via Lifehacker.
What Superfish IsRead the entire article here.
Superfish is basically your run-of-the-mill adware software, but with some big security holes. Lenovo pre-installed it on some computers sold between October 2014 and December 2014, but any Windows computer can be infected. At its core, Superfish is meant to place advertisements in your web browser. The problem is that the software also intercepts encrypted traffic, which opens up your computer to man-in-the-middle attacks (which work similar to the Heartbleed security bug from last year)
The quick and dirty? Click here and here to check your computer for Super Fish!
Well this certainly is a step above the good ol 30mm. No doubt a relatively mature, low risk solution to countering newer generations of western IFV armor.
ReplyDeleteIt was a short cannon that fired the 20x59mm. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011gunmissile/Thursday11790_Gloude.pdf
ReplyDeleteThose are differing 30mm calibers, but, yes, they need to be in our fleets yesterday.
ReplyDelete-The Mk44, in 30x173, will be the new gun for the Bradley and Stryker. Excellent choice.
-The M320LF, in 30x113, will remain a curiosity until somebody takes the plunge with it. It lacks the penetration and energy as the 30x173, but it has excellent light armor and anti-personnel effect.
There is also the ASP-30. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3643.html
True, but this is the MPC/ACV we are talking about, the ACV that...by the USMC's own admission, will not be part of first wave assaults. The ACV will not be some fast moving amphibious vehicle that blows holes in stuff as it comes across the water, it's essentially a water based battle-taxi that will support infantry once it is ashore (if I have been reading its asinine amount of iterations right).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the ATK M230 + R400S is probably one of the best options for the both AAV and the ACV simply because it is low profile, lighter than larger turrets, and would save room outside of the vehicle (probably some inside too).
However, the USMC needs to have a capable vehicle that mounts a fully stabilized cannon inside a turret. Since it seems that the ACV will essentially share the same role as the Stryker (plus the whole slightly, maybe, partly amphibious deal), it would make sense to go with the Kongsberg, should the Army do that.
Additionally, the AAV will not have the same survivability as ACVs without extensive upgrades/refitting (if that is even possible) so you still do not want them in heavy urban warfare and you definitely do not want them engaging armor. It seems like the best idea would be to put the heavier turret on the ACV and let them do the heavy, long range hitting once they are ashore. Is it ideal? Absolutely not, but nothing about this debacle is ideal.
40mm CTA is already chosen for the SPHINX reco vehicle, which will replace AMX10RCR soon.
ReplyDelete"23mm or bigger vehicle" Don't get this part. Gun size does not co-relate to vehicle armour.
ReplyDeleteAnd 40mm GLs are not really that hot against armour. The book says 2 inch penetration, but I've never seen anything up to that level in real life. Hell, I even know of cases where it could not even penetrate a dumpster (angle was bad, the round "skipped" when the charge went off).
ATGMs are the scare stories of the layman. While you get reports of "AAAGGGHH SUPER LONG RANGE TANK KILLER!!!", the reality is that a lot of range is usually wasted because infantry engage within visual range. It's worse if your weapon is wire or remote guided. MG rounds travel a lot faster than a missile, you actually have a fair chance of killing or severely unnerving the gunner if you can spot his launch location. I believe I heard Bradley crews once referring to the TOW as "weapon of revenge". Because the round will hit after the tank slaps a sabot/HEAT into the Bradley.
As far as I can tell the CTA does not allow for programable ammo no fast switching of ammunition types (yet) and also is not as powerful as the Bofors. The Boffors can compete with bigger calibers because it is a rather big shell, with many modern options for the type of round used.
ReplyDeleteAn other advantage is the off the shelve availability., not to mention it is already used in the US military.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGj_ioyZaIk
A bigger caliber would be great, but could be costly in money, weight and development time.
I am a 'fan', the CV90 seems to have it all: armor, many turret options, up to 120mm RUAG, power, transportability. But.. there is one thing it is lacking: amphibious capability.
ReplyDeleteIt might be the best option for many, but not for the marines.
I would have to agree with Solomon that wholly relying on landing craft is a mistake.
Your wrong there. The 40mm is on two vehicles Scout SV and the Warrior upgraded IFV. Both have this cannon implemented and are going through build
ReplyDeletehttp://glav.su/files/messages/2015/02/19/2923042_33ca9b295821867ce2d218714482e62c.jpg
ReplyDeleteGav, it would depend on the unit and their tactics. 30mm +/- would work well if the IFV was part of the attacking force, but if the unit was infantry reliant (i.e the infantry is their main firepower), it would be better to go a bit lower (40/50)* and bring more men into the fight. Chucking in a 25mm from experience, tends to cut down troop capacity by 3 men out of 12, so at best, you are talking about a 25% reduction in your force if you are infantry based, which the Marines are.
ReplyDeleteThe new RWS should work a bit better, no need for an internal turret basket, but ammo storage will still cut space. 25mm takes up a lot more space than 0.5 cal rounds.
There are always tradeoffs in these sort of things. Nothing comes for free.
*40/50 refers to a weapon combination of 40mm grenade launchers tandem with a 50 cal HMG.
The 57mm was actually a very old weapon. Predates even the ZSU-23-4s. In fact, think it was the 23-4's ancestor. They just repackaged it. Not that getting hit by it won't hurt. The problem with it was logistics and reliability, and the lack of radar on an AA weapon, but that was decades ago.
ReplyDeleteWasnt that dual 57mm AA mounted on a T55 tank chassis ?
ReplyDelete40mm CTA does allow for programmable ammunition. There are at least 2 rounds in various stages of testing that are programmable(and general use airburst and an anti-air airburst).
ReplyDeleteAnd the 40mm CTA is as if not more powerful than the 40mm bofors. Relative velocities favor 40mm CTA in pretty much all ammo types and projectile volumes/weights are the same or greater than 40mm bofors.
It probably should be pointed out that one of the parent companies of CTA International is also the parent company of Bofors gun group (BAE). Which is porting over everything from its 40mm bofors ammunition line.
In addition, one of the primary advantages of the 40mm CTA system is its fast ammo switching. Because of the compact and simple shape of the 40mm CTA ammo, the ammo systems can actually select a different round for each fire independently. There are currently 2 main ammo systems for the 40mm CTA with one being a 52 round 3 type system and another being a 74 round 2 type system. Both of these are fully integrated into both manned and unmanned turret systems.
In addition, the 40mm CTA requires significantly less internal turret volume than 40mm bofors allowing for either more compact turrets or more in turret ammo along with significantly better turret ergonomics.
Thats why I said "relatively mature", which may have been a vast understatement.
ReplyDeleteIts a naval gun, isn't it? thats my understanding of the weapon at least. Maybe Im wrong.
Yes it was. It was an old Anti-air gun, was replaced by the ZSU-23-4 (Shilka-spelling may be wrong).
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_Duster
ReplyDeleteIf you looked below, there is an interesting section on the advantages and disadvantages of medium calibre vs 50 cal.
Cut and paste:
"Although the Duster's 40mm shell had a terrific blast and
fragmentation effect, it also had a highly sensitive point-detonating
fuse that limited effectiveness in heavy vegetation. Under those
conditions, the better weapon was the Quad, because the heavy
.50-caliber projectile could easily punch through cover that would
detonate the Duster's 40mm shell too early for it to be effective. At
long ranges, however the 40mm shell was far more useful, particularly
against field formations. The Duster also was able to deliver indirect
fires by using data from field artillery fire-directions centers."
"Soldiers of the 1/44th Artillery and their Marine counterparts in I
Corps set the pattern of Quad and Duster operations......Often thankful men quickly learned the value of high volumes of 40mm and
.50-caliber fire, both in the field and perimeter defenses."
.Sol,
ReplyDelete. Call this a hail Mary, and maybe not even plausible enough to be considered a bad idea lol! So here goes, when I was in my teens I spent every weekend of every summer at the lake riding jet skis.(btw if it has a seat like a snowmobile or atv it's a WAVE RUNNER not a jet ski lol! You stand up and ride a jet ski... Sorry incorrect terminology bugs me lol)
. So in that time one of the products several different companies tried to bring to market were jet boat hulls with one or two wave runner shaped cut outs in the stern. The idea was you could hook them into the hull when you wanted to take the whole family out at once, or unhook when you wanted to go thrash around just on the wave runner.
. So what if you have a sealed hull mostly optimized for ground combat and with some basic level of calm fresh water flotation ability even if it requires m113 style fold down bow piece or even a supplemental float kit. And this vehicle is very much optimized for ground combat in shaping and otherwise. Then you have a fleet of your "plugin" hulls that house your jet pumps bilge pumps buoyancy kit a set of parasite fuel blivets of standard size that fit in quick access compartments for easy change out onboard ship or on the beach. That way you drop your vehicle on the beach with it's tanks full and even the ability to have extra fuel to keep stuff already on the beach running.
Now luckily with the way hybrid style power systems work there's several strategies that can provide motive power etc without massive duplication of effort. Also I believe that a platform like this practically screams out for a fairly simple automated return to ship function. (got some thoughts on how NOT to make a captured one usable as a way to get real time positioning data on your MEU too but posting that in the open defeats its usability)
Am I stupid to even think this has even a little potential for working if done right?
Army is pushing for the
ReplyDeleteULCV concept, the recon variant is expected to mount a medium caliber cannon.
Back few years ago ATK did demo a compact 25mm gun. Given limited space for
ammo carriage on 4x4 wheeled vehicles, I would think 25mm is more appropriate.
M230 uses a different type 30mm ammo: 30x113 is not as effective as the larger 30x173
ReplyDeletewhadya bet the troop's buddies beat the shit out of the driver?
ReplyDelete