ADMK2The JSF development budget is a large enough multiple of that for Rafale that deducting the -B costs doesn’t change the overall picture.
What are the -B’s costs for development, off hand? (Overall planned cost at the current time?)
ADMK2Just to be on a level playing field, what was the budget of the Rafale program like in comparison to the JSF?
Okay, to be level, lets add the STOVL Rafale variant budget to the Rafale cos.
Oh, wait…
:confused:
ADMK2yes my friend you are correct, BUT in the end user licences/certificates says all export / transfer have to be aproved by the congress, and THAT is the problem as no one can assure wich one will be final decision.
And this is why SH has little chance in FX from FAB
Even the letter sented as guarantee to Brasilian air force was very vague, bacause it only stated that all the apropriate tech will be transfered.
But who chose what is apropriate Brazil or US congress?
Regards Rodrigo Monteiro
Actually you’ve got to add the US State Department onto that, because they administer the ITARS scheme, not only does Congress have to approve the export of the particular thing, the thing has to be released for export through ITARS as well.
However be that as it may, can you provide one concrete example of a foreign power contracting with the USA for a certain item or component that is releasable and has been sold to another Country being knocked back on technology grounds AFTER the contract has been entered into?
I imagine you will struggle…
ADMK2Aussie Digger, what surprised most people around here was more the way the US were not so “accomodating” to those buying billions of their porducts recently (F-35 for UK for example), when basically taking the money but reducing what they delivered unilaterally making the so-called partners heavily dependant upon the US at all times if they wish to operate the products they paid for.
The end user licences/certificates that customers for US military products agree to, spell out clearly what a customer will and won’t get with their purchase and clearly what they can and can’t do with the particular product.
Of course anyone who buys a US military product is heavily dependant on the US to operate it. US military products are still commercial products afterall. It’s a business, it’s not UNICEF… Do you honestly think that Mirage users aren’t heavily dependant on France or Sukhoi users aren’t heavily dependant on Russia to operate their particular products?
Every customer is fully informed of these conditions when they make their purchase. These conditions are rarely accurately reported in media outlets, yet one suspects they are hardly as onerous as some think or at least state that they are, otherwise the US would not be the leading defence supplier on the planet. Pure and simple.
This is no different to virtually every single product on the market. When you go and buy your next copy of Windows 7 from your local computer store, you agree to Microsoft’s conditions of use (end user licence) or you can’t use it (lawfully).
Wishing otherwise is fine, but it is simplistic to think that complete autonomy comes with ANY defence purchase. The only way to achieve it is to completely manufacture the platform yourself and even then it’s illusory as virtually every country in the world is dependant on foreign raw materials (Rare Earth materials in particular) for the work and the cost is horrendous.
Anyway all of that is “by the by”. Most Countries on Earth operate a significant amount of US made products without any great or onerous restriction on their employment whatsoever. I do find it curious that people find US end user requirements so tough, when there is very little practical difference between end user requirements in the marketplace as a whole.
Smacks of unfair bias to me…
ADMK2Turkey began to modernize Pakistan F-16 fighters
Turkey has started to upgrade 45 Pakistani Lockheed Martin F-16 figters. Its reported to the Pakistani portal The News by the Pakistan Chief of Air Staff Rao Qamar Suleman (Rao Wamar Suleman).What exactly modernization work is about, Suleman did not elaborate.
Commander of the Pakistan Air Force also noted that in March 2011, Pakistan will form a new squadron of F-16 fighter and the JF-17 (FC-1) Thunder. Currently, the arsenal of Pakistan is 21 JF-17 and assembles another nine such fighters.In mid-November 2010 it is reported that the U.S. company Lockheed Martin has transferred to Pakistan three new F-16 Block 52. In total, Air Force should have 18 of these aircraft, the latter of which will arrive in 2012.
Currently, Pakistan Air Force operate flights on 96 F-16A / B Block 15, bought from the U.S. in 1983. In May 2010, with Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to carry out works to improve the 35 F-16A / B. The deal amounted to 325 million dollars.
Source:http://www.lenta.ru, 28.01.2011
That article is not correct. The PAF has already received all 18x of it’s new build Block 52 F-16’s from Lockheed Martin. The final batch of 5x aircraft was delivered to Pakistan on 13 December 2010.
Regards,
AD
ADMK2You’re quite wrong here. The F/A-18’s production processes and manufacturing technologies are known in the industry to be excellent. very modern, with excellent LEAN practices. Its no coincidence that they actually not only meet, but exceed their delivery date schedules, with the RAAF’s F/A-18Fs being the most recent example.
They sure do. Look how fast they put a Super Hornet together… 😀
ADMK2I don´t doubt that what you write is very representative of Australia´s experience with US/Boeing,
but I think the actual current situation of the US and it´s relation with Brazil is somewhat relevant as well.
Problems with the F-35 program mean USN and Marines NEED to receive new Super Hornets, this is not like when Australia inducted it´s SH when the USN thought it´s F-35 schedule was still workable and wasn´t interested in further ´current gen´ SH when ´next gen´ was around the corner.As well, your mentioning of Boeing´s open-ness to new capabilities in the platform seems to ignore the basic features of FX-2: Tech transfer means Brazil will be able to integrate WHATEVER feature it wants to, and it will, as it´s developing new short-range, long-range A2A missiles, ARH and ASh missiles, as well as smart ground munitions.
You might want to check what Brazil requested in terms of weapons for it’s potential Super Hornet through the US FMS system, before making such a bold statement… To start with, they have requested an entirely US list of weapons, sensors etc.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2009/Brazil_09-35.pdf
The opportunity to integrate other weapons onto the aircraft is precisely what I was referring to above. Boeing has already demonstrated a commitment to other weapons types than USN or Australia have declared an interest in using, with the Meteor announcement and I have little doubt other weapons types could be negotiated.
Holding out NGJ as an option, when it´s clearly not part of Boeing/US´ offer given it doesn´t exist yet, is absurd… If US is so willing to export NGJ to Brazil (which there´s no evidence of, and the US has given the absolute minimum on SH/APG-79 ToT so far), there is no reason that Brazil cannot integrate it with WHATEVER platform it selects. If Brazil is to believe that the US is so fickle and jealous that Brazil can only expect favorable treatment if it sides with the US in every decision and tender, then that just isn´t really a good sign for the US here because I can guarantee that Brazil is not planning on playing poodle to the US like that.
Is it absurd to offer the Gripen NG? Last I checked it didn’t exist either. It is merely in development. NGJ is in development too…
However I never said it was offered. I said it was a potential development opportunity, particularly given the anti-radiation homing missile capability you referred to earlier and Brazil’s clear interest in advanced EW capability. As the Growler is the one platform in the world that clearly offers a capability overmatch in the South American region when it comes to EW, I’m sure the possibilities are quite open…
In terms of Growler and NGJ we are getting quite ahead of ourselves. So far Australia is the only country in the world, cleared through ITARS to actually acquire the Growler, however Australia is also the only non-US Country that has actually acquired the Super Hornet and requested access to the Growler, so that seems to me to be a pretty successful “strike rate”…
You might be surprised how accomodating the United States is when you actually buy billions of dollars of their products, rather than simply talk about it… India’s $1b + Special Operations capable C-130J’s is a case in point. The first major US aircraft purchased by India, included access to some of the US’s most classified special operations aviation capabilities…
Dilma may well decide that SH is the best choice for FX-2, but it will be on the basis of up-front ToT and face value, not dreaming of what goodies the Americans will continue to provide in perpetuity.
