star49how many years it will take to produce that extra 14 million bbl/day. Brazil also found 50B barrel near the coast but it will take a decade for them to produce it for themselves let alone for export. similar is the case for Arctic.
unless the world economy collapses and people start using bicycles forcast for energy is very bullish.
star49Are you referring to the Shah of Iran’s F-14s?
Whatever alterations might have occurred to the AWG-9/AIM-54A on Iran’s Tomcats they were still probably the most sophisticated and lethal fighter aircraft in service in the world outside of the USA in the 1970s.
They were certainly miles ahead of Saddam’s export spec MiG-23s and their crappy MiG-21 avionics…
If they are miles ahead what is there combat record? And Iranians were among the richest country in 70s. so better training is part of it.there Oil production went into less than half after revolution.
The Cold war was over long before 1991.
how long before 1991? 1989 at the most and so u can subtract 100 aircraft at the most.
The point is, the FLANKER was designed especially to take on the F-15 – the Eagle is the Sukhoi’s greatest source of inspiration, its Father, its Obi Wan Kenobi, if you like. Consequently the FLANKER entered service a good 10 years after the F-15, so it’s a bit unfair to compare the two aircraft in that respect.
I guess you can say that some lead – others must follow…
when F-15 got 29,000lbs engine, HMS, R-73, R-27 class missile along with 10 wing points? I am not even going into aerodynamics of Flanker. It took F-15 another 10 years to go all those things.
Serviceable as in aircraft that fly on a regular basis, like USAF C-5s, as apposed to aircraft that don’t, like RuAF An-124s!
An-124 fly on regular basis be it with Ruaf, Volg deplentier or Polyt. what diference does it make.
I haven’t got such “serious manhours per flying hour type” data. Is such data available for the An-124, especially those of the Ruaf? In which case you’re right, it isn’t possible to make any real comparison (which I didn’t raise in the first place) between the two aircraft?
the fact commercial carriers can afford to run it on global basis will tell you some thing along with start of new production. these tells some thing about the end product. no one in right frame of mind is going to start C-5 production.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-costs.htm
To purchase this aircraft, the government of the UAE essentially outbid Moscow-based Atlant Soyuz Airlines. The An-124 was being constructed under a US $20M contract for Atlant Soyuz. The UAE offered more than the contractual price. Aviant cancelled the original contract with Atlant Soyuz (the formal reason given that Atlant Soyuz had had difficulty meeting the advance payment clause
The final option, of course, would be new-built An124-100M-150s – 10 of which are on order (to be built both by Aviant and Aviastar-SP). The new-built ’M-150s will be significantly more expensive – estimates vary from US $50-to-$80 Million. While access to airframes may be tight , the basic design concept is as sound as ever. Regardless of how the Antonov airlifters are procured, commonly-accepted estimates of An-124 design-life suggests that they have 40-to-50 years remaining
The Galaxy entered service in 1970, the same year as the Boeing 747-100, the Antonov entered service in 1986, a year or two ahead of the Boeing 747-400, so yeah, the Antonov and the C-5 ought to be a generation apart in technology and design. The C-5s have an average of well over 20,000 flying hours on each airframe, some with over 25,000 perhaps? I doubt if the entire Ruslan fleet can even approach that – so if there is a disparity in maintainability in the present day it shouldn’t be surprising, should it?
IL-76 also entered in 1970s. And it is still in demand by commerical operators along with airforces for AWACS, Tankers etc. And Ruaf is upgrading the old ones with new engines, avionics along with increase weights. Airlines are now even retiring B-747-400 let alone some thing inefficient like C-5 that no one is going to consider. the only problem with An-124/IL-76 is that factories need modernization and skilled workers to produce in mass scale. it will take some time but make no mistake u will continue to see An-124/IL-76 in the skies for next 50 years.
star49So you don’t deny that the Soviet Union, for over forty years, had been exporting only second rate stuff to its allies, inside the Warsaw Pact or otherwise. Might explain some of the present day’s Russian Federation problems in exporting aircraft in general.
