The DOD is THE largest consumer of distillate fuels, saving a few gallons in the the C-17 fleet probably isn’t anyone’s concern Efficiency is very important when it gives extra range. A small change in the payload range curve can provide a massive increase in payload. Just a 10% reduction in fuel b...
Jump to postAbout the motors are we talking about pods (common on commercial vessels) or are shafts still used (not really new either, the SS Normandie did that in 1935). Both style are used. The Type 45 destroyers run shafts and the electric motors are in the hull. The Australian LHD has pods. I understood th...
Jump to postAnother big missed opportunity with the propulsion. A single small reactor that can generate 20 MW or even 10 MW of electricity would allow for a destroyer to cruise at nearly 20 knots during long transits. I never knew that small nuclear reactors were in the pipeline. Small Modular reactors are ex...
Jump to postThe A33/340 wing is structurally heavier due to the design being used in a twin. It would be a lighter wing if exclusive to the A340. That's not true at all. If running four engines provided a lighter wing structure then the 787 and A350 would have four engines. The wing bending moment on the centr...
Jump to postAnother big missed opportunity with the propulsion. The electric motors direct on the props for the first time in history allows for cheap and cost effective nuclear propulsion. Previous ships powered entirely off nuclear need two reactors for redundancy. The reactors also have to be sized extremely...
Jump to postDon't you need the weight of the outer engines to counteract the tendency of the wing to flex too far upwards as the fuel load lightens? No you don't. The A330 uses a A340 wing with bigger inner engines and no outer engines. The A330 wing did not flex too far upwards after the removal of the outer ...
Jump to postMight as well buy a new 767 or 777 freighter, the massive project you mentioned would be incredibly expensive to end up with an aircraft with which you’ve eliminated its tactical usefulness Based on projected C-17 usage it is actually eliminating the unneeded capability to improve overall usefulnes...
Jump to postTurn it into a big twin engine freighter with a pair of GE9X engines on the inner pylons only. Like the A340 and A330. The A330 has bigger engines on the inner pylons and the outer pylons were left empty. Disable the C-17 blown flaps. It is highly unlikely the C-17 will operate from short dirt strip...
Jump to postThey need the Nimitz class to last longer because the Ford class has had problems meeting delivery dates, not because "the Navy wants more carriers". You must have posted your reply before finishing the article. "The Enterprise is scheduled to be commissioned in 2029. Under earlier p...
Jump to postThe Nimitz is scheduled for retirement two years from now, if you have any source that is official or reputable that says otherwise you need to show it. USS Eisenhower, second-oldest aircraft carrier in Navy fleet, to stay in service into 2030s https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2024-03-13/eisen...
Jump to postAre you planning to stock your extended-life Nimitz carriers with F-35Cs? I thought you wanted to use Ospreys. Do you have citations for any of this? An extra carrier has to be filled with something. My original idea was to for the extended-life Nimitz carriers to have a lower capability level. Cur...
Jump to postI thought that the plan was that the F35 going to Belgium are replacing their existing F16. Those F16 are going to Ukraine. The problem is someone has to sacrifice or delay their F-35 delivery slots for the US Navy to have an extra carrier of F-35C. If the Super Hornet and 4th gen fighters are obso...
Jump to postThere is no D version because there is no need for a D version, if the AF wanted a second cockpit they would have a second cockpit. It is a ridiculous conclusion to you think the USAF doesn't want a second cockpit just because the F-35 never came as a two seater. The obvious conclusion is the USAF ...
Jump to postSecond person, no, and no plans for one either. I question whether there are any plans for 'drone swarms' like you are imagining; There are no plan for a 2 seat F-35 because it would be too costly and take too long to make. The F-35B lift fan needs a main bulkhead behind the cockpit. The US already...
Jump to postVintage wrote:F-35s can carry anything an F-15 can carry
With the degradation of the Russian Air Force due to the "special military operation", exactly how many potential opponents have the weapons to make the SH/EX/EF/etc. obsolete? Last I checked, they had more "obsolete" aircraft themselves. The comparisons will be against the J-20...
Jump to postMy response is that’s your opinion and if the F15EX is ‘obsolete’ why is the USAF buying them ? The Eurofighter is the closest to the F-15EX in size, performance and avionics capability. Both are twin engine 4.5th gen fighters. Multiple countries are still receiving Eurofighter. I have not seen a s...
Jump to postAs soon as the aircraft - F35, 737, or Goodyear blimp - turns on its radar, it becomes a TARGET. 737 will be more survivable than an F35 - since it is further away. If the opponent turns on their radar, they are also a target. So while the 737 is not emitting and flying away, opponents SAM system j...
Jump to postAny purchase of Boeing aircraft is labelled as financial aid. Do you have a citation for this? You need a citation? How about your own words from the missile thread. The F-15EX was from the beginning, a welfare project for Boeing. Its fan club is still living in the 20th century. I'm sure the last ...
Jump to postIt boggles the imagination what a 400 ton payload would look like, let alone 200 tons. The entire space station is what - 450 tons? Even if we never get to Mars, it opens the door to so many other things you can put in Earth orbit. Based on the current plan and models 99% of the Starship flights th...
Jump to postI also wonder how useful an A2A missile is that has a longer range than the launch plane's radar can see. The radar in the F-35, F-22 and F-15EX can detect an enemy AWAC from well over 200 miles away. This is well beyond the maximum range of AMRAAM and Meteor. It is more than double the effective r...
Jump to postI think this discussion would be much different if the Super Hornet and F-15EX were manufactured in Europe instead of by Boeing. Suddenly both aircraft would no longer be called "obsolete". The Eurofighter and carrier based Rafale M are not considered obsolete. Any purchase of Boeing aircr...
Jump to postThe Russian SAM systems will not be able to detect the F-35 100 miles away but the 737 based platform would be easily detected and shot down at that distance. True, they would have to fly below the Radar Horizon. bt At such low altitude they could fly with the cabin doors open. That way they can ha...
Jump to postIf using Ukraine as example I would estimate the F-35 would be placed 50 to 100 miles from the front line. If using Ukraine as an example, the cheaper solution is to take a 737 and put the P-8A radar on the nose. That completely ignores the radar cross section and survivability of the platform. The...
Jump to postThe SH is only "obsolete" when compared against the very latest new fighters, of which the potential adversaries have very few. Its in production, has been significantly upgraded, and 50 can easily be added to the existing fleet, most likely much cheaper than the single engine, single pil...
Jump to postThere is about as much in common with F-15C and the F-15EX as there is with the F/A-18A and the F/A-18E I'd be surprised if this were true, because the Super Hornet is so much more than just a Hornet with a newer engine and avionics... bigger, heavier, etc. OTOH I'll grant that the F-15C has only o...
Jump to postUkraine just lost its first Patriot launchers, and probably their crews. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/03/09/a-russian-drone-spotted-a-ukrainian-patriot-air-defense-crew-convoying-near-the-front-line-soon-a-russian-hypersonic-missile-streaked-down/?sh=1bea93563514 A perfect example whe...
Jump to postAbout the potential use of the Skyranger in Ukraine, I can follow you with the idea that the Skyranger would be mostly useful on the foward edge of the front-line. This would still require hundreds of them given the length of the front line and they would be highly vulnerable to artillery fire. Tha...
Jump to postYet you say the F-35 AESA radar can't even see 50 miles. Where did I say that? I stated that the AN/APG-81 has a 120 mile range. You said it would be a "serious challenge". My proposed F-35 CAP circuits near the front line assumed 50 miles radar detection range and you said no. You also s...
Jump to postFor comparison, the Skyshield cannon is effective out to about 4,000 meters; its radar can spot potential targets 40,000 meters downrange. Skyshields radar seeing 40km? Yet you say the F-35 AESA radar can't even see 50 miles despite it having more than 10 times the transmission power of the small p...
Jump to postLooking below the horizon, especially for slow-moving targets close to the ground, would be a serious challenge No challenge at all. The F-35 radar can even detect ground vehicles moving at very low speed. realize that a radar would be seeing a drone somewhat sideways at 100 miles; visualize the ef...
Jump to postWhat altitude do you imagine the F-35 to be flying at? The scenario of an F-35 (multiple F-35s) flying patterns at low altitude invites manpad or SAM attack. That's how the Serbs bagged an F-117. I would expect the F-35 to be flying in a similar fashion to an AWAC platform. Flying circuits at 30,00...
Jump to postI can't believe they are $25 million each, an Abrahams tank is 'only' $10 million a pop. For comparason with the F-35, the Skyrangers will be on duty 24/7; they will be placed as point defense, not perimeter defense for a front line. How many F-35s would it take to provide similar (not exactly the ...
