TinWingBecause beyond that, there’s no way, given the way unions have screwed up our work force. Labor costs have doubled in the last decade, and they aren’t going to get cheaper.
The American aerospace sector suffers from very low worker productivity.
A couple of years ago, a magazine had photo feature which followed a single aerospace worker for a single day at Boeing’s factory at Long Beach, CA – the former Douglas plant.
So, what did this $100,000+/year “worker” accomplish during a day? The “worker” had several coffee breaks, a lunch break and the inevitable bathroom breaks.
Did I mention that this so-called “worker” did seem to manage to wash a single windshield panel on a Boeing 717 – the sole productive activity in an 8 hour work day!
TinWingtin tin,
IAF requirements are not the same as USAF ones. IAF is not the same force as USAF. IAF does not follow USAF norms/procedures. IAF has it’s own rules and regulations.
In short quit chiming USAF examples for IAF. Just because “part time” employment is an option for them does not mean it works for IAF. Contrary to your short sighted deduction on these matters (as usual) there are reasons why an Indian Air Force fighter pilot couldn’t fly for the Air India as well.
Are you able to cite these supposed reasons why the IAF couldn’t follow the model of the U.S Air National Guard, or the reserve units of the Navy, Marine Corp or Air Force, for the retention of experienced combat pilots?
Converting or adding reserve squadrons to the active duty IAF would solve many personnel issues. Reservist pilots could potential live and train closer to their homes, and there is no reason why a reservist combat pilot can’t maintain the same level of proficiency as his/her active duty counterpart.
The active duty force would benefit from the creation of areserve element. Great pilot retention would reduce not only the costs of training, but the burden placde on limited training assets. Similarly, raising overall IAF morale might also serve to reduce the aircraft attrition rate.
TinWingNote that mixed compression type engine of SR-71 has unacceptable vices for a combat aircraft, like unstarts, limit to pathetic 8 degrees angle of attack and extreme sensitivity to throtle changes. Among other things.
It should be pointed out that the A-12/SR-71/YF-12 was never a conventional “combat aircraft.” A manned aircraft flying at as sustained speed Mach 3.0+ will never maneuver like a fighter!
See western reports of MiG-25 over Israel. See “Arsenal of democracy” writen by Tom Gervasi, a former inteligence officer. He say that MiG-25 has been flying over western Europe at over 3 Mach.
It is often stated that a clean MiG-25R could make Mach 3, but that sort of speed couldn’t be maintained for a useful interval due to the limited fuel capacity. In short, even if the MiG-25’s uselessly short high speed endurance had been addressed, the steel structure wouldn’t have accepted Mach 3 surface heating for very long.
There is good reason why the A-12/SR-71 ended being the equivilent of a gigantic titanium fuel tank.
TinWingComparison with ALKALI is not correct.
In case of AIM-47, this was a brand new missile intended to enter service for the first time, and it is very unusual to cancel a brand new missile, and design similar but entirely new AIM-54.Something was deeply wrong with basic design of AIM-47.
If the AIM-47 design had been correct it could have been improved with years with new electronics, new rocket engine etc, just like AIM-54 has been improved.
A great money has been invested in AIM-47 and it was canceled just like that.It doesnt mean much. Remember that all targets in tests were cooperative.
A real combat is something else.
Indeed, the firiing trials of the AIM-47 were perhaps a little one sided, but the YF-12 was hardly a pre-production prototype. It was more of a “conceptual demonstrator,” to use the correct modern term.
The AIM-47’s development was hardly wasted, and much of the airframe layout was preserved in the AIM-54, in much the same way that much of the work performed on Bendix Eagle AAM made its way to the eventual AIM-54 Phoenix.
Some might even say that the designation change from AIM-47 to AIM-54 was made neccessary by the shift from USAF funding to US Navy funding.
