F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Plenty More Verbiage at this Long Explanatory Article
Refer to this recent post for SRVL technique: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7998153
Tailored to Trap 01 Dec 2012 Frank Colucci
Avionics Magazine :: Tailored to Trap
Tailored to Trap 01 Dec 2012 Frank Colucci
"...The flight control software, hosted in identical Vehicle Management Computers (VMC), uses a scheme called dynamic inversion (DI). DI allows the desired aircraft response — linear and angular accelerations — to be implemented directly in control laws, thereby reducing the control gain “tuning” required in the development process.
At the heart of the JSF DI implementation is a variant-specific On-Board Model (OBM). The OBM predicts, for the current state of the aircraft, the response that will result from various control surface deflections. Given pilot commands, the VMCs “invert” the OBM in real-time to determine what control surface deflections will provide the desired response. Canin, a Former Navy A-7 pilot, has flown all the JSF versions and now tests the F-35B and C models at Pax River. “Across all three variants, there’s almost no difference in the response to pilot inputs, only in the aerodynamic models used to achieve the response,” he said. “We define the response we want, and the software figures out what to do with the control surfaces.”
Canin added, “That’s the beauty of using this approach when you’re developing three airplanes concurrently. By restricting the differences to the onboard models, the aircraft response developed for one variant transfers naturally to the others.” Common control law development affords cost savings across the JSF variants.
Safe carrier approaches require the airplane be stabilized in the correct glideslope and attitude to touch down with the proper geometry and rate of descent. Carrier pilots maintain that glideslope with visual reference to an optical landing aid on the ship, or “meatball.” They make continuous power changes while holding the aircraft at a near-constant angle of attack (alpha). According to Canin, “If we’re going to hold alpha constant, then the only way to change lift is by accelerating or decelerating the airplane. We do this with power, but because of engine lag and aircraft inertia, there’s a lot of anticipation required, and a lot of corrections and counter-corrections. Doing that well requires skill, seat-of-the-pants [flying], and a lot of practice.”
He offered, “A much better approach would be to control the coefficient of lift itself, by changing the camber of the wing.”...
...Though not currently part of the F-35 plan [I'll imagine it is now for the F-35B SRVL as seen in the video], implementing a “ship-referenced velocity vector” (SRVV) would allow the pilot to put the SRVV on the intended touchdown point to hold glideslope. “All we would need to know from the ship is its current velocity, so we can put the airplane symbology in that reference frame,” Canin said.
Readily rewritten control laws have other possibilities. “With the current flight control law, the pilot commands pitch rate with the stick, and uses that pitch rate to establish a glideslope,” noted Canin. “There’s no reason, though, why the flight control system couldn’t establish a baseline glideslope, and allow the pilot to apply control stick pressure to command tweaks around that glideslope in response to ball deviations.” A “glideslope command” mechanization of this sort is not in the baseline airplane now, but is an example of the type of changes that could relatively easily be incorporated in the F-35 control system.
For recoveries in the worst weather, the A-7 and other carrier aircraft flew coupled automatic landings based on radar tracking and datalinked commands from the ship. Canin confided, “I’d break out of it in-close the few times I did one. The pilot doesn’t’ get a [landing] grade if he lets George [autopilot] fly it to touchdown.”
The JSF test program currently has no autolanding requirement, but plans call for an F-35C autolanding capability based on the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System. “The F-35 will take more of a self-contained approach — an internally generated glideslope from GPS.”
IDLC is just one part of the F-35 test program which will now include tests of a refined tailhook for arrested landings. “We look at approach handling qualities every chance we get,” said Canin. “Where the rubber meets the road, though, is at touchdown. Until recently we haven’t had a loads clearance that allowed us to do carrier-type landings, but now we do, so now we’ll be able to look at our control precision to touchdown.”..."
At the heart of the JSF DI implementation is a variant-specific On-Board Model (OBM). The OBM predicts, for the current state of the aircraft, the response that will result from various control surface deflections. Given pilot commands, the VMCs “invert” the OBM in real-time to determine what control surface deflections will provide the desired response. Canin, a Former Navy A-7 pilot, has flown all the JSF versions and now tests the F-35B and C models at Pax River. “Across all three variants, there’s almost no difference in the response to pilot inputs, only in the aerodynamic models used to achieve the response,” he said. “We define the response we want, and the software figures out what to do with the control surfaces.”
