View Poll Results: AIR6000 - what's your choice?
F15E Strike Eagle
40
18.69%
F35 JSF
57
26.64%
F22 Raptor
40
18.69%
F18 E/F Super Hornet
23
10.75%
Typhoon / Rafale / F16 / other...
54
25.23%
Voters: 214. This poll is closed
$300 million on JSF... are they MAD ?!?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of Tassie
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ftrplt,Swingwing, DP, Jacko
Before the F-15 lobby signs on the dotted line, has anyone seen the AV Week article (May 27th, p47) 'Su-30MK Beats F-15C every time'?
Admittedly it's the C, but the same A-A arguments apply to the E.
Food for thought!!
Admittedly it's the C, but the same A-A arguments apply to the E.
Food for thought!!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Just a few words on the stand-alone capability of the JSF, since it appears to be in question.
The initial design assumption was that the JSF would be a consumer of sensor data, obtaining information from specialized intelligence-gathering aircraft, satellites, and other sources. This approach promised to keep costs of the JSF down.
Now the JSF is seen more as a producer of sensor data, with each aircraft interacting through high-speed data links with other aircraft. If the other aircraft are JSFs, they will be able to cooperate to a greater extent providing a capability greater than the sum of the parts.
The heart of the JSF's sensors will be the Raytheon MIRFS, based on the APG-77 AESA radar developed for the F-22. The MIRFS will provide a range of functions, acting as a multimode radar, active jamming system, and a passive detection system. MIRFS will generate signals over a wide range of frequencies and pulse patterns in an unpredictable fashion to ensure a low probability of intercept.
The JSF's MIRFS will use improved technology compared to the APG-77, but airframe constraints mean that it will have fewer T/R modules, limiting it's range to 90 nautical miles.
The F-35 will also be fitted with additional sensor systems, including an IRST system for defense and air-to-air combat, and a targeting system for precision attack on ground targets.
The IRST system is known as the distributed aperture infrared system (DAS). DAS has six IR sensors mounted on different points of the fuselage to provide full-sphere IR detection and tracking. It will be able to identify and pinpoint both incoming missiles and airborne targets.
Targeting functions will be provided by the "electro-optical targeting system (EOTS)", featuring a FLIR imager, a CCD TV camera, a targeting laser, and a laser spot tracker. EOTS is not turret-mounted. It has a wide aperture that is blended into the aircraft's nose contours, covered by a window that is opaque to radar, and remains operational through the entire mission.
Software will collect the inputs from all the sensors, as well as inputs relayed over a high-speed datalink, to provide sensor fusion and seamless data display (see below).
The JSF has both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, and will be built in three different versions. The software is being designed in a modular fashion to permit modification and growth (and overseas sale!!).
The current plan is to have a comprehensive but minimal software suite for JSF operational introduction, and provide software updates to bring the JSF up to full operational capability. (So don't knock the Eurofighter for the same thing!)
The pilot will receive inputs using a full-panel-width display plus a secondary flight display array, along with HOTAS controls. It does not have a HUD, with this function taken over by a helmet-mounted display.
Baseline data-link capability will, probably, be provided by SADL with an enhanced level available via the integration of L16/MIDS. Next generation DDLs, such as TCDL and ABIT, are likely to be restricted to US forces only.
The initial design assumption was that the JSF would be a consumer of sensor data, obtaining information from specialized intelligence-gathering aircraft, satellites, and other sources. This approach promised to keep costs of the JSF down.
Now the JSF is seen more as a producer of sensor data, with each aircraft interacting through high-speed data links with other aircraft. If the other aircraft are JSFs, they will be able to cooperate to a greater extent providing a capability greater than the sum of the parts.
The heart of the JSF's sensors will be the Raytheon MIRFS, based on the APG-77 AESA radar developed for the F-22. The MIRFS will provide a range of functions, acting as a multimode radar, active jamming system, and a passive detection system. MIRFS will generate signals over a wide range of frequencies and pulse patterns in an unpredictable fashion to ensure a low probability of intercept.
