Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX UAV Programs
« Last post by kaiserd on Today at 01:06:54 am »
When I heard the chatter about X47B getting cancelled, I was dubious. I argued that it was absolutely vital even to my less than informed eyes. "To protect the F35 at all costs" was the near instantaneous response.

There's practically no evidence to support this theory.

nor is there any evidence that it isn't true.


There's plenty of evidence to the contrary: the descoping of UCLASS to the tanker role rather
than outright termination is a logical consequence of the Navy's ill-advised decision to retire
the S-3 and give the tanking mission to the Super Bug which is bleeding those airframes dry.

There's talk of the precedent of one program being cancelled to protect another which
completely ignores the A-12; a high-risk, highly survivable aircraft with broad-based support
in OSD and with another service. 

The A-12 wasn't cancelled to protect another program but the uniformed and civilian officers
who backed it had their careers wrecked nonetheless. The A-12 has cast a *long* shadow
on the Navy; UCLASS is a high-risk departure from conventional carrier operations and it
could fail with a lot of collateral damage.

My view is that the Navy should take the risk but it's not my career at stake.
CBARS is a surer bet that does satisfy a real (if largely self-inflicted) need.

I think a lot of contributors (and politicans) underestimate the risks that were involved with the UCLASS; it is notable that we hearing a lot less of the roughly contemporary B-21 being "optionally-manned" with the US Airforce not having a public programme for an autonomous survivable deep strike UCAV.
The US Navy would have to spend to push the state of the art while also paying for the F-35C to replace the legacy Hornets, or sacrificing the F-35C.
Ironically there appears to be a lobby within the US Navy aviation branch that is so conservative, risk adverse, myopic and in thrall to Boeing that would sacrifice everything for some warmed up Super Hornets.
In that context not surprising UCLASS found itself without a major pro-lobby as no one willing inside the IS Navy to "bet the farm" on an expensive risky and even if successful potentially limited flexibility system.
3
Aerospace / Re: F-15 Silent Eagle unveiled
« Last post by Triton on Yesterday at 04:52:52 pm »
Boeing promotional video for Advanced F-15, formerly known as 2040 C.
Now that we know there is a relationship between Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg and President of the United States Donald Trump, it will be interesting to see if the United States Air Force will order the F-15 Silent Eagle or upgrade the F-15C fleet to F-15 Advanced.

Idle speculation aside, why is this video in the F-15 SE topic? We have an F-15 Modernization topic: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16451.0.html

My Search fu was off, sorry.
4
Aerospace / F-23 weapons bay
« Last post by Ogami musashi on Yesterday at 04:47:13 pm »
After some thoughts, i can't get my mind on how the weapon release in the F-23A would work. Let me explain:

- On the YF-23 PAV-1, there was a complicated plater+launcher system. The Utility manual says that the palet was outward angled by 17 degrees. In Paul Metz book, the YF-23 drawing indeed depicts two amraams in the weapon bay being angled at approx 17° outward.

-The problem is that, IMHO, this system can't work on the F-23A. The two missiles on the YF-23 were located at the center of the bay, while on the F-23A you had 4 of them with two outward and on top of two other(see aldo spadoni illustration above). The weapon bays on the F-23A were shallower and more importantly there was wing bulkhead that basically prevented the lower missiles to be rotated.
The two files attached show the 4 missiles arrangement on the F-23A and the YF-23A arrangement as put into an F-23A weapon bay.


-Since you can't rotate the lower missiles, then, only four hypothesis:

1/ The weapon palet tilts down to fire the upper missiles. This seems impossible for two reasons: the bulkhead will prevent the lower missile to rotate unless lowered outside of the weapon bay (see point 3) and even though, the upper missiles can't be fired without being extended (their wings would collide with lower missiles fins).
2/ You can't select the munition and lower missiles are first launched. This would seem plausible because the plane has one weapon bay for amraams and one for sidewinder. Except that in technical drawings, in the specifications table, you have an alternative weapon load offered. And this is still has only amraam and aim-9 as possibility. At the time of the proposal, the aim-120c program wasn't officially launched and as confirmed by Aldo spadoni, aim-120c fitting in the F-23A was only remotely researched so the proposal didn't feature those. I think one probable loadout was a 4 aim-9 and two aim-120 missiles. In that case, not being able to select the munition is clearly impossible.
3/ The whole loadout is exposed to the air. This would be pretty strange for a plane that put so much attention to stealth that the whole pylons+missiles would be in the stream!
4/ The rest of all solutions!

Anyone has some idea, info?
6
Aerospace / Re: F-15 Silent Eagle unveiled
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 02:57:40 pm »
Boeing promotional video for Advanced F-15, formerly known as 2040 C.
Now that we know there is a relationship between Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg and President of the United States Donald Trump, it will be interesting to see if the United States Air Force will order the F-15 Silent Eagle or upgrade the F-15C fleet to F-15 Advanced.

Idle speculation aside, why is this video in the F-15 SE topic? We have an F-15 Modernization topic: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16451.0.html
7
Military / Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 01:24:34 pm »
Podcast: Hypersonics Wake-Up Call

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-hypersonics-wake-call

Thanks for posting but it's a pretty feeble discussion, largely devoid of technical and treaty considerations that
merely summarizes an unclassified executive summary that's solely focused on Air Force
(as opposed to DARPA, Navy and Army) efforts.

It's disappointing that the US seems so unfocused on this topic compared to China & Russia.

But that's not what the study says despite AvWeek's attempts to misrepresent it for headline purposes.

8
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by lantinian on Yesterday at 12:47:04 pm »
Final Red Flag kill ration seams to be 20:1 based on a statement in this clip

9
The Bar / Re: China Expanded Air Defense Zone
« Last post by kaiserd on Yesterday at 12:36:50 pm »
Evidence that this areas politics are more complicated than contributors would like to pretend.
China' relationship with North Korea is complex and real attempts to contain and discipline North Korea's regime wil need to be in concert with China.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39015529
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10