Key Publishing

Jaidyn24

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)

1 2 3 4 →

Author

Posts
January 18, 2013 at 6:15 pm in reply to: Is American aviation going downhill? #2257854

Jaidyn24
Participant

You seem to miss the fact that when the US develops these systems most of Europe doesn’t feel the need to. In the case of 5th Gen fighters, they are either jointly developing them with the US (in the case of the UK), or will simply buy from the US (such as the Netherlands).

You also don’t seem to realise that European nations don’t have the same requirements as the US. This, and a lack of political will, are why European nations don’t have a bomber force – they don’t need or want one.

As for space planes, I’m aware of USAF models, can you provide a source on Chinese ones? As for European space planes, the British Skylon design, while still on paper, has solved many of the technical problems that have stood in their way.

Given money, political will and time, any nation can produce top-notch equipment.

So that’s your argument? That Europe doesn’t need power projection? Why do they have carriers then? whats more expensive, Building and maintaining an entire fleet of carriers and escorts. or building a fleet of 20 bombers in the B-1 class. I suppose Europe doesn’t have a requirement to sell planes and protect the future European fighter market share either ? NO! given time and money NOT anyone can produces high tech equipment. There are certain things that you can only get from bumping your head and doing the hard work like the Americans have. For instance China for all of its new found hubris and wealth can design a space plane and shoot down satellites, but cannot produce a 5th generation engine (This may not be just a tech problem but a cultural QC problem for them). Look at how long its took the Russians to work out some of the bugs its its newer missile and sub designs.
Look at How long the U.S. has worked on missile defense. Your looking at it wrong. you see failure, The Americans The Russians and the Chinese see slow progress but the kinks will eventually be worked out. eventually the Chinese will get it Its the Height of arrogance to think ” We will just throw some high tech gear together when we need it and it will work because we are European”. Eventually the Bugs will be ironed out of the F-35.
The Europeans in 20 years will be shut out of the fighter market for lack of a top shelf design. Perhaps an emerging power like the Congo, or Mali or maybe Haiti Will by the Typhoon by then.

January 18, 2013 at 6:40 am in reply to: Is American aviation going downhill? #2258225

Jaidyn24
Participant

Since you directly compared European designs, to American, I will start there with my argument.

By your logic then Europe as a whole will be behind for years in aviation tech.

The Russians, Chinese, and Americans can build a 5th gen fighter. Where is the Euro-canard 5th generation fighter?

The Russians, and Americans have functioning strategic bomber forces, where is the Euro strategic bomber force?

The Americans, and the Chinese, have built advanced unmanned reusable space plane designs. Where are the Euro space plane designs?

The Russians, Chinese, and Americans, have developed Anti-sat abilities.

Where is the European, UAV fleet? are people buying UAVs from France or Israel and the U.S.? You claim that it was a good decision to forgo stealth and upgrade 4th generation designs. You fail to realize that by 2030 Most of Europe will either have hopelessly out dated tech, or need to buy advanced fighters from the U.S.. Europe is a generation design wise behind, China, japan, and Russia. I think you should ask if European Aviation is going down hill

January 6, 2013 at 12:36 am in reply to: Scenario: Re-arming Argentina #2265325

Jaidyn24
Participant

If I had the job as leader of Argentina I would.

1. Offer the Chinese lucrative future oil deals if they would help us, equip the military, and do joint exploration with us. Increase defense spending 5+ percent over a few years.

2. Buy SRBms and maybe China’s new carrier killer missile. A ballistic missile threat would give the British nightmares trying to defend the Falklands. If not China then you could court North Korea and Iran for missiles.

3. Buy cheap AIP diesel boats to handle the Type 45s when they show up.

4. Find a Mistral class or small invincible class war ship. to be the flag of your fleet. along with cheap Chinese helos and sky-hawks. Buy Chinese corvettes. To bad they scrapped the 25th de mayo. she would have been a valuable asset.

5 lastly they should spend good money on S-300s

January 2, 2013 at 10:14 pm in reply to: X-32A vs X-35A again #2266656

Jaidyn24
Participant

excuse me gentlemen but I would like to point out a few things.

1. The Rafale has a delta along with moving canards this is quite different than a normal delta.

.2 The problem with the X-32 stemmed from it taking off vertically, going, supersonic, and landing in the same configuration. when you put the radar blocker on, the plane had trouble breaking the sound barrier. with out the blocker, the plane wasn’t stealthy.

