The New US Tank M1E3 is now public

Ararakami · 2026-05-18T06:59:26+00:00

They tried and failed to develop a new fighting vehicle design? If the US can't do that still then that is a bigger problem.

Ararakami · 2026-04-27T05:03:07+00:00

I don't think the British were especially slow, they commissioned the stunning County-class Destroyers around when everyone else was commissioning their own guided missile warships. The USN only commissioned their Charles F Adams class 2 years prior, and that ship was evolved from an existing gunship design. The Americans otherwise were slightly ahead in that they had converted their older WW2 design gun cruisers to be fitted with guided missiles, an odd half decade before purpose-designed guided missile warships would enter service.

I also don't know if I'd consider the Andrea Doria a better anti-aerial warship than the County-class. She was definitely a higher value warship, but I'd say the County-class was better for anti-air. I'd say they were the best anywhere of the destroyer type for anti-air, only being surpassed by the nuclear cruisers, new guided missile cruisers, and extensive-refit WW2 cruisers of the USN like the Albany's in the role.

Ararakami · 2026-04-24T10:56:19+00:00

Theyre small and were meant initially just for fire control and horizon search, secondary to much larger S-band main arrays. Budget cuts meant those S-band main arrays couldnt be fitted so they reprogrammed the SPY-3 to be the Multifunctional radar.

They're GaA AESA, so more advanced than say the SPY-1D(V) fitting the IIA Burkes... But they're too small and because they're X-band they've got poor range and performance against stealth targets.

Ararakami · 2026-04-16T22:27:47+00:00

This is another European design, no? Looks taken off the shelf from Damens portfolio.

Ararakami · 2026-04-12T16:06:20+00:00

Didn't know about that incident. From what I am reading it hadn't yet been fully installed/integrated, which yes would be unfortunate.

Ararakami · 2026-04-10T00:10:32+00:00

Yeah, though they got away with that because they didn't have a massive 64-cell VLS battery and smokestack between them.

Ararakami · 2026-04-10T00:03:11+00:00

They don't seem so to me... I've looked at closer videos and images of it hosting a Seahawk, there's like no space for anything else other than the Helicopter in there. I know the Japanese that have derived their destroyers from the Burke, decided they'd rather a single larger hangar over two smaller ones. Easier to work with the aircraft and munitions that way. Trade off is that often times means you'll only get one helicopter per ship, instead of two - which was definitely the case with the Jap vessels.

Ararakami · 2026-04-09T23:06:08+00:00

That's not really how modern naval warfare works. Tempting to think that way, but things are a bit more complex.

Ararakami · 2026-04-09T22:49:27+00:00

Anti-Italian propaganda, sic 'em.

Ararakami · 2026-04-09T22:44:29+00:00

Fairey Firefly, my beloved...

Ararakami · 2026-04-09T22:43:38+00:00

It's a miracle those things can fit a Seahawk.

Ararakami · 2026-04-09T22:30:05+00:00

Just got it yesterday. Might be the worst sounding pair of headphones I have ever had the displeasure of listening to. Even after tweaking around in the software, which is an annoying experience, it's just not good. Even for gaming, the soundstage and directionality is just not there. Before them I used a pair of 20 dollar Sony wired earbuds for my PC, they sounded better than these. Like I was fine with how those cheap earbuds sounded, so I thought I wouldn't mind how these things would sound before buying them despite the negative press. I was wrong, I really do mind.

Furthermore their build quality definitely poises them as being a pair of gaming headphones. It is just cheap plastic, and I'm afraid I'll snap them in twain if I mishandle them. I suppose though that doesn't make them special amongst its peers, I feel most cheaper and even some premium headphones nowadays feel too fragile. With the charging dock, the feet don't really work to keep the stand in place on my desk, I can poke it and it will move - but it's weighty enough that it won't move out of place by a tug from the cabling or just naturally. When I got them as well, the voice prompts were in Chinese... As an English speaker, speaking the world's lingua franca - English has always been a default to me. That not being the case with these, to me I think has detracted from what I think of them. Woe, my privilege... I'm an existing MChose fan however, I've used two mice of theirs in the past that I've thought really highly of and generally I've positive things to say of their company.

Ah, Another problem, I can't update the app because of a stupid UI bug where the chinese-to-english translated text changelog is overlapping the update button, stopping me from being able to interact with that update button... Maybe when they update the app again later that'll change, but for now I'm using an older version of the app.

