FBWThe issue isn’t military surveillance flights skirting a nation’s airspace. NATO flights do the same all the time. The U.S. is constantly sending monitoring flights along and into China’s claimed airspace, and Chinese have been aggressive about actual incursions into Japanese airspace.
The issue is the Russian flights have been turning off of the transponders, which endangers civilian traffic and could definitely be construed as a bit more hostile than a RC-135 flying in international airspace near the Russian border. If the U.K. has decided to squawk about this, there must be a message they are conveying to Russia.
Here was an earlier complaint from Finland and Sweden.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/15/sweden-russia-airplane-idUSL6N0TZ2X420141215
FBWThis site gives the combat range of the Buccaneer.
http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/table_ag.htm
The F-106 which was larger than the Bucc. had a combat range of 1,800 miles and it was extremely aerodynamic and fuel efficient so there is no way the Bucc. would ever get close to the combat range of Six.
Pilots who flew it said its true ferry range was a good deal more than listed.The engine in the Thud was near the same as the Six and either way the J-75 was very undeveloped engine as the effort that would have gone into the J-75 was put into turbo-fans when thy decided to build no more F-106 aircraft, same would have been for the F=105 for which production was stopped ONLY due to R. Strange McNamara’s asinine infatuation with the F-111.
Pilots in ‘Nam wanted more Thuds but McNamara made sure no more could, not would, could be built.
They used the Phantom because they had not other choice.
The F-106 had a combat radius of 417 nmi on internal fuel and 725 with externals. This is flying an intercept mission, average altitude over 38,000 feet. The F-106 had good range but not the fantastical numbers some like to attach to it.
The F-106 mission profile was hi-hi-hi as it was an interceptor. The Buc was a strike aircraft, and as such did not fly at the altitudes of the F-106. Comparing range is tricky unless you have the fight manuals and can compare for the same type of mission.
FBWGE and RR secured ADVENT while P&W continued to advance their concepts through internal funding. .
Thank your for the response. Will be interesting to watch this play out. One would think that GE would have the advantage considering their previous variable cycle projects. P&W does seem to have a powerful lobby on the hill on the other hand.
FBWBiO can you clear up the differences in the engine development:
1. GE got a contract for AETD leveraging knowledge from the ADVENT program, (what is the core of the ADVENT engine derived from? YF120, F136, totally new?)
2. P&W also got funding for AETD, (F-135 based core, totally new?)
3. USN VCAT engine program, they say that program is separate but related to the AETD.
The situation is confusing-
Is the AETD engine program directly developing an entirely new engine for future fighters, or will there be a follow on based on the requirements of Next Generation TACAIR?
Are they variable cycle tech demonstrators using existing cores that will eventually lead to a new engine?
New engine cores, yet technology demonstrators not directly leading to a production engine?
None of the above?
FBWI don’t consider a pair of 30mm DEFA superior to quad 20mm colts. The French operated F-8’s carrying R.530’s and Magic II’s. They also carried RWR’s. The F-8 Y-racks on the chins could carry AAM’s, a single R.530, or LAU-10 Zuni 4-packs of 5-inch rockets. Crusader II’s (F-8C and newer) eventually gained IRST and others incorporated Bullpups. There was a wide variety of free fall bombs cleared, from 250-pounders to 2K-pounders. And they offered Spey-powered versions to sucker in customers. F-8 was better than Mirage III where it counted.
Those 20mm colts were notoriously unreliable. The Aim-9’s, even though they had issues, were most likely a better missile R.530 from what little I’ve seen or read about it.
The majority of the Mirage III kills in Israeli service prior to 1968 were with the twin 30mm cannon. Conversely, the majority of F-8 kills in Vietnam were with aim-9’s.
FBWThe Tornado was simply designed wrong and never reached its potential. It should have not been a swing-wing. FBW completely negates the need for swing-wing as you
dont have to compensate for shifting cg with FBW like you do in a conventional a/c. The wing loading for the Tornado was too high, the plane flys like a hog and is completely unresponsive to maneuver. The Mirage 2K on the other hand is still a top notch fighter even compared to eurocanards.
The high wingload was a desireable feature in an interdiction striker, and Tornado was praised for it’s handling, down fast and low where it was designed to be.
The ADV variant suffered from engine/airframe mismatch (poor high alt thrust), and it’s basic requirement to be a long range interceptor over the GIUK gap and North Sea.
FBWI think one of the main reasons for Tornado losses in the early days of the first Gulf War was that they were tasked to attack airfields with the JP233. The last thing you want is any weapon which requires a straight run across the target in a hot AAA environment.
