Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Various Focke-Wulf projects
« Last post by Johnbr on Today at 03:44:10 am »
 ;)
3
Naval Projects / Re: III Reich Aircraft Carrier Projects
« Last post by sgeorges4 on Today at 03:19:29 am »
where the aircraft can take off without the catapult or not? The answer seem to be yes from the cover of this book but I'm a bit doubtfull:
4
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: B-47C w/B-52 cockpit
« Last post by Foo Fighter on Today at 02:41:05 am »
The B-56 and RB-56 were the four engined proposals were they not?  Or was the B-52 cockpit addition just an additional proposal?  Not seen anything demonstrating that though.
5
Army Projects / Re: M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Yesterday at 11:54:23 pm »
There isn't anything wrong with a license production. Yet if we haven't been able to commit to a self-propelled gun of our own design what are the odds we will find a foreign design that fits our requirements? Requirements that all too often change as proven by the XM2001 and XM1203.

Kman continues to mistake indecisiveness with ability.  Crusader is exactly what we need today.  And license production, when you can make it in-house, is completely idiotic, especially for something as major as a SP gun.  Why support somebody else's industrial base while your own rots?

How does License Production result in your industrial base rotting?

You do understand that licensed production of an item is, don't you?  You go to who has the design and ask them for the rights to produce their item in your factories, using your personnel and your money.  So, how does that result in your industrial base "rotting"?

The Crusader was simply biting off more than the US economy could afford at the time, at the time.  Now, as has been noted, what the US Army wants has changed.  The PzH2000, for example, provides an adequate response to the US Army's needs...
6
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: B-47C w/B-52 cockpit
« Last post by Orionblamblam on Yesterday at 11:31:36 pm »
nice, a Boeing hybrid bomber. how do you call that ? B-99 ? (47+52) ?

B-56, in fact. Though chances are that the B-56 would have used the regular B-47 fuselage.
7
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Kawanishi KX-9 (Army "TB" Super Heavy Bomber)
« Last post by maxmwill on Yesterday at 11:19:42 pm »
Yes I have, and I enjoy reading them, as he knows what he's talking about. I don't pry, and take most everything at face value. And yes, I have both, and I didn't pay the pretty penny being asked for on Amazon. I used to have a small collection of books, which, after my first marriage dissolved, so too did the books, and I was put in a situation where I had to streamline my life severely, hobbies and all, and over the past 15 years have been slowly putting it back together, as I have to become sedentary due to medical reasons, for which my current(and final, as I vastly prefer to have someone to grow old and wrinkled with, and to shuffle off together at the proper time many years from now.

When I attended Spartan, I spent a lot of time in dusty cupboards and the archives to bone up on aviation history, and developed a love for the less well known flying machines, which has continued to grow and mature. As an A&P, I learned to love airframe structure, and all other components of an aircraft, and now I can pursue it with vigor.

And, I wouldn't mind helping get some(as in as many as I can help inspire) kits from what I've learned.
8
Army Projects / Re: M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 07:32:05 pm »
There isn't anything wrong with a license production. Yet if we haven't been able to commit to a self-propelled gun of our own design what are the odds we will find a foreign design that fits our requirements? Requirements that all too often change as proven by the XM2001 and XM1203.

Kman continues to mistake indecisiveness with ability.  Crusader is exactly what we need today.  And license production, when you can make it in-house, is completely idiotic, especially for something as major as a SP gun.  Why support somebody else's industrial base while your own rots?
9
Army Projects / Re: M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 07:28:41 pm »


Tell that to the people who cannot afford either.  The Abrams is an adequate tank at best.  It was only faced by "monkey-model" T-72s, T-55s.  It's lack of range, it's choice of engine, it's (now) apparent lack of protection...

The F-15 is good but far from what I would describe as "perfect".  It is expensive and beyond what many countries can afford in an aircraft.

The US can afford a lot of good gear.  However, as I said, the "best is often the enemy of the adequate".

However, we are drifting.  You have failed thus far to marshal a cogent argument against the adoption of a license produced design.  There are plenty of overseas designs which are superior to the M109.  Why not license produce them?

Wow.   
10
Army Projects / Re: M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Yesterday at 06:43:06 pm »
There isn't anything wrong with a license production. Yet if we haven't been able to commit to a self-propelled gun of our own design what are the odds we will find a foreign design that fits our requirements? Requirements that all too often change as proven by the XM2001 and XM1203.

OK, trying to keep the thread on track.  So, you agree there is nothing wrong (in theory at least) with license production.  Thank you, a sensible voice at last.

Yes, requirements change - that happens to every military force the world over.  What do they do?  They adapt their force structure and their equipment to their new requirement - they don't spend squillions on developing and building something and then junking it when things change.   That is what the US Army has done and more than likely continue to do for some inexplicable reason.   
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10