|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 11, 2017 20:30:55 GMT
The gravity on Mars is 1/3rd that on Earth.
Of the 7 Mars Rovers only three landed, the first eventually got stuck in sand the other two are still operational.
The Mars Rovers cost around $2.4 BILLION...The M1 Abrams MBT costs just under $9 million, the F22 is $339 million including development costs, or $138 million without that. Just to put things in comparison.
In six years of operation (far longer than expected) the Curiosity Rover has travelled a staggering...25 miles. That is a whopping 0.0005 miles per hour. (Trivia; This is actually around the same distance travelled by the lunar rovers during the moon landings.)
Rovers don't have guns, ammunition or armour nor have to worry about IED's, RPG's and antitank guns; The Martians seem to be saving those for the manned missions....
We HAVE learnt from experience when it comes to military vehicles. This tells us that no matter how advanced the available technology is, it is better to aim for simplicity and reliability where possible. The Panther and Tiger series of tanks were powerful, but also needlessly complex and suffered badly from poor reliability. (The issues with the Panther were gradually reduced over time, but never fully overcome). The Chieftain MBT was the most powerful tank in the world when it was introduced...but its engine was complex and unreliable and the tank was never as successful as the Centurion it replaced. The Sergeant York is an example of what can happen when you make a needlessly complex vehicle, even using existing components. This was an anti-aircraft vehicle which at one point during tests almost killed half of the NATO brass by identifying them as targets, on another it registered the biggest threat as a line of portable toilets. Now it IS true that a lot of the problems with the York were down to its development being rushed. But it does show that simply slapping together technologies doesn't an effective combat vehicle make - especially when those technologies are new and/or being adapted for uses they were not originally designed for. (The radar was adapted from an aircraft I think).
While modern MBT's use a lot of advanced technologies, a lot of their primary systems are actually remarkably simple and the tank can actually function without them, tracks aside. The main gun, for example, can be aimed and fired even with the computer knocked out of action - the coaxial machine gun allows for manual aiming out to around 1500 metres.
We've also learnt that hybrids of two different vehicle types are, at best, only 'adequate' in each role or fair in one function and adequate in the other. So amphibious IFV/APC's can be either fair boats and poor APC's, fair APC's and poor boats or adequate APC's/boats. It's actually better to focus on making an APC/IFV than can float across rivers than trying to make a 'boat' than can go on land.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 12, 2017 7:43:53 GMT
Plausible.
Otherwise, I have seen viable ideas that could be developed a little better.
I aint an engineer when it comes to vehicle stuff, but I know things we have had in the past could have been done better, I was just hoping the collective brains we had here could have been more positive?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 12, 2017 14:14:55 GMT
Plausible. Otherwise, I have seen viable ideas that could be developed a little better. I aint an engineer when it comes to vehicle stuff, but I know things we have had in the past could have been done better, I was just hoping the collective brains we had here could have been more positive?. okay, I am positive your idea has too many moving parts to be a reliable combat vehicle. keep in mind, the landy is such a successful vehicle, because it is rock solid simple. take your idea of using retractable landing gear to make it easy to change a flat tire. that is a lot more moving parts than making a tire that can't go flat. does this mean your idea is totally without merit? of course not. there are other applications where a person might be interested in a vehicle that goes fast on both land and water, and would benefit from modular design. I have a cousin who was trained as a field mechanic. most of our US military vehicles ARE ALREADY built modular. if a havok bends a suspension component on a wheel, they unbolt the entire suspension assembly, pull the driveline, and put on a new complete suspension assembly and wheel. pretty much guarantees they don't miss any hidden damage. as he said, they had a wheel bearing go bad on a deuce and a half (truck) so they just unbolted the front front axle, and bolted on a fresh one.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 12, 2017 23:57:29 GMT
