F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eagle - I think you are correct about the chances of a buy in the near future, but what I think many hoped would be that we would get cats n traps to allow a lot more flexibility and capability in the future.
Instead we have a "carrier" that has the short range version of F-35 with no AAR, rotary limited AEW and limited chance of getting a useful UAV (ie that can project a long way) or anything else that can't do VSTOL.
The QEC has limited utility on its own - the platforms on it are essential for it to do a good job and justify the enormous expense and the lack of cat n trap severely limits the platforms that can be used.
I think the RN have a saying something along the lines of spoiling the ship for the want of a ha'penny worth of tar.
Instead we have a "carrier" that has the short range version of F-35 with no AAR, rotary limited AEW and limited chance of getting a useful UAV (ie that can project a long way) or anything else that can't do VSTOL.
The QEC has limited utility on its own - the platforms on it are essential for it to do a good job and justify the enormous expense and the lack of cat n trap severely limits the platforms that can be used.
I think the RN have a saying something along the lines of spoiling the ship for the want of a ha'penny worth of tar.
Last edited by Backwards PLT; 3rd Jun 2013 at 10:27.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
" no consideration of UK specific requirements."
UK Specific requirements = written for and by BAe shareholders...............
UK Specific requirements = written for and by BAe shareholders...............
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
y " no consideration of UK specific requirements."
UK Specific requirements = written for and by BAe shareholders...............
UK Specific requirements = written for and by BAe shareholders...............
Seriously Harry I'd do a teeny bit of research before having a pop. You'll just look a little silly otherwise.
Lockheed Martin are prime contractor for the HM2 upgrades to Merlin, the Vigilance Pod is a Northrup Grumman development of the AN/APG 81, Augusta Westland make the Merlin as a subcontractor to Lockheed.
The other contender is a joint bid by Thales and Augusta Westland. Thales being responsible for the existing Seaking ASAC.
Notice an abscence of BAE?
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 11th Apr 2013 at 16:32.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35B BF-03 performing the first AIM 120 Weapon Separation
Now where's that clip of an inverted F3 doing it properly, powered and guided!
Last edited by glad rag; 11th Apr 2013 at 16:43.
Yes, where is it? It might make a useful training video. Perhaps because the jet is designed to be primarily air-to-ground, they got the wrong experts involved in the AMRAAM integration and they didn't realise that air-to-air weapons get fired, not dropped.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eaglemmoomin
my "pop" was that over the last 50 years "british requirements" have been the excuse for a fabulously expensive set of changes to proven designs which have added little or no extra capability
LM being involved with the merlin doesn't make me feel any better TBH
To be fair it works both ways - I understand the B-57 was a very expensive "re-modification" of a perfectly respectable Canberra and we all know what happens when the USAF or the USN decide to adopt one of the other's aircraft..........
my "pop" was that over the last 50 years "british requirements" have been the excuse for a fabulously expensive set of changes to proven designs which have added little or no extra capability
LM being involved with the merlin doesn't make me feel any better TBH
To be fair it works both ways - I understand the B-57 was a very expensive "re-modification" of a perfectly respectable Canberra and we all know what happens when the USAF or the USN decide to adopt one of the other's aircraft..........
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eaglemmoomin
my "pop" was that over the last 50 years "british requirements" have been the excuse for a fabulously expensive set of changes to proven designs which have added little or no extra capability
LM being involved with the merlin doesn't make me feel any better TBH
To be fair it works both ways - I understand the B-57 was a very expensive "re-modification" of a perfectly respectable Canberra and we all know what happens when the USAF or the USN decide to adopt one of the other's aircraft..........
my "pop" was that over the last 50 years "british requirements" have been the excuse for a fabulously expensive set of changes to proven designs which have added little or no extra capability
LM being involved with the merlin doesn't make me feel any better TBH
To be fair it works both ways - I understand the B-57 was a very expensive "re-modification" of a perfectly respectable Canberra and we all know what happens when the USAF or the USN decide to adopt one of the other's aircraft..........
Mind you can complain about the process taking way too long, and some of those requirements being OTT or gold plated but that is what happens when the scope constantly changes and/or are ill-defined or event's occur to require lots of changes.
Of course when any hi tech industry that we have dies on it's aaris and the ripple effects across the supply chain and thus any service/job connected or reliant on those industries go into decline because we've become an even bigger net importer of goods than we already are, with an even more buggered economy because we are reliant on the 'financial services' (cos thats worked out fantastically well so far for us
) and people are complaining about not buying British and propping up the tax payers and national deficit of lots of other countries instead then I'm sure then people will stop listening to Lewis Page.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody seen this?
It's a fascinating program about a cheap light weight multi-national fighter program.
