irtuskand the political war wages on . . .
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN2236228820090922?sp=true
“We will look at legislative solutions,” said Representative Rick Larsen, a Democrat from Washington, where Boeing has its largest manufacturing facilities.
“Boeing’s supporters must believe that disqualifying Northrop Grumman’s tanker offer is the only way to guarantee a Boeing win, which implies that that they feel Boeing won’t have the best tanker for the warfighter,” Belote said.
irtuskhere’s the crux of the issue:
the offerors’ proposed price, adjusted for IFARA, fuel burn, and MILCON, will result in a Total Adjusted Price. If one offeror’s TAP is more than 1% lower than the other’s, that offeror will win the competition. But if the TAPs are within 1% or less of each other, the proposals will be compared according to how many and which of the 93 Non-Mandatory Requirements are met.
this straight away eliminates the 777, there is no way a 777 offering can be within 1% of a 330 offering
if the requirements are low enough for a base 767 (not 767AT) to win, that strongly favors the 767, so much so you may hear rumblings of EADS threatening to pull out
last time the 767 and KC-30 were neck-and-neck in 25 year evaluation
lets look at the changes that affect each:
Pro KC-30
———
1. adjust price to reflect IFARA efficiency: this is huge as the KC-30 enjoyed a decent advantage last time and it will show up even better against a baseline 767. A 10% advantage in IFARA is equivalent to a 10% reduction in acquisition price
2. reduce yearly hours from 750 to 489: the KC-30 burns more fuel per hour so reducing yearly costs helps its lifecycle costs
Pro 767
——-
1. sticking with the base 767 reduces a ton of cost and risk, enabling them to put forward a very cheap proposal
2. lengthening the time span from 25 years to 40 years allows more time for its lower fuel burn to come to the fore
Uncertain
———
Last time the GAO criticized the MILCON estimation piece because it was based off a single base. Now the AF is doing a more thorough review of actual costs at more bases. Whether this will result in higher or lower estimates than the previous one is unknown
irtuskone very interesting item from the pre-draft-rfp briefing is how they will calculate fuel costs
last time they estimated 750 flying hours/year, which was based on structural limits
this time they are estimating 489 hours/year, which is what the KC-135 fleet has actually averaged over the last 5 years
previously costs were over a 25 year span, now they are over a 40 year span (i think)
25 years * 750 hours/year = 18,750 hours
40 years * 489 hours/year = 19,560 hours
it looks like they’ve found a way to accomodate the requests for a longer lifecycle evaluation without actually changing the numbers a lot :diablo:
irtuskNo, the USAF requirements/criteria were NOT established based on what the 767 could do. The USAF requirements/criteria were established based on what its needs are/were
and the 767 couldn’t meet them so Boeing rewrote the requirements to ‘tailor’ them to the 767
irtuskhttp://englishrussia.com/?p=3524
Let’s see Americans do that!
i see your canopy and raise you a wing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHADAKreoPY
of course that was an israeli pilot, so . . .
irtuskAnyone have the KC-X contender rates?
Boom
– KC-30 = 1200 gal/min
– KC-10 = 1100 gal/min
– KC-135 = 1000 gal/min
– KC-767 = 900+ gal/min
Center hose
– KC-30 = 600 gal/min
– KC-767 = 600 gal/min
– KC-10 = 470 gal/min
Wing hose
– KC-30 = 420 gal/min
– KC-767 = 400 gal/min
– KC-135 = 400 gal/min
irtuskThe 180° turn is going to eat up most if not all of the energy advantage the AIM-9X may gain by having a closing target.
whatever you say chief
Can we stop acting like the Super Hornet is some kind of true VLO design like the Raptor, for Pete’s sake?! It just isn’t.
of course it isn’t
however, it is significantly better than the flanker
Neither was the Super Hornet (apart from the minor exceptions pointed out above), to be frank.
LO was a major design consideration of the super hornet
The canted tails are that way to keep them *somewhat* out of the vortices from the LERX (didn’t work very well, but the point is that they aren’t a signature reduction measure), exactly as they were on the vanilla Hornet.
let us call it a ‘happy coincidence’
Furthermore, canted tails contribute practically _nothing_ to lowering frontal RCS
that is understood
which is pretty much the only aspect worth the effort on aircraft that carry their armament externally
we’ll have to disagree there
Maybe you should consider your own appreciation of what affects RCS before making wild claims about the magnitude and impact of the difference between the SH and Flanker in this respect.
what wild claim have i made? that the RCS of the super hornet is less than the rcs of the flanker?
irtuskSo why would you assume that in a given scenario only the shornet has tactical advantage?
i don’t, just pointing out that all the stuff the flanker fanbois drool over, just doesn’t matter
that said, the shornet will be better in 80% of the cases because of its smaller size and smaller signature
IOWs, this is your admission that in a fair fight, the flanker will have certain clear advantages, which btw, was my entire point before you came up with fantastic ideas about ginormous radar, rcs and what not.
1. it’s not fantastic, it’s very basic. see before you get seen
2. you focus on winning the 20% and i’ll focus on winning the 80% and we’ll see who comes out ahead
3. any advantages in a ‘fair fight’ are going to be minimal, no matter how good your plane is. we’ve all seen the infamous F-5 shootdown of the F-22. And with missile technology continually improving and the inherent randomness of WVR combat, any pilot should feel lucky to escape
the only way to win WVR is not to play . . .
Fact of the matter is that in BVR, turning and burning takes place.
never said it didn’t, i said it’s not going to gain you nearly as much as you think
Further, lock breaking is definitely something pilots strive for.
you still don’t understand the discussion
yes, close in, you can break lock if you can maneuver outside the radar’s FOV
HOWEVER, we were talking about a stand-off, long distance illuminator
at long distance, no you cannot escape the radar’s field of view
So tell me, what is the rcs of an advanced flanker (such as a Su-35) with an AAM load out or a super hornet with EFTs and weapons. And considering their radars, jamming equipment etc, also do let us know what detection ranges they’ll get.
shornet will always have the advantage here
You seem to be so sure on this rcs crapola that you must have figures. Either that or you are just talking tall.
don’t need figures to see that the flanker was designed with ZERO consideration for RCS
maybe they can improve it in future versions, but when they aren’t taking even the simplest measures like canting the tails, well it’s hard to take them seriously
irtuskHere is something for guys who feel that BVR is all about just firing from far, far away from those who do it for a living:
he’s talking about a ‘fair fight’
i’ve got news for you: war isn’t fair
if you allow your enemy a fair fight, you have FAILED
what he’s talking about is the 20% of situations where both pilots see each other
but again, that’s nothing compared to the 80% of time where only one side is aware of the other’s presence
you never want to be in a ‘dogfight’ because they are so random, no matter how ‘superior’ your plane is (witness the F-5 shootdown of an F-22)
far better to never let your enemy see you and taken them by surprise
how do you do that? by being small, both from an RCS and visual standpoint
irtuskYes, Ditto for the superbug as well.
didn’t i say as much?
No kidding genius so quit with the blowing out of sky because of ginormous radar sig crap!.
but its ginormous radar sig plays a large part in several of those (situation=flying over hostile ground radars, tactics=using a long distance illuminator to guide silent partners, etc)
Yeah right, evasive manouvers, ECM etc are something you’ve never heard of. The painted a/c i s’pose just sits still while the missile chases it.
if the opponent is able to maneuver into a favorable position, the time between activating the radar and launching the missile is too small for the sukhoi to do anything
and once the missile is launched and you’re in its NEZ, all the evasive maneuvering in the world doesn’t help you
You do also realize that @ 50 miles (90 odd km), if the flanker simply disengages, turns around and hightails it, the nez of the missile in tailchase reduces considerably. Not to mention the fact that it burns energy/fuel pretty quick as well.
you do realize we were talking about a situation where one aircraft paints the flanker FROM A DISTANCE while feeding targeting coordinates to planes that are CLOSER?
There is a difference between getting an optical image and a radar image. So ya, its not exactly “like that”.
they both travel at light speed, so in for this situation, no, there is no difference
the field of view of any radar at 50 miles that it is impossible to maneuver out of it
hope you realize that the “over the shoulder shot” causes the missile to turn around 180 degs and therefore loses energy, range as well?
which is more than made up by the flanker speeding toward it . . .
The flanker can again disengage.
AH HA! as you recall, you were saying it was impossible for the shornet to disengage because it was ‘too slow’
i said it could just fire ‘over the shoulder’
you said the flanker could avoid that easily by . . . disengaging
so there you go, a shornet can force a disengagement
Point is, it probly has the ability to reengage thanks to extra fuel.
doubtful, by the time it’s done ‘playing’ with the sidewinder, the shornet will be long gone
Also, under these circumstances, the flanker can probly launch a R27 @ long ranges up the shornets tailpipe as well. The fat bug better run fast.
in a long tail chase it’s not going to be that effective, especially if it’s the semi-active version that requires the flanker to keep the shornet illuminated . . .
