Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4
Discussion
Waitforme said:
With an MBT, what is the approximate timing from firing a shell , locking onto ( updating the ballistic computer with new coordinates ) the next target and firing again assuming the targets are both identifiable prior to firing the first round ?
I’d assume this can all be done when travelling at speed ?
The loader/loading is the limiting factor in such a scenario. I’d assume this can all be done when travelling at speed ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/15ykm27...
The US Army also publish criteria for passing various gunnery tests which come out a around 8.5 rounds a minute for a tank crew to pass. Good crews/loaders will go a bit quicker.
The loader will also struggle more than the gunner to maintain rare of fire when the vehicle is moving over rough terrain.
With fire control systems any competent crew will have a very high hit % even under combat stress, the differentiator between crews is the situational awareness to spot the opposition first and to avoid being engaged by an opposing vehicle that they haven't seen. (Basically the same as for dismounted infantry)
There isn't a massive secret to that, intelligence on where the enemy are and being able to read the ground so as to avoid positions where the vehicle or formation can be spotted from more places than the vehicle/formation can keep under observation. Difficulty today is that drones make it a lot harder to go anywhere by using dead ground.
The interesting point from all the Ukraine footage is that very few smoke grenades appears to be being fired. Not sure if that is because they aren't effective or if when they are fired they successfully stop the incoming munitions so the video isn't posted.
TTmonkey said:
Halfway to mid-air refuelling to extend range. Clever.BikeBikeBIke said:
Old weather gear, that will be well received xxOn a very slight tangent, I got to be part of the RRIMGT operators conference (i was doing IT support in the vary early days of projectors and digital presentations).
My main take away was
"Stop using counterfir parts, they form the vast proportion of all failures our engineers are spotting when you call us out!"
"So make spares cheaper!"
"Do you realise the R&D costs of producing that part?"
"Irrelevent"
Anyway the biggest moaners were from the american oil pipeline operators.
I can't imagine the airline version of an RB211 or Trent is any less fussy about where it's spare vanes come from!
My main take away was
"Stop using counterfir parts, they form the vast proportion of all failures our engineers are spotting when you call us out!"
"So make spares cheaper!"
"Do you realise the R&D costs of producing that part?"
"Irrelevent"
Anyway the biggest moaners were from the american oil pipeline operators.
I can't imagine the airline version of an RB211 or Trent is any less fussy about where it's spare vanes come from!
pherlopolus said:
On a very slight tangent, I got to be part of the RRIMGT operators conference (i was doing IT support in the vary early days of projectors and digital presentations).
My main take away was
"Stop using counterfir parts, they form the vast proportion of all failures our engineers are spotting when you call us out!"
"So make spares cheaper!"
"Do you realise the R&D costs of producing that part?"
"Irrelevent"
Anyway the biggest moaners were from the american oil pipeline operators.
I can't imagine the airline version of an RB211 or Trent is any less fussy about where it's spare vanes come from!
The problem with reverse engineering is it is an imprecise science at best.My main take away was
"Stop using counterfir parts, they form the vast proportion of all failures our engineers are spotting when you call us out!"
"So make spares cheaper!"
"Do you realise the R&D costs of producing that part?"
"Irrelevent"
Anyway the biggest moaners were from the american oil pipeline operators.
I can't imagine the airline version of an RB211 or Trent is any less fussy about where it's spare vanes come from!
Even copying shapes, let alone materials and processes is not necessarily just a scan-to-CAD exercise.
CrutyRammers said:
aeropilot said:
CharlesdeGaulle said:
aeropilot said:
Not one western airliner has yet to fall out the sky over Russia as a result of the sanctions.
Yet. Nothing has crashed, yet. Anyone willingly travelling with a Russian airline is taking a chance.
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/172670520546...
(Yeah this guy isn't what I'd call a reliable source, but the original incident was widely reported and I've seen no suggestions that the later picture is faked)
CrutyRammers said:
...as if on cue...picture of one of them still sat in said field, 2 months later
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/172670520546...
(Yeah this guy isn't what I'd call a reliable source, but the original incident was widely reported and I've seen no suggestions that the later picture is faked)
Perhaps waiting for the ground to freeze so it doesn't sink in on the take off roll? https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/172670520546...
(Yeah this guy isn't what I'd call a reliable source, but the original incident was widely reported and I've seen no suggestions that the later picture is faked)
Cold air will allow the engine to develop more thrust and, I think, the wing can develop more lift as, all other things being equal, there will be more molecules of air supporting it/deflected downward by it.
Its not stranded, its the new Siberian air museums first exhibit !
Would we find out if a western plane had crashed in Russia ?
Is that too big to cover up and would make it out via social media or whatever ? They did try to cover Chernobyl up for a while so an airliner crashing is small in comparison and airliners crashing isnt showing them doing fine without western help is it ?
