Vervolg van deel 3.
Lex
Algeheel beheerder
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/11/2013 | 00:01 uur
Regeren is vooruit zien en als we alleen rekening houden met baarden, ezels en RPG's dan is een turoprop meer dan voldoende... helaas gaat de wereld gewoon door.
Aangezie RPG's ook met de tijd meegaan, zou je ook kunnen stellen dat een turboprop niet meer voldoet. ;) Waarschijnlijk doel je hier op.
Citaat van: Lex op 30/11/2013 | 22:56 uur
Aangezie RPG's ook met de tijd meegaan, zou je ook kunnen stellen dat een turboprop niet meer voldoet. ;) Waarschijnlijk doel je hier op.
Niet helemaal, ik veronderstel dat een turboprop in het huidige Afghanistan en Mali zeker een meerwaarde heeft maar ook hier weet men steeds meer geavanceerde wapens te bemachtigen, bijvoorbeeld uit Libische depots.
Wij gaan graag uit van onze superioriteit, onze valkuil.
Why USAF hates A-10 and why it can't be replaced (interessant stuk omtrent de taken van A-10 (CAS) en kan dit overgenomen worden door de F-35 ?)
A-10 was, along with F-16, one of two tactical aircraft created by Fighter Mafia for USAF. Notably, while USAF managed to screw up F-16 by adding bombing and BVR capabilities, A-10 is still relatively unchanged, with exception of new electronics. It is safe, efficient, durable, reliable and cheap, managing to operate in wider range of meteorological conditions than any other aircraft. Its design allows it to evade most of ground fire, and to soak up the rest and still bring the pilot home safely. It can fly at speeds comparable to WW2 turboprops, allowing it to carry out Close Air Support. While it has performed admirably, USAF wants do retire it, with explanation that it is old, vulnerable, and that precision weapons render its capabilities – including its massive 30 mm Gattling gun – unnecessary.
But real reason for that move is because A-10 goes against everything USAF believes in. A-10 is the ultimate proof that highly capable and effective weapons do not need to be complex or costly, and that going up close and personal with target is oftentimes the only way to get things done. In fact, USAF only rushed it in production so that Army does not take over entire CAS mission.
Cost itself is probably the most damning aspect of A-10 in USAF generals' eyes. Aside for sexy appeal of new technologies, especially stealth, Air Force generals who have supported highly complex weapons get to work in firms producing these weapons after retirement, for a very high salary. As a result, generals have sabotaged F-16, loading it up with electronics, pushed for production of stealth aircraft, and always kept looking for ways to remove A-10 from the Air Force. Despite A-10 outperforming every other aircraft during Desert Storm (or more likely because of it=, USAF has mothballed most of the fleet, while outright lying about F-117s performance during the war. During the war, A-10 took out over half of 1 700 Iraqi tanks that were knocked out by air strikes, and about 300 APCs and artillery emplacements.
In 2002 – 2010 period, 60 A-10s have fired 300 000 of ammunition over Iraq, and recorded an 85% success rate. It is also less expensive and more environment-friendly to operate than fast jets, due to its large wings and slow, but fuel-efficent, turbofan engines. In 2010, US military started operating it on biofuel. At maximum power, A-10s engines are five times or more efficient than F-35s engine.
Due to these concerns, USAF has turned to 200 million USD F-35, promising that it will be able to do by virtue of high technology what 20 million USD A-10 already does by virtue of its excellent design, despite F-35 being more vulnerable than the F-16 (an aircraft that was never designed for CAS in the first place), and being incapable of slowing down enough to find and attack tactical targets. In fact, F-35 is vulnerable to being taken down by AK-47 fire. But F-35 allows USAF to justify huge future budgets, and not fall behind in budget battle between departments of US military, which have displayed notorious rivalry in the past (to the point of harming overall US combat ability, such as USAF not allowing US Army to operate fixed-wing CAS aircraft).
However, history of USAF promises about A-10 replacements is not shiny. Out of 24 Apache attack helicopters sento to the Kosovo, 2 have crashed on training mission in the first week and rest were grounded for duration of the war. Seven Apaches sent to attack Taliban in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda were shot up by machine gun fire, with five being damaged beyond repair. In Iraq, 33 Apaches attacking Republician Guard positions in Karbala were forced to turn tail and run in face of heavy machine gun fire and few RPG-s, with one being shot down and 30 sustaining heavy damage.
Fast jets proved even less useful: on July 24 2004, unit led by SSgt Jamie Osmon, and comprising of himself and two other soldiers, was escorting a convoy sent to disarm an Afghan warlord. They themselves crewed a multi-wheeled armored vehicle, with other six vehicles containing 26 additional troops, which were comprised of Afghan National Army and Global Security forces. During the way, convoy entered 30-50 meter wide canyon, but decided to leave it, turning south towards mouth of the valley. Upon reaching the mouth, however, convoy was ambushed. Lead vehicle, belonging to ANA, was destroyed by an RPG, and Ford Ranger behind it took small-arms fire. Rest of convoy managed to double-back after extracting passangers from the Ranger. Three kilometers later, they were ambushed again, by an estimated 800 ambushers. Humvee laid down suppressing fire while rest of convoy retreated, and after running out of ammo, Humvee crew went on foot to find the convoy.
On the way there, B-1 bomber attempted to help, but it didn't have any effect. Once convoy regrouped, Osmon asked for A-10 support, and was said that it is about an hour away. After an hour, A-10s – callsigns Tonto and Lobo – arrived. Pilots managed to determine where friendly troops as well as opponents are without any radio contact. Once A-10s opened up with Vulcan guns, enemy fire ceased, and ground team finally managed to establish radio contact with A-10s. Soon after, enemy tried to have US troops call off A-10 support by using captured ANA troops as bargaining chips.
After enemy dispersed, convoy limped home, with A-10s loitering over the convoy protectively during entire 6-hour trip.
Several lessons can be taken from this encounter:
•high-altitude "precision" weapons are completely ineffective against dug-in opponent
•A-10s have huge impact on enemy ground troops, both physical and psychological, which cannot be replicated by high-flying aircraft
•entire encounter was accoplished by eyeball, with only barest information avaliable to A-10 pilots
•radio contact was only established after A-10s have already started attacking enemy positions
US Army Sgt. First Class Frank Antenori has said that 'As much as the Air Force and Navy would like to think that, fighter aircraft that travel at speeds can't slow down to identify the targets,'. ("Fast Jets Not Ideal Choice for Close Air Support" by Roxana Tiron, National Defense magazine, April 2004 ).
There are many reasons why fast jets are not effective as close air support aircraft, and why that ineffectiveness increases with speed and altitude. First is that battlefield is a very mobile environment, with many small, fleeting targets. As a result, high-altitude jets are incapable of reacting effectively to the changing environments, first due to the limitations of sensory systems (we have yet to design a sensor more versatile and precise than human eye), and second due to the time it takes weapons to reach target (thus effectively creating a delay between "decide" and "act" parts of the OODA loop). Oftentimes, immediate, pinning / suppressive fire is required, sometimes very close to the ground units – so close that even smallest precision weapons are too high-yield.
In mountainous terrains, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft have hard time finding targets, requiring boots on the ground to do it. Even when terrain is not a problem, it takes 18 hours to complete targeting process by using reconnaissance satellites in low Earth orbit. If assets are moved every 10 – 12 hours, they become essentially untargetable.
In Afghanistan, F-15Es have saved a downed SEAL team – by doing gun strafing runs. When precision weapons are used, their point of impact has to be calculated so as to ensure that bombs do hit their targets – and that takes 26 minutes on average; sometimes, it took up to several hours. Until arrival of A-10s in Afghanistan several months after start of operations, USAF CAS was abysimal, as its aircraft were not allowed to fly low enough; thus, Army units relied almost exclusively on USN close air support, as Navy aircraft were allowed to perform low-altitude strafing and bombing runs.
Precision strikes can be effective against fixed targets, but their effectiveness against mobile targets is limited – in which case gun strafing is far better solution. Precision strikes require ground Forward Air Controller to be attached to the unit that has requested strikes – but there simply are not enough FACs. Even when there is FAC attached to the unit, he may be injured or killed, denying the unit ability to call for high-altitude support. Against fixed targets, precision strikes have regularly proven useless if targets were dug in, such as in war in Kosovo where 3-rd Serbian Army has marched back to Serbia unscatched by NATO air attacks. Laser guided weapons require someone to keep in line of sight of target until weapon hits, and both laser guided and especially GPS munitions are prone to fratricide.
Further, units are only equipped with limited number of radios to communicate among themselves and with aircraft. Smoke and white phosphorus markers require slow aircraft to be fully effective. Marker baloons, though not used by US military, are another option for situations where markers cannot be effective (such as in forrests) but they also require aircraft slow enough to see them, and radio contact between aircraft and ground troops.
Precision munitions themselves are also far from precise. JDAMs are not terminally guided and often go astray. Further, bombs bump into each other and often into the aircraft on release, making fins bend; a problem that only gets worse as speed increases. Even when that does not happen, trying to simply steer "smart" weapon is another problem which also gets worse with increasing speed. In both cases, once that happens margin of error worsens with altitude. Guidance systems often fail, due to damage during transport or installation, or other reasons, and precision munitions go astray: something that performance testers completely ignore while calculating CEP, counting only weapons that have performed "as expected".
To render any kind of tactical bombing, CAS or otherwise, aircraft have to be well below cloud level. F-35 carrying two bombs will thus be vulnerable to smaller weapons, and will not fly air support (close or otherwise) on bad weather. On good weather, it will be quasi-loitering at 4 500 meters, blowing up decoys, civillians, rocks and wrecks of vehicles from previous war.
While there were several friendly-fire incidents involving A-10, these have always been result of human error on part of overencumbered pilot; thus A-10 should be equipped with back seat for observer who will operate optical identification devices so as to provide visual target identification superior to current "use the binoculars" avaliable to the pilot. But while these incidents are shot up to the sky to be as visible as nuclear detonation, far more numerous failures of high altitude aircraft are buried. In fact, even current attack helicopters (which fly at half A-10s speed) have two crewman, pilot and WSO; task of latter is purely to operate weapons, which includes identifying targets before attacking.
Per-sortie (in)effectiveness is not only concern. F-35 simply cannot generate enough sorties per day to replace A-10. It also requires large, vulnerable air bases with concrete strips, while A-10 can fly from any surface flat enough that can carry its weight, which not only makes it less vulnerable but allows it to follow the front and stay near supported troops, much like German Stukas did in World War II. F-35 also does not even begin to approach A-10s loiter capability, meaning that it cannot escort ground troops out of dangerous situations, nor can it loiter near the front, waiting to be called upon.
For end note, A-10s not only should not be retired, they (and tactical aircraft in general) should be employed in the same way Wehrmacht employed Stukas and single-engine fighters in World War II: keeping them under nominal command of Air Force, but assigning them to larger ground units, to be under operational command of that unit's command staff, with CAS aircraft being permanently assigned to units, and air superiority aircraft assigned and reassigned as situation required.
http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/why-usaf-hates-a-10-and-why-it-cant-be-replaced/
Is de A-10 niet iets voor Nederland?
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 00:32 uur
Is de A-10 niet iets voor Nederland?
Ja, maar om redenen genoemd in het artikel komt ie er niet. Bovendien vrezen bobo's bij de luchtmacht ongetwijfeld - en mijn inziens ook niet onterecht - dat wanneer ze een goedkope kist nemen voor CAS taken, het budget nog verder wordt verkleind omdat 'ze die dure dingen blijkbaar toch niet nodig hebben'. Nog even los van de bijzonder verdacht positieve houding ten opzichte van de F-35.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/11/2013 | 23:25 uur
Niet helemaal, ik veronderstel dat een turboprop in het huidige Afghanistan en Mali zeker een meerwaarde heeft maar ook hier weet men steeds meer geavanceerde wapens te bemachtigen, bijvoorbeeld uit Libische depots.
Wij gaan graag uit van onze superioriteit, onze valkuil.
MAN Portable Air Defense Systems hebben in het verleden bewezen effectief te zijn tegen langzame helikopters en turbo-prop vliegtuigen.
En in mindere mate ook tegen snelle jachtvliegtuigen. Dus gingen we in principe boven de 15.000 voet vliegen met onze zeer dure en kwetsbare bullen.
De ervaring heeft nu eenmaal geleerd dat CAS het meest effectief wordt geleverd onder 1.500 voet / 458 meter hoogte en bij een lage snelheid en een lange vliegduur van minimaal 4 uren.
De ervaring heeft ook geleerd dat taktieken en evasive (ontwijkende) manoeuvres van primair belang zijn. Daarnaast zijn bepantsering en allerlei voorzieningen die de inwerking van schokgolven, munitie inslagen en brand kunnen beperken ookvan belang. Beperking van de infra-rood uitstraling door een bepaalde plaatsing van de motor(en), zie bijvoorbeeld de motorgondels bovenop de A-10 romp. Of plaatsing van speciale uitlaatgas verspreiders kunnen ook een (deel) oplossing zijn.
En mochten dan uitgeworpen fakkels niet meer werken tegen een uit Libya gesmokkelde SA-24 Grinch / Igla-S.
Dan kan men proberen dit soort wapens te 'belazeren' met een Directed Infra Red Counter Measure System. Een laser die op de zoek kop wordt gericht. En zodoende de MAPAD vuurpijl verblindt.
Voor lichte vliegtuigen, kleine helikopters en UAV's bestaat er al zoiets als de minder dan 50 kg zware Selex ES Miysis.
De Amerikanen staan niet toe dat het CHinook Aircraft Survivability Equipment, dat op onze Chinooks zit, wordt uitgerust met een Amerikaans DIRCM.
Igla-S Take a Chance On Me. So Take me to the MUSIC.
zie: http://defense-update.com/20130212_elbit-systems-dircm-to-be-integrated-on-boeing-military-aircraft-helicopters.html
Overigens heeft een turbo-prop toestel een infra-rood voet afdruk die volgens Sukhoi maar 25% is, dan die van een vergelijkbaar turbo-jet of turbo-fan straalmotor.
Citaat van: Lynxian op 01/12/2013 | 02:04 uur
Ja, maar om redenen genoemd in het artikel komt ie er niet. Bovendien vrezen bobo's bij de luchtmacht ongetwijfeld - en mijn inziens ook niet onterecht - dat wanneer ze een goedkope kist nemen voor CAS taken, het budget nog verder wordt verkleind omdat 'ze die dure dingen blijkbaar toch niet nodig hebben'. Nog even los van de bijzonder verdacht positieve houding ten opzichte van de F-35.
De A-10 lijkt mij juist precies een goed middenweg als het ware, het is toch een mooi CAS toestel maar heeft wel een bepaald "toygehalte" in mijn ogen. En de luchtmacht verder verkleinen kan bijna niet meer want dan komen we nooit van ons leven aan die 4 beschikbare jagers voor internationale interventies à la Libië. Of hoeven dat niet persé straaljagers te zijn?
