Logan Hartkeit won’t change much… if A330F wins, politicians break the decision… if boeing wins, there have to be really illegal stuff to have it cancelled…
the initial demand was already made to favor boieng and A330F passed anyway… boeing had it cancelled (by politicians) and now, the way the RFP is done, it can’t go anywhere else than boeing… had they mark “bidders, we want you to participate for boeing to win” wouldn’t be clearer.
This is just plain untrue, but you can tell yourself this if it makes you feel smarter. Politically, there was actually more support for the original Northrop Grumman proposal, back when the Republicans held more sway in the government. It would have been manufactured in more states, which also equates to more political support.
The whole “US will never buy European” argument doesn’t hold water. Otherwise Eurocopter never would have beaten MD Helicopters and AgustaWestland never would have beaten Sikorsky in those recent competitions.
This was a Northrop Grumman vs Boeing showdown in which the Republican politicians and the USAF leaders at the time (2006-07) favored Northrop Grumman. Unfortunately, the USAF botched the competition mightily, giving Boeing the excuse it needed to protest and the GAO upheld it. The GAO is actually less political than most agencies in D.C., and the issues with the competition were valid.
This had been a Boeing vs Northrop Grumman battle royale. Boeing was top-dog in 2002-03, but NG held more sway 06-07. With the Democrats in power, the old USAF leaders fired, and Murtha (pro-split buy) now dead, the pendulum has swung back to Boeing and I think that the USAF has seen that as the safest option and has drafter the RFP accordingly. Now that Dicks is in line to replace Murtha, Boeing will probably get this and any attempt to overturn the decision will be seen as “unpatriotic”. Right or wrong, this is probably the best for the USAF.
“With one more dollar, I would buy the ink that would fill the pen that would write the law that would make it illegal to protest the next tanker competition.” — Gen. Donald Hoffman, Air Force Materiel Command chief
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeI’d be interested in hearing of examples of a program from any era that did get delivered on budget and time. I think there is always a tendancy to state that things are worse now than previously but i’m not sure that is the reality.
I think there’s a lot of truth to this. Pick up either of Marcelle Size Knaack’s fantastic volumes on USAF Fighter and Bomber programs to read of the massive delays and overruns of the ’50s. Part of the problem is that natural selection didn’t exactly work with humans. Companies that were doing poorly in the 60s and 70s were kept afloat with contracts or the equivalent of bailout money to keep programs and companies afloat. You saw that in the F-105 vs the F-107 and the XF5D vs the XF8U. The winner didn’t win because their plane was better, but because the government was afraid the company would go under if they didn’t win. They’re probably right. Neither Douglas nor North American lasted in the fighter business after that, really.
You read about Republic in the 1950s and you wonder how they made it out of the decade and how the USAF kept buying their planes. Every one of them seemed to be way over budget, under spec, and late. They cost the taxpayer money as if they were made from gold…and had takeoff performance as if they were made from gold, too.
Some, like North American, had a great track record, as did Boeing throughout that time. One is amazed at how cheaply they could build B-52s. B-52Cs were cheaper than F-105Bs built the same year, if I recall correctly.
A lot of modern aircraft with delays (A400M, F-35, J-10, etc) have a lot of powerplant-related issues. That’s been true of major designs since before WWII. We would run out of room in this thread listing every design that’s been hampered by powerplants that didn’t live up to expectations or promises.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeThat IRIS-T photo is neat.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeFrance designed the only aircraft in europe capable of sustained M 2.0 flight even today.
What about the Tu-144?
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeThose are all lovely shots, Andy. Very nice. Thank you very much for posting them and keep them coming.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeCBG vs anti-CBG depends on the scenario. One submarine could wreck an entire CBG if it is lucky. On the other hand, a CBG could suppress the enemy’s sea, air and land targets if it is lucky. Chinese, and especially Russian anti-shipping capability is absolutely nothing easy for a CBG to defend against.
Also – I’d argue that the Kremlin is about 3 times better defended than any CBG 😉
Nonsense. It would have to be an SSBN for one sub to take out a CBG on its own. One very lucky sub might be able to seriously damage as many as four ships including a carrier. You can’t reload tubes more than a couple before escorts would have a torpedo would be on its way. If you’re close enough to get the surprise needed to get the kills, you’ll be ASROCed before you get your third salvo off. Fire the torpedoes from far enough out to give you the chance to get off very many and the escorts and carrier will jet it at 35 knots away from the torpedoes, dropping decoys the whole way. Good luck to the torpedoes.
If it’s an SSGN, then your missiles have to find the ships first, get through the ESSMs, RAMs, chaff, countermeasures, and CIWS before they can hit ships. Last I knew, the Soviets only expected about 1/3 of their missiles to even get through in a standard scenario. That was before ESSM and RAM. That means that an Oscar that managed to fire all 24 of its missiles–assuming no malfunctions and all missiles found their target–you can only assume 8 missiles to even make it through on a very lucky day. Could those 8 trash a carrier group? Possible, if the didn’t fall for any decoys and think an escort to be the carrier and each missile picked a different ship. Again, you’re looking for a lot of luck in a lot of ways.
I think a regiment of Tu-22M3s has about the best chance of anything, especially since a modern CSG isn’t arranged to defend against that anymore. A Backfire regiment is the least likely to achieve surprise, however.
I’m sure you think the Kremlin is far better defended, but so did Sokolov. In number of air defense batteries, I’m sure it’s far better defended. Being stationary is a huge issue, though. Obligatory hit the nail on the head. You can’t run, you can’t hide, you can’t limp away, decoys don’t do anything, and there is little to no CIWS capability.