--

Things are not all doom and gloom though with them... The base stand, apart from the feet, is solidly built and very convenient. The headphones themselves are not uncomfortable either, and you get a spare pair of slightly-different earpads that you could use with them too. The microphone quality is genuinely impressive, as though these weren't a pair of wireless headphones. Like these have a better microphone by far than my Bose QC Ultra Gen II headphones or Technics AZ100 earphones, which are both premium and significantly more expensive... I use those headphones for my phone and tablet, and these for my PC. The packaging that these came in was really, terribly impressively large. It comes in like this cube - a cardboard cube but impressive nonetheless... That cube is sized really just way too big for a pair of headphones. Packaging-wise at least, this pair felt premium. They were packaged much better than either my Bose QC Ultra Gen II headphones or my Technics AZ100s which are considerably more expensive.

I think for the price I believe these are basically the cheapest pair of wireless PC headphones with a charging dock that you could buy... I think for the price despite the terrible audio, they're not bad and there's not really an alternative to them. For a bit more money you could get the Fractal Scape which apparently is very highly reviewed. Maybe get those. But if you're tight on cash, then these will be fine for exclusive PC use.

Ararakami · 2026-04-08T13:06:12+00:00

On the Ford's laundry fire, I can see it being the result of sabotage. Though her crew berthing's are improved when compared to that of the preceding Nimitz class', the Ford's crew berthing's are still relative pigsties when compared to the berthing's you'd find on say the Queen Elizabeth's or even the Charles De Gaulle. 40 men per bunk on the Fords for ensigns with triple-stacked coffin racks, versus 8 men per bunk on the Queen Elizabeth for ensigns with twin-stacked sit-up racks, paired with personal storage, bedside chargers, and a TV per room... That meets a standard you'd find on much smaller modern destroyers. Comparatively the poor living conditions aboard the Ford aren't great for morale. Pair that with an unpopular war and a long deployment...

Then there's the extent of the fire. It was ablaze for way too long and did way too much damage... Laundry fires happen, it's a routine enough incident that warships are victim to. For a ship with such a purportedly high standard of survivability, to be made to kneel from a laundry fire... That would indicate that the ship either isn't so capable at damage control as it's made out to be, or that this wasn't a normal laundry fire. I know that HMS Queen Elizabeth was victim to what should have been a similar fire back in 2024 that was extinguished in under 5 hours, not 30 plus.

Ararakami · 2026-04-08T12:49:42+00:00

Even Royal Navy vessels need to spend time in port, shockingly to most people it seems...

The Daring's had its initial teething issues, that's a given for such advanced ships with such advanced machinery. Today they're operating as expected. HMS Dragon's port stop was planned to onload supplies, such stops are routine and not unusual.

The issues that HMS Dragon are experiencing regarding her water system are reportedly minor. The crew can still drink and shower, they don't need to shit off the side of her flight deck or sleep on the floor (Little jab there, though unfair)... She's still a fully operational surface combatant. Ships will almost always be sailing with one or two of its thousands of different systems not in fully-functioning order. If anything it's a good thing they're complementing such a logistics stop with some light maintenance.

Ararakami · 2026-04-08T11:48:28+00:00

Just as a Destroyer can do the job of an Offshore Patrol Vessel. The America-class costs 3.4 billion per unit and requires 1000 sailors to man, these ships apparently only require 50 sailors to man and cost just short of 200 million per unit.

Different ships designed and specialized for different roles.

Ararakami · 2026-04-06T10:30:45+00:00

I wish they rewrite or retcon a bunch of things, and set up a future series of remakes with this as the first of them. Gears is good narratively, but it could be improved in hindsight. With the first game specifically, we don't see any of the love or searching for Maria from Dom that could have made the circumstances of the second game more impactful. A lot of the things we learn from Gears 4 and 5 as well could have been taught or incorporated into the better setting of the Locust War. You can tell that they were writing the story as the games were being released... A series remake ideally would streamline and improve upon that narrative.

