Aircraft Vs Thread 3

[kalvasflam]

Both Japan and Australia have need for an extremely good air dominance fighter to defend against threats from neighboring air forces equipped with advanced Flanker variants, and a secondary requirement to replace Vietnam era fighter-bombers in the Sea control role (F-111F in the RAAF, and F-4EJ Kai in the JASDF). The Raptor is easily the best choice for the air dominance role, and could actually perform the sea control role pretty well right now. A F-22A at super cruising at 50,000ft would be able to attack a ship with JDAM or JDAM-ERs from about the same effective range as the current Harpoons and ASM-2s in RAAF and JASDF service, but using a much bigger warhead (1000 lbs vs 488 lbs). Since it would be cruising at 50,000ft it would be able to survey a much larger area than either services current fighters which have to make sea skimming attacks.

Hmmm, speaking of Japan, do you think Northrop could possibly provide a couple of good ol' B-2s?

It'll be a nice deterrence weapon. Nukes not required. Just leave things to the imagination. It would flip over all of Asia.

Heh heh, sorry, been away for a while, and am just kidding about this.

[buddhafabio]

Hmmm, speaking of Japan, do you think Northrop could possibly provide a couple of good ol' B-2s?

It'll be a nice deterrence weapon. Nukes not required. Just leave things to the imagination. It would flip over all of Asia.

Heh heh, sorry, been away for a while, and am just kidding about this.

hehehehe if they got one and

If ole wacky in north Korea launched another test missile over Japan they would use it for sure.

[kalvasflam]

hehehehe if they got one and

If ole wacky in north Korea launched another test missile over Japan they would use it for sure.

Naw, think of the B-2 (even without nukes) like the ballistic missile subs the US and USSR had. They'd never be used, just for show.

[ghostryder]

Diecast Model noob question-

Are there any decent diecast 1/72 F/A-22 models out there? The only ones I've seen still have the nose probe, or have fugly paint jobs.

[David Hingtgen]

Nope. The only ones out there have nose probes and ugly paint. AFAIK.

[kalvasflam]

Was in Shanghai a few weeks ago, apparently the A380 was flying in there for a day or so after a few other stops in Asia. I missed the plane by one day, left the day after the A380 made its stop. Pity... guess I'll have to wait a while.

One interesting thing though, I never realized until recently how large the freight business really is. I must've saw over a dozen different cargo carriers between Beijing and Shanghai. And with IFLC converting the A380F orders, I would say that Airbus has really screwed up. There is a lot of potential to replace 747s out there, and Airbus is just not taking advantage of it. They really should segregate the frieght business away from the passenger business.

[RFT]

Was in Shanghai a few weeks ago, apparently the A380 was flying in there for a day or so after a few other stops in Asia. I missed the plane by one day, left the day after the A380 made its stop. Pity... guess I'll have to wait a while.

One interesting thing though, I never realized until recently how large the freight business really is. I must've saw over a dozen different cargo carriers between Beijing and Shanghai. And with IFLC converting the A380F orders, I would say that Airbus has really screwed up. There is a lot of potential to replace 747s out there, and Airbus is just not taking advantage of it. They really should segregate the frieght business away from the passenger business.

it does seem odd that if the problems with A380 lie with the requisute cabling for passenger amenites (as has been reported) , they don;t just start building the frieght planes which must be free of those problems to get some money coming in for theproject while the passenger variant is sorted out.

[Noyhauser]

it does seem odd that if the problems with A380 lie with the requisute cabling for passenger amenites (as has been reported) , they don;t just start building the frieght planes which must be free of those problems to get some money coming in for theproject while the passenger variant is sorted out.

Something tells me that the way the manufacturing process has been done is that there are plenty of airframes sitting on the toulouse floor waiting to be completed, and those are all passenger planes. Since there is now a production bottleneck, they can't start the Freighter aircract without completing the construction of the several hundred passenger aircraft that are already on the books and were prioritized first.

