aussienscaleWell I can’t read the entire article, but from what I can see it is crap.
“A DoD spokesperson told IHS Jane’s on 5 June that issues identified during Canberra’s trials included leakages in the vessel’s propulsion shaft, excessive vibration at high speeds and a crack in the vessel’s hull. Malfunctioning components in its anchor windlass and electrical starter box were also found.
The defects were discovered by Teekay Shipping, a subcontractor engaged by BAE Systems, during the vessel’s trials. “The sea trials are required to be undertaken by the contractor as part of its contracted scope of work”
The leakages and excessive vibration at high speeds were not a defect, it was actually caused by the Teekay staff who were not aware of the requirement to have the 2 pods in sync when at speeds above 8 knots, operator error. The vibration caused paint to peel of as well.
The electrical problems was also caused by Teekay staff who did not follow procedure when switching a breaker back on after a test and overloaded it
The crack in the hull was minor and as I understand it has already been rectified, it was believed to have been caused on the trip to Australia due to the ships overhang
Cheers
aussienscaleYep SAAB are not even remotely interested in making any money whatsoever ?
aussienscaleWith all due respect, getting over the fact that what you posted as reply was basically many emoticons (which actually makes me think there’s not much to argue against my unpleasant points :)), and not wanting to go on about this “programming” (have no idea what you mean, i know it features in movies over there though, sleeper soviet agents everywhere etc.), i’ll just reply that regarding profit, actually it’s far more than 7% imo. How comes? Well, taking as example F-35 (but could be anything else in place), what are the primary materials in that plane ? Let’s say for the sake of it titanium, aluminum and carbon composites. Now someone has to actually dig them out from the ground, separate them or whatever they do, and sell them at a profit. Now the next guy comes along and works it into bits and pieces, panels and whatnot, and he sells it at a profit to LM. Which LM puts it together as an F-35, adds this and that, paints it, and sells it at a profit!
Mind you this is just a representative example in no way factually correct, but i’m sure you get what i mean. Pretty sure there must be a lot more intermediary steps between excavating materials from the ground and transforming it into an F-35.
What are you talking about ?
aussienscaleThey are going for the SH, because they are committed politically to the US
Although I understand what you are saying, that is a bit of an overstatement.
Yes we have strong ties politically with the US, but also with many other nations as well, have you seen how much Euro gear we actually have in the ADF ?
The possible extra purchase of SH just makes sence as an interim measure rather than going to a whole new airframe, as you would understand it is not just a matter of get the Typhoon or Raf, doing so would dramatically effect the current set up of the RAAF and cost substantially more to do so.
Cheers
aussienscaleUnfortunately the way the US defence industry is headed, they cannot make anything on time or on budget, so if the Lower risk program went significantly over budget, one can pretty safely assume that the higher risk program would have gone even more over budget. Having said that, the Raptor was also a victim of the end of the cold war, changing defence requirments, dwindling numbers required by the services.
Totally agree, it is part of a much bigger problem that not only effects the US, but many other nations as well, some more than others 🙁
But one of the problems as you mentioned is that with anything Defence you have to plan proactively and not reactively, with such projects as we have seen and continue to see, things change in a matter of years now, not decades or generations, unfortunately the crystal ball is not that clear
Cheers
aussienscaleAlthough they may not have been released officially, it is well known in industry circles that LMA offering won due to an overall package that was less risky but still met most if not all the ATF test requirments. Like it has been mentioned earlier, the YF23 had better Supercruise performance and better transonic and supersonic manuverability, while the YF22 had better subsonic and High AOA performance. It came down to RISK as both met or exceeded the perfomance requirments and it was LMA offering that was found to be the least risky of the two…Unlinke the X32 , X35 fly off (contest) there was no clear cut performance parameter that proved to be a disadvantage for any one contestant so the contract was based on Risk and overall projected costs.
Understand that, unfortunately the F-22 pricing did not work out so well though 🙁
I was just highlighting the fact that although the 23 had better abilities that TU had listed is was not selected, taking singular performance abilities out of context of what is actually required makes the comment a mute point, performance, although part of the AFT requirements are only a small part of the equation, but it always comes down to what is availabe in the public domain. There are many more factors that are not released requirements that make a much larger factor of what is required.
