Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Share
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19590
    Points : 20142
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    i have some questions.

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:12 pm

    That is just creating artificial gravity through inertia.

    Gravity is simply acceleration of matter towards mass... it can be simulated in a large ring by spinning that ring at a rate where the physical vector change feels like gravity... think of a rock being swung around your head on a string... if the string breaks the stone will travel in a straight line but while the string remains holding the stone the stone continues to orbit around you being constantly pulled off a straight course into an orbital course by the string... replace the string with a ring and spin the ring... once you get up to a certain speed things on the inside of the ring will remain against the inside the ring...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1746
    Points : 1746
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Unfinished Ukraina

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:01 pm

    Unfinished Ukraina CG I wonder if it's still be feasible to some 3rd world nation to complete the remaining 25% of construction & use her as a naval vessel? Update: https://regnum.ru/news/economy/2360793.html


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:14 am; edited 1 time in total
    Cheetah
    Cheetah

    Posts : 50
    Points : 54
    Join date : 2016-11-26
    Location : Australia

    Military Application of electromagnetic suspension

    Post  Cheetah on Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:48 am

    During the 80s, 'Bose', the sound company, developed a commercially unsuccessful electromagnetic suspension for the average commuter car.



    My followup question is pretty predictable.

    What's the consensus here on seeing a military application of a similar system, for say, armored vehicles - wheeled or tracked - to increase targeting performance, or would it be rendered redundant by the gun stabilisation?
    Cheetah
    Cheetah

    Posts : 50
    Points : 54
    Join date : 2016-11-26
    Location : Australia

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Cheetah on Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:49 am

    For some time now, I've been curious as to how passive IR missile seekers work.
    Understand that, I know how the basic principals of the seekers themselves work, but I am more interested in how the seeker is able to convey directional information to the missile itself.

    In the case of active or semi-active radar guided missiles, they are provided with information such as target speed, vector, AoA, distance, and probably some other aspects. With an IR seeker, I can't imagine how it attains the same level of information, and so I wonder how the missile can possibly fly a predictive path.

    If I imagine what the seeker 'sees' when it locks a target, I imagine it to be just a high contrast point in relation to the thermal environment. How does such an image convey any target parameters at all, and furthermore, how does the missile fly a predictive path when the only thing it knows is the angular direction between the missile and the target?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19590
    Points : 20142
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:18 am

    OK... lets take this step by step...

    The old IR guided missiles used to be tail chase weapons... basically the IR sensor in the nose detected heat sources and looked forward... you had a big circle in your HUD and you turned your aircraft so that the enemy aircraft was within that fixed circle which represented the field of view of your missile on your wing...

    Once the target was inside the circle you got a hum to tell you how strong the lock was... once it was strong enough you fired the missile and then were free to manouver.

    A strong lock meant the seeker could see a hot part of the target... once fired the missile turned and flew directly at the target... it didn't need to know where the target was going or how far away it was... they had short range sensors so if it got a lock it was probably in range.

    Of course the missile flying directly at the target means that when the missile got there the target will have moved... as the target moved the missile would tail chase and its superior speed above the speed of the target means it will catch up and hit the target... but if fired from behind the hottest thing it could see was the engine so most of the time it tail chased in went up the tail pipe.

    Improved missiles used a superior seeker design... instead of putting the target in the centre of the view and flying directly at it... it would fly straight with the seeker following the target... that generates changes in the angle of the target seeking camera... from this information the missile can turn in the direction the target is moving to lead the target so that the missile is flying where the target is going to be.

    Very simply if you look at a target and you adapt the movement of the vehicle you are in so that you don't need to move the camera to follow the target.... it remains in one place in your field of view... not moving up or down or left or right, but your vehicle is getting closer and close to the target then eventually you will either hit the target or you will run out of fuel.

    By flying on an angle to stop the target moving in your field of view rather than just flying directly at it you are matching courses but you are getting closer and closer... so you will hit the body of the target and not tail chase.

    You just work on information about the angle of the target to the missile... it does not even need a moving IR camera... the position of the target in the field of view is enough to intercept without knowing the speed or direction of the target.

    It does mean it is down to the pilot to ensure you don't fire at too great a range... an SR-71 flying at mach 3 you could hit head on, but if you are behind it there are not many IR missiles that will be able to chase it down before it gets out of range for instance.