Citaat van: Regeren is vooruit zien en als we alleen rekening houden met baarden, ezels en RPG's dan is een turoprop meer dan voldoende... helaas gaat de wereld gewoon door.Regeren is vooruit zien en als we alleen rekening houden met baarden, ezels en RPG's dan is een turoprop meer dan voldoende... helaas gaat de wereld gewoon door.
Citaat van: http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/internationale_fighter_ontwikkelingen_deel_3-t24702.0.html;msg322075#msg322075De meeste landen schaffen doelmatig materieel aan. Het zijn eigenlijk juist de westerse landen die alleen nog maar het duurste willen, in kleine aantallen.
Kijk, ik snap denk ik wel wat je bedoeld, ben het er alleen niet mee eens. Je kunt deze redenering namelijk doortrekken. We willen spul dat zo multi-functioneel mogelijk is, en het liefst zo min mogelijk verschillend materieel. Maar als het doelmatigheidsgat te groot is, moet je keuze maken.
Als we ons alleen op een totale oorlog tegen een geavanceerde tegenstander voorbereiden, kunnen we alle eenheden wel de deur uitdoen, en 6 nuclaire subs uitgerust met elk 16 balistische missiles en totaal 256 kernkoppen.
Tot die tijd is dus de vraag wat best is.
Een snelle straaljager die 2 uurtjes in de lucht blijft is wel mooi, maar zeer laag vliegende, zeer manoeuvreerbaar toestel dat ook nog eens een uurtje of 7 boven je hoofd kan blijven hangen, is dan helemaal zo slecht nog niet.
Als je grootste dreiging bestaat uit IR geleide missiles, is het misschien ook niet slecht om een toestel te vliegen dat ontwikkeld is met een zo laag mogelijke IR signatuur in gedachte, in plaats van een of twee van die enorme hittekanonnen aan de achterkant.
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 09:56 uur
De A-10 lijkt mij juist precies een goed middenweg als het ware, het is toch een mooi CAS toestel maar heeft wel een bepaald "toygehalte" in mijn ogen. En de luchtmacht verder verkleinen kan bijna niet meer want dan komen we nooit van ons leven aan die 4 beschikbare jagers voor internationale interventies à la Libië. Of hoeven dat niet persé straaljagers te zijn?
Er vlogen boven Libië ook Tigers, Apaches en Gazelles. En herculessen, reapers en waarschijnlijk nog wel wat. Heeft dus genoeg in de lucht gehangen dat geen straaljager was.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/12/2013 | 10:09 uur
Er vlogen boven Libië ook Tigers, Apaches en Gazelles. En herculessen, reapers en waarschijnlijk nog wel wat. Heeft dus genoeg in de lucht gehangen dat geen straaljager was.
Maar ik bedoel dat NL altijd 4 jagers klaar heeft staan voor dat soort interventies, maar kan NL dan ook opeens 2 jagers (F35) omruilen voor 2 A-10's? Of mag dat niet?
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 00:32 uur
Is de A-10 niet iets voor Nederland?
Ik ben absoluut een voorstander om de KLu te voorzien van een squadron occasions A10C (24 exemplaren uit de US mottenballenvloot) die voor (wellicht) een appel en een ei zijn over te nemen in een packagedeal met de F35A.
Hiermee zou de KLu een formidabele niche capaciteit in huis halen waarbij de kosten te verantwoorden en te rechtvaardigen zijn.
De boekhouders op dit forum zullen wellicht weer spreken over een dure logistieke staart en hoge exploitatiekosten, dat het niet kan etc, etc.
Het geeft m.i. een prima keuze mogelijkheid en blijk van inzicht: in de zandbakken van Mali en Afghanistan heb je geen F35 nodig, een interventie in Syrië is een ander verhaal...
In een (technologisch) hoog gewelds conflict kan ik met voorstellen dat we in de begin fase de F35 vol benutten om deze, na het behaalde luchtoverwicht en na het uitschakelen van veel SAM installaties e.d. verruilen voor de A10's voor CAS/COIN en kunnen de F35's wat mij betreft weer terug naar Volkel.
De boots on the ground zullen het toejuichen!
Northrop Grumman Awarded A-10 Support Contract by Gareth Jennings, Jane's Defence Weekly.
... News that Northrop Grumman has been awarded a contract to maintain the A-10 out to beyond 2028 will be welcomed by many, US lawmakers among them, who feared that the USAF was looking to scrap the its fleet of approximately 355 A-10A/C aircraft.
In the current fiscal climate, the USAF had indicated that it wanted to divest itself of the single-purpose A-10 entirely, and to pass its CAS role onto the other multirole platforms, such as the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
While the F-35A will undoubtedly prove to be a highly capable air-to-ground attack aircraft, it lacks the payload (both in terms of variety and number of weapons carried), time on station, low-level accuracy, and even the psychological effect of the highly lethal and feared A-10. In particular, it will lack the A-10's iconic GAU-8 Avenger 30 mm Gatling-gun, and while the F-35A will have an internal 25 mm Gatling-gun, it will only carry 250 rounds compared to the 1,700 carried by the A-10...
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-10-warthog-gets-reprieve-until-2028
Citaat van: Poleme op 01/12/2013 | 02:52 uur
MAN Portable Air Defense Systems hebben in het verleden bewezen effectief te zijn tegen langzame helikopters en turbo-prop vliegtuigen.
En in mindere mate ook tegen snelle jachtvliegtuigen. Dus gingen we in principe boven de 15.000 voet vliegen met onze zeer dure en kwetsbare bullen.
De ervaring heeft nu eenmaal geleerd dat CAS het meest effectief wordt geleverd onder 1.500 voet / 458 meter hoogte en bij een lage snelheid en een lange vliegduur van minimaal 4 uren.
De ervaring heeft ook geleerd dat taktieken en evasive (ontwijkende) manoeuvres van primair belang zijn. Daarnaast zijn bepantsering en allerlei voorzieningen die de inwerking van schokgolven, munitie inslagen en brand kunnen beperken ookvan belang. Beperking van de infra-rood uitstraling door een bepaalde plaatsing van de motor(en), zie bijvoorbeeld de motorgondels bovenop de A-10 romp. Of plaatsing van speciale uitlaatgas verspreiders kunnen ook een (deel) oplossing zijn.
En mochten dan uitgeworpen fakkels niet meer werken tegen een uit Libya gesmokkelde SA-24 Grinch / Igla-S.
Dan kan men proberen dit soort wapens te 'belazeren' met een Directed Infra Red Counter Measure System. Een laser die op de zoek kop wordt gericht. En zodoende de MAPAD vuurpijl verblindt.
Voor lichte vliegtuigen, kleine helikopters en UAV's bestaat er al zoiets als de minder dan 50 kg zware Selex ES Miysis.
De Amerikanen staan niet toe dat het CHinook Aircraft Survivability Equipment, dat op onze Chinooks zit, wordt uitgerust met een Amerikaans DIRCM.
Igla-S Take a Chance On Me. So Take me to the MUSIC.
zie: http://defense-update.com/20130212_elbit-systems-dircm-to-be-integrated-on-boeing-military-aircraft-helicopters.html
Waarom verbieden de Amerikanen dat?
En kunnen we CHASE wel uitrusten met een Niet-Amerikaans DIRCM?
Citaat van: Poleme op 01/12/2013 | 02:52 uur
Overigens heeft een turbo-prop toestel een infra-rood voet afdruk die volgens Sukhoi maar 25% is, dan die van een vergelijkbaar turbo-jet of turbo-fan straalmotor.
Dat is een behoorlijk verschil!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 11:08 uur
Het geeft m.i. een prima keuze mogelijkheid en blijk van inzicht: in de zandbakken van Mali en Afghanistan heb je geen F35 nodig, een interventie in Syrië is een ander verhaal...
Geloof me nou maar, als Obama besloten had Syrie aan te vallen had hij dat gewoon gedaan, zónder F35.
En de Israëli hebben het al gedaan, meerdere keren, hebben die stiekem al F35's?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 11:08 uur
In een (technologisch) hoog gewelds conflict kan ik met voorstellen dat we in de begin fase de F35 vol benutten om deze, na het behaalde luchtoverwicht en na het uitschakelen van veel SAM installaties e.d. verruilen voor de A10's voor CAS/COIN en kunnen de F35's wat mij betreft weer terug naar Volkel.
Een hoog technologisch en intensief conflict zal denk ik wel wat anders verlopen, en daar zullen we alles wat we hebben voor nodig hebben.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 11:08 uur
De boots on the ground zullen het toejuichen!
Net als 60 extra Apache's, om maar eens wat te noemen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/12/2013 | 11:56 uur
Geloof me nou maar, als Obama besloten had Syrie aan te vallen had hij dat gewoon gedaan, zónder F35.
En de Israëli hebben het al gedaan, meerdere keren, hebben die stiekem al F35's?
Een hoog technologisch en intensief conflict zal denk ik wel wat anders verlopen, en daar zullen we alles wat we hebben voor nodig hebben.
Net als 60 extra Apache's, om maar eens wat te noemen.
Ik kijk naar de wereld van na 2020.
Proef ik enig cynisme...
Vaak moet je hoog inzetten om een deel te krijgen, het accepteren van een immer dalen budget om vervolgens binnen deze mogelijkheden te zoeken leidt slechts tot nog minder budget en een wederom verlaagde ambitie.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 12:02 uur
Ik kijk naar de wereld van na 2020.
Proef ik enig cynisme...
Vaak moet je hoog inzetten om een deel te krijgen, het accepteren van een immer dalen budget om vervolgens binnen deze mogelijkheden te zoeken leidt slechts tot nog minder budget en een wederom verlaagde ambitie.
De A-10 blijft een interessant toestel vind ik ook. Maar alles afwegende is het gewoon een brug te ver voor Nederland om hem in de sterkte op te nemen. Te groot, te duur, te specifiek. En met een mix van gevechtshelikopters, UCAVs en COIN prop-toestellen zijn vrijwel al zijn taken ook uit te voeren...als dat al nodig is...want zekerheid qua soorten missies hebben we ook niet. Daarbij vraag ik me af of de Amerikanen wel zoveel toestellen beschikbaar hebben (of stellen). Gezien het intensieve gebruik tot nu toe.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 01/12/2013 | 12:18 uur
De A-10 blijft een interessant toestel vind ik ook. Maar alles afwegende is het gewoon een brug te ver voor Nederland om hem in de sterkte op te nemen. Te groot, te duur, te specifiek. En met een mix van gevechtshelikopters, UCAVs en COIN prop-toestellen zijn vrijwel al zijn taken ook uit te voeren...als dat al nodig is...want zekerheid qua soorten missies hebben we ook niet. Daarbij vraag ik me af of de Amerikanen wel zoveel toestellen beschikbaar hebben (of stellen). Gezien het intensieve gebruik tot nu toe.
Er zijn natuurlijk meerdere wegen die naar Rome leiden.
Te groot, te duur, een brug te ver en te specifiek vindt ik persoonlijk een zwaktebod, binnen een defensiebegroting van 1% van het BNP heb je gelijk, binnen deze begroting is zelfs een nieuwe tandenborstel een aanslag vandaar ook het streven naar een defensiebegroting van minimaal 1,5% tot de afgesproken 2% van het BNP.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 12:31 uur
Er zijn natuurlijk meerdere wegen die naar Rome leiden.
Te groot, te duur, een brug te ver en te specifiek vindt ik persoonlijk een zwaktebod, binnen een defensiebegroting van 1% van het BNP heb je gelijk, binnen deze begroting is zelfs een nieuwe tandenborstel een aanslag vandaar ook het streven naar een defensiebegroting van minimaal 1,5% tot de afgesproken 2% van het BNP.
Zelfs als we het budget weten te verhogen richting de 2% is er nog geen sprake van overvloed. Ook dan moeten er keuzes worden gemaakt en nut en noodzaak van elk project, wapensysteem en onderdeel worden afgewogen. Lijkt me verre van een zwaktebod.
Ik ben trouwens nog steeds benieuwd of de Amerikanen daadwerkelijk bereid zouden zijn Nederland A-10s te leveren. Dat moet toch te achterhalen zijn lijkt mij.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 01/12/2013 | 12:49 uur
Zelfs als we het budget weten te verhogen richting de 2% is er nog geen sprake van overvloed. Ook dan moeten er keuzes worden gemaakt en nut en noodzaak van elk project, wapensysteem en onderdeel worden afgewogen. Lijkt me verre van een zwaktebod.
Ik ben trouwens nog steeds benieuwd of de Amerikanen daadwerkelijk bereid zouden zijn Nederland A-10s te leveren. Dat moet toch te achterhalen zijn lijkt mij.
2% zal geen overvloed zijn maar is meer passend voor een (nog)financiële grootmacht als Nederland.
Of A10's aan Nederland geleverd zouden kunnen worden vergt denk ik slechts één telefoontje van Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert en we weten het antwoord.
Ik zou me kunnen voorstellen dat de Amerikanen het niet vervelend zullen vinden als een aantal A10's in de NAVO strekte blijven in plaats van ze terug te trekken en op te slaan in the boneyard.
The "Bone Yard" Near Davis Monthan Air Force Base
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i9wQGidG2M
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 12:59 uur
2% zal geen overvloed zijn maar is meer passend voor een (nog)financiële grootmacht als Nederland.
Of A10's aan Nederland geleverd zouden kunnen worden vergt denk ik slechts één telefoontje van Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert en we weten het antwoord.
Ik zou me kunnen voorstellen dat de Amerikanen het niet vervelend zullen vinden als een aantal A10's in de NAVO strekte blijven in plaats van ze terug te trekken en op te slaan in the boneyard.
The "Bone Yard" Near Davis Monthan Air Force Base
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i9wQGidG2M
Ik zou het zelf eens informeren...
Ik ben wel nieuwsgierig of de Amerikanen een vervanger voor de A-10 gaan ontwikkelen. Time will tell.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 01/12/2013 | 13:03 uur
Ik ben wel nieuwsgierig of de Amerikanen een vervanger voor de A-10 gaan ontwikkelen. Time will tell.
Ik denk/hoop van wel want een fighter (ongeacht het type) vind ik niet geschikt voor een vervangende rol.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 12:02 uur
Ik kijk naar de wereld van na 2020.
Ik ook, al zie ik er vele voor me, en verwacht dat de kaarten tegen die tijd behoorlijk anders zullen liggen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 12:02 uur
Vaak moet je hoog inzetten om een deel te krijgen, het accepteren van een immer dalen budget om vervolgens binnen deze mogelijkheden te zoeken leidt slechts tot nog minder budget en een wederom verlaagde ambitie.
