SchorschThe overall GDP is $516.7 bn. With population of 68 mil it makes roughly $7,600 per capita. Slightly worse as if the economy of Netherlands would have to feed the whole France. Nothing I would call ‘extremely rich’ if you ask me..
I agree. Iran is a country with good future expectations but they cannot waste the money. Additionally they do “waste” some money on other projects (get the bomb) and threaten potential foreign investors with their funny politics. They have a very young population and some domestic issues (the reason Mr A. was voted after all).
From the air defence point of view and regarding that the only real threat is US/alliance, an air force doesn’t make too much sense. No matter what kind of air force they have, against US there is slight chance of surviving. Nobody would dare to invade Iran.
The money is better spend on ground-based air defence systems (while even those are of limited use) or in hiding and hardening the strategic facilities.
Additionally, selling fighters to Iran is at the moment connected with a considerable political price (to be paid in EURO and USD).
Iran’s programs are impressive but one should not expect any competitive design in the F-16 class in the next years.
SchorschI dont have a link. But i could scan the article. Dont know though if that is allowed…
Anyway, theres the AMP (avionics modernisation program) and the RERP. The fleet includes 60 As, 50 Bs and 2 Cs. So i guess the term entire fleet refers to all of them (nothing contrary stated).
Interesting is the fact that the third plane to be reengined is a C-5A.
That is for the reason to check the feasibility with the A-model. However, re-engining will first be performed on the B-models. I think it is likely that A-model re-enginening will be reduced to a number of selected airframes. Was in the article stated what the structural evaluation of the one A-model unveilded, were figures givven on the average remaining life-time of the aircraft?
SchorschAnd also post 12 of 305 the serbian pilots that flew the serbian migs wernt lossers plus if you look at the pilots ranks most of them are major’s and captian’s beacuse in Serbia they aint rich as the US that a 25 year old can get to fly around in a mig 29 the mig 29 is like pretty much reserved to the more ranked pilots.
I consider the countries who bought the MiG-29 as losers, not the pilots. The reason why they were losers at that time and who was responsible is beyond this discussion.
SchorschI’ll drink one Jägermeister to that!
People make these conclusion because it fits to their nationalistic-oriented opinions.. US tech fans love to talk about kill ratios and drag them out whenever they can. And on the other side, if ever any MiG-29 managed to shot down an F-16 in anger, for the large Russophile community this would constitute a glorifying proof of Fulcrum’s advantage over F-16 in ANY situation and under any circumstances. Go figure..
Prost!
It is safe to say that the US designs downed more enemy fighters, especially in the hand of Israel and USA. One can derive anything from that. Be creative!
But the most important factor concerning MiG-29 reputation was already mentioned:
The MiG-29 biggest problems were their users. They are to blame, because they were all losers. If the Israelis had 29ers in any conflict the picture would look different. The MiG-29’s dogfight ability is surely in the same league as the F-16, with advantages depending on the author. However, the MiG-29 is the best example that these abilities don’t make the big difference.
The last conflict that had any really usable engagements to evaluate the aircraft’s ability was in my eyes Vietnam, maybe Yom Kippur and partly Iran-Iraq. After that all engagements were overshadowed by other factors or were too short and one-sided to determine any aircraft-specific figures. Maybe the Lebanon disaster can be used for some conclusions, but here again the main conclusion is that the Syrians were stupid, too much trained on Russian tactics, while the Israelis made a good investment in all-aspect IR missiles and E-2C Hawkeye.
SchorschI understand. But calling a situation where two desperate MiGs without radars and RWR take off against the coalition forces fielding hordes of AWACS and ECM supported teen-series fighters an appropriate way to prove any quality of the MiG-29 is, mildly said, ridiculous. I think, data from ERAF vs ETAF conflict are much more valuable, despite the things you have mentioned.
Which finally might recommend the conclusion, that no conflict really proves first hand anything of the quality of the fighters used in it. But this conclusion is unfortunately far away from this community, although it is the most obvious regarding the facts.
SchorschWing tip missiles are a low drag solution to carry a missile. The wing tip produces some drag anyways, the missile might even function as a small wing tip fence. The biggest advantage is the low interference drag which normally occurs at pylons mounted beneath the wing.
The wing tip is, on the other hand, a perfect position for ECM equipment, as both wingtips cover 100% of the surrounding. Disadvantage is the high level of vibration and the sometimes excessive accelerations, for example during fast rolls.
The thing with the Flanker is new to me but makes sense when you see the big wing (and the relatively light structure). The Eagle maybe focussed on clear wing design. However, maybe McDonnel engineers just didn’t like wing tip missiles. Sometimes its all about heritage.
In general wing tip missiles (or ECM pods) are a good thing.
SchorschDo your homework first.. Check the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, as well as conflict between Moldova and Russia back in early nineties.. IIRC, they got something like 8 or 9 kills against some 20-25 losses.. Oh, plus the unlucky Cessna…
I think these local conflicts are a pretty messy thing without clear information available. Perhaps because AC.IG doesn’t cover it like it covers F-14 TOMCAT. If you ever have a conflict in your country and you want to have excessive coverage by AC.IG, get F-14 TOMCAT involved.
However, these local conflicts were once again unappropriate to prove any quality of the MiG-29. Most losses I guess in those conflicts were due to ground fire and operational, while sometimes the pilot doesn’t even know he was shot down by another plane (if your aircraft is on fire, it is on fire, if the missile came from above or beneath is secondary).
