Royal-Cravates

Welcome to Croatian military forum: Royal-Cravates

Croatian military forum


    US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Share

    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 337
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 37
    Location : Zagreb

    US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Admin on pon lis 03, 2016 10:26 pm

















































    Zadnja promjena: Admin; pon lis 31, 2016 11:31 pm; ukupno mijenjano 2 put/a.

    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 337
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 37
    Location : Zagreb

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Admin on pon lis 03, 2016 10:29 pm

    Odgovor na torpeda velike razorne moci ...

    Američki nosači zrakoplova uvode nove sustava obrane protiv torpeda
    ... iliti Anti-torpeda za američke ratne brodove

    Original: US aircraft carriers are deploying a new anti-torpedo defense system

    Američka ratna mornarica (US Navy) postupno instaliran na svojim nosačima zrakoplova obrambenog sustava SSTD (Surface brod torpeda obrane) koji može otkriti, cilj i uništiti neprijateljske torpeda. Trenutno, američka mornarica SSTD testira na pet nosača zrakoplova.


    Foto: USS Nimitz (CVN-68) / Public Domain

    Nosači zrakoplova su ključno vojno sredstvo koje omogućuje Washington projicirati svoju vojnu moć bilo gdje u svijetu.

    Najveća prijetnja za nosače zrakoplova, napad podmornice su tihi (npr. Ruska Kilo klase) naoružani torpedima. Samo torpeda su de facto jedini konvencionalnog oružja koje može potonuti nosača zrakoplova. Razne antiship raketa ispaljena iz brodova, podmornica i zrakoplova, zrakoplova nosioca štrajku od borbe, ali vjerojatno ne potonuti.

    "Torpeda su često podcijenjeni prijetnju na površinu brodova", komentirao je opasnost od torpeda za uho Vijesti pomorski analitičar Norman Friedmana. "Uobičajene akustične protumjere predstavljaju primamljiva mamac približava torpeda. Nažalost, ruski torpeda na protumjere obično ne reagira. "

    Na primjer, ruska torpeda tipa 53 pokupi šum vrteći pozivi vode. Tada je torpedni čamac približava uz S-oblika putu u srednjem brazde. Tip 53 torpeda mogu se naći na primjer na dizel-električnog udara podmornice Kilo klase. Raspon Najnovija verzija tipa  53-65 je 22 km.

    "Svatko tko kupuje ruski Kilo klase podmornica - gotovo svi s kojima Sjedinjene Države mogu doći u sukob. - Koristeći torpeda koji su imuni na SAD protumjere" Rekao je Friedman. Kilo klase podmornica vlastitim kao Kina ili Iran.

    Američka mornarica je sada na pet nosača zrakoplova testirani obrambenog sustava SSTD sposoban za aktivno uništavanje neprijateljskih torpeda. Mornarica očekuje do početnu operativnu sposobnost IOC (Initial Operation Capability) sustava SSTD u 2019 i punu operativnu sposobnost (FOC punom pogonu sposobnosti) u godini 2022nd


    Foto: Dijagram funkcionira SSTD. / US Navy

    2035 SSTD dobiti sve američke nosače i postupno također US Navy brodova za borbu protiv opskrbe CLF (Combat logistiku Force). Oko 42 brodova CLF podjela pruža opskrbu (gorivo, streljivo, hranu) u američkim ratnim brodovima diljem svijeta.

    SSTD je "sustav sustava" i uključuje mnoštvo tehnologija i praksi u borbi protiv neprijateljskih torpeda. Osnovni alat za otkrivanje torpeda tegliti akustički senzor koji omogućuje odrediti položaj približavaju torpeda.

    U torpeda položaja podaci su prikazani na zaslonima računala na zapovjedni most. Nakon otkrića torpeda možete pokušati koristiti najnoviju generaciju vuči mamaca protitorpédovch SLQ-25 vodena vila.  

    Elektro-akustične torpedo jedrilica "vodena vila" se koristi za akustički vođena torpeda. SLQ-25 snima signale blížicícho sa torpedima, a nakon vrednovanja zvučnog vala generatora Izlaz signala podvodni zvučnik, vodeći (u teoriji) odvratiti od torpiljarke.


    Foto: Test ispaljivanja antiitorpeda (2013). / US Navy

    No, nedavno je zapovjednik nosača zrakoplova mogli koristiti aktivnu ATTDS sustava (Anti-Torpedo sustav obrane). ATTDS sastoji se od sustava upozorenja torpedo TWS (Torpedo upozorenja sustava) i antitorpéd MAČKA (Anti-Torpedo protumjere) kalibra 171 mm.

    "ATTDS koriste sustav upozorenja torpedo detektira, klasificira, pjesme i smješta se približavaju torpeda te je u mogućnosti koristiti antitorpéd uništiti približava torpeda", objašnjava on tehnologija ima Collen O'Rourke, glasnogovornik Marinskog sjedišta NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems Command).

    O SSTD postoje samo sporadični informacije. Trenutno, na primjer, treća generacija SSTD testirani na opskrbu broda USNS BRITTIN (T-AKR-305). Više informacija (s obzirom na osjetljivost vojne tehnologije), posebice glede učinkovitosti sustava nisu dostupni.

    Jedan od najvećih izazova je osigurati testiranje pod realnim uvjetima. To znači, između ostalog, dobiti najnovije informacije inteligenciju na neprijatelja torpeda i na njihovu bazu za stvaranje odgovarajuće svrhe obuke.

    Svake godine, američka ratna mornarica za razvoj i testiranje SSTD potroši oko 50 milijuna $.

    Izvor: Poslovni Insider


    The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) transits the Pacific Ocean with ships assigned to Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010 combined task force.


    The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) leads the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill (CG 52) and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey (DDG 97) during a passing exercise with Indian navy ships during Exercise Malabar 2012. US Navy Photo


    The Navy’s experimental Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo launches from the fantail of USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) in May, 2013. US Navy Photo

    http://www.businessinsider.com/us-aircraft-carriers-torpedo-defense-system-2016-9
    http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=74665


    Read the original article on Scout Warrior. Copyright 2016. Follow Scout Warrior on Twitter.

    Roman_Stefic

    Posts : 127
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 44
    Location : Zagreb

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Roman_Stefic on uto lis 18, 2016 12:05 am

    Konačno ušao u službu novi najveći i najnapredniji razarač američke mornarice – USS Zumwalt!


    Kapetan broda zove se, vjerovali ili ne, James Kirk



    Konačno ušao u službu novi najveći i najnapredniji razarač američke mornarice – USS Zumwalt!


    Foto: Wikimedia CC / Youtube / Američka Mornarica



    Američka mornarica u subotu je primila u službu novi, ''nevidljivi'' futuristički ratni brod USS Zumwalt koji cjelokupna mornarica naziva tehnološki najnaprednijim ratnim brodom flote, piše Fox News.

    Brod je dugačak 185 metara, istisnine 15 000 tona te najjeftinija verzija stoji impresivnih 4.4 milijarde dolara. Njegov oblik i izgled umanjuje vidljivost na neprijateljskim radarima.

    "Ovaj je brod pravi primjer šire inicijative kojom bi se poboljšala operativna stabilnost te američka strateška prednost", izjavio je Ray Mabus, tajnik američke mornarice u izjavi za medije. "Naša mornarica i marinci prisutni su diljem svijeta, osiguravaju zemlje, svojom pojavom ohrabruju saveznike te odvraćaju neprijatelje od mogućih napada.

    Pisali smo o njemu 2014. godine – USS Zumwalt – budućnost ratne mornarice

    Ovom visokoautomatiziranom razaraču potrebna je posada od samo 147 ljudi, a Associated Press piše da će u novom razaraču biti vrlo širok spektar oružja, kao što su krstareće i protupodmorničke rakete. Mornarica je ponosna na njegov integrirani elektroenergetski sustav koji može proizvesti oko 78 megawatta snage te se tako u tom sektoru približava nosačima zrakoplova na nuklearni pogon. Prema pisanju američke mornarice, novi elektroenergetski sustav Zumwalta toliko je snažan da bi mogao ispostaviti struju manjem gradu.



    Brod je dobio ime po admiralu Elmu R. Zumwaltu ml. koji je služio u američkoj mornarici više od tri desetljeća, a preminuo je 2000. godine.




    "Ovaj razarač, kao i ostali u floti, itekako projicira snagu diljem svijeta", izjavio je Mabus te dodao da su razarači klase Zumwalt mnogo veći od današnjih razarača te imaju znatno veći prostor za uzlijetanje i slijetanje zrakoplova kao što su JSF avioni (F-35), MV-22 Osprey, bespilotni sustavi te sustavi vertikalnog lansiranja.

