Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Possibly this Quora question, where one answer mentions a concern about the glycol needed to cool inline engines?

http://www.quora.com/Why-did-US-carrier-planes-in-WWII-have-radial-engines-instead-of-inline-engines

I'm a bit dubious that this was a major factor, though.  The main reason, IMO, was that US radials in general were significantly better than most of the available US inlines through at least the late-1930s. 
2
G'day all

I recall someone with a blog had an interesting article on why the USN preferred radial engines over that of inline engines... The article alluded to something along the lines that... The USN had a technical dislike for inline engines on its aircraft carriers.... All I can recall, is that it had something to do with a higher fire hazard / volatility - or something along them lines....
Hence the USN's preference for radial engines.

My apologies about my vagueness 😞

Can anyone recall the blog article?

Regards
Pioneer
3
Thanks D!  That was a helpful explanation.  I understand your explanation and see the value in going back to destroy radars that pop up behind you.  If I send in something like the MALD-J and radar sites light up which is turn plotted by B-21, PCA or some other high flying, stealthy asset, do I need to go back and eliminate the threat?  Are hypersonic weapons 1000 mi out a possible alternative? 

If the EW mission is not integrated into this airframe would it be exportable?
I think the EW mission can probably be integrated and still be exportable; the F-35 has a pretty serious EW suite and it's going to see widespread use.

As for the first part, you can definitely use decoys and drones to try and locate SAMs like Wild Weasel aircraft, but if an enemy is smart and if they have a decently sized IADS (remembering we're talking about an enemy we're willing to send B-21s and PCAs against) they're not going to show their hand all at once / not within the first few hours or days. SAMs might lay in wait, camouflaged and only start firing when they receive information that some contacts (which they know may or may not be decoys) are actually dropping bombs, at which point the stealth aircraft may find themselves with radars radiating at them from all sides. SAMs that were in other locations previously may also be ordered to hurry over and try and fill the gap in their air defences while (known to them or not) the B-21s and PCAs are operating behind their lines.

From what I've read, the intent is that F-35s and potentially other aircraft will be working to ensure that these tunnels through enemy IADS don't close up (ie, they'll be on SEAD / DEAD duty, working around and in the trail of these B-21s, etc), but it's certainly possible that the F-35s are too busy, or that intelligence underestimates the forces in that area, meaning there are no F-35s there, or that the F-35s are too far away due to poor timing / mission planning.

Hypersonic weapons launched from 1000nmi (or closer) could work to take out those pop-up threats, but you do ideally still want something stealthy to get EO/IR (and ideally GMTI as well for safe measure) eyes on the SAM, that way it can't just escape into the night once it stops radiating - a Mach 5 cruise missile will still take a little over 20 minutes to reach a target 1000nmi away, plus there's the additional time spend detecting, identifying and locating the threat. A 1000nmi hypersonic cruise missile with sufficiently advanced terminal guidance probably isn't going to be that cheap too, so you want to be pretty certain that you're not firing at an inflatable decoy with an emitter.

This all largely focuses on air-to-ground too; as others have said, the PCA is being designed to China in mind; long range cruise missiles might be effective against SAMs, but they're not going to be very effective against aircraft. The J-20 in particular need a strong counter and while the F-22 and F-35 should generally hold an advantage, they will be bound by tanker support that can be threatened by the same J-20 combined with PL-15s, etc missiles. As already mentioned, giving these aircraft AETP engines will give them a pretty good combat radius, but being able to achieve or exceed those ranges while incorporating supercruise or afterburner will be important if you're detecting threats like the J-20 from only maybe 50-100nmi (placing it maybe only 100-150nmi from the B-21) and you want to engage the enemy while pushing the fight away from the B-21, potentially by supercruising away from the B-21 and engaging the J-20 from another angle, or just rushing up to it and forcing it to go on the defensive while the bomber slips away.

Ultimately though, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the USAF believes is needed.
4
"complete" does it means unbuilt projects?
5
Hello,
Yesterday I printed the Carmen launcher.
Pictures below.
Next week I'll print the Vulcain clustered launcher.
_Bruno
6
Kenneth Cameron (as George Bartram), Under the Freeze, 1984

United Kingdom (WWII)

HMS Loyal
'Light Cruiser', class not specified
Carries two Seaplanes, this would fit the Town or later classes of light cruiser in British service.
No other details provided, beyond the fact that it was "...slower but had bigger guns..." than the German warship it was chasing.
Note: Name clashes with an L Class Destroyer in service 1940 - 1944.

Unnamed
4 Destroyers
No other details provided

Unnamed
2 Icebreakers
No other details provided

Germany (WWII)

Prinz Von Homberg
'Cruiser', class not specified
No other details provided.

Unnamed
2 Icebreakers
No other details provided

Argentina (1980s)
 
Admiral Jorge Canossa (ex-Svetlanosk)
Whiskey Class Submarine (ex-Soviet)
Commissioned 1963
Converted for maritime research 1977/78
Recommissioned in Argentine service 1978
Details as per the real ships regarding propulsion, modifications are described as follows in the novel:

Quote
"Divers' ports, a tunnel attachment to mate with another craft or a sea lab, a deck mounted submersible. Cargo space. Lots of cargo space. Very unusual for a submarine."

