ATD-X looks like a scaled down F-15 for some odd reason. It just doesn’t look like a clean slate approach.

Dry docks aren’t for storage, they’re for building or repairing ships, & they have to be paid for. There aren’t vast numbers of them sitting around spare, available for free. That’s why ships are mostly stored afloat.

You’re confusing mobile dry docks with the land based type perhaps? Its low tech and they are not relatively expensive to build.

Those fragile machines without armor and self-sealing tanks did a pretty good job of dominating early on on the war. In the hands of experienced pilots, they were deadly.

The excuses for losing soon expanded beyond just lacking armor and self-sealing tanks. They were out gunned, lacked raw performance at altitude, lost numerical superiority in the skies, and no longer held any maneuver advantages where the majority of combat was being held. The superchargers on allied aircraft proved an impossible barrier to overcome. Let’s not forget that Americans advanced with radar technology much quicker than the Japanese, too. By the end of the war those once deadly and nimble machines were so outclassed it was a literal turkey shoot. They won early with maneuver and surprise, they lost late with lack of progress.

Everything on the Tornado was engineered for a life expactancy for the airframe of between 4,000 and 4,500 flight hours. With so many parts on the plane wearing out it pretty well eliminates it from the running. The UK, like every other Western power, has a labor problem. Socialism has basically swallowed up the productivity of western laborers. The old economy was quid quo pro. The west has tried to compete against the overpopulated East in global markets and had it’s head handed to it. It’s too expensive for them to afford themselves now. Twenty years ago they would have gutted the Tornado and refurbished it for a new mission. Nowadays it’s cheaper to build disposeable. The Soviets had it right 75 years ago apparently. They were just ahead of their time.

So hypothetically would you say the size/weight/sophistication of a revamped Northrop F-20(C?) Tigershark – with 2 x 20mm cannon, two Aim-9X and two Aim-120`s? Or would you go for something the size/weight/sophistication of the likes of the Aviation Technology Group Javelin – with a 20mm cannon and two-four Aim-9X`s ?
Very interested to know what you think MadRat!!

Regards
Pioneer

Every tender is a job program, jobs for the low end (janitors & interns) to the high end (engineers & project coordinators). What we need to do is define the baseline need in a serious way that allows the smart people to do what they do best. No chasing imaginary cruise missile threats. No pie in the sky allowed. Keep the bar low enough to maintain them during war-time. We need to plan for the oil crisis we all know is coming and everyone ignores is a reality.

There was a John Wayne movie that had a lot of fighter planes in it. Don’t remember it, but I seem to recall it being a catalyst to me liking planes later.

Jet Pilot (1957) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050562/

He was also in the Flying Leathernecks (1951) which has pretty cool footage of WW2 warplanes. I really liked the rocket attack scene.

Oh no, the X-32 would then quickly become some kind of gay, phallic symbol. Can’t have that!

Comparison of the C-17A wing/overall airframe performance to some of the most current commercial wings/airframes. The C-17A is actually a poor performer when you have to justify fuel costs.

787-9

Wingspan 197.25 ft (60.1 m)
wing area 3501 ft² (325 m²)
Wing sweepback 32.2°
Cruise speed Mach .85 (561 mph)
Maximum Takeoff 545000 lb (247 tonne)
2× GEnx, 71000 lbf (320 kN) each = 640 kN

A330

Wingspan 197.8 ft (60.3 m)
wing area 3892 ft² (361.6 m²)
Wing sweepback 30°
Cruise speed Mach .82 (535 mph)
Maximum Takeoff 775000 lb (351.5 tonne)
2x CF6-80E1A2, 72000 lb (334 kN) each = 668 kN

777-200

Wingspan 212.5 ft (64.8 m)
wing area 4605 ft² (427.8 m²)
Wing sweepback 31.64°
Cruise speed Mach .84 (560 mph)
Maximum Takeoff 545000 lb (247.2 tonne)
2x PW4077, 77200 lb (343 kN) each = 686 kN

A350-800

Wingspan 213 ft (64.8 m)
wing area 4770 ft² (443 m²)
Wing sweepback 31.9°
Cruise speed Mach .85 (561 mph)
Maximum Takeoff 571000 lb (259 tonne)
2x RR Trent, 79000 lb (351 kN) each = 702 kN

DC-10-40

Wingspan 165.4 ft (50.4 m)
wing area 3958 ft² (367.7 m²)
Wing sweepback 35°
Cruise speed Mach .82 (565 mph)
Maximum Takeoff 775000 lb (351.5 tonne)
3x PW JT9D-59A, 53000 lb (235 kN) each = 705 kN

C-17

Wingspan 169.8 ft (51.75 m)
wing area 3800 ft² (353 m²)
Wing sweepback 25°
Cruise speed Mach .76 (515 mph)
Maximum Takeoff 585000 lb (265.3 tonne)
4× F117-PW-100, 40440 lbf (180 kN) each = 720 kN

A350-1000

Wingspan 213 ft (64.8 m)
wing area 4770 ft² (443 m²)
Wing sweepback 31.9°
Cruise speed Mach .85 (561 mph)
Maximum Takeoff 657000 lb (298 tonne)
2x RR Trent, 93000 lb (414 kN) each = 828 kN

777-300ER

Wingspan 212.5 ft (64.8 m)
wing area 4605 ft² (427.8 m²)
Wing sweepback 31.64°
Cruise speed Mach .84 (560 mph)
Maximum Takeoff 775000 lb (351.5 tonne)
2x GE90-115B, 115000 lb (512 kN) each = 1024 kN

747-8I

Wingspan 224 ft (76.25 m)
wing area 5500 ft² (511 m²)
Wing sweepback 37.5°
Cruise speed Mach .855 (570 mph)
Maximum Takeoff 975000 lb (442 tonne)
4x GEnx-2B67, 66500 lb (296 kN) each = 1184 kN