    Nakon krštenja u Baltimoreu u državi Maryland, brod će isploviti te se usidriti u San Diegu, u Kaliforniji. Njegov izgled nije jedina futuristička stvar; kapetan se zove baš kao i kapetan iz filmova znanstvene fantastike – James Kirk.

    F-84G_Thunderjet

    Posts : 10
    Join date : 12.09.2016

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by F-84G_Thunderjet on pet pro 02, 2016 10:12 pm


    Photo of an amphibious assault during exercise Trident Juncture 2015 (TJ15), involving HMS Bulwark and 2 Wild Cat helicopters from HMS Ocean.
    Running from October through November last year, TJ15 was held in, over and on the seas around Portugal, Spain and Italy. It was one of a series of long-planned exercises to ensure that NATO Allies are ready to deal with any emerging crisis and to work effectively with partners to respond. Over 36,000 personnel from 30 nations took part – including NATO Allies as well as seven partner nations.

    Photo by WO ARTIGUES (HQ MARCOM)


    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 337
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 37
    Location : Zagreb

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Admin on sri sij 25, 2017 2:38 pm

    Odlicna tema zasto treba postovati turboprop ... https://warisboring.com/stop-disrespecting-the-turboprop-c00acd3fff3a#.d53616our


    "Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop
    Planes with these engines are perfectly fine for modern air forces
    "


    by MICHAEL PIETRUCHA

    The minds behind the Air Force’s plan for a new light attack aircraft, the OA-X, always envisioned a turboprop engine powering the plane.
    If that statement didn’t suddenly cause your blood pressure to spike, you probably aren’t the intended audience for this piece. Surprisingly, this simple and obvious reference to a powerplant is the subject of much angst inside the Air Force and out.

    The choice was “emblematic of a service that has lost touch,” according to one particularly egregious article. Somehow, the turboprop has found itself prematurely assigned to the technological dustbin, widely viewed as a “less advanced” form of propulsion and one that is unsuitable for a modern air force.

    The emotional response to the turboprop is just that — an unthinking reaction based on a lack of critical thought. If anybody has lost touch, it is those who evaluate their needs within a worldview that assumes that newer is always better and that proven designs have no value.The turboprop is exactly the powerplant those responsible for the OA-X concept — including the author — wanted for the aircraft outlined in the plan, for the environment we expected it to fight in.

    The requirement
    When we at the Air Force’s Air Combat Command first conceived of the OA-X in the mid-2000s, we based it conceptually on two Vietnam-Era aircraft. These were the A-1 Skyraider and the OV-10A Bronco — both propeller-engine aircraft.
    We started with these aircraft because of their attributes. The A-1 had good loiter time, a heavy weapons load and the ability to take punishment. The engineers who crafted the OV-10 designed it with short, austere runways in mind and it also had good endurance.


    Afghan Air Force A-29s. U.S. Air Force photo

    What we wanted for our new design was a modern equivalent that wrapped them both together into an aircraft that matched the precision engagement capabilities of modern fighter and attack with the long loiter time and rough field capabilities of the Vietnam War-era aircraft. And we wanted it to be fast, cheap and suitable for the Air Force and foreign partners.
    Those desired attributes led us to a powerplant discussion, unwittingly following the same developmental path that led to the A-10 Warthog — a process that had started some 40 years earlier.
    The A-1 had a massive Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone radial combustion engine that generated 2,700 horsepower. The OV-10 featured a pair of Garret T76 turboprops, each putting out 715 horsepower.
    During their U.S. military service, both aircraft operated extensively in “low and slow” environments and they were damned good at it. Historical references from Vietnam were replete with comments about the utility of propeller-engine aircraft.
    When we were building the OA-X concept, the Colombian Air Force had just started to prove that the Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano was a superlative combat machine in an irregular environment. A single Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A turboprop — the same motor in the U.S. Navy’s and Air Force’s Beechcraft T-6 Texan II trainers — powered the plane.
    Developing up to 1,600 horsepower, the modern, computer-controlled turboprop gave the Super Tucano a better power-to-weight ratio at combat load than either the A-1 or OV-10A. Indeed, crunching the numbers on the modern light attack birds — including Beechcraft’s armed T-6 variant, the AT-6C — revealed that the wing loading and power-to-weight ratio were uncannily close to a P-47D Thunderbolt II of World War II fame.
    There was clearly potential there.


