Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Space Projects / Re: KH-11 KENNEN
« Last post by quellish on Today at 04:45:04 pm »
Just looks like an image of Hubble to me & it would be a first for an image of it to be reproduced of it in public. Any thoughts on this?


It is a retouched image of Hubble, not an image of KH-11.
2
The Bar / Re: Lockheed Martin's Fusion Reactor
« Last post by NeilChapman on Today at 04:32:18 pm »

Sounds like a sales pitch.  They're looking for money.

Is this in DoE's area for granting money? 

Has anyone seen a program plan for LM's work on this?

The funding they need to run the program is a drop in the bucket thanks to it being a program to develop a portable reactor (rather than a major project like ITER). In an interview somewhere they were saying that what they need are more physicists to join their team, as they only have about a dozen scientists working full time on the project.

As for their plans, they say that their plan is to run a design-build-test generation every year, with the hope being that they can have a prototype (that can presumably achieve [lossy] fusion) in 5 years (as of late 2014; so by 2019 or 2020). They then also hope to have a production unit that generates safe, usable, positive net power another 5 years later (~2025).

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

Hopefully they can partner up and get the resources required. 

As an aside... Is anyone else not getting their "reply notifications"?
3
Hi,

also about LFG Bitterfeld,it designed a Type-W and Type-WD,a two and single seat
floatplane.
4
who pay for them ?

 ::)
5
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by Abraham Gubler on Today at 03:59:43 pm »
just pointing out that it had very few long range bombers, long range recon aircraft, long range fighters, long range troop and transport aircraft, LSTs, AKAs, APAs, LCIs, LVTs, destroyers, cruisers, minesweepers, submarines, merchantmen etc.

In overall numbers sure. But in a ratio of the above to divisions it was about the same as US forces. Australia was NOT deficient in the kind of enablers needed to launch an amphibious assault in WWII. Which is why were able to successfully conduct a multi division amphibious assault across multiple points on Borneo from national resources.

And just to put things in perspective: to support Downfall, the US was deploying, just from the ETO, the equivalent of the entire Australian army at its maximum (1942) size during WWII.

Yes the USA was and is bigger than Australia. But the point is not that Australia was unable to launch offensive operations in the later part of the war but was not able to deploy land and air forces against the Japanese heartland. This was because the Australian Army and RAAF were not included in the operational orders of battle. The RAN was because it was integrated with the USN and Admiral Nimitz didnít mind using ships under the White Ensign (even if he had to supply them like the BPF). But General MacArthur in command of air-land forces kept things all Stars & Stripes (only after he had a surplus of forces) even if it meant deploying green American divisions rather than veteran Australian divisions.
6
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by marauder2048 on Today at 03:33:47 pm »

Yet, at the same time  Australian troops had steadily been sidelined from 1944.  The US wasn't interested in them going forward to Japan until the realities of the supposed casualty rates for Coronet and Downfall hit home.

In offensive operations, the Australians were almost completely dependent on US logistical, naval and air support which competed with other (much larger) US operations in the Southwest and Central Pacific theaters. 

I'd suggest your characterisation of Australia's logistics as being "almost completely dependent on the US" as being non-sensical.  By 1944, Australia had the largest proportion of it's effective manpower in uniform compared to all other combatants (approximately a seventh of the total population - 1 million out of 7 million).  So much so, that the troops had to be demobilised in 1945, to keep the civilian economy going.)  Our industries were producing all the small arms, artillery and aircraft that we required.  What we lacked was ships to carry our troops forward, which the US was not willing to provide because it favoured the use of it's own troops because Australia was not willing to remain acquiescent in the Allied conferences and potential treaty discussions.  Washington (and London) could not accept that Australia was a free and independent nation, not a colony of the British Empire.   We had faced down Churchill in 1941-2 over the misuse of Australian troops in Malaya and Burma.  We had faced down Washington when Australia and New Zealand signed the ANZAC Pact in 1944.   Washington retaliated by sidelining our forces to meaningless campaigns in the Islands to our North against Japanese forces which had been bypassed.

I'm not trying to denigrate the fighting qualities of the Australian armed forces just pointing out that it had very few long range bombers, long range recon aircraft, long range fighters,
long range troop and transport aircraft, LSTs, AKAs, APAs, LCIs, LVTs, destroyers, cruisers, minesweepers, submarines, merchantmen etc.
All of the above are rather vital to successful offensive operations in the Pacific.

Given that shipping was in short supply even for the better provisioned Central Pacific Area, there's no conspiracy needed to explain the paucity of shipping available for operations in the Southwest Pacific
Area.

And just to put things in perspective: to support Downfall, the US was deploying, just from the ETO, the equivalent of the entire Australian army at its maximum (1942) size during WWII.
7
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Hawker Tempest I
« Last post by kaiserd on Today at 03:21:07 pm »
Thanks lads, really facinating contributions.
8
Aerospace / Re: Pakistan threatens to buy Russian or Chinese jets
« Last post by kaiserd on Today at 03:13:10 pm »
"Pakistan threatens to buy Russian or Chinese jets in spat with US"
by Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad and Victor Mallet in New Delhi
May 4, 2016

Source:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49dcfe66-11c6-11e6-839f-2922947098f0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz47n94eG3A

The article is sitting behind a pay wall.

As you will be aware Pakistan already buys fighters from China, and an eventual J-10 purchase has been long rumoured.
Despite it close relationship with India, Russia has already sold military equipment to Pakistan such as helicopters and (indirectly via China) the engines for its joint fighter project with China.

In this context would be interesting to see if Russia would actually sell Su-30 derivatives to Pakistan, and what that would indicate about the state of Russia's relationship with India (threat of a such a sale a way for Russia to put pressure on India re: their version of the T-50?).

And then again China could always sell Pakistan its "all Chinese" Flanker derivatives (which could cause friction with Russia).

And then again could all be a bluff by Pakistan to get a few more F-16s...... :)
9
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Hawker Tempest I
« Last post by robunos on Today at 02:37:53 pm »
Don't know if this is of any relevance, from the Tempest chapter of Roland Beamont's 'Testing Years'...

"At Langley in 1943 the new development of the Typhoon series called the Tempest was on test in three main variants; Tempest I with uprated Sabre engine, four-bladed propellor and very clean wing root leading edge radiators; the Tempest II with a Centaurus sleeve-valve radial engine and the Tempest V with the uprated Sabre, a longer nose (I assume he means relative to the Typhoon) and an extended undernose radiator...
My first experience was on...the Tempest I prototype...for a period Bill Humble and I found ourselves alternately exceeding the existing world speed record...for that stage of the war this was very high performance and it was disappointing that subsequently other operational considerations...resulted in..selection of of the Mk V configuration for production with a lower performance.
These considerations were that the wing radiators occupied valuable potential fuel tank space, and they also spread out along the underside of the wing roots where they were highly vulnerable to ground fire. Reverting to the chin-type...radiator permitted the leading edge fuel tanks to be incorporated, but before...aircraft could reach the squadrons an Air Ministry instruction arrived calling for the blanking off of the...tanks...on the grounds that rate-of-cxlimb was now more important, and that the weight of fuel was critical...
As a mere pilot this seemed to make no sense to me, the rate-of-climb loss would have been less than 1/2 minute to 20,000', and the Tempest was unlikely...to be required for high-altitude defence but would...be needed for medium level battlefield air superiority...and ground attack...This situation was obviously unsatisfactory and I joined...in lobbying for maximum fuel capacity for the operational Tempest V."  (my bold)

cheers,
            Robin.
10
Thank you Martinbayer,

but the aircraft which I saw it was very different.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10