Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by fredymac on Yesterday at 12:04:28 pm »
Sea based ABM exposes the entire ground track of an ICBM to prompt attack.  Land based ABM forces you into mid course and later intercepts.  That's straight geometry and timing.  Unless you do space based employment, you abandon this capability.

Sub based ABM will require a very high speed data link that acquires the interceptor immediately as it enters boost phase.  This is where development of a global, space based sensor/command network is required.  The command segment replicates the land link to the BDM control system.  It takes distributed lethality and CEC architecture to the final level.

The sub will be big.  It will need to house a GMD sized missile which automatically means it too is on station even as it sits in harbor.  It may actually carry a variety of interceptors ranging from as small as an SM3 Block IIX to a KEI to an intercontinental range GMD.

This technology does not exist but the networked, fused, distributed architectures being pursued for general purposes could readily feed into it.  The only signal the submarine needs to hear is launch X number of Y type interceptors at T time.
92
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Moose on Yesterday at 11:20:58 am »
Think of the submarine as an arsenal ship, cued by external sensors.  There is no need for it to have any sensor apertures.  It needs to be able to receive, "launch to x,y,z coordinates for TOT xx:xx:xxx" and send, "TOT xx:xx:xxx".  Maybe not even that.  Maybe the reply is simply, "done".  External platforms deal with determining the initial coordinates as well as any coordination with the missile.  Maybe a key gets sent to the sub for the flight as well for comm security.

Except that's not even how ArShip worked, and this isn't as simple as sending strike coordinates.  There's a lot more data exchange required pre-launch.

Still, we're not talking about minutes of transmission time.  Certainly nothing like always up as BMD radars would require.  A blip from the sub when a missile was launched.

And this notional BMD submarine is still tethered to periscope depth for weeks at a time (to ensure real-time connectivity).  PD is a miserable place for a sub to spend a lot of time.

Couldn't they do something like a small towed float? (Sure, you'd theoretically be able to see it if you happened to be nearby but still a lot more difficult to find than a ship.)

If the other guy has a decent idea of your interceptor's performance, the area they have to search for your ABM sub shrinks dramatically. Plus, towed surface floats have a lot of technical issues that can complicate the sub's stealth. And that's all assuming the firing platform can work in receive-only, if it has to send any data back to the targeting platform you're adding more problems.

Additionally, this would actually be less condition-tolerant than a large, stable surface hull. Firing interceptors in a less-than-ideal sea state is hard enough on a rolling surface ship that is trying to toss interceptors into very small windows. Submarines near the surface are very unstable; so you're fatiguing the crew, risking a broach that could give away (or even damage) the sub, and throwing additional hurdles at the interceptor between the button being pushed and the target going boom.
93
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Vought 4 Ducted Fan Design
« Last post by jsport on Yesterday at 11:11:49 am »
IMHO opinion this is a super genius design for quiet CAS. Why doesn't someone build it today w/ current tech it could be an amazing all spectrum stealth and high or low speed and altitude.

Thank you for postin Sir
94
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by _Del_ on Yesterday at 10:48:30 am »
Probably have to buy them out unwillingly.I

Then offer their share of the program to Germany/France for the same dollars. I'm sure an existing partner or two would be willing to expand their workshare if that doesn't go anywhere.
95
Aerospace / Re: Blue Origin and New Shephard RLV
« Last post by Flyaway on Yesterday at 10:39:00 am »
Blue Origin plans to start selling suborbital spaceflight tickets next year

Quote
Blue Origin expects to start flying people on its New Shepard suborbital vehicle “soon” and start selling tickets for commercial flights next year, a company executive said June 19.

Speaking at the Amazon Web Services Public Sector Summit here, as the keynote of a half-day track on earth and space applications, Blue Origin Senior Vice President Rob Meyerson offered a few updates on the development of the company’s suborbital vehicle.

“We plan to start flying our first test passengers soon,” he said after showing a video of a previous New Shepard flight at the company’s West Texas test site. All of the New Shepard flights to date have been without people on board, but the company has said in the past it would fly its personnel on the vehicle in later tests.

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-plans-to-start-selling-suborbital-spaceflight-tickets-next-year/
96
The Bar / Re: The US Space Force
« Last post by fightingirish on Yesterday at 10:09:21 am »
Aviation Week & Space Technology podcast: Rep. Rogers on Why the U.S. Needs a Space Corps
Quote
When President Donald Trump announced at the National Space Corps that the U.S. would pursue a Space Force, it appeared to come out of the blue.
In fact, Congress has been working its way toward that very goal, and its chief supporter in the House, Rep. Michael Rogers (R-Ala.) joins Aviation Week to explain how that might unfold.


IMHO the United States Special Operations Forces as sixth service branch would be more suitable. Just like in other countries, as for example Poland.
I prefer the U.S. Space Corps as a component of the Department of the Air Force.
97
The Bar / Re: A unmarked Aircraft in the Sky
« Last post by aliensporebomb on Yesterday at 09:29:16 am »
My thought was Emirates cargo or an aircraft being delivered to a customer for painting (green a/c as previously mentioned).

98
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 09:25:01 am »
Think of the submarine as an arsenal ship, cued by external sensors.  There is no need for it to have any sensor apertures.  It needs to be able to receive, "launch to x,y,z coordinates for TOT xx:xx:xxx" and send, "TOT xx:xx:xxx".  Maybe not even that.  Maybe the reply is simply, "done".  External platforms deal with determining the initial coordinates as well as any coordination with the missile.  Maybe a key gets sent to the sub for the flight as well for comm security.

Except that's not even how ArShip worked, and this isn't as simple as sending strike coordinates.  There's a lot more data exchange required pre-launch.

Still, we're not talking about minutes of transmission time.  Certainly nothing like always up as BMD radars would require.  A blip from the sub when a missile was launched.

And this notional BMD submarine is still tethered to periscope depth for weeks at a time (to ensure real-time connectivity).  PD is a miserable place for a sub to spend a lot of time.

Couldn't they do something like a small towed float? (Sure, you'd theoretically be able to see it if you happened to be nearby but still a lot more difficult to find than a ship.)
99
Space Projects / Re: Project HOT EAGLE-- Marine Space Transport
« Last post by Orionblamblam on Yesterday at 09:24:11 am »
I believe to people in the rest of the world, the idea of gangs of armed American soldiers dropping in from space to fulfil the latest temper-tantrum from The Big Cheese Himself is not a comforting one.

Nation of origin aside, politics aside, what is the *fundamental* difference between rocketing special forces across the world and using a C-17... other than the time it takes to do it? "Hot Eagle" based troops are unlikely to be any more lethal than those who jumped from a cargo jet.

And would you rather that these "gangs"of American soldiers be sent *unarmed?* Seems unlikely to improve the situation much.

And risking politics: have the Trump years seen an increase in active, armed American involvement (i.e. "temper tantrums")? Most of what I'm seeing is whining from Americas allies that the US isn't doing *enough,* or is pulling back from commitments to provide goodies, cash and bodies to defend them.

Until rocketry gets a *lot* cheaper than even SpaceX is promising, rocket-based troop transport will remain firmly in the realm of extremely specialized missions only, missions that it makes sense to drop tens of million just on transport.
100
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Last post by foiling on Yesterday at 09:01:19 am »
Breath-takingly excellent drawings of a magnificent aircraft project. It is thrilling. Well done.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]