dark light

US Agent

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 406 through 420 (of 610 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: USS Ronald Reagan in Brazil #2689943
    US Agent
    Participant

    A-12 and CVN-76 together (http://www.navy.mil)

    COOL PIC! ๐Ÿ˜Ž

    US Agent
    Participant
    in reply to: Should the French just went with the dam F-18!? #2690252
    US Agent
    Participant

    It wouldn’t matter what type of aircraft a French navy pilot is flying in…it will still come down to French politicians scuppering his chance of using it in combat.

    ๐Ÿ˜‰

    in reply to: =====>>> The JUNE Quiz <<<===== #2670568
    US Agent
    Participant

    Hmmm…wasn’t the Deltaviex the prototype for the aircraft used by Evel Knievel in his attempt to jump the Grand Canyon? ๐Ÿ˜Ž

    http://www.evel1.com/Shop/gallery/second//skyward.jpg

    in reply to: Unusual burner pics! #2670575
    US Agent
    Participant

    Another Cutlass burner photo for you…

    http://www.vought.com/heritage/photo/assets/images/db_images/db_4633_15.jpg

    in reply to: New Iraqi Air Force #2670604
    US Agent
    Participant

    Iraq surveillance drive

    Flight International
    11-May-2004

    The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq has launched a rushed competition to buy between eight and 16 light surveillance aircraft, but at least one potential supplier doubts the schedule is feasible.

    All-new, two-seat aircraft with electro-optical/infrared sensors are needed urgently to provide surveillance of Iraqi infrastructure, borders and coastlines. Safe cruising speeds of 60-80kt (110-150km/h) during 5h patrol missions are key.

    Acting on behalf of the CPA, the US Army’s fixed-wing contracting office posted a request for proposals on 19 April and gave potential bidders just three weeks to reply. Proposals are due for return on 11 May, with a contract award for eight aircraft and eight options expected soon. “The aerial surveillance platform is a very urgent requirement and it is imperative we receive proposals, conduct evaluations and award a contract as soon as possible,” says an acquisition document.

    The first two aircraft must be handed over within 30 days of contract award, with all eight due for delivery within six months. The order includes a full training package for pilots and aircraft manuals in both English and Iraqi Arabic.

    The pace of the CPA’s acquisition plan has stunned Paul Schweizer, vice-president of Schweizer Aircraft, which is planning to submit a bid. Schweizer Aircraft makes the SA 2-37B quiet reconnaissance aircraft, which has performance levels similar to the CPA’s request.

    Schweizer SA2-37B
    http://www.sacusa.com/im/pictures/recon/RU-38A.jpg

    US Agent
    Participant

    “You dare question our superiority?”

    in reply to: Intermediate Jet Trainer #2670647
    US Agent
    Participant

    …[related story]…

    Training Aircraft Market Worth $42 Billion

    (Source: Frost & Sullivan; issued June 2, 2004)

    In the wake of fourth generation fighter aircraft, comes a need for re-evaluation of the military pilot training market. In market research, due to be published this month, Frost & Sullivan examines emerging training trends, strategies and needs. Frost & Sullivan also discusses the marketโ€™s drivers, restraints and challenges while assessing them as business opportunities. Finally, the market research includes a 20-year revenue forecast for phase II to phase IV trainer aircraft (basic โ€“ fighter lead-in) as well as a ten-year forecast for aviation training and simulation (T&S).

    There are a number of contiguous factors affecting the growth of the military pilot training market. Overall, the market is in a phase of great change. The emergence of fourth and fifth generation fighter aircraft is placing importance on the need for fundamental changes. These will include changes of syllabi, platforms, training aids, and business modes. With training solutions becoming more expensive on the one hand, and ever-shrinking defence budgets on the other, air forces find themselves increasingly dependent on efficient collaboration with industry.

    The global market for basic and advanced/ fighter lead-in trainer aircraft is going to total 3,550 units, worth approximately $42 billion (USD), during the 2004 โ€“ 2025 timeframe. For the same timeframe, the global market for basic and advanced/ fighter lead-in trainer aircraft upgrades is going to total 3,307 units, worth approximately $8 billion (USD).

    While Frost and Sullivan are confident that this will be the size of the advanced trainer aircraft market, some questions remain open regarding its shape.

    The first question is whether light attack and supersonic capabilities will be seen as advantages worth paying for. According to Frost & Sullivan analysis, due mainly to increase in sensitivity to costs, especially running costs, such excess capabilities will not be necessarily be translated into competitive advantage.

    The second question is whether โ€˜low costโ€™ and turboprop trainers will be able to capture opportunities in the advanced phase. According to Frost & Sullivan analysis, it is reasonable to believe that the former will manage to capture a significant share of the market, while the later will not.

    The marketโ€™s key revenue drivers include changes in military flight training requirements, a stable need for pilots, introduction of fourth and fifth generation fighter jets, and ageing training aircraft. The marketโ€™s key revenue restraints include government constriction of defence budgets, the proliferation of UAVs and the positive acceptance of regional schools.

    The growth of the military pilot training industry relies on sporadic deals. Therefore, with ever-intensifying competition, collaboration between companies will translate into a competitive advantage. The benefit of such joint ventures will be transfer of technology in an evermore-sophisticated industry.

    in reply to: F-16E/F aka Block 60 or F-18E/F Super hornet #2670658
    US Agent
    Participant

    I think it’s rather interesting to compare the YF-16 and YF-17 prototypes, with the aircraft they have evolved into today.

    Both have a great service and combat record, and are set to serve for quite some times.

    The Air Force, Navy, and Marines have all been happy with their respective aircraft, and I’d say it’s a safe bet that all their export customers are happy as well.

    Me personally I like the F/A-18E/F because it’s rugged (has to be because it’s carrier capable), has twin engines, has a HUGE array of weapons, and can perform a wide variety of missions. I know it gets criticized a lot, but part of that is Tomcat fans just whining. ๐Ÿ™‚ In any case I’m not going to write it off until I hear that the Navy isn’t satisfied with the jet, and I haven’t heard that yet.

    I agree. ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: Boeing Begins Final Assembly of First Korean F-15K #2670672
    US Agent
    Participant

    Gotta love that “new car” smell. ๐Ÿ˜Ž

    http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/photorelease/q2/f15-strike-eagle-final-assy.jpg

    in reply to: Vs 777 #706597
    US Agent
    Participant

    I too agree!! ๐Ÿ˜€

    And I too! ๐Ÿ˜Ž

    in reply to: Reviving big bombers for the USAF #2672462
    US Agent
    Participant

    Experimental technology could be applied to FB-22 bomber variant

    Flight International 25-May-04

    Lockheed Martin’s FB-22 bomber variant would benefit from several Skunk Works projects once assigned to the F/A-22 programme, such as low-observable conformal fuel tanks and direct control of a new class of stealthy “minion” unmanned air vehicles.

    Several FB-22 designs are expected to be among more than 100 responses due later this month to a call for information by the US Air Force for an “interim bomber” capability that could be introduced by 2015 (Flight International, 11-17 May). In February, the FB-22 was named as a desirable option, but Lockheed Martin executives are expecting competing designs to include stealthy UAVs and perhaps an arsenal ship aircraft.

    Skunk Works is developing minion UAVs as a next-generation technology for the F/A-22, but the stealthy vehicles may be easier to operate using a two-seat configuration of the FB-22. This would control the UAVs from a distance, which the company hopes offers a competitive advantage over solely UAV-based bomber concepts, such as Boeing’s X-45C. Developing minions, which would be launched by Boeing B-52 bombers, offers “significantly lower costs” than a standalone UAV system, and “you get [UAV] capability without nearly the expense,” says a Lockheed Martin executive.

    Although Lockheed Martin is developing a range of concepts, including heavy bomber variants, the company is touting a baseline weapons payload of about 30 Small Diameter Bombs – about four times greater than the F/A-22. Such an aircraft would be capable of striking about 95% of the air force’s target set, says Lockheed Martin. It is also studying a concept for a tailless configuration that relies on a larger wing surface for lift and stability.

    The FB-22 may also have a configuration that can be produced using the current F/A-22 assembly line in Marietta, Georgia. “One alternative is to keep the [existing F/A-22] teammembers with the same type of workshare,” says Rob Weiss, deputy vice president of F/A-22 customer requirements for Lockheed Martin.

