Where?
Ken
This is on the T-72 variant:
2 Likes
Pineapple-ed Upside-Down Cake!
1 Like
Sh*t on a Shingle!
Video with close-ups of Russian equipment being repaired:
2 Likes
probably functions better than a T-72! 
Cheers!
L
1 Like
Hereās a little something. It is related to modeling in Ukraine, and itās humorous to boot!
I recently got a package from Plastic Models Store, a hobby company in Ukraine. Included in the package was this little flyer.
Ken
13 Likes
The 1st sighting of a MO-120-RT 120mm rifled mortar in Ukrainian service
H.P.
4 Likes
Since it was designed as a point defence anti-air system, it isnāt suprising that it has proved effective.
What was it replaced with?
1 Like
I would imagine missile systems, it always seems the case that someone in a position of more influence manages to bend the ear of a person in charge and changes are made. I was always taught that the best defence is a layered defence using everything available dependent on range. In my mind sometimes the best option is the least technological and cheapest. Didnāt the USAF go through something similar in that they built aircraft with no cannon, then realised their mistake and added them? Navies at least donāt seem to have gone this route as I think most large ships have multiple Phalanx/Goalkeeper CIWS systems for that last ditch defence.
1 Like
Wikipedia : In Germany, the Gepard was phased out in late 2010 and replaced by the Wiesel 2 Ozelot Leichtes Flugabwehrsystem (LeFlaSys) with four FIM-92 Stinger or LFK NG missile launchers.
H.P.
1 Like
Yes, the F-4 program when missiles would save the day and no need for guns. 
As for ships, I think I read they have used .50 cals for close surface defense as the CIWS cannot depress/detect the smaller craft. I am sure there will be something else to deal with drone aircraft/subs.
CIWS like Goalkeeper were swiftly adopted by the RN after the Falklands War when the realisation dawned that there wasnāt a weapon that could deal with sea skimming missiles (like Exocet).
The best way to bring one down wasnāt necessarily to be accurate, it was to fill the general area of the missileās expected flight path with as much lead as you could.
It was never intended (I donāt think) to counter enemy aircraft. Before missile systems were prevelent aboard ships, this role was taken on by quick firing turreted guns and as many GPMGs of all calibres as you can mount and man.
Not sure if Goalkeeper was a development of Phalanx, a copy of it or a completely seperate system, but the USN may have a different philosophy for using their CIWS in the anti-aircraft role.
1 Like
Parallell developments, different calibre of the guns, 30 vs 20 mm.
Same general idea though: fill the sky with lead
Completely different beasts, Goalkeeper was a Dutch system using the 30mm GAU-8/A āAvengerā Gatling out of the A-10 Thunderbolt ground-attack aircraft. The RN had a few for high value assets but opted to standardise on the Phalanx system instead, probably didnāt want to pay for the upgradesā¦
During the Falklands War the RN had three ships with Sea Wolf which was supposed to have capability against low-level targets but the system was new and there were some bugs in the system, however there were several successful engagements. Sea Dart at that time was ineffective against low-level targets but later developed some capability. In 1991 HMS Gloucester shot down at least one of two āSilkwormā anti-ship missiles targeting USS Missouri.
Regards,
M
I know Sea Dart did successfully engage some Argentinian aircraft, but it had zero success against Exocets.
All five air launced Exocets that Argentina possessed at the time hit their targets (intentional targets or otherwise) with only one ship, HMS Avenger claiming its deck gun had shot one down. A ground launched Exocet hit Glamorgan causing severe damage.
The CIWS isnāt (I believe) designed to intercept attacking aircraft, its primarily an anti-missile system.
Yes! And the little candies were quite the surprise as well.
I particularly liked number 4ā¦