-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

Name
Email
Subject   (new thread)
Message
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 708 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

File 143976491114.jpg - (831.35KB , 3264x1836 , iBzPIBe.jpg )
19142 No. 19142 ID: e7f332 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
Getting towards the end of the usable life of my tires, which are the bridgestone potenzas the car came with.

Considering getting these to replace them:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=DriveGuard&partnum=05WR7DGXLRFT&autoMake=Subaru&autoYear=2011&autoModel=Impreza+5-Door&autoModClar=Outback+Sport

Other suggestions have included:

Continental Xtremecontact

Michelin Pilot Sports

Nitto somethings.

The reviews of the Driveguards look solid, any reason I shouldn't get them?
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
28 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19640 ID: ae87b5
>>19639

thanks for tirefacts, I didn't think getting 5 years of use out of the old ones was too bad.
>> No. 19696 ID: 5aaa06
>>19640
*tyrefacts
>> No. 19697 ID: cfaec1
>>19696
Tyre is an ancient city.

Tire is short for attire, meaning the metal dressing on the rim of spoked wheels, c1300. It was misspelled as tyre a few hundred years later and that became popular. Then the grammarians fixed it back to original in 1600, which is when America started saying it. And now retarded British schools are bringing the misspelling back again just to be different from America.

This is probably one of few cases where Americans are using proper English spelling.
>> No. 19749 ID: 223a41
>>19637
I hope you got a deal on those, I bought my mom a set of Michellens for $410 installed after mail in rebate in that time frame. For future reference if you drive on a popular size, you can sometimes get slightly used tires for hella cheap. I got a set of good tires on steel wheels for for $300 for my expedition. F150s are as commons as Asian people in China out here, but still a great deal. Retail on that would have been about 1k.
>> No. 19761 ID: ae87b5
>>19749

All told the tires were $500 and then I paid some russian guys $100 to balance them. I didn't find them cheaper anywhere else that wasn't sketchy OR would only sell them to me if I had them put on there at an exorbitant service charge.


File 145038837296.jpg - (50.39KB , 800x281 , 1448293938321 (1).jpg )
19588 No. 19588 ID: fc3045 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
I need a bicycle for commuting. Here's what I found locally.
Advice, ideas, etc welcome.
Budget is 100-200, I'd prefer cheaper to allow for pedal upgrades and for rebuilding.

I want to eventually get into long distance riding, and would be happy to do it on whichever ride. But, I'd rather have an older heavier bike, then a heavier cheap chinese chink bike.

But, this would also be my first road bike.
What I've found locally:
http://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/bik/5343798425.html

http://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/bik/5327058695.html
12 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19673 ID: 7443a9
>>19670
You actually did good. Old ten speeds are usually decent bikes but they can be a nightmare to repair sometimes.

http://www.mytenspeeds.com/ - Great resource

Love the extension levers. Just make sure they are adjusted correctly or sheldon says they will kill you and steal the soul of your first born child.
>> No. 19674 ID: 19faaa
File 145185042027.jpg - (2.13MB , 4128x2322 , 20160103_090208.jpg )
19674
>>19673
Yeah I could have done a lot worse. New tubes, new cables, new front pads, all the shifters have been cleaned and lubed, front bearing repacked. Got more to do but it's serviceable right now.
>> No. 19675 ID: fc3045
>>19673
>Love the extension levers. Just make sure they are adjusted correctly or sheldon says they will kill you and steal the soul of your first born child.


The rear extension levers (right hand) aren't adjusted right (i've got the hoods way too far forward so I can get fingertips on the brakes when in the drop). It's bent to hell and back.
The front brake is the brake that matters.

It's got some quirks, I need to adjust the shimano 600 derailers because it's a friction shift setup but it's also just need to put some miles on the bike as well.

Not in the picture is the vintage u lock holder, lol.

handlebar rewrap self done.

Not bad at all for a $60 bike.
>> No. 19676 ID: fc3045
>>19595
Got any links on the jewazon.

I was looking at this, but I think kryptonite's quality has fallen recently.
smile.amazon.com/dp/B005YPK8G2
>> No. 19713 ID: 044fd0
>>19676

Yeah, Kryptonite has gone to shit lately. They've cut quality to save costs. I'd check Ebay for their older stuff.

Here's a 6' 3/8" chain.
http://www.amazon.com/ABUS-10KS-Security-Chain-Sleeve/dp/B005UMCBL4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453053064&sr=8-1&keywords=abus+security+chain


File 145053193269.jpg - (58.29KB , 600x357 , RenaultFT-17TankInternalLayoutDiagram.jpg )
19599 No. 19599 ID: 008237 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
Hey fellas, I'm coming from another Chan, and have been recommended to you guys when in need of technical documents regarding military vehicles. It has been my life-long dream to construct a 1:1 functional Renault FT-17 and I will do it in before I leave this earth. Before I can begin acquiring any materials or even estimating costs, I need blueprints. I've searched all over the web for legitimate historical documents on the materials used in creating the FT-17 and come up with very little. Even my local libraries have little on the subject.

What I'm looking for are documents and blueprints that specify exact measurements of the materials used in the construction of the Renault FT-17, of any model. Even a picture of the outer hull with dimensions would be helpful. If you have any sort of material, it would greatly appreciated and you'd be helping someone fulfill their life's dream.

I'll post FT-17s for a while to keep the thread appropriate
9 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19610 ID: 963c4b
File 14505949962.jpg - (1.10MB , 4000x2250 , US WW1 M1917 Renault FT-17 6 Ton Special Tractor 5.jpg )
19610
>> No. 19611 ID: 008237
>>19606

When I assess the cost, I'll be selecting mechanical parts that are as close to the real deal as possible. The engine and transmission don't need to be exact replicas, but they do need to have similar engine power and torque at the same RPMs, as well as a similar gearbox and transmission. I'm not a mechanic, but I'm still young, and this is something I'll doing over the course of my life, and am willing to learn.

My ultimate goal is to create a working early-model FT-17 that functions similarly and perhaps donate it to a museum that does live showings of their functioning vehicles, like Bovington Tank Museum.

before I can begin anything though, I need blueprints. If anyone has any, or knows where I can acquire some, I would be eternally grateful.
>> No. 19612 ID: f013be
>>19603
>If you're just being sarcastic, totally, I'm throwing in a V8 and nitro booster.
I actually want to see this

Also put spikes on the tracks

Then it can probably climb trees and shit like a tank squirrel

bat guano stay away
>> No. 19614 ID: 4e346f
File 14508828369.jpg - (67.75KB , 800x586 , FT17_takom_model_kit_interior.jpg )
19614
>>19599

I have a feeling getting ahold of the actual blueprints may be problematic... just age and wars inbetween have a way of making those things disappear. Buuut it is likely someone tried to reverse-engineer those dimensions since then, so that might be a place to start. Modeler's forums might be a good place to check for accurate scale drawings; some of the higher-end model kit makers have full detailed/scaled interiors as well.

World of Tanks forums might be another place to check, funny enough. Especially for details of interior spaces, armor thickness, etc.

Good luck! My own loooooong-term dream project is to build a StuG III for shits and giggles and a place to hang my relatives' mementos of being a StuG gunner. Sure it'll probably never happen in my case but it never hurts to dream rite?
>> No. 19690 ID: 50cd85
>>19599

"Hayes Otoupalik".
Get in touch with him, he owns one. Or rather the U.S. version, the 1917 Six ton .

Also, I saw this same thread in WoT, and I gave the same reply.


File 144997391819.jpg - (752.38KB , 4000x2502 , US USS Zumwalt DDG-1000 stealth destroyer sea tria.jpg )
19533 No. 19533 ID: cfe73e hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
The New $3B USS Zumwalt Is a Stealthy Oddity That May Already Be a Relic
12.10.15 http://www.wired.com/2015/12/the-new-3b-uss-zumwalt-is-a-stealthy-oddity-that-may-already-be-a-relic/
AT FIRST GLANCE, the long-awaited USS Zumwalt looks more like brutalist Soviet architecture than a destroyer in the United States Navy. But despite appearances, this trapezoidal hunk of gray steel was built at Bath Iron Works in Maine, not plucked from a Bulgarian mountaintop.

The Zumwalt completed its first at-sea tests this week, and its captain, who really is named James Kirk, couldn’t be happier. “For the crew and all those involved in designing, building, and readying this fantastic ship, this is a huge milestone,” he says. Bath Iron Works employee Kelley Campana, with tears in her eyes, told the The Telegraph, “It looks like the future.”

Maybe so. But the Zumwalt, named for Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, may already be a relic.

The Zumwalt-class destroyer program started in the early 1990s and has been a problem child ever since. At first, the Navy planned to purchase 32 of the stealth vessels. Then it said it would buy seven. Then three. Now, it may buy just two. After decades and billions of dollars spent, the DoD may instead choose an updated version of the Arleigh-Burke DDG-51 destroyer, a model that entered service in 1991.

- ATLANTIC OCEAN (Dec. 7, 2015) The future USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) is underway for the first time conducting at-sea tests and trials in the Atlantic Ocean Dec. 7, 2015. The multimission ship will provide independent forward presence and deterrence, support special operations forces, and operate as an integral part of joint and combined expeditionary forces.
10 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19633 ID: cfe73e
File 145134818364.jpg - (498.34KB , 1500x1000 , Z009-DDG10001310_I6Z7996-.jpg )
19633
>>19632
Yeah, the point is to fool those hideously destructive anti-ship missiles if you cannot swat them down (or destroy their bombers, ships, subs or launchers) at distance.

The ship’s tumblehome hull is plainly visible in this sharp bow view. Unlike more conventional hull forms, the tumblehome hull is fuller and wider at the waterline and below than above. The ship’s maximum beam is 80.7 feet on a length of 600 feet. http://jamesgzumwalt.com/the-latest-pictures-of-the-uss-zumwalt/
>> No. 19667 ID: df12a0
>>19542

Taffy 3's escorts didn't even need their armor against the Japs.
>> No. 19668 ID: cfe73e
File 145179198350.jpg - (3.22MB , 3072x2304 , Rotation_of_Resize_of_DSC08648_JPG.jpg )
19668
>>19667
They needed that armor when the Japanese shell started ripping in.
But that historic battle in the Leyte Gulf of the Philippine Islands stands testament to how a small screening force of destroyers were able to unnerve and frighten away a much stronger attacking enemy fleet of cruisers and battleships who were about to destroy a relatively unguarded collection of escort carriers. The Japanese commander thought that US destroyers attacking his force so aggressively must have been the vanguard of a powerful American surface fleet and he fled ingloriously when he could have swatted away the escorts and destroyed the carriers.

- A memorial to Sprague and Taffy 3 next to USS Midway (CV-41) in San Diego.
>> No. 19669 ID: cfe73e
  WW2: The Battle of Leyte Gulf https://youtu.be/f-iGLrrwiGw
>> No. 19671 ID: f5c39f
>>19668
DISHONOURABU!!


File 144863734236.jpg - (451.20KB , 1024x683 , GJ-P-8A-EGUN-First-Visit-02.jpg )
19446 No. 19446 ID: bb9e49 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
So, it's official. The UK is to purchase 9 P8 Poseidon aircraft to replace the scrapped Nimrod. if you ask me, this is what they should have done in the first place. Remember the Nimrod AEW clusterfuck, when we spent large sums of money on a plane that didn't work, then had to buy an off the shelf US design (Sentry)? Well, history has repeated itself, with the Nimrod MRA4 being scrapped and now we are looking to Boeing (again) to fill the gap.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-to-purchase-9-p-8-maritime-patrol-aircraft/
34 posts and 22 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19543 ID: a19011
>>19532
I dimly remember reading something like they left space in the design so they could retrofit a catapult if required.

Don't forget this thing has a 50 year service life expectation. there's nothing to say it wont get one in 2035 or so in an upgrade pack, when the MOD gets round to buying Navalised Super Typhoons.
>> No. 19552 ID: f013be
>>19532
Yes but why is just the catapult mechanism as expensive as an entire carrier without one?
>> No. 19553 ID: 794d7b
>>19552
Honestly I don't really know whether or not that was the case; I guess you'd have to ask the British government for the specifics of the estimated costs. The ships were actually originally planned to be STOVL and a decision was made in 2010 to build them with cats instead, but the projected cost to do so apparently doubled from its original estimate sometime afterwards and they reverted to the original plan in 2012. I remember there was a big kerfuffle about it in the UK a few years back and a lot of Royal Navy guys were angry, so I guess somebody in the government must have screwed up when estimating the costs.
>> No. 19592 ID: 9aea35
>>19553
Oh jeeezus fucking.... just cancel the military, cancel it, there's no point if all the enemies of the United Kingdom have to do is wait until sheer efficiency brings the place down
>> No. 19598 ID: cfe73e
  >>19592
Steady on, old bean. No need to become despondent.
MONTY PYTHON The Royal Nay Vee https://youtu.be/HtbKSXoueks
Can you dig it, man?
Monty Python - Expedition to Lake Pahoe https://youtu.be/3DlN4Sh06po
Monty Python series 3, show 6. The War Against Pornography
(episode 32; aired 23 November 1972; recorded 21 January 1972)


File 144812208642.jpg - (2.50MB , 2560x1920 , 20151114_153346.jpg )
19437 No. 19437 ID: bb9e49 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
Oops, I accidentally posted this in the vehicles of Operatorchan thread. It was meant to be in its own thread.
2 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19440 ID: a19011
Fukken hell Sloggy. I thought you were dead.
>> No. 19447 ID: bb9e49
>>19440
Nope. I just got a girlfriend.
>> No. 19448 ID: a19011
>>19447
welp they do tend to do that to posting time I suppose.
>> No. 19481 ID: df12a0
>>19448
I'm pretty sure he still has time for "posting" her, if you know what I mean...
>> No. 19482 ID: 56a0e3
>>19481
>nswg.jpg


File 14363110297.jpg - (141.99KB , 900x675 , kCn0hsg.jpg )
18950 No. 18950 ID: b998fa hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-plans-new-interceptor-and-carrier-killer-nuclear-submarines/525045.html

>Russia will design two new classes of nuclear-powered submarines as part of President Vladimir Putin's 20 trillion ruble ($356 billion) rearmament campaign through 2020.

>Though the designs have not yet been named, one will be classified as an "underwater interceptor" and the other an "aircraft carrier killer," the head of the state-owned United Shipbuilding Corporation's state defense order department, Anatoly Shlemov, told news website Lenta.ru late last week.

>After years of decline in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, Russia's Defense Ministry has poured money into the construction of a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines. The first new types, the Borei- and Yasen-class, have already entered service.

Surely with the way the Russian economy is they ain't going to build a dedicated aircraft carrier killer submarine?

More like they are going to build some cruise / guided missile submarine like the Oscar-II?
26 posts and 14 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19441 ID: 33338c
File 144843590772.jpg - (85.15KB , 1000x709 , tu22m3_4.jpg )
19441
>>19218
My understanding is that the Russians were fairly reliant on air-dropped ASM systems, especially nuclear-tipped ones as standoff weapons to kill shipping. Their surface navy was never hugely impressive and had limited bluewater capability (the Kirovs are a neat concept, though), so a lot of their shipping raid capability was in the Tu-22M "Backfire" armed with Kh-22 missiles and Tu-95s as missile trucks with more Kh-22s. That, and their subs, which I understand scared the hell out of NATO.
>> No. 19442 ID: f013be
File 144846529388.jpg - (215.19KB , 768x507 , 'm going to murder you ;-D.jpg )
19442
>>19435
The reason why America developed the SEAD doctrine is because pretty much anyone we attack would have to be across an ocean, so we needed to risk using airplanes to destroy anti-air defenses

The Soviets don't need to risk that, so their version of SEAD is just their regular army under the cover of their own SAM umbrella, and putting some anti radiation missiles on support aircraft
It's simultaneous, basically by the time the Russians finish SEAD their tanks are also in your capital

>>19441
The first Soviet attempts at ALCM was AS-1, an absolute shit missile
The engine on it was often sheathed in fuel so any malfunction would result in fires
It wouldn't separate properly because it was fixed in the lateral axis but not vertical, and as it flew at the same speed as the bomber it would yoyo back into the launching aircraft after separation
It was decided to be mounted on wings instead of belly to minimize chances of hitting the fuselage, but the missile was so heavy that turning with it would result in bomber wings falling off, which reduced flight parameters of early bombers
The problem was eventually solved by making missiles faster than aircraft so the aircraft launching it wouldn't be hit by any movement from the missile, but by that time Soviet aircrews hated the thing and would call it the little devil
The AS-2, 3, 4 and 5 were at least rocket boosted then jet sustained, but all were much faster than launching aircraft

Eventually Soviets said fuck it and put AS-1 on ground launchers
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 19443 ID: cfe73e
File 144850448630.jpg - (1.91MB , 2440x1308 , Russian AS-18 Kazoo Kh-59MK2 anti-ship turbojet mi.jpg )
19443
>>19442
Playing the board (or living room carpet) wargame Harpoon, the old 1955 AS-1 Komet (NATO reporting name: Kennel) anti-ship missile was not very effective, but could at least be used as decoys when flying along with more dangerous bombers and missiles. Slow, short-ranged and inaccurate, but ships cannot ignore them. F-14 Tomcat interceptors groan to discover that they expended their Phoenix missiles downing Komets when more dangerous AS-18 Kazoo missiles were following.

- Kh-59M Ovod-MK2 (AS-18 'Kazoo') anti-shipping variant with a turbojet engine and larger warhead. Range 115 km.
>> No. 19444 ID: cfe73e
File 144850583832.jpg - (174.90KB , 2048x1356 , Russian AS-22 Kh-59MK2 AS-22 stealth standoff miss.jpg )
19444
>>19443
Oops!
The Kh-59M is the AS-18 Kazoo, but the Kh-59MK2 Stealth Standoff (also Kh59M2?) AS-22 stealth standoff version, rocket or turbofan engine, shown in MAKS 2015. Light compact tactical stealth ALCM with a range of 290km (for export) and 550km (for internal) versions. Rumors have told that India will get "special" export version with a range extended up to 350km.
>> No. 19445 ID: cfe73e
File 144850590185.jpg - (345.73KB , 1200x800 , Russian AS-22 Kh-59MK2 AS-22 stealth standoff miss.jpg )
19445
MAKS 2015: KTRV showcases Kh-59MK2 aircraft guided missile upgrades
Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
02 September 2015 http://www.janes.com/article/53970/maks-2015-ktrv-showcases-kh-59mk2-aircraft-guided-missile-upgrades
Among the most significant weapons to be exhibited at MAKS 2015 was an updated version of the Kh-59 stand-off land attack missile, called the Kh-59MK2.

Developed by the Raduga Design Bureau, part of Russia's Tactical Missiles Corporation (KTRV), the new variant - about to enter flight testing - has been configured to fit in the internal weapons bay of the Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50) fighter aircraft. Additionally, the body of the missile has been optimised for a reduced radar cross section (RCS).

The new, stealthy Kh-59MK2 is 4.2 m long, has a wingspan of 2.5 m, and a 0.4x0.4 m cross section with its wings and fins folded. Although currently designated as part of the Kh-59 family, it is expected to receive an entirely new designation in the future.

As for the original Kh-59, the missile is intended to strike a variety of fixed ground targets, including targets with low radar, infrared (IR), and optical background contrast, known position co-ordinates, and target area information features.

Powered by a Saturn 37-04 bypass turbojet (or a 50MT turbojet for export), the modernised Kh-59MK2 has an acknowledged range of 290 km. It incorporates an INS and a satellite guidance system (GPS and GLONASS) that can provide mid-course guidance, and an electro-optical (EO) terminal guidance system that gives a circular error probable of 3 m in either day or night operations. One or more missions can be loaded into that system to provide optional guidance on different targets.

The missile can fly as low as 50 m over the ground, with warhead options including a 310 kg penetrator or submunitions.


File 144607582185.jpg - (48.59KB , 640x427 , Expeditionary_Light_Tank.jpg )
19348 No. 19348 ID: 667a5a hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
>At AUSA 2015, BAE Systems unveils for the first time to the public a nexw a project of expeditionary light tank that could be airdropped from a C-130 aircraft.

>The company’s solution is based on the purpose-built M8 Armored Gun System, modernized with mature technologies from the CV90 family of infantry fighting vehicles and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

>In 2013, airborne units of U.S. Army has requested to have a new light tank with fire power which could be airdropped. In February 2013, U.S. Army requirements officials at Fort Benning, Ga., are in discussions with the XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, N.C., to develop "mobile protected firepower for light airborne infantry," Col. Rocky Kmiecik, director of the Mounted Requirements Division at the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence

http://armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/bae_systems_presents_the_project_of_expeditionary_light_tank_able_to_be_airdropped_by_c-130_11310152.html
http://armyrecognition.com/united_states_army_heavy_armoured_vehicles_tank_uk/expeditionary_light_tank_bae_systems_air_deployable_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_12110151.ht
ml
11 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19425 ID: cfe73e
File 144788618316.jpg - (844.25KB , 4000x2667 , Russian BMD-4M with additional protection 1.jpg )
19425
The BMD-4 airborne combat vehicle is fitted with a 100mm 2A70 low-pressure rifled gun, a 30mm 2A72 coaxial autocannon, and a 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun.

As one of the most heavily armed IFVs, the BMD-4 possesses multiple secondary armaments. These secondary weapons include a 30 mm AGS-30 grenade launcher, a 5.45 mm RPK machine gun, and a 9P135M launcher post capable of firing additional anti tank missiles. The AGS-30 and RPK are both operated by passengers seated towards the front and bow mounted towards the left and right respectively. Both of these bow mounted weapons are dismountable and man portable for increased versatility. The 9P135M missile launcher is mounted towards the roof and is also dismountable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMD-4
>> No. 19428 ID: 1f99d2
>>19417
The 2014 Littlefield Collection Auction
http://www.auctionsamerica.com/catalog/2014/LC14/files/158.html

Its listed as a DD which I guess means that some sort of firearm works on it, not sure if that means the coax or main cannon
>> No. 19430 ID: 06a0fb
>>19428
Oh wow, that's the FMC downselect prototype. That's not even up to full M8 type status yet. That'd be neat to see. That'd be from 1991, 1992 at the latest.

The M8 has a different gun, the shorter M35 105mm rifled gun, whereas this still uses the M68. This thing also is fitted with fixed armor, whereas the base M8 is lighter by 2.25 tons because of the move to stages of armor fittings. This thing's got a different engine too, because the M8 was standardized to run on JP-8 or diesel.

Some lucky son of a gun got something important on that winning bid. The M5 Stuart would have been fun to bid on too. Oh man, lot 1084, an Ontos! I've loved that thing ever since I first saw it at the Rock Island Arsenal Equipment Display as a kid. Doesn't come with the guns though. Shame, that be a fun armored gokart for $20,000.


Damn it must be nice to have money and the knowledge and teams to repair these things.
>> No. 19432 ID: 254d85
File 144805534653.jpg - (218.59KB , 800x1019 , tank quality chart.jpg )
19432
>>19419
And the L7 is arguably not useful for fighting anything newer than a T-62. Even export model T-72s with downrated armor were scaring the hell out of analysts, during Lebanon and the Iran-Iraq war it repeatedly came out on top against the M60, Chieftain and Merkava.

Off the top of my head the only "light tanks" in service that mount full-size guns are upgrades to the Italian B1 Centauro, and the Sprut. The Rooikat, XM8, Vextra 105 and CV90 have all been prototyped with various low-recoil 120mm guns but none are in service. The Chinese had the Type 89 tank destroyer but it's just been retired and I question if Chinese 120mm ammo is any better than modern 105mm ammo.
>> No. 19434 ID: 381ee6
>>19432
The chinese have a new light tank

Issued to "mountain" divisions or whatever, because it's 30 tons and can actually climb a slope unlike the chinese MBTs in service with <18hp/ton

~100mm tank gun tho


File 143718985742.jpg - (107.12KB , 960x540 , Thesia.jpg )
19044 No. 19044 ID: f2c4ed hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
So, I bought a 2000 Durango a couple months ago, a known beater, and have been slowly upgrading it as funds allow. New Alternator, brakes, radiator, rear diff, shocks, ball joints, and I just ordered new tied rod ends.

Eventually, I'll end up painting it, installing a safari-grade roof rack, some extra lights, and if I can find one, an extra-large fuel tank.

But, with 220,000 miles on it, I'm figuring it's going to need an engine and tranny rebuild/replace sooner or later, and I'd rather get that done before I'm innawoods doing some OPERATOR (or, more likely, towing a house trailer from one town to another).

Also, it shakes worse than it ought to, and has a noise that's only present when I'm on the gas, which tells me that it's sourced between the pedal and the transfer case.

Obviously, rebuilding a engine isn't hard, in the scheme of things, and I've done that. Granted, it'll be more complicated than a Continental GTSIO-520, but I did a head gasket replacement on my Pontiac last fall out in my driveway, and that worked out just fine.

Has anyone here rebuilt an automatic tranny before?

Aside from "keep it clean, no, I mean REALLY clean.", is there anything I need to know before I start? It seems simple enough, you know, pull it apart, inspect the hell out of it, replace anything that's chewed up, as well as all the bearings and seals, then put it all back together.

Thesia comes from the "Ship of Theseus" thought experiment.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
24 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19404 ID: f98c5d
>>19371
They use F150 parts? Fuck, I need to look into them when I finally graduate to 4 wheels.
>> No. 19410 ID: 223a41
File 144764194028.jpg - (47.24KB , 660x440 , durangooffroad.jpg )
19410
>>19398
>Now, I'm under the impression that the front axle on a 4wd is supposed to turn slightly faster than the rear axle, so I'm guessing I need a 3.9x rear one. I'm not 100% on that, though, I just know that engaging 4wd with a 3.92 front axle and a 3.5 rear is going to cause bad juju.

To the best of my knowledge they should move at the same speeds though, when you turn with 4wd the outside wheel will move faster and the inside slower which causes the wheel bind you notice on a surface with good grip like pavement.

>Oh, and the heater doesn't work. I'm not sure why, but it puts out not-hot air, and I can't even get that to blow in the windscreen-only mode. I'm not really sure why it won't switch heater modes, or why it won't switch on, but I haven't had a chance to start troubleshooting yet. I suspect a plugged heater core to begin with, but the switching of ducts is probably part of the vacuum system or something.

Yeah, check the controls, ducts, etc. along those lines. Pretty much every vehicle I've seen after about 10 years starts to have some kind whole or partial failure related to the system that forces the air. My Expedition fans only seem to work on high, but the heat and a/c work so I'm in no hurry to fix it.

>>19404
Yes, sir. I'd double check the year to confirm, but I think all of them were built on the F-150 frame, also they're nearly identical to the Lincoln Navigator. The Durango, sadly, was built on the Dakota chassis. Most post 90s vehicles will have at least 1 fully or nearly identical other named vehicle. With the engine and transmission usually being used in several other vehicles by the parent company.

To add to that, nearly every SUV is built on a truck or car chassis. So it's always important to check if your SUV is a fancy truck or a fancy station wagon hatchback thingy.

Have some off road Durango
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 19418 ID: 793e55
>>19398
How uber of a press? I have a 20 ton.
>> No. 19426 ID: bcd0bd
>>19398
>a press

Wat. I've always used a hammer and a vise to change light duty u-joints. But then again, humid environments. You should change the fronts first as a test to see how rusty they are. (Obligatory lolseattle)


> front wheels turning faster than the rear

Ehhh... that's done a lot on heavy equipment and military vehicles. And as far as I know, it's done in the transfer case. The chances of that being done on a light duty vehicle are small, unless there's some sort of viscous coupling in the t-case.

Which there might be, everyone except IH had one of those at some point in time, and AMC/Jeep was particularly fond of them.


>>19410

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 19427 ID: bcd0bd
Oh also the Hoonda CRV it's based on the Civic


File 144599468181.jpg - (21.76KB , 800x362 , 1445983573566.jpg )
19344 No. 19344 ID: 205782 hide watch quickreply [Reply]
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/10/27/northrop-grumman-wins-usaf-bomber-contract/74661394/

Northrop Grumman has won the LRS-B competition, with a fixed price $21.4 billion dollar contract for 21 aircraft. The estimated cost of the winning airframe is $511 million per aircraft. No technical details yet.

The only thing bigger than this contract is Lockmart-Boeing butthurt that's going to happen over the next few months.

>We're so miffed that Northrop out-shilled us
>We're gonna go grease a few more palms, maybe they'll change their minds
>Blown so far the fuck out that their hurt asses are catching up to NASA's New Horizons probe.
>> No. 19345 ID: 9aea35
>$21.4 billion dollar contract
A pittance compared to the trillions lockheed is getting
>> No. 19346 ID: cfe73e
File 144604577940.jpg - (44.08KB , 1200x680 , US X Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) Lockheed Mar.jpg )
19346
The Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) is a proposed long-range strategic bomber for the United States Air Force, intended to be a heavy-payload stealth aircraft capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. Initial capability is expected in the mid-2020s. A request for proposal to develop the aircraft was issued on 9 July 2014, with a contract awarded in October of 2015. The Air Force plans to purchase 80–100 LRS-B aircraft at a cost of $550 million each in 2010 prices or $606 million each in 2016 fiscal costs. On 27 October 2015, the Pentagon announced that Northrop Grumman won the development contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Strike_Bomber

Northrop Grumman Wins $21.4 Billion Pentagon Contract
OCT. 27, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/business/northrop-grumman-wins-21-4-billion-pentagon-contract.html
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon said on Tuesday that it had awarded a contract to build the next-generation long-range strike bomber, with an initial value of $21.4 billion, to Northrop Grumman, which already makes the B-2 bomber.

Northrop beat out a team from Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The announcement is the biggest contract out of the Pentagon in more than 10 years, and could eventually be valued at $80 billion if the Air Force buys all 100 bombers, which are to have stealth capability, that are planned.

The Air Force is replacing its B-1 and B-52 bombers, which date to the Cold War. B-1 bombers are on average 29 years old and B-52s are 51.

“Our team has the resources in place to execute this important program, and we’re ready to get to work,” Wesley G. Bush, chairman and chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said in a statement.

- Lockheed Long Range Strategic Bomber Concept Art
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/air-force-working-new-bomber
>> No. 19347 ID: cfe73e
File 144604595882.jpg - (376.28KB , 1360x943 , US X Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) Boeing conce.jpg )
19347
The U.S. Air Force is quietly ramping up spending on a future bomber, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service published earlier this month. The Air Force also sent requirements for the program to the industry earlier this week. The goal is a new group of bombers to serve two functions: replace the aging bomber fleet, and safely attack despite future defensive weapons.
Work on Air Force's next bomber began years ago. Here's what Popular Science said about it in 2012:
Patents and bid proposals from Northrop Grumman, maker of the B-2, suggest that the new bomber will be narrower than the B-2 but maintain the familiar flying wing design, which reduces radar reflection by minimizing hard edges. Engineers are also testing new types of radar-absorbing coatings that could be customized to individual defense systems. And so a picture of the next generation of stealth bombers is beginning to emerge.
Such a bomber would greatly expand the ability of the Air Force to hit protected places in enemy countries, places beyond the safe reach of America's still-flying Cold War-era B-52 bombers. The Air Force expects to field between 80 and 100 of the new Long Range Strike Bomber, and they plan to have them ready for action by the mid 2020s.
In March, people reported and photographed what appeared to be a new, v-shaped aircraft flying over Texas. This theory meshes well with the Congressional Research Service report, which saw a rapid budget increase and notes that:
the projected LRS-B budget increases more than 10-fold in the current Future Years Defense Program, from $258.7 million in FY2013 to $3,451.2 million in FY2019. Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRS's assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets. Such prior development would also help explain how the Air Force intends to get the system from a Request for Proposals to initial operational capability in about 10 years, when equally or less-complicated systems like the F-22 and F-35 have taken more than 20.
Despite corporate maneuvering about the contract, both the Air Force and potential industry partners are keeping quiet about the development. In a triumph of blandness, Air Force secretary Deborah Lee James told the U.S. Naval Institute in a statement that "The [Long range Strike Bomber] is a top modernization priority for the Air Force. It will be an adaptable and highly capable system based upon mature technology." http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/air-force-working-new-bomber

- Boeing Long Range Strike Bomber Concept Art
>> No. 19356 ID: 06a0fb
final value of the contract is projected to be $55-80 billion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pentagon-to-award-long-range-strike-bomber-contract-tuesday/2015/10/27/7f299748-7cc3-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html
>> No. 19395 ID: 9b876d
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/tanker-fiasco-again-boeing-lockheed-protest-northrops-lrsb-win/

>October 28, 2015, Pentagon announces Northrop Grumman winner of the LRS-B contract.
>November 06, 2015, Pentagon announces halt to LRS-B project because Boeing-Lockheed team has filed a formal protest.
lol burgers going to have to wait 10 more years for LRS-B built by Boeing-Lockheed.


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  
[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]