Jump to content

Aircraft Vs Super Thread VI


Recommended Posts

During a recent party two friends of mine who work in the airline industry (in a big way) made the comment the A380 wasn't nearly as profitable as had been hoped for... have you seen any figures to corroborate that?

Numbers? No. I do know that its service reliability is low regarding its age (it still has "first week issues" after over a full year in service and many seem to be flat-out design issues---fuel systems are often the culprit IIRC) with the fact that it's so big, that if the flight's cancelled--that's a LOT of revenue lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A nice post hitting on something Noyhauser and I have been harping on for a while now. I'd be interested to hear an actual dollar amount attached to the "significant initial investment" estimate. I wouldn't be surprised if it amounted to a few squadrons worth of F-35s.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not strictly speaking aircraft, but the UK and France have just signed a military co-operation deal. This could mean Rafales operating from HMS Queen Elizatbeth and F-35s from Charles de Gaulle...

There's a potential answer to your question of institutional memory and regenerating capability Noyhauser. I could see how that could work out for both sides if they start soon, the Aeronavale gets the UK to essentially pay for part of their deck and air crew, and FAA personnel get to retain (or rather re-acquire) CATOBAR deck handling and flying capabilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the load out of an F-35 compare to an F-16? IIRC, the JSF could carry internally just about what an F-16 needs external stores to do (and would have to drop to dogfight, etc) while the JSF going external gives it almost Strike Eagle weapons packages... doesn't it?

It looks like it should see a doctor.

Cough! :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the load out of an F-35 compare to an F-16? IIRC, the JSF could carry internally just about what an F-16 needs external stores to do (and would have to drop to dogfight, etc) while the JSF going external gives it almost Strike Eagle weapons packages... doesn't it?

An F-16 theoretically could carry more ordinance under it's wings than an F-35 carries internally, but only if it's planning on dropping it at the end of the runway. On an average mission an F-16 carries 2-4 500-2,000lb bombs, 2-3 AMRAAMs, 1-2 Sidewinders, 2-3 bags of gas, 0-1 Jamming pods, and generally some kind of targeting pod (HTS, Sniper, Litening, etc.). The F-35 has the gas, jammer, and TGP built in, and carries the bombs and AMRAAMs internally while ditching the sidewinders on the theory that stealth and vastly improved situational awareness will obviate the need for them. You're also right, once you start hanging ordinance on the outside of the plane the amount it can carry is pretty staggering.

Edited by Nied
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be remiss if I didn't link to this report on troubles and potentially significant delays in the F-35 program. This comes from two people who have rather large axes to grind against the F-35 (Bill Sweetman who fears it will destroy the European combat aircraft industry, and Winslow Wheeler who's never forgiven the Air Force for ruining his beloved F-16 by putting a radar in it), so take it with a grain of salt. The flip side to that is that (as Sweetman crowed in his post) both Bloomberg and NYT have also picked up the story. On the other other hand this brief was supposed to have happened yesterday and yet there's been no news of an earth shaking delay and jump in costs.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be remiss if I didn't link to this report on troubles and potentially significant delays in the F-35 program. This comes from two people who have rather large axes to grind against the F-35 (Bill Sweetman who fears it will destroy the European combat aircraft industry, and Winslow Wheeler who's never forgiven the Air Force for ruining his beloved F-16 by putting a radar in it), so take it with a grain of salt. The flip side to that is that (as Sweetman crowed in his post) both Bloomberg and NYT have also picked up the story. On the other other hand this brief was supposed to have happened yesterday and yet there's been no news of an earth shaking delay and jump in costs.

Here's the Bloomberg report:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-01/pentagon-said-to-see-higher-f-35-costs-delays-up-to-three-years.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA has the world's coolest backlot. "Is that an F-16XL? No, it's both of them!"

I'm kinda expecting some autobots to show up at any moment when I look at that picture. :lol:

Edited by eugimon
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda expecting some autobots to show up at any moment when I look at that picture. :lol:

I was kind of hoping I wasn't the only one who thought "ZOMG blast off!" when they looked at the picture. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA has the world's coolest backlot. "Is that an F-16XL? No, it's both of them!"

You've also got both the F/A-18 HARV and F-15 ACTIVE in that shot as well. Throw in a Blackbird and you've got one heck of a NASA all star gallery there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't blame QANTAS, blame RR. The world's last 2 uncontained engine failures were both RR...

Uncontained engine failure is that were the Engine explodes sending shrapnel all around?

Wasn't their a Accident were a passenger was impaled by a Fan blade shot in to the Fuselage when the engine blew apart some years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, last 3 uncontained, forgot about the 787 test. It just wasn't on a plane at the moment.

miles---you may be thinking of the Delta MD-88 in Pensacola. However, that was a fan blade. All the recent RR issues seem to be turbine blades.

Yes, uncontained is exactly what it sounds like. The parts are either contained within the nacelle, or they bust through. The inner lining of most nacelles is kevlar for that reason---flying blades are very dangerous to both people and the aircraft.

All the famous bird and intentional detonation tests are done on the fans, because they're the largest blades---but lately it seems they should check the turbines---smaller, but faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear to god I think someone at the DEW line is reading this board, because this is the second post in a week covering something discussed about the F-22 here. This time the efforts Lockheed is taking to ease a potential Raptor production re-start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't blame QANTAS, blame RR. The world's last 2 uncontained engine failures were both RR...

