dark light

SteveO

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,006 through 1,020 (of 1,444 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Nukes: No Longer Defensive Only #2641174
    SteveO
    Participant

    So I guess we could still yet see World War III? Great,I was begining to think that we had missed that.Right as I am getting ready to go back into the Army too.Always wanted to see a nuclear holocaust upclose.Bet it’d make a hell of a pay per view special.Wonder if it’ll be like “The Day After”?That movie scared the hell out of me.Pretty cool though.A Nuclear War would be pretty exciting for about the first 20 mins then it would start to suck pretty quickly thereafter.

    The Third World War by Humphrey Hawksley http://www.ffbooks.co.uk/n12/n64634.htm is a disturbing fictional account of how a nuclear situation can get out of hand.

    in reply to: Low Level in the North #2641179
    SteveO
    Participant

    Very nice 🙂

    Does anyone know if these Harriers will get the 100% LERX when they are upgraded to GR9 standard.

    in reply to: FUTURE US BVR/AMRAAMC++ AND BEYOND #2047077
    SteveO
    Participant

    I think a2g would have to be a secondary role, but the small warhead and kinetic energy of the missile body would destroy or suppress alot of targets such as parked aircraft and radar antenna.

    I think some work was done on creating more shrapnel from a missile by explosively breaking up the entire missile body.

    in reply to: How Many New Transport/utility/Tanker Aircraft #2641294
    SteveO
    Participant

    KC-767 and A330 tankers

    in reply to: Aircraft Carriers – Now and for the Future #2047458
    SteveO
    Participant

    A second French carrier will probably be based on the British CVF, info can be found here http://frn.beedall.com/pa2.htm

    Here’s a pic

    in reply to: FUTURE US BVR/AMRAAMC++ AND BEYOND #2047093
    SteveO
    Participant

    1) Can a common seeker(guidance unit/section) be designed which would (without genuinly compromising any 1 capability) engage both a2a threats,a2g guidance and function as an anti radiation weapon .?

    Yes, when you see what has been achieved with the Joint Common Missile (JCM) which has laser, MMW and IIR guidance all in one unit, I believe it can be done.

    A missile in the AMRAAM class with active radar, IR, GPS/INS and anti radar homing guidance would be a very useful weapon to carry as a primary warload or as a self defence weapon alongside more capable weapons as the threat requires.

    Multiple guidance isn’t a new idea, the ARMIGER design combined a anti radar sensor with a IIR sensor, and the LASM (Land Attack Standard Missile) would have been a SAM fitted with GPS/INS for fire support missions. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-165.html

    in reply to: FUTURE US BVR/AMRAAMC++ AND BEYOND #2047101
    SteveO
    Participant

    The missile in that pic looks alot like the pre Meteor S225X http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/start.htm

    Will this missile fit in the F/A-22s intake bays?
    I would have thought that not making the intake bays AMRAAM capable is a source of regret for LM.

    in reply to: INTERESTING SHIPS #2047473
    SteveO
    Participant

    Does anyone have pics or info about a Norwegian research ship that has a length to beam ratio of 2:1.

    I’m not sure if it is a navy ship but it looks very unusual.

    in reply to: Lets see some mini/small carriers #2047477
    SteveO
    Participant

    The Japan Maritime Self Defence Force has plans for a 13,500 ton helicopter-carrying destroyer which is basically a small aircraft carrier.

    I like the look of it, does anyone have news on the status of this program? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x.htm

    in reply to: FUTURE US BVR/AMRAAMC++ AND BEYOND #2047115
    SteveO
    Participant

    Now we come to what capability should such a missile pocess…

    1)WHAT SHOULD BE THE NEXT GENERATIONAL LEAP OVER THE AMRAAM THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THIS MISSILE (as the AMRAAM was over the sparrow)…?
    2) What are some of the shortcommings in the AMRAAM that can be dealt with ?

    To justify the Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) program I think it would have to provide the capabilities of both a SRAAM and BVRAAM and have a anti radar capability. This way a aircraft will have the complete range of defensive missile capability from 1 type of weapon, this will free up the rest of the hardpoints for other stores.

    Most importantly it should be CHEAPER!

    in reply to: FUTURE US BVR/AMRAAMC++ AND BEYOND #2047158
    SteveO
    Participant

    The Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) sounds like the missile I was suggesting.

    in reply to: F-18 E/F VIDEOS #2642738
    SteveO
    Participant
    in reply to: FUTURE US BVR/AMRAAMC++ AND BEYOND #2047249
    SteveO
    Participant

    http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw050523_1_n.shtml

    Now that is news! That means changes to the airframe I bet.

    How are they going to handle the intakes? go back to one?
    Rough size comparison pics- AMRAAM vs Meteor

    in reply to: FUTURE US BVR/AMRAAMC++ AND BEYOND #2047329
    SteveO
    Participant

    It will depend on how the threat develops, will a potential enemy go for capability to match the US, or numbers to overwhelm them.

    I guess AMRAAM technology is good enough for the near future, maybe a new airframe such as the HAVE DASH II concept http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/have-dash.html and a secondary anti radar mode might be useful.

    SteveO
    Participant

    I think Northrop has a patent on the ”Switchblade” concept, which has one set of forward swinging wings. But I can’t see the benefits of two sets of swing wings, apart from the fact that it looks cool 🙂

    Quote- In November 1999, the Switchblade was patented by the Northrop Grumman Corporation: U.S. Patent 5,984,231.

    Switchblade info- http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/switchblade.shtml

Viewing 15 posts - 1,006 through 1,020 (of 1,444 total)