Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Military / Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 09:17:14 am »

Russia has a knack for developing weapons that—at least on paper—are terrifying: nuclear-powered cruise missiles, robot subs with 100-megaton warheads .

Perhaps the most terrifying was a Cold War doomsday system that would automatically launch missiles—without the need for a human to push the button—during a nuclear attack.

But the system, known as “Perimeter” or “Dead Hand,” may be back and deadlier than ever.
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Dassault Rafale Projects
« Last post by TomcatViP on Today at 07:32:17 am »
Yes. It was the cover of a new aerospace magazine during the 80/early 90's in France (that did not find much success).

(Had it (bought it at the time) and lost it some years ago).

Remember those were the times of the airfix/Italieri F-19 exclusive model release ;)

Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Dassault Rafale Projects
« Last post by alanqua on Today at 06:17:38 am »
Sorry, i do not remember exactly the French magazine. I think the title was something like "AIR", and it had been issued only twice. This drawing (the first one) was a sort of fantasy in my opinion, because I never saw such a version of Rafale (maybe we should ask to Dassault, you never know). But it looked quite interesting and realistic. I do not remember where comes from the second drawing, maybe from a English book I had on combat aircraft.
Aerospace / Re: Space Ship II, White Knight II - projects, flights, info
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 05:31:58 am »
In the immortal words of Iam Malcolm

"He did it... crazy S.O.B, he did it..."

Only 10 years late, after two lethal accidents, and 15 years after SS1. Nice to see all this was not silly hype. Glad to see it fly high and fast. Now the next step is to fly safely... and a lot.

That's what happens when you don't give up after the first failure.  Who knew?
Missile Projects / Re: SAM-N-8 Zeus
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 05:30:49 am »
The control is likely a combination of "Skid to turn" technique and "pif-paf" or "Jet dynamic" system similar to what used in PAC 3 or In Russian 9M96 missiles. 

From the description tho, the Russian missile seems to be the closest analogue, with the deflection charge located at mid which, presumably the missile's center of gravity. 

Aster is similar.
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Dassault Rafale Projects
« Last post by hesham on Today at 05:25:04 am »
Amazing my dear Alanqua.
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 05:24:15 am »
How practical as a combat fighter is the F-35 if it is this delicate?
Unless it is operating in ideal situations against an inferior opponent?
Must be kept in sterile conditions and will be maintenance heavy?
That's why I've always liked the practical and realistic Russian philosophy to build durability and for combat (whether out of necessity or other reasons).
All the criticism the Su-57 is getting.

Lot's of baseless assumptions there.  As for the Su-57 you're starting with an F-35 with no baked in stealth, scratches over it's entire surface, AND poor geometry.  I don't see how that makes it a success.
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 05:22:43 am »
No, it's not "baloney".

There are multiple layers, some baked in and some sprayed on as part of the paint process (obviously necessary).

Respectfully disagree. Was widely touted that unlike the -22 , its stealth was baked into the skin and not reliant and maintenance heavy coatings.

The F-35s system is FAR more durable than previous systems.

Now we learn if the coating wears off, is damaged, the AC is visible on radar.

ALL aircraft are visible on radar, even a B-2 or F-22.  It's a matter of range.  It's not as though, if the F-35 gets a scratch in the paint, it goes from being an F-35 to a B-52.  This should be obvious.

So what was all that talk about not being able to tell how stealthy something was by looking at its shape? The 35 isn't a stealth shape and electromagnetic physics hasn't changed. It has been fairly obvious to many that the 35 was not a LO AC and they slapped on RAM to cover up the lack of shaping.

Well no, it's been "obvious" to all the keyboard warriors who think you can access an aircraft's RCS by eyeball.  You know, the same crowd who were astonished the F-35s RCS is in the same league, or better, than the F-22.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10