The JSF's MIRFS will use improved technology compared to the APG-77, but airframe constraints mean that it will have fewer T/R modules, limiting it's range to 90 nautical miles.
The F-35 will also be fitted with additional sensor systems, including an IRST system for defense and air-to-air combat, and a targeting system for precision attack on ground targets.
The IRST system is known as the distributed aperture infrared system (DAS). DAS has six IR sensors mounted on different points of the fuselage to provide full-sphere IR detection and tracking. It will be able to identify and pinpoint both incoming missiles and airborne targets.
Targeting functions will be provided by the "electro-optical targeting system (EOTS)", featuring a FLIR imager, a CCD TV camera, a targeting laser, and a laser spot tracker. EOTS is not turret-mounted. It has a wide aperture that is blended into the aircraft's nose contours, covered by a window that is opaque to radar, and remains operational through the entire mission.
Software will collect the inputs from all the sensors, as well as inputs relayed over a high-speed datalink, to provide sensor fusion and seamless data display (see below).
The JSF has both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, and will be built in three different versions. The software is being designed in a modular fashion to permit modification and growth (and overseas sale!!).
The current plan is to have a comprehensive but minimal software suite for JSF operational introduction, and provide software updates to bring the JSF up to full operational capability. (So don't knock the Eurofighter for the same thing!)
The pilot will receive inputs using a full-panel-width display plus a secondary flight display array, along with HOTAS controls. It does not have a HUD, with this function taken over by a helmet-mounted display.
Baseline data-link capability will, probably, be provided by SADL with an enhanced level available via the integration of L16/MIDS. Next generation DDLs, such as TCDL and ABIT, are likely to be restricted to US forces only.
Nightingale,
The F-15C has been in service for years (and is behind the E in capability terms - esp NCTR) whereas the Su-30MK is still a prototype. The five (count 'em) Russian Su-30s are two-seat Su-27s with a probe and long endurance systems. The Indian 'Su-30MKs' are still Su-27UBs with probes and canards. No multi-role Su-30 is yet in service. No Thrust Vectoring 'Flanker' has entered service. No radar more advanced than the basic 'Slot Back' has been deployed in any in-service 'Flanker' variant.
Sukhoi talk the talk, and their factory Su-30MK demonstrators fly a mean aerobatic routine, but comparing these aircraft with in service Western types is completely meaningless.
And even when the Indian MKIs finally get their thrust vectoring, hybrid Franco-Indo-Russian systems and all the rest, their MMI will still be behind that of the F-15E.
Like today's MiG-29, the Su-30 will haved some lethal close-in combat capabilities at low speeds and high Alpha, but apart from that......
Orac,
Do you believe that all this will a) happen? b) happen in time? c) happen within cost constraints? and d) be available to export customers?
Why does anyone have confidence that the development of JSF's avionics will run any more smoothly than F-22 has done, or that the aircraft won't suffer equal or greater delays and cost overruns?
The F-15C has been in service for years (and is behind the E in capability terms - esp NCTR) whereas the Su-30MK is still a prototype. The five (count 'em) Russian Su-30s are two-seat Su-27s with a probe and long endurance systems. The Indian 'Su-30MKs' are still Su-27UBs with probes and canards. No multi-role Su-30 is yet in service. No Thrust Vectoring 'Flanker' has entered service. No radar more advanced than the basic 'Slot Back' has been deployed in any in-service 'Flanker' variant.
Sukhoi talk the talk, and their factory Su-30MK demonstrators fly a mean aerobatic routine, but comparing these aircraft with in service Western types is completely meaningless.
And even when the Indian MKIs finally get their thrust vectoring, hybrid Franco-Indo-Russian systems and all the rest, their MMI will still be behind that of the F-15E.
Like today's MiG-29, the Su-30 will haved some lethal close-in combat capabilities at low speeds and high Alpha, but apart from that......
