history

[desert agate]

He's not here anymore but he came to talk about some of his videos

[exotic pulsar]

Bugger

[desert agate]

He isn't a historical source
He makes fun videos that are educational but if you're making videos of your own you need to dig into the information yourself

Relying upon someone elses interpretation of a book or other resource is going to lead to you potentially coming to poorly supported conclusions

[spiral cedar]

In terms of sources, the following are what you want:
Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History (Garzke, Dulin, Jurens) [Design and operational history]
Bismarck and Hood: The Battle of the Denmark Strait - A Technical Analysis For a New Perspective (Santarini) [Denmark Strait]
Battleships of the Bismarck Class (Koop, Schmolke) [Design and operational history]
"Bismarck's Final Battle" http://navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck.php (Garzke, Dulin) [Final battle]
"Destruction of the Bismarck" http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-016.php (Slade) [Final battle]

Nice to have but not required:
The Battleship Bismarck - Anatomy of the Ship (Brower) [Drawings]
Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II (Garzke, Dulin) [Design and operational history]
"Range and Penetration Table for the 38 cm SK C/34 Guns" https://www.kbismarck.com/38cm.html (primary source) [Technical]
AVKS-700 Bismarck Firing Tests (primary source) [Technical]
Germany 38 cm (14.96") SK C/34 (various) http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php [Technical]
invenio https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/d8c1958c-5cc8-4f7d-8190-29fbf2d41d52/ (primary source) [Design]

[vocal coral]

Poor Hood, a humiliating comparison of a battlecruiser with a battleship...

[spiral cedar]

Hood's greatest issue at Denmark Strait wasn't that she was a battlecruiser, but that she was old. The WWI era Royal Navy placed the cordite magazines above the shell rooms due to a fear of underwater explosions (e.g. mines, torpedoes), but this left the cordite magazines vulnerable to belt penetrations from delay-fuzed shells (which the Germans, though not the British, had in 1916). After Hood was completed all subsequent RN capital ships had the arrangement reversed due to the lessons of Jutland, and modernizations of the older ships also reversed the arrangement, but Hood's refits were kept at a minimum due to time and budget limitations (she was still more modern than all the old ships besides the Nelsons, and thus low priority for deep refit) so as a result she never got the magazine-shell room swap refit. If an unmodernized Queen Elizabeth or R-class battleship had been at Denmark Strait instead, they'd have been just as vulnerable.

[vocal coral]

In any case, it doesn't matter what the quality of the battleships and battlecruisers is, it doesn't matter that they were laid down in 1918, the main thing is that there were a lot of them ~

And the Germans only had two during the active phase in the Danish Gulf ? Bismarck and Scharnhornst, I think

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/usni.org/post/3mcn7salw7o2r

U.S. Naval Institute (@usni.org)

#OTD in 1950, USS Missouri ran aground on Thimble Shoal in the Chesapeake Bay. The battleship remained stuck for two weeks until a fleet of 23 tugs and salvage vessels finally managed to free her. U.S. Air Force pilots joked that they tried to help by flying over and dropping oars.

Bluesky · Jan 17, 2026, 6:15 PM

[cyan oriole]

oh that's funny, I was thinking of doing basically the same thing one day

you can usually get away with using weak or suspect sources by avoiding going too far into detail

because the details are generally where the mistakes or falsehoods are found

it's much harder to get the big picture ideas wrong

[cyan oriole]

and yes this is a very good point, once information has been passed down through enough secondary sources, it eventually gets twisted and malformed, sometimes beyond recognition

connotations, implications, and other subtleties are often quickly lost for example

[cyan oriole]

to add onto what jaba said, Hood isn't even a battlecruiser

Hood was the first fast battleship, with armor comparable to contemporary battleships... problem is those contemporary battleships are WW1 designs that aren't equipped to face WW2 threats

[vocal coral]

Stupid division of ships into classes...

[spiral cedar]

Hood was a battlecruiser simply because the Royal Navy called her one. For that matter, the QEs and even the KGVs were initially in the battlecruiser squadrons

[junior trench]

this requires one to ignore that due to circumstances the corresponding battleship design to the Admiral class never materialized

[cyan oriole]

the Hoods were initially designed to have similar armor protection as the QEs

[junior trench]

non sequitur

[cyan oriole]

and the german panzer Is were simply large tractors because they were designated as such

seems plausible

[spiral cedar]

Well we call tanks "tanks" because the British called them "tanks," do we not

[cyan oriole]

I said: "the Hood has armor comparable to contemporary battleships"
you say: something completely irrelevant to my statement
I said: "the Hood has armor comparable to the Queen Elizabeths, which are contemporary world war 1 battleships"
you say: something completely irrelevant to my statement

[spring briar]

In France we call them “chars”

[cyan oriole]

that's because "tank" is iconic, while "battlecruiser" sounds lame and boring

[spiral cedar]

Unlike you I don't consider battlecruiser a slur

[cyan oriole]

reasonable

[cyan oriole]

but anyways I would say that Hood is more accurately described as a fast battleship

[spring briar]

[junior trench]

you called them fast battleships, when they're battlecruisers without a corresponding battleship class, which was the norm of royal navy capital ship construction at the time

their actual armor scheme is irrelevant to that

[cyan oriole]

yeah and that survived from the original requirements for what eventaully became the Hood

[cyan oriole]

what the British call them is completely irrelevant, because if it is built like a fast battleship and armored like a fast battleship, then it's fair to call it a fast battleship

the royal navy is not the most reliable designator, they did always love their traditions

obviously, their actual armor scheme is the only thing relevant

[cyan oriole]

as opposed to the only thing that's not relevant

[spring briar]

In any case there isn’t much design lineage between the QE’s and Hood
By RN definition Hood was always gonna be a BC but she wasnt made like the previous BC’s
Instead being built as a be all end all capital ship

In their eyes ofc

[cyan oriole]

I mean not even true

[cyan oriole]

the Hood is literally just a lengthened battleship

I wonder if there are any other lengthened battleships that are called fast battleships

maybe they could be american, and they could be museum ships that you can still visit

and maybe they could spend 10,000 tons almost entirely to gain 5 knots of speed

oh right, the iowa-class battlecruisers

[cyan oriole]

https://tenor.com/view/feel-that-that's-friday-cat-gif-3527836795048385392

[spring briar]

Just showing me a snippet doesnt make what I said any less true

[spiral cedar]

Hood was a battlecruiser because the Royal Navy put her in the battlecruiser squadrons and not the battle squadrons. Iowa was a battleship because the USN put her in the battleship divisions. It's honestly not that difficult

[cyan oriole]

most of what you said was 100% true, I'm just objecting to the "there is no lineage between the QEs and the Hood"

[spring briar]

The lineage that is there is that they’re both british and use a distributed armor scheme in the british fashion

[cyan oriole]

just because a cruiser is in a destroyer squadron doesn't mean it's a destroyer, and just because a battleship is used in a cruiser role doesn't make it a cruiser

In the end, the purpose of language is communication. Calling something a "battlecruiser" implies that it makes sacrifices (in armor or armament) for speed, when in reality Hood makes no sacrifices and simply grows larger (which is exactly what a fast battleship does)

[spiral cedar]

That's where you're wrong really, "battlecruiser" implies a doctrinal purpose in the fleet, not a design "sacrifice"

Hood was designed to fill a role in the British fleet, not to juggle the warship triangle

[cyan oriole]

I disagree with that, and in my opinion that's not the common view of "battlecruiser" anymore, but that's not something that I can really prove I guess

if "light cruiser" can evolve to mean new things (early treaty heavy cruisers were called light cruisers etc), so can "battlecruiser"

[spiral cedar]

Trying to cram a historical warship into a modern colloquial stereotype classification instead of the historical classifications divorces them of the historical context that is crucial to understanding their history

[spiral cedar]

Light cruiser is shorthand for light armored cruiser, which was in contrast to full size armored cruisers (which were battleship in size before being superseded by the battlecruiser type). Heavy cruisers are just a reclassification of some light [armored] cruisers based on gun caliber for treaty purposes, not a rethinking of their role in the fleet

[cyan oriole]

even ignoring that these historical classifications change with time and with perspective (British calling foreign ships "battlecruisers" when they aren't)

I would argue trying to force modern people that aren't steeped in the historical background to see through the traditional British classifications (which were outdated) is itself damaging, since it prevents people from seeing the ships for what they truly are, and instead forces them to see through the british lens

[cyan oriole]

my point was that the classifications themselves changed

the idea of a "battleship" in the 19th century is very different from a battleship in 1940

and talking about the fleet role of the battlecruiser is strange considering the battlecruiser died out (because its role was supeseded, because the battlelines had been pared down too greatly for specialized battlecruisers to be worthwhile, etc)

[spiral cedar]

She remained flagship of the battlecruiser squadron whenever not detached

[cyan oriole]

british used a fast battleship to lead the battlecruiser squadron = Hood is a battlecruiser
germans used a fast battleship to raid convoys = Bismarck is a trade warfare cruiser-like ship

not to mention cruisers leading destroyer flotillas = they are destroyers

the british view of "battlecruiser" was very dated, and I would argue that adopting it is extremely limiting

[spiral cedar]

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what navies mean for a "role" in a fleet

[cyan oriole]

it's possible

[maiden citrus]

I do

[spiral cedar]

It is, I think, very weird to say the people who invented battlecruisers, who were using the term battlecruiser, and who had the most battlecruisers afloat didn't understand battlecruisers or what they were for, and that we today somehow know better than the people who were actually using them and serving aboard them what their purpose and meaning was

[maiden citrus]

rounding up armor values even here, tsk tsk

[spiral cedar]

Do I think British classifications of foreign warships hold any sway over that of their own navies? No, which is why I take the German classification of the Scharnhorsts as battleships as-is. Likewise the west calling the Cold War era Kirovs 'battlecruisers' doesn't square with how the VMF thought of them and used them. Each navy has its own conception of what the terms mean and hence using the terms as the navies that operated them meant them, preserves best the historical meanings

[cyan oriole]

if the British knew so much, then why did they allow Hood to be sunk?

it's because we have hindsight

[spiral cedar]

To keep the cordite lobbysists afloat

[cyan oriole]

that we can say we know more

[cyan oriole]

it's true, but you'll be silenced if you say it

[cyan oriole]

I can't argue with whatever works for you, I'm just saying that my philosophy is to be careful and cautious not to perpetuate pop history myths

and "Hood was a battlecruiser so it had shit armor protection" is a myth that has been perpetuated for a long time

99% of people don't know anything about the royal navy usage of the battlecruiser and the kriegsmarine usage of the panzerschiffe, but they do have a mental image of what "battlecruiser" means, and it means weak armor
you have to take the wins you can get in these cases

[spiral cedar]

Agincourt had shit armor and she was a battleship. Judge ships as they were not as how incorrect people might

[cyan oriole]

that's a funny thing to say, considering you can just argue that the Royal Navy are the incorrect people, and that you should judge the Hood by what it was

[spiral cedar]

That doesn't follow the same logic at all

[cyan oriole]

does it? the British couldn't see the future, but we can see their future

[spiral cedar]

???

[cyan oriole]

the people of the era could only judge their ships by what came before, but we can judge them by what came before and what came after

the people who only had half the information might not come to the same conclusions

well whatever, all I was saying was to be precise with language and that Hood had very good armor for WW1 standards

[spiral cedar]

Retaining the historical classifications preserves important historical nuance and meaning regarding how people at the time thought of them and used them. By contrast, physics and math determines objective measures like speed and armor thickness. They aren't analogous and trying to conflate them doesn't achieve anything. We study what people knew and thought at the time to understand the human aspects of why they made the decisions they did, and we study physics and read tables to understand why outcomes occurred as they did. Both serve important, but distinct, lenses of analysis and mucking them together to try to score rhetorical points isn't worthwhile

[cyan oriole]

the british themselves considered the Admiral design as built to be a fast battleship, but because Hood is in the battlecruiser squadron, this is totally invalid

that's why it's so odd to insist that Hood was a battlecruiser, when Hood literally killed the battlecruiser

[spiral cedar]

You can pick and choose those as you like, as I will now do

[cyan oriole]

so many future battlecruisers were invalidated by the existence of ships like Hood and the possibility of more ships like it

[spiral cedar]

Did you forget the G3/N3 classes?

The world was about to begin a battlecruiser construction bonanza before the Washington Naval Agreement killed all capital ship construction

Japan was about to lay down several, as was the US

[cyan oriole]

this is an argument for my point, the British classification is flawed

[spiral cedar]

[cyan oriole]

classifying any fast capital ship as a battlecruiser seems a bit questionable

[cyan oriole]

devil advocate: it's not like there are any contemporary fast battleships to compare to, no?

outside of "fast" QEs and a few unbuilt ships

[cyan oriole]

and the possibility of more ships like it

all of the british and 8-8 fleet battlecruisers were fast battleships (the Japanese acknowledge this), while the Lexingtons were considered flawed by the Brits and the Americans, the Americans were worried the Lexingtons were inadequate compared to Hood

honestly I would argue that the ridiculous growth of battlecruisers is because Hood set the standard for what a battlecruiser should look like, and so the Hood has a bit of the blame for the washington treaty

[spring briar]

The Americans were not very concerned that the Lexingtons were inadequate compared to Hood
Because they drew other lessons from Jutland and did not believe they had fallen for the same mistakes as the early British BC designs

[cyan oriole]

maybe not everybody, but a significant number were at least taking notes, if not alarmed

[maiden citrus]

the humble south dakota class

[spring briar]

You’re leaving out everything that comes after this paragraph

[maiden citrus]

probably about vast overestimation, as they were prone to do in this time period

[cyan oriole]

I was gonna say that yes, if the super heavily armed N3s and the like with even bigger guns went through, fast battleships would either die out fully, or be forced to again increase in dimensions

[spring briar]

Sodak mentioned

[maiden citrus]

1920 sodak the true monster

[spring briar]

The tutel

[cyan oriole]

but either way, the battlecruiser was in a very precarious state, the japanese and british battlecruisers under construction were fast battleships, and if those were built the battlecruiser would probably die

[spring briar]

[cyan oriole]

virgin tillman battleships vs chad south dakota

don't need any 6 gun turrets

[subtle prawn]

Speaking of battlecruisers, is it supposed to be one word or two? I remember seeing Alexander Clarke arguing it's the latter yet I've seen more people spell it as one word

[spring briar]

Not gonna lose any sleep over it

[cyan oriole]

idk I think the "most correct" could even be battle-cruiser

[spring briar]

Check fishers notes

[cyan oriole]

battlecruiser (1 word) is I believe a shortening of battle cruiser and battle-cruiser, kind of like how battleship comes from "ship of the line of battle" or whatever

[cyan oriole]

true, jackie "battlecruiser" fisher will know the answer

[spiral cedar]

Fisher himself used "battle cruiser"

or just as often "BATTLE CRUISER" (all caps)

[subtle prawn]

When I see people use the term, they almost always spell it as one word

[spring briar]

I myself use croiseur de bataille

Which can only be built in the bataille region of france

[spiral cedar]

The Royal Navy itself used both "battle cruiser" and "battlecruiser," often within the same document

[maiden citrus]

I call them easy targets

[maiden citrus]

loving the "so quickly built and cheap!"

[spiral cedar]

At a meeting held by the First Sea Lord in the Controller’s room on Thursday, 9th March, at which the Controller, D.C.N.S., A.C.N.S., D.N.E., D.N.C., E. in C., D. of D., and Directors of Staff Divisions concerned were present, the programme of large repairs to Battleships and Battlecruisers was discussed.

3. The above all inter-act to some extent on each other; for example, the ammunition supply to 5.25” guns on re-armament would be adversely affected unless new machinery or boilers were installed. If the cost in time and money could be faced, there is no doubt that, after it was all done we would have for all practical purposes a new Battle Cruiser, but 3 years is a long time.

[cyan oriole]

I prefer "B. Cruiser"

[spiral cedar]

Less frequently they did also use "battle-cruiser"

So really I don't think any of the three is more or less correct for the RN

[spiral cedar]

104. The Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle-Cruiser Squadron, recommends that, since star shell are only really effective during the middle third of their descent, the time of burning should be reduced to 10 seconds with a corresponding increase in intensity of illumination.

[spiral cedar]

Meanwhile in same document

II. -REMARKS OF VICE-ADMIRAL COMMANDING, BATTLE CRUISER SQUADRON

[cyan oriole]

probably depends on whoever is writing it

[spiral cedar]

Yup

[cyan oriole]

what does "B. Cruiser" stand for, you ask? why, "Battleship Cruiser", of course

My name is Cruiser. Battleship Cruiser

[spring briar]

I call it cruiser B
Lexington being battle cruiser B3

[twilit geyser]

Grammatically, its morphology is also generally the same subject with a different structure. Battlecruiser, battle-cruiser and battle cruiser all refer to the same thing as they are compound nouns. E.g ice-cream, ice cream, icecream. The structure would depend on how much you want clarity for the given word.

[exotic pulsar]

I'll keep the information in mind when needed

[spiral cedar]

[cyan oriole]

out of curiosity, in what situation would you need to use that emoji??

that's a hilarious emoji

[spiral cedar]

I've got a lot of weird emojis

[eternal veldt]

Reject semantics, return to ships of the line with a rating system

(Japan uses it for their cruisers)

[spiral cedar]

Return to linienschiff

[eternal veldt]

Its why I sometimes like German

Straight to the point compounding

Doable in English, but very clunky sadly

[cyan oriole]

oh yeah on the topic of battle cruiser naming, here's Hiraga

[nimble shale]

Alright e guys, i want to ask something. Is the Carrier Vessel Giuseppe Garibaldi still... Good for today's operational??

[twilit geyser]

No. Too old and probably won't even service anything aside from the older Harriers if a nation were to use it. A decade from that it'd be pretty much useless since the parts for Harriers would be dead at that point.

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/ukdefencejournal.org.uk/post/3mcokhbqay22j

UK Defence Journal (@ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

From the archives...

Bluesky · Jan 18, 2026, 6:58 AM

[spiral cedar]

https://fixupx.com/shark_ishi/status/2012723045085909047/en

魚交（さめ） (@shark_ishi)

📑 Translated from Japanese

Things people often do at the museum ship Mikasa Aiming the Mikasa's side-mounted guns at Sarushima Island

Original text
記念艦三笠でやりがちなこと
︀︀
︀︀三笠の舷側砲で猿島を狙う

**💬 16 🔁 204 ❤️ 2.1K 👁️ 110.0K **

▶ Play video

FixupX · Jan 18, 2026, 3:05 AM

[autumn sorrel]

As much as I love sliding breech block, interrupted screw breech are timeless.

Imagine Human getting into Space combat era and 350mm guns use the same breech design as HMS Colossus

[spring briar]

Why did you use a British example
They were the last to adopt breech loaders

[junior trench]

in which sci-fi fans discover that until you can power things via matter-antimatter reaction, chemical energy to produce kinetic energy remains the most efficient way to deliver energy on target

[nimble shale]

Ahh.. Because you know, the Indonesian goverment are.. Buying that thing, and they say they want to recreate the same ship but with more... Modern tech? Maybe

[twilit geyser]

They're seriously considering it this year?

[autumn sorrel]

I mean, I know about De Bange system, but I was talking about the first RN BL gun example.

[twilit geyser]

Last time I heard anything about it was to retrofit it into a drone carrier. Not really the best option, but you get what you get.

[nimble shale]

Yes, because when celebrating Indonesian military birthday (TNI) Giuseppe Garibaldi is.... Listed on the new ship

[twilit geyser]

[autumn sorrel]

Well, depend on system but as long as it doesn't require much power source to fire then yeah, an old school bullet is still more efficient than a railgun.

[nimble shale]

Well.... Yeah, Indonesian navy first.. Carrier Vessel or should i say... Helicopter Carrier

[twilit geyser]

Best the Indonesian Navy could do is put a couple COTS systems on there. Newer systems would require a lengthy and extensive overhaul, maybe swap the Aspides for some ESSMs or Asters?

[nimble shale]

Well.... Let's hope so, cuz... The strategy behind is like... Yknow, buy za ship, learn it, make it with a lot of upgrade. Like... From scratch

[autumn sorrel]

You would get much more bang for buck by build more airbase tbh

[nimble shale]

Cuz rn, Indonesian navy really pushin to their max. Like 3 new frigates in 1 year? Faahhh

KRI Brawijaya + Kri Siliwangi (Paolo Thaon di Revel class)

[autumn sorrel]

Carrier still going to need plane and Indonesia is looking at becoming the first Ace Combat cosplayer nation

[nimble shale]

Plus KRI Balaputradewa (Balaputradewa Class)

[nimble shale]

Daamnn

Idk, will the Indonesian navy becoming a blue water navy? Let's see in a few months (or year... I guess)

4 ship status is TBD (To Be Decided)

1 CV
3 frigates

[twilit geyser]

Not within this decade. Unless they rival the United States in that regard which is uh

[nimble shale]

Shi

[autumn sorrel]

Blue water Navy require a lot more than just more Frigate and one LPH

[nimble shale]

Yeah

[twilit geyser]

It's not a realistic scenario tbh

[nimble shale]

I mean... The maintenance cost.. Etc

[autumn sorrel]

Well, just buy the JF-17

It will be funny to see

And then KAAN as well

It will be a case study of how either Indonesian Airforce succeed in maintaining those or a cautionary tale on standardizing

[nimble shale]

Yeah, there's a plan that the Indonesian Air force are... Gonna buy JF-17 from pakistan

There's... A lot of things that going on

[autumn sorrel]

Not a plan, just hearsay from Pakistan side

They have been doing it for yrs

Only concrete is that you guys want a new fighter and it is a toss up between F-15 or Chinese Sukhoi

Either way, one more entirely new frame to work with

[junior trench]

Ace Combat: Jakarta Thunder

[autumn sorrel]

What a time to be alive

[remote monolith]

Indonesia
Blue Water Navy

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH

HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

Oh good one

[cyan oriole]

just wait for the indonesian nuclear-powered supercarrier

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/usni.org/post/3mcpw5ibyrl2v

U.S. Naval Institute (@usni.org)

#OTD in 1911, Eugene Ely became the first pilot to land a plane on a warship when he touched down on the armored cruiser USS Pennsylvania in San Francisco Bay. The Pennsylvania had been fitted with a special platform and a crude arresting system of ropes and sandbags. #FlyNavy

Bluesky · Jan 18, 2026, 8:00 PM

[nimble shale]

Gonna wait until 2090 for that🤣

[rapid junco]

Painting by Alberto Nassivera showing a Gloster Meteor strafing grounded Avro Lincolns during the 1955 revolution in Argentina

[remote monolith]

