I have just been reading a post about The Skylon superplane were they think it will fly from london to sydney in 4 hours, Virgin also said that they are working on a plane that could do same journey in 2 hours.
What do you guys think about this? Is this reality?
It would be awesome in my eyes but super expensive and would have to go out of earths athmosphere to be able to do it in such speeds i think.
The future what does it hold?
Re: The future what does it hold?
I don't know but I imagine the technology probably exists already, cost and intellectual / government property rights being the limiting factor for now.
Will it happen in our lifetimes? Personally I doubt it as I don't think there'd be sufficient uptake to make it more than a gimmick (unless the prices can be at least remotely close to say a first class ticket is now). Of course there will always be the super rich who will pay it so who knows??
As for should it be developed? Of course, we sent man to space basically because we could, so why not, if a company or group of individuals is prepared to fund it. I can't see any governments being able to justify the cost.
Will it happen in our lifetimes? Personally I doubt it as I don't think there'd be sufficient uptake to make it more than a gimmick (unless the prices can be at least remotely close to say a first class ticket is now). Of course there will always be the super rich who will pay it so who knows??
As for should it be developed? Of course, we sent man to space basically because we could, so why not, if a company or group of individuals is prepared to fund it. I can't see any governments being able to justify the cost.
Buy the sky and sell the sky and lift your arms up to the sky and ask the sky"
Re: The future what does it hold?
im still reading up a little bit about it now. BAE have bought 20% stake and will help out also the goverment has invested 60 million pounds towards the engine.
The more i read about it i find myself getting carried away and excited. There is a land test in 2020 already planned and pencilled in to test the engine itself. It seems to be a hybrid of jet/rocket engine.
who knows in the next 20 years there could be something out there that is capable of making these trips. The key thing the goverment is saying it will be cheap enough for a lot of people to use. It is something im going to enjoy reading up alot on and try find out as much as i can.
The more i read about it i find myself getting carried away and excited. There is a land test in 2020 already planned and pencilled in to test the engine itself. It seems to be a hybrid of jet/rocket engine.
who knows in the next 20 years there could be something out there that is capable of making these trips. The key thing the goverment is saying it will be cheap enough for a lot of people to use. It is something im going to enjoy reading up alot on and try find out as much as i can.
Re: The future what does it hold?
Thought this sounded familar. Remember HOTOL ?
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL
Looks like the same design team, Alan Bond, behind this one.
Cargo and passenger delivery to space (low earth orbit) is the same today as in the 1960's A giant leap backwards since the Space Shuttle was withdrawn from use.
And commercial air transport is no better, nothing radical since the Boeing 747, apart from Concorde. The design is still the same, just using improved technology and efficient engines.
Hope the space plane idea works, we need it. Not so sure about the Mach5 cruiser, limited use and hugely expensive.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL
Looks like the same design team, Alan Bond, behind this one.
Cargo and passenger delivery to space (low earth orbit) is the same today as in the 1960's A giant leap backwards since the Space Shuttle was withdrawn from use.
And commercial air transport is no better, nothing radical since the Boeing 747, apart from Concorde. The design is still the same, just using improved technology and efficient engines.
Hope the space plane idea works, we need it. Not so sure about the Mach5 cruiser, limited use and hugely expensive.
Re: The future what does it hold?
I was recently privileged to visit the Reaction Engines HQ, where I and a few others witnessed a presentation on the Skylon from one of the senior engineers (an actual "rocket scientist") and then went to the ground test facility where we saw the reduced-size prototype of one of the critical components of the engine, the pre-cooler and also visited the control cabin where we saw a video of a test run of the pre-cooler (mounted in front of a jet engine which provides the through-flow of air). All very impressive and I am quite sure that the only things which might stand in the way of this becoming a reality are firstly money and secondly the recent success of the Space X company in vertically landing a conventional rocket. The latter , although the relevant flight was very sub-orbital, promises to vastly reduce the cost of low-orbit missions thereby threatening one of the raisons d'etre of the Skylon, The former is greatly affected by the reluctance of "the market" to invest in long-term engineering projects when short-term profits are more easily sought.
