Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Cutaway Junkers Ju-87V1, Let me share here an interpretation of the cutaway of the first prototype of "Stuka", original author WEAL and modified by Motocar to recreate this forgotten version.
22
Naval Projects / Re: Bell and VT Hovercraft concepts 1960-0nwards
« Last post by Grey Havoc on Today at 04:21:13 am »
I don't know if any are from actual programs, they have the look of more general promotional artwork.

The second and third are definitely from some SES escort studies that were done in the 1960s.  Not sure if they were strictly internal IR&D work or in response to Navy study tasks. 

The Last one is the LVA, which was definitely a real concept, discussed here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3666.0.html

The third image is an illustration of the 3,000 ton (3,050 tonne) LSES frigate in operation alongside two Spruance class destroyers (one of them seems to be the USS USS Hewitt) in heavy weather conditions. Presence of Phalanx CIWS on the LSES strongly suggests that the image is actually from the second half of the 1970s (likely late 1977/early 1978, the timeframe when the basic design of the LSES was frozen & the Phalanx was approved for production).

Oh, you're right about the timing; I was off a decade.  Is LSES (Large SES?) related to 3KSES or were they separate efforts?

Yes, they were both under Surface Effect Ship Program Office PMS-304; originally 3KSES was intended to test technologies and concepts for LSES, among other programs. However, when the LSES program's schedule was moved up (probably due to a perceived impending escort shortage) it left the planned launch dates of the 3KSES and the first unit of the LSES close together, which led to a rather unfortunate impression that the 3KSES was now a 'prototype without a clearly defined mission'. This led to 3KSES being cancelled in early December 1979 just three weeks prior to start of hull construction. Even more unfortunately, despite the urgent need for the LSES, it too was cancelled in turn in January 1980, at the direct instigation of the so-called 'Carrier Mafia', who saw LSES & the SES program in general as a major remaining obstacle to the procurement of more Nimtiz-class CVNs (more than likely they also were in the background on the 3KSES cancellation, setting the stage for their ambush on the LSES).

The apathy of the Carrier mafia to the SES program was to a degree part of the whole CVV vs CVN row that had gone on through out the 1970s; unfortunately the SES and CVV programs shared a number of high profile supporters (though somewhat ironically President Carter while a major cheerleader for the CVV was quite lukewarm towards SES). In fact LSES was actually intended to start building in late 1978 under the revised schedule, but was held up by bureaucratic manoeuvring by pro-CVN supporters within the Pentagon, among them a certain William J. Perry. (The less said about the fiasco that was ANCVE, the better; we would be here all day.)

Another reason that the Carrier mafia wanted the SES program neutered was that there were noises coming out of Congress and elsewhere that with high speed SES vessels carrying out ASW and other duties there wouldn't be a need for the USN to have as many carriers (and air wings), especially large vulnerable CVNs. To say that this was like showing a red flag to a bull would be a classic understatement.
23
30 years ago Sea Harrier and P1216 were looked at for UK/Japanese fighter collaboration.

SkyHook was looked at too as Japan was not allowed to have 'carriers'.

Fuji were the firm BAe talked to - wanted to break into fighter business, and had looked at V/STOL fighter designs of their own in 1970s/1980s
25
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Republic XF-103 Interceptor
« Last post by blackkite on Today at 02:43:26 am »
Hi!
26
Aerospace / Re: Dassault Rafale
« Last post by Deltafan on Today at 02:13:28 am »
Thanks fightingirish (and Hesham ;)).

I'm astonished by
Quote
"M88 engine upgrade (AB thrust > 8 T)"

Not because it could not be possible, but because I did not see a proof that it is what the minister said :

Quote
Le standard F4 "prévoit également la prise en compte des évolutions attendues de la motorisation"


AFAIK, officially, nothing is said about these "évolutions" of the engine. I would like to know from where the author of the article in the link found "AB thrust > 8 T"

29
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 12:46:45 am »
The RG were some of the best-trained and most-experienced in the region prior to the war.
This is true, but it still does not mean much. The Iraqi army has one of the worst track records of the world.
They attacked Israel 3 times (48 67 73) and got trounced each time. They attacked on their own terms Iran when it was down with its revolution and still failed.
Their performance in ODS was dismal. And in 2003 they didn't defend even halfway-competently.
Not to mention that they kept running like rats in front of ragbag terrorists, to the point of losing half their country.

The Iraqi army always looked good to the casual observer because of their impressive inventories, but even for the standards of the armies of this region and culture, they've consistently underperformed.
Iraq's is really a failed military culture. Jordan's Arab legion is  in a different class, for example.
I don't disagree that we 'found out' during ODS the RG weren't what they were cracked up to be but I'd really be interested in links to who was saying this BEFORE the conflict. IIRC most articles I read said the US should be prepared to lose 20k+ soldiers.

Not taking away from the superb performance of the US military and her allies whose speed of advance and low losses stunned almost everyone.
30
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by dan_inbox on Yesterday at 11:49:48 pm »
The RG were some of the best-trained and most-experienced in the region prior to the war.
This is true, but it still does not mean much. The Iraqi army has one of the worst track records of the world.
They attacked Israel 3 times (48 67 73) and got trounced each time. They attacked on their own terms Iran when it was down with its revolution and still failed.
Their performance in ODS was dismal. And in 2003 they didn't defend even halfway-competently.
Not to mention that they kept running like rats in front of ragbag terrorists, to the point of losing half their country.

The Iraqi army always looked good to the casual observer because of their impressive inventories, but even for the standards of the armies of this region and culture, they've consistently underperformed.
Iraq's is really a failed military culture. Jordan's Arab legion is  in a different class, for example.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10