What will happen is 3 million dead Indonesians fron radiation poisoning because some fuckass broke into the ship and messed with reactor rods to sell them on junk markets

[pulsar bronze]

Fyi we already have a concept for a nuclear powered space battleship automated by AI. Take that Americans

[pulsar bronze]

I doubt they even have a hull to put it onto. Dudes from M&Ms will travel all the way to Jakarta to get those juicy metals

[burnt scarab]

Early aircraft carrier that is

[shrewd pecan]

buzzword soup

[remote monolith]

Can't believe the Madaras just stole an entire steel carrier

[mental tapir]

https://fixupx.com/_alphanovember/status/1978700789649445256

AlphaNovember (@_alphanovember)

Indonesian air force future fighter lineup (uo concept)

**💬 118 🔁 254 ❤️ 1.7K 👁️ 243.4K **

FixupX · Oct 16, 2025, 5:53 AM

[subtle prawn]

Must be hell for the guys in charge of having to maintain them

[timber linden]

Chinese plane probably has alot of part close enough with NATO stuff

[lilac pollen]

No shit Sherlock

Fucking 1:1 copy

[pulsar bronze]

Madaras and Medan Perang

[pulsar bronze]

75% of our procurement relies on buzzwords

[cyan oriole]

bruh wdym "fan concept"

the indonesian military fanbase is crazy

[remote monolith]

the indonesian military fanbase is crazy

[remote monolith]

real pangkomkaptib hour

[pulsar bronze]

Wait we have a fanbase? I thought it was only 4 delusional dudes

[remote monolith]

(all of them alts of Prabowus sawiticus||

[zinc lagoon]

Saw this cool guitar today

[runic ermine]

https://x.com/i/status/2013403033657291063

🇨🇦 Policy Hawk (@CDNPolicyHawk)

Canada's Navy is planning a "Continental Defence Corvette", which is envisioned as a sub~3000t ship with combat capability similar to the Halifax-class, plus a Polar-6 ice rating, and 20kn top speed. All using primarily Canadian hardware.

I wish that project we further along...

X · Jan 20, 2026, 12:07 AM

[subtle prawn]

https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Major-Arms-Sales/Article-Display/Article/4382957/singapore-maritime-patrol-and-reconnaissance-aircraft-p-8a-and-mk-54-lightweigh

[mental tapir]

Singapore mentioned 🗣️🔥 🇸🇬

Wtf is legal chewing gum 🗣️🔥

[pulsar bronze]

Man my country is getting powercrept by Singapore out of all people 🥀

[desert agate]

Buddy you're Indonesian of course your military can't compete with the funding of a high income US strategic partner

Singapore is a country that has managed to achieve both high quality and (per capita) high quantity of military hardware while also having mandatory service

Basically only a handful of countries can really boast such an achievement and Indonesia does not have the political willpower for the economic ability to match or even compete on an even playing field

Low income high population countries like Indonesia, especially those as strategically important as Indonesia need to focus on asymmetric advantages that maximises the value of low-middle end systems against high end systems

Indonesia absolutely needs to enhance its ASW capabilities if it wants to become a more influential regional player but it needs to do so in ways that don't rely on high end systems like a P-8

The Navy has done well in that area but the air force more than lags behind

[nimble shale]

Ah... Komkaptib...

It's been a while

[glacial mortar]

Historians, does the HE in game work in some way the same as with RL?

[autumn sorrel]

Indonesia does manufacture C-295 frame. They can develop an MPA version like that of Indian but it depends whether or not they want or willing to fund a project like that.

[lost ravine]

https://youtu.be/urAicdDP8RA?si=9ZmRTbr-VVMtnoq2

Would be interesting to see them added to the game.

[spiral cedar]

Not exactly, but there are some areas where it makes some sense. I will treat HE shells here, rather than HE bombs, which carry far more explosive.

In general, HE shells tend to travel slower in AL than other shell types. This is usually not the case IRL, since usually HE shells are the same or lower weight than their AP/SAP counterparts (since explosives are less dense than steel). Thus for the same powder charge, they tend to travel faster, not slower. Reduced charges were issued in some navies but those were primarily used for shore bombardment (not moving targets).

HE is more effective against "light" armor ships than medium or heavy. This is generally true, though with some caveats. Most of any ship is what we'd call "unarmored;" despite being made of steel, the steel is so thin (less than an inch, often less than half an inch) that by the standards of naval artillery it will often be penetrated by fragments of exploding shells, let alone direct hits from the shells themselves. This sort of material is what HE is most effective against, being able to blast open large holes with instantaneous fuzes (HE shells will typically detonate before they can fully pass through the thin steel plate, since they aren't built strong enough to protect the nose fuze while trying to get through thick armor steel). This can open up large holes, and if it hits close to the waterline, can let in quite a bit of water, but only against unarmored areas--even relatively modest armor is very effective against HE shells. This also means HE shells do relatively little damage internally, since they do not penetrate into the ship to cause extensive internal damage when exploding.

Thus HE should be very effective against unarmored ships like destroyers, but against armored ships the shells would hit armor half the time and do little damage. The game averages this out to just doing less damage per shell, which is reasonable (though a bit unrealistic of course). HE shells would generally still be barely any more effective against medium armor compared to heavy armor, so the armor modifier should be fairly close, so the difference there in the game is a bit exaggerated.

HE shells are the best at starting fires, which is reasonable, but it should not be forgotten that AP and SAP shells can cause fires too--they just need to explode near something flammable. Generally speaking, though, even HE shells are not "incendiary"--if something flammable isn't nearby, they won't start fires, just leave shrapnel holes everywhere. The only true "incendiary" fillers would be old shells filled with black powder (which burns rapidly but only detonates under confinement, so a broken-up black powder filled shell has considerable incendiary effect) and stuff like the Japanese Type 3 shells, which disperse a bunch of burning magnesium rods everywhere. So while HE shells can cause fires, they aren't the only ones, and they still have to hit near something flammable to do so (unlike true incendiary shells).

Also, in general, most guns can fire both HE and other shell types, just depending on what their magazine mix is like. So a destroyer might be running around with 90%+ HE but a battleship might have 0-70% HE depending on mission (usually ~20% is typical). And a CL might be running a half-and-half mix of HE and AP.

HE shells generally will have very little "splash damage" potential, since even for an HE shell the spacing between ships (hundreds of yards/meters) is larger than the blast radius of the shell. Some stray hits from fragments do happen out to longer ranges, but they do barely any damage. HE bombs do have some potential in that regard, since they carrying hundreds of pounds of explosives, but only for near-miss damage causing hull plates to open from the blast pressure, not being able to damage multiple ships with one bomb.

On the topic of bombs, the game doesn't really have a separate category of "HE bombs" (usually just ranking bombs by weight), whereas in reality bombs too had the typical categories of HE, SAP, AP, etc. But that means that the game's treatment of bombs being more effective against heavier armor and less against lighter armor is an oversimplification, and in reality most bombs were HE--and thus should be doing more damage against light armored targets, not heavy! This is really just a game balance thing; more damage to heavy targets would be reasonable for AP bombs, but the vast majority of bombs in WWII were HE type, and the game bundles all of them together and treats them all as AP.

[subtle prawn]

https://hii.com/news/hii-completes-builders-sea-trials-for-uss-zumwalt-ddg-1000/

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/usni.org/post/3mcxlpt342h2i

U.S. Naval Institute (@usni.org)

#OTD in 1954, USS Nautilus (SSN-571) was christened and launched at Groton, CT. Fueled by a golf ball-sized lump of uranium, the world's first nuclear-powered submarine could stay submerged longer while traveling further, faster and deeper than any sub before her.

Bluesky · Jan 21, 2026, 9:15 PM

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp2-S6maVgk

[twilit geyser]

Odd how they left the aft gunhouse for the Mk51.

[glacial mortar]

thank you!!!!

[spiral cedar]

[glacial mortar]

so what is the future for the US navy? purely aesthetic wise ofcourse, dont wanna attract a certain organization's attention. are we gonna see more zumwalt class looking ships?

[subtle prawn]

They canned the original plans from Zumwalt, the ships that were built will be converted to be able to fire hypersonic missiles

None of the future ships look much like Zumwalt

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndwn3bC9LOo

[cyan oriole]

kongo as built vs kongo in 1944

[spiral cedar]

She got longer

[twilit geyser]

The entire concept for fully low-observable vessels at that size, is at the present, dead. You can’t effectively hide a ship that’s blasting its 18ft radar constantly. The current US design language is more inclined to what you see on the ex-DDG(X)/LSC programs or the FF(X)/FFG(X) programs. LO is still a necessity, just not that great of a need, exemplary of the DDG(X) renders lacking bow shears but still having exposed structures like the SATCOM mast.

To revisit the first statement. It worked for the Zumwalt-class because the ships aren’t part of AEGIS or any CSGs, they support the USMCs/ARGs, they do this through NGFS which was why they were originally fitted with the Mk51 AGS, unlike land-based artillery, they can fire and be undetected.

This is in contrast to what the US Navy wants right now, large BMD platforms to continuously defend its CSGs from high-profile threats and low-cost hulls for low-profile threats. Filling in BMD is rigorous as in an active warzone with the threat of ASBMs, your SPY radars would need to be turned on, even if you’re “stealthy” to radar, an anti-radiation missile can just perform a lock on you because you’re a large emitting platform, practically useless.

And for low-cost warships like FF(X), it’s possible but it defeats the point of it being low-cost in the first place.

[runic ermine]

Yay

[runic ermine]

https://x.com/i/status/2013635404050690288

Canadian War Museum (@CanWarMuseum)

Starting in 1973, over 250 Canadians served with the ICCS to monitor the Vietnam ceasefire. Violations were constant and risks were real. On April 7, Capt. Charles Eugene Laviolette was killed when his helicopter was shot down. 🇨🇦

CWM 19750461-092
#CanadianHistory

X · Jan 20, 2026, 3:31 PM

[gaunt owl]

Wolverine?

[terse mesa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5ZhtZuBBMo

[subtle prawn]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ajax-programme-boss-sacked-after-safety-failures/

[autumn sorrel]

Lol

Lmao

[autumn sorrel]

Just make a new module for Boxer st this point

Or better yet, buy CV-90

[subtle prawn]

They rejected the CV90 originally because they didn't want BAE Systems to be the winner of so many contracts for the British MoD back then

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bItfqGiU4jA

[spiral cedar]

Nelson class turret

[spring briar]

[spiral cedar]

Tricky tricky, 24 arcmin = 0.4°

[autumn sorrel]

Gotta love the Brit. They will self sabotaged themselves just to avoid making a scandal, which will result in an even worse situation.

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN6kFuL0W_8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqNMVUeuckk

[lilac pollen]

A military with no experience in the mountains area, no experience against guerrillas is a losing fight

[runic ermine]

Not no experience

But in terms of Soviet fights against guerrillas, prior to the Afghan War it was the NKVD and internal troops who did counter guerrilla stuff

Not the army

[runic ermine]

Also this similar to America in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan

[mental tapir]

Still kinda funny to me how the Rolls Royce Avon 100 and 200 series powered fighters that were just transonic while the 300 series jumped straight to Mach 2 fighters

[desert agate]

Well it was one of the best engines of its time

[cyan oriole]

man I forget how heavy battleship armor is

2x as thick as cruiser armor

[spiral cedar]

More, generally, since many cruisers had quite thin armor

It’s far easier to stop a 6” shell than a 16”

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ixt7PUV0r4

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK2XvPG3C18

[timber linden]

The small auxiliary and lifeboats on ijn carriers, what color were they?

