Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by bring_it_on on Today at 05:33:55 am »
Quote
I really wish the Navy would pick up development of the LRASM-B again. The fact that they dropped it in the first place seems downright crazy to me.

Wasn't it supposed to be a DARPA funded program? IMO the Navy needs to develop a High and Low end NGLAW strategy with the higher end focusing on Hypersonic demonstrations that are expected over the next few years while the lower end focuses on more of the TLAM role of relatively cheap, mass produced cruise missile..
3
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 05:06:37 am »
There is also a new seeker in the works for a Maritime Strike Tomahawk that will be used to upgrade part of the 4,000 plus Block IV Tomahawk missiles in inventory. While LRASM-B has the advantage of stealth, the Tomahawk has a range of 1,000 miles compared to LRASM-B's 200 mile range.

Source:
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/tomahawk-vs-lrasm-raytheon-gets-119m-for-anti-ship-missile/

You mean LRASM-A.  LRASM-B was the ASALM based design.
4
Considering the upgrades to F-15 and F-22, could the B-2 be given similar upgrade to get them closer to the B-21?

It seems like the issue is maintenance and the infrastructure required to maintain a distinct airframe.

Recall that B-2 is a 30yo design.  The maintenance regime is very time consuming and $$$.  Which limits sortie rates.
There are 20 of them.  You'd have to specify maintainers for this platform.
The stealth coating tech is much different today than it was then.
B-2 is very heavy which limits the runways available to it.  It might make it more vulnerable.
It wasn't designed with an open architecture so upgrades are 'different' than those for B-21/F-35.

There's an option.  You can replace them w/B-21's.  Whereas with F-22 there is no option - and there are more F-22's.

It's like owning a 1998 V-12 Merc.  Yes, it's in great shape.  Yes, it's fast.  But, it has a cell phone in the center console, no bluetooth, no usb ports, a nav system you can't update, tires specific to the car, and an oil change with basic annual maintenance is $2200.00.  Then, if you have to replace an alternator, it's $1800.00.  It's going to $1000 and $1500 you to death.

And, you can buy a new Tesla for $125k that's faster, way more cool and will basically drive itself.

What would you do?



5
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Last post by bring_it_on on Today at 05:03:29 am »
...
6
The Bar / Re: Aviation News Vol.18 No.26 (11-24 May 1990)
« Last post by flateric on Today at 04:25:21 am »
I have a copy _somewhere_ but can't find it for several years.
Yes, exactly. Just a nostalgia for these not-quite-correct drawings.
7
Considering the upgrades to F-15 and F-22, could the B-2 be given similar upgrade to get them closer to the B-21?
8
The Bar / Re: Aviation News Vol.18 No.26 (11-24 May 1990)
« Last post by TsrJoe on Today at 03:46:38 am »
ahh, your after Hubert Cance's 2 seat F.117 drawing ? ;)
9
Military / Re: Turkey send M-60T1 tanks to Syria.
« Last post by Cifu on Today at 03:17:36 am »
http://defence-blog.com/army/turkey-sends-advanced-m-60t1-tanks-syria.html

All very well spending a lot of money on rebuilding old tanks but why are shot traps still being designed into them?

What I find strange: why the M60's got such an upgrade, and not the Leopard 2's?
10
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Triton on Yesterday at 09:20:12 pm »
As the Navy develops the final RFP it would be interesting to see what path they take in terms of valuing growth over the lifetime. Really liking the FREMM here personally.

On the Harpoon, it seems a seeker upgrade is in the works...
I also like the FREMM but my concern is that both it and the F100-derived design are over 6,000 tons and closer to miniature destroyers than genuine frigates, with all of the cost that involves.

I suppose upgrading the seekers on existing Harpoons is cost efficient but I do wonder if that money would be better spent procuring more LRASM.

I really wish the Navy would pick up development of the LRASM-B again. The fact that they dropped it in the first place seems downright crazy to me.

There is also a new seeker in the works for a Maritime Strike Tomahawk that will be used to upgrade part of the 4,000 plus Block IV Tomahawk missiles in inventory. While LRASM-B has the advantage of stealth, the Tomahawk has a range of 1,000 miles compared to LRASM-B's 200 mile range.

Source:
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/tomahawk-vs-lrasm-raytheon-gets-119m-for-anti-ship-missile/
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10