The Sergeant York is an example of what can happen when you make a needlessly complex vehicle, even using existing components. This was an anti-aircraft vehicle which at one point during tests almost killed half of the NATO brass by identifying them as targets, on another it registered the biggest threat as a line of portable toilets. Now it IS true that a lot of the problems with the York were down to its development being rushed. But it does show that simply slapping together technologies doesn't an effective combat vehicle make - especially when those technologies are new and/or being adapted for uses they were not originally designed for. (The radar was adapted from an aircraft I think). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_YorkThe tracking radar was, in fact, pulled from the F-16. Unfortunately, it had issues distinguishing ground clutter from legitimate targets, which led to many of the issues that happened. With the outhouse incident, the facilities had vent fans in place helping to dissipate the smell; the targeting computer locked on to these vent fans and flagged them as aircraft exhaust. Additionally, the ECCM equipment wasn't up to snuff, the turret mechanism was slow to rotate and sometimes had hydraulic leaks, the guns were off-the-shelf units that had been damaged by improper storage, and the turret was mounted to a stock chassis that was so old it couldn't handle the weight.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 13, 2017 0:20:10 GMT
The Sergeant York is an example of what can happen when you make a needlessly complex vehicle, even using existing components. This was an anti-aircraft vehicle which at one point during tests almost killed half of the NATO brass by identifying them as targets, on another it registered the biggest threat as a line of portable toilets. Now it IS true that a lot of the problems with the York were down to its development being rushed. But it does show that simply slapping together technologies doesn't an effective combat vehicle make - especially when those technologies are new and/or being adapted for uses they were not originally designed for. (The radar was adapted from an aircraft I think). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_YorkThe tracking radar was, in fact, pulled from the F-16. Unfortunately, it had issues distinguishing ground clutter from legitimate targets, which led to many of the issues that happened. With the outhouse incident, the facilities had vent fans in place helping to dissipate the smell; the targeting computer locked on to these vent fans and flagged them as aircraft exhaust. Additionally, the ECCM equipment wasn't up to snuff, the turret mechanism was slow to rotate and sometimes had hydraulic leaks, the guns were off-the-shelf units that had been damaged by improper storage, and the turret was mounted to a stock chassis that was so old it couldn't handle the weight. but other than that, it was a great machine
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 13, 2017 1:03:24 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_YorkThe tracking radar was, in fact, pulled from the F-16. Unfortunately, it had issues distinguishing ground clutter from legitimate targets, which led to many of the issues that happened. With the outhouse incident, the facilities had vent fans in place helping to dissipate the smell; the targeting computer locked on to these vent fans and flagged them as aircraft exhaust. Additionally, the ECCM equipment wasn't up to snuff, the turret mechanism was slow to rotate and sometimes had hydraulic leaks, the guns were off-the-shelf units that had been damaged by improper storage, and the turret was mounted to a stock chassis that was so old it couldn't handle the weight. but other than that, it was a great machine m2museum.com/Military/Ground%20Vehicles/M247%20Sgt%20York/M247SgtYork.htmGaloob (later Hasbro) debuted the Sgt. York as part of their "Micro Machines" line-up in 19 98, and continued using it until 2002. Yeah: they debuted it in the line a decade after it flopped IRL.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 13, 2017 1:18:17 GMT
a spectacular failure can be more popular than an unimpressive success. if you were offered the choice of a first model year Edsel or a first model year Taurus in concourse condition, which would be more interesting to you?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 13, 2017 10:17:13 GMT