[junior trench]

If you wanna know the really embarrassing part, it's that the Soviets were suffering casualties to disease caused by poor hygiene at rates you'd expect to see in the 1700-1800s

Something like 70-80% of all personnel ended up with an illness that falls under that category, and like 70% of all casualties were also due to it

[lilac pollen]

Bruh, it’s the fucking 1980’s it’s not like Stalin era where everything is scarce wtf

[junior trench]

that's the secret

it never actually got that much better

cus the USSR was always dumping hilarious amounts of their money into propping up their military

meanwhile things like their first toilet paper factory didn't open until 1969

and it remained a scarce product even then

to the point where it was actively a security problem

because US diplomatic personnel were able to search through russian "toilet paper" waste that was actually just torn up official documents

because the Soviet personnel didn't have actual toilet paper

[lilac pollen]

I heard people back then used propaganda leaflets for toilet papers lol

When you look at the footage of the Soviet Union in the 80’s it looks like it’s getting better from harsh times really

But then you remember those are the years leads up to it’s collapse

[cyan oriole]

well you can definitely argue that the fall of the USSR was "getting better from harsh times"

maybe not for russians, but for the baltics and for the nations behind the iron curtain, for sure it was better

[runic ermine]

https://youtu.be/v_DcI_Ex8zU?si=d6xHsY59oFyzFF1D

More footage
https://youtu.be/9hHxeIbhNnE?si=22_Px3D7LPv6GWro

[spiral cedar]

I've been having trouble trying to access invenio today. Is anyone able to access it and/or share copies of the Scharnhorst class forward/middle/aft sections as well as plan view at the panzerdeck?

[spring briar]

Check your DM’s Jaba

I sent you some

[spiral cedar]

Anyone have amidships freeboard figures for the Scharnhorsts?

[burnt scarab]

https://youtu.be/Hp_bq4tn0ZQ?si=6cGO5_yfai0AzMYm

https://youtu.be/kYTaddev6KQ?si=9NBok5sM2L1ark7E

[fierce oracle]

The only reliable source i can find for this is a 2001 book on western spies, of which is a small section on page 414 and two sentences on page 415 (https://archive.org/details/hiddenhandbritai0000aldr/page/414/mode/2up) but is otherwise not very well supported and is more hearsay. This is what propagates as a result of propaganda, did some troops of the red army use documents for toilet paper? Sure but they used newspapers for it a lot more because it’s more plentiful and doesn’t get you chewed out by brass, also this was an extremely early program that lasted maybe a few years? Decades before anything of importance was developed in the red army or air force that would be substantially important. It was a lot more of just exercises and the number of equipment

[fierce oracle]

There were a total of about 640,000~ or so in Afghanistan total, but you have to emphasize that “casualties” are hospitalizations of soldiers, a significant amount of the some 415,000 hospitalized returned to service due in no part to the herculean efforts of an understaffed and undersupplied hospital. You can say 70% of casualties were due to disease but if you dont specify that 400,000 didnt die of disease then you’re just saying things out of context and removed from any actual source rather moreso hearsay, theres memoirs of commanders and soldiers complaining of the quality of services you can very easily use.

Really what I’m reading here is someone that fell for the CIA propaganda, the same CIA that said that hind losses in Afghanistan were so high it caused them to be pulled out.

Stingers were a minor nuisance that resulted in middling success, and any numbers or estimates from the CIA are like 100 airframe losses over how may hinds were actually in Afghanistan in total

[twilit geyser]

Why did USN destroyers and destroyer leaders/cruisers from Fletcher to the Charles F. Adams, Leahy to Virginia all adopt the same style of superstructure? In the destroyers they all had a blocky pilothouse, an overhanging bridge wing, and a bulwark. The cruisers also had this but instead of the bulwark alone, their superstructures fore were flush. Why was this the case? Electronics? This style really only died with the creation of the Ticos and SpruCans, and Japan seems to have adopted that style of superstructure too.

[desert agate]

Standardisation of command areas makes moving personnel around between vessels considerably easier as it reduces the amount of unit specific retraining each one requires, and means personnel are less prone to making mistakes because theyre 'used to' being on another shit with a different layout

[desert agate]

https://fxtwitter.com/WarshipCam/status/2015869637401960476?s=20

WarshipCam (@WarshipCam)

Former Royal Australian Navy Anzac-class frigate HMAS Anzac (FFH 150) in Henderson, Western Australia - January 26, 2026 SRC: FB- Royal Australian Navy Days

**💬 1 🔁 14 ❤️ 135 👁️ 6.7K **

FxTwitter · Jan 26, 2026, 7:29 PM

On this day 1988 - Burnum Burnum plants the Aboriginal flag at the cliffs of Dover, claiming England for the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, exactly 200 years after Arthur Phillip claimed Australia for the British.

[west radish]

https://youtu.be/Jswy2nJhumM?si=w7MSQXLMG7nS3diE

[subtle prawn]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/defence-secretary-says-ajax-must-be-backed-or-scrapped/

[autumn sorrel]

I don't know which worse, US procurement programs or UK

Yeah sure, US programs cost way more and just nearly as much as time wasted but they at least result in either decent numbers of unit delivered or a somewhat workable platform.

[subtle prawn]

As much as you can kinda pin it on the British for going out of their way to try to give the contract to anybody who wasn't BAE, you can also pin it on GDLS as well for some of the shoddy workmanship in their facility in Spain

[autumn sorrel]

Still, Brits supposed to oversight the process. Either they just pay lip service, tour the facility once and call it a day, or they just buried the problem and leave it to the next project overseer to deal with it.

[subtle prawn]

I think some manager at GDLS was blaming the operator not too long ago

[timber linden]

When did the brits develop something of consequence in the last 20 years?

[desert agate]

Have you not heard of BAE or something?

The entire avionics system of the F-35 is a good start

[fierce oracle]

https://www.eurojet.de/wp-content/uploads/Thrust-Vectoring.pdf https://youtu.be/UZ6yvRuaWBU?si=ajd4R__lsPKyIlEE

[fierce oracle]

really dont understand this thing of "britan cant develop anything" dude the americans are still decades behind somehow

i will happily debate this point anytime if the 1 million documents and images dont already serve their purpose

[desert agate]

I find the overcorrection from ‘Brits can’t develop anything’ to ‘America is decades behind’ quite humorous

There is in fact a middle ground

That doesn’t involve hyperbole and exaggeration

[fierce oracle]

Dont ask the US army why their main tank is just a heavier abrams

[desert agate]

Wdym it’s a heavier Abrams it IS an Abrams

[fierce oracle]

Yes its been the same tank for 40+ years straight and it isnt even that good

The soviets had the T-80U by ‘85 and it had a superior FCS than the abrams by a good margin

[mental tapir]

Afaik Britain has moments of brilliance and moments of footshooting

Which isn't that different from any other military

[fierce oracle]

The british shot their foot alot but they managed to bandage it alot better than some

Like the L85 jamming problems that were rectified by “german manufacturers”

The “german manufacturers” were just BAE subsidiaries or something like that

[mental tapir]

I'm just happy GCAP doesn't seem to be having anywhere near as many problems as FCAS

[fierce oracle]

Blame it on dassault and the French

[mental tapir]

I think more Dassault specifically, most other French military collaborations went okay afaik

Stuff like SAMP/T

[fierce oracle]

Because almost EVERYTHING in SAMP/T is French

MBDA france & Italy with thales

Its also literally a R-530

[desert agate]

Just a quick little question how old is the Challenger platform?
Just wondering because I feel like Britain may well have the crown in 40+ year old tank platforms that aren't very good

[fierce oracle]

Tell me, do you believe that the challenge is seriously the worst NATO tank?

[desert agate]

And how many T-80Us were built vs how many M1A1s?

[desert agate]

No that crown belongs to Ariete

[fierce oracle]

Right so me interpreting this as you saying the challenger is second worst would be accurate right

[desert agate]

But at least Ariete has a smoothbore gun

[fierce oracle]

A gun that has really no advantage

[desert agate]

Oh right the smoothbore gun has no real advantages over the rifled gun which is why every army in NATO uses it and why Chally 3 is adopting it

Of course that makes perfect sense

[fierce oracle]

A rifled gun works perfectly fine, CHARM 3 penetrates 700mm RHA 60° at 2km

[slow tulip]

hello chat
the disadvantage of the rifled gun is in maintenance

[desert agate]

You can cherry pick data all you like but the fact is that smoothbore guns are simply better at firing APFSDP rounds, with greater accuracy and reliabiltiy

[slow tulip]

there is no inherent loss in actual performance

[fierce oracle]

Lol https://youtu.be/WGF-hlcHzbI?si=-wkoU9YSvsC9xCAy

[slow tulip]

there is no change in effectiveness of APFSDS

the rifling has no effect on L26A1, L27A1 as these projectiles have a separate ring on the sabot which rotates independently of the main projectile

[desert agate]

I would also note that 2 piece ammunition is harder on crews making sustained fire rate incredibly low

[slow tulip]

it is true that without this ring there would be a loss in ballistic performance

[desert agate]

Your point being?

[slow tulip]

this is simply not true, it in fact goes the other way

2 piece ammunition is easier to handle within a tank's interior

[fierce oracle]

https://youtu.be/e6hh-CoPKqU?si=fG49fStMpLX0Pg46

[desert agate]

'sustained rate of fire'

[slow tulip]

like these ones?

[fierce oracle]

Its far from the worst when it outperforms various other NATO tanks

[fierce oracle]

That is sustained, you would know if you watched it

[desert agate]

It takes longer to load 2 pieces of ammunition compared to a single piece, just because both pieces are lighter doesnt change the compounding strain of the loader having to access the ammunition twice per round fired

[slow tulip]

true*

[desert agate]

3 minutes is hardly sustained

[slow tulip]

*two piece ammunition eliminates the necessity of a mechanised blowout door, which increases reload rate

[desert agate]

We can both find pictures of destroyed tanks in Eastern Europe, doesn't mean either is better

[fierce oracle]

In what world is 3 minutes of constant fire not sustained? On a reload of 5 seconds (high end challenger crews get to 3 secs) you still end up at 36 rounds in tha which is alot of ammunition to be shoveling out

[slow tulip]

reloading more lighter projectiles is easier than reloading fewer heavier projectiles, it could reasonably be assumed that two piece ammunition would actually perform better sustained. However the documents say 8 so i'll go with 8

[desert agate]

I think we've rather dramatically missed the point here in any case because I'm not trying to shit on Chally
I'm trying to defend Abrams because the claim that it is a 40+ year old obsolete platform can just as easily be applied to Challenger if not moreso, which shows how utterly absurd the original claim was

[slow tulip]

well

kinda. somewhat.

[desert agate]

We can all sit here and cherry pick examples of how each tank is better or worse but it doesnt actually address the initial claim

[slow tulip]

the abrams has issues that developed from design choices which made complete sense at the point it entered service

now the key thing is the abrams is a tank from 1980

the challenger 2 is a tank from 1998

that needs to be accounted for in any comparison. The abrams was great for its time by all means and all of its choices in design did make sense.

[fierce oracle]

Yes but your abrams got mission killed and got taken out of combat

The challenger needed a direct hit of a 500KG bomb

[desert agate]

Well thats just dishonest because you can easily trace the Challenger heritage back to FV4030 in the 70s

[fierce oracle]

Lol?

