Amiga500picture from of another site, but it appears that they haven’t got the Dreamliner 787 logo/name anywhere on there aircraft, is this the only airline not willing to advertise this?
Despite all the Boeing hype… it is just another aircraft.
In 30 years time, there will be something better. [Airbus would argue that in 3 years time there will be something better.]
Amiga500Why are we suggesting weapons bays for F-14’s now?
We aren’t. Well, I am not!
I would consider it only if it could be found to offer a very useful drag reduction… even then, it would have to be substantial to offset the added weight and (otherwise unnecessary) complexity.
Could the F-14 have its frontal RCS reduced substantially with some easy-fit changes… I’m not sure you could make enough changes to matter. But, in its prime role as fleet defence fighter/interceptor, hiding is not an option anyway.
Amiga500The problem with hypotheticals is that we always have the temptation to UP the capability of one Fighter while leaving the other static 🙂 , So if the F-14 gets 5th gen gear, why can’t the F-22 receive 5.5 – 6th gen upgrade 🙂
What retrofit gear can the F-22 get besides VLO that a large legacy frame cannot?
The engines would fit – indeed they are quite a good fit. The Tomcat frame is more than large enough to take all the electronics. Yes, you will never get the low RCS figures, but so.
Amiga500So: who would win? Could the F-14 detect the F-22 and fire before the F-22 could fire at the F-14? Could the VG offset the F-22 advantages? I read nothing about, but it would be interesting.
Could an F-14A (or even D) mix it with the F-22? Nope. Even if the AN/AAS-42 detected the F-22 far out, the Phoenix wouldn’t be able to track it to hit it.
Could an F-14 updated with F119s, integrated tracking systems taking feeds off an AESA radar (in that big nose), modern IRST, RWR, offboards and carrying updated AIM54s and AIM-120-C7 effectively defend a carrier fleet from F-22 intrusion. I would say yes*. Could F-18s or F-35s do the same? I would say no.
*note – this is not the same as saying it could go toe-to-toe in all scenarios and have anything like parity.
Amiga500When it comes to missiles there is a slight performance gap that widens even more with the Meteor (in favor of the western systems). But having that as the sole advantage over the Russians is a risky strategy. And we know that Pak FA will be able to carry longer range missiles than both the F22 and F35 because of the larger and longer internal bays.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/vympel-launches-r-77-ramjet-from-su-27-21749/
5 Jul 1995
Douglas Barrie/LONDON
RUSSIAN MISSILE manufacturer Vympel says that it has carried out air-launch tests of a ramjet-powered variant of the R-77 (AA-12 Adder).
The tests were performed from the air force’s Ahktubinsk test centre using a Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker as the launch aircraft, according to Vympel. Five launches were carried out successfully.
Vympel unveiled a rocket/ramjet-powered design based around the R-77 in Moscow in 1993, although static ground-launch tests had only then been carried out on the ramjet-powered derivative.
A rocket/ramjet R-77 offers advantages compared with the basic solid-propellant version of the weapon, particularly in terms of range and speed.
Vympel says that the Russian air force is interested in the ramjet-powered variant, although funding issues remain a concern.
The missile company has also unveiled a variant of the R-77 which appears to be optimised for internal carriage with fully folding lattice rear fins.
The missile was on display during the Paris air show. Previous R-77s shown on aircraft had the lattice wings bolted into position. Mikoyan’s 1.42 fifth-generation fighter programme may carry its primary air-to-air arsenal internally.
The R-77 is now in service with Russian air force Su-27 and Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter units.
The active-radar-guided R-77 is the replacement for the semi-active Vympel R-27 (AA-10 Alamo), which now forms the backbone of the air force’s beyond-visual-range missile inventory.
The design house has also been working on an active-radar variant of the R-27.
1995. That is an awful long time from test for there to have been no advancement down the line. Might be wishful thinking to assume that there is no R-77M1 which may be comparable to Meteor in range (if maybe not in guidance and ECCM).
Amiga500Well, there is another solution to the heathrow issue.
Full on dedicated high speed subway links between Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton & Stanstead.
But, as per usual, the cost of doing something right will be deemed too high…
Amiga500Not sure what you mean by “diluted”. If you mean less concentrated in the south east, which parts of the economy? If you mean the service/financial sector that predominates in and around the capital and whether you like it or not the capital cities of ALL countries tend to be the focal points.
