Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: SNCASE (Sud-Est) SE.1010
« Last post by taildragger on Today at 01:04:17 am »
in this period France was just as bad as the UK for developing and/or building aircraft for which there was no customer, requirement or viable order book.

Yes... but aren't we glad they did, in retrospect?  ::) Makes for a much more interesting history of aviation, don't you think?  ;)

The French, in particular, seemed during this period to pursue a great many projects that had little hope of producing useful products.  I suspect that this was not a matter of poor judgement but a need to:
- reassemble and provide work/experience for design teams whose technical skills were 4-5 years behind those of the UK, USA and USSR.
- take maximum advantage of the Marshall Plan and MDAP programs from the USA
By contrast, the British white elephants of this period were mostly commercial projects (Tudor, Princess, Brabizon) and seemed to be more clearly intended a to develop into production programs, but the planners lacked a good understanding of their intended markets. 
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Various Messerschmitt projects
« Last post by Arjen on Today at 12:42:15 am »
Integrated R4M launch tube?
Naval Projects / Re: Swimmer Delivery Vehicle projects, old and new
« Last post by covert_shores on Yesterday at 11:00:51 pm »
Great video, never seen that before!

A couple of correction/additions to the description:
a) the craft in the film is the Aerojet Mk.III from 1954.
b) despite what it says, the Mk.III was peddle powered
c) yes UDT did use them, but only test and training. But Aerojet were involved in multiple SDV projects up to the Mk.VIII and Mk.IX projects (although the Navy took over development of those c1970)

As far as I can tell Aerojet coined the term "mini-sub" with these. Am meaning to do a full Covert Shores article on Aerojet SDVs. One day. :D

Attached are some notes from when I was trying to figure out the Aerojet development history. Got a lot of help from retired UDT/SEALs, a RN Clearance Diver and the Canadian Naval Divers association. Wasn't intended for public presentation. Between us this is the closet to reconstructing the family tree as we got (SDV Mk.VIII and Mk.IX not shown)
Space Projects / Re: NASA Keeping Nuclear-thermal Option Open For Mars
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 06:47:02 pm »
The meltdown may not be an evironmental disaster in space but if you are halfway to Mars and you need the reactor to slow you into orbit, that may be a problem...

And that's different than any other potential power system how?
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Arsenal VG-30 variants
« Last post by blackkite on Yesterday at 05:20:43 pm »
Thanks a lot!! Excellent drawings. :o
Justo-san, I see another VG39 drawing which have more complicated fuselage bottom line.
Anyway VG30 series radiator system design is very impressive.
What is written about VG36 radiator system?
VG60 radiator is very big. Why?
Missile Projects / Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Last post by bring_it_on on Yesterday at 03:42:04 pm »
Poland – Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS)-enabled Patriot Configuration-3+ with Modernized Sensors and Components

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17, 2017 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Poland for an Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS)-enabled Patriot Configuration-3+ with Modernized Sensors and Components for an estimated cost of $10.5 billion.  The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on November 14, 2017.

The Government of Poland has requested to purchase phase one of a two- phase program for an Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS)-enabled Patriot Configuration-3+ with Modernized Sensors and Components consisting of four (4) AN/MPQ-65 radar sets, four (4) engagement control stations, four (4) Radar Interface Units (RIU) modification kits, sixteen (16) M903 Launching stations adapted, eighteen (18) Launcher Integrated Network Kits (LINKs) (includes two (2) spares), two hundred and eight (208) Patriot Advanced Capabilty-3 (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles, eleven (11) PAC-3 MSE test missiles, IBCS software, two (2) future operations – IBCS Engagement Operations Centers (EOCs), six (6) current operations-IBCS EOCs, six (6) engagement operations-IBCS EOCs, fifteen (15) Integrated Fire Control Network (IFCN relays, four (4) Electrical Power Plants (EPP) III, and five (5) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems/Low Volume Terminals (MIDS/LVTs).  Also included with this request are communications equipment, tools and test equipment, range and test programs, support equipment, prime movers, generators, publications and technical documentation, training equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training, Technical Assistance Field Team (TAFT), U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, Systems Integration and Checkout (SICO), field office support, and other related elements of logistics and program support.  The total estimated program cost is $10.5 billion.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally which has been, and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.  This sale is consistent with U.S. initiatives to provide key allies in the region with modern systems that will enhance interoperability with U.S. forces and increase security.

Poland will use the IBCS-enabled Patriot missile system to improve its missile defense capability, defend its territorial integrity, and deter regional threats.  The proposed sale will increase the defensive capabilities of the Polish Military to guard against hostile aggression and shield the NATO allies who often train and operate within Poland’s borders.  Poland will have no difficulty absorbing this system into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of these missiles and equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors will be Raytheon Corporation in Andover, Massachusetts, Lockheed-Martin in Dallas, Texas, and Northrop Grumman in Falls Church, Virginia.  The purchaser requested offsets.  At this time, offset agreements are undetermined and will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractors.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require approximately 42 U.S. Government and 55 contractor representatives to travel to Poland for an extended period for equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout, training, and technical and logistics support.

Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Various Messerschmitt projects
« Last post by sienar on Yesterday at 03:37:21 pm »
This 109g has been posted on Luftwaffe experten and lrg, but no one is quite sure what it is. The fairings are probably for canons, maybe a test for the K. But given the length of the fairings and size of the opening, is a recoilles cannon or some other weapon a possibility?
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by zen on Yesterday at 02:13:29 pm »
So firstly pleasedon't drag this down with current politics and your preferences / prejudices. That's to both sides.
Secondly. ....
There is no European continent, there is a eurasian continent and curiously enough it can be argued a iberian continent, but Europe is not a single seperate continent.
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by kaiserd on Yesterday at 11:30:53 am »
I should interject here and note a couple of points:

1. The British Isles are not part of Continental Europe.

2. Some examples would include the Liberty tank project of WWI (with the United States and initially, France), T14 Heavy Tank of WWII, again with the United States, and the FMBT program with Germany, 1970s. Also, serious consideration was given to getting on board the Leclerc program in the late 1980s as a fast replacement for the ill-starred Challenger tank. Incidentally the baseline Leclerc was then put forward for Staff Requirement (Land) 4026, but passed over (alongside the Abrams and Leopard 2) in favour of the 'Improved Challenger' that would become the Challenger II tank.

So in summary;

1. Leaving aside the Brexit/ EU question I forgot that for some English people that question is still debatable (wouldn’t consider themselves a “European” country and to be their own continent?).
I can only say that is that here in Ireland there is concensus across the board (a very rare thing) that the island of Ireland is part of Europe, I presume the Welsh and Scots would have majorities if not total consensus that they too are part of Europe.

2. So the answer is no and not really, but that “joint” options were proposed and considered but never pursued, so the UK doesn’t actually have a tale of woe to tell about the joint development of a tank with an international partner.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10