Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Missile Projects / Re: THAAD Development
« Last post by bring_it_on on Today at 02:44:49 am »
April 17 2018

Quote
Lockheed Martin Corp., Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $200,000,000 modification (0001 03) cost-plus-incentive-fee contract W31P4Q-17-G-0001 for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, Phased Array Tracking to Intercept of Target (PATRIOT), Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile segment enhancement integration and PATRIOT launch on remote development. One bid was solicited with one bid received.  Work will be performed in Grand Prairie, Texas, with an estimated completion date of Feb. 28, 2022. Fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $10,500,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.

2
Continued...

Small printed corrections yesterday, and a new "big" part: the Bacchus inter-stage skirt.
This truncated cone was but a challenge for me, as that kind of thin part (.4mm thick) is a nightmare for most printers.
I spent more than an hour placing correctly the numerous temporary supports to get a printing without deformation and Yipikaď!, it turned very fine.
Tomorrow I'll have my last printing session on this project with the huge stage tanks.

_Bruno



3
Missile Projects / Re: S-75 and S-125 SAM systems
« Last post by nuedel on Today at 02:03:19 am »
thx, great work!
4
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by marauder2048 on Today at 12:59:55 am »
80+ MWe seems to be the recurring theme in the Navy's latest presentations as well.
With assumptions about combat system requirements (> 30 MWe), the top speed
requirements and motive power available would, I suppose, drive a lot of the hull form considerations.

(from Markle's "IPES - Harnessing Total Ship Energy & Power" from SNA 2018)

5
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Moose on Yesterday at 10:55:38 pm »
To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.
I appreciate what you're saying. However I don't believe that's the sort of baseline the Navy has in mind. Aside from the recent LPD-based concepts, all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers. Getting the Navy back into a CGN/strike cruiser head space where they're pursuing a Cruiser that is dramatically distinct from the DDGs is not in the cards, it would seem.
7
is there a book on this competition and if yes,name of book/author?
thx in advance
8
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Moose on Yesterday at 10:36:05 pm »
TERN might get the axe, sadly. Someone was recently talking about combining it  with another program to keep it from going away entirely.


Before they do the ground and at-sea fight tests?
No, I think the big Omnibus boost probably gets it through to test flights. Whether it lives to be purchased in quantity seems to be less certain.
10
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Colonial-Marine on Yesterday at 08:52:26 pm »
To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10