SpudmanWPYikes, step back a bit 🙂
I was unaware that part of the FACO was a wing assembly but thanks for the info.
To the original issue, per the MOU LM can contract out to FMS sales but any work beyond the FMS sale must come out of LM’s Workshare. A similar deal was cut with Japan with LM & P&W giving up Workshare to seal the deal.
I’ll look for some details.
has no basis
From the SLD link you provided.
SLD: And obviously such a facility could perform a key role for MCO in Europe and the region?
White: It clearly could. They are making a very strong play to be MRO go-to for that region. Given their investment, what they’re doing with the capability standup, it’s our position that that’s a logical choice.
However, that work has to be contracted, awarded and competed.
But they are making a very, very strong case for that work to be put there in the future.
SLD: This is a significant Italian investment, which then could have significance beyond Italy itself?
White: They understand the investment they’re making and they are master strategists in understanding the long-term ramifications. For them, it’s not about buying a jet or being able to produce a jet, it’s about helping their economy, creating jobs, creating an infrastructure in-country that is part of a global enterprise that has things coming in to Italy.
It extends far beyond just the Italian F-35 jets that they intend to buy, it’s their partners that are suppliers on the F-35 program. It’s their wing-line that supports not only Italian jets, but also all the partner countries.
And they are positioning themselves; again, to be the MRO, a new resource in country and they’re very forward-thinking in setting up that infrastructure now far ahead of there being any ability to definitively say yes, you have that work.
SpudmanWPSpud – War is not subject to the economics of package tours. Fine if you have a target with eight points of impact that each justify two 2k bombs, and can be hit on the same pass. Not many of those, all things considered.
Which is why you cannot depend on the B-2 as your only VLO asset. With dense targets like an airbase, range extension kits, and basic glide range of the JDAM you will see times where a singele (or few) B-2 will do the jopb much better and cheaper than 8+ F-117s, F-22s, or F-35s.
To this point, both B-2s and F-117s were used in 2003.
SpudmanWPThe FACO cannot manufacture a wing. and will likely end up assembling F-35s where the wing came from Israel.
FACO means Final Assembly and CheckOut. In other words, it’s where they put all the parts together, not where they make the parts.
During its lifetime, the FACO will be converted to a Maintenance and Upgrade Facility which will then handle more serious maintenance on the F-35 and hardware upgrades.
SpudmanWPConsidering all the money that will be coming in from the FACO over the next three decades… I think not.
SpudmanWPThe B-2s are cheaper to operate on a per-bomb basis and are more survivable than the F-117.
The B-2 completed its first-ever combat deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, flying 22 sorties from a forward operating location as well as 27 sorties from Whiteman AFB and releasing more than 1.5 million pounds of munitions.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82
Assuming all 2k bombs that is ~750 of them or an average of 16 per sortie.
SpudmanWPYou do know there were two airwars of Baghdad, right? (’91 and ’03) 🙂
SpudmanWPWhile the F-117 was a one trick pony (VLO, no jammer, no A2A, no maneuverability, very little SA, etc), the F-35 does not suffer from this.
SpudmanWPF-117 was the response to Package Q? Shakey historical timeline there Spud.
Demonstrating an uncertain grasp of fact whilst building strawmen out of others comment again illustrates the lack of substance in your argument.
Obviously I am not talking about the plane itself, but how it was used. After Package Q, they stopped sending conventional fighters into downtown Baghdad.
While aircraft other than F-117s were not subsequently tasked against downtown targets after package Q on day 3 of the campaign, many types of bombers struck targets in the Baghdad metropolitan area repeatedly throughout the air campaign. And those attacks carried out at night resulted in either zero or minimal casualties for nonstealthy, conventional aircraft.
As you have been shown a number of times previously Package Q achieved it’s major objectives, with the losses being the result of poor planning and execution of the mission.
If it were that easy to fix (and ensure no more losses), then they would have done so and continued to use conventional forces in the most heavily defended areas. That fact that they went with all F-117s in downtown speaks volumes.