True, but if you say you know exactly what Boeing/USN has offered then I’ll suggest respectfully you are kidding yourself. Commercial in confidence information is no joke…
ADMK2If Gripen NG is selected weèd certainly LEASE som JAS39A/B or C/Ds in oder to fill the time gap before the arrival of the first NGs. If we go for F-18 the US Navy can easily accomodate our pressing airframe needs and redirect some of their previously ordered aircraft to the FAB…
One very influential Brazilian Defense industry observer told me tonight that the Rafale has been all but excluded from the bid leaving the Gripen and SH to fight each other. N Jobim`s position at this moment is a very, very dire one before Dilma…. He also said that F-X2 is still alive but will need to be posponed some moinths waiting for the hard economic times to clear…
Regards,
Hammer
In Australia’s experience, USN was very accomodating in allowing preferential access to airframes already in the production line when we acquired our 24x Super Hornets. I don’t doubt they would if Brazil were to opt for the Super Hornet as well. Especially given the potential for a very large Brazilian order with follow-on phases…
34 months from contract signature (May 2007 – March 2010) to the first 5x aircraft delievered in-country completely to spec (except for ALE-55 towed decoy whch still needed some work at time of initial delivery but has been resolved before IOC apparently).
USN were also extremely acommodating with pilot/weapon systems operator training and really getting our capability started in a big hurry.
We were able to declare IOC on the Super Hornet with a full squadron of 12x new build aircraft, with the full range of chosen air to air and air to ground weapons, sensors systems and subsidiary aircraft systems (drop tanks, buddy refuelling kits, luggage pods, stores carriage systems etc) in place, the necessary logistics support available to “go to war in squadron strength” and pilots/WSO’s and maintainers trained to operational standard n the new patform and it’s support systems within 42 months of contract signature.
I think most rival platorms would struggle to beat this result…
In terms of ToT, I think the Super Hornet might stack up better than many think. There is a significant amount of development activity happening with the basic platform and a significant amount of development under consideration with Super Hornet “International” developments being considered. The EA-18G Growler is also a very real option for a Super Hornet user (or others) and with the development of the NGJ underway as well as the inability to acquire legacy USN jammer pods, there could be a strong opportunity to work into that market and develop ones EW capability…
Boeing is also apparently open to other development work wth the platform too. Most notably with it’s mooted integration of the Meteor BVR AAM, but I have no doubt they’d be very willing to discuss other desired systems a user may have in mind. All of this only relates to the basic platform too. Boeing is just about the largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, I’ve no doubt they have many programs of potential benefit to the Brazilians and the TOT requirement could well be met through other programs than the actual aircraft itself…
Anyway, it continues to be a most interesting program. Good luck to the vendors, I expect they will all have many headaches before this project is concluded…
ADMK2Gripen NG demo has demonstrated “above Mach 1.1” capability with a2a load, without using ab. The question that remains then is whether this can be sustained for 250 nm and leave enough fuel for 50 min. cap and fuel to get back home. We don’t know if Saab has demonstrated such a flight profile or just have made the calculations. This is from a Marketing presentation and should be taken with a pinch of salt, like all such presentations, however I do think they avoid telling outright lies (unless it is to hide some classified capabilities).
I hope you see the difference from F-35; it has not yet demonstrated Mach1.6 (I am sure it will in the end); the NG demo has demonstrated SC with a2a weapons load. With the tests done and knowledge of fuel consumption etc it is quite easy for Saab to calculate whether such a flight profile is possible or not.
But that was the point if my previous post. I’m quite certain that L-M has done the calculations too, the X-35 reportedly achieved M1.67 and that F-35 will be able to fly at least at M1.6, but UNTIL it does it can’t. Same deal for the Gripen.
When it is proven through flight test I’ll accept the claim and not one bit more. No slack is cut for any L-M claim until proven, so I hardly think it unfair to hold other manufacturers to the same requirement…
ADMK2why not read the the difference of buypass ratio between the engines before making a fool out of youre self?
Why not look at exhaust velocities before assuming you automatically know better based on one paper statistic?
ADMK2I take it you’ve never actually been involved in the design of one of these things?
Nope. A little knowledge is dangerous they say, so I suppose you could say that you wouldn’t want to meet me in a dark alley…
😀
I believe (in your defence) the 747 upper deck was modified to reduce the strength of the sonic bubble above it, and any resulting shock induced BL separation. But the upper deck was there as a result of the 747’s origins as a cargo carrier.
I’m glad you got the nod…
ADMK2The low top speed also suggests something about the airframe.
Yeah, it has fixed inlets… 🙂 I still think it likely that the F-35 will exceed M1.6 as it’s cleared top speed at some point (just as the Super Hornet did in India when it flew at M1.84) and I think it likely it will probaby be able to ‘supercruise’ at M1.1 too. Somewhere, at some point, the F-35 will be trying to win a contract and then a whole heap of “new” information about it’s performance will be revealed in an attempt to ‘massage’ the local media into giving that particular product some favourable few moments in the sun. Will it suddenly change the whole battlespace and thinking about the aircraft? Unlikely…
But as I stated earlier, I don’t think such a capability will be much more tactically relevant at any point, whether it be a Gripen, an F-35 OR a Eurofighter. Let’s face it, the F-22 is not creaming every other opponent in it’s reported exercise results, (including against the very fast F-15C) because it can cruise M0.2 faster than any other modern, in production combat aircraft, is it?
This is a circular argument though. I’m not going to argue that the F-35 is going to be one of the greatest performing combat aircraft on the planet in sheer airframe performance stakes.
It’s pointless. Clearly it won’t be, but then it wasn’t designed to be either. It was designed IIRC to perform well at the speeds most typically experienced in ACTUAL combat in ACTUAL combat configuration, you know, with sensors, bombs, missiles and as large a fuel load as you can possibly manage on (or in this case, in) the aircraft.
Therefore the question that is truly relevant is can the F-35 meet this requirement? I guess so…
ADMK2They have?
I must have skipped all those aerodynamics lectures that covered that then. :rolleyes:
BTW – why would a 747 fuselage seek to conform to the Mach area rule? No LCA has ever done so, apart from *maybe* the Concorde… even then, I’m not sure it did.
So let me make sure I am getting this right, you have attended aerodynamics lectures where area rule was discussed, but somehow you missed out on learning that high subsonic speed aircraft, such as the 747 experience some transonic airflows over their fuselages?
Okay…
ADMK2They have?
I must have skipped all those aerodynamics lectures that covered that then. :rolleyes:
BTW – why would a 747 fuselage seek to conform to the Mach area rule? No LCA has ever done so, apart from *maybe* the Concorde… even then, I’m not sure it did.
The F-35 tries to conform to Mach-Area rule by swapping lateral expansion for vertical contraction. You’d need a windtunnel to know if that works or not, but the relatively poor top speeds would suggest not (or they’ve severely compromised their engine/engine intake for subsonic thrust).
I’d take note of what L-M has said before criticising too heavily, especially in the admitted absence of the very knowledge you’d need to know to be able to speak with actual authority on this subject, ie: wind tunnel and flight test data… L-M have been asked point blank many times CAN the F-35 supercruise?
Their response? No, the F135 and F136 aren’t designed for it. Even that SAAB brochure included the quote. Does that not suggest something about the aerodynamics of the airframe?
Read between the lines of that statement and consider the F414 isn’t designed to “supercruise” either…
ADMK2Again: can the F-16 do this: Mach 1.1 to 250 nm with a2a config, 50 minute CAP, then fly home.
Can the Gripen? I thought that demonstrated capability, not “shiny” powerpoints was the metric to be used hereabouts?
If so, please show when and where the Gripen has achieved this feat? L-M makes all sorts of claims about the F-35 but they are disregarded out of hand because they aren’t “proven”. So, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander as far as I am concerned. Especially given the RNLAF didn’t believe the claims made in that brochure on the previous page (or 2) either and publicly disavowed it…
I read one fellow on here who is adamant the F-35 cannot do M1.6. He is partially correct IMHO, but only in the sense that it’s flight envelope hasn’t been expanded sufficiently through testing to allow it to do so.
So when the Gripen NG can demonstrate this capability with a chase plane recording the feat, I’ll come around to the idea. Til then, I’ll take the same approach that others do in relation to the F-35…
Sign In
