Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Aerospace / Re: France and Germany to develop new european fighter jet
« Last post by muttbutt on Today at 11:49:05 am »
Typhoon is becoming antiquated?

Remember, it has a further 20+ years in service as of now, and likely more. It might be easy to dismiss this Franco-German project (actually much of Europe is incorporated in that "German" part) as purely political, but that would be to misunderstand how enthusiastic Europe is to be  united.

My opinion is that Europe will produce a successor to Typhoon and Rafale as it will also produce a UCAV, and the only question is how much of that Britain contributes to.

I would rather see the UK join with Japan on a future fighter, but has either country got the balls not to buy American?
As I said over on the key forums, I'm cautiously optimistic. There seems to be a genuine effort to work together on these things. What with the French letting the Germans take the lead on the UAV and the new MBT.
It seems like the Germans will give the French the nod to lead the fighter project.
Aerospace / Re: France and Germany to develop new european fighter jet
« Last post by muttbutt on Today at 11:46:24 am »

 For the sake of their socialist economy, they may just roll out a drone just to keep their engineers working and current.
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Avro Pre-1945 Projects
« Last post by Schneiderman on Today at 11:36:21 am »
Ah, but 2/25 wasn't put out to tender, it was specifically for the Gloster III. If Avro had considered entering for the Schneider Trophy they would have had to register with the Royal Aero Club, and they didn't do so
Postwar Aircraft Projects / ATS Model-250 Light Business Airplane Project
« Last post by hesham on Today at 11:04:17 am »
From JAWA 1963;

the Aircraft Tenchnical Service Inc. or ATS designed a Model-250,it was a four seat mid-wing light business
and sporting pusher monoplane Project.
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Avro Pre-1945 Projects
« Last post by hesham on Today at 10:56:44 am »

Interesting suggestion. The Air Ministry had been asked to fund the development of seaplane racers to compete in the 1925 Schneider Trophy contest but declined, agreeing, instead, to purchase any aircraft built as a private venture after it had competed. 2/25 was the specification which covered the Gloster III racer. It is possible that other companies may have considered entering the contest but I found no reference to Avro considering building an aircraft when I was researching the Schneider Trophy racers. This Type 570 design is probably just a projected development of the Type 566 Avenger and 567 Avenger II and then developed further as the Type 583 Avenger II
We need to know more

You are absolutely right,many specifications were not mentioned all their tenders.
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Hawker Pre-1945 Airplane Projects ?
« Last post by hesham on Today at 10:50:54 am »
Maybe in 1924 ?.
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Airspeed AS.9
« Last post by hesham on Today at 10:45:10 am »
I agree with that.
No project drawings are found in the P-26 Sarah Clark Correspondence files. :-(

I think they may be in the accompanying P-27 files.

Thank you my dear Ryan,and I hope to find them.
Missile Projects / Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Last post by bring_it_on on Today at 10:17:56 am »
It's correct that SAMP/T is a medium range system, but depending on the target the range is still 3-4 times as large as MEADS.

I don't know how you are deriving at that conclusion. Could you show me exactly which specific missions enable SAMP/T to put up to 4 times the envelope of MEADS?

It's an important part of the new system. I would actually dare to say that it is more important than the anti-ballistic capability, that is not much talked about at all.

So if that is the case both MEADS and SAMP/T wouldn't even be able to compete since they both offer medium range capability.

With 6 system of SAMP/T (assuming 2 systems operating together on the same location) the whole cost of southern Sweden can be closed of

Closed off to what threat?

When talking about SAM-system range isn't everything, and there is a lot more variables that affect how it works. Range is however one of the more important factor of the system.

Right and could you share with me the SAM envelope of MEADS with the MSE against a Mach 0.8 target flying at 25,000 ft? The same for other systems.

A PAC-3 derivative would however be more expensive. The diameter would probably be increased enough that a new launcher would be required just as with the PAC-2. If the wings on the PAC-2 were changed to be foldable a vertical launcher with 8 missiles would be possible just in the same way.

8 PAC-2s into the existing Patriot launcher? Are you serious?

Hard to say if their SAMP/T's are operational yet or not as the country is very secretive about such things, but they have had the radars for a few years:

Could you show me a full envelope developmental and operational test program of the missile, command and control and this radar?

If SAMP/T is chosen for us SAAB would supply the main radar, more specifically the GaN-based Giraffe 4A that Sweden have already ordered a few examples of:

So it will be a developmental project and not an operational system since no such configuration exists, has been developed or has been tested. They cannot legally imho prohibit MEADS which is a tested system ready for production, and then turn around and seek a developmental, non-tested SAMP/T system. Or Patriot for that matter unless they take a few years to move and Raytheon can demonstrate actual intercepts with their AESAs or offer some sort of buy back program.

One of the things against the Patriot is that the army fear they will have to pay deeply for the future upgrades with IBCS and the new main sensor. Waiting for the new sensor is not an alternative, but sitting on ~8 of the current sensor of no use in 10 years time, when the new radars have been bought, is also not a very good option.

IBCS would make it cheaper and not more expensive. It is an open architecture and then entire premise behind it is to make upgrades and cross-system interoperability easier. Given a SAMP/T developmental project that involves integrating and testing a non-native radar into the system there is no advantage that such a system offers over a Patriot AESA that by 2018 would be on order for delivery in the early 2020s around the same time IBCS is operationalized with the US and Poland. MEADS will probably still deliver in the early to mid 2020s and there is no way a custom SAMP/T variant can be created with new radar integrated, fully tested etc before then. So we are essentially talking about similar timelines for all three systems. MEADS probably suits Sweden the most, given that IRIS-T would already be integrated allowing them to add a third indigenous AESA into the family.
Aerospace / Re: North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco
« Last post by Triton on Today at 10:14:02 am »
Side by side cockpit proposal.

Proposed transport version.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10