drabslabthat’s just it, he did get a signed contract and presumably some money from both Antonov and China
that’s what impresses me
obviously he isn’t going to win the contract with the DOD, that wasn’t the point
getting two major aerospace players to use this NOBODY to represent them is just astounding
Antonov and China both know that they don’t stand a chance RIGHT NOW. Probably they consider this a worthwile exercise to let some one else do some dirty work allowing them to gain experience how these economical ploitics work in the US.
A bit like sending in a Loach temptin the VC to shoot at it with 2 Cobra’s in the background ready to respond.
drabslabHow much money would be saved by scrapping F-35?
drabslabEurope needs to take a hard look at it’s internal use of fighters. There is very little need for Typhoon over most of the continent. Typhoon is probably the best perimeter player, but it is overkill for general policy keeping. What the continent needs is a light fighter that doubles as the standard trainer. Normally one would try to find some commonality between the franchise player, the Typhoon, and the trainer. I don’t think it’s practical to aim for a half Typhoon – like the F-16 is a counterpart to the F-15 – and should aim lower. Something simple, perhaps a delta wing. Non-stealth. Today’s Mirage III or Freedom Fighter equivalent.
Something inexpensive, meaning you don’t want to saddle it with an expensive motor or super duper radar. Electronic eye(s). Depend on a datalink for vectoring to a bogey. Aim for a single-seat version that flies at or near Mach 1.4 on a dry 60kN of thrust, wet thrust for a sprint speed of Mach 2.0 or less. Design it so a non-afterburner and a two-seater, not necessarily the same versions, can be produced from the same airframe. Internal or semi-recessed armament; a single gun (or internal rocket pod) and a pair of AAMs. Maintenance friendly. Common parts among multiple manufacturer sources, allowing nationalistic manufacturers to keep jobs home whenever possible. It doesn’t have to be dirt cheap, just affordable in large numbers.
Too much emphasis today on big and every-purpose. They need a new common featherlight fighter for air policing. Keep the big boys for war.
Europe isn’t that bad of technically:
Typhoon: air superiority over its own territory
Gripen: air policing and chep extension of the fleet
Rafale: Aircraft carriers and deep strike
Te only thing missing is some coherent politics and the end of internal bickering over details while new world powers are getting operational.
drabslabWritign the script of a stunt is one thing, in holywood it happens every day.
Pulling it of, getting a signed contract, deliver and make money is slightly more complicated.
drabslabAt the end of the Cold War the US militaro-industry decided that they had to find a way to keep making lot of money and so they decided to carry on the arm race alone inventing fantasist menaces.
Europe has other priorities (education, healthcare…) than just inventing new “generation” aircraft to drop more and more expensive bombs on peasants. We need to realise that at some point we will need to stop spending too much money building things we do not need. As far as platform are concerned it is my beleive that the F-22 like aircrafts are going to be around for sometimes. The electronic is going to keep evolving, but the airframe is going to remain more or less the same. As far as interception and air policing are concerned manned aircraft have a bright future. Satellites can be destroy, signals jammed and if a “hostile” is coming toward you, you want to be sure that someone will be able to press the button to destroy it. So 15 years from now the EU country are going to develop a F-22 like airframe with cheaper and more mature technologies. What really makes a modern aircraft modern and relevant in today battlefield are its sensor, weapons, ECM, etc… Stealth design is just for the commercial. F22, F35, rafale ? The only common thing with these aircrafts is that their electronics cost almost 3/4 of their R&D.
