Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Μilitary Questions & Answers

    avatar
    nastle77

    Posts : 214
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Aug 26, 2016 7:43 pm

    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

    Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

    If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

    You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

    If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.
    did Japan have GPS and satelite guidance for its ashm in the 80's ?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21096
    Points : 21644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:49 am

    You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

    If your anti ship missile is using GPS coordinates for targeting then it is not an anti ship missile it is a cruise missile.

    the flight time of most anti ship missiles can mean quite a few minutes pass between detection and launch and impact... if the ship moves even 20m before missile impact then the missile will miss.

    You obviously have a very low opinion of radar... the Kh-35 reportedly uses a high resolution MMW radar that can not only detect ships but also identify them based on their shape/radar signature.

    As such even a large group of ships would not defeat its guidance and it could single out its target and home in on it even in a fairly cluttered environment.

    If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.

    If they are in port the ports air defence system and local air force offer rather better protection than their own air defence systems could offer.

    could it also be that the Termits export version had no IR versions and had down graded seekers ?

    Export versions of Termit were either radar or IR guided but not both. I believe India used the IR versions to good effect hitting Pakistani oil storage tanks. The sun had heated the tanks to the point where they were rather warm... when the sun went down the ground cooled faster than all that oil in those tanks so after dark the oil was still a warm target in a sea of cold land...

    did Japan have GPS and satelite guidance for its ashm in the 80's ?

    AFAIK only the Soviets had satellite guided AShMs in the late 1970s and 1980s.
    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 1097
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 28
    Location : Oldenburg

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:05 pm

    How much micromanagement is allowed in military command? Field Marshal Model (God bless Him) would give command to units as small as a battalion which was way below his chain of command. Is giving orders to units two ranks below your command (like, a brigade commander issuing orders to companies, preferably via his company commanders) still acceptable as a way to lead troops?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:49 pm

    GarryB wrote:If you use Mozila Firefox as a browser there is a Yandex translator add on that adds a tool bar that includes three buttons... one button will open a popup window with a translation for highlighted text, another button will translate highlighted text within a page into a different language and a third button that will open a new page with the full page translated.

    In my experience so far the translations are better than google translate for Russian to English conversions.

    because
    Yandex translation : Russian -> English
    Google translation: Russian -> NSA -> CIA - Political Censorship Comity Word Approval board -> English
    0nillie0
    0nillie0

    Posts : 156
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2016-05-15
    Age : 32
    Location : Flanders, Belgium

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Question about polish MBT "PT-91" and other T-72M1 upgrades

    Post  0nillie0 on Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:59 pm

    Hi,

    *After some additional research, i have edited my original question. No answer was posted at this time*

    I have a question regarding the PT-91 Twardy polish main battle tank. I have checked the usual sources for basic information (army-guide, Wikipedia, army recognition etc.) and could not find a clear answer for my question.

    I understand that it is an upgraded version of the T-72M1, a license produced export variant of the T-72A, which was produced in Poland and ex-Czechoslovakia.
    Other such modernization examples include the T-72M4 CZ, or the M-84 from Yugoslavia, which i realize is not based on the T-72M1 but is based on the T-72 in general.

    My question is : What where the terms of this license production agreement of the T-72M1 and subsequent modernizations?

    Various sources i have found claim that production of the T-72M1 continued in Poland up untill 1994. Other countries also continued production post 1990.
    Does this mean that the T-72M1 license production and export license was unaffected by the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

    Also, the initial PT-91 tanks where basically T-72M1's with extensive upgrades retrofitted. However later models appear to have been newly constructed tanks.
    These tanks obviously made use of the production lines for the T-72 export variants. Where they not subjected to certain copyrights belonging to the Russians?

    I guess the real question here is : If a country purchased the license to manufacture the T-72M1 in the 80's, would it still be allowed to produce these tanks post 1990, without compensating Russia or renewing the license?
    Furthermore, would that country be allowed to build a new tank (like the PT-91) which borrows heavily from the design of the T-72, and also utilizes the T-72 production line, again without compensating Russia or renewing the license?

    Or were countries like Poland free to do as they pleased with the T-72M1 production license, including developing their own variants and producing these freely?

