irtuskMissile must follow track of turning aircraft, and G force in a turn is square of true speed.
he’s a freaking moron
no, missiles do NOT have to follow the track of turning aircraft
they can predict where the aircraft will be and make adjustments based on that
end result: a very fast missile has to barely turn at all to hit a slow plane, no matter how many gees the plane is pulling
irtuskHere is the WIKI page on Vikramaditya with citations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya/
there’s nothing there that says the Super Hornet can’t operate off it
on the other hand i gave a citation with a very clear quote direct from the horse’s mouth (Boeing) that it can indeed operate off the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya
It cannot even operate Mig 29K with maximum load and fuel let alone the SH which is heavier.
the SH is heavier, but it also has more thrust
it also has a wing optimized for low-speed operation
lots of thrusties + big wing = good combination for STOBAR
as far as full load, true it can’t operate with a full load, but neither can the MiG-29K, so what’s the difference?
here is Boeing’s quote on the matter:
not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.
Another factor is that SH is bigger than the Mig 29 and will have a larger footprint, means less planes.
it’s less than a meter longer and they both have folding wings, so how much difference does it really make in terms of number of planes?
I think we need to diversify our equipment, going all American is probably worse than going all Russian.
awarding the MMRCA to a US company is hardly going ‘all American’
even with a full MMRCA buy, you will still have more Su-30MKI’s than US fighters, not to mention your MiG-29s and MiG-23s and MiG-21s and carrier and nuke subs and brahmos and T-90 and Mi-8 and Mi-35 and An-32 and IL-76 and PAK-FA etc etc
irtuskIt clearly states that Vikramaditya can only carry aircraft from MIG 29k downwards.
to what ‘It’ do you refer?
F 18 will need a Catapult equipped carrier.
did you read what the Boeing man just said?
it has never operated off a ski jump in the past because there has never been a need (the US has no ski jump carriers)
BUT they studied the issue and found that the SH CAN OPERATE OFF A SKI JUMP
India can neither afford 500 F 35
500 A + 100 B = 600 F-35 😉
nor will choose to be so US reliant.
they apparently have no problem being so russian reliant
irtuskSuper Hornet cannot operate from carriers like Vikramaditya and the Vikrant Class.
Boeing’s campaign manager for the Indian deal Michael E. Rietz has revealed that after detailed simulations conducted at the company’s test centres, the Super Hornet on offer to India, can in fact operate off the Gorshkov
—————————————–
anyways, ideal composition of Indian combat aircraft?
this is really easy:
500 F-35A – A2A superiority and strike
100 F-35B – for the carriers and other misc duties
hugely simplified fleet, very future proof, instantly boost credibility of their carriers and crush any opposition in the area
irtuskthe Typhoon offers better air defence capability
not likely
and greater combat persistence.
vs the B, yes
vs the C, not so much
It is more deployable.
considering the B can land where there’s no runway, not sure how you can claim that
It is cheaper
not from 2013 on
Until the USA sorts out the issues with stealthy datalinks
MADL
can carry vital UK weapons which JSF can only carry in a non-stealthy fit.
ALL carriage for the EF is non-stealthy :rolleyes:
irtuskSo your USD22.5M are not correct, cause they don’t figure in the other side.
i’m not sure what you’re saying
how is the 22.5M not correct? if you spend x and save y, the true cost is x-y = 22.5M
Question number one is, what gives the AMC the most economical ton-miles. (Also to factor in the advantages of a homogenous AMC fleet).
1. i think pallet mile is a better metric than ton-mile as transports tend to cube-out before they gross-out
2. they gave the numbers already:
C-5 $23,500/hour
C-17 $11,300/hour
since the C-5 carries exactly twice as many pallets as the C-17, the difference in cost is . . . marginal to say the least
but that is BEFORE the modernization plan which is expected to decrease costs enough to save 14 BILLION dollars
so any cost advantage the C-17 had just disappeared
now that you’re looking at a C-17 fleet with no (or even negative) cost advantage, then the question becomes:
what would it cost to replace the C-5 capability?
to replace 111 C-5s with an ‘equivalent capability’ of C-17s would require over 175 additional C-17s, even using the misleading ton-miles and not taking into account the additional capacity of the C-5M
175 C-17s * $276M = 48.3 billion
what was the cost of modernizing all the C-5s?
$16.5 billion
any way you look at it, modernizing the C-5s is a bargain
(Also to factor in the advantages of a homogenous AMC fleet)
on the civilian side (not sure how it carries over to military) it has been shown that once a fleet has reached a certain size (about 50-60), there is no further benefit from commonality (ie two fleets of 50 are just as efficient as a fleet of 100). The C-5 fleet is easily large enough to be maximally efficient
And finally the C-5 modernization has to be weighted against the ability to keep the C-17 line up and running, and the fleet young
if you remember the title of this thread, it is about EAGL which will be a true next gen airlifter
also i do not consider more C-17s to be a good thing
i’ve been thinking about starting a thread entitled ‘More C-17s considered harmful’ to lay out the reasons why (basically because it sucks)
perhaps i’ll have some time this week to pull it together 😉
irtuskDoes this mean the end of the F-22???
that is a political decision that will be made by Obama
Gates will implement whatever Obama decides
The good news is it means the total quantity goes up from 183 to 187
it means nothing of the sort
Obama could come in and count those long-lead items as additional spares and just terminate the program
The bad news is the production rate drops from one per month to four per year.
if they only produce 4 in a year, the line will be shut down
it’s not economical to sustain such a low rate of production
irtuskCould well be the only pieces that are Galaxy-only!
they’re not
i could name other things that can only be moved by C-5, but i’m not going to play that game anymore. anything i name you’ll be like “well maybe that’s all there is”. trust me, that’s not all there is. if you care so much about such things, do your own research
the bigger issue is that study (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0950.pdf) is a load of BS
they make 2 extremely ignorant assumptions:
1. the cost of the upgrades represents the total cost
2. non-upgraded C-5s will continue to operate for 40 years, albeit at a lower readiness rate
1. they just look at the cost of the upgrades and they COMPLETELY IGNORE the savings
the current estimate is that doing the C-5M program will result in savings on maintenance and fuel of $14 billion
if all C-5s were modernized, the current cost estimate is $16.5 billion
so the NET cost of the program is only $2.5 billion, or $22.5 million per plane, NOT $148 million
see why that GAO report is garbage?
plugging it into the same analysis they did (7 C-5M upgrades = 1 C-17) shows that the C-5M program is $157.5 million per C-17 equivalent, a savings of $118.5 million per C-17 equivalent
2. the C-5s are getting older, especially their engines and avionics
if modernization is not done, maintenance costs will continue to increase to the point where the USAF decides they cost too much to maintain and mothballs them
which again destroys a critical assumption in the GAO report that the current fleet will run another 40 years without modernization
will never happen
if the $148 million upgrade cost (which we’ve already seen is fallacious) is looked at as merely a slight difference in readiness rate, then yeah, maybe you can argue against it
but the more realistic scenario is that the $148 million is the difference between a high-readiness C-5 and no C-5 at all
and to gain the capability of a C-5 for $148 million (really $22.5 million) is AN ABSOLUTE STEAL
irtuskGood! So we have 44 M104 Wolverine bridges and 20 Mk.V/.1 SOC boats.
Now we can start to deduce the minimum C-5M fleet size!
AGAIN those are only EXAMPLES
you said you didn’t see anything that needed to be moved urgently, i gave you an EXAMPLE of something that needed to be moved urgently
i’m not going to go through the entire inventory of the us armed forces and determine what is c-5 specific
if you want to do that, be my guest
also, did you catch this part:
The replacement for the Mk V will have to be smaller for the C-17
we are reducing the effectiveness of our equipment and risking the lives of our people solely to accomodate the C-17
that is a sad, sad approach
irtuskhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0950.pdf
Takes me back to the older question in this thread, what kind kind of needs-to-move-NOW! toy exists that fits only into a C-5, but not into a C-17. The GAO namely identifies – as we did here in this thread – the mobile tank bridge, which only fits into a C-5. (That seems to be a wing-box issue on the C-17). Not exactly the kind of stuff, that needs to be moved urgently.
disingenuous at best
The larger C-5 can carry more cargo than the C-17 and is the only aircraft capable of handling some equipment, such as the Army’s 74-ton mobile scissors bridge.
that is not an exhaustive list, it is just one item to serve as an example
here’s another:
http://www.boats.dt.navy.mil/pg2/MK5.htm
A MK V SOC detachment is deployable on two USAF C-5 aircraft to a theater of operations within 48 hours of notification and is prepared to commence day/night special operations in support of a fleet, joint, or combined task force commander within 24 hours after arriving at a forward staging location (host port facility).
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5908419_ITM
“The C-5 [Air Force transport plane] is vital for our emergency response capability; it’s the only aircraft we can fly [these boats] in,” Lt. j.g. Bob Pudney, officer in charge of the Mk V boat displayed here May 18, told Defense Daily in an interview “From the time they are ordered in, the Mk Vs must be operational within 24 hours. The replacement for the Mk V will have to be smaller for the C-17 [transport]. Right now, if the C-5 goes away, we would lose our rapid deployment capability.
irtuskGordon England was Vice President and General Manager of the Fort Worth facility (formerly General Dynamics before Lockheed purchased it). Through political intrigue, much of it created by England himself, he was passed over in his bid to become Lockheed’s Aeronautics Sector president and blamed Marietta for his woes. His payback was to do everything in his power to kill Marietta’s premier program, the F-22.
er yes, but if he was truly trying to hurt LM, why is he pushing the F-35 so hard?
you say to get a seat on the board, but that doesn’t make sense because he’s STILL trying to squash the F-22
if he was angling for a seat he would have softened his stance on the F-22
he hasn’t
irtuskClearly you know less than you think you do 😉
well then please enlighten me oh learned one
irtuskGordon England’s days at the Pentagon as a Deputy Secretary are numbered and he knows it.
um yes, any new administration (whether McCain or Obama) is going to put it’s own people in place
it’s a given, it’s like saying Dick Cheney’s days as veep are numbered
well duh
i mean the very first line of the article is “As time winds down on his eight-year Pentagon tenure”
After hammering Lockheed’s F-22 program because they didn’t make him President of the Aeronautics sector, he wants to make nice in hope of getting a position on a Board of Directors. Fat chance.
and he’s still doing his utmost to kill the F-22 which LM would love to keep alive
hardly sounds like someone trying to appease his corporate masters
it seems clear that he truly believes (whether rightly or wrongly) that the F-35 is the way forward
irtusk(LM gilted him so he’s out for pay back against LM Marietta).
so he’s out to get LM by pushing the F-35 . . . a fighter made by LM :rolleyes:
Other critics have said the Air Force, faced with a rapidly aging fleet of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, should be required to buy new versions of those planes to save money and to ensure that the service has enough combat-ready planes to meet future contingencies.
But England said the money is better spent going directly to the F-35.
if he was out to get LM he would be pushing legacy jets like the F-15 (Boeing) and SH (Boeing) and UCAV
irtuskWhat if Radar performance is such that there is no place to avoid them.
then they’ll steal the magic nano from the Su-34 and put it on the F-35 to make it invulnerable to missiles
Sign In
