Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: Next Generation Jammer (NGJ)
« Last post by fredymac on Today at 08:15:03 am »
2
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by FighterJock on Today at 08:12:58 am »
When is the Typhoon out of service date supposed to be?  If we know that then we can start to predict when a successor fighter should be ready for service.
3
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by Airplane on Today at 07:35:19 am »
Wow that is aggressive timing! 17 years to get it into production by 2035! I see they are following American (and Lockheed) style of product development timing. Weapons programs have become nothing more than jobs and money distribution programs. Imagine this timing in the day of the Phantom II... Kicked off in circa 1953 and it would have entered service in 1970. The Phantom was the most complex aircraft conceived at that time and they pulled it off in about 7 years entering service in 1960. Arguably, relatively speaking, the Phantom was more complex to the engineers engineering it than aircraft of today as the Phantom was heavily laden with complicated avionics and radar who technology was not even on the drawing boards when the engineers who engineered it all were adolescents. It was all Gee Whiz Buck Rogers technology back then.
4
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by mrmalaya on Today at 07:16:26 am »
Yes, I didn't mean the same day as the Air Combat launch.  Still pretty ropey evidence either way.
5
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by flateric on Today at 06:27:47 am »
This is scetch from BAE Warton media day that was much earlier.
6
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by mrmalaya on Today at 06:22:09 am »
Part of me does wonder to what extent the mock-up ways designed around the exhibition space rather than the other way around. The other designs being considered probably have as much validity at this stage as the one used in the mock-up. This images are from Tim Robinson who was present at the breifing day prior to the launch.

7
Aerospace / Re: Antonov An-70
« Last post by flateric on Today at 06:17:38 am »
Only one An-70 incident had something to do with the propfan.
8
Aerospace / Re: Antonov An-70
« Last post by Archibald on Today at 06:09:14 am »
Wow, so it took them the best part of 25 years anda couple of serious crashes to find that the turboprops and propellers are NOT working well ?  :o
9
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by Archibald on Today at 06:07:51 am »
Nice mockup, really. I kind of enjoy it. As noted earlier - think of the P.110 mockups (also happened with P.1216, unfortunately). Perhaps Sweden will jump aboard that ship.
10
Oh, yes, that famous 'negative growth'.
I prefer to use more common term 'sequester' that USC report use as well.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10