Master Lease Aviation Ground Lease: Fill & Download for Free

If you are thinking to join Galgotias University to join BBA in Aviation Management I'll say yes you are making a good choiceAviation management is the task of ensuring that flight operations run smoothly, passengers receive quality service on time, security is maintained & commercial operations such as airport duty-free shopping turn a good profit. At every airport & airline, the effort is to ensure that all these people have safe, fun travel experiences. A Bachelor's degree in aviation management is an important stepping stone for those who wish to enter this specialized career fielfieldCareer ProspactsThe Civil Aviation industry provides enormous employment opportunities in India and abroad. The employment opportunities have more than doubled in recent years in the aviation sector. There is a shortfall in the middle level of management in this sector. The rapid modernization of the Aviation industry, into the state-of-the-art sector, has also translated into the creation of additional opportunities;Airport Services Management; Airport Ramp Services, Transportation, Hospitality, Air Cargo (Logistics) & Baggage Handling, Fuel Supply Management, Quality Control, Estate Management, Airline / Airport Security & Safety, Load Master, etc.Airport and Aerodrome ManagementLine Maintenance ManagementBase Maintenance ManagementSupply Chain and Logistics ManagementAircraft / Airline Operation ManagementPlanning and Engineering ServicesGround Equipment Management & OperationsCorporate Fleet Management; Purchase, Leases, Conversions and Charters.Travel & TourismAviation FinanceSchedulingGlobal Distribution Systems

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMCIn “Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East” David Stahel argues, compellingly, that Germany lost the war in the East early on because of a failure to comprehend to logistical nightmare of invading the Soviet Union. That, combined with intelligence failures about the actual size of the Red Army, led to their failure to meet their strategic objective of destroying Soviet forces in the border region and effectively the game was up by the end of August 1941.In a simple example, the rate at which trucks that carried supplies to the Panzer divisions wore through their tyres on the bad roads of the Soviet Union was 10 times greater than provisioned for. In his war diaries, Franz Halder noted that dust was causing havoc in the mechanised forces. There weren’t enough dust protectors, replacement engine filters, etc etc etc.This led the Germans to run out of steam before the Soviets ran out of soldiers. When they had steam, they managed to encircle and destroy enemy formations of an unprecedented size heretofore in human history. In the The Battle of Białystok–Minsk from 22 June to 9 July 1941 the Red Army lost 417,729 troops for 12,157 Wehrmacht casualties. At Kiev and Smolensk they lost north of 700,000 troops in each engagement through July, August and September 1941, albeit for much higher German losses in excess of 120,000 casualties for each engagement.But when they ran out of steam, or reached “the culmination point” as von Clausewitz would put it, they suffered from some pretty significant counter attacks. The rest, as they say, is history.How does this relate to the American entry into the war and specifically Lend Lease? Well, the Soviet victories of 1943–1945 were - much like the German victories of 1939–1942 - built atop massive mechanised forces operating in what the Russians called “Deep Battle”.For example, Operation Bagration is probably one of the greatest and most successful Blitzkriegs of the entire war. Between 22 June and 19 August 1944 the Red Army destroyed 28 of 34 divisions of Army Group Center, about a quarter of the total German fighting force on the East Front, advancing 560km at their furthest before their logistics ground them to a total halt.If US Lend-Lease had not occured, the Soviet ability to carry out operations like Bagration and its preceding large scale offensives would have been critically hampered.The US provided the Soviets with:427,284 trucks35,170 motorcycles2,328 ordnance service vehicles1,977 locomotives11,075 locomotive cars2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil)Including 57.8% of Soviet high-octane aviation fuelAmmunition of all types amounting to 53% of Soviet consumptionAmong others, an entire tire plant lifted from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant to the Soviet UnionYou don’t pull off 560km advances with 2.5 million troops without any of the above.The US provided the Soviets with 13,303 combat vehicles (Read: Tanks, armoured cars, etc) but as others have pointed out the Red Army had plenty good tanks and they had plenty good aircraft. But the US provided them with significant amounts of fuel to drive and fly them, trucks and trains to resupply them and even tires to keep the whole show moving.The German military reached its zenith of wartime production in 1944, despite massive reversals on many fronts and sustained Allied bombing campaigns wiping entire cities off the map (which, without the US, presumably would have continued with nighttime British bombing but to less effect also considering US Lend Lease went to the UK in large quantities). For example they produced 18,956 tanks in 1944 vs 3,623 in 1941. This included twice as many Panzer III variants, over 1,300% more Panzer IVs and 4,003 Panthers (which were first introduced in 1943).It is difficult to see a scenario where without the logistical support of the US industrial cornucopia the Soviets managed to master the Wehrmacht in the timeframe of the historical war. I doubt Germany would have beaten the Soviet Union and Britain, but one could see a more likely scenario of a protracted war ending in stalemate if not ending much later with much more in the way of casualties for all sides.

La-7. And the reason for this choice requires a little more explanation of the tactics of air combat, mostly because of the already jumped fans of P-51 Mustang, Focke-Wulf Fw-190, Messerschmitt Bf.109 and Supermarine Spitfire.Any weapon or weapon platform (such as a fighter jet) is just as good as its tactics.Each weapon, including the fighter aircraft, is created for specific tactical tasks:1. Fighter for gaining air superiority - designed to gain dominance in the air by destroying enemy aircraft in maneuverable air combat.2. Multi-role fighters - designed to destroy both enemy aircraft and ground troops.3. Interceptor fighters - are intended for protection of ground objects from means of air attack.4. Naval and deck fighters - designed for long-distance battles over sea space and placement on the decks of aircraft carriers.A multi-role, universal fighter, superior to those specialized in any of the four main tactical categories, did not exist during World War II. Not until today. The reason is simple and understandable for everyone. In order to best perform any of them, in its design compromises have been made with its qualities to perform the others.Does anyone really imagine that the multi-purpose F-16 has a real chance in maneuverable air combat with the F-15 created for such? Or created as a multifunctional F-35 with the older but still best fighter for conquests in the air F-22 Raptor?Such laymen in aviation better not read further…Because for the answer to the question, I will simply cross out the multi-role, interceptors and deck fighters.Thus remains His Excellency the Tyrant of Heaven - the Fighter for the conquest of air superiority.It remains to determine the tactics we will use.This is easy. The most proven effective tactic for dealing with other fighters is that of "free hunting". Here I will allow myself to quote an expert. Soviet ace № 2 during the Second World War with 57 confirmed victories, the main creator of the tactics of Soviet aviation, Marshal of Aviation of the USSR, A.I. Pokryshkin from his book "Tactics of Fighter Aviation":“A fighter-hunter is the highest form of combat activity of an air fighter. His task is to find the enemy, to shoot down, and not to defeat himself. His motto is - FOUND, KILLED, GONE.Using exceptional cunning and possession of his car, boldly and confidently strikes the enemy, lightning fast and suddenly. Aces must have highly developed initiative and ingenuity, confidence in themselves and in their decisions. Confusion and panic are alien to the ace."The method of combat operations of the Free Hunting fighters contributed to the growth of the number of victories. During the Second World War, it was almost the most basic method used by German ace pilots. The tactic of "free hunting" is the main reason for the exceptional number of restrained air victories of the German aces, or as the Germans themselves called them "experts":One hundred and one German experts have 100 or more Allied planes on their list. Fifteen of them have more than 200 enemy planes were shot down. And two more than 300 - Gerhard Barkhorn - 301 victories and aces of all-time aces Erich Hartmann - 352 victories, all on the Eastern Front, including 7 American Mustang fighters over Ploiesti.Their achievements far exceed those of the Allied fighters, where the Soviet aces are led by Ivan Kozhedub with 62 victories, Pokrishkin with 59 and Rechkalov with 56, the American - Bong over the Pacific with 40 and Gabby Gabreski in Europe with 28, the British Johnny Johnson with 34 wins.The basic principles laid down by German pilots when performing combat flights for "free hunting":1. The basis of the combat order - a pair of aircraft (master and slave).2. A group of planes with a pair of fighters, less often a unit, flew on a combat mission.3. The airspace was distributed between the units and the duty groups. Some were on duty in the air, some on the ground.4. The specific combat task of the flight was not set, it was assumed that a pair of fighter hunters independently determine their goals: both air and ground.5. Only highly trained pilots with more than one victory over the enemy, with high skills in piloting techniques and actions in unforeseen situations (special cases in flight) were sent to perform tasks under the "free hunting" plan.The tactics of German pilots in finding targets for "free hunting" (template methods) - to take a tactically advantageous position, which was determined by the leader of the pair and, as a rule, was to:• Option 1: the pair is divided, while the leader, using the terrain, masking the terrain and weather conditions, approaches the enemy aircraft, unnoticed by the enemy, and the slave - covers the leader's plane, located above;• Option 2: perform a maneuver in order to subsequently take a position to attack from the sun and from a height that allows you to develop a high speed for the subsequent attack.In any case, the attack of the air target aimed to "get into the enemy's tail", to shoot from cannons from a short distance and was to end with the downing of enemy aircraft.The use of hit-and-run tactics in air combat is based on the use of height advantages. Is to attack the enemy from a dive, followed by the departure of the slide up. The enemy, not having a sufficient supply of energy, cannot "get" the attacker.This tactic allows you to conduct an effective air battle with the superior forces of the enemy, provided that there is an advantage in height, speed and speed.For all this, the best fighter of World War II is the LA-7. La-7, which had excellent maneuverability, high speed and strong weapons, as best as possible corresponded to the formula of AI Pokryshkina: "Speed ​​- maneuver - fire."This best Soviet fighter from WWII - La-7 was sent for combat tests in the 63rd Guards Aviation Regiment, which is in the Baltics. The new plane became a real "bully" for the Germans. During a month-long air battle, the La-7 regiment destroyed 55 enemy fighters, losing only 4 aircraft in combat and 3 in accidents.The La-7 looks similar to the La-5FN, but surpasses its predecessor in terms of flight speed, lift and maximum altitude thanks to its updated technical characteristics. And more importantly, the La-7 outperforms almost all German aircraft of the time. In combat maneuvering, the La-7 showed better lift than the FW-190 and Me-109, catching up with them both in ascending turns and in combat reversal. Experience has shown that it is better to get away from the blow of the enemy, who went into the tail, a steep ascending spiral. La-7 could fight with great success with a superior enemy.I will give such an example as proof. On August 25, Major Voronko's group of six La-7s flew to clear the airspace of enemy aircraft. As a result, out of 12 FW-190s and two Me-109Gs, seven aircraft were shot down, six of them FW-190s. One plane was lost on the Soviet side, the pilot escaped on a parachute.Luftwaffe pilots often prefer to avoid direct battles with these powerful Soviet aircraft, so the German command sends only the best of the best against La-7 pilots. For example, the elite German wing Jagdgeschwader 54 (JG 54), to which aces such as Otto Kitel (267 air victories) and Walter Novotny (258) belong, are often redirected to the front lines where the Soviet La-7s serve.LA-7 is the aircraft preferred by the greatest Soviet aces, such as Ivan Kozhedub, VD Lavrinenkov, Amet-Khan Sultan and others.This explains why I prefer the LA-7 to the latest modifications of the Messerschmitt Bf.109 and the Focke-Wulf Fw-190 interceptor.And why do I put it over the P-51 Mustang?Have you ever wondered why Soviet fighter pilots, especially aces, did not want to hear about the Supermarine Spitfire and P-51 Mustang delivered by Land Lease?This is not just about machine guns, not cannons, although that is a factor, especially with Spitfire. For non-shooting shooters, American and British pilots, a bundle of 0.500-inch machine guns may have been the only way to hit anything, but the Soviet and German aces were excellent marksmen and achieved the same with 1-2 shots from their cannons, and projectile and bullet damage simply cannot be compared.The bigger problem that P-51 Mustang fans obviously don't understand is that it's not designed and isn't actually a fighter to gain air superiority. It was created and is mainly used as an escort fighter for bomber formations. High speed due to excellent aerodynamic characteristics, excellent altitude characteristics and long range allowed the P-51 to reliably cover the bombers in the deep German rear or over the Pacific Ocean and Japan. The problem is that it is precisely these characteristics that make it not particularly good for maneuverable air combat. To be maneuverable, an aircraft must be somewhat aerodynamically unstable.As the Americans themselves understood in a difficult way, after decades of efforts in the wrong direction for the development of fighters, until May 1964, when the scientific work called "Theory of Maneuverability and Energy" was authored by Major John Boyd of the US Air Force and civilian mathematician Thomas Christie put them back on track and led to the creation of one of the best fighters ever in history - F-15 Eagle. An airplane that, in addition to fame, returned normalcy to the US Air Force. And who put them on the path to being the best modern fighter aircraft today.PS.Lavochkin's design office makes another single-engine piston fighter - LA-9, which is probably the best in this class at all time. But this is after the end of World War II.References:Калинин А. П. Истребители над «Голубой линией». — М.: Воениздат, 1963.Сухов К. В. Эскадрилья ведёт бой. — М.: ДОСААФ, 1983.Покрышкин А. И.Тактика истребительной авиации. — Новосибирск: Издательский дом «Сибирская горница», 1999Coram, Robert (2002), Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of WarCross, Roy (1962), The Fighter Aircraft Pocket Book, Jarrold and Sons, Ltd.Eden, Paul (2004), The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII, Amber Books, Ltd, London,Gunston, Bill; Spick, Mike (1983), Modern Air Combat, Crescent Books,Hammond, Grant T. (2001), The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security, Smithsonian Institution Press,Lee, John (1942), Fighter Facts and Fallacies, William Morrow and CompanyShaw, Robert (1985), Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering Naval Institute Press,Spick, Mike (1995), Designed for the Kill: The Jet Fighter—Development and Experience United States Naval Institute,