Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Missile Projects / Re: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV)
« Last post by Maury Markowitz on Today at 09:31:56 am »
Deterrent is for rational actors.
So who are these irrational actors? China's leadership? Kim? A boogie-man who doesn't actually exist?

And, as I'm sure you know, deterrent has to be credible, both in hardware and in political will.  Uncertainty is also a factor when discussing deterrent.
Indeed, and as the Snowcroft report noted, it's precisely that uncertainty that makes the US deterrent so credible.

In that era, the question was what the Soviets would do if their SS-18's were able to hit the Minuteman silos. Snowcroft noted that there was simply no way they could know. The US might counterforce launch-on-warning, or they might ride it out and counterstrike, or they might might just do a full launch against everything. No matter what the scenario was, the US had so many counteroptions that there was absolutely no way the Soviets could predict, or survive, the outcome. And so they would never try it.

And here we are 30 years later and we're still debating these well-hashed points, but this time we've replaced the Soviet's actually existing, entirely credible and massive fleet with a guy who doesn't even have a single working ICBM. Sheesh!

In this an ABM has more value than a mobile ICBM as it can not only prevent the ICBM from getting hit but it can also prevent the surrounding countryside from getting fried.
Wait, wait, you're now proposing that MOKV is to protect the deterrent?

It's rather unbelievable scenario in which an irrational actor starts with a counterforce strike.

I'm puzzled as to why you think that's a BAD thing. 
It's not a BAD thing, it's a USELESS thing. We should spend as much on it as we do on defending against aliens.
Amazing find my dears Harrier and Rolf,

specially the WG.38.
Postwar Aircraft Projects / What was the AMES Type 84 for?
« Last post by Maury Markowitz on Today at 07:55:59 am »
I hope this is the right sub-forum...

I'm reading Watching the Skies and I'm confused about one part of the Linesman concept.

The Type 85 makes sense to me. It had a dozen beams, each of which broadcast about 5 MW of power on two mixed frequencies and changed both with every pulse. A jammer would have to sweep the entire 500 MHz bandwidth in order to ensure both of those two would be "hit" in any pulse, thereby greatly diluting its power.

Ok, but then they also built the Type 84. This was a fairly basic system using a single-frequency L-band magnetron of the same power as a single beam in the Type 85.  I'm at a loss what the Type 84 added.

Yes, it is at a much different frequency, but the carcinotron could still likely hit it, and if not, a second one would not be an enormous cost if they wanted to defeat the system, and they could likely do it with just another antenna and a switch. Certainly adding a L-band jammer to their aircraft would cost a lot less than adding a Type 84 to every station in the UK.

Is there something about the L-band that makes it better for long-distance detection? Or more resistant to jamming? Or some other reason not related to jamming that explains why they had two radars?
Hello, sienar!

Interesting bit of research. From this pdf with lots of other neat info

Thanks for sharin - the story about supersonic (and other) researches in Germany is intersting.
I wonder, how the additional fairings near engines' pods could be threated as "area rule" measure.
The cross section are only increased in the zone, where the area was already large.

Any suggestions?
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Hawker Siddeley P1179
« Last post by Graham1973 on Today at 05:25:24 am »
Sorry to relaunch this thread for what is going to be fairly meager information, but I was going through an old kids book of mine ("Exciting Stories of fantasy and the future"), it's a 'Boys Own' type anthology published in 1982 and one of the stories called "Killing Chance" (Author: Kelvin Gosnell) is built around a fictional supersonic VTOL fighter called the Merlin. The few details the author gives suggest that he based the Merlin on the P1179. His version has twin-RR Spey engines with four vectoring nozzles, everything else is rather vaguely described and the artist used based his illustration of the plane rather too closely on the Harrier. The story does leave one issue open, it is mentioned that the plane has Aden cannon, but it never makes it clear if the weapons are integral to the plane or as on the Harrier mounted in weapons pods.

Can anyone answer what weapons fit was planned/suggested for the P1179?
Have a question, I vaguely remember reading about a (planned?) twin 37mm variant of the 262. Can someone tell me if this is real or fake?
Imperialist  :)
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Various Focke-Wulf projects
« Last post by newsdeskdan on Today at 12:48:27 am »
any official drawing of the focke wulf volksjager?

This appears to have been the Fw Volksjager pitch. The existence of that design somewhere else can't be ruled out but if it does exist it's presumably only as a sketch.
Missile Projects / Re: Egyptian unguided rockets of 1960s
« Last post by dan_inbox on Today at 12:45:15 am »
Does anybody has more on these rockets and the Egyptian ground attack version of MiG-17?
hi Piotr,

Attached is a photo of an operational Mig-17F with those Sakr rockets. (No info about date and place, unfortunately)

For the T-62s, there were several versions. I attache two photos of parades. (Parades are what the Egyptian army does best...)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10