|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm always down to hear about the garbage fire status of foreign militaries. It makes me feel mildly better about some of my decisions. Honestly I would be interested in hearing about well run, well supplied militaries that have excellent procurement processes and results at this point. Back Hack posted:Talk about getting high on your own farts, it's not only going to be able to fly in space but it also going to have laser cannons. MiG = Mikoyan-Grover?
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
priznat posted:Honestly I would be interested in hearing about well run, well supplied militaries that have excellent procurement processes and results at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Do those exist? I seriously doubt it so it would be sci-fi
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
I will reach space, but only if Putin is piloting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Mig31 replacement is actually an x-15 like. Goes to space but only has a minute of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:They don't really have that problem because of the pusher prop that prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
It's a tacit admission that they will be flying the MiG 31 for another 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Pretty sure we're all kinds of far from an objective assessment of these prototypes' safety.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Unless they've got wings the pusher prop aint preventing poo poo Have you see how massive the tail stabilizers are? E: VVVV Well I got schooled by the man with a great AV and post combo. Back Hack fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
The pusher prop doesn't prevent retreating blade stall, the tandem setup does, or rather eliminates the big danger. That being that it's asymmetric, and if you manage to keep accelerating, your aircraft eventually rolls to the retreating side. With contra-rotors it's evened out, so the only issue in a conventional tandem is keeping the nose down, since the stall mode also induces a pitch-up moment. With a pusher prop, though, you can keep accelerating until you just don't have the power to go faster, like a conventional plane. It doesn't prevent the stall roll, but the tandem rotor does, and the pusher prop is suddenly useful. E: See also: compound helicopters, which transition to fixed wings at high speed rather than using a tandem rotor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
That Works posted:
The next Ace Combat is looking good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:The pusher prop doesn't prevent retreating blade stall, the tandem setup does, or rather eliminates the big danger. That being that it's asymmetric, and if you manage to keep accelerating, your aircraft eventually rolls to the retreating side. With contra-rotors it's evened out, so the only issue in a conventional tandem is keeping the nose down, since the stall mode also induces a pitch-up moment. I understand the rotors won't be unbalanced, but won't their lift still drop by around half as forward velocity approaches the velocity of the rotor tips?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Mig31 replacement is actually an x-15 like. Goes to space but only has a minute of fuel. Intercontinental ballistic fighter-bomber Hauldren Collider posted:I understand the rotors won't be unbalanced, but won't their lift still drop by around half as forward velocity approaches the velocity of the rotor tips? The trailing edge on each rotor will lose lift, but because their counter rotating that trailing edge occurs on opposite sides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:I understand the rotors won't be unbalanced, but won't their lift still drop by around half as forward velocity approaches the velocity of the rotor tips? Well, the advancing blade gains lift due to its speed, so they cancel out. Then the limiting factor becomes sonic effects; eventually, forward velocity plus tip speed means the tips start approaching mach 1. Keep in mind: as complex as these coaxial/tiltrotor designs are, they're VTOL craft with a decent speed advantage over a conventional helicopter, and your only real alternative is jump jets, which I think we all know the issues with those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
You still have the problem where you can't let the advancing blade go supersonic or high transonic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Paging tetra to do another helicopter effort post, tia
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:You still have the problem where you can't let the advancing blade go supersonic or high transonic. It worked for the Thunderscreech!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Is that true? They look pretty complicated to me, with the tandem rotor. Plus there's the issue of retreating blade stall as they go fast. That's not a tandem rotor, those are coaxial rotors. Tandem is like on the CH-47. Coax rotors like that significantly reduce retreating blade stall, because the two rotors rotate in opposite directions. So when the retreating blade from one rotor starts to stall the other rotor's blade is advancing on the same side, so you avoid the dissymmetry of lift. This is by no means the first coax rotor helicopter. Kamov has been building them for decades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Intercontinental ballistic fighter-bomber See: antipodal bomber
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
priznat posted:Honestly I would be interested in hearing about well run, well supplied militaries that have excellent procurement processes and results at this point. I've heard and read good things about Australia but my practical experience with them has largely been limited to them handing out business cards at Flag 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
