irtuskSo I see you got that job with EADS wou applied for.😀
which is why i talked about getting the 747 or 777 and EAGL . . .
Yes, but can any of the larger planes do what the C-17 can?
Whether or not it’s used much the C-17 can take off and land on strips the jets can’t.
and my point is THEY DON’T NEED TO
most missions don’t require the C-17s capabilities
trying to create one plane to do it all just leads to a plane that is sub-optimal for everything
the right tool for the job . . .
for the FEW missions that require the C-17, we have MORE THAN ENOUGH
And it RO-RO capability makes it unique.
You try to load a 777, KC-30 or 747quickly under enemy fire quippped with only a forklift.
again, the vast majority of these missions are to well equipped airfields where it isn’t an issue
plus they will never fly a C-17 into an area where it will be under fire while unloading so that’s irrelevant anyways
your problem is that you keep trying to think of exceptions and what you need to handle the exceptions. We have plenty of C-17s to handle the exceptions. Now it’s time to look at the usual case and see if there’s a better way of doing it
I’m not saying get rid of the C-17s, far from it, just that using them as a pallet hauler or a strategic transport is a terrible waste and horribly inefficient
No, there is a requirement for a dedicated military airlifter.
If there wasn’t France and the EADS croud would have bought 330s and been done with it instead of building the A400.
again, you miss the point
we already have dedicated military airlifters (C-130, C-17, C-5)
they don’t (or the ones they have are about to expire)
now the question becomes ‘is the C-17 the best tool for every possible situation?’. Contrary to popular opinion, the answer is a resounding NO!
Comparing the cruise speeds of a military airlifter (with its built-in weight and aerodynamic issues required because of its missions) with airliners is disingenuous at best.
it’s not disingenuous, it’s exactly the point
not all jobs require a military airlifter, for those jobs an airliner is superior
for those jobs the USAF SHOULD have and use an airliner
that is the point
if you want to move pallets, use a 747
if you want to send a battery to a small FOB use a C-27J
if you want to send a HUMVEE to a FOB, use a C-130
if you want to land a tank on small runway use a C-17
if you want to support a battalion of troops across the pacific use an EAGL
as always, the right tool for the job
The A400 is its competition…and the excuse more Europeans have for not buying the Globemaster. At this stage in the game, any one sided rant against it is more of a A400 sales tool than anything else, IMHO.
stop being so paranoid
The A400 is it’s competition . . . in Europe
the situation is different there than here
I’m talking about the USAF and what direction it should take
My point is not that it should kill one military transport (C-17) to buy another military transport of somewhat compable capabilities (A400M), but that they need to expand the fleet with aircraft of RADICALLY DIFFERENT capabilities to cover DIFFERENT situations. Airliners for pallets, EAGL for strategic, etc
for the USAF, i see the A400M as AT BEST a niche product
again, the european situation is different, but that’s not what i’m talking about
this is not an argument against the C-17, it’s against getting more of them. If you don’t have any to begin with, that’s not really relevant.
The C-17 is an important PART of a well-rounded fleet. The problem comes when you try to make it the WHOLE fleet
irtuskSo I see you got that job with EADS wou applied for.😀
which is why i talked about getting the 747 or 777 and EAGL . . .
Yes, but can any of the larger planes do what the C-17 can?
Whether or not it’s used much the C-17 can take off and land on strips the jets can’t.
and my point is THEY DON’T NEED TO
most missions don’t require the C-17s capabilities
trying to create one plane to do it all just leads to a plane that is sub-optimal for everything
the right tool for the job . . .
for the FEW missions that require the C-17, we have MORE THAN ENOUGH
And it RO-RO capability makes it unique.
You try to load a 777, KC-30 or 747quickly under enemy fire quippped with only a forklift.
again, the vast majority of these missions are to well equipped airfields where it isn’t an issue
plus they will never fly a C-17 into an area where it will be under fire while unloading so that’s irrelevant anyways
your problem is that you keep trying to think of exceptions and what you need to handle the exceptions. We have plenty of C-17s to handle the exceptions. Now it’s time to look at the usual case and see if there’s a better way of doing it
I’m not saying get rid of the C-17s, far from it, just that using them as a pallet hauler or a strategic transport is a terrible waste and horribly inefficient
No, there is a requirement for a dedicated military airlifter.
If there wasn’t France and the EADS croud would have bought 330s and been done with it instead of building the A400.
again, you miss the point
we already have dedicated military airlifters (C-130, C-17, C-5)
they don’t (or the ones they have are about to expire)
now the question becomes ‘is the C-17 the best tool for every possible situation?’. Contrary to popular opinion, the answer is a resounding NO!
