Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by PaulMM (Overscan) on Today at 02:27:26 am »
Edited...
2
The Bar / Re: Advertising
« Last post by RAP on Yesterday at 07:18:13 pm »
Wish these were in color.
3
Aerospace / Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 07:13:24 pm »
Are these colorful anecdotes (alas largely devoid of evidentiary support) still remotely relevant today?

The Navy's dismal performance in GW I produced a very different and more cooperative Navy/Air Force relationship.

UCLASS would be the ultimate example of that. The Air Force gave the Navy absolute free reign in an area
clearly within the Air Force world view.

Swerving back to topic:

RAND says that the Air Force, despite being invited, didn't even bother to attend any of the FVL JCoC sessions that RAND observed. 
If you want to block a program surely it's much easier to do that from the inside.
4
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by flateric on Yesterday at 04:53:26 pm »
some serrated vent doors underside
5
Aerospace / Re: France and Germany to develop new european fighter jet
« Last post by Deltafan on Yesterday at 02:47:07 pm »
Well, I can only say that the original video has been removed from the Dassault Aviation official website...
My memory may work bad but AFAIR when last time I saw it at Dassault TV site I noticed that it was uploaded on March 2018.
WaybackMachine tricks are not working with site dynamic engine.
Each time (from 04.07.2018) that I saw the video on its page of Dassault's WebTV, the wrote date was : 3 May 2018.

a few days later (after the video began to appear in a lot of websites and medias), the webpage on Dassault's WebTV was still there, but the video was missing.

a few days later again, even the webpage was missing from Dassault's WebTV and the link gave/gives directly the homepage of Dassault Aviation WebTV.


Till today, the older no-Dassault webpage that I found (AsianDefence) with the video gave/gives the date : 3 May 2018  (YouTube : 4 May 2018)



That's all I know... :-\                                                                                                       
6
Aerospace / Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Last post by F-14D on Yesterday at 12:23:48 pm »
As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong) the Army has responsibility for rotorcraft technology by Congressional Specification.  I think the USAF and USN have a amenable division of labor for fixed wing with shore and ship based aircraft since like 1920.

Not without it's bumps.  See "Admiral's Revolt".  IIRC the USAF wasn't crazy about the SeaMaster either.

Excellent example.  If the Korean War hadn't come along, the US might have lost its carriers, which was the position the nascent Air Force

USAF has this view of its "roles and missions" that it views are properly theirs.  When it perceives one of the other services (including the Navy) doing something that might conflict with their view of the world, they will work to block it.  There are numerous examples. 

Here's just one:  During the development of the B-2 as costs were rising,  a senior USAF General and his staff put out a public position that the way the country could fund more B-2s was to retire as many aircraft carriers and air wings as necessary to fund it.  Of course under questioning USAF said that wasn't an "official" position, but those things don't get put out without having gone all through the chain.   It's really only since the 1990s that USAF lowered its sniping regarding carrier air. 


Another is the Laser Maverick vs. Bulldog.  I don't remember all the precise details, but this rough story is illustrative.  Early in the operations of laser guided weaponry,  seeing their effectiveness, Navy and USMC wanted a laser guided missile for CAS and striking smaller water traffic.  They came up with the Bulldog, which was basically taking the large numbers of Bullpup missiles already in stock and replacing the existing guidance system with a  laser seeking head they'd develop (decades later the same idea gave us APKWS).  USAF said to DoD/Congress they were going to develop their own  laser seeker head for new production  Mavericks, there was no need for two seekers.  USN said that's a good idea, we'll use it for Bulldog. 

USAF pushed hard that USN be directed to use their new Laser Maverick, even though USN had no Mavericks in stock, the warhead was not of the size and type needed, it was incompatible with Navy launching systems and a number of other reservations.  However, because USAF pushed that with their large buy this should be the missile for everybody.  It was so ordered as the AGM-65C.  Once Bulldog was safely dead,  USAF announced that they really didn't need a laser guided missile anyway right then, but if USN wanted to pay for development and procurement of Laser Mavericks, that would be perfectly fine.    AGM-65C was cancelled.  With no chance or reviving Bulldog, USMC was left with nothing, so they bit the bullet and had to fund all the development and introduction of a laser version of USAF's 'Maverick with a warhead they could use which emerged as the AGM-65E. 

7
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by Jemiba on Yesterday at 12:22:12 pm »
I've added the panel lines visible in the CGI and the colour scheme from post #69
(Thank you Flateric, thank you Paul !). The latter certainly not for number crunchers ...  ;)
8
Aerospace / Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 09:36:36 am »
As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong) the Army has responsibility for rotorcraft technology by Congressional Specification.  I think the USAF and USN have a amenable division of labor for fixed wing with shore and ship based aircraft since like 1920.

Not without it's bumps.  See "Admiral's Revolt".  IIRC the USAF wasn't crazy about the SeaMaster either.
9
Aerospace / Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Last post by yasotay on Yesterday at 09:34:45 am »
Part of the reason that the USMC has not been able to develop VTOL recently is that by law the Army is responsible for rotorcraft Science and Technology when the USAF elected not to invest in "useless helicopters" in the 1950's.  Because the USMC is part of the USN (much to their dismay) they are restricted by Title 10 to what they can develop on their own.  This is why the USMC has been holding its breath regarding the FVL technologies that would be moved forward.  The USMC announced today its H-1 helicopter replacement requirements.  Currently their is only one flying aircraft that has a chance of meeting their requirements, with some modification.

I thought that division of duties applied just to USAF/Army?

USMC is part of Navy, so their funding is controlled by USN and it isn't often the Navy let them go off on their own.



As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong) the Army has responsibility for rotorcraft technology by Congressional Specification.  I think the USAF and USN have a amenable division of labor for fixed wing with shore and ship based aircraft since like 1920. Navy rotorcraft technology base has been significantly reduced over the last twenty years (my opinion) and for the most part has become an organization mostly focused on marinizing platforms and the mission packages on them.  It still exist, but is no where near the size of the Army Science and Technology base for rotorcraft.
10
Aerospace / Re: France and Germany to develop new european fighter jet
« Last post by flateric on Yesterday at 07:55:32 am »
Well, I can only say that the original video has been removed from the Dassault Aviation official website...
My memory may work bad but AFAIR when last time I saw it at Dassault TV site I noticed that it was uploaded on March 2018.
WaybackMachine tricks are not working with site dynamic engine.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10