flanker30I believe I read a news report stating that the British armed forces were looking into something like the Tuccono for COIN ops to keep in line with current budgetary difficulties. A COIN carrier would be perfect for us as well. This would allow us to keep the 65ton carriers in Dock in the UK (as i am sure will happen when we realise that we dont have the budget to keep the carriers swimming around constantly) but still have something to support our troops in AF-PAK region.
Well, yes and no, it was General David Richards, head of the Army, suggesting that the RAF could save billions by buying Super Tucanos for close air support work in low intensity conflicts like Afghanistan, instead of extremely expensive fast jets. Needless to say the boys (and girls) in light blue weren’t too happy with the idea.
Just as a matter of interest, could aircraft such as the Super Tucano operate off the current Invincible class carriers?
flanker30Sounds something like the Spanish BAM project:
flanker30what a sweet looking aircraft. Was there any reason why the type failed to secure export orders?
This was the main reason:
flanker30DATE:21/01/10
SOURCE:Flight International
Lockheed struggles to keep F-35 flight-testing on track
By Stephen Trimble
A newly leaked document shows the Lockheed Martin F-35 test programme dropped even further behind schedule in fiscal year 2009, but the company insists it can still complete development in the “prescribed timeframe” in 2014. The report by the director of operational test and evaluation (DOTE) concludes that Lockheed is struggling to deliver and fly Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft on time. The delays could extend the development phase until mid-2016, it says.
Lockheed delivered the first 10 of 13 system development and demonstration phase aircraft on time. The flying assets, meanwhile, seldom flew after delivery. The first two short take-off and vertical landing jets – BF-1 and BF-2 – completed just 16 of their planned 168 sorties in FY2009. Schedule problems also surfaced with F-35 software, which requires more than 19 million lines of code for the aircraft and its logistics systems.
The co-operative avionics testbed, or CATBird – a Boeing 737 modified into a flying laboratory – flew 55 times in FY2009, but cleared only seven of 284 test points, according to the DOTE report. How software stability deficiencies found during testing on Block 0.5 and 1.0 could change the overall schedule remains unknown, the report adds. The DOTE staff also raised alarms about a series of obscure design changes approved in FY2009 to save weight. After previously approving the removal of dry bay fire extinguishers, the joint programme office also eliminated shut-off fuses for engine fueldraulics lines. The combination increases the risk of combat losses because of fires caused by battle damage, the report says.
But the report also concedes that Lockheed has made progress in certain areas, particularly in structural testing. Structural loads testing up to 150% of limit load has apparently gone smoothly, with only doors and a blade seal requiring redesign. The STOVL aircraft entered flight-testing with 64% of their allowable envelope cleared. The programme’s goal is to clear 80% of the envelope in static testing by mid-2011. The DOTE report acknowledges that programme officials remain confident about the F-35’s abilities. A recent internal assessment concludes that the F-35 is on track to be operationally effective, although it is expected to fall short on being reliable and cost-effective. Moreover, Lockheed insists it is poised to make up for schedule delays faster than previous fighter development programmes. The F-35 programme has invested in a vast infrastructure of surrogate testbeds and simulation laboratories, it notes. The DOTE report, however, notes that Lockheed’s plan to show that its non-flying test venues are accredited has also fallen behind schedule.
flanker30because one is a small and light trainer and the other one is supposed to be a quite heavier fighter
a fully loaded Goshawk weighs a little over 6 tons, while the sea gripen would weigh about 8 tons empty. SAAB claims it would carry about 8.5 tons of fuel and external load.. that would give over 16 tons of aircraft to take of or, to land on the carrier (unless you drop lots of stuff to get back onboard… the difference is huge
The lighter the aircraft, and easier it is to navalize it. You could go on a carrier with a cessna without any modification at all, but would it be interesting?
Navalising the Hawk involved a major re-design in many areas. The Gripen, as the Saab press release says, is already designed for high controllability at slow speeds, high sink rates, low approach speeds etc. Seems to me that the Gripen is half way there, and the amount of work involved would actually be less than the Hawk required.
flanker30The Hawk was developed into the Goshawk, so why not the Sea Gripen?
flanker30Bottoms-up costing starts at the lowest level with the purchase price of individual components (airplane companies don’t make individual parts — they purchase them), then add the costs incurred as the airplane travels down the assembly line — your assembly labor costs, QA costs, subsystems checkout costs, costs for paint and coatings and finally the check flight costs.
A parametric model uses historical costs taken from other airplanes built by other manufacturers, then subjectively tweeks those costs and mashes them together to arrive at the evaluators’ estimated cost for the new system. For example, F135 engine costs might be parametrically estimated from a composite of F414, F119, AE 1107, RR 892, and PW 4098 with “fudge factors” for scale, level of techology, and manufacturing efficiency. Is a helicopter and/or transport engine built by a company other than P&W applicable to F135? The champions of parametric modeling would have you believe so. And there are parametric models for airframe structure, landing gear, hydraulic systems, fuel systems, flight control actuators, radars, EO turrets, ESM electronics, and virtually every other airplane system.
