irtuskPut a turd in a box that says “5th Generation Fighter” on it.
but how do you know it’s a turd?
there’s still so much flight testing left to do
we must wait till all flight testing is completed and it is in service and proven before we can make any judgments about it :diablo:
irtuskSo, if the C-17 line closes tomorrow, what alternatives are available?
Is the An-124 line open again?
while i wouldn’t be opposed to some An-124’s for the USAF . . .
EAGL!
the time has come for a new strategic airlifter
irtuskWell we just bought 3 evaluation copies for £500 million, which is about $750 million.
Yes they are early batches, though considering the controversy over Tranche 3 of the Typhoons (at about $60 million dollars each) and the state of the defence budget (Afghanistan doesn’t help) I think you can see the problem.
that you’re making an invalid comparison?
irtuskthe unit cost of $215 million is simply staggering
not sure where you’re getting $215 million from, but that is either:
1. very very early batches which aren’t representative of what the UK will pay for most of theirs
2. the full package with spares, weapons, training and 40 years of support
irtuski am also confident in saying that F-15 can sprint at ~M2.5 longer and farther then F-22 at ~M2.4.
not that it has anything to do with this thread, but I’m not confident that today’s F-15 can even REACH M2.5
i remember dozer’s posts over on fencecheck (before they were deleted) where he talked about trying to get his eagle as fast as possible, and that it took over 15 minutes even with a shallow dive to barely creep towards M2.0 with max burner
on the other hand we have the F-22 hitting M1.72 DRY
basically dozer’s point was that M2.5 was hit with a stripped down A model that was in no way combat representative
a combat configured F-15 will be lucky to hit M2.0
and considering F-22 need 45% more thrust to almost reach the speed of F-15, it is safe to say F-15 is more aerodynamic
1. so really the better comparison is:
F15 (~22,000kg thrust) – Mach 2.0
F22 (~26,000kg thrust) > Mach 1.72
2. the main limitation on high mach speeds is the inlet. The F-15 had a complicated mechanical diverter. The F-22 has a diverterless inlet that reduces max speed but reduces complexity and weight
irtuskOr does it just mean that the F-35 is falling short of expectations regarding thrust?
If ‘only’ getting 41k in afterburner instead of 43k is the worst problem the F-35 faces, it will be the most successful aircraft program in the history of mankind
Is Beesley creditable?
in the sense that he’s not going to tell a lie, yes
however he is human and may occasionally flub a specific number when talking on the fly
is that what happened here? i don’t know and neither do you
irtuskTWR ratio of a Viper is better than the one of the combat loaded (ergo externally clean) F-35. If you would only fill the F-35 with the amount of fuel for F-16, the TWR could be a bit more equal but frontal cross section of the F-35 is much larger which still means more drag. There is nothing substantial in the claim that F-35 should accelerate better than a Viper..
In this video Beesley does not say anything about a *clean* F-16, in fact he talks about hanging missiles on the airplanes which clearly contradicts that claim..
http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html
The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.
Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.
irtuskMy impression from all this circus is that F-35 came out pretty lame in A-A but in certain regimes it is better than a fully loaded F-16 in godonlyknowswhat configuration with three wet bags (nothing really strange with that)
he has repeatedly said COMBAT LOADED acceleration and manoeverability were equivalent to a CLEAN block 50 F-16
irtuskWell, since the USAF has 3 squadrons currently flying CV-22s (Special-ops variant of the Osprey)… one for training and 2 operational spec-ops squadrons, I don’t doubt the USMC can’t account for the whereabouts of every Osprey ever delivered.
i’m fairly sure that isn’t the issue
irtuskYes you are. Go back & read your own posts…
no i’m not, go back and pay attention
Even the US does not conduct high-intesity combat operations 24/365 in all weather conditions.
