SchorschSo, now that the A330 has won KC-X, what about more A330-based aircraft to replace B707s?
What about AWACS, JSTARS, ELINT, TACAMO, &c? Any plans published?
Would only be logical to standardize the large combat support platform.
I think for many missions the A330 is indeed oversized, especially given the lower weight of computers/systems nowadays. These aircraft are all single aisle aircraft and an A330 would offer more than 100% more space.
I think some of these systems might use the P-8 as it already has some considerable militarization built in. It should also offer comparable range/endurance, at least when compared to TF33 equipped aircraft.
For the USAF (and perhaps all of NATO) it would make sense to use a small number of civil basic aircraft. That may be the B737 as small platform and the A330 as medium/large platform.
Some of these aircraft can also be based on propeller driven aircraft.
SchorschBut it is rather new, isn’t it?
I have never seen it before, especially not on the old B-52s (A to F).
SchorschSupportive statement.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/04/another-coin-aircraft-comeback.html
The question is if the USAF leadership is really representative for the rest of the world.
SchorschAT THE RISK OF SOUNDING INHUMAN – the pilot’s life costs way more to the taxpayer then that of a grunt .
It’s inhuman, but that’s true for warfare in general.
Nobody ever loses a word on the people who are recipients of close air support, which are in majority conscript soldiers without the actual choice of being here or there.
Currently the highest cost to tax payers are produced by paying for dead/wounded/crippled infantrymen. A dead body is actually way cheaper than a crippled one.
I still don’t believe it makes sense. In an actual war with a thinking enemy the UCAV will be limited to the missions it was designed for. No growth, no flexibility, no actual “fight”. A UCAV is always a weapon designed to yesterday’s war.
SchorschI’m guesing it makes sense to take the man out of the platform.. CAS will alway be one of the most hazardous missions around.. maybe something like this is the future..
The human is the most vital part of the system. Making this system “unmanned” does not make sense. The life of the pilot is not more in danger than that of the soldiers on the ground. In the end, there is no point in saving the pilots life while wasting the infantrymen.
The proliferation of network centric capabilities to lower levels in the force structure has the potential to make any NC equipped unit a Forward Observer/Tactical Air Control Party. The unit in contact with the enemy is the best one to determine the location and proximity of the enemy it is in contact with. Data links transmit enemy dispositions to PGM armed assets who provide fire support. An A-10 or SU-25 flying at treetop level, 350 KIAS maneuvering wildly to keep MANPADS out of his @ss is not going to be as useful a CAS asset as another (F-teen, Eurocanard, B-1/-52) dropping JDAMs from 20K+ feet.
Which assumes that there is always 100% control of the situation, enough batteries for the “NC-hardware” and generally the enemy behaves as expected. The low flying CAS aircraft is not only a provider of firepower, but also a pair of eyes, a psychological factor and it can deliver even low-tech ordnance with reasonable precision.
SchorschI lobby for the re-start of production of the A-37, let’s call it the A-37C.
I read complaints about the high number of flight hours the F-16 and F-15 put on for support missions. None of these missions require multi-role capability, supersonic performance or maneuverability. Damn, the wouldn’t even need a radar for it.
The renewed A-37 would need updated engines (J-85 do not rock any more) and updated self-defense equipment to counter MANPADS. That’s it.
Schorschbut its unlikely that mig-31 and f-4 , f-16 wud face each other in a one vs one combat and if does happen foxhound can use its superior performance to retreat after firing all its R-33s
my question was will a fighter like f-16A or F-4E [ circa late 80s] wud have sufficent warning of the oncoming barrage of missiles if this does happens ?….assuming support planes AWACS etc are not avalible [ soviets will undoubtly concentrate on these high value assets so to think that every fighter will have the luxury of their support is wishful thinking]
i know that this is not the mission designed for the 31 but in war its quite possible that 31s on a interception mission are attacked by escorting fighters and the 31s themselves cannot call any fulcrums or floggers to help them
The MiG-31 has very specialized performance, like so many other aircraft. Its superior maximum speed does not indicate any superior acceleration or whatever (though the MiG-31 surely excels compared to MiG-25, which was a sitting duck when subsonic). When in close distance to a more versatile adversary I don’t think it has the ability to break at will. When supersonic it turns with a 30km radius.
The oncoming “barrage of missiles” can be countered by tactics.
It is like the epic discussion if the F-14 was “invincible” with its AIM-54. In reality a normal MIGCAP was always done using Sparrow missiles.
