Jura The idiot
General
thanks Jeff, at first I didn't understand what you meant by
in https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/european-military-news-views.t4395/page-43#post-336599 ... and now I think I do
European Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter sandyj
- Start date
thanks Jeff, at first I didn't understand what you meant by
Jura The idiot
General
now I'm trying to figure out the propulsion of the F-125:
anybody cares to comment?
anybody cares to comment?
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
now I'm trying to figure out the propulsion of the F-125:
anybody cares to comment?
An electric hybrid engine perhaps?
For cruise, two 4,7MW electric motors will power the shafts, one each. The electricity will be provided by four 2,9MW diesel engines, therefore effectively acting as generators. For sprint ops, a single 20MW gas turbine can be added which, via some kind of gearbox, will add power to the shafts. Additionally, there's a 1MW bow-thruster for maneuvering. I don't know if this is an electric motor unit or a seperate engine, though.
As to deployment cycles: I don't think we necessarilly need to stay in any one theater for two years. But we can move from one to the next for up to 24 month at a time, therefore saving the time for transit to homeport and then back to the next operation. That probably allows for some of the savings in asset numbers.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Equation
Lieutenant General
I think it's better for the German arm forces to bring back the G3 series assault rifles. Yes they are a bit heavier than the G36 but hell it works and still looks great.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
G3 uses Delayed Roller locked operation, it often deformed casings and was far more expensive to manufacture. The problem is not the operation that can be salvaged the issue is the packaging is sub par. The Recever assemblies were manufactured using Polyethylene which is cheap cheap plastic the type used in shopping bags and soda bottles as apposed to the specified Polyamide.
Polyethylene is not any where near as heat resistant. So when exposed to heat from sitting the sun or ambient air and humidity or firing. The plastic started to melt because trunion that houses the barrel is steel and the barrel is steel as the G36 was fired heat built up in the barrel conducted into the Trunion which softened the plastics causing point of shift changes.
Polyethylene is not any where near as heat resistant. So when exposed to heat from sitting the sun or ambient air and humidity or firing. The plastic started to melt because trunion that houses the barrel is steel and the barrel is steel as the G36 was fired heat built up in the barrel conducted into the Trunion which softened the plastics causing point of shift changes.
That whole thing is really a mess, especially in public information practices, IMO.
For starters, if the final report is only about to be out now, I already don't understand why the MoD saw the need to announce preliminary findings two or so weeks ago without conclusive data. Time wise those 2 weeks won't make a difference. However, it stirred up so much speculation and controversy. Now there's so much theories half- or misinformation, it will be really difficult to get all this straight, I'm afraid.
With the many G36 users, the BW seems to be the only one really having those issues. The Peshmerga are reported to love those weapons , and the Lithuanians (?) say all is fine. Although their rifles apparently differ significantly.
So was the BW the only one who got screwed by HK when using cheap, unspecified materials for the rifle?
The publicized numbers indicate the loss in accuracy is really significant. There's also the statement that other comparisson systems were able to meet the laid out criteria. But no info wich product that is, how much it weighs or costs in comparison to the G36.
Then there was a part in the report saying while the G36 didn't meet the current requirements for an assault rifle, it is within the specifications agreed upon in 1995. Now that is a completely different issue of course
Currently I'm missing the intent of actually clearing up all these contradictions.
For starters, if the final report is only about to be out now, I already don't understand why the MoD saw the need to announce preliminary findings two or so weeks ago without conclusive data. Time wise those 2 weeks won't make a difference. However, it stirred up so much speculation and controversy. Now there's so much theories half- or misinformation, it will be really difficult to get all this straight, I'm afraid.
With the many G36 users, the BW seems to be the only one really having those issues. The Peshmerga are reported to love those weapons
, and the Lithuanians (?) say all is fine. Although their rifles apparently differ significantly.So was the BW the only one who got screwed by HK when using cheap, unspecified materials for the rifle?
The publicized numbers indicate the loss in accuracy is really significant. There's also the statement that other comparisson systems were able to meet the laid out criteria. But no info wich product that is, how much it weighs or costs in comparison to the G36.
Then there was a part in the report saying while the G36 didn't meet the current requirements for an assault rifle, it is within the specifications agreed upon in 1995. Now that is a completely different issue of course
Currently I'm missing the intent of actually clearing up all these contradictions.
Jura The idiot
General
later I did some additional reading about the CODLAG, but I realized this: one of the advantages of this propulsion is "it's silent" (because, as wiki says, "the diesel generators can be decoupled acoustically from the hull of the ship") ... the gas turbine could be very useful in chasing a sub ... so far so good, but: the F-125s are not meant for ASW, are they?
according to
I wonder what's actually cheaper, sail or send an airplane with fresh crew?
They're not, but I think that's not the point. I think CODLAG makes power generation and propulsion more efficient.
There's one set of generators for everything on the ship, and they can run at the most efficient setting (RPM). Then the e-motors powering the shafts work at a very high efficiency over a wide range of RPM.