|
SyHopeful posted:So did they ever say how they intended to power the engines with the nuclear reactor? The fun part about turbine engines. It doesn't matter where the heat comes from, just that you add heat in the middle. (over simplification, but it's really not that complicated.) Instead of burning fuel to add energy to the incoming air, you dump heat from a nuclear powered heat exchanger into where fuel would normally be injected and ignited. The rest of the process works the same. Suck-squeeze-bang-blow or suck-squeeze-heat-blow, the physics are the same to the engine. There are some nuclear turbine ideas still floating around that would be pretty safe, but NIMBY's get all crazy when you even mention the word reactor and aircraft in the same sentence. http://books.google.com/books?id=S9...chanics&f=false wkarma fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Dec 19, 2010 |
#
¿
Dec 19, 2010 11:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
You left out the best part...it was on a timer. Set timer, launch in the vague direction of a soviet bomber formation, beat feet and hope you kinda sorta had the range right.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 08:03
|
|
pedantry...the AIR-2 was actually unguided, making it technically a rocket and not a missile. Yes, they put a nuclear warhead on an unguided rocket.
|
NosmoKing posted:Time to invest in stealth/low-profile weapons and external stores.  Stealthy weapons pod for a future "Silent Hornet"  With one of the few spine-mounted CFT systems that doesn't look like rear end coughf16cough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE3h8yImm4U Iyaayas01 posted:They're ugly looking, but those Block 60s are some sweet aircraft...as I said somewhere previously (maybe in the F-35 GiP thread?) the Block 60s and the Gripen are the best thing going on the international fighter market today regarding bang vs buck, and the F-15K/SG makes a nice compliment for a deep strike fighter. The K is a great jet and the SG even more so with the F-110's, but at this point if you are building a fictional airforce, there's no reason not to go F-15SE. Same front aspect stealth as the export F-35 with the CFT weapons pods, and longer range since the canted tails generate lift. Or you can swap the CFT weapons pods with normal E model CFT's and have full mud hen capability in under 2 hours. 
wkarma fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Mar 9, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
You can't turn them off, and their failure modes all tend to start with the word "catastrophic."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
There are lots of failure modes that aren't catastrophic, due to redundancy built into the launch systems. Engine out, staging problems, equipment failure, etc. can all lead to what is known as LOM (loss of mission; inability to complete the mission as planned). On the more serious side is LOC (Loss of Crew; obvious). Every launch vehicle has trade studies done to calculate the LOM/LOC values; comparing these to other vehicles is where people will say a design is "safer." LOM/LOC is usually given as a ratio, like LOM 1:10000. Changing to an in-line configuration with an escape tower, the models show that an ET-type explosion could be survivable. Some of the Jupiter/DIRECT designs include using some spare upmass margin for a blast shield, but most of the force of an ET explosion goes radially out and away from a stacked/in-line configuration (and right into anything sidemounted). You can actually see this in some of the satellite launches that failed, where the rocket blew up but they find the payload relatively unscathed (from the explosion, not from falling or anything) later on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:Apparently the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet got knocked out of the MMRCA due to poor maneuverability. MMRCA is all about who will give India the most industrial offsets.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2011 09:28
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Eurofighter and Rafale are considered Gen 4.5, mostly because of their lack of significant architectural radar reduction measures. In terms of software and flight performance they'd otherwise be considered Gen 5. They also have that whole 'combat tested' thing thanks to Libya, while the F-22 was having it's seat padding swapped for causing a space-time inconsistency in the tertiary gravitron defluxipators. Canada could have gotten 95% of the f-35's capability with the F-15 Silent Eagle for about 60% of the cost.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2011 07:35
|
|
|
priznat posted:F-22: IT'S TAPE! That is F-15E1 (the first Mud Hen off the line), that Boeing leases from the AF to use as a flying test bed. That picture is from the rollout; the CFT/Weps bays are flight certified, the tails were a non-flying mockup to show what the "ultimate" F-15SE would be like. Basically Boeing has set it up so that a customer could come in and order off a menu of F-15E upgrades. After the rollout, the regular tails were put back on to flight test the conformal bays. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pWhKHrz28k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CRF53SNzHA There is also the F-18 International Roadmap, a "Silent Hornet" if you will:  http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2011/02/aero-india-slideshow-boeings-a.html Basically, Drag-neutral (produces enough lift to counteract the extra drag) CFTs and a stealthy weapons pod for the center station, with an integrated IRST system. The one thing that has come out of the F-35 program that appears to be working is the DAS (distributed aperture system). Long and short: someone watched Macross Plus and said "I want that on an airplane." Now the conclusion that this means the plane gets a pass on maneuverability is one I don't really agree with. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:Hmm, I'd heard a rumor about an IRST drop tank being developed back when I was on active duty. Interesting to see they actually made one, and with weapons storage, no less. That's actually something different. The F-18IR has an integrated IRST on the gun-bay pallet door on the nose.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2011 07:39
|
|
|
Aciid c0d3r posted:I have a map that I have been working on here with some of the active sites around Minot AFB, as well as some decommissioned ATLAS F sites near Altus AFB. Let me save you some time. http://goo.gl/Pfyv7 <--kmz download http://goo.gl/Tb2h9 <--gmaps
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
I tend to prefer the "Team Yankee" cold war gone hot over the Red Storm Rising scenario. Good read if you haven't.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 06:21
|
|
|
