SchorschThe rate of attrition in air-air combat – and only air-air combat – favoured the USA, in terms of numbers of aircraft lost. But not by any other measure, such as crewmen lost, or cost of the lost aircraft.
I guess if you factor in the US aircraft lost due to SAMs, AAA or accident, that entered NV airspace to give a2a cover, the attrition would much worse. Only by threatening the use of fighter the NV forced its enemy to spend much more resources. In the end, each MiG shot down was payed (at least) the 10fold price in USD. But the USA could afford …
SchorschWhich shows once again: The F-22 is a normal aircraft. It isn’t invincible or has technology from a different solar system. As such, it has teething problems.
As far as costs go, the first F-22, serial number 4001, cost $28 Billion as it required most of the R&D before it could take flight.
I am sure if only one aircraft would have been part of the contract, you could easily deduct 70% of the price tag. A quite major part of the bill doesn’t come from making a system basically work, but forming it into a combat system. That requires much more costs. “Technology” is often surprisingly cheap, at least compared to a developed aircraft.
BTW: That are two A380-sized aircraft programs.
Let’s see who scores more orders. :diablo:
SchorschThe V2 like its predecessor the V1 were designed as terror weapons, “vengeance weapons”; they were cowardly weapons not aimed at troups, but at their loved ones, and at no risk to the user (other than it falling over).
Why did Britain invest a single pound in Lancaster bombers instead of sending its brave troops in masses ashore in France in 1940? All cowards? Instead bombing Fritz’ beloved Eva while he conquers the rest of Europe?
If Albert Speer, and Rudolf Hess, were indicted, and convicted of war crimes(the latter having spent most of the war a prisoner in England), then Von Braun should have joined them, in the dock.
Speer and Hess were high Nazi officials, v. Braun was an engineer. With your logic the inventors of the atomic bomb would have been imprisoned.
I believe that Göring is quoted as saying ,that the victors will write history; had they have won the war, the likes of Roy Chadwick would have almost certainly met a similar fate.
You just proved Göring right, which is actually sad, as Göring was clinically insane.
There is no point in looking at the actions of either sides, (during the war),from a modern day perspective, attitudes have changed hugely, most of us debating this issue have never, and will never live through such horror; who are we to judge?
Depends. We start getting into trouble when we apply standards that would even today not apply in the Western world. We seem to agree that carpet bombing wasn’t exactly nice, and moreover the V-2 was even less useful as strategic military weapon, and even designed as “terror weapon”. But if you are claiming that v. Braun should be imprisoned, you need to go over to Lockheed Martin or any other company actually producing weapons for a war. The F-105 killed more civilians than military personal during the raids on North Vietnam. Was the senior management of Republic convicted of war crimes?
SchorschA…But this is a slightly pointless debate. I did not mean to imply that one practice that is morally questionable with hindsight was necessarily more morally questionable than another …
Neither did I. As you maybe were able to get from my first post on this subject, I am not defending anything. I just don’t like this black/white painting or terror weapon versus glorious RAF carpet bombing. Surely, the RAF carpet night bombing was intended to destroy the industry, but fell back to simple city flattening just because anything else was either too costly (day bombing) or simply not possible.
The V-2 was intended as “terror weapon” from the onset, and its technical characteristics made them more morally devastating (no warning). However, given its price tag, it ruined Germany more than it did the UK. The UK must be grateful that Germany invested in dubious weapons like the V-2 instead of just arming its infantry with more deadly weapons. The V-2 program had a similar price tag as 50000 Tiger tanks or over 10000 fighter aircraft. The result would have been more dead on the battlefield.
Schorsch… aimed specifically at civillians,(in such a way as no warning can be given) …
So, you cannot hit any useful target, but you can aim specifically at civilians? I didn’t know the V-2 was so precise. When they hit a factory it was collateral damage I guess.
SchorschThis is rather a sweeping statement and I would imagine demonstrably untrue. Bomber Command bombed all sorts of targets, some military, others not, with varying degrees of success, whereas the V2s only hit (and were only aimed at) civilian targets. By contrast the attempts to deal with the problem used precision dive bombing of storage and launch sites in order to minimise casualties in the civilian (Dutch) population and apart from one disastrous raid by 2nd TAF medium bombers, were successful in that.
Bomber command hit primarily large cities after realizing they couldn’t hit anything else at night. Small or hidden cities remained more or less protected, at least to RAF night bombers. The RAF choose its targets according to their abilities, which one might consider a reasonable choice. That they didn’t really hit any important industry, and if purely by chance, was known to the bomber command and accepted.