Comparing the cruise speeds of a military airlifter (with its built-in weight and aerodynamic issues required because of its missions) with airliners is disingenuous at best.
it’s not disingenuous, it’s exactly the point
not all jobs require a military airlifter, for those jobs an airliner is superior
for those jobs the USAF SHOULD have and use an airliner
that is the point
if you want to move pallets, use a 747
if you want to send a battery to a small FOB use a C-27J
if you want to send a HUMVEE to a FOB, use a C-130
if you want to land a tank on small runway use a C-17
if you want to support a battalion of troops across the pacific use an EAGL
as always, the right tool for the job
The A400 is its competition…and the excuse more Europeans have for not buying the Globemaster. At this stage in the game, any one sided rant against it is more of a A400 sales tool than anything else, IMHO.
stop being so paranoid
The A400 is it’s competition . . . in Europe
the situation is different there than here
I’m talking about the USAF and what direction it should take
My point is not that it should kill one military transport (C-17) to buy another military transport of somewhat compable capabilities (A400M), but that they need to expand the fleet with aircraft of RADICALLY DIFFERENT capabilities to cover DIFFERENT situations. Airliners for pallets, EAGL for strategic, etc
for the USAF, i see the A400M as AT BEST a niche product
again, the european situation is different, but that’s not what i’m talking about
this is not an argument against the C-17, it’s against getting more of them. If you don’t have any to begin with, that’s not really relevant.
The C-17 is an important PART of a well-rounded fleet. The problem comes when you try to make it the WHOLE fleet
irtuskBut I don’t see a fully loaded trans-Pacific requirement
i certainly can. it doesn’t take much imagination
I think a fully loaded C-5 isn’t any better trans-pacific.
1. a fully loaded C-5 is twice the load of a C-17, so a C-5 with a ‘full C-17 load’ will definitely go farther
2. this isn’t an argument for the C-5, it’s for EAGL
Also agree partially on the internal volume. A light stretch (together with the slightly larger wing) would be a good idea.
a stretch helps somewhat with pallets, but not oversized cargo
We had a threat before, about C-5 modernization vs more C-17. Basically only justification for the C-5 is some outsized Army stuff that should be in theatre anyhow (or shipped).
and that it can carry twice as much and isn’t such a drain on aerial refuelling resources
Fact is that the C-17 is being built, whereas everything else is not.
and that’s part of the problem
because we keep ordering more C-17s, we can’t afford KC-X and we can’t afford EAGL
The reason I support more C-17 is to keep the line open
who cares?
Boeing employees obviously 😉
and the fleet young.
the way to keep the C-17 fleet young is to take the load off them and stop misusing them
And for strategic mobility and sustainment ships are the better solution anyway.
ships are definitely important and have their place
but you can’t ignore strategic airlift and just say ‘well, we’ll deliver it by ship’
for one thing, ships are slow. For another, ships are vulnerable
you lose one C-5 or EAGL and yeah, it hurts. you lose one of those maritime prepositioning ships at Diego Garcia and the entire equation changes
it’s easy to forsee a situation where some subs or mines are used to deny maritime access to an area. And if we know there are hostile subs lurking about, they simply will not risk a MPS
also look at the Operation Nickel Grass. A surprise situation where airlift was the only option.
So heavy airlift is just here to fill those couple of days until maritime pre-pos can go into action. And that job the C-17 is quite good in, I’d say.
not really. it’s mediocre at best with its short range and small capacity
irtuskBut I don’t see a fully loaded trans-Pacific requirement
i certainly can. it doesn’t take much imagination
I think a fully loaded C-5 isn’t any better trans-pacific.
1. a fully loaded C-5 is twice the load of a C-17, so a C-5 with a ‘full C-17 load’ will definitely go farther
2. this isn’t an argument for the C-5, it’s for EAGL
Also agree partially on the internal volume. A light stretch (together with the slightly larger wing) would be a good idea.
a stretch helps somewhat with pallets, but not oversized cargo
We had a threat before, about C-5 modernization vs more C-17. Basically only justification for the C-5 is some outsized Army stuff that should be in theatre anyhow (or shipped).
and that it can carry twice as much and isn’t such a drain on aerial refuelling resources
Fact is that the C-17 is being built, whereas everything else is not.
and that’s part of the problem
because we keep ordering more C-17s, we can’t afford KC-X and we can’t afford EAGL
The reason I support more C-17 is to keep the line open
who cares?
