AndyMcnebb[QUOTE=Ja Worsley;1053084]Happy to, it’s a cash cusion that was written into all contracts by the US to safe guard them incase anyone pulled out. If you pull out, others will have to pay more, therefore you should pay a penalty fee to ease this burden on the other partners. It also helps keep the project going while they look for another partner to step up to the plate so to speak.QUOTE]
Yep! Nothing wrong with that. Althought, the JSF project partners actually earns some extra cash if we pull out after the end of 2007, sense we are
only investing 1bill NOK over ten years.
AndyMcnebbNorway have to come up with an decision regarding the MOU within this month. If the goverment agrees, we’ll give another 100mill nok for the year 2007. If we decide to bail out, now would be the time, sense the new MOU says that if we decide to give up in 2008 or later we’ll have to pay an exit-ticket that costs us 5bill nok. Another concern is the possible new JSF partners, sense it gives Norway an even lesser chance to get any workshare.
AndyMcnebbThats about 60mill dollars. I cant remember the sum we contributed to the EF project. Maybe around 200mill nok. I’ll have to get back to that later.
Ok. I’ve found the number. We have contributed ca 300mill. We will continue to operate only 1 fighter type, since we’re such a small contry. Only 4.6mill of us, you know. The goverment are now deciding if we are to continue as a future partner in the JSF project.
AndyMcnebbThat is about 40 million dollars right? How much did the Norwegians contribute to the Eurofighter?
Thats about 60mill dollars. I cant remember the sum we contributed to the EF project. Maybe around 200mill nok. I’ll have to get back to that later. Good thing we wait with the decision of witch fighter to purchase, untill later on, unlike the people down-under. Many things can happen in the next few years.
AndyMcnebbAmerican fighter constructors mostly tend to use conventional configurations to achieve their wanted spesification, and the europeans have many times choosen
an delta construction to achieve their wanted flight characteristics. WHY??
Who cares, as long they end up getting good result’s. However. When choosing an
delta con. you`ll get excellent supersonic manuvering performance, large wing surface areas with high weaponloads areas, but more drag, and not as good subsonic manuvering performance. That`s why they add canard`s, and now choose to built delta-canards instead. With canards, you get higher low speed performance and lower
drag. You also get better lift increasement, and high manuvering performance even with heavy loadings so that you does`nt loose as much performance when carring
heavy weapon loads. All this and the normal deltas excellent supersonic manuvering performance, are the reason why they have choosen to go for delta-canards.
So. What`s the best construction? Delta-canard or conventional configuration?
None. It all depends on how the final testing results end up at each projects, and
the real overall performance on the final fighter.
AndyMcnebbcheck this other estimate:
Of that $541 billion, Speeter sharply criticized the federal government for spending $72 billion on buying what he called outdated Cold War weapons such as a $260 millon F-22 fighter jet.
source http://www.yaledailynews.com/articlefunctions/Printerfriendly.asp?AID=28458
not USD $100 millions but USD $260
see this other
F-22 Raptor—Program costs increased 2.1 percent from $61.3 billion to $62.6 billion, because of the purchase of four additional aircraft, extension of procurement to Fiscal 2012, and increases in initial spares buys.
source http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2006/0606world.asp
Haydy Ho, MIG-23MLD. Dont belive i`ve comment any of your post`s yet,
sence I`m new here at AVF. But here we go :
The news in your first post was a little outdated. 1 year old. But the other one seems pretty new. 1,3b/4=325.000.000
That`s a lot of cash… Don`t think thats the flyaway cost. I dont know what
they mean by program costs. Let`s say it`s the full price. To get the flyaway
cost I`ll divide it by the standard 2,5 and get 130.000.000.
Okey. I would think this is the price of one Raptor. Any opinions, everybody :confused:
AndyMcnebbOk. This Carlo Kopp certainly sounds a bit paranoid 😮
I read an article, or maybe more like a report/Analysison on the internet made
by ASPI org. about the Austrailian future fighter choice, reviewing the
different options/fighters. I think it was posted on this forum.
THAT was some crappy pice of paperwork… You could almost smell the political agenda behind that report/Analysison just by open the PDF file, and
barely look at it 😡
The pdf file was call`d something like “big deal”, or “ASPI deal”.
Anyone who has read this report/Analysison. Was that some of Carlo Kopps
writings :confused: Does the people on this forum has an opinion on this
report/Analysison, if they belive to have read it ??
AndyMcnebb1. The F-35 will be fine as a fighter; it was designed to physically outperform the F-16, remember.
2. It’s good to see that Carlo Kopp isn’t the only idiot over there capable of writing complete and utter nonsense. Come on, Beazley is making it sound like the ‘vark is flying air defense missions or something…
I guess that the reason they whant to replace the F-111 with the F-22 instead of the F-35 would be they`re future deepstrike capability’s.
Carlo Kopp :confused: Who`s that?? Sounds like a fake name from a movie?
