dark light

SteveO

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 1,444 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: EKRANOPLANS (WIGs) #2063786
    SteveO
    Participant

    But you can’t evaluate the potential unless you understand the design limitations.

    You might just as well draw up a specification for a new battle tank which says “gun must penetrate all existing tanks at up to 10 km, armour must be resistant to all tank guns at any range, must be able to cruise at 100 kmh over rough ground, be fully amphibious with a water speed of 40 knots, and must be transportable in a C-130” 😉

    I think the Lun class shows that my specifications aren’t totally unrealistic http://www.samolet.co.uk/lun.html

    Air cushion landing gear would reduce the power needed for take off so you could eliminate some engines and improved aerodynamics and manufacturing would give better performance.

    16x anti ship missiles would probably equal the payload of a B-2 (40,000 pounds) http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/specs.html so it’s a heavy load but not impossible.

    in reply to: Type 45 launch website #2063787
    SteveO
    Participant

    douggie, I’m starting to suspect you were on the T45 design team 😀

    You were the one that stated, very clearly, that two helicopters would burn through the consumables stores at twice the rate of one airframe. Seeing as a ship will be stored to provide perhaps 20 sorties, for one airframe, before resupply then halving that isnt such a wise idea. In the face of that you still think operating two choppers on the resources designed in for a single is practical do you?!!.

    Your quoting me out of context if this is the post you are refering to http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=843587&postcount=61

    Having a bigger hangar for 2x helos does not mean you have to increase the amount of aviation fuel, weapons and spares carried, it just gives you the option of using them up twice as quickly.

    A big hangar T45 could still sail with 1x helo or no helo at all, and it’s very short sighted to say that a 2nd helo would never be useful.

    Two choppers cannot do the job of one if the parent ship is in the wrong place to deploy them. I repeat, for the last time, that this is an AAW escort NOT a GP multirole support vessel – we DO NOT NEED multirole vessels of the type you seem fixated on because we build specialised units!. An AAW escort shields high value units – it will be held back to do that rather than chasing around pretending to be an LPH or an ASW Frigate.

    I disagree, there is no place for single role specialized warships in the RN’s shrinking fleet, just as there is no place in the RAF for single role aircraft.

    A few cruise missiles and the option to carry an extra helicopter would not have stopped the T45 from doing it’s main AAW mission.

    You said “2x helos can be in two places at the same time.”

    Yep but doing what?. Picking up the mail from an RFA whilst another cross-decks the CO to another ship for a quick spot of tea?!. Vital reasons to have multi-chopper capability to be sure!.

    You also said “2x helos mean you still have a helicopter capability if you loose one to action or unservicability.”

    …but then helicopter capability is not in the least critical to the performance of a Type 45’s principle mission so, if the chopper is in bits for a few hours, its not really a big issue.

    Do you really think the T45 will need to perform the AAW mission all the time? I don’t anyway, it will be called upon to do all manner of missions over it’s service life which will range from disaster relief to anti-terrorist patrols. The benefits of operating 2x helos will also include

    Search and Rescue – twice the area searched = twice the number of people rescued in half the time.

    Anti Surface unit Warfare – attacking from two different directions with twice as many weapons.

    in reply to: Type 45 launch website #2063800
    SteveO
    Participant

    Simply pointing at a picture and saying if you look at it they could have made the hanger a double one dosnt count as evidence. That would be detailed design drawings showing that it would be relatively easy to do without major design changes that would increase cost.

    Why are you taking this so seriously? I’m just sharing my opinion and ideas with anyone whose interested.

    Why do I have to provide evidence? a forum isn’t a courtroom and I’m not on trial!

    If my posts have offended you in anyway please accept my apologies and report them to the moderators.

    in reply to: New Strategic Bomber for the U.S. Air Force #2594286
    SteveO
    Participant

    This is getting ridiculous. If this “new bomber” is air breathing, the DoD should be canned for incompetence.

    There are some space based bomber concepts here http://www.up-ship.com/Book/bomproj.htm lots of other concepts too 🙂

    in reply to: Type 45 launch website #2063810
    SteveO
    Participant

    Steve seems to have a deep personal loathing for the T-45 yet all he has to say is that it cant carry 2 helos but he cant provide any evidence that shows that the desighn could easily take 2 helos.

    No, I don’t have a deep personal loathing for the T45 and I have provided evidence that the design could take 2x helos.

    in reply to: Type 45 launch website #2063812
    SteveO
    Participant

    Why am I going to read those posts again Steve?. I wrote one of them and none of the others contains an answer to why a Type 45 would derive value from having two choppers aboard?.

    Posts 50 http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=841329&postcount=50 and 55 http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=841870&postcount=55 are both mine and they explained how you could and why you would operate 2x helos.

