Amiga500The fault can no longer be corrected. The utilisation rates are way higher than predicted, the replacement projects are taking longer and are more costly, the only think on schedule is the refusal to take in new legacy airplanes to keep the fleet from getting too old. Only hard cuts can give the Air Force the budget flexibility need to modernize.
Therefore they need to cut hard.
Your dead right – but no chance of it happening.
The big mistakes started in the 90s and they have only snowballed since then.
What should have happened:
F-14/15C/15E replacement => Should have been the ATF with proper AG capabilities.
F-16/18 replacement => Something akin to the Gripen with a CTOL carrier variant – a hard focus on overall costs. Its not the “first day” fighter, there is no “first day” fighter, the first day is a cloud of cruise missiles. Quit kidding themselves otherwise. This should have been the JSF.
C-5 replacement => The 747-8F should have been done in conjunction with Boeing.
C-130 => New build C-130Js and C-27s*. Threaten Lockheed with the Embraer KC-390 alternative to get their sh!t in order.
Harrier => Harrier new builds with updated avionics and engines. If the marines want to operate fast jets off LHDs, fine – but they shouldn’t expect to f**k over the other services for the privilege.
*Make the Army have control of “last-mile” airlift with the C-27s. Sack any USAF official that protests. If they continue protesting, throw them in jail. Its a complete crime against the infantrymen and the families of deceased infantry that the USAF has been allowed to get away with JCA.
Now? Well. Your stuck with the F-22 and JSF as they are – unsuited to the needs of the forces. The 747-8F probably doesn’t have the floor beams for military loads so an efficient C-5 replacement is out. The finances have already been committed to the harrier replacement and that program is way over-budget and continues to bleed cash. The Army don’t have the balls to call the USAF out on JCA and congress don’t have the brains to spot the disconnect.
Amiga500Evidence that executives in general have at times the mental faculties of a 5 year old.
What does this rebrand accomplish? About all I can see is it will remove mention of Europe from the parent company name. Which of course is relevant only to the extremely stupid who would only then think its a wholly European company. Rather than anyone relevant to the industry that will know it is a European based holding with multi-ternational offices and suppliers.
Do they think they would actually have won the tanker contract with this rebrand?
Why is Airbus Military being renamed to Airbus Defence & Space? Did they come up with that one on their crayon pad. Why not retain the recognised Airbus Military and have a new division; Airbus Space?
What is wrong with Eurocopter? Last time I looked they had significant penetration into pretty much all worldwide markets.
This whole thing stinks of there being too many managers/executives/PR “gurus” with too much time on their hands. The solution to that is not a rebrand to keep them busy – it is getting rid of them.
Amiga500That plane deserves a better nickname, even if its just for this forum..
What is wrong with fullback?!?
Where I’m from, the fullback is one of two lynchpins in the defense (from a gaelic/hurling sporting context). Usually someone strong, tough and uncompromising. To me that description fits the Su-34 pretty well.
I’ll not be changing its nickname as far as I am concerned.
Amiga500You are describing the EADS CASA FITS, they have been selling them for more than a decade.
Ah. Whoops!
Someone had the same thought only about 20 years ago! :highly_amused:
[If I worked for Apple, I’d probably try to sue EADS right about now :dev2:]
edit: This only adds more weight to my thoughts over what should have happened those responsible for deciding to go ahead with MRA4. Sacked, possibly even time in jail. For far too long have utterly inept civil servants been allowed to get away with financial murder, which is itself due in no small part to them having absolutely no fear of recourse.
Amiga500The picture of the “study” of”J-20AH” versus “J-20BH” clearly shows the BH version can fold its wings.
True – the pic does show that.
Good luck to them if they actually try to build an aircraft that does it.
Landing gear may be an issue but Su-33 has its MLG rather forward too. It’s not impossible to suggest they may shift the gear rear wards a little. Who knows. Certainly an interesting concept and apparently CAC is in the PLANs good books for the 5th gen naval fighter, we might see a naval J-20 come to fruition
I would have thought the J-31 a more obvious fit…
Amiga500Alledgedly J20 variants for PLANAF, so…
I’m unconvinced the aerodynamic benefit of forward sweeping the outer wing would outweigh the negative impact of being unable to fold the wings.
Also, the J-20’s main landing gear is too far forward/too short to be ideal as a carrierborne aircraft.
Amiga500Alas, things are a bit morecomplicated. MPA are complete and coherent weapon systems (and highly sophisticated ones). You just dont pick an airframe and put electronics inside…
And that I think is the crux of the problem. The first bunch that try to get away from a full custom airframe to a modular solution will be milking the market.
