|
Karlo Kopp Krapp
JSF defenders are so, so easily reduced to abuse. Of course everyone's perspective would be different if they could see the results from full-scale, hi-fi RCS pole testing - which was apparently last performed in 2001 on a model that was five major configuration changes ago. Hey, it's gonna work. The modelling and simulation say so. |
Sorry if this has been posted before ;
(I like the editor's comment ; "........... It is vexing that M.G. Davis only acknowledged these higher prices on the eve of leaving his position as JSF program manager." ) (Source: U.S Department of State; issued January 16, 2009) WASHINGTON --- Decisions about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 Raptor aircraft programs are expected early in President-elect Barack Obama's administration. The F-35 program manager said yesterday he sees strong support for the F-35 from the services, allied partners and, so far, on Capitol Hill. Based on initial indications and inquiries from Obama's transition team, Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis said he's confident the F-35 program begun during the Clinton administration will continue, even if budget restraints force scale-backs. Davis made the comments here as keynote speaker at a Brookings Institution forum, "The Joint Strike Fighter and Beyond." "Support throughout what appears to be three administrations has been relatively consistent," he said. "As of yet, we see no reason that that support is going to change. There is nobody on Capitol Hill who has said they want to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter." That doesn't mean, he acknowledged, that the program to develop the next-generation strike aircraft weapon system for the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and allied countries might not get scaled back. Davis conceded he gets many questions about the F-35's cost -- expected to be $80 million to $90 million, depending on the variant -- and delivery schedule. And if fewer aircraft are built, each will cost even more. (Emphasis added-Ed.] "We lose two airplanes in our [fiscal 2009] appropriation, and every other one of the airplanes being bought in that year goes up $3 million," he said. Another consideration, he said, is the cost of maintaining the aging legacy fleets the F-35 would replace if production is cut. Earlier yesterday, William Lynn, Obama's deputy defense secretary nominee, told the Senate Armed Services Committee it would be "very difficult" for the Defense Department to keep all its weapons systems development programs on track in tight budget times. Lynn said at his confirmation hearing he'll push for a speedy Quadrennial Defense Review to set priorities through fiscal 2015, and expects the tactical aviation force modernization issue to play heavily in those considerations. In written responses submitted to the committee, Lynn recognized the capabilities of both the F-22 and F-35 aircraft -- particularly when considered together. "The F-22 is the most advanced tactical fighter in the world and, when combined with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will provide the nation with the most capable mix of fifth-generation aircraft available for the foreseeable future," he said. The F-22, to replace the legacy F-15 fleet, brings "tremendous capability" and is a critical element of the department's overall tactical aircraft force structure, Lynn said. The F-35, on the other hand, "will provide the foundation for the department's tactical air force structure." The F-35 is the first aircraft to be developed within the Defense Department to meet the needs of three services, with three variants being developed simultaneously. It will replace the legacy F-16 aircraft for the Air Force and the F/A-18 and AV-8 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as numerous legacy aircraft for the international partners participating in the F-35 program, Lynn told the Senate committee. So the big question, he said, is determining the appropriate mix between the two aircraft. "If confirmed, I would expect this to be a key issue for the early strategy and program-budget reviews that the department will conduct over the next few months," he said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has made no secret of his interest in reaching a decision and moving forward. During a June visit to Langley Air Force Base, Va., he told airmen at Air Combat Command the new administration will have to determine the proper balance between the two aircraft. "End the debate, make a decision and move on," Gates said. "'Start getting stuff built' is just so important.'" Gates told the airmen he had allocated enough money to keep the F-22 production lines open so the next administration could make its decision. He did not know at the time that he would be part of that decision-making process. Davis told the Brooking Institution audience yesterday, "support from all three services has never been stronger" for the F-35 program. The Marine Corps, slated to receive the "B" variant that has a vertical-lift capability, has been "the most vocal, avid and fervent customer," Davis said. The Marine Corps leadership expects the F-35 to become "the most effective air platform they have ever had," he said. "Looking at their history of how they have used airplanes, that is quite a bold statement." Similarly, the Navy, to receive the aircraft's "C" variant designed for carrier launches, "has never been more supportive of the program," Davis said. He noted that the Navy has been "fighting aggressively" to keep its aircraft carriers fully outfitted. In addition, the Air Force recognizes the need for a complementary mix of aircraft to meet its mission requirements, he said. Its "A" variant of the F-35 will provide conventional take-off and landing capabilities. Meanwhile, nine partner nations continue to support the program, with other countries considering signing on, too, Davis said. The F-35 program represents the first time in military procurement history that the United States has partnered with another nation to build an aircraft from the ground up. "We believe that the coalition that was put in place when they signed up for this program is probably stronger than ever now," Davis said. This partnership, he said, brings the concept of coalition integration to a whole new level. In addition to funding and developing the F-35 together, the partners plan to use a single system to sustain it -- sharing spares and repair capabilities to reduce costs. "There is something very unique that Joint Strike Fighter offers that other programs I have seen do not," he said. The big challenge for now, Davis said, is to take advantage of the latest manufacturing processes to get the production line moving ahead. "Even the manufacturing lines for some of our newest fighters, the F-22, started in the late '80s and early '90s," he said. "We have progressed almost two decades in manufacturing technology, but we have never really tried it out on a full-scale program." (EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first official acknowledgement from either the Pentagon or prime contractor Lockheed Martin that JSF unit costs are higher than the $50-$60 million previously admitted. It is vexing that M.G. Davis only acknowledged these higher prices on the eve of leaving his position as JSF program manager.) http://www.defense-aerosp...client/modele.pl?session= dae.44293325.1232411617.MK8Mnn8AAAEAADUfwk4AAAAQ&prod=101452 &modele=release . |
So everything's just fine. The program director says so, and who would know better? Shut down every other fighter program and keep mailing the checks to JSF.