Canin added, “That’s the beauty of using this approach when you’re developing three airplanes concurrently. By restricting the differences to the onboard models, the aircraft response developed for one variant transfers naturally to the others.” Common control law development affords cost savings across the JSF variants.
Safe carrier approaches require the airplane be stabilized in the correct glideslope and attitude to touch down with the proper geometry and rate of descent. Carrier pilots maintain that glideslope with visual reference to an optical landing aid on the ship, or “meatball.” They make continuous power changes while holding the aircraft at a near-constant angle of attack (alpha). According to Canin, “If we’re going to hold alpha constant, then the only way to change lift is by accelerating or decelerating the airplane. We do this with power, but because of engine lag and aircraft inertia, there’s a lot of anticipation required, and a lot of corrections and counter-corrections. Doing that well requires skill, seat-of-the-pants [flying], and a lot of practice.”
He offered, “A much better approach would be to control the coefficient of lift itself, by changing the camber of the wing.”...
...Though not currently part of the F-35 plan [I'll imagine it is now for the F-35B SRVL as seen in the video], implementing a “ship-referenced velocity vector” (SRVV) would allow the pilot to put the SRVV on the intended touchdown point to hold glideslope. “All we would need to know from the ship is its current velocity, so we can put the airplane symbology in that reference frame,” Canin said.
Readily rewritten control laws have other possibilities. “With the current flight control law, the pilot commands pitch rate with the stick, and uses that pitch rate to establish a glideslope,” noted Canin. “There’s no reason, though, why the flight control system couldn’t establish a baseline glideslope, and allow the pilot to apply control stick pressure to command tweaks around that glideslope in response to ball deviations.” A “glideslope command” mechanization of this sort is not in the baseline airplane now, but is an example of the type of changes that could relatively easily be incorporated in the F-35 control system.
For recoveries in the worst weather, the A-7 and other carrier aircraft flew coupled automatic landings based on radar tracking and datalinked commands from the ship. Canin confided, “I’d break out of it in-close the few times I did one. The pilot doesn’t’ get a [landing] grade if he lets George [autopilot] fly it to touchdown.”
The JSF test program currently has no autolanding requirement, but plans call for an F-35C autolanding capability based on the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System. “The F-35 will take more of a self-contained approach — an internally generated glideslope from GPS.”
IDLC is just one part of the F-35 test program which will now include tests of a refined tailhook for arrested landings. “We look at approach handling qualities every chance we get,” said Canin. “Where the rubber meets the road, though, is at touchdown. Until recently we haven’t had a loads clearance that allowed us to do carrier-type landings, but now we do, so now we’ll be able to look at our control precision to touchdown.”..."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 7th Sep 2013 at 00:42. Reason: Old SRVL technique URL
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
CVF PAINT JOB - Deck of Thermion?
Perhaps the rags of glad will be useful here.... (if only to wipe the drippy sarcasm). 
I feel a THERMION coming on.... 
The Forth of July RN Navy News August 2013 page 7
201308 Navy News Aug 13=
I feel a THERMION coming on.... The Forth of July RN Navy News August 2013 page 7
"...All that remains to add to the Queen now are two sponsons on her flight deck and her ski jump ramp.
The first of the five pieces of the ramp was installed in mid-July. By October, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be complete outwardly - although there's a lot of work inside to finish off. And she still needs to be painted a traditional RN grey.
To date only the window seals and frames on the carrier's two islands are painted in her final livery. Everything else requires at least one, or more, coatings of paint (there will be five layers on the finished ship - in all she requires 1,500,000 square metres of paintwork, which would turn an area the size of London's Hyde Park grey).
Those coatings - including a special paint on the flight deck which will be sufficiently resistant to take the poundings from aircraft landing and the heat from the jet engines of the F35 Lighting[sic] II strike fighters - will be applied over the coming 12 months in time for the carrier's launch next summer...."
The first of the five pieces of the ramp was installed in mid-July. By October, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be complete outwardly - although there's a lot of work inside to finish off. And she still needs to be painted a traditional RN grey.
To date only the window seals and frames on the carrier's two islands are painted in her final livery. Everything else requires at least one, or more, coatings of paint (there will be five layers on the finished ship - in all she requires 1,500,000 square metres of paintwork, which would turn an area the size of London's Hyde Park grey).
