Bager1968The Canadians have agreed to pay 9bn Canadian dollars ($8.5bn; £5.6bn), which comes out to $138.46 million Canadian; $130.77 million US; £86.15 million each for 65 F-35A… a “price for the package of one airplane and that airplane’s share of what is needed to get the squadrons running”! Plus more for a 20-year maintenance contract.
Note that “Maintenance support contracts” do NOT mean that the operating Air Force does nothing and needs no equipment… it means that maintenance functions above squadron level are the responsibility of the contractor… the operating Air Force still needs all the squadron-level equipment & supplies… which is part of the initial contract (the $9 billion Canadian in this case).
During the news conference, Mr. MacKay would not say how much Canada would pay for each jet. Although he did indicate that the 9 billion Canadian dollar figure includes other costs like training, improvements to airbases as well as simulators.
A Canadian procurement official, who spoke on the condition he not be identified, said that the government was assuming that it would pay 90 million Canadian dollars for each F-35 although it anticipated that the final cost would be much lower.
Tom Burbage, a top Lockheed manager for the program, said the company expected to sell the planes to Canada for $60 million to $65 million each, not accounting for maintenance, parts or inflation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html
So Canada is getting their F-35As for below $85 million each (US)… and likely about $75 million US each (taking the half-way point between Lockheed & Canada).
As the more informed around here were aware of.
Note that the opposition in Canada is coming from outside the ruling party, and is claiming there has been no competition… the competition was years ago, during the “down-select” process, which resulted in the selection of the F-35A in the first place!
Its all internal politics, not a real “problem”.
Bager1968An F-14 also shot itself down when an AIM-7 launched from the fuselage raked along the bottom of the aircraft.
For anyone who’s ever seen the fins of the AIM-7 up close, they are very heavy and very strong…..ripping through the skin of an aircraft is quite easy. When I first picked up one of those fins, I was shocked at how heavy it was.
The weapon damaged a large part of the bottom of the fuselage and the crew was forced to eject.
I have pictures somewhere in an old magazine I think.
157984, Tomcat #5 assigned to Point Mugu for armament trials, had the rather dubious honor of shooting itself down on June 20, 1973. A AIM-7E-2 Sparrow missile pitched up moments after being launched, striking the Tomcat. The crew ejected safely.
Bager1968And old news… the UK has been using a Harrier to develop proficiency in SRVL for over 3 years:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/17/213261/jsf-carrier-trial-puts-vaac-harrier-testbed-on-a-roll.html
DATE:17/04/07
SOURCE:Flight InternationalQinetiq’s VAAC Harrier testbed will be used to demonstrate flight-control limits for a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) mode potentially applicable to the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter currently preferred for the UK’s Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. To be performed by the Aircraft Test and Evaluation Centre at Qinetiq’s Boscombe Down site in Wiltshire, the work reflects continued interest in using the technique as a recovery option for the Royal Navy’s two projected 65,000t Future Carrier (CVF) vessels.
Note the part I colored red… The RN & RAF have been planning this technique for over 45 years!
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.htm
Nevertheless, the RAF continued to refine its scheme for the deployment of the P.1154, the name Harrier having been provisionally chosen for the aircraft.
…..
The aircraft would operate from both main and forward bases, such as short airstrips or stretches of road, with four or six aircraft operating from the latter.
…..
Although it would have been capable of true vertical take-off, the normal means of operation would have been to use a short take-off, in order to minimize ground erosion and hot gas re-ingestion problems, and to maximise payload. Rolling vertical landing, with the engine throttled back, was to be employed at the end of each mission, with vectoring of the engine nozzles in forward flight envisaged to increase maneuverability, at the cost of significant deceleration. All of these techniques were to be explored ‘in the field’ during the Tripartite trials of the Kestrel in 1964-65. In the ferry mission extended wing tips were added to the aircraft, the ‘combat tips’ being stored in the rear fuselage. RAF P.1154s were to be capable of operating from all Royal Navy carriers, the aircraft having a folding nose to help it fit their deck lifts.
Note that these operational plans were worked out in 1963-64!