    Sorry if this all sounds incoherent. I did my best try and make sense. English is not my mother language.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13321
    Points : 13808
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  George1 on Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:28 pm

    0nillie0 wrote:Hi,

    *After some additional research, i have edited my original question. No answer was posted at this time*

    I have a question regarding the PT-91 Twardy polish main battle tank. I have checked the usual sources for basic information (army-guide, Wikipedia, army recognition etc.) and could not find a clear answer for my question.

    I understand that it is an upgraded version of the T-72M1, a license produced export variant of the T-72A, which was produced in Poland and ex-Czechoslovakia.
    Other such modernization examples include the T-72M4 CZ, or the M-84 from Yugoslavia, which i realize is not based on the T-72M1 but is based on the T-72 in general.

    My question is : What where the terms of this license production agreement of the T-72M1 and subsequent modernizations?

    Various sources i have found claim that production of the T-72M1 continued in Poland up untill 1994. Other countries also continued production post 1990.
    Does this mean that the T-72M1 license production and export license was unaffected by the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

    Also, the initial PT-91 tanks where basically T-72M1's with extensive upgrades retrofitted. However later models appear to have been newly constructed tanks.
    These tanks obviously made use of the production lines for the T-72 export variants. Where they not subjected to certain copyrights belonging to the Russians?

    I guess the real question here is : If a country purchased the license to manufacture the T-72M1 in the 80's, would it still be allowed to produce these tanks post 1990, without compensating Russia or renewing the license?
    Furthermore, would that country be allowed to build a new tank (like the PT-91) which borrows heavily from the design of the T-72, and also utilizes the T-72 production line, again without compensating Russia or renewing the license?

    Or were countries like Poland free to do as they pleased with the T-72M1 production license, including developing their own variants and producing these freely?

    Sorry if this all sounds incoherent. I did my best try and make sense. English is not my mother language.

    i think licensed production meant that the T-72s that were produced in other countries were assembled from some parts from USSR/Russia so even after the dissolution of USSR, Russia should provide some basic elements for the production of the tanks (if the license production had to be continued)
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3981
    Points : 3998
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:01 pm

    George1 wrote:
    0nillie0 wrote:Hi,

    *After some additional research, i have edited my original question. No answer was posted at this time*

    I have a question regarding the PT-91 Twardy polish main battle tank. I have checked the usual sources for basic information (army-guide, Wikipedia, army recognition etc.) and could not find a clear answer for my question.

    I understand that it is an upgraded version of the T-72M1, a license produced export variant of the T-72A, which was produced in Poland and ex-Czechoslovakia.
    Other such modernization examples include the T-72M4 CZ, or the M-84 from Yugoslavia, which i realize is not based on the T-72M1 but is based on the T-72 in general.

    My question is : What where the terms of this license production agreement of the T-72M1 and subsequent modernizations?

    Various sources i have found claim that production of the T-72M1 continued in Poland up untill 1994. Other countries also continued production post 1990.
    Does this mean that the T-72M1 license production and export license was unaffected by the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

    Also, the initial PT-91 tanks where basically T-72M1's with extensive upgrades retrofitted. However later models appear to have been newly constructed tanks.
    These tanks obviously made use of the production lines for the T-72 export variants. Where they not subjected to certain copyrights belonging to the Russians?

    I guess the real question here is : If a country purchased the license to manufacture the T-72M1 in the 80's, would it still be allowed to produce these tanks post 1990, without compensating Russia or renewing the license?
    Furthermore, would that country be allowed to build a new tank (like the PT-91) which borrows heavily from the design of the T-72, and also utilizes the T-72 production line, again without compensating Russia or renewing the license?

    Or were countries like Poland free to do as they pleased with the T-72M1 production license, including developing their own variants and producing these freely?

