Oman about to sign for Typhoon?

Extract:

BAE Systems is preparing to close a deal with Oman to supply Typhoon fighters and Hawk jet trainers to the country’s air force.

The deal, expected to be signed in Oman on Dec. 21, is part of a wider defense pact due to be inked by the two governments that day, said industry sources who asked not to be named.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121219/DEFREG01/312190007/Source-Oman-Will-Soon-Buy-Typhoons-Hawks?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

In theory, it’s about avoiding big up front capital costs and costs of ownership, and risk, and instead paying the PFI service provider to shoulder these, in return for an annual service charge.

I’m not expressing support for PFIs, PPPs and contractorisation, I’m just putting the case that is made for these misbegotten arrangements.

+1

IIRC this was encouraged by Gordon Brown when he was Finance minister – with PFI less government capital expenditure is needed to introduce a service. But I believe the long term cost of privatising refuelling will be much higher in spite of the fact that industry is generally more efficient at providing services than government. Why do I think that? Efficiency improvements are more than offset by inflated profit margins. As for risk reduction: that is an illusion to me. If the risk goes against the company providing the service, it calls in the administrators. After which there is no refuelling capability. 🙁

The fans claim that internal loadout has no effect on the kinematic performance of the F-35 because of no added drag.. as if weight did not have any effect on drag, as well… But OK, if even two tons of bombs only have a negligible effect, suddenly every gallon of fuel should count?

I was always under the impression that unless you wanted to fly towards earth’s centre of gravity, lift had to equal or exceed weight and the greater the lift, the greater the induced drag. Have LM designed the F-35 in such a way that more lift does not mean more drag?

1. This claim makes no sense. It either can ride as fast on military thrust or it cannot. If it can, then there is no other limit than empty tanks.

2. Supercruise alone means nothing unless connected with economic benefits. Aircraft have reached M1.2 decades ago, the point of supercruise was to push the SFC down to economical levels to enable cruising at high transonic/supersonic speeds for long periods of time. If the F-35 is able to maintain M1.2 for only 150 miles, which is ~9 minutes, then such supercruise is zero practical sense, anyway – a 30 year old F-16 can do the same, even better, only its rider has to engage 1st stage reheat from time to time..

I don’t think the claim is “above board”. To me this part of the article is advertorial – the phrasing is chosen and shaped to try to cast the F-35 dry thrust speed in the best light. My guess is that at best the F-35 can fly 150 miles straight and level at M1.2 under optimal conditions (altitude/loaded weight) on dry thrust.

As for pilots reporting that occasional afterburner is required to maintain supersonic speed, that may be the case unless altitude/loaded weight are close to the ideal mentioned.

What an absolute load of rubbish, this is what happens when the country has and idiot as Defmin who has shown a blatant disregard for advice from all three services for political point scoring and bugetary measures for the sake of the Governments lie of a promise for a surplus.

Stick with your computer games

Mmmm… Is it the job of the DefMin to provide whatever resources the military advise without regard to budgets? Or to provide the Education minister with whatever his advisors recommend? Or the to provide the Health minister with whatever his advisors recommend? etc etc

I don’t think that is how government works.

Damning report on Canadian government’s management of CF-18 replacement:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/141018/canada-releases-key-documents-on-fighter-project.html

From the article:

The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to “throw” such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.

There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes “through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily.” The transonic area is “where you really operate.”

That 150 mile supercruise at M1.2 figure is part of a more complete flight profile that is being discussed, as is made perfectly obvious when he goes on to say that the aircraft could go farther at M0.9. (Now we will no doubt be treated to some nitwit arguing that the F-35 can’t maintain M0.9 unless in a dive…)

The F-35 can of course maintain M0.9 on dry thrust, the limiting factor is how much fuel is allotted to that segment of the flight. If the F-35 accelerates to M1.2 and then sustains that speed, more fuel will be consumed and the range for that portion of the flight will be ~150 miles.

This really isn’t that complicated, but as is usually the case around here people have a habit being selectively obtuse.

Naturally this won’t stop us from having yet another circular discussion where the ignorant line up to complain that the F-35 is too slow…

Thanks for that.

IMO first para should have been rephrased from

“The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.”

to

“The F-35 can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.”

I accept that the speaker is saying the F-35 can fly at M1.2 without afterburner but why confuse the issue by talking of supercruise? If he wanted to mention supercruise he should have said the F-35 does not supercruise. That is the import of what he is saying.

I could say that while not technically a supersonic aircraft, the Boeing 787 can cruise at Mach 0.86 but that would be a stupid thing to say, would it not? Not inaccurate. Just stupid.

And please, do everyone a favor and stop claiming supercruise on the F35. It is premature to reach that conclusion (that probably is very wrong). Not even the Bryan himself called it supercruise and he hinted it could be in a dive. In fact they said it “not technically supercruise”.

Only the religious hardcore fanatics of the F35 groupies claim the supercruise numbers for the aircraft. But hey, if thats the case than maybe we can call the me 262 a supercruising jet with a dash of 1 mile. If earth wasnt in the way it could probably supercruise longer in a vertical dive.

My VW Beetle does over 100mph on the flat. OK, I have to point it down a long, steep hill first and the speed does bleed off rather quickly when I reach the flat bit at the bottom of the hill. But I challenge anyone to tell me that it doesn’t do 100mph on the flat. Technically. 🙂

IMO performance is performance. It is performance without abnormal qualification.

Let’s call a spade a spade. If someone told me they had a spade which only did what a spade does temporarily after certain circumstances had previously been met, I would tell them such an implement was not a spade.