SchorschYou forgot to mention the Bomarc systems.;)
When I read about such, or check nuclear weapons stockpiles, or bomber forces, I come to the conclusion that USA could easily have wiped out USSR until the beginning of 1960. However, the European wouldn’t have been as safe. Still, the Soviet Union had practically no means to succesfully ingress in US airspace.
Schorsch3) The expected Soviet Mach 3 bombers didnt exist in reality at that time to the extent that the western ones did (Avro 730 prototype was under construction when it was cancelled and of course the Valkyrie flew).
The Soviets even lacked a suitable subsonic bomber for the mission. The Tu-95 could rech USA and g back, but was hopelessly slow. The Bison was faster, but a sober check on the range made it incapable of reaching USA, and it was never present in useful number. Tu-16 and Tu-22 were in-theatre aircraft, and the M-50 was an expensive test program, something like the Soviet Valkyrie.
Beside the billions spent on F-102 and F-106 program (which was practically one program), including its guidance system (SAGE), the missiles and all the other things, USA spent billions on air defense missiles (NIKE).
In conclusion, the billions spent on “homeland defense” did more or less become irrelevant when first ICBMs were available in numbers (while those were still vulnerable). Still were American forces in Europe and in local conflicts like Vietnam often outgunned and badly equipped. I guess those factors also played a part in killing the next billion-dollar Wunderflugzeug B-1.
3. It wasn’t specifically Mach 3 bombers as it was intercontinental supersonic (around Mach 2) bombers. You are correct in stating that the threat never materialized though. The closest thing to it would’ve been the Tu-160, but that wasn’t so much a bomber as a strategic missile carrier (although a high-speed interceptor’s chances of getting to a BLACKJACK before it could fire its missiles would be an interesting line of discussion). The T-4 and the Tu-22M were conceived with blowing up aircraft carriers in mind anyway, not striking the US mainland.
Which became operational end 1980s with the striking number of 14 being in service. It, too, had problems to reach USA and go back when using supersonic speeds.
SchorschNo its not spurious , look at the buisness traveler ask him which aircraft he would prefer and you will get the 777 , a380 etc . The 340 is liked due to its low noise , the 777 is wide and comfortable , the a380 will have huge floor space that can be used to generate revenue .
People like
– wide seats
– space
– good food
– good entertainment
– good service
– hot stewardess
Neither of the above is in any way aircraft dependent, actually you have more space in an aging B767 than in an A380. Most people don’t know the difference between the aircraft, and most don’t care. Maybe some notice they fly on B787, but the majority will not, granted the stuff listed above is OK.
For passenger preference it is best to invest in new cabins and hotter stewardess, which are platform-independent.
SchorschAllow me too say it again- its just a bit of fun.:rolleyes:
Germany from ~2014 on:
180 EF2000 (-attrition)
Possibly new two-seat fighter-bomber EF2000, but then some early fighters go second hand market.
SchorschFor the US Navy:
1000 F/A-18F – with thrust vectoring and new AESA, with the more powerful engines planned. Provides the Navy with a reasonably good air superiority aircraft, and with the upgrades, can hold its own against pretty much anyone, even if it doesn’t have much of an edge.
250 EA-18G – enough for a full squadron in each airwing, allowing much more jamming capability, and also extra tankers when needed.
500 UCAV – enough for at least one or even two squadrons per airwing, giving stealthy strike capability.
Wait, the Navy are those guys with the carriers, right? A carrier can take 80 .. let’s say 90 aircraft, deducting auxiliary aircraft like AEW, helis and ASW aircraft, normal US carrier houses about 70 strike aircraft. Were to put all those aircraft? Oh, I forget:
20 Mega-Carriers with 200 strike aircraft capacity and 5GW nuclear fission reactor, speeds up to 60 knots.
An F-18F with more powerful engines? I would suggest to add the obscenely big external drop tanks, too.
Seriously, you don’t have much idea about military aviation, do you?
SchorschBut whilst I am at it I will scrap the A and C variants of the F-35 and keep the B variant for the USMC only. Both the USN can have F-23’s and A-12s.:diablo:
What makes you think the F-23 or the A-12 will come out any better? The F-23 was a prototype and serial aircraft would go through the usual cost and weight increase like F-22 and F-35. A-12 wasn’t even a prototype, when it was axed by Dick Cheney himself the Navy didn’t even figured out exactly what engine it should use. It would come out – like any aircraft specified by USN or USAF – overweight, overbudget and underperformance.
