Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
 :o Very interesting Graugrun...I wonder if it is based on Umkhonto or Darter components.
2
Aerospace / Re: Turkish Indigenous Helicopter Program
« Last post by stimpy75 on Yesterday at 10:33:41 pm »
some more pics from paris
3
The Bar / Re: UK independant Trident launch.
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Yesterday at 10:10:18 pm »
Polaris subs were sent all over the place, whether or it was to threaten/strike Argentina can be speculated on but the fabrication theorists will no doubt follow their own agenda on this as all things.  I do not believe Maggie T would have been so stupid as to actually launch on anything other than a proportional response and Argentina never had that high a threat.

Except the Falkland Islanders...

The Islanders hold a completely out of proportion amount of influence in British politics, even before the 1982 War.   This has to be understood, to understand the reasons why MaggieT reacted the way she did to the Argentine invasion.

Whether or not she actually would have launched is immaterial.   The point is that she could have launched, as the Prime Minister of the UK, if the missiles were British owned on a British owned submarine.   They were British and therefore under the control of the British government ultimately.    London can and has acted unilaterally in the past, where British interests have been threatened.    ::)
4
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by phrenzy on Yesterday at 09:53:25 pm »
Cheers for that, they usually have good speakers, know who's on the panel? Or if they will host it for a day or two, Zulu-5 is a few too many hours out there time zone wise for me...I can probably stay up for it though, just wondering if you know if they'll host it for at least 24 hours.

I know they have a YouTube channel but that not everything goes up there. They haven't put anything up for more than 3 months.
5
User Artwork / Re: The Lockheed L-133
« Last post by J_Matthews129 on Yesterday at 09:49:11 pm »
Its my understanding they had a lot of problems with the engines. Marquardt took over engine development and in the end it never really went anywhere

I think it was sort of doomed from the beginning, and wasn't as much a problem with the engine design as with program management.  The Army wasn't interested in the plane as much as they were interested in the engine.  Lockheed designed the engine to be 24 inches around, weigh under 1,300 pounds, and projected 6,700 LBS thrust.  They weren't keen on an airframer developing their own engine, despite Northrop doing the same thing with the Turbodyne.  Yet, they signed a contract with Lockheed to develop it.  That was troubled because of wartime production and they had to subcontract with Menasco, which the Army was also not happy about.  The development was dreadfully slow because Menasco had problems providing precision parts (again due to wartime production).  The Army finally got fed-up and bought GE/Allison axial flow engines.  I think there's a mockup of the engine in a museum, but that's about all that's left of it.

Thanks for your post!

-John
6
Aerospace / Re: Boeing 'Middle of the Market” (MOM) Airliner
« Last post by sienar on Yesterday at 07:09:49 pm »
I assume "hybrid cross-section" means "sized to accommodate human-hamster hybrids".

Boeing has had a few patents for a oval cross section fuselage in recent years. It was one of the things they were looking at with the Yellowstone design studies.

Anyway, going off the image posted and correcting the perspective distortion the length of the mom/797 looks to be right around 150 feet.
7
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Last post by Sundog on Yesterday at 07:08:38 pm »
The USAF doesn't want a thirty year old fighter design, they want something built with new technology that is optimized for the Pacific theater of operations.
8
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Lockheed Vega Model 2 Starliner
« Last post by snark on Yesterday at 07:05:41 pm »
No cutaway, but excellent photo and complete development history of this aircraft to be found here:

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Larkins/10417.htm

History of the Menasco Unitwin engine which powered this aircraft; plus photo of the single-tail (first) edition:

https://oldmachinepress.com/2013/


9
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by bobbymike on Yesterday at 06:35:35 pm »
10
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by phrenzy on Yesterday at 06:26:56 pm »
I actually wrote this in response to the discussion that's crept into the nuclear weapons news thread that's turned into a discussion, but as it's for news for the sake of keeping discussion and news Seperate I'm positing it here so please bare with me if it's a little out of place. Just trying to keep things in the right place as the news thread is and should be a useful resource for sources and links with a little commentary on them, not a discussion like my post was turning into...

