SchorschModern fast jets are incredibly strong. They need to be to withstand the loads (that being the definition of strength :)) imposed in flight. There is an oft (mis)quoted example of how many VW Beetles you can put on an Typhie’s wing.
I guess the question is, how destructive are modern SAMs/AAMs? We would usually expect warhead to be in the lead in the constant race between warhead and armour. In order to increase the probability of a hit on fast hard maneuvering targets we don’t tend to use Armour Piercing hittiles against fast jets but a nice HE round to give a big volume of sky which is dangerous for the target.
Al
If the wing spar can withstand 9g limit load, that doesn’t really say something about the survivability of the system “aircraft”. Modern AAMs have pretty smart fusing systems and there are many ways how to make a jet unflyable.
What is correct, the sensitivity towards gun damage was reduced from 2/3rd generation to 4th generation, designs like F-4 or F-105 showed undesirable survival rates in Vietnam.
SchorschVery badly. Germany’s conservative CDU/CSU party alledgedly recieved some 10mn US$ through Franz-Josef Strauss. Also the Italian Christian-Democrats got money from Lockheed. The Dutch prince-husband Bernhard (who was considered some kind of hero and was greatly admired by the Dutch military, and served in dozens of committees) recieved at least 1,1mn US$ which he used to support his out-of-wedlock children and support the World Wildlife Fund.
The French not really have a record of perfect deals when it comes to arms.
But the other offerings were not really competitive, look at the Mirage III or (biggest joke ever) the Lightning.
The F-104G was a very powerful fighter-bomber, and theoretically a useful fighter, though it required special tactics and lots of training.
SchorschI am a bit annoyed by this China, India, something stuff. These air forces seem to produce news in big numbers, and if a rice bag on a Chinese air base falls over, three threads are started speculating which stealth features this rice bag might have had.
Overall, one really must pick the mature posters, then it makes sense to come here occasionally. Unfortunately, the level of white noise is quite high.
SchorschAnd never forget that the F-100 was never particularly effective, neither as fighter nor as bomber. It was a bitch to handle.
The Luftwaffe looked for fighter bombers in the first place, and picked the F-104 due to low-level ability, excellent engine and very ambitious avionics for its time.
SchorschThey were in a very early prototype stage and those things didn’t really fly well. Guess why no flying wing was put into service before digital control design techniques?
Stealth surely was no consideration, most experimental aircraft with low speed were built of wood and fabric instead of metal. All metal aircraft were still something innovative in the late 1930ies, and the required resources much to ambitious for a small entrepreneurship.
SchorschQantas has canceled 15 orders and deferred delivery of others. The decision was not triggered by delivery delays, Qantas says it doesn’t need the aircraft and wants to free cash (canceling an order normally means that the upfront money is paid back).
SchorschAs a bit of an off-topic note, Boeing has already recieved orders for more 787s than Airbus has A330. 🙂
Already proven incorrect above, but leaving a lasting impression on your limited ability to research even the simplest facts, which are only on google search line entry away.
The 767 & the A330 don’t even compete for the same segments!
Note that before Boeing announced the 787, the 767-400ER was out selling the A330-200…
And just how many sales do you think the A330 is going to really get once the 787 & A350 are in service? 😉
The B767-400 was dead before born, guess why the B787 was born. Boeing hated the A330-200, because it dried the B767’s orderbook. The A330 will sell for another 5 to 10 years, finally as freighter. An established production system has the advantage of having very little non-recurring cost, Airbus can offer the A330 at half of list price and still make profit.
At the moment, there is no B787 or A350 available before 2017ish.
SchorschA split buy of KC-767 and CK-777 would be perfect. (the CK not being an error)
B777 and B767 are 15 years apart technology-wise, have different engines and generally not too much in common. Any reproaches against the A330-200 MRTT about being too big for the mission would count for the B777 even more.
I would chose an existing design between both Boeing aircraft.
Wait, there is one: the A330-200MRTT.
No problem if the USAF follows a buy American policy, it is American money, so only fair if they shop Boeing. But technically and from the user’s viewpoint, the A330 is the better product.
SchorschSo, do you have an acceleration chart you trust, then? Care to share it?
