Scorpion82Have there been any development on the availability of Aerodynamic Modification Kit since the testing last year? Is that a 3B capability? Will they retrofit it or offer on new builds only?
It’s a retrofit option, but there is currently no indication that any customer will opt for it.
Scorpion82We know that each Eurofighter member nation has been assigned their own countries where they can market and take lead in the sale of the Typhoon. Is there a source for which member nation is responsible for which country/countries?
So far I have seen the following:
Saudi Arabia – UK
Kuwait – Italy
India – Germany
Peru – Spain?Cheers,
In simplified terms
UK: middle and far east
GE: North, West, central and East Europe
IT: South East Europe
SP: South America
In factual terms taking existing campaigns into account, former, present and future:
UK: KSA, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Belgium
GE: Czech, Poland, Croatia, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Swiss, Austria, India and potentially Finland
IT: Turkey, Romania, Brazil, Kuwait, support for Japan
SP: South Korea, Peru, Chile
I surely have missed the one or other.
Scorpion82If BAES really came up with an independant proposal then it can only be called sabotage! One can only hope that this won’t have negative consequences. As far as the support is concerned FNM is well aware of the support requirements, they have with the ITAF a customer for whom they are fully responsible. Other than that every EPC has its shares within the export support chains.
Scorpion82The deal is only done when there is ink on the dotted lines of the contract. Nonetheless good news and at least some progress on that front.
Scorpion82Don’t doubt what you say but when I looked at the google trans of the article cited, it looked like Fimmeccanica were arranging some kind of deal with a number of banks. If Italian govt buys the Typhoons from the OEM, why is the OEM making arrangements with banks?
Without knowing it I could imagine that FNM is tasked to arrange and prepare everything needed to make the deal happen. It’s FNM that wants to sell the aircraft, not the Italian government. The more favourable the terms of the credits the greater the winning margin of FNM.
There is subsequently no need for the government to bother about this aspect, as it is in the interest of industry itself to make a good deal here.
As said that’s just guessing here on my part, I could be totally of here.
Scorpion82Simple, because you jumped on before reading the context of the discusion. It was clear we were not talking about IFF codes, frequecies, comms, for a specific mission. I do follow my advice. And it’s not easy typing from a phone- traveling, so I have to be brief. Take offense if u wish, my point was clear if brief.
I red the context and mission data isn’t only threat emitter libraries and while your statement may have been clear to yourself because it originates from you, using the term IFF is certainly misleading and not”clear speach”. What djcross said is actually feasible and he certainly didn’t limit his statement to threat emitter libraries!
And yes I take offense if someone is directing unjustified accusations at me and there were two of them plus an inappropriate advise.
That being said you explained yourself afterwards and that’s ok.
Scorpion82Read mine and spuds, then think. You are wrong. Not IFF codes, the NCTR methods used by radar and ASQ-239 to identify aircraft. The emitter libraries are part of the threat library developed for the MDF of the operator or region, updated as needed. The rest is just you just repeating what I said. That or you jumped on IFF in attempt to prove me wrong rather than thinking what the MDF are.
Tall claims! Care to elaborate on where I’m alledgedly wrong? Probably not! And please be so kind and don’t try to lecture me on mission data. That you confuse IFF codes with NCTR templates is hardly my fault. So please be so kind and stick to your own advice and think before posting instead of blaming your faults on someone else. Thanks!
Scorpion82For a specific mission sure, read the post I reaponded to. The threat database needed for IFF, identifying emissions, etc. are not “erased” when the aircraft is turned off. Updates and analysis of emissions collected for a selected mission would need to be uploaded/downloaded. That is not the same thing as an entire regions MDF needing to be uploaded before every mission.
Sorry to upset you, but that is absolutely incorrect! IFF codes have a limited validity only! They are valid only for a few hours. Same is mostly true for crypto variables or network frequencies and time slots f.e. Data that are typically kept in non-volatile memory comprise terrain data bases or threat emitter libraries, though for the later might be updated on a mission to mission basis as well if needed. Default display configurations may reside within the APSW, but can be defined on a mission to mission basis as well.
