SintraOf cause I remember.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark
GD won the TFX. Like LM did with the ATF and JSF. The military gave the specifications and the winning producer promised to deliever that within the planned cost. Robert McNamara terminated that in time when he realised it is no realistic option. By the way it worked with the less demanding F-4. 😉
No, that was not exactly what happened.
Lets us start at the beggining, there were two programs, the TFX, a USAF solo, that called for a long range 2.5 mach tactical strike fighter, at the same time the US Navy was conducting studies for a fleet interceptor, then this chap called Robert Strange McNamara barged in and directed the USAF and the US Navy to create a single program that should encompass both their needs, he even tried to include in the new TFX-“Joint” the CAS requirements for the Marine Corps.
Of course that when you combine such conflicting requirements there´s some chances that something goes wrong…
To make it clear, the USAF and the US Navy made an helluva lot of public noise, they ended up hating the arrangement, so much in fact that the Chief of Naval Operations was ousted of his job.
It was a shambles, and a great big chunck of the entire “shambleness” was directly McNamara´s fault.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/robert-mcnamara-tfx-the-total.html
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/f_111_aardvark.htm
The situation around the F-4 had nothing to do with the F-111, the USAF was directed to acquire a proven Navy combat aircraft.
It was the same thing if today Panetta directed the USAF to stop acquiring F-35A´s and buy 1500´s Super Hornet´s…
SintraWhere is the problem. I never heard that a program was terminated as long it was within the predicted cost and specifications. 😎
There were severall, but thats not the point, several programs have seen their costs balloned by direct interference of civilian leadership, and when that same leadership noticed that this particular program was way off the marks (and a great big chunk of that escalation was directly their responsability) they´ve cut or terminated the program.
Remember what Mcnamara did with the F-111 program? The “B”? Or why do you think that the LCS ended up with two diferent ships getting produced?
Sintra[B
The USAF gives the specifications and the numbers in need. The politicans will decide about the budget only.
Hmmmm, Robert Gates, Robert Mcnamara, Denis Healey, etc…
“ All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm[10]
Not that the USAF chiefs didnt screw its fast jet fleet by failing to recognise/adress the cost issues with the desired “all LO/VLO fleet”, but the civilian leadership is far from being an inpolute group of angels. Barrel pork politics in Pentagon acquisition policy has an awfull lot to do with “wich state profits the most”.
SintraDJcross referes to posters on this forum, or at least this how I interpreted his post.
Me too (that chap) 😉
It’s not USAF fault. Blame politicians. However, ~ 650 F 16 C/D (and these are relative new, not at all geriatric) has been CCIPed, some 300 of them will receive AESA, improved EW, etc. Also 170 F 15C (these are indeed a little bit old) +200 F 15 E (these ones are newer and have 16,000 hours of life –they are sort of teenagers in USAF fleet :D)will be also upgraded with AESA, new EW, IRST.
Dont disagree, but (with hindsight, yes i know, cheap trick) i would have maintained the Raptor line open (, the USAF would have received more Vipers and would looking very seriously at General Atomics Avenger.
You can imagine what would happen to the JSF program if the measures above had taken place a decade ago.
Today with the Raptor line closed the production of the large quantities of F-35A´s for the USAF is inescapable, end of story. But i have my doubts that the Pentagon will get the 2443 jets that are planed (the main reason for my belief you have already mentioned, political priorities get shifted twice a week, the program is suposed to go till the 2040´s…)
My only grip with it (never questioned performances or capability) is that getting an almost entire force consisting of LO/VLO 13+ ton strike fighters is a bit, well, “excessive”?
Undoutebly that the mix of LO/VLO airframe, cutting edge sensors and a great big internal fuel fraction will be more than handy several times in its operational life, but two thousand + airframes?!
Every time that i look at the F-16V…
My friend, any person with a little common sense will be a better USAF procurement boss…
Fair point… (Recently i´ve made the exact same point concerning my own country prime minister´s for the last decade and a half)
SintraAnd he said that the F 22 should be designed differently:
So, more range, no SC, no TV, AG radar modes, IR sensors…sound like an aircrfat I know…:p
What he actualy said was that a fleet of F-22/F-35 mixed with less expensive aircrafts, read, Vipers, would fill the bill perfectly. And
thats not your point…
BTW, DJcross refers to the threads prior to 2005, where many posters (of course Europeans), described the F 22 as a non-maneuvrabile airplane (because the compromises made for steallth :p), a plane that will never be able to pull a Cobra. Of course, once the F 22 appeared in airshows, the posters were silenced. Bur of course, the same persons had an orgasm when the F22 “choke its pilots”, or when some idiot reporters comme with the “1 trillion dollar” programm. OF course some detailes escape them, like that the sum its all the US tri-services will spent for 50 years of manufacture/operation of 2500 planes…
Europeans? Wheeler is from Luxembourg (yes, that chap), right?
Were you reading this forum then? Because i can remember that some of the worst “offenders” were American (never mind the Aussies…)
That happened not ony in this forúm but generaly speaking everywere.