[slow tulip]

no he's like

half right

while the challenger 2 does retain a lot of design choices from challenger 1, which is derived from fv4030

challenger 2 and 1 have only some 5% parts commonality

[desert agate]

They both have design heritage back 40-50 years that influences the advantages and disadvantages that both face in the modern battlefield

[fierce oracle]

I know but to say that somehow makes it a 50 year old tank is ridiculous

[desert agate]

To say that Abrams is a 40+ year old tank is ridiculous

[desert agate]

'my' Abrams?
I've yet to see an M1A1 AIM SA knocked out

[slow tulip]

i meannnnn

AIM SA are the ones in ukraine

[fierce oracle]

Dude

[desert agate]

They're the Australian ones in Ukraine

[fierce oracle]

This yo guy

[slow tulip]

?

the US sent 31

[desert agate]

US sent a different variant, no?

[fierce oracle]

No

[slow tulip]

nope

the US did swap the composite arrays for whatever reason

but they're AIMv2

(which is AIM SA)

[desert agate]

Then that's my bad

I'll take that

[fierce oracle]

Introduced 1980
Check date
Its 2026

[desert agate]

In any case we shouldn't be discussing that conflict because the mods don't like it

[desert agate]

The challenger platform was also introduced in the early 80s?

[slow tulip]

anyways i somewhat agree with this, but the key thing is the difference between M1, M1A1, M1A2 is nowhere near the level of overhaul between CR1, CR2

while saying M1A1/A2=M1 is a bit disingenuous, the scale of modification is much larger between the challengers

[fierce oracle]

The one yeah and it proved effective when it annihilated a tank in desert storm at 4.7km imagine what the challenger 2 can do with TOGS II

The challenger one was using TOGS

[slow tulip]

weellll the 1 also had stabilisation issues on the TOGS which meant it was unable to accurately fire on the move

which was the entire reason TOGS II exists

[desert agate]

Well it's entirely fair that the US decided to keep as much commonality as possible between variants of the M1 to make upgrades as simple as possible while increasing capability as much as possible

I also think that claiming that the M1A2sepV3 is in any way comparable in capability to the original M1 is just a completely disingenuous claim

[slow tulip]

comparable in capability yes there is a major difference

but unfortunately some short-sighted design choices are either irreversible or simply, for whatever reason, have not been reversed

[fierce oracle]

I could swap the engines in a SEPV3 and a standard production 1985 M1iP and the engine would work on both

[desert agate]

Well that's what we're discussing here, it's the capability of the platform, pros and cons

[slow tulip]

it is good to see the US phasing in AMP

because MPAT was.... abysmal at best

[desert agate]

Well it's a bloody good engine so that's helpful

[fierce oracle]

The abrams sucks in capability btw theres no target tracking system

God forbid you engage more than 2 people in a field

[slow tulip]

true*

*please just put a leopard engine in the thing already you dont need turbines for a 1500hp tank anymore

[desert agate]

I guess the main advantage of the turbine at the time isn't really relevant anymore but it's the engine they've got and it's probably easier to reduce the costs of retooling all the workshops and retraining all the mechanics

And I think the point of if it aint broke don't fix it still stands true

[slow tulip]

i mean for the abrams tech demos they've been pushing for diesels across the board

[desert agate]

Yes the Leo engine would be a better pick, or just a more modern engine in general but I can understand the decision not to change engines

[slow tulip]

yeah i mean as i said

many design choices that made sense in 1980

but really dont make sense now

[desert agate]

I wholly agree with that

[fierce oracle]

Abrams really shouldve been phased out atleast 10 years ago

[slow tulip]

1 billion failed abrams replacement programs

surely m1e3 will succeed

[desert agate]

M1A3 gives us all hope for the future

[slow tulip]

the US finally remembered autoloaders exist

so that's nice

[desert agate]

It'll be interesting to see if they can get it to work in service

It's been an inevitability for a while though

The US has been running 3 man crews for decades now, might as well make it practical

[slow tulip]

i think one of my biggest concerns is like

[fierce oracle]

I dont think i have met an abrams TC that has done 3 man crews

[slow tulip]

their last serious attempt at an autoloader is probably one of the single most hated big gun vehicles in use

(stryker mgs)

cause the damn thing didnt work ever

[fierce oracle]

He worked

[slow tulip]

so i'm hoping they fixed that

[fierce oracle]

Dont you dare speak bad of him

[desert agate]

I believe Chieftain said he was running 3 man crews in Iraq with the 4th man in a support vehicle

[slow tulip]

iraq was a bit of a mess in general tbf

its hard to document because crews really were just doing random bullshit

[fierce oracle]

“A bit”

[desert agate]

I wonder which brand new NATO tank doesn't have an auto loader

[slow tulip]

challenger crews had issues with crews absolutely overloading on ammunition

[desert agate]

I believe he said it was SOP for his unit and that it was pretty common place in general

[slow tulip]

in some cases 70+ rounds

[desert agate]

But I could be misremembering

So don't quote me on it

[fierce oracle]

Iraq was a wee bit more than a mess

[slow tulip]

well

half true

challenger 3 doesnt have an autoloader by default but the entire point of the tank is they want to phase the german 130 onto it

which would be autoloaded

[desert agate]

Yes that is a rather optimistic plan but the British defence industry is well known for its lofty plans and subpar results

[slow tulip]

catch is the 2s are already 28 years old and the 130 isnt ready yet so they need a new tank now

[slow tulip]

eh

its a 50/50 gamble

[desert agate]

There is 0 doubt in my mind that budget cuts will hit and the 130 will go

[slow tulip]

kinda depends on how much of a fuck RBSL actually gives about the program

joint programs usually go very well

[fierce oracle]

Considering the current political climate i doubt the UK MOD will cut funding

[slow tulip]

oh no they would

[fierce oracle]

Right i forgot parliament and their own goals

[desert agate]

The UK government has been very vocal about its wishes to increase funding for the MOD and very lacking in concrete plans for what that money would be spent on

Or even where it would come from

[slow tulip]

well i'd hope it'd come from the politicians' salaries

[desert agate]

Ha!

Very funny

[slow tulip]

but if the infrastructure tells me anything its probably that

[desert agate]

No they'll just defund the already gutted city councils outside of London

Rubbish collection services are optional in Britannia

[slow tulip]

i think the funniest thing is the MoD couldnt even afford to do the 2 130mm demonstrator themselves

it was completely handed over to rheinmetall de

the only reason rheinmetall agreed to do it is because they also needed a 130mm demonstrator and the turret wouldn't fit on the (slightly smaller) leopard turret ring

[desert agate]

Undoubtedly the British taxpayer will fund a gun for German tanks and not have that gun on their own tanks

[timber linden]

Is this a war thunder server?

[fierce oracle]

This is the history channel and im giving you documentation and sources to argue against your notion that the British haven’t developed anything in the last 20 years

[timber linden]

That explains the # history on the channel. Thank you for the explanation.

[fierce oracle]

No problem, have a good day or night

[timber linden]

Good day to you as well

[desert agate]

https://www.twz.com/space/nasa-wb-57f-canberra-jet-makes-dramatic-belly-up-emergency-landing-in-houston

Legitimately heartbroken today

The Canberra is such a stunning plane

[junior trench]

... what?

the propellant charge still exists, which is the whole problem

which is why the Challenger's are stored in nonautomated armored bins on the hull floor, while projectiles are stored in the turret

which is to say loading involves twisting to get the projectile and then stooping down to open a bin and retrieve a charge

unless you're taking rate of fire values where lap loading was allowed and basing the claim of being faster off that

though one of the other things Chally's two part ammo brought to the table was the problem as with Soviet/Russian two piece. there's no room to extend the penetrator's length by seating it deeper and deeper into the case

which is why Challenger 2's anti-armor rounds have been virtually stuck at late-90s early-00's levels of performance

outside of materials enhancements

but those can only go so far due to how the penetration process of an APFSDS projectile is governed

though at least the Challenger's two piece doesn't encase their KEPs in a supplementary propellant charge like the Soviet 125 does...

[autumn sorrel]

Using this is very cherry picking when Leo2 are more widely spread out between many formation and command while Challengers are concentrated in only one unit, and their uses are either very carefully planned or in indirect long range fire. Of course their losses will be lower than tanks in assault formations.

[slow tulip]

Lap loading is not only allowed but standard procedure for challenger crews

[junior trench]

that's not a good thing

[slow tulip]

Correct but that’s not entirely the reason the penetrators haven’t been getting longer. The main cause is the fact that the sabot stowages in CR2 are only about 700mm long

so the entire projectile can be no longer than that

[slow tulip]

It’s not dangerous. HESH is inert and sabot is (obviously) inert

And they phased out the WP smoke a long while ago

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah but the propellant charge are not exactly inert isn’t it? Or did the Brits use inert charge?

[slow tulip]

It is actually! Hold on.

https://youtu.be/3ikfWxElJWA?si=Gx2LkmK8Vq6NDkmJ&t=8m30s

Watch from here it’s about 30 seconds

Because bag charges are bag charges instead of hard cases they don’t detonate when not fully contained, but instead burn

[junior trench]

that's wet stowage, not inert propellant

[slow tulip]

and the fire is then extinguished

[junior trench]

and wet stowage is a massive pain in the ass

[slow tulip]

bag charges are inherently reduced volatility

just by not being hard case

[junior trench]

functionally irrelevant when inside a confined space

[slow tulip]

iirc when swapping to L26 in the late 80s they also swapped the bag charges to a lower volatility propellant too

But I don’t actually know what exactly came of that

[junior trench]

inert propellants and explosives are more for the safety of logistics and ammo dumps, turning massive earth shaking explosions into "just" a fire

either sort does very unfriendly things when set off inside a confined space

[slow tulip]

Well as goes for anything going through your armour

General procedure would be to bail once a shell is in the tank anyways

the fact that the stowages can prevent a detonation and in most cases prevent a fire is more than good enough

[autumn sorrel]

Did the Challenger have spall liner? For people that totted HESH as the ultimate anti armor solution, they should have thought about it.

[junior trench]

yes, it's called composite armor

[slow tulip]

In fact I can prove they’re at least somewhat inert - Challenger can’t use a conventional ignition method to fire the gun, it uses TVEs to set off the charge due to their lack of volatility

[junior trench]

it comes free with your multiple layers of material

[slow tulip]

On all relevant surfaces yes

[junior trench]

so like every smokeless propellant ever

or did you forget primer charges exist for a reason

[autumn sorrel]

Man, someone should have send that detail to Saddam before he ordered domestic T-72 production

[junior trench]

also the primer charges for the Challenger's gun are still pyrotechnic

[autumn sorrel]

I mean, it not gonna help at all but it still funny

[slow tulip]

They are but storing them separately is a factor in reducing detonation chance as is

[junior trench]

it's really not

if anything it increases the chances by scattering more material around more places in the interior

[slow tulip]

They’re stored in a magazine in the breech…

[autumn sorrel]

I dunno, turret toss and burn out are mostly from propellant charge. Even a single one ignite is good enough reason to bail.

[slow tulip]

Well any penetration is a good enough reason to bail bottom line

[autumn sorrel]

True

[slow tulip]

In contemporary warfare it’s common practice to bail the moment you get hit, let alone penetrated

you can see it everywhere

refusing to dismount is something that only became common in counter insurgency where insurgents will do much worse to you if you get out than if you stay in

[autumn sorrel]

So either burn or become Sunday breaking news

[slow tulip]

effectively

In Yom Kippur you’d have crews bailing from machinegun fire on the assumption it’s a ranging machinegun

In WW2 you’d have crews bailing the moment they spot aviation and getting back in when it’s gone

[desert agate]

Which side was doing that?

