I know that I will probably take some flack for saying this but I don’t regard Russian jet engine development as at the cutting edge both military and civil. Maybe in certain niche areas but not universally, they certainly make some darn good engines!

Right I’m off to put on some body armour before JSR reads this…

I now understand your basis for evaluating the DF-21D. As always consider the source…….

The Russian developments and the papers/books you cite have as much relevance as Vectron in evaluating the DF-21D! We have NO EVIDENCE that any Russian developments had ANY INFLUENCE on China when they developed the missile! To say otherwise is PURE SPECULATION! None of those authors could possibly have first hand knowledge of what China is getting up to!

Yeah really grown up Snaffy

I am not an F-35 fanboy but I am a supporter.Rather than make pointless derogatory statements why don’t you stick to the debate.

The F-35 fanboys behave pretty much like a sect. If they were to stop following the dogma of the sect they would be immediately rejected by their little friends, which would destroy their little ego.

Being able to change one’s mind or at least to trying to nuance one’s point of view is more a sign of intelligence and honesty than a sign of weakness. That’s what they don’t seem to grasp.

I don’t think everything is bad about the F-35 but taking always its defense like it’s the best thing since sliced bread is really stupid and childish. pfff…

POT KETTLE BLACK

Draw your own conclusions

It is a difficult one really, I tend to feel it was a poor buy but with the best of intentions! The cost of buying new SSK was prohibitive and the UK dangled the chance of buying four virtually new examples at a rock bottom price.

In the end it is buyer beware, but I do think the UK shares a fair amount of blame for the debacle. Firstly I think the Upholder class should of finished their acceptance to service and had any defects rectified. The hasty move to retire them is a clear causal factor in what was later to happen! The Submarines should of been sent somewhere to be lifted out of the water, preferably Barrow then mothballed properly and ownership switch from the MOD to another government department probably the ‘Department of Trade and Industry’ with a fee paid to Marconi Marine (VSEL) to keep them in a semi hot but mothballed state whilst they tried to find a buyer. That way they would of avoided the MOD treating them as a handy spare parts bin to support the nuclear fleet. There should of also been a fixed time where if there had been no export sale that they would of been parted out and scrapped to bring some value back to the UK treasury.

I think Canada has spent so much time and blood on the Victoria class that they should get some service out of them at least for the next fifteen to twenty years but any replacement should be tied with someone elses program.

Of course we should also touch upon the broken aspects of defence procurement in Canada:

1) Constantly seeking a “Canada optimised” solution because “Canada is unique”! This has added time and cost onto programs that could of been purchased directly off the shelf and instead leads to a death spiral as the unique changes bog the program down eventually forcing the purchase of an off the shelf solution. Single Class Surface Combatant project is a case in point!

2) Joining or starting high technology defence programs then not adopting them! APARS is a particularly good example.

3) Cancelling programs after significant time and money has been spent. Merlin and APARS!

4) Talking about defence procurement but not spending the money to do it!

5) As you allude to Voodoo Canadian political parties not following through the decisions of previous governments for political gain!
6) General dithering! Frigate/Destroyer replacement programs. LPD, Ice breakers…the list goes on

What an embarrassment. I really like this part of the article ” Canada’s submarines were bought second-hand from Britain for $896 million in 1998. Critics believe they’ve cost at least twice that much to fix, maintain and update to modern standards.”

Sure one had a dent in it. We knew that going into the deal. But to pull systems out of the old Oberon class and try to marry it up to the upholders. No wonder there was a fire and glitches ever since. Could we not have just left them the way they were? We actually would have gained a new capability with the Harpoon missile. And there would not be this much teething problems.

Yeah whilst much is made of the state of the Submarines when Canada purchased them off the UK the issue of integrating the MK48 isn’t as well known but seriously impacted the adoption of the Submarines.

Problems with the Upholder/Victoria class:

1) Post build defect rectification process was never finished when UK gov decided to retire class.

2) Improperly stored by the UK, not lifted out of the water and water tanks not drained, cleaned and flushed through with light oil to prevent corrosion.

3) One damaged in harbour (the infamous dent).

4) The class was gutted of spare parts due to the system commonality with the RN Nuclear fleet.

5) Reactivation required parts to be drawn back from the RN nuclear fleet and reworked, there was improper interaction with Barrow over this process.

6) Removal of significant part of the the fire control system due to Canada deciding it could save money integrating the MK48 MOD 4 torpedo.

7) Trying to fit components of the Oberons FCS to allow compatibility with the MK48 MOD 4, this work was done in Canada without proper consultation back to the submarines builder.

8) Electrical systems of one Submarine destroyed when modern shore generator was connected without consultation back to manufacturer.

There is more but it gets tiresome writing them down! The Torpedo issue is particularly crazy. The MK48 MOD 4 was already obsolete, they are now integrating MK48 MOD 7 ADCAP and ironically refitting some components of the original FCS to make that happen. When the UK sold the class to Canada the Royal Navy was retiring the MK 24 MOD 2 Tigerfish that was fully compatible with the submarine. Whilst it is hardly a stellar performer the RN regarded the MOD 2 variant as adequate and Canada could of had the entire UK stock of nearly 600 torpedos for next to nothing! That would of allowed them to keep the installed FCS and make a decision later over whether to buy an alternate torpedo and integrate it into the installed FCS.

WOW!

You beat me! WOW JUST WOW!

I want that picture framed!

Surely a company like Boeing can figure out such trivialities such as too little vertical stab…

I would prefer a pair of fuselage mounted CF6-80C2 or better simply because it’s the least complicated way to add new technology engines with the datalink and whatnot. The nuclear engine was going to add far more than 20,000 pounds. The B-52 uses a lifting tail, which simplifies the balancing act under load. The real trick is what to do with the flappy wings unloaded, which is why I would prefer spare low-profile afterburning engines like F404 under each wing. Not four F404, just one each wing. Then add more weight in the way of external datalinked weapon racks and fuel tanks. If you could utilize modularity, like using existing F-15E conformal tanks, it keeps development costs down.

CF6 engines attached to the fuselage with one 404 under each wing the least complicated????

What planet on you on MadRat!

That would involve a huge amount of costly work and significant certification work! How do you propose attaching the large turbofans to the fuselage of what are nearly fiftyfive year old airframes. There would have to be significant structural work and changes to the fuel pipework, it would totally change the aerodynamics! It would be such a massive job that it is almost insane to suggest it!

I realise you have put together a pet idea that you want to run with but it is unworkable! Any engine upgrade of the B52 will involve engines of one type mounted on the wings off the current pylon hard points.