SintraModern SAMs are designed to use mobility to defeat the kill chain (find, fix, track, target, engage). The acquisition and tracking radars radiate for a few minutes, then shut down and move to a new location, then radiate again, then shut down and move… rinse and repeat.
This requires the SEAD airplane to track the movement of SAM battery elements and provide in-flight updates to its weapon. If you are unable to track the SAM battery elements, your SEAD weapon hits vacant parking spots. Of course, this requires your airplane be stealthy enough to watch the SAM battery element as it moves without becoming a target of the SAMs it is hunting.
Or in alternative a loitering munition. Tacit Rainbow thirty years later.
If the SAM radar shuts down, the munition loiter´s in the vicinity of the original site untill the radar starts radiating again, then it attacks the new location. The new location will be in the vicinity of the older one, the SAM “circus” travel by land and unless they self defeat themselves by shutting down for long periods they cant get very far. This has the obvious advantage that the SEAD aircraft will be able to get out of the vicinity of the SAM batery.
The RAF with such a munition has been more than sucessful.
SintraThe question is who are the distractors here? Comparing life cycle costs of the Typhoon with fly-away costs of the F-35 is utterly moot isn’t it?
And using that article of the Register for that… One that was not discussed some one thousand times in here…
SintraI think the £23bn is the cost of the entire program. If you divide that cost by the number of aircraft delivered at any time, the cost changes every time another aircraft is delivered. You could say that the first Typoon cost £23bn or the first 2 cost £11.5bn each, or the first 3 £7bn+ each. It is as meaningless as saying 107 cost £215m each. Since the RAF should receive 200+ Typhoons, the figure should be less than £120m per Typhoon.
IIRC the contract price for the last lot of Typhoons was less than £60m each (say $90m). That is quite a lot less than the $120m cost you give for F-35.
And remind me please, if you know, is the F-35 figure for an aircraft with an engine or do we have to add the cost of the engine to the $120m to get a real price?
1º The cost for the entire RAF Typhoon Program per the most recent official NAO document, “Major Projects report 2011” is precisely 18,159 Bilion pounds. It covers the development and procurement of the 160 Phoons.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/major_projects_report_2011.aspx
2º The NAO made a bit of a mess with the “Management of the Typhoon Project” document, the numbers presented in that document were taken from the “Major Projects report 2010” that while acknowledging the reduction in numbers from 232 units to 160 didnt acknowledge the concomitant reduction in costs. A few months later the NAO releases the latest “Major Projects report 2011” and guess what? A major decrease in costs…
3º The NAO “Major Projects report 2012” should be published in the next few weeks.
SintraCompare Greece/Spain with Belarus. Belarus/Ukranians can take any high paying jobs in Russia. and Belarusian have subsidized energy.
JSR
I am Portuguese, i have a midle income in Portugal, the lady who cames to my house once a week to clean it, is Ukranian… In the last half decade i had Ukranians, Bielorussians and Russians. Bloody good workers, excelent people. They are here because the living conditions in Ukraine/Bielorussia for a teacher or a highly skiled technician are misery compared with what they can get here (Lisbon) cleaning houses… Even with every single problem that southern Europe has to contend we are still receiving an healthy dose of Imigration coming from Ukraine and Bielorussia.
There´s no comparison between the living standard of a Portuguese or a Greek (dont even throw the Spanish in there, its another planet) and a Ukranian, a Bielorussian or even a Russian, the living standards here are vastly superior, even with all the cuts in income and higher taxes we have been getting. And yes i have been there (recently and shortly i admit), i would imagine that you´ve never been in Athens, Lisbon or Madrid.
Anyone who tries to compare Greece and Spain with Bielorussia or Ukraine doesnt have a single clue of what he´s saying, its like comparing Norway with Greece.
Mind you, we are from the poorest countries in Western Europe, every time that i´ve been to France or Germany, well, its an eye opener (loved the French part of the Pyrenees).
Back to topic? (For the moderators, sorry)
SintraThat’s cheating, NATO is not EU.
I suppose choosing two non EU and non NATO countries and portraying them as the only possible alternative instead of a pair of EU members outside of NATO is just a coincidence.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
You were talking of the Albanians and Croatians?!
Give me a break…
I do and that’s why I know that the stereotype doesn’t live up to the expectations.
What stereotype?!