No doubt for super hornet fanboys.
only flanker fanbois can continue to ignore PROVEN HISTORY that the MOST IMPORTANT factor in fights is to NOT BE SEEN
irtuskThe shornet absolutely has to come well within BARs range to launch amraams
does BARs provide 360 degree coverage?
all sorts of ways to sneak up behind someone
– blind luck
– awacs
– ground radar
– the opponent is running a huge radar and saying ‘here i am!’
if bars is on, it tells people exactly where you are
if it isn’t on, well good luck finding them
of course you could easily reverse the situation, but the point is that all the ‘vaunted’ advantages of the flanker gain you somewhere between JACK and SQUAT in the real world
it depends far more on the situation and surprise and intelligence and tactics and dumb luck
and then has to turn on its radar to direct the missile to the mki.
so it gets into position, fires up the radar and launches the missile before the fat sukhoi can twitch its butt. And by the time its butt starts twitching, its too late because it can’t out burn or turn a missile.
If it is some kind of passive/silent attack, (another shornet is painting the flanker), and the coordinates are provided to the firing a/c, you have to remember that once the rwr warns the MKI that it is being painted, the turning and burning starts.
are you for real? do you have any concept of how this works?
if the flanker gets painted at long range, the detection area of radar targetting it is HUGE. NO amount of turning and burning will break the lock
that’s just retarded
real simple case: radar has a 60 degree field of view. at 50 files, it’s field of view is a circle with diameter of over 57 miles.
you know how when a jetliner is passing high overhead, it is very easy to keep your finger pointed at it, even though it is travelling very fast?
yeah, it’s like that
the targetting radar barely has to move at all to keep the flanker in its sights, no matter what stupid antics it tries to pull
If it is detected, it may need to exit in a hurry; again something it can’t do v.easily as its top speed sucks.
with the ‘over the shoulder shot’ (which is coming), the kinematics of the aim-9x will far surpass ANYTHING the flanker can put out, assuming it decides to continue the pursuit. (shornet running > mach 1 AWAY from any missiles and the flanker running > mach 1 TOWARDS any missile)
once again, the shornet triumphs :dev2:
More importantly, the Shornet in all probability has to carry EFTs to match the flanker’s endurance, what does that do to its RCS, first look and all that rubbish?
still has a lower rcs
Ultimately it all boils down to tactics.
and situation and intelligence and luck
Thing is, it gets easier with a better platform.
true, but what defines ‘better platform’?
when 80% of planes are shot down because their opponent spotted them without being spotted in return, it starts to become apparent that the ‘best platform’ is one that’s harder to spot
FACT
all other concerns become secondary
irtuskhttp://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=363756
Lockheed Martin India head takes off in a hurry
This fortnight, Ambassador Douglas A Hartwick, Lockheed Martin India’s CEO, who was spearheading the world’s largest defence manufacturer’s campaign to sell India the F-16 IN medium fighter aircraft, was withdrawn from India in an unusual hurry. Sources describe Hartwick as “having barely enough time to pack” before catching his flight out of Delhi.
. . .
Hartwick was removed as CEO after Lockheed Martin was found in possession of two folders containing classified information relating to defence purchases.
. . .
they were mistakenly placed on the desk of an officer unfamiliar with Lockheed Martin’s operations in India. Reading the “Government of India, Ministry of Defence” heading on the file, the Lockheed Martin official referred the folders back to the Indian defence ministry in New Delhi.
Since then, a furious defence ministry has been trying to ascertain how Lockheed Martin obtained those folders and whether ethical standards had been flouted
irtuskWould be nice to see how F-22 stacks up against foreign machines
it’s tough to compare to foreign air forces because cost per flying hour is tied to the salary of the maintainers plus their maintenance practices and other sundry things
irtuskwhy would it have to? If it feels the engagement is unfavourable, it simply zooms away and disengages
but first it would have to realize that there even was a situation
in something like 80% of shoot-downs, the victims never even realizes they are under attack until it’s too late
which is where being a ginormous target, both from a radar and visual perspective is a huge disadvantage
the other person tends to notice you before you notice them
and then it’s all over
irtuskIt’s large by comparison, but it’s nowhere near as large as you appear to be making out. Certainly no larger than most other 4th generation designs.
it is undoubtedly the largest signature of any 4th generation plane
only the f-15 is even in the same class
Yup, sure do. See those externally-carried missiles too? At least the Flanker can carry some ordnance partially shielded between the engines. Like I said the Super Hornet might still be smaller but the magnitude is not exactly ‘ginormous’.
you’re comparing the side RCS of an amraam to that of the flanker’s massive tails?
that’s not a winning proposition . . .
Sign In
