old shapeThe biggest problem with laser dependent weapons is the range limitations of the laser itself. The beam spreads as it gets further from origin. What was a pencil dot at 10 m is a 50 m wide dot at 10 km. There is also the issue of beam attenuation by atmospheric moisture.
That must be a US system, which explains a lot of stuff.
The 6mm beam should be no more than a metre after 15km high UNLESS as you say there is a lot of moisture in the air.
If it was 50m wide, no SMART would find it, let alone lock it.
The main cause of a beam spread is however an unstable airframe, not unstable for flight, but a vibrating structure makes the designation pod wobble a lot. The most stable airframe (In this sense) ever made is the EE Canberra, it wasn’t built or designed for this purpose of course, just a quirk of design features.
On some modern airframes, the camera or the FLIR/IR in the pod can’t even focus due to inherent vibrations. Obviously, these platforms do not carry the pods!
old shapeThe basic principles are easy to explain, the engineering behind it is far too complex for a forum.
Basically, a moveable structure is built in the wing-box. This structure allows the wings chord line to have a different angle of attack at the tip than it is at the root. This allows the computer to optimise wing shape at a given speed. More importantly, it may be able to get rid of the moveable surfaces such as ailerons. This will be a weight saving too.
Other experiments allowed the structure to thin or thicken the wing in section, allowing even more control.
I think Wilbur and Orville built this sort of wing, they altered the wingtip angles by shifting their backside, which pulled on cables.
Following observations, they copied the birds. Now we are copying the birds…with a computer.
old shapeThe word of the President of the USA ought to be enough.
What? Like “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Sorry, he is a politician. They are trained to lie, and do so that often they forget their own tales.
If you find a good politician, shoot him before he turns bad.
old shapeROFL!!! Easy there I don’t think there’s room on the net for an ego that big.
What ego?
Which bits are you disputing?
old shapeCould an elastic wing like the one tested on a Nasa(?) f 18 used on military aircraft to save weight?
It wasn’t designed to save weight. It was designed to give the best possible aerodynamic wing profile at a given speed. This would aid speed and manouverability. It would also increase fuel efficiency, not because it’s greener to do so, but because mission time is increased.
It would weigh less than the traditional method of doing this…which is the Swing-wing.
old shapeI may sound utterly ignorant here, but surely the UK could somehow ‘hack’ into this so called classified technology. If the classified data is on the aircraft’s systems why can’t we rip it all out and figure out how it all works ourselves?
As I said above, I am probably sounding very ignorant, but the must be some way round the issue….
The fact is that however ‘special’ our relationship is with the US, they will always put the security of their technology information at a far higher priority than bending over backwards just to please the UK.
If we still had a ‘can do’ attitude in this country and (of course) a supportive govt, then we would be designing our own aircraft for our own carriers, and future capability….end of story. Unfortunately…we don’t have the political will to do so.:mad:
We were an nation who could build the finest aircraft in the world……..so let’s get our ar** in gear and start doing that again.
If the yanks don’t play ball…stuff em.:(
Thorny
Thorny, you know your 25 digit licence code for Windows?
The code to get into this sort of S/w fills a CD, and it has been calculated it would take a millenium to crack. So hacking into it is not an option.
old shapeWW2 was a two-way street. We supplied you with a hell of a lot of technology, from aero engine designs through antibiotics (Penicillin was patented in the USA, from the information supplied by the UK) to a big chunk of the Manhattan Project. Sometimes, we sent you all our copies of documents, & you refused to send them back after the war, even searching our blokes when they came home to make sure they had none of the notes they’d arrived in the USA with. In the circumstances, any diversion of US technology was fair payment.
As for F-35 – what part of “broken agreement” is unclear?
You’re so right there!
And, it would be proposterous for an air force to be unable to load it’s weapon of choice. Major upgrades though…that’s a different matter. Always best to send the machine back to it’s prime builder. Upgrades that have been put out to lowest tenders are rarely a success. The F1-11 upgrade carried out at Filton was a good one…can’t immediately think of another.
