aussie, You can’t substantiate your bombastic claims re LM’s competance so resort to playing the man.
Typical aussie troll behaviour. 😀

In actual F35 news we have this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-17481466

You are yet another example of what I am speaking about. Play the ball not the man hey ? Do you even know what that means ? I doubt it because you use the saying in every post you have ever done to me.

Why is it such an issue for me to ask for people to back up their claims ? I don’t need to substantiate anything !! LO Made the claim, I was the one who asked him to back it up, so read the post properly before you start your typical rants

As long as there are living veterans from WWII then it wont even be considered. Period.

Absolute rubbish, using that thinking we would never ever buy anything from any former foe full stop !! do we have Anzac Frigates ? mmmmm now where do they come from ? How much European gear do we have ? Would you like a list ? How many WWII Vetrans have I seen using Japanese technology in camera’s, cars, computers, tv’s, dvd players etc etc etc Period

Spud – Isn’t instability having the CG aft of the center of pressure? Can you explain how a long forebody equates to an unstable configuration?

And everyone forgets about body lift… but how does the body produce lift, except at high alphas and very low L/D? Considered as a lifting surface, it has very little continuously cambered upper area, nor does it have a sharp, swept leading edge (like the Russians or the F-22).

Is there a primary source out there, even an interview with a program engineer, which explains the use of body lift in the F-35? Because all I find is fans using it as an excuse for the jet’s lousy wing loading numbers.

So the very same company that built and designed the F-22 got it so right ! and yet so wrong with the F-35 ? Do tell ? Try and keep the acronym’s and technical terms to a minimum, not all of us are so easily baffled

Respectfully you seem to be missing my point, all the issues I have raised bar one that was totally avoidable were nothing to do with up-scaling a design.

It is not just an engineering issue, what I mean is that the inherent danger in the up-scaling of a design as a system platform from the original intended fitout, not just in engines, don’t forget the US’s help with the prop, but changing the systems from original design use as well. So I understand what you mean, and yes you are right, the original issues with the CMS were intergration issues etc which are not directly related to the up-scale of the physical design.

But the choice of the system, and as you mentioned, was the mistake. But that choice then dictates many other things in the design and what you do with it to fit everything in, such as the 3 deisel engines, batteries, fuel etc to try and get it to meet the requirements of the day. The choice of the systems then dictates your power requirements, the most important thing in a sub

Well to play devils advocate was any of the issues with the Collins class to do with up-scaling a prior design? Major issues as far as I can see were:

1) Defective welding
2) Noise due to the nose being changed to accommodate a different sonar, model tests were done with the old design but not revised when the changes were made to sonar fit
3) Propulsion system
4) Periscopes and masts – RAN requesting a dubious redesign of the periscope from base design to allow the optical view when the scope was raised
5) CMS – the biggest problem in many ways and utterly avoidable if they had gone for an off the shelf system (as they did in the end)

Aside from point 2 none of these issues are due to scaling up the design and I would argue point 2 was utterly avoidable if they had done hydrodynamic model testing of the redesigned hull.

Scaling up and scaling down submarines is a fairly common process and if managed properly should not throw up too many issues.

Understand what you are saying, but all of that, plus many other issues are inherent dangers of upscaling an existing design to fit specific needs

Weapons Testing Under Way

F-35B and F-35C Lightning II weapons testing is now under way at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division test facility at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The tests will include fit checks, captive carry flights (as shown here), and ground pit drops, all of which will lead to aerial drop tests later this year. In this photo, taken 19 December 2011, Marine Corps Maj. C. R. Clift flies a dynamic loads test in an F-35B test aircraft with a 1,000-lb inert test GBU-32 satellite-guided bomb loaded in the aircraft’s internal weapons bay.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_news_item.html?item_id=608

Nice to hear 🙂 Will follow this with much interest, it’s a great pic, does not look at though there is much of a problem with the engine exhaust on it, just what you would expect really

I would prefer Australia go Japanese with their submarines. We have a longer trading history with Japan than we do with Spain, but more importantly, Japan are looking to build a submarine closer to Australia’s requirements. After all, both countries are in the same ocean.

Spot on, watch that space. Soryu replacements will be due in the right time frame. The Spanish can jump up and down as much as they like, but I don’t think an up-spec sub will get them the gig, gotta share the love