Orac,
Do you believe that all this will a) happen? b) happen in time? c) happen within cost constraints? and d) be available to export customers?
Why does anyone have confidence that the development of JSF's avionics will run any more smoothly than F-22 has done, or that the aircraft won't suffer equal or greater delays and cost overruns?
Booger - thats the one. Do I know you?? Love your posts, get a good laugh every time.
By the way, I didnt say ignorant first tourers, I said 'know it all'; (which I expect fighter guys to be by the way. I was one once, just ask me!!), and was purely aimed at the inaccuracies of the posts WRT project team compositions. (Not the result as I think you can see that I disagree with it as much as you do).
I think you have hit the nail on the head, I believe it mainly comes back to DOD (read civvies) and Cabinet (to a lesser extent) when you start talking about the desire for leading edge / unproven technology, but there is certainly a desire amongst the RAAF heavies for it also. As an aside, I have never been a real fan of the influence that DSTO seems to have, they always seem to leading us down the high tech path also.
The problem - money. RAAF hinged all its bets on the F18 and F111 making it to JSF (oops, that should be the eventual Air 6000 platform) introduction, that decision was made late 90's, and was set in concrete with the approval for HUG. Without a serious budget increase there is not and will not be the funds to acquire any interim capability. You can state the requirement as much as you like but this will not change. I have an idea on the impact of this and Im sure you guys are already seeing it but F18 will be made to last. The consequences however arent worth talking about in this forum. The combination of further emerging life pressures on the current platforms combined with the inevitable timeline slip of JSF are really going to bite us in the proverbial.
Nightingale - one on one in a simulator environment has no real connection to the real world. F15 C / E today flown in the USAF battle environment would still win out over the SU-30 flown by an enemy state. The SU 30 on its own may be a superior platform, but it is years behind when you look at how it fits into an integrated battle platform (Datalink, sensor fusion, HMS, AMRAAM etc etc).
ORAC - thats exactly what we are talking about. What are the odds of all that stuff working properly from day 1. Its OK to have some toothing problems when the aircraft is introduced in the US system because they will have other assets to cope with deficincies until problems are sorted and the money to throw at it. In the RAAFs case it will be our only asset available and will rely on the US to solve the problems and then field the solutions.
Didnt the glossy brochure say that the APG65 (Hornet radar) could simultaneously track 10 targets in an EW environment - Id still love to see that in the real world!
Swingwing - better said than I would ever be able to.
Jackonico - Question. What are the relative timelines between day 1 F18 development and day 1 Eurofighter ( or is it Typhoon
) development?
By the way, I didnt say ignorant first tourers, I said 'know it all'; (which I expect fighter guys to be by the way
. I was one once, just ask me!!), and was purely aimed at the inaccuracies of the posts WRT project team compositions. (Not the result as I think you can see that I disagree with it as much as you do). I think you have hit the nail on the head, I believe it mainly comes back to DOD (read civvies) and Cabinet (to a lesser extent) when you start talking about the desire for leading edge / unproven technology, but there is certainly a desire amongst the RAAF heavies for it also. As an aside, I have never been a real fan of the influence that DSTO seems to have, they always seem to leading us down the high tech path also.
The problem - money. RAAF hinged all its bets on the F18 and F111 making it to JSF (oops, that should be the eventual Air 6000 platform) introduction, that decision was made late 90's, and was set in concrete with the approval for HUG. Without a serious budget increase there is not and will not be the funds to acquire any interim capability. You can state the requirement as much as you like but this will not change. I have an idea on the impact of this and Im sure you guys are already seeing it but F18 will be made to last. The consequences however arent worth talking about in this forum. The combination of further emerging life pressures on the current platforms combined with the inevitable timeline slip of JSF are really going to bite us in the proverbial.
