Page 36 – Key Publishing

FBW

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 526 through 540 (of 2,935 total)

← 1 2 3 … 35 36 37 … 194 195 196 →

Author

Posts
January 18, 2018 at 9:26 pm in reply to: SR-72 + hypersonics information dump #2195196

FBW
Participant

I see this as a contracted propulsion award (DARPA- AFRE to both Aerojet and OATK) and the vehicle and integrator prime’s spending IR&D and pushing into “demonstrator” territory in an effort to prepare themselves for a defined Air Force need.

Yes, what is interesting (to me) is that Aerojet (formerly Pratt Rocketdyne) has been developing this TBCC since 2008 in NASA’s wind tunnel, and was previously part of the cancelled blackswift project. They (seem) to have success testing the transition to ramjet at Mach 2.5 which is key to the whole concept. They were, according to press releases, planning ground tests last year.

That coupled with the Lockheed announcement last year green lighting a hypersonic FTV, and recent comments are intriguing. Granted, this is a long way from the USAF actually issuing an RFP for an operational hypersonic ISR platform. I would think that a usable strike weapon will come out of HAWC first according to the hypersonic roadmap.

January 18, 2018 at 8:55 pm in reply to: SR-72 + hypersonics information dump #2195231

FBW
Participant

With regards to what may come out of this; we have Lockheed/Aerojet Rocketdyne that has released a (relatively) large amount of information, and Boeing/Orbital ATK with very little except the DARPA contract award to Orbital for a TBCC demonstrator propulsion system and the sketches from Boeing for their hypersonic vehicle.

The question is why? Lockheed pushing for visibility to appear like the presumptive winners for any future hypersonic ISR platform.

January 18, 2018 at 8:22 pm in reply to: Its the 1960s and your Air Force will choose only one fighter for its core, choose! #2195303

FBW
Participant

MiG-21Bis.

Early 1970’s

January 18, 2018 at 6:36 pm in reply to: Its the 1960s and your Air Force will choose only one fighter for its core, choose! #2195366

FBW
Participant

Had the TAC version of the Six and the B-58 been produced R. Strange McNamara’s pet, F-111, that was a stupid idea would never have seen the light of day.

And that would left a dangerous hole in U.S. strike capabilities during the 1980’s and 90’s. The F-111 was arguably the most capable strike aircraft in the world circa (1980-89) with the combination of: low altitude speed, range, precision strike capabilities (F-111F, and F-111D to lesser extent).

Just wasn’t a good fighter.

January 18, 2018 at 4:29 pm in reply to: SR-72 + hypersonics information dump #2205877

FBW
Participant

Understand completely, not suggesting the aircraft is ready. What I am seeing is that Aerojet Rocketdyne has developed that breakthrough in propulsion technology that has eluded hypersonic flight: a reusable propulsion system that works from 0-mach 6+, and is at a technology readiness level that makes L-M feel confident in talking about the SR-72.

January 18, 2018 at 4:11 pm in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2205887

FBW
Participant

There have been mentions of the MiG-41 on and off for the past few years, so I am inclined to think the timing is exactly accidental. In between MiG-31 production being discussed @ the Duma (political nonsense) and MiG-41 occasionally being brought up by Sokol every so often, you are bound to “intercept” SR-72 development leaks.

Fair enough, thought is was interesting coincidence in light of the aerospace world lighting up last week on reading the tea leaves from L-M VP.

January 18, 2018 at 1:20 pm in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2205906

FBW
Participant

I don’t think the timing of that article regarding MiG-41 was accidental. It was dropped a few days after Skunkworks hinted that the SR-72 “might” be further along than originally thought.

In regards to the actual progress, I doubt it is more than a schematic and twinkle in MiG’s eye right now. Work on propulsion would have to already begun to meet a 2025 timetable. You can set the most ambitious specifications on paper, the technological readiness level of materials and propulsion will determine progress.

Edit (addition)- There is some confusion of the start of R&D phase, it has been stated as “after the passing of the next state armaments program” which should be late this year, then in other statements 2019-20 timeframe. If recent aerospace projects are a guide, 5-6 years from R&D to first flight would be very tight indeed.

January 17, 2018 at 1:26 pm in reply to: Chinese air power thread 18 #2206249

FBW
Participant

That’s all nice but it has little to do with AESA antenna itself.. there are two decades between the RBE2 PESA and RBE2-AA AESA.. of course there is performance increase.. if you upgraded the backend of the PESA accordingly, it would likely achieve similar results (w/o some specifics which are AESA exclusive)..

Keep in mind that Ericsson have achieved whooping 150% range increase on their PS-05/A (for JAS39C) in two upgrade waves by replacing the RPU and EXR modules in the backend.. no magic in that, simply greatly increased com

No, the back end is the same, the RBE2 AESA is plug and play, a 2 hour swap out with the PESA array. In other words, the performance gain is 100% attributed to the switch from PESA to AESA.

January 17, 2018 at 1:22 pm in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2206252

FBW
Participant

What have the current US proposals as a new feature so they dare to call them 6th Gen, then?

The USAF has repeatedly shied away from using that moniker, or even the label “fighter”. Perhaps we will get some news on the PCA AoA soon (or not). The USN NGAD program will likely differ from the USAF according to the latest news. Either way, don’t expect to hear “6th generation fighter” out of the mouths of any Air Force official.

