|
SeaborneClink posted:Alaska, NWT Canada, anyone who is still flying Electras, air tankers for firefighting Ya, the market is small, but it exists. I'd still love to see Boeing revisit this: 
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
There are also plenty of Il-76s and An-12s in civilian service, though I have to suspect that it's kind of an anomaly related to the collapse of the Soviet Union freeing up lots of surplus military transports.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Why didn't the L-100 sell? Civilians don't need that much STOL cargo? Price? Ex-military C-130's thick on the ground? Hercules are really uneconomical to fly, end of story. Besides, they're the type of aircraft you'd fly into an airport exactly once up north. First in are some guys in a light aircraft like a Cessna 180 or a Super Cub, who clear a small runway with not much more than hand tools. Next in would be something like a Twin Otter or even a DC-3, which brings in more people and tools, making an even larger runway. Then comes the Herc, which brings in small earth-moving equipment. After that, it's Dash 8s and 737s all day long. Beyond that, the people who currently fly L-100s are too broke-rear end to be able to afford a brand-new $50-60 million aircraft. That much money buys an awful lot of Electras or spare parts/fuel for your old L-100.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
The problem with a civilian C-17 is they just weren't designed for that much use. A 40-year-old military aircraft might fly a few times a month (or a week if they're really lucky), 40-year-old L-100s fly a few times a day. Edit: I'm really curious what the operating economics of an L-100J are versus a 737-200 or 727-100, which are the current 'had to replace the DC-6 with something' choices. You could actually get financing on a new Hercules; probably not so much on a 727. Not to mention the possible market of rich guys who want their car to meet the yacht. Advent Horizon fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:A 40-year-old military aircraft might fly a few times a month (or a week if they're really lucky), 40-year-old L-100s fly a few times a day. Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Explaining just how wrong that is would probably get me in trouble, but no. In the States during training time yeah, for some aircraft types.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
If I was wrong on the military front, please correct me. But Lynden most certainly keeps their L-100s flying pretty regularly. When I chartered one they had all of them going on at least 4 flights (two round trips, possibly with stops on the way back) a day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
You're probably not going to get much more specific information from the above two folks because discussing active military operations is not a good idea if you like keeping your rank and personal freedom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:The problem with a civilian C-17 is they just weren't designed for that much use. A 40-year-old military aircraft might fly a few times a month (or a week if they're really lucky), 40-year-old L-100s fly a few times a day. What the hell would you finance a 727 for? They're available essentially for scrap value plus whatever the engines are worth, at this point. You can get three flying 727s for what you'd have to pay Pilatus to fly away in a new PC-12. Alternately, five 727s, or a new King Air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:If I was wrong on the military front, please correct me. From my parent's generation (I'm going to assume that you won't get anything more recent due to OPSEC): If you're not deployed, fighters get the minimum time to stay current. If you're deployed everything is constantly moving. Cargo is always moving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Ya, the market is small, but it exists. I'd still love to see Boeing revisit this: You mean like this? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Like that, but I believe that airplane is just a regular production military C-17.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:From my parent's generation (I'm going to assume that you won't get anything more recent due to OPSEC): If you're not deployed, fighters get the minimum time to stay current. If you're deployed everything is constantly moving. Cargo is always moving. That's still pretty much correct. And drat near everything in the USAF is pushing or past 40 years old at this point, except C-17s, C-130Js, and F-22s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Hercules are really uneconomical to fly, end of story. Besides, they're the type of aircraft you'd fly into an airport exactly once up north. First in are some guys in a light aircraft like a Cessna 180 or a Super Cub, who clear a small runway with not much more than hand tools. Next in would be something like a Twin Otter or even a DC-3, which brings in more people and tools, making an even larger runway. Then comes the Herc, which brings in small earth-moving equipment. I'm not going to give this a full rebuttal because I'm not exactly unbiased but "uneconomical to fly" is most definitely not the end of the story. And I for one am not waiting for some yahoo in a Cessna to clear a runway using simple hand tools during contingencies. A Herc can land in 3000 feet of unprepared surface and offload enough hardware to prepare the surface for the fat boys to fly in. I'm not going to suggest the C-130 is the solution to every problem but it's a bit more versatile than you're claiming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
The only info I have on this is 'Spotted at Fort Rucker', anyone know what it's called? Besides 'yet another tilt rotor clusterfuck', or 'Autorotation? What's that?'
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Schindler's Fist posted:The only info I have on this is 'Spotted at Fort Rucker', anyone know what it's called? Besides 'yet another tilt rotor clusterfuck', or 'Autorotation? What's that?' Bell V-280 Valor mock-up. "FVL is meant to develop a replacement for the Army's UH-60 Black Hawk, AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook, and OH-58 Kiowa helicopters." Because multi-role is money-roll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Vertical_Lift Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
So that's what happens when you park a UH-60 and V-22 in the same hanger overnight unsupervised. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Looking at that thing, and knowing personably how the Army works, I feel like they decided that the Marine Corp had a monopoly on training deaths due to shoving as many people as you can into still-being-tested aircraft. Obviously we can't let the Marine Corp lord this over us. Also we need airplanes because all the cool branches have them. re: replacing all our choppers with that.....HAHAHAHA
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
wait, what? Eisenhower is doing fuckin' somersaults in his grave. Absolutely disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Schindler's Fist posted:The only info I have on this is 'Spotted at Fort Rucker', anyone know what it's called? Besides 'yet another tilt rotor clusterfuck', or 'Autorotation? What's that?' It looks cool but drat it looks way smaller than the Osprey
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Those tail surfaces are...interesting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
FVL is just concepts about a family of different scale aircraft designed around future needs, not "replace all aircraft with the Hawksprey". The Army has to think past 60s chinooks at some point, and since there is some kind of meeting going on you will probably see a bunch of these mockups at Rucker this week. Sikorsky had their X2 project big rig parked in the middle of our running track this morning, hehe. Ambihelical Hexnut fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:FVL is just concepts about a family of different scale aircraft designed around future needs, not "replace all aircraft with the Hawksprey". The Army has to think past 60s chinooks at some point, and since there is some kind of meeting going on you will probably see a bunch of these mockups at Rucker this week. It's 2014, shouldn't we be jumping in to combat with rocket infantry?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
dubzee posted:wait, what? See: F-35, and LCS. And yeah, Ike would kneecap every SecDef we've had since the Berlin Wall fell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:So that's what happens when you park a UH-60 and V-22 in the same hanger overnight unsupervised. At least this one inherited the gun mounts from the 60. Maybe this time they don't have to waste their speed advantage by flying slow enough so the gunships can keep up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:And yeah, Ike would kneecap every SecDef we've had since the Berlin Wall fell. Why, what was his deal? (I know he was a general and the president after Truman, and his election campaign had some buttons, but that's about it)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Phy posted:Why, what was his deal? (I know he was a general and the president after Truman, and his election campaign had some buttons, but that's about it) Well, he's famous (for a bunch of things, but in this context) for talking about the dangers of the military industrial complex in a speech. Something to do with that, I'm guessing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Well, he's famous (for a bunch of things, but in this context) for talking about the dangers of the military industrial complex in a speech. Something to do with that, I'm guessing. quote:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
quote:Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Eisenhower was warning against commingling of defense industry special interests and government officials in ways that didn't really benefit defense while hurting the taxpayers. If this means anything to you, it's exactly what Jon Stewart railed on Pelosi about last week. Alternately, look at what's going on with tank production. Or just read this lady's Wikipedia page for examples. It's hardly specific to defense but in Eisenhower's day military spending so dominated the budget (53%, vice about 21% today) that that's where the profit opportunities mostly lied.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Bell V-280 Valor mock-up. The military industrial complex is such a joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Bell V-280 Valor mock-up. "JMR-Ultra: New ultra-sized version for vertical lift aircraft with performance similar to fixed-wing tactical transport aircraft, such as the C-130J Super Hercules and the Airbus A400M Atlas; introduction planned for 2025." Bahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"JMR-Ultra: New ultra-sized version for vertical lift aircraft with performance similar to fixed-wing tactical transport aircraft, such as the C-130J Super Hercules and the Airbus A400M Atlas; introduction planned for 2025." You laugh now, but watch what happens when we put lasers on it. We'll call it the Alan Parsons Project.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
 who didn't see this outcome for the C-27?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Thing is, that a trip to the boneyard is not anything like one-way. Something past 40% of the aircraft that arrive at the AMARG leave again under their own power. Some as QF target drones, a lot to foreign militaries, and a goodly number, like the C-27's, back into service in the US. But yeah, looks pretty dumb to have them built new in Italy and flown directly to the boneyard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Godholio posted:See: F-35, and LCS. This is what kills me. "The JSF is such a roaring success, let's develop four different multi-role platforms in parallel!" I get that there's a lot of 'nam era gear that needs to be replaced, so why not concentrate on that first? Wiki says the Chinook replacement won't be introduced until 2035, some of those will be pushing 80 by then, but the Hercules-alike is due in 2025. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
dubzee posted:This is what kills me. "The JSF is such a roaring success, let's develop four different multi-role platforms in parallel!" If you're not familiar with them, you may want to check out TFR's Airpower/Cold War thread and GiP's Current Events thread which both regularly get into this topic. The short answer is everything that wasn't explicitly bought for Iraq/Afghanistan is decades-old and needs to be replaced, and there's no money for any of it. That goes a lot further than just aircraft. As dumb and broken as it sounds (because it is), the hope with multirole is that it gets a solution through Congress that's a mediocre answer to a variety of problems, where the alternative might be a good answer to one problem and nothing for the others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:The Army has to think past 60s chinooks at some point, . Here I was thinking that's what the F models are for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
F models are great, as are Block III 64s, 60Ms, and the canceling of the 58 (heyooo) but the entire point of looking ahead in these conceptual manners is it allows you to shape a future force (like 2035+) in a way that capitalizes on things like optionally manned tech, condition based maintenance, new materials, and other advancements that are better made on airframes designed for them than by stapling 5 new boxes every year to what we've already got.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:35
|
|