Present day problems with substandard stuff in the Past?. Russian aircraft customer are not first world countries like Japan/UAE/Korea so naturally Russians will supply cheap stuff.
Which as everyone knows is nothing but a copy of the A-5 Vigilante…:rolleyes:
eloborate this?
I expect Israeli F-15s carry Python 4.
Python 4 is inferior to R-73 unless IAF would have adopted it just like rest of avionics which is much more difficult and expensive to adopt.
Who cares what kind of rifle is used – has the type of firearms used ever been a decisive factor in any 20th century conflict?[/quote
this rifle made all the difference in all the post wolrd war 2 conflicts.
So how many FLANKERs were there in the Cold war anyway?:rolleyes:
alteast 500. Just count the number of Flankers in whole CIS countries.they havent bought much after 1991.
Two quite different aircraft with, if I recall, somewhat different roles in mind.
what are those roles?
In this class of helicopter, it’s probably the avionics and weapon systems that make all the difference to the aircraft’s survivability or strike abilities, I should think.
And firepower and protection and ease of maintainability in remote locations. u dont want to create multibillion dollar supply chain for every product. otherwise u will be in deep debt.
Aeroflot might beg to differ.
where aeroflot opinion comes from. u are confusing present day production capabilities with sale of planes to aerofloat.
USAF C-5s are a lot more serviceable than RuAF An-124s.
Because USAF spends boat load of money on maintaining C-5 as they needed it. It has nothing to do with aircraft. .
BTW, how many An-124 sorties did the Soviet AF fly to Syria in the 1973 Middle East war?:rolleyes:
Russia is not dependent on Middleast Oil. If they want to create mess it will threaten existence of Israel. They have balanced policy between Israel/Arabs/Iranians untill certain time. Soviet Union had parked 120,000 troops in afghanistan for 10 years. along with 30,000 in Tajikistan untill this day.[b] There was nothing prevented Soviet Union of parking 100 to 200,000 troops in Irak/Syria/Egypt/Yemen/libya in 1970s and created unlimited war inside Middleast. US army was pretty busy and tired in Vietnam. u would have unlimited oil embargo.
star49star49, you are right that I mistakenly refered the fact sheet of F-15 Eagle, and not the Strike Eagle. However, after considering the Strike Eagle too, the difference in difference in empty weight is ~ 3 tons. Yet, combat ranges are the same, with max. external capacity of the SE being 4 tons more than the Su-30.
unless u find ranges with weopon load u cannot compare. F-15E carries external fuel tanks. Better comparision will be Su-35 that will carry external fuel and 1 ton lighter avionics. It will be interesting to see F-15E weight when u put heaver PESA/AESA radar on its nose along with IRST.
star49GarryB, although not a copy, I agree the Su-30 MKI may clearly be an inferior design as compared to the F-15 Strike Eagle. Despite being larger and weighing nearly 6 tons more than the F-15, the max. weapons load capacity of the Su-30 is lesser than the F-15 Strike Eagle by 4 tons. Note that like the Su-30, the F-15 too can carry its max. weapon load while performing full 9G maneuvers.
The F-16 Strike Eagle may thus be the best fighter plane in the world.*
References :-
1) F-15 Strike Eagle factsheet
2) * Discounting the nascent 5 G planes like JSF and F-22.
your comparing F-15C specification to Su-30. Su-30 does not weigh much more than F-15E when u consider that massive internal fuel capacity and larger nose with heavier radar and avionics. 8 tons maximum is to preserve life. just look at 38.8tons maximum take off Su-30MK. I have yet to see export Su-30 crash despite being exported to diverse countries from Venzuela to china to vietnam to India etc. Export F-15K/S/J/C all have faced crashes despite being maintained and flown by theoretical better airforces.
