Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: AIRBUS RACER / Clean Sky2 LifeRCraft Demonstrator
« Last post by RavenOne on Yesterday at 11:00:36 pm »
I think off hand there was mention of some some commonality with H160 but that's the Helionix avionics systems and environmental friendliness (which is how the H160 was unveiled back at heli expo 2015 in Orlando)

Cheers
2
User Artwork / Re: The Lockheed L-133
« Last post by XP67_Moonbat on Yesterday at 10:19:11 pm »
Another good source I recommend is Air Classics, Feb 2013. The L-133 is the cover story.
4
Aerospace / Re: AIRBUS RACER / Clean Sky2 LifeRCraft Demonstrator
« Last post by H_K on Yesterday at 08:58:53 pm »
I attended the rpess brief ;last Tuesday and we went to Clean SKies booth to see it being unveiled my photos here

Did they mention any commonality with the H160? It looks to be about the same general size and shape as the H160, but I wonder how much commonality could be left once they're done changing the engines, tail, landing gear, door arrangement etc.

If there is to be little-to-no commonality, then it seems strange to launch a brand new product that would cannibalize H160 sales, versus targeting another segment... So maybe Racer is actually smaller than H160? Could it be the rumored H150 to compete head-on with the AW169 in the 8 pax (4.5-5 ton) segment? (As well as the AW609 obviously)
5
Space Projects / Re: SpaceX Heavy
« Last post by Michel Van on Yesterday at 08:36:25 pm »
The second Falcon Heavy flight is for USAF Space Test Program the STP-2

STP-2 will carrying more than 30 satellites.

The payload should include ISAT (Innovative Space-based Radar Antenna Technology)
flight demonstrator satellite with a mass of over 5000 kg,
The ISAT program aims to deploy extremely large (up to 300 yards) electronically scanning radar antennas in orbit.

COSMIC-2, a cluster of six satellites, with a mass of 277.8 kg each.
The primary role of the COSMIC-2 satellite constellation is to provide radio occultation data with an average latency of 45 minutes.
The six satellites will be placed on an orbit with an inclination of 24 to 28.5 degrees with six separate orbital planes with 60 degree separation between them.
The integrated payload stack will be integrated using EELV Secondary Payload Adapter. Two ESPA Grande rings will be used to mount the six COSMIC-2 satellites beneath the ESPA ring hosting the DSX payload and avionics modules.

STP-2 will also host up to 8 CubeSat nanosatellites deployed with P-PODs (Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployers).
Other secondary payloads include LightSail, Prox-1 nanosatellite, Oculus-ASR nanosatellite, GPIM
and the Deep Space Atomic Clock.

source: Wikipedia

6
Space Projects / Re: SpaceX Heavy
« Last post by TomS on Yesterday at 08:26:06 pm »
Not mentioned but STP-2 is a secondary payload set, not aprimary.  It could fly alo g with another Falcon Heavy, I think.
7
Space Projects / Re: SpaceX Heavy
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 07:57:01 pm »
SpaceX’s final Falcon 9 design coming this year, two Falcon Heavy launches next year

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-final-falcon-9-design-coming-this-year-two-falcon-heavy-launches-next-year/

That's what they said last year.  :P

What they actually are saying now is that the Falcon Heavy demo will fly by the end of this year, with two commercial flights next year.

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacexs-shotwell-1-falcon-heavy-demo-year-satellite-broadband-remains-side/

What about the USAF mission that is (currently) scheduled for this year after the demo flight?
8
Space Projects / Re: SpaceX Heavy
« Last post by TomS on Yesterday at 07:47:44 pm »
SpaceX’s final Falcon 9 design coming this year, two Falcon Heavy launches next year

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-final-falcon-9-design-coming-this-year-two-falcon-heavy-launches-next-year/

That's what they said last year.  :P

What they actually are saying now is that the Falcon Heavy demo will fly by the end of this year, with two commercial flights next year.

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacexs-shotwell-1-falcon-heavy-demo-year-satellite-broadband-remains-side/
9
the ETC is pretty compact gun.  So compact it could be mounted on a AC-130 follow-on providing an unprecedented capability from CAS to air sup to missile defense.

Lockheed examined both EMRG and ETC gun integration about 25 years ago.

"Electric Energy Weapon Implementation on an Airborne Platform"
Jerome L. Brown, Lockheed Aircraft Service Company
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol 29. No 1, January 1993.

The fundamental challenges of mitigating blast overpressure and recoil forces
on aircraft structure and skins are still there.

In fact, the 105mm as-is is probably too much gun for any transport aircraft. 
(from "Weapon System Concepts for a Future Gunship" by Michael Canaday)


 not big fan of Large System Integrators (LSI) opinions from 25yrs ago.

Electro-rheological Fluids and Magneto-rheological Suspensions
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA390995

RaVEN
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14469.0.html

are just two optional technologies probably not being looked at anymore. Raven might even be a slewable chin turret to allow the limited back blast. 
10
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Last post by Dragon029 on Yesterday at 07:40:14 pm »
.....and how many are going to still be around by then?
...It's peculiar how if someone says that we should buy more Eagles as an interim, people clap and applaud. But the mention of more Raptors get's boos as being old tech.
I do love the Raptor; kinematically (certainly in speed) it's unparalleled today; the fact of the matter is though, unless the USAF budget expands considerably, it's more F-22s or it's NGAD on schedule. It's really not that much different a choice as buying more F-15s vs buying F-22s, except in this case the decision is being made 10-15 years in advance - I'm not one of those guys in favour of buying more F-15s.

Quote
This is why we need more F-22s: " ...the F-35C, is designed to operate with some effectiveness within high threat environments populated with advanced surface to air missile systems."  The F-22 was designed to survive in high threat environments (battlefield Europe) and kill bandits inside their own turf...What good is 360 degree SA when the other guy sees you too? I don't know why there are so many haters of the -22 and buying more. The ability to haul around 2x2klb bombs isn't the end-all-and-be-all of maintaining air superiority. Nor is 360 SA if you run out of missiles as soon as the battle begins.

It's worth noting that that quote comes from a journalist talking about the US Navy and it's diminished long range strike capability, something the F-22 wouldn't fix, but NGAD intends to (at least for the USAF and launching missions from tankers outside the range of PL-15s, etc).

What good is 360 degree SA? It means that if you individually run out of missiles, the rest of your wingmen already have that target locked and can engage with their missiles, regardless of if you're on the offensive or defence - again, it's not 4x AMRAAMs on an individual F-35A vs 6x AMRAAMs and 2x Sidewinders on an F-22; it's 8x or 12x AMRAAMs on 2 or 3 F-35As vs 6x AMRAAMs and 2x Sidewinders. Plus once the missiles do run out, you have a jet that (like the F-22) is capable of acting as part of a distributed AWACS operating behind enemy lines.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10