Is it conceivable that before they can be safely deployed a covert stealth type reconnaissance aircraft would be required to provide up to date real time intel to strike assets such as F-117 and B-2.

Erm… how do you get the signal back without broadcasting location?

Anywayz, I think the whole idea of net-centric warfare is every platform contributes to and takes from the one big picture.

ooohhh – there are so many things here. I’m not even going to pretend to try and answer the question, just throw up a few thoughts.

OK, of course we’d have to assume no use of nuclear weapons – but it may have been NATO doctrine to blow the bridges across the elbe with tactical nukes… what happens there then?

Probably the reason the east german army weren’t told much about +24hrs in is because they would have ceased to exist as functional combat units after then.

As for using the middle east as a comparison to a tank war in europe – nope, not happening. Long ranged engagements were possible, in europe, that would not have been the case. It would have been close up and dirty.

There are certain elements of Soviet doctrine that was better than NATO – for instance aircraft loadouts. What is the point in carrying 4 SARH missiles in WW3? You’ll at best get the chance to shoot 2 off… your wasting 2 pylons and carrying excess weight. The use of artillery within the Soviet army was something that was not as widespread within NATO, they would have needed their CAS aircraft to perform deeper missions behind Soviet lines to achieve the same effect…

And now imagine 10 of those on one table, needing to agree on one joined requirement. Sounds impossible, actually it often was. I still wonder how they figured out the Eurofighter and the Tornado and still came along with a reasonable aircraft. In the US the Navy and the Air Force are unable to agree on one aircraft.

Not really all that hard IMO – the key thing is – if the table is big enough, you don’t necessarily have to fix yourself to one final solution… 2 may be feasible.

If they designed in flexibility from the start (you want range? you sacrifice internal payload etc) alot of current aircraft would be so much better.

Its utterly stupid that you constantly see Rafales, Hornets, EFTs etc running around with an almost welded on centreline drop tank – why the fook was that not designed into the airframe? :confused:

I think they could have launched the A400M ten years earlier. It is the most urgent program in Europe.

😀

That would require clear planning ahead.

According to wikipedia, (ok ok, I know – but I have seen that figure on other sites) the record rate of climb is 325 m/s for the Su-27 (P-42).

However, that was a stripped out aircraft fitted with non-standard engines and optimised for taking that (and other) records.

Comparing a one off to what is actual service standard aircraft is not really fair 🙂

until in the near future oil prices stabilize a bit(they won’t get back to 30 bucks, but 70 USD is possible).

You think they will stabilise? (and actually come back down in price?)

Any particular reasons? 🙂

My reasoning is such:
My plane ticket is 100 USD.
Using the presentation (thanks for that) I pay 17 USD for fuel.
Now fuel price increases to 38 USD.
I pay a total of 121 USD for the flight.
That is a 21% increase. That is a lot, but it is not unaffordable.

To be honest, most trips I do, I would accept it. I would pay for it. Now, I am not representative. But I think most people would afford it because they give priority to their air travel.

Correct. However, consider say a family of 4 going on a holiday.

400 USD versus 484 USD – thats getting on for a 100 dollar rise.

Businesses will still pay to fly*, but families etc may not be able to afford it.

* Improved conferencing technology may affect that in the future.

A little problem is that many other cost reserves have already been exploited by the airlines. Before 2001 booking via internet wasn’t common, load factors were low and many old aircraft were flying around. Today you hardly find anything older than a B767 at primary airlines (B747 classic, A300/310, DC10, L1011 all gone). Some older types on short routes where fuel costs are less important. Next wave will be B767 and B747-400 I guess, maybe even some A340.

Last resort is higher load factors, more hubbing. We’ll see.

Very true – airlines have been forced to become much more efficient now. There was an article on the bbc the other day about the fuel price pressure forcing United to ground aircraft. Here is cnn on it.

More worryingly, there have been rumours that airlines have been cutting down on the reserve allocation (below legal limits) to save a bit.

Since the early 1980s the economic growth has maore and more decoupled from energy consumption. Anyways, productivity and energy consumption are not coupled any more, and will decouple even further.

Yes, I accept what your saying, after a certain point is reached.

But if your going from a mud hut to a house (with electric) more power is gonna be used pretty much by default.

The oil price makes some considerable percentage of the airfare, but it doesn’t dramatically rise it.

I disagree with that (sort of) – a small change in oil price won’t result in massive increases in fare price. But with the kind of oil price changes we are seeing, its definitely having a large effect on the DOC.

See Airbus data here on pg 5 & 6 ***warning pd*******