TomcatViPWell, not all.. Only those which fit the F-16 – the APG-82 SABR, Raytheon RACR and the ELTA-2052.. They have never tested anything by Selex or Thales.. The RACR has been picked as a part of the BAe upgrade package.. Well, we know how it ended up.. Once you go US, you are now allowed to simply pick upgrade from anyone else.. Taurus KEPD 350 long-range cruise missiles on KF-16s, that was hard to swallow in certain circles..
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-baesystems-southkorea-idUSKBN0IP2WD20141106
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-14/bae-systems-sues-south-korea-over-canceled-f-16-upgrade
C’mon MS, if Korea had picked the Rafale, it would have all the tech it could have wanted from Thales. Idem from Bae. Fact is that THEY DID NOT CHOOSE what they were offered. That went after the 35 and its comprehensive suite of systems. And again, that’s what they seek for the KFX despite all the negotiations and covert negotiations with Eu manufacturer.
And now, despite being denied a full ToT and access to similar level of technology in their design, they still stick to the same industrial. To me, it seems to be a qualitative approval.
And again:
[…] Korea most wanted the US to transfer the underlying AESA radar technology, which is considered essential to the success of KFX, according to Chang. Northrop Grumman supplies the APG-81 radar for the F-35.[…]
“These are the technologies we cannot get from other sources
TomcatViPYes. The way Kovy plays with numbers is hair-raising.
If economics are at play, just look at the local industry then and now:
– BAe went from being moribund to leadership
– Germany boosted its industry for a couple of decade more with excellence in R&D
– Spain raised in a position where it became unavoidable for Airbus to compromise its integration
– Italy had yet another round in fighter production (a position probably similar to France: no gain but no losses).
So, in overall, the path has been torturous and nearly led to total collapse not so long ago, but at the end it would be positive with even a last upgrade in total coherence with the vision at its inception and present day’s needs
TomcatViP“These [AESA] are the technologies we cannot get from other sources …”
Israel has AESA.. Italy has AESA.. Britain has AESA.. France has AESA.. Japan has AESA.. China has AESA.. Russia has AESA.. Damn, is there anyone who does not? Who exactly are the Koreans trying to fool here? :confused:
Given that Korea had the opportunity to test most of the radar systems being manufactured in the “West”, I see this most as a qualitative more than a quantitative comment.
Let’s be clear, if Korea had wanted technologies from other sources, given the competitive contest among aircraft manufacturer, it would have had it.
You’ll also note that the 16V would be the basis of their radar upgrade for their own fleet of 16.
TomcatViPVery high punch… In coastal areas.
The concept has moved from inshore to deep insertion of troop inland. Most of the intended flying platforms have coherent range.
The autonomy granted by the air-component (F35B) is easily illustrated if we refer to the 35% of availability of the Fr aircraft carrier fighter component. With at least 60% of availability, the Am packs a better punch at similar range.
The Osprey, being declined in a CoD variant allows for greater sustainability and hence even better sortie rate (force enabler).
Perhaps when Fr procurement would be again effect centric, your remark will prevail. (An Osprey cost 80M$).
TomcatViPAmong the achievements reached during this last deployment aboard the USS Am:
◾First integration of ALIS SOU version 2 aboard a ship
◾Removed and replaced the entire engine, drive shaft and lift fan of an F-35B over 12 days, including during heavy seas. The plane flew while we were there.
◾First live ordnance operations aboard a ship*
◾First F-35B integration with AEGIS
◾First integration with MV-22B Ospreys (2), a UH-1Y Venom and an AH-1Z Viper aboard a ship
◾Block 3F software was flown aboard ship for the first time at sea.
◾The first Royal Navy pilot was carrier qualified
Source:
breakingdefense.com
*Naively, I would have thought that live fire trial were part of IOC tests…
TomcatViPToday from Korea:
[…] Korea most wanted the US to transfer the underlying AESA radar technology, which is considered essential to the success of KFX, according to Chang. Northrop Grumman supplies the APG-81 radar for the F-35.[…]
“These are the technologies we cannot get from other sources and puts us in a very tough spot because the research centers in Korea are not able to proceed further without these needed technologies,” he says. “Given that we are focusing all our efforts to acquire these technologies, we have made satisfactory progress and as such the government is pushing for these continuously at this moment.”