An interesting point is that the engine is not a jet/rocket hybrid but a true air-breathing rocket, hence SABRE (Synergistic Air Breathing Rocket Engine) There is a compressor stage as in a conventional gas turbine, but this feeds air to a rocket combustion chamber, there is no "turbine section".
Having said all that, I do wish the Skylon team well, partly because it is an aircraft which is capable of much further development (passenger-carrying cargo pods are envisioned, for example) and I do hope I am still around to see/read about the first successful test flight of the full-size article.
Each of us was presented with a model of the Skylon and this now occupies pride of place amongst my displays of model aircraft and model classic Le Mans/WEC cars.
An interesting point is that the engine is not a jet/rocket hybrid but a true air-breathing rocket, hence SABRE (Synergistic Air Breathing Rocket Engine) There is a compressor stage as in a conventional gas turbine, but this feeds air to a rocket combustion chamber, there is no "turbine section".
Having said all that, I do wish the Skylon team well, partly because it is an aircraft which is capable of much further development (passenger-carrying cargo pods are envisioned, for example) and I do hope I am still around to see/read about the first successful test flight of the full-size article.
Each of us was presented with a model of the Skylon and this now occupies pride of place amongst my displays of model aircraft and model classic Le Mans/WEC cars.
nothing is confirmed at a show until its u/c hits the tarmac or it is running in for its display.....
Re: The future what does it hold?
Can't see any real need for such a device, in my lifetime I have seen British VTOL jets operating from ships, men on the moon, time-warping supersonic Anglo-French airliners & re-usable space vehicles which.......as we enter 2016 we have none of!!
Since the age of worldwide 'virtual' meetings dawned, there is no perceived need for ultra hi-speed air transport. Cost has become the primary driver & most people have more time than money??
Since the age of worldwide 'virtual' meetings dawned, there is no perceived need for ultra hi-speed air transport. Cost has become the primary driver & most people have more time than money??
Re: The future what does it hold?
Stagger2 wrote:Can't see any real need for such a device, in my lifetime I have seen British VTOL jets operating from ships, men on the moon, time-warping supersonic Anglo-French airliners & re-usable space vehicles which.......as we enter 2016 we have none of!!
Since the age of worldwide 'virtual' meetings dawned, there is no perceived need for ultra hi-speed air transport. Cost has become the primary driver & most people have more time than money??
edited by me for bold
It seems you have entirely missed the point of the Skylon project. It is not intended as a means of "high speed air transport for the wealthy and entitled" but as a re-usable low-orbit launch (and possibly recovery/redeployment) system at far lower cost than either the retired space shuttle, which essentially became too expensive to maintain/operate or conventional vertical launch platforms which, compared to the Skylon, would be vastly more expensive and far less efficient.
Unless of course you are happy to live without GPS, world-wide connectivity without which the aforesaid virtual meetings would not be possible, world-wide TV availability and greatly reduced military capability, all of which depend on satellite technology? That's just for starters.....
nothing is confirmed at a show until its u/c hits the tarmac or it is running in for its display.....
Re: The future what does it hold?
im new to the aviation world completley been to several air shows loved them and that was that. but im finding myself getting right into different elements of aviation and with the skylon project it could help in several ways, Some people cant do long distance flights for different health reasons and will be able to go places they only dreamt about. also if a country was in desperate need for aid or cargo then they could be used to help on that front too.
if it will happen or not i am not convinced but the more i look into it i really believe it is possible to do, The technology is there so lets use it.
Sorry i cant remember your name above the person who went to see the skylon project that would have been a amazing thing to see. got to admit i am jealous there.
if it will happen or not i am not convinced but the more i look into it i really believe it is possible to do, The technology is there so lets use it.
Sorry i cant remember your name above the person who went to see the skylon project that would have been a amazing thing to see. got to admit i am jealous there.
Re: The future what does it hold?
