Arkib Artikel Majalah Keselamatan

Salam warga mymil, kepada yang nak menyumbang artikel xkira pendek or panjang bolehler post kat sini, maaf setakat nih xder bayaran akan diberi so yang mana bg artikel hanya dapat point xtra, kalau ada cenderahati dari opis anda akan menjadi keutamaan untuk dapat, thanx...

artikel untuk keluaran bulan ini :

The importance of pre-flight checks
Everybody knows that safety come from our home. The moment we step out from our house and before we do anything, safety is the priority thing to think. There is a saying among pilots, "Only the takeoff is optional". The moral of this saying is that you can make a decision before take-off not to depart, but after the take-off, you will certainly have to land, one way or another. Pre-flight checks are part of the decision making process that determines whether the optional takeoff should occur.
There are several components to the pre-flight check. One component is the check of the weather. Weather information is available from a multitude of online services. With the abundance of resources, there is no reason to not know the expected conditions along the planned route of flight. These sources allow not just planning on the day of the flight, but also long term planning. Many aviation accidents including RMAF itself are caused by fight into unfavorable weather conditions. It is easier to cancel or delay a flight when you are at your computer checking the weather than when you are at the runaway and in a hurry to get to your destination. Additionally, weather contingencies should be allowed for critical trips so that there is not a sense that the flight must occur. These contingencies include allowing for a window of time for the flight or even driving to the destination.

Another pre-flight check is the walk-around. Each aircraft should have a written walk-around checklist. The checklist will cover the external components of the aircraft in a logical order that enables completion of the required inspections in a single circuit of the airplane. Items covered will include checks for covers, engine and tire conditions, freedom of the flight controls and a general sense of the airplane's condition. Familiarity with the airplane is an enemy of the walk-around check. It is easy to dismiss checking the oil and kicking the tires as an unnecessary activity since they were checked before the last flight, only a couple of days ago. Things do change in an aircraft and you cannot just pull to the side of the road if you get a low oil pressure warning. Following the checklist is mandatory for every pre-flight.
Other items on the walk-around checklist may seem trivial. However, checking items as mundane as the security of the fuel caps are important. Fuel in an airplane is normally stored in the wings with the fuel caps on the top of the wing. The lift created by the wing in flight results in a vacuum above the wing. This vacuum will suck fuel from a fuel tank if the cap is loose or missing, resulting in an unplanned landing.
The final pre-flight check is the run-up conducted prior to takeoff. This check covers testing and positioning the controls for takeoff, setting of instruments, and testing of the engines. Again, this procedure should follow a written checklist. The checklist ensures that all tests are completed so that the airplane is ready to fly. This last component of the pre-flight checks is the last chance to abort the optional takeoff.
Here we can conclude that pre-flight checks are an important activity in flying and failure is not an option. Following these procedures will ensure that the pilot and airplane are prepared for departure. These procedures are coupled with similar ones for landing and they will help the pilot and aircraft to complete their mission and return back safely.

Tailored from article writing by W.D Adkins

Artikel 2 : The Aircraft Combat Survivability

What is survivability, and how does it relate to system safety?
Aircraft combat survivability (ACS) is defined as the capability of an aircraft to avoid or withstand a man-made hostile environment. It can be measured by the probability the aircraft survives an encounter (combat) with the environment, PS. The more general term aircraft survivability refers to the capability of an aircraft to avoid or withstand hostile environments, including both man-made and naturally occurring environments, such as lightning strikes, mid-air collisions, and crashes. The more traditional discipline known as system safety attempts to minimize those conditions known as hazards that can lead to a mishap in environments that are not made hostile by man. Thus, together, the system safety and survivability disciplines attempt to maintain safe operation and maximize the survival of aircraft in all environments in both peacetime and wartime.
What is aircraft susceptibility?
Susceptibility is the inability of an aircraft to avoid (the guns, approaching missiles, exploding warheads, air interceptors, radars, and all of the other elements of an enemy's air defense that make up) the man-made hostile mission environment. The more likely an aircraft on a mission is hit by one or more damage-causing mechanisms generated by the warhead on a threat weapon (e.g. warhead fragments, blast, and incendiary particles), the more susceptible is the aircraft. Susceptibility can be measured by the probability the aircraft is hit by one or more damage mechanisms, PH. Thus,
Susceptibility = PH

