datafuserIt seems the Dutch government in the 1950’s made a strategic decision to foster a naval electronics industry while not pursuing an independent capability to develop a jet fighter.
At least the decision to equip Dutch navy ships with locally developed and built radars paid off, creating a competitive industry that captured a considerable world market share including the US Navy (see Signaal “egg” on FFG-7 frigates).
According to a Japanese MoD document, their F-2 fighter development took 13 years at the cost of 3,274 billion Yen, while the development of FPS-5 active phased-array radar took the same 13 years but only 170 billion Yen.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserInterestingly, at first NLR had some difficulty in developing the F-16 MLU simulation software because the US State Department banned sharing of some necessary documents derived from the F-16C/D Block 50 development.
Below is from pages 92 and 93 of the 1995 annual report.
“While much of the MLU functionality had been designed in other Lockheed Martin F-16 programmes, such as the F-16C/D Block 50 programme, it was impossible for NLR to acquire the required documentation, owing to regulations imposed by the US Air Force and the US State Department. This hampered the development of the NSF software severely. Lockheed Martin therefore offered to share its F-16 MLU flight simulation software with NLR (with permission from the US State Department). NLR subcontracted a team from Lockheed’s Flight Simulation Laboratory to integrate parts of the F-16 MLU avionics software of Lockheed in the NSF environment. This software was validated. The avionics software of the NSF conforms to the latest MLU specifications.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserNLR stated in its 1995 annual report (page 90) that
“Already in the late 1970s NLR conducted computer simulations of the F-16 fighter, to support the development of the fly-by-wire flight control system under contract to the manufacturer General Dynamics”
and also said in the 1992 annual report (page 53) that
“NLR takes part in the multinational (NL. B. DK. NO, USA) programme for the Mid Life Update of the F-16, by contributing to the design of the new avionics suite at Lockheed’s Fort Worth premises and by executing evaluations at NLR’s facilities. Contracts for this participation were awarded to NLR by Lockheed Fort Worth (formerly General Dynamics Fort Worth).”
Does anyone know what other inputs the Dutch aerospace companies had in the development of the F-16 MLU?
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserThe Japanese have a project to develop a Gripen-sized stealth technology demonstrator at the cost of only 46.6 billion Yen, roughly 430 million US dollars. I suspect this figure only covers building the airframe and fitting it out with components developed under other budgets.
If this is the case indeed, making a small fighter-like technology demonstrator with off-the-shelf components would not be too expensive to try for an industrialized country like the Netherlands, I believe.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserAbsolutely, Holland could build its own fighters. This is a silly thread.
If Israel (population 6 million) and Sweden (population 9 million) can do it, then Holland (population 16 million), with arguably a larger industrial base than these two put together, can certainly do it.
It’s simply a matter of political will and this, quite simply, is lacking. End of story.
There are plenty of other, perhaps more stark examples. Australia? Brazil? Argentina?
I already stated in the opening post that I am trying to identify countries that have a national capability to design its own fighter but chose not to do so due to economic and political considerations.
We all know the Netherlands does not have the will. The question is whether the Dutch aerospace industry has the capability.
datafuserVery little capability. Maybe moreso with massive investment then possibly, but so could so any other European country if its government had endless money to spend on defence. The Netherlands pretty much represents the defence industries of many EU countries other than France, the UK, Germany, Italy and Sweden. Small companies, often foreign-owned, that supply components to the big boys of the defence aerospace industry.
Besides, the NLR is pretty limited and specialised to what it does in military aviation research, say compared to the UK’s QinetiQ or Dstl, or equivalents in major EU countries. Of the only “major” Dutch companies, Stork SP Aerospace makes landing gear for the F-35 Lightning and NH-90 (the company has a 5.5% stake in NHIndustries, which makes the NH-90). DutchAero is partly foreign-owned (Avio) and makes aero engines parts and airframe components. These companies don’t have the specialist know-how anymore or the financial resources to design, develop and build an all-Dutch fighter. The whole Dutch defence industry has been pretty much run into the ground in the last ten years, of what there actually is.
