SchorschGood airlines don’t go bust in hard times. The time period 2008/2009 is one of the most problematic, as it had seen preposterous fuel prices and a sharp decline in demand, especially in business travel.
BA may have announced losses, we don’t know about cash flow. Announcing huge losses is normally no direct threat, I guess the board also uses these losses as leverage versus the unions.
I guess they have pretty healthy background, like many big fishes in Europe. Their American counterparts have much worse backing.
However, there gonna be casualties and it will not be funny.
SchorschJust finished reading Yefim Gordons Mig 31 book (famous russian series) and the 31 is pretty formidable.
I was surprised how ‘free’ from ground control it is, its data linking attributes are very powerful and being able to track 16 targets and engage 6 at once with missiles that have a 160 mile range would be enough to make me VERY nervous about facing it.
Is it a viable deterant to the Wests new 4.5 – 5th gen designs?I know that it would lose WVR but in the BVR arena (for which it was designed) is seems to be pretty potent.
The missiles are close to useless, like the airframe carrying them.
I wouldn’t fear a MiG-31, as it is the biggest target in the sky, having the biggest electronic footprint and having the least chances to involve a 5th generation design into a WVR combat with IR-AAM.
SchorschIt had its fair share of troubles in the F-111 too.
Yes, my last sentence, maybe I didn’t explain/write it very well. I was making the point that a fully working system, that it delivers the required performance goals (such as a TSR-2 turbojet (I think!)) would/could be a better option than tempermental, not fully working/understood system (such as in the F-111 engine). Something that works well most of the time usually is better than something that works better some of the time.
And I still say only in some D’s and the F model was the intake/engine system finally deserving for the jet.
Generally I agree, but the problems of established systems were quite present, too. Not that the 1960ies turbojets worked without flaws. Most problems of the F-111 are not directly attributable to its engine. Those were inlet and outlet, wing box, avionics.
Most issues were solved in a way that the system worked as intended and actually delivered results unseen before (bomb accuracy at miserable weather, ingression into defended airspacew without escorts, range and payload). The system it replaced was the F-105.
I guess the TSR.2 would have been a good aircraft, I just wanted to challenge the statement, that it was better by design and technology than the F-111. It wasn’t. The first (tactical bomber) aircraft to match in the F-111 in applied technology was the Tornado.
I’ve really been enjoying this thread, but the last few posts have got me thinking, wouldn’t it be great if there was a way of using modern computer design systems to look into past aircraft products that have been cancelled(TSR, etc) and show their performance as it would have been if the design had made it into service. Surely there must be some litrature out there where authors have tried to do this?
Just thinking out loud
Pretty easy if the key data is given. That is engine performance and aerodynamic data, mission definition and reliable weights. You can get radius and payload, and other things. Field performance and top speeds are harder to get, but in those the numbers on the internet normally don’t miss the mark that much.
It is work though.
SchorschI thought that was the main floor of the F-111, only until the F variant (and some D) was the engine acceptable. The numerous problems it caused hampered the F-111 from the start, and its cousin wasn’t great in the F-14A either. Whilst maybe being a turbofan and basically a “first”, doesn’t mean it was better or more right for the situation.
I think the TF30 was problematic primarily in the F-14.
Your last sentence is funny. It is definitively a turbofan, and it definitely means better performance in all relevant categories. The Tornado ended up as downsized F-111.
SchorschSU-24 was an F-111 with Turbojets not an Olympus by a long chalk, SU-24 had an appaling combat radius (TSR-2 carried a considerable amount of fuel so it had a respectable combat radius/range) As for speed i would doubt that a F-111K would be able to keep up with a TSR-2 (F-111K would have used an engine that couldn’t produce the same thrust wet that Olympus could dry); Which then begs the question how long could a F-111K troll along at low Mach1 (M1.2 say)?
I doubt a big difference in top speed. Neither aircraft would have a long endurance in supersonic, as was found out, there was no deed for a M1.2 dash at low level.
A turbojet gets useful above M1.5, a Mach number far of the operational realities of such an aircraft. The engine thrust itself, especially at reference conditions, is irrelevant.
A note on TSR2 engines. Remember these were basically the same engines that ended up in Concorde ie Olympus in afterburning Mk320 form.
The F-111K has a greater weapon load and a slight range advantage of around 250 Miles but the TSR-2 was lighter with more powerful engines
TF-30 Dry: 17,900lbs Reheat: 21,500lbs Power/Weight Ratio: 0.61
Mk320 Dry: 19,610lbs Reheat ;30.610lbs Power/Weight Ratio: 0.77
Since when is the F-111 heavier than the TSR.2?
Why you think they installed more thrust?
Because the TSR.2 needed it for the required performance. I guess key problem was take-off performance, as even with blown flaps you’ll never make up the loss in wing area. More thrust eats into the range, however, as the engines will have less desirable specific fuel consumption at cruise. A bomber with more thrust for the same requirements is not a better bomber, but a worse one.
Schorschcare to elaborate on that? Turbojet vs. Turbofan issue?
The TSR.2 relied on a turbojet. For the intended mission a clear disadvantage in terms of range. The TF30 also was not just another turbofan, it was a very efficient afterburning TF, due to relatively high bypass ratio. Note that the RB199 uses exactly the same bypass ratio.
The swing wings also allowed more efficient cruise over long distances. While the also added problems, so I wouldn’t nail it down on swing wings. I consider them a too high price to pay for the added capability most of the time.
Further on, I doubt that the TSR.2 would have been equally flexible in the weapons loads. The problems of the F-111 were of course partly caused by the tough requirements, foremost the extreme “need for speed” (M1.2 low, M2.5 high).
Anyways, the Su-24, which basically was an F-111 with TSR.2 engines, fall markedly short in range compared to the F-111.
Schorsch-Wasn’t as good as the cancelled TSR-2
I think in terms of operational capability the F-111 clearly put the TSR.2 in second place. Primary reason: the engine.
SchorschI would call the Hurricane and the Spitfire one of the greatest and most important leaps. Remember that the UK introduced the Gloster Gladiator in the mid 1930ies, when that design was completely obsolete. The British basically ignored 10 to 15 years of aerodynamic improvements and build WWI-fighters until the mid 1930ies. That changed with the Hurricane and the Spitfire.
SchorschIs that the fault of Airbus or the Customer? :diablo:
Both. The bigger the aircraft the more customization is required. A380s are – when first and business class are concerned – top level products of their operators.
Just to put it into perspective: 2009 and 2010 will see no or at best single digit B747 delivery, reduced B777 delivery and probably close down of the B767 line. No A380 specific problem.
SchorschThe problem with A380 is that it is so extremely customized that you cannot switch a specific MSN to another customer once a certain milestone is passed. Once an aircraft has its cabin, it would cost huge money to adapt it to a different customer.
SchorschBut during WW2 the tech put in to those planes were top of the line for that time and they still produced 34k + of them????
WW2 planes were comparable in complexity with modern luxury cars. Everything from the engines over the structure to the electronic equipment (which in case of Soviet aircraft was limited to a flash light in the cockpit) was at least one magnitude less complex and cheaper.
Also, labor was less expensive those days.
And Soviet aircraft for example were scrap after 5 years at best, while military planning didn’t see any aircraft last more than one year under frontal aviation conditions.
As a Russian tech lover even I have to admitt, 60 35’s is far to little, I can’t see why Russian can’t build 600 35 airframes by year’s end, upgrade all Tu-22M’s with Zhuk-MFS’s, upgrade all MiG-31’s with Ebris-E’s, I’m confussed during WW2 U.S. / Russia built over 34k fighters what in sam hill is stopping Rus/U.S. from upgrading / building in mass now a days????????????
I would equip 10000 MiG-17 with AESA radar, or just build a shopping center with 100 stores on Novaja Zemlya. Equally useful ideas.
SchorschAbout the cost of fuel and it influence on the overall flight cost, 1000 lts (800-900ks) of fuel are equivalent to 700-1000 USD, i serioulsy have some doubts about your 30000 euros/h, probably are euros per flight, but still i doubt it
Fuel does indeed not really impact the costs that much. But a more general connection between airframe empty weight and operation cost can be made, therefore smaller airframes are more cost effective. A point in favor of the Eurocanards.
The F-16 is not cheap, the block 60 cost 70 millions, same as the Rafale, the costs went to stratospheric levels due electronics and upgrades (competitive engine) , the industry in general will be more happy not offering you cheap practical models, they want you to get “stuffed” with their expensive yunk
I wouldn’t call it junk. It makes the difference between win and loss on many occasions.
BVR is a old tale, AMRAAM is a old tale, BVR combat is still flawed, the industry
is still light years away for a reliable BVR combat, take a look of the normal training, they give 50% probability (simulating AMRAAMs) for 20Km range , without counting ECM, and that one, is an optimist figure
BVR is surely not 100% effective, but on the contrary the possibility to engage with more effective range will give you a decisive advantage. In real life, a missile launch will force your opponent into the defensive, and finally yield a “mission kill” at last. The true effectiveness in combat would be impacted by duds, multiple launches and out-of-envelope engagements, and would end somewhere close to one third.
The corsair is actually an example of the flawed mentality in the 70’s in which there was not dedicated strikers, they took a high performance airframe (F-8) and turned into a bomber, same as the tornado/Mirage F-1, from that, the things have evolved to the “multirol” tale, which is even worst, but everybody have overlooked the 80’s developments on heavy CAS aircraft like the A-10…
Calling the A-7 flawed is pretty bold. It is one of the most cost effective airframes in terms of striking power versus procurement and operational costs.
The Russians for example never had anything comparable. Of course, you will not survive in a defended airspace with an A-7, but the USAF had other platforms that could.
“Flawed” rather applies to solutions that see multiple bomb racks on supersonic aircraft, as they are restricted to subsonic speeds with them (even after payload drop, you don’t go supersonic with an two empty TER).
Now, one can question the need for dumb bombs at all, but before the 1990s bomb dumbs where the way to go, especially in large scale warfare.
SchorschTurkey is a 70 million country, with neo-othomanism mentality, aiming at becoming a military superpower.
Greece is a 10 million country that has no wish to become a military superpower, just maintain a deterrent as to be left alone and eventually not need to do so at the end.
It wasn’t my recommendation to become a military superpower, rather to use the need for fighter replacement as lever into doors that are closed. The seller of the Eurofighter (EADS) is also owner of a known airframer. The objective must be component manufacturing, limited engineering, services. Nothing too big, still high-tech jobs, of which Greece doesn’t have too much. Greece is in danger of losing sight of other EU member states. If it wasn’t for the Euro (where Greece cheated to get in), the Drachme would see massive devaluation and could join Hungary in being a big credit dump.
Actually, I would recommend Greece not to buy any military equipment at all in the foreseeable future.
Greece will reply “the ammo or the second hand howtitzers”.
Actually, Greece got the M203 howitzers of the German army. I think we kept the ammo, but I don’t know the reason.
Turkey wants at the end to become self sufficient in possibly every system. Become a producing country. Very well to them, they will use their own, we will buy from abroads.
Although some indigenous capability is desirable, being fully independent either means your technology is outdated or you are spending big with limited offset (see France: can do all, doesn’t help them much).
Schorsch[…]
But see it the other way around: a finished product is like a Chinese DVD player: it works but doesn’t keep know-how in your country. A country as Greece with a small and not very well positioned aviation industry, integration work or small modifications are the only option to keep their knowledge current. If you buy an F-35, you don’t get your hands on any parts.
Today you don’t buy fighters primarily because you desperately need the capability, but to have your share of technology. The Turks made it correct, being participants on the A400M and the F-35, although with small workshare in both cases (but better than none at all).
SchorschThe Super Hornet of today is much more capable than it’s predecessors and they are equally well suited for blue water operations or operations in the littoral. The Super is head and shoulders above the Tomcat. It carries the far more effective AIM-120D and it has a much better radar that would be even more effective in dealing with Backfires and ASMs.
The key advantage of the AIM-54 was its active radar and not its range, giving the F-14 they option to attack multiple targets at farer distances at the same time. That was a clear improvement over the semi-active AIM-7 and allowed one F-14 to launch more lethal attacks, and allows two F-14 (equipped each 4x AIM-54, 2x AIM-7, 2x AIM-9) to wipe out a number of targets quickly.
Although range is given with up to 120km, I doubt actual ranges would be done above 60km. The chance for a failed shot would increase with launch distance.
So, after all, the AIM-120D retains the key advantage of the Phoenix. And the practical engagement distance is mostly similar.
Sign In
