Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 09:28:24 pm »
Wasn't the motivation for two reactors a federated design where one reactor was coupled to one propeller?

It may have been because they didn't have a single reactor available of sufficient power.  That's why Enterprise had 8 reactors, two to a shaft.

; the "medium surface combatant" specs were quite eye-watering.

Damn.  :'(
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by marauder2048 on Today at 07:55:53 pm »
Wasn't the motivation for two reactors a federated design where one reactor was coupled to one propeller?

I think in all of the studies over the past decade+ the Navy only looked at single reactor arrangements
typically of the nuclear IPS style; the "medium surface combatant" specs were quite eye-watering.

Amazon-France says that it will be out the end of this coming June.  I am quite tempted to order through them.
Finally received the Focke-Wulf book today, and at first blush, it's another winner from Sr. Miranda.  I particularly like the chapters on the post-war developments in Argentina and India, and the one on "Russian Fakes" that led to the early fictitious "MiG-19" kits from Aurora and Lindberg.  (Don't blame the modelmakers - they got the information from supposedly reputable aviation magazines!)
I will second this review.  I'm working my way through it now and quite enjoying it.  The engineer in me greatly enjoys the many drawings included.
The Bar / Re: Southwest airlines #1380 30,000 ft. fan blade failure
« Last post by kcran567 on Today at 04:52:30 pm »
NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt said "As the aircraft was climbing through about 32,500 feet, the engine parameters, both RPM indicators on the left engine went down to zero, oil pressure went down to zero, and the engine vibration increased significantly on the left engine," he said.

Shortly thereafter, the cabin altitude warning horn was activated, indicating that the cabin altitude was "going down to about 14,000 feet," said Sumwalt. The aircraft then began an uncommanded left roll at about 41 degrees of bank angle, compared to the normal 20 to 25 degrees of bank that is typical when flying a commercial airliner, such as the 737, according to Sumwalt.

41 deg bank and roll to left is pretty significant, that probably when the debris hit the passenger window, as mentioned above there was a delay when the window was hit after the failure.
Aerospace / Re: Scaled Composites Model 401
« Last post by George Allegrezza on Today at 03:20:36 pm »
From "FY19 Air Force President’s Budget Request Science and Technology Overview"
Mr. Jeff H. Stanley @ The 19th Annual Science & Engineering Technology Conference

Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 02:21:34 pm »

Exactly.  That's why I think the Zumwalt is the obvious choice.  It's got the power, the speed, and is available today.

It may or may not have the power for today.  It certainly doesn't have the power for a 35-50 yr ship.  The US is building Ford class with a 100% margin for power.  I don't see 100% margin for power with 'today's Zumwalt.

A cruiser isn't an aircraft carrier.  Furthermore the Zumwalt has a lot more margin, volume wise, than any conceivable Burke variant.  Obviously one could build a Kirov analog but the unit cost would be so high as to be impractical. 

I'm not convinced Zumwalt can carry a Ford class reactor.  So now one has to look at either another existing reactor that has enough power.  Is there one?  If not, then you have to develop a new reactor or make a bigger Zumwalt.  Or - you can use an existing hull with an existing reactor.

Or you do like every other US nuclear surface combatant and use a pair of reactors (which you'd want to do anyway to avoid a single-point-of-failure).  A pair of the reactors being developed for the Columbus class should fit the bill.

The lost opportunity cost is dealing with two solutions, a conventionally powered Zumwalt and a nuclear powered Zumwalt.  It's a waste of time, effort and training.

Ship design - X2
Ship production systems - X2
Ship building - X2
Training of the ship builders - X2

Efficiencies are driven by repetition.  Look at the price management and schedule reduction with Virginia class.  Want to drive the cost down on a cruiser?  Build the same one over and over for 10 years.  Then build it over and over for another 10 years.  The extra production may assist in Ford cost management as well.

In principle I'd agree with you but the USN is trying to reconstitute the fleet ASAP and a flight of conventionally powered Zumwalt-based cruisers will get ships delivered sooner and buy you the time necessary to get the nuclear power worked out.  It's not unprecedented.  The Bainbridge was basically a nuclear powered Leahy.

I've got nothing against Zumwalt.  I'm just not convinced it has the power or size to be a 40-50 year solution as a BMD ship.  You don't either since you propose a nuclear powered "flight ii". 

You're twisting my words.  I am convinced the Zumwalt hull and machinery is the way to go.  I did NOT say, "slap a "CG" in place of the "DDG" and call it good". 

You can't retrofit nuclear propulsion into hulls.  You can retrofit just about anything else in a hull. 

Again, you're twisting my words.  I'm not suggesting you rip the guts out of DDG-1000 to -1002 and convert them to nuclear power.  I'm saying that a Flight II could could be redesigned for nuclear power, and maybe Flight III (or the Flight II) gets the stretched hull mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious but I don't see the requirement for 30+ knots.  It would be nice but it's not necessary.  And speed is the only advantage I see with the Zumwalt hull.  All the other advantages I see with a Level 3 San Antonio.

Speed, maneuverability, survivability, cost.  The only advantage a San Antonio would have is it's big.  By the time you've made it into a combatant it would be so expensive you may as well have built the Kirov.
I agree that the "Various Dornier projects..." style of posting causes duplication and makes the forum harder to use overall. But I also understand the urge to create these types of post--They provoke some of our more interesting discussions. So perhaps we should try to accommodate the urge while still achieving the degree of separation desired? 

I suggest something like the following:

* Always create or use an existing, narrowly defined subject topic to describe a specific project in detail ("Gloster P.248 F.43/46 single-seat interceptor with 4.5-in recoilless gun", "Lockheed CL-1400 A-X contender").

* As needed, create/update broad, collation topics that provide links to the narrow topics, while allowing discussion ("Gloster fighter projects", "UK Interceptor projects 1945-55", "Projects to Specification F.43/46", "A-X Contenders", "USAF Close-Support projects").

The broad topics could go in the existing index section (perhaps renamed to make its use more intuitive, since it isn't a true index) or they could go in the existing historical/subject categories with a standard keyword in the subject line ("SURVEY", "GENERAL", or some some such). Personally, I think they would be most useful within the historical/subject categories. The index section could then be turned into something more like a true index.

Either way, the posting rule should be "create as many broad topics as you want PROVIDED that each individual project is in a separate linked topic."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10