US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
gelgoog said:
Both are overhyped weapon systems. Way too expensive for their their performance.
The Javelin proved easy to confuse and make miss the target, while the Switchblade relied way too much on GPS to work.
They need to redesign that junk.
Click to expand...
They have. The Javelins which are still killing Russian tanks in Ukraine are old models. We went over this before.
The bulk of Ukrainian aid isn’t the Latest American or NATO equipment, it’s the Garage sale tier. Stuff that is close to expiration date. Rather than Demill it and have to dispose of it they ship it to the front line where 30 year old western tech is going up against the mixed mash of Russian equipment from very brand new to ww2 surplus.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Since when is the Switchblade an old model? The Javelins sent to Ukraine also had no better version in US service.
That is just pure cope.

A lot of US equipment platforms were originally designed in the Cold War. And in a lot of cases those platforms are still in service or constitute the bulk of US capability. Be this the M1 or the F-16. They might not have the latest gadgets in some cases, but the US would have still been able to sell that equipment for basically full price. Just see the price of the sales of minimally upgraded M1 tanks to Taiwan, or the sale of F-16 fighter aircraft done to Romania or Argentina. Instead this equipment will be destroyed and have to replaced. In the case of the M1 there is no replacement since new tanks haven't been made in decades in the US. In the case of the F-16 it would have to be replaced with the F-35 which comes with its own issues.
 
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
gelgoog said:
Since when is the Switchblade an old model? The Javelins sent to Ukraine also had no better version in US service.
That is just pure cope.
Click to expand...
Something is pure cope. In this case you seem to be off your rocking chair and into nonsense.
The Javelin were in US Service yes but . But again older models. The Article is regarding the FMG 148 G which have a number of new features and a new CLU module that doesn’t use gas.
The ones currently in U.S. service are the E and F models. The E remodels launched in 2017 the F in 2020. The ones sent to Ukraine are from the older C and D models. Dating from the late 90s
The Contract for Switchblades you are assuming is the same model that has been exported. However the Switchblades have a number of versions differing in size, range payloads and they are getting real time feedback and improvement.
gelgoog said:
A lot of US equipment platforms were originally designed in the Cold War. And in a lot of cases those platforms are still in service or constitute the bulk of US capability.
Click to expand...
And have received a number of major revisions and upgrades since. Save for perhaps the most basic piece of equipment major upgrades have been a consistent piece of US DOD work. This is something that people who only listen “Reformers” and Russian propaganda glaze over.
gelgoog said:
Be this the M1 or the F-16. They might not have the latest gadgets in some cases, but the US would have still been able to sell that equipment for basically full price. Just see the price of the sales of minimally upgraded M1 tanks to Taiwan,
Click to expand...
The Taiwanese version of the Abrams tank is based off the current M1A2 Sep v2. That configuration was developed circa 2008. It’s not a Cold War iteration at all. Along with changes to the optics and fire controls the Sep series received improved armor packages. Of course the M1A2T won’t use American Depleted Uranium mesh in the armor package Tungsten carbide is the norm.

The Units donated to Ukraine are of the M1A1 SA-U configuration which has a reduced armor configuration and simplified electronics… I believe you would refer to it as a “Monkey model”. It’s an improved version of the iteration that was used in the Gulf war.
gelgoog said:
or the sale of F-16 fighter aircraft done to Romania or Argentina. Instead this equipment will be destroyed and have to replaced.
Click to expand...
You again have floated into nonsense. Again I was talking in particular of the Javelin. ATGMs missile systems and munitions have exploration dates. Electronics do to. Once those expire they have to be disposed of.

As to F16. F16 production restarted the first two F16V were delivered to Slovakia this January. These are brand new with new electronics, radars sensors, engines and weapons.
These are not the same as the ones donated to Ukraine.
gelgoog said:
In the case of the M1 there is no replacement since new tanks haven't been made in decades in the US. In the case of the F-16 it would have to be replaced with the F-35 which comes with its own issues.
Click to expand...
Just as there have been no new T80 built in Russia.
The U.S. like Russia stockpiled large quantities of MBT in the Cold War era. Over 10,000 Abrams tanks were built and thousands were stored at after the draw downs. Those tanks are stripped to bear hulls and rebuild to modern specifications. This is known as resetting.
This may however there started talk of building a new production line to restart production.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
The Taiwanese version of the Abrams tank is based off the current M1A2 Sep v2. That configuration was developed circa 2008. It’s not a Cold War iteration at all.
Click to expand...
It is a Cold War platform with minor upgrades done to it. You do know what a weapons platform is right?