Hangt er vanaf, of je op dit forum politiek wilt bedrijven, of meningen, kennis en ideeën uit wilt wisselen.
Als jou idee is dat je 10 auto's wilt, zal je als politicus of onderhandelaar misschien inderdaad een openingsbod van 15 auto's moeten doen, maar als je je idee van 10 auto's wilt delen.....dan moet je dat idee delen, en niet iets anders.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/12/2013 | 13:22 uur
Ik ook, al zie ik er vele voor me, en verwacht dat de kaarten tegen die tijd behoorlijk anders zullen liggen.
Hangt er vanaf, of je op dit forum politiek wilt bedrijven, of meningen, kennis en ideeën uit wilt wisselen.
Als jou idee is dat je 10 auto's wilt, zal je als politicus of onderhandelaar misschien inderdaad een openingsbod van 15 auto's moeten doen, maar als je je idee van 10 auto's wilt delen.....dan moet je dat idee delen, en niet iets anders.
Ik zet graag hoger in en ga een uitdaging niet snel uit de weg.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 12:59 uur
2% zal geen overvloed zijn maar is meer passend voor een (nog)financiële grootmacht als Nederland.
Ik denk dat hoe groot je 'financieel' bent weinig uitmaakt.
Wat wel uitmaakt is dat we een handelsland zijn, altijd geweest, en erg afhankelijk van ons vermogen om als land veilig te kunnen handelen met andere landen.
Wat ook uitmaakt is dat we een verafgelegen koninkrijksdeel hebben, dat, hoe je het ook went of keert, in een minder stabiel deel van de wereld ligt dan Nederland zelf.
Wat ook uitmaakt is dat we om onze internationale belangen te behartigen een ruilmiddel nodig hebben, goodwill moeten kweken, en om gezien te worden als partner voor landen met meer gewicht, moeten we naast economisch, diplomatiek en Politiek (EU) gewicht ook militair gewicht in de schaal kunnen leggen, een auto die slechts 1 wiel mist loop toch echt vast.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/12/2013 | 13:29 uur
Ik denk dat hoe groot je 'financieel' bent weinig uitmaakt.
Wat wel uitmaakt is dat we een handelsland zijn, altijd geweest, en erg afhankelijk van ons vermogen om als land veilig te kunnen handelen met andere landen.
Vandaar ook de opmerking "grootmacht"
Citaat van: Elzenga op 01/12/2013 | 13:03 uur
Ik zou het zelf eens informeren...
Ik ben wel nieuwsgierig of de Amerikanen een vervanger voor de A-10 gaan ontwikkelen. Time will tell.
De F-35A was toch bedoeld als A-10 vervanger? Ja, een waardeloze vervanger, maar dat was toch het idee van het boordkanon?
Citaat van: Lynxian op 01/12/2013 | 16:08 uur
De F-35A was toch bedoeld als A-10 vervanger? Ja, een waardeloze vervanger, maar dat was toch het idee van het boordkanon?
Ja, waarbij werkelijk helemaal niemand (behalve LM en aanhang) blij is met deze beoogde vervanger. Ik ben pro F35 maar zeker tegen een A10 vervanging door de F35.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/12/2013 | 11:52 uur
Waarom verbieden de Amerikanen dat (combinatie DHC Chinook met NorthropGrumman DIRCM)?
En kunnen we CHASE wel uitrusten met een Niet-Amerikaans DIRCM?
De betreffende Amerikaanse DIRCM valt onder het International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Een set van Amerikaanse regels die de im-, en export van defensie gerelateerde artikelen en diensten onder controle moet houden.
Het modulaire CHASE kan voorzien worden van het MUlti Spectral Infrared Countermeasure / MUSIC DIRCM systeem. MUSIC is net als de NorthropGrumman AN/AAQ-24 aanpasbaar aan diverse vaste vleugel vliegtuigen en helikopters.
Verder terug in dit topic werd de vraag gesteld waarom niemand voorstelde om de KLU geheel uit te rusten als een CAS/COIN luchtmacht.
Daar verder overnadenkend, is dat geen rare gedachte.
Eigenlijk past in dat plaatje de F-35 niet goed in. Maar gezien dat de F-35 wel aangeschaft wordt, zie ik de rol voor dit type als (first) strike bomber. Net als de F-111, A-7. En dan is een aanschaf van 24 tot 30 toestellen voldoende.
Maar dan moet er nog wel een CAS toestel naast F-35 aangeschaft worden.
De A-10 past dan goed in dat plaatje, zeker voor inzet in high en low risk operatie's. Verder zou dan de huidige PC-7 op termijn vervangen moeten worden door Super Tucano's om als aanvulling te dienen naast de A-10's.
Daarnaast zou er een investering moeten volgen bij de helicopters om een betere te kunnen geven voor onze grondtroepen. Ik zie dat in vuursteunmogelijkheden om bescherming te geven. Maar ook het gebruik vanaf schepen.
Citaat van: Harald op 01/12/2013 | 20:08 uur
Verder terug in dit topic werd de vraag gesteld waarom niemand voorstelde om de KLU geheel uit te rusten als een CAS/COIN luchtmacht.
Daar verder overnadenkend, is dat geen rare gedachte.
Eigenlijk past in dat plaatje de F-35 niet goed in. Maar gezien dat de F-35 wel aangeschaft wordt, zie ik de rol voor dit type als (first) strike bomber. Net als de F-111, A-7. En dan is een aanschaf van 24 tot 30 toestellen voldoende.
Maar dan moet er nog wel een CAS toestel naast F-35 aangeschaft worden.
De A-10 past dan goed in dat plaatje, zeker voor inzet in high en low risk operatie's. Verder zou dan de huidige PC-7 op termijn vervangen moeten worden door Super Tucano's om als aanvulling te dienen naast de A-10's.
Daarnaast zou er een investering moeten volgen bij de helicopters om een betere te kunnen geven voor onze grondtroepen. Ik zie dat in vuursteunmogelijkheden om bescherming te geven. Maar ook het gebruik vanaf schepen.
Zou ik me in kunnen vinden.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 20:32 uur
Zou ik me in kunnen vinden.
+1, alles is beter dan wat we nu hebben, maar behouden we dan wel de Apaches?
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 20:38 uur
+1, alles is beter dan wat we nu hebben, maar behouden we dan wel de Apaches?
Jazeker
Citaat van: Harald op 01/12/2013 | 20:08 uur
Daarnaast zou er een investering moeten volgen bij de helicopters om een betere te kunnen geven voor onze grondtroepen. Ik zie dat in vuursteunmogelijkheden om bescherming te geven. Maar ook het gebruik vanaf schepen.
Ik zie ook meer in specialisatie voor CSAR en ondersteuning van voor de grondeenheden.
Een bijkomstige verandering bij de KL is dat men meer gaat naar Special Forces, Commando eenheden. LMB blijft wel, maar meer richting KCT.
Dit zou kunnen in een update van onze huidige Cougars naar iets zoals bij de Turkse Luchtmacht, zie hieronder
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acig.info%2FUserFiles%2FFile%2FSpecReports%2FAirshowTurkiye2011%2Fturaf_cougar.jpg&hash=4f84e81bb6179a3bd4b858ffee1ec51dd4f791c7)
En/of een upgrade voor een aantal Chinooks naar MH-standaard
Of een serie geheel nieuwe toestellen aanschaffen zoals bijvoorbeeld AC725R2 Caracal, MH-60G Pave Hawk, HH-60H Rescue Hawk
Eventueel zou een Battle hawk van sikorsky voldoet aan mijn idee.
Jammer dat de Super Tucano niet geschikt is om vanaf een LHD te opereren, dat was voor mij een grote plus geweest. Is dat trouwens geen gat in de markt een goedkoop CAS/Coin prop geschikt vanaf carriers? Die zijn er nu toch niet?
Citaat van: bergd op 01/12/2013 | 22:10 uur
Jammer dat de Super Tucano niet geschikt is om vanaf een LHD te opereren, dat was voor mij een grote plus geweest. Is dat trouwens geen gat in de markt een goedkoop CAS/Coin prop geschikt vanaf carriers? Die zijn er nu toch niet?
Fokker? ;D
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 22:33 uur
Fokker? ;D
Misschien kan Fokker iets voor het landings gestel bedenken van de Super Tucano. Ervaring met de F35 daarin hebben ze al :big-smile:
Wat een vreemde ideeën hier.
Wij moeten gewoon een luchtmacht hebben met 'fastjets' die alle taken kunnen vervullen.
Met de keuze voor de F-35A hebben we gekozen voor een volstrekt inadequaat aantal. Meer van deze ondingen lijkt mij niet mogelijk want enorm duur. Er moet dus een tweede type komen wat goedkoop is in gebruik: dus nogmaal 37 F-16's of JAS-39's.
Dan hebben we zeg maar 75 kisten. Dit is in mijn ogen al minimaal maar dan hebben we 4 squadrons, twee per vliegbasis.
Met de aanschaf zullen enkele miljarden gemoeid zijn maar ik mag toch hopen dat 37 F-35's het onderhoudsbudget van 10 miljard dat was berekend op 85 kisten niet zullen overschrijden? De gebruikskosten zijn dan al afgedekt en bovendien laag.
Citaat van: bergd op 01/12/2013 | 22:10 uur
Jammer dat de Super Tucano niet geschikt is om vanaf een LHD te opereren, dat was voor mij een grote plus geweest. Is dat trouwens geen gat in de markt een goedkoop CAS/Coin prop geschikt vanaf carriers? Die zijn er nu toch niet?
Jawel de OV-10 Bronco...
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/12/2013 | 23:02 uur
Wat een vreemde ideeën hier.
Wij moeten gewoon een luchtmacht hebben met 'fastjets' die alle taken kunnen vervullen.
Met de keuze voor de F-35A hebben we gekozen voor een volstrekt inadequaat aantal. Meer van deze ondingen lijkt mij niet mogelijk want enorm duur. Er moet dus een tweede type komen wat goedkoop is in gebruik: dus nogmaal 37 F-16's of JAS-39's.
Dan hebben we zeg maar 75 kisten. Dit is in mijn ogen al minimaal maar dan hebben we 4 squadrons, twee per vliegbasis.
ik roep al jaren voorstander te zijn van een high end - low end mix, en even zolang wordt dit door de boekhouders (ook op dit forum) als te duur bestempeld.
Het is slechts een politieke beslissing, het geld is er immers wel.
Om dit te relativeren: De gezondheidszorg verbruikt één F35 of 2 Gripens E's per dagdeel!!! (dag in, dag uit, voor 365 dagen per jaar, of 366 dagen per schrikkeljaar)
Citaat van: Elzenga op 01/12/2013 | 23:03 uur
Jawel de OV-10 Bronco...
Maar die wordt toch niet meer gemaakt
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/12/2013 | 23:02 uur
Wat een vreemde ideeën hier.
Wij moeten gewoon een luchtmacht hebben met 'fastjets' die alle taken kunnen vervullen.
Met de keuze voor de F-35A hebben we gekozen voor een volstrekt inadequaat aantal. Meer van deze ondingen lijkt mij niet mogelijk want enorm duur. Er moet dus een tweede type komen wat goedkoop is in gebruik: dus nogmaal 37 F-16's of JAS-39's.
Dan hebben we zeg maar 75 kisten. Dit is in mijn ogen al minimaal maar dan hebben we 4 squadrons, twee per vliegbasis.
Met de aanschaf zullen enkele miljarden gemoeid zijn maar ik mag toch hopen dat 37 F-35's het onderhoudsbudget van 10 miljard dat was berekend op 85 kisten niet zullen overschrijden? De gebruikskosten zijn dan al afgedekt en bovendien laag.
Doe mij maar wat extra Gripens, die mag men dan ook gebruiken voor de QRA. Want een multirole stealth jager gebruiken voor QRA is pure onzin.
Citaat van: bergd op 01/12/2013 | 22:58 uur
Misschien kan Fokker iets voor het landings gestel bedenken van de Super Tucano. Ervaring met de F35 daarin hebben ze al :big-smile:
Of Fokker ontwerpt een compleet nieuwe CAS/COIN kist voor de NL krijgsmacht en voor export . :angel:
Citaat van: bergd op 01/12/2013 | 22:58 uur
Misschien kan Fokker iets voor het landings gestel bedenken van de Super Tucano. Ervaring met de F35 daarin hebben ze al :big-smile:
Volgens mij is er met een Super Tucano getest om Seals te ondersteunen.
http://defensetech.org/2009/07/21/secret-program-works-to-field-seal-plane/
Maar Boeing was bezig met een nieuwe versie van de Bronco hoe het daarmee staat weet ik niet.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/09/photo-boeing-pitches-ov-10x-br/
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/
Specificaties van de nieuwe versie van de OV Bronco
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/Technical/boeing_ov-10(x)_super_bronco_info_card_2009_01.pdf
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:20 uur
Of Fokker ontwerpt een compleet nieuwe CAS/COIN kist voor de NL krijgsmacht en voor export . :angel:
Fokker G2.... ik ben voor!
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:17 uur
Doe mij maar wat extra Gripens, die mag men dan ook gebruiken voor de QRA. Want een multirole stealth jager gebruiken voor QRA is pure onzin.
Juist de Gripen lijkt mij nog steeds een betere keuze dan de F-16. Vooral omdat de F-35 met haar onderhoud onze diepste financiële gevoelens zal gaan kwetsen. De JAS-39 is wel redelijk aan de prijs maar ook een blk 60 zal niet heel veel goedkoper zijn. Bovendien steunen we dan ook de Europese luchtvaartindustrie en kopen we een platform waar de moderne Europese wapens op kunnen hangen.
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:20 uur
Of Fokker ontwerpt een compleet nieuwe CAS/COIN kist voor de NL krijgsmacht en voor export . :angel:
Niet reëel om dat er voldoende fabrikanten die met bestaande producten op deze markt aktief zijn
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:17 uur
Doe mij maar wat extra Gripens, die mag men dan ook gebruiken voor de QRA. Want een multirole stealth jager gebruiken voor QRA is pure onzin.
Eens, het lijkt me onverstandig met een paar stealth vliegtuigen op een aantal Bears af te vliegen. Zo kunnen de Russen hun "nieuwe" radar" apparatuur testen, en ik denk niet dat je de geheimen hiervan prijs wil geven.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/12/2013 | 23:21 uur
Juist de Gripen lijkt mij nog steeds een betere keuze dan de F-16. Vooral omdat de F-35 met haar onderhoud onze diepste financiële gevoelens zal gaan kwetsen. De JAS-39 is wel redelijk aan de prijs maar ook een blk 60 zal niet heel veel goedkoper zijn. Bovendien steunen we dan ook de Europese luchtvaartindustrie en kopen we een platform waar de moderne Europese wapens op kunnen hangen.
En het is in te zetten om kleinere landingsbanen en is dus gemakkelijker in te zetten. Ik had ergens op dit forum een verhaal gehoord over van toen er die no-flyzone over Libië was dat de landingsbaan in Italië was geblokkeerd en dat alleen de Gripens konden opstijgen.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 01/12/2013 | 23:23 uur
Niet reëel om dat er voldoende fabrikanten die met bestaande producten op deze markt aktief zijn
Een CAS/COIN kist die ook op LHD's gebruikt kan worden dan?
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/12/2013 | 23:02 uur
Wat een vreemde ideeën hier.
Wij moeten gewoon een luchtmacht hebben met 'fastjets' die alle taken kunnen vervullen.
Met de keuze voor de F-35A hebben we gekozen voor een volstrekt inadequaat aantal. Meer van deze ondingen lijkt mij niet mogelijk want enorm duur. Er moet dus een tweede type komen wat goedkoop is in gebruik: dus nogmaal 37 F-16's of JAS-39's.
Dan hebben we zeg maar 75 kisten. Dit is in mijn ogen al minimaal maar dan hebben we 4 squadrons, twee per vliegbasis.
Met de aanschaf zullen enkele miljarden gemoeid zijn maar ik mag toch hopen dat 37 F-35's het onderhoudsbudget van 10 miljard dat was berekend op 85 kisten niet zullen overschrijden? De gebruikskosten zijn dan al afgedekt en bovendien laag.
Vreemde ideeen ??
Ik denk dat het idee met A-10's even alleen financieel bekeken goedkoper uitvalt dat extra F-16's of Gripen E aanschaffen (denk ik)
We hebben nu eenmaal te maken dat de F-35 er komt en aangeschaft wordt
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/12/2013 | 23:21 uur
Juist de Gripen lijkt mij nog steeds een betere keuze dan de F-16. Vooral omdat de F-35 met haar onderhoud onze diepste financiële gevoelens zal gaan kwetsen. De JAS-39 is wel redelijk aan de prijs maar ook een blk 60 zal niet heel veel goedkoper zijn. Bovendien steunen we dan ook de Europese luchtvaartindustrie en kopen we een platform waar de moderne Europese wapens op kunnen hangen.
Als low end kist is mijn voorkeur de Gripen E (vermits die het gaat halen). De F16 productie lijn is zo goed als klaar en zal binnen afzienbare tijd ontmanteld worden. (ik geloof niet dat er nog veel nieuwe F16 orders zullen worden afgesloten)
Citaat van: bergd op 01/12/2013 | 23:24 uur
Eens, het lijkt me onverstandig met een paar stealth vliegtuigen op een aantal Bears af te vliegen. Zo kunnen de Russen hun "nieuwe" radar" apparatuur testen, en ik denk niet dat je de geheimen hiervan prijs wil geven.
Bespaart ook wat extra kosten, aangezien de kosten per uur van een F35 waarschijnlijk 4 keer zo hoog zijn als van die Gripen. En om met een multirole stealth jager gezellig naast passagiersvliegtuigen te gaan vliegen omdat je het contact kwijt bent is gewoon uitsloverij. Straks hebben die kindertjes in die vliegtuigen later nog last van nachtmerries over vliegende bakstenen enzo.
Citaat van: Harald op 01/12/2013 | 23:26 uur
Vreemde ideeen ??
Ik denk dat het idee met A-10's even alleen financieel bekeken goedkoper uitvalt dat extra F-16's of Gripen E aanschaffen (denk ik)
We hebben nu eenmaal te maken dat de F-35 er komt en aangeschaft wordt
Ik heb zo het vermoeden dat we de A10C voor een symbolisch bedrag kunnen overnemen in een package deal et de F35.... laten we zeggen voor 1 euro per stuk.
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:25 uur
Een CAS/COIN kist die ook op LHD's gebruikt kan worden dan?
Daar is Boeing mee bezig om de Bronco een nieuw leven in te blazen.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff5%2FOV-10A_over_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg%2F800px-OV-10A_over_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg&hash=69085e7c0600301190a730b207d3e0f32ade6331)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fac%2FOV-10A_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg%2F800px-OV-10A_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg&hash=7c067bbc2aee625f96c8b729bddab9beadafa1b5)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 23:29 uur
Ik heb zo het vermoeden dat we de A10C voor een symbolisch bedrag kunnen overnemen in een package deal et de F35.... laten we zeggen voor 1 euro per stuk.
Ik ben voor!
Ohja... In crisis krijg je vaak vreemde iedeeen maar er kunnen wel goede tussen zitten :P
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:25 uur
Een CAS/COIN kist die ook op LHD's gebruikt kan worden dan?
Het project met 2 geupdate Bronco is geeindigd, deze waren ingezet/getest in Afghanistan (dacht ik)
Ergens op het forum is hier wel meer info van
Misschien herintrede van A-1 Skyraider ? .. prima CAS toestel .... maar gehele productie lijn weer opzetten ? :hrmph:
Citaat van: Ace1 op 01/12/2013 | 23:30 uur
Daar is Boeing mee bezig om de Bronco een nieuw leven in te blazen.
Hoe is de Bronco qua kosten per stuk en onderhoudskosten?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 23:28 uur
Als low end kist is mijn voorkeur de Gripen E (vermits die het gaat halen). De F16 productie lijn is zo goed als klaar en zal binnen afzienbare tijd ontmanteld worden. (ik geloof niet dat er nog veel nieuwe F16 orders zullen worden afgesloten)
De productielijn van de F-16 blijft in elk geval open tot 2017.
De A-10 is géén jachtvliegtuig maar een CAS kist.
Dit toestel is niet geschikt om het tekort aan jachtvliegtuigen te verhelpen.
Ik ben het met je eens dat het een goed toestel is en ook voor Nederland nuttig zou zijn maar we hebben nu al de Apaches en die 37 moet gewoon echt omhoog. Ook met een hoger budget zijn er hogere prioriteiten zoals MPA's.
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:29 uur
Bespaart ook wat extra kosten, aangezien de kosten per uur van een F35 waarschijnlijk 4 keer zo hoog zijn als van die Gripen. En om met een multirole stealth jager gezellig naast passagiersvliegtuigen te gaan vliegen omdat je het contact kwijt bent is gewoon uitsloverij. Straks hebben die kindertjes in die vliegtuigen later nog last van nachtmerries over vliegende bakstenen enzo.
Deze vliegende "baksteen" heeft nog steeds de aerodynamische prestatie die het midden houd tussen en F16C en een F18C.
Ik verzoek iedereen om de discussie over Turbo prop toestellen in onderstaande topic voor te zetten.
http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/propellortoestellen-t16915.0.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 23:34 uur
Deze vliegende "baksteen" heeft nog steeds de aerodynamische prestatie die het midden houd tussen en F16C en een F18C.
Juist, maar als men ervoor gekozen had het toestel niet te ontwerpen aan de hand van STOVL vereisten dan was het waarschijnlijk een veel beter toestel geweest met een langer vliegbereik (want minder brandstofverbruik door een slecht ontwerp).
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/12/2013 | 23:33 uur
Ik ben het met je eens dat het een goed toestel is en ook voor Nederland nuttig zou zijn maar we hebben nu al de Apaches en die 37 moet gewoon echt omhoog. Ook met een hoger budget zijn er hogere prioriteiten zoals MPA's.
Uit zeer betrouwbare bron weet ik dat de industrie zal inzetten op 37 F35 met een aanvulling (op termijn) van 5 tot 10 F35's.
Citaat van: Harald op 01/12/2013 | 20:08 uur
Verder terug in dit topic werd de vraag gesteld waarom niemand voorstelde om de KLU geheel uit te rusten als een CAS/COIN luchtmacht.
Daar verder overnadenkend, is dat geen rare gedachte.
Eigenlijk past in dat plaatje de F-35 niet goed in. Maar gezien dat de F-35 wel aangeschaft wordt, zie ik de rol voor dit type als (first) strike bomber. Net als de F-111, A-7. En dan is een aanschaf van 24 tot 30 toestellen voldoende.
Maar dan moet er nog wel een CAS toestel naast F-35 aangeschaft worden.
De A-10 past dan goed in dat plaatje, zeker voor inzet in high en low risk operatie's. Verder zou dan de huidige PC-7 op termijn vervangen moeten worden door Super Tucano's om als aanvulling te dienen naast de A-10's.
Daarnaast zou er een investering moeten volgen bij de helicopters om een betere te kunnen geven voor onze grondtroepen. Ik zie dat in vuursteunmogelijkheden om bescherming te geven. Maar ook het gebruik vanaf schepen.
De gehele KLu alleen geschikt voor CAS / COIN ops is niet slim. De core business van een luchtmacht is altijd nog luchtverdediging / luchtoverwicht in een hoog intensief scenario.
De F-35 is helemaal GEEN First Strike jachtbommenwerper. De F-35 valt in dezelfde categorie als de Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen en F-18E Super Hornet. En wordt hopelijk de beste in deze categorie. First Strike is een tak van sport die beoefent wordt door de F-22A Raptor, B-2A Spirit en Tomahawk kruisvluchtwapen.
Super Tucano's aanschaffen als aanvulling op de A-10's? De operationele (totale directe & indirecte kosten) per vlieguur in 2012 deden voor de A-10C USD 17.564, ter vergelijking: de F-16C koste toen USD 22.514 per vlieguur. De Super Tucano koste toen maar USD 1.060 per vlieguur en koste slechts 1,7 manuren onderhoud per vlieguur. Of de A-10C ook na 2028 in dienst blijft bij de US Air Force is een vraagteken.
Dus niet aan beginnen en alleen Super Tucano's aanschaffen naast 24 F-35A's. Aan de OV-10 Bronco moet je ook niet beginnen, is al 27 jaar uit productie. En bleek kwetsbaarder voor grond-lucht vuur dan de 1 motorige Ayres Turbo Thrush / V-1A Vigilante bewapend sproeivliegtuig !
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 23:34 uur
Deze vliegende "baksteen" heeft nog steeds de aerodynamische prestatie die het midden houd tussen en F16C en een F18C.
Ik heb niks gezegd over de aerodynamische prestaties, ik heb alleen gezegd over hoe ik vind dat die er uit ziet.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/12/2013 | 23:36 uur
Juist, maar als men ervoor gekozen had het toestel niet te ontwerpen aan de hand van STOVL vereisten dan was het waarschijnlijk een veel beter toestel geweest met een langer vliegbereik
Mee eens!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 23:37 uur
Uit zeer betrouwbare bron weet ik dat de industrie zal inzetten op 37 F35 met een aanvulling (op termijn) van 5 tot 10 F35's.
De industrie mag van mij wat hoger bieden. Maar alle aanvullingen zijn natuurlijk welkom!
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:39 uur
De industrie mag van mij wat hoger bieden. Maar alle aanvullingen zijn natuurlijk welkom!
De industrie zou graag meer willen maar kijkt wat (momenteel) politiek haalbaar is.
Citaat van: Poleme op 01/12/2013 | 23:38 uur
De F-35 is helemaal GEEN First Strike jachtbommenwerper. De F-35 valt in dezelfde categorie als de Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen en F-18E Super Hornet. En wordt hopelijk de beste in deze categorie.
Hier ga ik ook vanuit!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 23:42 uur
De industrie zou graag meer willen maar kijkt wat (momenteel) politiek haalbaar is.
Dat begrijp ik maar als je bijvoorbeeld vraagt om 5 extra toestellen dan heb je weinig handelruimte over. Dan kom je uiteindelijk bij een getal terecht van 2 of 3. Maar als je om 20 vraagt heb je als je mazzel hebt 10-12 extra toestellen. ;D
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:39 uur
De industrie mag van mij wat hoger bieden. Maar alle aanvullingen zijn natuurlijk welkom!
Ik niet, voor de prijs van die 10 F-35's en hun onderhoudskosten kunnen we ook mijn plan uitvoeren.
Dan kunnen de Klu mensen wel gaan huilen maar uiteindelijk zullen ze beter uit zijn als we de F-35 aanvullen met meer andere kisten.
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:45 uur
Dat begrijp ik maar als je bijvoorbeeld vraagt om 5 extra toestellen dan heb je weinig handelruimte over. Dan kom je uiteindelijk bij een getal terecht van 2 of 3. Maar als je om 20 vraagt heb je als je mazzel hebt 10-12 extra toestellen. ;D
Mee eens al heb ik het over het eind resultaat niet over de onderhandelingswijze.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/12/2013 | 23:46 uur
Ik niet, voor de prijs van die 10 F-35's en hun onderhoudskosten kunnen we ook mijn plan uitvoeren.
Dan kunnen de Klu mensen wel gaan huilen maar uiteindelijk zullen ze beter uit zijn als we de F-35 aanvullen met meer andere kisten.
Daar ben ik het mee eens, ik had ergens gelezen dat als NL Gripens zou kopen dat ze gewoon bij Fokker konden worden gemaakt, en dat lijkt mij veel beter voor de industrie. Maar ik ben allang blij als NL op welke manier dan ook hun straaljagervloot (als je het dat nog mag noemen) uitbreidt.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 23:50 uur
Mee eens al heb ik het over het eind resultaat niet over de onderhandelingswijze.
Oh oke, vandaar. Weet iemand eigenlijk waarom Nederland zich nooit heeft verdiept in de F15SE? Lijkt mij een veel betere keuze dan de F35.
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:51 uur
Daar ben ik het mee eens, ik had ergens gelezen dat als NL Gripens zou kopen dat ze gewoon bij Fokker konden worden gemaakt, en dat lijkt mij veel beter voor de industrie. Maar ik ben allang blij als NL op welke manier dan ook hun straaljagervloot (als je het dat nog mag noemen) uitbreidt.
Het verschil is +/- 100% compensatie of de gok op meer.
Citaat van: Poleme op 01/12/2013 | 23:38 uur
Aan de OV-10 Bronco moet je ook niet beginnen, is al 27 jaar uit productie. En bleek kwetsbaarder voor grond-lucht vuur dan de 1 motorige Ayres Turbo Thrush / V-1A Vigilante bewapend sproeivliegtuig !
De kwetsbaarheid voor grond-lucht vuur kun je oplossen door gebruik te maken van kevlar wat munitie tot 12.7mm tegen houdt.
Ook de EMB-314 Super Tucano maakt gebruikt van Kevlar en keramische platen en de AT-6 maakt gebruikt van keramische platen die beschermen tot 7.62mm
Crew protection on the Super Tucano is from Kevlar and ceramic plates.
Protecting the crew from small arms fire is crucial: the AT-6's ceramic plates would stop a 7.62mm armour piercing incendiary round.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/irregular-warfare-offers-new-role-for-propeller-driven-348848/
Citaat van: Jellington op 01/12/2013 | 23:52 uur
Oh oke, vandaar. Weet iemand eigenlijk waarom Nederland zich nooit heeft verdiept in de F15SE? Lijkt mij een veel betere keuze dan de F35.