    Obviously the same method applies to a manouvering target it is just harder with more course changes... the process is still very simple.
    Cheetah
    Cheetah

    Posts : 50
    Points : 54
    Join date : 2016-11-26
    Location : Australia

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Cheetah on Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:17 pm

    Thanks, Garry. I suspected it would be something to do with the seeker angle relative to the missile, or the target angle relative to the seeker. Either/Or.
    Though, for future reference, don't feel the need to define something from the ground-up; not with me at least, unless I mention otherwise. Might save you some time, and me some reading. For instance, paragraphs 6-9 are all I was after. The rest I either already knew, or could have reasoned out.

    All that aside, It does prompt another question. That of IR tracking versus radar tracking.
    We've established how an IR missile is able to fly a pseudo-predictive route, and we know the same for a Radar guided missile (both SARH and ARH), but how do the two compare? They use different inputs to determine their flight path, yet I wonder if one is more efficient than the other. The obvious go-to would be the radar guided, due to the information their guidance is based on. Yet, the professional consensus over the last half century has been that radar missile seekers are appallingly reliable, while IR seekers are perceived as somewhat more consistent. One could assume, however, that this was directly related to the fact that one is an active seeker and the other passive; and so in one case, the would-be target has the option to manoeuvre, and in the other, they would not(most of the time).

    - I assume we can glaze over the fact that neither missile type flies a truly predictive path.

    Long story short:
    Of Radar and IR seeking missiles, which would respond better to a manoeuvring target such as a jet? Would it be range specific? Would it be a negligible difference?

    Assume the scenario talks about a range where both Radar and IR missiles are adept. 5-50km or thereabouts if we are talking about something like an R-27ET.
    Also assume that the scenario does not include countermeasures, or seeker target lost (due to ground clutter, for instance).

    For this it would be interesting to dig up info on missile statistics and whatever public domain info there is floating about.

    I'm putting this one out there just out of general curiosity. I understand that answers aren't going to be something generic or obvious, or even accessible to the public, but I'll look around all the same.
    Feel free to throw in your two cents.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19590
    Points : 20142
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:54 am

    Thanks, Garry. I suspected it would be something to do with the seeker angle relative to the missile, or the target angle relative to the seeker. Either/Or.
    Though, for future reference, don't feel the need to define something from the ground-up; not with me at least, unless I mention otherwise. Might save you some time, and me some reading. For instance, paragraphs 6-9 are all I was after. The rest I either already knew, or could have reasoned out.

    I don't think you are an idiot but it makes no sense explaining some bits and not others when I really didn't know what you knew and what you didn't.

    I didn't just explain it for you either... I am sure there are plenty of people who didn't really think about and work out how they worked or perhaps made some false assumptions...

    We've established how an IR missile is able to fly a pseudo-predictive route, and we know the same for a Radar guided missile (both SARH and ARH), but how do the two compare?

    Well first of all there are old IR seeking missiles... newer ones.... and brand new state of the art ones.

    For the very old missiles they just saw hot points and generally guided on the hottest thing they could see. Flares or the sun became decoys so the guidance logic often improved the design and logic of the seeker to go for the not so hot targets... which led to flares of different intensities released in groups.

    UV filters were also used to tell the difference between the sun and flares which give off UV rays and aircraft surfaces which don't.

    Finally new state of the art IR sensors use imaging seekers like thermal cameras that can actually see images and they pretty much become all weather day night TV guided missiles where you can select a part of the target to aim for...

    The middle missiles were getting more sophisticated and after working out the direction of travel aimed slightly ahead of the hot point... meaning they hit the body of the aircraft instead of its tail pipe... making the warhead much more effective in destroying the aircraft.

    Radar guided missiles generally have a larger warhead and a proximity fuse but generally go for the radar centre of the target... which is pretty much the best place to hit it, so aiming off is not really useful for them.

    They use different inputs to determine their flight path, yet I wonder if one is more efficient than the other. The obvious go-to would be the radar guided, due to the information their guidance is based on.

    Actually a disagree... radar is active and warns the enemy it is under attack... it also generates a signal that can be jammed or targeted itself.

    It is perfectly possible to have rather small missiles... perhaps MANPADS size with a passive radar homing head... an ARM or anti radiation missile... that could be launched at the last second to shoot down in incoming AAM like Meteor or AMRAAM or R-77.