And I’m sorry, I know I’m not going to make a lot of friends, but in europe, France is the only country with a coherent defense industry. The french army doesn’t always have the most recent hardware but at least they build what they have. France as one of the highest research funding in europe and even if our aircraft carrier has many problems at least we have plane to fly on them. Our submarines arent the biggest but at least we have our own missiles (last time I checked UK is begging France for help to upgrade their trident… oh and they dont have the money yet). And while the typhoon customer are still debating what to include in the tranche 3a (and then a 3b…) rafale is fully operational for the navy and air force. So when they ask to lead european projects, maybe we should let them…
Also Thales is second most capable electronic company after rayton they are even competing to provide a radar to the us littoral ship. Russia even invited France to join the T50. But of course like for the Airbus tanker, most US are simply incapable to accept that european can do good stuff. So I do hope people join Neuron, unfortunatly the tendance today is no longer exclusive european cooperation. I think depending of the winning of rafale or typhoon in india or brezil the “european” 5th generation fighter will be cooperation between france and other non-european country while typhoon will have to survive F35 competition on its own soil. Unless the Typhoon is sold to India there will be no cooperation outside europe for its development. Only UK has hope to start a new program and then hope for cooperation. Germany, Italy, Spain and the rest of Europe will have to choose between a french or a british projetc like they had to choose between rafale or typhoon. I’m pretty sure France will be up for the next round since they have commited to the rafale. UK will have to choose between Typhoon or F35 or have a very poor version of both. 15 to 30 years from now between losses and repair even the US will have all but a symbolic number of F22 making the F35 their only front line fighter.
Quite right Mildave
To those claiming that the EU will never be able to compete with US on military planes I would like to remind you that once the same was said about cooperation on making civil planes.
The reality is that now AIRBUS is bigger than Boeing.
Cooperation on military projects is often hindered by national pride, differences in defence policy of the countries involved, protection of the own industry… but also here cooperation is getting slowly up to speed on A400M, on Typhoon, Eurocopter….
drabslabI do not think that many of the European Air Forces require a 5th gen platform that is low in tech and high in numbers, when they have the option of using the F-35 manufactured by a very close ally, nor do i think that US military is thinking big wars the same way they were when they were facing the Soviet threat, or that they can accomplish much of what they desire to do with their fighter squadrons by distributing a single bomb squadron around the world, or that they are planning to fight everyone at the same time.
There is every chance that i could be completely wrong, or not getting the point.
The prime minister of China recently announced that China aims at replacing the dollar as interrnational currency by the chinese currency. At the same time they are developing 5th gen. fighters, and billions in other new military toys, and they have a foreign policy scavenging e.g. Africa for basisc materials with the same moral standrards as the old imperialistic powers of the west.
All ingredients for a ladge future conflcit are unfolding and growing here
WO II involved a total population (all countries involved) of 800 million people?
China alone has 1.2 billion or something like that?
drabslabWhat does overengineered mean?
Does it mean that bits and pieces are being added to an older airframe until it becomes a complete mess?
Or does it mean that a plane is being designed on basis of very high and unrealistic requirements so that it needs unproven and experimental technologies leading to disaster?
I would go for the second definition and then would point he finger at most recent developments from A400M to F-35.
drabslabnot to worry about the F-35: chances are it’ll get more expensive still, because that’s what military programs usually do, and the F-35 hasn’t exactly been the exception to the rule so far 😀
at which point there are loads of alternatives, from 4.5 generation aircraft to UCAVs, both for air forces and navies around the world
the F-35B is actually the only version for which there is no real alternative (for launching off small carriers at least, I feel the front line concept is outdated in this day and age). if it does get cancelled the Marines will switch to F-18s/F-35s, and with the RN already decided on this course, there aren’t many countries capable of developing a STOVL aircraft
that said, UCAVs have to potential to change all this, just about every EU and US company has some to a lot of experience with this, and UCAVs are great for STOVL (less weight, easier to land)
on a practical note, I’d suggest Italy and Spain buying the UK Harriers; when the F-35B does go down in flames, their price is going to go up fast
I just read an interesting article on several Marine corps unaffordable projects (Osprey, a new landing vehicle and the F-35B).
Maybe we should hope that te F-35b is being cancelled to lift a heavy burden from the overall f-35 prpogramme, giving it a better chance to succeed (or save what is left).
More importantly, it might lead to the writing of more realistic requirements by the military , and a more carefull assessment of those requirements by industry, in the future.
drabslabIf 1500 = 15000 real hours it would not have failed.. it would have passed:).
It simply should not have failed.. if LM are right with their engineering then the rig must be at fault because the simulations say it should have done well over 8000 hours.
To have failed so early in its test phase points to a rig failure to correctly emulate the conditions of real flight.
If its not the rigs fault… Errrr – Oh dear!!
You know, I am really starting to miss pfcem who would definitively manage to explain that all is going well 🙁
drabslab“The aft bulkhead of the F-35B BH-1 fatigue-test specimen has developed cracks after 1,500 hours of durability testing.”
Aren’t bulkheads amongst the longest lead items the plane has?
LM claimed that testing is not so important because their mighty simulation programs replace most of the actual testing…
On the other hand, presumibly those tests are very hard on the parts. 1500 hours could well give the same fatigue as 15000 hours of normal service life
mmmhhh… maybe…
drabslabI think that it is a bit surrealistic to envisage a tuype of warfare whereby all assets, except those in on the first centimeter of the front-line can be kept for 100% outside the reach of the enemy.
drabslab-I’d love to see the actual quote, and the time frame this US General spoke about the Osprey. From all the news I’ve heard, it’s been doing very well in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-I have no problems with welfare for those in legitimate need. The problem is when it’s given to those not in legitimate need. I also support education and health care reforms, but the solution isn’t throwing money at the problems.
I’d love to see just one example of how social programs cause an economy to flourish. What makes an economy flourish, is having people that are employed, and self-sufficient, not reliant on government hand outs.
Speaking on V-22 capabilities in a closing statement at the June 23, 2009 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, Rep. Edolphus Towns stated: “Our investigation indicates we’ve gotten half the aircraft for three times the cost–that’s not a recipe for longevity. … It’s time to put the Osprey out of its misery.”
drabslabActually quite the opposite. If wasteful government spending was cut, the tax rates could be cut, which would stimulate not only business investment/hiring, but consumer spending(which would stimulate business/hiring). The best policy is increasing the tax base rather than having a large number receiving unemployment/wellfare/universal health care/etc… We’ve blown hundreds of billions of dollars, with very little to show for it in the last few years. That savings could’ve kept the F-22 line open, along with helping the F-35 and other programs.
There is a rather big place on earth, called Europe, that is making fire wood of your reasoning.
But back to the F-35: there is no need to keep the production line open because nobody needs that plane;
Not as a fighter: because F-22 and probably some other planes are better
Not as a strike aircraft: because smart cruise missiles are faster and better
Not as a bomb truck: there are much cheaper alternatives around
An US general reported about another holey cow (the Osprey) “it is time to get that thing out of its misery and cancel it”
I think that this is what should happen with thie F-35 monster too. Close the project and use the billions and research results for upgrading F-22, funding some more realistic weaponry and maybe also for some additional wellfare and educational reforms; even if you can’t understand the importance of those matters, they could be the basis for a long term recovery of the economy which may make F-35 style toys affordable in 20 years time.
drabslabI think that document, like the UK’s SDSR, is the beginning of a realisation that the levels of defence spending of recent decades cannot be sustained, simply because the money isn’t there anymore.
Hopefully, it is also the start of some innovative thinking about policies and means to an end.
None of the mighty superpowers have been significantly attacked in the last 60 odd years but have invaded themselves many countries using ever improving technology. The aim of modern weapons technology is not anymore about defence, its about making the threshold lower to be able to invade other countries.
As soon as business and technology permits it we can find a pretext to attack, just look at all the “evidence” used to invade Iraq.
Peace is served a lot better, and drastically cheaper, by taking people serious and talk to them, even when they have a “strange” opinion and lifestyle. Overwhelming them with military superiority does not work, all the mighty machinery can’t even beat a bunch of bearded clowns in afghanistan.
This does not mean that we have to neglect defence, on the contrary, we have to restore its value as DEFENCE, not agressivity
drabslabWow, fly F-18s and F-16s until 2030? By then the design will be over 60s years old. Do you think our enemies will cancel or cut back there stealth programs also? If we are going to cut costs lets start with pork spending and social welfare programs 1st. We cant afford to give every one on earth free health care. And its this type of thinking in the Clinton era that got us to this spot in the 1st place.
Its this type of narrow minded thinking that will make sure that you would not need any army anymore
Without social wellfare, you will be at the same sad, poor and depressive level as your enemies.
This will make sure that no-one will want to attack (or visit) you anymore as your country will have as insignificant value as those currently managed by the Taliban.
Maybe that is a good solution?
Sign In