Het was mijn voorkeur....
Interessant is dat men in Zuid Korea een carte blanche had voor 60 F15SE maar dat men toch kiest (om redenen die hopelijk nog duidelijk worden) voor 40 F35A's.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 23:56 uur
Het was mijn voorkeur....
Interessant is dat men in Zuid Korea een carte blanche had voor 60 F15SE maar dat men toch kiest (om redenen die hopelijk nog duidelijk worden) voor 40 F35A's.
Toen ik dat las was ik echt zo van:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2FjiFfM.jpg&hash=7d212180aea457e250b2e2d04fa71926fbd68508)
Het voordeel van de F15SE is dat die niet volledige vertrouwt op de stealth technologie die naar mijn mening aardig achterhaald is. Binnen 10 jaar hebben de Russen of China (die het waarschijnlijk hebben gejat van de Russen) iets tegen deze vorm van stealth gevonden en dan heb je peperdure jachtvliegtuigen (de F35) die waarschijnlijk onder gemiddelde performances hebben en extreem simpel uit de lucht worden geschoten door Sukhoi's waar men in Afrika mee rondvliegt.
Citaat van: Jellington op 02/12/2013 | 00:01 uur
Het voordeel van de F15SE is dat die niet volledige vertrouwt op de stealth technologie die naar mijn mening aardig achterhaald is. Binnen 10 jaar hebben de Russen of China (die het waarschijnlijk hebben gejat van de Russen) iets tegen deze vorm van stealth gevonden en dan heb je peperdure jachtvliegtuigen (de F35) die waarschijnlijk onder gemiddelde performances hebben en extreem simpel uit de lucht worden geschoten door Sukhoi's waar men in Afrika mee rondvliegt.
De F15SE had mijn voorkeur gezien zijn bovengemiddelde prestaties aan de ander kant ontbreekt het mij aan kennis waarom landen die niet in het ontwikkeling programma zitten en alles behalve dom zijn (Japan, Zuid Korea en Japan) bewust kiezen voor de F35 boven de concurrentie. Het kan strategisch en/of politiek zijn dan wel een vreselijk goede lobby (of een combinatie)... of is er meer in het F35 programma dat de openbare bronnen (nog) niet haalt...
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/12/2013 | 00:08 uur
De F15SE had mijn voorkeur gezien zijn bovengemiddelde prestaties aan de ander kant ontbreekt het mij aan kennis waarom landen die niet in het ontwikkeling programma zitten en alles behalve dom zijn (Japan, Zuid Korea en Japan) bewust kiezen voor de F35 boven de concurrentie. Het kan strategisch en/of politiek zijn dan wel een vreselijk goede lobby... of is er meer in het F35 programma dat de openbare bronnen (nog) niet haalt...
Voor Japan misschien om te operen van helikopter-destroyers (uhuhuhum) en voor de rest denk ik dat er een vreselijk goede lobby zit in beide landen.
Citaat van: Jellington op 02/12/2013 | 00:12 uur
Voor Japan misschien om te operen van helikopter-destroyers (uhuhuhum) en voor de rest denk ik dat er een vreselijk goede lobby zit in beide landen.
Japan kiest voor de F35A(!) en nu redeneer jij vanuit een negatief standpunt t.o.v. de F35.... waarom?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/12/2013 | 00:14 uur
Japan kiest voor de F35A(!) en nu redeneer jij vanuit een negatief standpunt t.o.v. de F35.... waarom?
Ik volg je niet helemaal, ik ben nooit echt positief geweest tegenover de F35...
Citaat van: Jellington op 02/12/2013 | 00:17 uur
Ik volg je niet helemaal, ik ben nooit echt positief geweest tegenover de F35...
1. de F35A zal nooit maritiem ingezet kunnen worden.
2. Jij spreekt je brevet van onvermogen uit over een kist waarvan een aanzienlijk deel van de specificaties nog niet tot het publieke domein behoren dus op basis van welke aannames doe je dit?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/12/2013 | 00:21 uur
1. de F35A zal nooit maritiem ingezet kunnen worden.
Ja dat is aardig logisch.
Citaat
2. Jij spreekt je brevet van onvermogen uit over een kist waarvan een aanzienlijk deel van de specificaties nog niet tot het publieke domein behoren dus op basis van welke aannames doe je dit?
Logisch nadenken... :angel:
Citaat van: Poleme op 01/12/2013 | 23:38 uur
Dus niet aan beginnen en alleen Super Tucano's aanschaffen naast 24 F-35A's.
Jij bent er echt van overtuigd dat er geen 37 maar 24 kisten komen hé? Misschien 24 in eerste batch en de rest in een latere?
F-35 moet je aan de big boys overlaten, wat moet NL nou met dat ding. Tuurlijk is 'ie mooi en kan 'ie veel. Maar elke boer (niks tegen boeren) weet dat wij dat ding niet kunne' betaluh! En inzetten waarvoor ie gemaakt is "first entry's" (NOT) doen we (de politiek) toch niet.
Nee... We hadden gewoon beter 50+ Gripen E/F's kunnen aanschaffen, geen overkill of te duur voor CAS en QRA, en ook capabel in een high intensity conflict. En daarnaast een stuk of 20 PC-21 voor training en CAS, immers de Pilatus is uit te rusten met een Gripen cockpit. Dus kun je ook een deel advanced training doen.
Dan was je gewoon klaar geweest en hadden we een mooie capabele vloot, die te betalen was. Tja...
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2013 | 23:29 uur
Ik heb zo het vermoeden dat we de A10C voor een symbolisch bedrag kunnen overnemen in een package deal et de F35.... laten we zeggen voor 1 euro per stuk.
We hebben in crisistijd 250 mil gelapt voor 4 Reaper drones (met alles wat erbij hoort). Daar kon je een partij A-10C's voor kopen.
Citaat van: Zeewier op 02/12/2013 | 00:48 uur
We hebben in crisistijd 250 mil gelapt voor 4 Reaper drones (met alles wat erbij hoort). Daar kon je een partij A-10C's voor kopen.
Ik ben nog steeds benieuwd of de Amerikanen die zouden leveren. Iemand al gemaild met de Amerikaanse ambassade?!
Citaat van: Poleme op 01/12/2013 | 23:38 uur
De gehele KLu alleen geschikt voor CAS / COIN ops is niet slim. De core business van een luchtmacht is altijd nog luchtverdediging / luchtoverwicht in een hoog intensief scenario.
Voor de komst van de F-16 hadden we 2 type toestellen de F-104 en de NF-5, beide waren jachtbommenwerpers. Luchtverdediging was een 2de taak.
Citaat van: Poleme op 01/12/2013 | 23:38 uur
De F-35 is helemaal GEEN First Strike jachtbommenwerper. De F-35 valt in dezelfde categorie als de Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen en F-18E Super Hornet. En wordt hopelijk de beste in deze categorie. First Strike is een tak van sport die beoefent wordt door de F-22A Raptor, B-2A Spirit en Tomahawk kruisvluchtwapen.
Ik had ook expres de "first" tussen haakjes gezet, maar de F-35 is en blijft in de basis een jachtbommenwerper waarbij ze Air to Air taken extra hebben toegevoegd, ze noemen het wel Multi-roll. Maar in principe was de F-16 bedoelt als een licht gewicht Fighter, welke later geworden is naar een Multi-roll zoals de F-16 nu gebruikt wordt.
Als de F-35 in dezelfde categorie valt als Rafale, Typhoon en Gripen en dus ook de F-16, dan is het aanschaffen een type toestel naast de F-35 welke in de zelfde categorie valt niet geheel logisch. We zijn juist van de F-104 en NF-5 naar 1 type gegaan en kunnen dan juist beter een toestel naast de F-35 hebben. waar de F-35 juist minder goed in is. Dan heb je 2 optie's luchtoverwicht of CAS.
Dan zou ik voor de optie CAS gaan. Daar (denk ik) legt voor de KLU meer belang om daar aanvulling te hebben als bij luchtoverwicht.
Want als je het dan goed zou willen doen en een extra toestel voor luchtoverwicht dan is er maar 1 keus in de Westerse wereld en dat is de F-22 Raptor. Maar deze productie-lijn is gesloten en wordt dus niet meer gemaakt en tevens is deze te duur in aanschaf en onderhoud.
Gezien ook dat de capaciteiten van de F-35 in de komende jaren en daarna nog sterk worden verbeterd en uitgebreid en hierdoor ook in capaciteiten voor meerder taken, waarbij ook het luchtoverwicht. Dat de F-35, waarvoor de KLU de F-35 gaat inzetten, wel voldoet, een F-22 wordt de F-35 nooit.
Door deze verbeteringen, wordt de F-35 in de toekomst meer en meer een toestel welke vrij vroeg in een "oorlog" wordt ingezet, dus daarom ook "first" tussen haakjes.
Citaat van: Poleme op 01/12/2013 | 23:38 uur
Super Tucano's aanschaffen als aanvulling op de A-10's? De operationele (totale directe & indirecte kosten) per vlieguur in 2012 deden voor de A-10C USD 17.564, ter vergelijking: de F-16C koste toen USD 22.514 per vlieguur. De Super Tucano koste toen maar USD 1.060 per vlieguur en koste slechts 1,7 manuren onderhoud per vlieguur. Of de A-10C ook na 2028 in dienst blijft bij de US Air Force is een vraagteken.
Juist, de vlieg-uur kosten van de A-10 is goedkoper (voordeliger) dan een F-16 en F-35 en ook beter te gebruiken in CAS ondersteuning voor grondtroepen. Tevens is de A-10 in aanschaf ook goedkoper. Als we A-10C met nieuwe sensoren, elektronica, motoren en vleugels nemen, dan staat het toestel bijna weer op nul vlieg-uren.
Ik denk dat er wel een vervanger komt voor de A-10, als de USAF het niet doorzet dan wel de USArmy. Men komt er nu alwel achter dat de A-10 niet vervangen kan worden door de F-35. De voordelen van de A-10 missen gewoon bij de F-35. Het 30 mm kanon met voldoende munitie voorraad, bepantsering rondom de piloot, laagvliegen. Ik zie een F-35 niet op een hoogte van 400 meter of nog lager vliegend om zijn bommen of kanon te gebruiken, dit zal allemaal gebeuren van hoge hoogten.
En CAS zal blijven in de toekomst, het heet ook niet voor niets Close Air to Ground Support
Die Super Tucano's zijn ter vervanging van de PC-7, trainingstoestellen. De keuze voor Super Tucano's is dat deze dan tevens (dus nevencapaciteit) lichte CAS missie's kan uitvoeren. Dus 2 vliegen in klap, extra inzetbaarheid van de KLU met een breder vliegtuigpakket ook voor langere tijd.
Hierdoor heb je een KLU welke bestaat uit :
F-35, jachtbommenwerper met luchtoverwicht taken
A-10, CAS toestel
Super Tucano, trainingstoestel met LAS taken
Citaat van: Poleme op 01/12/2013 | 23:38 uur
Dus niet aan beginnen en alleen Super Tucano's aanschaffen naast 24 F-35A's. Aan de OV-10 Bronco moet je ook niet beginnen, is al 27 jaar uit productie. En bleek kwetsbaarder voor grond-lucht vuur dan de 1 motorige Ayres Turbo Thrush / V-1A Vigilante bewapend sproeivliegtuig !
Bronco's was in de race en de Super Tucano is het geworden en zal ingezet worden, zoals deze ook (door de US ?) aan de Afghaanse luchtmacht verkocht/gegeven is voor LAS -taken.
Bronco's zijn te langzaam, maar hebben wel een geweldig zicht rondom. Super Tucano's zijn al uitgebreid getest door US.
Embraer Defense & Security Inc. announced today that the company is on schedule to begin deliveries in mid-2014 of A-29 Super Tucano aircraft to the U.S. Air Force for the Light Air Support (LAS) programhttp://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/11151259/embraer-on-schedule-with-jacksonville-a-29-super-tucano-assembly-facility
Citaat van: Strata op 02/12/2013 | 00:31 uur
Jij bent er echt van overtuigd dat er geen 37 maar 24 kisten komen hé? Misschien 24 in eerste batch en de rest in een latere?
F-35 moet je aan de big boys overlaten, wat moet NL nou met dat ding. Tuurlijk is 'ie mooi en kan 'ie veel. Maar elke boer (niks tegen boeren) weet dat wij dat ding niet kunne' betaluh! En inzetten waarvoor ie gemaakt is "first entry's" (NOT) doen we (de politiek) toch niet.
24 F-35A's in de eerste batch en de rest in een latere? ;D
Je geeft het antwoord in de tweede alinea: Maar elke boer weet dat wij dat ding niet kunne' betaluh!
Ik heb dit al vele malen feitelijk onderbouwd op dit forum.
Gripen-Referendum steht vor Weihnachten
http://www.handelszeitung.ch/politik/gripen-referendum-steht-vor-weihnachten-534573
Citaat van: www.handelszeitung.ch Vandaag om 07:32
Gripen-Referendum steht vor Weihnachten
De meest interessante vraag is: wat gaat Zweden doen met de Gripen E ontwikkeling/aankoop bij een Zwitsers "nee"
Immers één export order van een met een minimum van 20 exemplaren is een harde eis, al wordt dit probleem natuurlijk per direct opgelost met een derde partij. (met minimaal 20 exemplaren)
Maar toch, what if?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/12/2013 | 08:23 uur
De meest interessante vraag is: wat gaat Zweden doen met de Gripen E ontwikkeling bij een Zwitsers "nee"
Immers één export order van een met een minimum van 20 exemplaren is een harde eis, al wordt dit probleem natuurlijk per direct opgelost met een derde partij.
Maar toch, what if?
Ik denk dat Zweden 2 optie's heeft , namelijk
Optie 1:
Alleen hun C/D's gaat upgraden met elementen van de E-ontwikkeling, zoals sensoren, computers, AESA radar e.d.
Misschien dat ze de huidige motoren, de Volvo Aero RM12 inwisselen voor de F414G, flinke verhoging van motorvermogen, mogelijkheden voor supercruise.
En in 2018 A/B's uit te faseren en dan te bezien wat de mogelijkheden zijn, of eventueel een kleine luchtmacht met minder toestellen
Of.
Optie 2:
In 2020 lopen de eerste huidige vliegende toestellen tegen vervanging aan. De eerste batch A/B's is uit 1996/97, wat dan de mogelijkheid is om ook de deuren open te houden voor andere buitenlandse klanten/exportorders en de productie in Zweden bij SAAB door te laten gaan (werkgelegenheid en ontwikkeling) zoadt ook de kennis niet verloren gaat, de Zweden zullen kiezen om alle A en B's eruit te faseren in 2019 en C/D's te upgraden in 2017 net als bij optie 1 en een batch van 60 stuks E aan te schaffen, bestellen in 2014/2015 met levering 2019
Citaat van: Harald op 03/12/2013 | 08:53 uur
Ik denk dat Zweden 2 optie's heeft , namelijk
Optie 1:
Alleen hun C/D's gaat upgraden met elementen van de E-ontwikkeling, zoals sensoren, computers, AESA radar e.d.
