Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Military / Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Last post by Colonial-Marine on Yesterday at 08:21:09 pm »
Why is the US Army opposed to simply utilising a modified tank chassis as their MICV?   That way it could be armoured as well as the MBT and be automativelly the same as the MBT and be as maneuverable as the MBT.  An MBT hull is large enough to carry almost any weapon and a section of infantry.
Well that seemed to be the plan for the ASM program. It's probably better to design a new family of AFVs to account for the fact that you'll want the engine in front in some configurations (IFV) and in back in others (MBT) instead of a conversion of an existing design.

There are many who'd argue a MBT-weight IFV is too heavy but considering that you already have to be equipped for those MBTs in logistics matters perhaps those concerns are overstated. They will admittedly be more expensive than a lighter design however.
2
Military / Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Yesterday at 08:05:33 pm »
Why is the US Army opposed to simply utilising a modified tank chassis as their MICV?   That way it could be armoured as well as the MBT and be automativelly the same as the MBT and be as maneuverable as the MBT.  An MBT hull is large enough to carry almost any weapon and a section of infantry.
3
Military / Re: Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Last post by Colonial-Marine on Yesterday at 06:34:01 pm »
I like the fact that the Lynx can fit a full infantry squad in back, I thought Iraq had highlighted how useful that was with the Stryker, Army can't seem to make up their mind.

jsport I imagine such an IFV using some of the technologies trialed in the CATTB would have been part of the ASM program, shame the Army went off chasing FCS wondertech instead.
4
That's not a very high standard of evidence.
I'm having trouble digging it up and finding whoever said it but I'm fairly certain that such heresy was openly spoken of.

Quote
Math. F-35 critics were thin on the ground, prior to 2013. In relative terms - the F-35 by that time had never undergone the kind of shellacking handed out to the F-22 (Baltimore Sun scored a Pulitzer) or the B-2 (the 60 Minutes hit job and others too numerous to mention). And no program before the F-35 had quite as many paid shills.
Where is this math? The F-35 always had plenty of critics some with the usual ideological motivations and others with more valid concerns. But as usual criticism doesn't shift into high gear until a program is well underway with aircraft/vehicles/whatever in visible testing and the largest sums of money being spent. Prior to that point the JSF was nothing more than a reason we didn't need the F-22 according to some.

Quote
What really happened was still an extremely poor decision.
Was it really? The F-22 has a range problem, is costly to operate, and apparently difficult to upgrade; and Gates was being told that the F-35 was 400-600 per cent better in A2A than anything else out there, and that China wouldn't have many stealth aircraft until 2025. We may regret the decision now but it was logical at the time.
It can definitely be considered a mistake when you can't replace aircraft lost to attrition, pay a huge premium to perform upgrades, are stuck trying to overhaul and modernize 30+ year old F-15s to make up for the numbers gap, and have clear evidence that the rest of the world isn't as far behind as was stated. I would expect a SecDef to know more than marketing hype and to have a better understanding of where the Chinese and Russians were. Yet it's clear that was always one of the decisions he wanted to force through. It was logical to only those of that administration's ideological leanings.

Range problem? If you're judging by the new standard to perform long range combat operations in the Pacific then yes. It's range is adequate when compared to most of the fighters currently in service. Costly to operate? Well part of that is another self-inflicted wound from the decision to terminate production so early. Even with those considerations in mind it makes no sense to stop production of what was arguably the world's most capable fighter because of the promise of something better... eventually.
5
Aerospace / Re: Japanese next generation fighter study (aka i3, F-3)
« Last post by TomcatViP on Yesterday at 04:29:43 pm »
deleted
6
Military / Re: F-22s may have been lost as a result of Hurricane Michael
« Last post by TomcatViP on Yesterday at 04:24:46 pm »
There may be only one caretaker who can dig up the bones then bleach the useful ones to build two new Frankensteins called FA-XX and FB-XX.

LO maybe?

 ;D

Well someone with a bit of humor could cut them in half and glue* them back end to end. It might then be the perfect fighter to survive administration's alternances

*CFRP obviouly
7
Military / Re: F-22s may have been lost as a result of Hurricane Michael
« Last post by TomcatViP on Yesterday at 04:19:40 pm »
Nice no viscosity assumption in that calculation, but it doesn't give realistic answers ;).


Right no viscosity. Inviscid fluid and potential flows theory but...
Good Engineering is to take the wildest realistic assumption to generate the output with the safest cost efficient result. We can see why today  ;)
8
Military / Re: F-22s may have been lost as a result of Hurricane Michael
« Last post by jsport on Yesterday at 03:41:41 pm »
There may be only one caretaker who can dig up the bones then bleach the useful ones to build two new Frankensteins called FA-XX and FB-XX.

LO maybe?

 ;D
9
Military / Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Last post by jsport on Yesterday at 03:35:41 pm »
If the M8 BAE is offering can still house troops when needed, it would be great Air-Dropable tank for eventually converting all light divisions into Tank/IFV mobile forces.  None of these vehicles are  "Next Generation".  The South Korean AS 21 Redback and German Lynx are close to NexGen but not really.
10
Aerospace / Re: Bell X-5
« Last post by fightingirish on Yesterday at 03:10:50 pm »
Please see the chapter "The X-5 as a Fighter?" on page 46 ff.  :)

Quote from: Ron Downey
Bell X-5 Research Aircraft Paper
A copy of the research paper written by Warren Greene for the Bell X-5 aircraft. Report was written by the Historical Division of the Wright Air Development Center. Dated March 1954. Details the design and development of the X-5.

Click here to download (11,7 Megs).

Alternate download here.
Source: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2018/10/bell-x-5-research-aircraft-paper.html

Quote from: Ron Downey
Bell X-5 Photos and Drawings
A number of factory and general photos and 3-view drawings of the Bell X-5 aircraft.

Click here to download photos and drawings (71.8 Megs).
Source: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2018/10/bell-x-5-photos-and-drawings.html
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10