star49Well, if you are solely equipped with aircraft from a country that is only willing to supply you with second-rate, if not third-rate gear, then that’s likely to happen, isn’t it? And I guess it would have happened to any country which had decided to procure only Soviet weapons and equipment and finds itself up against a Western armed country?:rolleyes:
you get what you pay for I suppose…
Most of Soviet block countries had third rate economies and hardly efford the customized variants of aircraft with correct amount of training and doctrine behind. i doubt it will happen India/China to that extent when faced with equal rival Like Japan vs China or SK v India. these had pretty much equal size economies. US is still a cut above those countries for a short war.
star49so what is final engine for LCA
will it be new engine that committe is formed for searching around the globe?
or there will be Kaveri completion with Saturn/Snecma help? I highly doubt Snecma can come with more than 20,000lbs in reasonable time.
if LCA is underpowerd according reports. so why not directly order F414 derivaties? instead playing with F404 derivatives.
http://www.cio.com/article/29096/Boeing_Versus_Airbus_Flight_Risk_Outsourcing_Challenges_/2
Other equally experienced people are skeptical of this view. “It’s hard to become what Boeing is,” says a former vice president of GE’s aeroengines group. “The Navy once wanted to hang a Pratt [& Whitney] engine on the F-18, which had only GE engines. The Navy wanted to see some competition, and so we were instructed to turn over the blueprints and all relevant documents to Pratt. Pratt tried and could not produce a good enough engine. They had everything that was needed except the know-how.”
star49Nothing new there flex. It is effective. very effective! Its not just how well armed you are. Actually its how well motivated (or brainwashed you are, some will say). Over here, just a few hundred LTTE cadres comprising of suicide, female and child cadres can overrun an entire SLA base with ease. Just a few dozen can infiltrate most high-security zones and cripple the whole country if necessary. Yes, yes, the SL armed forces are less than cow-droppings 🙂 compared to the western technological might. But it has been proven time and time again, a small but highly motivated group can peg back a much larger military despite all odds. It can be very effective. The conventional way of fighting is not adequate.
This is not necessary true. Countries like Russia/Uzbek/Turkem/Tajik/Kazak/Uzbek/Iran has been been able to defend thousands of miles of Oil/Gas infrastructure despite poor conditions of armed forces in 90s & the kind of threat that they were facing.
star49Was that a joke post, you think yankee is pumping all Iraqs oil away for itself? 😀
Irak barely can feed itself with its Oil. Production is far below compared to its potential. which is the single biggest failure that matters.
In 21st century Only those countries will be important who controls Natural resources. If u dont get this point ur own allies will abondon you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOQadlPGTe5s&refer=home
NATO Snubs Ukraine, Georgia in Blow to Bush; Greece Plans Veto
star49Well as per national security their are other concerns . Stabelizing iraq is a POLITICAL thing in my opinion , militarily their is only X ammount of things that can be done the sollution has to be political .
I am not referring to Irak. What is happening is afterthought patch work without strategic thinking. Instead of investing all the money in Stealth Programes from 1970s like F-117/B-2. US should have rightway invaded Middleast instead of going to Vietnam and created a much larger size army from the begining for sole that purpose.
1970s Oil embargo was wakeup call. the cost of strategic compromis is uncountable but it is for another discussion.
star49And dont you think that the US DOD is spending on that? If the army thinks that Armor needs more attention they have to at their level request that funds be taken from elsewhere. FCS perhaps . You get my point . Everyone recoganizes that now is the time to beef up vehicles however the point that flex and i are talking about was “retrospective” that is to say should 10 years ago or 20 years ago the US DOD invested more money on Beefing up Hummvees as opposed to the raptors .
I agree hare with Flex. Since US& World economy is so much depended on Oil. Capturing Middleast oil should be part of US military planning since world war 2. It is more important than stationing forces in EU/Japan/Korea combined.u cannot have second opinion about this. Imagine US has the right numbers and right equipment to stabilize Irak in 2003. by now Oil prices would be still around $20 a barrel. Oil price is linked to alot of commodities.
star49Note that max. external load of F-16 is 6.9 to 7 tons only, as per most quoted sources. The figure of 10 tons is not even for Su-30 MKI (8tons) or F-18 (8 tons), or Rafale & Typhoon (9-9.5 tons).