That’s a common misconception. After war analysis showed few were lost on JP233 missions. The main causes were: Tornados were tasked with some of the more dangerous missions like airfield suppression ( with and without JP233), and they lacked the targeting ability of the F-111’s and F-15E that allowed them to attack from a higher altitude out of the reach of AAA and short range SAM. The Tornados had to come in fast and low.
Edit- 1 out of 6 RAF losses were on JP233 missions
FBWWhat make you think the UAE have stop talking to Dassault ?
I Mean, nothing indicates that in the article.
Your confusing the two part of the post, one dealing with UAE, the other with Qatar. The above article and the various rumors over the years about UAE trying to sell the Mirages to Libya (2012), then Egypt (as recently as last week), and giving away 10 to Iraq suggest that UAE is divesting themselves of the 2000’s and is looking to get back into the market for a new fighter. The UAE deal with France has been rumored stagnant for quite some time, the’ve since requested block 61 F-16s but the low numbers requested suggests there is still room for another fighter type to fully replace the Mirages.
And, I was referring to the Qatar fighter competition between the Rafale and Eurofighter, lot of buzz in the spring and early summer of 2014, now nothing:
http://www.gulf-times.com/qatar/178/details/386596/rafale-can-‘easily-meet-qatar’s-defence-needs’
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-19/dassault-said-to-close-in-on-rafale-jet-contract-to-lift-exports.html
http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2384279&language=en
FBWThought this was interesting, UAE looking to give away the Mirages without a clear replacement yet (F-16 block 61 deal unsigned, no more discussions with Dassault, or Eurofighter, serious political headwind for any potential F-35 deal from Israel).
Any rumblings which way Qatar is leaning? There were talks with Dassault this Spring and Summer now all is quiet?
FBWSuper oblig, now figure out total costs for an aircraft rated for 8,000 hours of flight time vs. 3,000 hours and MSphere’s numbers are more laughable.
Ooshiny, adds to that notion.
FBWYes, let’s review:
– I have indicated the differences in annual flight hours in my original response, you’re just reinventing the wheel here
– even after a half dozen responses you have not provided a single figure, let alone a figure which would counter my claimsMere repeating how wrong I am does not make you right. Now, crawl back to your emoticons.
Once again your credibility takes a hit because you pick and choose your data. Just stop, there are a lot of reasons to criticize the F-35 and you take an absurd and unsupportable stance. You and Snafu should start a blog of unreality together, congrats….
http://www.thestar.com.my/story/?file=%2f2009%2f10%2f28%2fnation%2f20091028145509&sec=nation
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/malaysia-receives-first-2-su30mkms-03336/
Oops, your numbers are B.S., shocking.
s Malaysia concluded that the cost and effort of maintaining a barely-serviceable fleet is no longer justifiable.
Malaysia admitted that it is getting rid of its MiG-29 fighters because the aircraft are too expensive to maintain. It costs about $5 million a year, per aircraft, to keep them in flying condition. Three years ago, Malaysia bought two more MiG-29s, in addition to the 18 it got in the 1990s. Two of those were lost due to accidents. Malaysia has since ordered 18 Su-30 fighters, and will apparently order more to replace the MiG-29s. Malaysia also bought eight F-18Ds in the 1990s, and is getting rid of those as well. Russia has offered better prices on maintenance contracts for new Su-30s, in addition to bargain (compared to U.S. planes) prices.
FBWNorwegian projections on 30-yr long operation of 52 F-35s are ~$40 billion. Which is extreme cost, by all means. Let us look at the other extreme.. Bangladesh AF have operated sixteen F-7BGs for 4 years at $7.4 million total cost and eight MiG-29s for over 9 years at $31.71 million.
That makes it:
RNoAF F-35A – $25.6 million per plane per year
BDAF MiG-29 – $0.44 million per plane per year
BDAF F-7BG – $0.12 million per plane per yearNote that the MiG-29 is regarded as relatively expensive to maintain and operate.. Of course, I am aware of differences in technology, weapons, local wages as well as flight hours clocked yearly, but you still gotta think about this twice: in practical sense, one F-35 can under circumstances cost as much as a fleet of 58 MiG-29 Fulcrums or 213 F-7s.
Msphere, while I would rather agree with you that the Norwegian study on the costs of the F-35 in both acquisition and O&S costs are flawed, your comparison here is a bit of a joke. The F-7 is not a modern fighter by any means, and the MiG-29 operation costs are simply not accurate. Malaysia is looking to ditch the MiG-29 because they are simply too costly to operate in a real air force due to the constant maintenance required to upkeep a fighter that was essentially designed for a short duration war, it was simply a throw away fighter after a certain number of sorties.
