A- no modern fighter is going to out turn a missile.

I strongly suggest you reconsider that. Particularly for large long range AAMs.

It is an absolute myth that a modern 40g missile cannot be out-turned.

60g missiles in a healty kinetic energy state… different story… although if the stories of some fighters being able to take 12 or 13 g if needs be are true… then even that is open to question.

B- what’s the basis for comparison with the F-105? The F-35A(which will be the far most numerous model) is a 9g aircraft, with better performance than the F-16 or F-18, VLO, and has high SA.

Better performance than the F-16? In what measurable parameters?

Sustained turn performance? Nope.
Pitch response? Nope.
Pitch rate? Nope.
Roll response? Nope.
Roll rate? Nope.

Having a larger controllable ultimate AoA means virtually nothing as you have no energy left to even try and avoid a missile after stalling for a few seconds.

The comparison with the F-105 is quite obvious. An attack aircraft which had a secondary consideration for A2A combat. The heavy use of electronics was required to compensate for a poor airframe.

C- later block models will have NGJ, DIRCM, EA, etc… combined with VLO.

None of which are an inherent capability of the airframe. Exact same as the F/A-18. Use brilliant, mind-bogglingly good electronics to hide an absolute sh*tbox of an airframe.

I understand English may be your second language, but you clearly went out of your way to take my comment out of context.

What I said:
“If it (the 767) keeps more work in the US than the competition, why not buy it?
If Airbus/NG can guarentee the same…that’s a different matter.”

My comment was about US workshare, not that the aircraft couldn’t do the job.

The sentence immediately prior to your workshare comments was about the 767 meeting the USAF requirements.

The paragraph immediately after the workshare comments was about whether Airbus can guarantee it can do the same as the 767.

I don’t believe I read anything out of context. By leaving the supposed 767 advantages in requirements and workshare grouped in one paragraph, and saying Airbus could not do the same as the 767 in the next, I think anyone would have read it the way I did. Certainly, if that was a SOW, or a technical paper I was reading or writing, that would have been the meaning I would have taken, or be the message I was trying to convey if I wrote it like that.

Perhaps your post did not quite convey what you meant… but as I said in the ATC thread, none of us are paid to take care with the grammar and construction of our posts here. 🙂

Guys, I think your ‘disks’ maybe a bit on the large side. Su-30MKI/AL-31FP:

Probably. I was trying to match the approximate radius of the upper surface using paint…

An effort that was always doomed to disaster! 😀

Can you put another disc over mine to show your opinion where compresso blades could be?

IMO, they would be approximately where the large yellow panels on the upper surface end (their trailing edge)…

Boeing says the A330 will cost $40 billion more in fuel costs over the life of the jet.

Which is of course why airlines queued up for the A330 and dropped the 767 virtually overnight?

$40 billion? BILLION?

180 tankers…
Fuel is currently $86/barrel, or ~ $750/tonne – $40 billion is 53.3 million tonnes of fuel.

The average A330 fuel consumption in cruise is about 5.5 tonnes/hr (ranging from 5 to 6 tonnes/hr)…

So that would mean about 10 million hours in cruise, or 54,000 cruising hours per tanker. There is ~8740 hours in every year.

Which means there is 6 years of constant running… that is every minute of every day of every week for every last one of the tankers.

Bull****? I smell a strong whiff of it.

Also, Hundreds of millions for ramp strengthening and modifications overseas.

Please. This is a serious discussion.

Ramp strengthening… like every taxiway and runway on the planet got strengthened to deal with an A330?

I wobnder what the real life cycle costs are?

What happens now is not applicable to what will happen when 767 parts are running short, and the A330F line is still recieving full parts support from the manufacturer.

And you’re sure Airbus wouldn’t?:rolleyes:
After their performance on the A400, I would’t quite put them in the same category as Mother Theresa.:rolleyes:
BTW: How do you KNOW Airbus wouldn’t do the same thing you so self rightously accuse Boeing of?

Because the A330MRTT is flying, right now. Because the boom proposed for KC-X has been built and tested.

At least with Boeing, more American money stays in the U.S. where it’s taxeed and spent by more US suppliers and workers.

Oh FFS, here we go. I thought you were knowledgeable on aerospace.

You know fine well the work share implications of the deal, and if you seriously attach more importance to keeping a dying line open for a few more years than getting the 2nd large OEM building aircraft on US soil (with the associated benefits that provides to the US aerospace supply chain), then you need your head examined!

Undoubtedly the Draken… the cranked delta is magic.

Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to see an optican! :diablo::p:D

It doesn’t have to. If a Flanker is flying around with its radar emitting at max power, the Gripen will know it’s location before it becomes visible on the Flanker’s radar.

Indeed.

But the exact same principle applies to every other radar in the sky. Thus, passive or offboard sensors are the dominant factor. Lighting up your own radar is tantamount to holding a big radar reflective board out of the cockpit saying “shoot me” on it.

[Please don’t come back with this LPI bull**** that have so many amateurs creaming in their trousers. There have been papers on how to detect that published nearly 20 years ago. If that was in the public domain then, where exactly do you think the various militaries are now?]