Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Last post by NeilChapman on Today at 08:27:13 am »
This might need it's own thread. . . .

Exclusive: Lockheed Martin to propose stealthy hybrid of F-22 and F-35 for Japan
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-lockheed-exclusive/exclusive-lockheed-martin-to-propose-stealthy-hybrid-of-f-22-and-f-35-for-japan-sources-idUSKBN1HR0MM

LM Exec #1

PCA is going to be win of the 2020's.  We have to make this happen.  What can we do to better our chances of winning this deal?

LME #2

Hmmm.  Let me talk this through out loud.  If there's already a 80+% solution available... it's likely... that Congress will require it to be used to save on the development cost of a new jet.  At the very least, the developer of such a jet will be favored in the selection process, right?

LME#1

So.  Where are you going with this?

LME#2

What if we were to develop a new jet, say an air superiority version of the F-35 with a greater depth of magazine and longer range AND - here's the kicker - get someone else to pay for it?

LME#1

What?  Who's going to do that?

LME #2

The Japanese!

LME #1 and #2

(Exclamations of realization and slapping each other on the back they exit stage right)







2
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Dassault Mirage G8A / ACF / Super Mirage
« Last post by hesham on Today at 08:20:12 am »
From le Fana 3/2018.
3
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by NeilChapman on Today at 08:11:59 am »
The US Assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell has threatened to use the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme as a retaliatory tool against Turkey if it goes ahead with its planned S-400 Triumpf purchase.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-diplomat-threatens-turkeys-f-35-role-in-s-400-sp-447859/

Good.  If Turkey is going to get in bed with Russia we'd be insane to keep them in the program anyway.

+ 1

And perhaps that production can be acquired by the US to increase delivery rates to the USAF.  The US could find other countries that would be more than willing to accept the maintenance facilities Turkey was to host.  Allowing TAI to participate in center fuselage production was wishful thinking.  Turkey was an up and coming country 25 years ago.  It's population has become much more radicalized in the last 20.

I was working with a group of Turkish policemen on September 11, 2001.  I could see it in the group I was working with.  The majority were embarrassed by the rhetoric of the more radical guys.  But they weren't willing to confront them.  Scary stuff.


4
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by NeilChapman on Today at 07:56:37 am »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/russia-appears-to-have-surrendered-to-spacex-in-the-global-launch-market/

Quote
"The share of launch vehicles is as small as 4 percent of the overall market of space services," Rogozin said in an interview with a Russian television station. "The 4 percent stake isn’t worth the effort to try to elbow Musk and China aside. Payloads manufacturing is where good money can be made."


What else could they say?  Better to sound 'strategic' than admit failure.  Of course, no one believes it other than perhaps an internal audience.






5
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by NeilChapman on Today at 07:52:28 am »
Cruisers would seem to be the only sensible ship to focus on at this time. As the future is now.  The energy requirements demand a ship large enough for a reactor to support:

-even PBWs (necessary for next gen BMD)


Particle Based Weapons don’t work well in atmosphere, and lasers trying to reach high enough to hit an ascending missile or descending warhead are going to be subject to beam-wander because of air density variactions.

The assessment may be different if the lasers are defending the ship and it’s charges.

Rail guns at long range and lasers the last 5 to 10 miles.  Given the speed of modern non-US antiship missiles you don't have a lot of time for dwell so you'll still need a lot of power even for the closer range.  Here's a megawatt class laser shooting down a Bramos equivalent (Vandal/Talos):




That's a great point. The first iterations of lasers deployable afloat are seemingly most beneficial in situations where the ship is threatened by swarms of small boats, drones or other close quarter threats.  You would want multiple firing locations for the lasers.  Perhaps not unlike AA positions on WWII battleships.  As the tech matures, becomes more efficient and lethal, then larger systems would make sense.  In the mean time, it seems, lasers will be an augmentation to primary close quarters defensive systems.



6
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by Orionblamblam on Today at 07:52:17 am »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/russia-appears-to-have-surrendered-to-spacex-in-the-global-launch-market/

Quote
"The share of launch vehicles is as small as 4 percent of the overall market of space services," Rogozin said in an interview with a Russian television station. "The 4 percent stake isn’t worth the effort to try to elbow Musk and China aside. Payloads manufacturing is where good money can be made."
7
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 07:13:11 am »
Some interesting shots in this video.

8
Fighter Roadmap Coming Soon, Along With Air Dominance AOA

Quote
An Analysis of Alternatives begun last year to decide the next steps in air superiority is almost finished and “should [be] complete sometime this year,” Holmes said. Despite “new ideas” from the new administration, “we’re convinced the nation will continue to depend on the Air Force to control the air so we can exploit it as a joint force,” he asserted. The AOA will provide “options” for senior leaders as to how best to provide for air superiority, and what form the PCA will take.

However it shapes up, “we know it has to operate as part of a family of systems, we know there are multiple approaches to what we’re talking about,” Holmes reported. The AOA will come with recommendations, “and then we’ll advocate for that.”
9
Aerospace / Re: Sukhoi/HAL PMI/FGFA
« Last post by Foo Fighter on Today at 06:34:46 am »
That would seem to be a retrograde step.
10
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 05:56:09 am »
Cruisers would seem to be the only sensible ship to focus on at this time. As the future is now.  The energy requirements demand a ship large enough for a reactor to support:

-even PBWs (necessary for next gen BMD)


Particle Based Weapons don’t work well in atmosphere, and lasers trying to reach high enough to hit an ascending missile or descending warhead are going to be subject to beam-wander because of air density variactions.

The assessment may be different if the lasers are defending the ship and it’s charges.

Rail guns at long range and lasers the last 5 to 10 miles.  Given the speed of modern non-US antiship missiles you don't have a lot of time for dwell so you'll still need a lot of power even for the closer range.  Here's a megawatt class laser shooting down a Bramos equivalent (Vandal/Talos):



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10