Yes I remember HOTOL and Alan Bond too, a sad case of UK not grabbing a chance, very reminisent of the MR-52 which still makes Test Pilot Eric ' Winkle ' Brown spit as he should have been the first recorded supersonic pilot, for UK Ltd.
As for hypersonic travel I think it is not only possible, it's already been done.
Conspiracy types talk about the ' Aurora ' hypersonic replacement for the SR-71, and others mention Reagan's ' StarWars ' SDI being much, much more developed than is let on ( and it maybe faces outwards not in at Russia ).
All I know is that when with BAe in the mid 1980's a colleague who had been in the U.S. mentioned these things quite casually, it wasn't gossip - he thought we all knew it as commonplace...
When ' in the business ' I heard about a hypersonic recce job from other American miltary sources too.
It stands to reason that the U.S. have at least one or several vehicles able to perform recce and launch/ recover satellites; do people really think they'd retire the SR-71 and shuttle without such an ability ?
Of course we could have hypersonic airliners, but as others have said it would be jolly expensive and if one needs to get a message to Australia that quickly there's the 'net and Skype.
Even the 747's now allow stop-overs at interesting places like Hong Kong, I'd be all for going the other way in airliner development, a modern version of the old Imperial Airways flying boats and HP-42 biplanes, with a stop in a first class hotel every night and gradually getting to the destination while having a romantic journey...
As for hypersonic travel I think it is not only possible, it's already been done.
Conspiracy types talk about the ' Aurora ' hypersonic replacement for the SR-71, and others mention Reagan's ' StarWars ' SDI being much, much more developed than is let on ( and it maybe faces outwards not in at Russia ).
All I know is that when with BAe in the mid 1980's a colleague who had been in the U.S. mentioned these things quite casually, it wasn't gossip - he thought we all knew it as commonplace...
When ' in the business ' I heard about a hypersonic recce job from other American miltary sources too.
It stands to reason that the U.S. have at least one or several vehicles able to perform recce and launch/ recover satellites; do people really think they'd retire the SR-71 and shuttle without such an ability ?
Of course we could have hypersonic airliners, but as others have said it would be jolly expensive and if one needs to get a message to Australia that quickly there's the 'net and Skype.
Even the 747's now allow stop-overs at interesting places like Hong Kong, I'd be all for going the other way in airliner development, a modern version of the old Imperial Airways flying boats and HP-42 biplanes, with a stop in a first class hotel every night and gradually getting to the destination while having a romantic journey...
Re: The future what does it hold?
seajet440's post brings to mind a statement which has recently been added to my "rules of life", namely "Conspiracy theorists will believe anything....except the truth!"
nothing is confirmed at a show until its u/c hits the tarmac or it is running in for its display.....
Re: The future what does it hold?
Those same conspiracy theorists who going against the grain, decided not to single out David Icke as just another nutter. Apart from his widely publicised royal family are lizards nonsense, a lot of what he has said in the past would happen, is indeed taking place. The mass Islamic influx into Europe for instance. The rise of ISIS is another.
Conspiracy theorists don't claim to believe everything they hear, they simply have open minds and the ability to think outside the box which the powers that be, would have us all confined to.,
Conspiracy theorists don't claim to believe everything they hear, they simply have open minds and the ability to think outside the box which the powers that be, would have us all confined to.,
Re: The future what does it hold?
You mean the same conspiracy theorists who maintain that the World Trade Centre attack was not the work of a fairly limited number of (probably) Islamic terrorists but was the result of a "government conspiracy" which, to be effective, would require the complicit involvement of not a few dozen, or even a few hundred, but tens of thousands of "government conspirators" not one of which, despite Snowden, Wikileaks et al, has yet been exposed nor have the witness statements of those who were actually there on that day been disproved. The same conspiracy theorists who support the "chemtrail conspiracy" whereby (again!) tens of thousands of commercial pilots and airline engineers/managers are engaged in a conspiracy to poison/drug even their own families (and themselves). Or perhaps those who believe that mobile 'phones are really a form of government mind control?
The fact is that most (perhaps all) conspiracy theorists simply have closed minds against anything that does not support their point of view and are not open-minded individuals exercising free thinking at all.