What could possibly go wrong? :ugh::mad: |
So everything's just fine.
Well, things are, to a certain extent. It looks like our Half Blood Prince (TM) isn't going to cut back on DoD and NASA spending. Maybe we'll get some increases. All part of the eek-O-nomic stimulus plan to revitalize America. Gimme my promotion now. |
FormerFlake,
there could be some mileage in your idea; during the ( ongoing )restoration of the S.S.Great Britain at Bristol, they held a campaign when one could ' sponsor a plank, ' with a dedication to one's girlfriend etc inscribed on it. Deck crew posing ' Top Gun ' style coloured shirts with ' Millets ' on the back could make a few quid too... In reality I did wonder about the £4billion etc for CVF, but as a hundred times that can come out of thin air overnight for bankers ( sp ? ) I'd say we ought to have them. Do I believe they won't chop them and probably JSF with aforesaid bankers as an excuse ? What do you think ?! |
Sir, The mutual respect the US and UK Armed Forces have for each other has never been stronger. Our shared commitment is clear — we are the two greatest providers of troops to Afghanistan. And UK troops have taken the fight to the enemy — clearing insurgents, disrupting enemy communication and destroying weapons and narcotics. These are not the actions of a country with, as Bronwen Maddox claims, no significant help left to give (Commentary, Jan 23). I cannot speak on behalf on the Americans. That is better left to them. The US Supreme Commander in Afghanistan stated: “I have no plans for by-passing one of our most trusted partners in the mission.” And the US Corps Commander in Iraq said: “What the Brits have achieved in Basra is incredible. We need to take lessons from their approach.” These statements pour cold water on Bronwen Maddox’s view of a “caustic mood” about the UK’s “slither out of Basra”. Our political and financial commitment to defending our nation remains resolute. Our defence budget is second only to that of the US and this Government has brought the longest period of growth for 20 years. By the end of 2009 will have spent nearly £14 billion on operations since 2001. This is why we can commit to a new generation of aircraft carriers — the only European country to have done so. Also why we have increased helicopter flying hours by 60 per cent, will send 700 more protected vehicles to Afghanistan and have given our troops the best body armour available. These are not the signs of a country shrinking from defence, but of one committed to maintaining its military capability and working alongside its closest ally now and in the future. John Hutton. Letter to the Times 26 Jan 2008. |
" I am a doughnut " - J.F.K, June 1963
" Leave the gatling guns boys, we won't be needing those " - G.A. Custer Sorry, those just spring to mind when I see quotes... |
we have increased helicopter flying hours by 60 per cent, will send 700 more protected vehicles to Afghanistan and have given our troops the best body armour available |
It's from a politician ergo it's bolleaux.
For "60% additional helo flying hours" read "an extra 20% but we've announced it three times." For "700 more protected vehicles" read "175 more protected vehicles but we've announced it four times." For "given our troops the best body armour available" read "I hope to fcuk no stupid bl**dy Royal tries to test it." Get the picture? |
Doesn't " we've increased helicopter flying hours by 60% " mean " we've shagged out our pitifully few helicopters " ?
|
MASC anyone?
To get back more onto the Carrier thread, why is all of the attention focussed on the platform and JSF? Surely MASC is a vital component of the air group and crucial to delivering the overall capability, yet, in spite of the Hawkeye model hanging from the ceiling in Main Building, there is little apparent progress or comment on this element.
Just had a thought, if JSF is Dave, maybe we can call MASC Shirley.:) |
Surely MASC is a vital component of the air group and crucial to delivering the overall capability, yet, in spite of the Hawkeye model hanging from the ceiling in Main Building, there is little apparent progress or comment on this element.
