Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
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
2
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.
3
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.
4
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Hawker Pre-1945 Airplane Projects ?
« Last post by hesham on Today at 10:50:54 am »
Maybe in 1924 ?.
5
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Airspeed AS.9
« Last post by hesham on Today at 10:45:10 am »
I agree with that.
6
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.
7
Missile Projects / Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Last post by bring_it_on on Today at 10:17:56 am »
Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
8
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Various Blohm und Voss projects
« Last post by Motocar on Today at 07:37:21 am »
Next cutaway drawing BV P.210

Ready speculative cutaway drawing Blohm & Voss P-210, link

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,23005.msg310600.html#msg310600

Saludos newsdeskdan...!

Certainly the work of Peter Allen differs, only accompanies the speculative cutaway, is very vague information of that project although some models have flown testing the validity of the design. Just a small and modest contribution to the thousands of projects that were left in the inkwells ...! Motocar
Lovely, but this is the only known contemporary drawing of the Blohm & Voss P 210, from German Aircraft: New and Projected Types. Flitzer's art... differs from it somewhat.
9
Missile Projects / Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Last post by JakobS on Today at 07:16:14 am »
But the Aster-30 is a medium range SAM as well so I don't see a long range interceptor option unless Sweden goes for the Patriot and gets the PAC-2.

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.

Is long range surface to air interception a part of their doctrine? Is this something they are actively seeking? If so, they'll have to essentially ask for a new interceptor as short of the Patriot with its TVM based PAC-2 you aren't going to get something that has 150+ km capability and is operational.

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.

The most important thing for the Swedish military, in case of a conflict, is to hold onto the island of Gotland in the middle of the baltic. 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. With Patriot that capability would be even greater. That's just something the current MEADS can't do.

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.



I can see that work for a Patriot user but if you are looking at a new missile, may as well look to create a PAC-3 PAC-3 MSE derivative where you can still pack 6-8 large diameter missiles within the same launcher.

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.

As things currently stands, SAMP/T does not yet field an AESA. They may move to a larger S band AESA but that is still being discussed and is not an active program of record.

Hard to say about that, Singapore specified that they did not care for the Arabel radar and wanted the Ground Master 200 which is an AESA. 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:



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:



And the already fielded Giraffe AMB for close-in defense above the trees:


If Patriot is chosen swedish sensors would be integrated further down the road when IBCS is ready. Probably not as main sensor though.

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.

However, a strong thing talking for Patriot is that it is american. If we here in Sweden get into a real conflict with russia we sure as hell is not going to call on France to save us. It will be America all the way.

The biggest defense exercise here in Sweden since the cold war will take place this fall. All of the sudden France is very willing to participate with the SAMP/T system. America will also participate with the *surprise* Patriot system. However America have always participated in or exercise drills for the last two decades, unlike France who just want to sell it's system.

So if you look at things there are certain advantages to going for either MEADS or Patriot when it comes to sensors and networking particularly the plug and fight nature of MEADS and IBCS which is of particular importance since the German MEADS configuration would as part of the package integrate IRIS-T which the Swedes use anyway.

Personally I favor the Patriot system. If the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (who handles all acquisitions to the defense forces) is free to go by the requirements and by the systems characteristics the SAMP/T will win. However it seems lately that the politicians have stepped in (as the purchase is of such a big nature, second only to JAS Gripen in cost) and that talks for the Patriot.

We will have to wait and see which one is picked.

Under current plans a system will have to be picked ASAP, as the plan is to have the first units in place for 2020. However there is no rush to pick a system IMO. There is absolutely no money for it under the current budget and there is no signs that enough money will be contributed by the politicians.

The army even specifically specified in this years budget basis that the acquisition will have to be pushed down the road unless more funds is made available. And we are talking big funds, not peanuts (around 1 billion USD for 2019-2020, which is a lot if your yearly budget is only around ~6 billion USD).
10
Hello everyone,

It was discussed some time before on this topic, but was wondering if anyone found out more about the Kawanshi A8K1 Toppu?

It seems that there was speculation on whether this was indeed a real project and/if it was a carrier-based J6K.

Does anyone have any information or resources to prove its existence and what it was?

Thanks

Cherry
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10