Also I found this on NYT this morning on the 747-8

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/business...amp;oref=slogin

enjoy

[David Hingtgen]

Basically---yup. No A380F's until the pax version is fixed. Which is why half the A380F orders are now cancelled. You can't "skip" a customer and deliver someone else's planes first, it's just not done. (not without a lot of money changing hands and contracts---one of the few times I know of occurred when the Sultan of Brunei paid Lufthansa a lot of money to "takeover" one of their early A340 production slots--and even that was only possible due to someone else cancelling their order, making the "replacement" Lufthansa plane available much earlier) The A380 is physically fine, but the wiring for in-flight entertainment just doesn't fit and weighs too much.

As for freight---just look at the 747. Like 90% of the last couple years of production has been freighters. And until LH's announcement, all orders for the new version was for freighters.

On an unrelated note, Venezuela's first Flanker:

[Lightning]

A two seater variant? Why a two-seater?

[anime52k8]

why not a two-seater.

seems to work well for india.

[Lightning]

personally I love two-seaters, the Flanker looks great as a two-seater. It just seems like Venezuela is one of the countries that likes to skimp on stuff sometimes, y'know?

[kalvasflam]

Something tells me that the way the manufacturing process has been done is that there are plenty of airframes sitting on the toulouse floor waiting to be completed, and those are all passenger planes. Since there is now a production bottleneck, they can't start the Freighter aircract without completing the construction of the several hundred passenger aircraft that are already on the books and were prioritized first.

Also I found this on NYT this morning on the 747-8

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/business...amp;oref=slogin

enjoy

Well, the sad part of it is that Airbus is going about business in an assbackwards manner. They decided that prestige was more important, and in some ways it is. When the time comes, the A380 will hold the high end of the passenger market, overshadowing the 747. But in the process, they totally decided to ignore the freight business, and even worse, they ignored the mid-size long haul market. Two markets that Boeing is just running amok right now with sales.

Any airframes sitting at Toulouse is literally money down the tubes. Now I understand that with freighters they'll need modifications, but if Airbus had been able to negotiate their way past the wiring problem (which in my limited understanding is still just the entertainment system), they should've just went ahead and fill the ILFC, UPS, Fedex orders. In fact, I wonder how much significant modification will be needed on the existing airframes. Hell, they're delayed with delivery of the first Singapore plane anyway, what difference would it make to SIA if the first plane they get is not the first customer delivery. Since Airbus is paying penalties anyway, they should've just pushed the air freighters ahead.

I understand the need for money to change hands if we start skipping customers, but those bean counters should've figured out the cost of lost opportunity. Heck, even if they had to give away the first two deliveries for free, it's better than having airframes sitting around.

Edited December 8, 2006 by kalvasflam

[kalvasflam]

On an unrelated note, Venezuela's first Flanker:

I just wonder when we'll get the picture of Venezuela's first Flanker wreckage...

[David Hingtgen]

Two-seat Flankers are all the rage. MKI, MKK, etc. Most "Super" Flankers are two-seaters.

[RFT]

oh joy, the US/UK JSF "Operational sovereignty" row rears it's head again: link to BBC story

I thought the matter had finally been sorted out a while ago, but I guess not.

I would hope that the "plan B" mentioned in the article had already been thought of.

[F-ZeroOne]

Right, thats it. You were warned. Lets have all the jet engines back now. Yes, you heard me. All of them. You can use rubber bands from now on like everyone else.

[Nied]

oh joy, the US/UK JSF "Operational sovereignty" row rears it's head again: link to BBC story

I thought the matter had finally been sorted out a while ago, but I guess not.

I would hope that the "plan B" mentioned in the article had already been thought of.

It has. Most reports from when this dust up first started state the "plan B" is either a navalised Typhoon (Sea-Typhoon?) or Rafale M's purchased from the French(!). That of course would require a slight re-design of the Invincible class to giver them proper catapults instead of ski ramps, there's a good chance that might lead to delays since the UK is keen on using EM cats instead of steam and those systems aren't fully developed yet. Interestingly enough there's a very good chance that the Invincible class will be fitted with arresting gear no matter what so that it can accommodate Hawkeyes for AEW (tests are reportedly under way launching E-2s off of Ski ramps).

[Graham]

IF the RAF buys Rafales from the French, they will have to remember to ask Dassault to remove the default surrender and collaborate setting from the flight control software!

Sorry, being British, I can't resist a dig.

Graham

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

IF the RAF buys Rafales from the French, they will have to remember to ask Dassault to remove the default surrender and collaborate setting from the flight control software!

