tiddlesState of indecision
Ultimately any decision made in Washington could, and likely would be overturned if it was deemed in the best interests of the United States. Given that the F-35 will be freely available to America’s allies a ban on foreign sales of the F-22 doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If the USAF was genuinely concerned about its technology falling into the wrong hands then the F-35 wouldn’t be available given that the same level of technology is being invested in this aircraft (albeit in a diluted form) as already exists in the F-22.
I’ll concede that certain countries probably wouldn’t pass muster, namely Israel, given their propensity for adapting/improving technology and then selling it on to a third party. Australia however would be a different matter, as Australia is often seen half-jokingly as the fifty-first state of the Union then the prospect of the RAAF operating the F-22A in some form or another should be of no concern to US senators. On the contrary it may well be something of a blessing in disguise. The Asia-Pacific region is fast becoming strategically the most important region in the world. With that in mind the more commonality between the USAF and the RAAF the better for both countries.
What is this nonesense about Oz being the 51st. state ,I thought we signed on to be the 49th. state after WW2 well before those other two tourist destinations.
tiddlesMore confusion
Hi Stingray – I seemed to run out of room in my last reply ,so the Tenix-Navantia LHD was described in detail & appears a very impressive ship ,the article said that the ship would be offered with or without a ski jump, one more helospot if the ski jump is removed. The ship does not seem to have the endurance of the Mistral but is still impressive,its all far too confusing ,but having read the article I suspect it will get down to the relative costs. Extra off the cuff purchases have been made lately C17, Possibly 24 Superbugs , Decision on Seasprite in New Year ,could be a cool $ bill. down the gurgler if they scrap it.Scrapped pods for the Hornet $200 mill. etc. Money will play a big part in it if both ships fit JP2048 requirements ,forget the little nice to have extras if the Tenix – Navatia ship is more expensive by much.
tiddlesConfusion galore
Tiddles its okay to be confused. There is a bit of confusing and conflicting fud going around.
I belive the motives for arguing the ramp and fixed wing facilities being removed from the BPE design is to counter press arguments that ADF is blowing billions on 50,000+ tons worth of aircraft carriers instead of several smaller nice LHD amphibious assult ship.
I belive there are no operational or design reasons to remove the jump. You get 6 operational helispots either way. You do not save money (its a variation to remove). And you lose the chance to ever operated AUS/UK/US F-35B’s from an Australian ship. Or even future UCAV’s.
The problem is value for money 25,000t is where the action is at and we can afford them. The BPE, according to some quotes, we could buy 4 bare hulls for our money.
The Mistral will be somewhat small for Australia’s purposes. It wasn’t quite designed to be a everything all in one ship like the BPE. Hence the slightly bigger version. Apparently the troop requirement would just be too much of a stretch for it, although very close.
France is of course talking up the Mistrals something wicked. They still want the contract.
France may end up fitting out our BPE if the BPE is selected.
Certainly if the systems fitted to the CdG/cavour were fitted the BPE could be a very capable primary carrier.
Hi Stingray – Having slept on the matter, today I went out and bought the latest Jan. – March issue of the Navy League magazine. In an article about JP 2048 the Mistral is described as [briefly] 27 changes have been made to the basic design with options for a longer evolved variant ruled out, no hull plug will be inserted. It is not designed to accomadate a ski jump & the deck is not designed to handle the weight or downward hot jet exhaust from VSTOL aircraft. The requirements of JP 22048 can be met by changes to the current design.
The Tenix –
tiddlesHighly confused
Hi d,clacy & Stingray- I have read the ABDR link & am now totally confused, I was convinced from all I had seen that the in service Mistral was the one being put forward & that the SPS would be put forward minus the ski jump & other fixed wing capabilities. Thanks for the info as abdr is a reasonable reliable source. At this point I think I will sleep on it :confused: :confused: 🙁
tiddlesCrossed Wires
Sorry, but your arguement is the same as Bager1968. The USN isn’t going to loose big carriers or any other big ticket item because of Ski-Jump was added to ship………….repectfully! :p
I should have said which ships I was talking about. I was waffling on about the ships for the Australian competition not USN ships ,am I disoriented:o
tiddlesSki Jumps
Why would a manufacturer put somthing on a ship design that was not specified & was only going to add cost & possibly make it uncompetitive,Ski jumps are not specified & if a design was chosen with one it might have ramifications if it were chosen over one that did not. There are elections next year & with a lot of big ticket defence items already on the agenda the idea of a ship with fixed wing expectations [very, very, expensive to get planes & set up infrastructure] is just not going to happen.Neither ship will be constructed with a ski jump.