Considering the slew of contracts, like SHiELD, a good bet would be “LA-SER”.

January 16, 2018 at 1:39 pm in reply to: UCAV/UAV/UAS News and discussion 2015 #2206518

FBW
Participant

More on Magma:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-bae-research-project-promises-stealth-advan-444848/

Obviously eliminating flaps while preserving maneuverability with Fluidic thrust vectoring will allow for lower RCS. My one nit to pick, the advances with FTV should allow the designers to do away with the tails and allow tail-less supersonic flight. BAE Taranis allegedly achieved supersonic flight (some ambiguity on that). If the goal is to use FTV to achieve all aspect LO, retaining the tails on the MAGMA seems like a retrograde step.

The gains from drag and weight from losing the tails will be huge as well. Vertical stabilizers have to be build exceptionally strong (especially in a twin tail aircraft), losing them and the structural strengthening needed to support them will reduce an aircraft’s take-off weight by 6%-7% according to NASA.

January 10, 2018 at 3:37 pm in reply to: Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard #2207485

FBW
Participant

Not manned combat aircraft, Canadian/UK aircraft industries were linked. Canada bought/or licensed produced many US aircraft as well.

January 10, 2018 at 2:56 pm in reply to: Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard #2207495

FBW
Participant

it can physically (the rails are standard), but the integration hasn’t been done and it needs US approval to make it

I doubt the RBE2 LAM for MICA (and Meteor) on the Rafale supports AMRAAM, even US aircraft have to be modified to use the newer AIM-120D. Not sure what foreign weapons have been integrated on Rafale, but out of the RCAF weapon inventory, likely: AIM-120, AGM-65 aren’t. Any aircraft can carry the AIM-9, Rafale can carry the GBU (Paveway) series already.

January 9, 2018 at 11:00 pm in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2207599

FBW
Participant

NP, nic. I disagree with the notion of US feeding info. They’ve been on the receiving end of these drones, coincidentally so have French.

January 9, 2018 at 9:55 pm in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2207608

FBW
Participant

Actually, you said $150. But hey go back & edit it.

Nic

Cool, so go find where I said it nic. I only quoted cheap gps units and altimeters. Your confusing oohshineys post.

I’ll just call you JSR instead of nic if accuracy doesnt matter.

January 9, 2018 at 6:50 pm in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2207726

FBW
Participant

The usual ignorant supidity from you. I never said exactly 1,200, and they aren’t buying the drones, they are making them, captain obvious.

But here, using parts that can be ordered via internet.
( * Note for the actual thinking humans, these parts are representative of what would be needed and available, not exact.)
Building gas powered drone=
Body and wings can be crafted for literally free, time not money= $0
GPS waypoint unit= $899 for top of the line unit https://store.dji.com/product/a3?clickaid=zVyBrgmJp6YVgzpkhpTLQ4jiSQ_PR-j_&clickpid=858818&clicksid=6e3b378b9aeb2df47190ab37e25e73e2&from=related_products&pm=custom
Altimeter- How advanced do you want? Lidar? Here: https://leddartech.com/modules/leddarone/
We will go for a midrange one= 49.95 (there are much cheaper ones)
https://www.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=ETRP8029&P=FR&atrkid=V3ADW3A24148B_45992359586_pla-359027475805__221282308788_g_c_pla_with_promotion__1o2&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1474sMHL2AIVjrbACh1-nAf0EAQYAiABEgKaoPD_BwE
servo motors for control surfaces= 18.95 for 10 pack
https://www.ebay.com/itm/10pcs-9G-SG90-Micro-Servo-Motor-Fr-RC-Robot-Helicopter-Airplane-Aircraf-Car-Boat-/331962676921?_trksid=p2349526.m4383.l4275.c10
gas engine- 3.8 HP (much more powerful than any shown in pictures of Syrian drones)= $185
https://hobbyking.com/en_us/turnigy-tr-32-32cc-gas-engine-3-8hp.html
Drone payload release system= $40
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Drone-Release-and-Drop-Payload-Delivery-device-for-DJI-Phantom-3-/232612164284?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10
Drone control board= $87
https://www.getfpv.com/asgard-aio-flight-controller-f4-fc-4x-25a-esc-osd-pdb-curr.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzKKBv8PL2AIVUrjACh2RCQtzEAQYASABEgIQyvD_BwE

Total from above $ 1,277 USD (add $100 more if you were buying a package for wiring, connectors, batteries, USB. Addition + $80-150 for receiver with Gyros if you wanted RC option). And all of the above is likely way more advanced than what the terrorists needed to make their various wood, aluminum, Styrofoam/duct tape drones.

There you go KGB, now sit down in the corner like a good little brainwashed boy (and back on ignore. I’m sure he will post 11 more times making non-points and trying to bury his stupidity with posting volume)

@Austin- Why are you focused on the 50km range. Gas powered drones don’t have a battery flight time limitation like typical quadcopter electric motor drones. Again, $899 GPS unit, drones fly pre-programmed route and altitude be it 5, 50, or 500km provided with enough gas and no failures.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 526 through 540 (of 2,935 total)

← 1 2 3 … 35 36 37 … 194 195 196 →