Apparently there are two version of newer F-16s. One is the stander version with 19+ tone of MTOW. 8.5 tons empty+3tons internal fuel+ 7.5tons external load. that will give u 19tons of MTOW for standard version.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html
Specifications (standard Block 50/52)
Weights: 18,238 pounds empty, 26,463 pounds normal loaded (air-to-air mission), 42,300 pounds maximum takeoff
Now there is more advanced version of F-16 that carries that 600Gallon fuel tanks along with CFT. This version MTOW is in 22 to 24 tons region. So it is highly likely that i can carry 10 tons external. Dont forget F-16 more than 4000 has been built along with 30 years of experiance. So it is highly likely that LM has produced a verion with very high MTOW. I am not even going into Block 60 which they claim carrying even more load.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html
Block 50/52 Plus
See note that, that issue was pertaining to an error on 2 consecutive pages of the PAC website. Other than top speed at altitude (not sea-level), the max. external loads also differ.
i havent researched deeply but it is highly likely that production version is slight different than prototypes. and the differences are less than 10%. which u can interpret.
Till now, actually Tejas has lifted ~3 tons considering addition of drop-tanks with dummy missiles. As per ADA’s website, total flight time needed for certification is 2,000 hours.
To be able to achieve 2000 hrs as a fighter and as multirole system has very long way to go. Probably a difference of a decade. And 3 tons equal to two fuel tanks of 800KG each and one of 1200KG alteast. i have seen picture with 3 fuel tanks.
The MRCA deal, as per most estimates cannot be concluded before the latter part of next decade considering the track record of slow pace of defence procurement. The Tejas is scheduled to obtain IoC by 2010, by which time it can be a competitor for the MRCA.
that i can agree. Tejas may achieve IOC as a fighter in 2010 but as Multirole platform it will take untill 2020 alteast.
star49See, the member K Prasad is credited with the image of the placard from Singapore Air Show, which I posted earlier.
You had claimed 6g yourself here, but now claim 4g based on 2005 reports.
The above is your conclusion only. The altitudes, speed and G limits were reached in clean config, i.e. without any load. Now, they were tested with various loads and at varying locations like sea-level at Arakkonam. Himalayan and desert testing with varying loads is to be done.
Former premier of France Mr. Raffarin was seated in Tejas’ mock cockpit as per this page. The visit of Presidents of Venezuela and Chilean Defence minister from ADA’s list is not mentioned (probably not counted as tests), though I only performed search and did not search individual records of the site.
Even then, the number will not exceed 6, which is a small fraction of 843 tests done till now (or even 480 till 2005), contrary to the magazine’s false claim of portraying “numerous” flights for air-shows or dignitaries.
As per the this site posted by you, it mentions and I quote, “The truth is that LCA is still under ‘Technology Demonstrator’ stage…”, end quote. Thus, the Technology Demonstration stage includes the PV units also and not “rigidly” the TD units only.
As mentioned earlier, ADA’s website also mentions that testing is to be done through TD as well as PV units, and not TD units alone.
That was in response to “mistakes” issue you raised. PAC Kamra did not get specifications of top speed and empty weight correctly on its website, in same manner as ADA did not get specifications of Tejas consistently on placards of Singapore 2008 and DefExpo 2008.
The only concern remaining now is the issue of low thrust, which the IAF claims. As per official Swedish Defence Material Administration, the empty weight of Gripen is 7000 kgs, max. external load is 5,300 kgs and MTOW is 14,000 kgs. This leaves only 1700 kgs for internal fuel, which cannot be the case as even Tejas carries > 2200 kgs fuel. Subtracting 800 kgs more internal fuel to make it fuel-less, we can arrive at 6,300 kgs.
This figure is inclusive of engine weight, as further subtracting 1,100 kgs of the weight of GE-414 would yield the implausible figure of 5,200 kgs.