There certainly are conspiracies, but most of them originate in and are practised on behalf of "big business" and the pursuit of profit or in the execution of criminal intent (again in pursuit of "easy profit").
It's the usual argument...
If you don't agree with the conspiracy theorists, then you must be part of the conspiracy.
The fact is that most (perhaps all) conspiracy theorists simply have closed minds against anything that does not support their point of view and are not open-minded individuals exercising free thinking at all.
There certainly are conspiracies, but most of them originate in and are practised on behalf of "big business" and the pursuit of profit or in the execution of criminal intent (again in pursuit of "easy profit").
It's the usual argument...
If you don't agree with the conspiracy theorists, then you must be part of the conspiracy.
nothing is confirmed at a show until its u/c hits the tarmac or it is running in for its display.....
Re: The future what does it hold?
Whether I'm a nut job is for others to judge !
In the meantime I'm a qualified engineer and photographer, ( also sailor) and I can usually spot BS from quite a distance.
I also spent a while working with Flight Test and ' Future Projects ' - the latter a whole quiet seperate place at Dunsfold with very little interaction with the rest of the airfield.
I absolutely believe 100% the US have at least one hypersonic aircraft for recce' purposes, and it or others can perform satellite launches etc.
As to the ' Star Wars ' platform with space based fighters, I believe that about 80%.
Bear in mind that even such stable and knowledgable people as John Farley have said the F-35 will at some time carry a directed energy ( ie not necessarily laser ) weapon, have a look at the US Navy's ' Zumwalt Class ' destroyers, and even the new proposed RN ' Black Swan ' class is to have directed energy weapons.
Nothing new, we had a laser weapon known as ' Dazzler ' in the Falklands War - but as it was a PIL - Pilot Incapacitation Laser* - it was against the Geneva Convention; I knew a lot of people involved in the sharp end of the war ( I was just at Dunsfold photgraphing modification schemes very quickly ) and I''ve read a lot of books about 1982, and I genuinely believe the Dazzler was never used.
*PIL's are meant to flood the cockpit with laser light, blinding the pilot.
Personally if I'd have been on a ship being bombed and strafed, the Geneva Convention would have quickly gone out of the window,' warm up the Dazzler and everything else we've got ! ' but luckily it seems there are more highly principled people around.
I somehow doubt the family's of the crews lost would agree though; ' There is no other thing than total war '...
Andy
In the meantime I'm a qualified engineer and photographer, ( also sailor) and I can usually spot BS from quite a distance.
I also spent a while working with Flight Test and ' Future Projects ' - the latter a whole quiet seperate place at Dunsfold with very little interaction with the rest of the airfield.
I absolutely believe 100% the US have at least one hypersonic aircraft for recce' purposes, and it or others can perform satellite launches etc.
As to the ' Star Wars ' platform with space based fighters, I believe that about 80%.
Bear in mind that even such stable and knowledgable people as John Farley have said the F-35 will at some time carry a directed energy ( ie not necessarily laser ) weapon, have a look at the US Navy's ' Zumwalt Class ' destroyers, and even the new proposed RN ' Black Swan ' class is to have directed energy weapons.
Nothing new, we had a laser weapon known as ' Dazzler ' in the Falklands War - but as it was a PIL - Pilot Incapacitation Laser* - it was against the Geneva Convention; I knew a lot of people involved in the sharp end of the war ( I was just at Dunsfold photgraphing modification schemes very quickly ) and I''ve read a lot of books about 1982, and I genuinely believe the Dazzler was never used.
*PIL's are meant to flood the cockpit with laser light, blinding the pilot.
Personally if I'd have been on a ship being bombed and strafed, the Geneva Convention would have quickly gone out of the window,' warm up the Dazzler and everything else we've got ! ' but luckily it seems there are more highly principled people around.
I somehow doubt the family's of the crews lost would agree though; ' There is no other thing than total war '...
Andy
Re: The future what does it hold?
Surprised nobody has mentioned Aerion AS2 yet.