Those coatings - including a special paint on the flight deck which will be sufficiently resistant to take the poundings from aircraft landing and the heat from the jet engines of the F35 Lighting[sic] II strike fighters - will be applied over the coming 12 months in time for the carrier's launch next summer...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 9th Sep 2013 at 06:57.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Op-Ed: Disarmament by F-35?
PARIS --- The latest round of Dutch defense cuts is an apt illustration of how defense readiness across NATO is being damaged by government insistence on procuring the F-35 fighter at whatever cost, despite its recurring delays and very serious technical faults and design shortcomings.
Two prospective buyers, Canada and the Netherlands, have established firm price caps on their F-35 acquisition budgets to prevent cost blow-outs, but because costs continue to increase, the number of aircraft they will be able to buy is being constantly reduced. This also reduces their military usefulness, as the fewer the aircraft, the lower their overall operational effectiveness.
The Netherlands are an apt illustration of the dangers of such an approach. It was originally due to buy 85 F-35s, but successive Dutch governments have reduced this number to 58, which, as the Algemene Rekenkamer (AR), the independent state auditor, concluded in its Oct. 25, 2013 report, are not even enough to fulfill Dutch commitments to NATO. Nonetheless, the F-35 program will absorb half the defense ministry’s total capital expenditure budget for six years, starving other programs of funding. The current Dutch government now simply plans to buy as many aircraft as it can with its €4 billion budget – fewer than 40, the Rekenkamer estimated. But even to afford this reduced number, it must cut most other defense spending. The latest round of cuts, reported Sept. 5, is worth €330 million, and will entail the sale of a logistics support ship which is still being built, the scrapping of an entire Army battalion and the mothballing of six or seven more F-16 fighters.
The situation is broadly similar in Canada, where the government has placed a price cap of $8.9 billion on its F-35 acquisition budget, without being able to say how many aircraft this will buy. Yet, it is gradually becoming apparent that cuts in other parts of the defense budget will be needed to protect F-35 funding, and an Aug. 13 report in the National Post was headlined “F-35 purchase may force Conservatives to chop infantry battalion from cash-strapped military.”
And it’s really no different in the United States. Under the pressure of sequestration, the Pentagon will have to choose between a “much smaller force” or a decade-long “holiday” from modernizing its weapon systems, to quote defense secretary Chuck Hagel. Frank Kendall, the Pentagon acquisitions chief, has already indicated that the F-35 program, and a few other top priority programs, will be protected from further cuts, but this means that “remaining programs in the procurement account would have to be cut even more than the 16% average reduction for the whole [acquisition] account,” as the Lexington Institute’s Lauren B. Thompson recently noted.
In the United States as in the Netherlands and Canada, the F-35 is soaking up much of the available acquisition funding, at the expense of other programs or activities that will have to be stretched out or cut altogether. One example is the US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program, which Defense News reported Sept. 2 may be cut from 52 to 24, and others are still emerging. On current trends, the US Air Force one day will fly only F-35s, KC-46 tankers and the future Global Strike bomber, along with a few – by then elderly - F-22s. This will be a stunning loss of capability compared to the large and diversified combat fleet it operates today, but that is their choice, made by elected representatives and, indirectly, approved by voters.
But there is no reason for US allies to display the same stubborn insistence on buying the overpriced and underperforming F-35. This has already put some allies onto the slippery slope where they must sacrifice other programs to pay for ever-lower numbers of F-35s. Italy, for example, has already said it will reduce its F-35 off-take from 130 to 90 or fewer, while the UK is currently committed to buying 48, instead of the 150+ it originally planned, although it ultimately intends to buy more.
If current, short-sighted policies continue, these governments – whether in Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway or other countries – will wake up one day and realize they have forsaken their entire military capabilities to pay for a squadron or two of F-35s they cannot afford to fly.
PARIS --- The latest round of Dutch defense cuts is an apt illustration of how defense readiness across NATO is being damaged by government insistence on procuring the F-35 fighter at whatever cost, despite its recurring delays and very serious technical faults and design shortcomings.
