Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The book's artwork is the same as that reproduced by Richard Ferriere. The sketches are signed "odile 92". I'm not sure who that is ... perhaps Odile Barbazan?
2
Military / Re: Russia re-militarizing the Arctic? SHELF system
« Last post by Brickmuppet on Today at 02:38:12 pm »
Of course, the Russians have to expect that Kings Bay, Norfolk (note to self...move), Pearl Harbor and Bremerton would be equipped to detect big metal underwater things entering them so they would need a  high speed setting for that.

I would be astonished if there were anything we could actually DO about it though.

Good point.
If they were attempting to sneak in slowly I'd expect we could sink it. Its a bit smaller than most midget subs. However, coming in at 100 knots a nuclear depth charge might be necessary....we don't have those anymore unless we still have some B-61s with hydrostatic fuses...and popping a nuke, even a small one off Virginia Beach, or St. Simons, or Port Angeles is going to have an environmental impact akin to Crossroads Baker.

The bigger story here is the super-atomic-powered SOSUS net, which has the potential to turn the Arctic Ocean into a Russian lake almost as secure for them as the Caspian.
3
Aerospace / Re: DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)
« Last post by marauder2048 on Today at 02:27:49 pm »
One issue is that LRASM's range greatly exceeds the detection range of LCS embarked ISR helicopters ~ 125 nmi (50 nmi radius + 75 nmi radar). 
This detection range is consistent with the missile range they've wargamed for a notional OTH missile equipped LCS.

https://news.usni.org/2016/07/26/opinion-gaming-distributed-lethality
4
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by flateric on Today at 01:47:59 pm »
5
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by fightingirish on Today at 12:02:01 pm »
First Flight of AS-1 (IAF 901) fore Israel.
Quote
Do the Israeli jets have a different EOTS than other F-35's? 1st flight of the first Israeli F-35. Pic by Dave Cheng
Source: https://twitter.com/FrankCrebas/status/757961766252978178
More Pictures
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=47609&start=15
-----------
Quote
First ever test firing of F-35B external gun pod carried out last week on @USMC aircraft BF-01 at @NASPaxRiverPAO

Source: https://twitter.com/IanJKeddie/status/757937789229002755
6
Aerospace / Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Last post by flateric on Today at 11:58:17 am »
I don't insist though. My bad, seems that I got things wrong.
7
Missile Projects / Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Last post by bring_it_on on Today at 11:37:45 am »
Poland Intends To Finalize Patriot Sale Agreement by Year’s End

Quote
WASHINGTON — The Polish government intends to finalize an agreement with the US government by the end of the year to buy the Raytheon-made Patriot air and missile defense system, the Polish defense minister said.

The initial agreement will cover the sale of two Patriot systems, Antoni Macierewicz told Defense News in a exclusive July 22 interview. And Poland will get more than 50 percent of the work share to build Patriot, something the country was adamant about when defining its terms.

Poland’s leading state-run defense group PGZ signed a letter of intent with Raytheon to cooperate on Wisla — Poland's new missile defense program — paving the way for the country's acquisition of Patriot missiles, PGZ said in a statement earlier this month.

PGZ was set up in 2013 to consolidate Poland's fragmented, state-owned defense industry. The Polish Ministry of Treasury remains the main shareholder of PGZ, but the group is subordinated to the country’s Ministry of Defence.Over the past year, Poland has gone back and forth on its decision to procure a medium-range air-and-missile defense system that would provide 360-degree protection.

Poland announced in the spring of 2015 that it chose the Patriot system for Wisla. The plan was to buy two Patriot systems in the current configuration, followed by next-generation systems that include the AESA GaN radar and an open architecture that would allow a variety of interceptors to plug into the system. The two initial Patriot systems would then be retrofitted with next-generation capabilities.

Also in the Wisla competition were Lockheed Martin’s Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), Israel’s David’s Sling and a French consortium’s offering. MEADS and David’s Sling were taken out of the running because they are still in development. However Germany plans to sign an agreement with Lockheed and MBDA Deutschland to finish MEADS' development.

However, elections last November ushered in a new government, which decided to review all of the recent acquisition decisions of the previous government, including on Patriot. And the government has, all along, hinted that it would consider capabilities for its next-generation system outside of the two Patriot batteries it would initially procure.

Poland’s new conservative government called into question the previous liberal cabinet’s choice of Patriot — estimated to be €5 billion (US $5.5 billion) deal.

This gave hope to the other companies with offerings in the Wisla competition. Poland reopened discussions with Lockheed Martin, for instance.Macierewicz said last November during a parliamentary defense commission meeting that the conditions of the potential contract to buy US missiles “have changed a lot since the public announcement.” He said he wasn’t happy with the price or the potential delivery timeline.

Through a translator, Macierewicz told Defense News that a letter of intent with Raytheon was recently signed following conversations that were held during the last six months after his party came to power. The conversations “changed their shape, and if the negotiated commitments by Raytheon will be signed and applied then we are interested in such an agreement,” the translator said.

Macierewicz also indicated that while the agreement will cover the sale of two Patriots there is potential for Poland to order more batteries in the future.

“We do want to develop an anti-missile defense together with the US, US industry and US Army,” Macierewicz said through his translator. “We assume that Raytheon, what Raytheon proposes will then be the basis of equipment for the US Army and our financial capabilities will also be significant. We are perfectly aware of the fact modernization of the system carried out by Raytheon will be, to a huge extent, be done by Polish money and it will serve the Polish Army and the US Army as well.”Macierewicz said Poland’s plans to procure a new short-range air and missile defense system — the Narew program — through a competition is also separately underway.
8
Military / Re: Russia re-militarizing the Arctic? SHELF system
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 10:45:57 am »
Of course, the Russians have to expect that Kings Bay, Norfolk (note to self...move), Pearl Harbor and Bremerton would be equipped to detect big metal underwater things entering them so they would need a  high speed setting for that.

I would be astonished if there were anything we could actually DO about it though.
9
Found via @Tony Osborne at Twitter.
Original source is the AviationWeek archive
10
Military / Re: Russia re-militarizing the Arctic? SHELF system
« Last post by Brickmuppet on Today at 10:00:41 am »
So this is in addition to KHABAROVSK?
Is there still only one KHABAROVSK in the pipeline?

I'm not convinced that the Kanyon, if going slow, is going to be all that easy to detect, especially in a surprise attack scenario. Yes, an open cycle reactor will be a terribly polluting piece of kit, but seawater is a very good radiation shield and any uranium flakes tend not to float. One of these things might quietly be fired into a port like, Houston, San Fran, Port Arthur or Beaumont and left yo go off as part of a coordinated attack. . Of course, the Russians have to expect that Kings Bay, Norfolk (note to self...move), Pearl Harbor and Bremerton would be equipped to detect big metal underwater things entering them so they would need a  high speed setting for that.



I wonder if it's practical to "sling" one of these monsters under a stealthier nuclear or even conventional submarine for surprise? I suppose they wouldn't be using the resources that could go for an SSBN (KHABAROVSK) if that were the case though.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10