Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 12:29:01 am »
Unaffordable Nukes

—John A. Tirpak3/23/2017

​If the national leadership decides to modernize the US nuclear arsenal, “you can forget about readiness or modernization” of the conventional force, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday. Smith, speaking at a McAleese/Credit Suisse event in Washington, D.C., said defense funding will still be tight no matter how much the new administration promises a widescale upgrade in people and equipment, and modernizing the nuclear triad “could be a trillion dollars,” and that’s unaffordable, said Smith. The US military has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over, Smith said. “It used to be seven,” but “I still find that sufficient,” he noted. The US has four times the nuclear weapons of China, so “I don’t think we need to spend a lot of money on this.” Though the arsenal is “ample,” it would be more effective if the US puts more effort into diplomacy to assure adversaries that America won’t accept less than total use of nuclear weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin must be dissuaded from using “tactical nukes” and must be made aware that it’s “unacceptable if [he] steps across that line.”
Aerospace / Re: F-X -- NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) -- F/A-XX
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 12:19:44 am »
Funding Next-Gen Air Dominance

—John A. Tirpak3/23/2017

​The Air Force is adding $100 million to its Penetrating Counter-Air or Next-Generation Air Dominance spending request for 2017, but the added funds don’t signal a change in the program, the service’s top uniformed acquisition official said Wednesday. Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch said the plus-up will be divided among a number of science and technology efforts “across the spectrum” of things that have to do with air dominance, such as mission systems, electronic warfare, and weapons. The money is “an investment on multiple fronts,” he said, to try to multiply the choices available to the Air Force and help it define what the program will be all about. Some of those efforts are duplicative, Bunch said, so “if they don’t pan out, we can go to the alternative.” The Air Force wants to have a new PCA aircraft available starting in about 2030. If the money isn’t approved, USAF will try again, but it will mean “a year’s delay,” Bunch said.
The Bar / Skylon / US military cooperative concepts to be released soon
« Last post by phrenzy on Yesterday at 10:03:20 pm »
Very very interested to see these, US military spending could be the key to getting SABRE engines in the air sooner rather than later. Something tells me that the BASE investment will pay off handsomely just on the pre cooler technology alone...
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Republic XF-103 Interceptor
« Last post by blackkite on Yesterday at 09:17:57 pm »
This cutaway shows round shape exhaust nozzle. But I can't find wing tilt mechanism.;topic=4304.0;attach=101983;image
And 1957 round shape exhaust nozzle design. (XF-103 was cancelled in 1957).
1954 square shape exhaust nozzle design.

Wind tunnel test model with round shape exhaust nozzle.(Now I believe this is the final shape of XF-103);topic=4304.0;attach=576570;image

And video.
Military / Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Last post by bobbymike on Yesterday at 06:07:35 pm »

Always thought one of these with a mini-gun on top would make a great urban assault vehicle.
Hi! design plan 2 and 3. Design plan 1 was exsisted.
Trere are some difference between design plan 2 and 3.
For example......
(1)Canard shape.
(2)Jettisonable drop tank shape and wing span.
(3)Cockpit shape.
(4)Number of engine.(Perhaps plan 3 has 6 engines, and plan 2 has four engines)
According to this book, plan 1 and plan 2 are almost same shape.Plan 2 external wing span is large.

Source : 未完の計画機(Project Incomplete), ISBN978-4-8022-0014-1, IKAROS, 30/4/2015
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10