dark light

pometablava

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: BPE = L-61 Aragón ? #2060686
    pometablava
    Participant

    http://www.revistanaval.com/armada/buques2/ta11.htm

    The ship has no name to date. Aragón once again?. It is a possibility…people who christen our ships seems to work with a short name list, despite Spanish Language is a very rich one and we have a long History.

    in reply to: Boeing B-53 aircraft? #2579528
    pometablava
    Participant

    Matej,

    I can’t remember the issue but I read that a 767 bomber derivative was seriously studied at Boeing.

    Can anybody add more details?

    Antonio

    in reply to: Let's collect planes manufactured by third-world country~~ #2581914
    pometablava
    Participant

    I think this thread is a good idea but tittle is not very fortunate…can we choose it for “second rank aircraft industries or something similar”…It is a question of production not economical power.

    For me, China or Sweden have relevant aerospace industries comparable to USA, Russia or France.
    UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Korea can be considered in the second rank.

    in reply to: Let's collect planes manufactured by third-world country~~ #2582846
    pometablava
    Participant
    pometablava
    Participant

    From Aerograph 1. F-16. Jay Miller. ISBN. 0-942548-01-9. pg 14

    ” In February of 1971, Boeing became the third firm to submit a proposal (to F-XX program). Teaming with Dassault, whose attempts to warm the AF to the idea of buying the Mirage F-1 had met with a rather cool reception, Boeing proposed reengining the F-1 with a GE J79-19.
    The AF reaction to his idea was also less than enthusiastic. The F-1, even with the J79 engine, offered no apparent improvement over the F-4 and, in some areas was actually a step backward in capability. Shortly thereafter, the Boeing team was convinced to abandon further work and concentrate on a totally new airplane”

    From US Army Aircraft since 1947. Stephen Harding. Airlife. ISBN 1-85310-102-8. Pg 122 and 123.

    “Like the Douglas A4D-2N and Northrop N-156, the Fiat G.91 was evaluated by the Army in 1961 as a possible FAC and tactical reccon platform. The Army arranged to borrow two German machines (G.91R-1 and G.91R-3. The type was found more than capable of fulfilling the roles envisaged for it”.
    The crash of the G.91R-1 and AF pressure led to the cancellation of Army’s plans to operate fixed wing aircraft.
    The G.91R-3 was returned to Germany in 1962.
    Both aircraft were tested under US Army markings.

    in reply to: Projekt 1157. URSS answer to USN Arleigh Burke #2062929
    pometablava
    Participant

    RSM55,

    She’s almost 100% CGI. The design appears to have been based on the ANCHAR project (alternate to the Kirov). Nothing to do with actual projects. I know it’s a circular and unhelpful thing to say, but believe what you believe.

    I thought the Anchar corresponds to Projekt 661 (Papa SSGN class), was this designation reused for a Kirov contender design?. Can you post any drawing of this Anchar Cruiser?

    Thanks in advance
    Antonio

    in reply to: Can anyone identify this aircraft design please? #2588946
    pometablava
    Participant

    Jazz,

    You’re right. It is not a McDD design. The same aircraft is on Roy Braybrook’s book “V/STOL The Key to survival”. On page 198 there is a pic showing it in RAF markings.

    No identification is given, just “A RR artist’s impression of possible supersonic V/STOL fighter configuration”.

    On page 199 there is a drawing of McDD Model 279-3 for USN. I can also remember a 279-4 variant with intakes “á la F-15” from other source.

    It is very interesting to see this BAe design in USN Markings…

    in reply to: Antisubmarine Yak-38 #2589140
    pometablava
    Participant

    Hi Matej,

    I haven’t heard about Yak-38 or AV-8 ASW versions but I have I have info about an even strangest ASW aircraft: Tu-132

    take a look here

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=49204&highlight=Supersonic+ASW

    in reply to: Projekt 1157. URSS answer to USN Arleigh Burke #2063629
    pometablava
    Participant

    Suflanker

    Thank you very much!

    Sferrin

    You’re right..we are talking the same think

    in reply to: Projekt 1157. URSS answer to USN Arleigh Burke #2063688
    pometablava
    Participant

    In the 1998-1999 edition of Combat Fleets of the World under Russia there was a entry for a future surface combatant with a very crude sketch.

    Please, can you post a scan of this sketch? I’d love to see it!

    in reply to: Projekt 1157. URSS answer to USN Arleigh Burke #2063733
    pometablava
    Participant

    Thanks a lot Wanshan

    in reply to: US Navy LHA(R) design frozen #2064061
    pometablava
    Participant

    Dear Jazz,

    Thanks a lot for the LPH additional info.

    I have been trying to get more info about this designs on Friedman’s “US Amphibious Ships and Landing Craft” (2002) ISBN 1-55750-250-1 and Brown and Moore “Rebuilding the Royal Navy” (2003) ISBN 1 59114 705 0 but there are no references 🙁

    The ship with the 17 marking has features in common with Spanish “Príncipe de Asturias” and BPE ships

    Cheers,

    Antonio

    in reply to: US Navy LHA(R) design frozen #2064954
    pometablava
    Participant

    The winning design is going to be the smallest design, which is basically an updated Wasp design.

    Look at SteveO link
    http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=27386

    JAZZ pics are the more ambitious proposals which all had been cancelled

    in reply to: US Navy LHA(R) design frozen #2065037
    pometablava
    Participant

    Thanks a lot guys!!

    The Dual Tram really looks as the ultimate LHA. A very expensive but highly capable ship operating Bell heavy quads, Bell 609 gunship derivative and F-35 fighters…
    Anyway this ship would be only justified in a Superpower against Superpower scenario which is not the case in early XXI Century.
    Even the winner design (the most austere) has no equal in any other Navy so I think it is the right choice.

    JAZZ, I’m also fascinated by this LHP concepts. Unfortunately, pics are too little to appreciate details so I have google a bit looking for info. Since no results had been returned, may I ask you for more info?. What is the role of an LHP?

    Thanks in advance

    Antonio

    in reply to: The less than famous loosers…. #2602221
    pometablava
    Participant

    McDonnell Douglas ATF proposal: third place behind the YF-22 and YF-23. It must be pretty galling to be third in a two-horse race.

    Quoted text from Bill Sweetman’s F-22 Raptor. Motorbooks 1998. ISBN 0-7603-0484-X

    “It was one of the heavier ATF designs, and its performance was not promising. McDonnell Douglas was shocked to be placed fifth in the evaluation, behind Boeing.”

    “Runner-up to Lockheed and Northrop was General Dynamics, with a tailless delta design that reflected the success of the arrow-winged F-16XL”.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)