I like the word uncontained, it sounds so clean. May be the industry ought to go with something innocuous when the next airplane goes down. Call it an uncontained landing.

I am now definitely going to put off flying the 787 when it rolls into service. Oh wait, that won't be a problem, since the earliest one that will go into the service in the states is in the middle of the next frigging decade. Hopefully by then, all the little details will get ironed out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Herc+RATO=awesome. Except when it fails spectacularly.

Really, I think it's RAL as well--rocket-assisted-landing...

Wasn't that the thing they were going to use to rescue the hostages in Iran from are embassy they were going to land in a Soccer field in Tehran and leave in that, but after the accident they went with the Helicopter insertion which failed also?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that the thing they were going to use to rescue the hostages in Iran from are embassy they were going to land in a Soccer field in Tehran and leave in that, but after the accident they went with the Helicopter insertion which failed also?

Jup, Operation Credible Sport

Here's some Fat Albert:

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/11/04/01.xml&headline=Gates%20Briefed%20On%20JSF%20Delay&channel=defense

The latest and greatest from F-35 land...

At this rate, may be the first F-35 will enter service in 2121... at the cost of... well, I think $5 Billion each sounds reasonable.

Guys at the Pentagon shaped building, how about you just continue with F-22 production. Proven system and all that, probably lower cost, and you know what, may be modify it like they did the F-15 and make a Strike version of the Raptor. And somebody really should have fired Gates long ago, cost overruns on LCS and F-35 are just two more examples of the horrid Pentagon procurement process that he hasn't fixed.

Speaking of which what happened to F-24 and F-34 designations, are we that eager to catch up with the Russian numbering systems on the Sukhois and Migs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a potential answer to your question of institutional memory and regenerating capability Noyhauser. I could see how that could work out for both sides if they start soon, the Aeronavale gets the UK to essentially pay for part of their deck and air crew, and FAA personnel get to retain (or rather re-acquire) CATOBAR deck handling and flying capabilities.

Interesting... This is completely blind speculation but I wonder if the Ark Royal (CVA-2) might become a jointly operated platform. Both Navies only have one carrier and aren't happy with that lack of redundancy. They may decide to share the second hull.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/11/04/01.xml&headline=Gates%20Briefed%20On%20JSF%20Delay&channel=defense

The latest and greatest from F-35 land...

At this rate, may be the first F-35 will enter service in 2121... at the cost of... well, I think $5 Billion each sounds reasonable.

Guys at the Pentagon shaped building, how about you just continue with F-22 production. Proven system and all that, probably lower cost, and you know what, may be modify it like they did the F-15 and make a Strike version of the Raptor. And somebody really should have fired Gates long ago, cost overruns on LCS and F-35 are just two more examples of the horrid Pentagon procurement process that he hasn't fixed.

First off, its sweetman's article (and I suspect much of the really negative press is driven directly by his reporting.) I suspect it will take another year and five billion dollars, mostly driven by problems in the STOVL and Carrier variant.

Remember this though, if the US cancels the JSF you can basically kiss its industrial base's primacy in the international fighter market goodbye. I'm not kidding either. Sure countries will buy stuff like the F/A-18E, but nobody will sign on to a major US procurement project again when they were burned in such a brutal fashion. This isn't 1980 anymore, there are many competitors to the United States in this market. Many of the programs have home field advantage... its a testament to the project that both the United Kingdom and Italy are buying both the JSF and the Eurofighter.

Its easy to throw out statements like "kill the JSF," but in reality it would do far more damage than one could imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, its sweetman's article (and I suspect much of the really negative press is driven directly by his reporting.) I suspect it will take another year and five billion dollars, mostly driven by problems in the STOVL and Carrier variant.

Remember this though, if the US cancels the JSF you can basically kiss its industrial base's primacy in the international fighter market goodbye. I'm not kidding either. Sure countries will buy stuff like the F/A-18E, but nobody will sign on to a major US procurement project again when they were burned in such a brutal fashion. This isn't 1980 anymore, there are many competitors to the United States in this market. Many of the programs have home field advantage... its a testament to the project that both the United Kingdom and Italy are buying both the JSF and the Eurofighter.

Its easy to throw out statements like "kill the JSF," but in reality it would do far more damage than one could imagine.

Who said anything about killing the JSF. I think my exact words were cost overrun and horrible procurement process. Oh yeah, and keeping F-22 production going, which was at the very least implied. :)

I agree that killing the JSF is not in the cards for a number of reasons, including the few you mentioned. The other reasons would be having the light attack capability that the JSF offers, and the fact that the USN will need a fighter to replace its existing -18s, and the marines needing something to replace the Harriers still in service. On top of which the poor US decision to not have an export version of the F-22.

But it is dishonest to say that there were less competitors to the US in the 80s, Dassault, Sukhoi, Migs were just a few of the names that were around back then too. All you have to do to confirm that is look at the number of Mirages and Migs that's littered all over the planet.

The point is, no one can argue the fact that at the rate things are going, the F-35 costs won't be anywhere near as cheap as people originally thought, and that ongoing production of the F-22 make sense probably both from a reduction of per unit cost and air superiority point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention this, but the 787 and and 747-8 have been doing flight tests out here at Edwards the last few weeks, DH would lose his mind watching the flight line right now. Where else can you in an hour period watch a Global Hawk, F-35, F-22, F-16, NASA F-18s, 787, 747-8, C-17, and a plethora of others take off and land in succession?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...