AndyMcnebbTalking about MHD (magnetohydrodynamics) here ?
:confused: I would`nt know what MHD means, are or the sience behinde it.
Even if you told me. Physics can be interesting, but not easy to understand.
If you can make me smarter by explaining it to me in easy word`s, I would
be happy 😀
AndyMcnebbYes. You do remember correctly, Contrailjj. Different layers of RAM are used.
And some are highly metallic as you stated. Thanks for bringing that out in the clear.
Also called “Iron ballpaint” if I rememer correctly? It contains tiny spheres coated with carbonyl iron ferrite. When they use metallic materia, they also combine it with ferrite.
This induce an alternating magnetic field witch turns much of the radar emition into
heat. However, if we go even further there are ruomers the B-2s high voltage leading edges, seves as an stealth feature. It charges its leading edge to a very high potential electric difference from its exhaust stream, creating ionised gas (YES. Thats right : Plasma stealth !!) All thoe, more likely is that it is for the purpose of reducing drag…
AndyMcnebbWhy would the Russians be going to low-RCS designs if anti-stealth technology is already out there?
Anti-stealth development has been going on for a long time and I think the US military branches know that.
Maybe becouse it`s a nice feauture to have when fighting an less hightech enemy in the future :confused:
Within 15 years, I dont think there will be any detection problems, regardless
of the aircraft has todays “stealth” or not. Technologically speaking.
Only some new and much better “stealth” technology can prevent that from
happening. And that can happen 😀
AndyMcnebbMany non metallic material are used to create stealth features. However, sense these materials always have a higher mass than the air it fly`s in, some/much of the radarenergy will be reflected back to the observer. To low`er this effect, absorbing material/skin must be used. It converts much of the radarenergy waves into heat, instead of reflecting it. But these two combos are`nt enough ether, sense some of the radarenergy still will be reflected back to the observer. That`s why shaping the fighter
has to be done. Both external and internal. The external angular shaping directs the radarenergy in other directions than where the energy came from. The internal shapening consists mostly of lots of triangular walls/rooms and structures. It`s purpose is to trap and/or cancel out much of the radarenergy waves. Combined these techniques can reduce a targets radar cross section inside a given frequency bandwith.
However, there is much more to be done to achive “all aspects stealth” features, as this also include IR signature, visual apparentness, sound, EMR/EMC… 🙂
AndyMcnebbAgreed but the AF is counting on the F-22A with its SDB’s and miniature cruise missiles+UCAV’s and B-2 to narrow down the threat rather quickly inorder to operate the F-35 in those enviroment rather then wait days before the F-16’s operate in the same enviroment at the same level of survivability and effectivness.
Yepp. These two new fighters really speed`s up the first days engagement
process, sense they`ll be able to set in the F-35s from early day one active engaging operations unlike F-16 like fighters. I would also belive that this will
dramaticly reduce the enormius first days cost`s of the war, becaus the
extreamly demanding and expensive support task`s will be shortened.
Important points to be included when building up an airdefence.
AndyMcnebbPoint taken, and I agree. And my point was that the JSF stealth feautures is`nt suited
for operating in the most demanding and dense deepstrike enviorment`s. Nor is it`s low speed, low service celling, low internal weapons carrige. The F-22, F-117, and B2
are “widebanded all aspect stealth” fighter`s. It`s easy to forget that the JSF only is
designed with “narrowbanded non all aspect stealth” capabillitys. Most optimised in the same altitude forward situation. You are correct that the JSF might well be tasked to go in with the raptors, but in nearer and less dense enemy areas. Also the fact that the JSF will offer more flexibility interms of types of mission as opposed to what the F-16 presented.
AndyMcnebb. Once those High threat AD’s are dealth with with the F-22,F-35,B-2 punch then the F-35’s are cleared to use their external pylons and go onto serious ordinance delivery.Moreover not all F-35’s need to be going in with LO charecteristics , depending upon the nature of the conflict the Squadrons that are tasked to go deep in with the raptors can be fully stealth and the others which are operating in lesser threat enviroments can operate with JASSM-ER’s and JSOW’s externally.
The JSF is`nt built to performing airsperiority or deepstrike penetration/interdiction tasks. You won`t see it operate with the F-15, EFT, F-22, B-1, B-2, F-117 in these roles. It will work with “the others” in all the important and demanding support tasks thats are essential, and need`s to be done: Escort, close recon, Close air support, battlefield strikes and air interdictions and more and more cruisemissile deliverings(why let the pilots take the risk when the weapons can do the same?). And in those tasks the JSF will become a fantastic fighter.
[/QUOTE]SO in reality the F-35 gets you both worlds interms of switching on and off its stealth by manipulating the ammount of ordiance it carries,whereas the EF is only one -dimensional in its LO and ordinance combo.[/QUOTE]
Good point !! In high threat enviroments it`s stealth feautures makes it less woundable than “the others”, or you can change to a more woundable, but like “the others” more capable config 🙂
Sign In