What mistifies me is that there´s some sort of “cost blindness” in the USAF. Two decades ago they went for a total LO/VLO fast jet force, now they ended up with a geriatric combat force, a handfull of stealth combat jets and a reduced number of sqn´s. That on a force that has a bigger budget than the second biggest MOD on the planet, the Chinese one!
And seems they didnt learn a thing…
Sod it, in my view (not worth a dime) that chap Christopher Niemi should be made USAF procurement boss.
SintraTo have any real capability Denmark will need 50 aircraft. 3 units of 14 and an OCU of 8. F-35 is off the table as they can’t afford 50 F-35s at to days costs but if costs come down in 2025 they can look again.
1) To field any number of “active” fast jets its usual to have surplus airframes
2) The Flyvevåbnet operates two Viper Eskadrille, they are not going to double the number of sqn´s unless the Martians invade Sjaeland.
SintraOn the contrary, he says that it’s a good speed for the F 35 to be at. If this is false marketing, soon pilots from 10 countries and 3 US services will know…wait, pilots from 3 US services and UK are already flying the thing. I guess that any of them could call AFA Magazine and contradict the damn’ LM liar.
Now, there´s a bit of a problem in there, they already have… I can remember some five or six diferent articles in wich diferent pilots, while praising the handling characteristics of the aircraft say specificaly that the JSF doesnt supercruise, including one on “Code One” magazine.
It might be something has simple has the F-35A just made a breakthrough in the test program, if so congratulations to the engineers and pilots.
SintraNot faster. Or do you think that the 3 EFTs will allow a Gripen to travel faster that an F 35 ? Until the Gripen drops them the Gripen will be slower.
Undoutebly, not only that but being a much bigger airframe the F-35A performances will degrade less for any given external payload. The bigger the payload, the bigger the penalty for the smaller airframe.
Someone posted a polar graph for the F 16. A clean F 16 can fly 1,05M in milktary thrust. With 1 EFT and 6 MK 84 (a modest load for an F 16) the max. speed in military was 0.6M ! What would do 3 EFTs on a smaller and less powerful Gripen?
Mk84´s? Those are quite some beasts!
Mk82 or MK83 i imagine.
SintraBangladesh?!
There are almost two thousand km´s between Pakistan and Bangladesh!
SintraThe AIM-120 has been upgraded twice since the Meteor started it’s development (C7 and D) and already has post D upgrades in the works like a new motor from ATK (due out of Dev next year).
“Utter tosh” would apply if you had anything to say otherwise. If not, then you are guessing. Just because it’s new, does not make it better when the people making it have less experience than you at similar systems (ala Tejas vs F-16 or Pak Fa vs F-22).
Who´s guessing, me or you? Remember who was the chap who made a quantitative comparison without one single number or document to suport his assertions?
I base my assumptions (remember that I did say “likely”) on Raytheon having more developmental, testing, operational, and combat experience with the AMRAAM than MBDA has with Meteor (or any of it’s predecessors).
Then you are most likely wrong, the guidance systems of the Meteor are a development of the MBDA (cough “MATRA” cough) “T4” family. Since the initial development of the Meteor that family has already spawned three diferent evolutionary improved seekers (MBDA MICA » MBDA ASTER 15/30 » MBDA Meteor). For the next few years developments of that family will get into… CAAM and eventualy into ASTER Capability Two (part of it has already been tested by the way).
If there´s one thing that MBDA does have is “experience”.
SintraYou are welcome to believe what you like. I was very skeptical myself.
True, but i am glad for your inputs and they are apreciated back here.
Thanks
SintraNo government is now going to say we are buying an MPA solution using old airframes, cannibalised parts from a failed project and all integrated by BAE Systems!
😮
Now thats a safe bet for a massive sucess!
Sintra@ Sintra it depends on who you ask. Some people I have spoken to claim the technology freeze for the METEOR has effectively put the missile in the stone age with regard to ‘software related bits’. It will be interesting to see how well the METEOR tests in the comings years.
Taking into acount that the Meteor is the direct recipient of the entire “T4” family develpment history and that recently the latest member of that family has been making direct hits into trisonic targets and that the Swedes have been raiving mad about the Meteor test rounds i would be astounded to discover that this particular missile is in “the stone age with regard to ‘software related bits'”.
SintraHow do you write “Congratulations and fine job” in Chinese? 🙂
SintraWhich part? The -120D has benefited from many upgrades over the AMRAAM’s lifetime including multiple ECCM upgrades, warhead, datalink, control section, etc. The datalink is now 2-way, it’s INS has GPS built-in which allows for a more range, a more accurate endgame & a higher pK, and it has several HOBS upgrades.
You are actually comparing the normal evolution of a legacy (two decades of it) weapon with a brand new AAM and concluding that the legacy weapon has better systems, because it has been upgraded?!!!!!!!!!
STOP THE PRESS, SPUD JUST CONCLUDED THAT THE RAFALE/Strike Eagle/Evolved Flanker IS A SUPERIOR SYSTEM THAN DAVE!
They have all been upgraded…
Do you any have any document that compares the performance of the two systems?
Do you have one single document describing in any detail things like the (two way) data link and seeker of the MBDA Meteor and its performances?
If not, “Utter Tosh” aplies very well.
Sign In