Back to WW2….
The Miles A/c Company (Coventry UK) was raided for it’s plans on the supersonic jet. Even down to the detachable pilot pod. That a/c, almost a design replica, was built as the X-15. But of course USA broke the sound barrier.
The technology of ICBM’s and Space exploration was given to the US by the German experts of the V1,V2 programme. But of course the USA was first to the moon.
The Harrier design was bought (And it pains me to say improved) into the Harrier II because the US wanted 400+ machines and we needed the mony. Design handover was part of the deal.
Along came JSF, Lockheed/Bae have a joint deal….one which all the intellect of VTOL was drained from Dunsfold, Farnborough and Warton.
Again, we needed the deal. 3,300+ machines, even though it’s only the back end, is a bigger programme than Typhoon.
Selling oput to our closest ally is and always has been part of the “One way reciprocal agreememnts” we have with USA.
At least we all know where the intellect for these projects lies.
Unfortunately, our shortsighted Guvmint prefers to mispend its ill gotten gains than to fully develop the ideas.
At least they keep funding the research, pity we have to sell it to make it work!
old shapeIncident during an acceptance flight
The remaining seven persons had no immediate access to oxygen masks and became temporarily unconscious. All seven have been taken to hospital for treatment or as a precautionary measure. It is expected that five will be released tonight and two will remain overnight for observation..
That is outrageous! An acceptance flight too. Next week that aeroplane will/could be full of pax. Are there 7 passengers that won’t be able to have access?
old shapeNeither Britain, nor Germany, and even not France (although they haven’t realised yet) can afford an aviation industry that covers the whole range from fighter airframes, over engines, avionics and sensors and finally weapons. It would basically work, but it would be rather uneconomical. The next level is either European cooperation where each participating nation has some specialties and some level of authority, or just buy it somewhere else. While I think that buying something is sometimes the right choice, one must be aware that each lost defense contract erodes the base of the home-grown industry. Britain gave perfect example with TSR.2 cancellation and some other disasters. Some nations like the Netherlands have completely lost all competency and now may compete for landing gear door assembly for the F-35.
In case of the A400M the business case works quite well: first it establishes Airbus (=EADS) more firmly on the military market, which will become one leg of it on the long term. Secondly, it introduces some technologies that may be useful for future (wing, engine, avionics). Of course, the workshare is a disaster and delays will surely occur (while show me any American program where they didn’t occur). Most importantly, the A400M represents the airlifter that other nations truly need. Most countries operate C-130s, which are (as some expressed) do not offer the flexibility needed nowadays.
That the Brits stepped out of Airbus and BAe Systems becomes an American company with some British heritage is its own fault.
Para 1. That is not in doubt.
Para 1. Yes TSR 2 was a Government disaster but the technology was used again into the Tornado.
Para 2. My point exactly, the lessons learnt from A400 will be useful on next platform.
Para 3. Exactly, greed rules over common sense/tradition/skill security/Britain.
And of course, with US being the biggest customer to BAE, they don’t mind giving all that away. 3,000 tail ends for the JSF project gives more work to BAE manufacturing than the whole Typhoon incl. the Saudi deal (Which was factored into the sales figs some 10 years ago), for example.
old shapeThe average price sell of a “Juliete” is about $60M?!!!!!
Not by a very, very, very lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNGGG shot…
There´s a HUGE diference between prices quoted by Lock Mart executives and the real pay check that the client´s, at least the foreign ones, have been signing.
Just look at the Norwegian, Canadian, Italian, Denmark, “whatever” deals…
When i saw the Canadian C-130 J program costs, i couldn´t believe my eyes, 2.85 Billion US$ for 17 planes, AND another 1,51 Billion US$ for suport and spares.
Looking at these numbers, the A400M starts to look as a very “economical” plane.