The gist of the F35: At 50M a copy like originally planned, it's a fine aircraft. At the 100+M a copy it's going to cost, it's not a fine aircraft. The one really interesting thing that it does bring to the table is the DAS (distributed aperature sensor) system that in theory, once it's working, allows a pilot to look through his own plane and other such macrossy shenanigans.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
How to fix F35: a wkarma joint Buy lots of these (growlers) and fund next-gen jammer  Keep the legacy fighters flying/keep buying them. Clean sheet 2 new designs, a multirole naval fighter for the navy/marines to replace the -18s, a new tactical fighter for the AF, and a cheaped up, export approved f-22 that can actually talk to the rest of the fleet. Not every fighter in your fleet has to be a day-one door buster,
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
RE: Marine organic air support I'd rather see the f-35B money sent to develop the follow on technology to the Sikorsky X-2 program, the S-97 Raider and derivatives. I think something like that would be much more useful to the marine's stated mission of supporting an amphibious invasion force. Hell, with it's maneuverability, I bet it could even hold it's own in a WVR dogfight. BVR not so much, but lets be honest, the marines aren't invading anything until we own the skies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTM6S7kh48o&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lyIkxq-dnI
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:: light turboprop STOL attack aircraft. It's been done before: As much as I love the bronco, as I was saying above, dumping f-35 money into sikorsky's compound helos gets you drat near OV-10 capabilities (in the larger follow on projects), with helicopter bennies on the side. I really think something like that is exactly what the marines need. Amazingly we've had the basic technology for 40 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_(helicopter) . The contra-rotating main rotor just wraps it up in a neat bow. The cheyenne wasn't just cool for that either, the whole gunner's seat rotated Last Starfighter style! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE0CrIup6Uc
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:An F/A-18 crew took a GoPro with them on a flight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf_hdFSnOEI Not to be pedantic (ok maybe a little), but that's an EA-18G Growler :P
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
daskrolator posted:The "Integrated Core Processor" and all the related sub systems are very different than regular computers bought by the private sector. The multiple redundancies as well as the security layer makes the systems very different from their commercial counterparts and makes design, debugging, and other QC activities most people take for granted as a huge issue with development and subsequent upgrades. It's already at that point. By far the longest part of flight testing is software and mission systems qualification. As an exmple for how long it takes to get flight hardware qualified, the "most advanced jet flying" (f22) runs on 3 25mhz core processors. Its not directly trnslatable to common computers because they are embedded machines with real time operating systems, but still. As for software complexity, a superbug runs on about 1.5M lines of code, an f22 about 5M, and the f35..... 25M and counting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Topical picture I took yesterday. I call it "What Could Go Wrong?" And since this is the cold war thread, have a cold war pic  And here's the whole album, feel free to post any you'd like to talk about https://plus.google.com/photos/118407312869309312117/albums/5724761052449844113?authkey=CN-A4r6rhOyI2gE
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
Psion posted:Udvar-Hazy owns. I think I posted my gallery from this summer earlier. Well worth the trip. I might have to sacrifice something to the blood gods and hit the USAF museum out at Wright-Patterson but that would also require voluntarily going to Ohio. The USAF museum is actually better than both Udvar-Hazy and the Smithsonian on the Mall. I mean, one has an XB-70...the other two don't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
Enough about a plane with an optional gun, let's talk about a plane with 6 guns. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
We've been playing with A2G sidewinders for quite a long time. Here's a pic from 1971 of an 9L test at China Lake There's also the Sidearm antiradiation missile that swapped the seeker but otherwise was a standard sidewinder. 9x is an annuar blast frag warhead which is basically an 8pounds of plastique wrapped in shrapnel pipe bomb, so it can be effective against soft ground targets.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
Here's some cold war history I'd never heard before. It’s part of a secret, nuclear-powered U.S. Army base that was built under the Greenland ice cap only 800 miles from the North Pole. The base was officially built to conduct scientific research but the real reason was apparently to test out the feasibility of burying nuclear missiles below the ice under an effort known as Project Iceworm.  http://defensetech.org/2012/04/06/inside-the-armys-secret-cold-war-ice-base/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Bradleys MIGHT have killed a few t-55s at close range with the 25mm but, more likely, they were TOW kills. T-34s wouldn't be much of a challenge for Bradley; the armor is thin enough to be penetrated by 25mm, the armor is inferior, and the firecontrol is obsolete. I've had a bradley gunner specifically tell me that T-72's were engaged and destroyed with APDS (M791 I believe) 25mm in Gulf 1. Quick internet sleuthing seems to support this statement of several T-72 kills by 25mm to the side hull armor, and all aspect kills (especially to the turret ring on the front) to T-55/65, even from medium ranges. OIF saw the introduction of M919 APFDS which is supposedly even better. wkarma fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Jun 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
Most people don't realize the Genie wasn't a missile. It was an unguided rocket. quote:Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft's fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (1,000 ft). Fly to radar intercept point, computer says YUP! This is the spot! and cuts it loose, and you buuuuug out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Here's some cold warriors rusting away. Some BIG cold warriors. And a cat. http://translate.google.com/transla...om%2F17486.html 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Canada needs Silent Eagles obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
I got to see an F-86 and an F-100 fly last week. It was a good week.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
Did someone say Udvar-Hazy? Getting to see both an F-86 and an F-100 fly last week was something of a (smoky) religious experience.  Glad there's still a few of em out there and people dedicated to keeping them airworthy and on tour.