It's legit, and happening. Lots of good people linked to it, including the better ones from Hawker Beechcraft. Sadly I think it's 10 years too late as the what was Russian wealth market was prime for it.
It's legit, and happening. Lots of good people linked to it, including the better ones from Hawker Beechcraft. Sadly I think it's 10 years too late as the what was Russian wealth market was prime for it.
DamienB wrote:Airshows aren't just about sunlit topsides chaps.
Re: The future what does it hold?
Is it really happening > Where is it being built ? Where will the inevitable prototype/s be tested ?
Looks like a Kelley Johnson design - nothing wrong with that - but with rockets strapped on, if you can battle past his ego even Chuck Yeager might come up with good reasons not to stick rockets onto a Starfighter !
Looks like a Kelley Johnson design - nothing wrong with that - but with rockets strapped on, if you can battle past his ego even Chuck Yeager might come up with good reasons not to stick rockets onto a Starfighter !
Re: The future what does it hold?
Yes, Reno and Toulouse and probably Reno, Toulouse and Cleveland.
They are apparently low compression turbofan jets not rockets in a very long slender nacelle with a small inlet to help with high speed compression problems manafucturer tbc but the original Aerion SBJ had P&W JT8D's presumably with reheats.
They are apparently low compression turbofan jets not rockets in a very long slender nacelle with a small inlet to help with high speed compression problems manafucturer tbc but the original Aerion SBJ had P&W JT8D's presumably with reheats.
DamienB wrote:Airshows aren't just about sunlit topsides chaps.
Re: The future what does it hold?
It stands to reason that the U.S. have at least one or several vehicles able to perform recce and launch/ recover satellites; do people really think they'd retire the SR-71 and shuttle without such an ability ?
Yes i do!
Is that why the US are dependant on ESA and RKA to service and launch presently. Still developing Space X and reliant on Atlas 5 rocket tech ? ? ?
Is that why the U2 programme is still getting very significant funding? Speed is not the knifes edge today but 'Low & No' observable is. The scram jet/ hypersonics tech is stuttering along. .literally.
Recce is aligned so closely today with non-detectable. Having a hypersonic mach 5 plus platform in the recce role serves very little purpose. If you see the platform bowling over at 90,000 ft, with a friction heat trail being able to be monitored 1000's km away. It does somewhat give the game away. Does a hypersonic give you a strike role? Yes. Significant enough over a LO/NO' drone strike. . .? No!
Satellite launch and recovery. . .WIP in the USA
Re: The future what does it hold?
vodka wrote:...Recce is aligned so closely today with non-detectable. Having a hypersonic mach 5 plus platform in the recce role serves very little purpose. If you see the platform bowling over at 90,000 ft, with a friction heat trail being able to be monitored 1000's km away. It does somewhat give the game away. Does a hypersonic give you a strike role? Yes. Significant enough over a LO/NO' drone strike. . .? No!
Exactly the point I would have made. Plus the fact that satellites give much the same recce capability given current sensor tech which is far beyond that employed by the SR-71.
...Satellite launch and recovery. . .WIP in the USA...
And in the UK at Reaction Engines (and probably elsewhere).
Designs/projects for supersonic bizjets are nice to look at/fantasise about, but until someone works out a way to allow civil aircraft to go supersonic over land i.e. finds a way to mitigate the "sonic boom" it ain't gonna happen. That was one of the major factors which prevented Concorde from becoming the success story (commercially at least, it was indubitably a technical success) that it could have been.
There are also very considerable doubts as to the willingness of the various airworthiness regulators (especially the CAA [Campaign Against Aviation]) to allow privately-owned supersonics.
nothing is confirmed at a show until its u/c hits the tarmac or it is running in for its display.....
Re: The future what does it hold?
I completely agree speed itself is no longer the holy grail of military aviation, indeed neither is dogfighting, turning performance, now there are helmet mounted sights and off-boresight weapons like the Aim-9X on the F-35, which itself doesn't feel the need to go around corners like an F-16.