Shhh! You are not allowed to mention MASC in the MOD, although it has been discussed here on this thread.:eek: Apparently the ASaCs Sea Kings are meant to keep going until 2018! MASC doesn't have the driving force of an IPT of its own. I don't think funding has been allocated either.:eek: At least some of the preparations for building the carriers are actuallt taking place - including a lot of work at Rosyth. |
MASC is vital, but might cost more than a bottle of whiskey - therefore ignored.
This is a classic case of the services shooting themselves in the foot by getting a result no matter what crap kit they've got - as long as they keep winning - and getting killed in the process ( hey ho. I have to attend another tedious ceremony at Brize Norton today-). No politician will sit up and put the money & kit in until we appear to be losing !!! The services are too good in this respect, to the point of being their own worst enemy - all it takes is some staff level type, serving at the time, to say " No we we can't do that without more resources / kit," be it body armour, warships, vehicles or aircraft - rather than casting an eye on their pensions. |
During January in a written answer to a parlimentary question regarding the proposed Out of service dates for the Seaking ASaC Mk 7 the Government indicated that the MoD is “expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of their retirement to 2022”
Although the way they have been going recently the MoD do not appear to know their backsides from joint in the arm Telling Parliment that the Harrier did not participate in Op Telic ANy way`s here is the OSD Schedule from the records Aircraft type/markCurrent planned OSDsCommentsAgusta 109 2009 It is expected these aircraft will be replaced during 2009 by four EC 365N3s Apache 2030 We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft (eg to address obsolescence and meet emerging requirements) during the next decade, in order to sustain its service life up to 2030 Chinook Mk2 2015 (2040) We expect to have to invest further in these aircraft (eg to address obsolescence, meet emerging requirements and extend the planned date of their retirement to 2040) during the next decade, although no investment decisions have yet been made Chinook Mk2a 2025 (2040) As above Gazelle 2012 Where there is an enduring requirement for the capability currently provided by Gazelle we are exploring arrangements based on leased aircraft Lynx Mk3 2013 It is expected that these aircraft will be replaced by the Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft (SCMR) variant of Future Lynx from 2015 Lynx Mk8 2015 As above Lynx Mk7 2013 It is expected that these aircraft will be replaced by the Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopter (BRH) variant of Future Lynx from 2014 Lynx Mk9 2013 As above Merlin Mk1 2029 We are currently preparing to upgrade these aircraft through the Merlin Mk1 Capability Sustainment Programme Merlin Mk3 2030 We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft (eg to address obsolescence and meet emerging requirements) during the next decade, in order to sustain its service life up to 2030 Merlin Mk3a 2030 As above Puma 2012 (2022) We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of its retirement to 2022, when it is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by the Future Medium Helicopter programme Sea King Mk3/3a 2017 It is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by a joint PFI service with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency Sea King Mk4 2012 (2018) We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of their retirement to 2018, where upon it is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by the Future Medium Helicopter programme Sea King Mk6c 2010 — Sea King Mk5 2017 It is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by a joint PFI service with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency Sea King Mk7 2018 (2022) We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of their retirement to 2022 |
Watch it and weep JSF lovers.
|
A MBDA promo of an Aeronavale Rafale dropping a SCALP missile. So?
|
Not at all, Mick, lookee a capable twin engined navalised fighter that IS PROVEN on operations, does not cost the earth, and delivers the most modern, accurate, up to date ordnance from a small carrier, why bother with the outlandish JSF £black hole??:ok::ok::ok:
|
A 4.5 gen, "low-observable but non-stealthy", non-STOVL land/cat-equipped carrier based fighter.
When the RAF, RN, USMC, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy all want a STOVL 5th gen, stealthy fighter to fly from Non-cat/trap carriers and limited-runway-length land bases (like USMC/RAF Harriers have been doing in Iraq/Afganistan)? Rafale does not meet the requirements, thus is non-compliant for the contract. Ho, hum. |
GreenKnight121 - You obviously don't work at the MoD then.
Since when has being appropriate for the given/planned task be the driving factor in defence procurement? No matter what the requirements you can pretty much guarantee that someone underling at the MoD is thinking how to hammer square peg (a) into round hole (b) driven purely by the mindset of 'cheap'.:{ |
No matter what the requirements you can pretty much guarantee that someone underling at the MoD is thinking how to hammer square peg (a) into round hole (b) driven purely by the mindset of 'cheap'. Until they start throwing serious money at alternatives such as Rafale then I'm sorry, it's not even a possibility. I'm with GreenKnight121 on this quite frankly. Why settle for less capability by switching the entire focus from 5th Gen to 4th Gen. 4.5 Gen is just a made up category with the express intention of making the F-18E/F, Typhoon and Rafale crowd feel slightly more special IMHO! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.