agree with distiller on that one. sure maybe a few thousand new jobs over the place manning the ground stations and selling/maintaining the Galileo receivers, but definitely not anything like 50k openings, let alone 150k. i don’t think even 80 thousand ppl are kept employed by GPS and GLONASS put together. and i’m being really generous.
in fact if anything such systems take away jobs! they make navigators irrelevant. years ago big planes flew with one decently-paid guy who played with charts. no such positions anywhere now!
my answer? one word: hyperbole.
i can’t give exact figures, but from what i remember upgrading from M88-2 to M88-3 will give 20% more thrust and thus all-round improvements in performance. what was especially touted was an increase in durability and maintainability. basically the higher thrust means u can get the same thrust output from the M88-3 as from the M88-2 at lower revs, meaning engine life is increased. specific fuel consumption is the same too despite the higher thrust, so yes range is quite significantly increased given the same flight regime.
as for stealth… let’s just say that no matter how much they “downgrade” the F-35 its RCS will remain much better than the Rafale’s, simply because it was designed to have “full spectrum stealth” unlike Rafale and is shaped and has IR reduction measures to do so which cannot be taken away by “downgrading”. i’m not sure if downgrading involves removal of the F-35’s RAM though. basically though as long as you have to hang weapons externally from an a/c it will never stealthy; even an undowngraded F-35’s RCS will jump tremendously once any external stores are carried, so it depends really on external stores. if the F-35 carries external stores RCS won’t be significantly different. if the F-35 flies clean however then its stealthy design will ensure a much lower RCS than an always-carrying-external-stores Rafale, downgrade or no.
interesting!
although i’m not sure about the effects of the massive thermal updrafts caused by the fire on the airship.
i dont think they’re fast enough for modern SSNs. u need to be able to do way above 35kt to do effective ASW. hmm, i imagine an enormous zeppelin shooting out sonobuoys and with a big MAD tail! honestly AEW is a much more realistic role.
IMO the reason why a/c are so complicated and expensive now is simply coz they’re too good. when you make a plane you have to make it better than its predecessor, and over the years through P-51 to F-86 to F-100 to F-4 to F-15 they’ve just got better and better and correspondingly more expensive and with correspondingly fewer numbers. F-22 and Eurocanards basically continue this trend. u cant run away from it because u will always have to make a new plane better than the one before it. so fighter a/c will just get more and more complex and expensive. maybe one day we’ll see a fighter that is so good it’s so expensive the economy can only afford to buy one of it.
we’ve made a new start with UCAVs, and saved complexity and cost by removing the pilot. but for the above reasons UCAVs will also start getting larger and more complex over time…
incendiary AMRAAM warheads. or get close and rake with HE-I shells from M61A2. it would be harder now that they’re filled with helium, but poke holes in enough of the zep’s gasbags and it’ll go down.
but then again the whole idea of a CVBG staying within groudbased air cover sounds quite absurd. Carrierless fleets would be prudent to stay within groundbased air cover for their own protection, but the whole idea of buying and operating a carrier is to provide air cover for the fleet so it is liberated from having to stay within groundbased air cover and has much more freedom to do things, including power projection.
if you are within MKI range, why bother with a carrier and harriers?
anyway, isn’t this thread supposed to be on harriers and mirages? where did the sukhois come from?
whoops. my bad. but the title seriously says DF-31. it’s the fault of the guy who posted that pic for mislabelling it. i think its some overzealous chinamen believing the Vandenburg LGM-30 launch to be a DF-31 shot in china.
NOTAR actually isn’t such a spanking new technology. it was first tested in a modded OH-6 back in 1981. no surprise on the 20 year figure.
no!! the two characters before the -31 on the thread title are “Dong Feng”, or East Wind. that means the guy saw a DF-31 launch from someplace called “Da Mo”. i’m chinese. i should know.
juni, you were also wondering how it carried 6 big bombs on “a couple of external hardpoints”… well, something called MERs- multiple ejector racks. 3-6 bombs a pylon. wish i could get u a pic…
definitely not a Harpoon. it’s some kind of ATGM, but also not a TOW- TOWs have thin rectangular unswept wings, not the large swept ones seen here, and have only 2 sustainer engine nozzles not the 4 that this missile has (2 on each side)… maybe a HOT, or some Russian ATGM.
how in the world did bdmilitary find this ancient thread? by the search function i suppose. i thought this thread would’ve been deleted by now.
it’d be much more cost-effective to just continue renting An-124s like they’ve always been doing. why spend big $$$ when a cheap solution is already available?
besides the europeans aren’t going to need a 150-ton-payload strategic airlifter anytime soon. french and germans have lived with nothing more than Transalls and C-130s, and with few expeditionary ops likely in the forseeable future it’s nothing that can’t be handled by some cheap rental An-124s.
most AESAs look the same. you could differentiate them by antenna size, eg. the humongous APG-77 vs -79 and-81, but AMSAR and AESA-RBE2 are similar in this aspect as the noses of Rafale and Typhoon are of similar width.