SchorschDates were Lockheed win, Oct/65 with GE TF39 (CF-6). Pratt left with paper JT9D, Boeing with lookalike lifter. Together they persuaded PanAm that 20 pax bigfellas would be a good idea and priced their bid on assumption of some dozens more as commercial freighters. Trippe ordered 20 747/JT9D April/66 at $5Mn. each. 747X is on offer today >$200Mn.
This had been a very early all-up, fixed price procurement, and Lockheed just got it wrong. The 81 C-5A near-bankrupted them in 1971, and very market-force Congress had to bail them out. At the time it was seen as politics: we now know black had a lot to do with it.
Burbank C-5 and L-1011 design teams included Brits made redundant by Healey.
Lockheed made a very optmistic assumption on costs and technical feasibility. As always the MTOW was way too optimistic. Same applies for B747, which first was designed for much lower MTOWs.
Lockheed was bankrupted in the first hand by the L-1011 development, especially the RB-211 disaster. The real winner of the Galaxy program was in my General Electric, who got their engine financed and made it afterwards the CF-6 with lower bypass-ratio. However, I don’t think B747 gained much through the CX-HLS design contest.
Schorsch🙂 Schorsch then.
I get your point to an extent. However, look at it this way – with the awacs hardened hornets and (even, which I am not claiming in my case, F-15s present), an Iraqi MiG-25 was able to shoot down a hornet. Nobody here is claiming that the result of an airwar will in any way be balanced. The point is, the superbugs will give the IrAF a good chance of being able to shoot a few down.
From an aviation point of view, imagine if that happened. What would the old USN tomcat drivers say?
The old Tomcat drivers would never ever get involved in an environment where they are threatened with SAMs. They are very grateful to have the SuperHornet if it comes to action over Iran.
In Iran the US/alliance had to launch a full scale attack against a much bigger (and still overrated) air force. Against Iran it would not be an attack to destroy the others army, but to take out a variety of strategic targets. Different ball game.
Schorsch– of course testing comes first with lrip in 2007.
– i think the strengthening is because of the engines.
– article says the entire fleet will be upgraded and complete by 2019.
– yes.Im talking about the article in the april issue on page 14.
I don’t read the AFM. Not because I dislike it but because nobody drops it in front of my house for free (here in france they rather take away the things in front of your house!).
Anyways, I saw an article in the AIR FORCE Magazin of January 2004. It said:
– engine is the CF-680C2
– B-models first (pretty sure), A-model to be decided in 2010
– A-models structural “remaining life time” will be determined by evaluating one airframe
The thing is called RERP (Reliability and Re-engining program).
Please tell me if your information says anything different, especially if the fade of the A-model is already decided (check how your article defines “entire fleet”). Would be great if you could link the article.
SchorschIn this case, will the average slide delpoyment time then be added on to the total time it took for the evacuation?
I reckon the deployment time is between 5 and 10 seconds, after seeing a few videos of some slides being deployed. Perhaps the larger ones on the top deck and those on the overwing exits could take up to 15 seconds?
So the test is failed, that what you want to say? :rolleyes:
The slide deployment time depends on the slide. I don’t have a number, but after the EASA and FAA approved the test (official time 78 seconds) it seems to be OK. The A380 evacuation slides were object of lots of development. I saw early slides when I was trainee in Hamburg in 2000, already with a moke-up in the real size of the A380 (of course only a section).
I heard of deployment times between 3 and 6 seconds.
SchorschAll C-5A, C-5B and C-5C are getting new engines. These are CF6-80C2-L1F or F138-GE-100 turbofans. They provide a 22% increase in thrust.
Wings are being strengthened too. As read in the latest afm 😉
Read the AFM and you know it:
– the new engines will come after testing, first for the B models
– structural strenghening depends on the status, the wing surely is the best of the whole airframe by now
– if A models get an update will be decided earliest in some years, more likely is phasing out
– first of all will be avionics update
If we talk of different AFM articles please link the new article.
Schorschi would think they would have to prove that all the slides did deploy, after being pre-soaked and frozen down to -65 degree’s for 8 hours
Slides were deployed before the test commenced due to safety considerations. Half of the exits was blocked with neither the flight attendants nor the passengers being aware of their locations.
There will be some additional tests , that have to prove passanger behaviour inside the cabin, especially the stairs in the end and the front of the aircraft. Other test with slide deployment are done also, it is not just this single test. This test was just the most spectacular.
Schorsch[QUOTE=A225HVY]
Which is dumb talk, because it would be very costly and the market perspective is not too great.
Not really dumb as latest quote to get second 225 up and running was between USD30 and USD45mil which is quite cheap when you consider the cost a new 747F and there is a market for a second 225 or Volga would not be chasing the second one 😉
A225HVY
The “unfinished” An-225 is finished to what percentage? It is lying there since 15 years, was used for some spare parts. After all you need
– similar engines
– similar systems
– similar structural parts
to get similar flight wothiness.
Most subcontractors who provided those are gone by now, lot of the engineers left the company. The aircraft is not just a progress bar from a setup program that is frozen at 34%. It is also questinable if authorities would allow makeshift second aircraft.
The 45 Million USD is a highly questionable figure sounding like marketing of a Antonov manager.
Schorschwell i heard that the Germans and the british or some other counrty admitted that they lost a few Tornadoes. Maybe its parts of that.
:rolleyes:
Germany never admitted and never lost a Tornado. They are all there. Piece for piece.
I like your statement though:
… I heard somehwere …
… that some country …
… lost a few aircraft …
… don’t know exactly…
Hey, I heard last weak that somebody did something somewhere. Maybe it is connection with this issue? Can you prove the opposite? Ha, my point!
Sign In