Nightingale - one on one in a simulator environment has no real connection to the real world. F15 C / E today flown in the USAF battle environment would still win out over the SU-30 flown by an enemy state. The SU 30 on its own may be a superior platform, but it is years behind when you look at how it fits into an integrated battle platform (Datalink, sensor fusion, HMS, AMRAAM etc etc).
ORAC - thats exactly what we are talking about. What are the odds of all that stuff working properly from day 1. Its OK to have some toothing problems when the aircraft is introduced in the US system because they will have other assets to cope with deficincies until problems are sorted and the money to throw at it. In the RAAFs case it will be our only asset available and will rely on the US to solve the problems and then field the solutions.
Didnt the glossy brochure say that the APG65 (Hornet radar) could simultaneously track 10 targets in an EW environment - Id still love to see that in the real world!
Swingwing - better said than I would ever be able to.
Jackonico - Question. What are the relative timelines between day 1 F18 development and day 1 Eurofighter ( or is it Typhoon
) development?
Juice Loose Moose,
It's not that I'm an EF fan - I wouldn't consider it for anything other than a primary BVR air-to-air/secondary air-to-ground F/A-18 type replacement role at the moment. It does have problems and weaknesses, and is unproven in some areas. But the current fad for the uninformed to pour scorn on it for largely imaginary shortcomings makes me cross!
Moreover, the EF partner companies have a good record on putting right early problems (with Tornado IDS, Tornado ADV, Jaguar, Harrier GR5 etc.) usually fairly quickly.
Nor is it that I'm particularly pro-Gripen, though the aircraft is in-service with advanced weapons and arguably the best net/data-link based avionics suite currently available in the real world. You don't have to trust that Gripen will turn out right, and that it will fulfill the marketeers' promises - you just have to go and look at it in service. And even before it was in service, the record of the Viggen was a good indication that the Swedes would get it right.
Gripen is a proven real world solution in its Swedish form, and export aircraft will only be an improvement on this 'low baseline'. Moreover it's cheap to buy, VERY cheap to operate (with guaranteed MMH/FH, operating costs etc.) and Saab will guarantee to place meaningful offset business which more than compensates for programme cost. It's hard to knock, though (with the exception of a re-engined aircraft with CFTs) it may not be the right aircraft for Australia.
I'm not saying that JSF will be hopeless, only that it strains credibility that it can be both as cheap and as great as is being claimed. Nor am I reassured that it will not run into massive problems and cost overruns - Lockheed's record with the F-22, C-130J, F-104, etc. does not necessarily inspire confidence, IMHO. It's a very high risk programme, after all. One can be pretty sure that the Gripen will not run into such problems at this stage in its career.
Moreover, it must be remembered that this is (as far as the USAF is concerned) is a politically imposed programme which the main operator would willingly have cancelled in order to safeguard the F-22. It is also a niche aeroplane, carrying a tiny PGM warload and with a very limited (two AMRAAM) air-to-air capability. It's a Cold War concept, placing what may now be an undue emphasis on Stealth, so in some respects, yes, it will offer reduced capability and relevance by comparison with a Hornet!!!
Finally you ask whether the USA and eight nations can really get it wrong? Well some would say that they did get it badly wrong with the F-104, and others would maintain that some nations were right in selecting the F/A-18, Deux Mille, or even the Tornado rather than the F-16. For others the F-16 was the right aircraft at the right time. Numbers and popularity alone don't make it universally applicable nor even (necessarily) any good for Australia, who are, after all, looking to replace the F-111 and F/A-18.
Australia is not Belgium, after all.
And finally, one cannot help but be suspicious of a programme that is being sold so heavily on a "You are either with us or against us" basis, with no real effort to provide offsets, industrial participation or even the capabilities which most users will have most use for.
It's not that I'm an EF fan - I wouldn't consider it for anything other than a primary BVR air-to-air/secondary air-to-ground F/A-18 type replacement role at the moment. It does have problems and weaknesses, and is unproven in some areas. But the current fad for the uninformed to pour scorn on it for largely imaginary shortcomings makes me cross!