As for Stevenson, he’s a journalist, not an engineer. However, his study on F22 makes a lot of sense and so in absence of more accurate material, I’ll have to “trust” him.
However, if you have something more accurate, let’s have it! 🙂
I pick the cherries and let the ugly less trustworthy parts aside.
SchorschAs I recall, you dismissed Stevenson’s acceleration table for F22. As the matter of fact the fuel consumption diagram, you used in your last post, is just 9 pages behind. Now, I did some cross checks and the fuel consumption diagram matches the official numbers (100SC+310nm; 50SC+405nm; etc…).
That certainly adds credibility to Stevenson’s F22 briefing, where the same disputed acceleration chart is.
Actually I made points with the Stevenson F-22 brief.
At the same time I know what kind of author Stevenson is, that he is no educated engineer and that he likes to prove his points with “calculations” that could cost your job when working in a credible aeronautical company. So, I take some of his numbers with a grain of salt, and some I’ll dismiss.
A specific range is easier to obtain than a value for an acceleration through transonic regime. Just trust me, I know what I am talking about.
SchorschBoeing officially announced another 2-3 month delay on first flight and subsequently deliveries. Some analysts expect no delivery before 2011.
Another blow for the program, will cost at least another 50 deliveries advantage to the A350.
SchorschThe data for the F15 are the data for THE F15/F100, not bench F100. You can’t really calculate all the factors that influence the flight, so hence measurement. However, once you get the end result, you can more easy break it into consisting elements.
If one wants to compare it to F22/F119, he should get the same type of table. The F119 bench data are hardly representative.
My point from some posts ago is, it would be interesting to see what would the F15/F119 have to say about F22/F119’s performance.Now, I simply tried to explain the principle of working, just so the members don’t argue over known facts, but can concentrate their arguments and researches on other areas, less known or covered before.
It’s strange though, that you quote the table from the very same document, you dismissed some time ago…
As for the SC definition, I’d agree with you, although the original definition (from 70s) is set as just flying supersonic without A/B.
Not exactly sure where I dismissed it, but I say that fidelity is limited. One can scale thrust data and land within 5-10% of a given somehow similar engine. That is a reasonable guess, but when we talk about very detailed stuff like top speed or detailed fuel consumption, even such data becomes close to useless. You can use it to identify some qualities, and I repeatedly did that on this forum to show the ups and downs of supercruise.
SchorschThe F-22 unless bought in numbers of 1000 or more will not be affective.
Wow, the F-22 can be affective?
How is that?
Does it get angry when being detected?
SchorschAnd an 1970ies European is smaller than 1970-s American. The standard coach seating of A300 has always been 8 abreast. So was the 1970ies standard coach seating of DC-10-10 and Tristar 1, which were much wider than A300….
Guess why airlines were unhappy with A330 cross section for the A350 Mk1. You can put 3-3-3 into an A330, and some airlines do it, but you can do it on the slightly wider A350 Mk2 with more comfort.
Schorschhttp://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/22/328628/virgin-atlantic-orders-10-a330s.html
My reading of the above is that they’re more to replace the [six] A340-300s and maybe deliver a bit of growth. More likely then the delayed Boeing Nightmareliners could be for further expansion once the markets really turn up again. Surprised its -300s though – I thought that they were a bit stretched on segments like LHR-YVR and LHR-PEK.
With Dicky spouting on today/yesterday about BA and how VS could fill any gap as a UK airline, it would be an absolute disgrace if they didn’t go for Trent engines.
A
I guess first to go are the aircraft with highest cash operating costs or least desirable profit margin, and I think the B747-400 has a good chance of being that aircraft, especially as demand is low.
I think it is interesting that following the 787 order, and now with this, that nobody has made a fuss about Virgin’s long spearheaded campaign of “Four engines 4 Long Haul”. They introduced it when they went for A346’s instead of 777s as a campaign to win people over from BA’S 777’s.
I think the intentions weren’t that bad, but just they bet on the wrong horse. Maybe it is a bit fishy to imply any increase in safety versus a competing carrier, that shouldn’t be part of ad campaigns.
Sign In