TinWingin my personal opinion..the SR-71 blackbird and mig-25 foxbat rank as some of the greatest feats in avaition history. to see people finding fault with these amazing aircraft makes me laugh, to be honest with you..
its true the blackbird and foxbat where not perfect, and they had there faults…but what aircaft dosent. both types had or still have long and succsesful careers. the blackbird wich sadley is no longer with us was only withdrawn on fiancial grounds. and the foxbat story will be with us for a long time to come as the mig-31 foxhound. the old term comes to mind; what is the only replacment for a exellent design…a improved version of the same thing of course…
The A-12/SR-71 is amazing from the standpoint of how quickly and cheaply the program progressed – all while setting a new flight performance standard which still hasn’t been surpassed.
The MiG-25 is less impressive from the technical standpoint, and the development program was embarrassingly long.
Of course, the MiG-25’s disasterous combat record is what really cast scorn on this so-called fighter.
TinWingthere very nice design
wonder how much they cost each, could be the transports and ASW planes some nations are needing
There have been moves to lift Japan’s prohibition on exporting weapons systems. Even if that doesn’t happen, it isn’t impossible to imagine that the Kawasaki C-X could be exported to a foreign military as a nominally “civilian” aircraft.
Still, uncompetitive program costs could preclude any exports.
Now that the US has selected the 737-based P-8, would the P-X be any more competitive than the BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4?
Similarly, would the C-X be cost competitive with the Airbus A400M?
You really have to wonder if the secrecy surrounding the P-X/C-X program is meant to cover up the staggering costs?
TinWingSo whether a sub is mini or not is defined by a comparison with Swedish and German subs?
Couldn’t possibly be the case that these two countries have defencive requirements that outweigh other considerations, which lead to their subs being short range mini sub type vessels rather than long range conventional patrol types like the Foxtrots or even Tangos?
Indeed, Baltic and North Sea operating conditions helped to shape German and Swedish operating requirements. To be fair, the 500 ton Type 205/206/207 might be correctly termed “coastal submarines,” while the various 1,000+ ton Swedish types are relatively small patrol submarines – albeit highly specialized for the Baltic littoral.
The Germans did consider a 200 ton Type 202 class of minisubs in the 1960s. Two were built and they were successful from a technical standpoint. They were also deemed to be fundimentally useless, and were promptly scrapped.
Reduced crew size, less than 1,000 ton weight, relatively short range, though carrying full size torpedos and having a good speed (for a conventional design) is how I define a mini sub, and these subs meet these criteria. Certainly the 900 ton vessel is at the upper reaches of the range, but it is designed to operate as a normal sub, but be small. A midget sub does not act like a full size sub… at 12 knts for the Russian examples they would not be capable of performing most missions a sub is expeted to perform. It can however perform other missions…
It would seem as if the 920 ton “minisub” is neither fish nor fowl, as the saying goes. Who would expect 9 crew members to maintain watches for 24 hours a day over the course of a 30 day patrol? Any 70 meter vessel is oversized for the specialized ASDV mission, the only clear mission available for a so-called minisub.
Why not deploy a small swimmer delivery vehicle (ASDV) from a larger patrol or fleet submarine? Why not make your ASDV small enough to be air transportable?
It would seem that the “mini-sub” – or more properly the ASDV – has a genuine role, but not in the sense most people assume.
TinWingYeah, displacement means nothing… length is what counts… not.
Explain to me how a 920 ton vessel constitutes a “mini-sub.”
This unbuilt, unsold and highly unlikely proposal is for an undercrewed full sized submarine that is only slightly smaller than many modern Swedish and German ocean going submarine types.
TinWing.”
If the UK had sold Harriers to China in the 1970’s we may see Chinese copies on some Invicible-like ships?
They did sell Spey engines, which now powers JH-7 attack aircraft.
Cheers,
Sunho
If the Chinese couldn’t successfully set up a Spey production line, despite 20 years of trying and full assistance from Rolls Royce before 1989, what makes you think they could “copy” the Harrier and its Pegasus turbofan?
With the successes of the past 10 years, it is too easy to forget how little was accomplished by the Chinese aviation industry in past decades.
TinWingThe Chinese intended to forward base the Harriers along the Mongolian and Soviet borders – not aboard aircraft carriers.
BAe had to admit that Harrier wasn’t suited for the hot and high operating conditions the Chinese had in mind.