Hi Stingray- where did you get the info from that says that the Aussie Mistral would be the “long wheelbase” version, all the stuff I have seen says that it will be the production model with some internal changes to handle the extra troop requirement.
tiddlesOther Forums
Thanks for that info. Bager ,I will work my way through them as suggested. I dont intend to join any others at this point in time but I hope to get some good reading & hopefully new info.,got to get it from somewhere other than books & mags.- Thankyou again and ‘Happy New Year’
tiddlesVale Gerald Ford
Left with a difficult job by his predecessor ,he restored respect for the presidency. The right man in the right place at the right time.
RIP Gerald Ford
tiddlesNot now
Makes you wonder what nickname they use for the Rafale?:eek:
We have got this far on this thread without it becoming a Eurofighter, Rafale cakefight. Please, please dont start it now there cant possibly anything that has not been said before. Then again I think Rafale means Squall in Froggish maybe they could call it ?????
tiddlesSilly Season
My understanding is that the F-35 will be known as ‘Steve’ in Canadian Forces service (in keeping with the bilingual needs of the country) thus Steve at 419 Sqn or Stephan at 433 Sqn.
P.S. sorry about the topic wandering…
Well ,off topic or not ,seeing as my own name is Steve I think things are falling into place ,I have a son called Dave also, however no Aardpiglets in the family but I am still hooked on the name.
Anyhow enough about the JSF whoops ….I mean the Piglet, has anyone got a decent name that can be promoted into use before the Superbug gets here, I cant handle it being called the Rhino in Oz service. People must be just about sick of birds of prey & bad weather being used, I like the idea of the Rainbow Lorrakeit but it is too long ,however it is a really beautiful bird,have a quck “google” to find a site to see a pic.
tiddlesRave about Dave
Exactly my point (the PR aspect).
Remember this from my post #129
“It took the need for PR nice-nice with the UK to get it on the F-35, or we might have been stuck with Hawk (the T-45 is the GosHawk, so no conflict in the US), Tiercel, Skua, Owl, or some such thing.”?And my reference to Lock-Mart having tried to get the F-22 the “Lightning II” name first? That one would have had no Brit link, and without outside support had no chance against the “Bird-of-Prey” lobby.
All driven by political necessity… not logic.
“I had always thought that the JSF would eventually be called JEFF but for some unexplicable reason that didn’t happen.”
The Brits are pretty consistent with calling it “Dave”… as in “Dave-A for the USAF; Dave-B for the RAF, RN, USMC, etc.; Dave-C for the USN”!
All stemming from one commentor’s statement from before the official naming: “It doesn’t matter what they call it… they could call it ‘Dave’, and it wouldn’t change anything.”.
That caught on, and you can see references to “will the RN buy Dave-B or Dave-C”, etc. on dozens of forums like this one. 😎
I think the idea of the JSF being called Dave in UK service super cool,I have a son called Dave so it is perfect to me.
Dave-A,B or C in the UK service & the Aardpiglet in Oz service,what a combination:cool: 😎 😎
Sorry I missed your reference re the PR con job.
I am reasonably new at this caper would it be possible to tell me how to get onto the dozens of other forums you mentioned.
tiddlesBPE
I think that it would rule out Mistrals for Australia then. And the return of carriers to Australia’s capabilities trading in the F-111 for them.
The Mistrals would be a higher risk project to turn into a carrier than the BPE’s significant carrier capabilities.
Australia will be restoring a great deal of capabilities.
Its hard to know how much you can believe from defence related stories that appear in defence mags. but most Oz mags. say that the BPE customised to meet Oz requirements will loose its ski jump & other features that made it suitable to use as an SPS ship, this includes its propulsion system which will be simplified [cheapened]. The BPE is only about 10metres longer at the water line than the Mistral & it has been said that there will be little difference in the capabilities in either proposal, who knows? not me. The Sps is currently under construction for delivery in late 2008.
I like the idea of the purpose built & up & running Mistral but as Scooter pointed out the French charge like wounded bulls for their defence equipment,this might give the Spanish proposal the edge as their ships seem reasonably priced ,so I reckon either ship will be a good choice if selected.
tiddlesjust fueling around
Here’s one I can comment on…. As standard training for A-A refueling, both the receiver and tanker practice breakaway maneuvers where the tanker goes to full power and climbs while the receiver drops power and descends. With properly trained crews, it’s very effective at avoiding disasters, with one notable exception that I do know about (the B-52, KC-135 Crome Dome mission mishap over Spain where both aircraft were lost and 4 nuclear weapons were temporarily lost).
I personally have been on 3 flights in tankers (2 KC-10 and 1 KC-135) where I have witnessed both from the refueling station in the tanker and the receiver cockpit the whole refueling procedure. The offloading operation was very straightforward as the boomers on those flights were old pros refueling fighters (those guys make it look so easy), but 1 KC-10 flight where I was in the IP jumpseat behind the pilot while being refueled by another KC-10 with a rookie boomer was not so smooth. I swear that kid on the boom was trying to scrape every bit of the blue paint off the top of the KC-10 while trying to plug us. Eventually he got it done, but it was VERY disconcerting hearing something bang and scrape along the top of your aircraft; especially when there’s no easy way out if something does go wrong.
Hi Lightndattic- Thanks for that info & your personal experience, as I said it looks very difficult but as you pointed out that with pros on the job it is made to look easy.
tiddlesWell, the head of Lock-Mart certainly acknowledged the EE Lightning at the official naming… not surprising, with BAE (created in a series of mergers which included EE) as the primary partner on the F-35:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17754&rsbci=0&fti=112&ti=0&sc=400
LOCKHEED MARTIN JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER OFFICIALLY NAMED “LIGHTNING II”
FORT WORTH, Texas, July 7, 2006 —
The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was officially named Lightning II, in a ceremony held today in Fort Worth, Texas.
The name echoes those of two formidable fighters from the past: the World War II-era Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the mid-1950s Lightning supersonic jet, built by English Electric.
“The F-35 Lightning II will carry on the legacy of two of the greatest and most capable fighter aircraft of all time,” said Ralph D. Heath, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. “Just as the P-38 and the British Lightning were at the top of their class during their day, the F-35 will redefine multi-role fighter capability in the 21st century.”
Attendees at the event included U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley, who announced the F-35’s new name. Also in attendance were U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas, U.S. Congresswoman Kay Granger of Fort Worth, and representatives from the eight nations that are partnering with the U.S. in the F-35’s development: the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
“The F-35 Lightning II will be the centerpiece of airpower in the 21st century for America and our allies,” Secretary England said. “Congratulations to the talented team of aerospace workers both in the United States and from our many international partners on reaching this important milestone.”
Gen. Moseley added, “This aircraft represents the fruits of lessons learned over a hundred years of flight and aerial combat. We’re excited about bringing it into our inventory, and warfighters around the globe are excited about flying it in defense of freedom.”
English Electric, maker of the Lightning jet, later became BAE Systems, a principal industrial partner on the JSF program. With its afterburners lit, the twin-engine jet could reach speeds of 1,500 miles per hour. Like the F-35, the Lightning in its day represented a profound leap ahead in capability compared to the aircraft it replaced. It remained in service until 1988, largely because of its exceptional performance.
Likewise, the P-38 Lightning was built by Lockheed, now Lockheed Martin, the JSF program’s prime contractor. During World War II, the P-38 scored the most aerial victories of any U.S. Army Air Forces fighter in the Pacific theater. Designed as a high-altitude interceptor, the sleek P-38 evolved into a versatile aircraft that was also used for dive bombing, level bombing, ground strafing and photo-reconnaissance missions.
If you had not included the link I would have suspected that you may have written this press release your self. I suspect that the US had decided to call the JSF the Lightning well before they added the bit of nonesense about the EE Thingamajig .Timing is everything & with a major partner the UK wavering a bit what a great bit of PR to add the bit about the EE Whatchamacallit to your press release ,the UK cant back out after that.The UK pulled a similar stunt on Australia over 50 years ago when EE named their new bomber the Canberra ,we signed on the dotted line for plenty immediately. The chickens have come home to roost . The Canberra did prove to be a pretty good plane after all any how.
I suppose with its twin engines mounted on top of one another & using this revolutionary idea they put one underwing hard point & one overwing hardpoint on each wing the EE Thingo does-in a weird & strangely sick sort of way have a certain surrealistic appeal particularly to those who liked the Leland P76 & the Ford Edsell ,in fact it suspect it may have been designed by the same people who later designed the P76. I can almost visualise Spike Milligan at the controls. –Its a bit hard to be serious at this time of year.
tiddlesaka
I like it! Hopefully it will come into common useage and the Pig will live on! 😀
Does this mean that you are going to change your log in to Ozpiglet
Sign In