    Sorry if this all sounds incoherent. I did my best try and make sense. English is not my mother language.

    i think licensed production meant that the T-72s that were produced in other countries were assembled from some parts from USSR/Russia so even after the dissolution of USSR, Russia should provide some basic elements for the production of the tanks (if the license production had to be continued)

    Most of the countries that kept the T72 lines open tried to cheat to some extent. Poland wanted to contract cheaper Soviet parts, then Bumar Labedy would re-export the Twardies at more expensive price making a profit. The idea for Poland (and for countries like Slovakia and the Czech Rep) initially was to keep a token force of these tanks, but to move as fast as possible out of the Soviet standards. This meant that most of the T72's were on the chopping block. Basically the Poles idea at the time was to modernize the force as much as possible while getting all the Soviet pieces out when it was possible. This was guided by the alleged dismal performance of the T-family in Kuwait and Iraq. Also license means that a huge number of parts and their subsequent ToT are obtained, thus making it easier to counterfeit parts. With the Russian State in the gutter, who wa going to collect those fines for counterfeited goods.

    BTW PT-91 is not a new tank...
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3220
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  franco on Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:25 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:What would be the best sources to learn about conduct of land warfare , from small unit tactics up to operational (brigade and above) level? I have some intuitive understanding of this but it's not comprehensive enough I think.

    There was a book written back in the 1990's documenting an American unit's participation at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. Excellent look at the whole picture, operations to logistics, of a combined tank - mechanized infantry combat group. Believe the author was Stoddard and a quick look at Amazon reveals one used paperback copy for $100. Now where in blazes did I put my copy cry
    0nillie0
    0nillie0

    Posts : 156
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2016-05-15
    Age : 32
    Location : Flanders, Belgium

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  0nillie0 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:40 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Most of the countries that kept the T72 lines open tried to cheat to some extent. Poland wanted to contract cheaper Soviet parts, then Bumar Labedy would re-export the Twardies at more expensive price making a profit. The idea for Poland (and for countries like Slovakia and the Czech Rep) initially was to keep a token force  of these tanks, but to move as fast as possible out of the Soviet standards. This meant that most of the T72's were on the chopping block. Basically the Poles idea at the time was to modernize the force as much as possible while getting all the Soviet pieces out when it was possible. This was guided by the alleged dismal performance of the T-family in Kuwait and Iraq. Also license means that a huge number of parts and their subsequent ToT are obtained, thus making it easier to counterfeit parts. With the Russian State in the gutter, who wa going to collect those fines for counterfeited goods.

    BTW PT-91 is not a new tank...

    First : thanks to you and George1 for the answer !

    So the PT-91's are all based on converted T-72M1's ? Meaning the "youngest" PT-91 actually dates back to like '94 or something?

    Secondly :
    The reason i asked all this is because i was thinking (after reading up on projects like the PT-91 and the Croatian M-84D or M-95 Degman) :

    Hypothetically : Would it be possible for a NATO (or NATO aligned) country that had previously license manufactured a T-72 tank (for example like Poland in the early 90's), to at present day restart the production line (provided that it had the needed parts and ToT and facilities etc. ) for a modernized version of the T-72 based on the original chassis (again, with improvements). Keep in mind i am not asking if it would be a good idea to do so, just if it where possible. I realize that even IF such a thing was even possible, it would be easier and cheaper to just buy stored T-72's from wherever and just upgrade them.

    And also : what would be the "obligations" that this country would have to present day Russia, if it went ahead and restarted such a production line.

    Finaly : Which country was the last to halt indigenous production of NEW T-72's and what year was this?

    Thanks again for the good information guys.
    avatar
    DerWolf

    Posts : 68
    Points : 68
    Join date : 2015-12-06

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  DerWolf on Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:51 pm

    Why modern tanks use a smoothbore gun instead of a rifeld one? What advantages does it has?
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2910
    Points : 3788
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:01 am

    DerWolf wrote:Why modern tanks use a smoothbore gun instead of a rifeld one? What advantages does it has?

    Rifling wears out meaning the barrel has to be changed more often. Fin stablisation of modern rounds no longer requires the accuracy generated by rotation used in rifled barrels.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21096
    Points : 21644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:17 am

    The most effective rounds for a MBT are APFSDS and HEAT.

    Neither of which like being spun rapidly by rifling.

    A dart projectile like an APFSDS round cannot be spun fast enough to stabilise it... that is why there is an FS in the designation... fin stabilised.

    For HEAT rounds the plasma jet of molten material it blasts at the target is dispersed when it spins rapidly.

    the only rounds that benefit from spinning are full bore rounds like HE shells and full bore armour piercing rounds... of which the latter are no longer used.

    HE shells are used against point targets but hitting bunkers accurately is not as important as hitting enemy armour accurately.

    A rifled gun is heavier and thicker than a smoothbore. It also is harder to clean properly.

    The rifling slows the round down as it imparts spin so for a given length a smoothbore allows a higher muzzle velocity than an equivalent rifled gun of the same length.

    This means a smoothbore can have a higher velocity or can be shorter.

    Smoothbores are cheaper and easier to make... and as I mentioned above the most important rounds a modern MBT fires prefer smoothbore guns.

    The main country sticking to the rifled main gun is the British and they do so because of the HESH round.

    This is a full calibre HE round that is designed to flatten against a target tanks armour on impact and then detonate with a base mounted fuse. The large surface area of the HE sends shockwaves through the armour plate and makes large metal fragments scab off (called spall) inside the armour to shred the crew and internal fittings.

    It doesn't penetrate the armour but it is very effective and lethal.... on WWII tanks that don't have spaced armour.

    In Desert Storm a Challanger tank accidentally fired upon a Warrior IFV, and at the time it was claimed the Warrior had super armour that could shrug off tank main gun ammo.

    The reality is that the round fired was a HESH and it flattened and exploded on the addon armour on the side of the Warrior, which included spaced armour, so of course the vehicle was not damaged by spall which was contained inside the addon armour box.

    Not a super IFV... just a crap anti armour round.

    Being full calibre it needs a rifled gun.

    Against soft targets it is still a very effective round but a delay fuse on a standard HE round that explodes inside the target is even more effective.
    avatar
    moskit

    Posts : 23
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2016-05-19

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Us strike on syrian army unit, s 400

    Post  moskit on Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:53 pm

    Hi, The American air strike on the Syrian army, killing 62 soldiers and wounding 100 more according to the Russian defense ministry. What happened to the deployed full alert ready to fire s 400 units? What could have happened to the active air defence units around the site attacked?
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3981
    Points : 3998
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:26 am

    It was 300 km away. Locked up on the other direction. Furthermore US command lied about strike coordinates i'm 100% sure. Also ADS on position was a couple of Shilkas and SA-3. The US had never gone bombing there, so the troops weren't affraid of air raids. This was typical american accident or not.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21096
    Points : 21644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:35 am

    The role of the S-400 battery is not to defend ground targets from air attack.

    Its purpose is to prevent an air attack against friendly aircraft, or to deal with any potential attacker if they choose to attack a Russian aircraft.

    As such they will monitor air traffic and activity but wont track ground strikes...
    avatar
    moskit

    Posts : 23
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2016-05-19

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  moskit on Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:55 pm

    Do u mean the s 400 / 300 would spare the enemy air crafts intruded in to the space guarded by it provided the aircrafts target ground assets?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21096
    Points : 21644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:27 am

    The S-400 battery is no policing a no fly zone and cannot simply shoot down any unidentified aircraft in it field of view.

    It will have rules of engagement and wont really know what the aircraft it detects are actually doing... when it detects aircraft flying over Allepo it can't tell if they are attacking ground targets or if they are looking for targets.

    If the Fighter escorts of a Su-24 try to scare off a Pakistani F-16 that wont leave it alone and that F-16 is stupid enough to open fire then that S-400 battery might get authorisation to shoot that F-16 down, but it wont get authorisation without provocation.
    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 644
    Points : 675
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:41 am

    hy garry
    i have some questions.
    as far as i know in a turbine jet engine when the temperature is high efficiency is low. same whit pressure.
    is that true also for ramjet or scramjet?
    can be a tank filled with some cold substance like freon and pulverized near the nozzle so that the thrust can increase? because i know that thrust increase when the cold air from above and below surface of turbine jet meet the hot air.
    that can be done at a aircraft too?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21096
    Points : 21644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:12 am

    as far as i know in a turbine jet engine when the temperature is high efficiency is low. same whit pressure.

    No.

    A normal gas turbine tries to compress air and then adds fuel to super heat that air so that it leaves the rear very hot and very fast... the more you heat it the more it expands and the faster it leaves the rear of the engine... more gas and faster gas means more thrust.

