5 ms·

For those interested in the actual image> https://imgur.com/c8P1OOh https://imgur.com/c8P1OOh

by xyzal 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
joelthelion 4y ago
Is this particularly sensitive? Are anti-tank rounds that cutting-edge?
- lumost 4y ago
  Yes, while the basic mechanics aren't particularly sensitive in 2022. The exact details with regards to range, penetrating power, accuracy, weight are. Given this information an adversary can adjust tactics to engage at a range that's more optimal for their rounds, recognize that they should use alternate longer range strikes, or devise long term mitigations. Given that all of the above actions are expensive, it's a lot easier to take them when you have the exact specs. The problem is even worse with air to air missiles where pilots can be trained to counter most missiles if they have the exact performance characteristics.
  - moonchrome 4y ago
    So if you release fake specs understating your stats you get enemies coming into range for free ?
    - aaron695 4y ago
    - t0mas88 4y ago
      I'm sure the enemy rocket designers will look at whether your specs make sense given their own experience.
      - michaelt 4y ago
        To an extent. But weapon specifications often have pretty gigantic error bars on them. After all, the range of a tank gun isn't just a question of how far it can send a shell - it's also a question of how well the gun can be aimed, how hard the shells have to hit when they arrive, and whether the 'effective' in 'effective range' means a 20% chance of a kill or a 90% chance. By messing around with those definitions, the M1 Abrams tank has a range of anything from 2,500m to 4000m to 8000m. Pretty hard to sanity-check such a wide range of figures.
    - skhr0680 4y ago
      Yes, and published specs of weapons are likely to be misleading or outright lies for that reason
      - fendy3002 4y ago
        Given the actual harddisk size compared with advertised and how nutritional value and calories in supermarket foods are often misleading, it can be safe to say that the specification is hard to be believed.
      - sandos 4y ago
        I even worked with military simulators, and they themselves are segregated. The simpler ones use the "marketing" figures for secret stuff (the thing I specifically remember was range for air-to-air robots and turn capabilities etc), whereas some might use the real figures. I don't think even the most high fidelity simulators always use 100% accurate info, especially when it comes to radar stuff which is very very well guarded. Even though a lot of the code can be identical to the "flying code" for aircraft, there is still a lot of physical stuff that needs to be specifically modelled.
    - dfxm12 4y ago
      Not against anyone competent. If your opponents are taking a single photo leaked on Reddit at face value, then you're going to have an easy time.
    - lumost 4y ago
      You may also make an adversary believe they have a much larger advantage then they do, inviting a conflict. There is substantial debate as to whether the open development of projects such as the f-35 is beneficial or harmful compress to the secret development of things like the J-20. The congressional interrogations of Lockheed Likely help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised, but adversaries gain insight into the development timeline, problems, and more specs than they would have otherwise.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > The congressional interrogations of Lockheed Likely help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised I am under the impression the f-35 will never deliver what was advertised since it was a sales effort based on fantasy physics. It probably is delivering the actual intended effect, which is transferring money from taxpayers to military contractors and job votes for certain senators.
        CSMastermind 4y ago
        Can you be more specific? What about the F35 was based on "fantasy physics"?
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        That it was possible to make an all in one plane for all branches of military for all purposes, and have verticals take off and landing for the Marines. And have some type of 360 degree futuristic digital heads-up display? I did not bother with reading into all the details, I just know there have been article after article about the plane failing to reach expectation after expectation for basically my whole adult life now. Not to mention that drones render human piloted jets much less necessary or useful.
        outworlder 4y ago
        > That it was possible to make an all in one plane for all branches of military for all purpose It's possible. They ended up achieving less commonality than predicted, and costs were higher than predicted. No fantasy physics here. > and have verticals take off and landing for the Marines Works fine. Although they will probably not take off vertically and will instead do a short takeoff. Same thing the Harrier did. No fantasy physics. > And have some type of 360 degree futuristic digital heads-up display They do, and it works. > failing to reach expectation after expectation for basically my whole adult life now Welcome to cutting edge weapons development. Read some history, you'll find plenty of programs that had similar issues but are successful today. > Not to mention that drones render human piloted jets much less necessary or useful. Maybe so. But not today.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      You should always overstate your capabilities not understate them.
      - zasdffaa 4y ago
        Rubbish. It depends on what you want to make your opponent do.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        Or do both so that you are not predictable.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  Not particularly, CCTV7 documentary on Type 99A tank quoted the significant numbers a couple years ago.
- zild3d 4y ago
  a huge portion of classified/sensitive material is not all that interesting/cutting edge. But if you'd rather an adversary not know it, or it could potentially be exploited then it'll be marked classified.
nickpinkston 4y ago
That's a really interesting design, as it looks like it was inspired by metal broaching tools where each of those rings acts like a cutter to slightly enlarge the hole made by the ring before it. It makes sense that a penetrator would use that technique as it's designed to clear the chip debris, as opposed to trying to deform the bulk hardened material, allowing far easier penetration and perhaps more energy transfer to the inside of the target. https://www.iqsdirectory.com/articles/broaching.html https://www.iqsdirectory.com/articles/broaching.html
- snowycat 4y ago
  In the diagram behind the tungsten penetrator, only the part of the penetrator that contacts the sabot has rings on it, while the rest of the projectile is drawn as smooth. The rings might have something to do with helping the sabot separate from the projectile correctly or preventing the projectile from slipping out of the sabot before it leaves the barrel.