Single capabilities taken out of context and out of the bigger picture of the force construct just goes around in circles with each side of the debate being able to counter claims endlessly
Cheers
aussienscaleI would still like to hear aussienscale thoughts on what really counts
Thanks for your typical one line reply 🙂
Cheers
P.S. I have stated my experience, care to share yours ?
aussienscaleIf we compare metrics… the YF 23 vs 22:
Better range (~10-15%)
Higher speeds (~300km/h)
Better wing loading (265kg/m² vs 363/m²)
Higher thrust/weight (1,34 vs 1,11 loaded, 2,38 vs 2,08 empty)
Lower weight (~2’000kg)This would mean that the YF23 should have better sustained turn performance, better kinematics and lower production costs.
The YF22 probably could offer better turn performance at very high alpha and low speed and being a lower risc project.
I also think Lockheed had a better economical package. But in a traditional sense there is no doubt about what airframe was the highest performing.
I think that is correct. Both jets met the requirements, one did it by a larger margin and the other was less risc.
And despite all that the 23 was not selected, I wonder why ?
It should give you an idea of what really counts 🙂
Cheers
aussienscale[QUOTE=Rii;1996989]Your continued suggestion that Super Hornet was acquired because it was just-so-awesome, rather than because it was just-so-convenient, is cute but entirely unsupported. gf0012-aust over at DefenceTalk is quite clear on the priorities guiding the acquisition./QUOTE]
Interesting, so you find this poster credible in what he is saying ?
aussienscaleAccording to Fox News (and therefore with a bucket of salt), Australia may half its F35 command
A mixed fleet of Super Hornets/Growlers with a smaller sized JSF fleet, ~50 ish, is a real possibility for Australia, also nothing official has been announced, the DEFMIN has made numerous hints at this over the last few months.
The RAAF will no doubt still fight for a single fleet, but the legacy fleet is getting pretty short in the tooth so a decisions either way will have to be made pretty soon.
There is also conjecture that the talk around it is also a pre election ploy to show the Governments (and I use the word loosely) commitment to Defence, I think either way there is a pretty good chance, but not sure if an announcement will be made prior to the Federal election in September, but then again…..
Cheers
aussienscaleThe news reports are based on misinformed Turkish local news, which were pretty much confused by the straight deck LPD / LHD project and named it as an aircraft carrier.
Currently there is a project about a 20,000 – 25,000t amphibious assault / helicopter landing ship. Something like a Juan Carlos or Mistral. Contract negotiations expected to commence this year when the winner is selected (Chinese Type 081, modified Juan Carlos 1 and a local design supported by UK BMT). The projected ship is required to be capable of flying 4 helicopters from deck while keeping 8 in hangar; while supporting a fully equipped marine battalion.
On the other hand, the Turkish Navy is playing with the idea of an organic fixed wing force in the long, very long term. This very idea is on the table since the Bosnia / Kosovo operations. There is not a solid project or defined requirement and it will definitely see well after 2020’s.
Thanks for the info, do you know if there is anything available on the local/BMT design ? or nothing released yet ?
aussienscaleAnyone care to guess how many more airfields within Australia A400M can access than C-17? :rolleyes:
probably heaps more, but we don’t have the A400 🙂
aussienscaleWas thinking more of the useable airfield analysis. It pointed out the large increase in accessible airfields available to C27J sized aircraft compared to C-130s. From memory, the C27J will enable the RAAF to access around 4 times the number of fields within Aus compared to the Herc.
Ahh ok got you, I do remember reading something along those lines some time ago
Cheers
aussienscaleSo you expect the ADF to spend days (weeks) driving all around the continent, spend days waiting to catch one of the few transcontinental trains that may (or more likely not) go to where they want to go, or use small boats to get to external territories?
Have you read the ADF’s rationale for buying C-27J sized aircraft? Perhaps you can detail how that analysis was flawed? Perhaps you can tell us why the air lift group has go it wrong too:http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-australian-airlift-comes-of-age-381854/
With this quote from the article being the most telling factor for the C-27 selection for the Caribou replacement
“Martin says the main attribute which aided its selection over Airbus Military’s rival bid with the C295 was the C-27J’s cargo capacity: “If you look at the internal size of the aircraft, the C295 could not fit vehicles such as the Land Rover replacement or special forces vehicles. The C-27J came out well on top in these areas”
Land 121 Ph 4 for the PMV-L has already been through first pass approval and is currently in the trial phase, year of decision is 2013-2014. As well as trialing the Thales Hawkei they are still involved in the US program and looked at vehicles such as the Ocelot etc
So from a RAF point of view do they need to requirement is they were to consider the C-27 ?
Cheers
aussienscaleDiagnosing anti-Americanism as “racism” is a bit of a stretch given the number of ethnicities resident in the US population. But that’s why people are on my Ignore list…
And I am glad to stay there Bill
Cheers
Sign In
