Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Military / Re: "Flashback:" Americas Tsar Bomb
« Last post by Zootycoon on Today at 09:37:21 am »
The wedge fins (on the image in the link) look very X15;- Does this indicate a very high speed, high altitude stability requirement? in which case the body behind the conical W41 would be a big solid fuel rocket. This would be to high loft the the W41 away from the B52.

Maybe a means to test the W41 or an EMP experiment?
2
Missile Projects / Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Last post by Maury Markowitz on Today at 09:31:56 am »
Deterrent is for rational actors.
So who are these irrational actors? China's leadership? Kim? A boogie-man who doesn't actually exist?

And, as I'm sure you know, deterrent has to be credible, both in hardware and in political will.  Uncertainty is also a factor when discussing deterrent.
Indeed, and as the Snowcroft report noted, it's precisely that uncertainty that makes the US deterrent so credible.

In that era, the question was what the Soviets would do if their SS-18's were able to hit the Minuteman silos. Snowcroft noted that there was simply no way they could know. The US might counterforce launch-on-warning, or they might ride it out and counterstrike, or they might might just do a full launch against everything. No matter what the scenario was, the US had so many counteroptions that there was absolutely no way the Soviets could predict, or survive, the outcome. And so they would never try it.

And here we are 30 years later and we're still debating these well-hashed points, but this time we've replaced the Soviet's actually existing, entirely credible and massive fleet with a guy who doesn't even have a single working ICBM. Sheesh!

In this an ABM has more value than a mobile ICBM as it can not only prevent the ICBM from getting hit but it can also prevent the surrounding countryside from getting fried.
Wait, wait, you're now proposing that MOKV is to protect the deterrent?

It's rather unbelievable scenario in which an irrational actor starts with a counterforce strike.

I'm puzzled as to why you think that's a BAD thing. 
It's not a BAD thing, it's a USELESS thing. We should spend as much on it as we do on defending against aliens.
3
User Artwork / Re: Creating your own scale drawings: How to.......
« Last post by 500 Fan on Today at 09:14:35 am »
Thanks for all the advice, gentlemen. I will try Inkscape and see how I get on. Thanks.

500 Fan.
4
Designation Systems / Re: Messerschmitt Designations until 1945
« Last post by newsdeskdan on Today at 08:51:09 am »

 the Error, if this one,


Nowarra was better than some but more recent research has overturned some of his assertions. I guess you didn't see my Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers bookazine. In that case, here's a page from the Langstreckenbomber project comparison report and three pages from CIOS XXXI-3 German High Speed Airplanes and Design Development which make it reasonably clear that the P 1108 was intended to carry far more than 1000kg of bombs (4000kg) much further than 1000km (7000km) at speeds of substantially less than 1000km/h (800km/h).

As to the animal names types and the designs being found in France, I hadn't heard that before. My understanding, from Pawlas, was that they were simply handed to him by an anonymous individual and he published them with the caveat that they might not be genuine. As I've outlined elsewhere, if you compare the P 1106 and P 1108 drawings he printed in Luftfahrt International alongside provably genuine drawings of the P 1106 and P 1108, you can see that they share some traits but are generally inaccurate (e.g. P 1106 undercarriage is way off) and the style of the drawings is evidently wrong. There's no factory standard info panel on any of them either and they generally seem dissimilar to Messerschmitt drawings taken as a whole.
Something else interesting about one of them - looking at the 'Libelle', you can see that it looks rather similar to that early P 1101 drawing that also appears on these pages elsewhere. In fact, from a forward view, they could be the same. This doesn't seem like a coincidence. It seems, to me, more like someone got a look at the original designs, then tried to recreate them years later from memory.
One thing that comes over very strongly from the various reports about French aircraft manufacturers working for the Germans is that the Germans didn't trust them with any more information than they absolutely had to. Those French companies that did work on jet designs such as the Me 262 or Ar 234 usually only built one section of them, a wingtip or a fin for example - never the full aircraft. It seems unlikely that the Germans would have handed over cutting edge designs to untrustworthy subcontractors just before the Liberation (that P 1101 was drawn in July, Messerschmitt's 'partner' companies were liberated in August).
5
Amazing find my dears Harrier and Rolf,

specially the WG.38.
6
Postwar Aircraft Projects / What was the AMES Type 84 for?
« Last post by Maury Markowitz on Today at 07:55:59 am »
I hope this is the right sub-forum...

I'm reading Watching the Skies and I'm confused about one part of the Linesman concept.

The Type 85 makes sense to me. It had a dozen beams, each of which broadcast about 5 MW of power on two mixed frequencies and changed both with every pulse. A jammer would have to sweep the entire 500 MHz bandwidth in order to ensure both of those two would be "hit" in any pulse, thereby greatly diluting its power.

Ok, but then they also built the Type 84. This was a fairly basic system using a single-frequency L-band magnetron of the same power as a single beam in the Type 85.  I'm at a loss what the Type 84 added.

Yes, it is at a much different frequency, but the carcinotron could still likely hit it, and if not, a second one would not be an enormous cost if they wanted to defeat the system, and they could likely do it with just another antenna and a switch. Certainly adding a L-band jammer to their aircraft would cost a lot less than adding a Type 84 to every station in the UK.

Is there something about the L-band that makes it better for long-distance detection? Or more resistant to jamming? Or some other reason not related to jamming that explains why they had two radars?
7
User Artwork / Re: Creating your own scale drawings: How to.......
« Last post by Schneiderman on Today at 07:35:13 am »
If using existing 3-view drawings as a basis then you scan them and load into your drawing program, open a new drawing layer above the scanned image and effectively 'trace' it. You can use multiple layers too, so the basic drawing is in one and the bits that vary between version of the aircraft can go in separate layers which can be turned on or off as required. I have one drawing on 25 separate layers so that I can highlight the various systems, oil, fuel, water, controls etc. on the interior one by one or all together.
Not a good idea to try modifying an existing drawing scan, not only is it difficult to match the line weight etc. but there would be obvious copyright problems.
8
Hello, sienar!

Interesting bit of research. From this pdf with lots of other neat info http://www.dglr.de/literatur/publikationen/DGLR_Hamel-JHV_2006-Vortrag.pdf

Thanks for sharin - the story about supersonic (and other) researches in Germany is intersting.
I wonder, how the additional fairings near engines' pods could be threated as "area rule" measure.
The cross section are only increased in the zone, where the area was already large.

Any suggestions?
9
User Artwork / Re: Creating your own scale drawings: How to.......
« Last post by Hood on Today at 07:14:25 am »
Yes, Inkscape is good. Fairly easy to get to grips with the basics and has more than enough features than you'll need for making 3-view drawings.

Practice makes perfect, but after a few practice drawings and following tutorials you should be ready to start some drawings.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10