Knight26 Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 ANother big bird on the horizon, Boeing is starting to seriously look at the X-48 again, Blended Wing Body. But, not as a passenger plane, yet. They are conceptualizing using it as a tanker/transporter, they figure that they can get two or three booms on it without much difficulty. This was also brought about by the fubar that is the KC-767.
RFT Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Has fuel consumption for VTOL been drastically improved since the days of the Harrier? Always had the impression that VTOL compromised the max payload... It's not so much the amount of fuel you use VTOLing that's the problem, as a simple question of weight Vs thrust. fuel use is an issue, but it's not the main limiting factor. whether you're taking off straight up, off a ski-jump, or conventionally, you're still going to puch the throttle as far forward as it can go. ski-jump and conventional takeoffs can get more off the ground (or the deck) because the wings make a contruibution to lift, which they don't in a vertical takeoff.
Skull Leader Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 "since the days of the harrier"? It's still in prominent use today, lol.
kalvasflam Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Anyone watch dogfights on histroy channel? Pretty entertaining show. The Vietnam stuff was especially fun.
David Hingtgen Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 FedEx cancelled all their A380 orders, I believe they're the launch customer for the freighter version. Ironically, the contract to build A380 hangars at FedEx's main hub in Memphis was just signed. Also, FedEx ordered 15 777-200F's from Boeing. 787 is 5,000lbs overweight currently.
kalvasflam Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 FedEx cancelled all their A380 orders, I believe they're the launch customer for the freighter version. Ironically, the contract to build A380 hangars at FedEx's main hub in Memphis was just signed. Also, FedEx ordered 15 777-200F's from Boeing. 787 is 5,000lbs overweight currently. I wonder what the penalty is for the overweight problems, hmmm, and we shouldn't call 787 overweight, might give it self esteem issues.... It's just big boned. I think Fedex still has their option for 10 open don't they? Or does that automatically go away when the first 10 was cancelled?
Mislovrit Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) I wonder what the penalty is for the overweight problems, hmmm, and we shouldn't call 787 overweight, might give it self esteem issues.... It's just big boned.No penalties would occur unless Boeing fails to fix the weight problem by the delivery date. I think Fedex still has their option for 10 open don't they? Or does that automatically go away when the first 10 was cancelled? FedEx canned that option along with the rest of the order. Edited November 8, 2006 by Mislovrit
David Hingtgen Posted November 9, 2006 Author Posted November 9, 2006 Now to see what UPS will do. My bet is cancelling the A380 for 747AdvF's.
Fatalist Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Well look at the bright side, with them moving to Boeing, it would keep a bunch or even create more jobs in the US.
Nied Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Latest news out of the Navy is that the Sundowenrs, David and my favorite squadron, are coming back to the Navy as an aggressor squadron. It's going to be wierd seeing the famous setting sun and shark teeth on a camoflauged F-5 but it's better than nothing. Still I do wonder what they'd look like painted on an F model Super Hornet.
David Hingtgen Posted November 9, 2006 Author Posted November 9, 2006 Haven't checked ARC today, have to go see. That'd be the best thing ever---I always figured they'd might be back as a Super Hornet squadron, or even F-35.
Noyhauser Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 Well look at the bright side, with them moving to Boeing, it would keep a bunch or even create more jobs in the US. In this day and age of globalized industries, it doesn't matter. The Cancelation of the A-380 will hurt US producers too. Airbus has significant facilities in the US as well, while significant parts of boeing's industries are not in the US (Japan being the largest foreign source).
Warmaker Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 Latest news out of the Navy is that the Sundowenrs, David and my favorite squadron, are coming back to the Navy as an aggressor squadron. It's going to be wierd seeing the famous setting sun and shark teeth on a camoflauged F-5 but it's better than nothing. Still I do wonder what they'd look like painted on an F model Super Hornet. I always did like the Japanese Sunburst design on the Tomcats' vertical stabs. Sweet looking!