[slow tulip]

contemporary wars support bailing tf out immediately

[slow tulip]

The Egyptians last I remember

[junior trench]

oh, right, I might as well provide this

https://imemg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2B2-17233-Christelle-Songy-P16945.pdf

the testing regime and results of a modern HESH rounds using an insensitive explosive

which is meant to replace the Composition A3, as used in all current major stocks of HESH

and, for reference

[desert agate]

I wouldn't be using the Egyptian army as the gold standard of contemporary warfighting particularly in the 70s

[slow tulip]

https://ndia.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/2016/IMEM/18727_Struyve.pdf

Same round c.2016

[slow tulip]

True that’s why I also mentioned WW2 where pre-emptive bailing also happened a fair bit

[junior trench]

so then you're aware that an impact equivalent to a .50 BMG round is sufficient to begin a deflagration of the explosive charge

and yet attempted to make claims regarding the allegedly inert nature of HESH?

[autumn sorrel]

I mean, not their tank force or leadership but Egyptian Army were pretty well drilled at the start of the conflict, just by the fact how skilled they were in using Malyutka.

[slow tulip]

Type V is the least sensitive reaction IM certifications support

[junior trench]

neat

it still deflagrated

but if you want to be obtuse about even this, then we're never going to get anywhere

[desert agate]

That doesn't change the crippling morale issues that all Arab armies have faced since WW1

[autumn sorrel]

Are modern HESH are still rated for tank vs tank or they are for light armor and fortifications now?

[slow tulip]

Okay but to be a type V reaction there are no hazardous fragments (less than 20J) and it is permitted only to burn non-propulsively

Sure it’s hazardous but it’s not gonna kill people

[slow tulip]

Well HESH was never really intended for tank for tank and it’s functionally useless against anything with composite

It just so happened that it could

[junior trench]

that is a fucking wild statement to make

[slow tulip]

its main role was always anti fortification

[desert agate]

Personally I would prefer nothing burns inside of the compartment which I am in

[junior trench]

which honestly means it's time for me to peace out

[slow tulip]

https://publications.sto.nato.int/publications/STO Educational Notes/STO-EN-AVT-214/EN-AVT-214-02.pdf

argue with nato not me lol

In fact type IV is a deflagration

So it’s not even that

[slow tulip]

True but I should point out if the HESH in your hand has been hit with sufficient energy to penetrate it with equivalent force to a .50 cal

the minor fire that will go out on its own and has no dangerous fragments is probably the least of your issues

[autumn sorrel]

Tbf, it is self prophecy problem when dictators and Royals intentionally stunted the officer corps and filled the rank with mostly conscript to avoid coup and get a bigger army.

[slow tulip]

But yeah I mean I just brought it up as an example because that’s what crews do in contemporary wars. It’s not limited to that and WW2

You see the same thing now with people complaining about Ukrainian and Russian crews bailing immediately when their tank gets hit, like what are they gonna do, sit there so they can get hit again???

they’re getting tf out

[spiral cedar]

Mods, annihilate that guy

Already done it seems

[desert agate]

https://fxtwitter.com/DefenceAust/status/2016249227592990950?s=20

Defence Australia (@DefenceAust)

The @Australian_Navy's HMAS Warramunga cut through the 📍 Bass Strait beneath a sky lit by Aurora Australis prior to deploying on Regional Presence Deployment 26-1.
︀︀
︀︀During her deployment throughout the Indo-Pacific, HMAS Warramunga will conduct training, exercises and other engagements with Australia's regional partners.
︀︀
︀︀#YourADF #AusNavy

**💬 2 🔁 20 ❤️ 110 👁️ 1.9K **

FxTwitter · Jan 27, 2026, 8:37 PM

[fierce oracle]

Considering the losses of challengers so far have been to aircraft and overwhelming numbers of anti tank weaponry (with the crew surviving in the second instance when they bailed) and comparing to leopard losses which while they have been recorded with crews bailing they have been hit with significantly more mission kills and full kills.

Its not cherry picking when they tanks with two different design philosophies operate differently

Im not blaming it on the leopards or difference in command of the units. Moreso the challenger fills its role exceptionally well and alot better than its contemporaries

[autumn sorrel]

If that role is to hunker down and utilize its armor and rifle gun to exchange fire at long range then sure, its is superb.

[fierce oracle]

Yes that is exactly what it was meant to do

[slow tulip]

I am. Most of the early leopard losses can be attributed to NATO advisors giving… terrible advice

[autumn sorrel]

I supposed seeing how the current battlefield situation are, Challenger actually useful. Not like last time when they are employed on spearhead an attack and got gang on.

[slow tulip]

Funny thing is despite being employed in probably the most dangerous location you could have possibly put armour they still have the lowest % loss rate

[autumn sorrel]

Problem with that advice is that the enemy in question disregard their own doctrine concerning mine laying and triple the density of the minefield.

[slow tulip]

No the problem with that advice is what the advisors said was based on how NATO would fight a Russian/Soviet force 20+ years ago

That’s why you saw shit like leopards just driving in the open lmao

[autumn sorrel]

You going to need a lot of breaching vehicle just to create a viable path

[slow tulip]

According to interviews with UA challenger crews this can be directly attributed to terrible advice from nato partners. The losses calmed down once they realised it was bad and went back to what they were already doing with T-64s

[slow tulip]

They did have issues with mines (this was the cause of the first challenger loss)

but unfortunately only so much you can do about that. Crawling along a road at 8mph with a minesweeper ahead of you just isn’t viable

[autumn sorrel]

Yeah, that not going to work in good condition either when Russian stack 3 TM-62 on top of each other

[slow tulip]

Yeah. It is just a case of bad luck at a certain point

I mean what did the MoD say in Iraq again, “We have always said that a big enough bomb will destroy any tank” or something along those lines

single realest statement any military organisation has ever said btw

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksK7rAovHHU

https://fxtwitter.com/NASAHistory/status/2016519130770260389

NASA History Office (@NASAhistory)

"The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them … as they … 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God.'"
︀︀
︀︀Ronald Reagan spoke these words to the Nation in an address delivered 40 years ago today. That morning a tragic accident took the lives of the seven astronauts aboard Challenger.
︀︀
︀︀#NASARemembers them on this 40th anniversary of the disaster. Their legacy constantly guides our commitment to learning, vigilance, and safety.
︀︀
︀︀Francis R. "Dick" Scobee
︀︀Michael J. Smith
︀︀Judith A. Resnik
︀︀Ronald E. McNair
︀︀Ellison S. Onizuka
︀︀Gregory B. Jarvis
︀︀S. Christa McAuliffe

**💬 89 🔁 391 ❤️ 1.5K 👁️ 100.8K **

FxTwitter · Jan 28, 2026, 2:30 PM

[subtle prawn]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/army-withdraws-ajax-ioc-after-ministers-misled/

[subtle prawn]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/01/general-dynamics-unveils-adx-vls-reloading-destroyer-tender/

https://news.usni.org/2026/01/28/carrier-uss-john-f-kennedy-gets-underway-for-first-time-ahead-of-builders-trials

[autumn sorrel]

Noice

Finally some good shit

[twilit geyser]

The electronics arrangement on JFK looks mad ugly compared to the Ford even though it’s supposed to be an upgrade

No SEWIP BlkII aboard?

[desert agate]

A role that the Challenger would be better suited for with a smoothbore gun

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/captmarkkelly.bsky.social/post/3mditiwqyvc2a

Captain Mark Kelly (@captmarkkelly.bsky.social)

40 years ago today, we lost seven heroes aboard Challenger. As an astronaut who commanded the space shuttle after this tragedy, I think about them often. Their courage pushed the boundaries of exploration. Today, we remember their sacrifice and the legacy they left behind.

Reposts

447

Likes

1953

Bluesky · Jan 28, 2026, 5:49 PM

[burnt scarab]

Where is it ?

[desert agate]

Balboa, capital of the US governed Panama Canal
It says Balboa CZ on the bottom, CZ meaning Canal Zone

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUmtc-VXABA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAUYiV2tgcA

[fierce oracle]

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/

Nuclear bomb to people who harp about the felon RCS

More noise than F-35 but its comparable

[mental tapir]

Still also holds the dubious title of the first fifth-gen fighter to be damaged in battle

Albeit on the ground, but still

[desert agate]

Oh god people are still using the aircraft 101 article

That article is wrong

It does not take into consideration anywhere near all of the real world variables that influence RCS

Just to give a few comparisons that the article does NOT take into consideration, specifically the fastener screws and bolts which are very much not designed for stealth

Even if said article were right in its conclusions about the SU-57, more noise than an F-35 is too much noise for a modern stealth aircraft

[mental tapir]

I've seen some (possibly) cope that the production variants don't have those and it's only on the experimental version that's shown around in airshows

[desert agate]

This article should be used to give a broad idea about RCS, it should not be used in any comparison between stealth aircraft because it simply cannot go into enough detail, thanks to the technical limits of the simulation

[desert agate]

I'll believe it when I see it

[desert agate]

I think that in place of real world data the article does provide some useful technical points

The mistake that it makes is trying to make direct comparisons between aircraft and trying to make conclusions about their capability and real world application

[spiral cedar]

Looks to me more like it's finding a minimum possible RCS rather than approximating the actual RCS

Due to the model simplifications

[desert agate]

My problem is when the author says things like

With that being said, F-35’s RCS is not better than Su-57’s RCS at all frequencies, in VHF, Su-57 median RCS is around 11% better than F-35, and the average RCS is around 41% better. This is possibly because F-35 a smaller fighter, therefore it suffer more from the resonance effect at low frequency

Which simply cannot be proven with the data available in the simulation
You can certainly speculate but this is not speculation from the author he is clearly saying that this is conclusive

[junior trench]

The big omission from what I can recall is not accounting for the inlets

Which in the Su-57's case, leave the front of the engine visible

To radar

[desert agate]

He does talk about the engine ducts

[junior trench]

Didn't it amount to saying he wasn't modeling them

[desert agate]

The radar blocker with RAM applied successfully reduce the otherwise strong reflection from the turbine fan blade, however, the RCS reduction capability is still not as good as an S-duct design.

[subtle prawn]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/marte-project-raises-questions-over-challenger-3-exports/

[junior trench]

challenger 3 exports

that's a good joke

[autumn sorrel]

They see that Rheimetal is making a new tank and think to themselves, "Lets market the upgrade for our overweight, overbudget and definitely not domestic make anymore tank on the international market" and actually saying it with confidence.

At some point, you just have to respect the level of tone deafness UK MoD possesses.

