This is an interesting thing that gets ignored a lot. People like to say “well we could just make more of X or Y if we needed to.” I think if we find ourselves in a real war, the military equipment everyone has to start with is all they will get. Fighters, bombers, tanks, and ships have become too complicated to be…

Payload can be jettisoned quite easily. In fact, that’s the purpose of the vehicle :)

I truly love stories like this. Thanks for sharing!

You can only cram so much inside a vehicle. Plus, with the pop-up launching system, maybe the additional room inside the “turret” is used to reload? Except for barrel launched ATGMs like Russian vehicles use, most vehicle mounted AT launchers must be reloaded on the outside by a crewman. Not a job I would want.

Thanks, Tyler. I was just starting to get over the fact that I can’t make it this year. Now I’m bummed out again :(

Don’t forget the submarines that were built on the Menominee. I got to spend a night on the USS Cobia in elementary school once. http://www.wisconsinmaritime.org/the-submarine-…

I would guess its a marker buoy to keep larger ships safe from the shore.

There’s also little evidence that a gun is more effective than other forms of self-defense.

If Iron Eagle was correct, this whole ISIL issue could be solved with one F-16 and a snotty kid...

Like the previous person said, I was missing that this weapon would use a single explosive and not bomblets. I didn’t think a single device would be able to achieve the area effect of the cluster munitions it is intended to replace. Very curious now to see what the solution is.

Tyler, I think I am misunderstanding a bit of your article and hope you can clarify. You say the new weapon idea is “utilizing non-explosive kinetic projectiles”. You then go on to explain that shrapnel is the material for the kinetic kill. My question is, how is the shrapnel generated if not with explosives?

The XB and YB-35 (your 2nd picture) entered design phase right after the N-1 proved the configuration. It just wasn’t finished until 1946, when it had to compete with more conventional designs and jet technology (B-36 and B-47 soon thereafter).

Don’t the British variants have some of those avionics and corrosion resistance features already? I’m also curious how much of a difference it would make for the Army to have the corrosion resistance. Stopping to refuel and reload, even frequently, should still have negligible exposure to sea water compared to being…

I can imagine how well food and gas rationing would go in this age. Back then it was seen as a patriotic duty. Now people would riot.

I wasn’t the one who asked for it, but I’d like to thank you for the advice as well. I just graduated with my MS in AAE from Purdue and am beginning my career. Hope to put your advice and that of the article to good use!

Coaxial rotors allow for a higher flight speed, which was the whole purpose of the project.

I think in a pinch, the B could land on any ships that can land a helo. The deck heating issue always seems to be described as a problem with repeated or regular use. For an aircraft carrier that is obviously a problem though, and water all over the deck is a detriment to most other operations.

Navy planes are expensive. The entire structure must be designed with harsh catapult assisted takeoffs and arrested landings in mind. Different materials and coatings must be used to protect against sea water. You cannot just do a navy version.

If you want to minimize risk to the pilot, then sure, use extremely expensive aircraft punching holes in the sky with extremely expensive weapons with less flexible targeting options. If you want to maximize the number of enemy combatants you kill, then you will need pilots who fly low and slow and are aided by more…