Cooliest/Uglest Weapons v10 - FAL Pride World Wide - General

I'll have to use some spare scrap to make a diagram where I can just test different sear designs. The revolving of the cylinder seems to be the easiest part their is. The deals with sears can be summed up as a Rube Goldberg device

Essentially you want a double action striker. Something similar to the VP70 internal mechanism perhaps?

Huh. That's actually pretty damn near it. Gonna have to look into this, and see if it can be applied, or at the very least use it as a base point.

I may be wrong, but I believe the Velo-dog is just a shrouded hammer, not a linear striker. This might be more up your alley https://youtu.be/QLVOY21Fm_8 Double action, striker fired, external striker. This is needlefire rather than centerfire, but needlefire can easily be converted to centerfire. http://historypistols.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/7.jpg http://historypistols.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/8.jpg These were the best pictures I could find of the internal mechanism, I hear there's some reproductions floating around in Europe though so someone out there might have a working example.

I mean sure but are they really kidding themselves into thinking that A.) They can afford this thing, and B.) They are even remotely militarily a match for any other 5th gen capable country? The UK/EU bomb insurgents, thats what they do. Su-57 is kill, China is literally on the other side of the globe, and the US is an ally. I just dont see a world where the UK needs 5th gen capability right now.

https://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Dht6HHkX4AAPzTo.jpg One of the U.S. Army’s top research centers has already achieved considerable success in developing a prototype of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV). Some sources claim that the United States Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) are now nearing production of demonstrator of new robotic vehicle build onto a surrogate platform. Exact specifications of the new unmanned combat system were not disclosed, but Kevin Mills, TARDEC Ground Vehicle Robotics associate director revealed some details of a future robotic system during United States Army’s annual meeting and exposition, which was held April 10 in Washington, D.C. According to his report, the Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) programme may consist of developing an effective weaponized robotic system by integrating robotic controls, target acquisition, and remote weapon system onto a surrogate platform for soldier evaluation; initial excursions with combat platforms. As one of the surrogate platforms, it is proposed to choose the M113 tracked armored personnel carrier that can become a modular base with the ability to integrate multiple mission payloads An unmanned version of M113 tracked vehicle also can be fitted with XM813 30mm remote weapon station (RWS) with ammunition handling system (AHS) and Scenario Based Fire Control System; x2 purpose-built electric drive 7.62 machine gun remote weapon station (RWS); Automatic turreted mortar (81mm). To provide autonomy in the unmanned vehicle will have emerging sensors, modules artificial intelligence, and cyber technologies with integrated 360 situational awareness, autonomous search and target acquisition (AiTD/R) unburdening the Soldier operator, with a high degree of survivability and lethality in a highly contested environment Where the RCV is experiencing loss of control or is visually lost, the vehicle returns to a last point of communication. Mike Sparks must be losing his shit

its the circle of life all along.

Gavin new MBT confirmed!

Why the fuck do they still wanna use the death metal box that is m113

Because it's unmanned so it doesn't matter Because it's cheap Because it's a tech demonstrator so they just needed an automotive platform to show off the systems on Because it's a logistical advantage Because it's a proven design so you save R&D time and toothing issues Five reasons I could come up with off the top of my head, take your pick.

I thought drone tanks already exist, they pretty much use em for target practice.

A target-practice drone and a combat drone is wildly different in what they need to do. Target-drone needs to be able to move, that's it. Doesn't even have to have optics to move from the perspective, you can just RC-car that bitch. A combat tank needs a shitton of sensors, cameras, anti-jamming-equipment, automation of weapons system loading and so forth.

