Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: KFX Korean Indigenous Fighter programme
« Last post by GTX on Today at 10:11:56 am »
Latest iteration ... maybe !?

Looks like a cross between a F-15 and a F-22
The Bar / Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Last post by mrmalaya on Today at 09:55:42 am »
The F35 bit isn't woe in my opinion. It was daft to think we would actually buy all of those.

It actually might be the start of a move towards other projects such as UCAVs and a Typhoon replacement project, both of which were very hard to justify with a multi-decade F35 order hanging over them like a RAM covered Sword of Damocles.
Nice find - thanks!  Mark
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: SR-72?
« Last post by Sundog on Today at 09:50:00 am »
I lean towards aircraft since some said "double-booms" like an aircraft would make. Any supersonic aircraft could make these; I remember hearing these from the B-58s when I was a kid. I would also like to know how many of these rumblings are heard near supersonic corridors and what the weather conditions were at the time they were heard, because that would also affect which way the sound traveled.
Early Aircraft Projects / Unknown little flying boat
« Last post by richard B on Today at 09:49:03 am »
This flying boat picture was offered on eBay a long time ago .
Since , I have been unable to identify it .
Maybe someone here could help ?



Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by LowObservable on Today at 09:15:19 am »
To fill capability and capacity shortfalls, the Air Force needs to increase F-35A procurement to a minimum of 60 aircraft per year as quickly as possible. This must be carefully balanced with the required follow-on modernization effort for the F-35A.

These two sentences express what Harris and the SAR say. There's not actually any conflict. The target rate is 60, but the AF wishes to hold at ~48 through 2020, reaching 60 in FY23 (2025 delivery) once a mature Block 4 is coming off the line. What they appear to want to avoid is too many Block 3s.

Here's the SAR:

If you have any detail on the schedule for the 14 UFP jets, it would be interesting to see it. It would be hard to get them all in FY18 without having the advance procurement laid down in FY17.

The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 08:20:21 am »
Just a thought but maybe we should avoid opinion pieces as they seem to be a wedge into the politics thing. 
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: SR-72?
« Last post by CJGibson on Today at 08:17:06 am »
Pity this doesn't include boom-related seismic activity.

..and this

Go to settings, select 1 day, all magnitudes, US and check out Nevada

Be interesting to compare seismic rather than sound data for these recent booms with those from the 1980s and 1990s. I might even dust off my 25-year-old request to the BGS for seismic data. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10