dark light

FAR

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 170 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • FAR
    Participant

    The UK is signed up for $2 billion. The estimated developement cost is $45 billion. Last time I checked $2 billion is not 10% of $45 billion. Maybe somebody needs to help you with your math?

    http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm

    The UK has actually put up around $4B.

    You haven’t responded to the other points.

    FAR
    Participant

    Do YOU? This is about technology transfer, not the US telling the UK what to do with their JSFs.

    No you are wrong here. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The UK’s problem is not about total technology transfer but about having enough technology transfer to be able to operate the aircraft. To use your Ferrari anaolgy while you wouldn’t expect the CAD files you would expect to be told what type of fuel and oil to use and the rating of the fuses!

    Who said somebody did?

    Well they way some of you Americans go on it would seem that you think you are doing the world a favour. The reality of it is that the US wants buyers to reduce the unit cost and so make it cheaper for the US to buy.

    The UK can do whatever they want with them. Hell, if I buy a Ferrari I can do whatever I want with it but I’d be an idiot if I started whining that since I bought the car Ferrari needs to include the CAD files for every part of the car, the specs of all the parts, and a list of vendors. If I go buy and Intel CPU is Intel obligated to give me the complete design of the CPU in question? Sounds like you’re the one who needs to get a grip on reality.

    I refer you to my point above. If the US is not going to give the buyers of their aircraft enough technology transfer to be able to operate the aircraft then they will find the buyers walking away. Again to use your analogy would someone in the US buy a Ferrari if it had to be sent back to Maranello every time it needed a service?

    No kidding? Will there’s a revelation.

    Your comments suggest that you don’t understand this as well as you think you do. I’m not even going to start to correct your English…

    The UK wants full tech transfer which is outrageous seeing how they’re paying less than 5% of the developement costs. Norway wants to cherry pick which parts they get to make and are whining because the real world doesn’t work that way. Australia is the only one with a legitimate gripe. If it says in the contract that they would get exactly the same F-35 the US would be buying and they’re not getting it then they’ve got a right to be pissed. Does the contract in fact SAY they’d get EXACTLY the same outfit as the US?

    Actually about 10% of the development costs. Get it right.

    FAR
    Participant

    Hell let them go. Why should we give in to blackmail just so they can incorporate our best stealth technology into their industrial base and use it to compete with us?

    Blackmail? Do you have any grip on reality?

    None has forced the US to sell the JSF to other countries. The US wants to sell it. But who would want to buy it if they can’t use it as they want? Would you buy a new house if a condition of sale was that you had to get permission from the builder to change a bedroom into an office or to put a garage in the garden?

    If you want to sell something it’s got to be something that people want to buy!

    Now there are three partner countries (UK, Norway and Australia) who are expressing disatisfaction with the deals they are being offered. The credability of the JSF project and perhaps the US arms industry as a whole would suffer if these states pull out. Customer satisfaction.

    in reply to: CVF Will It Be Built #2060337
    FAR
    Participant

    How do you know?

    in reply to: Il-78 for NATO? An-72 for USAF? #2589542
    FAR
    Participant

    Flex, perhaps the are being modified by Israel!

    in reply to: BAE Raven #2589557
    FAR
    Participant

    Good point that Raven = Corax. The FI article mentioned the Corax then went on to mention another UAV called Raven, possible FI got confused.

    in reply to: Oldest Serving Aircraft #2589580
    FAR
    Participant

    Yes excuding ceremonial roles.

    in reply to: HMS Lancaster part of CDG strike group #2063107
    FAR
    Participant

    Hmm, I guess if this continues we wont see another HMS Nelson!

    in reply to: Italian STOVL Carrier – Cavour ? #2063181
    FAR
    Participant

    Yes, that would certainly be more useful.

    That is an interesting question. My guess is a STOVL carrier in the 30-35,000t range. That way they will continue to have a fighter fleet that can be deployed on both the aircraft carrier and the LHD.

    An interesting thought, if the USA cancel the F_35B then what will all the countries with STVOL carriers do for new planes?

    in reply to: Direction of Development and its purpose #2063185
    FAR
    Participant

    In Some way i feel that,

    NATO is nearly moving all the anti-sub responsibilty to the Air borne fleet like PC-3 orion

    I dont know how capable is airborne asset compared with a Ship based solution.

    And that too Uk has lost a lot of its airborne assets. France infact deploys a better airborne anti-submarine force than UK.

    France has a better airborne ASW force than UK? Please can you justify this statement.

    in reply to: Stealth v Radar #2597617
    FAR
    Participant

    The F-117 can be fitted with some kind of RCS increaser when necessary as for air show flights. My guess is the B-2 has something similar.
    However, i wonder why the B-2 always gets an escort since that incident .

    Are you suggesting that perhaps the B2s get an escort to cover up the fact that their stealth capability is not that great?

    in reply to: Stealth v Radar #2597640
    FAR
    Participant

    Has anyone ever seen the BAE video? Is there a copy on the web?

    in reply to: Rafale orders revised downward? #2599177
    FAR
    Participant

    Hmm, don’t fancy that idea. Do you have a serious answer?

    in reply to: Rafale orders revised downward? #2599242
    FAR
    Participant

    They’re getting the JSF, period.

    Nic

    …what makes you so sure?

    in reply to: Rafale orders revised downward? #2599588
    FAR
    Participant

    Won’t happen…

    Nic

    It may not happen but why are you so sure?

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 170 total)