What is aircraft vulnerability?
Vulnerability is the inability of an aircraft to withstand (the hits by the damage-causing mechanisms created by) the man-made hostile environment. The more likely an aircraft is killed by the hits by the damage mechanisms from the warhead on a threat weapon, the more vulnerable is the aircraft. Vulnerability can be measured by the conditional probability the aircraft is killed given that it is hit, PK|H. Thus,
Vulnerability = PK|H

What is aircraft killability?
Killability is the inability of the aircraft to both avoid and withstand the man-made hostile environment. Thus, killability is the ease with which the aircraft is killed by the enemy air defense. Killability can be measured by the probability the aircraft is killed, PK. Killability is given by the joint probability the aircraft is hit (its susceptibility) and it is killed given the hit (its vulnerability). Thus,
PK = PHPK|H
Killability = Susecptibility • Vulnerability
If the threat weapon contains a high explosive (HE) warhead with proximity fuzing, the subscript H for a hit is replaced with an F for warhead fuzing.

How is an aircraft's combat survivability enhanced?
The survivability of an aircraft is related to the aircraft's killability, or susceptibility and vulnerability, by the equation
PS = 1 - PK = 1 - PHPK|H
Survivability = 1 - Kill-ability = 1 - Susceptibility • Vulnerability
Thus, an aircraft's combat survivability is enhanced when it's kill-ability is reduced. The kill-ability of an aircraft is reduced when the susceptibility and the vulnerability of the aircraft are reduced. Table P.2 presents a partial list of the many design and operational features that can enhance the survivability of an aircraft by reducing either the aircraft's susceptibility or its vulnerability.

Table 1 : Some Survivability Enhancement Features
Speed and altitude
Maneuverability/agility
Chaff and flares
Fire/explosion protection
Terrain following
Fighter escort
Self-repairing flight controls
No fuel adjacent to air inlets
Rugged structure
Redundant and separated hydraulics
Self defense missiles and guns
Good target acquisition capability
Night-time capability
Crew situational awareness
Threat warning system
More than one engine - separated
Hydrodynamic ram protection
Mission planning system
Low signatures
Crew training & proficiency
Anti-radiation weapons
Tactics
Nonflammable hydraulic fluid
Armor
On-board electronic attack equipment
Lethal launch-and-leave
or stand-off weapons
Stand-off electronic attack equipment

According to Table 1, an aircraft's susceptibility can be reduced by reducing the aircraft signatures (stealth), installing a threat warning system, employing on-board electronic attack equipment known as electronic countermeasures (ECM), mounting expendables (chaff and flares), and using survivable tactics, such as flying outside of the enemy weapon envelopes and preemptively destroying the enemy's air defense weapons.

An aircraft is killed when one or more of its critical components is killed. According to Table 1, an aircraft's vulnerability can be reduced by using redundant and separated critical components, such as multiple, widely spaced engines and hydraulic power components; designing critical components to contain or minimize any hit-caused damage, such as installing an On-Board Inert Gas Generator (OBIGGS) in fuel tanks to suppress internal fires and explosions and designing helicopter rotor blades to withstand a hit by a high explosive warhead; and using armor to shield critical components from the damage mechanisms.

p/s : sori table ngan gambar x masuk elok, he3

Aku terpikir fasal pre flight check fasal anak buah wife aku tunjuk gambar bird strike kat wing leading edge yg ground crew boleh miss. Yala biasa bird strike masuk enjin atau fwd areas aja. Anak buah aku cakap waktu landing sensors tak detect apa2 dan bunyi atau rasa impact pun tak ada. Last2 lubang aja ada siap kepak burung tertinggal. Akhirnya dia balik dulu dan tinggalkan kapal kat negeri orang. Pesawat pun last2 ferry balik kosong fasal itu negeri tak leh buat

marc_zman wrote:jgn lupa masuk kan cth EF2000 sebagai pesawat yg terbaik ACS nyer.. ekekekekeeee

he3, anyway sapa2 ada artikel utk diketengahkan blehler tempek kat sini, yang bukan sendiri punya mintak letak source so xderler editor kena saman plak

mumuchi wrote:Aku terpikir fasal pre flight check fasal anak buah wife aku tunjuk gambar bird strike kat wing leading edge yg ground crew boleh miss. Yala biasa bird strike masuk enjin atau fwd areas aja. Anak buah aku cakap waktu landing sensors tak detect apa2 dan bunyi atau rasa impact pun tak ada. Last2 lubang aja ada siap kepak burung tertinggal. Akhirnya dia balik dulu dan tinggalkan kapal kat negeri orang. Pesawat pun last2 ferry balik kosong fasal itu negeri tak leh buat

hu3, bahaya tuh... kebanyakan faktor aircrew error menjadi penyebab utama insiden pesawat

tulah pasal..biasa dia suruh 1st officer cek. Entah macamana dia tergerak buat sendiri.

ok I contribute these.
The firearm blog.