SchorschI guess any missile can down any aircraft. The F-16 pilot will have a hard time timing his 9g evasive maneuver exactly to the point where the missile passes him, and even an F-16A cannot maintain 9g for long (at least not at any useful altitude).
But, the MiG-31 was a high value asset. The Soviets definitely had not the intention to get this asset in close distance to any fighter, as the MiG-31 considerable benefits rapidly decrease to zero when in visual range of a fighter aircraft like the F-16 or even the F-4E.
SchorschMaybe it will practically delete BVR fights, at least when stealthy aircraft enter hostile airspace. Stealthy aircraft are defensive (keep sensors mute) and defending fighters can’t see s##t until they actually see the aircraft (via IR or via classic Human Optical Search, Track & Identification System (=pair of eyes)).
SchorschFrom a member over at a.net
Interesting. Looks like they are testing some structural components beyond ULTIMATE separately. That is good to know because it proves a conservative approach unusual for the rather “revolutionary” stingy approach of the B787.
I am quite convinced that there will be no issues in the components that make the “revolution”, so primarily the structure (not 100% sure about the systems though). I trust Boeing Engineering that they know exactly what they can use at which time. However, this Boeing contains much less Boeing than any Boeing before. And if I was in charge I would hang they guy who had the “revolutionary” idea of doing the whole thing in 85% of the time it actually needs. If Boeing had planned to deliver the first B787 1st Q ’09 from the start I guess they would have met it (with some minor delays of course).
SchorschBased on Hillary’s demonstrated bravery in the ex-Yugo, we won’t need a military if she gets in charge. :dev2:
Or she copies the early Truman: “A few bombs is all we need.”
And the USN carrier force was never in charge in delivering the bomb … or not really (yeah I know, the A-2 Savage, but that aircraft sucks!).
SchorschHow often does the US Navy operate aircraft carriers in the Port of New York? :rolleyes:
Or did Hillary promise the NYPA its own carrier in case she wins elections? :diablo:
—–
NYPA: New York Port Authority, some kind of a police of its own.
EDIT: I am just reading that it abbreviates itself as PANYNJ, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
SchorschActually, the Tomcat used (quite small) external tanks pretty much all the time, probably more often than the F-16 carries its wing tanks. Its almost like they were part of the airframe. Thats perhaps why you didnt notice. 😀
On the range issue, you probably know the Afghanistan story where F-14 could fly missions without air refuelling over enemy territory (i.e. Afghanistan). Something the F-18E apparently could not. Thats no absolute answer, but at least we know the Tomcat has more range than the increased range Hornet.
As I read your post I searched the folder where I stored all that Tomcat pictures (there were times when Schorsch was totally on collecting pictures). Anyways, I found none without external tanks, at least none which did not obviously show demonstration flights. The only pictures I saw with missiles and without tanks were those with 6 Phoenix.
By the way, some numbers, F-14D, from official manual:
OEW: 19856kg
MTOW Carrier: 34500kg
Fuel (int): 5810kg
Fuel (ext): 1740kg
Tanks (guess): 200kg
————————
TOW: 27610kg
Fuel fraction: 0.27
+ 4 AIM-9: 360kg
+ 4 AIM-120: 640kg
+ Pylons: ~200kg
———————–
TOW: ~28800kg
Fuel fraction: 0.26
SchorschBIO,
this is a response to your summary of Boeing’s conference call, I am not challenging your opinion.
* Power on now to JUNE 08
* Delay in power on due to travelled work and engineering changes , installing new parts in the wing box . Combination of these two items have added 2 months.TRAVELED WORK – Good progress being made albeit too slowly to previous schedule . Well into systems installation for Airplane 1 .
Impact of rework – stiffining of elements in the wing box , which is relatively simple however this work fell in the middle of wiring and installation and has caused 1 month delay .
Honestly, we have read this several times. The PowerOn is now 9 month late. One expects all systems to be tested before they are installed. One has a test rig for that. The story with the wing box sounds like reasoning one known problem with another known problem so that the unknown deeper flaws are not discovered. No one can tell me, that a delay of 9 month is just due to some traveled work. There seems to be severe flaws in the primary systems (they are not fighting versus IFE installation).
Not anticipating any testing problems however they have accounted for that .
Nobody does that. It still happens. Though I do not expect severe flaws (that does normally not happen with civil aircraft), rather lots of unscheduled work during the first month of the flight test.
After full power – Check out and testing before flying.
We can be confident on progress when we see first rejected take-off tests.
COMPARING TO 777 –
777 was system ready 5 months after first flight . Majority of 787 systems would be ready four months before first flight and others will be ready by First flight . Still risk remains .
This comparison is odd: The B787 will have system readiness far after the B777 using the original schedule. The rest is just talking. How can systems be ready when they not even have powered up the aircraft?
Current assesment includes 10/month by 2012 .
Sounds rather conservative and achievable.
1) CONTINUE TO MAKE GOOD PROGRESS IN STRUCTURAL TESTING
How is that? Both test airframes are waiting in the assembly hall.
4) FULL SIZE PARTIAL WING SPAN TO FULL LOAD
Can someone help me? What is a partial wing? A half wing or more like a part of the wing? Anyways, at least a major achievement that maybe helps Boeing to get around some tests on the static frame and preflight tests.
6) OVER 95% OF THE TESTS THEY HAVE RUN HAVE YEILDED RESULTS AS EXPECTED OR BETTER
Sounds good but is normal.
Despite the rather optimistic outlook we should consider that the B787 is due for certification in 4 weeks – using the original plan. A380 was about 6 month late on certification, B777 about 1 or 2. Just go give a yardstick.
(both had a preliminary certificate, means there were some tests outstanding that you normally don’t do in the flight test program).
SchorschNote that a few weeks ago, the same people who made this announcement were stating that there would be no more delays. It’s now clear that they were lying. Hmmm. Not good.
Opinions please – will this schedule be adhered to, or will it slip more?
I may quote Boeing:
Forward-Looking Information Is Subject to Risk and Uncertainty
Certain statements in this report may constitute “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects,” “believes,” “estimates,” and similar expressions are used to identify these forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, among others, statements regarding future results as a result of our growth and productivity initiatives, our 2008 financial outlook and the benefits of the IDS structure. Forward-looking statements are based upon assumptions as to future events that may not prove to be accurate. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in these forward-looking statements. As a result, these statements speak only as of the date they were made and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Our actual results and future trends may differ materially depending on a variety of factors, including the continued operation, viability and growth of major airline customers and non-airline customers (such as the U.S. Government); adverse developments in the value of collateral securing customer and other financings; the occurrence of any significant collective bargaining labor dispute; our successful execution of internal performance plans including our company-wide growth and productivity initiatives, production rate increases and decreases (including any reduction in or termination of an aircraft product), availability of raw materials, acquisition and divestiture plans, and other cost-reduction and productivity efforts; charges from any future SFAS No. 142 review; ability to meet development, production and certification schedules for the 787 program and the ability to meet scheduled deliveries of the 787 airplane; technical or quality issues in development programs (affecting schedule and cost estimates) or in the satellite industry; an adverse development in rating agency credit ratings or assessments; the actual outcomes of certain pending sales campaigns and U.S. and foreign government procurement activities, including the uncertainty associated with the procurement of tankers by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and funding of the C-17 program; the cyclical nature of some of our businesses; unanticipated financial market changes which may impact pension plan assumptions; domestic and international competition in the defense, space and commercial areas; continued integration of acquired businesses; performance issues with key suppliers, subcontractors and customers; significant disruption to air travel worldwide (including future terrorist attacks); global trade policies; worldwide political stability; domestic and international economic conditions; price escalation; the outcome of political and legal processes, changing priorities or reductions in the U.S. Government or foreign government defense and space budgets; termination of government or commercial contracts due to unilateral government or customer action or failure to perform; legal, financial and governmental risks related to international transactions; legal and investigatory proceedings; tax settlements with the IRS and various states; U.S. Air Force review of previously awarded contracts; costs associated with the exit of the Connexion by Boeing business; and other economic, political and technological risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these factors is contained in our SEC filings, including, without limitation, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.
Correct is in my eyes that the optimism portrayed after the roll out was simply a lie. Also announcements that EIS would happen in time. Nobody however could foresee a one year delay in first flight in July ’07.
The question of interest is if the management knew that the neither the 1st quarter plan nor the 2nd quarter plan were achievable.
Boeing seems to have made some things better than Airbus as customers are not publically making negative statements about Boeing.
What makes this so strange is that not production delays are the reason but that obviously Boeing is unable to bring its aircraft into the air. They don’t achieve the Power On, which indicates that the whole system design has severe flaws. If the Power On is achieved and they say they take a bit more time to iron out all bugs and not rushing to first flight I would think different.
Sign In
