"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (4 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

gumbyk said:
But, this is all a moot point, as ITAR means that the company doesn't have the option of unilaterally sending arms anywhere.
Click to expand...

This is correct. Things such as NIGHT VISION devices (for example) fall under the ITAR and are not allowed to be exported.

You cannot even take a laptop or a thumb drive with information on ITAR items or products outside of the country, because that counts as an "export."

As a defense contractor (like all defense contractors) we take annual ITAR compliance training.

Heck at my last job, our SAR helicopter crews used NVGs and when we sent SAR crews to support offshore drilling operations in South America they had to fly "night unaided" without NVGs because taking the NVGs to Brazil, Columbia, or Suriname for example would have constituted an export under ITAR rules even though we were not selling them.

I am certain ITAR laws play a role in what is allowed to be donated to Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
gumbyk said:
Fiducary duty is the duty of directors….
Click to expand...
1pgn-png.png
 
GrauGeist said:
Step backwards?

The M-55 S1 has been completely modernized and up-gunned to the point that it only has looks in common with the T-55.

Optics, gunnery computer, ERA armor (provided by Israel), new suspension, higher HP engine, larger caliber cannon, LIRD defense system, Israeli smoke grenade system and much more.
Click to expand...

But wait....order in the next 30 minutes and we'll throw in a Boxer IFV for every five M-55 S1s you purchase.
 
GTX said:
What law is that??
Click to expand...

In Australia, the 2001 Corporations Act (and before that, similar acts passed right back to the late 1930s). The law states that directors are required to work in the best interests of the company. Courts have historically interpreted that as the shareholders' interests first. Implicitly in cases from the 1950s onwards, and then explicitly in cases from the late 1980s onwards.

(My father in law is the former chairman of a major commercial law firm).
 
I get how it's supposed to work. But ERA-evading top-attack strikes aside, does explosive reactive armour ever work against modern antitank missiles?

None of the West's current tanks (Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, Leclerc, Ariete, Merkava, Korean K2, Japanese Type 10, etc) use ERA, AFAIK. Presumably because ERA was considered ineffective and/or their composite ceramic armour DOES work against modern projectiles.
 
Last edited:
re effectiveness of ERA

'Reactive Armour' in general is primarily designed to reduce the potential penetration ability of the AT weapon.

A RPG-7 or LAW, for example, could relatively easily penetrate the side armour of vehicles like the cold-war era T-55 and M60 series tanks. The ERA later fitted to these vehicles is quite capable of reducing the penetration of the RPG-7 or LAW to the point where the original cast homogeneous side armour would not be perforated.

More modern and sophisticated versions of reactive armour are capable of much greater reduction in penetration, some of the systems making it difficult for the more modern AT-4/Carl Gustav class of weapons to successfully perforate the sides of an ERA protected T-55 or M60 class vehicle. The current Ukrainian Kontakt-5 ERA will reduce the penetration of a weapon in the RPG-7 class by about 95%, and the AT-4 dual warhead class by 60%.

The reason it sometimes seems like the Russian ERA is ineffective is that it is being attacked by warheads that have much greater penetrative capability than the ERA is designed to reduce. The original Dragon ATGM was capable of about 20" of penetration vs standard good quality RHA, while the original TOW could do about 25". The early ERA that was intended to stop the RPG-7 or LAW was relatively useless against the Dragon and TOW when fired at the side of the T-55 or M60. But when fired against the front of the tanks fitted with ERA the early Dragon and TOW warheads were often defeated. The next generation of tanks with more sophisticated armour schemes (such as steel/ceramic/steel sandwich) were almost immune to the early Dragon and TOW from the front - if hit in the areas covered by the ERA and 'sandwich' armour.

With the new top attack warheads, many of which have penetrations in the same range as the early Dragon and TOW, even a reduction of 60% still leaves a residual effective penetration of 8"-10" - far more than the roof armour on any current AFV. And the current ATGM warheads are significantly more capable of penetration than the early Dragon and TOW. The current TOW II for example is listed as having over 35" of penetration in the horizontal attack mode. The Javelin (with a dual or tandem warhead) is listed as having over 24" of penetration in the top attack mode.

It should be noted that most of the ERA in use is optimized vs horizontal attacks. In theory, if the ERA was optimized vs top attack weapons it would be more effective against the current top attack weapons, but that would reduce its effectiveness vs horizontal attacks.

It should also be noted that some of the more sophisticated reactive armours can have a significant effect vs long-rod kinetic energy penetrators.
 
Here's another incredibly brave Russian (unusually for me I'm not being sarcastic). Given attempts to recruit convicts into the military, I shudder to think of the reception he'll get in prison. I found his speech, which may truly be his last on earth, very moving:

www.telegraph.co.uk

Russian official Alexei Gorinov jailed for criticising Ukraine war gives final moving speech

The 60-year-old uses his last remarks, which you can read in full below, to accuse Moscow of wreaking destruction in the European country
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Imagine living in a country where you can be imprisoned for 7 years for "discrediting the armed forces." That means the military has no forcing function to hold it accountable. Ironically, such an approach usually leads to lowering standards rather than elevating the standing of the military. Perhaps that's what we're seeing in Ukraine. Although the "discrediting" law is recent, Putin has promoted military strength throughout his reign of increasing terror. If the military is accountable to nobody, then there's no motivation to correct faults and make it improve.

I salute Mr. Gorinov and pray he survives his coming ordeal so he can see Putin's dictatorship in ashes.
 
at6 said:
Referendums on becoming part of Russia are nothing more than Russians stealing territory. They said the outcome would be guaranteed. That absolutely means rigged and therefore invalid to any right thinking person.
Click to expand...
How many "right thinking persons" do you suppose there are in the Russian hierarchy?
 
Jabberwocky said:
Western and Russia sources saying an initial 300,000 troops to be called up, with more to be decided on later.
Click to expand...
Poor devils. How many of these 300,000 newbs will have any relevant training, modern kit or credible leadership? Lambs to the slaughter. I wouldn't be surprised if their mothers protest and block the assembly depots. It was the rage of mothers that was the biggest risk to Putin when the submarine Kursk went down.
at6 said:
Referendums on becoming part of Russia are nothing more than Russians stealing territory.
Click to expand...
I expect Ukraine special ops to expedite its killing of separatist leaders and referendum organizers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 1, guests: 4)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Sisu
S
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
839
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
497
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back