TerraN_EmpirE said:
The Units donated to Ukraine are of the M1A1 SA-U configuration which has a reduced armor configuration and simplified electronics… I believe you would refer to it as a “Monkey model”. It’s an improved version of the iteration that was used in the Gulf war.
Click to expand...
It is basically an older export model yes.

TerraN_EmpirE said:
ATGMs missile systems and munitions have exploration dates. Electronics do to. Once those expire they have to be disposed of.
Click to expand...
In a lot of cases such systems can be refurbished at lesser expense than buying new. Put back into use. One example is expired artillery shells. Russia spent a lot of time pre-war refurbishing older expired artillery ammunition to make it viable again. Millions of shells.
So the idea you are expending something you would have to throw away anyhow is most often untrue.

TerraN_EmpirE said:
F16 production restarted the first two F16V were delivered to Slovakia this January. These are brand new with new electronics, radars sensors, engines and weapons. These are not the same as the ones donated to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Well how come they are not sending those F-16Vs to NATO member Romania then? I will tell you why. Supply of F-16s in the world market has been tight to begin with. The US quietly told Romania years ago that if they wanted any F-16s they would have to get them used. Romania got so fed up with waiting for refurbished F-16s that they now ordered the F-35. All the former Warsaw Pact aircraft which were sent into Ukraine and destroyed or worn down will have to be refurbished or replaced. As will those F-16s.

Because of the US dragging its feet delivering F-16s to Pakistan they got the J-10 from China. Maybe Turkey will be next.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Romania ordered 32 used F-16s from Norway and they got like 6 of them. Norway needs to get its replacement F-35s and then those ex-Norwegian F-16 aircraft need to be refurbished before they are sent to Romania.

TerraN_EmpirE said:
Just as there have been no new T80 built in Russia.
Click to expand...
Except they are building new T-80s. Heck I posted a video about that in the forum quite some time ago. Shoigu visiting Omsk where they showed him the new tank hulls, and engines, and a tour of the gas turbine engine production factory.

TerraN_EmpirE said:
The U.S. like Russia stockpiled large quantities of MBT in the Cold War era. Over 10,000 Abrams tanks were built and thousands were stored at after the draw downs. Those tanks are stripped to bear hulls and rebuild to modern specifications. This is known as resetting.
Click to expand...
They can try doing that but there are severe bottlenecks when bringing tanks out of storage. You will need to do maintenance to the tanks including to the engines. Gas turbine engine refurbishing for those tanks is still a significant bottleneck. Why do you think they only sent tanks to Ukraine in dribs and drabs and seem unable to deliver to Taiwan the tanks they ordered?

The gas turbine engine is also a PITA. They designed a unit based on helicopter engine technology in the 1970s and it is basically still in use. There was a program to develop a modern gas turbine engine for the Abrams but the US government in its infinite wisdom decided to cancel it.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

TerraN_EmpirE said:
This may however there started talk of building a new production line to restart production.
Click to expand...
That would help. But it would take probably two years if not more. And let's not even talk about making a whole new tank a process which can easily take a decade to do in normal timelines.
 
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
gelgoog said:
It is a Cold War platform with minor upgrades done to it. You do know what a weapons platform is right?
Click to expand...
Yes it’s based off a Cold War era vehicle but it’s had substantial upgrades. It went from 1980s computers, armor and systems to 2010s standards. You understand that we don’t use 1980s computers any more Right?
These may look like the same tanks on the outside but they have been rebuilt on the inside. The degree of changes made are such that frankly the Sep v 1 should have been classed as A3. And Sep v2 and A4 but they decided not to do that. The changes between A1 and A2 are very significant too.
gelgoog said:
It is basically an older export model yes.
Click to expand...
It’s based off of it, derived from the early block of A1. But with a computerized control system from the modern era.
gelgoog said:
In a lot of cases such systems can be refurbished at lesser expense than buying new. Put back into use. One example is expired artillery shells. Russia spent a lot of time pre-war refurbishing older expired artillery ammunition to make it viable again. Millions of shells.
So the idea you are expending something you would have to throw away anyhow is most often untrue.
Click to expand...
Apples To Cantaloupe. You are trying to compare an artillery shell to a guided antitank missile system. In this case it is cheaper to fire them and buy new.
The rest of this is Strawman and Whataboutisum.
Romania chose to buy used because they would be to the back end on delivery. Yet they are still going to have the ability to retrofit their used F16 with Block 70 kits. The F16 they are getting are already sporting new equipment.

Pakistan and the U.S. relationship has been getting worse.
Kinda what happens when your intelligence agencies have been aiding groups like the Taliban and AQ.
Turkye wants 5th gen’s but they also wanted S400 so they ended up with neither. Now they are getting F16V upgrade kits. Well trying to mend fences.

The ATG1500 production is cold but the engines have been upgraded consistently under TIGER.
Yes that’s why we store them in the American Southwest the dry boneyard to preserve them. Why the engines and important parts were stored separately.

Shugoi toured a restart of the engine and transmission line not the hull big difference between building new parts and building new tanks from scratch. If the Russians did reopen T80 production that would be a mess beyond Russian standards of mess. Four MBT three with production lines one that is more confused than Shrodinger’s cat. The long heir apparent the T14 still born. The T90M, the T72 and the T80. Three automatic loader systems, four armor sets. Three engines four transmissions, three suspension systems three gun systems, four manuals of operation. Each trying to feed off the others in manpower, resources. All this on top of the other vehicles the Russians are trying to build for ground and marine infantry. Well dealing with an active draft, incentivized recruitment that makes going to the front better paying that working a factory and with a dwindling population base?
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Shugoi toured a restart of the engine and transmission line not the hull big difference between building new parts and building new tanks from scratch. If the Russians did reopen T80 production that would be a mess beyond Russian standards of mess. Four MBT three with production lines one that is more confused than Shrodinger’s cat. The long heir apparent the T14 still born. The T90M, the T72 and the T80. Three automatic loader systems, four armor sets. Three engines four transmissions, three suspension systems three gun systems, four manuals of operation. Each trying to feed off the others in manpower, resources. All this on top of the other vehicles the Russians are trying to build for ground and marine infantry. Well dealing with an active draft, incentivized recruitment that makes going to the front better paying that working a factory and with a dwindling population base?
Click to expand...
The T-90 is a souped up T-72. Modern T-72 variants use the same V-92S2F engine as the T-90 variants. There is a huge degree of commonality between both tanks. The main difference is the turret.

In theory you can even put the same turret design on all three tanks. They all have the same turret ring diameter. They planned to do this at one point with the Burlak turret design but then that got cancelled. They also use two different kinds of roadwheels but their dimensions are basically the same. They are mechanically compatible.

It is more like two tanks designs, or a tank design and a half than three tank designs.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
gelgoog said:
The T-90 is a souped up T-72. Modern T-72 variants use the same V-92S2F engine as the T-90 variants. There is a huge degree of commonality between both tanks. The main difference is the turret.

In theory you can even put the same turret design on all three tanks. They all have the same turret ring diameter. They planned to do this at one point with the Burlak turret design but then that got cancelled. They also use two different kinds of roadwheels but their dimensions are basically the same. They are mechanically compatible.

It is more like two tanks designs, or a tank design and a half than three tank designs.
Click to expand...
Love how you are trying to have your Tank and eat it too.

Yes the turret is the main difference the turret which is where the Armor package sits the turret which is really 4 or 5 models. Because you have old T72, new T72, Initial T90, T90M and the latest T90M long guns. Because of the differences they each need a different armor appliqué system when it comes to Era and Cope cages and that’s assuming that they can even mount that.
But wait then we have the T80 which has a completely different automatic loader and all the other components are different as it was designed in Ukraine by a completely different manufacturer.
That also has different turrets based on variants.
So again it would be a mess of logistics like what happened in the Chechen wars. Where in the aftermath the Russian MOD basically said they hate gas turbines.

Oh but you have a solution! A Common turret.
The Theory is fine. In theory you could drop an Abrams turret on a Leopard 2 or a Challanger 2. That doesn’t mean it will happen. And doing so with the T72 and T90 is that what the Iranians were doing? Building T72 hull clones with T90 turret clones? But doing so with the T80 offers only problems. You still have a completely different drive train and suspension. Remember the whole point of T90 was to take T80 technology and repackage it on to a cheaper Russian tank. The whole point of the T72 was to take the best of the T64 and get a cheaper Russian tank.
If the Russians could have implemented a common Turret modernization for T72 and T90 they should have done it by now. We wouldn’t have seen the past 921 days of a mix mash of every Soviet tank since the T54 getting blown up, captured, converted into a Blyat mobile.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
The original T-90 tanks will eventually be phased out if they have not been so already. They are all being converted to the T-90M.
And yes there are issues converting some of the older tanks to a common standard. But a lot of the tank equipment can in fact be made common and development is shared.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top