Two prospective buyers, Canada and the Netherlands, have established firm price caps on their F-35 acquisition budgets to prevent cost blow-outs, but because costs continue to increase, the number of aircraft they will be able to buy is being constantly reduced. This also reduces their military usefulness, as the fewer the aircraft, the lower their overall operational effectiveness.
The Netherlands are an apt illustration of the dangers of such an approach. It was originally due to buy 85 F-35s, but successive Dutch governments have reduced this number to 58, which, as the Algemene Rekenkamer (AR), the independent state auditor, concluded in its Oct. 25, 2013 report, are not even enough to fulfill Dutch commitments to NATO. Nonetheless, the F-35 program will absorb half the defense ministry’s total capital expenditure budget for six years, starving other programs of funding. The current Dutch government now simply plans to buy as many aircraft as it can with its €4 billion budget – fewer than 40, the Rekenkamer estimated. But even to afford this reduced number, it must cut most other defense spending. The latest round of cuts, reported Sept. 5, is worth €330 million, and will entail the sale of a logistics support ship which is still being built, the scrapping of an entire Army battalion and the mothballing of six or seven more F-16 fighters.
The situation is broadly similar in Canada, where the government has placed a price cap of $8.9 billion on its F-35 acquisition budget, without being able to say how many aircraft this will buy. Yet, it is gradually becoming apparent that cuts in other parts of the defense budget will be needed to protect F-35 funding, and an Aug. 13 report in the National Post was headlined “F-35 purchase may force Conservatives to chop infantry battalion from cash-strapped military.”
And it’s really no different in the United States. Under the pressure of sequestration, the Pentagon will have to choose between a “much smaller force” or a decade-long “holiday” from modernizing its weapon systems, to quote defense secretary Chuck Hagel. Frank Kendall, the Pentagon acquisitions chief, has already indicated that the F-35 program, and a few other top priority programs, will be protected from further cuts, but this means that “remaining programs in the procurement account would have to be cut even more than the 16% average reduction for the whole [acquisition] account,” as the Lexington Institute’s Lauren B. Thompson recently noted.
In the United States as in the Netherlands and Canada, the F-35 is soaking up much of the available acquisition funding, at the expense of other programs or activities that will have to be stretched out or cut altogether. One example is the US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program, which Defense News reported Sept. 2 may be cut from 52 to 24, and others are still emerging. On current trends, the US Air Force one day will fly only F-35s, KC-46 tankers and the future Global Strike bomber, along with a few – by then elderly - F-22s. This will be a stunning loss of capability compared to the large and diversified combat fleet it operates today, but that is their choice, made by elected representatives and, indirectly, approved by voters.
But there is no reason for US allies to display the same stubborn insistence on buying the overpriced and underperforming F-35. This has already put some allies onto the slippery slope where they must sacrifice other programs to pay for ever-lower numbers of F-35s. Italy, for example, has already said it will reduce its F-35 off-take from 130 to 90 or fewer, while the UK is currently committed to buying 48, instead of the 150+ it originally planned, although it ultimately intends to buy more.
If current, short-sighted policies continue, these governments – whether in Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway or other countries – will wake up one day and realize they have forsaken their entire military capabilities to pay for a squadron or two of F-35s they cannot afford to fly.
Last edited by ORAC; 9th Sep 2013 at 15:53.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC a good post, my feelings entirely, there is in my view one part of the equation that you may have overlooked, the cost of keeping 4th generation planes in service beyond the time that initially the F35 was meant to be available from, so from a government's point of view, there have been higher than anticiapted costs to keep the old planes working, the promised cost savings in fleet running costs in comparison to the 4th Generation planes are in fact cost pressures and to cap it all the planes cost nearly twice as much as initially promissed, yes I know I am not comparing apples with apples but the acquisition cost was meant to be £65m in year X $ now it is north of $100m a plane.
Many factors that result in the overall plane purchase resource envelope to be reduced and thus the number of units to be reduced.
Many factors that result in the overall plane purchase resource envelope to be reduced and thus the number of units to be reduced.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, isn't that a funny oped
what's happening is that both sides of dutch gov have agreed that the f-35 is what they want
DutchNews.nl - Labour party now supports JSF fighter jet project: Nos
what's happening is that both sides of dutch gov have agreed that the f-35 is what they want
DutchNews.nl - Labour party now supports JSF fighter jet project: Nos
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFfan, that article simply goes to prove ORAC's posts point! An original order for 85, cut down to 58 and now, if the article is to be believed, cut down further to '30 to 40' just so they can afford to buy it!!!
