Typhoons an Raptors
As a former US Marine, I find myself in agreement with Brick and Orac as to the relative success, or a better term, popularity of the Harrier.
The Marine Corps fancies itself expeditionary. That's an Indian term for get there with not nearly enough airpower to sustain anything but a minimal threat unless deployed at MEF level. As such there is a view that aircraft are disposable in a way that the other services don't share. When you look over your shoulder and hope to see your organic heavy weapons in support and it dawns on you that the MPS ships are still two days sail away, you know that at least your gonna have a handful of Harriers no more than a few dozen miles away.
The Marine Corps fancies itself expeditionary. That's an Indian term for get there with not nearly enough airpower to sustain anything but a minimal threat unless deployed at MEF level. As such there is a view that aircraft are disposable in a way that the other services don't share. When you look over your shoulder and hope to see your organic heavy weapons in support and it dawns on you that the MPS ships are still two days sail away, you know that at least your gonna have a handful of Harriers no more than a few dozen miles away.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Agreements to Enhance U.S., British Forces Interoperability
I wouldn't get carried away over the Bush statement. Clinton was similarly rosy. The bottom line is the sentence, "Together, we are working out the details," the statement said, "while remaining committed to these principles."
So it's just a statement of principles, a bit of spin for the end of the get together. The devil remains is in the details - and in the Congress. Bush may be giving his support, but he is already a lame duck predident and all his political capital is already spent...
Financial Times:
The statement provides support for the UK's position as it negotiates a production agreement with the US. A memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon is expected to be negotiated by the end of the year.
"We are very encouraged by the personal commitment shown by the president on JSF," said a Ministry of Defence official. "However, there is still some way to go to fully resolve technology transfer issues."
US officials had already said they hoped for a solution that would allow sharing. But there is an obstacle posed by members of Congress who worry that US secrets may leak out from Britain.......
(Background on ITAR and the road blocks of Hyde and Hunter in the Senate & House: DID - and why Bush and the White House are impotent to strike a deal)
I wouldn't get carried away over the Bush statement. Clinton was similarly rosy. The bottom line is the sentence, "Together, we are working out the details," the statement said, "while remaining committed to these principles."
So it's just a statement of principles, a bit of spin for the end of the get together. The devil remains is in the details - and in the Congress. Bush may be giving his support, but he is already a lame duck predident and all his political capital is already spent...
Financial Times:
The statement provides support for the UK's position as it negotiates a production agreement with the US. A memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon is expected to be negotiated by the end of the year.
"We are very encouraged by the personal commitment shown by the president on JSF," said a Ministry of Defence official. "However, there is still some way to go to fully resolve technology transfer issues."
US officials had already said they hoped for a solution that would allow sharing. But there is an obstacle posed by members of Congress who worry that US secrets may leak out from Britain.......
(Background on ITAR and the road blocks of Hyde and Hunter in the Senate & House: DID - and why Bush and the White House are impotent to strike a deal)
Last edited by ORAC; 27th May 2006 at 21:12.
RonO,
I don't know about flaming pants or half truths, but I'm merely quoting JSF figures from Defence Analysis, which is usually pretty rigorous, though using £ when they presumably meant dollars (as I repeated in one of my paragraphs) was poor.
That section should presumably read: "JSF procurement (exclusive of the SDD phase and long-term support) quoted at $10-billion for 150 aircraft. That was a $66.67-million UPC in 2002, with an adjusted UPC growth to $75.75 m in 2003, $90.15 m in 2004 and $104.6 m in 2005.
But the bottom line is that the Typhoon costs about £45-49 m today, and the JSF looks likely to cost US £56 m apiece, plus R&D, plus the £600 m of 'non SDD' spending identified by the NAO.
As I said. Nowhere did I suggest a figure of $200 m.
I don't care what Lockheed are predicting as a price at the moment. Unless and until they offer a guarantee or an absolute ceiling or cap it's meaningless. Typhoon has had some cost escalation problems, and I doubt that they're over. The total UK programme has already increased in cost by 14% over the past 15 years. That's pretty disgraceful. But it's at least better than JSF, whose total programme costs have increased 23% in just five years (2001-2005), and whose development phase costs rose by a staggering 81%! Nor has Lockheed's record on keeping to cost been impressive on F-22, or indeed on any of its recent programmes.
EF GmbH can tell a customer what a Typhoon will cost, and can guarantee that cost, which will be a tad higher than the partner nations pay (and three nations agree what they pay, and Britain did too, until the 2005 MPR). Lockheed cannot and will not.
Whose cost and price data is likely to be more reliable and more stable?
When it comes to Typhoon costs you pull one number out, while I'm citing several sources. Ditto JSF, you just parrot Lockheed's number (disputed by the GAO), while I have several numbers that "I'm pulling out of my ass."
If you're running the risk of being thought an idiot it will be for your spelling (heartly, rationale, loose etc.) and for your blind, unquestioning acceptance of the nonsense put out by Lockmart's PR department. I wonder what you think I've said that counts as "lies, distortions and half truths".
I don't know about flaming pants or half truths, but I'm merely quoting JSF figures from Defence Analysis, which is usually pretty rigorous, though using £ when they presumably meant dollars (as I repeated in one of my paragraphs) was poor.
That section should presumably read: "JSF procurement (exclusive of the SDD phase and long-term support) quoted at $10-billion for 150 aircraft. That was a $66.67-million UPC in 2002, with an adjusted UPC growth to $75.75 m in 2003, $90.15 m in 2004 and $104.6 m in 2005.
But the bottom line is that the Typhoon costs about £45-49 m today, and the JSF looks likely to cost US £56 m apiece, plus R&D, plus the £600 m of 'non SDD' spending identified by the NAO.
As I said. Nowhere did I suggest a figure of $200 m.
I don't care what Lockheed are predicting as a price at the moment. Unless and until they offer a guarantee or an absolute ceiling or cap it's meaningless. Typhoon has had some cost escalation problems, and I doubt that they're over. The total UK programme has already increased in cost by 14% over the past 15 years. That's pretty disgraceful. But it's at least better than JSF, whose total programme costs have increased 23% in just five years (2001-2005), and whose development phase costs rose by a staggering 81%! Nor has Lockheed's record on keeping to cost been impressive on F-22, or indeed on any of its recent programmes.
EF GmbH can tell a customer what a Typhoon will cost, and can guarantee that cost, which will be a tad higher than the partner nations pay (and three nations agree what they pay, and Britain did too, until the 2005 MPR). Lockheed cannot and will not.
Whose cost and price data is likely to be more reliable and more stable?
When it comes to Typhoon costs you pull one number out, while I'm citing several sources. Ditto JSF, you just parrot Lockheed's number (disputed by the GAO), while I have several numbers that "I'm pulling out of my ass."
If you're running the risk of being thought an idiot it will be for your spelling (heartly, rationale, loose etc.) and for your blind, unquestioning acceptance of the nonsense put out by Lockmart's PR department. I wonder what you think I've said that counts as "lies, distortions and half truths".
Originally Posted by Focks 2
Next image in the sequence. Inside the 1000ft TR bubble.
So, ahh........210kts closure @ 900ft with increasing G. I wouldn't be backing off either!! Worth the bubble bust
Gotta love those flying tennis courts.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Reporter.gr: 29 May 2006 - European Eurofighter consortium proposes a $5 billion industrial participation program to Turkey if it agrees to become the fifth partner of the group, matching the over $4 billion offer made by the multinational JSF group led by Lockheed Martin, reports Turkish Daily News.
The bidding game between the European Eurofighter consortium and the multinational Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) group entered a new stage over the weekend with Eurofighter -- which builds the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet -- proposing a $5 billion industrial participation program to Turkey, a deal that will take effect if Ankara decides to become the group's fifth partner, against the more than $4 billion offer made by the JSF group.
Giovanni Bertolone, chief executive officer for Alenia Aeronautica, said that the proposal involves the final assembly of the entire program beginning with the manufacture of aircraft for Turkey. An Alenia official said that the assembly work would involve about 100 aircraft for the Turkish Air Force plus over 300 aircraft the Eurofighter group hopes to sell to other buyers.
“This is a comprehensive proposal presently in the process of deep discussions [with the Turkish authorities],” Bertolone told reporters in Florence. “Our impression is that the SSM [Turkey's defense procurement office] are favorable toward this industrial participation proposal.”
He said if Turkey became the group's fifth partner, it would be tasked with promoting the fighter in “countries with which it has friendly relations,” like Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.
The bidding game between the European Eurofighter consortium and the multinational Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) group entered a new stage over the weekend with Eurofighter -- which builds the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet -- proposing a $5 billion industrial participation program to Turkey, a deal that will take effect if Ankara decides to become the group's fifth partner, against the more than $4 billion offer made by the JSF group.
Giovanni Bertolone, chief executive officer for Alenia Aeronautica, said that the proposal involves the final assembly of the entire program beginning with the manufacture of aircraft for Turkey. An Alenia official said that the assembly work would involve about 100 aircraft for the Turkish Air Force plus over 300 aircraft the Eurofighter group hopes to sell to other buyers.
“This is a comprehensive proposal presently in the process of deep discussions [with the Turkish authorities],” Bertolone told reporters in Florence. “Our impression is that the SSM [Turkey's defense procurement office] are favorable toward this industrial participation proposal.”
He said if Turkey became the group's fifth partner, it would be tasked with promoting the fighter in “countries with which it has friendly relations,” like Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He better be rolling right to keep the nose in plane!!! He's got a little alpha to use for a bit more nose position....
BTW that picture wouldn't of been illegal under the old Kiwi rules.
The bubble we had was 600ft horizontal and 200ft vertically.
BTW that picture wouldn't of been illegal under the old Kiwi rules.
The bubble we had was 600ft horizontal and 200ft vertically.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, I fear you misunderstand ITAR. Bush does not need Congress in order to approve technology transfer to the UK. My understanding is that the negotiations underway are to establish what the UK needs in order to do it's sovreign thingie with JSF i.e some mutually agreed subset of the whole. What Bush & Blair did was guarantee the successful outcome of those talks.
If I remember correctly Ol' Bubba transferred missile techology to the Chinese without going to Congress. But then that was a Democratic Party Administration in power.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If I remember correctly Ol' Bubba transferred missile techology to the Chinese without going to Congress.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's one snippet
"ITAR relates to Section 38 of the USA's Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778), which authorizes the President to control the export and import of defense articles and defense services."
"ITAR relates to Section 38 of the USA's Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778), which authorizes the President to control the export and import of defense articles and defense services."
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would also point out the oodles of JSF technology that's already gotten to the UK.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't mean to imply a one way flow. Quite clearly is not.
Meant to say that Lockheed can send info with just the Bush OK as proved by the fact they have been.
No strings?? mmm I doubt it, at least to the R-R bits. Not like them to forget to do patents.
Meant to say that Lockheed can send info with just the Bush OK as proved by the fact they have been.
No strings?? mmm I doubt it, at least to the R-R bits. Not like them to forget to do patents.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Strike Fighter Tests Transatlantic Ties & The Enemy Within. Copy of a FT article about UK-US defence relationships and an opposing opinion piece.
Endless server load warnings.
Both articles also posted at:
http://www.dedefensa.org/choix.php?link_id=6573&comm=1
Both articles also posted at:
http://www.dedefensa.org/choix.php?link_id=6573&comm=1
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Se here Jacko: Dedefensa.org