    Modern turbine engine types. NASA art

    The basics

    In my dimly remembered time as a cadet, I vaguely recall classes on aerodynamic propulsion — not necessarily the most dynamic educational subject ever, but not useless either. It may have been in an AS100 survey class during my freshman year, or it may have been from a test I had to pass in Civil Air Patrol.
    Nevertheless, it covered the basics of air vehicle propulsion — reciprocating engines, turboprops, turbojets, turbofans and rockets. The basics were enough to give a flavor of the propulsion systems — which moved aircraft around and which occupied different propulsion niches.

    Which one was better? Well, none of them actually.
    It all depended on the aerodynamic environment that you were operating in at the time. Modern propulsion systems are mostly variations on a turbine engine.
    Turbojets? Great for fighter aircraft where thrust trumps all other considerations, like in the mighty F-4 Phantom II fighter jet — particularly down low.
    Turbofans? They had better efficiency than the turbojets, but tended towards greater diameter. The larger the diameter of the fan, the more efficient.
    Rockets were great for a kick in the pants during takeoff and necessary if you wanted to fly where there was no air. Ramjets were for the speed demons who flew the SR-71 spy plane at speeds above Mach 3.
    And turboprops? A propeller turned by a small jet turbine and really efficient if you didn’t need to scream through the “bozosphere” at the speed of heat.


    A GE90 turbofan. General Electric photo


    All jet engines need air, so they can heat it up and expel it, creating thrust. A turbojet gulps air through the intake and all of the air goes right into the hot turbine section.
    Turbofans put a fan on the front of a turbojet, which adds thrust via air that is accelerated by the fan, but which does not flow through the combustion chamber. Instead, the system kicks it out the back as thrust.
    Turbofans have a bypass ratio that refers to the amount of air that bypasses the turbine’s “hot section” compared to the air that goes through it. The bypass ratio of the powerful low-bypass Pratt & Whitney F100 on an F-15E Strike Eagle fighter bomber is 0.63 to 1 — or for every cubic foot that flows through the turbine, a little more than half a cubic foot bypasses it.
    The giant GE90 turbofan on the Boeing 777 airliner is among the most fuel-efficient turbine engines ever and is the world’s largest turbofan. It gets this fuel efficiency via a very high bypass ratio and large size — an option not suitable for a small aircraft.
    The GE90 has a bypass ratio of 9 to 1, meaning that for every cubic foot of air that is sucked into the turbine section, nine times more pass through the bypass section behind the massive fan. Putting this in context, the reason for the turboprop’s efficiency becomes clearer.
    A turboprop is essentially a high-bypass fan — with a ratio as high as 100 to 1 — that has no duct to channel the airflow. A turboprop typically gets only about 10 percent of its thrust from the jet turbine, with the remainder coming from the propeller. And a high bypass ratio means low fuel consumption per pound of thrust.

    Northrop’s 1968 A-X design concept. U.S. Air Force art
    The original specifications for the A-X — the Air Force project that produced the A-10 — involved turboprop propulsion, based on a Lycoming T55 turbine. The authors of the 1968 concept formulation package noted that at slow airspeeds — up to 460 miles per hour — the turboprop had a significant thrust advantage over the turbojet and turbofan and this was greatest with slow speeds.
    These attributes would enable short takeoffs and good low-speed maneuvering. Furthermore, the study indicated that the turboprop designs were not “volume-limited” in the same way as a streamlined high-speed aircraft and could thus carry a lot of fuel.


    Northrop’s 1968 A-X design concept. U.S. Air Force art

    However, internal squabbling over the contract design delayed the A-X program. By 1970, suitable turbofan powerplants appeared on the market.
    But serendipity rather than capability ultimately drove the final decision to power the YA-10 with turbofan instead of a turboprop. As chance would have it, the Navy paid for the development of General Electric’s TF-34 — to go along with the S-3 Viking anti-submarine plane — at precisely the time contractors were looking for a suitable turbofan for A-X prototypes.
    When plane makers submitted proposals for the project’s second round, four of the six submissions featured the TF-34. That late in the A-X’s development, the aircraft designs had grown so large and complex that turbofans looked like the obvious choice for their simplicity and thrust class — not their efficiency.


