Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
"the West German fighter projects" : Tony Buttler has a book on European X-planes which tangents the subject isn't it ?

Thank you for the kind comments about Vol. 1

JCC
2
hi all

North Korean new missiles:
KN-15 = Pukkuksong-2 (MRBM)
KN-17 = Hwasong-12 (MRBM)
KN-18 = ? (MaRV SCUD variant)
KN-19 = Kumsong-3 (cruise missile)
4
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 08:45:22 pm »
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1281946/stratcom-commander-describes-challenges-of-21st-century-deterrence/#.WZYu6kzeKkk.facebook

Quote
"We can't [assume] that having 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons under the New START Treaty somehow deters all our adversaries. It doesn't," the general said.

Why we should have decoupled our arsenal from that of the USSR/Russia after the Cold War and sized it for our and our allies security needs. Which IMHO was START I - 1200 launchers and 6000 warheads.

Have you read the article?
In context it's very clear he is not advocating for larger numbers of warheads and delivery systems.
He's advocating for modernisation of the triad and for the need for complementary capabilities (like cyber attack/ defence etc.)

 
Hyten is way too cagey to suggest any departure from the status quo
while the Nuclear Posture Review is underway.

But his discussion of New START and Extended Deterrence is interesting
since New START (unlike its predecessor) doesn't restrict SLCMs at all and
Hyten had previously remarked about PGS on surface ships.
5
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 08:20:03 pm »
We can either continue to appease him, and give into blackmail, (your preferred course of action) or do something about it.

Or we could simply ignore him and his annual "look at me, look at me..." childish rants. ::)

And after he nukes somebody?  Going to ignore all the dead people, and pretend they don't exist either?

Or attack North Korea and make it far more likely he will nuke somebody?
You seem very eager to gamble primarily with your allies (South Korea, Japan etc.) lives for realistically low odds of success.
Your comparison with the Israeli's 80's strike on the Iraqi reactor is spurious as well as you (should) well know. North Korea already has nuclear bombs, has a sophisticated missile force, a highly decentralised nuclear programme with highly hidden and protected infrastructure, and can destroy Seoul using conventional non-nuclear weapons.
We all wish there was a straight forward (potentially even military) solution to the standoff with North Korea.
As I mentioned above would multiple Republican or Democrat administrations not already have implemented these "credible" solutions if they were actualy available?

Easier to kick the can down the road and let somebody else make the call.  Like the person who doesn't go to the doctor until their tumor is the size of a grapefruit and gets to hear the doctor say, "well, you're gonna die.  Should have come in years ago and we could have fixed it." 
6
Aerospace / Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Last post by bring_it_on on Yesterday at 07:08:07 pm »
It is not a case of under promising or over promising. The winner, like the B-21, will be picked based on the ICE process for all proposals and based on what was floated in the RFI stage of the program proposals will get decrements in their overall assessed cost based on how closely the performance estimates (also independently verified) align with objective performance (up to a point).
7
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by kaiserd on Yesterday at 05:56:43 pm »
We can either continue to appease him, and give into blackmail, (your preferred course of action) or do something about it.

Or we could simply ignore him and his annual "look at me, look at me..." childish rants. ::)

And after he nukes somebody?  Going to ignore all the dead people, and pretend they don't exist either?

Or attack North Korea and make it far more likely he will nuke somebody?
You seem very eager to gamble primarily with your allies (South Korea, Japan etc.) lives for realistically low odds of success.
Your comparison with the Israeli's 80's strike on the Iraqi reactor is spurious as well as you (should) well know. North Korea already has nuclear bombs, has a sophisticated missile force, a highly decentralised nuclear programme with highly hidden and protected infrastructure, and can destroy Seoul using conventional non-nuclear weapons.
We all wish there was a straight forward (potentially even military) solution to the standoff with North Korea.
As I mentioned above would multiple Republican or Democrat administrations not already have implemented these "credible" solutions if they were actualy available?
8
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Rosaviakonsortium Frigate EcoJet
« Last post by Triton on Yesterday at 05:19:54 pm »
"PICTURE: Frigate Ecojet revised as four-engined design"
16 August, 2017 SOURCE: Flight Dashboard BY: David Kaminski-Morrow London

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-frigate-ecojet-revised-as-four-engined-desi-440319/

Quote
Russian developers of a 300-seat aircraft with a characteristic wide elliptical fuselage have opted to modify the proposal substantially, revising the design as a four-engined transport rather than a twinjet.

The aircraft developed by Frigate Ecojet, and rebranded as the 'Freejet' will be powered by modern engines introduced for the single-aisle market.

Frigate Ecojet says it has embarked on a study to examine the use of Aviadvigatel PD-14 engines on the proposed aircraft. The PD-14 is being developed for the Irkut MC-21.

Aviadvigatel is participating in the study, it claims.

But the Ecoject team also indicates that the Pratt & Whitney PW1100G and the CFM International Leap are options.

It states that, while the aircraft was conceived as a twinjet, there is a "lack" of modern engines in the 18,000-23,000kg (177-226kN) thrust range. The twinjet would have been equipped with PD-18R or PS-90A20 engines.

But the design has been revamped as a four-engined airframe powered by engines with 12,000-14,000kg thrust. Its proposed maximum take-off weight has risen from just under 130t to a little over 140t.

"We lost a little in aerodynamics and weight [against the original Ecojet] but gained a lot of advantages," says programme manager Alexander Klimov.

The aircraft will be able to use current engine technology and will aid the evolution of an all-electric concept, he says.

Switching to a four-engined design, however, will result in an aircraft outwardly resembling the Airbus A340 which, like the proposed Freejet, was also fitted with powerplants used on the single-aisle A320 and Boeing 737.

With an all-economy layout for 300 passengers in a 10-abreast triple-aisle cabin, the Freejet would have a range of 3,500km, claim its designers, increasing to 4,680km with 244 passengers.

The aircraft, with eight passenger exits, has a wing span of 48.53m and a length of 49.65m.

Technical specifications for the Freejet's systems will be established by the end of the year, the developer says.
9
Military / Re: Beam Defense - An Alternative to Nuclear Destruction (book)
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 04:44:00 pm »
A suggestion: You might want to clarify what type of thoughts you are looking for?

Otherwise this might just end up as a generic debate about MAD vs. deproliferation vs. SDI.

Thoughts about the book specifically, and the information described therein, not all the political bull$hit.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10