Thanks for the reply. By the term “own fighter” I mean integrating foreign components into a package of its own design like the Gripen, which uses many foreign components including an American engine.
So no Dutch company has the knowledge to integrate various foreign components into its own package any more?
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserI do agree, economics and politics are the only reason an aircraft is made by two nations or more.
However we live in a world where economics are bringing togather different nations, for example now some McDonell Douglas helicopters are made in Mexico for the US army, Brazil offered the ERJ-145 for an USAF surveillance aircraft program.
Russia has flirted with Brazil to make the PAKFA a common program.
However in the context of the Eurofighter and JSF a common culture and a common economy has glued some Western Nations.
The term EURO-fighter denotes a common political and cultural project, like EUROATOM, EUROCOPTER or the EURO it self
What we were analysing was if it was possible a similar program in north east asia or if a far eastern program could be formed and this could only happen if these nations would create a common market as the EEC was created and if a regional common currency could be created, this could happen only if these nations could see the common culture they have as Europe did and they would see the economic and political advantages of such project, otherwise the political alliances will depend in the technological and economical risks they want to share but this can lead to other types of agreements like Embraer has with Harbin and Mitsubishi.
However the FC-1 has the prints of a pan asian fighter program
If Russia manages to lure Brazil and (even China in the future) into the PAK-FA, then it can be called ‘BRICs Fighter’.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserFrom wiki we have these stats:
The details from the wiki and globalsecurity.org look pretty light. Does anyone have more granular details about the L-15 lead-in fighter trainer or its program history? Please if you could cite exact sources that would help add to the wiki it would be greatly appreciated.
Here are more details about the L-15.
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/trainer/l15.asp
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserHere is the picture of the Korean S-92.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserAttached are notional KFX concepts released by the Agency for Defense Development in 2004 and in July 2007. They look the same.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserAmerican investitions in T-50 Golden Eagle or F-CK-1 Ching Kuo, perhaps?
Yes in the case of the T-50, Lockheed Martin put up 13% of the development cost, which was to be paid back to Lockheed Martin by the Korean government during the production run.
Lockheed Martin also had the right to build wings of the T-50 but Korean Aerospace Industries got it back from Lockheed Martin at the cost of 80 million dollars.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserCan anyone please verify the authenticity of this picture?
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserSure the F-15E is in a different league than a F-16 Blk 50/52+. People loading up their F-16 with CFTs, underwing tanks, heavy stand-off weaponry, etc etc seem to have a long range strike mission in mind. (In case of that picture showing the HAF F-16s it’s just a pissing contest with the Turks, because in the real world HAF will never bomb Ankara). And in the case of the rich-n-wanton Arabs, they will never bomb Tehran, but if they ever did, a F-15E would be more useful because it’s range/capabilities equation far out there is much better.
Yeah, a F-16 with CFTs might be able to hit targets with two 2,000lb bombs where previously only the F-15E could reach unrefueled, but the F-15E would be able to bring at least four 2,000lb bombs.
The two-seat F-16 with CFTs is a ‘small F-15E’ in effect.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserFollowing S-3 Viking’s retirement, EA-6B Prowler fleet is taking up one of the Viking’s missions – sea surveillance – using radar and passive sensors including USQ-113 communications jammer. The USQ-113 is used to intercept all communication traffic and broadcast pre-recorded messages urging civilian shipping to keep clear of the restricted area.
A Senate press release in 2002 also mentioned the Prowler’s sea surveillance mission.
http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01147.html
The EA-6B radar would replace 1960’s era radars with a modern system that is in designed to dramatically reduce operating cost, increase readiness while maintaining the “all weather” capability of the EA-6B aircraft and allowing it to perform its sea surveillance mission.
So, after the Prowler’s retirement, would the Growler take up the sea surveillance mission as well? If so, will it be a suitable platform for such a mission?
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserYes. And on F-16.net (with real F-22 pilots) and Fencecheck.com. Many times.
Any URL links?
vBulletin’s search function is not good enough to find the discussion quickly.
Sign In
