Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Mark S. on Today at 09:50:21 am »
Would assume one of the design requirements of the new cruiser is that it has to keep up with the carriers.  So that makes it a 35 knot ship.  It would be too expensive and take too long to design a new nuclear reactor and test it to power the vessel.   Additionally the hull shape needs to be efficient at higher speeds to minimize  use of the power plant for propulsion and maximize it for radars and weapons.  The requirements point to a Zumwalt hull with a conventional power plant.  The outliers would be a scaled up Burke hull with conventional power or maybe a America hull with a single reactor from the Ford class.  The America solution only if the hull was designed for high speed and that it could be cut down to the level of the hangar deck without a reduction in strength.  A vessel that size would have a huge growth potential. 
2
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 09:02:41 am »
Why would a BMD cruiser built on a San Antonio hull be so expensive as to be impractical, and, to what dollar amount does "so expensive" equates?

It would require an almost complete redesign.  Most of the deck space is unusable for VLS or guns because there's a hangar beneath it.  It's too slow.  It's less maneuverable and has a larger RCS than the Zumwalt.   It's $2 billion as is and it's mostly a hollow tin can.  As for dollar amount it's "whatever is too high to afford 20- 30 of them". 
3
Military / Re: Semi-automatic or fully-automatic recoiless guns
« Last post by LVisingr on Today at 07:49:45 am »
Armoured Unimog with 80 cm Zwillings-Raketenautomat Oerlikon:

https://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/2839457.html
4
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by NeilChapman on Today at 05:19:10 am »

Speed, maneuverability, survivability, cost.  The only advantage a San Antonio would have is it's big.  By the time you've made it into a combatant it would be so expensive you may as well have built the Kirov.

Perhaps, if it were built by the Russians.  But I should like to hear your reasoning. Why would a BMD cruiser built on a San Antonio hull be so expensive as to be impractical, and, to what dollar amount does "so expensive" equates?



5
Aerospace / Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Last post by Hood on Today at 02:42:23 am »
Lt Gen Jerry Harris, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, appeared to indicate that the USAF might ask for funding to acquire dozens of additional B-21s to form up to 14-16 squadrons.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-eyes-more-orders-as-b-21-finishes-preliminary-d-447860/
6
Aerospace / Re: Sukhoi/HAL PMI/FGFA
« Last post by Hood on Today at 02:38:15 am »
Just found the Flightglobal link on the reopened competition.
For 110 fighters (82 single-seat and 28 two-seat) with all but 16-17 built in India. Expected contenders are; Boeing F/A-18E/F Block III, Dassault Rafale F3R, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 70, United Aircraft Corp MiG-35 and Saab Gripen E.

This would seemingly confirm a step down from a 'sixth generation' type.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/india-re-opens-competition-to-supply-110-fighters-447392/
7
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 09:28:24 pm »
Wasn't the motivation for two reactors a federated design where one reactor was coupled to one propeller?

It may have been because they didn't have a single reactor available of sufficient power.  That's why Enterprise had 8 reactors, two to a shaft.

; the "medium surface combatant" specs were quite eye-watering.

Damn.  :'(
8
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 07:55:53 pm »
Wasn't the motivation for two reactors a federated design where one reactor was coupled to one propeller?

I think in all of the studies over the past decade+ the Navy only looked at single reactor arrangements
typically of the nuclear IPS style; the "medium surface combatant" specs were quite eye-watering.


9
The Bar / Re: Southwest airlines #1380 30,000 ft. fan blade failure
« Last post by kcran567 on Yesterday at 04:52:30 pm »
NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt said "As the aircraft was climbing through about 32,500 feet, the engine parameters, both RPM indicators on the left engine went down to zero, oil pressure went down to zero, and the engine vibration increased significantly on the left engine," he said.

Shortly thereafter, the cabin altitude warning horn was activated, indicating that the cabin altitude was "going down to about 14,000 feet," said Sumwalt. The aircraft then began an uncommanded left roll at about 41 degrees of bank angle, compared to the normal 20 to 25 degrees of bank that is typical when flying a commercial airliner, such as the 737, according to Sumwalt.

41 deg bank and roll to left is pretty significant, that probably when the debris hit the passenger window, as mentioned above there was a delay when the window was hit after the failure.
10
Aerospace / Re: Scaled Composites Model 401
« Last post by George Allegrezza on Yesterday at 03:20:36 pm »
Sweet!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10