You are quoting the costs of the deal. This will include an initial spares supply, an element of spares and service support beyond warranty and Gawd knows what equipment. I quote the cost of a flying airframe, to keep apples with apples. My figures exclude the massive ramifications of the platforms intended mission….Bomb truck, Ambulance, grunt dropper, tank/AFV transporter, mail van. All will cost different beyond the basic airframe.
old shapeLike many defence programs the A400M enables the manufacturer to gain experience in technology and getting paid for it. That is how Boeing became one the leading manufacturers. Promoting that we spent our tax payer money for outdated American hardware doesn’t seem to be very promsing. That is how the British government made its aviation industry from the second in the world to middle field.
…as per my Typhoon comment somewhere above.
And just because we don’t keep rolling out super futuristic stealth craft, don’t put us down in middle field. We are still streets ahead in many areas…….where we fall is as you say, a government (Note 1) that prefers to spend on other things and so we “Share” our technology with USA….and somewhere between the two it’s sold to Israel for a bung.
(Note 1…Nothing against Labour, I’m against all Politicians from whatever corner/country/colour)
old shapeWhich I presume is why airlines, operating on razor-thin margins, are all clamouring for carbon fibre structures. If you’re right, a Boeing 787 should cost 5 times as much to make as an equivalent aluminium airliner, just because of being 50% composite.
You’re not convincing me.
Airlines are paying a little more for the CFRP product, the weight saving enables them to burn less fuel and squeeze more seats in, much to the discomfort af anybody with an inside leg measurement exceeding 22 inches.
A sqm of 16’s guage Ally qqa250 is about $38
To get the same component strength needs 4 lams of carbon at around $42 per sqm. Plus core, say 3lb density paper Honeycomb, at about the same per sqm 25mm thick. Then a layer of Tedlar to keep the moisture out from the inside.
To make a double curvature component, say the belly skin from under the nose section will take about 4-5 hours out of ally, 28-35 hours out of carbon……..and that excludes any cure time which is counted as dead time, in the overhead.
An invar mould for the Carbon is about the same as the press tools for the ally.
As the worlds A/c manufacturers swith to carbon, the supply/demand curves will bring the price of the cloth down……and by reverse take the price of the ally up. And one day somebody will make a machine that can lay cloth over the top of cores and other features of an A/c part….which presently can only be done by hand. There are some machines that can lay a feature, but they are slower than a 1960’s robot. Flat laying is OK though, and speed is increasing all the time.
Boeing will be self investing millions into the technology of the 787, seedcorn costs ready for the next platform. They’ve already had to scrap one set of mandrel tools as they were far too heavy and wouldn’t slow down quick enough on the machine. It is critical that Boeing beat the A400 into the air, to be the first airborne with the majority of class 1 structural components made from CFRP. It will do. It will certainly beat the A350 by years, which may be a bonus for Airbus because faults may be found…..we are all at the top of the learning curve with class 1 structures on large a/c. One suspects there will be losses.
Yes the stress calcs say it’s OK, the FEM and all the other tools say it’s OK….but not when it gets close to the envelope.
CFRP has allegedly got a longer life than ally, one cost saving being put into the calcs is less inspection during services. Can you smell the future here?
CFRP is about as fireproof as ally, more so if you line it with yet another expensive material like Kevlar. The carbon fibres are of course much more fire resistant, the the resin that binds them is not. A fire will leave a heap of black powder with wingtips and a fin sticking out.
It used to take a/c producers about 150 A/c before the breakeven point was reached on an ally build. CFRP is much further to the right than that, and Waaaaaaaaaay beyond the 192 A400’s. The industry is awaiting for the magic robot as discussed above, or a third world country that does the job for $20 an hour and yet still achieves quality. Then we’ll all go to him, and supply demand puts his rates up to $60 an hour…..for same “Just about acceptable” quality.
old shapeTen times the manufacturing cost of a C-130J? 4 times the sale price (false, the prices of both are a matter of public record).
