That would be the Gun Assisted Launch method I briefly mentioned. Had to look up SABRE. The question is how much is the gun helping in velocity? If it is pushing it past mach 5 after launch you are better off with just a booster. The air breathing part of the engine is meant to cut off at a certain point as it becomes too inefficient to be useful. If your gun can't get it up high enough fast enough it would be useful. How far out do they intend to put that gadget? It is one thing if it hits LEO it is another if it is meant to be able to push out further.
Who watches the watchmen?edited 13th Jan '15 3:34:34 AM by MattII
What about the moons or natural satellites in the system? Especially ones without breathable atmospheres Have the enemy have it buried in the rock with the energy source near the bottom for protection and it's relatively hidden. Projectile travels through the void, no air resistance, enemy is right there, can get off a few surprise shots due to not expecting it.
New Survey coming this weekend!So I have been playing MGS 3 and I have been wondering. What advantages are there to the Shagohod.
rollin' on dubs
Not much really. It was more of a cool image. An airplane launched ICBM, that would've been better. But it did fit in the series however.
Most ground mobile ICBM, TBM and cruise missiles use camo over speed. Rail systems hide among the other trains, road mobile, Exactly What It Says on the Tin. Subs use the water.
Metal Gear had mecha, so again, it fits in the series.
edited 11th Jan '15 6:40:36 PM by TairaMai
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....What about use as a heavy tank? It's armor was thick enough to withstand RP Gs and it was fast enough to catch up to high speed vehicles.
rollin' on dubs
^^ It also fell out of use because the nature of warfare in late World War II and then into the Cold War became far too fluid, far too fast. Heavy tanks were often too slow, too cumbersome. It's why the Soviets and later the West went to the Main Battle Tank concept. All the firepower of a heavy tank, but in a much more mobile medium tank sized package.
Actually, MB Ts are as big if not bigger than most heavy tanks were back in the 50s. It would be more fair to say that most nations discovered independently that Medium tanks were the way to go, but that over the years, the median size has increased.
edited 12th Jan '15 11:04:02 AM by MattII
^ But it would open up several others that lighter tanks and vehicles don't have. Chiefly it'd be much easier to outflank, outmaneuver and draw into a tight space it cannot fight in.
That was one of the problems in places like Stalingrad. The heavy tanks on both sides couldn't fit or work in many areas despite some things like the KV-1 at the time being all but impenetrable to enemy fire.
Pretty much all vehicles in an urban setting will have issues with being vulnerable to a variety of attacks in many situations. Mostly because urban environments offer a lot of cover and concealment to approach the target from a vulnerable side and attack it. Lots of places to hide and launch ambushes from. Even rubble provides cover and concealment. In many urban areas it is easier to get above vehicles and attack from above or from low angle windows like basement windows.
The Abrams and Challenger 2 are both rather hefty with the A2 and Chally weighing nearly 70 tons roughly what the Production Tiger II ended up weighing. The Abrams SEP is 70 tons and it is already considered too heavy. Modern MBT's are pretty hefty with a few exceptions.
As for weight Tom pretty much has it. The Abrams is too heavy and there are plans to lighten up the vehicle. The idea is to bring it back to 60 tons or lighter preferably while maintaining protection levels if possible. For example they want to replace the copper wiring with fiber optics. That alone shaves off a few tons.
The problem with the larger vehicles is they have issues with suspension, surfaces that can bear them, trouble finding bridges that can take their weight, maintenance issues, and as taira pointed out eat a lot of fuel.
An 80ton troop carrier doesn't make much sense at all. Which is why one of the early prototype GCV designs hit 80 tons they were told fuck no and told to go lighter.
Who watches the watchmen?Spider tanks have issues with tons of moving parts, none of which will be as armored or durable as simpler mecha or treads.
A guy with a .50 cal (or 14.5mm) AMAT rifle can pop the joints on a spider vehicle just as easily as he can pop the links on a set of treads. That link is much more easily fixed in the field than a joint.
Which brings in a different point. Mecha as a usable platform in urban endeavors would be only marginally more effective than Humvees. A bipedal mecha equipped for full 3D mobility would be more effective than a strictly land-bound Spider Tank. But in strict survivability terms a 60 ton MBT beats out both the Spider Tank and the mobile biped.
Spider Tanks are kind of interesting. It depends really. The Tachicoma ran on wheels for speed but could walk. What was more interesting was the legs could move the wheels in such a way to adjust things like height and how the vehicles weight was spread out. They would still share a lot of the vulnerabilities of other armored vehicles for a lot of the same reasons. I also recall them all being vulnerable to common heavy weapons fire but could repel the majority of small arms fire. They were basically mini one crew IF Vs.
As tom noted unlike treads or wheels, articulated joints on any form of leg are quite a bit more complex then wheels or tracks. You get one of your limbs knocked silly especially at a joint it is likely going to need more then a field repair.
The Tachicoma also operate with a few handwaves like an exotic material that makes them light, a reasonably sophisticated AI to control the tank that is capable of intelligent independent action, and the likely impossible "web launchers". As a fictional vehicle they are pretty great.
Who watches the watchmen?

What about a mass-driver launched SABRE powered missile?