Oh , Many challenges , some known others unknown . However every major milestone in aviation has come with challenged , when boeing build the 747 in the 70’s it was a big challenge , i dont see this much more of a challenge then what 747 was back in those days . Ofcourse there has to be a market there to justify it which would only be satisfied if there is a Military plus freight aplication which looks like a serious possibility .

I am not the best source for A380 development , but I am closely monitoring the 787 development , from a proffesional stand point as my buisness deals with boeing ( BCA) , various japanese suppliers and korean suppliers . The 787 is/was a very complicated program , the engineering side challenges are well known (building top quality barrels using mandarels spinning techniques never before used in Widebody commercial aviation , extensive use of CFRP monolithich structures , Re design of Lap joints , defining frames and using hoops for binding rather then as weight bearing etc etc) however a lot of the risk was in the production process and getting everyone to work as a team and respond to each other’s problems . The 787 still remains a very ambitious and challenging program .

B747, B787 and A380 were/are all ambitious programs. But basically they were build on existing knowledge in overall aircraft design. Their customers somehow knew what to expect.

I cannot see how the limited market of large first-hand freighters can support such an aircraft. If someone needs large cargo aircraft with superior economics, he can have the A380.

There are some small pieces of evidence that the RAF considered the idea of updating a force of Vulcans and fitting them with a cruise missile of some sort, but the cost of bringing the Tornado GR1 into service, coupled with the financial situation Britain found itself in during the early 1980s meant that while the idea had some support in Whitehall, it simply couldn’t be afforded.

The runway at Stanley was, in fact, considered to be a strategic target. Closing it was not viewed as likely, given the nav & weapons aiming kit in the Vulcan, but the possible effect that using a Vulcan to bomb might have in concentrating minds in Buenos Aries meant that the chiefs of staff (with the Navy being most enthusiastic) felt that the attack was worthwhile. I would at this point provide the link the a pdf of a transcript of the Institute of Contemporary British History Falklands Witness Seminar in which MRAF Sir Michael Beetham, Admiral Sir Henry Leach and Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward discuss this, but the ICBH site appears to be down…

Adm Woodward said:

‘My dark blue aviators said “Oh, it’s the air force just trying to get in on the act”, but I said, hang on a minute, there will be two things. If they do hit the runway, that can’t be bad, they can disrupt it… but also it will have exactly that effect of causing them [the junta] to think they could come at us on the mainland. It is showing reach and therefore it is deterrent. And I suspect it made them hold back some of their Mirages, which could have acted as top cover for their A-4 raids. So I signed up for it and told my aviators to shut up.’

Whether that’s a correct assertion about the Mirages has been debated, but the intent behind the planning of the raid certainly had a strategic aspect to it.

I can understand that the RAF wants to point out its role in this conflict, and the Blackbuck missions were daring attacks. However, they were more or less without effect and the deterrence was very theoretic. Argentinia and UK were not involved in an all-out war. Attacking mainland Argentinia was out of reach, politically. On the other hand, for the Argentines, escalating the war would have resulted in the USA entering the war in favor of the Brits, which would have shortened the whole thing quite a bit.

When we look at the struggle on and around the Falklands, and the 250 lost Brit soldiers (and 750 Argis), there would most likely be no more or less without the Vulcan.
The Mirage fighters were too low on range to act as fighter escort.

I see your point…which is why I called the Vulcan operations in the Falklands long range bombers, not strategic.

The better option for a Vulcan replacement would have been to develop a cruise missile. It can perform most missions, especially strike identified targets from some distance. I wonder why no other nation went this way.

Now, whether this was the ‘right’ decision or not………that is
another question. :rolleyes:

Retiring an 1950s aircraft in the 80ies, that eats resources, cannot fly missions against a defended airspace, doesn’t have useful range, and after all doesn’t carry so terribbly much bombs. I would say: overdue.

Actually the MiG-21 can hold itself very well in WVR, but the early radar blows in low alt, with ground clutter and all those issues. The F-5 on the other hand, is never a high flyer, always fighting down low, not a good situation for the MiG-21’s radar.

You are right. The MiG-21 has after all more power.
But I think most thrid world a2a combats take place below 20000ft, where the enemy’s fighterbombers and targets are. Radar for both is not suitable for independend search for hostile fighters. Either they make contact visually, or a ground station gives them a rough vector.

The Sowjets even named them MiG-28, but they were all shot down by awesome Tomcats … or do I mix fiction and reality? 😀

The Su-27 was (like the MiG-29) based on a design which has its roots in the MiG-25. The similarities (twin fin, intake, etc) between the designs are more likely due to similar design challenges.
The only “inspiration” I see is the ability to use BVR weapons on tactical fighter aircraft (not only on interceptors) and to carry more than 4 or 6 AAMs (on the Su-27).

Could be possible that the F 15 and F14 inspired the Flanker?

So, basically, the answer is NO.

Yip, I would say it’s not only about giving the best design possible to the customer (otherwise were are those BWB airliners?), it is also about optimizing the business case for the manufacturer. And the 380’s break-even-point now up at 300 or so, Airbus will have a long dry spell, whereas the 747NG should brake even at around 60 to 70 (just my estimation), so they should be already making a profit.

The risk of development with the outlays for production preperation is too much for any margin-focussed company. It just doesn’t pay off. Financially, building crap-stuff in China brings more margin.
The A380 is truly the biggest a privately run stockholder company can manage. Actually, without some backing by the government, the A380 would have been too much.