Misschien dat ze de huidige motoren, de Volvo Aero RM12 inwisselen voor de F414G, flinke verhoging van motorvermogen, mogelijkheden voor supercruise.
En in 2018 A/B's uit te faseren en dan te bezien wat de mogelijkheden zijn, of eventueel een kleine luchtmacht met minder toestellen
Of.
Optie 2:
In 2020 lopen de eerste huidige vliegende toestellen tegen vervanging aan. De eerste batch A/B's is uit 1996/97, wat dan de mogelijkheid is om ook de deuren open te houden voor andere buitenlandse klanten/exportorders en de productie in Zweden bij SAAB door te laten gaan (werkgelegenheid en ontwikkeling) zoadt ook de kennis niet verloren gaat, de Zweden zullen kiezen om alle A en B's eruit te faseren in 2019 en C/D's te upgraden in 2017 net als bij optie 1 en een batch van 60 stuks E aan te schaffen, bestellen in 2014/2015 met levering 2019
Ik denk dat ze niet en C/D toestellen gaan upgraden EN nieuwe toestellen gaan bouwen. Volgens mij heeft de Zweedse luchtmacht all A/B toestellen toch al lang uit dienst genomen? Ze hebben er alleen nog een aantal in opslag staan.
Zweden kan in principe ook zelf 80 toestellen bestellen ipv 60. Dan zijn ze er ook. (break-even point) Dat gaat ze alleen wat meer kosten, en ook in Zweden is de geldkraan behoorlijk dicht. Echter daar is men nog behoorlijk wat meer bewust van hun veiligheid dan in Nederland.
Wij dachten zogezegd alle zwaardere wapens weg te kunnen bezuinigen want Aiorpower zou het wel oplossen. Zweden heeft nog altijd tanks, nog altijd aanzienlijke gemechaniseerde eenheden en ook de artillerie staat nog altijd in hoog aanzien.
Ik weet niet wat ze gaan doen, ze kunnen de productie van GripenE wel iets uitstellen, maar zullen toch op een gegeven moment de knoop doorhakken.
Video: Scorpion Taxi TestVideo from the first Scorpion Taxi Test on November 25, 2013.
Citaat van: Chrisis op 03/12/2013 | 09:24 uur
Ik weet niet wat ze gaan doen, ze kunnen de productie van GripenE wel iets uitstellen, maar zullen toch op een gegeven moment de knoop doorhakken.
Ik zie ook 2 opties:
1. de Productie verhogen zoals hier boven genoemd naar 80
2. Instappen bij de Aziaten of de Turken , cancelen van de Gripen E, langer doorvliegen met de Gripen C/D en daarna keuzen voor de co-productie.
Can the F-35 Replace the A-10?
Posted by The Editors
by Nickolai Sukharev
F35One of the big decisions the United States Air Force has considered over the last few months is whether to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet as a cost saving measure while developing and procuring the F-35A Lightening II. Given the Budget Control Act caps on Pentagon spending and the need to better allocate funds, officials have expressed their preference to prioritize multi-mission platforms in the inventory. But the problem is that the F-35A is not a replacement for the A-10's close air support. The reason is simple: it lacks comparable capabilities despite a higher operating cost.
Given the constrained budgetary environment, the comparative cost to maintain and operate the two aircraft should be a decisive consideration. The A-10 is a significantly cheaper aircraft to maintain, costing about $17,564 per flight hour. In contrast, the F-35A nearly doubles that with a hefty $35,200 per flight hour. Accounting for this difference are facts like the A-10's 1:5 fuel consumption ratio. To put that into monetary context, the DoE's Energy Information Administration estimates that current aviation jet fuel prices average at approximately $2.87 per gallon. The A-10 carries approximately (11,000 pounds) of internal fuel compared to the F-35A's (18,250 pounds). Using a conversion calculator we can convert fluid weight into gallons. That comes out to approximately 1,647 gallons for the A-10, and 2,733 gallons for the F-35A. By multiplying the gallons by the average price, the fuel cost for a mission requiring a full tank would be $4,726.89 for the A-10 while the F-35A would be an astounding $7,843.71. These costs render it financially impractical for the F-35A to perform close air support operations of the A-10 in a tight fiscal environment.
Not only is the F-35A more costly to operate, but also it buys less close air support capability. The A-10 was designed from the start to be a close air support platform as a replacement for the Vietnam era A-1 Skyraiders. Close air support heavily depends on the aircraft's loiter time. Loiter time is defined as the ability to cruise at slow speeds over a small area. Loiter range is, in part the function of range – the greater the range, the longer it can spend over an area of interest, where ground support may be needed. Compared to the F-35A, which has a range of about 1,200 nautical miles, the A-10 out flies its potential successor by about twice the distance, reaching a distance of 2,240nm. That additional range allows the A-10 to loiter above areas of battlefield activity further from its takeoff origin without the need to refuel.
Moreover, an aircraft providing close air support has to be survivable and fly at low altitudes to deliver a coordinated ground attack in support of friendly forces. This often means being engaged by small arms fire and anti-aircraft artillery. In terms of durability, the pilot of an A-10 is protected by inch and a half thick armor dubbed a "titanium bathtub" and can rely on redundant hydraulic systems to maintain flyability in case of major damage. The story of Air Force Captain Kim Campbell is a prime example of Thunderbolt's survivability. After flying a close air support mission over Baghdad in April 2003, she was called to assist troops who had been encircled by Iraqi forces. After sustaining major damage to her vertical stabilizers, she was able safely return to her base in Kuwait. Winslow Wheeler, Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information, described the F-35A as too vulnerable and too fast. Writing in Foreign Policy magazine in April 2012, he stated "it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat." Further outlining the drawbacks of the F-35A, Wheeler specified in the Huffington Post: "It is too fast to independently find and identify tactical targets; too fragile to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces in ground combat for the sustained periods they need."
There is also a major disparity between the armament loads the two aircraft can carry. The F-35A simply does not nearly pack the same kind of punch as the A-10. The former has an internal payload of only about 5,000 pounds. While, it has the ability to carry weapons externally, but that would eliminate its stealth and would be less than the A-10's 16,000-pound payload. By comparison, the F-15E, F-16, and F/A-18 have approximate payloads of 29,000, 12,000, and 17,000 pounds respectively.
Furthermore, the A-10 has one ground support weapon that the F-35A lacks: the iconic GAU-8 Gatling gun. This seven-barreled rotary cannon with 1,350 30mm rounds is instrumental in close air support missions when providing precise heavy firepower against small targets. By comparison, the F-35A falls desperately short, possessing a similar gun but with just four barrels fed by only 180 25mm rounds. The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan showed the importance of the A-10's firepower in support of ground operations. One of the best-known examples occurred in Afghanistan on July 24, 2004 when a column of American troops encountered an ambush in a valley. Desperately outnumbered, a B-1 long-range bomber attempted to provide support but was unable to. Shortly after, two A-10s arrived and prior even establishing radio contact, they were able to visually discern friendly from enemy forces and lay down effective cover fire, forcing the ambushers to withdraw.
Taking the comparison provided above, this prompts the question: how much sense does it make for the Air Force to replace the A-10's close air support capability with the F-35A? Given the parameters outlined above, the F-35A simply does not cover the same mission scope to justify replacement. That is unless, Air Force strategic planners want to spend more and get less.
December 03, 2013 at 09:34 AM | Permalink
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/12/can-the-.html
Frans artikel, de Belgische stafchef heeft een vlucht gemaakt in een Rafale, samen met een Franse Chef.
Opvallend dat Rafale aanschaf door Belgie niet genoemd wordt, maar wel alle andere samenwerkingsverbanden, w.o. de gezamelijke pilotenopleiding.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/rencontre-de-haut-vol-entre-les-cemaa-belge-et-francais (http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/rencontre-de-haut-vol-entre-les-cemaa-belge-et-francais)
De Fransen zetten wel in op Belgie verwacht ik zo.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 04/12/2013 | 23:28 uur
De Fransen zetten wel in op Belgie verwacht ik zo.
Dat verwacht ik ook, zeker met een dosis agressiviteit, waarbij de eindstrijd wellicht zal gaan tussen de Rafale en de F35.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 04/12/2013 | 23:28 uur
De Fransen zetten wel in op Belgie verwacht ik zo.
Heeft niets met dit topic te maken, maar voor ondersteuning van de Franse interventie in de CAR, hebben de Fransen hun ogen gericht op België.
Gripen-Kauf kommt vors Volk
4. Dezember 2013
http://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/schweiz-sda/Gripen-Kauf-kommt-vors-Volk;art46447,312789
Citaat van: www.luzernerzeitung.ch Vandaag om 07:42
Gripen-Kauf kommt vors Volk
Ontwikkel- en doorontwikkeltrajecten kenmerken zich helaas door beren op de weg, waarvan vrijwel alle beren één voor één van de weg worden gehaald... en dan heb je het volk....
Democratie is mooi maar het kan ook te ver gaan.
U.S. lawmaker urges continuation of Boeing F/A-18 fighter line
Andrea Shalal-EsaReuters / December 5, 2013
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Randy Forbes, a key member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Thursday urged Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to rethink the U.S. Navy's current plan to allow Boeing Co's F/A-18 fighter jet production to close in 2016.
Forbes released a December 4 letter to Hagel in which he raised concerns about the fighter industrial base and warned about relying solely on the next-generation F-35C fighter jet being developed by Lockheed Martin Corp since it will not be ready for operational use on an aircraft carrier until 2019.
"The risk to U.S. national security and the health of our aviation industrial base of relying on only one tactical aircraft supply line is simply too great to allow the line to close," Forbes said in the letter.
The lawmaker's warning comes amid a concerted push by Boeing for additional U.S. and foreign orders for its popular F/A-18 Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler electronic attack plane based on the same airframe to keep production going.
Boeing executives say they see good prospects for additional F/A-18 orders from the U.S. Navy, Canada, Australia, Denmark and several other countries, and they plan to continue investing in the fighter line.
Dennis Muilenburg, head of Boeing's defense business, last month said the company must decide soon whether to self fund certain long-lead procurement items to extend the line beyond 2016, but he did not expect a decision to shut the line.
U.S. Navy officials say they would like to buy more F/A-18s and are exploring options to do so but caution that there is no funding for any such purchases at this point. The timing of any new foreign orders also remains unclear.
Forbes said the Pentagon should maintain F/A-18 production in St. Louis, Missouri to safeguard the industrial base and ensure competition. Shutting the line, he warned, would eliminate "vital competition that could result in spiraling costs, leading to more expensive, less capable systems."
It would also eliminate competition among suppliers, including companies that build aircraft radar and engines.
Forbes urged Hagel to ensure continued competition in the fighter jet market, just as it has done in shipbuilding and submarine industries.
A Navy official, speaking on background, said the service would "very much like" to order more F/A-18 or EA-18G aircraft, but there was no funding available at the moment.
"The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler bring unique, proven and exceptional warfighting capability to the Navy and joint forces," said the official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "The Navy continues to closely monitor the production lines and evaluate options to meet our strike fighter requirements."
POTENTIAL ORDER NOTICE WITHDRAWN
Richard Gilpin, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for air programs, told Reuters last month the Navy was looking at options for buying more F/A-18 jets, but no decisions had been made. U.S. officials are also talking with foreign buyers about orders that could extend production.
The Navy in October flagged a possible order of up to 36 more F/A-18 fighters or EA-18G electronic attack planes in fiscal 2015, but later withdrew the notice on federal procurement website since there is no funding for more planes.
Navy officials say their talks about possible additional purchases of the Boeing fighter do not reflect any wavering of their commitment to the Lockheed F-35 program, since both fighter jets are intended to operate together for decades.
But some F-35 backers worry that the Navy's proposal to deal with across-the-board spending cuts required under sequestration by pausing production of the F-35 C-model for two years could unravel that part of the F-35 program, especially if the Navy continues to buy Boeing jets in the meantime.
A two-year delay in order could push pack initial use of the F-35C until 2021, said one former Navy official. "At some point, depending on how the F-35 carrier variant and unmanned planes come along, they may just not need the F-35C anymore."
The $392 billion F-35 JSF, the Pentagon's biggest arms program, has seen a 70 percent increase in costs over initial estimates and repeated schedule delays, but U.S. officials say the program has made progress in recent years.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-boeing-fighter-20131205,0,5958123.story
Boeing, Saab team up for USAF T-X requirement
By: Greg Waldron Singapore / december, 6th 2013
Boeing and Saab will work together to develop a new advanced jet trainer for the planned T-X programme to replace the US Air Force's venerable Northrop T-38C Talon.
Under the two companies' joint development agreement, Boeing will act as the prime contractor and Saab the primary partner, Boeing said in a statement. The partnership will deal with all aspects of the bid, including design, development, production, support, sales and marketing.
Boeing says the trainer aircraft that they will propose will be a "completely new designed aircraft, built to meet the needs of the air force".
"Boeing and Saab look forward to the upcoming acquisition process, which will lead to the customer awarding the contract," says Boeing.
"The US Air Force T-X program will include aircraft and training that will prepare warfighters for the next 40 years. The Air Force plans to replace the T-38 with a new Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems and about 350 aircraft, plus associated ground-based training systems and logistics and sustainment support."
The T-X competition is likely to be among the USAF's biggest acquisition programmes in the coming decade. The USAF strategy for the T-X is still evolving. The service had released proposed requirements for an off-the-shelf aircraft, with the Korea Aerospace/Lockheed Martin T-50, Alenia Aermacchi T-100 derivative of the M-346 and the BAE Systems Hawk T2 each expressing interest.
The Boeing/Saab partnership for T-X raises the strong possibility that the pair's offer will draw heavily on the Swedish company's single-engined Gripen fighter.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-saab-team-up-for-usaf-t-x-requirement-393868/
Boeing and Saab to team for USAF T-X requirement
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
05 December 2013
A previously released computer-generated concept of a clean sheet design being touted by Boeing as its possible T-X solution. Source: Boeing
Zie link: http://www.janes.com/article/31245/boeing-and-saab-to-team-for-usaf-t-x-requirement
Toch een interessant plaatje
http://www.planobrazil.com/parceria-entre-saab-e-boeing-se-desenha-para-programa-t-x/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/12/2013 | 20:37 uur
Toch een interessant plaatje
http://www.planobrazil.com/parceria-entre-saab-e-boeing-se-desenha-para-programa-t-x/
Inderdaad, heb wel vaker soortgelijke plaatjes gezien over die FS2020 maar heb nog nooit gezien dat Boeing er bij betrokken is.
