Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Naval Projects / Naval Group Smart OPS Room
« Last post by Triton on Today at 12:31:08 pm »
Naval Group unveiled the Smart OPS Room concept at Euronaval 2018.
Naval Projects / Re: The FY53 & FY68 ASW Carriers
« Last post by TomS on Today at 12:30:28 pm »
Late 1960s CVS options are discussed in more detail in Freidman's carrier book.  The FY68 ship is probably SCB 100.68, which was a roughly 53000 ton (full load) sesign with two C-13 catapults and about 50 aircraft (mostly S-2s and SH-3s).  She was a minimum Phantom carrier and could have accommodated 2 squadrons of light attack aircraft as a close support carrier instead of ASW (but magazines were small at only 500 tons). 

Self-defense was two Tartar launchers (probably Mk13).

Friedman has this as a 28-knot ship.  The 30-knot performance didn't come back until the last CVS design in 1967.
Naval Projects / Re: Naval Group SMX-31 future submarine concept
« Last post by Triton on Today at 12:15:16 pm »
SMX-31 concept at 2:44

Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: VTOL On Demand Mobility
« Last post by Zootycoon on Today at 11:32:02 am »
Also no discussion on battery power density, C rating, L/D at 300kph cruise, weight of megawatt rated power electronics, weight of 300kph bird strike protection on airframe, weight of ice/rain/hail protection,  weight of crashworthness, crosswind limit, lightening strike protection, wing bending stiffness mismatch between wingborne & vertical mention a few.

Fundamentally an e-vtol Jet has only a tiny fraction of the fan area of a helo or quad cop so has to compensate by giving the air much more acceleration, hence it needs very high rotational speed on the fans = megawatt power draw. And they claim this is really quiet;- Try overdriving the biggest electric garden leaf blower by a significant factor and then power up another eleven! yeah itís going to be real quiet.
Naval Projects / The FY53 & FY68 ASW Carriers
« Last post by A Tentative Fleet Plan on Today at 11:30:41 am »
On page 367 of his book on US Destroyers (the 1982 Edition), Norman Friedman briefly mentions an ASW Carrier scheduled to be built in the FY68 budget. The only information provided was that it was expected to make 30 knots.

The proposed Carrier is also mentioned in The Small Aircraft Carrier: A reevaluation of the Sea Control Ship alongside the FY53 escort carrier, which was withdrawn to pay for the Saratoga.

Do any members have any information on these designs?
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: VTOL On Demand Mobility
« Last post by elmayerle on Today at 10:55:16 am »
Indeed, many things that are "demonstrated" at the RC level do not scale up.
Even full scale vehicles can fly when carrying smaller amounts of batteries, and have very little range.
Ejector lift for vtol comes to mind.  Neither the XV-4A nor the XFV-12A ever managed to make the full-scale article work, despite successful sub-scale deomstrations.
As shown at 2017 Berlin Security Conference :)

When I attended ILA 2018 at the end of April, there were a pair of Luke AFB's F-35A on static and F-35A mock up (aimed at Luftwaffe) Those of us who sat in it got the hat (cap) lol tp prove it....

rest of my photos below

Was chatting to a Belgian contact at the show, subsequently he was laying bets that the F-35 has good chance with both his country and Germany. This simply attributed to both countries NATO nuclear capability and commitment. The Typhoon has not been cleared to carry a 'bucket of sunshine' cue last week, Belgium selected the F-35 over the Typhoon.
Now could Germany follow suit by example? What are the chances the F-35A can be in the apple of the Bundestag's eyes?

Slightly digressing, funding has been made available by the Federal Government in Berlin, for urgent procurement of the CH-53G/GS/GA fleet with either the CH-53K or CH-47F. If L-M Sikorsky wins with the King Stallion, then could it open the doors for F-35 procurment?


Naval Projects / Re: Naval Group SMX-31 future submarine concept
« Last post by GTX on Today at 09:45:46 am »
Very interesting.
Yes, that seems to be an issue with the original drawings. The span and engine spacing match, top and front, but the fuselage width and canard span do not.  I've tweaked the drawing a bit more and it does come out as 67ft x 155ft so the basics are correct.
Aerospace / Re: Chengdu J-20 news, pictures, analysis Part III
« Last post by totoro on Today at 06:09:08 am »
Oh, absolutely the pl-12 and pl-15 have different internals. There's 10+ years of progress between them. The same way amraam A and amraam D are much different. Different rocket motor, different seeker electronics, different fuze, warhead, different comm links. And those aren't just slot for slot upgrades but they, at times, take up a different volume than their previous incarnations.

I'd very much expect pl-15 to be doing the same. larger rocket motor section, less voluminous electronics. One can actually see that, unlike with amraam, pl-15 has mid body wings placed slighty more aft compared to pl-12. Suggesting a different center of gravity perhaps?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10