Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Military / Re: Standard SM-3 News & Dev.
« Last post by fredymac on November 20, 2017, 03:58:50 pm »
Summary of "Formidable Shield" exercise.  There was an SM-2 shot involved as well but it isn't mentioned.  An SM-3 was used against a ballistic missile target (launched on remote via datalink to another ship) while supporting NATO ships fired what were probably ESSM/RAM missiles against cruise missile targets.



92
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Arsenal VG-30 variants
« Last post by hesham on November 20, 2017, 03:25:13 pm »
Real projects

Many thanks to you my dear Justo.
93
Army Projects / Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Last post by sferrin on November 20, 2017, 03:16:38 pm »
Follow up to my drone idea:



(Please excuse the hysterical title.  Obviously, this isn't real - yet.)

94
Space Projects / Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Last post by sferrin on November 20, 2017, 03:07:59 pm »
And another delay.

"NASA expects first Space Launch System flight to slip into 2020"
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/20/nasa-expects-first-space-launch-system-flight-to-slip-into-2020/

At this rate both SpaceX and Blue Origin are going to leave them in the dust.  :P
95
Space Projects / Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Last post by fredymac on November 20, 2017, 02:47:37 pm »
And another delay.

"NASA expects first Space Launch System flight to slip into 2020"
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/20/nasa-expects-first-space-launch-system-flight-to-slip-into-2020/
96
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by Foo Fighter on November 20, 2017, 02:31:39 pm »
For what it is worth, I hope whatever our nations build, the future soldiers manning them do not have to come to the realisation that leadership did not have the courage to get the right vehicle at the right time for the right cost.  I would hate to see the future soldiers get to the late reality that what they are fielding is nothing more than a can of spam in the face of future threats.  38mm of side armour on a supposedly superior vehicle and the aluminium side skirts would not stop a decent long rifle round now (I am talking Chieftain as an example).
97
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Republic XP-69
« Last post by taildragger on November 20, 2017, 01:52:03 pm »

[/quote]
Yes, I covet the kit. The nagging question I have about this version of the XP-69, and yes, I've raised it before, is: what is with the constant-chord center section on the wing? It appears in some drawings of the plane, but not anything I've seen that's contemporary with its development. And what sense does it make? It's constant-chord but not constant thickness. Nor is there a dihedral break, with a horizontal center-section, as in the T-6 Texan or the XP-75.

I just got a copy of Tornado: Wright Aero's Last Liquid-cooled Piston Engine. It's a wonderful reference, and I hope the author can fulfill his stated intention of writing a series of books on experimental engines. It has this nugget re the XP-69:
"One interesting finding of the full-scale tunnel testing...was that the aileron forces were too high. Several solutions were proposed, including an internal sealed balance with wedge trailing edge."

I never heard of a "wedge trailing edge" but maybe that's the origin of the kink in the trailing edge? Doesn't explain the kinked leading edge, though.
[/quote]

My guess is that it's a production joint where two components (wing and fuselage) were to be joined.  The break is outboard of most of the wheel well and keeping these big holes in the structure inside the center fuselage would reduce the stress at the joint.  Making the wing stub constant chord probably just simplified the fuselage structure.
98
Missile Projects / Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Last post by marauder2048 on November 20, 2017, 01:13:14 pm »

I wonder why they'd go with the IIIA instead of the newer IIIB. (Both are pretty much ancient.)

Cost reasons.

It was originally IIIB but IIIA already had the X-band datalink and supported ICWI.
99
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by Kat Tsun on November 20, 2017, 01:10:30 pm »
By the way I think Kat Tsun comprehensively blew our points away anyway; I bow to an evident expert in this area.

I am the layest of laymen with an overly verbose writing voice, a keen interest in the topic of "main battle tanks", and a pessimistic outlook on the future of Western tank development. I hold no special knowledge or esoteric training in the fields of engineering, tanking, or anything of the sort. I'm just a dour sourpuss who is upset that things like Crusader were killed, cut up, and put into cardboard boxes.

I apologise to anyone I have offended.  Most of my comments are meant either less than entirely seriously or completely tongue in cheek and as an older and disabled ex soldier, find emotives etc completely baffling so do not use them.  I am still trying to create a personal treatise on the development of the armoured vehicle.  This has changed over the years and if I can get it done will include paper/card models of certain game changing vehicles as well as diagrams and text.  Not sure if I will get it done to my satisfaction but I am trying.

If there is enough harm done and folk want me gone then I will go but the signal ignorance of which I sometimes see should be addressed too.

For what it matters I am not offended at all, I am merely verbose and intensely interested in engaging in a discussion about something that I find exceptionally interesting. Were I upset I would have been far more terse. That's not to say I am upset now, in this relatively terse reply, but rather that there's simply not much to say beyond what I've already said.

As it stands, the most likely replacement for the M1 is going to be Leopard 3. The US Army is entering an even numbered decade, which means the pendulum has swung from "heavy armor" to "air-mechanization". We're ready for a new FCS.

