MildaveOne doesn’t buy a fighter with a 10yr life span in mind. You have to look 30-50yrs down the road.
Lol except Eurofighter Typhoons T1
Which alternatives are cheaper? Unless the total number is cut by amounts the F-35 will still be cheaper than Rafales, Typhoons, T-50s, late model F-15s, etc…
Right now we know the F35 is more expensive per unit…
Even after the FDOW phase, there are still late model short/medium range SAMs that would be problematic for conventional airframes.
Actually VLO are more vulnerable to short/medium range weapons that they are to long range weapons…
MildavePrivate investment falls into two categories: “direct” and “portfolio.” Foreign direct investment is the amount that residents of a country invest in a foreign establishment or enterprise and thereby acquire partial or total control of the firm or enterprise. Generally, the goal of a direct investor is to gain an effective voice in managing the firm, sharing the profits, and directing the operations of the particular business in the host country. Portfolio investment occurs when foreign investors seek to diversify their assets by purchasing securities in a corporation but do not hold enough shares to manage or control the business. Foreign direct investment provides foreign interests with the opportunity to gain control of United States businesses and has become the source of recent concern to United States policymakers.
While capital investment from any source is necessary for the development of individual corporations as well as for the overall expansion of the United States economy, United States policymakers also recognize the danger of unrestricted foreign investment in the United States. Overdependence upon foreign capital could lead to foreign…
Well you’ll have to pay $12 to get the full article
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=9+NW.+J.+INT%27L+L.+%26+BUS.+658&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=50f0e1293a82fbd3b359e162c750af53
In a prior report to you, we examined implementation of the Exon-Florio
legislation and related amendments by the interagency group, the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This
legislation authorizes the President to suspend or prohibit foreign
acquisitions, mergers, or takeovers of U.S. companies when there is
credible evidence that a foreign controlling interest might threaten
national security and other legislation cannot provide adequate protection[…]
We compared the
Exon-Florio legislation with the laws of four major investors in the United
States—Japan, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Specifically,
we focused on (1) the legal framework governing foreign direct
investments posing potential national security concerns, (2) the barriers
and incentives for U.S. companies to invest in these countries’ national
security-related industries, and (3) the U.S. companies’ business activities
in response to these barriers or incentives[…]
In addressing the second and
third objectives, we focused on the defense industry because it has the
most direct link to a country’s national security[…]
Japan, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom each have the authority
to block investments for national security reasons, as does the United
States. However, all five countries have infrequently used this authority in
recent years. Some of these countries have established processes for
reviewing foreign investment for national security concerns. Japan and France review certain foreign direct investments for national security and
other concerns. Germany and the United Kingdom have no general
screening authority that explicitly considers national security issues
related to foreign investment[…]
U.S. defense company officials said they were pursuing access to overseas
defense markets through strategies other than foreign direct investment.
For example, U.S. defense companies either licensed technology to
Japanese companies or made direct sales to Japan. In the three European
countries, U.S. companies formed partnerships to compete for particular
projects.
National Security and
International Affairs Division
http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/gao9661.pdf
Partnerships are what most Europeans companies including Thales are doing in the US, which is different from licensed technology.
The UK allows 100% FDI in its defence industry, and this means foreign companies are able to acquire a domestic company or form a subsidiary in a domestic company with relative ease. The UK houses 11 of the top 100 defence companies in the world, and a further 20 have significant operations in the country. It also has a minimum offset range of 100% of a contract value, which ensures interest from many companies. Eligible offset activities include UK companies carrying out work on an MoD programme, a free of charge technology transfer with a UK company, and research and development (R&D) activities.
http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature115959/
For those who want more informations :
http://www.economywatch.com/foreign-direct-investment/disadvantages.html
http://www.stratpost.com/max-49-fdi-in-defense-ficci
http://www.iebf.org.uk/E.html (I recommand that one)
MildaveI.e. I would speculate that the main reason the F-16 carries AMRAAM on its wingtips is that it reduces spanwise flow and as a result reduces vortex induced drag (drag due to lift) – in a similar manner to a winglet on an airliner.
😀
having internal carriage is “not necessarily” better. aerodynamically. or worse for that matter.
Yeah like badly designed aircraft dont fly well… or not at all !
Mildavebut it also makes the ships, to get into that market in the first place, a good deal more expensive and inaccessible than ever before.
Nope it only takes to demonstrate that your aircraft can operate from ships.
Building a aircraft carrier isn’t that expensive. It’s big, it’s for the long term, and it’s above all political.
