Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Aerospace / Re: Dassault LOGIDUC program
« Last post by Deltafan on Today at 04:40:33 am »
Thanks a lot flateric, overall for the link concerning the Petit Duc AVE program :)

But it seems that there are mistakes in some links (Wikipedia) and in older posts of this topic.

AFAIK (from Air & Cosmos French weekly magazine) :

-AVE D (first flight July 2000) and AVE C (first flight June 2003) were parts of Petit Duc Program. The weight of each model was around 60 kgs.

-The Moyen Duc (first flight ca September 2004) program was based on the AVE C's shape, but it was not the AVE C and its weight was around 500 kgs. For the same reason, the 2004 tactical UAV Dassault-Sagem SlowFast was not "based on the Moyen Duc AVE C", it "was the Moyen Duc" and "based on the Petit Duc AVE C".
Military / Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Last post by stealthflanker on Today at 03:48:58 am »
Considering tu22m3 combat radius is usually quoted at 2200 or 2400 km, it's highly Likely tu22m3 even with a single kinzhal can't do 3000 km of combat radius. Unless it gets its ifr probe retrofotted.

What payload ?.


I tried doing my own estimate using data from missilethreat. and Fleeman's tactical missile design book

Found that Kinzhal itself is about 1000 Km range. with apogee of 254 km and terminal velocity of 2.8 km/s.

The assumption is as follows  :

Launch Weight : 4300 Kg
Warhead : 480 Kg
Structure: 22% * 4300 Kg = 946 Kg.
Guidance, Battery and Actuators = diasumsikan 300 Kg.
Propelant load = 72% dari rocket motor weight, 2574*72%=1853 Kg.
ISP  : 265 S

Launch condition :
Altitude : 15000 m
Starting Velocity : M 0.85
Motor burn : 15 detik.

During trajectory, it's assumed that the missile will have 2 minutes coast to apogee. 
Missile Projects / Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Last post by bring_it_on on Today at 03:26:44 am »
Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System extends hundreds of miles to enable the multi-domain battlespace

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. – Aug. 15, 2018 – The Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC)-developed Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) successfully demonstrated its ability to scale up and network across long distances during a recent U.S. Army-led test. The evaluation was conducted by U.S. Army soldiers over a five-week period with air and missile defense assets located at sites in New Mexico, Texas and Alabama.“The ability of IBCS to integrate sensors and shooters over a vast area and grow the single integrated air picture offers huge advantages to air defenders and the joint forces,” said Dan Verwiel, vice president and general manager, missile defense and protective systems, Northrop Grumman. “This was demonstrated using an operationally realistic equipment laydown across several states and showed how IBCS is truly a force multiplier.

“This Soldier Checkout Event (SCOE) demonstrated the ability of IBCS to scale broadly. It further demonstrated IBCS’ robust network management technologies to efficiently and effectively maintain voice, data and video connectivity for the warfighter’s increasingly complex and challenging environment,” said Verwiel.

As part of SCOE 4.0, the multi-node distributed test examined IBCS’ scalability, resilience and performance under stressing threat conditions. The open-architecture IBCS networked more than 20 nodes across White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico; Fort Bliss, Texas; and Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Integrated to operate as a single system, the test involved nine IBCS engagement operations centers and 12 IBCS integrated fire control network relays, along with Sentinel short range air defense radars and Patriot radars, Patriot Advance Capability Two (PAC-2), PAC-3 and PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors.

The test required IBCS to virtually form an IAMD task force to defend four critical assets while tracking ‘red’ and ‘blue’ fighter aircraft, cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles. Multiple two-hour scenarios were run to check IBCS abilities, including: providing and managing a network to maintain voice, data and video connectivity; performing friend-or-foe identification of air objects and forming the single integrated air picture; and planning, executing and monitoring simulated threat engagements.

The test also included dynamically adding and removing nodes to confirm IBCS’ ability to self-configure as a mobile ad hoc network.

The IBCS-enabled enterprise system provides significant benefits over standalone, proprietary systems that merely ‘talk’ with each other. With IBCS, air and missile defense commanders can orchestrate forces over extensive distances using whatever means of communications that are available. Today, commanders are restricted by the proprietary and limited networks tied to the individual closed systems.

