If F-35A is stopped and an F-35D – the A model stretched – program started it wouldn’t hurt my feelings. Would be nice to see an F-35E – the C wing on the D model and optimized for air superiority – program started, too.
The Soobrazitelnyy looks good so far.
The KC390 design should be seriously courted by the U.S. and they should put a fork in the C-130J. Its time to move past the Herc. Brazil gets Rafale. The U.S. gets the KC390 license.
What if the corvette had foundered itself and got mercilessly torpedoed in the rear? That would explain the direction and a simpler torpedo would have done the deed.
btw – If there were Aegis ships in the area its perfectly reasonable to assume Sea Hawks were in the area.
With a mere 4-6 second gap between command to drone, I can see the value of moving away from manned fighters for basic air patrol. They don’t eat, sleep, or drink on the job. They do routine and repetitive tasks extremely well. And for air policing, you wouldn’t need something much larger than an F-5. Without the pilot and his controls, an F-5 sized airplane could pack quite a bit of gear.
More space launches = More space accidents
Shuttles have a planned life of 125 launches before a catastrophic failure due to collision with space debris. How many launches between catastrophes for next gen space planes?
F-35C will be a very good plane. It is given a lot of flak for political reasons, but it will not be anywhere near the shortcomings of committing to an all Super Hornet force. No, the Super Hornet had it’s day and is getting it’s last gasp order. It’s time to lay that proverbial horse to rest by not committing to any more than they have already done. Full speed ahead with the F-35C!
Think about what would the 757 need to be a great tanker platform.
1. Triple the internal fuel capacity
KC-135 = 31,275 US gal (118,000 L)
707 = 16,060 US gal (60,900 L)
757 = 11,489 US gal (43,490 L)
2. The Most engine power available
KC-135 = 4× F108-CF-100 turbofan, 86,536 lb st total
757 = 2x turbofan, available from 73,000 – 87,000 lb st
3. Stronger undercarriage and landing gear
KC-135 = 322,500 lb (146,000 kg) Max takeoff weight
757 = 272,500 lb lb (123,600 kg) Max takeoff weight
Get these three factors figured out and the 757 is probably a great choice.
Not to steer from the OP, but did the RN certify ASRAAM for the Sea Harrier which would offer a HOBS capability?
Dropping conventional PGM’s at that speed is impractical. So you can’t intercept the bomber, doesn’t mean you cannot intercept what it delivers. And the fuel cost escalate as you increase speed. Are you better off with more flexible units than one niche unit?
I wonder how much of that increased cost projection is built on the turnover of the baby boomer generation with the baby boomer bounce? There is a huge shift in the age of the average worker in the shipbuilding business across the U.S. and the labor costs are killing us. The younger engineers want to get paid like their baby boomer counterparts, which is unsustainable. And the baby boomers want to come back to work as contractors for more than they worked in the unions. The older generation doesn’t want to give up the keys to the house so to speak. (The bank collapse and subsequent stock market spiral really did these older worker’s pension in.) And nobody on either side of the fence will say ‘no’. That causes a real problem with affordability of projects, scaling labor costs beyond the normal 20% mark and skews schedules. Its not a problem just in the shipbuilding industry, its across industry.
It would still be relevant across 90% of the globe considering the proliferation of weapons that can effectively kill it are not as wide spread as many believe. For neo-colonization purposes it would still be a ‘big stick’ weapon platform.
Twin gyroscopes guided the action of its fins (they maintained directional control as it climbed to its apex) and a PIG or a radio command controlled the timing of its descent. For all practical purposes it was a free flight rocket.
That thing was huge. I wonder if it will be one of those paradigms where you lose sixteen times the range to go two times as fast as a conventional supersonic cruise missile.
There doesn’t seem to be a lot of development in this field. The large gun is probably the most reliable tactical weapon in an arsenal. It can sustain a high fire rate. Its inexpensive to develop compared to rocketry and manned aircraft. It can throw out a lot of material over the target zone at a relatively low cost. Its pretty much an all-weather weapon. It can be built very quickly.
Here’s a few of the weapons used for awhile post-WW2:
M1 (120 mm L/60) 25-mile slant range at up to 57K ft altitude @12rpm
M2 (90mm L/53) 12-mile slant range at up to 34K ft altitude @25rpm
QF 5.25-inch (133mm L/50) 15.33-mile slant range at up to 55K ft altitude @10rpm
QF 4.5-inch (113mm L/45) 13-mile slant range at up to 44K ft altitude @8rpm
QF 3.7-inch (94mm L/50) 12-mile slant range at up to 40K ft altitude @10rpm (20 rpm for the fixed site)
KS-30 (130mm) 19-mile slant range @60K ft altitude @6-8rpm
KS-19 (100mm) 13-mile slant range @50K ft altitude @12-15rpm
M1939 (85mm L/) 7-mile slant range @35K ft altitude @10-12rpm