drabslabNothing dumb about this question at all. Most observers seem to assume that the ‘new’ Iranian aircraft are old ones with Iranian modifications. If the modifications make the planes any better is yet another question.
don’t underestimate them…
the whole western world seems to fear that they are able to enrich uranium and build nuclear bombs, I assume that such technology is far more complicated than backwards engineering a plane they have on their own tarmac.
drabslabKe aero reports that the first prowler has been retired and writes that it “had logged 924 carrier arrested landings and 6,185.9 flight hours in its 40-year career.”
this comes down to 155 flight hours a year. again it surprises me that so few hours a flown.
drabslabIt is an economical question and the related compromise. Every wing or squadron is tasked with a number of missions during a year and with it the related number of flying hours to do so. That in mind gives the number of aircraft and related personal in need.
For every flying hour is a given rate of man-hours in need.
You have three basic values about that.
The utilisation-rate of aircraft at hand, the number of aircraft at hand and the most important the number of flying-hours available per aircraft.
A high utilisation or sortie-rate can bring down your number of flying-hours available in short notice.
The Russians had figured out, that in wartime it will be possible to keep a high utilisation-rate of 4 missions per day for the first two days only and level out to 2 missions per day the following days, without eating-up the flying-hours to a level they can generated in a constant way. All that without the burden of battle-damage or related technical stress of combat-flying.
In peacetime not all aircraft of a squadron are tasked with daily missions. From 25 fighter-aircraft at hand no more than 18 will be tasked in general. When the 18 will be available on the flight-line for the next day, the squadron will report a “readiness-rate” of 100% for that day. But more typical is a lower one. In peace-time most units suffer from a shortage of man-power or spare-parts.
It is a question of cost. Express deliveries or surplus-hours for mechanics are not covered by the money given for the running of that unit. So most commanders will keep a reserve for the more important maneuver or inspection days, when his unit will come in the focus of his superiors.
Despite some parts from aircraft not tasked for the next days, it happens frequently that more than one aircraft suffered a technical failure at the flight-line and has to abort the daily mission tasked. When 18 are a nominal 100% readiness rate and 16 taking-off really will give a readiness rate of 89%.
Much more important is the number of aircraft which fullfilled the daily task without an mid-air abortion and the related lowering of the real readiness rate.
Just in times of tension, exercises the economical question can be ignored. All the personal including reserves are working over-time constantly to get the best result for that unit. Less critical work ist postphoned and a high deposit of available flying-hours is ignored for that period. In general a high readiness rate during that times is followed by lower ones afterwards, when all the postphoned work has be done by the normal personal and budget.
A critical observer will look into the personal aircraft ratio at first and the money available for that unit.
All fine!
It does still not explain why the french feel the need to boast about being able to fly 1 hour (or 200km at average speed) a day with their new toy
drabslabSurely it only effects the price of the F-35B as the UK’s proposed purchase was only ever a few % of what the total proposed programme 150 versus 2, 400 for the US alone (based on pre-credit crunch numbers)?
I am affraid not.
The three versions share a lot of parts, and development costs. The B might be affected the most but the other types as well.
drabslab@drabslab,
given aircraft can be down due maintenance 1h per day is a LOT. Amassing 1000 h with three airframes in less than a years isn’t bad, the opposite.
How is that?
If it would have been only one helicopter then it would have flown an average of 3.3 hours a day, still leaving 21 hours a day for maintenance and 65 whole days a year left for repairs.
At an average speed of 200 km an hour (and flying 1 hour in average every day) it means that these things only fly 200 km each day. Do they really need “maintenance” after 200 km??
What else can you do but replace the ordnance used and fill up the gas tank?
drabslaband if this would become true then the consequenes for F-35 will be severe.
If the biggest international contributor to F-35 backs off then prices will go up. What will all the other doubting nations do then?
The F-35 could turn out to become the achilles heal of LM.
drabslabChronologically: A Starfighter, and F-16 and a Rafale
Of all times: the F-16 has no match
drabslabBut an F-16 cannot get close enough to an IADS-defended target to use the GBU-10s like an F-35 can.
It does not have to, it just has to bring a Storm shadow up in the air and in a comfortable postion to be launched. 🙂
Why would you bring a 100+ million dollar plane (and its pilot) in harms way when a much cheaper missile can do the same better?
drabslabIf this would be true then this defence review will be a new chapter in the “incompetent management” of the armed forces by UK government saga.
Typhoon and Rafale exist as two different planes because UK (at the time) refused to take the need into account for carrier operations.
Combining the research budgets of Rafale and Typhoon, and the much higher production numbers of Rafale + Typhoon would have created a far better plane, cheaper and still with much better return for EU industry.
It would have allowed a combined development and management of aircraft carriers with the french with same results.
and now they would go for super hornet and continue the chain of incomprehensible decisions which have turned UK from a technological leader into an industrial disaster?
Well, I hope not but I can, considering history, imagine that it is true.
drabslabthanks guys! Wonderful stuff!
i will go away and compose a more orthodox post about thrust to weight ratios or notional capabilities of the Congolese airforce in 20 years time….:rolleyes:
Don’t blame me when the truth is out 🙂
Congolese airforce.