    The new short range IIR guided missiles the Russians are supposed to be working on also have an anti missile function... as an AAM for fighters and bombers... as a short range defence missile for the Army and a CIWS missile for the navy... using datalinks to attack targets in a lock on after launch mode all completely passively.

    Yet, the professional consensus over the last half century has been that radar missile seekers are appallingly reliable, while IR seekers are perceived as somewhat more consistent. One could assume, however, that this was directly related to the fact that one is an active seeker and the other passive; and so in one case, the would-be target has the option to manoeuvre, and in the other, they would not(most of the time).

    This opinion is dirtied by the fact that IR guided weapons are generally short ranged and the most effective ones are generally fired from fairly close range from behind the target, while radar guided missiles are generally fired from greater ranges and their guidance alerts the target it is under attack.

    Missiles move very quickly but have very small control surfaces so their ability to manouver is not that good... older missiles don't have good fields of view so once it blows past a target it wont swing around and reacquire them like in bad american movies.

    It is the old story... you will most likely be killed in war by the bullet you never see coming...

    Long story short:
    Of Radar and IR seeking missiles, which would respond better to a manoeuvring target such as a jet? Would it be range specific? Would it be a negligible difference?

    With modern IIR guidance you could use datalinks and lock on after launch for both missile types... the IIR missile would be passive but both would have an IR signature that would alert the target to the threat... except against third world countries.

    Nothing is guaranteed a kill.

    A mix of as many types would offer a pilot the best range of options for a kill.


    For this it would be interesting to dig up info on missile statistics and whatever public domain info there is floating about.

    The problem is that there is next to no information on the performance of Soviet and Russian T model missiles in real combat.

    Export model Soviet fighters that had IR guided missiles were exported with Sidewinder based missiles... ie the MiG-23s had R-3S rather than R-23R and R-23T missiles let alone R-24R and R-24T.

    The MiG-31 continues to use R-40TD missiles and for targets like the SR-71 in a head on interception they should be ideal... fast missile... big warhead... easy straight flying target...

    The general consensus AFAIK is that the R-60MK is a good missile but not as good as late model Sidewinders... more a self defence missile.

    The R-73 is better than late model Sidewinders in terms of range and manouver performance and seeker sensitivity.

    Only the very late model AIM-9X with its IIR array seeker has a better sensor, but it really needs a helmet mounted site to make use of it high offboresight capabilities... something left off the F-22s to save money.

    The R-73... even the first models had better flight performance.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 3780
    Points : 3879
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  kvs on Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:52 pm

    Cheetah wrote:During the 80s, 'Bose', the sound company, developed a commercially unsuccessful electromagnetic suspension for the average commuter car.



    My followup question is pretty predictable.

    What's the consensus here on seeing a military application of a similar system, for say, armored vehicles - wheeled or tracked - to increase targeting performance, or would it be rendered redundant by the gun stabilisation?

    It is not clear how scalable this system is to trucks and other heavy equipment. At face value it offers advantages since there
    is less shaking of any load. I also believe that targeting in current systems is already compensated so there is no absolute need for
    this technology.

    The real story is how consumers get shafted by the automobile oligopoly. They want to sell you the shittiest option possible. Look at
    SUV suspensions, they are not significantly different from car suspensions. (Of course a Chevy Suburban is based on a pickup, but most
    SUVs are fluffed up cars). You will not how basically none of the "independent" car reviews on youtube even look at the suspension. You
    are lucky to even get a shot of the underside of the car. The most important thing is how many cupholders you have and the soft-feel
    plastic in the dash.
    Cheetah
    Cheetah

    Posts : 50
    Points : 54
    Join date : 2016-11-26
    Location : Australia

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Cheetah on Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:01 pm

    @ GarryB
    Fair reasoning, thanks for the time and answers; Much appreciated.

    @kvs
    Touche. Couldn't agree more.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 493
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:58 pm

    In a video recently I saw part of a Russian ships superstructure with 4 AK-230 CIWS and what apeared to be 2 coincidental range finders does anyone know what ship this is?

    It did have a Russian navy banner so it can't have been decomissioned before the 90s and the photo relolution looks too good for it to have been taken in the 90s.
    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 1044
    Points : 1107
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 28
    Location : Oldenburg

    Tanks vs artillery

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:25 pm

    Need help from you guys, I am not really knowledgeable in this topic.

    What effect would HE artillery shells have on modern tanks? Lets say we fire a 155 mm HE round (or something bigger) at a tank in both direct and indirect fire for comparison.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19590
    Points : 20142
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:56 am

    This has been discussed before...

    There are some rounds designed to defeat armour using HE force... the British in particular love the HESH or high explosive squash head rounds... the kill mechanism is basically consider the round to be a big blob of HE with a tail mounted fuse.

    You fire at the target... muzzle velocity is not important in this case.

    The round impacts the armour plate and flattens out creating as big a surface area as possible and then the tail fuse detonates the HE causing shock waves to move through the armour. The kill mechanism is for the shock waves to make small metal flakes on the inside face of the armour to detach and be thrown around inside the turret... these flakes are better known as spall.

    If an armour piercing round comes to within 10-20% of penetrating armour it can often generate spall too which is lethal to crew even though the armour is not actually penetrated.

    Anti spall linings reduce or eliminate the effectiveness... which can be as simple as a few layers of Kevlar cloth inside the armour to catch the spall and stop it killing or injuring the crew.

    What really killed the ammo in anti armour use is that most modern armours have layers and often include a spaced armour with pockets of empty space where shockwaves don't pass very efficiently.

    I remember during desert storm the UK media was over the moon when one of their warrior IFVs survived a hit by a main tank gun round... wow... super IFV armour. Except it turned out that it was a HESH round that hit externally mounted add on armour, so of course it would not be effective.

    The ammo is still useful against soft targets or buildings or bunkers... but time delayed HE rounds would be more effective exploding inside the target rather than on the outer surface.

    For blowing down a wall to make an entrance way it is good if a bit excessive. (note when assaulting a fortified town don't use existing doors or windows because they are likely already booby trapped... make your own doorway...)

    Anyway... standard modern artillery shells don't deform and flatten and then explode like HESH so they would not be very effective in that role, and of course with modern armours such attempts to kill the crew are not so effective anyway due to spaced armour, ERA and other add on armour types that create a space between the outer armour and main armour, and anti spall liners.

    Of course if HE didn't kill tanks then how could aircraft kill tanks?

    Most rockets were inaccurate and most cannon not powerful enough during WWII to be super effective in the anti armour role.

    The 152mm guns used by the Soviet Union in the anti armour role were described as not powerful enough to penetrate but could knock the turret off smaller tanks and damage heavier ones to remove them from combat.

    Abrams tanks have been knocked out with IEDs as small as 50kgs and a 155mm HE shell is in the 40-50kg payload range.

    Most modern tanks would be safe from near impacts, but a direct hit would smash optics and shred tracks and might destroy critical components like engine or crew.

    It is hard to say... I would think that a guided 152mm HE shell landing on a NATO tank would kill it, or render it useless.

    I would have to say a 203mm or 240mm HE shell (110kg or 130kg) should do the job with a direct hit too.

    The problem is that direct hits only happen with guided rounds.
    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 1044
    Points : 1107
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 28
    Location : Oldenburg

    APFSDS vs soft armored targets

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:49 pm

    What exactly happens when an APFSDS hits a target that isn't heavily armored?

    Does it depend on whether the round is tungstein or DU?

    Here is a video of some GIAT round hitting a car. You can see how flames engulf the car interior. I wouldn't like to be inside. Force was so great that the car was moved backwards:


    On the other hand, multiple reports exist from the Gulf war of Bradleys being hit by friendly fire M829's from Abrams and the result was less spectacular - the round penetrated armor, exited at the opposite end, one crew member was KIA/WIA and the rest would then bail out unscathed or slightly wounded.

    It confuses me alot.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2549
    Points : 3427
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:41 pm

    If it doesn't cause shrapnel it will go straight through causing little damage. Between the high velocity and density of either of those rounds is not enough to cause shrapnel of a lightly armoured target.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 2743
    Points : 2737
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Isos on Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:07 pm

    If you use it against soft target you try to detroy the enngine so that the vehicle can't move anymore.

    Older apfsds should be better against those targets. They didn't use tungusten or DU which would go easily through all the vehicule. They have less penetratrion but it's not a problem for soft targets.

    The best would be WWII era rounds which penetrate and then explode.

    Do you have pictures or videos of the bradleys hit by abrams Please ?

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 1044
    Points : 1107
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 28
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:48 am

    Photos are hard to come by, books on Gulf war should have some. I came across reports of that on War Thunder forum or reddit, I believe.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 2743
    Points : 2737
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Isos on Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:43 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Photos are hard to come by, books on Gulf war should have some. I came across reports of that on War Thunder forum or reddit, I believe.

