pppA classified US test is still a US test. A kinda classified but we aren’t sure US test is also a US test. A classified on weekdays, but not on weekends US test is also a US test. A test by 10 US crew holding hands and singing during the test is also a US test. A test where they roll dice to decide which tube on the US sub to use is also a US test. As I’m sure you can see, variants of a US test are actually all US tests and do not really need to be listed in their own right 😉
pppA worse performer at what though? Surviving missions in non-permissive environments?
My point is that his implication that F35 is better than Typhoon is no more credible than my claim to the contrary, and that such claims are extremely easy to make. As for the specifics, that is most definately for another thread.
pppDidn’t Rolls Royce have to build a US assembly facility for the lift fan for the F-35B anyway.
As for the UK switching variants and reducing the expected order quantities – Well if Lockheed had actually produced the aircraft within the timeframe, performance parameters and predicted cost then we probably would have not been forced into switching !!!!!
As for why the C for the RAF, well all of them need to be carrier capable for deployment on the CVF when operating to bolster the airgroup or transitting to a conflict zone without a suitable friendly airbase to hand or within an acceptable ferry flight range.
Yes, we have work on the F35B and aren’t buying any, but we are buying F35Cs, and have less workshare on them than the Bs, so its all swings and roundabouts really.
Anyway, the central point to Britain getting the software is so it is sovereign. If its not sovereign, then its completely useless and yes, we would be a lot better off with Typhoon or Tornado or Harrier as at least they are sovereign.
There’s also the whole thing about the 5th generation F35 being a worse performer than the 4.99 generation Typhoon 😉
pppYou means the demands that you receive 100% of the programme benefits for 3% of the costs? What exactly would stop you them taking JSF program secrets, canceling your orders after a handful of aircraft and then teaming up with Italy to build a competitor? You’re getting access to a stealth aircraft and significant industrial benefits, very much disproportionate to the number of aircraft you are buying. If you could like us to see if someone else is willing to build the aft fuselages and go with a last generation french machine, you’re welcome to do so.
Since when was return on investment decided based on the investment compared to the total programme revenue? The UKs share of the development budget was around $2 billion, so you are telling us the development of the F35 is costing $66 billion?
And finally the stealth bit, I’m sure its been pointed out to you a million times before, yet you repeat it like you are incapable of aquiring new knowledge, and so clearly we can conclude you are just seeking attention 😀 Still, we have a lovelly collection of stealth aircraft, thanks for asking!
pppTechnically, its listed by the Navy and Marines as a fixed wing aircraft.
It is fixed wing, it just has propulsion that can be aimed in different directions, much like a Harrier (also fixed wing) or F35B (also fixed wing).
pppTo be operational by 2030 means the airplane has to start design/integration by 2020, which means the enabling technologies have to be under development today (2010). With the exception of a token spent on lasers, there are no procurement monies available to develop enabling technologies.
So cash poor NGTA will likely use F-35 style systems in a new airframe:
- F-35 style avionics modified to work with ethernet style data buses with IP-based data formats
- F135 style engines with minor incorporation of easy-to-do ADVENT technologies
IMO, NGTA will not be a small airplane. “Must haves” include a 1500 mile combat radius and enough internal space for a massive laser and its energy storage equipment.
Flyaway price is proportional to airplane weight and technology level. And development cost is proportional to the number of requirements levied by the procuring agency’s bureaucrats. So, unless the procuring agency revises the way they buy military airplanes, they will not be able to afford NGTA.
Laser cannons? Ya sure 🙂
That’s a different issue than it’s sensor fusion having obvious shortcomings, and one that’s being addressed with Block updates. The F-22 has never had an issue with receiving data from any manner of sources. It just didn’t have a way to send its data to legacy aircraft via datalink. Its radar, ESM, MLD, 3rd party info, etc… are highly fused though.
But no IRST, which is the main element fused in with the radar, ECMs and datalink on the other platoforms (F35, Typhoon, Rafale and eventually PAK/FA).
It says’ greater reach’..
So.. are we talking about a larger striker aircraft or a larger 6th gen multirole fighter:confused:The F-35 is more of a striker/cas if anything, its not ‘WVR performance de-emphasised’ as you point out.
