hopsalotStarategically speaking ( and i’m not specifically ralking about F-XX) Its been twice the rokaf rejected the winner of a competition due to Washington political pressures…
Source?
hopsalotWhile there have been a few flashes of brilliance with F-35 avionics viv a vis targets using CCD, it falls far short of F-111/A-6 combat radius. F-35’s short legs put the supporting infrastructure of tankers, airbases and CVNs at risk from ever-expanding A2AD. A blind man could have seen that coming.
The F-35 is an F-16/18 and Harrier/A-10 replacement. Not an F-111/A-6 replacement. Is that really so complicated?
But the JSF program of 1995 wasn’t meant to be militarily useful in the 2020s and beyond. It was meant to maintain force structure/keep all the bar stools at the O-club occupied.
Do I even need to bother asking you for a source? Why bother writing something like this?
UAVs can be built to provide the range and on-station endurance to be militarily useful. Most of the technologies needed for such UAVs are already flying.
Yes, they could be built. The Global Hawk is a UAV with extremely long range and endurance. What is your point?
The one missing piece of the puzzle is long range, long endurance UAV-specific propulsion, the kind that allows you to fly across oceans and ice caps unsupported. The UAV would be bigger than those of the past, with lots of wing filled with lots of jet fuel. This requires lots of thrust during takeoff and climbout. But at cruising altitude, you need ultra low SFC. Geared turbofans have that capability with a big slow-RPM fan moving lots of air at low delta P. P&W’s technique of using an adjustable nozzle on the fan air to increase efflux velocity at altitude is a neat trick to improve efficiency. Unfortunately, the geared turbofans are currently targeted at the airline market, not UAVs.
These engines already exists, just as UAVs capable of such feats already exist.
hopsalotThe Koreans, indeed, wanted to purchase additional F-15s as the F-35 option deemed too costly and risky. It looks as if it has taken a lot of effort to re-structure the requirements and tailor fit them to the only possible option (F-35) and that effort has cost someone a lot of corrupt money.. This, of course, can’t be easily “proven” on the level of investigative journalism..
Especially the Israelis are a rather bad example as they seem quite reluctant to accept more F-35s and would rather prefer F-15s, instead, quoting range and payload as major factors..
Reading your rants about the F-35 is like talking to a political nut. Everything is a conspiracy. Everyone was bribed. You have no evidence at all and yet you are completely convinced.
hopsalotYes, I really think so.. Three of the dozen generals have been found to have a bribery record with LM from previous years (connected to F-16 and C-130 deals) after five minutes of googling. I personally don’t need any more proof..
Not as if you ever need any proof…
hopsalotF-35 does have a strange effect on some people, doesn’t it – there is a tender, F-15 is announced as the tender winner yet good ol’ Spud sees that as F-35 winning the tender. You would have done well working in the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s ‘1984’ where the job was to rewrite history to more accurately reflect what the Party would have liked it be! 😉
They are buying F-35s and you consider this a win for the F-15? I agree, the F-35 has a very strange effect on people…
The F-35 couldn’t come in below the price ceiling, but on the basis of the recommendation of the military the S. Korean government changed the structure of the deal to buy the most preferred jet, the F-35.
hopsalotDid Eurofighter win with UK, Germany, Italy, Spain? Not to me: they were all partner countries. Did F-35 win with Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, UK, USA? Not to me: they were all partner countries. Where has Typhoon won? Austria, Oman, Saudi Arabia. Where has F-35 won? Israel, Japan, South Korea. I would not say that either type has won that many, given political considerations (if any, apart from Austria – and that was a big mistake for Austria).
Or to put it another way, the F-35 has won every time it has been offered, including twice against the Eurofighter.
hopsalotWhenever I see someone claim the F-35 is the only viable candidate, it immediately smells like bribe.. LM is sh!t-scared of competition, for obvious reasons..
Because they keep winning?
hopsalotit is you who seem to have difficulties to understand what you read..
strike eagle was an air superiority aircraft equipped for strike, which is the easiest way to convert an airframe, as it has the performance way above what is needed for strike in the first place. The F-16 was an exclusive air to air fighter, again, having extremely high flight performance… from which one could add what it took to make it strike capable. the F-35 was developped as a strike aircraft and they try to make pretend to be also an air superiority platform. They never dared with its predecessors, like the F-105, A-7 and so on.
Nothing you can imagine and write around it won’t change that.
You can look in whole aviation history, you won’t find a single strike/atatck aircraft that became a successful air combat fighter, while you’ll find fighters made for air combat that made great careers in strike role or multi role aircraft (F-4, F-15, F-16 are nice examples of that)
The F-35 was designed from the start as a multi-role aircraft. That really isn’t a difficult concept for most to grasp, and it seems a fan of the “omnirole” Rafale would have a particularly easy time. Any design is a collection of compromises. Believe it or not that applies to planes from France as well.
The F-35 was designed with a relatively heavy emphasis on strike, but even so will be the West’s most effective air to air platform short of an F-22.
hopsalotDidn’t know that about da Vinci. OK, Leonardo IS an appropriate name for a company involved in the production of military goods.
He was a talented guy.
hopsalotOr a prototype that lost the USAF ETF competition thirty two years ago and never hit production?!
Today the only Viper variant that is on the table it’s the “V” and LM is not going to offer the F16 to Canada.
Yeah, I could never understand some peoples’ obsession with resurrecting old projects. Nobody is about to dump billions of dollars into developing a new version of the F-16 just so Canada can order a few dozen of them.