Now seriously. Did you post that out of an assumption or after stopping and considering things. The UK has the most unbalanced internal economy of any developed country.
The UK has one stock exchange location – London. They closed the Glasgow stock exchange during the 70s. D’oh. Talks of re-opening it – but I would expect with the devolution/independence thing in Scotland that’ll be knocked on the head for as long as possible.
Germany has 7 locations.
The US has 8.
Japan has 3-4.
Now, stock exchanges aside… why are insurance companies tending to centralised there? Or legal entities…? Or private finance? They aren’t sensitive to the ‘net latency difference that stock trade houses would be. Its ‘cos the infrastructure around the rest of the country is poor..
The Olympics should never have been in London – it was a great chance to develop another area of the country and spread the economy out a bit. But instead (as usual for politicians), they screwed the decision.
In terms of GDP for the G8.
London/UK = 752/2430 (31%)
Washington/USA = 415/14990 (3%) [NewYork/USA = 1210/14990 (8%)]
Berlin/Germany = 144/3600 (4%)
Paris/France = 670/2775 (24%)
Tokyo/Japan = 1520/5870 (26%)
Moscow/Russia = 520/1860 (28%)
Rome/Italy = 168/2200 (8%)
Montreal/Canada = 143/1740 (8%) [I know Ottawa is the capital, but Montreal is the economic capital]
So the UK has its economy more centralised than even Russia… whose communications and infrastructure outside Moscow is notoriously poor… or Japan, who for geographic reasons have little choice but their East Coast, particularly around Osaka, Nagoya, Tokyo and Sendai… with Sendai not being favourable due to direct exposure to the Pacific.
Amiga500We’re not talking marketing, but cold hard numbers gleaned from the test flight program and in service data.
Are you privvy to those numbers?
Because I am certainly not. [And I am in the industry.]
The only numbers I have seen are on press releases = marketing.
Amiga500To be really honest about it – the economy needs to be diluted – its far too concentrated in the South-East. There are loads of airports around the country well able to cope with increased traffic.
But the UK government are NEVER going to grasp that particular nettle very hard.
Amiga500What is the financial impact of having 2 engines nowadays?
2x the number of engine parts that wear out.
~1.5x the number of fuel system parts that wear out.
2x the number of engine parts to break.
~1.5x the number of fuel system parts to break.
2x the number of engine parts that need inspection.
~1.5x the number of fuel system parts that need inspection.
As well as fuel consumption.
Although, there are a few areas where 2-engined fighters are more cost efficient than single-engined – you lose less airframes due to engine failure for instance.
If you intend on operating from rougher fields with a less intensive maintenance schedule – then yes, balance would start to shift towards a 2-engined fighter (pretty much the only show in town is the MiG-29). Otherwise, the MRO costs of the single engine airframe make it a no-brainer. As usual, there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong, every country has its own operating environment to consider.
Amiga500Also, just because the engines are painted blue, it does not mean it’s keeping to the laminar flow. I did state that BA might be forgoing the percentage in fuel savings for the sake of keeping the fleet branded correctly.
Can’t see it myself.
Given the numbers they are talking*, it will have paid BA to get the paint developed.
*However, all marketing numbers involving laminar flow should be taken with several tubs of salt.
Amiga500why doesn’t BA take the opportunity to design a fresh livery to go with its new B787 and A380 aircraft?
Because the aircraft look ok as they are.
Nothing more irritating than folks looking change for the sake of change.
[Also; having the paint in 2 colours =/= having the paint in many colours]
Amiga500Should Mig or Sukhoi look to build a single engine multi role jet using radars engines and avionics already in production to keep costs down something like a F-16 – J-10 a better JF-17 with a view to supporting Russian aliened air forces as a lot of them are now looking to replace they Mig-21’s and 23’s
Can they afford a $40 million aircraft?
If they can only afford <$20 million aircraft, then what would a new frame do better than a re-fitted MiG-21/M2000/F-16/F-5?
Amiga500The committee says it is not convinced by that argument and suggests growing demand could be met if better use was made of existing airports and passengers were able to fly in larger “hub buster” planes such as the new Airbus 380.
Might be worthy of note.
Its where I have long thought the A380’s eventual market will be.
Amiga500and will these have seat back tv screens? i would not want to do across the pond flights without
its the 21st century!!!!
Yep – its gonna have Fr. Ted on loop. 😎
Sign In
