FBWFight may be coming up over A-10 retirement…
The issue is a bit more nuanced than the quotes from your post imply. First off, Defense-Aerospace.com is not an entirely credible source (i.e. look at source at the top of the page- POGO) You have Senators who don’t want the A-10 retired because it will impact their districts, JTACs who truly feel the A-10 is the best aircraft for certain CAS applications, and the Air force whose budget woes are forcing leaders to make tough choices.
The F-35 will have basic CAS capability from IOC, the issues with ROVER were discussed previously in the thread, the podded ROVER solution would go a long way to assuaging the concerns over retiring the A-10s. There is definitely a layer of B.S. to the argument that the maintainers can only come from the A-10 force. The Air Force is pushing back against sequestration, essentially saying “Our budget is forcing us to make tough choices, so we’re reducing near term capability to ensure future recapitalization”. This has more to do with the current political situation than a reflection on: a. the value of the A-10’s
b. a perceived issue with F-35 IOC
FBWBullsh!t.
PAWS
SAPIR
You should know better…
Also, just to make it more fun. SAAB boasts “super sensor fusion” in the Gripen C, it must be better than plain sensor fusion in the F35. Afterall, everything that the marketers say is true at face value.
The F35, at FOC will roughly match the latest aircrafts out there today… in most regards.
Regarding the F60/J31… by the looks of it it’s a well designed stealth fighter (from an RCS-point of view), because of that it will only require decent sensors and still have a fairly even match against any oponent.
BullsH**t, to that. SAPIR is a stand alone system (i.e. federated) which you would know if you looked at the information Elbit has released on it. The system is not integrated with other sensors, not the same as the ICP of the F-35. This was already covered in the F-35 thread. But this is the wrong thread for this discussion…..
FBWThe UK wants to be able to increase the bring-back limit. It has its own requirements, which are not identical to those of the USMC.
Ah, you are talking SRVL testing. The’ve done the preliminaries on that to increase bring back. There had be talk and testing of “creeping” VL due to thermal stress on decks, landing pads.
FBWThe problems they seem to be having with lift in the jet lift regime. That was what originally caused the doubts about whether to go ahead with the UK order. Last I heard it is fine in the hover as long as it’s light i.e. no combat load.
Not really sure where you are getting your information, as of the last SAR report, the F-35B is within the weight limits to meet the VLBB KPP (two 1000lb bombs, 2 amraams, fuel to execute landing). The UK was investigating rolling landings due to to heat, not problems with the lift system being unable to meet the KPP. The weight growth tolerances are tight for sure.
FBWthe incentive would be being able to, since profit goes down
No, US wanted to sell F-18E with that same engine, and GE for sure want to sell the engine no matter what,
while USG will also want income
Yeah, to Brazil. There would need to be a real change in UK -Argentina relations, and/or US-Argentina for there to be any chance for the F-414g to be cleared for export. The US government getting any significant money from the deal is ridiculous.
GE is not lacking orders for the 414- powering the Tejas, Gripen E/F, and possibly the F-50 light attack versions of the KAI T-50.
FBW*snicker*
Ah, you disagree? Perhaps your not up on your U.S.- Argentina relations then?
FBWFor those who can’t stop bitching about surface details, I present to you…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]233160[/ATTACH]
Out of curiosity, what is the tail code on that F-117? I’ve not seen one picture of an F-117 that was assigned to one the (formerly) active squadrons with nose art. The Edwards planes tail code ED, were most common at air shows and displays. Most of the pics from aircraft assigned to Holloman tail code HO showed a much better finish.
Edit- found it, sticker patch applied to a 49th FW aircraft in memory of 911, most likely a combat coded F-117, interesting.
FBWYou’re right about the possibility that Brazil could making several changes to enable the sale of Gripen NG to Argentina, but those supposed changes would be easily canceled by a detail that so far I do not recall that anyone has mentioned here that is: Intellectual Property.
Saab owns the Gripen NG project, and because this detail any change in the design or subsystem (engine, avionics as i.e) would require that SAAB has approved the change of the same, once it no matter where or who has been working in the Gripen NG project as the final license belongs to SAAB.
So if Saab does not approve the change, in fact it would not be possible for anyone to change even the supplier from a screw in the Gripen NG that could be to manufactured in Brazil.