As for the 5th generation claim; firstly generations is a marketing term
Yes and No. What makes a fighter 5th gen (primariy a VLO Airframe, data fusion, lpi radar, etc) is widely known and used.
On another subject i think you’ll find that it was Rafale’s and Mirage 200D’s that were first over Libya. The fact that you only mention B2’s yet again exposes your US bias in discussion. Some see a bigger picture.
What part were they over, coastal targets near the relatively safe areas of Benghazi? The AO really opened up for everyone AFTER three B-2s rolled in and took out an entire airfield’s worth of fighters that were protected by SA-2/3/5 SAMs. US EW assets were also used extensively throughout the campaign.
SpudmanWPTracking and locking onto a target in order to launch an active AAM does not require any use of the radar from the launching fighter. Either a datalink, IRST, or the ESM can provide a firing solution. The use of LPI AESA modes will also lessen the use and detectability of the radar.
The mathematics of burn-through are well documented. While it is true that the jamming signal gets stronger as you approach the target, so does the radar signal received by the missile. The issue is that the jamming signal gains power in a straight line while the radar gains power with the square of the distance.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/99437603/BURN-THROUGH–CROSSOVER-RANGE
Here is the info on the SARH vs Active AAM data.
Short version, look at GW1:
88 AIM-7s fired and 28 kills for a pK of 27.3%
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf
I’ll look for a better source, but APA has the Aim-120 at 12 shots with 10 kills, or 83%
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
SpudmanWPLovely..
Aparently:
Facts are irrelevant
History is irrelevant
Only your opinions and beliefs are to be believed?
Like it or not, Package Q happened and the response to it was the F-117, period.
Could they have done it without the F-117, sure. But at what cost?
Btw, the premise that more can be done with less 5th gen came from the DoD and is not a LM claim. It’s historical fact, not an opinion.
What did they send into Baghdad? B-2 and F-117
What did they send into Kosovo? B-2 and F-117
What did they send into Libya? B-2
SpudmanWP“slightly better”????
They are a LOT better.
1. An Active AAM can be headed in your direction and you might never know it till it goes active (Surprise!!).
2. Active AAMs can be guided by fighters that are not the shooter
3. Active AAMs can be shot at targets that are not withing the FOV of teh launcher’s radar.
3. They do not require constant illumination
4. They can “burn through” jamming as they get closer or switch to a “home on jam” mode.
5. Most important of all… Active AAMs have DEMONSTRATED a much higher pK than SARH missiles.
btw, all that jamming will only draw attention.
SpudmanWPStill does not take away from the fact that more 4th Gen assets would be needed to do the same job as less F-35s.
If there are threats in the battlefield that cause concern (overlapping threat envelopes, etc) then they will be addressed as needed.
Any way you slice it, a VLO airframe allows you operational flexibility that no 4th gen asset will EVER possess.
SpudmanWPI already said it was simplistic.
That does not take away from the fact that it was, and is still, based in the realities of war.
As far as “multistatic receivers” goes, get back to us when they are operational and proven to work against VLO assets.
SpudmanWPNo we do not as the bids have not even started.
SpudmanWPAs you say, there’s a potential but the potential is something that can be realized… but won’t necessarily be that way..
Part of the cost controls of the F-35 partnerships is that offsets are not guaranteed, you need to bid for them. If you fail to meet your bid, then the contract is re-bid.
another thing is that, through realizing a monopoly on fighters in western world, who can tell that Lockheed won’t use that to make huge profits by dictating indecent prices o,n upgrades, as customers won’t have much of a choice by then?
Did GD/LM do that with the F-16?
Since they did not, then why do you think that will happen with the F-35?
The US Gov can also bid the upgrades to someone other than LM in the future, so that can also keep them on their toes.
Your hang-up seems to be that you are balancing “potential” (and unlikely) future issues against known benefits and siding with the “potential” issue.
Sign In