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify, It's an OP ED written by a guy who has never had a kind word to say about the program! 
His OPinion based EDitorial is no more or less valid than the opinion of anyone else.
Maybe 'Giovanni de Briganti' is Italian for 'Low Observable'!
His OPinion based EDitorial is no more or less valid than the opinion of anyone else.
Maybe 'Giovanni de Briganti' is Italian for 'Low Observable'!
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 9th Sep 2013 at 23:58. Reason: spelling, typos...the usual!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Q. about F-35C (& X-47B) Arrestor Hook Answered - Sound File - TAILHOOK 2013
Tailhook 2013 Symposium Many Videos available - the first instance highlighted below.
Tailhook 2013 Symposium on Livestream
http://pdvod.new.livestream.com/even...2c05dcb2cc16e7 (1 hour 51 minutes) [413Mb]
Date
Fri Sep 6, 2013 5:00pm EDT — Sat Sep 7, 2013 7:00pm EDT
Question about F-35C (& co-incidentally X-47B) arrestor hook answered:
http://www.f-16.net/./modules/PNphpB...ok2013_167.wma (9Mb)
NOW with ADDed VIDEO (13Mb):
Tailhook 2013 Symposium on Livestream
http://pdvod.new.livestream.com/even...2c05dcb2cc16e7 (1 hour 51 minutes) [413Mb]
Date
Fri Sep 6, 2013 5:00pm EDT — Sat Sep 7, 2013 7:00pm EDT
Question about F-35C (& co-incidentally X-47B) arrestor hook answered:
http://www.f-16.net/./modules/PNphpB...ok2013_167.wma (9Mb)
NOW with ADDed VIDEO (13Mb):
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th Sep 2013 at 08:37. Reason: ADD VIDEO
Oh dear. That's a bit of a shocker, Orac. I think it was generally expected that some customers were likely to reduce their orders a bit, but that's a big cut. And actually doing it feels very different to just talking about it. I hope one jumper doesn't start to encourage others, not good for the UK's cost-per-unit figures in the longer run.
Absolutely wonderful. You're such a fanatic about this program and so blinkered to the issues that you can even see this bad news as a triumph for the wonder-jet. Perhaps it doesn't worry you as much, but I find it concerning because of the potential this has to cost the UK more, the likelihood that it could reduce NATO capability in Western Europe and the further uncertainty it casts over our future defence spending and, therefore, our ability to conduct future ops.
A fleet of working F-35s should increase capability. An under-sized, unaffordable F-35 fleet could do just the opposite.
Originally Posted by JSFfan
what's happening is that both sides of dutch gov have agreed that the f-35 is what they want
A fleet of working F-35s should increase capability. An under-sized, unaffordable F-35 fleet could do just the opposite.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 10th Sep 2013 at 08:38.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems with just talking numbers of aircraft in a fleet is that it takes no account of what I call military productivity.
How many WWII aircraft did it take to be sure to take out a bridge? – answer sometimes more than we had. How many aircraft with LGBs does it take to do the same thing today? – answer one.
How many F-16s will it take to have the same military capability as an F-35? - answer I don’t know but I would be surprised if it was not quite a few.
(Indeed it may even be that any number of F-16s could not do the job that one F-35 could do. Modern kit has amazing capabilities)
How many WWII aircraft did it take to be sure to take out a bridge? – answer sometimes more than we had. How many aircraft with LGBs does it take to do the same thing today? – answer one.
How many F-16s will it take to have the same military capability as an F-35? - answer I don’t know but I would be surprised if it was not quite a few.
(Indeed it may even be that any number of F-16s could not do the job that one F-35 could do. Modern kit has amazing capabilities)
Happy to agree with you John for interdiction sorties but these days we spend more time watching and talking to the guys on the ground; we go 'kinetic' far less often than you would think. As such, having less numbers within their line of sight will not be helpful.
The numbers game can be a tricky one. But governments don't just decide to buy lots of shiny new jets because they want them. They buy a specific number because they believe that number will give them the capability they need for their national interests. If they suddenly decide to reduce their fleet to less than half the original, planned size that must mean that they are no longer getting the capability they need.
