Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Designation Systems / Re: Messerschmitt Designations until 1945
« Last post by newsdeskdan on Today at 04:16:01 am »
Here it was; Willy Messerschmitt-Pionier der Luftfahrt und des Leichtbaues,

it's a first known Project as I expected

So no primary source then.
2
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: An-22PLO (nuclear powert ?)
« Last post by hesham on Today at 04:08:06 am »
Real Project of 1965,but not built.
4
Designation Systems / Re: Messerschmitt Designations until 1945
« Last post by hesham on Today at 03:54:38 am »
Here it was; Willy Messerschmitt-Pionier der Luftfahrt und des Leichtbaues,

it's a first known Project as I expected
5
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by lastdingo on Today at 03:51:03 am »
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5708271444001/?#sp=show-clips

Two minute clip, interesting but there should be entire shows that discuss the current debate and explicitly discuss WHY the US is doing what they're doing in the face of massive Russian/Chinese nuke programs.


"massive" is hardly the correct word when describing the Chinese nuke program. Their warhead count has a mere three digits.
6
Aerospace / Re: XCOR Lynx suborbital spaceplane
« Last post by hesham on Today at 03:45:49 am »
Just for info. The mock-up of the Lynx is now preserved at the Nationaal Militair Museum of Soesterberg AF Park, in The Nertherlands.

Very nice.
7
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 03:13:32 am »
You don't need a harden launcher with the much lower number of warheads currently. What needs to be done is go back to the old shell game idea. Say 300 launchers each with 5-10 harden launch hangars. Keep moving the launchers around. Now the Russians would require 1500-3000 warheads to take all of them out, all while being limited to 1550 under the treaty. Its cheaper than Midgetman, its mobile, its a warhead sponge, and the missiles would not be rolling around the highways, being limited to only transfers between hangars, which could be secured easier than a launcher on the road.

"Rolling around highways"?   As pointed out earlier (which you'd have seen if you'd actually read the thread) Midgetman, or any other mobile ICBM would not be "rolling around highways". 
8
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 03:12:19 am »
Must be why everybody else is going mobile. Because they suck.

The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.
A few holes in the ground are much less easy to show off to your neighbours and tax-paying population. The question is which is more effective, a quiet deterrent that's there doing its job without fuss or something that you need to roll out in public to convince everyone how much power you have?

Also worth noting that of that list only Russia and China have the capability to build and field a full triad. India and North Korea have to rely on ground based missiles. Also, those nations build wheeled launchers for smaller IRBMs so the rationale and the technology base is already there.

Are you serious?  You think mobility has been the holy grail since day once because they look good in parades?   ::)
9
The first HVM pics I can find in the Flight Archive are from mid-86, with mention of the program starting as a one-year project definition study in 1984, so they could just be placeholders seeing that Hushkit states the WG44 started in 1982.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%203528.html?search=starstreak%20thunderbolt
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10