The V-2 wasn’t exactly aimed, it could hit areas (for example: a city). What did the operators do: they choose their targets according to their abilities, which one might consider a reasonable choice. When they tried to use the V-2 as tactical weapon, they failed.
The RAF did day bombing were opposition was acceptable. Nothing unreasonable again. If the RAF would have refrained from resisting the 1940 air raids, be sure, no V-2 would ever been developed.
SchorschWell said! You make the same argument as those who thought the Apache was not going to better than the Cobra or the CH-47 better than the H-34. Come to think of it why did we need jets? I mean they are more prone to failure with damage, use way more gas… then there is this whole business of the tank versus the horse. I mean one operator on a self sustaining weapon system vice four operators and a whole lot of trucks and maintainers. Talk about value. 🙂
Generally, I don’t care what the Americans buy or not, it is their money.
But from a technical and military point of view, I question your statement. Improvement can be measured quite well – especially for transport aircraft -, in additional payload, range or extra speed, increased flexibility or life-time support cost divided by flown missions, or whatever. Many many indicators. Now I ask: does the V-22 excel in any parameter except speed? If yes, do these parameters compare in any way to its price tag?
Now, that is the pure technical/economical point of view. From the military point of view, I would just refrain from bringing such high-cost weapons into a high-threat environment. I mean the V-22 isn’t exactly armored, can be brought down like any other helicopter and its speed advantage still falls short from anything that protects it from MANPADS or undirected small arms fire. I would guess that a fleet of UH-1Y with same overall cost has more chance of survival when going into a hot LZ than a single V-22 with 26 men on board.
SchorschDid he not realise that all those V2’s fired at London (and other cities) were full of explosive,and aimed a civillians? I think he was lucky to escape an indictment for war crimes.
What did people at Avro and Handley-Page think when designing and producing the Lancaster or the Halifax? I guess they considered themselves important contributors to the war effort. Did the consider themselves enemies of humanity after it came out that their bombers didn’t really hit any important target?
Half of the British and German population was building arms. The accusation I really make towards Wernher von Braun (check spelling!) is his disinterest in the fate of the people that worked at the hidden missile factory in Mittelbau. About 12000 died while producing the weapon, compared to round-about 8000 victims of the weapons itself. The only weapon ever I guess that cost more life in production than in actual service.
The accusation of being a Nazi falls a bit short. I think he never really followed a political agenda, but I would assume he was pretty content with the situation in the USA. One should note that he actively sought American captivity, evading the much more feared Russian captivity. He also more or less transferred his whole team to the USA (which was quite an achievement given the chaos in the last days of the war).
A bit sad that he is a no-no person in Germany. Although his dubious contribution to the war, he didn’t behave much different than the majority of the people here. The university where he studied and made his PhD (which happens to be my Alma Mater, too), doesn’t lose a single word anywhere about him.
I wouldn’t call him a hero or something else, but I respect his contribution to technology and we should accept that he had major influence on the fact that the “right” side won the space race, and could well compete in the missile race (missile technology was pursued for nuclear warhead delivery at first in the 1950s).
SchorschJust to expand a bit: when swing wings were introduced in the early 60ies most were born from tough short field performance requirements. The alternative were vertical or short take-off aircraft, which proved to be much less effective. Going into the air with booster didn’t exactly work, either, so the swing wing represented the best compromise.
Picture:
F-104G ZELL
Starfighter with ZELL (Zero Lenght Launch).
Note the B-61 nuclear bomb under the aircraft and the 4 external tanks.
See the development history leading to the MRCA or Tornado. MiG-23 and Su-24 got their swing wings for similar reasons, as did the F-111.
[ATTACH]158023[/ATTACH]
SchorschF-4F can go 600kts with Drag Index 40 and 580 with Drag Index 60. These represent medium air2ground configs without tanks. Fuel flow exceeds 27000 lbs per hour, actually more than at cruise at Mach 1.3 @ 35.000ft with Sidewinders. Same config and speed at sea level requires 102000 pounds per hour. 😮
SchorschPlease add the faked moon landing, the Roswell cover up, the Kennedy assassination and hurricane Katrina relief plot to your list. Somehow, they too have been used in some nefarious plot by the super competent U.S. government. They are able to organize and keep silent hundreds, if not thousands of people to fool the entire world!! Fool everyone except for a few incredibly insightful lone heroes on the Internet that can see through it all. That they are not able to silence these great beacons of light gives us all hope that even these super giant brains cannot think of everything! I just wish the incredible continuing genius behind this “Dr Evil” of a government could stop getting caught in men’s room sex stings. Your ignorance and stupidity is beyond all reason.
