Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by FighterJock on Today at 01:35:11 pm »
The Falcon 9 first stage has performed a perfect landing on the Drone Ship.
2
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by FighterJock on Today at 01:27:46 pm »
Falcon 9 has successfully taken of from Vandenberg Air Force Base.
3
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-mobile-protected-firepower-program-big-guns-the-17947

I know I've been told launch signature detection makes LOSAT/CKEM not practicable but I don't know how you go light with the hitting power/speed of a 120mm cannon and not end up at 40 plus tons?


The fire signature of a 120 mm gun is huge as well, and not considered impractical.
The smoke of a LOSAT/CKEM may in fact aid in obscuring the launcher from counterfires, kinda built-in smoke concealment.

More importantly, there are some low smoke and small flame solid fuel rockets.
Some of the newer ATGMs had these, and hopes on the CL-20 compound are still high.
4
Military / Re: T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank
« Last post by lastdingo on Today at 01:21:26 pm »
The article has some hyperbole, as is typical of that blog (and many others).
It's not all worthless, though. The problem is mostly that the author has no clue about what's important in tank designs or tank warfare.

Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
6
User Artwork / Re: X-30A COPPER CANYON and Tupolev Tu-2000A
« Last post by Meteorit on Today at 12:27:41 pm »
Finally some comparison views of both vehicles. Note the size difference, though no exact dimensions for the "Government baseline" vehicle are available. Takeoff weights 36,000 kg vs 70,000 kg. Which one is more realistic? ;)
7
User Artwork / Re: X-30A COPPER CANYON and Tupolev Tu-2000A
« Last post by Meteorit on Today at 12:23:58 pm »
The Tupolev Tu-2000A was to be a demonstrator of a single-stage to orbit spaceplane comparable in function to the US X-30 vehicle. Development started in 1986 as a response to NASP.
Length: 55.5 m
Wingspan: 14.0 m
Height: 12.25 m
Empty weight: 40,000 kg
Take-off weight: 70,000 kg
Propulsion: 2 x D-100 turbofans (Mach=0-2.5), dual-mode scramjet (Mach=2-20), 2 x liquid-propellant rocket engines (Mach>=20), all using slush hydrogen fuel.
8
User Artwork / X-30A COPPER CANYON and Tupolev Tu-2000A
« Last post by Meteorit on Today at 12:22:06 pm »
My 3D models of two comparable 1980s SSTO projects:

This one is meant to represent the "Government baseline" vehicle that was the end result of the $5.5-million COPPER CANYON study program run in 1984-1985, and input for NASP Phase 2. It was scaled up somewhat from the initial "du Pont baseline" which was to be an "F-15 sized 50,000 pound (22,700 kg) vehicle" to an "SR-71 sized 80,000 pound (36,000 kg) vehicle". Propulsion was provided by du Pont designed engines using a scram-LACE cycle. Payload 2,500 pounds (1130 kg) to polar orbit, propellant mass fraction 0.54, Isp 1,400 s, delta-V 47,000 fps (14,300 m/s).
9
Not sure if this goes under this subject matter, so apologies and Forum organisers please feel free to move it. Anyway, was looking through the January 1977 issue of Air International and came across a project which was being planned by Bill Lear. It was known as the Allegro and was a 10-seat business aircraft, the specifications can be seen in the attached clipping.
10
Aerospace / Re: Leonardo M-346 FA
« Last post by TomS on Today at 11:40:23 am »
I suspect he question was actually whether there are airframe changes from the M-346 Master trainer to the new M-346 FA.  The answer to that appears to be "no", aide from the radome and possibly some hardpoint changes. (The number of hardpoints on  the M-346 is variously cited as five, seven, or nine.  The FA seems to have settled on seven.)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10