The Mig-29 lasts in low capability air forces for a long period of time because the operational and training tempo is just not the same. India is the exception since they have spent a considerable amount of time and money to upgrade their Migs. The MMRCA competition showed how the IAF never seriously considered the MiG-35 due to their experience with the difficulties they faced supporting their MiG-29’s. When the Luftwaffe integrated after the end of the cold war, one comment heard from their air force was how difficult the MiG was to operate.
Even if an air force had a fleet of 58 MiG-29’s, the question is how many sorties could they generate? The F-35 will probably not meet the goal of sortie generation goal of exceeding the F-16, but it would be a safe bet that 1 F-35 is in not way as expensive to operate as 58 MiG-29’s, that simply absurd with the evidence available.
FBWGerman pilot trainees graduating from a Fiat G.91 to the F-104 faced a steep learning curve. Another reason some give for the abysmal record of crashes in the 104 was that the German trainees did their conversion training in the American Southwest, then were assigned to Jagdbombergeschwader where they were flying fast and low in soup. Considering the overall mission of the NATO airforces during the 1960’s, the choice of the F-104 isn’t surprising. The USAFE inventory consisted of large tactical strike fighters (F-105, F-101, F-100D). There just wasn’t as much thought given to air superiority.
The Mirage III would have been a better choice for the fighter wings of the Luftwaffe, though the Israeli’s had commented that the Mirage was not as maneuverable as the MiG-21. The mirage had a good first turn, then bled energy, basically Mirage had all of the advantages and disadvantages of the traditional delta wing.
Had the Luftwaffe considered the better overall performer, the Mirage would have made sense.
The F-104 entered service for european countries in 1960, the Mirage III first rolled off the production line in 1960 and the F-5 didnt enter service till 1962
True, but the pre-production IIIA was already flying and could have been included in the eval. Including only the Super Tiger, the BAC Lightning, the prototype for the F-5 was a bit short sighted.
FBWQuote Originally Posted by Chaffers View Post
I think we have differing definitions of excellent news as the A model is also within 1.2% of must not exceed weight and well over design weight. I seem to remember Raymer’s original design study called for little more than 25,500 lbs empty weight…
Well first off, you should know how rare it is for an aircraft to lose weight progressing to production lots. The recommendations are largely associated with the FS496 bulkhead for the “B” model which is the most weight challenged model due to VLBB requirements. The “A” model did not have significant issues until the second lifetime, i.e. beyond the 8,000 hour airframe life.
Second, your over reading the training & maintenance personnel, here is the key part:
-“Sixty-six student pilot training slots were available in FY14, but nine were not used due to reduced Service requirements”
, that does not mean that there is an anticipation of less aircraft. The maintenance training:
“For the 12-month period ending in October 2014,the contractor provided 1,018 training slots for maintenance courses, of which 701 were filled by U.S. or foreign partner students, equating to 69 percent training seat utilization rate. In addition, active duty personnel at the field units conducted training that is not included in these metrics”
I have no idea why your are reading doom and gloom into this . The entire fleet consists of only 90 aircraft.
Lastly, regarding the reliability, the ORD threshold is based on 75,000 flight hours. The “A” model has only flown 8,834 hours. If you look at performance of recent programs, F-22, C-17, B-2, they came close or exceeded .232 growth rate needed to meet ORD threshold.
FBWInteresting that the training spots, both pilot and groundcrew, are not being taken up by supposed customers.
All of the other numbers in that report are shocking. The idea that software with more than 100 P1 bugs in it is going to be operational later this year is fantasy unless they move the goal posts. 3g limit, 30% max engine thrust, serious structural issues, roman candle ballistic tests, mtbf figures which make you wonder how anything gets done at all…. The list is too long to even contemplate.
It would seem that way, when you don’t actually read it….
3g limits were implemented due to the engine fire. Much of the restriction on envelope has been lifted. The reliability for 2014 at 37% most likely also impacted by engine fire, since Sept it’s at 50% (the threshold is 60%). Considering that the F-35 is still in testing and evaluation with training starting to step up, that number should only rise. The mean time between failures has shown improvement, the “A” model was slightly below target value but was above target value for several months last year.
The “A” model has shown negative weight growth (which is excellent news), the “B” gained 18 pounds and is now within 1% of not to exceed weight (not good), the “C” lost 106 pounds (good news, but still too heavy).
For the software, one issue is that more mission system test points were added. Tough to complete software testing when the goalpost gets pushed back. And “The program is eliminating test points that are designed to characterize performance (i.e., in a greater envelope than a specific contract specification condition), reducing the number of test points needed to verify the final Block 2B capability for fleet release”.
Didn’t see anything earth shattering in this report at all. Most of the areas of concern were already identified, reported earlier. People have a tendency to over react to these. DOT-E reports don’t ever read like “Everything’s great, no engineering issues here”
Sign In
