Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
A fighter will have greater maneuverability options than an RV. This hypothetical AAM is going to end up costing $10M a copy, need to be carried externally, and the launching platform won't be stealthy such that the 6th gen AC can kill it first or at least get off the first shot of put the launching AC on the defensive.

A fighter can only use the advantage of maneuverability if the pilot knows he's under attack in time to actually do anything about it. As for stealth, there's no reason it need be carried externally.  Now if you have a large missile, with multiple KKVs, it's likely going to be launched at long range anyway.  Against true stealth aircraft this may be academic anyway as you need to be able to see the other guy to shoot him.  Not all aircraft fit that description however.
The Bar / RIP Paul Allen
« Last post by galgot on Today at 10:25:36 am »
Was in Seattle last week,
Visited both Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum and Living Computers: Museum + Labs, beautiful places.
Came back to France just to see on the news that paul Allen died  :'(
RIP Monsieur.
A fighter will have greater maneuverability options than an RV. This hypothetical AAM is going to end up costing $10M a copy, need to be carried externally, and the launching platform won't be stealthy such that the 6th gen AC can kill it first or at least get off the first shot of put the launching AC on the defensive.

Military / Bradley Replacement - OMFV
« Last post by Moose on Today at 08:53:44 am »
The Next Generation Combat Vehicle program has begun to firm up its desires for the Bradley replacement, which it has now dubbed the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. Similarly to MPF, the Army is accelerating this program massively and now wishes to begin fielding it in 2026 rather than in the mid-2030s as it envisioned after GCV was killed. Breaking Defense has a decently comprehensive article giving a rundown of what the Army's looking for and who the likely bidders are. Here's some highlights.

General Dynamics looks like the early favorite to replace the Army’s 1980s-vintage M2 Bradley troop carrier. That’s my personal assessment after talking at length to officers and contractors at last week’s Association of the US Army conference, where months of uncertainty finally gave way to some real clarity about both what the Army wants and what industry can offer.

In brief, GD’s Griffin III demonstrator seems to hit the sweet spot between innovative and proven technologies that the Army wants to start fielding a Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) as soon as 2026. Of the three vehicles on display at AUSA,

  • BAE System’s CV90 Mark IV is the latest upgrade of a 25-year-old vehicle widely used in Europe;
  • the Rheinmetall-Raytheon Lynx is an all-new design, although individual components have a good track record;
  • but the General Dynamics Griffin III is in the middle, combining a new gun and new electronics with the time-tested chassis from the European ASCOD family.
Schirmer offered more specifics. “We have a pretty challenging test schedule… very similar to MPF, (so) we really can’t afford a clean sheet design,” he said. The more mature the component technologies, the better, he said, but what’s best is that those individual components have been proven as an integrated system.

Specifically, Schirmer said, “for the Bradley replacement, we are going to be buying vehicles that are based on a mature architecture — powertrain, track, suspension — that’s already in service somewhere in the world.”
While the Army wants a proven hull, however, Schirmer says there is one area where technology is advancing fast enough for it be worth taking some risk: lethality, i.e. the gun and sensors. In particular, while the Bradley has a 25mm chaingun, the Army really wants NGCV to have a 50mm cannon — firing shells about four times as big — that’s now in development at the service’s Ammunition Research, Development, & Engineering Center (ARDEC).

That gun, the XM913, is currently integrated on just one competitor, the Griffin, although both the Lynx and CV90 turrets could accommodate it. All three vehicles, like the Bradley, also have room in the turret to mount anti-tank missiles of various types. The Griffin on the show floor also mounts a launcher for AeroVironment Shrike mini-drones, while the Lynx will have the option to launch Raytheon’s Coyote: Both mini-drones can be configured either with sensors to scout or with warheads to destroy.
Besides gun caliber, the other easily measured aspect of an armored vehicle is its weight, which is very much a two-edged sword. There’s been no breakthrough in armor materials since the 1980s and none on the horizon, so the only way to get better armor is to make it thicker. So a heavier vehicle is probably better protected, but it also burns more fuel, wears out more spare parts, and has more trouble getting places: Bridges and transport aircraft in particular can only take so much weight.

Having just left Poland…and traveled to Korea and elsewhere, the infrastructure doesn’t support a heavy vehicle,” Coffman said. “At this stage, before the RFP is written, we’re looking at everything as options, (but) the idea is we have a smaller vehicle that is lighter, but survivable.”
Even as the Army tries to maximize the number of passengers the Bradley replacement can carry, it’s trying to minimize the number of crew required to operate it. In fact, while NGCV is still the name of the overall program, which also includes unmanned Robotic Combat Vehicles, the Bradley replacement specifically is now officially known as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). That’s because the Army foresees future advances in automation making it possible to conduct at least some missions by remote control, starting with simpler tasks like convoys but expanding over time.