Very interesting to see some similarities and some differences to the F35 project.
It's a fascinating program about a cheap light weight multi-national fighter program.
Very interesting to see some similarities and some differences to the F35 project.
I understand the B-57 was a very expensive "re-modification" of a perfectly respectable Canberra and we all know what happens when the USAF or the USN decide to adopt one of the other's aircraft..........
A very interesting documentary, Moomin. The fact that they major on work-share, technology transfer and real costs to the customer (overseas in particular) isn't really a shock-horror revelation. And you're right, these may well be unpleasant similarities with the JSF programme. On the other hand, it may also be true to say that trying to tie down the workshare issue to avoid that sort of under-performance can also become a major stummbling block - look at Eurofighter and the legal hold-ups that caused.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. It won't be that many years before we see similar documentaries about JSF.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. It won't be that many years before we see similar documentaries about JSF.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 13th Apr 2013 at 10:48. Reason: A tricky missing "e"
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, from a UK persepective though I suspect we are 'ok' in several areas from an industrial and technological point of view, mostly due to experience from the Eurofighter production, development programs and the Tier 1 partner status. I can see though from a software point of view even though we may have 'limited access' to maybe some interface control documentation, other odds and sods, the review boards and maybe the software in small isolated subunits, we'd be totally stuffed without LM. Thus while in theory we have access in reality we (as in the UK) won't benefit from the data fusion technology and other cutting edge bits of the software development program..
It does look like the Netherlands are going through the same motions again.
It does look like the Netherlands are going through the same motions again.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 13th Apr 2013 at 11:26.
Differences between F-16 and JSF? Just a few...
The F-16 started with a contract for two demonstrators with no operational requirement. The JSF started as a plan to dominate the world of combat aircraft.
The F-16 was sold on the basis of proven flight performance, the differences between the demonstrator and the F-16A being quite small and most of the avionics intro'd on the F-16A being off-the-shelf. The F-35 was sold on the basis of a pure X-plane program. The contest-winning design bore a superficial resemblance to the X-35 and the post-weight-panic design different again.
The EPAF nations, after selecting the F-16, negotiated firm fixed-price production contracts with guaranteed offsets based on risk-sharing partnerships.
After the initial F-16A launch, export customers were supported in adding weapons and equipment (Rapport 3 jammers for Belgium, for instance).
If the JSF had run to the F-16 timescale (starting with the first prototype contracts) it would have reached IOC around 2003 and made its combat debut in 2005, and by now the original customers would be getting a major upgrade and the third-generation updated model would be in production.
So really, no differences at all.
The F-16 started with a contract for two demonstrators with no operational requirement. The JSF started as a plan to dominate the world of combat aircraft.
The F-16 was sold on the basis of proven flight performance, the differences between the demonstrator and the F-16A being quite small and most of the avionics intro'd on the F-16A being off-the-shelf. The F-35 was sold on the basis of a pure X-plane program. The contest-winning design bore a superficial resemblance to the X-35 and the post-weight-panic design different again.
The EPAF nations, after selecting the F-16, negotiated firm fixed-price production contracts with guaranteed offsets based on risk-sharing partnerships.
After the initial F-16A launch, export customers were supported in adding weapons and equipment (Rapport 3 jammers for Belgium, for instance).
If the JSF had run to the F-16 timescale (starting with the first prototype contracts) it would have reached IOC around 2003 and made its combat debut in 2005, and by now the original customers would be getting a major upgrade and the third-generation updated model would be in production.
So really, no differences at all.
Last edited by LowObservable; 13th Apr 2013 at 14:23.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"How do you know that about the B-57?"
See "Jet Bombers" by Bill Gunston - also includes the F-111 and the B-66 "re-invention" of the A3D.................. at enormous cost and little extra capability
See "Jet Bombers" by Bill Gunston - also includes the F-111 and the B-66 "re-invention" of the A3D.................. at enormous cost and little extra capability
Both the B-57 and B-66 stories are essentially true.
On the other hand, the economics of redesign were more reasonable than they might be today, given that the USAF built 400 B-57s and 300 B-66s. And some of the mods were not exactly irrational - ejection seats on the B-66 (there was a reason that A3D was said to stand for "all three dead"), and a proper windshield and Sapphire/J65s (versus adding a new engine to US inventory) on the B-57.
On the other hand, the economics of redesign were more reasonable than they might be today, given that the USAF built 400 B-57s and 300 B-66s. And some of the mods were not exactly irrational - ejection seats on the B-66 (there was a reason that A3D was said to stand for "all three dead"), and a proper windshield and Sapphire/J65s (versus adding a new engine to US inventory) on the B-57.
Originally Posted by Moomin
we'd be totally stuffed without LM.