However, for top class recce - a replacement for the SR-71 - one would need to be jolly fast to avoid a Gary Powers scenario, and the thing about satellites is they are slow and very expensive to reposition to have a look at something of particular interest - and they have very limited fuel.
I've not heard of any mission by the shuttle etc to top up a satellite's thruster fuel but I wouldn't be at all surprised - many shuttle missions were ' military, classified '.
Wheras if you have a thing like ' Aurora ' or similar handy, you can just lean out of the office window, " I say Smithers, if it's not too much trouble could you just nip over Russia please, old boy ? " and have the results within a few hours ( in reality I imagine preparing the aircraft and pilot requires a bit more than reluctantly putting aside a good book and hitting ' start ' but the Americans are very good at making things user-friendly ).
As mentioned, a thing like this, or a derivative, could also launch satellites.
The X programme is laudable and will hopefully stimulate a new wave of scientific minds with fresh ideas, but anyone who thinks the US military is relying on it needs to do some maths re their budgets !
There is plenty of evidence such a hypersonic job exists, and I have heard of it myself when in the business.
However, for top class recce - a replacement for the SR-71 - one would need to be jolly fast to avoid a Gary Powers scenario, and the thing about satellites is they are slow and very expensive to reposition to have a look at something of particular interest - and they have very limited fuel.
I've not heard of any mission by the shuttle etc to top up a satellite's thruster fuel but I wouldn't be at all surprised - many shuttle missions were ' military, classified '.
Wheras if you have a thing like ' Aurora ' or similar handy, you can just lean out of the office window, " I say Smithers, if it's not too much trouble could you just nip over Russia please, old boy ? " and have the results within a few hours ( in reality I imagine preparing the aircraft and pilot requires a bit more than reluctantly putting aside a good book and hitting ' start ' but the Americans are very good at making things user-friendly ).
As mentioned, a thing like this, or a derivative, could also launch satellites.
The X programme is laudable and will hopefully stimulate a new wave of scientific minds with fresh ideas, but anyone who thinks the US military is relying on it needs to do some maths re their budgets !
There is plenty of evidence such a hypersonic job exists, and I have heard of it myself when in the business.
Re: The future what does it hold?
indeed, neither is dogfighting, turning performance, now there are helmet mounted sights and off-boresight weapons like the Aim-9X on the F-35
the dogfight is not solely the realm of a knife fight, he who holds the kinetic energy the longest wins.
The dogfight is a vast array of tactics employed by opposing force/s on another foe. Whether that be 1v 1 2 v 2 1 v 16 etc.
The only weapon that has no counter measure is the Gun / Cannon. Every other missile has a counter measure and counter counter measure. Everything evolves as has dogfighting in every aspect. The close in dogfight is very much alive and well today as it was in 1914!
-
aviodromefriend
- Posts: 2556
- Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2010, 2:22 pm
Re: The future what does it hold?
It was part of the Hubble servicing missions. Future for refuelling satellites is by unmanned vehicles. Tests are underway at the ISS (for a few years already, quite close tro the shuttle's retirement. Hardware was launched with STS-135)seajet440 wrote:I've not heard of any mission by the shuttle etc to top up a satellite's thruster fuel
A weather forecast is a forecast and just that
Mike Moses, Launch Integration Manager Space Shuttle Program
Mike Moses, Launch Integration Manager Space Shuttle Program
Re: The future what does it hold?
Hmmm,
I'm no fighter pilot but I have worked with a few and I have my doubts about air-to-air guns in modern aerial warfare.
Talking of bullets being the one thing one can't jam, I said exactly that about the JP233 runway denial weapon to a roomful of Tornado bods at West Freugh and got yelled out of the place; shortly afterwards Gulf War One started, and it proved to be a suicide mission if any git with a gun fired upwards...
I photographed the development of the frankly lemon Aden 25mm for the Harrier GR5, and I worked a lot with A-10's - an aircraft I admire hugely.
However straight boresight guns put the aircraft and pilot at huge risk when every berk nowadays has an RPG, Stinger or similar; in the late 1980's BAe came up with a half-hearted proposal ' SABA ' - Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft - which was a sort of mini A-10 with a pusher turboprop and intelligently guided Big Guns in a revolving turret underneath.
