Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
New Info for me,thanks.
13
James H. Cobb, Robert Ludlum's The Arctic Event, 2007

United States (Navy)

USS MacIntyre (DDG-??)
Destroyer, class not specified. Most likely a member of the Arleigh Burke Class.
No other details provided

United States (Coast Guard)

USCGC Alex Haley (WMEC-39) (Ex-USS Edenton (ATS-1))
Edenton Class Cutter
Real ship, details as in service.
Note: The novel consistently refers to the ship as the USS Alex Haley.

Russia

Unnamed
Oscar Class (Pr.949) Submarine
Details as per the real ships

And for the aircraft mavens...

Tupolev Tu-4 (NATO Reporting name "Bull")
Callsign: 'Misha 124'
Details as per the A variant of this B-29 copy.
Note: The 'A' variant of the Tu-4 was modified as an atomic weapons carrier and it was capable of reaching the United States on a one way trip due to the fact that all defensive armament except the tail guns had been removed and extra fuel tanks mounted in the wings and rear bomb bay. This aircraft is a fictional(?) modification of that variant designed to carry two tons of weaponized anthrax instead of a nuclear bomb.

The anthrax is stored in a 'lozenge shaped' steel container designed to fit into the bomb rack in the forward bomb bay (This probably means that it's shaped not to dissimilarly to the first Soviet air droppable nuclear bombs.). It is dispensed via vents under the wings using air pressure generated by ram air intakes in the engine cowlings.

Plot summary: Researchers on a small island in the Arctic find a crashed plane soon identified as one the Soviet Union lost on a training mission the same day that Stalin died. Unknown to the world at large the plane was carrying two tons of weaponized anthrax, something Russia reveals to the United States in secret afraid that it will fall into the wrong hands. A joint mission is sent to investigate and work out how to remove the payload safely, not realizing that why the plane crashed where it did is linked to a deeper secret that some will kill to prevent the truth from coming out.

Notes: The story, which is set in the 'present day' (eg the Day after Tomorrow rule applies.) is seventh in the series 'Covert One' (The fourth novel 'Robert Ludlum's The Altman Code' (2003) has been covered earlier in the thread.) which seems to have been created to keep the authors name in the public eye after his death in 2001. The author in this case is James H. Cobb, more well known for the 'Amanda Garret' naval action novels. The author in his only outing in the series handles the existing characters well and introduced one of his own, who sadly never reappeared in any later novels, though that seems to have clearly been the intent. The storyline itself is well handled and builds to an exciting climax high over the Arctic sea.
14
Aerospace / Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Last post by Hood on Today at 02:36:17 am »
Team Tempest (BAE Systems, Leonardo, MBDA and Rolls-Royce) was formed around the time of the MoD industry day on 13th March 2018. Flightglobal reported this was work on concepts for a low-cost unmanned combat air system demonstrator alongside the Anglo-French UCAV efforts.
The Aerosociety article posted in the LANCA thread splits out Team Tempest's involvement as broader FCAS concepts and the Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) RFI issued around the same time for LANCA is a ‘Loyal Wingman’ low-cost UCAV as a separate but "potential part of the future combat air system.”
Then in July the Tempest is unveiled at Farnborough as a potential collaborative sixth-gen fighter platform, with Team Tempest seemingly behind it.

From my analysis it seems like the initial Flightglobal article was hinting at LANCA but whether Team Tempest is actively involved in LANCA is open to question, given the involvement of RCO and restriction to UK companies with involvement from university research partners etc., which seems to indicate a programme similar in scope and scale to MAGMA.
The quotes in the Aerosociety article by Air Vice Marshall Simon Rochelle clearly states Team Tempest involvement is to look at FCAS concepts. Plus there is still the Anglo-French programme of which little has been said, but presumably is still rumbling along, perhaps at slow pace.

Therefore I think we can discount that Team Tempest is leading LANCA at this stage, though they may well enter a proposal bid. Instead they are looking at the bigger hardware. FCAS is going to be a manned platform, a sixth-generation aircraft. Whatever thoughts might have led to Taranis have probably been swept aside by the European clamour for new fighters to replace Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen. The potential market and collaborations are simply too great to miss. Strike UCAVs have little or no export market (political implications too) so its natural a fighter platform is seen as a cash generator. This is where the bulk of the governments R&D spending will go.

Where does that leave LANCA? A low-cost demonstrator to add to the others in a dusty hangar? I doubt the MoD can contribute to a fighter programme and develop a homegrown UCAV at the same time but it makes a good case to retain a home industry by developing something cheaper at home to give FCAS a full national component. LANCA makes no sense if the MoD wants to wait until 2040 when FCAS is ready. My hunch is that LANCA might reach fruition sooner, perhaps a loyal wingman for F-35? France and Germany probably face the same problem. Making the fighter optionally manned offers a solution but its hardly the low-cost expendable strike platform that LANCA is aiming towards. Taranis and Neuron are similar high-end options that might be feasible within the shorter term (potentially ready before the fighter platform is) but the appetite seems to have shifted, perhaps the defence staffs are interested but the aerospace industry seems to be pushing fighters to any government that will listen (Airbus especially with Enders telling politicians not to interfere - shut up and open the cheque book).
15
Aerospace / Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Last post by mrmalaya on Today at 12:26:26 am »
In fairness to myself there, I was questioning what to call the project within minutes of the launch and have since stopped calling the aircraft Tempest.

Not that there is anything better to call it, and there are still plenty of industry types calling it Tempest -if only as a form of shorthand.

I understand why Jackonicko needs to be more accurate in the reporting though.
16
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by mrmalaya on Today at 12:21:11 am »
Jackonicko- thanks for the added detail. So did they conclude the Tarnish type  design would be best suited for air policing and does that mean it would be capable of flying fast enough to intercept other aircraft (with or without a pilot on board)?

Certainly a project that left plenty of questions in its wake.
17
Quote
It's obvious these fuselages are Me 263 (Me 163 D)
I don't think the Me 263/Ju 248 was ever called the Me 163 D.  :o The Me 163 D was a longer variant of the Me 163 indeed, but the project was abandoned in 1944 (an the other hand, the Me 263 was a longer version proposed in 1941 too). The so called Me 163 D (or Me 163 "D"), which is directly connected with the Me 263 development, was a designation sometimes applied to an ad hoc rebuilt Me 163 BV 18, used for initial aerodynamic and undercarriage trials for the Me 263 program from December 1944/January 1945. Second Me 163 D example (Me 163 BV 13) was never rebuilt.
18
The Bar / Re: Retrospective: The Scale Modeler Magazine 1967 Reader Survey
« Last post by martinbayer on Yesterday at 11:54:49 pm »
Interesting (and somewhat depressing) to see that even after more than two decades after the end of WWII subjects from that era dominated. Are modellers really such a backwards oriented bunch?
19
User Artwork / Re: Resin kit of Macchi fighter
« Last post by dan_inbox on Yesterday at 11:02:50 pm »
Why isn't this thread in the modelling forum?
20
The Bar / Re: Retrospective: The Scale Modeler Magazine 1967 Reader Survey
« Last post by dan_inbox on Yesterday at 11:00:41 pm »
Wouldn't this belong better in the "Modelling Forum" section?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10