Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Mark S. on Today at 09:50:21 am »
Would assume one of the design requirements of the new cruiser is that it has to keep up with the carriers.  So that makes it a 35 knot ship.  It would be too expensive and take too long to design a new nuclear reactor and test it to power the vessel.   Additionally the hull shape needs to be efficient at higher speeds to minimize  use of the power plant for propulsion and maximize it for radars and weapons.  The requirements point to a Zumwalt hull with a conventional power plant.  The outliers would be a scaled up Burke hull with conventional power or maybe a America hull with a single reactor from the Ford class.  The America solution only if the hull was designed for high speed and that it could be cut down to the level of the hangar deck without a reduction in strength.  A vessel that size would have a huge growth potential. 
2
User Artwork / Re: Motocar's Cutaway drawings
« Last post by Motocar on Today at 09:38:00 am »
I would like to locate more information about this Aurora 400 VTOL project and Phalanx Dragon for LHX, you can share it here or in the subject if it exists.

Thanks, Motocar
3
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 09:02:41 am »
Why would a BMD cruiser built on a San Antonio hull be so expensive as to be impractical, and, to what dollar amount does "so expensive" equates?

It would require an almost complete redesign.  Most of the deck space is unusable for VLS or guns because there's a hangar beneath it.  It's too slow.  It's less maneuverable and has a larger RCS than the Zumwalt.   It's $2 billion as is and it's mostly a hollow tin can.  As for dollar amount it's "whatever is too high to afford 20- 30 of them". 
4
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Focke Wulf Fw 191
« Last post by hesham on Today at 08:00:03 am »
From the brochure.

Wow,very nice my dear Dan.
5
Military / Re: Semi-automatic or fully-automatic recoiless guns
« Last post by LVisingr on Today at 07:49:45 am »
Armoured Unimog with 80 cm Zwillings-Raketenautomat Oerlikon:

https://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/2839457.html
6
Just a couple of observations based on a trip to Kew yesterday.

Design process: The RN apparently evaluated 70 different designs ranging from 30-70,000 tons. They came to the conclusion that the bigger the ship the better as it would reduce the cost per embarked aircraft- there is even a snazzy little chart to sow the point. On top of that the RN seems to have been obsessed with being to able to cross deck (and put in the hangar) all but the biggest USN aircraft (including F-111B) which was a theme common with the 1952 effort. It is actually stated that the only reason the RN wasn't asking for a 70,000 ton ship was cost considerations.

Construction: In 1963, once the programme was reduced to three ships, it was planned to build the last two almost simultaneously, they would be ordered just 12 months apart, given the difficulties in finding a shipyard in the UK to build the first vessel its likely this would have put severe strain on the UK shipbuilding industry. I don't doubt that it could be done but it would have been a recipe for cost growth and delay.
7
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Dassault Mirage G8A / ACF / Super Mirage
« Last post by thrax on Today at 07:29:43 am »
Quote
And the wingtip points right at Marcel Dassault himself (the man with the glasses, in the middle)

best 20th century French artist
8
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by NeilChapman on Today at 05:19:10 am »

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.

Perhaps, if it were built by the Russians.  But I should like to hear your reasoning. Why would a BMD cruiser built on a San Antonio hull be so expensive as to be impractical, and, to what dollar amount does "so expensive" equates?



9
Aerospace / Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Last post by Hood on Today at 02:42:23 am »
Lt Gen Jerry Harris, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, appeared to indicate that the USAF might ask for funding to acquire dozens of additional B-21s to form up to 14-16 squadrons.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-eyes-more-orders-as-b-21-finishes-preliminary-d-447860/
10
Aerospace / Re: Sukhoi/HAL PMI/FGFA
« Last post by Hood on Today at 02:38:15 am »
Just found the Flightglobal link on the reopened competition.
For 110 fighters (82 single-seat and 28 two-seat) with all but 16-17 built in India. Expected contenders are; Boeing F/A-18E/F Block III, Dassault Rafale F3R, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 70, United Aircraft Corp MiG-35 and Saab Gripen E.

This would seemingly confirm a step down from a 'sixth generation' type.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/india-re-opens-competition-to-supply-110-fighters-447392/
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10