Citaat van: Jellington op 06/12/2013 | 20:47 uur
Inderdaad, heb wel vaker soortgelijke plaatjes gezien over die FS2020 maar heb nog nooit gezien dat Boeing er bij betrokken is.
Het zal denk ik niet een afgeleide zijn van de beoogde Saab FS2020, die gaan we wellicht terug zien in Azië/Turkije. maat eerder een afgeleide van de Gripen NG, al laat het plaatje in het artikel van Janes een clean sheet design zien.
Persoonlijk denk ik dat de combinatie Boeing-Saab een hele goede kans maakt om de USAF T-X order te scoren al was het maar om Boeing betrokken te houden met een fighter productie lijn, immers, het is diep in de herfst voor de F15 en F18 familie en om LM nu monopolist te maken is in niemands (strategische en economische) belang.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/12/2013 | 21:06 uur
Het zal denk ik niet een afgeleide zijn van de beoogde Saab FS2020, die gaan we wellicht terug zien in Azië/Turkije. maat eerder een afgeleide van de Gripen NG, al laat het plaatje in het artikel van Janes een clean sheet design zien.
Persoonlijk denk ik dat de combinatie Boeing-Saab een hele goede kans maakt om de USAF T-X order te scoren al was het maar om Boeing betrokken te houden met een fighter productie lijn, immers, het is diep in de herfst voor de F15 en F18 familie en om LM nu monopolist te maken is in niemands (strategische en economische) belang.
Persoonlijk denk ik mocht de order voor de USAF T-X doorgaan zou het welleens kunnen zijn dat Boeing Saab overneemt om de technolgie voor kleine jets in handen te krijgen.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 06/12/2013 | 21:30 uur
Persoonlijk denk ik mocht de order voor de e USAF T-X doorgaan zou het welleens kunnen zijn dat Boeing Saab overneemt om de technolgie voor kleine jets in handen te krijgen.
Ook dat zou me niet verbazen, misschien alleen het onderdeel wat jachtvliegtuigen bouwt, want m.i. is de Gripen de laatste autonome Zweed.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/12/2013 | 21:33 uur
Ook dat zou me niet verbazen, misschien alleen het onderdeel wat jachtvliegtuigen bouwt, want m.i. is de Gripen de laatste autonome Zweed.
Saab heeft nog meer interesante opties op luchtverdediging die voor een bedrijf als Boeing interesant zijn en ook op marinegebied zodat Boeing het tegen LM kan opnemen.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 06/12/2013 | 21:35 uur
Saab heeft nog meer interesante opties op luchtverdediging die voor een bedrijf als Boeing interesant zijn en ook op marinegebied zodat Boeing het tegen LM kan opnemen.
Ook absoluut waar.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/12/2013 | 21:33 uur
Ook dat zou me niet verbazen, misschien alleen het onderdeel wat jachtvliegtuigen bouwt, want m.i. is de Gripen de laatste autonome Zweed.
Is de Gripen een autonome Zweed? Niet onderhevig aan bijv ITAR?
Citaat van: Thomasen op 06/12/2013 | 22:27 uur
Is de Gripen een autonome Zweed? Niet onderhevig aan bijv ITAR?
Los van (deel)systemen vind ik de Gripen een Zweeds product met veel externe expertise.
Textron Scorpion Ready for First Flight (waarschijnlijk volgende week dinsdag)
Textron's new Scorpion aircraft will have its maiden flight early next week, according to company officials.
The plane is scheduled for flight early Tuesday from the company's Cessna facility in Wichita, Kan., although a series of winter storms moving throughout the country may force a delay.
The flight, expected to be roughly 90 minutes, will be used to gather baseline information about the newly designed plane. If everything goes smoothly, a second flight will occur Thursday, followed by a semiregular schedule of test flights moving forward.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131206/DEFREG02/312060021/Textron-Scorpion-Ready-First-Flight
Citaat van: Harald op 07/12/2013 | 11:44 uur
Textron Scorpion Ready for First Flight (waarschijnlijk volgende week dinsdag)
Textron's new Scorpion aircraft will have its maiden flight early next week, according to company officials.
The plane is scheduled for flight early Tuesday from the company's Cessna facility in Wichita, Kan., although a series of winter storms moving throughout the country may force a delay.
The flight, expected to be roughly 90 minutes, will be used to gather baseline information about the newly designed plane. If everything goes smoothly, a second flight will occur Thursday, followed by a semiregular schedule of test flights moving forward.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131206/DEFREG02/312060021/Textron-Scorpion-Ready-First-Flight
Even voor de duidelijkheid De Scorpion is prive ontwerp en het betreft een prototype. ik zie het niet gebeuren dat de US Airforce er een gaat bestellen omdat fabrikanten als Boeing en Lockheed Martin groter zijn dan Textron. Natuurlijk maken Bell Helicopter en Cessna onderdeel uit van Textron maar dan nog zijn Boeing en Lockheed Martin bedrijven met meer macht in het Pentagon.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/12/2013 | 12:03 uur
Even voor de duidelijkheid De Scorpion is prive ontwerp en het betreft een prototype.
ja en ... ? in de civiele luchtvaart heel normaal, maar komt in de militaire tak ook gewoon voor.
Dat zie je ook met voertuigen en schepen, Damen ontwerp en ontwikkeld ook door zonder dat daar gelijk geld van de overheid in zit.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/12/2013 | 12:03 uur
ik zie het niet gebeuren dat de US Airforce er een gaat bestellen omdat fabrikanten als Boeing en Lockheed Martin groter zijn dan Textron. Natuurlijk maken Bell Helicopter en Cessna onderdeel uit van Textron maar dan nog zijn Boeing en Lockheed Martin bedrijven met meer macht in het Pentagon.
Natuurlijk is de kracht van de groten sterker, maar Textron is ook niet gek.
Er is een steeds grotere behoefte aan goedkopere vliegtuigen, zowel in aanschaf en onderhoud. Zie ook de ontwikkelingen voor de Super Tucano's voor Lichte CAS taken in de US
Textron speelt hierop in op eigen initiatief
Als dit toestel het goed doet en de testen gaan voorspoedig, dan (denk ik) moet je niet raar opkijken als dit type wel aangeschaft wordt door de USAF.
Kandidaat "KLu-OPV"?
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/12/2013 | 12:48 uur
Kandidaat "KLu-OPV"?
Ik zie meer iets in een Embraer A-29 Super Tucano deze kan net als een C 130 opstijgen en landen van een Dirt Strip.
Daarnaast is een Embraer A-29 Super Tucano Combat Proof en koop je deze van de plank
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/12/2013 | 12:48 uur
Kandidaat "KLu-OPV"?
Wat mij betreft niet nee...Eerder super Tucano of PC-21...
Super Tucano = kandidaat vervanger KLU trainer (PC-7)
Citaat van: Harald op 07/12/2013 | 13:36 uur
Super Tucano = kandidaat vervanger KLU trainer (PC-7)
Plus light attack, counter insurgency (COIN) dat heeft de Super Tucano al bewezen laat die Scorpion zich eerst maar eens bewijzen of hij Combat Proof is. En die Scorpion kan niet landen en opstijgen van een Dirt Strip.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/12/2013 | 19:22 uur
Ik zie mogelijkheden.
Scorpion's First Taxi Test at McConnell Air Force Base Nu alleen nog de lucht is, vandaag is de dag ! dat Textron een testvlucht zou gaan maken met de Scorpion
Ik heb zeer benieuwd.
U.S. Bomber Planes at $81 Billion Seen 47% More Than Plan (geen onbekende ontwikkeling in de USA)
The U.S. Air Force's new long-range bomber may cost as much as $81 billion for the 100 planes planned, 47 percent more than the $55 billion sticker price the service has listed.
The Air Force based its estimate of $550 million per plane on the value of the dollar in 2010, and it represents only the production costs for an aircraft that won't be deployed for at least 10 years. Including research and development, the bomber would cost as much as $810 million apiece in this year's dollars, according to calculations by three defense analysts.
The cost of the new bomber will draw close scrutiny in an era of declining defense budgets, as the Pentagon faces $500 billion in reductions over nine years under the budget process called sequestration. The Air Force's track record also is being questioned after soaring costs for the aging B-2 stealth bomber the new plane would replace and the F-35 fighter jet, the most expensive U.S. weapons system, that's now being built.
"The Air Force has zero credibility on start-of-program cost estimates unless and until it ponies up real details about the bomber and its acquisition plan," Winslow Wheeler, a former Government Accountability Office defense analyst now with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, said in an e-mail. "It is a fool's errand, or worse, to pretend the cost stated now is anything but a bait-and-switch buy-in gambit."
B-2, F-35
The B-2 was planned as 132 planes for about $571 million each in 1991 dollars before the first Bush administration cut the fleet to 20 planes in the early 1990s. That resulted in a price of about $2.2 billion per bomber, a fourfold increase, in a program that remained highly classified during its development.
The F-35 program has a current price tag of $391.2 billion for 2,443 aircraft, a 68 percent increase from the projection in 2001, as measured in current dollars, for 409 fewer planes than originally planned.
Whatever its ultimate cost, the new bomber would mean billions for the defense contractor chosen to build it. Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) of Bethesda, Maryland, and Chicago-based Boeing Co. (BA), the No. 1 and No. 2 U.S. defense contractors, said in October that they'll bid for the project as a team. They may end up competing against Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) of Falls Church, Virginia, the prime contractor for the B-2, which hasn't yet announced an intention to bid.
Click here for the full story, on the Bloomberg news website.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-06/u-s-bombers-seen-costing-81-billion-47-more-than-plan.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/150101/future-bombers-may-cost-%24810m-each.html
Citaat van: Harald op 10/12/2013 | 15:11 uur
U.S. Bomber Planes at $81 Billion Seen 47% More Than Plan (geen onbekende ontwikkeling in de USA)
En de prijs zou dan niet eens meer zoveel verschillen van de B2.
Het lijkt me wel waarschijnlijk dat de kosten fiks zullen stijgen als de cultuur gelijk blijft. Het zou kunnen dat de F35 daar wat aan veranderd, maar daar geloof ik nog niet zo in.
Maar ze zullen er komen. De B52 is toch wel aan pensioen toe, zeker in die tijd. De B1 en B2 vloten zijn relatief klein.
Zal dat ten koste gaan van een aantal batches F35?
Citaat van: Harald op 10/12/2013 | 17:23 uur
ze hebben de ambitie om hun Navy te vergroten en hebben ideeën over een LHD
Dus gebruik van de B-versie vanaf/op zee met LHD
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/singapore/rss-endurance-160.htm
Wel vrij klein. Dan kan dus maar een klein aantal toestellen mee, dat ook nog eens gehandicapt is door de VTOL of STOVL ops. Dat schip is in lengte een stuk kleiner dan de concurrenten.
De Crem: "40 nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen kopen"
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/131211_DeCremF16s (http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/131211_DeCremF16s)
Citaat van: www.deredactie.be Vandaag om 09:43
De Crem: "40 nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen kopen"
Zo te lezen zijn een aantal politieke partijen van onze zuiderburen in z'n geheel tegen een willekeurige F16 vervanger, het lijkt nu al een soap te worden... maar een soap die wellicht geen 10 jaar zal duren.
Als voorschot: ik gok op een Belgische aankoop van 20-24 toestellen. (F35A) (de Belgen betalen geen BTW op hun materieel aanschaf)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 11/12/2013 | 22:02 uur
Zo te lezen zijn een aantal politieke partijen van onze zuiderburen in z'n geheel tegen een willekeurige F16 vervanger, het lijkt nu al een soap te worden... maar een soap die wellicht geen 10 jaar zal duren.
Als voorschot: ik gok op een Belgische aankoop van 20-24 toestellen. (F35A) (de Belgen betalen geen BTW op hun materieel aanschaf)
Zoals eerder gezegd: we wachten tot na de verkiezingen. ;-) Dan volgen er 5 verkiezingsvrije jaren en is er iets van beleid mogelijk.
Ik denk dat we allemaal wel al doorhebben dat met het almaar slinkende defensiebudget het idd niet mogelijk is om
De F-35A in "redelijke" aantallen aan te schaffen. Zo stilletjesaan was ik al ervan overtuigd aan het geraken dat er geen
vervanger van de F-16 zal komen. En dat het juist de SP.a en Groen! zijn die onmiddellijk "tegen" zijn verbaast me niet.
Maar...
Wat ik dan zeker totaal lachwekkend vind: Hospitaalschepen... WTF? Is die Groene nog goed in zijn bovenkamer?
De Amerikanen hebben er twee, grote supertankers die omgebouwd werden (Comfort en Mercy, geloof ik dat ze heten),
Maar die worden nauwelijks gebruikt. Dus waarom zou Belgie opeens met zoiets met de proppen (moeten) komen?
Verder...
VanderMaelen – Dé Defensiespecialist van de SP.a... weet dat 'we' reeds 8 "grote Airbussen" besteld hebben
(dat deze 12(!) C-130's moeten vervangen wordt er niet bij vermeld)... en dat we daarmee reeds een "specialisatiekeuze" gemaakt hebben voor de LuM.
Hoezo, specialisatiekeuze? Als je dan al zoiets doet, dan koop je er niet alleen 8, maar minstens een 20-tal. Zodat je er dan toch
8 à 10 ten allen tijden beschikbaar hebt. En niet een 3 à 5, zoals nu het geval zal zijn.
Ongelooflijk hoe die kwasten toch steeds met hun kop in de wolken lijken te leven...
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 12/12/2013 | 13:22 uur
Ongelooflijk hoe die kwasten toch steeds met hun kop in de wolken lijken te leven...
Wat dat betreft kunnen NL en BE vandaag nog samen 8)
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 12/12/2013 | 13:22 uur
Ik denk dat we allemaal wel al doorhebben dat met het almaar slinkende defensiebudget het idd niet mogelijk is om
De F-35A in "redelijke" aantallen aan te schaffen. Zo stilletjesaan was ik al ervan overtuigd aan het geraken dat er geen
vervanger van de F-16 zal komen. En dat het juist de SP.a en Groen! zijn die onmiddellijk "tegen" zijn verbaast me niet.
Maar...
Wat ik dan zeker totaal lachwekkend vind: Hospitaalschepen... WTF? Is die Groene nog goed in zijn bovenkamer?
De Amerikanen hebben er twee, grote supertankers die omgebouwd werden (Comfort en Mercy, geloof ik dat ze heten),
Maar die worden nauwelijks gebruikt. Dus waarom zou Belgie opeens met zoiets met de proppen (moeten) komen?
Verder...