Its more pros & Cons, you cant have everything.Why not just install your laser thingie into the existing B1/B2 platforms instead, cause the size matter and with the rather optimistic timeline 2030 u could do that.
If its fighter/strike, they could be thinking of something along the lines of the F/B-22 concept.
pppMy emphasis in Scooter’s quotes. With all due respect, it would seem that your reading comprehension skills are not quite as good as you appear to think they are. For someone who failed to accurately comprehend the premise of the OP, and is allegedly not that interested in the topic anyway, I agree with the others that you come across more than a little presumptuous.
In your defence, from the topic title it was admittedly easy to assume that this thread would be more pointless speculation about one of the UK’s own hulls being sold off, and I’m just as tired of that as you probably are. The fact of the matter is though – the OP said nothing of the sort (building the first in the UK is not the same thing as buying one of the RN ships) and you owe him an apology.
However, may I draw your attention to his third post in which he asks:
“So, the UK wouldn’t sell a CVF to India. If, offered to purchase one???”
which quite clearly refers to a CVF hull, rather than the CVF design itself, hence my statements are justified. So, now you owe me an apology, not that I want one :rolleyes:
pppWhilst I don’t speak French, I’m pretty sure that March 2009 makes this article out of date, and certainly not current with it being November 2010.
pppMaybe you should concern yourself less with personal issues pertaining to why I post. Suffice to say, I posted.
pppThe best option for the air force and the tax payer is an F22C, either upgrade or new batch. Perhaps the F35 programme could follow a similar scheme for the Navy, retrofitting some newer AESA gear, maybe add an L band radar in the leading edge ect. Of course Boeing has their offering for the SH replacement, but I can’t see it delivering anything much different to the F35C or F22, and will no doubt cost an incredible amount of money. If there is spare money about, put it into some UCAVs and upgrade the 5th gen fleet.
pppnaval PAKFA was indeed mentioned by a sukhoi boffin in an interview couple of months back. I think it is very likely IN would wait to get a clear idea what its next gen fighter is going to be before finalising the design of IAC-2.
Unlikely to be anytime soon considering the investment in Mig-29.
ppp
ppp;Thank you for your considered and well-researched contribution to this discussion. Do come again. :rolleyes:
Scooter,
The objectionable section of Boom’s posting (and he won’t post anything like that in here ever again – will you Boom?) was clearly not directed at you, so your outburst was completely un-necessary.
An apology would seem to be in order.
Thanks
GA
My post is clearly better researched than that of the OP since I realised from research that:
1. The status of a CVF even being for sale in 10 years is far from certain, let alone India being a client
2. The UK isn’t working particularly closely with India in the carrier field anyway, compared to Italy, for example.
pppThey do require their own landing and takeoff configurations so in addition to the reduced range and payload, they disrupt the flow of flight operations, but they are not going to send an air wing out with only three squadrons.
That being said, with the recent problems and 2-3 year delay for the B version, I don’t think its going to ever see service. To cut costs, the B will be cancelled in favor of the C and there will be an additional super hornet buy to cover delays
How does buying Superhornets cover the B version? As for cancelling the B version, I hardly think the USMC is going to be willing to cancel its order, presumably with the difference in numbers being added to the USN order. The B version is quite pointless for the USMC though, their needs would be better fulfilled by using their flat tops exclusively for helicopter assault, and some attack helicopters for air support. But this would require the USN to provide proper air support, almost as if the USN, USMC, US Army and USAF were fighting with each other for the good of the country rather than against each other for the good of themselves.
pppSo, the UK wouldn’t sell a CVF to India. If, offered to purchase one???
Anyone can buy anything for sufficient money. The US will sell them a nuke CVN and full ToT and the designs for the right money. This is all quite irrelevant though. There was a suggestion that the UK may sell one of the CVFs when the second CVF enters service, possibly with France in mind, thats quite a while from now though, about 10 years, or approximately two governments, or an entire period of cheesy pop music such as the 80s. We can’t make any guesses on what the UK will decide regarding the carriers, too much can happen in that period. 1930 no war. 1940 big war. 2010 no war. 2020?
pppThe status of whether the carrier is even for sale wont be known for a long time.
Sign In