You think as you want. That’s the problem.
Source:
FlightGlobal.com
TomcatViPFrom my understanding, the engines are from the F-18, landing gear from F-16/A-10, flight systems etc from F-15/F-16/T-38, I dare say there are a bounty of spares sitting at the boneyard.
yes.
TomcatViPJust found this video about the largest number of F-35Bs taking of from the USS America.
Very interesting concept. Just imagine what a punch a QEII will pack.
(
Aircraft carried:
Tailored air group of up to 40 aircraft
(50 full load):[12]
F-35B Lightning II
Chinook
Apache AH64
Merlin HM2 and HC4
Wildcat AH1 and HMA2
Merlin Crowsnest AEW
)
TomcatViPThe C17 lease was awfully expensive for Britain in case you didn’t notice.
TomcatViPSeems to be a Squirell. No bullet holes were sighted by the police forces (that does not mean it hasn’t been downed)
TomcatViPIt is awkward indeed, but becomes less weird when you look at the different nature of the components of the two boards. EASA board is more technical, where CAA is all business.
btw, the link to the ban lifting should be the first one in this article:http://helioffshore.org/easa-airworthiness-directive-issued-h225-as332ls/
No.
(EASA)
Although the root cause of this failure is still
not fully understood, it involved cracking of the planet gear bearing outer race, some spalling and
propagation of a crack into the rim of the gear, finally resulting in its rupture.
There are two configurations of planet gear within the current type design. In depth review of the
design and service data showed that one configuration has higher operating stress levels that
result in more frequent events of spalling, associated with rolling contact fatigue, while the other
exhibits better reliability behaviour. By limiting the type design to the gear configuration with
lower stress levels and better reliability and specifying a reduced life limit, combined with more
effective oil debris monitoring procedures and other operational controls, an acceptable level of
safety can be restored.
There is nothing there technical…
Worst, nothing is done to counter the reliability issue with a product that has passed apparently test and inspections unhampered since its service entry. This would have been acceptable (not sure really) for a new design or a brand new product line. Not for a product based on a decade long design.
TomcatViPLet’s not forget that Finland is now the Facto in part a Russian IADS country and capabilitiy enablers like stealth and SEAD should be a the point of focus of their request. It’s great to cherish the EU relationship and use a military program to increase your relationship among the European aliance but if your diplomats can’t even take a flight to Bruxels without requiring an autorization first to Moscow, it does not help much.
First security or alleviate the pressure… Then the business.
Boeing comes with the USN experience and its knowhow in penetrative counter IADS and the Growler.
LM offer the most modern and coherent solution even tailored for NATO partners
Sweden can claim its resilience long worked through the years (albeit with a design that no one has ever seen flying)
What’s are the positionning of the Typhoon and Rafale?
TomcatViPWell, if I am dismissed… I am also dismissed to make any serious comments. Does it sounds humble enough by the chin ?
I still don’t see how you can come cheaper leasing less expensive airframe (maintenance) in a lower cost country to do the job shouldered so far by high-end aircraft expensive to maintain and onerous to waste as they reach the end of their usefull life without a fully capable replacement.
But you are right, it would be an experiment… However you did inadequately mention the C17 lease, certainly the worst ever deal signed in the UK by anyone aged from 7 to 77 😉
TomcatViPSaab use to produce the best Eu cars and sell them all over the world (sorry to the UK reader). Management of alliances and wishful thinking closed the plants down at an astonishing pace.
TomcatViPIf no software update was done (think that there is a lot of anologic signal coupling b/w each unit, the authorized flight envelope would not have been modified. The plane would have been more dynamic but the hard limits remained identical (or slightly less to protect the safety margins with systems not tuned to cope with such conditions).
So the “feel” would have been greater but overall perfs caped at the same gross level.
Sign In
#/media/File:Helic%C3%B3ptero_da_Pol%C3%ADcia_Militar_da_Bahia.jpg){kind=link}