Moreover, the EF partner companies have a good record on putting right early problems (with Tornado IDS, Tornado ADV, Jaguar, Harrier GR5 etc.) usually fairly quickly.
Nor is it that I'm particularly pro-Gripen, though the aircraft is in-service with advanced weapons and arguably the best net/data-link based avionics suite currently available in the real world. You don't have to trust that Gripen will turn out right, and that it will fulfill the marketeers' promises - you just have to go and look at it in service. And even before it was in service, the record of the Viggen was a good indication that the Swedes would get it right.
Gripen is a proven real world solution in its Swedish form, and export aircraft will only be an improvement on this 'low baseline'. Moreover it's cheap to buy, VERY cheap to operate (with guaranteed MMH/FH, operating costs etc.) and Saab will guarantee to place meaningful offset business which more than compensates for programme cost. It's hard to knock, though (with the exception of a re-engined aircraft with CFTs) it may not be the right aircraft for Australia.
I'm not saying that JSF will be hopeless, only that it strains credibility that it can be both as cheap and as great as is being claimed. Nor am I reassured that it will not run into massive problems and cost overruns - Lockheed's record with the F-22, C-130J, F-104, etc. does not necessarily inspire confidence, IMHO. It's a very high risk programme, after all. One can be pretty sure that the Gripen will not run into such problems at this stage in its career.
Moreover, it must be remembered that this is (as far as the USAF is concerned) is a politically imposed programme which the main operator would willingly have cancelled in order to safeguard the F-22. It is also a niche aeroplane, carrying a tiny PGM warload and with a very limited (two AMRAAM) air-to-air capability. It's a Cold War concept, placing what may now be an undue emphasis on Stealth, so in some respects, yes, it will offer reduced capability and relevance by comparison with a Hornet!!!
Finally you ask whether the USA and eight nations can really get it wrong? Well some would say that they did get it badly wrong with the F-104, and others would maintain that some nations were right in selecting the F/A-18, Deux Mille, or even the Tornado rather than the F-16. For others the F-16 was the right aircraft at the right time. Numbers and popularity alone don't make it universally applicable nor even (necessarily) any good for Australia, who are, after all, looking to replace the F-111 and F/A-18.
Australia is not Belgium, after all.
And finally, one cannot help but be suspicious of a programme that is being sold so heavily on a "You are either with us or against us" basis, with no real effort to provide offsets, industrial participation or even the capabilities which most users will have most use for.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The big question is what will be available to overseas customers. As I undestand it, one of the main problems with selling the F-22 (if anyone else could afford it) is that the aircraft systems are totally integrated. So to degrade the performance would mean at least a total software write (2M+ lines of code) as well as major hardware changes.
The JSF code is, supposedly, being written on the back of the F-22, hence lowering the risk and cost. However, as stated, it is being split into layers to allow it to be tailored for each customer. Thus introducing a major new risk.
In answer to your quesions therefore:
Will it be on time? Probably, but in a very limited envelope - a la Typhoon.
Will it be on budget? No. I think they will be lucky to bring it in under $80M a copy - and only with austere avionics. An F-16A if you will.
Will all the customers get all the features? Don' make me laugh. The MIFRS will lose most, if not all of the ESM/NCI features. The claimed integration requires a high speed datalink like ABIT. Hence my comments about the baseline probably being SADL with the NATO nations having to go for L16, and pay through the nose to upgrade to L22.
On the up-side. The US forces will have to pay to fix the problems, hence I have confidence that, in the long term (6-8 years down line of introduction) the problems will be fixed.
As far as the Typhoon goes, the money for tranche 2 is already spoken for, and being earmarked for tranche 3. Where will the funds come from to fix problems? God knows - possibly out of the JSF budget!!
The solutions to the problems on the GR1 and F3 (like those nice single crystal blades) were largely funded by the RSAF. Now if we can only persuade them to sign up to about 80 Typhoons we could solve a lot of problems with one shot..................
