Does anybody know what is under the whited-out area (Near the blue car parks) south of the runway intersection?

Superb!
Enjoyed the 1st one more than the 2nd….but both superb.

Too late now. The gap filler between the Herc and the c17 could have been filled with a far cheaper alternative…even if it was still done by Airbus. Instead they have designed a nightmare, throwing technology at every corner. This is a Transport / Grunt dropper. A workhorse. They have designed an engineering masterpiece which is almost impossible to build on a repetitive process and keep costs down. The Military needed a Ford Model T and they are getting a carbon fibre Rolls Royce.

And, to the person doubting the cost of a Herc J at $65M, I read it again today in a Market segment analysis of the mid-heavy transporter. I will ask the report compiler of the source and post it Monday.

I checked today, the sell price of $60-$70M for a C130J is a figure which our Corporate Sales and Marketing team use for 2007. They are USA based and have been doing their job since the 60’s, so they should know their stuff.
I also draw your attention to
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92
Those figures are 1998, so add about 25% for escalation.

The press released figures for Canada, India must include other stuff. When we release details of a deal, we never disclose the full contents of the deal, just the $ it is worth……..and some of those $ are false anyway, as they are often not actual cash. “In a deal worth……” is often used. For example, if Brazil bought an aeroplane worth $1M, and wanted to pay us in $1M of Coffee, and that coffee could be sold here at a mark up of 1000%, the value of the marked up $ is quoted as its “Worth”. We would say the deal was worth $10M, because that’s the value entering our books, and thus gets the shareholders warmed up.

Absolute correct, some problems prevented my correction.
It is questionable if the projected number of F-35 will be built. The intended workshare is not for the total run. It is split in tranches and were given to the lowest bidder. The nasty details and hickups do spoil the day or claim.

Tell me more.
I’ve not touched JSF stuff for many years, last time I did the pdn run was expected to be 3,300 PLUS any exports. Those 3,300 rear ends put more direct hours into UK Blue collar than the 280ish Eurofighters.
So, you say the whole run is now placed into tranches, and each tranche is up for grabs by a bidders contest? That’s dreadful/shortsighted/foolhardy/dumb and any other expletive you wish to throw at it.

I gather that the V/STOL version is in a bit of trouble. The only reason for the f35’s existance was/is the V/STOL capability…otherwise it’s just another fighter.

As for the weight creeping up (A post in this thread) there are three main reasons: –
1) Every manufacturer has an optimistic head on when bidding. During bids, it is almost impossible to meet the guideline weight. We get near it and then set about a promise to aim for it. In just about every case the guideline weight is never met.
2) Some parts I saw many years ago that were CFRP are now Titanium. Can’t say which ones.
3) As A/c projects have long design timescales, there is always a new toy to put on the platform a few years after contract award. Often needing design changes such as strengthening fuse frames or similar. In an effort to clawback the weight, other components get made into far more complicated shapes, removing as much material as possible. These parts become far more complex to make and thus the costs go up.

Even about that “3,000 tail ends” you are in moody waters.

Note the word “Manufacturing”. That’s Blue collar.
I presume you mean muddy, which it isn’t.

The US did take the plans of the Miles supersonic jet, and they did visit the Miles factory to gleam all the information they could from the British team.

That was supposed to be reciprocated with the Brit team visiting the US. But the US govt declared the project “top secret” and denied the British team access to their (the US) information.

That is a well known fact in aviation, are you disputing it?

You would have done it without the Germans designing the rockets for you then?

General Electric were given the whole Power Jets database during WW2 – no leg up there either I suppose? :rolleyes:

Thanks for the back-up of the truth friend. The x-15 bit was my boo boo, I meant the X-1, Mr Yaeger’s.

Never heard of such pronounced problem. There are proven methods of stabilizations. At least aircraft lasers useally works well up to 10km regardless of airframe – be it Mig-29 , F-15 or F-117. Modern tank and helo lasers have about same range – dont think it is coincedence.

I can’t tell you which pod or which platforms were evaluated as that would break the OSA…..but I read/digested and compiled analysis on this very subject for a Government.
I can assure you that there are two platforms (In the Air Force concerned with my work) in operational service today that are totally useless at pod carrying.
The stabilisation software has improved immensely lately, but it is still not as good as having no vibe in the 1st place.
A tank laser is generally for range finding, it has to be in line-of-sight anyway and 10k is just below the horizon for a tank. Tanks and other guns have far superior systems for ruining the day of the bad guy.
Helo lazers are little more than a toy, and the strength of the beam after a few k’s is not sufficient for a SMART to find it.

Far superior systems exist these days anyway, we know the ICBM reference for every goddam address on the planet. And with a few AWACS plotting the theatre, we know the location of every vehicle.