Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Domus Acipenseris

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Domus Acipenseris

  1. Next Generation Attack Fighter study. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a314256.pdf
  2. Microfighters deployed from a 747 carrier aircraft. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/529372.pdf
  3. Stuart Slade is an analyst with an engineering background. He often posts quality material online. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.php It's a complex issue but the best defense was interceptors and escort guns. The RN adoption of armored decks was an admission of weak interceptors and escort AA capability. Was it the right decision? Maybe for the Med.
  4. Re: USS Roanoke. It's too bad the Worcester class armament failed. They were really cool ships. I've read that the 6"/47 didn't work well for AA. Supposedly they built it to reach German bombers dropping standoff munitions like Hs 293 and Fritz X but couldn't fire fast at high angles. Des Moines class armament is cooler. Evidently they had to decide between the destructiveness of 8" fire against cruisers and Kongo class BCs and the rate of fire needed to stop DD torpedo attacks. Instead of one or the other they chose both, an 8" with 10rpm.
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/12/former-raf-pilot-shot-down-un-chief-dag-hammarskjold-1961-plane A Belgian mercenary claimed to have shot down UN Sec General Dag Hammarskjold's plane air to air. I don't know what all of the "CIA bomb in the plane conspiracy" guys will do now. Supposedly Harry Truman told an NYT reporter it was an assassination instead of a crash and there is also said to be NSA intercepts of the pilot reporting a successful intercept to GCI.
  6. USN carriers are lightly armed for several reasons. One is that the tonnage and deck area is put into aircraft. A second is that a jet fuel spill/fire could soak a VLS while it cannot easily reach the launchers in the position they are in on US carriers. A third is that the vertically launched missile exhaust plumes can damage aircraft, especially stealth coatings. In addition, the defensive systems have radars that emit and give away the location of the carrier.
  7. F-16 handbook. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf
  8. Garzke and Dulin Armor Penetration formula http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-109.pdf
  9. The Pulqui II was based upon the Ta-183, a plane that was a failure due to instability.
  10. Is that the case? I've read the HAL Marut was a good airframe with poor engines.
  11. The Fundamentals of Salvo Warfare https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/34844/90Mar_Cares.pdf;sequence=1
  12. Kiel and Jutland book from 1921. https://archive.org/details/kieljutland00haseuoft Weight of Shell Must Tell : A Lanchestrian reappraisal of the Battle of Jutland. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/99759/1/Jutland.PreReview.pdf
  13. Hull material selection for patrol boats. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA403155
  14. Lightweight torpedo propulsion concepts. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a079034.pdf
  15. Does anyone have any info. on bubble canopies? I've read that many pilots preferred the razorback P-47 because it was faster, a more stable gun platform, and easier to escape from if the plane became inverted on the ground compared to the bubble canopy version. Of course, we all know that the F-35 will be clubbed like a baby seal because it lacks a bubble canopy. The reason the US lost so many planes in Vietnam? Yes, you guessed it, no bubble canopies.
  16. No docs in this post, sorry. The P-38 was designed as an interceptor. As such, it was expected that the pilot could do things like switch fuel tanks, change prop pitch, and adjust the mixture at his leisure. The main reason for the difference in combat performance between the PTO and ETO was the lack of an Integrated Air Defense System in the PTO. Japanese interceptors were trying to climb up to reach the American strikes and the P-38's had the advantage in situational awareness and energy. In the ETO the Germans had the edge in both due to their high quality (for the time) IADS. The P-38's switchology was too difficult for the average pilot whereas the P-51 gave the pilot a better chance. Other factors in the P-38's performance in the ETO were lack of experience and relative numbers. The P-51 arrived when the US had more knowledge and more planes and the Germans had fewer. The P-47 was a better fighter bomber than the P-51 due to greater range-payload and lower vulnerability. The P-47 was capable of handling the German fighters but at $80,000 a piece vs $50,000 for a P-51 the P-47 had to be used where it was most effective.
  17. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3837.html This 1991 RAND Corporation study goes into some detail on tank layouts.
  18. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737 What does the board think of the document above? It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility. It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16. TLDR: Not cost effective.
×
×
  • Create New...