Scorpion82That is absolutely incorrect, these are huge files (and hardware components). The MDF are not uploaded before each mission. Not sure where u got this idea. Second, due to the concerns of the UK and others, the customization of the MDF is being implemented to a limited degree:
http://news.usni.org/2014/11/04/foreign-f-35-partners-allowed-freedom-customize-fighter-software
Going to have to cut and paste- hyperlink not working (from phone).
There are data that are loaded for a scenario such as terrain data bases f.e. But there are also mission data which are loaded for every flight. So it’s certainly not “absolutely incorrect”.
Scorpion82The standards by which people are called specialists or experts appear to be pretty low these days!
Scorpion82Althoug Mrs. Pinotti could use a different solution to reach Kuwait City, technically, despite what defense-aerospace wrote, it is not the Italian minister of defence that could sign the deal, but Finmeccanica/EFA managers or eventually the Italian National Armaments Director. (Maybe Italian Air Force officers are responsible for the agreement for training and other terms, though).
For the ones interested in the latest financial/technical issues on the agreement, a link to pass to gog translate: http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/finanza-e-mercati/2016-02-13/finmeccanica-kuwait-firma-eurofighter-081612.shtml?uuid=ACwoPkTC . Just a quick synopsis of the last paragraph which is the most interesting: robust advanced payment bonds are demanded by Finmeccanica as a grant to safeguard the continuity of the deal.Let’ see what it happens – I guess little officialy happens in Kuwait on Fridays.
The defence minister could well sign the deal on behalf of the Italian MoD. This is a government to government deal. The Italian MoD buys the aircraft and resells them to Kuwait. That’s how it was done in KSA and Oman IIRC.
The deals with industry are subsequently signed between the Italian MoD and industry, presumably Finmeccanica itself.
Scorpion82I still wonder what’s behind this.. Aerodynamics? Stealth? Engine? Intake?
It’s not like LockMart don’t possess any CFD optimization tools one can imagine.
There is a price to pay when you attempt to design an affordable, versatile and stealthy multirole combat aircraft that comes in three distinctively different variants. There are subsequently variousconstraints and the actual achievement of at least some targets might be devatable. At the end of the day nothing is for free. The F-35 is certainly a pretty capabable and effective weapons system when it is mature enough, one just needs to bear in mind what it was designed for!
Scorpion82Clean, probably… but tith three tanks?
That is the standard problem around here any time the F-35 comes up. The F-35 carries more fuel internally than the Typhoon with three tanks, and the F-35 is quite likely the less draggy aircraft as well…
And despite being clean and packing more than 1t more of fuel than a single seat Typhoon with three 1000 l tanks and despite that the latter also carries its weapons externally, the combat radius is pretty similar according public data. Doesn’t speak too favourable for the fuel efficiency and drag of an F-35…
Scorpion82The F-35 was meant to replace both the F-111 and the F/A-18. Accelerating the retirement of the F-111 was ofcourse the reason for introducing the SH. However, delays within the F-35 program itself also played a role, especially as an earlier ISD was anticipated when Australia chose the F-35. Delays plus the cost of the aircraft were certainly primary drivers for boosting numbers by acquiring 12 EA-18G and by transforming plans for an interim solution into a permanent solution that forms part of the RAAF’s future force structure for a considerable amount of time, even well beyond after the F-35’s EIS.
Scorpion82Flight testing is actually a part of the development program itself. If you need to re-test or if you can’t continue flight testing for some time due to groundings then the entire development program slips to the right. Maturity gates must be met before you can proceed as certain tests build on previous ones, envelope expansion as an example. That doesn’t mean you can’t continue with several development activities in parallel, but it undoubtly throws you back quite a bit. You are right that two SDD planes were cut, but they ultimately used certainly more than two LRIP A/C to support develomental testing.
To cut it short, you can spin it as you want, but funding was certainly not the primary reason for why this program has seen the delays it has seen, as far as development and completing SDD is concerned. Live with it!
As outlined before the F-35 program is neither the first, only, nor last defence program that suffers from delays due to development management issues, technical problems etc.
Sign In
