I want to dedicate this short thread to M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round(EPR) 5.56.
EPR is probably the best general-purpose 5.56 rifle round in existence right now, with performance equalling or EXCEEDING 7.62x51mm M80 ball.🧵
M855 (SS109) has legendarily inconsistent performance at range. Most of its performance comes from yaw instability, which primarily occurs at short range.
Without yaw, it can pass harmlessly through a target, which was a significant issue encountered in Afghanistan.
This yaw also has a negative impact on accuracy.
Partially in response to these issues in Iraq and especially Afghanistan, the U.S. Army developed M855A1 EPR(the other impetus was providing a low-lead projectile to reduce environmental impacts).
The EPR projectile layout may be one of the greatest developments in modern small arms technology.
While my expertise is not in small arms technology, the improvements are well-documented.
The first order of business was to decouple performance at range from yaw. Though it still yaws, it yaws far less and is not impacted by a lack of yaw during flight.
Additionally, due to the construction of the projectile (drawn copper jacket around the back rather than over the front), accuracy is far higher than M855.
Terminal effects and barrier penetration, though, are the greatest strengths of EPR. They wanted the projectile to stop as early in a soft target as possible, but not to stop in a hard target.
The results are incredible. The consistency is far, far higher than M855, and barrier penetration at range is at least doubled.
M855A1 has superior barrier penetration to 7.62x51mm M80 Ball. Let that sink in for a minute.
And don't get me started on M80A1 EPR...
However, it's not JUST barrier penetration that is better than M80. EPR's soft target performance is ALSO better than that of M80.
I won't go into details because I know not all who follow me are interested in small arms (and details can be grisly), but the bottom line is that EPR stops quickly and consistently in soft targets better than almost any 5.56 to date (ideal) WITHOUT being stopped by hard targets.
The feedback from soldiers was overwhelmingly positive. The delta between 855 and 855A1 is night and day.
What is so critical is that the EPR design has been able to properly harness the effectiveness of 5.56 (and it scales to other calibers well), and can provide, for the first time, a true all-purpose small-caliber round.
Until this point, most rifle caliber projectiles have required trade-offs to achieve performance, but not the M855A1 EPR. It is a class leader in all respects.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Top speed and fighter aircraft: why lower top speed can be a benefit for an air superiority fighter.🧵
This discussion requires some background information and a discussion of intended roles as they changed over time. The first place to begin is with the F-86 Sabre.
The F-86 Sabre was conceived from the start as an air superiority fighter, coming straight from the emphasis on dogfighting that had dominated fighter design since the First World War. Speed, rate of climb, roll rate, and turn performance were paramount in its design.
The RIM-8J was the last of the Talos missiles, and by far the best. With a range of up to 130nmi and a 465 pound warhead, the last model of Unified Talos could claim to be amongst the most lethal surface-to-air missiles of the Cold War, thanks in part to its Fire control System🧵
This thread will skip over the development side and skip straight to the juicy technical bits of the last Talos variant and shipborne radars. For a highly recommended overview including other variants, check out @VLS_Appreciator 's thread on the topic.
This is the same fallacy that many fall into: the cheaper unit that can be produced in greater quantity is better than the expensive unit.
In saving cost, you sacrifice on capability. At some point, the lost capability makes the unit so ineffective that the cost is irrelevant. 🧵
Here's an example: an AIM-9M in 1986 was ~179,000 in 2024 dollars. Using numbers from the same source, the AIM-9B in 1964 was ~30,000 in 2024 dollars.
The AIM-9B in Vietnam had a probability of kill (Pk) of ~15%. In the Gulf War, the AIM-9M had a Pk of ~55%!
Keep in mind this was not against the same targets.
Flares were extremely common in the Gulf war, and shots were taken from the front, side, and rear against maneuvering targets.
The advanced technology in the AIM-9M could handle these countermeasures with ease.
Here's some semi-informed thoughts that I'd like to use to start a discussion more than "be right".
This indicates to me that AIM-260 JATM is going to not be focused solely on long range, and that there is a serious threat posed by a Chinese air-breathing weapon. Short 🧵
One of the major improvements that AMRAAM provided over Sparrow was an increase in F-pole range. This refers to the distance between the launching aircraft and the target when the missile impacts. This is increased by higher missile speed.
Higher F-pole=safer launching aircraft.
AIM-174 is a fantastic missile with great range, but the weight and cost likely make it non-viable as a fighter-to-fighter weapon for air superiority.
Its performance and weight lends itself better to bomber/strike aircraft/AEW&C/cruise missile interception, much like Phoenix.
I'm sure by now most of you have seen this... contraption. And I know for a fact that there's been a lot of speculation as to what it was. Well, I've got answers. Mini🧵
Right off the bat, the term "MRASM BKEP" needs to be deciphered a bit.
MRASM, or AGM-109, was a version of Tomahawk designed for launch by aircraft, thus the AGM designation. They shared significant components, so the -109 designation was retained.
AGM-109L was the true stubby tomahawk, but AGM-109H is where the minihawk of legend comes from.
For a long time, I've derided the AIM-54 as being a poor anti-fighter missile. However, I've stumbled across some information that makes me reconsider what I've said. A short🧵
While reading old congressional hearings, I found this passage. There are three major portions to this performance that I think are worth touching on. Increased energy, autopilot efficiency, and control efficiency and design.
The first should be pretty self-explanatory. The motor on Phoenix propels it to speeds higher than Sparrow could dream of, at ranges of over 100 nautical miles, about double the aerodynamic range of AIM-7F.
At short ranges, this means vastly increased available missile energy.