Page 5 – Key Publishing

irtusk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 867 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 56 57 58 →

Author

Posts
June 20, 2012 at 2:54 am in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread – 19 #2293285

irtusk
Participant

or do you propose IAF just dump it’s massive stock of dumb bombs into the Indian ocean ? or convert them all to smart bombs with kits at exorbitant cost ?

smart bomb kits aren’t exorbitant

May 24, 2012 at 8:31 am in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread – 19 #2301417

irtusk
Participant

You have evidence of this?

are there any reports?

no

there you go

Now there are many possible explanations for no reports. Maybe there are no problems or maybe there are problems but they aren’t being reported. WE DON’T KNOW.

Do YOU have any evidence which way it is?

May 20, 2012 at 11:44 pm in reply to: Passengers intentionally disturbing center of gravity #542182

irtusk
Participant

but since they allow it it probably isn’t an issue.

it isn’t an issue with a random distribution

but would it be an issue if there was a deliberate effort?

May 19, 2012 at 6:56 pm in reply to: Passengers intentionally disturbing center of gravity #542408

irtusk
Participant

Well, this wasn’t about FAs rearranging passengers as much as demonstrating that balance is important and can be affected by passengers.

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/world/article_71bcd45c-01cd-580c-bdf8-d6e029a339bc.html

This was a smaller plane, but it makes one wonder if a concerted effort could impact a larger plane.

May 19, 2012 at 3:00 am in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread – 19 #2304086

irtusk
Participant

Not implying anything, but it is a fact that those kind of engine problems WERE NOT REPORTED in the biggest user.

FTFY

May 11, 2012 at 6:04 pm in reply to: Australia to buy aircraft the US rejected #2309257

irtusk
Participant

They’d rather use more fuel and have higher flying costs for the few missions than spend a lot of money on a new airframe.

that could be used to justify not buying any more

BUT the USAF has ALREADY spent a lot of money on new airframes and is now looking to ditch these new airframes that happen to be cheaper to operate.

That is what people are choking on

“Let’s spend all this money buying new planes and then 1 year later decide we really don’t need these planes after all so let’s scrap them”

May 11, 2012 at 7:59 am in reply to: EADS C295 vs Alenia C-27J #2309414

irtusk
Participant

we had some ‘discussion‘ about the relative merits of the two planes a while back

although mainly in the context of the US Army . . .

March 14, 2012 at 6:30 am in reply to: JCA (C-27J) stripped from army #2349798

irtusk
Participant

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/13/ohio-guard-accuses-af-of-fudging-c-27j-figures/

Oops, someone finally pointed out that the ‘analysis’ has no clothes because there’s no way in hell the life-cycle costs of the C-27J are higher than the C-130

“The C-27 life-cycle cost over 25 years is $308 million an aircraft,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 28, using the number Lohrer questions in his briefing. “For the C-130J, it’s $213 million per aircraft. For the C-130H, it’s $185 million per aircraft.”

Such utter and obvious nonsense he should be fired for not just lying to Congress, but for telling such an INEPT lie.

A C-27J that costs less up front and burns less fuel has a life-cycle cost 50% higher than a C-130J? Seriously? Did he think even the clue-impaired congress-critters wouldn’t notice something was off with that?

February 28, 2012 at 7:49 pm in reply to: Quantity overwhelmed quality – any example? #2296008

irtusk
Participant

Siege of Rhodes

100,000 men defeated 7,500 men in very quality defenses

not air I realize . . .

January 28, 2012 at 2:54 pm in reply to: JCA (C-27J) stripped from army #2354784

irtusk
Participant

so the AF is trying to ‘divest’ the planes it already has

wouldn’t it be hilarious if the Army tried to buy those planes?

January 28, 2012 at 3:01 am in reply to: JCA (C-27J) stripped from army #2355206

irtusk
Participant

According to a senior Air National Guard official, operating a C-130J costs about $7,100 per hour, while the C-27J costs about $2,100 per hour.

But you MUST be wrong, because right there in the report it states “the current cost to own and operate them (C-130) is lower“. :diablo:

edit: It suddenly hit me what they’re doing. They’re looking at the cost to ship 70,000 pounds 2,500 nmi. This is of course 1 direct flight in a C-130J but 3 flights with fuel stops in a C-27J. Which is of course stupid but exact what they have to be doing to even come close to justifying their statement.

January 27, 2012 at 10:51 pm in reply to: JCA (C-27J) stripped from army #2355441

irtusk
Participant

so, if hypothetically, the army were to refloat a requirement for a light transport, what would happen?

January 27, 2012 at 8:29 pm in reply to: JCA (C-27J) stripped from army #2355578

irtusk
Participant

aaaaaand the air force’s screwing of the army is complete

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Budget_Priorities.pdf

“Divesting 38 C-27s”

. . .

Example: The new strategic guidance emphasizes flexibility and adaptability. The C-27J was developed and procured to provide a niche capability to directly support Army urgent needs in difficult environments such as Afghanistan where we thought the C-130 might not be able to operate effectively. However, in practice, we did not experience the anticipated airfield constraints for C-130 operations in Afghanistan (STRAWMAN) and expect these constraints to be marginal in future scenarios. Since we have ample inventory of C-130s and the current cost to own and operate them is lower (BS), we no longer need-nor can we afford-a niche capability like the C-27J aircraft. The Air Force and the Army will establish joint doctrine relating to direct support (BOOM, HEADSHOT)

historical thread for reference purposes (or a good laugh)

November 5, 2011 at 4:13 am in reply to: International Super Hornet #2372966

irtusk
Participant

But if it is I think it puts Super Hornet in the front seat on account of time to delivery, ToT and domestic involvement and future development potential.

The only one of those that is a true advantage for the SH is time to delivery. Future development potential favors F-35 by far, domestic involvement favors F-35 too as they can make parts that are then used in everyone’s F-35. And I don’t see why the Super Hornet would be better in ToT.

On the other hand, Japan is seeing the rise of 5th gen threats in the Pacific region and isn’t going to want to invest heavily in last generation solutions.

November 5, 2011 at 4:10 am in reply to: International Super Hornet #2372968

irtusk
Participant

If it can’t land with it loaded the USN probably doesn’t want it.

They land when loaded with five regular tanks, why would CFTs be any different?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 867 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 56 57 58 →