    Yeah I've also read on forums that abrams where engaged by iraqi t-72 abd they also shot on bradleys but no picture.

    One guy said his friend who was a UK tankist told him many abrams were badly touched by iraqi which contracdits what US army said about its loses.

    Is there a topic here about US loses in iraq with picture ?
    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 1044
    Points : 1107
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 28
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:53 am

    Here? There isn't. There might be one on other forums though.
    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 1044
    Points : 1107
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 28
    Location : Oldenburg

    Hypersonic anti tank round

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:02 pm

    Since we now have hypersonic cruise and anti ship missiles, why not a hypersonic KE round for anti tank use?

    The system would be designed to be fired from aircraft as well as existing MLRS systems which should allow use of much heavier rounds if desired - having a a 15 kg piece of tungstein/Du travelling even at 3000 m/s would not be fun.

    Possibly even completely screw APFSDS and go back to old school full calibre rounds, possibly with tungstein/DU cap. Having a 122 mm 25 kg piece of steel striking an Abrams at Mach 10 would not be fun either. Devastation caused by such round (not to mention 200-300 mm one) would absolutely horrific if such a projectile hit the top armor

    What are your thoughts, dear forum members? Wink
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19590
    Points : 20142
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:16 am

    Back in the 1990s there was a lot of talk about very high velocity anti tank missiles... related to the SA-19 two stage missile, where the main rocket motor accelerated the missile to about 1.2km/s... and presumably the missile itself would be another rocket motor that accelerated the missile to much higher speeds for the terminal effect required.

    It didn't really amount to much, but solid rocket fuel has limitations, whereas scramjet motors can be made rather small and would be rather interesting.

    Certainly if you can get the velocity up high enough you can actually save money by using cheaper materials for the penetrator which would make them rather more viable weapons too.

    Of course there is the self forging fragments, which are low velocity weapons that detonate a HE charge about 50m from the target, where the explosion is focused and is designed to reform a flat disc of material into a penetrator moving at 3km/s or so. It is not super effective because the shape created is not usually pointed and looks more like a shuttle cock used in badminton... if it had a sharp point it would penetrate much better... but is still pretty useful... mainly for top attack use against the thin top armour of vehicles.

    Also don't rule out APFSDS rounds... even in the 1960s there were designs of APFSDS rounds that had ramjets fitted to them to retain speed on the way to the target... having a scramjet would vastly improve performance and make it much more practical...

    My understanding is that 3km/s is the balance point... if you chart penetration being the result of velocity and mass of the penetrator, you generally get the best improvements in penetration when increasing velocity. Once you get above 3km/s however the benefits of increasing velocity don't increase very much but the energy required to get higher speed increases. This suggests that rather than putting more energy into the projectile to get even higher speeds it is much more efficient to make the projectile heavier... which normally means longer as wider increases drag and increases speed loss per second.

    Against armour the concentration of energy is critical, but of course a 15kgs of most materials you could accelerate to 3km/s would be devastating... even a 4kg tungsten shell with 11kgs of chocolate blamanche inside would be devastating at 3km/s... at such speeds and energies even solids act like fluids anyway... lead is a very soft metal but it is used inside harder metal jackets to allow the bullets to have high densities and therefore higher momentum to move through the air more efficiently and to have more effect on target.

    Very high velocity very light bullets are effective on light targets.... the light targets almost explode... but against heavier animals they tend to break up and often lack penetration.

    At point blank range a subsonic .22lr lead projectile is comparable to 50 cal Browning ammo when fired into water... in fact the .22 ammo might be more lethal as the enormous energy of the 50 cal round will probably shatter the projectile on impact with the water, while the .22 round might actually injure you over a distance of a few metres.


    New EM gun technology will likely lead to smaller calibres and much higher velocities too.
    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 1044
    Points : 1107
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 28
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:34 pm

    What would be predicted penetration of a steel APCBC round at such speeds?

    The best APCBC rounnd ever rounded which was the 120 mm one used on M103 had a max penetration of 300 mm - but it only travelled at about 1000 m/s as compared to 1500 m/s for the slowest APFSDS. It was this difficulty in accelerating full caliber rounds to speeds above 1000 m/s that spurred development of APDS and APFSDS later on.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:11 am