The F-16 may go out of production this year. It has had a good run, but unless a major customer emerges it wont’ be an option in any Canadian competition.
hopsalotArtists are creative. Arms manufacturers are largely destructive, intent on devising means to destroy what humanity has built or created. Arms manufacturers might be creative in seeking to come up with ways and tools to destroy things but never let them liken themselves to the creative geniuses of the last 1000 years. I find the choice of ‘Leonardo’ as a brand name pretentious, very inappropriate and in extremely bad taste. But then who ever said marketing people suffered from taste?
“Most Illustrious Lord, Having now sufficiently considered the specimens of all those who proclaim themselves skilled contrivers of instruments of war, and that the invention and operation of the said instruments are nothing different from those in common use: I shall endeavor, without prejudice to any one else, to explain myself to your Excellency, showing your Lordship my secret, and then offering them to your best pleasure and approbation to work with effect at opportune moments on all those things which, in part, shall be briefly noted below.
I have a sort of extremely light and strong bridges, adapted to be most easily carried, and with them you may pursue, and at any time flee from the enemy; and others, secure and indestructible by fire and battle, easy and convenient to lift and place. Also methods of burning and destroying those of the enemy.
I know how, when a place is besieged, to take the water out of the trenches, and make endless variety of bridges, and covered ways and ladders, and other machines pertaining to such expeditions.
If, by reason of the height of the banks, or the strength of the place and its position, it is impossible, when besieging a place, to avail oneself of the plan of bombardment, I have methods for destroying every rock or other fortress, even if it were founded on a rock, etc.
Again, I have kinds of mortars; most convenient and easy to carry; and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion.
And if the fight should be at sea I have kinds of many machines most efficient for offense and defense; and vessels which will resist the attack of the largest guns and powder and fumes.
I have means by secret and tortuous mines and ways, made without noise, to reach a designated spot, even if it were needed to pass under a trench or a river.
I will make covered chariots, safe and unattackable, which, entering among the enemy with their artillery, there is no body of men so great but they would break them. And behind these, infantry could follow quite unhurt and without any hindrance.
In case of need I will make big guns, mortars, and light ordnance of fine and useful forms, out of the common type.
Where the operation of bombardment might fail, I would contrive catapults, mangonels, trabocchi, and other machines of marvelous efficacy and not in common use. And in short, according to the variety of cases, I can contrive various and endless means of offense and defense.
In times of peace I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to the equal of any other in architecture and the composition of buildings public and private; and in guiding water from one place to another.
I can carry out sculpture in marble, bronze, or clay, and also I can do in painting whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he who he may.Again, the bronze horse may be taken in hand, which is to be to the immortal glory and eternal honor of the prince your father of happy memory, and of the illustrious house of Sforza.
And if any of the above-named things seem to anyone to be impossible or not feasible, I am most ready to make the experiment in your park, or in whatever place may please your Excellency – to whom I comment myself with the utmost humility, etc. – Leonardo da Vinci, 1482″
http://www.theladders.com/career-newsletters/leonardo-da-vinci-resume
hopsalotHopsalot
Don’t quote me and then twist what I said. I never once suggested full tech transfer…..obviously there is a lot they don’t own….just made that point here yesterday….like five posts up.
Well, that shows progress at least because here is what you said previously:
Saab owns the source code and a significant amount of the technology installed in the plane. We can’t touch the code on the F35 to do our own upgrades.
hopsalotI know that, you know that, everybody with an ounce of sense knows it, & I’m sure the Brazilians who signed the Gripen contract know it & the contract was written to take it into account. But some people aren’t interested in reason, logic & facts.
I see from the series of posts leading to this that their author assumes that despite all precedents, Brazil would be able to get full technology transfer for the F-18E from Boeing – although Boeing doesn’t own the technology for the APG-79, F414, ALR-67 etc., & Boeing has no control over the US State Department, which is notorious for its arbitrary refusals of ITAR permissions, or the US Congress, which has been known to override the State Department when it does grant ITAR approval. The USA’s closest ally, the UK, has suffered from this, & so has Brazil, but someone here assumes that Brazil would be permanently exempt in this one particular case. Doh!
You say that like it is obvious, and I agree that it should be, but we still see people here and elsewhere talking about the alleged “full” technology transfer that Saab offers.
Just days ago in the Canada fighter thread:
Saab offers technology transfer and access to modify source code….F35….nope
There is software in the engine, the radar, the IRST, the EW system, the targeting pod. How much of that software does Saab own? It is the same problem as the hardware itself. Saab presumably owns much of the software in the aircraft, but there are big chunks that it most certainly does not control.
hopsalotI agree — most likely the Gripen EW system has capabilities that were not shown in the training exercises the Typhoon pilots referred to… 🙂
Yes, and most likely the Typhoon has capabilities, both EW and electronic counter countermeasures that it did not show.
That is what makes this such a waste of time. Neither the Gripen nor the Typhoon’s EW teams spend much if any effort developing techniques designed to target a Typhoon or Gripen. (because they are not threat aircraft) Similarly neither team spends any great effort working out defenses against the other jet’s jamming. Throw in the fact that neither is likely to show off the best they have in an international environment… what have we learned?
hopsalotAny idea why? Is there a downside to it? It seems the performance data was pretty impressive for a simple adjustment. Maybe just an ace up their sleeve if they compete with SH and Rafale?
It costs money, and contrary to what people around here spend all their time obsessing over, dogfighting is only a small part of what fighters do. Most Eurofighter operators are more interested in putting their limited resources toward more fully developing a multi-role capability, integrating new weapons, an AESA, etc.
Sign In