Or are they so taken in by certain posters here that they now realise that the jet's so good that they only need 30-40 of them now?
Or are they so taken in by certain posters here that they now realise that the jet's so good that they only need 30-40 of them now?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original theme of this thread seems to be overtaken by reality by now, however a severe reduction for all, or most parties, involved seems to be ever more likely.
Even its US biggest supporters are more and more aware of this;
When it comes to the F-35, numbers count - The Hill's Congress Blog
Which begs the question , what if this becomes reality?
Maybe Boeing are positioning themselves very strategically by teaming up with SAAB to go for the TALON replacement contract
Sources: Boeing, Saab in Talks to Partner on Trainer Bid | Defense News | defensenews.com
This would then open the door for more deliveries to make up for the numbers lost by the F35 saga,
An Americanized advanced Gripen with the latest GE414 engines, Raytheon avionics all supported by Boeing might be the solution for the USAF and maybe even (far fetched maybe) the NAVY (Navalized Gripen)
could well be the low cost solution the US DoD needs to make up for the F35 debacle.
Also this would be a real solution for many of the potential customers who prefer to buy American (Big advanced supply chain, preferred partnership) but just cannot afford the F35 in sufficient numbers.
A real light weight, low cost but advanced enough mini Super Hornet.
Even its US biggest supporters are more and more aware of this;
When it comes to the F-35, numbers count - The Hill's Congress Blog
....
They’re right. Yet chatter about deep cuts to the F-35 continues even as the program has stabilized and production costs are coming down. It’s alarming because it suggests Pentagon leaders still have not fully connected with taxpayers and lawmakers as to why and how the F-35 is vital to national security.
....
They’re right. Yet chatter about deep cuts to the F-35 continues even as the program has stabilized and production costs are coming down. It’s alarming because it suggests Pentagon leaders still have not fully connected with taxpayers and lawmakers as to why and how the F-35 is vital to national security.
....
Maybe Boeing are positioning themselves very strategically by teaming up with SAAB to go for the TALON replacement contract
Sources: Boeing, Saab in Talks to Partner on Trainer Bid | Defense News | defensenews.com
WASHINGTON — Boeing and Saab are discussing a partnership on the US Air Force’s trainer replacement program, multiple industry sources have told Defense News.
If the arrangement goes forward, it opens the door for each to capture a long-delayed, highly prized Air Force contract to replace its aging T-38 trainers. The service intends to purchase 350 new trainers, likely pushing the contract award into the billions of dollars.
Talks between the companies are advanced and likely to lead to an agreement, the sources said. One said the deal is being held up primarily as a result of an Air Force decision to delay the program due to budget woes.
If the arrangement goes forward, it opens the door for each to capture a long-delayed, highly prized Air Force contract to replace its aging T-38 trainers. The service intends to purchase 350 new trainers, likely pushing the contract award into the billions of dollars.
Talks between the companies are advanced and likely to lead to an agreement, the sources said. One said the deal is being held up primarily as a result of an Air Force decision to delay the program due to budget woes.
An Americanized advanced Gripen with the latest GE414 engines, Raytheon avionics all supported by Boeing might be the solution for the USAF and maybe even (far fetched maybe) the NAVY (Navalized Gripen)
could well be the low cost solution the US DoD needs to make up for the F35 debacle.
Also this would be a real solution for many of the potential customers who prefer to buy American (Big advanced supply chain, preferred partnership) but just cannot afford the F35 in sufficient numbers.
A real light weight, low cost but advanced enough mini Super Hornet.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil wrote
"If they suddenly decide to reduce their fleet to less than half the original, planned size that must mean that they are no longer getting the capability they need."
maybe not what they need but what they can afford.............
"If they suddenly decide to reduce their fleet to less than half the original, planned size that must mean that they are no longer getting the capability they need."
maybe not what they need but what they can afford.............
Yes, I understand that it's all they can afford, but that's not the point. My point is that if, say, the Netherlands have calculated that they require 85 F-35s to fulfil their defence needs and then only buy, say, 30 then their defence requirements a clearly not going to be fulfilled. In other words, they will now have one or more capability gaps. If their previous fast jet was able to meet their defence needs then the F-35 (due to its price and lateness) will have decreased the Netherland's capability instead of increasing it.