Gripen is larger than Tejas with lesser composite percentage. Its wing area is ~ 25.5 sq. m and taking per canard area of Su-30 as ref+1, total wing area of Gripen is >33 sq. m. This is not much lesser than Tejas’ 38.4 sq. m wing area.
Thus, even inclusive of engines, Tejas’ empty weight must be less than 6,300 kgs of Gripen. Thus, figure of placard of Singapore Air Show must be inaccurate, and the figure of 5,680 kgs as in the DefExpo 2008 was accurate. Note that this figure is inclusive of GE-F404 engine.
However, as discussed earlier, as per the unlabelled placard posted earlier (ref. from BR forum), MTOW of Tejas was 13,500 kgs; internal fuel was ~ 2482 kgs and max. external stores as we know is 4,000 kgs. This equates to 7,100 kgs of weight inclusive of engine, which is greater than even 6,500 kgs as per Singapore Air Show.
In this context, we finally take the figures listed on ADA’s website itself : clean weight of 8500 kgs, external load of >4000 kgs. Subtracting internal fuel weight from clean weight gives ~6,000 kgs (which is again 1 tonne less than Gripen) inclusive of engine, avionics, canon etc. Note that the site independently lists empty weight as 5,500 kgs.Whatever be the case, empty weight of Tejas is between 5500 and 6000 kgs only, which still makes it >1 ton lighter than Gripen and 0.5 tons lighter than T-50 in present configuration.
References :-
See the F-16. It can carry 10 tons externally but with full internal fuel it goes down to 7 tons. Whole point is that u takeoff aircraft with almot no fuel and refuel it two to three times in air. This concept pretty much works with USAF as plenty of tankers and airdominance over combat area.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f16/features/index.html
Stores Carriage Capability
The current Block 50 F-16 can carry up to 22,000 pounds of weapons, electronic countermeasures, sensor pods, and external fuel tanks on 11 store stations. With full internal fuel, it carries more than 15,500 pounds of external stores at its maximum takeoff gross weight. The Block 60 version will have an even larger load capacity
Gripen is fully multirole fighter in JAS-39C so 7tons is not surprizing. as 6600KG is mentioned with JAS-39A.
http://www.gripen.com/en/GripenFighter/GripenStory.htm
October 1996
The Gripen fatigue test airframe passes 10,000 simulated flight hours without incident.
FC-1 specificaiton confusion is due to changes into prototype 04 from earlier that made the aircraft bigger. 15m length & 9.5m wing span.
http://www.cac.com.cn/cpzs/index.asp
枭龙/FC-1飞机的主要技术数据：
空机重 6411KG 正常起飞重量 9072KG
最大起飞重量 12474KG 最大着陆重量 7802KG
机内总油量 2268KG 总外挂能力 3629KG
推重比 ≥0.9 最大M数 1.6
使用升限 15240米 最大转场航程 2037公里
起飞滑跑距离 609米 着陆滑跑距离 823米
全机： 长14967.9mm 宽 9464.6mm 高4774.85mm
And there is no operational status of Teja having actually lifted 4 tons. u have to gurantee 6000 to 8000 hrs with such loads. And ur not even at 2000 Flight test mark which Gripen achieved 13 year ago. it is very long process to become a multirole. So Teja cannot be considered for MMRCA.
star49Within the scope of the $10.7 billion project, Turkey will purchase 100 F-35 planes
is it fixed price contract so much into future.
star49Composite wings for airliners and fighters are NOT the same thing- think of problems with the ‘Dreamliner’ and compare to the loads a fighter will endure- unless you’re gonna incorporate some elaborate carbon-nanotube strengthened structure- which is many years away.
What’s wrong with small AESAs? -they exist and they’re easier to cool.
Passenger airline has that several tons of engines permanently hanging from them. Moreover they are designed for 60000 hr vs 6000hr for fighters.
Small AESA wont work. u need large space and power.
Sign In
