F35B to perform rolling landings on CVF

hybrid shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique, potentially to be employed as the primary recovery mode for Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters operating from the Royal Navy’s two Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF).

An SRVL involves a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft performing a “running landing” on to the carrier flightdeck, using air speed to provide wingborne lift to complement engine thrust. The touchdown position on an axial flightdeck is similar to that of a conventional carrier – about 45m (150ft) from the stern, but no arrestor gear is required, as the aircraft uses its brakes to come to a stop within a distance of 90-150m. The technique could allow an F-35B to recover with an extra 907kg (2,000lb) of weapons and fuel, or reduce propulsion system stress and increase engine life.

Source

This is smart work by the UK MoD.

That’s my opinion as well, FWIW. They’re both going to qualify, and it’ll come down to a pure price decision.

It is good to see that it will strictly remain a fixed-price bid. Lines can’t be blurred. The actual cost of making them is going to be relevant.

Price-dumping would be unrealistic and not sustainable in the long run. No sane company offers products at a loss. And in this case price dumping will lead to disqualification.

The final Request for Proposal issued by the Air Force shifted its rating methodology from a combination of criteria-and-subjective analysis to a pass-fail approach. There are 372 criteria that EADS and Boeing have to pass; if any of the the criteria fails, the offering is disqualified.

This removes the past performance and risk factors …

Source: In-depth article on inner workings of Round 3

Boeing is in the position of having to convince the Air Force …….. of the Italian KC-767 wing-pod flutter issues (with a new control surface system for the wings, we are told) and all other systems can be done within the fixed price bid and timelines specified in the RFP.
.
.
.
The same approach is true for the KC-45 systems. Although EADS correctly points out that its airplane is in production and in testing and has transferred fuel on many occasions, it is also equally true the airplane is about 18 months late, it has yet to be delivered and it certainly isn’t operational.

Parenthetically, the USAF is certainly cognizant that any price offered by EADS that underbids Boeing is going to be subject to Congressional scrutiny. Thus, the Air Force has real, deep incentive to be convinced that no price dumping occurs.

Summarizing,
– Price-dumping is out, it will be a RFP-based fixed-price bid
– Simplistic pass-fail approach is in (not a criteria or subjective approach)
– USAF likely to use EN’s (Engineering Notification) to clarify technical issues outside the pass-fail approach
– EADS KC-45 is not operational yet (A330 operations not applicable)
– Boeing KC-767 is not operational yet (Italian, Japanese 767 not applicable)

This kind of impersonal/stand-off approach seems to indicate that the decision will be made objectively and speedily.

To start with,

On board a ship:
– AN/WLD-1 remote minehunting system
– AN/AQS-20A sonar mine detecting set

In addition, MH-60R/S helo or a tactical UAV can perfom:
– airborne surface influence sweep
– airborne laser mine detection and
– airborne mine neutralisation

Is this what you were looking for?

Inside the US Navy’s next-generation destroyer

At the same time, the DDG 1000 is designed to throw off radar that would try to find it in a number of ways, including its composite materials. Another design is its wave-piercing tumblehome–or hull. Most Navy ships have flared hulls, Laliberty said, but the DDG 1000 was meant to be stealthy, and its tumblehome is angled in such a way that, “if you see it on radar,” Laliberty said, “it comes across as a 45-foot trawler. It doesn’t look like a 680-foot warship.”

Clearly, the Zumwalt-class destroyers are going to be big. The DDG 1000 will be 610 feet long, compared with 509 feet for the current-generation destroyer. Yet, the Zumwalts will carry a crew of just 148, compared with 382 currently. And that’s largely because of the advanced electronic systems the new boat will feature, allowing the much-smaller crew to get much more out of their ride.

High-Res Slide Show

Source

The U.S. Air Force will not further delay the KC-X contract award date, the service’s top officer promised Aug. 4.

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz speaks Aug. 4 to Defense News editors and reporters……

Earlier this week, several analysts said that the award date would slip past the new year. The Everett (Wash.) Herald quoted one as saying the “entire process” could be delayed to 2012 because of potential protests by the losing bidder.

Source

A timely press statement from the top man in the USAF.

No, I am talking about the new aesa entering LRIP in 2011-12. Trying to compare it to the dash 5 RDY. Since the specs aren’t clear I was hoping glitterr or arthuro could throw some light on this.

Does India really envisage the possibility of war with either Pakistan or China (or both!?)

I thought “conventional wisdom” suggested that when two rational opponents both get nukes the risk of war between the two drops to virtually zero. This assumes of course that both opponents are rational, and that both opponents are capable of “striking back”.

I would think this is the case for India?

Or am I wrong?

The Kargil War

Loke, The above link will explain everything.

Point to note is that Pakistan was a unstable dictatorship when it happened and India was a stable democracy.