The Sea Gripen is going to keep them busy and even if it doen’t end by anything being built, it shows that they are ambitious.
If they manage to build it so that it can compete with the F35 B, then it’s going to be very good for them. So far nobody know exactly what sea operation does to expansive stealth paint and coating on the long term. The F22 has quite a few trouble operating from land, and since operating from sea is always more complicated it’s reasonable to think that the Sea Gripen might be a solution for european’s navy like Spain and Italy.
UK will do whatever the US does, and if the F 35 is cancelled (which I doubt), they will rather go for Super Hornet than for Rafale (apparently that would be treason), or Sea Gripen. Since at that point they would be the only one interested in potentially developping a naval variant for the Typhoon, I doubt they will go that way.
So yeah I would like to see a Sea Gripen trying the Charles de Gaulles or Queen Eli:cool:.
Mildavelarge military vehicle depot
@ Type59 : Do you park your pickup in your living room ?
MildaveMost modern early warning radar can detect VLO or LO even if they can’t guide a missile to destroy them. But a interceptor with a good radar (AESA) can investigate and do the job.
Mildavethe fact that most designers back then decided against for a internal carriage but instead opted for external carriage in most final fast combat jet designs should tells you bit about which way the trade mostly favored. given the requirements (mostly performance based-aerodynamic derived) and engine technology of the time
First jet aircraft were fighters designed to intercept high altitude flying bombers and dogfight other jet fighter with a gun.
First missiles were unguided rocket flying straight foward (try to put these in a internal bay door !), then guided missile with IR or EM seekers that had to lock on their target before been launch (again try to put these in internal bay).
Then the design of the first jet fighters, very light with the air entry right in the nose of the aircraft…
Bombers, kept their bombs internal even with the introduction of jet powered engines.
Then you have the fighter-bomber that was used during WW2. They had their bombs outside their fuselage because they were call dive bomber (again try to dive bomb somthing with internal bay door).
When they were equiped with jet engine their kept their tactics of dive bombing thing of the ground.
Since WW1 every long range aircraft carries its weapons internally. The way todays fighter/bomber carry their weapons is the compromise (since they no longer have to dive).
And with composite materials, bay doors are no longer necessarily heavy.
So I’m not saying that a aircraft has to carry its weapon internally, but yes it can provide huge advantages (less stress during long range, high speed flight etc…).
And the way stealth is shaped today does help with aerodynamics (smooth surfaces…).
MildaveEADS, MBDA are wrong exemples since they are more or less equally owned by each countries who agreed to merge their national industries into an unique european company.
Governments do everything possible to make sure that the money they spend on defense is used to stimulate local economy so that to have better support from the electorate.
As such Thales UK will often provide the UK with the same products but with differents names, and with as much components from the UK as possible in them.
The same thing will happen in India, with the offsets. Thales will still own the technologies offered, but they will be licensed to India, and instead of having french sub-companies providing the different components, Thales India will look at the local market.
Now when UAE wanted state of the art technology and they funded Mirage 2000-9 or the F16 block 60, because they were the one to pay, they get royalties everytime the US or France want to export that technology.
The same is true for Thales UK. If they develop technologies funded by the British MoD, then according to the contract, they will either own the technology but will still have to pay the MoD royalties when exporting it, or if the contract stipulate that the technology will be the propriety of MoD then of course they wont.
Still whatever experience they will gain working for the British MoD, they will be able to use it for other customer even if they have to somewhat “redesign” in order to use export-free components.
Now take a look again at the link I gave on the global presence of Thales in the world, and you will be able to see which are the companies that are an extention of Thales, and which companies Thales is simply the principal share holder.
About Thales and Thales UK
Thales is a global technology leader for the defence & security and the aerospace & transport markets. In 2009, the company generated revenues of £11.5 billion (€12.9 billion), with 68,000 employees in 50 countries. With its 22,500 engineers and researchers Thales has a unique capability to design, develop and deploy equipment, systems and services that meet the most complex security requirements. Thales has an exceptional international footprint, with operations around the world working with customers as local partners.
Thales UK employs 8,500 staff based at 40 locations. In 2009, Thales UK’s revenues were around £1.5 billion.
MildaveTWO drunk RAF fighter pilots were scraped from the gutter at 6am — hours before they were due to fly a bombing mission in Libya
MildaveThe initial cost projections for the F-35 indicated that the costs should not have exceeded $69 million per unit until the flaw was discovered in testing. The cost overruns for the jet fighter program are now estimated to be $103 million per unit and may rise as high as $112 million per unit, according to Haaretz.
