Bager1968Another advantage going for the 747-8 is the production line is underworked unlike that for the 777.
You could say that – Boeing expects to finish its current order book for all 747 variants within 2 years (39 on order, 1.5/month production rate) – and they have only received 2 new orders last year (balanced by 2 cancellations). Boeing is looking to drop its build rate to 1.3 per month, and might close the line soon.
Bager1968Wikipedia gives a similar maximum range for both, but the Buccaneer range is rather less than was actually achieved in ferry flights. It’s hard to see how an F-105 could match the range of an aircraft with more efficient engines (better sfc), & a higher fuel fraction.
Well, the Wiki entry does not say “ferry” for the Buccaneer range like it does for the F-105.
In fact, that 2,300 miles for the Buccaneer is listed elsewhere as “typical”.
Note that the normal operational mode of the F-105 in Vietnam was to install the 1,300l ferry tank in the internal weapons bay, and carry all the ordnance externally. This means that in ferry mode it had both this tank and underwing external drop tanks.
The Bucc had a 2,000l internal ferry tank for its weapons bay, but that was never carried on a combat mission, so I believe that is where the similarity of Bucc and F-105 ranges comes from – F-105 entering combat with the internal ferry tank and the Bucc without.
Bager1968Beechcraft Bonanza – 10,403 V-tailed built 1947-85.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234958[/ATTACH]
Fouga CM.170 Magister & CM.175 Zéphyr (military trainers) – 929 & 32 built.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234959[/ATTACH]
And more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:V-tail_aircraft
Bager1968Oh, I am quite familiar with LO, not only from here, but also from the PPRuNe forum.
Bager1968From what I read, Turkey would not allow the ship to pass through the Bosphorus Straits until it was certified that the turbines were not in the ship at all. This lead to a delay of more than a year until Turkey was satisfied on that point.
Bager1968Initially Germany was going to acquire F-11F Super Tiger, but some pilots still preferred the F-104. Steinhoff, who was head of requirements section of the Luftwaffe decided for the F-104. The Super Tiger he tested had an issue with the afterburner, preventing higher speeds than M1.3. Grumman tried to invite him to try again the aircraft but the choice had been made.
The F11-F did not have the raw performance of F-104, but was much safer to fly. Maybe it would have been a better choice.
That is surprising, as by the time of the evaluations the early YJ79-GE-3 (a developmental engine, with which the first Super Tiger had reached M1.44 on 4 June 1956) had been replaced with a more-powerful J79-GE-7 (a production engine, with which the second Super Tiger reached M2.04 on 4 May 1957).
The only thing I can think of is the evaluation was of the first prototype, and the data from the flights of the second were not available – when did he test that aircraft?
Bager1968And the only real advantage of Mirage III waists R.530, which Germany couldn’t operate by treaty. F-8 made more sense for gun fights and heatseekers.
Was Germany really barred by treaty from operating radar-guided AAMs? Can you give more details, please?
The GAF purchased a “simplified” F-4E in 1971 (as the F-4F). This had only the IR-only AIM-9 Sidewinder and cannon as air-air weapons – the AIM-7 Sparrow was NOT included (nor were any AIM-4 variants).
In 1983 an upgrade program was initiated, the second phase of which would add BVR capability in the form of the AIM-120.
The first Phase 2 F-4F was flown in 1989, and delivered to a combat squadron in 1992, but the 96 AIM-120s were not delivered until later. Those 96 AIM-120s were the only BVR missiles in the GAF until the delivery of Meteor missiles for the Typhoon – except for any that came with the MiG-29s from the DDR Air Force.
Bager1968Personally I would love them to just do the X-44 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-44_MANTA
There is no money.
Under the program of record, the USAF is buying 80 F-35s per year through 2037. The USAF is also planning to buy $550m LRSBs at a rate of 8-10 a year (most likely) in the same timeframe.
There is no money.
The so-called 6gen is the substitute for many of the F-35s. No alternative is fiscally realistic.
The USAF says there IS the money for development in the budget.
They would have a much more accurate idea about their budget than you.
Bager1968Yes, the AIM-54 was great for what it was designed for – large bombers and large anti-ship/cruise missiles in service with the USSR in the 1970s & 80s, neither of which were very maneuverable.
It was not very good against more-maneuverable fighter-based strike aircraft, nor maneuvering anti-ship/cruise missiles, which constitute the vast majority of threats in the 1990s and beyond – which is why being able to use it became increasingly a costly niche capability that could no longer be afforded.
