It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK orderes Wedgetail

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

As much as I like the Nimrod, I'm not sure that canceling it was the wrong decision.




posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hmm after all that money had been spent it probably was. If they had decided to go with the P3 at the time then yeah it should have gone.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

You reach a point of diminishing return. Especially after they found the issue with them refueling in flight. They shouldn't have killed it without at least having a replacement in the works, but it was time.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hmm after all that money had been spent it probably was. If they had decided to go with the P3 at the time then yeah it should have gone.


My understanding was that it had control surfaces on control surfaces and was still unflight worthy, they just kept trying do design an impossible fix and despite the great intentions of MRA4 the mighty hunter at the beginning they should have canned it a lot sooner.

The US were already interested in the package to replace the P-3, why on earth rebuilding 24 comets was considered when suitable modern commercial liners were already being produced.

History now, let’s hope lessons learned with the Wegdetail purchase and others.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   
"Did you guys bring a Wedgetail? You did?! When are they flying? Thanks dude."

...run quickly to the BX, buy a case of beer, run faster to the scheduler...

"Sup bro, look your favorite beer. Put me on the schedule for Tues night, Wed night, and Fri night!"

...sleep ever so comfortably after that...



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought it was actually smart for a change to order them to RAAF specs.
Now THAT is a sentence I never thought I would hear uttered. After so many debacles down under, it appears we eventually got something right. Shame we cant get our Submarine replacement project on spec too.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: LightSpeedDriver
Really?
Perhaps you could explain your theories and logic then to the people of the Ukraine right now, or elaborate on how you no doubt think the downing of MH-17 was actually secretly conducted by the CIA or some such to frame a poor innocent Russia led by a peaceful and benevolent dicta.... democratically elected President?

Or possibly ask older Afghani's how peaceful the Russian Army was during their occupation. And then there's Czechoslovakia, Hungary and just about any other place the brutal Russian occupations post second world war touched. But your "truth" largely ignores that doesn't it?

edit on 24-3-2019 by thebozeian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

It hurts my brain to praise procurement processes.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

We're drifting off topic there. I'll pass.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought it was actually smart for a change to order them to RAAF specs.
Now THAT is a sentence I never thought I would hear uttered. After so many debacles down under, it appears we eventually got something right. Shame we cant get our Submarine replacement project on spec too.

I was always surprised you never asked for some Astute class subs tbh



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Two of the five aircraft will be second hand 737s. No word on how old or other history.

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Two of the five aircraft will be second hand 737s. No word on how old or other history.

www.flightglobal.com...


Marshall Aeerospace are the contractors it seems ? , they announced plans today to leave Cambridge airport and move to another site by 2030
(quote from a local newspaper in the UK)
"Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group has said it is considering three potential new locations: Cranfield, Duxford and Wyton"

What takes a longer distance to land ? 747 or a B-52 ? I saw them land a BUFF at Duxford way back when i was a kid and they bent it on landing as far as i can recall , would they be able to land a 747 there considering the runway is now 1000 ft shorter than it was back then ?



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: yittak

747 or 737? Either way they need more runway than the BUFF, as long as they use their chute.



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Minimum landing distance will depend on how it is loaded, winds, temperature density, and terrain around the airport.

A heavily loaded B737 will stop a lot faster than a typical BUFF. Even with the chute.

The limiting factor for operations would probably be take-off distances required, not landing. Here the required distances would be closer. But again, if you can get a BUFF in and out, you should be fine with the B737.
edit on 14-5-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert
I have seen a 747 put down on to a VERY short and narrow local strip without thrust reversers used to avoid FOD damage, as it had minimum fuel on board and no pax or freight. BUT, its never going to take off from there again due to being retired, although it could do it if the airline wanted it back. It ended up using about 4800ft but could have done it in less under ideal conditions and with use of reversers.

I did look up the shortest theoretical stopping distance for a 744 and found a chart posted up on a forum of the minimum braking distances for P&W powered 744. At 250,000kgs with full braking it lists a sea level dry runway stopping distance of about 1055m, but under theoretical right conditions you could probably chop another 150 or so meters off that. However that would require max manual braking, full T/R, slight uphill incline on the runway, a cool day, sea level and a good 20kts of headwind. And absolutely none of that is practical, but it is fun to speculate.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

Yeah, you can do some neat tricks with an airplane designed to fly "heavy" with a light load of fuel. Most LDR numbers have a 20% safety margin. And passenger comfort is probably a lot bigger factor for 747, 737 when you see standard or typical operation numbers than for a military application. You can get a near empty BUFF down in under 6000' in Oshkosh and back out woth 8000', even though for operational use you'd want 10,000'+. Doing something as a stunt is different than operational use where you need a useful payload and fuel. But the generic standard atmosphere operational numbers for 737-700 (for the Wedgetail analogue) is under 5,000 landing. That's generic commercial use, not empty minimum. So if the Buff gets in and out, you should have no problems.
And again, like you say, LDR isn't going to be a set number. If it's 10°F, head wind of 20kts, approaching over the ocean, near empty you are going to have a much smaller LDR than approaching the same airport inland over the hills with a crosswind when it's 90° with a full load, etc. Then you have wet or icy runways, etc.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Thanks for the answers guys



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

We used to hate when the B-52s came in with their chutes. We'd stage at the high speed turnoff at the 9,000+ foot area to wait for them to land. They'd land, and the farthest they would get before stopping was halfway down the runway. Then they'd have to come up on power and slowly taxi to us to drop the chute and get picked up but the Base Ops guys to talk them in.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join