OT but why any particular reason variable-sweep wing aircraft abandonned since 1980's ?
CV-16 Liaoning (001 carrier) Thread II ...News, Views and operations
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
They are still used by Iran. But maintenance was too expensive for USN. Don't forget that the necessary personnel had to be carried by the flattops that are already densely packed with people. This doesn't matter to a land based service like the Iranian air force.
Intrepid
Major
still used in Germany, Italy, Saudi-Arabia and the United Kingdom. They will be replaced with non-sweeping aircraft.
I think it's evolution in aerodynamics gives designers better options that makes the performance advantage of varied wing (if there still is an advantage at all) no longer worth the compromise (both in aircraft design itself and maintenance and logistic problems) made to introduce such wing type.
Swept wing allowed for high speed intercepts during the cold war to counter the threat from Soviet bombers.
In the case of the tornado it was used as both a high speed interceptor and stable, ground hugging strike aircraft.
It was a terrible dog-fighter though,
In the case of the tornado it was used as both a high speed interceptor and stable, ground hugging strike aircraft.
It was a terrible dog-fighter though,
I would imagine that important reasons to avoid swing wing aircraft were the costs of production and maintenance and also the weight of the structure. The replacement is the vortex generator in its many shapes. Early large vortex generators are the front of the wing of Concorde and the SAAB Draken, later follow the LEX of F-5E and its relations and we see the full development in the Flankers. Don't forget the canard surfaces on SAAB Viggen, several Mirages and J-20.
Even earlier vortex generators were the wing fences as seen in MiG-15 and still on H-6. A special case is the Gloster Javelin tailed delta which had three rows of small vortex generators, one just in front of the ailerons, a second in front of the first and the third near the thickest place of the wing in front of the others. IIRC these must tame the airflow at trans sonic speed.
Books have no doubt been written about this important subject, but I didn't read them.
PS. I remember visiting the zoo in Rotterdam with my wife and together admiring the vortex generator on each arm of a turtle swimming there.
Even earlier vortex generators were the wing fences as seen in MiG-15 and still on H-6. A special case is the Gloster Javelin tailed delta which had three rows of small vortex generators, one just in front of the ailerons, a second in front of the first and the third near the thickest place of the wing in front of the others. IIRC these must tame the airflow at trans sonic speed.
Books have no doubt been written about this important subject, but I didn't read them.
PS. I remember visiting the zoo in Rotterdam with my wife and together admiring the vortex generator on each arm of a turtle swimming there.
Enough funny for the zoo
initialy i means no new swing wing Aircraft build since end 1980's you understand 
I think it is mainly because , at least for the US, they have goine into stealth and other means, without needing the variable geometry wings to get what they want from the aircraft.Enough funny for the zoo
They have super -cruise, strong enough designs to allow for good speed withut having the need for the swing wings.
I believe other western nations have followed suite themselves...some for their own reasons, perhaps the same as the US.
Russia too has stopped the ractice.
Though both still have bombers in the B-1B and the Tu-160 that utilize the technology. Just nothing new.
Thank you for admitting you have no evidence for your claim.
Let's go back to your original claim:
BTW, you were not giving an opinion here. You were attempting to make a statement of fact, or rather attempting to pass an opinion off as fact. Usually when making opinions people preface with "IMO" or "I think that" or "it would seem" or something similar. You tend to lack these cues in your posts which gives the impression that you are quoting from some higher authority, when it is now obvious that this is just an opinion, an opinion which turns out to be lacking in solid rationale. In any case, the "operational advantage" of using both port launch positions (nearly simultaneously) is patently clear. I'm not sure why you question whether there is an advantage to using both positions. As for photographic evidence, unlike the USN carriers (10-11 of them at any one time), the Kuznetsov has had very limited operational experience, and essentially no high tempo operational experience which would necessitate the use of 3 positions simultaneously. This could easily account for a dearth of pictures of all 3 being simultaneously used. There actually aren't even that many photos with just the 2 forward positions being simultaneously used. Same reasons go for the Liaoning. Just because you haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it somehow can't happen, doesn't happen, or doesn't have any "operational advantage".
- Status