Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Military / Re: FMC XM723 design vs. M2 Bradley IFV design
« Last post by Winston on February 24, 2017, 05:34:23 pm »
More views of the XM723 from ebay.  I wanted to add these to help illustrate its design. :)
92
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by bobbymike on February 24, 2017, 05:29:12 pm »
94
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by Moose on February 24, 2017, 04:52:59 pm »
Russian subs spend a fair amount of time under the ice, and the Putin regime has been making news about expanding the exploitation of undersea resources above the circle. Given that, Id be rather shocked if they were so careless as to start irradiating large swaths of the area.
95
Aerospace / Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Last post by Moose on February 24, 2017, 04:44:38 pm »
Safe money is still on the T-50 with LM.
Assuming its not just a contest to see who can kiss more orange butt,  I think Boeing the the Swedes might surprise us.
96
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by Brickmuppet on February 24, 2017, 04:29:33 pm »
OK, a few days ago it made the news that infinitesimal and biologically harmless amounts of radioactive iodine had been detected over Europe.
This was not received calmly in some quarters...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4250098/US-nuclear-sniffer-plane-flies-Norway.html?ITO=1490

News of the deployment comes amid claims Russia may be testing nuclear weapons, either to the east or in the arctic, after a spike in radioactivity was reported.

Given that no earthquakes were detected, the notion that a nuclear bomb was tested seems silly. This seems more likely to be a leak from a nuke plant, waste facility or a medical imaging device.

However, I do understand that Russia is reported to have tested their "Status 6" super-'splody-port-buster-torpedo back in December.
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-tests-nuclear-capable-drone-sub/
http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-%20Russian%20Status-6%20aka%20KANYON%20nuclear%20deterrence%20and%20Pr%2009851%20submarine.html

It is purported to have a nuclear engine, an open cycle one at that. Could this have accounted for the radioactive release? The dates the contamination was detected fall about 40 days or so after the report of the test.
97
Looks great.  I will definitely get a print copy for myself.
98
Aerospace / Re: Shenyang FC-31 - maybe J-31 revealed!
« Last post by Blitzo on February 24, 2017, 02:25:39 pm »
Royal Navy / USN better be looking at super sonic carrier killer systems pronto, and then spreading them across the coast of Japan and other nations before it is too late.

US and their allies already have the world's quietest submarines, and are already developing new AShMs like LRASM and Japan's developing XASM. Their anti-surface ship capabilities are already very potent, not to mention their large arsenal of ISR capabilities.


That is interesting news to me Blitzo, I did not know that the PLAAN were doing a competition for a new ship born fighter before, I wonder if they will go for a carrier variant of the FC-31 since it is smaller than the J-20, because there is not much room on board an aircraft carrier.

Yes, there is a competition for a 5th gen carrier fighter. A couple years back it was thought that the Navy decided to go with CAC, but apparently that was incorrect and the competition is still ongoing.

I think both J-20 and FC-31 have their strengths and weaknesses. Whatever the Navy goes for will also likely influence the Air Force's procurement plans as well to an extent, specifically if the Navy goes for a carrier variant of FC-31 then it is much more likely that the Air Force will also induct FC-31 in some form as well as a medium weight stealth fighter to complement J-20. But if the Navy doesn't go for FC-31 then the Air Force probably won't either. And vice versa of course.



100,000 ton carriers for the PLAAN?  That put's it in the same league as the current Nimitz class of the US Navy.  The Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth class is only 65,000 tons for comparison.  The J-20 would have no trouble operating from China's Future carriers after all.  They might also want the J-31 as a strike fighter to compliment the J-20. 

The second domestically produced carrier (002) will be a CATOBAR carrier, and its full displacement has been said to be around 85,000 tons. The bigger size of the carrier and the greater aircraft spotting positions due to the benefits of a flat bow flight deck will likely significantly enhance the rate of flight operations that can be conducted on it relative to Liaoning.
Note, 002 is not the Liaoning pattern STOBAR carrier being produced at Dalian, that is the 001A.
99
Aerospace / Re: Shenyang FC-31 - maybe J-31 revealed!
« Last post by Ian33 on February 24, 2017, 02:00:51 pm »
100,000 ton carriers for the PLAAN?  That put's it in the same league as the current Nimitz class of the US Navy.  The Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth class is only 65,000 tons for comparison.  The J-20 would have no trouble operating from China's Future carriers after all.  They might also want the J-31 as a strike fighter to compliment the J-20.

Royal Navy / USN better be looking at super sonic carrier killer systems pronto, and then spreading them across the coast of Japan and other nations before it is too late.
100
Space Projects / Re: Myasishchev M-19 projects
« Last post by blackkite on February 24, 2017, 01:56:22 pm »
"then add a nuclear pile to the whole thing."
HmHmHm..........SSTO is hard.
Thank you very much. :D
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]