When are we going to get semi ballistic military transports?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:You still have the problem where you can't let the advancing blade go supersonic or high transonic. One of these coax-rotor pusher-prop proposals had a magical gearbox that would keep the blade tips at the same (optimal designed) speed as forward speed increased. edit: Sikorsky X2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Despite being loony as hell and not made, the antipodal bomber had a definate real world impact, unlike some other paper wunder-waffen. Isn't the basic design for the engine the same one that was used on the space shuttle? Also, Stalin really liked the idea and kept trying to kidnap the designer in the late 1940s. It's kind of a bad thing Stalin didn't succeed; can you imagine the cold war being fought with hypersonic spaceplanes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:I've heard and read good things about Australia but my practical experience with them has largely been limited to them handing out business cards at Flag They keep buying SHornets and the F-35 when, based on their needs, they should have bought new build F-15s with CFTs and invested in LO standoff anti-shipping weapons, which a lot of countries are going to want but few are making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:When are we going to get semi ballistic military transports? We already have fully ballistic transports, but the selection of cargo being delivered is limited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is by no means the first coax rotor helicopter. Kamov has been building them for decades. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Despite being loony as hell and not made, the antipodal bomber had a definate real world impact, unlike some other paper wunder-waffen. Isn't the basic design for the engine the same one that was used on the space shuttle? Personally, I believe sending orbital missiles over what was then enemy territory to be a bad thing. But maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Despite being loony as hell and not made, the antipodal bomber had a definate real world impact, unlike some other paper wunder-waffen. Isn't the basic design for the engine the same one that was used on the space shuttle? What?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Despite being loony as hell and not made, the antipodal bomber had a definate real world impact, unlike some other paper wunder-waffen. Isn't the basic design for the engine the same one that was used on the space shuttle? No, not really no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
That Works posted:
Just use a definition of space lower than even the USAF and they're good to go!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Russia doesn't ever have to actually build any of this poo poo. They just have to *plan* to build it, and get someone to make artist's renditions and Youtube animations for the Rodinaboos to jerk off to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Just use a definition of space lower than even the USAF and they're good to go! Inner space.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:They keep buying SHornets and the F-35 when, based on their needs, they should have bought new build F-15s with CFTs and invested in LO standoff anti-shipping weapons, which a lot of countries are going to want but few are making. Agree on the weapons but not F15s. Rafales because: a. gently caress that's a sexy plane b. At the time France needed export contracts badly and we could have gotten a sweet deal. c. Should have refused the 35 as tacit "gently caress you" to the USA for not selling us the F-22. d. Did I mention the boner inducing qualities of the Rafale yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
The Rafale just looks like a tumor-ridden Mirage to me. Pretty ugly, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Someone explain the new thread title please
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Someone explain the new thread title please
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Someone explain the new thread title please https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TlOD2anqOU I don’t want to go looking for the original post, but this was the link.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TlOD2anqOU I could listen to that all day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Agree on the weapons but not F15s. The RAAF never needed or really wanted the F-22. It would've been a hilarious waste of your limited budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Agree on the weapons but not F15s. And make no mistake, it's all about the money. That's why the F-22 was never in the offing, and the grognard behind AusAirPower will die disappointed. The Australian DoD is defined on one side by budget constraints, and that means figuring out what their core missions are, and focusing their money there. Looking at a map tells anyone that Aus' position in the world is defined by the small seas to your north, and the absolutely fuckoff massive oceans to your east and west. In order to secure the continent, your foremost military concern and mission is Sea Control. If you're doing sea control of such a massive area, the prime performance dimension you're going to care about is "which capable aircraft has the longest legs with an anti-shipping loadout?" That's almost certainly going to mean external carriage of large weapons; he only other western contender is the F-35/NSM combination, which should actually have decent range since the NSM can be carried internally, but the Aus DoD was not content/could not afford to wait for that capability to mature. A new build Eagle with CFT and a LPI AESA radar is an 80% solution, plus buying more tankers. The missing element is standoff range ASuW and anti-land weapons, and would be a good avenue for Aussie R&D since it's a capability you're going to want on your aircraft, surface combatants, and subs. Plus, judging by the sales deals the Norwegians are inking on the NSM, you might very well have made your money back. The fact that the F-15 isn't a world-killing dogfighter anymore is not really huge downside if your gameplan is to deny anyone hostile the chance to sail a carrier or set up an airbase within 1000nm of Darwin. It gives you a platform with known operating costs and mature systems to go play in whatever mudhole the U.S. sticks its dick in next decade, and works in a High/Low mix with the F-35. Or you could buy the aircraft equivalent of the FAMAS, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 07:15
|
|