Infantry Anti-Armor Tactics
[ This guest post was written by Charles Gaines ]
Part 1

The last ten years of the US Army’s history has seen a refocus on the infantry and Special Operations communities as the main arms of warfare that hasn’t been seen since Vietnam. This is due to the asymetric nature of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our increasing use of Special Forces diplomacy across the globe.

That being said, the Army has over the last forty years been developing increasingly robust infantry-centric antiarmour warfare capability. Whilst not intended to attack enemy armoured forces on their own, they do provide massive defensive firepower when employed with proper tactics and planning.

Below is a spreadsheet of US antiarmour-capable weapons and their effects against probable enemy armoured vehicles. I have focused on principally Russian vehicles, as there is still a lot of them floating around the globe and they will likely be familiar to readers.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Part I: Available weapons

1. M82A1 / M107
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is a weapon everyone is familiar with. Its antiarmour penetration is fairly marginal due to its inability to be fully compatible with the .50-cal Saboted Light Armour Penetrator round because of its muzzle brake. The muzzle brake on the M107 can be removed, but then you’re decreasing weapon accuracy and increasing recoil. The rifle is highly capable against civilian vehicles and BTRs (Soviet APCs).

2. M2/M2A1 heavy machine gun.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is a highly capable weapon and a mainstay of the US Army. While the API round (Armor-Piercing Incendiary) only offers 16mm of penetration at 1200 meters, the SLAP round (Saboted Light Armor Penetrator) doubles that, with 34mm of penetration at the M2’s maximum effective range of about eighteen hundred meters. This is just enough to penetrate a BMP-2; the full-automatic fire capacity makes a kill very likely. There is also a special optics adapter for the M2 that maximizes effective range:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
My old infantry battalion, 3-15 INF at Ft. Stewart GA, used these with the 6x ACOG and a PEQ-2 infrared laser.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

3. Mk 19 grenade machine gun
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The Mark 19 grenade machine gun is commonly found in the US Army’s light infantry battalions, along with the M2. It is significantly more capable against enemy armor than the latter, sporting a maximum effective range of 2200 meters and armor penetration of 50mm with its HEDP ammunition (High Explosive Dual Purpose). This renders it lethal against any Russian-produced armoured vehicle, including the BMP-2 and BMP-3, which sports a maximum of 35mm of armor. It is almost always either vehicle-mounted or placed in a prepared defensive position. The weapon and tripod weigh over a hundred pounds when assembled, making it a lethal but vehicle-dependent anti-armour weapon.

4. Mk 47 Grenade Machine Gun
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The Mark 47 is a newer fully automatic grenade launcher. It is much lighter than the Mark 19, weighing 39 pounds as opposed to 77. It also has a capacity for airburst rounds, and the antiarmor round is the same HEDP as the Mk 19, offering the same 2200m range and 50mm armor penetration.

5. XM25
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The XM25 is famous primarily for it’s High-Explosive Airburst Round which has been discussed on this blog before. The rest of the 25mm family of cartridges has not been similarly publicized however, and includes the XM1049 HEAT cartridge, which sports 50mm of armor penetration between 300 and 500m. This is a major game-changer. While it lacks the exceptional range of the M2, Mk19, and Mk47, it is a rifle that a single soldier can carry and utilize. When used in an ambushing role, the XM1049 round can defeat any of the listed infantry carrier vehicles, offering a multishot capability that the LAW and AT4 do not have, while weighing in the same category of fourteen or so pounds, and also possessing easily interchanged ammunition. The XM-25 has not been issued to the whole Army yet, but that will be changing. And when it does, IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) tactics are going to be in need of serious modification.

6. M72 LAW
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The M72 LAW is the oldest and least capable antitank rocket currently employed by the US Army. Its chief benefit is light weight; one or more LAWs can be fairly easily carried by a single soldier. It is capable of defeating most infantry vehicles’ armor, but is marginal against moving or obscured targets due to being unguided. It has seen a rebirth in recent years with newer generation warheads such as the blast/fragmentation warhead to be used against enemy infantry.