It's a major fork. As far as I can tell it's a question of whether or not to retain a strong tactical force that LRSO will be a part of with continued air dropped/ launched weapons for the B-21 and possibly turning the B-61 into something useful for the F-35a and sixth Gen. Or focusing on SLBMs and ICBMS and maintaining an existential deterrent.

The question is whether they can get high end conventional PGS, super penetrators (MOP and conventional successor for B-21) and MOAB style weapons to do most of the high end lifting.

The choices are clear, but now it's down to single threats that are going to dictate a complete policy change at a time when you have to consider individual targeting needs like underground nuclear facilities in Iran and the DPRK. What they choose on any one of a single program will influence procurement and requirement/ capability of many platforms right through the sixth Gen F/A aircraft (I'm not going to list the ever changing designations, we all know them).

I don't have an actual will researched opinion on what they should actually do, but air launched weapons are being given up all over the world. But as I see it the question is about the repercussions of maintaining ALCMs and SLCMs as a tactical nuclear option and, if so, designing platforms around them or figuring on high end conventional when it's almost a perpetual COIN world.

With Russia's potential INF and MTCR violations I see the point. Will they need them to deal with ISKANDER and Topol-M in Russia, Shahab-3/4 through Ghadar-110 in Iran, Pukugsong through Hwasong in the DPRK and whatever the 2nd artillery or working on in the PRC or nuclear earth penetrators that may be needed. Things are moving so rapidly in so many different places I doubt OPLAN can keep up. You need flexibility given how many different threats they potentially face.

It's a decision that will determine the nuclear posture for the USA and, in response, the rest of the world for the next 50 years, though it seems they are on the back foot because of the hopes that Russia et Al. would stand still after 91. So I guess they are trying hard to get through the next couple years keeping all options open at a huge cost until a clear pathway forward can be found. I expect all high end conventional and tactical nuclear options (like LRSO) and B-61 upgrades and conversion will go on slowly and underfunded so that as requirements dictate they can be highly funded and pursued quickly as clear threats and requirements become clear or emerge. The Mattis review will likely not be the last, budgets will dictate priorities which will in turn create capability gaps that are being filled with the offensive missile systems of other countries I mentioned above, no doubt there are many we don't even know are coming down the line.

In years gone by the idea of tactical nuclear release by any major power was unthinkable, but I'm not sure you can say that today so complacency isn't really an option any more, but neither is having everything and overreacting and escelating what's already a barely under the radar arms race.

Does island building constitute a good enough reason on it's own to go on with LRSO? Just one scenario in at least a dozen that 10 years ago would be a main focus, but today there's too many spinning plates in too many places, but doing nothing or doing too much is impractical too. They are hamstring by the complexity of of the geostrategic situation,  the blurring of strategic and tactical capabilities, domestic politics and of course budgets.

All the while they are trying hard to reduce the need for tactical nuclear spread through so many ABM/SAM systems that it's hard to justify the cost and change in the game theory equations, but you can't take out Iranian or DPRK centerfuges with THAAD or GMD...

anyone else need an aspirin? With economic and this budget uncertainty in the states (anyone watching the bond market fed divergence? Hiking into a bear market with global real estate in a bubble and major banks being credit downgraded while national debt and unfunded liabilities spiral) and even uncertainty about the next election (NSA leaks on Russian intervention last time, Comey, latest pooling data on Trump) it's all uncertainty at a time when additional complexities are possibly the bigger threat than the weapons systems they face this year at least.

Suffice to say I doubt the Trump administration's nuclear posture review will be the last. Where they go from here? I think the best they can do is keep their options open, I don't know what they'll need in 3 years time when they're talking about developing programs that will take 5-10 to develop and employ on platforms that will have to incorporate them for at least the next 30. So I guess that's a question not an answer, but you have to start with the right questions.

Maybe someone should draw a 20 page flow chart...
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10