    U.S. Air Force T-6 Texan II trainers. Air Force photo


    The boring stuff, propulsion efficiency

    Generically, the turboprop is among one of the most efficient forms of aerodynamic propulsion — at least up to a certain airspeed. In effect, the engine takes advantage of the fact that propellers are highly efficient forms of propulsion, but are functionally Mach-limited.
    The forward airspeed of a propeller aircraft is inherently linked to the maximum rotational speed of the prop itself. At slower speeds, turboprops beat out modern turbofans handily on propulsion efficiency.
    And it is at slower speeds that a combat aircraft enhances its utility in some “counter-land” attack missions, including close air support for troops on the ground and forward air control, guiding other aircraft around the battlefield.
    For airspeeds up to 370 miles per hour, the turboprop has a superior propulsive efficiency over turbofans and turbojets. They beat out even the high-bypass fans by as much as 25 percent and turbojets by a staggering 40 percent.


    Rolls Royce art

    At 370 miles per hour, the turboprop reaches its maximum propulsive efficiency, which then drops off while jets continue to climb. At around 460 miles per hour, the turboprop drops to the efficiency of a high-bypass fan and at 575 miles per hour it is no more efficient than a turbojet.
    For the speed and altitude regime where we expected the OA-X to operate, the turboprop was the most efficient propulsion type available. Its attributes contributed to the staying power of the engine as an extremely popular propulsion type for small aircraft in general, including short-haul airliners.
    Turboprop-powered small aircraft have demonstrated low fuel consumption, well under 490 pounds per hour on average. For an OA-X class of aircraft, the engine would allow the planes to eke out significant flight times — 2 hours or more — on a paltry internal fuel load.
    The OA-X we proposed consumed only 5 percent as much jet fuel as a Strike Eagle for the same amount of flying time. Put another way, an F-15E pilot could taxi on the ground for 6 to 8 minutes and burn the same amount of gas one of our proposed aircraft would use up in an hour .
    In addition, the turboprop had major implications for fuel supply, as well as consumption. The smaller fuel needs meant U.S. or friendly forces could supply forward bases via local resources and airlift, avoiding the logistical fratricide common to fuel supply operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    As for maintenance, the PT6A excelled in particular. The T-6s engine can normally run for 2,250 hours before repair crews have to inspect the “hot section” — which they can do without even removing the engine from the plane.
    A full overhaul isn’t due until 4,500 hours and only then must technicians pull the engine out completely. Even at a high utilization of 900 hours per aircraft per year, the PT6A can stay on the plane for five years between overhauls.


    A PT6A engine from a T-6 trainer sits on a test stand. Rick Goodfriend/U.S. Air Force photo

    More interesting, survivability

    The survivability of a turboprop’s core turbine is similar to a jet engine as far as actual combat damage goes. The turbine sections are essentially identical and damage mechanisms are similar.
    However, a PT6A has a very small turbine that is often protected by armor plating. The propeller is exposed to a lesser extent than the fan disc inside a jet engine, because it is not continuous — which is why you can shoot guns through a moving prop and not a fan section.
    The infrared signature of a turboprop-powered aircraft is completely different from a jet. A jet aircraft stands out in two portions of the infrared spectrum based on the propulsion — typically the nozzle and exhaust plume — and because of aerodynamic heating caused by friction effects on the leading edges of the wings and other surfaces.
    Older heat-seeking missiles like the Soviet AA-2 Atoll or early American AIM-9 Sidewinder variants rely on a shot from tail aspect where the exhaust plume dominates the spectrum between 2 and 5 microns. Pilots can shoot newer missiles — newer in this case meaning under 40 years old — from any aspect because the weapons can see into the far infrared, from 8 to 12 microns, where hot metal emissions start to pop out.
    For these weapons, a jet presents a pretty visible infrared target in most directions, because of both the hot engine and friction-heated surfaces warming up as the aircraft passes through the air. Though still a turbine, the front-mounted “tractor” PT6A turboprop vents exhaust in a smaller exhaust shroud on the front of the engine rather than through a hot tailpipe.
    As a result, this hot exhaust immediately mixes with ambient air,while the wing partly blocks the view from below. The well-mixed exhaust plume then emerges aft of the wing.


    PC-9 hudournik


    Kroatia_PC9-e1418997314319.jpg

    Sponsored content

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Sponsored content


      Sada je: pon vel 20, 2017 12:09 pm.