Sorry, being British, I can't resist a dig.

Graham

How about the 'Only works for 35 hours per week' software override?

[Noyhauser]

Well, the sad part of it is that Airbus is going about business in an assbackwards manner. They decided that prestige was more important, and in some ways it is. When the time comes, the A380 will hold the high end of the passenger market, overshadowing the 747. But in the process, they totally decided to ignore the freight business, and even worse, they ignored the mid-size long haul market. Two markets that Boeing is just running amok right now with sales.

Any airframes sitting at Toulouse is literally money down the tubes. Now I understand that with freighters they'll need modifications, but if Airbus had been able to negotiate their way past the wiring problem (which in my limited understanding is still just the entertainment system), they should've just went ahead and fill the ILFC, UPS, Fedex orders. In fact, I wonder how much significant modification will be needed on the existing airframes. Hell, they're delayed with delivery of the first Singapore plane anyway, what difference would it make to SIA if the first plane they get is not the first customer delivery. Since Airbus is paying penalties anyway, they should've just pushed the air freighters ahead.

I understand the need for money to change hands if we start skipping customers, but those bean counters should've figured out the cost of lost opportunity. Heck, even if they had to give away the first two deliveries for free, it's better than having airframes sitting around.

But you can't SKIP customers. think of a production line like a pipe. if there is a stoppage along the pipeline, it cloggs everything down the way. Its not prestige, its the nature of the just in time system. You can't do anything unless the bodies sitting on the floor get moved out. And you can't often move those pieces without alot of work to prepare them to move because they are in assembly. Its just not feasable. Look at the article I posted, it makes very clear that the 747 was always had the freighter conversion in mind. Something tells me that this was not the case with the 380. While the 747 could have been immediately converted to a Freighter, I don't think the 380 is even close to being able to have that sort of modularity. I bet that you have all but complete A-380s sitting in toulouse without wiring but essentially complete.

I think its a bit presumptious to say that they can just simply change the lines. I'm not familiar with the A-380 as I am with the A-400M program (due to the implications for European militaries strateic lift capabilities and my work). However Airbus attracts the best and the brightest from Europe and North America. They've probably thought of switching the lines a long time ago, and saw it as unfeasable.

Five years ago people were deriding Boeing the same way you are now, for the disaster from the batwing and the Sonic cruiser and their dropping to less than 50% of market share. The rise of Airbus was linked to its dominance in the translatlantic market, partly due to changes in regulations with over oceans flights around 1985. (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards), The A-330 was key in this struggle.

People were saying that the the private investement model that Boeing used was not as effective vs the publicly funded model of Airbus. Now others are saying the exact opposite. the Sonic cruiser program has paid off in divideds in the 787 and 747-8, and the supposed plane of the future A380 looks decidedly outdated beside the Dreamliner. I'm not looking forward to fly in a A-380 as much as I am on a Dreamliner. Two things happened in the last five years. Airbus forgot what made it great, and Boeing, learning from its mistakes and with good new leadership, astutely predicted the direction of the market, and has a brilliant product to show for it.

[David Hingtgen]

The only reason the 747 has a hump, is because the long-term design goal was for it to be a freighter.

[Loner]

Two-seat Flankers are all the rage. MKI, MKK, etc. Most "Super" Flankers are two-seaters.

Flanker's this, Flanker's that. I want some Terminators in the skies.

[David Hingtgen]

Well, since the only one built is currently several million shards imbedded in the dirt around Zhukovsky, that's unlikely.

And it'd be kinda pointless, since the Su-30MKI is superior in every way, and IS in service.

[Lightning]

Su-30MKI?

[Skull Leader]

Su-30MKI?

Yes, the Indian Air Force version of the Su-30. One of the few aircraft the USAF/USN respects enough to fear.

Also, the only Su-37 in existence ceased being a 37 (it was converted back to Su-35 standards) before it crashed.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Su-30MKI?

The one the Indian Air Force is using.

