I guess we had several discussions about this issue.

And I always like to come back to the same issues: How much air power can a have-not support?

It is not only about the aircraft, you need pilots, training and some operational experience, not to talk about intelligence and reconnaissance to strike targets.

If I was such a country I would look for a small force of supersonic jets like the F-7 that are able to carry IR missiles and can make reconnaissance runs or probably drop a “message” (= 500lbs bomb on target covered by international media). The real strike missions (CAS) should be handed to prop aircraft and light trainers. Sadly Douglas doesn’t offer the Skyraider any more and Cessna has discontinued the A-37. Both perfect for it, can make a difference on a battlefield, while the affordability of MANPADS makes aircraft a bit less attractive. For have-nots the human wave is still more affordable.

And it is always surprising to me that these aircraft (A-1, A-37) would be so useful in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe and USA rather spent billions for aircraft that can launch an active radar homing missile on a target 50 miles away. Very much needed capability if the Taliban orders its first Suchoi 35.

By the way: just found out that F-5 & A-37 were the perfect starter package for Uncle Sam’s friends: they even have the same engine.

However, Boeing take the safer/tried and tested methods and ultimately produce a more sellable product which is easier to build/maintain and do “Deep” maintainance with.

Actually I would sign that statement but in this very program Boeing did the untested approach, at least to some extent.

The problem with the center wing box is anything but unusual for a new aircraft. Surprising is the time of the redesign (before testing), while it is much better for Boeing to redesign it now then finding out it needs fixes when it explodes in the final static test (see A380 for that). Problem is center wing boxes are kind of tricky to fix after they are installed.

Anyways, the fix is result of a larger problem, namely the considerable weight problem the B787 currently has and following conventional wisdom will to some extent keep.

BTW: I don’t want to spur a general discussion about capability, but all this BS-talking from a year ago that Boeing builds the 21st superjet totally made of “advanced material” while Airbus builds a lame make-over of 20th century aluminum technology comes to my mind. The A380 wing box is a hybrid between conventional and “advanced” materials. The B787’s is the same approach (it is not 100% “advanced”, wouldn’t make sense). The A380’s wing box was tested, certified and is in service despite carrying more than twice the load. So much about technology leadership.

And: It looks like Boeing is basically victim of its own manufacturing approach, which was hailed only month ago, and Airbus actually thought on copying it (Airbus copies all Boeing concepts, it’s like dog and master).

Some guy from Antonov said that you can basically design an aircraft any size. Only problem is that from some point on the landing gear becomes so heavy that the payload drops to zero.
Ha! – Flying boats then! Like the Beriev 2500 or Boeing Pelican WIGs.

With limitations. The structural weight increases fast than weing area (so called square-cube law, structural weight increases as cubic function of size while wing area only as quadratic function).
The solution is either increase of the wing loading or reduction of the volume-specific structural weight, or of the loads acting on the aircraft.

The A380 is in the end of the useful region, anything bigger than the A380 will become less efficient and primarily lift its own weight.

Look, I was right:

John Leahy of Airbus has said repeatedly in recent months that selling the A380 to All Nippon Airways is a top priority.

Now, the airline has indicated it may well be time to consider the plane, which would be a blow to Boeing since ANA is consolidating its fleet around the 737, 777 and 787.

“We never said we wouldn’t use it,” ANA President Mineo Yamamoto told reporters in Tokyo on Friday. “It may be time to start thinking about it.”

Singapore Airlines recently announced it would start A380 service to Tokyo on its A380s.
That is likely to add pressure on ANA to more seriously consider the A380.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/134260.asp

@ Schorsch: Yip, didn’t think about the KC-45. Right. (Well, we shall see where the Boeing protest leads to…)

@ C-5 replacement by An-124, or new capability for the EU airlift pool: Interesting theoretical thought. What would the programme costs for, say, 50 to 70 newly built, westernized Ukrainian Condors be (let Antonov Kiev become part of Airbus, call it the A500M)? 8 to 10 billion Euro? That would be about twice what the Galaxy modernization costs.

Actually I would replace the C-5 by a mixture of additional C-17 and shared civil/military B747 freighters. The concept of the C-5 is outdated. There is no need of bringing huge military forces over a distance of 3000nm (US East Coast to Western Europe) any more. Galaxys fly palettes most of the time from one 3000m airfield to another 3000m airfield, other aircraft can that much better and more efficient.
In a few years the market will be flooded with used B747-400 (there are still hundreds in operation). The USAF of Europe might catch a few and have them as cheap palette carrier. For vehicles and outsized cargo, it has to use C-17, Antonov or A400M. But how often are these outsized cargo capabilities needed?

My sources are weak, so can anyone confirm that a future A-380 cargo vareint has been looked at as a way of releiving the pressure on c-5’s?

The A380F is equally useful for military operations (even the logistic support to rear area airports) like a Volkswagen [New] Beetle is useful as military vehicle (although Volkswagen originally built military vehicles).