wkarma fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Oct 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
Someone say guns? On planes? Saw one of these fly last week too 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:So they get launched with a giant catapult which is pretty cool, but how do they recover them? Giant net? Scan Eagle launch and recovery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LUeiYb1baQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDsA-Y2b4EM They call it "Skyhook." The ScanEagle has a hook on each wing tip and basically uses a precision GPS to fly one wing into the wire of the skyhook and then the wingtip hook captures it. Fun fact: scaneagle was originally intended to be used by tuna fisherman to spot fish runs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So do Gatling guns in planes also have a "spin up" time? If so that must be inconvenient in combat. On the M61A1 (F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22), the gun is electrically/hydraulically powered and takes about half a second to reach full firing rate. However, it starts firing rounds right away as it accelerates. The feed is linked directly to the gun, so if the cannon is moving, it's feeding rounds. wkarma fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Bomb truckin! Who can spot what makes this pic different?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I know, but I won't say since I posted that pic over in AI a couple of days ago. There's a good sport  
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Those outboard stations (1 and 7) are stressed for enough weight to take an AGM-88 + pylon (barely), so that is in theory realistic (if you ignore the asymmetric load issues that you would face as well as the overall ludicrousness of it)...someone basically said it so I'll just come out and say it: the "new" thing is that currently those stations aren't activated. They were originally intended for ECM pods on the F-15Cs but that project fell through and the stations just never get used, on either -Cs or Mud Hens. The reason Boeing did that mock up is that they are going to be activated on the new Saudi F-15SAs, which honestly are going to be some pretty sweet pieces of kit: new fly by wire control system, AESA radar (V3s IIRC), and a brand spanking new EW suite. The Boeing rep at the trade show that model was exhibited at said that the USAF was going to activate those stations as well on their F-15E fleet, but I would take that with a big, BIG grain of salt. 1 and 9, but yup. It's probably an AARGM (-88E) too. You could potentially carry 12 AMRAAMs and 3 drop tanks with the new pylons heh. Call it the straits of Taiwan load out
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:They made about a dozen sharks to keep Kamov in business since Kamov happens to be the only place in the world with expertise in contra-rotor systems. Except they aren't. Sikorsky has been playing with them since the 70s, up through modern times with the X2 and follow ons.  
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:He probably meant in Russia's sphere of influence. It'll be a cold day in hell before Putin orders poo poo from Sikorsky. That's fair. I just like posting pics of the X2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJf4FGdvsuI
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That X2 looks so awesome. Neat thing is, they are moving forward with applying the tech. Sikorsky is hard at work building the first two s-97 Raider light attack/scout prototypes:  and announced a partnership with Boeing for the Army's Joint Multirole helo program (think blackhawk class)  They've also shown concepts of everything from x2 based attack helos through humongoid heavy lifters.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:According to the Wikipedia article, one of the Ka-50s was lost when its blades hit each other during hard maneuvering. I'd suspect the stacked assemblies make for extra maintenance hassle as well. The big difference with the X2 and follow ons is that they use a full composite rigid rotor. It doesn't spanwise flex like old rotor systems which should greatly mitigate that risk. Yes, the extra complexity is a big part of what makes it tough to do.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Could the super bug mount conformal fuel tanks in the future to solve that issue a la the mudhen? Or would that make it too heavy to launch with enough weapons?  http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/fa-18f-cft-weapons-pod-mockup.html
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
Don't forget that the f-35 (and the harrier for that matter) have a severely reduced max TO weight if they have to take off vertically. On the ship you get around this by putting 20kts of wind over the deck and doing a short takeoff roll, but that may not be possible in a burger king parking lot. Forward deployed fixed wing air is dum. Marines need a CAS platform based on the Sikorsky X2 technology, as I've said before.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 03:46
|
|