[slow tulip]

You’ve seen it now

If someone complained about YF-22 production quality you’d laugh at them lmao

[desert agate]

I can count the pixels in that image

[slow tulip]

you don’t need a 4k image to see the quality difference

[desert agate]

Not a whole lot of quality in that image

Really difficult to tell if I'm honest

[slow tulip]

…

Are you being intentionally obtuse

[fierce oracle]

Hey why are you posting T-50-9 in the third image and is that T-50-10 in the first? I cant tell cause your images are trash, but they’re both prototype airframes

[fierce oracle]

Its much more accurate than the 2016 one from aussie air power

[desert agate]

Without a closer inspection it is impossible to determine just how much difference the smoothing of the airframe could potentially make

[fierce oracle]

It is literally proven with the data in the simulation

[desert agate]

That does not make it reputable beyond a broad overview

[desert agate]

The data is flawed

[fierce oracle]

Considering you’re harping about fasteners then im guessing it has a lot of impact

[fierce oracle]

Fucking elegant response “the data is flawed” yeah man sure why not

[desert agate]

You cannot accurately simulate radar reflections on polygons

Radar waves simply react differently on polygons against real world objects

[fierce oracle]

I think im going to trust it

[desert agate]

Consumer grade software cannot overcome that simple limitation

[fierce oracle]

Yes obviously you’re not going to have fucking accurate RCS modeling that would be illegal

[desert agate]

You're more than welcome to trust whatever flawed data and article you like just don't be obtuse when people disagree with you and present obvious realities

You are entitled to live in delusion as much as you like

[slow tulip]

“the airframe is bad because it isn’t smooth” -> “it’s impossible to determine how much smoothing will affect RCS”

[fierce oracle]

You can make “estimates” because the US airforce is going to annihilate you if you remotely get an accurate read on the F-35 RCS

[slow tulip]

So is it bad or not????

[fierce oracle]

Ad hominem

Immediately shuts down when confronted

[desert agate]

I'm not shutting down, you are simply refusing to budge on an immutable reality

Polygons cannot accurately reflect radar waves

[slow tulip]

How tf do you think the military simulates them lmao

[desert agate]

The article itself uses flawed data to come to flawed conclusions

I would not have as much issue with the article if it presented the issues with its data in a more rational manner, rather than attempting to make direct comparisons and coming to definitive conclusions

[desert agate]

Through great difficulty and a lot of HUMINT

[fierce oracle]

If you read the paper you would know it is done as accurately as possible with available PUBLIC resources

[desert agate]

I have read the paper multiple times

I read it when it was first released

I still disagree with the conclusions and many of the points made

[slow tulip]

it’s with maths btw

[fierce oracle]

Because certainly you’re more qualified than technical engineers that have been working on this

[slow tulip]

there’s a reason the F-117 looked the way it did (the equations that existed only supported flat panels)

it’s all done with polygons lmaooo

[desert agate]

Militaries do not solely rely on computer simulation and mathematics to create estimations of the radar reflection on stealth airframes that they do not have access to

[fierce oracle]

(They do)

I mean

How do you think lockheed and grumman came up with their aircraft designs

[desert agate]

They recognise just as well as anyone that without real world data their own simulations (which are run through super computers, not consumer hardware) are flawed

You may point to the numerous RCS testing rigs made for every single stealth aircraft manufactured by the United States as evidence of this fact

[slow tulip]

SO clueless

[fierce oracle]

They are not ran through super computers dude

[slow tulip]

they use RCS testing rigs once it has gone THROUGH rigorous simulations and mathematics

[fierce oracle]

What the fuck is the point building it if the math says it isn’t stealthy

Theres an entire thing around the F-117 where the were so uncertain in its stealth that they thought they had radar malfunctions until a bird landed on it and they got a bird sized radar return

[desert agate]

Yes because the simulations give them an idea of the results but they still need the physical testing rig to make adjustments as they see require

[fierce oracle]

Also

[slow tulip]

Okay but if the simulations were completely inaccurate as you seem to want to claim then they wouldn’t fucking do them now would they

[desert agate]

You've been clowned on for posting that article in another server anyway I don't see why you're bothering to come into another server just to exist in some world where you're right

[desert agate]

I never once said they were completely incorrect

Don't intentionally misinterpret me

Anyway I'm going out for dinner so have fun being wrong I guess

[fierce oracle]

“They recognise just as well as anyone that without real world data their own simulations” multiple F-117’s penetrated iraqi airspace multiple times and werent shot down, an F-117 was shot down by a serbian SAM system due to negligence of the flight plan but was otherwise giving off a very low return

Multiple israeli F-35’s penetrated iranian airspace which were defended by modern russian SAM system and hit targets consisting of those modern SAM systems

If anything the math seems to be correct

[slow tulip]

Me when I lie

[fierce oracle]

How would you know if i’ve been clowned on for posting it in another server? Suddenly you can perfom top line speculation?

[desert agate]

Two different statements meaning 2 different things

[desert agate]

It’s not speculation I just have friends

[fierce oracle]

One very literal statement

[spiral cedar]

I don't have a horse in this race so don't ask me about anything else, but I do agree that this photo comparison isn't very helpful. You can tell right away that the lighting conditions are significantly different—no one will argue that the helmet had been RCS optimized, yet the shadows and contrast on it are much clearer in the upper photo compared to the lower. Part of the reason for this is clear from looking at the lower left of the photos, where you can see that the shadows cast by the wings are very different, both in terms of angle and because of the implications that has on contour visibility and contrast. Simply put, the lower contrast and highlights of the second image due to the flatter and more diffuse lighting are going to hide any surface discontinuities (which are important for radar) that may or may not be different between the two. It's entirely possible the second one is better, but the photos shown are in sufficiently different conditions that the second photo isn't good evidence of it if that is the case.

[slow tulip]

Okay let me correct myself. If it wasn’t accurate within a reasonable margin of error why would they use it?

If it couldn’t be reasonably accurate then it would just be a waste of time and resources

[fierce oracle]

Heres some additional ones if the lighting changes can help

[fierce oracle]

Uh huh so i dont see how this is related to the argument other than to just attack me because you of a lack of points

[slow tulip]

I can’t find more photos right now (I need to make myself food) but you can find prototype airframes (T-50) by 05x or 5xx

Any airframe with these designations are equivalent to YF-xx and it is disingenuous to argue based on their production quality

[spiral cedar]

Presumably if you take two designs made with the same materials and construction techniques, but with differing geometry only, you could see the improvements that result from the new geometry. That doesn't then mean that comparing planes with different geometry and different construction techniques + materials directly is valid, if those aren't factors that can be simulated effectively (hence the need for physical mockup testing). It's entirely possible to make an accurate test or simulation but draw inappropriate conclusions

[slow tulip]

These simulations iirc use a placeholder radar absorbent material so there is space for difference between technological advancement there

But that also cannot reasonably be argued because nobody can back that claim and actually demonstrate the exact effectiveness of a given RAM so it’s pointless to bring up beyond an offhand mention

[spiral cedar]

Why is that pointless? That sounds like an important caveat to be honest about

[desert agate]

Wow
So the simulation was inaccurate
Incredible

[slow tulip]

beyond an offhand mention

It’s worthless to argue over

[desert agate]

I’m glad we’ve all come to that conclusion

[slow tulip]

So is your proposal that the su57, with the addition of realistic RAM values, will become less stealthy?

because that’s absurd if so considering how much of an under-estimate the placeholder used is (the F-35 one easily demonstrates that)

The simulation provides a nice upper bound for RCS

it can reasonably be assumed to be less than those values by some unknown margin

[gloomy current]

I think planes are quite neat

[slow tulip]

[desert agate]

Perhaps
We don’t know know what RAM was used and where
There’s a reasonable chance that the Russian lack of experience may see it used inadequately
We know that the ducting on the SU-57 isn’t well protected and we know that the simulation didn’t even try to look at it

[gloomy current]

Also, felon stinky

[spiral cedar]

The jet engine was the greatest mistake by humanity of the past century

[fierce oracle]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6461432B1/en

[desert agate]

Planes are neat
The F-111 is the greatest combat aircraft of all time
I won’t be disagreed with

[gloomy current]

Vark

[desert agate]

Cool, doesn’t answer any mysteries

[slow tulip]

Okay but we do, RAM coatings are absurdly obvious

[fierce oracle]

The fucking patent for RAM is available

[desert agate]

And we know the Russians use the same stuff

For a fact

Beyond all reasonable doubt

[slow tulip]

on what basis

[desert agate]

On what basis do we know either way

[fierce oracle]

Because why wouldnt they

[slow tulip]

This is why I said it’s pointless to bring up beyond a mention

“The RAM is almost certainly different” is all you can really get out of this

We don’t know by how much

We don’t know what the Russians are using

[desert agate]

Do you have an in depth understanding of Russian industrial capabilities and production of RAM?

[fierce oracle]

Like dude the RAM for the F-22 is like a 3 inch coat of iron

[slow tulip]

We have a vague idea of what the F-22 uses (iron embedded in a resin) and the F-35 uses (overlapping absorbent fibres) but beyond that we cannot tell shit

[fierce oracle]

No because im not a russian engineer, but what i do know is that they are well and capable of making majority titanium vessels

[spring briar]

And even then
Polygons made to insinuate a smooth curving surface interact a bit differently than smooth curves irl

So a rather flat plane like the SU-57 will have less issue with that

[desert agate]

In any case this argument is pointless I’ve had enough of it so I’m out

[fierce oracle]

I dont think you know how easy materials are to actually work with in the modern day and the russians made the alfa back in the 70’s, and American manufacturers said it was impossible to work with so much titanium in the “poor condition soviet dockyards”

[fierce oracle]

Maybe if you read it

[desert agate]

https://fxtwitter.com/lfx160219/status/2017132872784642302?s=46

笑脸男人 (@lfx160219)

An illuminator radar is visible on the port quarter of CVN-79 John F. Kennedy. While all ships belong to the U.S. Navy’s Ford-class aircraft carriers, CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford remains the only unit equipped with the Dual Band Radar (DBR) suite, comprising the SPY-4 phased-array volume search radar and the SPY-3 multifunction radar.
︀︀
︀︀Beginning with CVN-79, the Ford-class transitioned to a revised dual-band radar architecture, centered on the fixed-array SPY-6(V)3 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) paired with the SPQ-9B horizon search radar. As the SPQ-9B does not provide fire-control illumination, the class was augmented with the Mk 9 tracking and illumination system to enable engagement using semi-active radar-homing Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM), including ESSM Block 1 and Block 2. Notably, ESSM Block 2 also incorporates an active radar seeker, partially mitigating reliance on continuous wave illumination.

Quoting 笑脸男人…

FxTwitter · Jan 30, 2026, 7:08 AM

[slow tulip]

There’s some smoothing these software can do they tend to be fairly accurate within a small margin of error

Obviously by no means perfect but it’s good enough

If it wasn’t then it wouldn’t be used

[slow tulip]

Also worth pointing out if true then the F-35 would be much much worse

It’s a pretty curvy jet so if the curves being polygons reduced the RCS then it would have to be worse by a pretty decent margin irl which is unlikely

[twilit geyser]

The curves you're thinking of would be curves tangent to that of a sphere. Radar waves ride and are deflected abruptly around the belly and the fuselage, which actively help the low observable factor in fact.

[gloomy current]

If its so stealthy, why are they so scared to use it

[slow tulip]

Yeah but the point that was being made was that converting these curves to polygons for the purpose of the simulation would significantly reduce RCS which isn’t the case

[gloomy current]

[twilit geyser]

Does the simulation use the scalar or matrix equation for the RCS calculations? You're gonna get two different answers if that's the case. It also doesn't help that the information given doesn't account for what radar we're detecting these aircraft with, how big it is, how powerful and how far away, which all have significant effects on the aircraft's radar reflectivity, then RCS.

[slow tulip]

except for the times where they used it

[gloomy current]

how often?

[slow tulip]

Like every couple days they use it as a kh59 truck lol

[gloomy current]

[slow tulip]

they’ve flown it over ukrainian airspace before too

[gloomy current]

and how far away is that

[slow tulip]

that’s beyond me it’s not my simulation

[gloomy current]

i didnt see F-35s be this scared

[slow tulip]

because F-35s have famously frequently fought countries with heavy SAM coverage and totally haven’t been used to beat like SA-2s to death

(F-35 is still better though)

[spring briar]

I can believe that but does the article describe the exact method?