“Due to the heavy delta wing design of the prototypes, Boeing demonstrated STOVL and supersonic flight in separate configurations, with the STOVL configuration requiring that some parts be removed from the fighter. The company promised that their conventional tail design for production models would not require separate configurations. By contrast, the Lockheed Martin X-35 prototypes were capable of transitioning between their STOVL and supersonic configurations in mid-flight.[4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

3. The x-32 had issues with hot gas ingestion near the ground, causing what appeared to be a near compressor stall in one instance.

“On 26 October 2001, the Department of Defense announced that the Lockheed Martin X-35 won the JSF competition. One of the main reasons for this choice appears to have been the method of achieving STOVL flight, with the Department of Defense judging that the higher performance lift fan system was worth the extra risk. When near to the ground, the Boeing X-32 suffers from the problem of hot air from the exhaust circulating back to the main engine, which causes the thrust to weaken and the engine to overheat”

4. The X-32 used a riskier weapons rack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdRPXJyoqIk If I can remember the Navy had concerns about weapons hanging up. but I could be wrong.

5. The X-32 was god awful ugly.

Now the discussion of whither STOVL was bad for the program or not, is skewed. there have been only a handful of naval designs, in the last 20+ years and only 2 designs considered by most 5th generation. It would have been foolish for LM to not build and market a STOVL plane. IF not Lm then someone either Boeing, EADS, or another western firm would have realized that there is a market for a harrier replacement. As much as some of us would like to dream about The Marines dumping all organic air it wont happen.
Further more many other countries are in the market for a wasp class carrier capability, and the STOVL design to fly from it.

December 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2269343

Jaidyn24
Participant

1. Your going to attack S-300s defended by tor-M1 at low level?

2. Cruise missiles have drawbacks, and major one being that they
A. cannot hit moving shoot and scoot targets effectively
B. Make the heavily loaded strike aircraft even more limited.
C. with only 2-4 weapons per mission they seriously effect sortie rate.

3. If your going to call me names like twit for not agreeing with you, you can at least provide a valid counter point. MY point was that at over 100 mill for the F-18E/F (look at what the Aussies paid), EF, Rafael, and Griffin your not getting a good deal. In order to break down a Su-30, S-300, TorM-1 combo you would with out a shadow of a doubt need twice as many legacy platforms.

4. The Rafael + hammer combo wont work. How do you kill the S-300s and Su-30s with a short ranged Mica and a short ranged hammer? Even if you put scalp on a Typhoon, or Griffon, Now you have the problem of
heavy laden aircraft, with extremely poor sortie rate. you need to task twice the planes. Opposed to using 4XF-35 with 32 small diameter bombs and 8 AMRAAms total. Thus My point still stands. You need twice as many planes as the F-35 Unless we are to assume your enemy will only use 1 tor, 1 Su-30 and 1 S-300 launcher.

December 25, 2012 at 7:36 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2269857

Jaidyn24
Participant

Even self escorting, you need more legacy fighters than 5th gen.

December 25, 2012 at 7:31 am in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2269947

Jaidyn24
Participant

And so it seems that the entire premise of my last post was wasted on you. Ill try and explain it again Msphere. Please try to keep up.

If your going to do a detailed analysis on the F-35 then the same must be applied to the other aircraft its competing against. For instance, you must factor in buying twice the amount of engines for certain types. You must factor in how you plan on operating the aircraft. If the Aircraft cannot penetrate a IADs then you need to factor in if you need jamming or twice the number of planes as F-35. Where will you get all of the cruise missiles needed for a campaign? even the U.S. Has limited stocks of jassm. A F-18E/F is worthless versus S-300 with no jamming or stand off weapons. You seem to have forgotten why the United states went along with stealth aircraft in the 1st place.

It very may well be a Lockheed martin marketing ploy. or it could be true. The problem is if you bet wrong your stuck with the wrong planes for 30+ years that are useless. Further more as it has been revealed before none of the alternatives are cheaper. The F-35 price is dropping, and will drop more.

Lets take euro fighter for instance. How do you justify buying a euro-fighter for nearly twice as much?

” There are indications of problems with the collaborative contracts for the supply of spares and repair of equipment. There have been shortages of spares and long timescales for equipment repairs on some of these contracts …

The [2008] spares procurement contract does not include penalties for late delivery …

To compensate, the Department [the MoD] has had to take parts from some of its Typhoon aircraft to make other aircraft available to fly.

Oh, those troublesome foreigners and their ramshackle collaborative arrangements! Who could possibly have been responsible for such a rubbish setup?

” … the Department played a central role in establishing the collaborative management structures that still exist today.”

“This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets – that’s $350m at today’s rates, rather more than the US taxpayers have been made to pay for each of their 185 Raptor superfighters2, almost all of which will be used operationally. And the Raptor has third-generation Stealth: the Eurofighter has no stealth features at all. The Raptor has thrust vectoring for unbeatable manoeuvrability in a dogfight: the Eurofighter doesn’t.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/

Does the EF have a AESA radar deployed? How is the plane at maritime strike? The age of the 50 million dollar fighter is over.

December 24, 2012 at 9:57 am in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2270228

Jaidyn24
Participant

It seems as if the anti-F-35 deck of cards is slowly tumbling.

CAIRO — The F-35 fighter jet is not dead.

Fevered reports to the contrary, there is every chance that when a review of the options is probably completed by Public Works Canada by next fall, the F-35 stealth fighter may still be at the top of the shopping list.

Following the F-35 fracas from Egypt, where truly momentous political events are being debated, the hysteria in Canada over the F-35 seems rather quaint. Most of what critics have written and said about the Joint Strike Fighter has been just as confusing and misleading as what the Harper government has had to say about it since a Liberal government got Canada involved in the project.

Although already nearly 15 years old, Boeing’s fourth generation F-18 Super Hornet is the only serious rival to Lockheed Martin’s fifth generation F-35 Lightning. But as argued by the National Post’s John Ivison, the clear leader on the F-35 story for months, the Super Hornet has far less of a cost advantage than the JSF’s critics have led the public to believe. In fact if Canada were to buy the two-seat electronic warfare variant of the Super Hornet or a mix of that model and the attack version, it might not be cheaper at all.

The “life cycle costs” of the F-35 — development, acquisition, sustainment, operations, attrition and disposal, including fuel and air and ground crew — have been described in Canada in apocalyptic terms. Here, the analogy to a car purchase is apt. When you buy a car for

Read more: http://www.canada.com/When+compared+alternatives+still+best+option/7709995/story.html#ixzz2FxhVv600

December 19, 2012 at 7:30 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2272067

Jaidyn24
Participant

MSPhere I have a few issues with your assumptions. Lets look at them for a second.

1. Can a Non thrust vectoring 4.5 gen class fighter beat a thrust-vectoring class fighter in WVR consistently? The answer from the evidence we have is yes.

F-16 Versus Su30MKI
http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml
Typhoon versus SU-30MKI
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/121746-british-typhoons-beat-india-s-sukhois-joint-exercises.html

2. Is the WVR game basically a mutual kill for all parties involved if they all have HOBS? YES

3. Is the F-35 in the 4.5 generation + maneuverability class? The answer is yes
The U.S. Marine Corps’ short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has completed all of the vertical landings and about 80 percent of the short takeoffs required to begin testing aboard an amphibious assault ship later this year, according to a test pilot at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

The tests are filling in details about the plane’s flight characteristics, which are turning out to be quite similar to the F/A-18 Hornet.

The STOVL variant, which was placed on a two-year “probation” late last year by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has been plagued by teething problems with various inlet doors and other ancillary hardware associated with vertical landings.

“The testing has been going very well over the last couple of months,” said Marine Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly, an F-35 test pilot with an F/A-18 Hornet background. “We have performed all the vertical landings necessary to go out to the boat and do testing.

F-35 High AOA testing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWHHuLILs0

Its obvious that LM could have made the F-35 faster more maneuverable, and on the A model at least they could have added TV for less weight than the stovl version. Why didn’t they? Why didn’t they load the plane up with mach 1.8 SC and TV? The answer is simple. [COLOR=”Red”]The customer did not require those things in the contract.[/COLOR]. What the customer did require was a lower price for not having those capabilities. YES in this regard, it remains to be seen if the F-35 will reach its goal. That doesn’t make Lockheed morons for giving the customer what they asked for.

I Would also like to point out that the J-20 is no by any means a medium or light weight fighter.

We are talking about a 60-80K LB class fighter with a subpar WS-10 class engine that MIGHT put out 30kLbs of thrust in full AB on a good day.
Wiki is suspicious claiming 40KLbs each in AB, But I don’t see the Chinese leap frogging both the Russians and Americans in engine tech and reliability, and Ill leave it at that. What you have is a near F-111 class-fighter that you are imagining will turn in burn in a vertical rolling scissors with a F-18 class fighter, ignoring the facts that even the mighty Chinese have not achieved God like status, and will also be subject to the laws of physics.

