Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

The skirts of most hovercraft are made of rubber, which doesn't take especially well to large amounts of heat nearby.

Who said anything about an air cushion vehicle using the RR Pegasus engine?

I did. Because that would be awesome. Can we not find a flexible composite that can take the heat? At least temporarily?

You could make the skirts out of something other then Rubber. Rubber is popular because it is stretchy and reasonably resilient material to shocks and impacts.

Silk would be more durable but less resistant to heat.

Metals wouldn't have the flex. Ceramics wouldn't have any flex.

Plastics would erode over time and would still melt under the heat.

Fiberglass might stand up to the heat but I'm not sure if it'll have the flex.

They don't necessarily need to flex just contain the air cushion. You could possibly use insulated layering to protect more vulnerable materials if needed.

You need flex to contain the air cushion on less than level ground. Otherwise the air leaks out and shoves you off on some errant vector.

It can't leak if there is nothing to push aside. It leaves the air one direction to go.

But a hover vehicle without being an air cushion vehicle (kinda like a Harrier version of the ekranoplan) is even better. No need to worry about snags. Fuel economy might suck though.

I think he means having those as mobility augments to get it over obstacles or up steeper slopes.

I would simply design the thing where the thrusters have their own (computer-assisted) thruster suspension. If the craft encounters a low obstacle like a rock the thruster will lift over it kinda like how tracks do in a way.

Steeper slopes will require More Power.

Of course the whole thing would be a combo thruster system. One would push it up off the ground upwards of a meter high, the other part would push it forward kinda like those bayou boats the name of which I don't remember right now.

You talking about fan/air boats?

Conceptually yes.

Major Tom has a good point. Independent thrust mechanisms add complexity and cost however. Still, I cant think of any reason why you couldnt use ordinary turbofans to provide the lift within the skirt, and an external auxillary jet engine to give the HC "jump" capability when going up a relatively steep slope.

On the other hand, one could also make the skirt heat resistant, presumably by using metal plates in some sort of flexible "dragon skin" pattern of overlapping plates. That way the jet could be the sole source of upward thrust (use vectoring and it can provide the horizontal thrust as well).

The first option uses conventional design features, just more of them. The second introduces new, untested features (untested in a hovercraft, that is), but could be mechanically simpler. Maybe. I'm not an engineer.

The Russians have successfully built and fielded a rigid skirt catamaran guided missile hover craft. They only have one because of end of the cold war but have been working on building a second. It is definitely not a small craft. I am guessing they are heavier, larger, and more expensive to build. Its good for rough seas or Sea Condition 5.

What if we simply modified the F-35 to perform the mission of a hovercraft?

It would catch on fire.

So give the pilot an ABC fire extinguisher. Next hurdle?

^ Too big of fire. He'll need more ABC extinguishers than he has cockpit space.

OK, so we just need to design a plane that is two F-35s attached wingtip-to-wingtip, the second cockpit can carry the extra fire extinguishers!

never gets off the ground due to technical issues with trying to get two of the most maintenance heavy aircrafts off the ground simultaneously.

^^ Both aircraft catch fire and the increased weight and strain (plus physics issues) causes them to separate and crash.

Alright gentlemen and I use this term very loosely, future AA gun systems! Which path do you think would work in future conflicts?

More accurate, harder hitting and slower firing? Or More Dakka regardless of per shot firepower?

edited 30th Aug '14 1:30:44 PM by MajorTom

I would say it is likely to be a mix and dependent on the system. Rapid fire systems might improve accuracy by tuning fire rate, stabilizing guns with recoil dampening, and ensuring the fire stream is more concentrated over a smaller area and more accurately aimed. Larger caliber AA might stick with the slower fire rate and go for more power and accuracy meaning each hit is more effective over all. By larger I thinking weapons like the 40mm and similar big bore systems.

Laser AA could be a thing. High degree of accuracy inside its effective envelope married with powerful targeting scopes it might even be possible to say lase munitions, soft points, or other specific locations.

More advanced missile systems with maneuverability we don't really have in our missile systems yet or have a blend of features that makes them more deadly. Missiles can have improved turning radius, more powerful warheads, exotic warheads like high intensity blasts, energy weapon warheads like microwave burst, longer pursuit times, and advanced IFF so a missile can leave off of one target and go after another more reliably.

Missiles and projectiles could have more fusing options in a smaller package making the likely hood of a dud less likely and potentially expanding engagement envelopes that can be selected based on threat. Proximity for fast agile craft, delayed penetration detonation for big targets, grazing fuses for close misses, etc.

Railguns, lasers and missiles. After World War Two, The Korean War and before The Vietnam War, the US Army began to move away from the big guns ( > 40mm).

• Project Nike lead to...

• THAAD, Patriot and AEGIS.

• Railguns, at line of sight they can be faster than a Patriot missile.

• Almaz and other KillSats in orbit to wear down the invaders.