“Extensive testing has shown IBCS to be increasingly mature and its capabilities will be game-changers on the battlefield. IBCS delivers an unprecedented degree of integration to fill gaps in today’s air defenses while enabling multi-domain concepts such as affordably integrating unmanned or fifth generation fighter aircraft,” said Verwiel.

IBCS continues to validate the advantages of an open-systems, net-centric, enterprise approach to air and missile defense for getting capabilities to the warfighter that make a pivotal difference on the battlefield. Previous SCOE trials proved IBCS’ value for building a significantly more accurate integrated air picture and its effectiveness for countering electronic attacks.

The system has already demonstrated its ability to take out live targets, having conducted a successful intercept on its inaugural flight test and a more difficult “engage-on-remote” on its second flight test. During its third flight test, IBCS simultaneously intercepted two types of threats with two different interceptor types by providing command-and-control for sensors and weapons never designed to work with each other. Two more successful flight tests in support of the Indirect Fire Protection Capability were conducted with Sidewinder and Longbow Hellfire missiles. Both missiles were integrated into the system within a few short months.

IBCS is the central component of the Army’s future IAMD construct. The program is managed by the Army Program Executive Office for Missiles and Space, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: PRC Peking Red Banner 1
« Last post by toura on Today at 02:33:33 am »
I Don't remember where i've found this...a long time ago
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: PRC Peking Red Banner 1
« Last post by walter on Today at 02:19:49 am »
A photo of the Red Banner 1 and some text from Flight Magazine.
Did the book you refer to mention anything about producton?.  Afaik there was only a prototype.
Red Banner No 1 From its nose back to the
rear of its cabin, the all-metal Red Banner
is little different from the Yak-12; but there
the resemblance ends, for it has a shallow
tail-boom and clam-shell rear loading
doors. The usual 240 h.p. AI-14R radial
engine is retained, driving a Type V-530D
variable-pitch propeller. Payload consists
of up to six people or 1,1001b of freight.
The prototype was built in Peking,
probably by the team which produced the
Peking No 1.
• Span, 41ft 8in; length, 29ft Win; height
lift 2in; wing area, 260 sq ft; gross weight,
3,3301b; empty weight, 2,425lb; max speed,
111 m.p.h.; cruising speed, 84 m.p.h.; service
ceiling, 13,780ft; range, 310 miles
Military / Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Last post by Arjen on Today at 12:10:16 am »
Depending on AI/computers over able bodied individuals is dangerous slippery slope. Computers, much like myself are seldom correct and always sure ;D
Aerospace / Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Last post by PaulMM (Overscan) on Today at 12:00:55 am »
Also, where did Mach 1.82 for the F-22 come from? IIRC, the highest supercruise speed released by the Air Force is Mach 1.78. I also can't help but wonder how much the extra weight that the F-22 gained vs. the YF-22 hurt the potential speed. Is there any reason to assume that the F-23 wouldn't have the same weight control issues?

Mach 1.82 is listed in Jay Miller's book.  The 2.42 I'd guess is from Paul Metz's quote about "the top speed is secret but it'll do 1600 mph".

Mach 1.82 was the figure given at ADP 75th Anniversary presentation 2018.

Aerospace / Re: Kosmos-2499
« Last post by Moose on Yesterday at 11:22:27 pm »
"[The satellite's] behaviour on-orbit was inconsistent with anything seen before from on-orbit inspection or space situational awareness capabilities, including other Russian inspection satellite activities,"

What ever that's means, it's quite vague assertion...
My guess, if this really is setting alarms off as is being claimed, is that it maneuvered entirely too close to a US satellite for comfort.
They are publicly demonstrating that you had better have a direct hit on the warhead or that nuke is still going to go off.

It seems that the blast tore the RV apart. Note that just as the blast hits the region of the RV gets censor-blurred, and when it clears up again the RV ain't there. If the RV had been simply blown away, it'd be no biggie, but if it got splayed open and the innards were briefly on display, they might want to hide that.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10