Mislovrit Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 In this day and age of globalized industries, it doesn't matter. The Cancelation of the A-380 will hurt US producers too. Airbus has significant facilities in the US as well, while significant parts of boeing's industries are not in the US (Japan being the largest foreign source). Even in this day and age it does matter a lot as long as more jobs are created over the the number of jobs lost and where. Latest Boeing news Boeing Awarded U.S. Air Force Combat Search and Rescue Contract ST. LOUIS, Nov. 09, 2006 -- The Boeing Company's [NYSE: BA] HH-47 helicopter has been selected by the U.S. Air Force as the winner of the Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) program competition. "The CSAR award is a vote of confidence by the Air Force in the ability of Boeing to provide them the rotorcraft they need for this very important mission," said Jim Albaugh, president and chief executive officer of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. "Backed by our decades of experience in rotorcraft design, production and systems integration, the HH-47 will rapidly deploy versatile rescue capability to even the most challenging combat rescue situations." The CSAR program calls for initial operational capability of the HH-47 aircraft in 2012. Under the program, which is valued at up to $10 billion, Boeing will build 141 production aircraft and four test aircraft at its Rotorcraft Systems manufacturing facility in Ridley Park, Pa., also home to the MH-47G Special Operations and CH-47F Chinook programs. "Boeing is delighted that the Air Force has selected the HH-47 for its new Combat Search and Rescue platform," said Mike Tkach, vice president and general manager of Boeing Rotorcraft Systems. "We believe our proposal provided the best combination of capability and cost." "We are ready to produce and deliver this outstanding aircraft to the Air Force, on-time and on-cost," said Rick Lemaster, CSAR program manager. CSAR-X is a U.S. Air Force initiative to procure more capable and survivable aircraft able to recover isolated personnel from hostile or denied territory. The tandem rotor, heavy-lift, high-altitude HH-47 is based on the CH/MH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, with performance capabilities that have been widely demonstrated in the ongoing global war on terrorism and in numerous U.S. and international humanitarian relief operations.
Skull Leader Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 Rumors are true. The Key West det of the VFC-12 "Fighting Omars" is standing up as their own squadron, VFC-111 "Sundowners". The sunburst on F-5 tails? I guess we'll see!
Nied Posted November 14, 2006 Posted November 14, 2006 And already people are saying it wouldn't have happened to a Tomcat!
Warmaker Posted November 14, 2006 Posted November 14, 2006 Something we got a hold of. A homepage to one of our sister Marine Hornet Delta squadrons, VMFA(AW)-242. Of note is something more dangerous to US forces in Iraq than IEDs:Risk vs Reward
Mislovrit Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 Of note is something more dangerous to US forces in Iraq than IEDs:Risk vs Reward Old one as the milbloggers got that online couple of months ago.
Apollo Leader Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 F-117's days numbered? With the F-117 celebrating 25 years of flight and service this year, it sounds like the F-117's responsibilities will be handed off to the Raptor and i would also guess the Lightning II. Has anyone heard on an exact date or time frame for the Nighthawk's retirement?
Apollo Leader Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 And already people are saying it wouldn't have happened to a Tomcat! Wouldn't have happened to a Tomcat! At the 1990 Offutt air show, an RF-4C Phantom II from Lincoln had a main gear tire blow out resulting in lot of sparks and fire. This resulted in the air show being onhold for hours until the plane could be moved and a thorough inspection was made to look fo debris on the runway.
Apollo Leader Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtgS6J4VSxU...ted&search= A Hornet carrier landing mishap from almost 10 years ago.
Lynx7725 Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 Oh, for the airliner buffs, A380 touched down in Singapore on its world flight trial yesterday.
kalvasflam Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 Oh, for the airliner buffs, A380 touched down in Singapore on its world flight trial yesterday. yeah, but was the TV working?
Skull Leader Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 F-117's days numbered? With the F-117 celebrating 25 years of flight and service this year, it sounds like the F-117's responsibilities will be handed off to the Raptor and i would also guess the Lightning II. Has anyone heard on an exact date or time frame for the Nighthawk's retirement? They've already begun phasing them out. I spoke with a "stinkbug" pilot at Nellis this past weekend, he says they're looking at sending their last ones "to the hangar" (these won't be stored at Davis-Monthan, at least not outside) by the end of next year or early 2008. Those frames they've already retired this year (about 10 I think is what he said) will stay at Holloman as parts cows until the rest are retired.
Apollo Leader Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 They've already begun phasing them out. I spoke with a "stinkbug" pilot at Nellis this past weekend, he says they're looking at sending their last ones "to the hangar" (these won't be stored at Davis-Monthan, at least not outside) by the end of next year or early 2008. Those frames they've already retired this year (about 10 I think is what he said) will stay at Holloman as parts cows until the rest are retired. I knew that the retirement of the F-117 wasn't too far away in the future, but I didn't realize that it was that close. Considering it was suppose to be a "silver bullet" aircraft with just a production run of 20 aircraft early on in its development, the F-117 definitely has left its mark on both the aviation world and history.