Airbus are probably in the best position to capitalise on this; they have the C-235, C-295 and A-400M, so can tailor the product to a number of airframes. I don’t think anyone else has the same wide range of airframes to offer.
Its kinda daft that military transports don’t have inherent pylon capacity with conjugate to the cargo bay for wiring, both on the fuselage and underwing. Sensor pods, weapons carriage etc could then be added at the user’s discretion depending on their needs.
Don’t try and integrate the modular gear to the aircraft – keep it as two separate systems so certification isn’t affected and the tactical gear does not need to be DAL coded.
Amiga500Could you chaps be so kind and move the non Rafale related discussions eslewhere!!? Thank you!
It was just shooting down JSRs argument of the Rafale somehow being an IR beacon relative to other fighters. Rafale related, but using another aircraft as the example.
Amiga500Re Boiling fuel in the F22 & other stealth
Its a An exaggeration fuel would not be heated up to boiling, nor is using fuel as a heat exchanger revolutionary, I suspect that the temperature changes would be a few degrees.
The fuel isn’t the only heat sink used in the F-22. In fact, its more a transport medium than a heat sink. There is a fuel:air HX on the upper spine of the aircraft.
The 3 darkened grids on the back, one is a blow off for excess air in the engine intakes, the other is vent for the gun and the 3rd is the HX vent. I can’t remember which is which and couldn’t be bothered digging to find out. I think the one on the far side is the gun (ok, pretty sure on that one), the central one is the engine intake blow-off (maybe) and the right one is the fuel:air HX vent (maybe).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg
edit: JSR, also note the burning fuel region of the afterburner – common to all afterburning fighters at full throttle you pillock!
Amiga500Both the F-22 and the F-35 use extensive composite and ceramic (Heat-resistant ceramic-matrix RAM iirc ) around the exhaust and surrounding structures (Engine Nacelles etc) in addition to other designed ways to cool the aircraft down.
The ceramics are there to protect the structure from thermal stress or fatigue, that does not equate to cooling the aircraft down [although, I suppose if you say it avoids warming the aircraft up you might consider it as the same thing].
But of course, by keeping the airframe cool and channeling the heat out by containing it within the exhaust plume, you do reduce the prominence of your IR spectrum. [i.e., restricted to aft end only, having your vertical stabilisers and to a lesser extent the elevators somewhat shielding the peak temperature zone of the exhaust will help too, but not very much.]
You are entirely correct in that the F-22 (and prob the F-35 too) do have advanced cooling techniques focused on the radar and leading edge surfaces. But not the nozzles. They are designed for reduced radar signature [that is from a cast-iron solid source].
Amiga500Agreed. On the other hand, I imagine you don´t need an all singing, all dancing radar to provide a ground attack capability in undefended territory such as Afghanistan or the next Madinterventionstan that comes up.
If there are likely to be scenarios over the lifetime of Typhoon where 20%/30%/40%/50% of combat missions flown would be ground attack, I would think it worth doing one´s maths and considering an alternative. Low cost radar/ targeting system/ munitions might be far cheaper than using Typhoon.
Hmm, I think what your suggesting would be better implemented by different equipment modes. Akin to the M88-4E being tuned for increased service intervals. Snecma did offer the AdlaA a performance version; where the improvements would focus on more thrust rather than serviceability.
But, it would all have to come out the back end of a study examining exactly where the costs of operation originate from, then consider what could be done to reduce them for a baseline airframe in a given mission. The overall effectiveness (both cost and actual military effectiveness) of that would then need to be compared to a bespoke solution for the same mission.
Amiga500If you run a trucking company you don´t buy 100 44 ton capacity trucks when you only need that 44 ton capacity some of the time. You buy a mix of 100 high capacity and low capacity trucks. You would otherwise be commiting financial suicide.
But the design costs for a truck are not near the same proportion of the overall cost as the design costs for a combat aircraft.
Amiga500but the lightweight material that will allow you to carry your H2 and keep it cool on long distance at sub orbital height still does not exist.
Boeing recently demonstrated successful use of carbon-composite based cryogenic chambers.
But, aside from that; the point is irrelevant or rather, misguided. With the lift at lower altitudes coming from aerodynamics rather than directly from the engines, the weight sensitivity of the vehicle is reduced – spectacularly.
Amiga500Meh.
SCRAMjets are yesterdays news.
The SABRE engine is tomorrow’s news.
Amiga500Wonder what you think about that Song Wencong paper about the J-20’s basic design principles…
It was good… If you were designing something in the late 1970s.
edit: Thats a little harsh. Maybe if you were designing something in the 1980s.
The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.
Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* – I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22.
note for the TeamAmerica bunch – this is aerodynamics discussion only.
Sign In