7. AT/M136
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The AT4 was selected in the 1980s to replace the LAW as it possessed a far superior armor penetrator than the M72. With between 420-600mm of armor penetration it can destroy anything short of the tanks on the above list. It might even defeat tanks if a top-attack angle is available, such as from a multi-storey building to a tank on the street below. Like the LAW it has limited ability against moving or obscured targets. While it is capable of having optics mounted, as seen in the picture above, it is intended to be disposable, which means you’ll be wasting time recovering the expensive optic from your disposable antitank weapon upon use. The AT-4 has a maximum effective range of 300m for a point target, or 500 meters for an area target.

8. Javelin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The Javelin ATGM is a ground-breaking weapon. It’s first use in combat was probably in 2003 at the Battle of Debecka Pass, where US Special Forces and Kurdish Peshmerga guerrilla engaged a force of eight armoured personnel carriers and four T-55 tanks. At least four of the APCs were destroyed by Javelin missiles. The Javelin was the first man-portable fire and forget antitank weapon. It uses an imaging infrared seeker to track the selected target. The Command Launch Unit and missile tube weigh just under 40 pounds.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The Command Launch Unit includes a daytime 12x scope and a nighttime/bad weather infrared optic. It can be used independently of the missile/tube; which is disposable upon firing. The Javelin has a maximum effective range of approximately 2,000 meters.

9. TOW
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The BGM-71 TOW is the heaviest antiarmor missile operated by ground forces in the US Army. It is always vehicle-mounted, and can be found on the M2/3 Bradley, Stryker ATGM vehicle and selected uparmored Humvees, as seen above, and below:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
M2 Bradley installation

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
There are no fewer than nine TOW missile variants. The most recent variant is the TOW-RF, which unlike older models is not wire-guided and so has its range boosted to 4,500 metres as a result, as opposed to the A through H models’ range of 3,750 metres. It is not a true fire-and-forget weapon, however it’s exceptional range compensates for that quite well. A properly camouflaged Stryker or Humvee with these on board is a potent threat to enemy armor.

Part II: Maximizing effects

All of the above weapons can be found in a US Army infantry battalion. They offer complimentary effects, and a “system of systems” allowing engagement from point blank range to 4.5 kilometers:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Clearly, engaging with just your heaviest (and therefore least numerous) weapons at the maximum achievable range is not advisable. Infantry tactics rely on shock effect and using terrain and maneuver to achieve advantage.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This might look like an ideal environment for antitank warfare, it most definitely is not. Tanks and other armoured vehicles typically have excellent long-range optical sensors; this is why they are well-suited to plains and deserts. Engaging armoured units in this kind of environment is extremely hazardous, and given the relatively limited firepower available, a bad idea. Ideal terrain for an antiarmor ambush limits the vehicle’s mobility, situational awareness, and firepower. An example would be:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here, we have an almost perfect example of terrain ideal to killing armoured vehicles. The vehicles will be going slowly do to driving uphill to begin with, and also can’t directly see around the loop; the loop itself is going to require them to go even more slowly. They are also trapped on the road; the grades are probably too high for them to go offroad. In contrast, infantry with Javelin ATGMs can occupy the high ground and see for miles; when they attack, it will be from very close range, where a tank’s situational awareness is poorest, and lethality of their weapons will be at its greatest. A competent tank commander would do his utmost to keep his vehicles out of places like this unless he has helicopters and infantry supporting him.

The best place for infantry to confront armored vehicles is this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
There is tons of cover. Vehicle situational awareness is extremely poor, and their firepower advantages are largely nullified. More importantly, unlike terrain, cities cannot be bypassed-they ultimately must be taken. Urban centers offer other advantages to infantry, such as the easy creation of chokepoints to force vehicles into ambush zones, and ready-made structures to maneuver from or fall back to; there is literally nothing advantageous about cities for armoured vehicles.

Ideally, an infantry company with attached heavy weapons platoon could set up an ambush like so:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

1. All ambush teams have both interlocking fields of fire, and additional buildings to fall back to.
2. Obstacles are used, but are out of sight to enemy vehicle crews.
3. Area is built-up to minimize vehicle speed and situational awareness.

These are the basics to a successful ambush of enemy armour in urban terrain. Other considerations could include bait-a bridge or similar high-value object that the enemy needs to take, or combining your long-range weapons on the edge of the city to both score kills and lure the enemy inside your ambush.

I don’t really have much else to say about this; other topics of interest for readers might be the Line Of Sight Antitank missile program, or the Compact Kinetic Energy Missile program.

The Firearms blog

thanx yinchet...