and when they’re not conducting high-intensity combat operations, there’s no reason for all 30 to be there
sure you might need a couple on stand-by for emergencies, but if you need 30, it’s a major operation and you’re going to know well in advance and can stage them from further out (commuting as it were)
either it’s high-intensity in which case they need to be in the air or it’s not and it doesn’t matter so much where they park
irtuskYes you are. Go back & read your own posts…
no i’m not, go back and pay attention
Even the US does not conduct high-intesity combat operations 24/365 in all weather conditions.
and when they’re not conducting high-intensity combat operations, there’s no reason for all 30 to be there
sure you might need a couple on stand-by for emergencies, but if you need 30, it’s a major operation and you’re going to know well in advance and can stage them from further out (commuting as it were)
either it’s high-intensity in which case they need to be in the air or it’s not and it doesn’t matter so much where they park
irtuskThen why complain about its cost?
i’m not complaining about the cost
Yet you do with the KC-X (or at least stress acquisition cost over through-life cost).
because it’s a different situation
(see, i’m learning the pfcem method of argumentation :D)
Stop rewriting history. If an effor to stay on the C-17 topic I won’t go though & prove how every one of those statements is either misleading (half-truth) or our right false (besides I have already done so in previous threads).
your ‘proofs’ consisted of you repeatedly denying published articles that i posted links to while you provided no evidence of anything
if you want to actually provide proof this time, feel free to start a new tanker thread and we can start again there
Sorry, but that just means that fewer C-5s can carry the same number of pallets the same distance as C-17s can BUT C-17 can STILL (by using more aircraft) the same number of pallets the same distance…
assuming you have enough tanker resources available that aren’t tied up elsewhere
that said, most of what we transport via C-17 can also be transported via C-130
and C-130s have ‘unlimited range’ via AAR just like the C-17
perhaps we should just build a giant fleet of C-130s and just keep a small fleet of C-17s for the stuff that won’t fit on C-130s
why don’t we do that? because it’s silly, just like saying the C-17 can replace the C-5 is silly. They all have their place
Wrong, there ARE times when all tankers will be on the ground…
it would really help your case if you could actual offer some explanation with your argument
simply saying ‘you’re wrong’ doesn’t help anyone
I know the truth hurts but you appearantly NEED to hear it. It is not like we have not been though this before…
there message board are here for our education and edification and enlightenment
calling people ignorant without offering to help is just . . . ignorant
you say i don’t know AAR operations, ok fine, teach me
what should i know? what am i missing?
irtuskThen why complain about its cost?
i’m not complaining about the cost
Yet you do with the KC-X (or at least stress acquisition cost over through-life cost).
because it’s a different situation
(see, i’m learning the pfcem method of argumentation :D)
Stop rewriting history. If an effor to stay on the C-17 topic I won’t go though & prove how every one of those statements is either misleading (half-truth) or our right false (besides I have already done so in previous threads).
your ‘proofs’ consisted of you repeatedly denying published articles that i posted links to while you provided no evidence of anything
if you want to actually provide proof this time, feel free to start a new tanker thread and we can start again there
Sorry, but that just means that fewer C-5s can carry the same number of pallets the same distance as C-17s can BUT C-17 can STILL (by using more aircraft) the same number of pallets the same distance…
assuming you have enough tanker resources available that aren’t tied up elsewhere
that said, most of what we transport via C-17 can also be transported via C-130
and C-130s have ‘unlimited range’ via AAR just like the C-17
perhaps we should just build a giant fleet of C-130s and just keep a small fleet of C-17s for the stuff that won’t fit on C-130s
why don’t we do that? because it’s silly, just like saying the C-17 can replace the C-5 is silly. They all have their place
Wrong, there ARE times when all tankers will be on the ground…
it would really help your case if you could actual offer some explanation with your argument
simply saying ‘you’re wrong’ doesn’t help anyone
I know the truth hurts but you appearantly NEED to hear it. It is not like we have not been though this before…
there message board are here for our education and edification and enlightenment
calling people ignorant without offering to help is just . . . ignorant
you say i don’t know AAR operations, ok fine, teach me
what should i know? what am i missing?
irtuskI think the numbers show the C-17 to be a good buy.
