Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Bar / Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 04:52:12 am »
From Inside Defense

USAF accelerates GBSD schedule, reduces estimated EMD cost

The milestone B decision and engineering and manufacturing development phase for the Air Force's new land-based nuclear deterrent are each scheduled to begin about three months earlier than expected.
-----------------------------------------------
Hope they build a larger missile for future upload or new type of RV, BGV/MaRV??, payload flexibility.
2
The Bar / Re: Were there German Pseudo Projects ?
« Last post by Jemiba on Today at 04:43:05 am »
Just to remember: In this thread, we aren't talking about wrong identified , or even
"fake" aircraft, as listed here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26358.0.html

The theme are designs or projects, that were either "planned" just with the intention to
keep the design staff busy, or at least projects, that were stalled and so kept alive beyond
their "natural" death.
3
Aerospace / Re: Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)
« Last post by fredymac on Today at 04:09:44 am »
FTG-11 salvo test against ICBM conducted yesterday.  2nd interceptor is launched well after the first has cleared the area.

Edit:  Lead GBI destroyed the target and trailing GBI selected the next ‘most lethal object’ and also hit.

4
The Bar / Re: Were there German Pseudo Projects ?
« Last post by airman on Today at 04:00:09 am »
An other is  Heinkel 211  " Albatross "    that is what if  model made in  whatifmodellers.com  .
In the history i remember https://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/fighters/focke-wulf-fw-198-fighter.asp
5
Military / Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Last post by bring_it_on on Today at 03:12:44 am »


Sounds like the navy wants Tomahawk sized, which can be made compatible with existing attack boats and basically shares infrastructures with other services.  Basically US version of Zircon but with tighter constraint.

Doesn't sound like that to me at all.
6
The Bar / Re: Jeff Quitney deleted from YouTube?
« Last post by Archibald on Yesterday at 10:44:47 pm »
That's why I download the videos I want to make sure I can watch in the future.

Hell yes. I didn't knew that youtube videos could be dowloaded... but that was some years ago. Now I have found the trick, I'm downloading like crazy. No way that things like Hazegrayart channel ever goes missing. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh2dnrLCNHDS2IV9I2R58Pw/videos
8
Military / Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Last post by quellish on Yesterday at 08:54:36 pm »
At the same time, designing a hypersonic glide vehicle compatible with a submarine’s underwater launching system presents the hardest engineering task in a technology area that has eluded American mastery for decades.

This is false. The Navy and Lockheed have been flying them on Trident test flights for years. These tail kits were very near production before Congress decided to stop funding them.

Even fitting a SWERVE-derived vehicle like AHW to a smaller booster compatible with the Virginia Payload Module is not some "hardest engineering task". It has been done and flight tested.
9
Aerospace / Re: LG-1K Wooden Supply Drone
« Last post by Richard N on Yesterday at 08:45:50 pm »
Logistic Gliders website:  https://logisticgliders.com/
10
Military / Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Last post by stealthflanker on Yesterday at 08:17:57 pm »
"In enemy hands, the new class of hypersonic speed maneuvering missiles may pose the greatest threat to the U.S. Navy’s heavily defended battle groups. At the same time, designing a hypersonic glide vehicle compatible with a submarine’s underwater launching system presents the hardest engineering task in a technology area that has eluded American mastery for decades.

It is perhaps no surprise, then, that the $10.5 billion war chest wedged into the Defense Department’s latest five-year spending proposal is dominated by the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) program. Fulfilling its two assigned tasks—developing a common hypersonic glide vehicle that can be adapted for ground- and air-launch, plus demonstrating a sea-launched version with an integrated booster and glider—consumes about 55% of all U.S. military spending on offensive and defensive hypersonic weapons technology over the next five years, budget documents show. "

https://aviationweek.com/defense/us-accelerates-hypersonic-weapons-push-new-spending-plan

Sounds like the navy wants Tomahawk sized, which can be made compatible with existing attack boats and basically shares infrastructures with other services.  Basically US version of Zircon but with tighter constraint.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10