I’d rather be part of the 509th going after the Kremlin than the 924th going after the USS Harry S. Truman. I’d be betting on Captain Clarkson’s survival over President Medvedev’s, as well.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeThe warhead of the Kingfish missile isn’t all that more than the weight of a 2000lb Mk84 GP bomb, which serve as the warhead of a variety of precision-guided munitions, including the GBU-10 and GBU-24 Paveway laser-guided bombs, GBU-15 electro-optical bomb, GBU-31 JDAM and Quickstrike[2] sea mines
It’s true, but there’s something to be said for inserting that warhead into a ship at Mach 3+. It’s the difference between throwing a hand-grenade at a truck and firing an RPG at the thing.
That being said, I think that killing a carrier is harder to do with missiles than most people appreciate. Furthermore, I think the HMS Illustrious and USS Franklin show that even though bombs and missiles can destroy a carrier’s ability to conduct combat operations, it’s tough to put one under without getting holes below the waterline.
I think your best bet is to get a torpedo or two into it to slow the thing down (which also hurts its ability to launch aircraft, to say nothing of evasion). More importantly, perhaps is the fact that you’ve stopped the escorts, too, slowing everything down. That allows you to attack the group once you have the proper strike force assembled. Alternatively, you can start picking off the escorts, then hit the carrier, since the whole group is effectively slowed down and locked in the engagement zone.
As many have pointed out, however, this is all easier said than done. A carrier group is probably the best-defended potential target on the face of the planet. It is easier to hit the Pentagon or Kremlin, Ft. Knox or the Forbidden City. It has the best protection against anything from bomb-carrying aircraft to ballistic missiles. You hit a carrier and the damage control teams will put forth a Herculean effort to get it under control. Accidents like those on the Forrestal do more to increase carrier survivability than CIWS in the long run.
Even once hit, a carrier is probably the most survivable ship ever floated. Just because it’s not bristling with 16″ gun turrets or missile banks doesn’t mean it’s a supertanker with a flight deck. It’s still designed from the keel up as a warship whose #1 job is to stay afloat. Every US carrier to slip below the waves from the USS Lexington to the USS America has shown the US how to keep them afloat. Look at how much it took to sink the Yamato and Musashi and you get and idea how hard it is to sink a modern steel 70,000 ton warship.
In short, the danger posed to carriers is great, but I still think it’s not up to getting the job done reliably. If I had to bet on carrier group or anti-CBG forces, I think my money would be on the CBG.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeQuadbike, I’ll tell you so nobody else does in a more rash way, since it’s only the millionth time it’s been said in these threads. The “small” part of the “Small Air Forces” is really more a reference to the number of images available representing the air force in question than it is the number of airframes in service.
While the two generally correlate (such as Costa Rican Air Force images), there are cases where the two do not.
One example of such an exception is the Belgian Air Force. While not very large in size, a quick search on Airliners.net shows that you can find dozens of images of practically any airframe in service with the country. For that reason, posting images of Belgian, Dutch, Danish, Canadian, etc. aircraft is generally frowned upon in this thread, despite the relatively small numbers of airframes in service with the respective air arms.
The other type of exception is when a large air arm may be under-represented in publicly-available images. For that reason, images of Syrian, North Korean, and Iranian aircraft (as an example) are all quite welcome on this thread.
I hope that clears it up.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeIts just amazing how dense the fighter population is in such a small region with Egypt, Syria and Israel all having fleets of combat aircraft that are among the 10 largest in the world..
Well, you must remember, these countries are all too aware of how long it takes to destroy ~450 aircraft in modern jet combat (roughly 4 hours, give or take).
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeWell this got ugly fast. Good job to Airbus, whereever their workers may be. The corporate side may not have their act 100% together, but the employees of the company can be proud of the acheivement. It’s a good plane, looks nice, too. A plane in that weight class has been needed for some time in the western world.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeWrong place for this. Stop marring Tango’s wonderful news thread. Can’t anyone mention India or Pakistan without starting a forum flame-war? Go away you two…
Carry on, Tango. Thanks again for this fabulous thread.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeIf I remember correctly, the USAF didn’t want the A-10 either. Seems they have come in very handy the last 8 years or so.
Exactly the same with the C-130J. They were forced upon the Air Force and now they love them.
Do I think the USAF needs more airlifters? Yes. Do I think the C-17 is the airlifter they need? Yes.
Do I think this had more to do with politics than “supporting the troops”? Yes.
Sometimes it’s not an either/or. This might be a case of doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkePerfectly believable if the sub was getting underway or returning to port.
I’ve seen ships and subs get underway from the Mayport, Fl when I used to live in Atlantic Beach.
Absolutely. I thought it was a neat photo, but not in any way unbelievable for me. I live near Jacksonville and I know you can lay out at Fort Clinch beach on Amelia Island and see the SSBNs coming in and going out of King’s Bay, GA VERY close. While a neat sight and a first to many, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal to many people who live in the area and have seen it numerous times before. If it’s similar in Russia, then you could easily get a shot like this.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeThanks much, T J. I should have thought of that. I saw a Swedish DB 8 with the manufacturer’s logo on the tail, though slightly different, and knew what it was, but forgot completely about it.
Thanks again, T J.
Cheers,
Logan
Logan HartkeThanks, JDK. I’m afraid I’ve already tried those two things. I scoured Flightglobal’s Paris 1938 coverage, but to no avail. It did show it with that one wing up, but no mention of color, as you say. I have the Squadron/Signal “In Action” book on the Vindicator–which is great–but it doesn’t give the colors or provide a profile, either.
Finally, I sent an email to Vought heritage group yesterday as well. I will post the reply on this board when I receive it, but nothing so far.
I was hoping with all the expertise on the color of Spitfire crowbars, someone might have information on the demonstration V-156’s basic colors. I know it’s a much more obscure subject, however.
Thanks in advance,
Logan
Sign In
