SchorschLooking at your response I get the feeling that you, OTOH, consider the pan-European Typhoon as extremely useful, am I right here? Another feeling I get is that you, of course, count yourself to the group having understanding of aeronautics. So far, nothing wrong with that, but I finally would like you to point out WHY EXACTLY THE TYPHOON IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE COMPLETELY USELESS BUT WORTH-LIKING RAFALE. Funny but up to these days noone was able to satisfactorily answer this rather simple question.
Looking forward to your response.
I hope you didn’t have to wait too long.
I am asking myself if I ever wrote something bad about the Rafale? I think I desisted from it because I consider it largely similar in performance and mission. It has some advantages (carrier capable, lighter, French), some disadvantages (carrier capable, no supercruise, French). Up to a customer. That affinity of a French aircraft in a largely British/American forum is limited is not a big surprise.
Because the difference between Typhoon and Rafale is small and will finally decided on a mission-specific, scenario-driven systems level, it is out of reach for most of us (including me) to comment satisfactory. Those who can are paid for it.
But flex, did you ever take all this white noise about Rafale vs. Eurofighter really serious? I didn’t. The art of reading this forum is to seperate the valuable from the crap.
Another feeling I get is that you, of course, count yourself to the group having understanding of aeronautics.
I can read what others write and sometimes which general understanding that reflects. That forms my opinion about people here and helps me to do the art of reading this forum. I expect other people to behave similarly and to rate my opinions accordingly. If I have basic understanding or not is something I let others judge about.
BIG FAT EDIT:
I just used the mighty search-function to look for “Schorsch” and “Rafale”. I cannot see any extremely negative opinion stated towards the Rafale, except that it is a failed money-eating program.
And I saw that this is my 888th post. Schnaps-Zahl!
SchorschA 1968 letter from Defense Secretary Clifford to State Secretary Rusk at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2262.htm mentioned that the air bases in Spain were originally built for SAC operations and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for forward deployment there.
Here is my quesion – how many refuels were needed for a fully-laden B-58 to bomb its target in the USSR and come back to Spain?
On a side note, Vice Admiral Gerald E. Miller wrote in his book “Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers” that the Navy RA-5C Vigilantes – operating from carriers in the Bay of Biscay – were assigned to targets in Eastern Europe.
Cheers,
Sunho
I doubt the B-58 has a range Spain-USSR and back. The question is the time at supersonic speeds. I read that the combat radius is 1400nm, but that is internet source. So nobody knows the boundary conditions for that.
Schorschim looking at some older threads and alot of people here seem to like the Rafale over the Typhoon, Gripen and even Su-30MKK/MKI, what is so special about it.
French produces lots of things that aren’t particularly useful but just worth liking. Like the whole country. The people around here are not a representative aviation expert community, just forum people, most of us miss the most basic understanding of aeronautics.
SchorschSukhoi is just an design bureau. Unlike with BAe or LM which also include prototyping and production facilities this is not the case. (KnAAPO, IAPO, NAPO).
An example: Mosad employs roughly 1500 people compared to over 80,000 from former KGB. Would you arate KGB as much more influental or powerful than the first mentioned?
The KGB is as far as I know gone for good. And I don’t really get your point. The fact that Sukhoi is not an integrated company is a huge disadvantage.
Let us bet it will be much sooner than EADS..
EADS has with the EF2000 their fighter for the market. We don’t need to do childish comparisons, fact is that most countries don’t buy their fighter due to the specs but due to the value for money considerations on a wider scale.
On traditional markets no mistrust against Russia is really meaningful. Russia will never deliver to Singapore, so whay should they give a damn about what Singaporeans think about them?
We are talking about Western nations, ain’t we?
All Western nations been in close-hostile relationsships to Russia for prolonged times and EU is again worried about human rights and political freedom in Russia. Russian government likes to mention the energy trumpcard from time to time, so the drive for Western politicians to increase dependency on Russia is limited at best.
And after all you get better products from a variety of Western nations (USA, France, Sweden, EF-consortium) with a little add-on in price. Why buy Russian at all?
SchorschDownload the sheet , it specifically says ORDERS on the ORDERS section , DELIVERIES on the DELIVERY section etc etc , Both boeing and airbus list orders and deliveries while airbus doesnt list cancellatioins till year end while boeing updates cancellations every week .
The text says different. I believe in that. But from my experience the Airbus homepage sometimes doesn’t keep pace with the quick direction changes. They have to update the CEO so often, no ressources left to update the A350 homepage.
Schorsch:confused: Care to elaborate?
They cannot compete in terms of available money and business volume. Against a company like EADS and Lockheed Martin Sukhoi looks awefully small. Hence the advantage they have due to competitive or better technology from the SU time is shrinking. Some areas will remain competitive, but it is unlikely that they develop a new fighter-jet.
But the main issue will be small economic power of the companies and overall economy, which probably cannot provide sufficient compensation business. Biggest hurdle is in my eyes the inherent mistrust against Russia, which isn’t going to be reduced by the current Russian government.
SchorschNo Western country will buy a fighter without getting some kind of industrial compensation. If Russia can offer that better than Western compitetors, there is a slight chance. But I doubt that. The time window is closing with Russian technology becoming increasingly outdated and Russian companies yet not fully integrated business entities. When Russia wants to sell aircraft to the West, they will come in conflict with technology proliferation.
SchorschNice that you read the quarterly reports of Boeing company well, but it seems that you got my point now: Whatever they invest on the B747, they don’t do it on considerations of their financial abilities but the expected profits. As that the whole B747-8I can well be cancelled. While at the moment they are well off with F-orders and can work the market until they find one to order the Pax-version.
To the A350 orders:
What will the orders be when the program is not launched? The “orders” of the A350 say nothing else than “we buy whatever comes out of your factory”. The airlines ordered payload-range capability at a cost-promise. So when Airbus promises to be better on the A350 then originally planned there is no need to cancel promising slots.
Airbus homepage talks of commitments only.
SchorschMan, what you wanna tell me?
Not always true , Just look at the airlines that ordered the A350Mki1 (AKA A330 on steroids) they were supposed to get an aircraft which was narrower,would have seated less(9 abreast not an option for many ) and would have offered less comfortable . What they get now is the XWB which is wider,greater PAX,greater range, more payload and comes a minimum of 3 years later . Look at what ANA,JAL and others who were the initial orderers of the 787-8 , they not get an aircraft which seats more PAX and Payload (boeign made the 787 slightly bigger in 2004-05) .
If I had the money, I would buy a Dreamliner, too …
Buddy, do you really think the “orders” of the A350 have ever been for real? A program that is in such a state cannot have orders. The customers that filed orders have commitments at best. No matter what kind of contract Airbus made with these customers, it is obsolete now. Maybe some airlines gave Airbus a wild card, but I guess most airlines that have A350 “on order” just reserve early delivery spots. Real business will be done after A350 re-launch.
Which means what exactly? So if a company makes more money elsewhere it has something fundamentally wrong with it ? Look at BAE ( who only until recently were onwers of Airbus (or EADS) ) and EADS and total up their defence buisness and you’ll see that they also do a lot of buisness in defence and aerospace.
Which means, that a company XY, that has a sub-division that accounts for 40% of its business, can afford quite a lot of money. Boeing is financially very powerful and can afford whatever they want. the won’t do, because Mr Shareholder will be very disappointed if the profit margin falls below double-digit. That is what you call “Business & Economy”, it is independent from the fact that Boeing produces aircraft and not tomato soup.
Upto a certain extent. If say LH place an order for the 747-8 (465PAX varient) in dec. 2006 (hypothetical but might happen ) the boeing can always make changes to improve upon the design so that they can offer the 8300 range without making compromise in payload (through effeceincies etc) like they are currently thinking of doing. What they cannot do is go back to 450 PAX and increase range unless they want to risk loosing LH as a customer.
If LH makes an order, Boeing would rename the B747-8 into Nightmareliner and paint the prototype in pink. Whatever they want. That’s business.
SchorschI dont think that recource is a major issue here and monetarily speaking boeing has allready showed that they will Put extra money (300 million over 2 years) if required into the 747-8 Program. The problem would be the future outlook , If boeing doesnt see huge no.s (and by huge I dont mean 300 I sales but something like 100-140) ….
I did not talk about the theoretical bugdet, which a company like Boeing (which makes 60% of its money outside civil aviation) can afford. It is what the program gets from the board.
If an airline orders an aircraft, they order payload-range, cabin, operating costs, etc. How the manufacturer achieves this is his problem. The “design freeze” is an engineering thing. But Boeing hasn’t decided about the very most important thing yet (payload-range), and will/need do it when somebody puts an order. That was my point. Short and simple logic.
SchorschI dont think so . I dont think Leahy or any 1 at airbus really said something this vague . When you refer to 17% you need to be clear as to 17% better overall COST , 17% CASM ? 17% RASM ? etc etc , Boeing have targeted their 747-8I so that it delivers slightly better CASM then the A380-800 (note the -800 and not the -900 which will blow away CASM to levels never previously seen specially if it is reengined) however their Assertions (of a 10% lower CASM) are based on FUEL BURN on accounts of using the latest engines as well as the High price of aviation fuel . If the high Fuel price becomes lower then a lot of the CASM advantage (which boeing claim is slightly better then the A380) will be lost because even at this high cost (of fuel) the Fuel Burn still only contributes about 40% of CASM (according to a lot of the airline folks I’ve talked to ) , The other figures such as OEW , wing eff. etc are more constant . Another point of contention is that Airbus doesnt know the final version of the 747-8I , all they know are the engines it is going to use , Wings etc but they dont know the PAX (yet) as boeing is currently re-evaluating this as they had originally created a more effeceint design (after they tested it ) and found out that the range requirment was bettered by some 300-400 nm therefore they traded that for about 15 extra PAX . However once this was done airlines like EK said that they could well do with the extra range (opens up the Dubai-LAX route for favourable payload-range) therefore boeing juggled between either launching the 2 vareints (one with lesser PAX and 8300-8500nm range and one with more strech and 15 more PAX for 8000nm range) or creating more effeceincy through weight reductions,tweaking and reducing safety margins and comming up with one varient that can do both . Boeing is yet to decide on which ( 1 or both) aircraft is lauched and it seems they have more time to think as the F orders have pretty much hijacked the line till 2nd quarter 2010 and most of the airlines evaluating the 747-8 (BA,LH,EK etc) wont be deciding on fleet renewal desicsion till next year. Airbus simply doesnt have a boeing 747-8 varient to compare their A380 to other then the 744.
What is it that you want to tell me? As I said: These statements are common within the industry, but interpretation is to the reader.
The B747-8 still hasn’t scored any order, and as long Boeing doesn’t have an order the version ist not freezed. Simple logic. What they want and do and achieve are three different things with additional contraints like available money and manpower. The cost advantage over a competing design is nothing you dial in a mighty design computer, which then plots the blue-print.
SchorschA380 delivery on track
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/11/24/10084827.html
Ummm 17% better then a Boeing product that hasnt even been Designed (not even design frozen) yet!! I thought Airbus would have been a little smarter then this given what happened when they started claiming how much (%) the original and rearranged A350 versions were better then the 787.
He uses the stated performance figures by Boeing on a mission most probably favorable for the A380. Standard business practice which I don’t support either. But see who talked to whom and understand what the basic message was.
SchorschSounds the a380 is out of the woods finally.
So how quiet is the a380 then? Cabin noise is something that bugs me. I’ve been on a340’s and they are meant to be pretty quiet. I did notice the a340 were quieter than say a 777 but it still sounds like someone has a vacuum cleaner on. If the a380 can better an a340 then that would be neat.
The A380 is supposed to be relatively quiet, but I don’t have any numbers on Boeing or Airbus aircraft. I guess cabin noise is a science in itself, saying a cabin is noisy is too simple (location, definitin of noise, bababa).
The news are nice to read but I wouldn’t rate this as the end of A380 problems. Check the messenger. Problems are solved (for any aircraft from any manufacturer) when aircraft is
– certified
– delivered
– in revenue operations.
Milestone 1 is taken quite soon.
SchorschSorry, I meant Su-34 pilots. The Su-34 surely is less maneuvrable than Su-27, imagine the almost 40 tons of weight! At the same time think of older types like IRIAF Su-24 being often engaged in mockup combats on A-A when attacked. AFM reports says Iranian Fencers often surprised IRIAF F-7N pilots using either very low altitude of unexpectedly sharp maneuvers to get rid of the lock on, not seldom reasonably successful even against F-14A. Therefore, I can pretty much imagine Fullback’s manoeuvrability being fully comparable at least to a Tomcat, which is a pretty pleasing result for a dedicated strike aircraft.
Seen the thing perform on Farn or MAKS with full weapons load? Find a video and see for yourself.
That is last-ditch option for all low-level speeders. When at medium altitude, the attacked aircraft can drop all ordonance, dive down and rush out at or above speed of sound. Only few fighters can follow, most will lose visual and radar-contact. Gound control will lose contact, too. On tree-top level the Tornados, Fencer and Aardvarks were relatively safe (of fighters).
Today penetration of highly defended hostile airspace to drop the Bomb is gone from the mission catalogue (we have other weapons for that).
SchorschDoes anybody know which aircraft it was supposed to replace? Or which aircraft did take its role finally?
Sign In