Stop dawling, what are those countries with less security, less stability, less development or worse image by comparison with their status before entering NATO?
Are we talking of Croatia who had got out of war not too long ago? The former Eremite Socialist Republic of Albania? Are we talking of today´s Czech Republic with their almost “New Zealand” PIB PPP? Are we talking of former Ceausescu country? Are we talking of the Baltic Republic´s who not too long ago were not even countries?
They are all so much worse than Moldova, Ukraine, Bielorussia, Servia, etc… Aint they?
SintraHas membership translated in more security, more stability, more development or better image?
If you are talking about the Eastern European Countries that entered NATO and the UE the answer is yes, yes, massively yes and yes.
The alternative is Bielorussia (or Moldova)…
Please compare today´s Poland or Romania with today´s Bielorussia, or with Poland/Romania from the 80´s.
Ceausescu was such a nice chap… Nevermind Aleksandr Lukashenko.
The absence of referendums speaks for its own about population awareness and support.
You obviously dont have much contact with Poles, Chec´s, Romenians, etc, do you?
There´s more suport for NATO there than in much of “Western” Europe.
SintraI think we are just talking past each other.
Agree, we are pretty much saying the same things, the only diference is the level of optimism.
Though no production contact currently exists, I view it as a virtual certainty that some or all of the features of the new engine will eventually make their way into the F-35. As already discussed elsewhere in this thread Pratt’s demo engine under the AETD program is itself a variant of the F135.
This is the point were i have some doubts, i can see technology insertions in the F-135, but i am not seeing a completely new engine in production for the beggining of the 20´s, the Congress will cry “Bloody murder” after the F-136 got the axe, and i am seeing the Pentagon budget getting raided (a lot) for the next few years.
Oh well, this is one that we can only discover wich of the two of us was right ten years from now.
SintraDazza
The Sentinel R Mark 1 is not a ‘stand alone’ system, it was always planned to simply locate ‘possible targets’ its value is only realised when there are other (proper) reconnaissance assets available to confirm or deny those ‘possibles’. Post Afghanistan it has no real role in the defence of the UK. It will once again be an aircraft looking for a role. Shame we didn’t get it in the late 70’s when we needed it.
Whats the name of those “proper” reconaissance assets in the RAF´s/GB MOD that can monitor a large land mass while relaying the information in real time?
The Raptor POD /Watchkeeper/Reaper can ID a target IF they know where he is, they dont cover a very big area and does ASac7 have any capability that R1 doesnt have?
In other words doesnt R1 work in tandem with Reaper/manned systems exactly the same way that the USAF E-8C?
SintraAgain, you are confusing later stages of design and production with early stages. The AETD program is designed to bring these engines to the leaping off point for the type of contract you are describing… this puts the overall effort much much farther along than pure research or experimentation–a production engine is the goal–but that contract won’t be awarded until AETD is completed.
Exactly yes, and exactly no. There is not yet a production contract, nor should there be at this stage. The goal is to bring these engines to production readiness. An additional program will take over in the ~2017 timeframe.
It is true that the AETD program could succeed without delivering an engine for the F-35. It is quite likely to end up forming the basis for the engines of both the next generation bomber and USAF and USN 6th generation fighter programs.
That said, the likelihood is high that one of these engines will find their way into the F-35 is high. The fuel saving aspects of the program would provide a substantial economic motivation by themselves…
So its a program development in its “early stages”, right?
With a low budget by comparison with the likes of the F-135/F-136, right?
And without any garantees it will end up on the F-35?
That was my point all along. :confused:
SintraJSR reaction to announcement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s
:diablo:
LLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL
SintraImagine what Typhoon would look like today – or in 2020 – with American money behind it.
I´ll get me coat… 😀
SintraYeah, a “baby program” with $750,000,000 of government funding, with the participants picking up another chunk of the costs.
I know everyone around here gets used to hearing huge numbers thrown around, but $750 million is still a lot of money, especially for a development program with no production ordered yet.
The technologies being targeted for development under ADVENT and AETD are considered among the primary enablers of the next generation bomber program, 6th generation fighters, future variants of the F-35, and future UAV applications.