These people also have brought the F-14 Tomcat to Russia and developed the super-secret Super Tomcat. Yes, they are the free mason.
SchorschFound on the new blog dedicated to the German Navy:
http://rearechelon.blogspot.com/
Excerpts:
“The Baltic Sea, in recent times, has become somewhat more of a potential low-conflict zone. This, of course, because of the Joint German-Russian pipeline that is supposed to run through it, and for which construction is supposed to start next year already.
“On September 14th, the German and Russian Navy signed a bilateral cooperation treaty (i.e. outside existing NATO PfP arrangements) to “improve joint operations against new threats”.”
“Ships of the Baltic Fleet have paid friendly visits to German events in 2007 – such as a Neustrashimy at the Kieler Woche – and Russian and German rear-echelon officials have exchanged concepts and ideas with regard to coastal security and environmental protection since 2006.”
The entire blog is a must read full of excellent analysis.
IMHO this is a tremendously important development with many complicated implications for the navies of the Baltic Sea region.
Any thoughts?
I found that hilarious:
And Poland of course is simply calling the pipeline “the new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” (aka “Hitler-Stalin Pact”), because it will make it possible for Russia to cut gas to Poland without affecting Western Europe.
OK, since yesterday night the Polish will use better wording, although the change in government does not change the strategical objects so much. Just the new government does not rely so much on anti-German feelings.
Anyways, I think the Baltics are a potential zone of smuggling and “terror”. Interrupting the gas pipeline would cause major consequences, and the line runs through international waters. Also small boats can start from international waters and land at the coast, hard to detect and deter. Maybe we can arrange some kind of “bouncer” at the Skagerrak who watches every ship that enters the Baltic, refusing those without permission.
From the pure international conflict point of view I don’t see issues. All countries around the Baltic are either NATO or EU, or Russia.
From the economic and environmental point of view I think much was achieved, but even more needs to be achieved. I think foremost of pollution by industrial centers at the coast and rivers, and fishing. The Baltic is pretty much empty and only joined effort can restore and stabilize a useful harvest ground for fishing. But if it comes to fishing, EU proves unable to find any useful compromise. Maybe the Germans then have to scare the others with the Russian bear. 😀
SchorschWhat exactly can the V-22 do in Iraq that other helicopters can’t do? The price tag of 110 million per copy is astonishing. Imagine an insurgent would quit fighting for 10000 USD per man and year as bribery. For one Osprey less per year you could pay 11000 insurgents. That would bring peace and prosperity.
SchorschWhile, I believe the Typhoon is a excellent fighter and only second to the Raptor and possibly third if you include the Lightning. It would not provide the kill ratio high enough to guarantee victory over China’s large fleet of Flankers and J-10’s. Also, both Raptors and Typhoons are currently in production. So availability for either would be about the same.
How do you assess the kill ratio of an aircraft? For a defensive situation where “the large fleet of Flankers” comes to Japan to attack the … (don’t know), the Japanese are in an excellent position. In these situations even the Phantoms can score kills. The Flanker and J-10 as operated by the Chinese are no super fighters, in terms of technology possible an equal match to the F-15s. But over Japanese home islands the Chinese are unlikely to achieve air superiority.
SchorschPerhaps not so much the MiG-23 but rather the MiG-27 – or even the MiG-23BN. Both of these aircraft must be the fastest tactical strike, CAS aircraft at low level, especially at ingress and egress over the target zone. Certainly this high speed ability was a saving grace of the F-105 ‘Thud’ over Vietnam, and I’m sure the MiG is even faster.
In this respect it would be interesting to compare the MiG with the Sepecat Jaguar, especially in Indian air force service – how much faster do the Indians find the MiG to be compared to the Jag at low level and with the same weight of stores?
Yes, clean it might be true, but with any useful payload all are limited to high subsonic speeds. Possibly a very short dash to supersonic is possible, but is prohibitive in terms of expended fuel. For AAA and SAM 40 kts more or less don’t make the big difference, and I guess nearly all will make 550kts on the deck with payload.
Sign In