A specialized piece of kit for the same cost as a standard wide body.Not bad, IMHO.
i’m not saying the C-17 is overpriced for what it is
i’m saying buying more of them is not the best solution for our airlift fleet
it would be short-sighted to just look at acquisition cost, you also have to look at through-life cost and capability
getting an airliner allows for far cheaper operations AND saves C-17 life as they no longer have to do so many trash-hauling operations
The USAF began seriously looking at a KC-135 replacement in 1996 (prompted by questions of the long-term viability of the KC-135 by the GOA). By 2000/2001 it had determined that the KC-767 was the right tanker BUT in its haste to get it skipped a number of required steps & got caught (via an investigation prompted by inappropriate/criminal actions by the lead USAF & Boeing negotiators).
no, following 9/11 Boeing was in shambles financially with all the airlines cutting/canceling/deferring orders
so . . . they lobbied hard to move forward the tanker replacement program (even though the USAF’s OWN STUDIES SHOWED IT WASN’T NEEDED TILL 2015) and sole-source it to them
CONGRESS wrote a bill directing the USAF to work with Boeing on a new tanker, so the USAF complied
McCain objected, got Congress to change it so the AF would conduct a competition
again the USAF complied, but then Boeing realized THEY COULDN’T WIN a competition, so they bribed Druyan to ensure they won
What exactly does the C-5 carry that the C-17 can’t?
twice as many pallets farther without refuelling
You can’t get booms in the air unless there is room for them on the ground. And WHERE said booms are on the ground makes a BIG difference as to what it takes to get said booms in the air WHERE & WHEN they need to be.
if you need 30 tankers at a base to support a mission, there is no need for all 30 tankers to be on the ground at the same time
they can arrive, load-up and take-off
You clearly do not understand tanker operations
Why do you even bother to make comments like this?
If you have helpful information, by all means post it
But snide little comments like that do nothing to further the discussion
irtuskI think the numbers show the C-17 to be a good buy.
A specialized piece of kit for the same cost as a standard wide body.Not bad, IMHO.
i’m not saying the C-17 is overpriced for what it is
i’m saying buying more of them is not the best solution for our airlift fleet
it would be short-sighted to just look at acquisition cost, you also have to look at through-life cost and capability
getting an airliner allows for far cheaper operations AND saves C-17 life as they no longer have to do so many trash-hauling operations
The USAF began seriously looking at a KC-135 replacement in 1996 (prompted by questions of the long-term viability of the KC-135 by the GOA). By 2000/2001 it had determined that the KC-767 was the right tanker BUT in its haste to get it skipped a number of required steps & got caught (via an investigation prompted by inappropriate/criminal actions by the lead USAF & Boeing negotiators).
no, following 9/11 Boeing was in shambles financially with all the airlines cutting/canceling/deferring orders
so . . . they lobbied hard to move forward the tanker replacement program (even though the USAF’s OWN STUDIES SHOWED IT WASN’T NEEDED TILL 2015) and sole-source it to them
CONGRESS wrote a bill directing the USAF to work with Boeing on a new tanker, so the USAF complied
McCain objected, got Congress to change it so the AF would conduct a competition
again the USAF complied, but then Boeing realized THEY COULDN’T WIN a competition, so they bribed Druyan to ensure they won
What exactly does the C-5 carry that the C-17 can’t?
twice as many pallets farther without refuelling
You can’t get booms in the air unless there is room for them on the ground. And WHERE said booms are on the ground makes a BIG difference as to what it takes to get said booms in the air WHERE & WHEN they need to be.
if you need 30 tankers at a base to support a mission, there is no need for all 30 tankers to be on the ground at the same time
they can arrive, load-up and take-off
You clearly do not understand tanker operations
Why do you even bother to make comments like this?
If you have helpful information, by all means post it
But snide little comments like that do nothing to further the discussion
Sign In
