David Hingtgen Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I intentionally left out the YF-17, as it's complicated. FYI: You know the strakes that were added on top of the LERX's? Only the forward 2 mounts actually attach to the plane, the 3rd just floats above the fuselage. Why? Because the strake straddles the dividing line between the forward part, and the center part of the fuselage. The forward part was built by MDC, the center part by Northrop under contract. And Northrop refused to alter the center fuselage design nor pay for any modification done, since MDC "were the ones who screwed up our plane". (The YF-17 had no vortex problems with the tails due to the LERX---but the F-18 did) Thus, the strake is only attached to, and interacts with, the MDC-built parts of the F-18. Time to post the "awesome stuff that Northrop built" pic again: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Passenger A330's will be effectively dead soon, likely only freighters and tankers will be built in the future, in the US. The current A330/340 line will be making the stretch 340's and probably 350. The passenger A330 will probably straggle on to last as long as the 777 (possibly being built only as special orders in the US) but at a very limited rate, while the 777 will still be selling strong for some more years. The A300 had a similar fate---it went on for many years slowly selling as a freighter, long after passenger orders dried up. The A300 actually outlived the A310 on the production line by a good number of years. (The 727, DC-10, and MD-11 also ended the production line as freighters-only, as will the 747-400 and likely the -800) Has that been confirmed that the KC-45 will in fact been built within the US? I thought part of the reason for the big ruckus as that the airframe itself would be built in Europe. Which makes the economics interesting given where the Euro is relative to the dollar. Beyond that, I had thought at one point Boeing was talking about the 777 in tanker format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I intentionally left out the YF-17, as it's complicated. FYI: You know the strakes that were added on top of the LERX's? Only the forward 2 mounts actually attach to the plane, the 3rd just floats above the fuselage. Why? Because the strake straddles the dividing line between the forward part, and the center part of the fuselage. The forward part was built by MDC, the center part by Northrop under contract. And Northrop refused to alter the center fuselage design nor pay for any modification done, since MDC "were the ones who screwed up our plane". (The YF-17 had no vortex problems with the tails due to the LERX---but the F-18 did) Thus, the strake is only attached to, and interacts with, the MDC-built parts of the F-18. Time to post the "awesome stuff that Northrop built" pic again: Why did the LERX design change when the YF-17 became the F-18? Just wondering. Also isn't the Super Hornet with it's big LERX pretty much coming back to the YF-17's "Cobra" look? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyboy Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 (edited) Here's a shock: EADS wins the USAF Tanker Derby Rematch http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/business...amp;oref=slogin Whoa! I just found out about this today. Needless to say, we end-users in the tanker community didn't see that one coming! Too bad about the remote-control boom station, though. Getting up-close and personal with our receivers will be a thing of the past with the new tanker... /edited: grammar/ Edited March 3, 2008 by flyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 The Super Hornet also brings back the dogtooth in the wing. They finally got around to "fixing" what they messed up in the first place. I've never read why the LERX *shape* was changed. I know the slots in them were shortened by like 90% to reduce drag. (And we all know how "slick" the F-18 ended up being) As for the KC-45: It will be built in Mobile, Alabama, as will be the A330F. Approximately 1/2 of the plane, cost-wise, is American. (notably, the very expensive avionics and engines). Also note that 1/2 of a 767 is not American, because most of the fuselage is built in Japan, Canada, Italy, and Ireland. (even going back to the DC-9, you'll find jet airliners are very multi-national, no matter how "American" or "British" they may seem at first) A300 wing skins are milled right here in Iowa. The 777 as a tanker will not be a possibility until the 767 is dead and buried. But that could be soon with the loss of the KC-45 contract. First 777F is due soon (way overdue, both IMHO and most cargo airlines') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 As for Northrop---Northrop ROCKS, design-wise. They just are unloved by Congress, no big lobby, etc. Hello, they designed the YF-23 and B-2. And the F-20, which was cheaper and outperformed the F-16 in the interceptor role in every possible way, including knife-range turning. They were frankly "discriminated" against when it comes to contracts over the past years. (And now we have proof with all the money greasing hands/Boeing scandal etc) Hey don't forget the F-5, the XB-35, and YB-49! Going back to Jack Northrop himself, this company has had some of the greatest minds and engineers in the aerospace industry and it just saddens me thinking of all the times this company has gotten screwed over (ie. losing the ATF competition, getting the B-2 production run axed to just barely over 20 aircraft, etc.). Hopefully Northrop/Grumman will get the recognition it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 Northrop also technically designed the Hornet. Strange how the YF-17 originates at Northrop, grows into the F/A-18, becomes a McD product, and it's latest form as the Super Hornet is now a Boeing product. I'm sure some of the folks at Northrop are like WTF? I wonder if Northrop still gets a share on the sales of the Super Hornet as they did with the legacy Hornets... Real