Plot summary: The year is 1983. The Soviets have completed their investigation into the submarine that ran aground in Sweden in 1981 and have discovered that it was carrying stolen plutonium to an unknown client. With evidence that more has been stolen, but fearful of a leak in their own government, the KGB reaches out to the Americans for help.

Note: Dating this one is pretty easy, Yuri Andropov (1914 -1984, Leader of Russia 1982 - 1984) actually appears in the novel which means it  has to take place before his death in February of 1984, references to the Falklands War (April - June 1982) in the past tense means it takes place after those events, therefore it is most likely the story is set in 1983.

This author also published a series of novels under the name Gordon Kent which he co-wrote with his son. Novels by this pseudonym covered in this thread are, 'Night Trap' (1999), ' Peacemaker', (2000) 'Top Hook' (2002), 'Hostile Contact' (2003)  'Force Protection' (2004) & 'Damage Control,' (2006).
7


That might work and the cost argument is a serious one (if the PCA is going to be larger than the F-22, I fully expect it to cost $200-300m flyaway (in today's dollars) at peak production rate), given that an F-35 with an AETP engine is meant to have an air-to-air combat radius of nearly 1000nmi (and so a clean-sheet tailless cranked arrowhead or something might be faster and longer ranged at the expense of low speed manoeuvrability), but I just wonder if there's enough thermal and energy capacity with one of those engines to power a wishlist of EW and DEW systems (the latter might not be needed at IOC, but should be considered seriously when designing the airframe).

I also don't see top speed as being much of an issue as much as supercruise capability; for an escort, being able to supercruise lets your escorting PCAs go forward and engage inbound fighters, or turn around and destroy radars that pop up behind you, without requiring the B-21 slow down or loiter and wait for the threat to be eliminated / for the PCA to catch back up without losing 200nmi of range by using afterburner. Engines have high thrust-to-weight ratios, so adding a 2nd engine is almost only ever going to increase the clean thrust-to-weight of an aircraft, allowing for more payload, whether that be mission systems, fuel or weapons. Remember, an AETP engine doesn't give you a ~30% increase in range while outputting ~45,000lbf of thrust; it's only giving you those serious range benefits while operating at 10-30,000lbf (depending on the airframe's optimum airspeed and engine's optimum RPM / burn rate). Having 2 engines to allow you to supercruise at 50-100% faster than the airspeed of the bomber, rather than just 0-20% faster is a decent advantage in the role. Ultimately you don't want that bomber stopping, because that helps the enemy pin down its location, helps them communicate and ready defences and also robs your bomber and escorts of fuel needed to reach the target and get home safely.

Thanks D!  That was a helpful explanation.  I understand your explanation and see the value in going back to destroy radars that pop up behind you.  If I send in something like the MALD-J and radar sites light up which is turn plotted by B-21, PCA or some other high flying, stealthy asset, do I need to go back and eliminate the threat?  Are hypersonic weapons 1000 mi out a possible alternative? 


If the EW mission is not integrated into this airframe would it be exportable?


8
It seems very reasonable to me that they'd be testing the sensors, sensor fusion systems, etc; where else can Russia fly its aircraft amongst F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s, F-22s, E-3s, B-1Bs, etc (as well as a myriad of ground vehicles moving about, assuming the PAK-FA has things like GMTI radar modes) over allied-owned airspace, and without crossing oceans, or without starting WW3?
9
Seems like the Russians deployed the Su-50 in reaction to the a$$ whipping they received on the ground at the hands of the American led forces a couple of weeks ago.

"...U.S. forces killed scores of Russian mercenaries in Syria last week in what may be the deadliest clash between citizens of the former foes since the Cold War, according to one U.S. official and three Russians familiar with the matter.

More than 200 contract soldiers, mostly Russians fighting on behalf of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, died in a failed attack on a base held by U.S. and mainly Kurdish forces in the oil-rich Deir Ezzor region, two of the Russians said. The U.S. official put the death toll in the fighting at about 100, with 200 to 300 injured, but was unable to say how many were Russians."

I don't see how that would help. If they had any tactical utility at all it might be in providing airborne warning and control to help with deconfliction.

It is likely for prestige and military sales reasons - although they might be also trying to test their radars up against the F-22s which are operating in the area - trying to catch a peak at their effectiveness.
10
Aerospace / Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Last post by VH on Yesterday at 08:42:11 pm »
Seems like the Russians deployed the Su-50 in reaction to the a$$ whipping they received on the ground at the hands of the American led forces a couple of weeks ago.

"...U.S. forces killed scores of Russian mercenaries in Syria last week in what may be the deadliest clash between citizens of the former foes since the Cold War, according to one U.S. official and three Russians familiar with the matter.

More than 200 contract soldiers, mostly Russians fighting on behalf of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, died in a failed attack on a base held by U.S. and mainly Kurdish forces in the oil-rich Deir Ezzor region, two of the Russians said. The U.S. official put the death toll in the fighting at about 100, with 200 to 300 injured, but was unable to say how many were Russians."
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10