Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by marauder2048 on Today at 09:44:43 pm »
And how many times do you see guys sticking their heads out of the turret while firing?  (Tried to find one of a driver sticking his head out while firing, with no luck.  I'm sure they're out there though.  :o )

It's a bad scene, man. Cue Kenny Loggins.
Aerospace / Re: DARPA Launches Gremlins Program
« Last post by marauder2048 on Today at 08:54:01 pm »
Given the less aggressive max speed goals my assumption is that they could use a cheaper, derated propulsion
system relative to MALD.
Paid for the remainder of Skybolt's development and then sold the info back to the US.

What a shame that economics prevented that from happening... 
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Today at 08:05:03 pm »
Tanks provide more than sufficient firepower, with armoured protection to allow them to destroy most strong points with direct fire.  However, they are effectively "blind" when closed down, when in urban environments, which allows the enemy to approach closely and attack them, unless they have sufficient infantry supporting them.  Indeed, the idea of attacking urban sites with armoured forces alone is considered crazy by most tacticians.  People seem to forget that today, most armies utilise "combined arms teams" - armour, infantry and other supporting arms to provide them with sufficient firepower and the means to overcome obstacles/strong points when they encounter them.   

This was confirmed by the Israelis in 1982 when the invaded Lebanon.  They tried to send M113s with infantry inside to support tanks in the cities they were attacking.  The infantry were reluctant to leave their APCs and as a result everybody suffered casualties from RPGs and ATGWs.   Nowadays, the Israelis kick their mounts out and make them walk when they reach the outer limits of the cities.
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 07:54:31 pm »

Just 20/year since cancellation and we'd be approaching 300 Raptors today. What a conventional deterrent this plane could have been.  :'(

Deterrent to what? Nobody is threatening CONUS, nor has the capability to do so with the exception of SLBMs and ICBMs. By the time the J-20 or T-50 are in service, in numbers and with capabilities that matter, we'll be flying the PCA and even without it we will still have a larger more modern air force than anyone else in the world.
Do you believe that deterrence only applies to threats to CONUS? Which is inconsistent with your second sentence of needing an air force (or any military system beyond the Triad) at all if we are only threatened by ICBMs and SLBMs. No reason to station all that equipment in Germany and elsewhere during the Cold War and ironically sending heavy armor back to Europe that media reports as a conventional deterrent to a revanchist Russia. Now imagine the impact if we had an extra 200-300 Raptors to deploy to Europe. 

But IF our air force is good enough to deter now - you now admit there is such a thing a conventional deterrence if this statement is to logically following my initial post - than having more F-22s (an undoubtedly better A2A fighter) would only enhance the deterrence YOU say we have anyway, correct? 
Interesting Websites / Re: San Diego Air and Space Museum Archive
« Last post by Orionblamblam on Today at 07:52:53 pm »

This design doesn't ring any bells with me, it may even be a nominal representation of an "Aerospace Plane" concept,

It's one of the Convair designs for the aptly-named "Aerospace Plane" program, a USAF program to develop an airbreathing reusable launch system.
Interesting Websites / Re: San Diego Air and Space Museum Archive
« Last post by Boxman on Today at 07:46:01 pm »
A couple of very interesting images added to the SDASM's Flickr Commons collection today. The description for the side-view of the model in the photo is incorrect, however, the adjacent photo in the collection with a head on view describes the model as, "Model Aerojet; Plastic Space Plane Date: 07/09/1962".  The name on the model stand for the side-view describes the model as "Aerospace Plane."

As best as I can glean from the two photos of the model, it appears to be mixed-propulsion, with intakes aft along either side, presumably for the air-breathing portion of flight, plus what appears to possibly be provision for retractable canards on the nose.

This design doesn't ring any bells with me, it may even be a nominal representation of an "Aerospace Plane" concept, but I figure many here may have a better idea (if so, moderators please move to the most appropriate topic).

For the record there were 5 variations of the AH-64. Army, Air Force Silver, Navy Dark Blue, Marine Green, and White Airforce with the Jet engines. Circle 5 had a picture of mine a ways back in this forum. Par Tool made them and Rick Southwick was involved. You can trace his history back to the Convair model shops where he was built a lot of the in-house aircraft. You can tell his work when there were fiberglass fuselage's and wood wings. He retired to Madera where he had a small shop in a hanger doing NASA work and where we were able to get a lot of goodies he had left over. Ahhhhh, the good old days!

Interesting Websites / Re: Lockheed Program 476L proposal (C-141)
« Last post by Boxman on Today at 07:23:01 pm »
San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Archives have added additional System 476L presentation slides to their Flickr Commons collection.

Here are a couple of the interesting configurations depicted.

A dual engine pod arrangement with four-wheel bogey landing gear housed in the wings' anti-shock bodies.

A swing-nose version with the cockpit in a raised hump above the main deck, 747-style ("Bow Loader Version").
Space Projects / Re: National AeroSpace Plane (X-30)
« Last post by flateric on Today at 07:08:59 pm »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10