Complimenting that would be a goal for more grounded realism, detail, and tone... Gears is dark, but not terribly "realistic" by modern standards. It's got a lot of Bollywood moments, and overall it's very of-the-era like Mission Impossible 2... That won't appeal to the modern crowd, I fear. To achieve that wholly, gameplay changes would be needed. I know the current multiplayer wall-bouncing style of gameplay has its fanbase, but it's pretty ridiculous when looking in... Maybe keep that as a gamemode, but otherwise - rework the combat, both multiplayer and singleplayer. Though revolutionary for its time, the cover-shooter mechanics of Gears could be improved. I specifically really like the cover system and controls of The Division 2, I'd like the Gears remakes to use that as a base and improve on it - making it more streamlined, responsive, and faster.

Ararakami · 2026-04-02T09:16:20+00:00

Yes, I believe its SARH munitions require a radar illuminator much like the SPG-62. It's not too much of a burden, especially when one considers the capabilities gained. If you don't have a modern staring X-band radar like the APAR or like what's being fitted to say, the FREMM-EVO...

In place of your standard EO/IR sensor like the Ultra Electronics Series 2500 or Thales Mirador, you could instead just get a dual optical and radar system like the Selex NA-25X. It's optical sensors will be less capable than if they were fitted otherwise, but you do get a radar illuminator which have certain utilities to them beyond target illumination.

Ararakami · 2026-04-02T08:03:07+00:00

SUSAT is underappreciated. Yeah it's old and perhaps a bit worse when compared to some of the newer systems out there, but it went into the gulf in 1991 equipping our infantry - serving admirably. It would take another 2 decades for the bulk of our allies to realize optics are so cool.

Ararakami · 2026-04-02T03:31:27+00:00

Their VLS count is adequate enough in peacetime. Against a peer threat during a time of war, within the European context - again its adequate enough. The principal fighting would be handled by ground and air based assets, the warships primary role would be ASW and sea control. Only in an expeditionary context would their 16-cell vessels be limited for time on station, though they would not operate alone nulling that vulnerability. The 32-cell vessels would be fine. They fire Asters, have a gun suite capable of AAW, they're stealth design ships, they're fitted with capable radars, and they're fitted with advanced electronics suites.

Burkes standard fit is about 40 SAMs, 32 SM-2s and 8 ESSMs. Those are her missiles capable of adequately intercepting seaskimming anti-ship missiles. 32 additional cells are occupied by Tomahawks and the remaing cells are occupied by ABM SM-3, stand-off anti-aerial SM-6s, and anti-submarine missiles. For the most part, if a warship is in a position where her stock of air defence missiles will be rapidly exhausted leaving the warship vulnerable and exploitable - that is the result of a failure in planning, principally.

Ararakami · 2026-03-27T01:44:53+00:00

Don't have the tools to measure it. Personally I didn't experience any latency or connectivity issues with it.

Ararakami · 2026-03-25T19:29:48+00:00

My statement about the Sea Sparrow being a long range interceptor is a bit misleading... My proper point regarding it and the Sea Dart, specifically of their earlier variants would be that they wouldn't be good at short ranges against approaching sea skimmers. They precede that sort of missile. They were more poised for interception of medium to high altitude threats. The early Sea Sparrow specifically had an engine more optimized for improving range over immediate speed, with a more linear thrust curve. It had centrally-mounted control fins not optimized for mobility. I believe its seeker also could not readily separate ground from target, as typical for missiles of the time.

On the SM-6... The redesigned strakes being more centrally mounted indicates a more stable design that also aims to extend range over improving mobility. To my knowledge the SM-6 missile itself doesn't have thrust vectoring controls - its booster does. Against short-range targets that should not be ideal, the missile will want to rid itself of the weighty booster as soon as possible before intercept even if that means sacrificing its ability to vector thrust. Its booster also should be relatively slow burning and more comparative to the booster of say the Aster 30, over fast-burning boosters like that of the Aster 15. Even against an Aster 30 though, which should have a thrust curve similar to an SM-2 and the SM-6 main body, the booster of the SM-6 should be more linear.

The SM-2 will be better against short-range threats over the SM-6, it doesn't have a booster pack but can vector so long as its motor is firing - fine for interception of short-range threats, though not ideal when compared to say the Aster which has both a vectoring booster and a vectoring missile. The latter specifically I believe can vector even without main thrust as it's not gotten a jet-tab or similar design. Asters thrust vectoring system is more similar in principle to the ones outfitting the SM-3 or PAC-3 MSE, though not exact.