But even when the human crew is aboard, the Army wants a limited Artificial Intelligence to help them out. The machine might find its own way around obstacles to reach a destination set by the crew, for instance, so they can rest or focus on scanning for danger. Or it might pull together sensor data to pinpoint threats: heat and sound might warn of an approaching enemy tank, for instance, or reveal where an hidden anti-tank missile team just fired from.
There was less explicit MPF talk at AUSA than I had expected, partly because NGCV concepts stole the show, but as Defense Maven reported the Army is pushing forward on their accelerated schedule to choose 2 vendors to build representative prototypes, with the goal of a down-select and LRIP by 2025.

The three bidders are still understood to be:
SAIC - Bidding a vehicle combining the the ST Kintetics NGAFV hull with the CMI defense Cockerill 3105 turret, mounting a 105mm gun.
General Dynmaics Land Systems - Bidding an evolution of their "Griffin" concept from 2016, likely still mounting an XM350 120mm gun.
BAE - Bidding an evolution of the M8 Armored Gun System, mounting a 105mm gun.

The Army is pushing pretty heavily for proven vehicles/systems to minimize development risk and accelerate the timetable, which is interesting because all 3 have plusses and minuses in that regard. SAIC's base vehicle is brand new, it's got nearly no track record and hasn't been produced in numbers yet, but the CMI turret is considered a pretty safe prospect. GDLS's base vehicle is pretty safe, being an updated ASCOD/Ajax, and they talk up their use of systems from the latest M1 modernization in the turret, but the turret itself is new and the XM360 only has as much development as it got before the FCS program died. BAE's team can point to the fact that the Army already type classified the M8 and accepted it once, but it was cancelled before production really got underway and has never been deployed operationally and whatever updates BAE has added since the 90s would effect how "proven" it can claim to be.

Personally, I'd like them to send BAE and GDLS to the next phase. SAIC's unproven vehicle and lack of existing production facilities in the US are big potential complications for a program that want to move this quickly.

when I read my old agenda about aviation from Internet,I found this Info from
old polish site about Jerzy Rudlicki airplanes;

R-II  was a single seat fighter Project
R-III  was a military airplane Project
R-IV  was an experimental airplane Project

Of course we want to check about this ?.

I need confirm ?.
Aerospace / Re: Manned Soyuz' booster fails enroute to ISS, crew safe
« Last post by Flyaway on Today at 08:17:23 am »
RSC Energia.  Details about the emergency rescue system

10/17/2018 10:06

On October 16, a meeting with representatives of the media was held at RSC Energia.  Igor Khamitsa, Deputy Chief Designer of Advanced Space Systems and RSC Energia systems, spoke about the crew rescue emergency response facilities (SAS) of the Soyuz launch vehicle and answered questions from journalists.

A clear triggering of the SAS during an emergency situation during the launch of the Soyuz MS-10 spacecraft, which ensured the safe return of the crew to Earth, caused keen media interest in the system, which was developed at RSC Energia in cooperation with other enterprises in the industry.  The meeting was organized so that, according to its results, the journalists could convey to the audience a comprehensive and, most importantly, reliable information.

Igor Khamitsa spoke in detail to the representatives of the press about the creation and basic principles of the CAC, as well as the logic of the operation of all systems of the ship and the launch vehicle during an emergency situation.

 “The emergency rescue system was developed by the followers of Korolev and modernized over the years.  It saves the crew throughout all phases of the flight, starting from the moment when the astronauts take their seats in the ship.  The system automatically tracks all phases of the flight.  Having received the “launch vehicle crash” signal, the SAS worked for a tenth of a second - and the crew returned safely to Earth, ”noted Igor Hamits.

Army Projects / Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Last post by Moose on Today at 08:04:07 am »
Breaking Defense interview with Director, Armored Vehicle Modernization.
By 2023, the Army will decide whether or not to move ahead with a replacement for the M1 Abrams heavy tank. “Anything’s on the table,” said the service’s director for armored vehicle modernization.

Define “anything,” I asked. Are we talking Imperial Walkers from Star Wars? Little robots carrying big missiles?

“It doesn’t have to be a tank, it just has to be decisive and lethal,” Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman answered. “If that is run by a flux capacitor, hovers, and has a ray gun — and we can make it run at a reasonable cost — we’ll look at it.”
That “reasonable cost” criterion, sadly, rules out laser-shooting hover tanks, but behind Coffman’s jocularity is a deadly serious point: The Army wants industry to imagine a wide range of possibilities for a new way to deliver high-powered direct fire. (Indirect fire, at targets over the horizon, belongs to a different modernization team, which is exploring a 1,000-mile supergun). The key thing is to apply maximum killing power at the crucial point in combat, not how you do it. If you have a technically feasible proposal, it sounds like they’ll at least take a look.

“We don’t want to stifle any initiative based on some preset notion of, ‘it has to be tank, it has to have 120 mm or 105 (cannon),'” Coffman told an industry audience at the Association of the US Army conference. “We want options.”
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10