Bager1968Yep… this was the planned landing mode of the P.1154 back in the early 1960s.
Bager1968More gist for the rumour mill. According to the Telegraph the RAF will shrink to less than 200 fighters with 107 Eurofighter’s meaning at most that RAF will have another 92 fast jets, which assuming this includes the FAA means that it looks like 4 front line squadrons of 12, 1 OCU squadron and a pool of attrition aircraft.
No, your assumption is not correct… the Royal Navy (RN) fighters are counted SEPARATELY FROM the Royal Air Force (RAF) fighters (this is not the 1930s, when the RAF owned the aircraft flying from carriers… the RN owns its own aircraft, and has for decades).
That “less than 200 RAF fighters” means just that… <200 fighters in the RAF ONLY.
The RN fighters, be they F-35B, F-35C, or F/A-18E/F, will be a completely separate set of aircraft, over and above what the RAF gets.
Bager1968What I’m interested to understand is exactly how the emals system would replace the current wire system/concept when landing (obviously the tail-hook still has to pick up a wire of some description).
Current arresting gear on USN carriers:
The major systems that make up typical arresting gear are the hook cable (or pendant), purchase cable, sheaves, and engine.
Cross Deck Pendant
Also known as arresting cables or wires, these flexible steel cables are spanned across the landing area to be engaged by the arresting hook of an incoming aircraft.Purchase cable
The purchase cable is a wire rope that looks very similar to the arresting cable. They are much longer, however, and are not designed to be easily removed. There are two purchase cables per arresting gear, and they connect to each end of the arresting wire. Purchase cables connect the arresting wire to the arresting gear engines, and “pay out” as the arresting wire is engaged by the aircraft.Sheaves
Purchase cables run through “sheaves” in the flight deck to the arresting engines. Damper sheaves act as hydraulic shock absorbers that provide for the increased landing speeds.Arresting gear engines
Each pendant has its own engine systems that absorb and dispel the energies developed when a landing aircraft is arrested. Carriers use hydro-pneumatic systems, wherein oil fluid is forced out of a cylinder by a ram (that is connected to the purchase cable), through a control valve, into an accumulator for re-use. A major development in arresting gear was the constant runout control valve, which controls the fluid flow from the engine cylinder to the accumulator, and is designed to stop all aircraft with the same amount of runout regardless of the weight and speed. Cable tension is set by the arresting gear engine operators for the type of aircraft being arrested.
The only part changing is the arresting gear engine itself.
EMALS:
The Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) program will retrofit and forward fit Navy aircraft carriers with an electric motor based system that will replace the current MK 7 hydraulic system for aircraft deceleration during recovery operations. AAG allows arrestment of a broader range of aircraft, reduces manning and maintenance, and provides higher reliability and safety margins.
GA’s design replaces the mechanical hydraulic ram with rotary engines using simple, proven energy-absorbing water turbines coupled to a large induction motor, providing fine control of the arresting forces.
Bager1968Except that 79 of those WERE delivered… those are the F-14s Iran has been operating ever since, and which saw extensive service in the Iran-Iraq war of September 22, 1980 to 20 August 1988!
The only one not delivered was (BuNo 170378), which was retained in the USA for use as a testbed.
In August of 1973, the Shah selected the F-14 Tomcat, and the sale was approved by the US government in November of 1973. The initial order signed in January of 1974 covered 30 Tomcats, but in June 50 more were added to the contract. At the same time, the Iranian government-owned Melli Bank agreed to loan Grumman $75 million to partially make up for a US government loan of $200 to Grumman which had just been canceled. This loan enabled Grumman to secure a further loan of $125 from a consortium of American banks, ensuring at least for the moment that the F-14 program would continue.
The first of 80 Tomcats arrived in Iran in January of 1976. By May of 1977, when Iran celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Royal House, 12 had been delivered. At this time, the Soviet Foxbats were still making a nuisance of themselves by flying over Iran, and the Shah ordered live firing tests of the Phoenix to be carried out as a warning. In August of 1977, IIAF crews shot down a BQM-34E drone flying at 50,000 feet, and the Soviets took the hint and Foxbat overflights promptly ended.
The IIAF Tomcats bore the US Navy serial numbers of 160299/160378, and were assigned the IIAF serial numbers 3-863 to 3-892 and 3-6001 to 3-6050. The last of 79 Tomcats were delivered to Iran in 1978. One Iranian Tomcat (BuNo 170378) was retained in the USA for use as a testbed. Iran also ordered 714 Phoenix missiles, but only 284 had been delivered at the time of the Revolution. These Phoenix missiles were of slightly-reduced capability as compared with those delivered to the US Navy.
Following the Islamic revolution, massive numbers of contracts with Western arms suppliers were cancelled by the new government, including an order for 400 AIM-54A Phoenix missiles. Relations with the USA became increasingly strained, especially by the occupation of the US embassy in Teheran by militant students and the holding of 52 Americans hostage. The US responded with a cutoff of all political and military ties to Iran and the imposition of a strict arms embargo.
This arms embargo against Iran imposed by the West caused a severe spare parts and maintenance problem. This embargo was to have a especially severe long-term effect on the Tomcat fleet, since the embargo prevented the delivery of any spares. In addition, by August of 1979, all 79 of the F-14A Tomcats had supposedly been sabotaged so that they could no longer fire their Phoenix missiles. According to various accounts, this was done either by departing Grumman technicians, by Iranian Air Force personnel friendly to the US shortly after the fall of the Shah, or even by Iranian revolutionaries in an attempt to prevent operations by an Air Force perceived to be too pro-Western.
However, there are credible reports that Iranian F-14s achieved a number of “kills” of Iraqi aircraft with AIM-54 missiles during the war, and that Iran has “reverse-engineered” and produced a “AIM-54 clone”.
Bager1968Iranian Air Force seeks return of F-14 bombers from U.S.
A top general declared on Tuesday that the Iranian Air Force is seeking a return of fighter jets it bought from the U.S. in the 1970s.
The United States sold 80 F-14s to Iran in 1974. However, it refused to deliver them to Iran after the Islamic Revolution.
Full Story
Except that 79 of those WERE delivered… those are the F-14s Iran has been operating ever since, and which saw extensive service in the Iran-Iraq war of September 22, 1980 to 20 August 1988!
The only one not delivered was (BuNo 170378), which was retained in the USA for use as a testbed.
In August of 1973, the Shah selected the F-14 Tomcat, and the sale was approved by the US government in November of 1973. The initial order signed in January of 1974 covered 30 Tomcats, but in June 50 more were added to the contract. At the same time, the Iranian government-owned Melli Bank agreed to loan Grumman $75 million to partially make up for a US government loan of $200 to Grumman which had just been canceled. This loan enabled Grumman to secure a further loan of $125 from a consortium of American banks, ensuring at least for the moment that the F-14 program would continue.
The first of 80 Tomcats arrived in Iran in January of 1976. By May of 1977, when Iran celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Royal House, 12 had been delivered. At this time, the Soviet Foxbats were still making a nuisance of themselves by flying over Iran, and the Shah ordered live firing tests of the Phoenix to be carried out as a warning. In August of 1977, IIAF crews shot down a BQM-34E drone flying at 50,000 feet, and the Soviets took the hint and Foxbat overflights promptly ended.
The IIAF Tomcats bore the US Navy serial numbers of 160299/160378, and were assigned the IIAF serial numbers 3-863 to 3-892 and 3-6001 to 3-6050. The last of 79 Tomcats were delivered to Iran in 1978. One Iranian Tomcat (BuNo 170378) was retained in the USA for use as a testbed. Iran also ordered 714 Phoenix missiles, but only 284 had been delivered at the time of the Revolution. These Phoenix missiles were of slightly-reduced capability as compared with those delivered to the US Navy.
Following the Islamic revolution, massive numbers of contracts with Western arms suppliers were cancelled by the new government, including an order for 400 AIM-54A Phoenix missiles. Relations with the USA became increasingly strained, especially by the occupation of the US embassy in Teheran by militant students and the holding of 52 Americans hostage. The US responded with a cutoff of all political and military ties to Iran and the imposition of a strict arms embargo.
This arms embargo against Iran imposed by the West caused a severe spare parts and maintenance problem. This embargo was to have a especially severe long-term effect on the Tomcat fleet, since the embargo prevented the delivery of any spares. In addition, by August of 1979, all 79 of the F-14A Tomcats had supposedly been sabotaged so that they could no longer fire their Phoenix missiles. According to various accounts, this was done either by departing Grumman technicians, by Iranian Air Force personnel friendly to the US shortly after the fall of the Shah, or even by Iranian revolutionaries in an attempt to prevent operations by an Air Force perceived to be too pro-Western.
However, there are credible reports that Iranian F-14s achieved a number of “kills” of Iraqi aircraft with AIM-54 missiles during the war, and that Iran has “reverse-engineered” and produced a “AIM-54 clone”.
Bager1968Yes, restrictions to the flight envelop developed specifically to compensate for a flawed engine.
The engine problems were not fixed, the aircraft was restricted in its capabilities and operation to pamper the engine.
Bager1968No, it was not fixed! Both the F-14 and the F-111 still had compressor stall issues to the day they were retired!
I served aboard USS Ranger CV-61 in 1987, and the two F-14 squadrons still had periodic engine shut-downs for that reason… including at least one single-engine recovery to the ship with no damage to the engine… it experienced a compressor stall and could not be re-lighted in flight!
And Madrat, I brought the TF30 up because you were talking about an aircraft with that engine installed. And yes, I did read the thread… and nowhere in the thread until your last post did you say that the F.2 was going to have the M.53… all your previous mentions were about the TF306E or “TF30 variant”… without mention of it being an “interim” engine to be replaced in production aircraft.
Bager1968And before you bet on the TF30, speak to the USN & USAF about that engine… they both lost a lot of aircraft due to compressor stalls and flame-outs, something that never was fixed for either the F-14A or any model of the F-111.
The only other aircraft to use the TF30 did so without an afterburner… and the A-7A/B/C models were quickly removed from production in favor of the A-7E with an improved Spey (TF41), which was developed for the USAF for the A-7D because the USAF refused to buy A-7s with TF30s in them.
Bager1968Yep… multi-panel phased-array radar… rather more advanced electronically than what the UK currently has, and thus would require a full R&D program… which is the “alternative” Lockheed-Martin has proposed.
And no, you can’t just fit one of those antenna onto a Merlin with the existing other systems ported over from Sea King, as the electronics are totally incompatible… nor is it politically feasible for the UK to buy the whole thing from the Russians, you would have to buy the aircraft as well, unless you are willing to pay for a whole new test/development/integration program.
That is, if the Russian system’s specs & performance are anywhere near what the Searchwater/Cerberus system can do.
Bager1968I see… you weren’t answering the current discussion, you were diverting it to the old discussion without explaining that you were doing so.
I see.
However, your response still didn’t relate to what was being discussed in the posts you answered to.
Bager1968Ummm… it has nothing to do with the diameter of the radome, it has everything to do with the shape and height of the antenna… which will NOT fit between the fuselage and the ground!
And don’t bother suggesting fitting longer landing gear either… that would raise the height to where it wouldn’t fit properly into the hangar, and would likely cause ground stability problems by raising the entire mass of the helicopter higher.
Bager1968MadRat, that seems way too complicated. But it’s true that the Mirage F1-M53 should have been bought. It was a great performer:
Compare it to the M2000 available from 1982 and you get an idea, why it was not built for good reasons.
Enlighten us, Sens. Other than it uses a huge wing area I’m not seeing its huge advantages.
Mirage 2000 has 57.5% more payload capacity, and 2.78 times the range.
I see two big advantages for Mirage 2000!
Over the F1.M53, not over the F2 with an engine that was less efficient and a design twenty years older.
Ummm… the whole discussion was about F1.M53 vs M2000… how does F.2 enter into anything?
The range & payload I cited were from your own post… those listed for both F.1/M53-2 and M2000/M53-5.
Again… a discussion comparing why M2000 (M53-5) was bought over F.1 (M53-2)… not about F.2, or about any other engined versions.
Sign In
