irtuskAnd a lot more range too, if I remember correctly.
“This is a real game-changer – it will go faster and further at the same time.”
also, the Osprey’s range advantage isn’t actually that great
if you see the payload/range chart that compares it to CH-53K, by the time it’s line crosses the CH-53K’s, the payload has dropped to nearly negligible levels
(the CH-53K’s payload starts out much higher but drops steeply with range, the Osprey’s payload starts out much lower but has a more gentle dropoff, but the crossover point is so far out, the already low payload has dropped to non-useful levels)
irtuskBut the X2 is NOT a V-22…
a major plus isn’t it 🙂
in fact the X2 is currently only someone’s CAD rendering…
it’s more than that, it’s the future of Sikorsky
they have invested substantial resources into developing it
a bunch of very smart people working for them obviously believe it has substantial merit
(oh, and will it ever fit inside an A400?? – another non-flying white elephant)
how much would you care to wager that the A400 will fly and substantially meet its design goals?
irtuskMany key foundation technologies for Sikorsky’s JHL entrant, a much larger version of the X2, will be tested when the X2 demonstrator takes flight later this year.
if they’re developing a variant for the JHL program (20-ton payload lift capability minimum, more than the Osprey BTW), they obviously believe it can scale
irtuskNotice that X2’s counter rotating blades are extremely short.
they don’t look that short?
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9879588-7.html?tag=newsmap
Short blades mean a smaller disk area which limits a helicopter’s lifting capability.
you mean like the Osprey’s short proprotors?
With a V-22 style tilting rotors system, you can add a second wing (one wing forward and one wing aft) to make a 4 rotor helicopter with four times the lifting capability of an X2.
another doubling of complexity for an already overly complex system? i’m not sure that’s a wise choice
Use X2 technology for something else, not as a V-22 replacement.
the rotors don’t look any smaller than an Osprey’s and it’s definitely simpler, cheaper, more reliable, safer, etc, so I’m not sure why you say that
irtuskCV-59 – Forrestal – to be sunk
CV-61 – Ranger – to be sunk or made a museum
CV-62 – Independence – to be sunk
CV-66 – America – sunkNot to veer off topic here, but why oh why would they waste all that precious metal? 😮
1. we can
2. test the effectiveness of said metal in preventing a sinking
3. test the effectiveness of current weapons in hitting and sinking ships
4. some of the design is close enough to current carriers that we prefer not to divulge it fully
5. the navy actually had some bad experiences scrapping bigger ships where it ended up costing them more to do all the environmental remediation than just to sink them
BTW, does India plan to field more than one carrier at all in the future?
yes, they are going to pay the ransom for the Gorshkov AND buy the SuperHornets to get the KittyHawk
then they’ll decide to buy a CVF to top it all off
irtuskThe Kitty might just end up in india regardless, they have one of the biggest shipbreaking yards in the world there….the irony that would make, literally offered for free.
the KH would NOT be sent to India to be broken up
it would be mothballed and then eventually donated to a museum (unlikely) or sunk (very likely)
no supercarrier has ever been sold for scrap:
CV-59 – Forrestal – to be sunk
CV-60 – Saratoga – to be made a museum
CV-61 – Ranger – to be sunk or made a museum
CV-62 – Independence – to be sunk
CV-66 – America – sunk
irtuskhttp://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_8339935
The British Royal Air Force ordered six C-17s but officials have expressed their interest in purchasing more, said Jean Chamberlin, Boeing’s C-17 program manager. “I do notice some space in the hangar, guys, for a couple more,” Gladston said, which brought loud cheering from the crowd.
In addition to a tentative agreement with a coalition of 16 European nations under the NATO banner for at least two C-17s, India has also requested information about purchasing C-17s, and the Netherlands also expressed its interest to build its own fleet, even though they are part of NATO, Chamberlin said.
irtuskBoeing is having trouble with the 787, they are even considering cutting the -3 to divert engineering resources to the -8 and -9. They said that there will be no new twins larger than the 787 (effectively killing Y3). There is speculation that there might be no -10. The 747-8 still has a lot of work on it, they’re doing all sorts of design studies for Y1.
Basically they seem to have a real engineering shortage at the moment, maybe losing this contract would be a blessing in disguise as it would free up desperately needed engineers for other projects. Then with no tanker order incoming, they could finally shut down the 767 line and free up all those resources too.
Haha, ok, probably not, just trying to look for the silver lining of a Boeing loss from Boeing’s perspective :diablo:
irtuskI would say either Sweden or Germany. More likely, in my opinion, to be Sweden.
ah that’s right, there were some heavy rumors about Sweden getting 2 planes a couple years ago, maybe they’ve finally resolved their political difficulties?
irtuskHowever, one of the biggest dilemma in all air forces is to do an effective function to cooperate with the army, navy and marine corps. They all are going to bleed to death if you can’t cooperate.
the F-35 was designed from the ground-up to be an unparalleled CAS platform
Already F-16, F-15 and F/A-18 are sufficient enough doing operations as the F-35A and F-22A can do
and the F-35 will do them even better
To “cooperate” you also need an operator.
utter BS
what so many hold up as the pinnacle of CAS currently, the A-10, only has one person onboard
the whole reason for the A-10’s existence is CAS and it apparently has been fairly successful at it
but it doesn’t have an operator! how can that be! it’s impossible to provide effective CAS without an operator!
you know what other plane has been receiving a lot of praise for it’s CAS ability? that’s right, the Harrier. You know how many seats the Harrier has? That’s right, ONE.
irtuskWhile, Boeing may not be going out of business tomarrow. It has lost much business to Airbus.
what part of ‘record backlog’ do you not understand?
Airbus has grown their percentage of the business, but the pie has grown so dramatically that 50% of this new larger pie is much much greater than 100% of the old smaller pie
allow me to demonstrate:
1970 – Boeing receives 37 orders for the 737
2007 – Boeing receives 765 orders for the 737
With the slow but steady decline of the 747, 757, and 767 Models.
the 757 line has been closed for over 3 years
the 747, well it first flew almost 40 years ago and has more than paid for itself
the 767 has been replaced by the 787 and is only being kept on life support in hopes of the tanker contract
Really, the only major brite spot is the 787 dreamliner and to a lessor degree the 777!
and the 737
that’s 3 very productive models
the 787 is going to sell almost 800 before first flight! that’s unprecedented!
😀 Further, as I stated the Military side is on a major downslide with little hope of return at least not in the near future.
Boeing’s contracts might not be as visible since they haven’t won the last couple fighter contests, but they are still one of the biggest defense contractors out there
If, Boeing is to have the resources to compete and to prosper it the future. She will of course need the funds to do so.
Boeing has more resources than any other defense contractor in America
Selling its current product line is the only way that is going to happen. So, awarding Billion Dollar Contracts to foreign competitors is not good for the US Aerospace Industry! I don’t think it takes Rocket Science to figure that one out.:p
buying inferior products isn’t good for our troops or our national security, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure that one out!
if Boeing wins on the merits of the proposal, then so be it. But by implicitly saying you’ll buy Boeing no matter what garbage they shovel out, you reduce their incentive to do a good job and not gouge you
honest competition keeps everyone on their toes and results in a better product for a lower price
that said, this contract isn’t going to make or break either Boeing or EADS
i will also point out that the difference in American content isn’t is as great as you might imagine
KC-30 > 60% American
KC-767 > 80% American
so we’re talking a difference of ~20%
irtuskIt is clearly not in the interests of the US Goverment nor its Taxpayers to run Boeing out of Business.
Boeing has a record backlog and has absolutely zero chance of going out of business anytime soon
irtuskWhat you guys didn’t read what I put up about they have already started getting the Production Plants ready both in Dallas and Seattle.
why would they start a new plant when they have an existing line?
There will never be another Non-American Build Military Aircraft in any of the United States Arm Forces
C-27J?
it will be a rather large order with the USAF getting 200 aircraft
if by ‘200’ you mean ‘179’, then maybe
and the overseas orders will be someplace between 150-250 aircraft.
are there that many large aerial refuellers in world outside the US and Russia?
who would be buying 250 tankers? China?
the UK is having huge difficulty ‘obtaining’ 14 (which they wouldn’t actually own). Talk of a world market of 150-250 tankers is beyond absurd
irtuskThe simple fact is the 330 costs more per unit.
UNKNOWN
in fact, the first time around the KC-30 had a LOWER price than the KC-767
unless you’ve seen the final proposals (in which case you probably shouldn’t be saying anything), there’s no reason to assume the KC-767 is cheaper
The 767 seems to be a “less risky” program
FALSE
the KC-767 is an amalgam of several different models of the 767 and has never flow in that configuration. The KC-30 is using a standard A330 frame which is well proven. Not to mention Boeing took something like 2 years to resolve flutter problems with the wing pods, not something to inspire confidence in their program
irtuskThis should be fun….
Tanker bid winner may not get all orders
stupidly misleading
yes, the winner will get ALL the orders . . . for KC-X
which is 179 which is what it has always been
KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z have always been envisioned as different competitions with different requirement and probably different winners
to say the winner of the KC-X competition won’t automatically win the KC-Y and KC-Z competition is a DUH! statement beyond belief
it would actually be far more surprising if the same plane won all 3 since they are likely to have far different requirements (such as replacing the KC-10s) and be several years down the road when different (better) airframes will be available
Sign In
