Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Grumman / Shin Meiwa ASR-544-4
« Last post by Arjen on Yesterday at 11:39:05 pm »
heaVEE-er I suppose?
'Z' stood for lighter than air. If anyone's looking for logic there...  :(
2
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: LARA (Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft)
« Last post by circle-5 on Yesterday at 10:34:24 pm »
Goodyear GA-39 proposal model.
3
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Last post by Jemiba on Yesterday at 10:30:58 pm »
Ok for all, who had a good laugh  ...and now back to the theme "US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program"
... without too much politics, please !
4
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Grumman / Shin Meiwa ASR-544-4
« Last post by CJGibson on Yesterday at 10:03:21 pm »
Well, every day is a school day. That is most interesting. Always wondered why it was 'V' but never pursued it. Thanks for enlightening me Famvburg.

heaVEE-er I suppose?

Chris
5
Naval Projects / Re: Chinese Nuclear Powered Icebreaker Project
« Last post by chuck4 on Yesterday at 08:19:53 pm »
Would the new icebreaker be called Nukey McNukeface?
6
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Grumman / Shin Meiwa ASR-544-4
« Last post by famvburg on Yesterday at 08:06:32 pm »
So VP stands for 'Patrol Squadron'.  I did not know that.  Thank you for the enlightenment!

No problem.  To add to your lexicon, here is a list of all the US Navy and Marine Corps squadron types:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_aircraft_squadrons

Actually, VP stands for Heavier than air (V) and Patrol (P).
7
May be one of GyRos (Russian Gyrocopters) 'Gyros-3' aka Varus gyrocopter variants by their chief designer Valentin Ustinov, but I wouldn't bet. I must check boxes with expo leaflets.
8
Army Projects / Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Last post by jsport on Yesterday at 06:21:31 pm »




GFS CMF #2: Next Generation Combat Vehicle

Gen Abrams may say NGCV is not FCS, but as long as there is RDECOM/TARDEC PM/PEO, a NGCV CFT and  TRADOC which has not delivered a operational NGCV concept yet combined w/ a stated reluctance to formalize a requirement (based on future threat and limited funding). This program looks worse than FCS.

Saying we are "nested" and not stepping on each tows. HA Need not to be more leaderless group discussion.

 TARDEC needs to run the vehicle, (because it will, in the end, anyway) and Soldier Center the dismounts. TRADOC can work on the future when it all goes robotic ie Talos suits with or w/o humans.

There seemed to be only passing reference to a need to engage targets a max range ie 152/155mm Tardec slides show an In/direct fire vehicle. This should be the first emphasis. Gun launched max range munition/UAS.

BG Lesperance mentioned SWAP+Protection that should be the second emphasis. Plenty of modularity as sensor tech will contine to change but the powerplant/gearbox is the likely the program driver.

NGCV will be obsolete before it enters service if some radical engine/generators aren't explored. Opposing pistons will not cut it. Circular detonation is the only means to shrink and lighten a burner while simultaneously eliminating most of the Gearbox. Shocking to hear GEN Abrams say possibly vehicles w/o fuel. Even supercapcitors mostly yikes.

Third emphasis should the not discussed multiple UGV/UAS lethality and mobility. We hear RCVs will require two operators. the RCV operators are not the crew. OK, that is two members of the squad already taken up. The rest of the squad will need to operate other UGV/UAS ? The vehicle's combat traverse protection needs and infantry's need to support its own dismount could well be often conflicting to UGV/UAS operators. What if there needs to be a separate UGV/UAS operator vehicle.

Soldier issues in and out of the NGCV should be under Soldier Lethality CFT. Soldier Interface w/ the vehicle and UAS/UGVs is Soldier Lethality issue. When the infantry school works it out they fill the vehicle's hull. Otherwise bringing Infantry into vehicle requirements will confuse.

To the infantry NGCV is a taxi w/ benefits. To the crew it is the main show.

 
If the multi-decade developed Mobile Protected Fire Power (MPF) and these Playstation Play-dates, otherwise called AWEs are example of effective programs, than the US Army is in big trouble. When is real risk and real development.




9
More HYFAC:  Phase I trade study:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710072317.pdf

Of interest to me was the discussion (PDF pages 58-73) about the propulsion options, including:
  • Rubberized LR-129 up to 1 million lbf
  • Aerojet concentric-nozzle hypergolic engine of up to 600K lbf
  • Two different GE wraparound turboramjets
  • A Marquardt variable-geometry hydrogen scramjet
Also of note is a reference to a series of “Mach 5” tests of a hydrogen-fueled scramjet in 1967-68 by United Aircraft.

The references at the end could lead to quite a few adventures in FOIAing.
10
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: PRC Peking Red Banner 1
« Last post by famvburg on Yesterday at 03:25:14 pm »
Well darn! I searched for the subject before I posted this and nothing came up. I wonder why.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10