dark light

PMN1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 240 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: B-1 Bomber with AAMs (Missile Mothership) Rand concept #2320435
    PMN1
    Participant

    RAND: Airbase vulnerability to conventional cruise missile and ballistic missile attack

    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2006/MR1028.pdf

    There is also a similar CSBA report about anti access threats to theatre air-bases. floating around.

    in reply to: B-1 Bomber with AAMs (Missile Mothership) Rand concept #2321946
    PMN1
    Participant

    If you are going to have a heavy stand off interceptor, why do you need to use a B1 – why not use a commercial airliner airframe?

    The US proposed using a C-135 with 24 Eagle AAM in Project Aerie in 1957 and Vickers proposed a AA version of its VC-10 carrying 18 air to air versions of CF299 under the code name Red Barrel.

    There was also it seems a HP proposal in 1958 to fit Thunderbolt missiles to its Victors.

    in reply to: General Discussion #333850
    PMN1
    Participant

    Please don’t ‘quote’ in its entirety the post directly above. It is not necessary – Mods

    Given that a sizeable number of the ‘invasion’ barges were one shot river barges, the RN might not have even had to intervene to stop any reinforcement or resupply attempts….

    I am constantly amazed by the panic the German build up caused, there doesn’t seem to have been anyone, not even amongst those who had been looking at amphibious ops and knew the problems, who said…’hang on a minute, those invasion barges…they are bog standard river barges’.

    in reply to: German invasion of England 1940 #1909979
    PMN1
    Participant

    Please don’t ‘quote’ in its entirety the post directly above. It is not necessary – Mods

    Given that a sizeable number of the ‘invasion’ barges were one shot river barges, the RN might not have even had to intervene to stop any reinforcement or resupply attempts….

    I am constantly amazed by the panic the German build up caused, there doesn’t seem to have been anyone, not even amongst those who had been looking at amphibious ops and knew the problems, who said…’hang on a minute, those invasion barges…they are bog standard river barges’.

    in reply to: General Discussion #333858
    PMN1
    Participant

    LW v RN (see HMS Repulse and PoW for how that would go),

    How many torpedo bombers did the Luftwaffe have in 1940?

    How many armour piercing bombs did the Luftwaffe have in 1940?

    What most if not everyone who brings up the Prince of Wales and Repulse as proof of how a Channel battle would go fails to mention is that at the Coral Sea battle, Admiral Crace’s cruiser and destroyer force was attacked by more or less the same number of aircraft as attacked in each wave in 1941 and got away without being hit once.

    in reply to: German invasion of England 1940 #1910008
    PMN1
    Participant

    LW v RN (see HMS Repulse and PoW for how that would go),

    How many torpedo bombers did the Luftwaffe have in 1940?

    How many armour piercing bombs did the Luftwaffe have in 1940?

    What most if not everyone who brings up the Prince of Wales and Repulse as proof of how a Channel battle would go fails to mention is that at the Coral Sea battle, Admiral Crace’s cruiser and destroyer force was attacked by more or less the same number of aircraft as attacked in each wave in 1941 and got away without being hit once.

    in reply to: Orbiting Combustor Nozzle jet engines #531247
    PMN1
    Participant

    From this weeks Economist

    Jet engines rely on Isaac Newton’s third law of motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When a jet is running, a compressor at the front draws in air and compresses it (see illustration). This air is guided and diffused by static blades to allow for easier ignition when it is mixed with fuel and ignited in a combustion chamber. The reaction comes in the form of rapidly expanding hot gases, which blast out of the rear of the jet and thus drive the aircraft forward. As they do so, they pass through another set of static blades which direct and accelerate the hot gases to turn a turbine. The turbine is connected by a shaft to the compressor at the front, thus turning it and keeping the whole process running.

    The approach taken by R-Jet involves having the air and hot gases in the combustor rotate with the compressor and turbine. To achieve this, the company uses what it calls an orbiting combustion nozzle (OCN), which turns with the compressor to inject the air into the combustion chamber as a vortex. The vortex is maintained by blades that rotate on the inner casing of the combustor. This swirling action helps mix the air and fuel for a more complete and much quicker combustion. The hot gases then exit, also in a vortex, to drive the turbine.

