The Panther tank is kinda, sorta, back (1 Viewer)

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

The British should have kept their Aircraft Carrier Alliance program. They could be making carriers for half the West by the 2030s.
Look who, outside the USA, is building carriers, or carrier like ships, today. China, India, Japan, Korea. They all have their own established shipbuilding industries to support and, in the case of the first two, much cheaper labour cost. France pulled out of a joint venture with Britain to provide the French Navy with a new carrier.

Anyway, while ACA was responsible for the build of the QE class, they didn't design it. History of their development here. Such a build consortium was required because no one U.K. shipyard was capable of building ships that big. They were the largest warships ever constructed for the RN.

Late last year BAe Systems set up a Japanese corporation with a view to working with Japan on new Defence projects. One of those is believed to be for a new carrier for the JMSDF, a ship larger than their latest Izumo class multi purpose destroyers. Therein lies the future, using our technical knowhow to assist others.
 
This was my first thought too. And that turret is goddamned huge.
If recent western tank design is anything to go by, the large rear turret bustle probably contains the full ammo load as it is safer for the crew if the tank gets hit. In Leo 2 only part was in the bustle with the rest in the hull.
 
If recent western tank design is anything to go by, the large rear turret bustle probably contains the full ammo load as it is safer for the crew if the tank gets hit. In Leo 2 only part was in the bustle with the rest in the hull.

Right, that wasn't a criticism, just an observation. The war in Ukraine is certainly showing the hazards (once more!) of stowing the ammo inside the hull (or in the case of the T-72, the turret-column).

The Abrams has blowout panels designed to funnel ammo spark-ups in the bustle out the back for this reason.
 
As long as we're off thread, you think a reactivated Essex would be as effective as a theoretically operational Admiral of the Russian Fleet Kusnetsov? I was looking at the war's effect on arm sales in another thread. I was wondering if India would be better off with one instead of a Russian design. And I'm bored.
 
As long as we're off thread, you think a reactivated Essex would be as effective as a theoretically operational Admiral of the Russian Fleet Kusnetsov? I was looking at the war's effect on arm sales in another thread. I was wondering if India would be better off with one instead of a Russian design. And I'm bored.

That actually would make an interesting thread/discussion. Why don't you start one?
 
As long as we're off thread, you think a reactivated Essex would be as effective as a theoretically operational Admiral of the Russian Fleet Kusnetsov? I was looking at the war's effect on arm sales in another thread. I was wondering if India would be better off with one instead of a Russian design. And I'm bored.
They're making their own (look up INS Vikrant).
 
Guess I needed a Buick emblem in my face.
You really don't, trust me on this...

1545991_10202144193160347_96886394_n.jpg
 
Back to the KF51 Panther, here is the brochure on it with detailed info include crew layout and new specialist position:
Well, it looks like this one doesn't have the design flaws of the original of the same name. The outside integration and control seems F-35ish
which would mean less of these tanks could take on a lot more.
 
The latest episode of Ed Nash's Military Matters is on the new Panther. I t also has bit on IAI's new autonomous tank program as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back