Plausible. Otherwise, I have seen viable ideas that could be developed a little better. I aint an engineer when it comes to vehicle stuff, but I know things we have had in the past could have been done better, I was just hoping the collective brains we had here could have been more positive?. okay, I am positive your idea has too many moving parts to be a reliable combat vehicle. keep in mind, the landy is such a successful vehicle, because it is rock solid simple. take your idea of using retractable landing gear to make it easy to change a flat tire. that is a lot more moving parts than making a tire that can't go flat. does this mean your idea is totally without merit? of course not. there are other applications where a person might be interested in a vehicle that goes fast on both land and water, and would benefit from modular design. I have a cousin who was trained as a field mechanic. most of our US military vehicles ARE ALREADY built modular. if a havok bends a suspension component on a wheel, they unbolt the entire suspension assembly, pull the driveline, and put on a new complete suspension assembly and wheel. pretty much guarantees they don't miss any hidden damage. as he said, they had a wheel bearing go bad on a deuce and a half (truck) so they just unbolted the front front axle, and bolted on a fresh one. Thats a better plan, look positive and dont just say "It cant be done"... The idea of the suspension raise to "change flat tyre" means the whole thing can be done without a jack. Land too hard and squash a wheel rim?.. get a rock in the transmission?.. shatter a brake disk?.. there is more to wheels than flat tyres, and jack-less changing saves time, plus the ability to just lift a leg and continue allows you to get to base before you have to stop. Until of course you only have three wheels left than it kinda gets difficult I suppose?.. The modular idea, I have been banging on about simplifying engine bays for decades, along with the game of new vehicle hunt the dipstick [Joker points awarded to the first to spot the transport manager] there is always where the hell have they hidden the oil filter and can you actually get the heads off the top of the engine for a blocked injector without dropping the engine. If dropping the engine was a "five minute job" because its just four heavy duty bolts at each corner and unplug the electrics with maybe a suzie type easy release [not quick, but easy] on the fluids, the servicing of an engine with the engine out would be a lot easier. Especially if all engines came out the same way.... This is the "Simple" part of the thing I am pushing. Make the swap of parts easy, you can get as complicated as you need inside, just make it a swap-shop at the service bay, have half-as-many-parts again available for swap, and then learn on the job, and build in more reliability as parts break, but keep the new upgrades inside the modules they are designed for, that way, upgrades happen on an in-service vehicle at base whilst the crew are on the lunch break?.. What could possibly go wrong?. Everything. Look at the development of JSOC in the US Military, it was developed by failures in inter-service command structure, they now stand back, plan for all failures, and have contingency planning, I am trying to involve that in the R&D here, before it gets built.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 13, 2017 10:19:39 GMT
a spectacular failure can be more popular than an unimpressive success. if you were offered the choice of a first model year Edsel or a first model year Taurus in concourse condition, which would be more interesting to you? Edsel, because I know what can be done with a Resto-Mod, and update the hell out of underneath, it will offend peoples sensibilities when I can get it to do a 0-100 in under 10....?... Wrong answer?..
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 13, 2017 12:12:38 GMT
Military vehicles differ in design to civilian ones in regards modularity. These days modern combat vehicles are designed to allow fast swapping and replacement of major components. The entire engine and gearbox of an M1 MBT can be entirely replaced at forward repair units in an hour or so.
This modularity however is not just about repairing battlefield damage, it also makes it faster, easier and cheaper to upgrade vehicles. This is why the M1 MBT will remain in service for several more decades, even though there is no actual need to build new ones.
All of the technologies you've listed have been used successfully before, so on that level there is nothing wrong with them. For example individual electric motors driving each wheel were used on the Lunar Rovers, and also appeared on an electric Limousine. Retractable tires were used on the Hobbycar, an amphibious car developed in the early 90's. All of these however have two things in common;
They were expensive
They were not designed to operate for extended periods in hostile/harsh conditions. (The Lunar Rover is a partial exception in regards the hostile conditions naturally. But it wasn't intended to operate for an extended period.)
The Hobbycar also reveals the limitations of amphibious vehicles. As a car it was actually fairly decent for general road use, but nowhere near as good as a pure car in the same price range. As a boat it was fair, with a top speed only slightly higher than the average rowboat on rivers and lakes. But clearly not something you'd want to attempt to sail out to sea in anything but the calmest conditions as it would get swamped in any kind of swell. As I said before vehicles that try to be two things tend to be passable but not brilliant at both. With amphibious APC/IFV's the focus needs to be on combat performance, so they tend to be good APC/IFV's but only fair 'boats'/landing craft. The amphibious aspect is geared more towards being able to cross rivers than actually landing on beaches. The latter might well be possible in good conditions, but if not they can be landed on dedicated landing craft.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 13, 2017 14:48:08 GMT
okay, I am positive your idea has too many moving parts to be a reliable combat vehicle. keep in mind, the landy is such a successful vehicle, because it is rock solid simple. take your idea of using retractable landing gear to make it easy to change a flat tire. that is a lot more moving parts than making a tire that can't go flat. does this mean your idea is totally without merit? of course not. there are other applications where a person might be interested in a vehicle that goes fast on both land and water, and would benefit from modular design. I have a cousin who was trained as a field mechanic. most of our US military vehicles ARE ALREADY built modular. if a havok bends a suspension component on a wheel, they unbolt the entire suspension assembly, pull the driveline, and put on a new complete suspension assembly and wheel. pretty much guarantees they don't miss any hidden damage. as he said, they had a wheel bearing go bad on a deuce and a half (truck) so they just unbolted the front front axle, and bolted on a fresh one. Thats a better plan, look positive and dont just say "It cant be done"... The idea of the suspension raise to "change flat tyre" means the whole thing can be done without a jack. Land too hard and squash a wheel rim?.. get a rock in the transmission?.. shatter a brake disk?.. there is more to wheels than flat tyres, and jack-less changing saves time, plus the ability to just lift a leg and continue allows you to get to base before you have to stop. Until of course you only have three wheels left than it kinda gets difficult I suppose?.. The modular idea, I have been banging on about simplifying engine bays for decades, along with the game of new vehicle hunt the dipstick [Joker points awarded to the first to spot the transport manager] there is always where the hell have they hidden the oil filter and can you actually get the heads off the top of the engine for a blocked injector without dropping the engine. If dropping the engine was a "five minute job" because its just four heavy duty bolts at each corner and unplug the electrics with maybe a suzie type easy release [not quick, but easy] on the fluids, the servicing of an engine with the engine out would be a lot easier. Especially if all engines came out the same way.... This is the "Simple" part of the thing I am pushing. Make the swap of parts easy, you can get as complicated as you need inside, just make it a swap-shop at the service bay, have half-as-many-parts again available for swap, and then learn on the job, and build in more reliability as parts break, but keep the new upgrades inside the modules they are designed for, that way, upgrades happen on an in-service vehicle at base whilst the crew are on the lunch break?.. What could possibly go wrong?. Everything. Look at the development of JSOC in the US Military, it was developed by failures in inter-service command structure, they now stand back, plan for all failures, and have contingency planning, I am trying to involve that in the R&D here, before it gets built. but you are ignoring the point that with the wheels and tires they use on the havok, if you hit something hard enough to make a wheel unusable, the working parts of a kneeling suspension are also going to be unusable. even on the HMMWV, one of my fire buddies was deployed in Iraq, and his green driver made a totally stupid mistake and whalloped a curb hard enough to bend his wheel - they drove back to base on the bent wheel. it comes back to the old joke about NASA and the russian space agency. the Americans spent thousands of dollars developing a pen that would write in zero G. the Russians used a pencil.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 13, 2017 14:52:46 GMT
a spectacular failure can be more popular than an unimpressive success. if you were offered the choice of a first model year Edsel or a first model year Taurus in concourse condition, which would be more interesting to you? Edsel, because I know what can be done with a Resto-Mod, and update the hell out of underneath, it will offend peoples sensibilities when I can get it to do a 0-100 in under 10....?... Wrong answer?.. the point being Edsel was one of Ford's worst selling cars, while the Taurus was their best selling car. but even if you wanted one, I doubt you could find a fully restored 1986 Ford Taurus, even in the GL trim package.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 14, 2017 7:37:29 GMT
Edsel, because I know what can be done with a Resto-Mod, and update the hell out of underneath, it will offend peoples sensibilities when I can get it to do a 0-100 in under 10....?... Wrong answer?.. the point being Edsel was one of Ford's worst selling cars, while the Taurus was their best selling car. but even if you wanted one, I doubt you could find a fully restored 1986 Ford Taurus, even in the GL trim package. I can get a '87 LX Wagon for three grand from Newport NM. That close enough?.. www.cargurus.com/Cars/l-Used-1986-Ford-Taurus-c4559First page of results here. duckduckgo.com/?q=1986+ford+taurus&t=ffab&atb=v48-5a_&ia=web
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 14, 2017 7:43:41 GMT
As for problems, if you headbutt a snow bank in a Landy, its going to hurt, this I know, experience whilst peak park ranger, and its going to be a tow-home, not me driving, this was a rescue of another vehicle I was part of, but onwards, problems, maybe its only something no one has ever done before, but maybe it isnt, as there are aqua cars out there that "manage". duckduckgo.com/?q=amphibious+vehicles&t=ffab&atb=v48-5a_&iax=1&ia=imagesMaybe it is that I am trying to re-invent the DKW, but why cant we try?.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 14, 2017 11:54:14 GMT
I assume you meant the DUKW (link not working for me);
This was a modified 'Duce' truck, not a combat vehicle. Some were armed with a .50 cal machine gun, but this doesn't make them a combat vehicle as in something that was intended to go anywhere it was likely to get shot at.
Production numbers were roughly 21,000, compared to some 550,000 for the 'Duce and a half'. This was due to the complexity and cost of the vehicle.
Carry weight was just over 60% of the Duce's.
To be fair the sailing qualities were actually good, with the DUKW being capable of sailing in heavy weather. Of course this was probably helped by this not having any armour, and the weight that goes with that. It should be noted that the references to its good sailing qualities were for an unloaded vehicle, not one carrying stores.
The amphibious qualities and love of the vehicle by soldiers was more about its general cross country abilities and ease at which it could cross rivers as opposed to it's abilities at sea. The ability to collect stores at sea then drive them ashore and drop them off at inland depots without have to unload them in between was highly useful to say the least. But this required the beaches to have been secured first, something the DUKW wasn't involved in doing. Likewise its deploying of troops was at mustering points behind the front lines, not in sight of hostile forces if that could be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 14, 2017 13:58:35 GMT
I assume you meant the DUKW (link not working for me); This was a modified 'Duce' truck, not a combat vehicle. Some were armed with a .50 cal machine gun, but this doesn't make them a combat vehicle as in something that was intended to go anywhere it was likely to get shot at. Production numbers were roughly 21,000, compared to some 550,000 for the 'Duce and a half'. This was due to the complexity and cost of the vehicle. Carry weight was just over 60% of the Duce's. To be fair the sailing qualities were actually good, with the DUKW being capable of sailing in heavy weather. Of course this was probably helped by this not having any armour, and the weight that goes with that. It should be noted that the references to its good sailing qualities were for an unloaded vehicle, not one carrying stores. The amphibious qualities and love of the vehicle by soldiers was more about its general cross country abilities and ease at which it could cross rivers as opposed to it's abilities at sea. The ability to collect stores at sea then drive them ashore and drop them off at inland depots without have to unload them in between was highly useful to say the least. But this required the beaches to have been secured first, something the DUKW wasn't involved in doing. Likewise its deploying of troops was at mustering points behind the front lines, not in sight of hostile forces if that could be avoided. that's deuce, as in two and a half ton truck.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 14, 2017 13:59:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 15, 2017 8:04:12 GMT
Sorry, the what?... What rating?.. I aint used to this kind of thing myself?. Did you mean dealer ratings?.. on that, there were "Mixed" results.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 15, 2017 9:33:37 GMT
The in the first link you posted the dealer involved had a 1 star rating.
IT has gone from the site now.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 15, 2017 10:11:43 GMT
The in the first link you posted the dealer involved had a 1 star rating. IT has gone from the site now. I wonder if they sold it?... also, I have no idea how long the adverts last, I thought it would be static, so, anyone else, **WARNING** links liable to change?.. Post has been updated, thanks for pointing it out, I hadnt realised.
|
|