Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Last post by Harrier on Today at 01:20:20 pm »
Quote
Chris Lee has done his lecture on Taranis aerodynamics a few times now, which is a masterpiece in saying nothing.

How much could be said on the aerodynamics of a subsonic non manoeuvring drone anyway? "Keep. The. Flow. Attached."?
2
Aerospace / Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Last post by mrmalaya on Today at 12:50:38 pm »
Well hopefully there is still scope for it to look a bit more refined than the Dassault imagery suggests. That is depicting their original design from a few years ago anyway.

3
Aerospace / Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Last post by red admiral on Today at 12:35:23 pm »
When did you last hear or see anything on the UK work?

Yes the MoD doesn't brief journalists or allow Industry to, beyond agreed things, as there's no benefit in doing so. This doesn't mean that nothing is happening.

Chris Lee has done his lecture on Taranis aerodynamics a few times now, which is a masterpiece in saying nothing.
4
fuel's energy density gives you what guns want and the only thing they want range.

Rate of fire is important too and gas guns really are challenged on this front.
True very rapid fire is an EMRG, which seems never to t be mentioned as part of news releases so appears no to be a goal. However the fully function testing USN 60mm rapid fire ETC gun from the 90s has been all over this thread.

10 rounds per minute @ 32 MJ per shot mentioned in the video above after timestamp 1:48.

5
capacitor science is being driven by this research that is great but haven't heard any real set choice. Problem is a means to counter waves of missiles now.

I don't think anybody is proposing buying railguns TODAY.  There are only three ships on the horizon that could handle them anyway and they ended procurement of that class.  (Burke Flight III won't be able to handle them.) The whole effort is definitely off the rails.

The electric catapult the President so likes (not) is another capacitor research driver. Neither of these things appears any where near prime time let alone cold wartime.

Which is why they are still in development.

Tried and true do and USG should not be a prime driver on such risk.

At the same time we didn't wait until they had the F135 in production before switching from props over to jet engines. 
6
Batteries burning and spreading toxics at 3k degrees is better.

I hope you don't think the plan would be to have holds full of Li rechargables powering those railguns. 


Don't see any other svc racing for railguns as stated another million times.

Well there's no reason the USAF would be interested in artillery.  The USMC wouldn't have the mobile power generation necessary, same with the US Army.  This isn't rocket science.

GA has been pushing demoing and the Army still wants 155mm HVP.

Because buying a new round is just a tad cheaper than buying an entire new mobile gun fleet.


capacitor science is being driven by this research that is great but haven't heard any real set choice. Problem is a means to counter waves of missiles now. The electric catapult the President so likes (not) is another capacitor research driver. Neither of these things appears any where near prime time let alone cold wartime. Tried and true do. USG should not be a prime driver on such risk.

IARPA once sought a "fuel to electricity' solution as part of the now defunct Horned Owl UAV program. That would be a parallel and probably better solution especially in near term than would capacitor hopes. 
7
Aerospace / Re: Leonardo M-346 FA
« Last post by batigol on Today at 11:01:02 am »
Brazil's air force is spending it's limited budget on the Gripen program, and with the Super Tucano - AMX - Gripen combo, I think their bases are pretty well covered.
8
Batteries burning and spreading toxics at 3k degrees is better.

I hope you don't think the plan would be to have holds full of Li rechargables powering those railguns. 


Don't see any other svc racing for railguns as stated another million times.

Well there's no reason the USAF would be interested in artillery.  The USMC wouldn't have the mobile power generation necessary, same with the US Army.  This isn't rocket science.

GA has been pushing demoing and the Army still wants 155mm HVP.

Because buying a new round is just a tad cheaper than buying an entire new mobile gun fleet. 
9
Aerospace / Re: Leonardo M-346 FA
« Last post by GTX on Today at 10:31:16 am »

Would it not be best for Brazil to buy at least a single squadron of the M-346 FA to compliment AMX?

Why?
10
Glade you remembered the density lesson I taught on this thread years ago.

ROFL!  Do tell.  ::)

Reason why electric DEW, airplanes, cars, robots UGVS UAVs still aren't  solutions. for the weight,  fuel's energy density gives you what guns want and the only thing they want range. Also as stated the Army wants portable non railguns guns for Missile defense for anytime in the near future.. When contractors want risk getting them right in the next 20 yrs fine. Let them risk it.  These railguns look like skyscapers throwing a railroad spike. HVP and emerging energetics technology will always make more sense. A hydrogen gun can be made global.  If your out ranged in fight you lose. If your railgun network's single point of failure, fails, your ship gets sunk.

Hate to break it to you but EVERY gun has a "single point of failure".  And I'd much rather have an incoming round go off in a magazine of inert railgun rounds than a powder keg of explosives which is the current magazine. YMMV

a massive intranet of power and data is not a nearly a thousand yrs tested system. Batteries burning and spreading toxics at 3k degrees is better.  Don't see any other svc racing for railguns as stated another million times. GA has been pushing demoing and the Army still wants 155mm HVP.

Haven't an idea what ROFL is.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10