Warmaker Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I didn't think the F-117 had been flying that long already. Wow...
Skull Leader Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Development began in the late 1970s. Maiden flight was in 1980 or 1981 I believe
BushyFromoz Posted November 18, 2006 Posted November 18, 2006 THought of this today What does the FB-111A have over the F-111F? Why use the FB-111A? That would be the F111 G
Noyhauser Posted November 29, 2006 Posted November 29, 2006 French poised to steal £10bn Saudi contract from BAE http://news.independent.co.uk/business/new...icle2021446.ece
David Hingtgen Posted November 30, 2006 Author Posted November 30, 2006 Would that be the Rafale's first export sale?
kalvasflam Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 Someone really needs to put the F-22 on the foreign market. And the F-117. Older design after all, but it'll be money in the bank.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 Would that be the Rafale's first export sale? If it goes through, yes. But I'd be surprised if it did.
RFT Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 (edited) Someone really needs to put the F-22 on the foreign market. And the F-117. Older design after all, but it'll be money in the bank. The F-117 was supposedly offered to the RAF in an upgraded form but we turned it down in favour of Tornado GR.4. I think at the time this was happening GR.4 was supposed to be a much bigger update than it ended up being, having a redesigned "stealth" nose and intakes. I'm not sure, now, that anyone would really want F-117s. they're old, a nightmare to maintain, and they don't do anything that JSF isn't planned to do. there's been talk of export F-22s in the older thread. Japan was supposed to have been approached. I suspect that the UK might have been as well. personally I can;t see it happening for a good few years, I don't think the US political climate would allow it. it;s been bad enough sorting out the operational sovereignty thing on JSF which was a co-funded project almost from the start. to gain congress approval, Lockheed would effectively only be able to sell F-22s so downgraded that countries may as well buy F-15s, Superhornets, Typhoons or Rafales, and get a lot more of them. Anyway, from a purely functional POV what country other than america (that are friendly with america) can afford to field such an expensive plane that's so specialised in role? countries that aren't super-powers need multi-role aircraft, and I don't think the F-22 is sufficently multi-role to do the job. Edited November 30, 2006 by RFT
SpacyAce2012 Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 The F-117 was supposedly offered to the RAF in an upgraded form but we turned it down in favour of Tornado GR.4. I think at the time this was happening GR.4 was supposed to be a much bigger update than it ended up being, having a redesigned "stealth" nose and intakes. I'm not sure, now, that anyone would really want F-117s. they're old, a nightmare to maintain, and they don't do anything that JSF isn't planned to do. there's been talk of export F-22s in the older thread. Japan was supposed to have been approached. I suspect that the UK might have been as well. personally I can;t see it happening for a good few years, I don't think the US political climate would allow it. it;s been bad enough sorting out the operational sovereignty thing on JSF which was a co-funded project almost from the start. to gain congress approval, Lockheed would effectively only be able to sell F-22s so downgraded that countries may as well buy F-15s, Superhornets, Typhoons or Rafales, and get a lot more of them. Anyway, from a purely functional POV what country other than america (that are friendly with america) can afford to field such an expensive plane that's so specialised in role? countries that aren't super-powers need multi-role aircraft, and I don't think the F-22 is sufficently multi-role to do the job. It was my understanding that Isreal was all eager to get a hold of the F-22 and F-35. And as far as getting "monkey" versions, the IDAF/AF will just install the ("home grown") equipment that best suits their needs.
Nied Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 there's been talk of export F-22s in the older thread. Japan was supposed to have been approached. I suspect that the UK might have been as well. personally I can;t see it happening for a good few years, I don't think the US political climate would allow it. it;s been bad enough sorting out the operational sovereignty thing on JSF which was a co-funded project almost from the start. to gain congress approval, Lockheed would effectively only be able to sell F-22s so downgraded that countries may as well buy F-15s, Superhornets, Typhoons or Rafales, and get a lot more of them. Anyway, from a purely functional POV what country other than america (that are friendly with america) can afford to field such an expensive plane that's so specialised in role? countries that aren't super-powers need multi-role aircraft, and I don't think the F-22 is sufficently multi-role to do the job. 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.
Recommended Posts