    You want the gas to get as hot as you can possibly make it, but you can't make it too hot or the internal parts of your engine will melt.

    is that true also for ramjet or scramjet?

    Really the same for all types of jet engine, though a turbo prop engine uses the gas turbine to spin a propeller and it gets its thrust from that propeller so the exhaust gas temperature and speed is not important... it is just the mechanism that turns the blades to generate thrust.

    A turbo fan uses a turbojet to turn a large fan to move cold air to produce thrust too but that cold air goes through the afterburner and is much more efficient than a turbojet because a large volume of air that is cold and oxygen rich can burn more fuel and heat up a lot more making more thrust in a turbofan engine than a pure turbojet.

    If you want high subsonic cruise a big turbofan like on a Boeing is best but for supersonic speed the high exhaust gas speed of a turbojet or low bypass turbofan is best.

    A scramjet or ramjet is for high speed flight so very high temperature and high speed gas exhaust is best.

    can be a tank filled with some cold substance like freon and pulverized near the nozzle so that the thrust can increase?

    You want to add heat and volume, not reduce it. the main exception is for very fast aircraft where the heat of the air flowing into the engine can overheat the parts of the engine.

    The two main types of engine injection systems is a water injection system... usually used on bombers during takeoff to add mass to their exhaust... it tends to lower exhaust temperature and not burn very well (so you get a lot of very black smoke) but the added volume of what rapidly turns to steam adds a lot of thrust.

    The other injection system is like the MiG-25 that uses alcohol injection, but this is injected into the inlet to cool down the front compressor blades/fan. the liquid is of course flammable and ignites and adds weight but also adds to combustion... it means the engine can operate at higher speeds and higher temperatures which allows the aircraft to fly faster for longer.

    Of course an after burner is a fuel injection system that injects raw fuel into the exhaust to increase thrust... it has more effect in a turbofan as there is more oxygen rich air from the bypass air (air that does not go through the core high pressure turbojet core) so it burns better.

    because i know that thrust increase when the cold air from above and below surface of turbine jet meet the hot air.

    The thin cold air at altitude allows much higher flight speed because there is less friction with the air and very cold air expands more when heated than warm or hot air. The fact that is thinner is compensated for by flying faster so more air is scooped up, so when heated it expands more and slows down the aircraft less than thicker warmer air nearer the sea surface/ground level.

    BTW hi there... hope you are well. Smile
    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 644
    Points : 675
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:29 am

    i'm doing fine. altought winter is coming and i'll be freezing Laughing
    so basically don't work....i have taken example from the storm formation clouds when two fronts one cold other hot meet each other .....
    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 644
    Points : 675
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:32 am

    another question would be if you can make some sort form of propulsion from a gas bring to plasma state like in tokamak devices then guided out with the help of a magnetic shield?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21096
    Points : 21644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:48 am

    That is the basis of an ion engine, where material is ionised (ie strip off electrons to give the material a magnetic charge and then accelerate them in a magnetic field in a loop to very very high speed and then direct it out the rear of the engine to produce thrust.

    Mostly useful in space as the amount of material going through the engine is tiny but its enormous velocity can still provide effective thrust.

    Compared with a chemical rocket it produces a tiny amount of force, but its advantage is that it could be run for months rather than minutes or seconds for a chemical rocket.

    Also because the exhaust velocity is enormous the potential top speed is vastly higher... but takes weeks to achieve...

    No good for aircraft, but fantastic for space craft in orbit or long range missions.

    The main problems heating material to the temperature of a plasma is that it will melt most materials engines are made of. Of course using ceramic materials that can sustain high temperatures and still retain strength is one solution but also using magnetic fields to keep the plasma from touching the lining or components of the engine would be another idea.

    Of course the whole purpose of high temperature is high speed and volume of air flow through the engine. A scramjet allows supersonic flow through the engine and has no theoretical upper speed limit in the air... so it could operate as a jet engine on the runway and then use bypass air as a scramjet from about mach 2 up to orbital speed. It would use air from the atmosphere while flying inside the atmosphere so it would need to just carry fuel for operating inside the atmosphere, but if you went into space then a supply of oxygen to burn with the fuel could mean use of the engines from stationary on the runway, to scramjet in the air and fuel and o2 in space...