You'd think they'd have learned from the last debacle (FCS).  The only truly useful new design since 2000 was the Crusader and, in their infinite wisdom, we saw what they did with that.  Can't have any of that "Cold War relic" stink around ya know.

It isn't clear what is going to happen, I'm just being snarky.

The US Army seems to always become infatuated with air-mechanization around the turn of even-numbered decades: the '60s saw M113, M107, M551, and M110; the '80s saw 9th Infantry Division (MTZ) and the emergence of the High-Technology Light Division and the LAV-25; the '00s saw FCS. The first time it was drowned by the Vietnam War. The second time it was drowned by the U.S. Cavalry and heavy armor. The third time it was drowned by its own overly optimistic timetable. Air-mechanization is always going to be an undercurrent that has to be guarded against in all militaries, liberal or despotic, as the PLA seems to be rather taken by the idea; but it has a special home in the United States which has the twin sins of a strong cavalry tradition comparable to Russia and a place in the world that demands the ability to move quickly overseas. And nothing is faster than a jet plane. Or an intercontinental helicopter.

Obviously, you can pull out any number of actual '50s (M113?!), '70s (HTLD?! Various Sheridan-based BMD-analogues), and '90s (Stryker) weapons and ideas that support the reverse argument.

Lobbyists like RAND, and the Senate themselves, have been yammering away for 10 years about the need for new heavy armor, actual SHORADS, and a new field piece. Among other things, like cyberwar capability, REC, and better mine protection for our vehicles. Contrary to popular belief, this doesn't fall on deaf ears. The Army has also pushed back the Abrams death date from "post 2070s" to "at least the 2050s". OTOH, CSA Mark "Silly" Milley has made statements about future tanks of the US Army needing to be lightweight, have heavy armor, lasers, and microwave weapons at AUSA; while simultaneously this year TARDEC has been ordered to start conceptual study for a future MBT in the 55-ton range, incorporating technology from GCV as a springboard.

FWIW, Crusader was not so much "Cold War relic," as the tightening of the budget belt that is inevitable when liberal democracy wins the next war, combined with the need for colonial "expeditionary" warfare weapons. After all, tanks stopped in 1918, too. It took twenty years for tanks to happen again, beyond the gasoline equivalents of FCS aka Carden-Loyd and Vickers 6-tons. If need be they can probably pilfer Crusader's or NLOS-C's prototypes and design documents for ideas to crib/copy from FMC's defense division. We might even be able to have a new howitzer ten years earlier than a new tank.

I guess the difference between now and then is that the time it takes to make a tank has increased by an order of magnitude. People talk about the world "speeding up" but it's more accurate to say "slowing down". The only thing being outstripped is our ability to see into the future, but even among the blind the West has never been very good at absconding with some dark, secret, future knowledge. The late Brig. Gen. R. Simpkin once said "the peacetime military establishment of the most advanced countries enjoys an unrivaled and largely deserved reputation for blinkered thinking". Still as true today as it was in 1980, 1950, or 1930.

So it's really up in the air. Will TARDEC hand built the next American tank, as the Army Ordnance Department slaved over the M4 Sherman? Or will it build some CGI models to be promptly discarded in favor of "doing nothing" because all the engineers are too busy making upgrades for the M1 to spare the work hours to build a new tank? Or will they take the next tank into the hands of private industry, who run the risk of being undermined by Chinese influence/investment as happened at Mountain Pass and with Norsat? Does BAE still have enough engineering expertise left to even make a new tank? The [unfortunately formerly] United Defense people have not made a new vehicle in over a decade.

There are really too many unanswered questions that could swing in any number of directions to draw any firm conclusions, so it really depends on gut world outlook. A dour person would say that it's likely the US Army is going to repeat FCS because of Milley's statements at AUSA; that it will cast aside the TARDEC work because TARDEC works out of a small office building in Detroit; and that private industry is too vulnerable to exploitation by the Communist Party, which has repeatedly won many victories in the economic sphere of war, to be trusted with a new tank design. An optimist might say that the fact that TARDEC is working on a new tank heralds something good; or that materials technology is so advanced we can fit the protection of a 55-ton MBT into a 30-ton chassis, we just need a better timetable than the 1998-2008 one that Shinseki gave Congress; or that the rule of law or some common universally liberal strand of thought will permeate the Chinese or the Russians and motivate them to follow rule of law instead of corporate raiding entire nations like it's 1980.

My personal hope is that the US Army will work as well as the Germans have on SPz Puma and are working on Leopard 3, but my greatest fear is that America is too far gone to be able to avoid the FCS siren song.
100
Aerospace / Re: Russia to restart Tu-160 supersonic bomber production line
« Last post by flateric on November 20, 2017, 12:55:41 pm »
even not 'newly built'
this is backlog from Soviet era

http://www.tupolev.ru/tu-160-new
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]