[gloomy current]

[slow tulip]

whatever ansys uses

[spring briar]

Ah

[gloomy current]

Metal, do you think Iran only has Sa-2s

[twilit geyser]

It kind of depends on which curve you're even converting it into though lmao, the orientation and angle would give varying results again. For example, a simple frontal detection angle would hardly have any effects, as it's treated as if it were on a 2D plane, hit it above or below then the reflectivity spikes up.

[spring briar]

Yeah I’m not convinced on either side of the argument yet tbh
I do know the SU-57 should be easier to stealth bc of the relatively simple surfaces but there’s the manufacturing claims

[twilit geyser]

I still wouldn't trust it. As most of the factors that give realistic and meaningful results are numbers that are classified and kept away. The exact radar power and return of the radar model you're using is one. The article also explicitly claims to have only taken into account its shape, which is already suspicious.

[slow tulip]

Iran didn’t have S-300s for the most recent strikes

Israel disabled all of them in 2024 lol

They only had 4 batteries in the first place

[gloomy current]

with what

Also allegedly they have homegrown s-300 equivalent

as for if they are equivalent, who knows

[fierce oracle]

This is equivalent to the fakour claims

[gloomy current]

i did say allegedly

[slow tulip]

It is worth pointing out that the S-300 operators were either stupid or the systems were partially/non functional (not that S-300 would have a chance vs F-35 in the first place)

My basis for this is that they didn’t even intercept the launched missiles

[fierce oracle]

Main takeaway though should be that despite the felon being MASSIVE it has a very small RCS

[slow tulip]

which is something S-300 is VERY capable of doing

[fierce oracle]

The EW suite of F-35I’s probably overloaded the radar screens

[gloomy current]

Seems like they arent scared to use them

[slow tulip]

very possible

[slow tulip]

never said they were and neither is russia with the 57s?

they’ve both been using them

[gloomy current]

They got discombobulator beams in their weapon bays

[slow tulip]

russia has no need to fly 57s into ukraine though that’s just a bit pointless

[slow tulip]

laser beam pod,,,,,,,

[fierce oracle]

Modern EW suite VS 1980 soviet point air defense

[gloomy current]

thats just a distraction pod

the real discombobulator teleports behind you

[slow tulip]

F-35Is clearly needed their own avionics for a sublight comms link to the JSL

[gloomy current]

isnt any comms link sublight

[slow tulip]

yeah

[gloomy current]

Anyways we should discuss why every country is AR-18 addicted

the polymer addiction cant be that great

[slow tulip]

look inside
cost cutting

[gloomy current]

Some of the most expensive service rifles in the world are AR-18 clones

[slow tulip]

I never said successful cost cutting

[twilit geyser]

Yeah, to a Super Hornet, or the newer F-16s, that's not all that impressive.

[fierce oracle]

Super hornet?

Metal get the PDF

[slow tulip]

No he’s on about new super hornets

which are fairly LO

[gloomy current]

Meanwhile the Brits took the AR-18 and made it both more expensive and less reliable

[twilit geyser]

If you take the same simulation or equation and apply it, the resultant RCS would be roughly the same as the Su-57s.

This is ignoring reflectivity and only taking into account geometry and angle.

[gloomy current]

Coat a super hornet in RAM and suddenly you have a new 4.75 gen

[twilit geyser]

It's not that impressive compared to its contemporaries.

[fierce oracle]

Mach 0.8 demon

[gloomy current]

More than enough

Alexander the great conquered lots of land, and he was even slower

[slow tulip]

worth bringing this up

[fierce oracle]

He had like 30 years

[twilit geyser]

This reminds me of that RAM coated F-15E

Or was it an F-15E?

[gloomy current]

You are just a doubter

[fierce oracle]

I will always doubt a macedonian

[twilit geyser]

Interesting how they dip and shoot back up.

[slow tulip]

I think the numbers go really wacky as frequency approaches zero

8ghz is roughly the area I’m looking at since that’s airborne radar +- error

[fierce oracle]

F-16 really benefits from being so small

[slow tulip]

Although very low frequency radars are known to be able to “detect” stealth aircraft

-# “detect” = “there might be a thing somewhere idk it could be clouds too”

[gloomy current]

F-16 is peak light fighter

[twilit geyser]

Yeah, that's to be expected, longer troughs and crests.

Range decreases by a lot though.

[slow tulip]

same goes for accuracy

[gloomy current]

What's the best service rifle, and why is it the Bren 3

[spring briar]

Rafale bad?

[twilit geyser]

Only for high frequency detection.

[fierce oracle]

Has been for the last like 20 years

Me when i create an astronomically small nose cone and tell thales to put an AESA in it

[spring briar]

Sure
Sounds like something they might want to fix

How does the F35 do it
Having an even smaller nose?

@fierce oracle

[fierce oracle]

The F-35 has significantly more power draw allowing its radar to perform more processes because it has more available energy to use, same with the Eurofighter and any flanker they all have significantly more available power to use for the radar

[spring briar]

Ok
So it’s power draw and not the nose

[spring briar]

How would Rafale go about increasing the available power of the radar

[fierce oracle]

Its also the nose

[fierce oracle]

Being bigger

[spring briar]

Fair

The physical jet?

[fierce oracle]

A wee bit yeah

You could jam in alot more things in it like better engines

Or an airbrake

[spring briar]

Understandable

Is there a reason they didnt put one in

Or
Is there a reason they made rafale so small

[fierce oracle]

The french government wanted it on a carrier

[spring briar]

Figured

[fierce oracle]

And considering they were the minority (and were demanding all of the work to be french) they pulled out when germany, spain, and the UK didnt agree

[spring briar]

It is indeed quite a bit smaller
30%

[fierce oracle]

Jesus christ richie i love you

You wouldn’t BELIEVE how much i needed this image

[spring briar]

Why

[fierce oracle]

I was arguing with a frenchman on reddit a month ago now im gonna go drag the argument back up

[slow tulip]

partly wanting it carrier capable

partly the fact that rafale was built based on the 1985 typhoon requirements

and typhoon was made (much) bigger between EAP and production to fit things

1.25 metres longer

[spring briar]

Ok

I see your arguments

[slow tulip]

basically they were both small originally

rafale got smaller for carrier capability

typhoon got bigger to fit avionics

[spring briar]

Ok

[gloomy current]

[slow tulip]

they're fitting better engines for F.5

[fierce oracle]

Took them 30 years

[fierce oracle]

[spring briar]

Engine technology is quite mature memes
It’s not simple

[gloomy current]

Memes trying to do stolen valour

[slow tulip]

? rafale radar is smaller (somehow)

RBE2-AA is 600mm
APG-81 is ~700mm

the key thing though is APG-81 has about double the TRMs (transmit/receive modules)

838 vs 1676

[spring briar]

What’s the difference in surface area of the dishes that house the modules

[slow tulip]

this is the radar diameter differences

[gloomy current]

The french should just get them back for the mirage 5, and steal israeli radar tech

[slow tulip]

its (roughly) a circle so it translates to area pretty nicely

[spring briar]

Then there’s your answer

Plus the french modules being bigger probably

[slow tulip]

also you say this but eurojet also cooked up like 3 EJ200 upgrades in the same period of time including the option for 3D thrust vectoring

and a 30% thrust increase

and the EJ200 is a higher power engine than the M88 already

[spring briar]

Ok and what are their respective sizes

[spring briar]

Top is raf bottom euro?

[slow tulip]

ye

[spring briar]

Thx

[slow tulip]

note ej200 is a higher twr

[spring briar]

Well yes it has more volume to work with

[slow tulip]

that's why i specified twr

[gloomy current]

This is why the C-5 Galaxy has 1 morbillion twr

[spring briar]

My takeaway from this is that Rafale is a smaller and worse eurofighter with carrier ops in mind

[slow tulip]

effectively yeah

[spring briar]

[slow tulip]

typhoon was originally considered to have a navalised variant

but it was dropped after france left and britain stopped doing carriers

[spring briar]

Thx for the info

France should just do mirages ngl

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PLS0EozSYQ

[runic ermine]

He's alive!
https://www.youtube.com/live/y_dgrjadc9U?si=WfpLjv9O7qmi_yX1

[twilit geyser]

Does anyone here know the composition of the ROKN and KPAN's battle squadrons in 1991? What did they consist of?

[subtle prawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6N3rYpfGnI

[subtle prawn]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-to-study-aster-30-integration-for-mk41-missile-launcher/

[subtle prawn]

https://bsky.app/profile/captmarkkelly.bsky.social/post/3mdt3vpyger2a

Captain Mark Kelly (@captmarkkelly.bsky.social)

Twenty-three years ago today, seven astronauts never made it home when we lost space shuttle Columbia. It was a tragedy that changed space exploration and reminded us of its incredible risks. I think about their families every Feb. 1st. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Reposts

224

Likes

1063

▶ Play video

Bluesky · Feb 1, 2026, 7:46 PM

https://fxtwitter.com/NASAHistory/status/2017991331058974976

NASA History Office (@NASAhistory)

We look back with sadness on this photo of the crew of STS-107. #OTD in 2003 these seven astronauts tragically lost their lives as Columbia broke apart minutes before it was to land.
︀︀
︀︀We pledge to keep their memory alive. #NASARemembers

**💬 28 🔁 219 ❤️ 1.3K 👁️ 23.1K **

FxTwitter · Feb 1, 2026, 4:00 PM

[desert agate]

https://fxtwitter.com/DefenceAust/status/2018414119607558181?s=20

Defence Australia (@DefenceAust)

Ready for take off... in the desert 🏜️ ✈️
︀︀
︀︀Exercise Red Flag Nellis has kicked off in 📍 Nevada, United States.
︀︀
︀︀The exercise brings together five branches of the United States military, the @RoyalAirForce and @AusAirForce.
︀︀
︀︀Up to 6️⃣ RAAF F-35A Lightning II from 75SQN, support elements and approximately 2️⃣0️⃣0️⃣ aviators are taking part in Red Flag which is one of the world’s most challenging air training exercises.
︀︀
︀︀🇦🇺 🇺🇸 🇬🇧
︀︀
︀︀#YourADF #AusAirForce #StrongerTogether @USAirForce

**💬 3 🔁 19 ❤️ 105 👁️ 1.9K **

FxTwitter · Feb 2, 2026, 8:00 PM

The worlds 4 most capable and best trained air forces, plus the RAF

[desert agate]

https://fxtwitter.com/JAParker29/status/2018481052629783026?s=20

Jennifer Parker (@JAParker29)

My latest for the @LowyInstitute 👇
︀︀
︀︀'When it comes to the Naval Reserve, 🇦🇺 must learn from its own history. The Reserve delivers its greatest value when it is designed as a strategic capability, not when it is confined to individual supplementation in predominantly administrative roles.
︀︀
︀︀The current Naval Reserve structure is a product of an era in which major conflict was seen as remote. That assumption no longer holds'.
︀︀
︀︀🔗www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/reinvigorating-australia-s-naval-reserve
︀︀
︀︀Many thanks to @ClareECaldwell & @SamRoggeveen
︀︀
︀︀@NSC_ANU @UNSWCanberra

**💬 2 🔁 3 ❤️ 21 👁️ 991 **

FxTwitter · Feb 3, 2026, 12:25 AM