Jump to postI'm pretty sure for most naval missions an F-35 is much better than an F-18, so why are you all anti-F-35? F-35 production is at maximum rate. If the US Navy wanted 50 additional F-35C before 2030 then another customer will have to go without. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Super Hornet pro...
Jump to postThe Harrier was somewhat difficult to fly - in the hover - my thought is if that could have been made easier, more nations would / could purchase as you save money on base facilities That has nothing to do with it. Going back to 1980 or 1990 an F-16 would be cheaper to buy and operate than a Harrie...
Jump to postI expect the next Airbus narrow body to look more like a C-130 Hercules aircraft. A long straight high mounted wing. Slow 500km/h cruising speed. Atleast 4 big props powered by electric motors each with their own independent power supply for redundancy. A backup generator. 1,000 mile range to cover ...
Jump to postNot sure of the comparison, the point of it, comparing two types designed for different reasons over 40 years apart. The comparison is perfectly relevant. Someone asked why Singapore are buying the F-35B when they never operated the AV-8 Harrier. The insinuation was that they don't need VTOL aircra...
Jump to postRSAF doesn't currently operate the AV-8, so why the need for the batch of 12 F-35B? Because the AV-8 wouldn't even make the list of top 20 best fighters. Dozens of Harriers would get destroyed without a single Su-30 loss. The F-35B would be the second best fighter in the world and is probably secon...
Jump to postWell, if they pressurized the entire cabin as Lockheed did, they would not need the beefed up floor. Unpressurized flight was a big deal, Lockheed approved waiver, being pressurized was a structural design. If the crane was part of the floor wouldn’t serve to only increase the desire of the floor t...
Jump to postFrom an engineering stand point, crane would be extra weight that is not utilized during flight. So you are trading off convenience for extra payload. The crane rails are actually a structural part of the aircraft so the extra weight is negligible. The Douglas C-124 Globemaster also had a crane and...
Jump to postHave I picked up a pallet by crane - yes I have. Crane is a great idea when you don't have MHE infrastructure. The AN-124 crane is excellent. I had a nice walk through one at an airshow. Can you please give us some more details if possible. What's the max crane rating? Can a 20 foot shipping contai...
Jump to postTRANSCOM made that decision years ago—commercial operators could provide the bulk palletized lift cheaper than the USAF. The USAF provides the specialized outsize, combat forces lift no commercial carrier can provide. Basic division of labor. The loads are not that black and white. There are plenty...
Jump to postIf we lost that 5% to reduced floor strength, you can bet sometime in the life of the fleet, it’d be needed. Yes,it could be more efficient, it is by using contract lift for the loads that can go that way. When that high floor strength is needed does the USAF also need 100 transport aircraft at onc...
Jump to postWhen you see M1 or a Cat D9 loading onto a C-5, you’ll see the difference in airframe build. The C-5 in the bilges looked like military bridging equipment. 40,000 pounds on every 35” of floor, 9G chain attachment points. The D9 must have took a lumber yard of plywood to protect the floor from the g...
Jump to postIsn't one of the first points in any war handbook - take out the runways at the airports? As we have seen with the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, those drones can sneak through and penetrate deep into enemy territory. Well, either drones or the equivalent of Tomahawk cruise missiles. That's a sin...
Jump to postRN Sea Harriers operated, far outnumbered, in a situation no one expected and essentially won a war without any other air cover over 8000 miles from home. That’s proof of effectiveness, availability in the high 90 percentile range despite cramped carriers. Yes, they were really ‘worse’. You missed ...
Jump to postWar zone bases are nearly always austere. I don't think that will be the case with a future conflict. In Afghanistan and Iraq the heavy freighters were landing on runways very close to the front line and then short range helicopters or trucks were taking it to the front line. The enemy having guide...
Jump to postReal world deployments were not as you described, rolling take offs, of course, were used. These seem like arguments pre the Harrier, in either its original and AV-8 derived ones actually seeing operations and combat. The RAF regularly deployed to Norway in harsh winter conditions, Belize initially...
Jump to postRAF Harriers, over the course of decades of service, with frequent exercises and operational deployments, proved how austere the runways they needed were as well as how short, from German forest clearings to very austere Belize, the unexpected RAF deployments from carriers in a war, the latter incl...
Jump to postMaybe one of Taiwan’s indigenous aerospace projects should have built something like, or even license produced, the SAAB Gripen. Not VSTOL but very close with its ease of maintenance, deployment to very austere locations designed in, minimal runway requirements. Also designed to defend against a mu...
Jump to post