>>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.

>>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

>>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?

>>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.

>>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/

>>19542

Taffy 3's escorts didn't even need their armor against the Japs.

>>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.

  WW2: The Battle of Leyte Gulf https://youtu.be/f-iGLrrwiGw

>>19668
DISHONOURABU!!

>>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.

>>19532
Yes but why is just the catapult mechanism as expensive as an entire carrier without one?

>>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.

>>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

  >>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)

Fukken hell Sloggy. I thought you were dead.

>>19440
Nope. I just got a girlfriend.

>>19447
welp they do tend to do that to posting time I suppose.

>>19448
I'm pretty sure he still has time for "posting" her, if you know what I mean...

>>19481
>nswg.jpg

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

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>19371
They use F150 parts? Fuck, I need to look into them when I finally graduate to 4 wheels.

>>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.

>>19398
How uber of a press? I have a 20 ton.

>>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.

Oh also the Hoonda CRV it's based on the Civic

>$21.4 billion dollar contract
A pittance compared to the trillions lockheed is getting

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

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

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

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.

wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my prius has 6 cyl v8 and it does 600 horses in 6.8 seconds. ill beat you in a race!!!

hoonigan for life!!

nO kiddo ill fuck ur shit up in my mustang

my new miata will somke u fags

my new lotus eleise its electric

#1 Diesel Car With the Highest MPG: 2014 BMW 328d
The BMW 328d is the king of the hill when considering diesel-powered cars with great mpg, as this luxury sedan checks in with EPA-estimated ratings of 32 mpg city, 45 mpg highway and 37 mpg combined. On top of that, there are also xDrive all-wheel-drive and wagons models available with this thrifty diesel engine. The 328d xDrive Sedan and 328d Sport Wagon received a 35 mpg combined ratings, giving you usefulness and great fuel economy in one package.
The 328d is no slouch in performance either, as its 2.0-liter, turbo-diesel engine pumps out 180 horsepower at 4,000 rpm and 280 pound-feet of torque between 1,750 and 2,750 rpm. The clean-diesel engine mates to an eight-speed, STEPTRONIC transmission that allows the base sedan to hit 60 mph in just 7.4 seconds and top out at 130 mph. With the xDrive AWD system, this sprint time falls to 7.3 seconds. The 328d’s weakness is its base price, as it starts out at $38,900. http://www.insidercarnews.com/10-diesel-cars-with-the-highest-mpg/10/

2014 BMW 328d Overview: http://www.newcars.com/bmw/328d/2014

  MotorWeek | Road Test: 2014 BMW 328d https://youtu.be/4hMdWekN25U

>>19260
The entire concept of hybrids is fucking retarded unless you really really really want your car to be quiet sometimes

Either go full electric or go full combustion

>>19261
I read a review of the Honda Civic EX vs Hybrid, where the hybrid consistently got about 10mpg than the EX.

>>19267
I'll give you the hybrid isn't great, but it's currently the most marketable option.

A huge part of the problem with marketing electric vehicles is there's no quick way to refuel as of yet. A lot of people see this as a huge drawback. People don't want the inconvenience of not being able to drive for several hours if they didn't charge their vehicle. Electric and hybrids cost more to buy and likely more to maintain than their gas counterparts. People aren't willing to sacrifice the time tested gas engine for a pricier car that has more potential inconveniences, and I don't blame them.

Hybrids have a lot of potential; electric vehicles still aren't available enough for most people to consider them an option when buying a new car.

That being said, hybrid vehicles are starting to see much better mpg than their gas counterparts. Personally, I like the idea of electric vehicles with an option to have some kind of fuel generator for extended range. Unless we find a much better way to harness electricity than a battery. I don't really see full electric becoming as popular as hybrids in the near future.

Pic: Tesla Model S.

  >>19267

It's actually not - using electric motors to supplement a gas engine can actually yield some really nice performance.

>lybians order their pilots to provoke americans into shooting
>leave ejected pilots to drown to add to the shock value
>"AMERICANS AGGRESSIVELY ATTACKED TWO UNARMED PLANES!!!! AMERICA IS THE DEVIL!!!"
>tomcat gun cams show floggers had missiles
Lybians basically ordered their own pilots to die for nothing, fucking retards