JSF contract
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the present world political situation, foreign government are going to deny the use of their airbases, perhaps we should resurrect the TSR2, something with long legs and heavy payload. 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saddo Warning!
F-35?
I don't think so. The last fighter in the series was the YF-23, I think, the loser in the last big fighter contest. I am unaware of 24 being used, so that would logically be the next number. The X-35 was given an experimental numbe, as it is a technology "prover" first.
Although the F-117 appears to break convention, it did not really, as it's conception was during the time of the 'Century Series' (F-101, F-111 etc). Therefore, it is possible that 35 will be ditched in favour of something in the 20's.
OK, sad or what - I'll get back in me box. Before I close the lid though, whilst the X-35 looks like an attack machine, I am concercerned that the 'extra' engine will become a liability in operation, and as such, could threaten the STOVL version. We will see.
F-35?
I don't think so. The last fighter in the series was the YF-23, I think, the loser in the last big fighter contest. I am unaware of 24 being used, so that would logically be the next number. The X-35 was given an experimental numbe, as it is a technology "prover" first.
Although the F-117 appears to break convention, it did not really, as it's conception was during the time of the 'Century Series' (F-101, F-111 etc). Therefore, it is possible that 35 will be ditched in favour of something in the 20's.
OK, sad or what - I'll get back in me box. Before I close the lid though, whilst the X-35 looks like an attack machine, I am concercerned that the 'extra' engine will become a liability in operation, and as such, could threaten the STOVL version. We will see.
"- Three!"
-117 wasn't conceived in the -Century era. The number was used as a deliberate 'cover' when its official title was still only 'Senior Trend'. It helped that Tonopah and Groom routinely had ATC traffic referred to as F-113s, -114s, etc. - the ex-Egyptian and Algerian MiG-21s and 23s and the Syrian MiG-17s. The -117 'fitted right in'.
"Out!"
-117 wasn't conceived in the -Century era. The number was used as a deliberate 'cover' when its official title was still only 'Senior Trend'. It helped that Tonopah and Groom routinely had ATC traffic referred to as F-113s, -114s, etc. - the ex-Egyptian and Algerian MiG-21s and 23s and the Syrian MiG-17s. The -117 'fitted right in'.
"Out!"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saddo 4.
This is how F-35 was announced (not very convincingly) at the Pentagon news conference:
Journo: What's going to be the nomenclature for these airplanes? What's the designation?
Pete Aldridge (Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions): Very good question. It's going to be called -- the Lockheed version was the X-35 --
James Roche (Secretary of the Air Force): Mike knows. Mike knows the answer.
Aldridge: Mike, the answer is?
Maj Gen Mike Hough (JSF Program Manager): F-35.
Aldridge: F-35. Thank you, I knew -- X-35 was the Lockheed --
Journo: How did you decide on that? Where does that come from, the F-35?
Maj Gen Hough: It's a list of the different variants, different companies, different --
Aldridge: The Boeing version was X-32.
Journo: Okay.
This is how F-35 was announced (not very convincingly) at the Pentagon news conference:
Journo: What's going to be the nomenclature for these airplanes? What's the designation?
Pete Aldridge (Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions): Very good question. It's going to be called -- the Lockheed version was the X-35 --
James Roche (Secretary of the Air Force): Mike knows. Mike knows the answer.
Aldridge: Mike, the answer is?
Maj Gen Mike Hough (JSF Program Manager): F-35.
Aldridge: F-35. Thank you, I knew -- X-35 was the Lockheed --
Journo: How did you decide on that? Where does that come from, the F-35?
Maj Gen Hough: It's a list of the different variants, different companies, different --
Aldridge: The Boeing version was X-32.
Journo: Okay.
With a design requirement for the internal carriage of 2x900 kg bombs, the aircraft is hardly a 'fighter'! So perhaps not 'F-24' but 'B-24'? Oops - that's been done before. So let's compromise and call it the 'Lockheed Martin F-35 Liberator II' ?
I don't think so.........
I don't think so.........
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: jerez
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not Starfighter II? That was small, pointy, good looking but didn't carry much kit, either. Right maker too.
I tend to agree on the "buy lots of Gripens" view - especially as we have a bigger share there!
I tend to agree on the "buy lots of Gripens" view - especially as we have a bigger share there!
Delightful though the Gripen certainly is, I can't see it meeting the RN requirement!
Hunter II - nope, there can only ever be one Hunter!! Or one Spitfire!! Starfighter? - not an enviable accident reputation - but better than the Sea Vixn, I gather!!
Hunter II - nope, there can only ever be one Hunter!! Or one Spitfire!! Starfighter? - not an enviable accident reputation - but better than the Sea Vixn, I gather!!
BEagle
POI
1) Saab have done some work on a Sea Gripen, capable of being operated from short STOBAR carriers. (NB the basic aircraft has a formidable short landing/road strip capability, 'cos it's Swedish and has to).
2) UK plc could buy between 3 and 4 Gripens for the cost it will be paying for one JSF...... (c.£70m each, a far cry from the $38 m price which was supposed to be guaranteed for the Naval JSF!). Even EF is cheaper (£61 m incl. all R&D, £42 m unit production cost - which is what we'd pay for aircraft above and beyond the 232 on order).
3) UK plc would have guaranteed workshare, not just the right to bid for it (against local companies in pork-barreling US States).
4) The UK could guarantee getting the full-standard, top-of-the range model of Gripen.
5) Gripen's available and working now, with datalink, and all the other bells and whistles that are actually needed for Post Cold War operations.
6) Drawbacks? Sure, plenty, chiefly that it's single-engined. But hold on, isn't.......
POI
1) Saab have done some work on a Sea Gripen, capable of being operated from short STOBAR carriers. (NB the basic aircraft has a formidable short landing/road strip capability, 'cos it's Swedish and has to).
2) UK plc could buy between 3 and 4 Gripens for the cost it will be paying for one JSF...... (c.£70m each, a far cry from the $38 m price which was supposed to be guaranteed for the Naval JSF!). Even EF is cheaper (£61 m incl. all R&D, £42 m unit production cost - which is what we'd pay for aircraft above and beyond the 232 on order).
3) UK plc would have guaranteed workshare, not just the right to bid for it (against local companies in pork-barreling US States).
4) The UK could guarantee getting the full-standard, top-of-the range model of Gripen.
5) Gripen's available and working now, with datalink, and all the other bells and whistles that are actually needed for Post Cold War operations.
6) Drawbacks? Sure, plenty, chiefly that it's single-engined. But hold on, isn't.......