To make matters worse for the Chinese and Russians, VLO is all about shape, shape, shape, and materials. If we all know this is the case then why have the Chinese and Russians made the choice of only signals managing 1/2 of their aircraft? Do they expect to NOT egress from the target? Do they NOT realize that the Americans have a lead in LO tech? These questions are not things easily over looked.

December 10, 2012 at 3:46 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2275551

Jaidyn24
Participant

It cannot be done now as the money has already been spent and much time lost. Most importantly – there would be no F-35B and requiremnent to develop a VTOL version would no longer hamper the development and dictate technical features of the design like overall dimensions. USMC would be getting a significantly upgraded Harrier (take AESA, EODAS, whatever you want there) instead.

If money would not permit, I would also cut the separate land-based F-35A, this is not urgently required, IMHO. But the F-35 would generally look different from the one we know – longer, sleeker, with great emphasis on phenomenal flying abilities (SC at >1.6, maneuvrability beyond Flankers) and only “reasonably” good stealth chanarcteristics. Paying $42,000 / flight hour so that you can somehow squeeze the frontal RCS below 0.005sqm makes no sense to me..

edit: when I read it again, I think I would simply update and rework the F-22 to a carrier-based multirole version with certain stealth limitations to squeeze the price below $100mil a copy and below $20,000/flight hour. Then I would order 1,500 copies of the bird and gladly deploy them against every living force on this planet. From the saved F-35 budget I think I would easily pay that, even with that upgraded Harrier and a flight of private Gulfstreams.

And that’s exactly my point. You may think good or bad about the F-35 but it doesn’t matter at this point. We could build the fantasy fighters mentioned above, but money wont allow it. further more, how can one complain about the F-35s capabilities and then encourage a griphen or hornet buy? Griphen and Hornet buys with upgrades that are not fielded and will certainly need to be flight tested. If we cant even afford the garden variety F-22, how are we going to build a naval F-22? We are married to the F-335 now. TILL DEATH DO WE PART SO HELP ME GAWD! Here are my solutions.

1. Have the USAF buy the next few lots immediately at-least the next 5.
2. Immediately stand down more air guard squadrons and active squadrons
Tell congress we need money for the next few lots in order to get the best F-35 deal possible.
3. have Lm start blazing away with production at 100 jets a year for the next 5 years. when the production prices falls below 100 mill then the cries about concurrency will be drowned out.
4. Have the ADVENT engines and DIRCM ready By 2020.

December 10, 2012 at 6:37 am in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2275695

Jaidyn24
Participant

Msphere please enlighten us. Build us a plane that super cruises at mach 2.0
carries 30 AMRAAMS internally. has better stealth than a F-22, can land on a carrier, Gator boat, Has a 2000NM combat radius has 3d thrust vectoring and costs less than 50 million dollars. Whats is your solution to canceling the F-35? If your Not suggesting that the F-35 be canceled then why bother cutting numbers? If your not going to cut numbers then explain your reasoning?

December 7, 2012 at 2:32 pm in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2276348

Jaidyn24
Participant

If i may be allowed to add my 2 pence.

1. If indeed the Government of Canada has decided to dump the F-35, then for god sakes LM, pull all contractor work share from Canada, and hit them with a insane cancellation fee. There has to be a price paid for breaching contract.
Japan and Israel would Love to get subcontracting deals.

2. The U.S. Government is partially to blame for the F-35 price increase.
who cares about a 20 million back-fit/concurrency cost per plane if your building 200 planes a year and can get the price between 70-100 mill?

3. Has anyone calculated typhoon 20 year costs? Hows is it that 2 typhoon engines are cheaper than 1 F-35 engine? How will parts be cheaper coming from 10 European contractors with a less than 500 order compared to a 1700+ order? Did the Saudis get a under 100 million dollar price on EF?