I guess the planes all send back some kind of telemetry to the owners/supplier ? the engines tend to have telemetry that reports back to Rolls Royce or whoever as have looked through those kind of logs, can see loads of flights over Russia on Planefinder.
Would we find out if a western plane had crashed in Russia ?
Is that too big to cover up and would make it out via social media or whatever ? They did try to cover Chernobyl up for a while so an airliner crashing is small in comparison and airliners crashing isnt showing them doing fine without western help is it ?
I guess the planes all send back some kind of telemetry to the owners/supplier ? the engines tend to have telemetry that reports back to Rolls Royce or whoever as have looked through those kind of logs, can see loads of flights over Russia on Planefinder.
GliderRider said:
CrutyRammers said:
...as if on cue...picture of one of them still sat in said field, 2 months later
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/172670520546...
(Yeah this guy isn't what I'd call a reliable source, but the original incident was widely reported and I've seen no suggestions that the later picture is faked)
Perhaps waiting for the ground to freeze so it doesn't sink in on the take off roll? https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/172670520546...
(Yeah this guy isn't what I'd call a reliable source, but the original incident was widely reported and I've seen no suggestions that the later picture is faked)
Cold air will allow the engine to develop more thrust and, I think, the wing can develop more lift as, all other things being equal, there will be more molecules of air supporting it/deflected downward by it.
GliderRider said:
CrutyRammers said:
...as if on cue...picture of one of them still sat in said field, 2 months later
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/172670520546...
(Yeah this guy isn't what I'd call a reliable source, but the original incident was widely reported and I've seen no suggestions that the later picture is faked)
Perhaps waiting for the ground to freeze so it doesn't sink in on the take off roll? https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/172670520546...
(Yeah this guy isn't what I'd call a reliable source, but the original incident was widely reported and I've seen no suggestions that the later picture is faked)
If they didn't, it'll stay stuck frozen in the mud until late summer when the ground has dried out.
If they were going to fly it out (big if) they needed to do before the ground softened up......
Personally I don't thing that is ever going to fly again.
Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 21st November 14:25
CrutyRammers said:
You reckon that will ever fly again?
With what little information we have, I don't see why not.With regard to the non-approved counterfeit parts, if the Russians are making them for their own use, they have every reason to make them up to the same standard if they can. Normal counterfeiters pass the parts off as the real thing on to unsuspecting customers, so the counterfeiters don't care if what should be a forging is actually a casting.
If they can make a part which has a slightly shorter life or a slightly lower capability, then provided it has been tested and proven to achieve that and the customer knows it, they can make allowances for it in use.
None of this means that they would be able to use the aircraft outside of Russian airspace though as it wouldn't have FAA or EASA approval.
Digga said:
pherlopolus said:
On a very slight tangent, I got to be part of the RRIMGT operators conference (i was doing IT support in the vary early days of projectors and digital presentations).
My main take away was
"Stop using counterfir parts, they form the vast proportion of all failures our engineers are spotting when you call us out!"
"So make spares cheaper!"
"Do you realise the R&D costs of producing that part?"
"Irrelevent"
Anyway the biggest moaners were from the american oil pipeline operators.
I can't imagine the airline version of an RB211 or Trent is any less fussy about where it's spare vanes come from!
The problem with reverse engineering is it is an imprecise science at best.My main take away was
"Stop using counterfir parts, they form the vast proportion of all failures our engineers are spotting when you call us out!"
"So make spares cheaper!"
"Do you realise the R&D costs of producing that part?"
"Irrelevent"
Anyway the biggest moaners were from the american oil pipeline operators.
I can't imagine the airline version of an RB211 or Trent is any less fussy about where it's spare vanes come from!
Even copying shapes, let alone materials and processes is not necessarily just a scan-to-CAD exercise.
Just because you have a copy of it doesn't mean you can make a component with that object's materials capabilities.
GliderRider said:
CrutyRammers said:
You reckon that will ever fly again?
With what little information we have, I don't see why not.Key Aero said:
"The engine flow section was cleared of soil and straw, which was confirmed by repeated inspection"
Yeah, should be fine.
GliderRider said:
CrutyRammers said:
You reckon that will ever fly again?
With what little information we have, I don't see why not.With regard to the non-approved counterfeit parts, if the Russians are making them for their own use, they have every reason to make them up to the same standard if they can. Normal counterfeiters pass the parts off as the real thing on to unsuspecting customers, so the counterfeiters don't care if what should be a forging is actually a casting.
If they can make a part which has a slightly shorter life or a slightly lower capability, then provided it has been tested and proven to achieve that and the customer knows it, they can make allowances for it in use.
None of this means that they would be able to use the aircraft outside of Russian airspace though as it wouldn't have FAA or EASA approval.
It'll either get cut up and removed, or sit there forever and rust IMO.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff