Any future conversion will require between “six to eight months” to complete, [Alonso, head of the military division at Airbus] says.
Unrealistic. Alonso Pressuring the schedule… again.
C’mon you know the difference. 320 rely on FBW to fly. There is now direct laws to handle the plane in case of damages. We already have seen airframe crashing due to in-weather severe turbulences. This is not a fighter jet with a single jokey. You will have dozen of people exposed to fire (think piratery, manpad…).
One thing that you need for sure is a stable, Fwd centered airframe.
The death toll for rising aviation accidents: 133 troops killed in five years
Through a six-month investigation, the Military Times found that accidents involving all of the military’s manned fighter, bomber, helicopter and cargo warplanes rose nearly 40 percent from fiscal years 2013 to 2017. It’s doubled for some aircraft, like the Navy and Marine Corps’ F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. At least 133 service members were killed in those fiscal year 2013-2017 mishaps, according to data obtained by Military Times.
The rise is tied, in part, to the massive congressional budget cuts of 2013. Since then, it’s been intensified by non-stop deployments of warplanes and their crews, an exodus of maintenance personnel and deep cuts to pilots’ flight-training hours.
An extensive work with a searchable data base here
Analysis by corps:
Marines
Source:
Military Times.com
It helps the Navy to ramp-up their in-service number IMO (Given that the Marines have reverted from their priority to phase out the classical Hornet, their only airframe doing the Navy carrier mission).
I am not sure that Germany would need a Jet. Given that the north sea is their main area of operation, a low to medium cruise altitude could be suitable. There is hence room for a turboprop with low transit time.
But Cherry Ripe is right. I would like to see the 4 engined, frwd centered P1 in service too. I won’t trust an A320 for that mission (airframe wise).
I will have to disagree on both points. But we had that discussion before. Time will tell now.
Regarding the nbr of bases they will be down from 3 to 2 fighter base, my mistake.
Don’t forget the specified need to sustain a 6 month air campaign where losses will have to be accounted to size the fleet. Airframe less susceptible to bring the highest probability of mission success (inability, failure and losses) will rapidly prove to lead to a more expensive buy (nbr or airframe, support, sustainement and the inherent logistical burden of having a larger fleet).
Stealth is a force multiplier on its own. We have already seen the results of that effect’s in other tender.
As stated numerously before, a swarm of B could well be the most cost-effective force structure for the future SwAF restructured around a single base.
Eagle, the 35 fuselage provide a substantial portion of the overall lift at slow and cruise speed. You can’t discard that in your assumption. Just like you can’t hide from your eyes the sweeping angle of a flying wing to apprehend its pitch capability (as a comparison you would say that it can not pitch for having no tail 😉 ).
don’t forget that CAP involves contact identification that led to acceleration before returning on station (see for exemple the IAF’s RFI that was released today). A heavily laden small jet will have its fuel consumption increased compaired to one with a lighter load or flying without any EFT at all.
Design philosophy of air superiority fighters are not identical with that of ground attack mission were EFT is an acceptable means to increase range (cruise)
Except that they will have to switch from sharing fleet support from the USMC to the USAF. This might induce some changes in planning priorities (the USAF is a big buyer with a higher rate when inducting modernization programs).
So cleared now. thanks BiO. I hadn’t seen the full repost just an abridged version.
9 Rafale for 2017 (in total)
Falcon will be down by 25% in 2018 (with a constant amount in value ). You can find this in the statement of Dassault CEO during board meeting.
That’s all the number we know. Ramp-up, yes, this is a fair supposition but how much, nothing clear went out.
So, if Hallow suggests that he was told something beyond that legal statement, that would be quite interesting.
Boeing tankers refuel each other in KC-46 milestone test
KC-46 Pegasus aerial tanker programme completed its fuel on-load testing, part of its overall supplemental type certificate, by successfully transferring 66,200kg (146,000lb) of jet fuel to another KC-46 during flight using the centreline boom
[…]
The tanker’s boom system can transfer up to 4,540l (1,200gal) of fuel per minute, while the Cobham-supplied hose and drogue systems, located on both the plane’s wing and centerline, enables the KC-46 to refuel probe-equipped aircraft with up to 1,510l of fuel per minute.
Source:
FlightGlobal.com
done.