[kalvasflam]

But you can't SKIP customers. think of a production line like a pipe. if there is a stoppage along the pipeline, it cloggs everything down the way. Its not prestige, its the nature of the just in time system. You can't do anything unless the bodies sitting on the floor get moved out. And you can't often move those pieces without alot of work to prepare them to move because they are in assembly. Its just not feasable. Look at the article I posted, it makes very clear that the 747 was always had the freighter conversion in mind. Something tells me that this was not the case with the 380. While the 747 could have been immediately converted to a Freighter, I don't think the 380 is even close to being able to have that sort of modularity. I bet that you have all but complete A-380s sitting in toulouse without wiring but essentially complete.

I think its a bit presumptious to say that they can just simply change the lines. I'm not familiar with the A-380 as I am with the A-400M program (due to the implications for European militaries strateic lift capabilities and my work). However Airbus attracts the best and the brightest from Europe and North America. They've probably thought of switching the lines a long time ago, and saw it as unfeasable.

You might have a point about the changes on the line. It may very well be that A-380 has issues converting and that's the reason it hasn't been done. But to assume that customers are in a production pipe line that cannot be skipped is unreasonable. It's always a depends type situation. May be the downside to Airbus is that they didn't bother to consider the freight line immediately and it was an afterthought. That's a good reason, a rational reason to let freighters die. Because they can't afford to do a conversion anyway.

But I doubt it's because their sole desire is to keep SIA at the front of the line. It's a business decision there. If heaven forbid, the A380 has another delay, then having SIA in the front of the line still wouldn't make any difference. The only real issue is trust, if they simply stiff SIA, then Airbus is in for it, but then, if it's something negotiable, then it's a business decision. The problem with the airline industry is the literal visibility of schedules. Most industries aren't like that, but then again of course, most industry don't provide multi-million dollar products

[David Hingtgen]

It's not unprecedented for a manufacturer to "ignore" freighters to focus on pax versions---Boeing did it for the 777. The 777 as a freighter was VERY much in desire YEARS ago, but only recently has Boeing offered it as such---that way they could get more 767 and 747 freighter orders. (The MD-11F was in even more demand, and had no pax orders at all---but Boeing wanted to spite MDC products so bad they actually cancelled outstanding orders--apparently it's better to not make money at all, than to make money with someone else's design for which you have no equivalent)

MDC actually did it right with the MD-11---the first ones were freighters! No waiting.

As for why Airbus is still not making A380F's when the situation is desperate: There's either a clause in the SIA/AF/LH/QF contracts that would be even more expensive than the money they're currently losing if they went ahead with the A380F, or the wiring is so messed up that even the far-less-wiring freighters have issues as well.

[kalvasflam]

As for why Airbus is still not making A380F's when the situation is desperate: There's either a clause in the SIA/AF/LH/QF contracts that would be even more expensive than the money they're currently losing if they went ahead with the A380F, or the wiring is so messed up that even the far-less-wiring freighters have issues as well.

Probably the more realistic reason is the design needs to be altered somewhat to accomodate the freight version. But would it be scary if your last statement was true.

[F-ZeroOne]

IF the RAF buys Rafales from the French, they will have to remember to ask Dassault to remove the default surrender and collaborate setting from the flight control software!

Sorry, being British, I can't resist a dig.

Graham

We could always dust off the float-plane Mk. IX Spitfire again...

[Mislovrit]

As for why Airbus is still not making A380F's when the situation is desperate: There's either a clause in the SIA/AF/LH/QF contracts that would be even more expensive than the money they're currently losing if they went ahead with the A380F, or the wiring is so messed up that even the far-less-wiring freighters have issues as well.

The folks over at Tanknet been doing a much more thorough job staying up to date on the A380 matter in their Toasted Baguette ?, A380 in big trouble thread.

[David Hingtgen]

Is there somewhere they actually mention a concrete reason for not making freighters in that massive thread? The pages I checked were the same as every other thread on every other aviation forum--it degenerated into an Airbus vs Boeing thread, citing subsidies vs govt contracts.

[Mislovrit]

Is there somewhere they actually mention a concrete reason for not making freighters

Hardware wise not much compared to the personnal (management) issues Airbus is facing.

in that massive thread?

Still pretty small compare some of truly monsterish thread there.

The pages I checked were the same as every other thread on every other aviation forum--it degenerated into an Airbus vs Boeing thread, citing subsidies vs govt contracts.

Slow news day on that subject, usually thread derailments tend to be informative instead of the rehashed subsidy argument.

[joseph]

An image of new Venezuela's Mi-35: