marcos

IDET 2013. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?226799-Idet-2013-military-exibition

Impressive accuracy.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lockheed_Martin_Conducts_First_EMD_Flight_Test_of_New_GMLRS_Warhead_999.html

The Tiger really does carry its gun right on its nose-tip. That can't be any good for accuracy surely?

The CT40 autocannon is in the process of being fitted to Warrior IFVs but the potential applications are much wider than that. The round is a compact telescoping round measuring just 255mm total in length yet it packs more kinetic energy than a 40mm L70 Bofors round, the cartridge of which is 365mm long on its own without including the projectile. http://www.cta-international.com/en/ammunition-natures/gpr-pd-t http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/7961leslie.pdf Ammo comparison - CT40 GPR-PD-T vs L/70 HE CT40 GPR-PD-T http://www.cta-international.com/en/ammunition-natures/gpr-pd-t L/70HE http://www.mlmintl.com/40mml-70.pdf 40x255mm round. APFSDS HE 40mm L70 Bofors round on left. Smaller 40x311mm L60 Bofors round pictured next to CT40 round. The CT40 cannon itself is also lighter and more compact than existing 35 and 40mm designs, similar to the current 30mm Mk44/Bushmaster II cannon in fact. The CT40 APFSDS round can penetrate anything up to and including a T-55.

F-35 performs first vertical take-off.

Immediately recognised the location. Derwent dam, next to the A57, one of the best roads in the UK.

In hindsight I would have done the following. Instead of developing the EF2000, I would have developed a stealth STOBAR-capable aircraft with EF-like performance (keeping the French on-board with the EF program). That might have taken an extra 5-10 years to build and would have cost more but it would have been: a) Ready before the F-35; and b) Salable. I would have made 2 STOBAR carriers. To allow for bad weather carrier-ops I'd have then purchased maybe 20 F-35Bs, which would be funded by sales of the above aircraft.

I can't believe we're not even getting that until 2020. I honestly can't figure out which is more of a waste - the time or the money?

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=74225

Haha yeah, did some research. I'd heard of top down attack before but only in the Javelin sense. I.e. the missile still hits but from the top down. This downward penetrator effect is a new one on me in terms of ATGMs although CBU-97/105s have used a similar effect for a long time.

What warhead was in that? Because 5kg HE shouldn't be enough to defeat MBT armour without a direct hit and on some modern MBTs even with a direct hit it probably still won't work. Is it some kind of top down penetrator? Aha yep, nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW

I wonder whether it will auto-land or be flown in via remote.

Nah, it missed. ATGMs are not proximity fused because proximity effects would not do the job.

Imagine refuelling at night.

Next up carrier landing.

iNw1FtJq8Yg

XM-274 on experimental LAV-75. 75x406mm telescoping ammunition.

See bottom of the table. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ammotable10.htm 100x910mm - nice!

I bet he was like, "Oh Shhhiiiitttt!" And the he thought, "wait, parachute, this turned out better than expected."

In many ways BF3/4 is even worse than CoD. They included vehicles and then made them completely retarded.

On BF3 it takes 6 hits for one of those to kill infantry.