quote:

ORIGINAL: Blast33

Bell Textron Inc., a Textron Inc. company, has announced the unveiling of design concepts for new aircraft systems for military applications which would use Bell’s High-Speed Vertical Take-Off and Landing (HSVTOL) technology as the company continues its innovation of next generation vertical lift aircraft. HSVTOL technology blends the hover capability of a helicopter with the speed, range and survivability features of a fighter aircraft.

“Bell’s HSVTOL technology is a step change improvement in rotorcraft capabilities,” said Jason Hurst, vice president, Innovation. “Our technology investments have reduced risk and prepared us for rapid development of HSVTOL in a digital engineering environment, leveraging experience from a robust past of technology exploration and close partnerships with the Department of Defense and Research Laboratories.”

Bell’s HSVTOL design concepts include the following features:

Low downwash hover capability
Jet-like cruise speeds over 400 kts
True runway independence and hover endurance
Scalability to the range of missions from unmanned personnel recovery to tactical mobility
Aircraft gross weights range from 4,000 lbs. to over 100,000 lbs.

Bell’s HSVTOL capability is critical to future mission needs offering a range of aircraft systems with enhanced runway independence, aircraft survivability, mission flexibility and enhanced performance over legacy platforms. With the convergence of tiltrotor aircraft capabilities, digital flight control advancements and emerging propulsion technologies, Bell is primed to evolve HSVTOL technology for modern military missions to serve the next generation of warfighters.

Bell has explored high-speed vertical lift aircraft technology for more than 85 years, pioneering innovative VTOL configurations like the X-14, X-22, XV-3 and XV-15 for NASA, the U.S Army and U.S. Air Force. The lessons learned from the XV-3 and XV-15 supported the development of the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, an invaluable platform that changed the way the U.S. military conducts amphibious assault, long range infiltration and exfiltration and resupply with a cruise speed and range twice that of helicopters it replaced.

This press release was prepared and distributed by Bell Textron Inc.
https://verticalmag.com/press-releases/bell-unveils-new-high-speed-vertical-take-off-and-landing-design-concepts-for-military-application/

[image]local://upfiles/61749/5A5BA493D96845B1812676DDA6432C82.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

That CGI mockup looks extremely Kerbal.

Anyone know what I mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB


https://maps.southfront.org/russia-unveils-new-non-line-of-sight-precision-guided-missile-tested-in-syria-photos/

The Product 305 / 305E LMUR Missile from blurred out reports in 2019 and apparently tested in Syria breaks cover.
25km for the Russian domestic version and 14.5km for the export product.

"The guaranteed range of the Product 305E is up to 14,500 meters, the missile is capable of speeds up to 230 m/s. The ammunition is equipped with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 25 kg and an optical thermal imaging homing head. The missile weighs 105 kg."
https://tass.com/defense/1328741
The official release from TASS.
No talk of 100km...
K

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984

Said this before and might as well say this again.

We are frakked six ways to Sunday in a potential fight with the Chinese military. And forget about using nukes. We might as well repeat Kabul all over the Pacific and go full isolationist.

https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-carrier-killer-missiles-j-20-jets-gives-beijing-a-decisive-edge-over-the-us-in-indo-pacific-us-experts/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Time to update the RAN database!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Time to update the RAN database!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814

The concern with these bigger nuke boats is that they may not be as good as the old diesels for the majority of area above Australia with the sea channels and islands (thinking of the area between Singapore down to Indonesia).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boagrius

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Time to update the RAN database!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814

The concern with these bigger nuke boats is that they may not be as good as the old diesels for the majority of area above Australia with the sea channels and islands (thinking of the area between Singapore down to Indonesia).

This was always one of the reasons I never seriously entertained the idea of us getting SSNs any time soon. Then again a Blk V Virginia with all that VLS capacity probably wouldn't have to get into those shallow waters to hold shipping across a large chunk of that region at risk. It'll be a whole different ballgame for the RAN that's for sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maromak

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boagrius

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maromak

Time to update the RAN database!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814

The concern with these bigger nuke boats is that they may not be as good as the old diesels for the majority of area above Australia with the sea channels and islands (thinking of the area between Singapore down to Indonesia).

This was always one of the reasons I never seriously entertained the idea of us getting SSNs any time soon. Then again a Blk V Virginia with all that VLS capacity probably wouldn't have to get into those shallow waters to hold shipping across a large chunk of that region at risk. It'll be a whole different ballgame for the RAN that's for sure.

Even if longer range weapons were available, it's still very useful to be able to enter shallow waters with a very quiet boat which is how these submarines might be used for the majority of their lifespan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: maverick3320

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984

Said this before and might as well say this again.

We are frakked six ways to Sunday in a potential fight with the Chinese military. And forget about using nukes. We might as well repeat Kabul all over the Pacific and go full isolationist.

https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-carrier-killer-missiles-j-20-jets-gives-beijing-a-decisive-edge-over-the-us-in-indo-pacific-us-experts/

Just out of curiosity - are you American? It seems like I've read numerous posts from you all along the same lines about how powerful China's military is and how frightened America should be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Because we have a sort of free press in the west, we see a lot of the disfunction in both arms procurement and defence policy. China's is just as bad if not worse. For all the PRs and weird news articles that are really just obfuscated PRs, China has just as many, if not more, issues. They still have a very weak turbine engine capability. They have been trying to develop a normal life engine that doesn't require a rebuild every couple of flights. Its why they spend a lot of money on Russian engines and maintenance processes.

I lived and worked in China building and running a JV tooling plant. There is a sophisticated veneer around a very poor core of strategic capabilities. Could they hurt us and our allies in an all out war? You bet. But it would be unsustainable and do more damage to China than anyone else, even if they made geographic progress. China's economy is still not ready to stand on its own. And neither is its defence industry. Its military is still very dependent on foreign technology and development. I have to chuckle every time I see a picture declaring proof that X capability is available based on a "leaked" picture. Nothing "leaks" out of the Chinese defense industry without a purpose.

I'm not saying China isn't a military threat if they chose that direction, but please don't take every press release or fawning story in the Chinese-friendly press or leaked picture as the truth. Be fair and use the same skepticism you have when you look at the US/UK defence news with Chinese defense industry. If you have ever worked inside or with a Chinese company, you'll know what I mean. Just mention "Five-year plan" to any engineer or manager in a Chinese or JV company and you'll see the same eye roll as an American engineer or manager when you mention strategic vision.