SchorschThere is more to this story. Although the 400D didn’t come with winglets as standard (the winglets only offer fuel benefits in cruise, and the japanese domestic flights only lasted upto an hour, so more up and down than up, across and down), this model was designed to be converted to normal configuration at a certain point in their life, and so the winglets would be added subsequently. I know ANA had a 400D upgraded back to normal standard, I’m not sure if JAL has done any yet. The basis of this was that it would increase the revenue earning life of the aircraft by reducing the number of cycles (which through pressurisation and take-off/landings reduce the life of the airframe).
The B747-400 is just certified for more than approx. 25,000 cycles. Consequently the airframes have to be phased out after less than 10 years of service. One can assume that normally these aircraft do 5 to 8 cycles a day, if not more.
The winglets are also not needed because these aircraft never take off with MTOW. The fuel is much lower, hence you will hardly find a B747-400D taking off with 390 tons, more likely seems 330 tons and less. But on the other side the stresses on the landing gear are much higher.
A B747-400 without winglets would have serious blow on flight performance. The wing-lets were adapted because originally the wing of the B747 was adapted to the original weight of 330 tons, maybe with some room for growth.
SchorschMy prediction 🙂
First day: A sudden attack is intercepted by warry Iranian pilots, but the ensuing battle results in the loss of most of the Iranian aircraft in combat – 20 planes shot down including 5 tomcats, 4 MiG-29s and 2 MiG-31s. The airdefense system is half blown out as well but the Iranians manage to ward of the attack from the nuclear sites deeper in Iran. However, Bushehr lies in complete ruin and much of the infrastructure have at least limited damage.The US forces albeit partially successful, also suffer losses totalling 5 planes shot down – 3 of which are Super Hornets. Ironically, two of these were shot down by Iranian F-14As. The other two casualties are 1 each for the F-16 and F-15… more later
Had too much Flight Simulator and glued too many models I guess? But you obviously did not bother about modern air warfare.
If a conflict starts (what I highly doubt), the US (or alliance) sets date, target and character of the campaign. The Iranians have no means of taking initiative. they have though a very good window seat and can watch first-hand how to do it right. Their air force is good for a two day interference, but after that they are either shot down, destroyed on the ground or so outnumbered, that only taking off becomes an act of bravery. An F-14 still gets most people excited, but an 1980s F-14A without Phoenix, proper AEW and in small numbers is less effective than an F-18E with one engine.
Iran has no CCC to do any harm to US/alliance forces. If they are lucky they get at least some clue what is going on and try to improvise defence, maybe with the chance of a lucky shot. If they’re unlucky, they can only count the dead and call it a day.
The US/alliance will take out AD first, concetrationg on well-known AEW-radars and SAM-sites, preferrably with cruise missiles. After that take out air fields and other CCC-targets. Some planes might get lost, but that is unlikely as US/alliance can concetrate their forces as they wish. They will always have local superiority and can reduce effectiveness of Iranian AD to a bare funny non-existant nothing.
Losses:
Iran: all that dare to interfere
US/alliance: depends on their approach, if they take it slow and respect Iranian capabilities, the losses are zero due to enemy activity.
That is not US-happy, MiG-bashing propaganda. That is just what will happen if the World’s best air force starts a conflict against the remainder of a 1980s air force.
And please get serious and leave MiG-31 and S-300 out. Even if they have it, it won’t make a big difference.
SchorschI wonder if it would be easier for countries with less advanced manufacturing capabilities to make UCAV’s?
The complexity of modern combat aircraft is a lot to do with the need to keep the pilot alive and to get a fatigue life of nearly 40 years (peacetime) out of the airframe.
A UCAV in the reusable cruise missile class wouldn’t need advanced airframe and engine technology as it wouldn’t fly as much as a manned aircraft. Once reliable flight control and navigation systems are developed a low cost and low tech UCAV could prove to be a useful strike capability.
The biggest problem encountered by fighter newcomers like Israel and China, but also by Sweden and the Eurofighter-countries as well as LM with the F-22 were control system configuration. UCAV need even more knowledge of controls and avionics, so they are even further out of reach. Additionally they don’t have the flexibility needed by small economies, where the fighter needs to fight bad clan’s people the one day and make an appealing appearance at the “Dear Leader’s Birthday” the other day.
Schorsch… and what’s about these “rumours” that the P.106 was the basis of an early LCA configuration … or that the P.106 at least influenced this design ?????
Deino,
I think when looking at the P.106, as well as Gripen, Israeli Designs (Lavi!), American designs, Chinese considerations and hell of a lot of projects never went of the engineers scratch paper, they all looked basically the same. It was the age of the canard-fighter.
