Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: F-35 for Canada
« Last post by Avimimus on Today at 06:30:41 pm »
First, I wanted to thank you guys for the info, there is stuff I didn't know. I find Dragon029's arguments particularly compelling.

I can see a situation where the HAL Tejas could be a suitable fit.

Now you're just trying to wind us up.

:) Maybe. But only because it is easy.

But I'm actually quite serious that the Tejas makes a lot of sense.

If you are willing to forgo range and twin-engined requirements it provides a lot of capabilities:

The aircraft can be operated off of short-strips. It can achieve the super-sonic speeds needed to intercept high-subsonic patrol aircraft or off-course airliners. It has sufficient air-to-ground capabilities to provide precision air-support during foreign operations. A military contract of that scale with India would also be politically useful. So basically, it could do everything that we'd ask the CF-35 to do at a lower price-point. A major goal for Canada is to maintain experience with operating an air-force in case we should ever need to seriously re-arm and it would accomplish that along with provide the basic air-to-ground role that the CF-188/CF-18 has most often been used for (at least since we stopped intercepting Tu-95s on a regular basis).

2
Aerospace / Re: North American XB-70
« Last post by Johnbr on Today at 04:20:10 pm »
Two XB-70s were completed and flown, with a third (a YB-70, actually) cancelled while under construction.
3
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by seruriermarshal on Today at 04:12:35 pm »
German and France never buy F-35 .
4
The Bar / Re: Vought Track Air Cushion Vehicle
« Last post by Orionblamblam on Today at 04:00:03 pm »
I know it has been done multiple times, but jet engines on ground vehicles never fails to set off my "that ain't right" alarm.
5
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by fredymac on Today at 03:50:45 pm »
Under distributed lethality, weapons are placed on any convenient ship.  No onboard sensors or cueing is assumed.  All targeting data is provided from remote.  Right now that is linked in through ship communications as a recent F-35/SM-6 intercept test demonstrated. 

However, packing the communications directly into the missile (similar to how TLAM can be re-targeted mid flight) does not sound like a significant technical hurdle.  Indeed, I think the latest SM3 missiles have improved ship to missile communications for better cueing updates and that should be transferable to a 3rd party.

I have no idea what the weather limits are for vertical launch missiles.  I assume SSBN's are advised to shift patrol areas out of extreme seas when necessary.  That would degrade an ABM intercept geometry but it would still provide earlier/better intercept opportunities than land based systems.

The technical problems deal with missile communications to a remote command/sensor network.  Given all the developments we are seeing with integrated sensor and fire control systems both in the Army and Navy, I would not be surprised to see direct linkage between an interceptor to a remote network develop on its own impetus.
6
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Moose on Today at 02:24:54 pm »
If you mean from "Pacific Ocean" to "South China Sea", sure.
For boost-phase or Terminal? Going to be a lot smaller than that. And even for Midcourse with a high-performance interceptor, having a 20,000t sub patrolling at periscope depth and/or towing a float for weeks or months at a time is giving the other side a heck of a lot of help finding the boat. People worry enough about Trident patrols getting mapped.
A towed float will still be a hell of a lot stealthier than a 10,000+ ton BMD ship.
A 10,000t+ BMD surface combatant would, one presumes, have a robust air and missile defense suite as well as accompanying platforms like perhaps a friendly SSN to keep the rabble at bay both in deterrence and in an actual conflict. A large sub, on the other hand, is going to rely on stealth first and foremost so once detected it's in a much less ideal position than the skimmer. Furthermore, a 10,000t+ surface combatant can defend itself and stay on station unless things go particularly bad. The first thing a sub will do if someone spots the bobber is reel it in/cut it and go deep to defend itself. Your BMD platform might now be a lot harder to kill, but it's also now off station.
None that are insurmountable.
Can be said about many things. But we're talking about the relative value of a subsurface BMD platform. The additional technical challenge of keep 2-way communications secure and reliable enough to make the concept work is an important part of the equation.
If they can launch TLAM from VLS underwater why would SM-3/6 be any different?
With a TLAM launch, or Trident for that matter, they are given a target package well ahead of time and the boat can stay deep until the last minute, which is easier on the crew and hardware. The boat can time launches so they're not launching into a swell, and hunt around for flat(er) water beforehand. The TLAM's performance compared to its mission means it can spend some time and fuel correcting problems like being knocked around in surface conditions without too much trouble, an ABM interceptor isn't going to have a lot of time or performance to spare if it's going to make intercept.