    STEPHEN TRIMBLE / MARIETTA & TYNDALL AFB

    in reply to: Admiral Groshkov And the Indian Navy #2680912
    US Agent
    Participant

    Second thoughts though can you imagine how effective such a setup would be as a short-range surface to surface weapon?. How many FAC’s would be able to survive a sustained barrage of 40 ton MBTs being shot at them??? :rolleyes:

    http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gifhttp://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/Bizkit/sweat.gifhttp://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

    in reply to: USAF Tanker Update #2681050
    US Agent
    Participant

    A Silver Lining For Boeing

    The loss of a big contract could help its blended-wing tanker get off the ground

    Business Week Online
    MAY 24, 2004

    It was a deal that sparked controversy from the moment it was announced in November, 2001. The U.S. Air Force’s proposal to spend $23 billion leasing 100 Boeing Co. (BA ) 767 jetliners as refueling tankers was immediately derided as a bailout for the aerospace giant in the wake of September 11. Since then, several criminal probes have been launched into Boeing’s procurement, two top Boeing execs have been forced out while a third pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy, and the government has released several reports questioning the leasing costs and the need to replace the tanker fleet immediately. Now, say people close to the deal, it is essentially dead, despite denials by Boeing and the Pentagon.

    Clearly, losing the tanker contract would represent a serious financial blow to Boeing. But there is a silver lining. For the past decade, Boeing has been developing an alternative plane known as the Blended Wing Body — an aircraft that looks like a flying wing. Not only would the plane make a more efficient tanker than the old-line 767, say experts, it could also be used as a bomber or troop transport. What’s more, developing the plane could have a galvanizing effect on Boeing, which in recent years has lagged Airbus in innovation. “The blended wing offers exceedingly strong performance improvements,” says Richard L. Aboulafia, aerospace analyst for Teal Group Corp. “And it would further Boeing’s objective of seizing the technological initiative.”

    But getting to the long-term gain means living through considerable short-term pain. Analysts estimate the leasing deal would have added up to about $300 million in annual profit over a decade. In recent Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Boeing said that if the deal collapses it would take a one-time writedown of $300 million to cover the tanker’s development costs. It also would have to shut the 767 assembly line, meaning an additional $200 million-plus writedown, analysts say.

    GAME CHANGER?
    So if the blended-wing plane is such a great idea, why didn’t Boeing push it in the first place? For starters, many of its engineers and commercial execs have resisted the concept. Moreover, Boeing execs know the Pentagon has little appetite to spend billions on a new tanker program. That’s why Boeing floated the 767 leasing arrangement in the first place: It skirted the usual budgetary process. Developing the blended-wing tanker would require funding of $10 billion while building 100 models would cost more than double the cost of leasing 767s.

    Even so, military procurement and research execs have shown plenty of enthusiasm for the blended wing. The aircraft can refuel two planes at once, rather than one. It can fly 25% to 50% more efficiently than current aircraft, according to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Statistics like those have prompted DARPA to team up with NASA and the Air Force to build a blended-wing demo for $450 million.

    There are blended-wing advocates at Boeing, too, starting with CEO Harry Stonecipher. He has told insiders he’s waiting for the Air Force to agree to back it. Some execs say taking on a project of this complexity is exactly what the company needs to force it to take risks. George K. Muellner, Boeing’s vice-president for Air Force programs, goes even further. He believes the blended wing, which could one day also become a commercial jet, is a potential game changer that could revitalize the entire U.S. aerospace industry.

    Of course, Washington politics could mean the blended wing never gets off the ground. There are cheaper options: reopen the competition for conventional tankers between Boeing and Airbus, or buy used planes. But neither fulfills the demands of future warfare, say experts. By 2007, when the Air Force will need to get serious about replacing the tanker fleet, there should be research money available, according to budget documents. It will be up to Boeing to convince the Pentagon that the blended wing is the way to go.

    —–

    Blended Wing Body Jet Safer and More Efficient, Claims Boeing

    National Defense Magazine
    October 2000

    [i]”Boeing also believes this aircraft has a future as a military tanker.

    Even though the company is under contract with the Air Force to upgrade the KC-135 tanker fleet, Muellner conceded that the KC-135 is โ€œan aging aircraftโ€ and never will be as capable as a new design.

    A blended wing, he said, makes more efficient use of space and โ€œcan carry a lot of fuel.โ€ The aerodynamic configuration, he added, makes it 20 percent more fuel efficient than conventional wing airplanes.”[/i]

    http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/images/0010/Boeing_Wing_1.jpg

    in reply to: Mass brawls #2681064
    US Agent
    Participant

    http://www.airtoaircombat.com/images/gallery/f15_009.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 406 through 420 (of 610 total)