‘On 14 December 2006, Britain’s attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, ordered that the Serious Fraud Office discontinue its investigation in the BAE Systems’ alleged bribery to senior Saudi officials in the al-Yamamah contracts, citing “the need to safeguard national and international security”.[171] The Times has raised the possibility that RAF production aircraft will be diverted as early Saudi Arabian aircraft, with the service forced to wait for its full complement of aircraft.[172] This arrangement would mirror the diversion of RAF Tornados to the RSAF. The Times has also reported that such an arrangement will make the UK purchase of its Tranche 3 commitments more likely.[172] On 17 September 2007, Saudi Arabia confirmed it had signed a GB£4.43 billion contract for 72 aircraft.[173] 24 aircraft will be at the Tranche 2 build standard, previously destined for the UK RAF, the first being delivered in 2008. The remaining 48 aircraft were to be assembled in Saudi Arabia and delivered from 2011,[174] but following contract renegotiations in 2011 it was agreed that all 72 aircraft would be assembled by BAE Systems in the UK with the last 24 aircraft being built to Tranche 3 capability.[175] Saudi Arabia is considering an order of 24 additional jets in the future,[176] more recent reports suggest that number may be as high as 60[177] or 72,[178] but this may have been superseded by Saudi Arabia’s request in August 2010 to purchase 84 new F-15s.[179]”

Isn’t the Saudi price close to 200 mill each? Did the Aussies get a killer deal
on the F-18?.

4. Why didnt LM Go ahead and start on 100 planes a year even though the government cut the order, do they Not have the capital? if you cant sell the plane for under 100 mill you have an incompetent marketing division. Going with this plan they could have filled the SK tender, and likely get the Israeli planes of the line faster .
Like I mentioned before, if you can get the plane under 100Mill then a 20 mill backfit is not a program ending concern. Now you’ve done the worse thing for the program possible which is SCREW WITH THE ECONOMY OF SCALE

I for one wish the Canadians good luck. BUt a paltry 65 plane order is not in of it self the end of the F-35.

December 2, 2012 at 10:17 am in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2278289

Jaidyn24
Participant

une 29/12: Buy 4, for more. Officials from Japan’s defense ministry say that they have agreed to terms for their first 4 F-35As, despite a 9.1% price increase. The price hike was caused by American cuts, which have shifted 179 aircraft out of the order book over the next 5 years. The planes will reportedly cost 9.6 billion yen (about $120 million) each over the entire buy, up from the original plan of $110 million. American officials said they could not offer the Japanese a lower price than other partnership nations. That makes the Japanese contract a good bellwether for the real base cost of an F-35A in the near future.

Fortunately for the Japanese, the overall contract remained at the expected YEN 60 billion (about $752.4 million). The cost of the 2 simulators and other equipment dropped to YEN 19.1 billion ($240.83 million) from the expected YEN 20.5 billion. Defense News | Fort Worth Star Telegram | Reuters.

The price Hike was from delaying orders. The U.S. should have blazed through at well over a 100-150 build rate a year. if you can get economy of scale and get the cost below 80 million. then who cares about concurrency.

December 2, 2012 at 10:07 am in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2278290

Jaidyn24
Participant

The Canadian controversy stems from the F-35’s cost, which affects everyone else, especially in Europe where the national governments are trying to cut defense spending and demilitarize in order to deal with ongoing European government debt crisis.

Had the F-35 been available for less than $100 million program cost, everything would be in smooth sailing today. But 42 F-35 cost Japan $10 billion, before the additional FACO and industrial participation cost.

[B][COLOR=”Red”]The F-35 already got smoked by all comers in Korea’s open contest, where it ranked dead last by a wide score margin. The F-35 simply cannot win in open bid contests, and its only hopes are in non-bidding sales.

[/COLOR][/B]

Rising tensions in the area led Japan to conclude that it needed good ground-attack capabilities as an explicit requirement, and based on their mathematical analysis of submitted information, Japan concluded that the F-35A was more capable all around than other fighters with a proven record. The choice was announced in December 2011, and agreement to buy up to 42 fighters was signed in June 2012. Media reports aren’t completely precise, but they seem to suggest that Japanese F-35As could eventually fly with up to 40% Japanese manufactured content.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptors-to-japan-01909/
:rolleyes: Im just saying.

November 27, 2012 at 10:08 am in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2279780

Jaidyn24
Participant

None can get a correct RCS value from a fighter radar in the middle of red flag,
and top fighters will have to merge anyway

It is my theory that a a True VLo platform will not merge head on unless it has to. Why would the fighter fly right into the heart of where sensors are pointing. If your stealthy enough, why not pick the angle of your choosing?
Why not just contempt engagement, and kill the strikers then sneak up behind counter air? We have been so caught up in the ‘my plane is better than yours arguments’ that we haven’t even begun to discuss how being stealth will change tactics.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)

1 2 3 4 →