Why isn’t LM paying for it ?
MildaveOn A Wing and A Prayer: Decision to Make India’s Choice of Fighter Jet a Purely Technical One Was Political
The MMRCA bid has been one of the hottest recent aviation procurements not just in India, but internationally, too. Eight countries and six companies eagerly await the outcome of this contest. This has turned into such a sizzling affair not only because of the size of the contract. Indeed, there are bigger procurement battles raging internationally. Rather, this procurement bid has been incandescent because it involves geopolitics, the economic fortunes of major aerospace companies, complex transitions in combat aviation technology, and the evolving character of the IAF itself.”
Over several months in 2009-10, the Indian Air Force (IAF) conducted trials along India-Pakistan and India-China borders to test six different aircraft: Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-16IN Super Viper (US), Dassault Aviation’s Rafale (France), MiG-35 (Russia), the Eurofighter Consortium’s Typhoon (Germany, Italy, Spain and UK) and Saab’s Gripen (Sweden). By all accounts, the tests were extensive and exhausting.
India goes full steam to finalize $10.4bn jet deal
Rejecting the carping by those ejected out of the hotly-contested $10.4 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) race, most notably the US, India is going full throttle to ink the “mother of all defence deals” by December.
Asked about “points” being raised by eliminated vendors, sources said only Rafale and Typhoon were found “compliant” on all the 643-660 technical attributes or ASQRs (air staff qualitative requirements) laid down to meet IAF’s specific operational requirements.
“Our test pilots flew 222 sorties, over 270 hours, on the six fighters in different weather conditions in India and abroad. Each vendor was informed of its jet’s performance at every stage… they have no reason to complain,” the source said.
And finally
French defence minister to visit India from May 26
http://www.brahmand.com/news/French-defence-minister-to-visit-India-from-May-26/7122/3/13.html
MildaveEven with a laser you’ll need to find the aircraft first before you can shoot it down.
Stealthy shape can also help the aircraft to be more aerodynamic, so I guess it will always be relevant.
Again with laser, the development of material resistant to heat might make them less usefull that we think. Nothing beats a good kinematic impact (see most recent interceptor missiles using solid object to destroy ballistic missiles).
MildaveI think ultimately it was the end of the cold war and the changing attitude of the politicians that made sure the Raptor enters the USAF only in limited numbers. Also add to the fact that both the service and the Politicians were convinced that the F-35 was more important for the kind of threat they will encounter during its lifetime (both f-22 and f-35).
Still you have to admit that they are in quite a mess right now. Unless they are really so confident about the F22 and F35. They are going to be highly over numbered, and even if they claim these platforms to be superior, you have to account for fatigue, accident, and loss. Can really the F22 with the actual number replace effectively the F15 for the 30 next year ? And can the F35 replace the F16, A10… Given how often these platforms are used in combat (Irak, Afghanistan…).
The good thing is that in order not to over stress their ressources, they might give up invading other countries.
Mildave“Stealth” is better termed as “signature management”.
That signature, for the past history of A2A combat”, has been defined as RCS due to radar being the primary A2A sensor. For this reason RCS reduction techniques have been at the forefront of signature management work over the past few decades.
Now, radars of longer wavelengths (ie L-band, UHF, etc) are being deployed to counter RCS shaping efforts. To counter this, manufactures have turned to RAM that is specifically designed with these wavelengths in mind (see LM’s RAM US patents).
For the most part, the fight against detection has been a passive one, ie shaping and RAM. This may change as computing power catches up with the idea of active cancellation.
On the other end of the spectrum, optical sensors are touted as a solution to the RCS issue. The problem with these is that they are very limited in range and are heavily weather limited.
There is just so many different aspects of this issue, ie “signature management”, that it is impossible to cover them all here. What can be said, however, is that the airborne game of hide & seek will constantly swing back and forth as A hides from B then B gets a better sensor then A finds a way to blind the sensor, etc, etc.
The quest for better “signature management” will never go away, it will just take newer, more complex forms.
I agree.
There is a bit unrealistic yet entertaining vision of stealth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OCywRMr-y4&feature=related.
More historical info on stealth development.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuuVCzpLXZI&feature=related
MildaveIndia wouldn’t be any worse off if they selected ASRAAM or IRS-T, the weapons systems already support these two missiles and there’ll be little sense going through the effort and cost of integrating another missile.
The missiles themselve are not magic. The rafale use MICA IR as part of it sensor because it was programmed that way. It would suffice for India to pay for the same development for IRS-T or ASRAAM.
Sign In