shame on the Tigershark. One of my favorites. Could've been a real asset to NFWS (and perhaps not having wing cracking problems as they did with the F-16!) and to countries like Taiwan, Singapore that use/used the F-5E. Taiwan really got the shaft when Reagan vetoed the sale (and still feeling it as they continue to have problems acquiring F-16s). I know with the Legacy Hornets Northrop manufactured something like 40% of the airframe. As for the Super Hornet I'm not sure. Funny to think that all the Hornets of all shapes and sizes that we see today are the result of efforts to soup up and tweak the original F-5's design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 (edited) kinda sucks. about the tankers because there was talk of them building the plant at scott afb here in st louis area. northrop still does part of manufacturing on the "BUG" http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/n...s.html?d=135649 Edited March 3, 2008 by buddhafabio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Time to post the "awesome stuff that Northrop built" pic again: Is that a photoshopped pic? Thought the 23 would be much bigger compared to the F-5 (even if its in the back). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 It's just the angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 It's just the angle. Anyone see that video of airliner getting tossed around by wind when trying to land in Hamburg? Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I find it interesting that a disproportionately high number of "wow" cross-wind landing videos are A320's. There's a *lot* of A320's out there, but not enough to explain the number of videos of them flying sideways and boltering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Anyone see that video of airliner getting tossed around by wind when trying to land in Hamburg? Wow! I just saw it. If I was on that plane I would've sh!t my pants and screamed like a little baby for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Whoa! I just found out about this today. Needless to say, we end-users in the tanker community didn't see that one coming! Too bad about the remote-control boom station, though. Getting up-close and personal with our receivers will be a thing of the past with the new tanker... /edited: grammar/ To be fair that was going to happen no matter who won the competition as Boeing's proposal had a similar remote camera system. Still I don't know if I entirely trust cameras. Seems to me if you're going to be attaching two aircraft in mid air with a rigid peice of one aircraft, and the pump flamable liquid through that part, you don't want someone watching that through a security camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 ... you don't want someone watching that through a security camera. Yeah, you would want a BCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyboy Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 To be fair that was going to happen no matter who won the competition as Boeing's proposal had a similar remote camera system. Still I don't know if I entirely trust cameras. Seems to me if you're going to be attaching two aircraft in mid air with a rigid peice of one aircraft, and the pump flamable liquid through that part, you don't want someone watching that through a security camera. True enough. Exactly my thoughts on the benefits of a direct-sight boom. Supposedly, the argument is that putting the boom operator up front, with the pilots, during refueling will increase crew effectiveness. Not really sure what the basis of that statement is. The boom operator is already up front during all other phases of flight. Besides, passing gas and watching another airplane get unnaturally close to yours through a bunch of video screens isn't half as cool as laying (sitting for the KC-10 folks) in the boom pod and seeing it up close. Oh well, flying an airplane loaded with 200k lbs of gas will always a blast (pun intended), regardless of who makes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) True enough. Exactly my thoughts on the benefits of a direct-sight boom. Supposedly, the argument is that putting the boom operator up front, with the pilots, during refueling will increase crew effectiveness. Not really sure what the basis of that statement is. The boom operator is already up front during all other phases of flight. Besides, passing gas and watching another airplane get unnaturally close to yours through a bunch of video screens isn't half as cool as laying (sitting for the KC-10 folks) in the boom pod and seeing it up close. Just wondering but I would imagine that the system would have a manual backup mode, right? I mean, it'd be very bad day if suddenly the remote system or camera went belly-up, there's no manual backup mode, and there's a flight outside thirsty for fuel... Edited March 5, 2008 by Vifam7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 In the "I don't think you understand the point of buying a stealth aircraft" category: UK alters JSF weapon load, ASRAAM to be carried on underwing pylons: http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/...80304_1_n.shtml Also, the JSF is so far behind that it won't arrive in time to replace some squadron's Super Hornets before they get too old: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/03/...er_gap_030508w/ In other news, India itself was the source of the Kitty Hawk rumors: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/cont...week+exclusives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 In the "I don't think you understand the point of buying a stealth aircraft" category: UK alters JSF weapon load, ASRAAM to be carried on underwing pylons: http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/...80304_1_n.shtml This statement doesn't make sense: Carrying the ASRAAM outside the weapons bay brings several advantages, primarily in allowing passive long-range - beyond-visual-range (BVR) - engagements cued by the missile's seeker or the F-35's infrared search and track sensor. Long range BVR engagement? With the ASRAAM missile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 If the Brits want to be stupid with the way that they use their F-35's, that's their choice. They might as well just pop off a few more Typhoons off the assembly line instead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 Anyone see that video of airliner getting tossed around by wind when trying to land in Hamburg? Wow! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYQgxqd6Omk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 Some more info on the B-2 crash: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/02/...crash_022908af/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Since we're all contributing articles, here's one from the Weekly Standard about how the French Sabotaged Dassault in its Rafale sales. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/pr...amp;R=139B1FA36 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 If the Brits want to be stupid with the way that they use their F-35's, that's their choice. They might as well just pop off a few more Typhoons off the assembly line instead... Oh, the ASRAAMs are a smoke-screen to stop Lockheed complaining. We've decided that as all anyone does these days is strafe deserts, we're actually going to use the pylons for some 40mm Vickers guns we found in storage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Long range BVR engagement? With the ASRAAM missile? Oh yes. While the ASRAAM isn't quite as maneuverable as it's contemporaries like the IRIS-T and AIM-9X it is has a much larger motor and much lower drag meaning it's a lot faster and has much longer ranged. Combine that with an extrememly sensetive seeker head (which it shares with the AIM-9X) and it's easily capable of BVR engagements. It definetly won't win any competions against an AMRAAM or Meteor but it's still BVR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 IMHO the ASRAAM is kind of between the Sparrow and Sidewinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 IMHO the ASRAAM is kind of between the Sparrow and Sidewinder. I was just coming back to say that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Wow, I'm a bit surprised to hear that - I'd always thought that ASRAAM was a short-range deal. However, having just checked the stats again, it seems its range is in the order of 18km... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 (edited) Something I really should have known but have only just been made aware of... 90 years of brylcreem hair, handlebar moustaches, "chaps" called "Ginger", stiff upper lips, bandits at six o'clock, tally-ho, wizard prangs, sticky dos, buying of farms, angels 20, giving them a squirt, bouncing bombs, Spits, Hurribombers and Wimpeys and of course, however many there are, they who will always be the Few: Happy 90th Birthday the Royal Air Force. Per Ardua Ad Astra... Edited March 7, 2008 by F-ZeroOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Not that this is too surprising, but its getting buried under the Tanker news. Boeing could announce third delay for 787 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03f20d42-ec77-11...00779fd2ac.html Key point: Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, said it expected the first deliveries of the 250-300 seat jet to be pushed back to the third quarter of 2009, from Boeing’s current target of “early 2009”. “(Boeing) continues to underestimate the amount of work required on the 787,” said analyst Richard Safran. “We think Boeing will notify suppliers of new production targets shortly, motivated by the need to keep delivery commitments to airlines.” Funny that almost a year ago, people were humming the funeral dirge for Airbus while touting the virtues of Boeing, and now we're seeing articles like This... not that it won't swing back the other way in the future, when lets say the investigation of Airbus execs stock selloff kick into high gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Meh. They could delay it another couple *years* and it'd still be out before the A350. The airlines really don't have much choice--wait for the 787, or wait longer for the A350. (and it'll still be a lesser delay than the A380---though the A380 is now in service, it's still being delayed----there's still only 2 delivered, with many still being reworked with a lot of labor to go) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 [sarcasm]Geez. This is a surprise.[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 (edited) Pfft... Maybe if Boeing worked out a sweeter deal to the USAF they wouldn't be in this predicament Actually, this annoys me more when I think on it afterwards. It's like someone telling you to buy their goods, and if you didn't, trying to force your hand in buying it still. If the Europeans worked out a better deal for the USAF than a patriotic, American organization, GREAT. More power (and money) to them. I'm sure Boeing will have ample opportunities to fleece the US taxpayer later. They need to get over it. They lost this one. Edited March 11, 2008 by Warmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vermillion01 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I read that article yesterday and there was a quote from a senator near the end that i wanted to quote here.... it was disgusting!!! funny... the article has been edited today and the quote removed... strange that - basically it said that europeans were untrustworthy and the US should not put any of its defense issues in their hands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Um, didn't Boeing try to get this deal in an underhanded way by hiring/recruiting an AF official involved in the tanker selection process? Which then led to a scandal that jailed the AF person and a Boeing exec? Yeaahhh.... Boeing....maybe... if you had played fair, ya wouldn't be in this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts