FBWNo, the FMS offer was not based on the 2012 APUC, it was based on what was estimated to be the “Fly Away Unit Cost” (per the Pentagon Budget) of the year in wich the aircrafts were going to be contracted, plus an FMS fee, plus training, manuals, suport, whatever the South Koreans asked. An aircraft to be delivered in 2020 would have been contracted in 2018, and that estimate would have ended in the FMS offer.
No, it is not. That is why FMS contracts can be adjusted downward if there is a reduction in associated costs based on what the US services are paying. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-seoul-s-f-x-iii-backdown-raises-thorny-questions-about-competition-390941/
Nonetheless, trouble was brewing. In mid-August, DAPA reached out to Lockheed Martin for more information on F-35 pricing. Lockheed’s offer in F-X III was based on pricing for Low Rate Initial Production lot 5 (LRIP 5) aircraft. In a re-tendered competition, Lockheed will be able to use updated pricing from LRIP 7 or perhaps LRIP 8, lots in which the unit cost per aircraft will have fallen, perhaps by 10-12% from LRIP 5.
It almost certainly would, the contract would be binding.
Missing the point, None of the competitors could meet the 60 aircraft for 7 billion (though I believe the Boeing offer was close). I get what you are saying, based on Eurofighter’s offer, they would have supplied 60 Typhoons on their bid. But, it is essentially wrong to say that you can buy 60 Typhoons to 40 F-35 based on a contract proposal from the F-X III competition. Lockheed’s offer was not a fixed price contract (which was an issue)
Its irrelevant, Eurofighter and Boeing would have offered identical packages.
No, what AESA technology was Eurofighter including? How would the associated support compare to Lockheed’s offer under an FMS deal. That is all very relevant.
Here was the offer presented to Congress in 2013:
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/korea_13-10_0.pdf
FBWBecause Eurofighter offered a full 1/3 more airframes of an evolved aircraft for roughly the same amount of money.
.
Perhaps at the time it was true (FMS rules) the US offer was based on the LRIP costs circa 2012 (which I’m too lazy to look up, though LRIP batch 5 were around 160 million each). The F-35’s APUC has decreased with each new batch. Typhoon’s unit costs probably have not deviated that much in the last four years. What S. Korea would/will end up paying for F-35, or Typhoon in unit cost probably does not allow for the purchase of 1/3 more Typhoons.
The contract includes all the goodies: (simulators, associate FMS support, spares), and the ToT requirements that recently caused an uproar in S. Korea over what was actually contracted.
FBWGKN Aerospace bought Volvo Aero, so I think it’s still the same people working on the RM12.
OK, that explains that. The rest as they say is history. GE was responsible for the design and engineering on the RM12, Volvo for test, manufacturing roughly 35% of the engine, and support.
FBWAbout the RM12.
“Of the original F404 engine available today maybe 50 % left . The rest is Volvo’s new development. The engine is now owned by Sweden and Volvo are OEM . Volvo has Type Certificate and the responsibilities for the engine is flight worthy and GE stands only for the spare parts needed to what is unmodified ( compressor , combustor module , gearbox , generators , etc ) .”
http://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.174315/reaktionsmotor-12—bade-vacker-och-stark
Posting that ad nauseam does not change the actual facts. The RM12 is essentially a F404 modified for single engine application (different compressor disks/ fan for better birdstrike protection, FADEC, different afterburner assembly), it has a bit more power, but the design aim was improved reliability for a single engine aircraft.
As you said, GE built about half of the engine, the rest was manufactured in Sweden. That is not 50% Volvo technological input. That is why GE has a factsheet on the RM12:
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/military/datasheet-RM12.pdf
Here is the history for the 404/RM12 development:
asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/data/…/V002T02A020-88-GT-305.pdf
(you have to cut and paste into google)
BTW, GKN aerospace does the product support, maintenance, repair, etc. not Volvo- http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsswedish-fmv-contracts-gkn-aerospace-for-gripens-rm12-engine-4827270
FBWRussia missile capacity is in thousands. they can literally replace all the missiles in a year. just look at AAM exports and SAM production.
Not going to derail this thread any further, but to call some of your B.S. Where was the R-27 manufactured? That’s right, primarily Artem and Radionix. The facilities of former Vympel near Moscow, were only about to produce small numbers of R-27 variants.
Here is total R-27 production and for whom 1990’s on. (Russia total 15 missiles): http://www.deagel.com/equipment/Air-to-Air-Missiles/R-27.htm
And remember, any R-27 transferred to Russia from the production facilities in Ukraine would have noted in the “UN Register of Conventional Arms”.
P.S. apologies to others on this thread, get tired of the JSR routine/
Edit- had to add dates
FBWUnlesss thos C5 are modernized. they are likely to be at expiry stage..
Not necessarily, new batteries, periodic diagnostic tests would be all that’s required provided low number of captive carry hours. For the C5’s of the RAF, they will probably reach the limit of their captive carry hours before solid propellant needs replacing, or major electronics parts need replacing (other than battery).
R27 are certainly not 1980s batch
That is a bet I’d be willing to take. New missiles did not begin to enter VVS service until quite recently. Most stocks were probably late 80’s with some new components.
FBWhistorical statstics of anti air missile kill percentages would point otherwise.
Only if you include the first generation of radar guided AAM. The Aim-7M had a good kill percentage when fired within launch parameters, the Amraam has fared even better.
without any modernization whatsoever, a missile that’s been 25-30 years in service should fare quite badly against a contemporary opponent’s systems. One shouldn’t really let their missiles fall behind more than 5-10 years behind the opponent, if there’s to be a fight to be won.
Who introduces a new AAM every 5-10 years? The U.S. has probably outpaced most, but even then: the Aim-120C (with incremental improvements other than clipped wings) has been in service for 20 years and is still being exported.
Russia still has the R-27 in service with most variants dating from late 80’s.
Against any future Libya-a-like opponent it may be okay, with enough numerical superiority
.
The 150 or so C5’s in the RAF will still be a credible weapon for QRF/ air defense missions into the 20’s
FBWWasn’t aware 4.6G is an enforced limit – the DOTE report does state that it was a sustained turn though. None of the actual test conditions were ever stated in the actual DOTE report I have.
It is assumed the test aircraft were clean but even assuming that, without weight we are really clutching at straws. The 4.6G figure was a revised performance spec from this using some of the early test jets:
The DOT&E report does not list the altitude, speed, etc. The spec was written based on a requirement to match the F-16 block 50/52. It is as you say: Mach .8, 15,000 feet, with 2 AAM, 60% fuel
The 4.6g threshold is not an “enforced limit”. In fact, in testing the aircraft has demonstrated 4.95g at the speed and height listed. It was clear that the F-35 was not going to meet the original 5.3g sustained turn threshold (based on historical trends) aircraft tend to gain weight over time so it was lowered to a 4.6 g threshold. The current aircraft in production are lighter than the test aircraft that demonstrated 4.95g, so it’s actual sustained turn performance is likely between the 4.6-5g range.
Anyway if it can pull a 4.6G sustained turn (assumed to be at M0.8 / 15,000ft from the JSF requirements) and is under a certain weight – the G limiter will allow 9G.
It already has. The disclosed number was 15,000ft, 370Kts, 9g.
Elements of power has a good write up on the sustained g spec:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html
[Most of the news and discussion related to this topic is probably available if you use the search at top of page]
FBWHaavarla, my first cursory glance, your post made no sense. I went back and reread it and saw that you had the right idea, just jumbled, so I deleted the post. What u said in the above post about the F-16 is correct.
FBWHave you hear nothing in the last TEN years about metric wavelenght radars?
Actual AEW radars can detect and track stealth aircrafts with enough precision to allow ARH missiles to be fired against it, with a way lesser hit ratio than against normal ones but still enought to make the mission pattern F-22 was developed around i.e. I repeat loitering over enemy controlled territory in order to achieve Air dominancejust impossible to even try.
it doesn’t mean that stealth aircraft would became useless, just that the extra features that Raptor have when compared to other VLO aircrafts such the 360°degree stealth coverage, flat nozzles, receve only link 16 and all other that have made its cost and complexity skyrocket are just not .justified at all.
So, if you think it is not like i said, you have just to ask US MoD why they have stopped their production at 187 and plan instead to keep in service 190+ 40 years old F-15C.
To add to Ozair’s response: the difficulty in upgrading the F-22 software/hardware, the “peace dividend”, and the lack of perceived “near peer” adversaries that Congress saw circa 2002, led to the curtailment of the F-22 program. And Marcellogo, there is a big difference between tracking and targeting. Only fools and the media buy into the “stealth means invisible” slogan. But LO does buy you reduced tracking/targeting and Pk against IADS. The F-22 flat nozzles are not obsolete, that is the best way to dissipate the heat from the exhaust. The LOAN nozzle exhibited by the F-35 has cold stream air, flattening of exhaust plume and active cooling of “feathers’ but if you look at all UCAV and even the B-21, the F-22 method is effective. As far as the Pak-Fa, when we see the definitive engine, with the exhaust nozzle, we will hopefully get a patent release like the one associated with the LOAN nozzle to get an idea of the direction the designers took with IR suppression.
FBWNo, just no!
when any heavy AG weapons are carried on A-G station( let say 2 2000 lbs bombs) , software automatically limit max G down to 5.4G because that a structure limit, turn harder and the aircraft will break into to small pieces. (the CAT III limiter on f-16)[4].
Well, yes and no. Technically the CAT III limiter is not a g limit. But the truth is that switched on the aircraft is limited to a certain AoA at speeds (more specifically the degrees of turn radius per second) limiting the g available.
FBWOK, let’s do it piece by piece..
1. what is the sustained g-limit for Rafale with the heavy config (2x SCALP, 3xbag, 4xMICA) at sea level?
From the test flight comments listed above,it is doubtful for the Rafale to sustain 5.5g at sea level with that configuration. Why? Physics. It will “pull” nearly 5.5g if the aircraft does not encounter either the overspeed or AoA limits, IF the weight allows. Meaning the fighter burns sufficient fuel and/or drops weapons. That is the beauty of the DFCS, the pilot does not have to worry about that (except in lateral maneuvers- more on that later), the available pitch, roll (to a degree), and yaw will be governed by the FCS and CG will be a factor.
To give a simple example, we will compare the F-15E with the -220 engines. It has a greater thrust to weight ratio but; the Rafale has a modern FCS with better wing loading, newer design, etc. The F-15E with CFT (not as restrictive as the 2000L EFT),lantern pod, twelve mk 84(6000lbs), and four Aim-9 (760ish lbs) can sustain” right around 6.2g at .9 mach with a lighter external load (CFT not as restrictive) at sea level( gross weight 60,300lbs). The Rafale was carrying 3 2000L EFT, 2x SCALP, 4x MICA(?) (Drag is also a factor in this and the Rafale’s 2000L tanks play a role).
The Rafale’s FCS limited the aircraft to .9 mach and 4g’s while carrying 3 2000L EFT, 2 SCALP, and 4 (mica?) at roughly 25,000 feet (according to tester). So, could the Rafale sustain a 5.5g limit at sea level? In some AtG configurations, sure yes. Based on the load out mentioned by Picard? not without a “bitching betty” telling the pilot to lay off the stick.
2. What is the g-limit for the clean F-35A in such conditions?
The F-35A is a “9G” rated aircraft without AtG stores. The numbers released have stated: 9G-15,000ft-370Kt. So, it can “pull” 9g at sea level and above. But there is a caution, as in the Rafale, it depends on the load out. Here is the description of CLAW from L-M:
What about high-g maneuvering, up-and-away? For symmetric maneuvers, CLAW’s got our back: As long as we’re not rolling or yawing, we can slam the stick full aft or (ugh) forward, at any speed, at any loading. CLAW will keep g within NzW limits[4].
what about g? We’re mostly protected, but not completely. Interestingly, the protection is least where the maneuvering limits are the lowest: in powered approach (PA) and aerial refueling (AR). The limits in those modes are 3g and 2g, respectively, and there’s nothing to keep us from exceeding them. Why not? Because, while those limits are more than adequate for normal ops, there might be times when we need to exceed them to avoid hitting something – such as the ground, or the tanker – and our CLAW engineers have wisely decided that running into things would probably be worse than busting the g limit. So they let us bust the limit.What about high-g maneuvering, up-and-away? For symmetric maneuvers, CLAW’s got our back: As long as we’re not rolling or yawing, we can slam the stick full aft or (ugh) forward, at any speed, at any loading. CLAW will keep g within NzW limits[4].
Rolling and yawing – so-called “asymmetric maneuvering” (maneuvering using lateral stick or pedal inputs) – is another story. If we don’t pull more than 80 percent of the positive NzW limit or push to less than negative 1g, we can roll and yaw to our heart’s content. But if we push or pull more than that, we have to abide by a pilot-observed limit of 25 degree/second. (Stick your hand out in front of you and roll it through 90 degrees while counting to three potatoes. Yup, it’s slow.) I know what you’re thinking: “How do I know when I’m more than 0.8NzW?” You don’t – unless you’re good at mentally dividing the basic flight design gross weight (BFDGW) by your current gross weight and multiplying it by 0.8 times the basic g-limit for the airplane. (If you can do that, continuously, you’re probably in the wrong line of work.) And, “Why 25 deg/sec?” Because that’s the loads folks’ definition of “zero”: if you’re rolling less than 25 deg/sec, they consider that not rolling, so symmetric limits apply.
he F-35 is an inherently unstable airplane, required to handle a wide range of CG. Its control surfaces are sized to meet the requirements of both maneuverability and low observability. As a result, the combinations of body rates, AOAs, CGs, Machs, and weapon bay door positions that define the controllable envelope of the F-35 are extremely complex – and the boundaries of that envelope are reflected, with all that complexity, in CLAW. If the control engineers opened up the limiters and gave us, instead, “rules of thumb” to maintain control – ones that we had a fighting chance of remembering – the rules would most likely be so restrictive that we’d give up more than we gained. Could we evolve to that in the future? Sure, if we decide it’s a positive trade. As the control engineers hate to hear us say, “It’s only software.”
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=187
whatever your feelings toward L-M this is a good read for understanding control laws.
Lastly, going back to the original claims: the Rafale demonstrated a 4g limit (instantaneous) in the AtG configuration he claimed had a 5.5 to 6g sustained g. At the aproximate speed and altitude that the F-35 has a revised 4.6g sustained g threshold requirement in AtA configurations (I say threshold because the aircraft has outperformed this).
So, Picard was FOS with his claim. That is not to say that in a so called “apples to apples” comparison that the Rafale does not have a better STR, it does. But, both will be limited in achievable AoA and allowable g by their DFCS as they add weapons and (in the case of the Rafale EFT). That is why claims of 9+g limits are questionable, with modern fighters the performance envelope comes down to: what are they carrying?, how much weight?, what to the control laws allow at that configuration?.
Edit- Run-on sentences and questionable grammar a result of typing responses in between e-mail floods at work.
FBWMsphere, maybe read through the above, learn, and clean up ur act. Ozair is right this is trolling. Ur not dense, so you are purposefully evading that you were wrong. It’s kinda sad and I generally don’t put posters on ignore.
Not trying to be rude, but if you enjoy posting here, and generally like discourse, then stop. Probably would not be very interactive if your basically discredited and put on people’s ignore list.
FBWEh? So once again, he claimed 5.5-6.0g, the actual value was 5.4g and you call this utterly and completely wrong? Because of the 0.1g difference? You are not being serious now, are you?
Sustained g- seriously read the report and THINK. Btw, even pulling 5.4g would be impressive with that load( though most likely those 2000L eft were empty by that point).
What hopsalot, and others tried to point out to you was that the aircraft was losing p’s throughout the maneuvers. From the report, you can also see that the pilot was testing the FCS limits, full power maneuvers from up to overspeed limiter in that config, down to AoA limiter at lower speed.
FBWNo, you’re not wasting your time.. quite on the contrary, this piece was very useful…
Anyway, it looks that I was right, after all. The link mentions that at lower speeds the FCS provided higher g-load limits, namely 5.2g or 5.4g. Which is exactly what I have asked about.. And if that is true, then Picard, too was correct on this..
Literally I am at a loss for words. You were utterly and completely wrong as the above shows. Picard’s assumption is completely wrong as others pointed out- one he claims sustained turn performance of 5.5 to 6. Well the aircraft cannot go above 5.5 due to ST 1&2 settings. And as the above shows the aircraft cannot pull 5.4g in an instantaneous manuver above 330 knots.
Which is by the way very impressive.
Higher speeds u will hit the overspeed limit .90 Mach and lower u hit the AoA limit for that configuration. Please give it up, you are digging a hole because u don’t understand the basics. Read all the posts above, everyone is (mostly nicely) trying to tell you’ve no idea what your talking about. Btw, the reason you are wrong is in previous post. Find it , and learn for once.
Sign In