Hey DJ, Thanks for that! Seems to be the case that Lockheed-Martin are using the “bottom-up” approach to justify a low cost estimate – which is clearly to the benefit of the F-35 programme – but the JET and NAVAIR don’t accept the validity of that and obviously believe – based on their experience of other programmes – that the “parametric” approach yields a more accurate figure, or alternatively, it suits them to come up with a much higher cost, which in turn suggests they are backing off from the F-35, or else they are putting pressure on LM to cut costs. :confused::confused:
flanker30“….The programme uses a “bottom-up” approach to estimate costs, while the JET and NAVAIR estimates use a parametric model, Crowley says…..”
Can anyone explain this in layman’s terms?
flanker30Yes but here’s the really important question: how many brigadier/general/admiral/air marshall posts are going to be axed?
flanker30Any accountants on this forum? :rolleyes:
flanker30Myth. Journalists are by their very nature an extension of the right wing. Without stable control of the media in one form or another, no state would survive due to the constant attacks upon its foundations from liberals. A society is made up of pro-establisment members or it was never a society to begin with.
Anyone that confuses liberalism with the politics of the left really shouldn’t speak so bluntly on the topic. Kids these days get their facts instantly from the wiki and then confuse left with liberal, whereas left is communist. The wiki isn’t always an accurate source of information.
I think your understanding of political terminology is further evidence that American and English are really two different languages.
flanker30The beginning of the end?
As predicted, the US Navy are starting to make negative noises about the F-35:
“DATE:14/01/10
SOURCE:Flight International
USN officials raise concern about F-35 affordability
By Stephen Trimble
The US Naval Air Systems Command’s top cost estimator has warned in a new internal briefing obtained by Flight International that the Lockheed Martin F-35B/C variants are getting harder to afford. Lockheed continues to insist, however, that cost estimates within the programme have not changed since 2007, which it says is supported by its recent contractual performance. But the NAVAIR briefing, presented to US Navy officials on 4 January, adds fuel to a series of recent reports that the Department of Defense is taking a more conservative approach to estimating the F-35’s overall costs, with potential production unit cuts likely in the fiscal year 2011 budget request scheduled for release in February.
According to NAVAIR’s cost department, the F-35’s total ownership costs, including development, production and sustainment, has doubled to $704 billion since Lockheed won the contract eight years ago. Moreover, NAVAIR estimates the total of 680 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs and carrier-variant F-35Cs, ordered by the US Marine Corps and USN, respectively, will cost $30,700 to fly each hour. This compares to $18,900 for the Boeing AV-8B Harrier II and Boeing F/A-18A-D, the aircraft types the Joint Strike Fighter will replace. Although NAVAIR projects the F-35 will fly 12% fewer flight hours than the AV-8B and F/A-18A-D fleets, the agency expects the modern aircraft to cost as much as about 25% more to operate at peak rates, the briefing says. The unexpected cost increases mean the F-35 “will have a significant impact on naval aviation affordability”, the NAVAIR document concludes.
Dan Crowley, Lockheed executive vice-president for the F-35, says the presentation reflects an ongoing dispute between the programme and the Joint Estimating Team (JET). The NAVAIR presentation bases its cost assumptions on the latest JET study. The programme uses a “bottom-up” approach to estimate costs, while the JET and NAVAIR estimates use a parametric model, Crowley says. But the dispute is not a trivial matter. If the DoD decides to submit a budget request based on the JET’s higher estimate, Lockheed’s orders for production aircraft could decline. Such a reduction sets the stage for the so-called “acquisition death spiral”, as fewer orders lead to higher unit production costs, which in turn cause further cuts.
But Crowley says that a production cut next year would not necessarily trigger a death spiral. Under Lockheed’s interpretation of recent acquisition reform laws, the company could deliver more aircraft to the government than are put under contract. The first test of this theory could arrive during negotiations for the fifth annual lot of low rate production. “The government will be monitoring our prices for LRIP-5,” Crowley says. Meanwhile, Lockheed will continue to develop its capacity planning based on the assumption that it will deliver one jet every working day by 2015 or 2016, says Crowley.”
flanker30UK to “slash jet fighter orders”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/12/defence-aircraft-jet-fighters-budget
It’s in the Guardian, so you know it’s true. 😀
flanker30Maybe the RAF should look at smaller transports to supplement the Hercules fleet in-theatre, or for e.g. paratroop training? Something like the C-27J, or the CN-235 or C-295?
flanker30……….
What ever happend to people being here because they like airplanes and would like to know more about them? Sure, politics is unavoidable, but one should sometimes step back and say “i’m here for the planes”. 🙁
I’m inclined to agree with you, but in general, part of the appreciation of individual aircraft types is related to the story of their development and how good/bad they are at doing what they were designed for. In the specific case of the F-35, politics – with a small ‘p’ – has been part of this programme from the start, both inter-Service politics between the USAF, USN, and USMC, and broader budgetary and pork-barrel politics in the US generally. Throw in the UK’s pride with regard to VSTOL and the Harrier, and consequent desire to be involved in the design and manufacture of its successor, and the global issue of a replacement for the ubiquitous F-16, and you can see there is an awful lot riding on this programme.
And of course the other element is the profits to be made by Lockheed Martin and its various industrial partners and suppliers from the F-35 programme, the public relations and political lobbying campaigns engaged in by these companies, and you can see why the truth is hard to come by.
Sign In
