The new follow-on to the Kongo class for the Japanese is said to displace 10,000 tons full load, and the new DDHs (Helicopter carriers) they are building and classifying for political puposes as a Destroyer will displace 13,000 tons light and 20,000 tons in full combat load. But I believe those new AEGIS vessels they are building will likely be the largest, heaviest true destroyers. Heavier than the Tico AEGIS cruisers.Burke Class
8315 tons full load (Flight I)
8400 tons full load (Flight II)
9200 tons full load (Flight IIA)
Japan's Kongo Class (Burke Variant)
9485 tons full load
7940 tons full load
7900 tons full load
Well it obviously depends on the aircraft? This can only be answered on a case to case basis. (I don't know the specs for the F-16) But regardless of type, more fuel will be consumed at takeoff than cruise at a high altitude.Two simple questions:
1. How much fuel does it take an aircraft to take off (let's say an F-16)?
2. How much fuel does an aircraft consume in its normal cruise per 1000km (let's say an F-16)?
Generally you cannot be conscripted by a country unless you are one of its citizens... I'm pretty sure that's the same for Malaysia as well.I was wondering since i am still a British Citizen but i moved to Malaysia with my dad, so basically i was wondering if i can still be conscripted if it may ever occur in the near future, i am not sure how it varies from country to country though.
May i also add that i love the GBP? Its silly how cheap things are in this country.
and2. I also heard German engineering is really good, so basically do they have the best tanks?
While it lacks ceramic or heavy metal armors (it has ceramo-resin fillers in the spaced gaps) and DU penetrators the leo2A6 is certainly among the top 3. The new aplique titanium/tungsten/steel weave armor is very effective in tests and longer L/55 gun's DM53 and DM63 APFSDS certainly makes up for any lack of a DU round. It has a similar speed to the Abrams and superior fuel consumption rates.Quick question, i always thought due to fantastic German engineering and a few opinions from people German tanks were the best in the world, but having seen all these opinions on the American one, the abrams i am not really sure the name of it, is it better then leopard tanks? and which one would win in a battle?
As a former US Army tanker I disagree with his predictions. Recent armored developments in both passive and active protection indicate that MBT's are here to stay. People have been far to quick to jump to the recent conflcit in Lebanon to sound the deaht knell of the tank. They made the same claims in 1973. What the two situations do have in common is Israeli arogance and overconfidence resulting in tanks being pushed forward without proper support. A far better lesson is Iraq where after almost 4 year sof war only a handfull of Abrams have been lost and few tank crewmen killed. The increasing losses US forces are suffering among thier lighter armored viehicles also point to the need for more protection.Dear rhino:
Here goes - I'll make a quick stab at it.
The traditional design criterion for a good tank is a careful balance of 3 basic qualities, firepower, protection and mobility. Sacrificing one quality over another tends to result in an imbalanced vehicle.
In a light tank or infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), for instance, mobility and an intermediate amount of firepower are emphasized over protection.
The result is a relatively lightweight (and thus, easily transportable), fast, quite heavily armed but lightly-armoured vehicle, unlikely to survive a hit by a heavier tank's main gun (or it's own gun for that matter) or even a large caliber automatic cannon firing Armour-Piercing ammunition.
Vehicles that were designed from the ground up to maximize all three criteria are termed main battle tanks (MBT's). Naturally the consequence of maximizing all three characteristics tends to result in a very heavy and very expensive tank.
If I had to choose the distinguishing characteristic of such AFV's (armoured fighting vehicles), it would be the heaviest, most powerful gun, mated to the heaviest armour that can be mounted. In most MBT's there is a sacrifice of mobility for these two qualities.
Historically, both weight and gun size of the MBT have been going up. Immediately after the Second world war, a tank like the T-54/55 with a 100 mm main gun, weighing about 36 tons would be considered an MBT. But nowadays that is just too light to do the job.
The Russian T-90 and the Chinese T-96 (both about 40 to 50 tons with 125 mm main gun) are about the lightest modern MBT's around. Later model Russian and Chinese tanks as well as their Western counterparts are much, much heavier up to about 60 to 70 tons, with guns ranging from 105 mm to 120 mm.
Sadly though, like the battleship, MBTs are diminishing in importance. Today everything is being downsized - including tanks. Greater mobility combined with heavy firepower is being emphasized over protection.
That is also because, (as the recent Lebanese War demonstrated) even modern heavily armoured tanks (like Israel's Merkava 1V) are vunerable to relatively lightweight anti-tank missiles.
Like the armoured knights of old, armies will give up heavy armour if it is consistently demonstrated that it cannot offer protection commensurate with the difficulty of carrying it around.
The ultimate expression of this concept is fact the flying tank, which has almost no armour to speak of, is vunerable even to small arms fire, but survives by mobility alone, and yet combines with that mobility tremendous firepower -the helicopter.
It will take another revolution in armour developement to change the present imbalance between firepower and protection.
Nope..Noise is the main factor for finding subs. The noise dampening equipment used is a good way to find subs. Particulary Russian designed subs.Would it be possible to detect an SSN from the heat of its nuclear reactor? Doesn't the sub have to take in and release water from the surrouding ocean to keep the reactor cool?
In the US any legal resident could be drafted(conscripted) whether a citizen or not if there was military conscriptipn.Generally you cannot be conscripted by a country unless you are one of its citizens... I'm pretty sure that's the same for Malaysia as well.
Well yea...neither do I. That's the problem. I assume that they use seawater and return it to the sea which is why I think that you could use an infrared type device to find the trail of warmer water a sub would leave if that is indeed how reactors are cooled.I have no idea how reactors are cooled.
Man, that just sucks! I can't imagine having an army where the people aren't from my land, can barely speak my tongue. It's just distasteful! An army made of people not of my land. It's as if they'll defect, double cross, and am using foreigners.....In the US any legal resident could be drafted(conscripted) whether a citizen or not if there was military conscriptipn.