    This, says Dr Lior, eliminates the need for the two sets of static blades. That means an OCN engine can be built more cheaply with fewer components. It would also need to be only half the size of a conventional jet of similar power, says Dr Lior. The engine would use at least 25% less fuel and, he claims, its emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide would be cut by three-quarters because of its unique ignition properties.

    So why are airlines not beating their way to R-Jet’s door? The company, founded by a group of Israeli military officials and jet-turbine experts from the former Soviet Union, has built a technology demonstrator but needs a bigger partner to take the concept further. As with any radical change to an existing technology, especially a jet engine, a large installed base of expertise together with lots of regulation mean it can be hard for a newcomer to make headway. To ease its entry into the market, R-Jet reckons that OCN engines could be used first as generators to produce electricity, or to power unmanned drone aircraft. Having established a track record for themselves in this way, the engines could then migrate to their intended use on airliners.

    in reply to: General Discussion #336044
    PMN1
    Participant

    I agree with much of what Moggy says in terms of what damage the RN could do, but it would still need to operate, without or with limited fighter cover and at later stages in the war the RN suffered off Greece and in the far east.

    I still think that the Luftwaffe would have made serious inroads to the strength of the home fleet.

    How many torpedo equipped aircraft did the Luftwaffe have at this time?

    How many of the hits that damaged destroyers moving slowly in and out of Dunkirk or stationary at Dunkirk loading troops would have penetrated the deck armour of cruisers and battleships moving at high speed?

    in reply to: German invasion of England 1940 #1911044
    PMN1
    Participant

    I agree with much of what Moggy says in terms of what damage the RN could do, but it would still need to operate, without or with limited fighter cover and at later stages in the war the RN suffered off Greece and in the far east.

    I still think that the Luftwaffe would have made serious inroads to the strength of the home fleet.

    How many torpedo equipped aircraft did the Luftwaffe have at this time?

    How many of the hits that damaged destroyers moving slowly in and out of Dunkirk or stationary at Dunkirk loading troops would have penetrated the deck armour of cruisers and battleships moving at high speed?

    in reply to: Iranian "Ambassador of Death" #1801934
    PMN1
    Participant

    RyanCrierie has put some interesting comments and links in his post August 23rd on this.

    http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6351

    in reply to: HMS Victorious #2030111
    PMN1
    Participant

    Out of interest, if you have STOVL aircraft and can dispense with the steam catapults, would it be feasible to replace the steam turbine with gas turbines with the gas turbines having electric drive to the shafts to avoid needing all the trunking that usually goes with gas turbines?

    in reply to: 1952 aircraft carrier #2030134
    PMN1
    Participant

    If you look at the pic of the stern of Ark Royal I posted back in post #4 of this thread, you will see a very similar flight-deck extension there.

    Look at how far that one extends compared to the flat end of the hull.

    It is this very actual item on a UK carrier of just slightly smaller size that inspired my version.

    I see what you mean now, I don’t think I have seen a still of Ark stern before.

    in reply to: meet the arclight! #1802700
    PMN1
    Participant

    Not comparable. From their launch sites, they could only reach the southern fringes of the USSR, & there was plenty of time to react. I’d expect there would have been increased surveillance along the borders in the Caucasus & Central Asia, but that’s all.

    Trident launches are in a completely different category. Several times the range, immensely higher speed & thus lower flight time . . . . not something one can be relaxed about.

    Which is what I am assuming sferrin is saying in reply to jakehammond’s posting – he says Trident but I read it as he is comparing ArcLight missiles to conventional Trident and the dangers it creates as a reason for not developing them.

    in reply to: 1952 aircraft carrier #2030465
    PMN1
    Participant

    If you look, there would be little room to use that small area of flight deck when landings are taking place, as you couldn’t park any aircraft there and still clear the landing path.

    I was going to say, a rough drawing suggests more deck area with your layout but would the hull be able to support such an overhang at the stern?

    in reply to: 1952 aircraft carrier #2030467
    PMN1
    Participant

    Anyone know why in the Option D, the forward lift went to an inboard position, it looks like there would be space just forward of the forward island for it to be deck edge…..concern over the weather conditions where it was likely to be operated?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 240 total)