And personally, since I haven't previously expressed an opinion, if the RAAF really intends to have one aircraft type replace both F-18 and F-111 it has to be the F-15E, with the AESA radar and L16/22. They must be on drugs to think of anything else - unless you're going to buy a lot of tankers.
Also, whilst the salesmen will demonstrate how, over the life of the airframe, a single engined aircraft is cheaper - even after losing 5 or 6 - I don't Oz and the surrounding waters are the places where I'd like to be one of them.
The JSF code is, supposedly, being written on the back of the F-22, hence lowering the risk and cost. However, as stated, it is being split into layers to allow it to be tailored for each customer. Thus introducing a major new risk.
In answer to your quesions therefore:
Will it be on time? Probably, but in a very limited envelope - a la Typhoon.
Will it be on budget? No. I think they will be lucky to bring it in under $80M a copy - and only with austere avionics. An F-16A if you will.
Will all the customers get all the features? Don' make me laugh. The MIFRS will lose most, if not all of the ESM/NCI features. The claimed integration requires a high speed datalink like ABIT. Hence my comments about the baseline probably being SADL with the NATO nations having to go for L16, and pay through the nose to upgrade to L22.
On the up-side. The US forces will have to pay to fix the problems, hence I have confidence that, in the long term (6-8 years down line of introduction) the problems will be fixed.
As far as the Typhoon goes, the money for tranche 2 is already spoken for, and being earmarked for tranche 3. Where will the funds come from to fix problems? God knows - possibly out of the JSF budget!!
The solutions to the problems on the GR1 and F3 (like those nice single crystal blades) were largely funded by the RSAF. Now if we can only persuade them to sign up to about 80 Typhoons we could solve a lot of problems with one shot..................
And personally, since I haven't previously expressed an opinion, if the RAAF really intends to have one aircraft type replace both F-18 and F-111 it has to be the F-15E, with the AESA radar and L16/22. They must be on drugs to think of anything else - unless you're going to buy a lot of tankers.
Also, whilst the salesmen will demonstrate how, over the life of the airframe, a single engined aircraft is cheaper - even after losing 5 or 6 - I don't Oz and the surrounding waters are the places where I'd like to be one of them.
Last edited by ORAC; 6th Jul 2002 at 00:18.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interim jet?? - gimme a mud-hen any day. But the super Hornet will do.
Likelyhood?? - my opinion -50/50
Date: year 5 in a rolling 5 year plan that gets updated each month.
....but I don't care I'm out.
Likelyhood?? - my opinion -50/50
Date: year 5 in a rolling 5 year plan that gets updated each month.
....but I don't care I'm out.
Thread Starter
Right, that's settled then... F-15E it is!
Excellent work gentlemen - we're all in agreement, Mud Hens for the RAAF.
Excusing ranks, I'd like to delegate some mission prep tasks:
Firstly, I'm "lead" so I'll call Uncle Angus first thing Monday morning and start the ball rolling to clear up the red tape.
Other jobs:
Swingwing: Finances
Contact all the squadron social club reps and tell them to put an additional charge of US$80 million on every boggies bill for the month of June: Please issue receipts so they can claim them on tax ("compulsory AIR6000 fees" or something like that should suffice). You made need to apply for a chaplain's loan (about US$750 million should do) so we can buy the necessary GSE and techo training paraphenalia.
L J R: Pom distraction.
Call BAe, tell them we're "really keen" on their jet. Oh, and some more pens, mugs etc... would be nice. (ftrplt will need all the coffee & pens he can get for his job).
ftrplt: Publications
You can whip-up the necessary SIs, FOB, TACPROCS, OPs briefs etc... etc... By Thursday thanks. (DoctorProctor can be your scribe if you need one).
Meet back here Friday morning for final co-ord. Thanks gents!