The Chinese were cutting defense expenditures in the early 80s, while high inflation contined to effect the British aerospace industry. The Chinese thought that increasing price estimates were an attempt to cheat them.
Either way, the first generation Harrier wasn’t capable enough to shift the entire balance of power in East Asia.
TinWingHow about a civilian part time pilot ? He/She can fly a certain number of hours to keep up with the training with the air force and fly the rest for Civilian Aviation. I dont recomend this for fighter pilots though ,just transports.
Fighter pilots can/must have a full time job.Keeps everyone happy, the booming civilian side poachers and takes the pressure off the Air Force.
The United States has successfully employed “part time” pilots in reserve and “Air National Guard” units since the end of WWII.
There is no reason why an Indian Air Force fighter pilot couldn’t fly for Air India as well.
TinWingGo to the links I posted above. 2,000nm, 22knts for a 900ton sub is not no speed and no range. Added the fact you can operate in shallower waters than any nuke sub and can be both operated from smaller ports but also made at smaller docks and maintained at smaller facilities I can see a real trend toward smaller subs. A tiny sub doesn’t have the same problems a tiny ship has. Air power means a small patrol boat needs a medium range SAM to protect it from helos and fixed wing aircraft. Even then it is very vulnerable and the SAM is expensive. Small subs can have very sophisticated systems on board and can be very quiet to operate… especially with fuel cell technology.
A tiny crew can be rotated like on any other sub… three crews on 8 hour shifts.Regarding survivability from most weapons any sub is not safe… the sea is the real danger. A small sub operating in shallow waters would offer the crew the best chance of an escape than a large sub in the open ocean. In up to 300ft you can simply perform a free ascent.
Regarding limited weapons loadout… in the Falklands campaign only one of the British subs fired anything… when was the last time a sub ran out of ammo at war?
Four torpedos is plenty if they work as advertised… we are talking about using several small subs instead of a few larger ones.I don’t think anyone suggested leading an invasion with minisubs.
As a defensive measure in shallow waters.
There is nothing “mini” about a submarine that is nearly 70 meters long?
TinWingits really odd the pages wont open at all in my browser strange
anybody else having this problem, In Safari or anything else?
So you’re an Apple user? Well, I don’t know anything about Safari but I’d see if I needed to update my Acrobat reader.
If all else fails, simple just save the .pdfs instead of opening them in your browser window.
TinWingWhy couldn’t the Iranians develop midget, remote Subs, used as live-feed “underwater” cruise
missiles, using electronic and visual cues. These could sit at the bottom, undetected, for months.
And, activated when needed. Sort of like mines, except these actually “search” and destroy Subs
and surface Ships. They don’t need to be Kamikaze either. They could be used for several different targets.
The Americans developed the CAPTOR mine during the Cold War as a means of combating Soviet missile subs while sparing civilian shiping. The CAPTOR was a moored mine which released a 324mm anti-submarine torpedo in response to specific propellor sounds – in this case the slow turning prop(s) of a Soviet SSBN. Hundred of civilian ships could pass over the CAPTOR unharmed, but the first nuclear missile sub would have received a nasty surprise.
The Americans also adapted obsolete Mk37 torpedos to carry a ground mine in place of a warhead. In this way, an American submarine could mine a Soviet harbor while staying well away from the coast – far safer than actually entering an enemy harbor.
The two concepts could be combined -in theory.
The Iranians have tended to use mines very indiscriminantly – some, if not most, being set adrift in hopes of hitting any target, miliary or civilian. Random drift mines are a weapon of general terror, not selective military intent.
The Iranians are also fond of suicide tactics, for reasons of ideology more than effectiveness.
TinWingA couple of torpedoes with smart algorithms to go after the propellors. If you get them you will:
– unbalance the engine, wrecking the drivetrain.
– bust the seals, flooding the engine roomThis will either sink the boat, or render it a large barge. With carriers needing to generate wind over the deck for launching operations you have effectively removed it from the fight.
The Soviet produced plenty of wake following torpedos – and there was no countermeasure capable of defeating them at the time.
Of course, the Soviets had so little confidence in the guidance of their wake homing torpedos that most of the them had nuclear warheads.
Sign In