SchorschDisagree. The 106 was a very effective interceptor (this coming from pilots and maintenance people I’ve known) …or else the USAF would not have kept it for the better part of 30 years.
Maybe they kept them because they knew they wouldn’t get any new fighters from congress? 😀
No, seriously, the F-106 was a useful machine, while any aircraft in the world has its problems and drawbacks.
SchorschUSAF/USN/USMC
A-12 Avenger 2
B-2 Spirit
F-23 Black Widow 2
F-35A/B/C
As many as can be afforded!
So basically none.
Someone with taste! F-23 (USAF), F-22 (USN) would have been a nice F-15/F-14 like combo
Yeah, especially Northrop would be happy to test another aircraft and get another two-digit billion dollar paycheck. Like F-14/F-15 and F-16/F-17->F-18 the aviation lobby is strong and the military stupid enough to ask for many airframes for similar missions.
If you all were defence minister, the air force would go out totally out of money with few inadequate aircraft.
John Boyd would call you “Gold-platers”.
Schorschimagine for some reason you have become the head of any countries ministry of defense.
… and you come along with a plan like this …
United States
Air Force
200x B-1B Lancer
100x B-2A Spirit
100x B-52H Stratofortress
80x KC-10A Extender
400x KC-747 Tanker Transport-to replace all KC-135s
40x SR-71A Blackbird-to replace U-2s
600x F-14E Super Tomcat 21
400x F-4E Phantom II-updated with turbofans/APG-65 to replace F-16s
200x RF-4E Phantom II
100x F-4G Wild Weasel
200x Tornado ECR-Based in Europe/Japan to replace F-16CJ
200x F-15E Strike Eagle
400x A-10A/B Warthog
200x EMB-314 ALX-Good COIN/CSAR escort
200x HH-60D Nighthawk
100x MH-53K Pave Low-Based on CH-53K airframe
100x MH-65D Panther-Based on AS-565MA,used to replace remaining UH-1N,also used as a light gunship escort for the MH-53/-60
150x C-5M Galaxy
200x C-17A Globemaster III
200x An-70-to replace C-130
40x E-3C Sentry
20x E-8B J-STARSArmy
600x AH-64D Longbow Apache
800x UH-60M Blackhawk
300x Ka-52 Werewolf-To replace OH-58D in scout/light attack role
400x CH-53K Super Stallion-To replace CH-47s
200x CV-22A Ospery-For use as transports/SAR/Special Ops/EW/Aeromedical evac
60x An-72 Coaler-To replace C-23BsNavy
400x F-14E Super Tomcat 21
100x RF-14E Super Tomcat 21-Based on F-14E Airframe with RF-4 type nose
400x A-6F Intruder II
400x F-35C JSF
100x EA-18G Growler
100x S-3B Viking
100x E-2D Hawkeye 2000
150H-60R Seahawk
80x MH-53E Sea Dragon
200x CH-53K Super Stallion
200x P-8A
40x E-6B Mecury-20 used mainly by Navy,while another 20 used mainly by AF
Marines200x AV-8B+ Harrier
200x F-35B JSF
200x AH-64B Sea Apache
400x CH-60S Knighthawk-To replace CH-46s
200x CH-53K Super Stallion
… you are back in your fiching cabin the other day.
While I like the 550 transports and 500 strategic bombers. I miss the F-16 a bit. All parked in the desert?
SchorschThe F-12A is a typical example of an aircraft, that was cancelled and in the aftermath got overated as it never had the chance to fail to exceed its budget. Most aircraft that got cancelled would have run into exactly the same problems all aircraft ran in. There are some aircraft which maybe would have performed quite OK, mostly because their design mission was not yet covered, but in case of the F-12A the mission was superfluet the day it made its first flight and the USAF stuck to its F-106, who offered best value for money.
SchorschThe problem with this segement is that unlike the mid sized widebody this particular segement is very advanced interms of the 737NG and A320 being really eff. jets even by todays standards . I was talking to a boeing engineer about it on my way back from japan last week and he was of the opinion that the eff gains from CFRP and using it to reduce OEW would be around half of the the 787 ( in terms of the net effect on burn) because the cruise distance is very little for NB’s . Having said that they have to get the most they can out of the engines which will come online only at a slow pace as the manuf. are happy milking their older products . The single biggest thing (USP) for boeing’s NB (and i use only boeing because i know nothing of what AB is thinking on this subject) is to reduce the MX value by as much as possible , increase fleet availability , decrease downtime and increase cycles !!
I read that A319 at EasyJet has 99.7% reliability (less than 15 minutes of delay due to maintenance). I can’t see a big jump in availability.
The fuel burn advantage would be comparable, but the fuel burn does not represent a large share of the costs. An aircraft that lands twice in 24h will have less costs for ATC and airport than one landing 10 times in 24h.
Schorsch6 hits out of 7 firings from the YF-12A (the miss was due to a failure in an internal component of the missile).
How many Sparrow missiles hit in testing?
SchorschI think this thought may have had some sense to it.
For a F-12B could have assisted US bombers a greater chance of getting through – one would think!
If they were multi-rolled – they could have also cleared a corridor through the ground base radar systems as well?
But this would have added to cost and a split in payloadWell that my 2 cents worth!
Regards
Pioneer
That was actually the job of the SRAM-equipped B-52s: nuking a way through the air defence.
I am not sure, but was really YF12A – a long range mach 3 interceptor supposed to be based on SR-71 Blackbird design? No way to be a real interceptor, no way.
– where to put the huge radar needed? – the nose cone is quite small
– difficult/long maintenance before taking off
– where to put the weapons? – there is not enough space even for two big range missiles inside, hanging outside would affect badly the aerodynamics
– bad maneuverability..and maybe more shortcomings….
Any useful long range interceptor needs air and ground guidance to work efficiently, especially in a 1970s technical environment.
SchorschHave interceptor – need bomber.
Honestly, the Soviet strategic forces never really threatened American territory to an extent that Mach3 interceptors were useful. The Soviets had supersonic designs and they had designs that could reach CONUS, never they had one that could do both at the same time. Actually, I think the Soviets never had a really capable bomber force able of reaching a target in the USA and getting back. USAF had 700 B-52s and 300 KC-135, I think the Soviets never produced more than 200 long range bombers and lacked really capable refuelling aircraft.
There were one million more important things in the USAF, like getting more tactical aircraft, getting better tactical aircraft (at that time the majority was F-4C and D, which were no adequate against the MiG-21 in superior numbers) and increasing training.
SchorschThis is rather pointless thing to discuss , every segment of the market has its own cycle which is influenced by a host of other things . Airlines in asia had to expand to meet the huge expansion going on in that region , Some new carriers like EK , QR etc arent dealing with monetary issues due to nearly endless supply of cash from the promoters concerned. The US legacy should be starting their Replacement cycle in about 2013-2014 so around 4-5 years after the asian and the new WORLD CARRIERS which begain in 2009-2010 . NW is getting its 787 much earlier starting next year IIRC so their are always exceptions . The Cycle for the US legacy’s is largely influenced by their economic situation ( The cause of which is of no concern to the topic in hand) as its very very hard to buy new aircraft when under bankruptsy and as they come out of it they have to see when they can get favourable Finances for these new fleets . Some of the european legacy carriers also have a delayed cycle but that is just their internal cycle (Like for BA and LH , AF etc ) . Both airbus and boeing think that the timeframe for the US legacy has come and it is only a matter of time before they start the ball rolling . This is also influenced by the huge sales that the 787 and 350 aircraft are seeing( as indeed the 330 and 777) which by creating a huge backlog of orders is putting price pressure and is forcing many airlines to rush their plans a bit to get favourable delivery slots . This was evident during the 787 rollout where the general mood amongst some of the airlines was that they have to use their options now because as one exec put it ” Delta is looking at 100 and 50 options” hence we saw around 70 orders being committed too in the week of the launch .
It ain’t so pointless, as current US carriers have some things in common
– their long range network partly relies on B767
– cash is low
– competition is tough
Indeed, if their cash situation remains so problematic, it will interesting to see which decision they take for future fleet. We have seen that for domestic short-haul fleets older types are considered still valuable due to low cost of ownership. The fuel advantage on long range is normally more pronounced, and consequently the carriers should be eager to replace their existing fleet of B767.
Maybe some don’t.
Sign In