Boeing employees obviously 😉
and the fleet young.
the way to keep the C-17 fleet young is to take the load off them and stop misusing them
And for strategic mobility and sustainment ships are the better solution anyway.
ships are definitely important and have their place
but you can’t ignore strategic airlift and just say ‘well, we’ll deliver it by ship’
for one thing, ships are slow. For another, ships are vulnerable
you lose one C-5 or EAGL and yeah, it hurts. you lose one of those maritime prepositioning ships at Diego Garcia and the entire equation changes
it’s easy to forsee a situation where some subs or mines are used to deny maritime access to an area. And if we know there are hostile subs lurking about, they simply will not risk a MPS
also look at the Operation Nickel Grass. A surprise situation where airlift was the only option.
So heavy airlift is just here to fill those couple of days until maritime pre-pos can go into action. And that job the C-17 is quite good in, I’d say.
not really. it’s mediocre at best with its short range and small capacity
irtuskI’ll judge from the JFS’ service record in, say… 2025? . . . but I’ll still prefer to wait and see rather than relying on a report compiled by a bunch of civil servant’s.
yes, well if you need to start your procurement process NOW and you can’t wait till 2025, then what?
and in 2025, there will be new aircraft on the horizon, so perhaps we should wait till 2050 to see how THEY pan out?
and if you are the government, who do you want the report prepared by?
better civil servants (paid for by the government) than company pr flaks . . .
irtuskat each instant in time the missile is eactly behind the aircraft and is reacting constantly to the aircrafts change in velocity
perhaps you should make a graph with more squiggles as the plane tries different maneuvers to make it clear to certain people here
and maybe expand out the x-axis to make the side-to-side motion more dramatic
irtuskman, just align the flanker with the missile, the flanker curve will be inside the missile curve, then ther is a distance of turning, the margin can be calculated, get it..
No matter how fast is the missile, if both curves are aligned there is no a interception point, there would be…. of course only if you have found a new dimention….
pics?
irtuskLM, again, align the target to the missile trayectory, and then turn in the right moment, there is a “not return” point to the missile, and that is increased again , if the plane do some turns from one to other side
obviously what we need is a ms paint diagram to illustrate whatever it is you’re trying to say :diablo:
irtuskThe effect can actually be increased if the plane is turning and suddently change the direction of turning
lol, that’s the funniest thing ever
LmRaptor took care of the rest of it, so i’ll flush this out
all changing direction rapidly is going to do is cause you to bleed energy and make you a sitting duck
if you can’t change direction faster than 9G, it doesn’t matter what stupid shake-and-bake you do, the AMRAAM can change direction just as fast and easily nail you
there is a reason they call it the NO ESCAPE zone
irtuskthe only thing is again that you need a crystall ball to know if the “flanker ” will be dumb enough to meet the missile in the interception point
NO, GET A CLUE
he said they have the same effective lateral translation
let me translate for you, the AMRAAM can move in any direction JUST AS FAST as the flanker
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE FLANKER DOES, the AMRAAM can match it
if the flanker goes one way and suddenly goes the other, the AMRAAM can match it move for move
irtusk
This is the top example of the AMRAAM vs Flanker – in Autodesk Inventor 2009 – CAD.
is that like a fancy version of ms paint 😀
well it does look perhaps slightly more professional than my version . . .
irtuskFrom what i have read, all models have about the same speed and g limit, and would thus have the same limitations in engaging a target that turn over 2.5 g at Mach 1.
perhaps you should expand your reading beyond russian fanboi nonsense
irtuskNot at all.
Mach missile/Mach aircraft=deltag^2
4/1=4^2=16 -> a Mach 4 missile needs to pull 16 times more g then a Mach 1 aircraft
i guessed you missed the part where i showed those equations were BS
irtuskwhile i’m still right and you all are still wrong ;), i think there is one thing we can all agree on:
you cannot guarantee escape from an AMRAAM with 2.5G maneuvers
and forget guarantee, it isn’t even LIKELY you will escape with 2.5G maneuvers
actually, forget not likely, it’s dang NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to escape with 2.5G maneuvers
in other words, Medved is a freaking moron
as i said in my first post 😀
irtuskThat’s amazing! i bet the spartans would be happy to switch their oracles with an AMRAAM any day:eek:
it’s simple math, you know where the plane is, what direction it’s heading and what it’s speed is
from this you can predict where it will be in x seconds
you can then fly directly to this spot without ‘following the track’ of the plane
if the plane changes direction, fine, just update your prediction
you can always ‘cut the corner’ off the turn no matter what he does
here is a quick’n’dirty paint job illustrating what’s going on:
note that the turn of the AMRAAM is much shallower (lower-G) than the turn of the plane
Sign In