And again, none of this is impossible, it's just adding troubles on top an already difficult mission.
7
Aerospace / Re: Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster and XB-43 Jetmaster
« Last post by RAP on Today at 02:07:52 pm »
From a report on a jet powered XB-42 dated 2/27/44.  Study was to upgrade the XB-42 with the least amount of alterations to production jigs.  Engines were:

Drawing no. 1 - 2 TG-180's and 1 I-16

Drawing no. 2 - 1 TG-180 and 2 I-16's

Drawiing no. 3 - 3 TG-180's

Drawing no. 4 - 2 TG-180's
8
The Bar / Re: Belgium's quest to replace their F-16 fleet
« Last post by Michel Van on Today at 01:14:24 pm »
Next escalation level, this time NATO

Priminister Michel visit the New NATO HQ in Brussels for Meeting with General-Secretary Stoltenberg
during this Michel was confronted by Stoltenberg, that Belgium Government has to do fast decision on Successor for F-16.

in following press meeting, both made there standpoint clear 

Stoltenberg:

What is for NATO is important, that  Belgium Goverment buy new modern efficient Combat Aircraft, who are compatible to NATO specification and Systems
But is not for NATO to tell which specific manufactor or with model to buy
We [NATO] want to see a decision is made so fast as possible this year


Michel:
we looking into new offer by Dassault for Rafale, because Dassault offer also option for Belgium Join-venture in New German-French combat aircraft.

source:
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2018/06/22/navo-herhaalt-graag-snelle-beslissing-over-f-16/
9
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 01:08:59 pm »
Sea based ABM exposes the entire ground track of an ICBM to prompt attack.  Land based ABM forces you into mid course and later intercepts.  That's straight geometry and timing.  Unless you do space based employment, you abandon this capability.

Sub based ABM will require a very high speed data link that acquires the interceptor immediately as it enters boost phase.  This is where development of a global, space based sensor/command network is required.  The command segment replicates the land link to the BDM control system.  It takes distributed lethality and CEC architecture to the final level.

The sub will be big.  It will need to house a GMD sized missile which automatically means it too is on station even as it sits in harbor.  It may actually carry a variety of interceptors ranging from as small as an SM3 Block IIX to a KEI to an intercontinental range GMD.

This technology does not exist but the networked, fused, distributed architectures being pursued for general purposes could readily feed into it.  The only signal the submarine needs to hear is launch X number of Y type interceptors at T time.

I was thinking more like SM-3/-6 for adding confusion to the other guys' problem in conjunction with a CVBG in an air battle with ASBMs in the mix.  Not a dedicated anti-ICBM BMD platform.
10
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 01:04:38 pm »
If the other guy has a decent idea of your interceptor's performance, the area they have to search for your ABM sub shrinks dramatically.

If you mean from "Pacific Ocean" to "South China Sea", sure.

Plus, towed surface floats have a lot of technical issues that can complicate the sub's stealth.

A towed float will still be a hell of a lot stealthier than a 10,000+ ton BMD ship.

And that's all assuming the firing platform can work in receive-only, if it has to send any data back to the targeting platform you're adding more problems.

None that are insurmountable.

Additionally, this would actually be less condition-tolerant than a large, stable surface hull. Firing interceptors in a less-than-ideal sea state is hard enough on a rolling surface ship that is trying to toss interceptors into very small windows. Submarines near the surface are very unstable; so you're fatiguing the crew, risking a broach that could give away (or even damage) the sub, and throwing additional hurdles at the interceptor between the button being pushed and the target going boom.

If they can launch TLAM from VLS underwater why would SM-3/6 be any different?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10