I suspect the real answer is to sit in California still in one's pyjamas with a hot chocolate, and sort out the baddies with a Hellfire.
I'm no fighter pilot but I have worked with a few and I have my doubts about air-to-air guns in modern aerial warfare.
Talking of bullets being the one thing one can't jam, I said exactly that about the JP233 runway denial weapon to a roomful of Tornado bods at West Freugh and got yelled out of the place; shortly afterwards Gulf War One started, and it proved to be a suicide mission if any git with a gun fired upwards...
I photographed the development of the frankly lemon Aden 25mm for the Harrier GR5, and I worked a lot with A-10's - an aircraft I admire hugely.
However straight boresight guns put the aircraft and pilot at huge risk when every berk nowadays has an RPG, Stinger or similar; in the late 1980's BAe came up with a half-hearted proposal ' SABA ' - Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft - which was a sort of mini A-10 with a pusher turboprop and intelligently guided Big Guns in a revolving turret underneath.
I suspect the real answer is to sit in California still in one's pyjamas with a hot chocolate, and sort out the baddies with a Hellfire.
Re: The future what does it hold?
seajet440 wrote: in the late 1980's BAe came up with a half-hearted proposal ' SABA ' - Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft - which was a sort of mini A-10 with a pusher turboprop and intelligently guided Big Guns in a revolving turret underneath.
Having never heard of this project, I just googled it and found some drawings of potential designs and the BAe P.1234-2 (5.87) looks remarkably like the Textron AirLand Scorpion or should it be the other way around?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread186160/pg1
Re: The future what does it hold?
Vodka wrote:indeed, neither is dogfighting, turning performance, now there are helmet mounted sights and off-boresight weapons like the Aim-9X on the F-35
the dogfight is not solely the realm of a knife fight, he who holds the kinetic energy the longest wins.
The dogfight is a vast array of tactics employed by opposing force/s on another foe. Whether that be 1v 1 2 v 2 1 v 16 etc.
The only weapon that has no counter measure is the Gun / Cannon. Every other missile has a counter measure and counter counter measure. Everything evolves as has dogfighting in every aspect. The close in dogfight is very much alive and well today as it was in 1914!
While what you say about guns and their ability to operate in most circumstances is undoubtedly true, how many fighter to fighter conflicts since the advent of air-to-air missiles have actually been resolved with guns? Not many I suspect. In fact how aircraft have been shot down with guns since the end of the Korean war? Honest question.
As far the future is concerned, in many decades of reading aircraft magazines and articles, there have been innumerable drawings and artists impressions of what the future holds, Only a very small percentage of those ever reach even a design stage, far less flying. I think the days of flying cars and silver suits are still some way off.
I don't think the public would have the same appetite nowadays for helping to fund expensive aerospace projects that end up being the domain of the very rich as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. That leaves only private funding and with quick returns being the requirement of most venture capitalists then long-term expensive aviation projects which may or may not return a profit will be low down their list of investment opportunities. The only way that these expensive projects would ever get off the ground is by large scale international cooperation. When we've stopped devising new and novel ways of killing each other then perhaps more attention could be paid to trying to reduce long-haul journey times. Fat chance.
My Air History photos https://www.airhistory.net/photographer ... k-Ferguson
Re: The future what does it hold?
Wes_Howes wrote:seajet440 wrote: in the late 1980's BAe came up with a half-hearted proposal ' SABA ' - Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft - which was a sort of mini A-10 with a pusher turboprop and intelligently guided Big Guns in a revolving turret underneath.
Having never heard of this project, I just googled it and found some drawings of potential designs and the BAe P.1234-2 (5.87) looks remarkably like the Textron AirLand Scorpion or should it be the other way around?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread186160/pg1
BAe/BAE were quite good at producing all sorts of concepts and ideas - turning anything into a workable project proved a little more tricky though.
My Air History photos https://www.airhistory.net/photographer ... k-Ferguson