At the time we used to call them “Air peut-etre” which a kind of french they use over there and means “Air probably”
drabslabThere is a lot of discussion of the F-35s A2a capability, mostly negative.
has anyone stopped for a moment and really considered what tactics the air craft will use? Now i know the purists will scream at me for posting fan boy comparisons. Real engagements are clashes between systems and networks, not 1v1. so this is not a realistic scenario its just and idea. here is are the senarios:1. 10 J-1 vs 10 F-35, the engagement is over a fictional sea with fictional tanker and AWACS support. we are trying not to offend anyone’s national pride or make them turn the thread into a my country will nukes yours thread.
Why cant 3 of the F-35s carry Full external Loads with wing tanks and missiles?
Lets assume that the F-35 can carry 12 missiles total will a full external and internal load. The 10 J-10s and the 3 F-35s all close on each other while the 7 F-35s fly about 40 miles behind networking data back and forth.
At max range all 3 F-35s and all J-10s open fire ( we are assuming that the J-10 radar range is equal to the F-35 ASEA radar:rolleyes:) after firing, the 3 F-35s drop external pylons and tanks and evade. lets even assume 1 F-35s pylons nick the aircraft or get jammed and the F-35 is lost. The dozens of J-10 missiles suddenly lose there track because of the now stealthy configuration of the F-35s.
The remaining F-35s all Fox1 on the J-10s that survive the 1st volley.
is this possible? do radars and Missiles terminal seeker keep a accurate track even though the aircraft changed configurations? even the J-10s radar couldn’t track the F-35 at 70 miles with no pylons, will it maintain a track after the pylons drops? discuss
I think that your engagement scenarios are a bit simple.Wikipedia lists a dozen different types of old combat air patrols and I guess that there are many modern tactics taking into account the modern technology.
As an example: The Swedish Gripens fly in patterns where the two partner planes fly up to 20 km apart.
and don’t forget that there is something like “visual” as well. In WOII the UK had a network of ground stations relaying info on formations of enemy planes to central stations by phone. I assume that this would these days (with computer networks) be feasible much faster and more precise.
and I have seen demonstrations of camera’s (IR and simple webcams) being able to detect movement. This is now used for advanced security systems in buildings. some of these things could be pointed at the sky as well?
drabslabThere were times when changing only a wing shape, only an engine, only a gun, would create a huge advantage over everything flying at that moment.
These days are long gone and making a better plane is hugely complex requiring huge R&D efforts. The F-35 is an example of that, I guess.
This means that this “classical” fighter technology, getting an serious advantage over the enemy by producing a better plane becomes impossible, if not unaffordable.
This means that advantage is being sought in other areas like situational awareness, networking, BVR missiles, GPS, laser beams…
Soon (if not now), the quality of the plane will be determined for 10% by its flying characteristics and 90% by these other tools.
And many of these tools are quite cheap and accesible. I recently saw a model plane enthoesiast who had build a portable PC, a GPS, a wireless transmitter and a photo camera in a model helicopter. He was himself writing software to command that camera, to fly the helicopter and to communicate between the pc in the chopper and another one he was holding; he could even see the images of the camera while it was flying.
Well, actually, the thing crashed after 10 minutes because he lost wireless connection to the chopper but this has potential.
My point is, poor countries have access to this technology, it may be not as good as the things made by billion dollar projects but when available in sufficient numbers these things can be as embarassing and annoyning as road side bombs.
drabslab* stealth is obsolete?
stealth is not useless but totally overhyped and it is not taken into account that someone may find a very adequate couter-measure.
it seems stupid to me to treat stealth as a holey cow and sacrifice everything else just to achieve it.
* the U.S. will be a ineffective air power in a few years?
I don’t think so but i am affraid that they are loosing part of the huge advantage they had for many years, in numbers as well in quality.
* The U.S. has never fought a credible opponent?
No they have not since WO II but that is mainly becasue the USAF is so good that everything else looks obsolete compared to them.
* The F-22 is worthless*
and snow is black
* the Rafale and typhoon are in the same generation as the F-35*
maybe not but they are not the lame ducks that F-35 fanboys would like them to be either. As soon as someone finds a coutermeasure to stealth the f-35 will be severely bitten by those dogs.
drabslabAlthough strictly speaking being outside this little poll :diablo:
We should grant a special “life time achievement” award to the British government for its consistent and persistent policy to destroy its own aircraft industry that once upon a time was at the pinnacle of research and development. :diablo::diablo:
And we should also give them a special recommendation for continuing the effort towards the complete destruction of their entire armed forces :dev2::dev2:
drabslablooking at the aviation industry ww in 2010, who would you rank the Best, the most advanced, and the most sought after. opposed to some of the worst?
My personal rank would be:
Lockheed
Sukhoi
Boeing
dassault
Eurofighter consortium
SAAB
MIG
BAE
Shenyangdiscuss.
according to which criteria?
– If for selling vaporware I would give the golden medal to Lockheed Martin
– For building an excellent plane and screwing it up completely on the diplomatic and economical front I would vote for dassault
– for building a small plane, and selling it worldwide as part of a complete defence packet, Gripen is king
– for cheating and lying the prize goes to MIG
– For preparing the future I would give many points to Boeing
Sign In
