these problems. Pure titanium isn't used (but has problems as well), alloys are, and they suffer from rapid crack development.

Hasty generalization. There are various titanium alloys that don't suffer from high cracking or fatigue that have been proven to work.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Military Contracts Up for Bid