Spaceflight? Launch costs have reduced over time in real terms (& a lot of the time, e.g. during the 1990s, in cash terms), not increased.

Because they are by-and-by large launching the same (or very iterative) rockets. All design costs have well and truly been sunk and any (detail) changes now are for manufacturing efficiency.

Cost of putting a data transmission channel of X capacity into any orbit you care to name has been rapidly declining for many years. What do you say is more expensive?

If you examine satellite bandwidth/kg, you’d see it has come down.

I also know of few space programs that focus on hoisting only data satellites into earth orbit.

Infrastructure? Real costs of infrastructure have gone up, true – but what does that have to do with advanced technology costs?

Directly, they are not in themselves advanced technology, although many use advanced engineering skills and tools in their design.

The determining factor is labour costs in construction. Incomes have risen, & labour productivity in building & installation of infrastructure has lagged, leading to an increase in its relative cost.

Locomotives & carriages? If they’re advanced technology, then so are many of the products of the automotive industry. One big difference is that being built in relatively small numbers, production of locomotives et al is far less automated than the making of cars, vans, lorries etc., & thus, again, labour productivity has fallen behind.

So… F-22 vs. F-100.

The design costs have risen how much from then to now?

Not an unfair comparison.

There is one within some hundred km/miles distance always. Just for the last leg into that very area you are in need of the STOL capability. Even the C-17 is weight limited for that very STOL capability in demand. Maybe you have a specific example in mind to bolster your claim about the other 10% risk?!

There would also be the question of speed Sens – if the sh!t hits the fan, usually the Army will want to get there yesterday – setting up a dual stage logistical chain would be something they’d prefer not to do.

Obviously, if available, they’ll use it – but in their mind it would be irresponsible not to equip for worst case scenario.

I’ve cited a case where the requirement called for an extreme improvement in a particular area, & that was achieved – twice – but at the cost of worse performance in another area, & little or no improvement in others. Is that a ‘corner case’? It’s a real-life example of a real-life military requirement, on which billions were spent.

You made an extreme claim. That justifies citing extreme cases.

I did not make an extreme claim. It may appear as an extreme claim if you do not understand how the requirements for such aircraft are drawn up.

Nope. Lots of things are much, much cheaper. I’ve spent most of my working life in IT & telecoms, & just about every piece of kit is a tiny fraction of the inflation-adjusted price of its 1950s equivalent. That’s why the consumer price is low Switching gear? Stupid cheap compared to when I entered the business in the 1980s, let alone the 1950s. Same for almost everything else. Look at the price of commercial vans now compared to the 1950s. And don’t say they’re not technologically advanced: think about the control systems.

Ahem.

Also; compare pretty much any non-consumer technologically advanced product from now to 1950s and the price will have risen. Additional complexity requires additional upfront R&D which is not compensated for by reduced manufacturing costs.

The control systems of a van are not even slightly complex. There is not millions of lines of safety critical software code and triple or quadruple control redundancy required! That is where cost spirals.

No, it demonstrates the inherent absurdity of the “after 50 years of technology improvement every performance measure must be better or you’re doing it wrong” argument.

Whenever you are comparing two aircraft which are supposed to do pretty much the exact same job – then yes – pretty much every important performance parameter should improve.

But if one wanted an extreme improvement in one area, then something else would have to give. You can’t counter that argument, & I note that you haven’t even tried.

Because it is absurd! Your arguing like a theoretical academic trying to prove liquid can flow uphill*, when in engineering reality, no-one would ever want to do it for the application here.

*it can.

You can start to pick silly corner cases all day – fact is – if the A400M couldn’t better the Belfast in every useful statistic it would be an unmitigated disaster.

Same as the 787 not bettering the 707 in any useful yardstick.

Also; compare pretty much any non-consumer technologically advanced product from now to 1950s and the price will have risen. Additional complexity requires additional upfront R&D which is not compensated for by reduced manufacturing costs.

Depends on how you choose to apply the improvements that new technology allows.

Sorry, no.

In 50 years of technological advances, you don’t have to compromise any areas to get an across the board improvement in performance.

If the Shorts Belfast was 15 years old, then yes, a compromise might be necessary to focus on certain areas. But its 50 years old, not 15.

They are getting A380s, but do not expect them to buy 50 of them to replace their 747s one to one.

I’m not expecting a 1 to 1 replacement right now.

I’m expecting increased pressure on ground ops to result in more A380s 15 years from now.

Not a new trend…….the industry has been moving away from large airplanes for years, thus Boeing’s forecast that investment in an all-new large plane was not justified by return on investment, and this also explains why the A380 will never obtain a positive ROI, and why 748 sales are so slow.

I see that market starting to rebound over the next 15-20 years.

The driver will be lack of runway slots. The airlines will be forced to carry 500 passengers in one slot than 550 in 2.

However, airlines haven’t mind buying regional aircraft from new/smaller firms.

ATR/Bombardier/Embraer?

I wouldn’t call any of them new or small….

The Chinese regional jets/turboprops haven’t seen much of an uptake outside of countries within the local Chinese sphere of influence.