Bager1968Considering the Mirage III was a 5-years-newer design, I wouldn’t be surprised either.
Bager1968HER family!
Bager1968Or NAS Miramar, 22 December 1969, 14 dead 31 injured (other reports cite 11 dead & 14 injured):
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=70034
The aircraft was on emergency approach to NAS Miramar when it is believed that it lost power, and the pilot, LT Cyrus Riddell, ejected. The A/C flew on well to the right of the runway and crashed and exploded in a hangar bay, killing 14 and injuring at least 31. Most of these deaths involved sailors from VF-92 amd VF-96.
3 F-4J Phantom IIs were destroyed in the process (Bu 153806, 153863 and 155771).
Here is a VA finding in favor of one of the members of the squadron whose hangar was destroyed, granting disability for PTSD due to the above event:
http://www.va.gov/vetapp98/files3/9829009.txt
As an aside, the mishap pilot above had previously ejected from an F-8J (upgraded F-8E, which is what the Miramar aircraft was): 12 September 1969 F-8J Crusader 150861 VF-194 Lt. Cyrus M. Riddell ejected, recovered
In the Gulf of Tonkin, flying off USS Oriskany CVA-34. No further details.
And he had a third ejection, 5 months after his first:
2nd February 1970 F-8J Crusader 150852 VF-194 Lt. Cyrus M. Riddell ejected
2nd February 1970 F-8J Crusader 149154 VF-194 LT Gary D. Crowell ejected
Mid air collision practicing close combat manoeuvres off San Clemente Island. Both picked up by Coast Guard helicopter.
Bager1968United States Naval Aviation 1910-60
My copy is a loose-leaf in a binder, 237 numbered pages.
The lower caption is:
Prepared at the direction of the
DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (AIR)
and the
CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS
1960
Lots of text, with photos of a lot of aircraft, both well-known and obscure.
Bager1968i know but i have always thought that RAM have no use at low frequency
That’s what the anti-stealth hype would lead you to believe.
The simple reality is that “stealth” aircraft have always been detectable by not only low-frequency radars, but also by higher-frequency radars such as those in fighters & missiles.
The key is that “stealth” shaping and materials DO substantially reduce for all frequencies the range at which that detection occurs (NOT prevent it), and at which tracking is possible. Yes, lower frequencies are less-affected than higher frequencies, but since the only weapons-guidance which the large (dictated by physics) low-frequency radars can do is with telemetry-guided missiles* (which are very subject to jamming) or beam-riding missiles (which are limited in maneuver, lest they lose lock on the guiding beam from the ground station), this is not much of a problem (especially since those large radars are nice targets for cruise missiles, etc).
* Due to the physics of what kind of radar can fit in a missile, missiles can only have high-frequency radar receivers or transmitters.
Bager1968However, cost is a vital characteristic of an aircraft.
When in 1955-57, Australia decided to buy the F-104A and then canceled the purchase, the issue was that there was still no money*.
At that time I agree that there wasn’t much choice in alternatives – the prototype Super Tiger first flew with a full-powered J79 in May 1957, the first production Draken didn’t fly until February 1958, the F8U-1 (F-8A) had just entered service in March 1957, and the F-102 in May 1956. The F-101A was in reduced production (due to design problems) until November 1956, the F-101B first flew in March 1957, the improved low-level-capable F-101C first flight was August 1957, the production F-105A in May 1957, the F-106 was still in a problem-filled development phase until late 1958, and there was no Mirage III.
I doubt that Lockheed had to spend much (if any) to win over the RAAF.
Even in 1959-61, the budget still reigned supreme – with the Mirage III being selected in part because it was cheaper than any reasonable alternative. This was so important that, despite a clear performance advantage (not surprising, considering the ~28% dry & 15% reheated higher thrust and 8% dry & 9% reheated lower fuel consumption), the proposed (and flight-tested) Avon mk301-powered version of the Mirage III was declined in favor of the more-sluggish and shorter-ranged Atar-powered version.
* In 1954 the Menzies government implemented a defence cut, which amongst other things cancelled 30 of the air force Avon-Sabres, the fourth Daring class DD and the modernization of Sydney, which essentially ended HMAS Sydney as a modern aircraft carrier. She then continued for some time in a training role, and then as a troop transport.
Menzies justification for the defence cut included the generally benign strategic environment, and the fact that many of the programmes underway were behind time and were becoming obsolete before they were even delivered (Sabres, Daring DD etc).
Sign In