The only way AETD gets cancelled is if the USAF essentially gives up on its primarily future procurement priorities.
hopsalot
1º Thats 10% of the development costs (nevermind the production) for the F-135 and roughly equivalent to one year and a half of R&D money used by RR and GE for the F-136. Mind you the money for ADVENT and AETD is divided by two teams (actualy three, RR had a ADVENT contract, but lost AETD). If the objective was to field a new engine for the F-35 by the beggining of the next decade its massively underfunded by comparison with “legacy” programs.
2º There is no contract for a prodution variant and sure has hell is not funded (look at the F-135 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract signed in 2001 and you will see what i mean).
3º The AETD might very well be a massive sucess and dont deliver one single engine for the F-35, this without being cancelled. Because this program is an R&D effort. When its over (read Industry delivering a pair of semi mature designs), depending on its sucess and the operational needs, then the DOD will decide what they are going to do with the end result, it might be a new F-35 engine, something entirely diferent (NLRB, N-UCAS, F/A-XX), technology improvements for the F-135 and F-414, these three options, or if it entirely fails it might be “forgoten”.
Cheers
SintraAbsolutely not true. Advent has been running since 2007 and has more than sufficient funding for the stage of the process it is in.
Exactly my point, its a baby program intended to build a technology demonstrator, and undoutebly it has “sufficient funding for the stage of the process it is in”, that means, right at the beggining.
This is not that different from the Super Hornet. Some in Congress don’t like the idea of funding a new engine only a few years after the earlier engine went operational so they are talking about it as a research program.
Make no mistake, this program is designed to produce a fully production ready engine, sized to fit the F-35. Once the engine is ready nobody is going to say no. The same engine is slated to power other future designs as well, including the upcoming 6th generation fighter designs.
This program is at the core of the US Air Force’s plans moving forward. It is not going to be defunded.
Oh right…
SintraOf course we could say the same thing about essentially every other developmental program taking place anywhere in the world couldn’t we?
Yes, but ADVENT/AETD is a baby program(s) in their first steps, one with not a lot of secure funding (for a Pentagon program, mind you) and a questionable operational need, couple that with a threatned Pentagon budget for the next decade…
I am old enough to have seen bucket loads of identical programs getting canned or turned into technology demonstrators (in reality thats exactly what AETD is), if i had to bet on a totaly new AETD engine getting into the F-35 for the next decade i simply wouldnt. Variations/Evolutions of the F-135 with ADVENT/AETD technology, yes, a very distinct possibly, a completely new engine? Doubtfull, very, very, very doubtfull.
But i think you will find this interesting:
Not for the F-35
In reality, AETD is not delivering an engine. The deliverables for the three-year schedule are component rig tests, modeling and simulation, an engine ground demonstration, and an adaptive engine preliminary design.
Still, the program raised eyebrows and questions from Congress when the funding first appeared in the Fiscal 2013 budget.
“We just have gone through a multiyear battle here in Congress about whether we would build one or two engines for the Joint Strike Fighter,” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who questioned whether the Adaptive Engine Technology Development program was actually an alternative engine for the F-35. “I wanted to ask you flat out,” he said to Wolfenbarger.
“No, sir, it is not,” she replied. “It is a technology maturation program that takes the advances that we have seen under the ADVENT program and takes them to the next maturity level.”
Wolfenbarger also clarified that the target 25 percent fuel efficiency gains can’t be reached by modifying any current engines.
Advanced engine work is important to the industrial base, too. Most of the work is under export control. Primes therefore use almost exclusively a slate of highly specialized US suppliers for tasks from precision castings to manufacture of blisks, airfoils, fuel pumps, and even fasteners. Dollars spent on advanced propulsion help fuel cutting-edge US manufacturing. “The investment will also help maintain a competitive industrial base in turbine engine technology, an area critical to our future military capability,” Walker said.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/September%202012/0912engines.aspx
SintraIn the end the most F-35s will end up flying with a next generation variable-cycle engine now in development, on track for production in the early 2020s. (Not long after the F-35 hits full rate production)
This engine will not only dramatically increase the F-35’s range, it will improve performance in general, including its supercruise performance.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_24_2012_p31-497914.xml&p=1
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/10/ge-starts-advent-core-tests.html
That will happen if…
If ADVENT is not entirely canned, if the program doesnt get transformed into a technology demonstrator, if it doesnt require an awfull lot of work to redesign the F-35, if it doesnt completely fail…
Too soon to tell what will happen with ADVENT. It might end in the F-35, it might not.
Sign In