For those interested in the actual image> https://imgur.com/c8P1OOh https://imgur.com/c8P1OOh

by xyzal 4y ago

For those interested in the actual image> https://imgur.com/c8P1OOh https://imgur.com/c8P1OOh

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

joelthelion 4y ago

Is this particularly sensitive? Are anti-tank rounds that cutting-edge?

lumost 4y ago
Yes, while the basic mechanics aren't particularly sensitive in 2022. The exact details with regards to range, penetrating power, accuracy, weight are. Given this information an adversary can adjust tactics to engage at a range that's more optimal for their rounds, recognize that they should use alternate longer range strikes, or devise long term mitigations. Given that all of the above actions are expensive, it's a lot easier to take them when you have the exact specs. The problem is even worse with air to air missiles where pilots can be trained to counter most missiles if they have the exact performance characteristics.
- moonchrome 4y ago
  So if you release fake specs understating your stats you get enemies coming into range for free ?
  - aaron695 4y ago
  - t0mas88 4y ago
    I'm sure the enemy rocket designers will look at whether your specs make sense given their own experience.
    - michaelt 4y ago
      To an extent. But weapon specifications often have pretty gigantic error bars on them. After all, the range of a tank gun isn't just a question of how far it can send a shell - it's also a question of how well the gun can be aimed, how hard the shells have to hit when they arrive, and whether the 'effective' in 'effective range' means a 20% chance of a kill or a 90% chance. By messing around with those definitions, the M1 Abrams tank has a range of anything from 2,500m to 4000m to 8000m. Pretty hard to sanity-check such a wide range of figures.
  - skhr0680 4y ago
    Yes, and published specs of weapons are likely to be misleading or outright lies for that reason
    - fendy3002 4y ago
      Given the actual harddisk size compared with advertised and how nutritional value and calories in supermarket foods are often misleading, it can be safe to say that the specification is hard to be believed.
    - sandos 4y ago
      I even worked with military simulators, and they themselves are segregated. The simpler ones use the "marketing" figures for secret stuff (the thing I specifically remember was range for air-to-air robots and turn capabilities etc), whereas some might use the real figures. I don't think even the most high fidelity simulators always use 100% accurate info, especially when it comes to radar stuff which is very very well guarded. Even though a lot of the code can be identical to the "flying code" for aircraft, there is still a lot of physical stuff that needs to be specifically modelled.
  - dfxm12 4y ago
    Not against anyone competent. If your opponents are taking a single photo leaked on Reddit at face value, then you're going to have an easy time.
  - lumost 4y ago
    You may also make an adversary believe they have a much larger advantage then they do, inviting a conflict. There is substantial debate as to whether the open development of projects such as the f-35 is beneficial or harmful compress to the secret development of things like the J-20. The congressional interrogations of Lockheed Likely help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised, but adversaries gain insight into the development timeline, problems, and more specs than they would have otherwise.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      > The congressional interrogations of Lockheed Likely help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised I am under the impression the f-35 will never deliver what was advertised since it was a sales effort based on fantasy physics. It probably is delivering the actual intended effect, which is transferring money from taxpayers to military contractors and job votes for certain senators.
      - CSMastermind 4y ago
        Can you be more specific? What about the F35 was based on "fantasy physics"?
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        That it was possible to make an all in one plane for all branches of military for all purposes, and have verticals take off and landing for the Marines. And have some type of 360 degree futuristic digital heads-up display? I did not bother with reading into all the details, I just know there have been article after article about the plane failing to reach expectation after expectation for basically my whole adult life now. Not to mention that drones render human piloted jets much less necessary or useful.
        outworlder 4y ago
        > That it was possible to make an all in one plane for all branches of military for all purpose It's possible. They ended up achieving less commonality than predicted, and costs were higher than predicted. No fantasy physics here. > and have verticals take off and landing for the Marines Works fine. Although they will probably not take off vertically and will instead do a short takeoff. Same thing the Harrier did. No fantasy physics. > And have some type of 360 degree futuristic digital heads-up display They do, and it works. > failing to reach expectation after expectation for basically my whole adult life now Welcome to cutting edge weapons development. Read some history, you'll find plenty of programs that had similar issues but are successful today. > Not to mention that drones render human piloted jets much less necessary or useful. Maybe so. But not today.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    You should always overstate your capabilities not understate them.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      Rubbish. It depends on what you want to make your opponent do.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Or do both so that you are not predictable.
dirtyid 4y ago
Not particularly, CCTV7 documentary on Type 99A tank quoted the significant numbers a couple years ago.
zild3d 4y ago
a huge portion of classified/sensitive material is not all that interesting/cutting edge. But if you'd rather an adversary not know it, or it could potentially be exploited then it'll be marked classified.

nickpinkston 4y ago

That's a really interesting design, as it looks like it was inspired by metal broaching tools where each of those rings acts like a cutter to slightly enlarge the hole made by the ring before it. It makes sense that a penetrator would use that technique as it's designed to clear the chip debris, as opposed to trying to deform the bulk hardened material, allowing far easier penetration and perhaps more energy transfer to the inside of the target. https://www.iqsdirectory.com/articles/broaching.html https://www.iqsdirectory.com/articles/broaching.html

snowycat 4y ago
In the diagram behind the tungsten penetrator, only the part of the penetrator that contacts the sabot has rings on it, while the rest of the projectile is drawn as smooth. The rings might have something to do with helping the sabot separate from the projectile correctly or preventing the projectile from slipping out of the sabot before it leaves the barrel.