dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 586 through 600 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rafale 2017-2 #2209486
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    4.5 gen fighter jets will not be able to meet some of the requirements

    Which requirements?

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2125171
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    GMAFB, This is more blustering & complaining by China because they see it as a threat to their goal of taking over every square inch of the South China Sea. It’s akin to Russia’s belly aching about Aegis Ashore being installed in Europe and now in Japan as they “claim” that it can be used offensively.

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2125252
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    “We urge Japan to do more that may help enhance mutual trust and promote regional peace and stability,” Hua said.

    I see that China’s foreign policy has devolved to the “do as I say and not as I do” stage. :stupid:

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2125314
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I think you missed the part where the MoD “did” provide cost estimations to the Gov, but “some” members wanted per-airframe details covering everything for the lifetime of the plane. They did not want a TotalCost/#ofPlanes either but a detailed, per-plane cost. That is a ludicrous request since the MoD does not know how many planes, in what model, in what Lot, and at what Block the plane would be bought at, not to mention currency exchange rates & fuel costs which can fluctuate quite often on top of Block upgrades that have not even been planed yet.

    in reply to: What will Germany replace The Tornado with? #2125333
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    operational? Qualified?

    RAAF = yes (they were the “launch” customer for Boeing)

    Boeing will produce and integrate JDAM ER wing kits for the RAAF under a contract awarded in 2011. Following additional flight and certification testing, production and initial deliveries of JDAM ER to the RAAF are planned for 2015.
    http://www.deagel.com/news/Royal-Australian-Air-Force-Tests-Boeing-JDAM-Extended-Range-Weapon_n000013677.aspx

    US = in testing (active dev budgets for F/A-18 in place and naval mine versions have been dropped by the B-1B). For the SH, the OSIP 10-16 budget item covers the wing kits and a lot of other weapon upgrades to include UAI, SLAM-ER, etc. OSIP 10-16 has been going on for a few years but no other details are available. Given that Boeing has the best track record for UAI integration (every JDAM variant is already UAI), it’s a safe bet that JDAM-ER will also have UAI which will speed up integration on the F-16C/D, F-15E, F-35, B-1B, B-52, LRS-B, and F-18E/F.

    Remind me when was sheduoed block IIIF?

    Given that the anticipated 3F date (when the program was baselined back in 2012) was Aug2017, they hit that date pretty good. Since we’ve only 3 years from the anticipated 4.1 release (which is primarily a software update), I’d say they will be able to hit that just fine.

    in reply to: What will Germany replace The Tornado with? #2125375
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    As far as we know, there is no clue about the release date of block IV…

    Per the FY2018 budget docs, the first Block 4 release is due in the 4th qtr of 2020. Since they just completed a review of the FoM program, we should get better details soon and/or in the FY2019 budget docs.

    http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2018/Navy/stamped/U_0604810M_5_PB_2018.pdf

    in reply to: What will Germany replace The Tornado with? #2125377
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    GBU 48 is part of standard 3R afaik

    Only the 500lb Paveway (Pv2, Enh Pv2, and Pv4) are cleared for Block 3F, the rest come in Block4.

    JDAMs are OK for bombing ISIS technicals, but are ill-suited for use against a defended target due to poor cross range (<10 km).

    Current JDAMs have a ~12nmi crossrange capability and have wing kits in production.

    https://i.imgur.com/mhppre7.png

    https://i.imgur.com/CwKDpIs.png

    https://www.regonline.com/custImages/340000/348932/Documents/JDAMNDIAIntlA-GSymposium2017_ForNDIADropbox.pdf

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2125400
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Or it’s the same report, over and over again, just from different sources.

    in reply to: What will Germany replace The Tornado with? #2125445
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Given that even if Germany ordered the F-35 today, it will be not be delivered before 2021/22, which means that the F-35 will be at Block 4+.

    This includes full Paveway & UAI (every JDAM in existence is already UAI) support.