You’re extracting the urine, mate. If you aren’t going to be serious, don’t expect to be taken seriously.
At least ten in some areas. Carbon fibre manufacture is still in its infancy for class 1 aerostructures, and all those parts are at least 10 fold cheaper to make from ally. And that does not include the true cost of purchasing/running/servicing the large autoclaves required for the parts.
The average sell price of a herc 130J is about $60M, the cheapest A400 will be $136M. Totally dependant on fit and purpose of course. When the true cost finally dawns on Airbus Military, the sell price will have to rise, and the participating Governments will agree, because it’s too late to quit now.
The whole life cost, which is a far superior measure of “Sell” is still being calculated, especially now the parts have turned out to be far more complicated. The Governments launching the project were fed the WLC figures from when it was still called the FLA, and boy is it a different animal now. As I stated earlier, even the fasteners are at about 460% more expensive, and some of those are sacrificed in a deep strip. The Quick release fasteners on access panels run at around $80 per HOLE. These are supposed to last A/c life but in fact last about 100 openings……in controlled safe conditions…not field. The same function QR in an ally access panel in a commercial airliner is about $12 to $25 per hole.
The whole life cost will be at least twice that of the forecast.
But, the customer gets a bigger ship with 100 knots more speed. And a lot of jobs secured…..do not enderestimate this powerful factor. Typhoon is a prime example of not cancelling a project because it was far too important for the nations workforce and skill retention. I’m not denying that’s a fabulous platform, probably the best in the world.
old shapeNo wonder it took Chuck Yeager so long to break it then
Groan!!!!!
good one, actually.
old shapeNo, I have no particular affection for it. But neither do I consider it a heap of junk & the worst of all possible worlds.
Neither do I hold a brief for the Airbus management, but I can’t let clearly false statements go by unchallenged.
The shift of leadership to CASA from Toulouse & replacement of a head who’d only ever worked on civilian projects by someone with military experience, who resigned within a year, suggests that a lot of things were going wrong early on. It also suggests that Airbus & EADS realised that & did something to address it.
The delay in launching it (politics . . . ), using it as a platform for technology development (I don’t disagree with you there) – these look to me to be mistakes. But the answer, as you have, at last, acknowledged, is not the C-130. The A400M is at least about the right size, whatever its other failings.
As for your prices – are you suggesting that Airbus expects to make a huge loss on building A400M, as well as overrunning on development? If it costs 4 times as much as a C-130J to build, they’ll be selling each one at maybe 50-60% of cost.
BTW – what military transports do you see being bought in the future? C-17? Il-76? C-390? C-X? C-390? MTA?
4 times the sell price……it must be near 10 times the cost. The point being that Airbus are presently fat n happy because the contracts were let on stupidly low prices (Forced that way). Now that the design has changed so much (Even the blummin fasteners are min 460% more expensive than initially advised!!) the 3rd 4th line supply are overspending to a magnificent amount. And Airbus are not interested. Principally because they are often refusing to acknowledge that the design/weight increase is their fault. This is because they set a weight target which could not be met and refused to sign off at C schemes. I could go on but you know enough about the Aero/Def industry to know how it works.
Future sales? I quitle like the Embraer C-390, Embraer have good previous on making a satisfactory product using the cheapest production methods therefore achieving sensible prices to sell at and a relatively risk-free manufacturing plan.
As for propped platforms, not sure. C-27 (Too small for the above topic) order book is finally increasing.
Personally, I believe we need a decent bomb truck. If the past few skirmish’s are a benchmark, we take out the “Military” on night one with a bomb truck laden with SMARTS………..then send in the troops to sort out the civilians. (Obviously a touch of cynicism here!)
The A400M Bomb truck….now there’s a thought. I’ve heard tales of free fall weapons being launched out of the back of a Herc. Not sure who’s Forces it was, don’t think it was US or UK.
Sign In
