On what do you base these comments?
Boeing actually offered Airbus their best regards when the delays on the whalejet were announced. (I do believe they also offered words of encouragement?) The only people “happy” were uber Boeing fan boys.

Besides, its well known Airbus used questionable judgement when announcing delays, like letting their premiere customers learn from “the grape vine”. And it was only when it was all too obvious that there was something not quite right that they came clean and spilled the beans, but not before Mr Forgeard cut and run!

Boeing’s made a mess of the 787, thats for sure, but they’re announcing delays as they become apparent. They have to, by law. They can’t just hold them all back for one media extravaganza.

I think at current point we can split the award for the most embarrassing program management on equal terms between Airbus an Boeing. It shows that the problems seem to be system inherent – independent of the company. As previous programs sometimes worked quite well we must ask what novelties are actually not that great though they might have looked good. In case of Boeing the senior management blamed the subcontracting to some extent, somehow strange as they praised not long ago.
In case of Airbus the limited integration into one company can be held accountable for a good part of the delays. For me both programs are a clear message that future complex aircraft must come out of one office building at best, or at least have the major item closely tied to the leadership.

If you guys want to discuss Afghanistan, Iran, the Taliban, China’s strategic ambitions or Soviet losses in Afghanistan, please start your own threads !!!!

Stop hijacking ours !!!

Ken

Agree at whole!
It shows that having an opinion is far more easy than making any useful statements towards a particulat topic.

Anyways,
I don’t think that any Russian strategic bomber ever really made it into a conventional bomber. Possibly the Tu-16 was modified for conventional bombing, but the Tu-16 never really was “strategic”.
The only other strategic bombers I can think of that did conventional bombing were the Vulcan and the Victor (besides the B-52 of course).

One can hardly expect that by buying two dismantled Su-27 airframes from Belorussia (God knows in what condition), these were flightworthy or the USAF wanted to fly with them. Having both aircrafts stored in a hangar provides very useful information as well, just by examining their systems shortcomings and limitations. Still there is no proof of Flanker flying in the USAF, as well as the Mig-29. Once a USAF attache I personally know told me that most of Migs-29 bought from Moldava were examined and destroyed on the ground or dismantled, no one ever flown over the country!!. Well, looking other proofs??
USAF bought 21 Moldovan Migs-29 for one million USD per piece, what is a scrap-metal price and not price for a flightworthy military aircraft.
Because Moldovan Migs were stored in contrary to all the regulations of aircraft treatment during parking and long stays. Aircrafts and engines have not been preserved, so to speak they were rusting every day on the airfield.

Again, and again the same bedtime story, Flankers and Fulcrums flying in USAF.
Sleep well guys 😉

Especially as the early MiG-29 and Su-27 were not easy to maintain. Likewise the USSR would have had a hard time keeping an F-111 or F-14 flyable. After evaluating the radar and fire control system, as well as the radar cross section there isn’t much more to evaluate, is there? The flight performance can quite accurately be simulated by F-15 and F-16.

In case of MiG-17 and MiG-21 I could imagine that some spares are produced by specialized US companies, with complex engines and systems like the later MiGs and Suchois I doubt it. There was also no reason: Latest F-15C and F-16C models were superior to the early models of MiG-29 and Su-27 (and available in much larger numbers), some technologies though like the IR sensor of the MiG surely gave some reason for thinking.

The question is always about the threat environment. The beast pictured below may really ruin the day of an A-10 when positioned carefully and not detected. Use a camouflage net and shut down the engine (the pictured Gepard has a small stand-by engine) and don’t use the radar until someone calls you and the A-10 will be quite surprised.

The thing fires 35mm rounds at 1100 rounds per minute and I guess a few of those will make even the sturdy A-10 quite useless.
A Super Tucano won’t survive the first blast.

[ATTACH]161932[/ATTACH]

Actually, this tank is also quite an asset against ground targets.

The evidence is certainly pretty damning – much more convincing than the half-a**ed presentations and “evidence” in the lead up to the Iraq campaign in 2003. The only thing that has me wondering is why they didn’t call Syria on it earlier, the reactor apparently started construction in 2001. Plenty of time to put the Syrian regime on the spot diplomatically and discredit them. You can always blow the facility up like they actually did later on, if all else fails.

I am convinced by the evidence though.

Good question. If evidence was so clear, why wasn’t it used to pressure Syria?
I think political considerations were the background with USA and Israel having enough trouble with Iran, Gaza and Lebanon. A campaign against Syria would have been looked at very suspiciously by the rest of the world as another war-preparing campaign.
Additionally, the destruction via force was much more do-able and the actual destruction was a much more powerful sign to the Syrians and Iranians than an endless debate in the Security Council.

Another issue are the negotiations with the North Koreans. Accusing them publically of proliferating nuclear technology (and thus making them “losing their face”) would have blown the negotiations, which was in neither ones interest.

The question I would like to know is who was supposed to deliver the enriched fissionable material for that reactor. In the process of making a bomb a single nuclear reactor (which obviously didn’t go critical yet) is only step number 1. It is still a long way and hardly containable when being surrounded by Israel/USA & allies. Actually strange the Syrians even tried it.

But the Navy isn’t planning to jointly jam with the USAF (does anybody else get images of a smoke-filled room, guys lounging on couches, Bob Marley and lots of giggles?) with their Prowlers.

Here’s my predictions: once the F-15K and F-15SG production lines start to wind down, Boeing starts pushing the USAF to keep the F-15 line open with an order for jammers. The project is an old one anyway, it could be done relatively simple by putting the EW gear into the CFTs (after all, they were originally planned to be Fuel And Sensor, Tactical), Boeing would be happy to keep in the fighter business for a bit longer, and the USAF has an easy off-the-shelf platform.

Why not just pay a few Dollars to the USN so they can afford more EA-18Gs and then lease them back, if necessary including crew. One does not need to re-invent the wheel over and over again.

The USN will then have some surplus Growlers, but that will result in aircraft flying less flight hours. In the end this seems to be least expensive solution. The USN F-18E/F will also outlast the last USAF F-15s.

Of course, USAF generals never buy Navy aircraft without Congress actually pointing the big budgetary cannons on the Pentagon.

A couple of changes for a “Thunderbolt III” would make sense.

One should think about building it as a twin-seater, with the passenger as PGM shooter and UCAV controller. Can be replaced by a fuel tank at depot level, so units can fly a mix of single- and twin-seaters.

The titanium of the bathtube would have to be replaced by some para-aramid, since titanium is way too expensive these days.

An ATFLIR taking the place of the GAU-8 in the nose, coupled with HMDs. But not integrated, just a pod in a conformal bay, for quick change in case of battle damage.

The GAU-8 replaced by a cannon-twin/quadpack (e.g. KBA) in a fast-change belly mount like on a Hunter. No guns for the twin-seater.

IRCM and ECM, possibly just take a pod and mount it on the spine. No fancy integration here.

Cockpit panel could be lifted straight out of something like a PC-21 or AT-6B. The “new” A-10C cockpit is still a mix of steam gauges and smallish displays.

Maybe replace the engines with BR710. Not sure about that.

Landing gear more rugged, for dirt strip ops.

Nothing that allows stand-off engagements. Don’t even go there.

Materials should stay metal, plastics only as armor. Everything should be as simple as possible, all fancy stuff like sensors and electronics be optimised for quick change in case of battle damage. Commonality with ground combat equipment, possibly FCS, very desirable.

Ah, yes: Give it to the Army this time!

Agree on this.

The original A-10 was a very specialized aircraft for tank busting in Middle Europe. The “new” would not be aimed at tanks, but rather being a payload deliverer and loiter aircraft over the battlefield, which will most likely be something like a city/urban area and the war in itself will be “low intensity” (opposing to the original scenario, which saw an all out conflict and defined “low intensity” as “without nuclear weapons”). That makes the gun superfluent.

The A-10 then excels by carrying reasonable payload, over a reasonable distance at reasonable time (much much better than any helicopter), retaining good survivability (again: much better than any helicopter). The second guy is essential because as much as the aircraft is for actual bombing it can be used to coordinate other assets if things go really bad.

It would make sense to reduce complexity to a level where it can be handled by the army and operated from less than perfect airfields.
Maybe maybe maybe think about making it compatible to aircraft carriers. The Skyraider II!

I disagree on the engines. The A-10 uses TF/CF-34, an engine which is still mounted on aircraft delivered today. There is no need to replace it, just update the model.

It will be necessary to protect the aircraft against MANPADS. If loitering above the area it will be a perfect target. Still, I think the chances of survival are higher than that of a helicopter, especially as an A-10 can at least fly a few miles after being hit and the pilot has an ejection seat, two things no helicopter affords.

I don’t think there is any huge export potential. No army affords a weapon specialized for such missions (although they maybe might need it), and honestly, if the USA have not have engaged in Iraq (and lost more than 3000 service men there) nobody would discuss that issue. But, the overall cost for US economy is limited as technology is truly “off-the-shelf”.