    Consider also that Block 3F includes the 500lb “Enhanced Paveway” so adding the 1k and 2k versions in Block4.x is a given.

    We’ll hopefully know more about the Block 4+ plans since they just did a review recently.

    in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2125498
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    According to this graphic, the LE flaps were moved inboard and take up space previously occupied by the planned AIRST>

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]257918[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]257917[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2125834
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    They were given estimations but wanted more details. A simple totalcost/num-of-planes was not good enough.

    88. We asked the Minister for Defence Procurement and her MoD colleagues several times about the cost to the UK taxpayer of the F-35 programme. Pressed on the total cost per aircraft, once support and spares are included, Mrs Baldwin and her colleagues did not answer directly, pointing instead to a recent NAO report which put the total cost of the programme through to 2026, at £9.1 billion, a sum that includes the first 48 aircraft, spares, support, training and the investment in infrastructure at RAF Marham and elsewhere.

    89. When asked how the £9.1 billion figure equated to a cost per-aircraft, particularly in light of the MoD’s criticism of The Times’s estimate of £130–155 million per aircraft, MoD Permanent Secretary Stephen Lovegrove attacked that estimate as an “extraordinarily crude and misleading calculation” which, he suggested, was arrived at by taking £7.3 billion from the £9.1 billion (this £7.3 billion figure covers the production, sustainment and follow-on phase of the programme to 2026) and dividing it by 48.88 It should be noted that this is not the calculation process outlined by Alexi Mostrous during his appearance before the Committee (see paras 76–77 of this report).

    90. According to Mr Lovegrove, it is not possible accurately to divide the £9.1 billion cost on a unit-by-unit basis due to the inclusion, within that figure, of training and infrastructure costs and additional costs “associated with the design and total concept of the aircraft”.89 Instead, he suggested that one would have to “do a very complicated sum at the end of the life of the programme [the mid-2030s] and divide it by 138. Then you might be able to do it”.

    91. The Department was also unable to provide details of the total cost of the F-35 procurement programme, again pointing to the published costs for the programme up to 2026.91 The Minister told us that the MoD “have not gone” beyond those costings. Mr Lovegrove, however, suggested that the MoD had “rough orders of magnitude” for the possible costs beyond 2026/7, but which are not published for two principal reasons:

    One is that they are rough orders of magnitude, and who knows exactly what the world will look like in 10 years’ time? In fact, there are no private enterprises that estimate their costs 10 years out with the accuracy that we do, or to the level of fidelity that we do. Secondly, even the last 17 or 19 F-35s within the first 48 are still under negotiation. To reveal publicly how much we think we might be prepared to pay for those would obviously be compromising our negotiating position and compromising taxpayers’ money, so we will not be doing that.

    in reply to: What will Germany replace The Tornado with? #2126055
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    For a lease to work, someone has to commit to buying them when the lease is over.

    in reply to: What will Germany replace The Tornado with? #2126131
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Fair question. The F-35 team used some simulations where the IRL testing showed that the simulations were accurate. They wanted to (and currently do) use simulations to take the place of some testing to “fill in the gaps”. Think of it this way, if your flight envelope covers a wide range of test points and you use IRL testing to verify points 1,3,5,7,9…. the F-35 team then uses simulations to verify points 2,4,6,8.

    In the EF’s case, if they did not do any IRL testing with CFTs then there is nothing to qualify the simulator results with.

    in reply to: What will Germany replace The Tornado with? #2126141
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    It’s only a matter of purchasing the CFTs.

    Did they do full testing with combinations of weapons, fuel (full and empty), full flight envelope, etc… Or did they just plumb the jets, do some simulation & wind tunnel work and then call it a day?

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2126158
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The key problem that I see is that they wanted firm numbers for things like:

    once spares and upgrades are included.

    Remember that these will span 40+ years. Good luck trying to tell the future.

Viewing 15 posts - 586 through 600 (of 4,849 total)