SchorschLet’s stick to the facts and don’t mix up 1982 technology with 2006 standards. The Sea Harriers were fairly ineffective aircraft and only the good missiles, early warnings and better tactics made them win. Additionally did the Argies never have any fuel left to challenge the Harriers. If the had tried it, the Harriers would have had a much worse time down there.
The a/g capability of the Harrier was limited at best. On the other hand sufficient due to the inadequate Argie air defence and the lack of heavy weapons.
The Falkland War was not a complete military issue. The politics in the back were much more important. Both countries didn’t want an escalation, the Us was watching closely and could have put their weight into the conflict. An US carrier would have changed the whole picture completely. The Britains realized that “flat-top-cruisers” are completely inadequate to project any worthwhile power, especially if there is any resistance.
The much more interesting question: Remember Suez 1956. Would it be possible today or in 1982? Landing of amphibious forces against resistance with coverage by carrier aircraft and land-based a/c from Cyprus?
Schorschthey havent said it in those words but people have said apart from the USA and UK who could do it?!and then is followed by maybe france!
The big winner would be the French industry. No matter who scores a hit, it is always a French product. 😉
Schorschagainst the kind of light opposition argentina put up in 1982, india could certainly do it at any distance.
* load up 100 merchant ships with troops rice, lentils, fish and mutton for long voyage
* arrange food contracts from south africa
* ignore anything and head straight for the beach, swamping it with 50,000 troopers 🙂
* argies either surrender or get eaten
* meantime in a sideshow a few ships do get sunk damaged but we get the island
* using AAR, a few su30s arrive the next day and kill anything that dares show its nose in a 500km radius 🙂
The Suchois will show up, find no resistance and head home. Mission accomplished! The Argies come later, wreck the ships, go home. Mission accomplished!
Next day:
The Suchois will show up, find no resistance and head home. Mission accomplished! The Argies come later/earlier, wreck the ships, go home. Mission accomplished!
and so on and so on …
Really denying an airspace is a hard task and requires lots of aircraft. Without proper AEW even Suchois will find it a hard job.
Argies had submarines and some navy vessels. In that distance, the Indian Navy would have a hard time, too. As I said: No Navy except the USN is able to do that. the Russian was maybe at one point of history able, but definetly isn’t any more and wasn’t before the start of the 80s.
SchorschHow about the A380-900, a 6+m plug to give it the capability to take 1000 seats/pax…….and stay within the 80×80 m ‘box’ that is the current limit!
I said “A380”, which includes all possible modifications like -900, -900ER and -900F. I mean there is no aircraft bezond the A380 (whatever version) that looks feasible.
SchorschNo country except the US would really make a good appearance at this kind of conflict. The British could handle if they activate all available resources. But very much depends on the abilities of your enemies. Today any 3rd world country can field aircraft with Exocet or Harpoon missiles. Defence against those is still not easy and might increase the price-tag tremendously.
And don’t underestimate some naval issues: The British effectively closed down all supply lines to the Falklands prior to invasion. The Argentinians had only very limited air refuel capacity and no long range jet aircraft. After all, two unable parties were fighting against each other with the inevitable result of high losses for both.
SchorschSouth Korea, Sweden and Israel are good examples of countries, who used other countries expertise (in all cases US) to develop their own fighter. They normally got engine, flight controls and part of the avionics in some way from USA. The T-50 for example is Lockheed-Martin design and resembles the F-16 perfectly.
SchorschThe A380 is the maximum you can get out of the present configuration. A simple increase in fuselage diameter or length won’t do it, some kind of blended wing body is necessary, which means complete re-design of airports and big technology challenge.
A A380 sets another limit: It is the biggest aircraft airlines would like to operate. The risk combined with one single aircraft is so big, that a fleet of 15 A380 can easily fly an airline bankrupt within weeks or month. Smaller aircraft have the advantage of being more flexible. Some airlines just get dizzy when thinking of dimensions of the A380.
No-one needs anything bigger. If the industry really needs the A380 is still not sure, we will see in the upcoming decade if Airbus made the right choice (I think they did).
SchorschI will put it in simple words, US produce great numbers of high-tech equipment that does not really serve any important role since defense itself does not create an added value but impose increased costs. US needs to ensure that there will be enough partners that will be willing to procure such equipment even in the future. IMHO, it will become increasingly hard. You need military interventions to assure this.
I partially agree. The spending on defence does not bring any gain itself. In contrary, it may direct funds to areas where they don’t bring any benefit. Compare to Soviet Union, who today have except oil and MiGs no other export products, and the latter becoming increasingly outdated. That’s left of the mighty Soviet Union.
You are further right that US has a hugh trade deficit resulting in some serious imbalance. Actually the imbalance is one of the major threads to world economy besides probable imbalance in China after years of excessive growth.
I disagree with your conclusion, that USA has to invade somewhere. Sure thing, the military wants to reason the huge expense. This is becoming more and more difficult, as the air forces of the remaining countries in the axis of evil could not compete with one single US aircraft carrier. Actually the current wars re-direct funds from investments to daily spendings. And you can’t make high profits on body-bags, armor plating and 50 caliber ammunition.
But what benefit is there for American economy to invade other countries? Wars are decided by economic factors, but they are nearly never started by them.
The American economy produces around one third of global GDP, that is the explanation for the domination of the Dollar. Right is, its standing as global currency might weaken.
One thing should be underlined: The American economy heavily relies on import of foreign capital. If this investment is stopped (e. g. if Saudi aristocrats and German bankers decide to invest their money elsewhere) the American economy could get a real cash problem. But we should never overestimate the influence of defence spending: Most money goes in maintenance, salaries and daily expenses. New systems account only for 70 to 100bn Dollar. That is less than 1% of the American GDP. A sudden drop in defence spending would hit Boeing and Lockheed Martin very hard, but the overall US economy would not be touched.
I thing we just went off toppic.
SchorschYou cannot compare these two directly – US use Keynes-type war-oriented economy, which is powered by increased demand. This is largely being covered by steadily increasing public spendings. This type of economy is agressive and hard to cope with liberal-oriented European economies. The results are pretty obvious – super-millionaires and ghettos are much more common in the US than anywhere in Europe, which concentrates on middle-class citizens mostly.
One big drawback of US economy is that it cannot be sustained on a long term. No matter what they do and how many countries they attack to ensure natural resources, one day they will be put to stop. The only question is whether this will happen in 50, 150 or 350 years.
Interesting point but mostly your personal biased point of view without any significance for this discussion. The public spending in US is not higher than in Europe. The American economy is not war-oriented. The American spending on defense is about 4% of its GDP, so well in the normal range and generally sustainable. The American society is amazingly well balanced if considering the fact that they spent a fraction of some european countries on welfare. My country (Germany) spends billions of Euros each year for social welfare, but still people complaining about more poverty and raising Ghettos.
The American need for resources is enormous, but Europeans are well away from being “sustainable”, too.
The USA have sometimes a real strategy for defence procurement, that is, they set up a plan and stick to it. These plans are often revised, sometimes inadequat, but at least somebody has a clear idea about where to go and what to do. They always try to be on the forefront of technology, identifying areas of interest before anybody in the world gets it.
In the USA it is not only about the money, it is about clear leadership, using resources (for example university research) and enabling the economy to have reasonable benefit from the defence procurement.
In Europe? Of the 25 countries most have no idea what to do about the military. Nobody knows next years bugdet and everybody still wants the full packet, means air force, army, navy, although nobody can explain me why Denmark needs own air defence. In Europe Britain is in my eyes one of the few countries with clear objectives. I can understand that they don’t want annual mind-changers like Germany to decide about their funds.
SchorschThe first question is, would a new angency replace national structures or not ?
Second question, who controls the new construct ?
And final question: how do you want to finance it ? Every country hast to pay a fxed sum scaled by it’s GDP ?
Doesn’t work, as long as we have dramatical differences in the defense expenditure of the various members.
Good question. Experience shows that normally we have another administration working together/against the existing ones in the national entities. That is true for government and even EASA, but will especially apply for military.
But the focus here is on research. I guess governments will have a hard time giving up the ability to fund industries of interest.
Another question is: research is normally done by companies, finally by people. Whos controls that the know-how stays inside the country, even inside the continent.
But the problem has to be solved: Getting more out of the european defence expenditure, especially beneficial for our security and civil usable research (and not just maintaining 1970s fighter-bombers and their crews).
SchorschIt makes it tricky if you rely on ground based radars… if you have a large standing army however you can position units near those valleys in concentric rings around important targets. The outer rings equipped with radios and binoculars for outer detection (even an idiot can hear a jet engine of an aircraft flying at very low level and radio a warning). The next line, maybe 10km closer to the target can be ready watching in time to see it go past and perhaps have a shot at it with Manpads and SPAAGs. ZSU-23-4 type vehicles would be ideal, as would Igla-S missiles. The next ring will also be alerted as will all the potential targets.
That sounds like a good reason to call in 100.000 draftees. Still, the expense of such an army let you be the loser in the end. If the idiot heras the jet-engine, how much time is left? I mean, you won’t built a ring of 50km radius. But even if, the time for the cruise missile is less than 5 minutes.
Sign In
