Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Designation Systems / Re: Armstrong Whitworth designations
« Last post by simmie on Today at 06:34:27 pm »
A.W.17 (1) (1931) — single-seat monoplane fighter project with two Rolls-Royce  pusher engines (not built)
A.W.17 Aries  (2) (1930) — two-seat army co-operation biplane; improved Atlas I with easier access for maintenance,
increased dimensions, one 460 hp  A.S. Panther IV - 20/25 (1 built)

Am I the only one to spot the apparnt contradiction in the above entries.  the designation AW.17's second use is the year before the first.
So an aircraft with ornithopter slats! Neat.

Thanks Borovik! You are a bringer of mysteries, revelations and miracles! :)
Aerospace / Re: F-35 for Canada
« Last post by Avimimus on Today at 06:30:41 pm »
First, I wanted to thank you guys for the info, there is stuff I didn't know. I find Dragon029's arguments particularly compelling.

I can see a situation where the HAL Tejas could be a suitable fit.

Now you're just trying to wind us up.

:) Maybe. But only because it is easy.

But I'm actually quite serious that the Tejas makes a lot of sense.

If you are willing to forgo range and twin-engined requirements it provides a lot of capabilities:

The aircraft can be operated off of short-strips. It can achieve the super-sonic speeds needed to intercept high-subsonic patrol aircraft or off-course airliners. It has sufficient air-to-ground capabilities to provide precision air-support during foreign operations. A military contract of that scale with India would also be politically useful. So basically, it could do everything that we'd ask the CF-35 to do at a lower price-point. A major goal for Canada is to maintain experience with operating an air-force in case we should ever need to seriously re-arm and it would accomplish that along with provide the basic air-to-ground role that the CF-188/CF-18 has most often been used for (at least since we stopped intercepting Tu-95s on a regular basis).



PARIS — The U.S. Army has awarded three $2.6 million contracts in the first phase of a program to find a second interceptor to defend against rockets, artillery, mortars, cruise missiles and drones.

Lockheed Martin was awarded one contract to mature its Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) missile out of the science and technology phase and into the development phase.

And Raytheon received two awards: one to qualify Sky Hunter — which is the U.S. version of Israeli company Rafael’s Tamir interceptor — and another based on the Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative (AI3).

The U.S. Army indicated in its fiscal year 2019 budget documents that it wanted a new surface-to-air missile to provide capability to counter RAM, cruise missile and drone threats and plans to hold a competition to procure it.

The missile the Army is calling the Expanded Mission Area Missile, or EMAM, will be the second interceptor qualified for the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 program, or IFPC Inc. 2, which has been in development to counter RAM threats for years.
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Vought 4 Ducted Fan Design
« Last post by Sundog on Today at 04:56:26 pm »
Given that the thrust vectors to the vertical, it would seem that at a minimum it would land vertically.
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Vought 4 Ducted Fan Design
« Last post by _Del_ on Today at 04:47:58 pm »
Well, it's set up as a ducted fan. So the assumption is a demonstrator for a configuration.

And you have to have a place to hang ordinance for CAS, and the high-aspect ratio helps squeeze out some range so that makes some sense. Maybe even a ESTOL config as opposed to V/STOL?
Aerospace / Re: North American XB-70
« Last post by Johnbr on Today at 04:20:10 pm »
Two XB-70s were completed and flown, with a third (a YB-70, actually) cancelled while under construction.
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by seruriermarshal on Today at 04:12:35 pm »
German and France never buy F-35 .
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Vought 4 Ducted Fan Design
« Last post by Orionblamblam on Today at 04:04:51 pm »
The cockpit does have the look of a CAS aircraft, but the relatively small engines would *seem* to indicate a relatively low mass if it's meant for VTOL. Additionally, those are some excessively large wings if it is meant to be a developed, operational aircraft, but they might be just fine for a plane that is expected to land horizontally sometimes because something went amiss.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10