    EM technology will likely advance and allow better control of exhaust and also allow different materials to be used.

    Of course an anti grav system would be the best... a huge ship that has no weight (weight is mass times gravity...) if you can counter gravity then you can accelerate your craft easily to any speed you want... You can also counter the effects of acceleration like the do in spaceships depicted in hollywood movies and TV shows.

    Accelerating from zero to light speed like they do in Star Trek would crush the crew and the contents of the ship to a pulp.
    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 644
    Points : 675
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:52 am

    does artificial gravity anulate itself with the earth gravity?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21096
    Points : 21644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:55 am

    We really don't know how gravity actually works right now... is it a beam or is it a field...

    Information I know about black holes suggests it is a field emitted by particles with mass but that obey the laws of this universe... ie cannot exceed the speed of light.

    Just a brief summary... a black hole is actually a point of infinite gravity where normal matter is crushed out of existence.

    That means for any given time the actual matter mass of a black hole is close to zero, but because the mass "field" created by matter cannot exceed the speed of light once matter crosses the event horizon the field assumes the matter is still there and so continues to effect other matter as if the matter is still there.

    In actual fact the actual matter moves past the event horizon and eventually meets the point of infinite mass... the singularity where it is totally destroyed... crushed out of this universe.

    As matter passes the event horizon the "mass field" of the black hole gets bigger but the actual mass eventually returns to zero when the matter is destroyed.

    The fact that the gravity continues as if all the mass that entered the black hole is still there suggests that gravity is a field but a field that cannot exceed the speed of light.

    Yes... I know it is weird...

    If you could generate a gravity field or even reverse it then propulsion could simply by gravity field... counter the gravity of the earth and the gravity of the moon and the Sun will help you take off... not just counter the gravity of the earth but repel it and you can take off with only air resistance to worry about.

    There are very few places in this universe with no gravitational fields as the gravitational field of all matter extends infinitely... though it is dramatically effected by distances so the gravity of the earth that is closest to you effects you rather more than the gravity of the dirt on the other side of the earth.

    If you compress the earth to the size of a small coin all of that mass acting together would create a small black hole. By spreading the mass of the earth to the size of the earth it is much less powerful... but fortunately powerful enough to hold a breathable atmosphere...
    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 644
    Points : 675
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:43 am

    GarryB wrote:We really don't know how gravity actually works right now... is it a beam or is it a field...

    Information I know about black holes suggests it is a field emitted by particles with mass but that obey the laws of this universe... ie cannot exceed the speed of light.

    Just a brief summary... a black hole is actually a point of infinite gravity where normal matter is crushed out of existence.

    That means for any given time the actual matter mass of a black hole is close to zero, but because the mass "field" created by matter cannot exceed the speed of light once matter crosses the event horizon the field assumes the matter is still there and so continues to effect other matter as if the matter is still there.

    In actual fact the actual matter moves past the event horizon and eventually meets the point of infinite mass... the singularity where it is totally destroyed... crushed out of this universe.

    As matter passes the event horizon the "mass field" of the black hole gets bigger but the actual mass eventually returns to zero when the matter is destroyed.

    The fact that the gravity continues as if all the mass that entered the black hole is still there suggests that gravity is a field but a field that cannot exceed the speed of light.

    Yes... I know it is weird...

    If you could generate a gravity field or even reverse it then propulsion could simply by gravity field... counter the gravity of the earth and the gravity of the moon and the Sun will help you take off... not just counter the gravity of the earth but repel it and you can take off with only air resistance to worry about.

    There are very few places in this universe with no gravitational fields as the gravitational field of all matter extends infinitely... though it is dramatically effected by distances so the gravity of the earth that is closest to you effects you rather more than the gravity of the dirt on the other side of the earth.

    If you compress the earth to the size of a small coin all of that mass acting together would create a small black hole. By spreading the mass of the earth to the size of the earth it is much less powerful... but fortunately powerful enough to hold a breathable atmosphere...
    i saw that in SF movies ships have a artificial gravity sistem based on a rotational thing around it. can something like that be made on a normal balistic rocket? be it externally or internally. maibe nuclear powered rotational thing or something.

    Sponsored content

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 5 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:17 pm