    There’s no personal opinion involved here. Its, I would have thought, spectacularly simple logic.

    I’m not sure what your getting at with this statement, my opinion of the T45 is that it’s adequate but I’m disappointed with a few details that could easily have been improved at the design stage.

    Your position would seem to be that the ship is a waste because its not designed to carry an additional chopper that you accept it would not be able to operate unsupported for any practical operational endurance. Further you say that the reason to embark the second chopper is because “it’s very short sighted to say that a 2nd helo would never be useful”. If thats your ‘personal opinion’ I’d say that yes we do disagree!!!!.

    That’s not my position and I don’t accept that operating a second helicopter is not practical.

    2x helos can do the job of one helo twice as quickly.

    2x helos can be in two places at the same time.

    2x helos mean you still have a helicopter capability if you loose one to action or unservicability.

    in reply to: Lockheed tests Walrus technology (heh) #2594400
    SteveO
    Participant

    LockMart is teamed with Hybrid Aircraft Corp. on developing this vehicle. HAC (see HAC) was formed by several of the ex-ATG team, which is why the P-791 looks familiar.

    Thanks for the info turboshaft 🙂

    I guess the US is the only place where the heavy lift airship has a chance of succeeding. I wish the UK had built a giant airship instead of the Millenium Dome 😀

    in reply to: New Strategic Bomber for the U.S. Air Force #2594419
    SteveO
    Participant

    I wonder what the options could be? here are some ideas,

    A sized up J-UCAS with a weapon load 50% that of a B-2 – 8x 2000lb JDAMs or 8x JASSM on a rotary launcher, 40x 500lb JDAMs on racks, ??x SDBs.

    A Quiet Supersonic Platform based bomber with the above weapon load or a cheaper version with double the load of a F-117.

    How about a multi-role tanker/bomber? there was a proposal for a fixed wing B-1 that could be quickly changed from a bomber/cruise missile carrier into a tanker by fitting fuel tanks into the forward weapon bays and a flying boom into the rear weapon bay. This option could use Boeing’s Sonic Cruiser technology and, as the saying goes, kill two birds with one stone 😉

    in reply to: The other design submissions #2594423
    SteveO
    Participant

    Sorry can’t help, try asking in the Historic Aviation forum.

    in reply to: Lockheed tests Walrus technology (heh) #2594434
    SteveO
    Participant

    http://www.millenniumairship.com/ also has a interesting heavy lift airship concept, the SkyFreighter.

    in reply to: Lockheed tests Walrus technology (heh) #2594439
    SteveO
    Participant

    The P-791 appears similar to the proposed full-scale version of the British SkyKitten, called the SkyCat. They have similar overall shapes–though the Skunk Works design is wider–and similar propulsion layouts, and both use air cushion landing gear. Perhaps the two programs have people in common.

    Another British lost opportunity 🙁 Advanced Technologies Group went into Administration on 26 July 2005 http://www.atg-airships.com/

    I’m glad that Lockheed Martin has taken on the concept, the future of heavy lift airships is looking much brighter.

    It does look a lot like the ATG SkyCat 20 🙂

    in reply to: Finally – the Danish EH101 arrive! #2595079
    SteveO
    Participant

    This is a good site for Merlin info and pics http://www.targetlock.org.uk/eh101/index.html

    in reply to: warton 31st january #2595089
    SteveO
    Participant

    Interesting pics, thanks for sharing 🙂 Is that the black painted DA2 Typhoon in the 2nd pic and what is that structure in the last pic, a testing pole?

    in reply to: Finally – the Danish EH101 arrive! #2595535
    SteveO
    Participant

    Recently I saw a video from an “RC”-event. A Merlin landed to unload a small vehicle. It spectacularly dug in it’s nosewheel in the “lawn”. I can’t find the video? (RC-Fun?) Suggestions?
    Best regards

    http://www.rcfun.co.uk

    Paul

    I’m surprised they continued the display and retracted the undercarriage after this ‘dig in’, maybe a set of lightweight snow skids should be fitted at all times?

    in reply to: Type 45 launch website #2064005
    SteveO
    Participant

    douggie and Musashi,

    Please read posts 50 and 55 again.

    Having a bigger hangar for 2x helos does not mean you have to increase the amount of aviation fuel, weapons and spares carried, it just gives you the option of using them up twice as quickly.

    A big hangar T45 could still sail with 1x helo or no helo at all, and it’s very short sighted to say that a 2nd helo would never be useful.

    Your claims of increased cost and reduced effectiveness are a matter of personal opinion and I think it’s pretty clear I disagree with you. A few rearrangements at the design stage would have resulted in a T45 as capable but more flexible.

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 1,444 total)