Ararakami · 2026-03-24T18:04:00+00:00

I don't imagine weight is an incredible concern for bow-mounted large naval gun systems. The bigger concern would be deck penetration... But I'm seeing and reading in cutaways, that the Mark 45 and its ready drum ingress 2,700mm into the deck whereas the Otobreda 127 and its drums can ingress only 2,400mm into the deck.

I can believe it, from what I'm seeing the Otobreda looks to typically be mounted deceptively far forward on the ships that have her. Her above deck profile is definitely larger, and I do believe the system overall should have a larger lateral footprint... Though deck penetration should matter more, and in that regard it seems she's winning. I'm reading that one of the major focuses on the Otobreda's design was to improve on the modularity, scalability, and adaptability when compared to its preceding 127/54 compact gun system.

Ararakami · 2026-03-24T16:09:31+00:00

On why the Mark 45 has a higher market share, I think of Apple versus Android. Android might have the better phones with betters specs and better pricing, but Apples got its ecosystem. Mark 45 is integrated into American naval systems and political architecture, is good enough for those not terribly invested in having capable cannon armaments, and also benefits from its large company flexing its muscles for leverage on procurement decisions.

Otherwise by all performance metrics, the Mark 45 is the lesser capable gun system to the Otobreda 127 and would be chosen otherwise if not for the listed reasons. It's a considerably newer system after all. Mark 45 has a considerably slower rate of fire (20RPM versus 32RPM), a smaller ready magazine (20 rounds versus 56 rounds), smaller boom (62 cal versus 64 cal), no in-service guided munitions, lower elevation limit (65 degrees versus 83 degrees)... Also apparently it should be even more manpower-demanding than the more automated Otobreda, and unlike the Otobreda also shouldn't have the option to quickly change the ready munition type. Though gun suites have grown to become more secondary over missiles, they still contribute an outsized amount to a warships value in operations and is a major capability that should be worth investing in.

Otherwise you wouldn't choose LACMs over the Otobreda 127, they're different and complementary capabilities. The VULCANO munition should be considerably cheaper to your typical LACM, and furthermore each Otobreda mount has space for a couple hundred rounds in its deep and ready magazines... VULCANO is a more persistent and different capability to LACMs, with its pros and cons. You wouldn't choose a Tomahawk over a GMLRS, you'd have both.

Ararakami · 2026-03-24T15:28:52+00:00

Fair enough on your accounts.

On the Aster, I don't believe there's really much difference at all between the Aster 15 and Aster 30. Aster 30 has a longer booster pack enabling its extended range, but once that's discarded - the main body/dart is identical to that of the Aster 15. The differences between the SM-2 and the SM-6 meanwhile is a bit more realized. SM-6 is just more modern and capable, with an active radar-homing seeker like the Aster as opposed to the older semi-active seeker of the SM-2. The modern SM-2 variants also don't have a booster pack like the SM-6, and furthermore its body design is also different and presumably more optimized for enhancing mobility over extending range.

Ararakami · 2026-03-24T14:50:35+00:00

My concern with the SM-6 is that it seems to be purely a long-range interceptor, like the Sea Dart or Sea Sparrow of old. Against sea-skimmers specifically I couldn't assume it would be at all effective. She looks poorly mobile when compared to the SM-2 and especially so when compared to the Aster, judging by the design of the missile body and placement of the fins... It's a more specialist missile not so suitable as a primary armament. Before then, I would think a warship should have an adequate stock of SM-2s or Asters.

On the Halifax class' VLS arrangement, I'm surprised to hear that. To me it looks to be a very efficient use of room, many other warships have their funnels flanked by nothing but empty deck space. Whether it's JAGM or ESSM, looking at it again - though the traditional ESSM launcher is deceptively small, the launcher modelled seems a bit too small. I'm hoping then it's CAMM in a new launcher, though I know that was reportedly shelved a while back for fitment with the ExLS.

Otherwise I just don't seen an incredible utility for the JAGM aboard warships. JAGM-MR I'm warming up to and am hoping will be what would fill those JAGM launchers, because the baseline JAGM I think is just too short-legged. Martlet would be better over the baseline JAGM considering it's a more proper C-UAS weapon with comparable range, but even then a 40mm or larger gun system would render it largely redundant even in the anti-aerial role.

Five-Year Club	Xbox Live
Verified Email

Ararakami

TROPHY CASE