P.S. ftrplt, I was scrubbed at the 'domain of pain' when you were there... In fact, if I remember correctly you were a wiley bandit on my scrub ride - a little too wiley you %^@$%& bastard! (But that's OK, I flew ACM like old people f^%k.)
Excusing ranks, I'd like to delegate some mission prep tasks:
Firstly, I'm "lead" so I'll call Uncle Angus first thing Monday morning and start the ball rolling to clear up the red tape.
Other jobs:
Swingwing: Finances
Contact all the squadron social club reps and tell them to put an additional charge of US$80 million on every boggies bill for the month of June: Please issue receipts so they can claim them on tax ("compulsory AIR6000 fees" or something like that should suffice). You made need to apply for a chaplain's loan (about US$750 million should do) so we can buy the necessary GSE and techo training paraphenalia.
L J R: Pom distraction.
Call BAe, tell them we're "really keen" on their jet. Oh, and some more pens, mugs etc... would be nice. (ftrplt will need all the coffee & pens he can get for his job).
ftrplt: Publications
You can whip-up the necessary SIs, FOB, TACPROCS, OPs briefs etc... etc... By Thursday thanks. (DoctorProctor can be your scribe if you need one).
Meet back here Friday morning for final co-ord. Thanks gents!
P.S. ftrplt, I was scrubbed at the 'domain of pain' when you were there... In fact, if I remember correctly you were a wiley bandit on my scrub ride - a little too wiley you %^@$%& bastard! (But that's OK, I flew ACM like old people f^%k.)
Booger, luv ya plan. Will borrow a few reams of paper from the new employer (they use it like its going out of fashion!)
Give me a date for the ride in question. Was the XO's nickname an advertisement for Mc Donalds??
Give me a date for the ride in question. Was the XO's nickname an advertisement for Mc Donalds??
Thread Starter
bailouts, down-range travel stops, ****ty CATMS, nasty Charlies... so many memories
ftrplt: Sep '98 (AA21 or something similar), and affirm on the Big Mac. Good times, eh?
"What does your Mum call you, Booger?"
"Pumpkin, Sir..."
"Well Pumpkin, YOU'RE SCRUBBED!"
"What does your Mum call you, Booger?"
"Pumpkin, Sir..."
"Well Pumpkin, YOU'RE SCRUBBED!"
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Briz-vegas
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right Booger, its been almost two weeks and I am yet to see a Mud Hen on the flight line (There are, however, lots of twin tail tupperware fag jets out there, but I don't think they are for us to play with ) Better shape up or your OER is looking pretty shoddy my friend!
) Better shape up or your OER is looking pretty shoddy my friend!
Thread Starter
Patience, my friend...
Sorry about the delay, just a few teething problems with final payment - apparently the Yanks aren't too keen on our part payment in Bundy Rum. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: kent, England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USAF to buy 'hundreds' of STOVL JSFs, Gen. Jumper says
By Marc Selinger
09/14/2004 11:19:25 AM
The U.S. Air Force plans to buy "hundreds" of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) configuration, a key general said Sept. 13, adding further clarity to the service's plans for the JSF variant.
The specific figure remains under review, said Gen. John Jumper, Air Force chief of staff.
"I can't give you an exact number, but it's going to be more than a handful," Jumper said at a press briefing at the Air Force Association's Air & Space Conference in Washington.
Current budget plans call for the Air Force to buy all 1,763 of its JSFs in the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) configuration, but Jumper and Air Force Secretary James Roche announced in February that the service would like to buy the STOVL variant as well to provide close air support, particularly for Army ground troops (DAILY, Feb. 13, Feb. 17). The Air Force has said since then that the number of STOVL JSFs it buys could result in a corresponding reduction in the number of CTOL F-35s it acquires.
Roche said in May that the Air Force's revised acquisition strategy for the Lockheed Martin JSF could be finalized by the end of the year (DAILY, May 17).