Note: I’m still waiting if some good soul will clarify my doubts about the Gripen F.
Without the approval of the UK, there is no way the US would approve the F-414 to be included in the any Gripen deal with Argentina. Finding a replacement power plant could be costly in both time and re-engineering the aircraft, and ultimately unworkable on a limited defense budget. This seems like pixie dust without tacit approval from the UK.
In regards to the intellectual property rights and the final license belonging to SAAB, that would depend on the terms of the agreement. If SAAB is handing over both workshare and development of the two-seater, as has been alluded to, Embraer would be a partner with SAAB on the Gripen F.
FBWThey’ll be the most wonderful helicopter carriers ever launch when the F-35 programme dies the sad death it’s going to.
Yes, I’m sure it’s only F-35 “fanboys” that engage in wishful thinking: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11193756/Britain-orders-more-F-35s-as-part-of-biggest-ever-defence-project.html
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/britain-confirm-first-f-35-orders-within-weeks-132809852.html#RnlqwWo
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/uk-britain-defence-lockheed-idUKKBN0IH0WL20141028
FBWLast I heard no decision had been firmly made one way or the other but there are serious concerns over the viability of F-35 which the government is rightly wary of. Maybe that idea doesn’t sit well with the F-35 lovers but that’s the way it goes.
Think you’ve heard wrong. The UK commitment is solid, the numbers are not. You don’t think the RN built two 65,000 ton QE class to be royal yachts do you?
FBWThe Scorpion is the lowest common denominator. If the overriding priority is to keep costs low, no possibility of air combat with the focus remaining on air policing, the Scorpion will do the job.
With regard to the F-35, all its other qualities aside, its a considerably better interceptor than the CF-18. Better speed, better fuel fraction, far longer range.
Textron Scorpion has a lower top speed than a Gulfstream V, and it’s actually lower than the cruising speed of most widebody airliners. That would make a visual intercept/escort impossible, and in a possible hijack scenario, or violation of restricted airspace, that is an important consideration.
The CF-188’s are short-legged. Whatever choice Canada makes, the RCAF will get an aircraft will improved range. The issue of range will become increasingly important with Canadian/Russian tension in the Arctic. I would venture a guess that there will be an increase in intercepts over those vast disputed areas.
FBWIf true with the +10% figure, then it’s Gripen’s operational cost which is fantastic.
– it depends what a manufacturer includes in operational cost, there is no doubt that the Gripen is cheaper than the 4+ generation aircraft that were developed after it, the question is: does the larger, heavier, 414 powered Gripen E/F share the same costs? The answer is no, to what degree they will be higher? We will see.
FBWYou also need to ask what Block are you getting for the money. Because if it’s Block 3 which can barely fire AIM-9X, AMRAAM and throw one type of GBU, then you need to prepare another $15mil for the future to get the aircraft to a reasonable standard.
Hummm, do you mean that cost of concurrency that Lockheed contractually has to pay at least half of? I would admonish you like my former pupils in courses, read the details then make a conclusion. Msphere, having a negative comment that is relevant is admissible, having one that has no bearing on reality… well that is poor form.
http://awin.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/05-2013,%20Concurrency%20report%20on%20F35.pdf
FBWThe truth of the matter is close. In a few years, operators outside the US will be flying the first few true examples. Moreover, other customers will not rely only on LM presentations, they will be able to go and fly one. Moreover, they will take part in common NATO exercises against the other fighters. Then we will know everything we need to know. I think it’s going to tank, but I could be wrong.
I doubt exercises would provide an “answer” that you seek on the F-35. The USAF is tight lipped about exercises (with the infamous exception of the Red Flag leak), so is the UK. The Armee’de l’air has had it’s fair share of “leaks” about the performance of the Rafale in exercises, which probably does not endear them to other participating nations. The point of exercises, which seems to be lost on some in the professional and enthusiast world, is not to prove who’s aircraft is “better”, but to prepare for a variety of missions, develop tactics, and skills.
FBWWhere’s the big deal in that? We’re talking something that was supposed to happen 2-3 years ago? About time LM got their act together.
It happened, this is the F-35 News and discussion thread.
Sign In