He's probably thinking about the Russian Uran-9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84NiP-zxK18 It was deployed to Syria, but apparently it didn't perform well In particular, in carrying out of combat missions, the average range of sustainable management from the advanced control point was 300-500 m in the conditions of the settlement with low-rise buildings, , while also were recorded 17 cases of short-term (up to 1 min) and 2 cases of long (up to 1.5 hours) loss of Uran-9 control. The low reliability of the running gear elements – supporting and guiding rollers, suspension springs is revealed. The chassis of the Uran-9 cannot be used in ground close-combat roles for a long time and requires field repair. During a study of reconnaissance capabilities, it was revealed that the electro-optic stations allow reconnaissance and identification of targets at a range of no more than 2 km. The OCH-4 optical station does not allow detecting optical observation and targeting devices of the enemy and gives out multiple interferences on the ground and in the airspace in the surveillance sector. There were also cases of unstable operation of the 30mm 2A72 automatic cannon – 6 delays and failure. The UGV provides fire only from the site, which significantly reduces its combat capabilities (armament, sighting and reconnaissance devices are not stabilized). As a result, it was concluded that the modern Russian combat UGVs are not able to perform the assigned tasks in the classical types of combat operations.

The drivetrain problems are a good argument for using a 113 chassis. The wireless connection being shit is no surprise. Whoever decided to not put a stabilizer on it, even on the cameras, should be fired.

I hop https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/107029/d36ef1f7-bb3e-43a1-8934-9c79a8303e7b/image.png I hope everyone realizes just how fucking tall the M113 is as standard and how that turreted version would be like a double-decker M113. Yikes. I also enjoy the fact that it's covered in multicam. Because of course it is.

Whats this from?

The previous page.

It does look like it's a lowered hull, like 2/3rds the height.

I think the chamfered corners just give that impression. It's just a crappy model at the moment so it's all conjecture. But surely in 2018 they can make an autonomous turret that isn't the size of a small house.

The front-slope is significantly more acute than the standard 113 too. I'm mostly shocked that it looks like a step back from the babby-abrams. http://i64.fastpic.ru/big/2014/0511/cb/1fe4a463746760ddb8274269a0eb9fcb.jpg Though as I said, I'm sure it's just a tech demonstrator built on the 113 platform to make sure that the mechanical parts are reliable.

are those rubber tracks?

Looks like it, yep.

onr huge question I guess is how will these work in a jammed environment and how affective are they against anti tank weapons? these drone tanks seem like a great idea in permissive environments like Syria but the airwaves are now part of the battleground and very little of the spectrum is left unguarded or unjammed

Looks like a Wiesel's big brother.

i wonder how weak those could be agaisnt, let say, a drone with a c4 charge.

I think that's the idea. They're not supposed to be in a symmetrical war, they're designs based off the current trend of insurgent warfare being the norm. Not everything has to be useful in a WW3 scenario, arsenals can be sectioned off to what they're used for and that's a good thing. Think about how useful a MBT or ASF is against insurgents.

Pretty sure literally everything would be weak to that. Now, what you have to do is actually make a drone with a C4 charge, and make it work.

Drones will most definitely be useful in a WW3 scenario. The core advantage of autonomous/semi-autonomous weapons is that they work fine at low-quality/high-quantity configurations. With people being expensive these days, you can't have disposable cannon fodder infantry. Everyone has to be pretty highly trained, very well-equipped, and well-supported. Our tanks are twenty-bajillion-dollar indestructible death machines, our fighter jets are hundred-bajillion-dollar invisible superplanes, and even our dumb little rear-line cargo movers are getting up-armored because even a single loss is bad for budget, soldier morale, and civilian morale. Even China can't throw troops away like they used to. Drones, though? Go ahead, make a cheap, shitty drone. Crank 'em out by the thousands. Doesn't matter if it'll never take down an Abrams or an F-22 in a fair 1v1 fight if you're sending more drones at one of them than they have ammo to shoot back with, for the same or less total cost. If WW3 lasts more than a week, I'm pretty sure that's what it's going to turn into.

There's a distinction though. Electronic warfare is only getting more and more important. Drones can be jammed, and will be because of their immense importance to future wars. If you can't control your drones anymore, they are useless. At that point the only solution is to give them on board decision making abilities and that's potentially a very dark path. The idea of signal jammed drone tank sitting in the middle of an urban street autonomously firing at fleeing civilians because of it's default behaviour is kinda scary.

I'd imagine pairing unmanned UGVs with something like a main battle tank or IFV would become feasible in the future, the US is doing the same thing with pairing UCAVs with fighter aircraft However, even with LOS communication systems you'd still have a problem in cities or heavily forested areas