F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why are they continuing production of the Typhoon when the 'old' F22 will eat it for lunch.
http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/videos/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv
http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/videos/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had any idea about aviation you would know that the F22 has broken the bank thougg it is a generation ahead of Typhoon. Unless however we are going up against the USAF, we don't need the F22, even if we were ****ting dollars and could afford it.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EGFF
Age: 43
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats an impressive display. Saw the Raptor at RAF Fairford as it left to display at Farnborough this year. On return the Raptor pilot put on a little show for those of us gathered to see the a/c returning after the cancellation of RIAT, what an aircraft! 
Although the Euro Fighter Typhoon isn't to be written off either. 
Although the Euro Fighter Typhoon isn't to be written off either.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stop all Typhoon production and give the taxpayers a break
http://www.militarytimes.com/multime...0080714_rc_f22
http://www.militarytimes.com/multime...0080714_rc_f22
It would have been an upset had it gone the other way. The RNoAF has had a great time with the F-16, the US taxpayer stumped up for most of the MLU - one of the best-value programs I have ever seen, period - and two generations of pilots have trained and exchanged in the sunny US of A. And the price is a hell of a deal, which I'm sure the USAF would love to lock in if it were not illegal to do so.
So it's all for now, but it will be 
before bedtime unless JSF vastly outperforms the last six major all-new US combat aircraft programs - B-1, B-2, Classic Hornet, V-22, F-22 and A-12.
So it's all
for now, but it will be before bedtime unless JSF vastly outperforms the last six major all-new US combat aircraft programs - B-1, B-2, Classic Hornet, V-22, F-22 and A-12.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the Norwegian MOD the F-35 beat the JAS-39N on every single criteria laid down in the "contest".
The Gripen fell way short, and was deemed "unfit for purpose" in quite a few situations.
The ability to defend airspace and territorial waters in medium and high scale conflict situations was one where the Gripen fell short, with range/payload and survivability issues stated as the reason.
The prime minister said in a TV interview "...it was not a close race at all...."
SAAB stock fell 10%+ on the Stockholm stock exchange yesterday.
The Gripen fell way short, and was deemed "unfit for purpose" in quite a few situations.
The ability to defend airspace and territorial waters in medium and high scale conflict situations was one where the Gripen fell short, with range/payload and survivability issues stated as the reason.
The prime minister said in a TV interview "...it was not a close race at all...."
SAAB stock fell 10%+ on the Stockholm stock exchange yesterday.
Brick,
Classic Hornet: Promise, 500-mile strike radius; result, way less than that, and by the time it had decent avionics (C/D) it was so heavy that the D had no bring-back.
B-1B. Initial goal, crank out 100 jets fast and cheap during the B-2 risk-reduction phase. Result: ECM nightmare, cost overruns, reliability issue.
B-2. Goal: 132 jets. Result, 21 jets due to delays and overruns, maintenance still horrific, vast price tags for any upgrades.
V-22. 22 years in development, expensive to buy and maintain, continuing engine durability issues, tiny payload for its size and cost.
A-12. Overpromised, failed dismally.
F-22. Mostly worked, except for promised low-maintenance stealth (which still seems to be a problem), less-than-expected combat radius and horrible costs for DMS and upgrades...
Most nations have not done much better...
But if only there was one nation somewhere that had been among the first two or three countries to introduce swept wing fighters, practical supersonic fighters, integrated radar/missile systems, datalinks, pulse-Doppler radar, large-screen glass cockpits, and had done it on tiny budgets... and if that country was the only one ever to field a new fighter that cost less to operate than its predecessor...
Classic Hornet: Promise, 500-mile strike radius; result, way less than that, and by the time it had decent avionics (C/D) it was so heavy that the D had no bring-back.
B-1B. Initial goal, crank out 100 jets fast and cheap during the B-2 risk-reduction phase. Result: ECM nightmare, cost overruns, reliability issue.
B-2. Goal: 132 jets. Result, 21 jets due to delays and overruns, maintenance still horrific, vast price tags for any upgrades.
V-22. 22 years in development, expensive to buy and maintain, continuing engine durability issues, tiny payload for its size and cost.
A-12. Overpromised, failed dismally.
F-22. Mostly worked, except for promised low-maintenance stealth (which still seems to be a problem), less-than-expected combat radius and horrible costs for DMS and upgrades...
Most nations have not done much better...
But if only there was one nation somewhere that had been among the first two or three countries to introduce swept wing fighters, practical supersonic fighters, integrated radar/missile systems, datalinks, pulse-Doppler radar, large-screen glass cockpits, and had done it on tiny budgets... and if that country was the only one ever to field a new fighter that cost less to operate than its predecessor...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
-22. Mostly worked, except for promised low-maintenance stealth (which still seems to be a problem), less-than-expected combat radius and horrible costs for DMS and upgrades...
Pentagon acquisition executive John Young says the U.S. Air Force will spend $8 billion to upgrade 100 F-22 fighters, which he said would be "lesser models" without the modifications.
The money, which will be used to create and install better software and make other unspecified modifications, is included in the 2010 defense spending blueprint that will be handed to the incoming Obama administration, Young told reporters during a Nov. 20 breakfast in Washington.
"The Air Force had planned and accepted to have a two-tiered structure where some of the earlier jets were not fully capable jets, not to the Block 35 configuration, which provides important capabilities. I think something like 100 jets would kind of be lesser models" under that plan, Young said. "One thing that's in the [2010 budget plan] is to bring more of that fleet to common, high-end, capable configuration. The cost of that is $6.3 billion of [research and development].".........
But that's not all the next Pentagon leaders will have to debate about the super-secret Raptor, he said. He said operational tests have showed the plane is "proving very expensive to operate." Those tests have shown what he called a negative trend, meaning the "maintenance man-hours per flying hour has increased through those tests. The last one was a substantial increase."
Young also expressed concerns about the plane's mission-capable rates, saying recent marks in the "62 percent kind of range" are "troubling." He also said data shows the plane "meets some but not all" of its key performance parameters. "We're not seeing the mission-capable rates that we expected. And it's complex to maintain," Young told reporters. "I would highlight the maintenance on the plane is too high. They are struggling with some of the [low-observable features] and other issues.".............
Guest
Posts: n/a
The YF-22 first flew in September 1990
The EU Typhoon first flew in March 1994
One thrust vectored F-22 most likely would be able to down 4 Typhoons in short order. Let the war game begin
Why is the EU still producing these inferior Typhoons and wasting good taxpayer's Euros?
The EU Typhoon first flew in March 1994
One thrust vectored F-22 most likely would be able to down 4 Typhoons in short order. Let the war game begin
Why is the EU still producing these inferior Typhoons and wasting good taxpayer's Euros?
MOL - perhaps on the planet you're living on (one where we Brits have signed up to the European single currency instead of retaining the Pound) but...
It's already been explained that the main reason we Europeans haven't bought into the F-22 is because we can't afford the thing; also because ,
1. Based on past history, we don't trust you American chappies not to offer marginally downgraded versions (understandable) which would be much more expensive but but not so much more capable than Typhoon as to justify the difference in price.
2. Because it'd cost an absolute fortune to procure
3. Because we would want a degree of tech transfer and operational sovereignty that the US is quite unlikely to grant (understandable)
4. Because the cost of operating the things is too much for us to bear with our defence budgets
5. Because it would be politically unacceptable to obtain a highly expensive platform which is perceived as being an irrelevance in modern operations. Typhoon, designed from the outset as a multi-role platform, has faced this charge, so how d'you think the idea of buying the archetypal Cold War legacy combat aircraft would go down with the media over here?
6. Because we don't think we're likely to be running into hordes of enemy F-22s in the lifetime of the Typhoon, just as one would hope that no US citizen will be hoping to see a USAF F-22 take on four Luftwaffe Typhoons at any point in the next century... So, we are content with the idea that the Typhoon will be able to handle itself against likely adversaries, not least since any really difficult adversaries are going to be tackled in coaltion with the US which has F-22s. Another reason why we don't quite see the need to buy the F-22 instead.
7. Did I mention the cost?
By the by, if you're claiming the YF-22 as the progentior of the F-22 (not unreasonable) I have to note that the EAP, a similar progentior of the operational type which ultimately emerged, flew in 1986.
It's already been explained that the main reason we Europeans haven't bought into the F-22 is because we can't afford the thing; also because ,
1. Based on past history, we don't trust you American chappies not to offer marginally downgraded versions (understandable) which would be much more expensive but but not so much more capable than Typhoon as to justify the difference in price.
2. Because it'd cost an absolute fortune to procure
3. Because we would want a degree of tech transfer and operational sovereignty that the US is quite unlikely to grant (understandable)
4. Because the cost of operating the things is too much for us to bear with our defence budgets
5. Because it would be politically unacceptable to obtain a highly expensive platform which is perceived as being an irrelevance in modern operations. Typhoon, designed from the outset as a multi-role platform, has faced this charge, so how d'you think the idea of buying the archetypal Cold War legacy combat aircraft would go down with the media over here?
6. Because we don't think we're likely to be running into hordes of enemy F-22s in the lifetime of the Typhoon, just as one would hope that no US citizen will be hoping to see a USAF F-22 take on four Luftwaffe Typhoons at any point in the next century... So, we are content with the idea that the Typhoon will be able to handle itself against likely adversaries, not least since any really difficult adversaries are going to be tackled in coaltion with the US which has F-22s. Another reason why we don't quite see the need to buy the F-22 instead.
7. Did I mention the cost?
By the by, if you're claiming the YF-22 as the progentior of the F-22 (not unreasonable) I have to note that the EAP, a similar progentior of the operational type which ultimately emerged, flew in 1986.
Last edited by Archimedes; 22nd Nov 2008 at 00:57.