Also during the press briefing, Jumper and Roche said they are becoming increasingly convinced of the need to acquire an interim long-range strike system to serve as a bridge between the current bomber force and a next-generation platform, which may not enter service for more than two decades.
The Air Force asked industry for ideas on interim capabilities earlier this year and is evaluating the responses to that request for information (RFI). A bomber version of the Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor has been mentioned as one option the Air Force might pursue (DAILY, May 20, May 24).
- Ends -
By Marc Selinger
09/14/2004 11:19:25 AM
The U.S. Air Force plans to buy "hundreds" of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) configuration, a key general said Sept. 13, adding further clarity to the service's plans for the JSF variant.
The specific figure remains under review, said Gen. John Jumper, Air Force chief of staff.
"I can't give you an exact number, but it's going to be more than a handful," Jumper said at a press briefing at the Air Force Association's Air & Space Conference in Washington.
Current budget plans call for the Air Force to buy all 1,763 of its JSFs in the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) configuration, but Jumper and Air Force Secretary James Roche announced in February that the service would like to buy the STOVL variant as well to provide close air support, particularly for Army ground troops (DAILY, Feb. 13, Feb. 17). The Air Force has said since then that the number of STOVL JSFs it buys could result in a corresponding reduction in the number of CTOL F-35s it acquires.
Roche said in May that the Air Force's revised acquisition strategy for the Lockheed Martin JSF could be finalized by the end of the year (DAILY, May 17).
Also during the press briefing, Jumper and Roche said they are becoming increasingly convinced of the need to acquire an interim long-range strike system to serve as a bridge between the current bomber force and a next-generation platform, which may not enter service for more than two decades.
The Air Force asked industry for ideas on interim capabilities earlier this year and is evaluating the responses to that request for information (RFI). A bomber version of the Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor has been mentioned as one option the Air Force might pursue (DAILY, May 20, May 24).
- Ends -
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bris Vegas Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bundy B Bear
I used to buy it at Gordon & McPhail's in Elgin when I was at Lossie - I'd assume they'd still have it. They also stock Peter Lehmann Stonewell Shiraz...Well worth a sip!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Problem for the Australians could also be based around which missile systems they want to use. If they were to buy the SUs or MIGs the underwing launch rail wont work with leading edge missiles. The US use LM7 hangar/launch rail (i think) and because of their wealth most missile manufacturers try to design around this. Using the US style hangar would allow for the use of ASRAAM, AMRAAM, METEOR etc.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AWST: (Story relating to Chinook Mk 3 saga)
"The Chinook problem is primarily one of certification, .......Boeing and British officials note that they failed to specify in the contract that the Chinook avionics software met independent validation requirements....
There is also concern that the problem encountered with the Chinook could be repeated on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, because the U.K. probably won´t get access to source code for the aircraft. Chief of Defence Procurement Peter Spencer says that ways to meet the safety certification without access to the source code are being investigated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What does the JSF contract say about validation? (I presume it is SIL4?)
2. If there are ways around the problem, why are they not being used on the Chinook instead of spending up to $230 million to bring them up to standard?
"The Chinook problem is primarily one of certification, .......Boeing and British officials note that they failed to specify in the contract that the Chinook avionics software met independent validation requirements....
There is also concern that the problem encountered with the Chinook could be repeated on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, because the U.K. probably won´t get access to source code for the aircraft. Chief of Defence Procurement Peter Spencer says that ways to meet the safety certification without access to the source code are being investigated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What does the JSF contract say about validation? (I presume it is SIL4?)
2. If there are ways around the problem, why are they not being used on the Chinook instead of spending up to $230 million to bring them up to standard?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
8 Posts
I have an easier solution, discard with the ludicrous RTS imposed by QinetiQ and come into line with everyone else in the western world, it would be cheaper and we would have aircraft in service just a little bit quicker.
Oh yeah the Bundy, also saw it at Benson the other day whilst out and about.......
Oh yeah the Bundy, also saw it at Benson the other day whilst out and about.......