Page 36 – Key Publishing

SlowMan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 526 through 540 (of 572 total)

← 1 2 3 … 35 36 37 38 39 →

Author

Posts
October 18, 2012 at 2:47 am in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2296896

SlowMan
Participant

Again, any facts to back that up?

None other than the F-35 is the proof of Lockheed’s complete incompetence in project management. No weapons project in history has ever been $180 billion over budget and 8 years behind schedule like the F-35 is.

The very disastrous state of the F-35 program today demonstrates Lockheed’s inability to manage big projects.

October 18, 2012 at 2:39 am in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2296899

SlowMan
Participant

SuperHornet was a long time ago.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/10/21/minister-for-defence-materiel-address-to-welcome-the-arrival-of-the-super-hornet-fighter-jets-raaf-base-amberley-queensland/

Minister for Defence Materiel – Address to welcome the arrival of the Super Hornet fighter jets RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland
21 October 2011

But today, is proof that we made the right decision.

In less than two years, all 24 Super Hornets have arrived – on budget and ahead of schedule.

Wedgetail was even worse.

Australia didn’t pay extra.

October 18, 2012 at 2:23 am in reply to: F-35 vs mig-31BM , new F-18E/F and F-15SE #2296905

SlowMan
Participant

What, no link?

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/86823457

RAM is not mentioned, leading to the speculation that this is the cause of the export model F-35’s high RCS.

I’ll see your unofficial opinion letter

It was an official letter.

On one had you have sworn testimony and many recent direct quotes stating that the JSF Partner F-35s are essentially the same (minor changes due to security concerns like IFF codes, etc and specific equip like drag chutes).

And don’t forget stealth downgrade and removal of certain features like AESA jamming.

October 17, 2012 at 9:02 pm in reply to: F-35 vs mig-31BM , new F-18E/F and F-15SE #2297081

SlowMan
Participant

I find it very hard to believe that F-15SE will have the same RCS as F-35.

According to Canada’s Vice Defense Minister Julian Fantino in his signed letter, the CF-35 model for Canada(The Export Model) will have a 95% RCS reduction over a 4th gen jet(5 m^2 standard), making the Canadian F-35’s RCS around 0.25 m^2. If Fantino was comparing CF-35 to CF-18, then it would be 0.15 m^2.

In any case, Boeing can match the export model F-35’s RCS because it is so high in the first place due to the US DoD’s export policy. And this is why countries like Japan and Korea are developing their own stealth jets, because the RCS of export model F-35 isn’t good enough for them in their stand offs against China.

October 17, 2012 at 8:49 pm in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2297098

SlowMan
Participant

Do you have any of those pesky “facts” to back that statement up?

btw, According to POGO, LM is not the worst (by far).

I was talking in terms of project delivery and budget, not criminal misconducts. The F-35 by far is the worst executed weapons development program in history.

that’s commercial contracts and NOT what would have happened with if the X-32 had been selected

KC-46A is a fixed-cost contract. And the Super Hornet was delivered on time and on budget. Boeing has a good track record in terms of project execution.

X-32 would have gotten standard cost-plus contract just like the F-35 and would have been massively overbudget and behind schedule just like the F-35

The Super Hornet says otherwise. And the structure of Boeing’s JSF proposal in which the A & C models share a common airframe ensures that an F-35 like disaster would not have taken place with the F-32.

And what makes you think the Boeing plan would have worked any better than the LockMart plan when the X-32 had less lift margin to begin with?

F-32B was going to be a very different beast from the A & C. Any problem arising from the SVTOL would be contained in the B model and would not spread to the A model, unlike what happened with the F-35.

October 17, 2012 at 7:18 pm in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2297156

SlowMan
Participant

Boeing has plenty of commercial work to keep them afloat

But not the fighter jet business. When Boeing folds its fighter jet division, then the Pentagon is now at the mercy of Lockheed, aka the worst performing defense contractor in the US. Then the US would be forced to run “international” fighter jet competitions for the 6th gen fighter jets the next time around.

From the looks of it, Boeing will be a contractor on the KFX project so they will have something to keep its fighter jet engineers busy for the next 10 years, but what about thereafter?

*cough*787*cough*

And the customers did not pay a dime more; they were compensated for the delayed delivery instead.

no, all 3 airframes are unique

The original JSF plan was to have two airframes, and both airframes would have 80% parts commonality, and this would have been achieved with the Boeing plan.

F-35 became three unique airframes only because of the weight reduction failure on the F-35B.

is that actually in the docs, or is he just talking about what is currently done with the F-16s?

The USAF wants to replace F-16D training rides with T-X rides to save money. In other word, the T-X must be able to fly like an F-16 and this is why Lockheed was talking about re-engining T-50′ with an F414.

There is a gap between what the USAF wants from the T-X and what the M-346 and BAE Hawk could deliver. The Gripen trainer could also substitute F-16Ds used as trainers.

October 17, 2012 at 5:47 pm in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2297206

SlowMan
Participant

It’s not the government’s (read the people’s) job to keep certain companies in business.

It is the government’s job of keeping multiple competitors in the market, hence the Bell Corp break-up.

Besides, what makes you think that the F-32 could have done any better than the F-35 at meeting spec, cost, and schedule predictions?

1. Boeing does project management much better than Lockheed due to its commercial aviation roots.

2. The F-32’s A&C had a common airframe, so at least the Airforce and the Navy versions would have gone on schedule regardless of troubles with the B model, which was a separate airframe.

The F-35 program has A&B models as common airframe, so the A model’s screwed if the B model’s screwed, and that’s exactly what happened. A very poor project planning on Lockheed’s part.

October 17, 2012 at 4:30 pm in reply to: Denmark set to run fighter selection in 2013/4? #2297233

SlowMan
Participant

Denmark : Open contest.
Canada : Open contest likely.
Netherlands : The parliament already voted to cancel Dutch participation in the JSF program.

October 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm in reply to: F-35 vs mig-31BM , new F-18E/F and F-15SE #2297236

SlowMan
Participant

The F-35 simply cannot take on the Mig-31BM and the Silent Eagle, these jets fly too high and too fast for the slow and low-ceiling F-35 to have a shot at regardless of stealth. Whether the Mig-31BM can get a lock on the F-35 is another matter.(The Silent Eagle WILL get a lock on the F-35 in BVR conditions)

The only reasonable scenario is the F-35 vs the Silent Hornet, both 0.1 m^2 class jets armed, and flying at same altitude.

October 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2297243

SlowMan
Participant

How much UK and Italy will buy any US build fighters in near future compare to ROK ?

UK : 20~40
Italy : 90 <= Subject to further cuts.
Korea : 0 <= F-35 is trailing behind the Silent Eagle and the Typhoon at the moment in the ongoing F-X contest, with experts giving it a 0% chance of a win.

And who says ROK already abandoned F-35.

That’s the leak from DAPA and the stock market.

The overall project of ROK F-16 and F-15K and also the next F-X program surpass both Italy and UK order for US build fighters.

ROKAF F-16s will be replaced by the KFX, not by the F-35.

the chances for Lockheed to win T-X with T-50 derivative is in my mind higher than anyone else.

Except that Lockheed is the least liked supplier at the Pentagon.

I do not think they can take that into account.

The F-35 disaster has taught Pentagon the lesson of the dangers of single vendor monopoly, and that they need to maintain two competitors.

They could have excluded the T-50 (if they wanted to) by specifying 2 engines, max weight, fuels use, etc.

Well, the T-50 at the moment is the closest to being the USAF’s ideal trainer. Unfortunately, it is being marketed by the most controversial vendor in the US defense business prone to cost overruns and delays.

October 16, 2012 at 10:36 pm in reply to: F-35 vs mig-31BM , new F-18E/F and F-15SE #2297565

SlowMan
Participant

The export F-35 is rated LO(0.1 m^2 class); this is why Boeing claims they could match the export F-35’s frontal aspect stealth rating. Having said that, F-35 also has the weakest radar of four before the downgrade for export customers. You have to understand that the export model F-35 is not the same as the US forces F-35.

The F-35 was never meant to kill enemy air superiority fighters and is strictly a strike platform like F-117A, so comparing it to others in A2A scenario is pointless. What simulations they have on F-35 vs Su-35 and up, the F-35 gets wiped out.

October 16, 2012 at 9:14 pm in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2297617

SlowMan
Participant

If we take the assumption that the Hawk never stood a chance because it’s performance is so much lower than “more modern” designs, why did they bother?

It’s a 350 unit deal, a rarity in today’s defense budget austerity world. Everyone in the business wants to take his chances, such that even a Chinese company wanted to get in.

But why would NG attach to the Hawk if it was such a lame duck then?

They had no other foreign trainer vendor to partner with. Maybe Northrop would have gone with Saab if Saab disclosed its intentions sooner.

Are the now published requirements that different from what was initially expected?

Yes, it didn’t specify the supersonic capability. Doing so would have made it a single vendor qualifying program(Before the Saab’s plan to enter the T-X contest, that is).

October 16, 2012 at 6:53 pm in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2297652

SlowMan
Participant

And by the way, Boeing its still very much looking at the T-X requirement (with a clean sheet design)

That is if Boeing can self fund the development. The USAF is broke and is trying to buy “off the shelf” in order to not pay for the development cost. Heck, the USAF was asking if it was possible to lease the jets or just the flying hours.

and SAAB might make a go at it with a Gripen variant, but its far from certain.

Saab will make a bid. 350 units is just too big to pass.

October 16, 2012 at 6:50 pm in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2297656

SlowMan
Participant

M-346 is not being entered, the T-100 is. Its based on the M-346

Considering the slow pace of Alenia’s development, I am not sure if they could meet the deadline.

The USAF evaluators will be flying in a stock M-346, while they would most likely be flying in an F/A-50 as a representation of the USAF T-50 model. There is going to be a world of difference between a pure trainer and a full combat aircraft.

Gripen Trainer highly unlikely

Well, a Gripen trainer would be able to meet the USAF’s KPP rather easily. The issue is cost. While the Gripen costs more to buy, Saab claims a very low operating cost.

October 16, 2012 at 6:42 pm in reply to: T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect? #2297664

SlowMan
Participant

I would imagine that the “normal” M-346 would be very, very, very close to this KPP.

Aircraft shall be able to sustain 6.5 Gs for no less than 15 seconds

http://www.aleniana.com/files/u9/M346_0.pdf

Max sustained load factor (15,000 ft): 5.6 g
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 526 through 540 (of 572 total)

← 1 2 3 … 35 36 37 38 39 →