VanderMaelen – Dé Defensiespecialist van de SP.a... weet dat 'we' reeds 8 "grote Airbussen" besteld hebben
(dat deze 12(!) C-130's moeten vervangen wordt er niet bij vermeld)... en dat we daarmee reeds een "specialisatiekeuze" gemaakt hebben voor de LuM.
Hoezo, specialisatiekeuze? Als je dan al zoiets doet, dan koop je er niet alleen 8, maar minstens een 20-tal. Zodat je er dan toch
8 à 10 ten allen tijden beschikbaar hebt. En niet een 3 à 5, zoals nu het geval zal zijn.
Ongelooflijk hoe die kwasten toch steeds met hun kop in de wolken lijken te leven...
Het is in België niet anders dan in Nederland.
Korea exports 24 attack jets to Iraq
By Kang Seung-woo and Joint Press Corps
BAGHDAD ― Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) signed a $1.1 billion (1.1 trillion won) contract to sell 24 FA-50 light attack aircraft to Iraq, Thursday, the most lucrative defense export deal by local players.
In Baghdad, KAI CEO Ha Sung-yong and Iraqi Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki signed the deal.
The Korean defense contractor is set to deliver the jets between October 2015 and October 2016.
In addition, the two sides are on the verge of reaching another agreement including pilot training and logistical support with an estimated value of $1 billion.
"The contract is the biggest achievement in the nation's aerospace exports," Ha said.
"Through the deal, we discovered the aircraft's competitiveness in the international market and potential as an export."
With the deal, KAI has put the first Middle East country on its customer list.
It has sold 16 T-50 supersonic trainers to Indonesia, 40 KT-1 basic trainers to Turkey and 20 KT-1s to Peru.
KAI believes the Iraq contract will contribute to the Sacheon, South Gyeongsang Province-based company establishing itself as a competitive presence in the market for lower priced fighters.
"Other than Africa, KAI has built its export footholds in each continent," a KAI official said.
"There is growing interest in the T-50 family, as the current aircraft in use get older and there are few options to replace them."
In the competition, the KAI product beat BAE Systems' Hawk-128, Russian Yakovlev's Yak-130 and Czech aircraft producer Aero Vodochody's L-159, according to the Korean firm.
With Iraq being scheduled to import 36 F-16s from next year, the Korean light attack plane was seen as the best option to bridge the air power vacuum, while nurturing pilots.
The FA-50 was developed in Korea as a possible replacement for the Air Force's F-5E/F when the aging fighters are retired.
KAI is set to try to continue the winning vibe in its sales pitch for other countries including the Philippines, Botswana and eventually, the United States.
In the U.S. Air Force's trainer competition, aimed at replacing its fleet of T-38s, the U.S. side plans to purchase 350 new aircraft worth billions of dollars.
"When it comes to exports to the Philippines, we were closing in on a deal, but the recent earthquake and typhoon have pushed it back to next year," KAI said.
"We plan to launch a full-scale campaign in the U.S. as well."
The FA-50, which was first unveiled in January 2006, is a light combat version of the T-50 supersonic trainer that was co-developed with Lockheed Martin.
The plane can carry a weapons load of up to 4.5 tons and can be armed with a wide range of weapon systems including AIM-9 sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles, AGM-65 air-to-ground tactical missiles and GBU-38/B Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), which allows the aircraft to counter multiple threats.
Its maximum speed is Mach 1.5.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/12/205_147894.html
Russia to Develop Light-Class Fighter Jet
MOSCOW, December 11 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will soon start developing a prototype of an advanced lightweight fighter jet to supplement fifth-generation T-50 aircraft, a top government official said Wednesday.
The new aircraft is expected to be cheaper to produce and easier to maintain, but should also possess combat capabilities and performance characteristics comparable with those of heavy-class aircraft.
"The development of a light-class fighter has been included in the current arms procurement program. It will be created," said Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, addressing the lower house of parliament.
Rogozin, who oversees the defense and space industries, said light-class fighters were in greater demand abroad, compared to more advanced heavy-class aircraft, such as Su-30 or the planned T-50 fighter jets.
Russia is currently developing the heavy-class T-50 multirole fighter aircraft, also known as PAK-FA, which will be the core of the country's future fighter fleet.
The T-50 is expected to enter service with the Russian air force in 2016.
Rogozin, who first voiced the idea of developing a second type of a fifth-generation fighter in February 2012, said Wednesday that Russia has always had at least two types of tactical fighters that in general supplemented one another.
The latest example is a MiG-29/Su-27 pair.
Rogozin did not specify which of Russia's two main designers of combat jets – MiG or Sukhoi – will be assigned the development of the future light-class fighter.
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131211/185462424/Russia-to-Develop-Light-Class-Fighter-Jet.html
Die Golden Eagle deal is slecht nieuws voor de Tsjechen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/12/2013 | 15:19 uur
Korea exports 24 attack jets to Iraq
Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) signed a $1.1 billion (1.1 trillion won) contract to sell 24 FA-50 light attack aircraft to Iraq,
The Korean defense contractor is set to deliver the jets between October 2015 and October 2016.
In addition, the two sides are on the verge of reaching another agreement including pilot training and logistical support with an estimated value of $1 billion.
Dus aankoop is $ 1,1 miljard USD en pilot training, onderhoud en reserveonderdelen is 1,0 miljard USD voor 24 FA-50 toestellen
aankoop per FA-50 = $ 46 miljoen USD ( € 35,5 miljoen Euro per toestel)
training, onderhoud = $ 42 miljoen USD ( € 32,4 miljoen Euro per toestel)
Samen in totaal contract € 67,9 miljoen Euro per toestel, ... niet gek hoor die FA-50
Citaat van: IPA NG op 12/12/2013 | 16:05 uur
Die Golden Eagle deal is slecht nieuws voor de Tsjechen.
De Tsjechen maken toch niks dat concurreert?
De Italianen wel, met hun M346.
Irak had bijna een contract getekend voor 24 nieuw te bouwen tweezits L-159 ALCA's.
Textron AirLand Announces Successful First Flight of Scorpion ISR/Strike Aircraft
Textron AirLand, LLC, a joint venture between Textron Inc. and AirLand Enterprises, LLC, today announced that the Scorpion Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)/Strike aircraft completed its first flight at 10:30 AM Central Time.
The aircraft took off from McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, Kansas and conducted a range of handling maneuvers for approximately 1.4 hours of flight. Today's flight marks one of the fastest developments of a U.S.-built tactical jet, progressing from initial design to first flight in less than 24 months.
"Today's first flight is a major milestone for the Scorpion as the program transitions into the flight test phase," commented Textron CEO Scott Donnelly. "When the design phase began less than two years ago, we were confident that we would deliver a uniquely affordable, versatile tactical aircraft by taking advantage of commercial aviation technologies and best practices. Today's flight met all expectations, and keeps us on track towards certification and production," he added.
Scorpion's first flight was crewed by pilot Dan Hinson, an engineering test pilot with over 5,000 flight hours in 79 different types of aircraft, and co-pilot David Sitz. "The flight was completed according to plan," said Hinson. "Having flown many tactical aircraft throughout my 23-year career with the US Navy and with other aircraft manufacturers, I can say that the Scorpion compares very favorably to more costly aircraft currently used for low-threat missions. It showed impressive stability and responsiveness closely matching all of the predicted parameters for today's maneuvers – it's going to be a highly capable aircraft for the ISR and homeland security mission set."
The Scorpion was announced in September 2013 as a demonstration aircraft designed to accommodate the budget constraints and shifting mission requirements of the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. partner nations. Powered by twin turbofan engines generating 8,000 lbs. of thrust, the Scorpion transitions easily between low speed and high-subsonic speed, as needed for diverse missions such as irregular warfare, border patrol, maritime surveillance, emergency relief, counter-narcotics and air defense operations.
The Scorpion has a cruising speed of up to 450 ktas (517 mph), with a ferry range of 2,400 nautical miles. The aircraft carries an internal payload of up to 3,000 lbs., as well as wing-mounted precision munitions.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/150206/textron-scorpion-makes-first-flight.html
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic6.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F52aa3bbe6da8111018e1085a-959-479%2Fscorpion-first-flight-1.jpg&hash=aa3c7964cc2525cdf21af19311cca52048b472c2)
Scorpion's first flight is milestone for Textron's tactical jet
Textron AirLand engineering test pilot Dan Hinson couldn't quit smiling Thursday afternoon.
Neither could others working on the Scorpion intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance strike aircraft under development at a Cessna facility in east Wichita.
Hinson, a former Navy pilot, and co-pilot David Sitz successfully flew the Scorpion for the first time on what was a beautiful Thursday morning.
"It was fantastic," Hinson said after the flight. "It leapt off the ground."
The flight marks one of the fastest developments of a U.S.-built tactical jet, Textron said. The project progressed from an initial design to first flight in less than 24 months.
"To go from paper ... to flying the airplane the first time is just a feeling of pride," Hinson said. "It's a great team."
The twin-engine jet took off from McConnell Air Force Base at 9:05 a.m. to the south.
The Scorpion then headed west toward Kingman and flew over Cheney Reservoir before returning to McConnell.
It landed at 10:30 a.m.
"I just greased her on," Hinson said. "It had no tendency to float. It was nice and graceful on the runway."
Hinson and Sitz conducted a range of flight handling maneuvers during the flight.
"The airplane is very light — very nimble," Hinson said. '"You're flying with your finger tips."
The plane met all expectations.
In fact, "the performance was better than we expected," Hinson said.
On the first flight, they kept the speed to no more than 200 knots and the altitude to between 10,000 and 15,000 feet.
The plane showed impressive stability and responsiveness, closely matching all of the predicted parameters for the flight's maneuvers.
In the days leading up to the flight, Hinson went through all the steps of the first flight in a Scorpion simulator.
The airplane flew like the simulator, he said. That validates the analysis and wind tunnel testing that went before the flight.
Hinson, whose call sign is Shaka, has more than 5,000 flight hours in 79 different types of aircraft. He spent 23 years with the Navy and joined the Scorpion program after spending time in flight test at Beechcraft Corp.
On his second day at Cessna, he was offered the job with the Scorpion project.
"I couldn't say no," Hinson said with a smile.
The Scorpion prototype will now undergo a post-flight inspection before the next flight.
Hinson plans to take the plane back up for its second and third flights next week.
For Dale Tutt, chief engineer on the project, the first flight offered a great sense of accomplishment.
At the beginning of the project, people told Tutt that it was insane to expect to take on the project in such a short amount of time.
"They said it couldn't be done in less than four or five years," Tutt said. It feels good to prove that it could be done.
Textron announced the Scoprion in September as a demonstration plane designed to accommodate the budget restraints of shifting mission requirements of the U.S. Department of Defense and allies abroad.
The plane's twin turbofan engines generate 8,000 pounds of thrust, which allows it to transition easily between low speed and high subsonic speed for a diverse set of missions, such as irregular warfare, border patrol, maritime surveillance, emergency relief, counter-narcotics and air defense operations, Textron said.
The Scorpion has a cruising speed of up to 517 mph, a ferry range of 2,400 nautical miles, an internal payload of up to 3,000 pounds and wing-mounted precision munitions.
http://www.scorpionjet.com/scorpions-first-flight-milestone-textrons-tactical-jet/
The design team also brought in suppliers early and, in some cases, designed the airplane around existing systems. The ejection seat is one example where this strategy paid off. "Martin-Baker came in very early and they looked at our cockpit design and they let us know that if we didn't change a few dimensions on the cockpit they were going to have to spend millions of dollars to modify the seat," Anderson said.
The development strategies have enabled Textron AirLand to keep the cost of the Scorpion below $20 million, Anderson said. And the cost of operations is expected to be below $3,000 per hour, a significant decrease in cost over other military jets. According to retired U.S. Air Force Major General Paul Weaver Jr., the Air Force has quoted the cost per hour for the A10 at about $13,000 and the F-15 at as much as $23,000.
The idea of the Scorpion came from visionaries at AirLand and the project was entirely funded by Textron. There are, however, not yet any customers for the Scorpion. "We don't have any contracts but we certainly have a lot of positive interest both domestically and from the international market," Anderson said. "We could be delivering our first conforming airplane to a customer in 15 to 18 months after a contract has been signed. We have the facilities and the tools to build another airplane immediately."
http://www.scorpionjet.com/scorpion-jet-takes-flight/
Zou Harald soms aandelen in Textron hebben? IPA NG heeft bv ook aandelen in Saab en wordt Mr Saab Nederland genoemd.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 13/12/2013 | 20:42 uur
Zou Harald soms aandelen in Textron hebben? IPA NG heeft bv ook aandelen in Saab en wordt Mr Saab Nederland genoemd.
Helaas niet, maar jij had ze toch bij Damen ? :P ;)
Ik vind wel, dat de ontwikkeling bij Textron wel interessant is om te volgen !
Citaat van: Harald op 13/12/2013 | 21:10 uur
Helaas niet, maar jij had ze toch bij Damen ? :P ;)
Ik vind wel, dat de ontwikkeling bij Textron wel interessant is om te volgen !
Dat heeft Rob er van gemaakt ik heb hier al vaker op het forum voorgesteld om bij de volgende scheepsbouw van de KM een inschrijving te houden, naast Damen mag wat mij betreft ook IHC Merwede meedoen concurrentie zorgt ervoor dat de prijzen omlaag gaan.
Citaat van: Harald op 13/12/2013 | 21:10 uur
Ik vind wel, dat de ontwikkeling bij Textron wel interessant is om te volgen !
Ik ook en de Scorpion lijkt in mijn ogen een interessante ontwikkeling die ook budgettair (indien geschikt) bij de KLu is in te passen, naast de F35A, als CAS/COIN oplossing.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2013 | 21:17 uur
Ik ook en de Scorpion lijkt in mijn ogen een interessante ontwikkeling die ook budgettair (indien geschikt) bij de KLu is in te passen, naast de F35A, als CAS/COIN oplossing.
precies, ik ben ook zeer benieuwd hoe er in de US op deze Scorpion gereageerd wordt.
It's in the air !!
Citaat van: Harald op 13/12/2013 | 21:10 uur
Ik vind wel, dat de ontwikkeling bij Textron wel interessant is om te volgen !
Mijn voorkeur gaat uit van de plank kopen en daar is Super Tucano een geschikt toestel voor wat combat proof is.
Zelfs Poleme vindt dat.
Dit kan de Super Tucano. Je kan beter zeggen de Farc in Columbia is Ko gegaan door de Super Tucano.
Het lijkt me bijzonder moeilijk om het tegen een legende op te nemen.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5a%2FOperation_Agata_I.jpg&hash=3a7501f0a7b2ac3afd026cb2775f2a6636a75199)
http://economia.estadao.com.br/noticias/negocos-ndustra,embraer-esta-perto-de-fechar-contrato-com-a-defesa-dos-eua,93431,0.htm
http://www.economist.com/node/17150290
http://colombiareports.co/canos-death-biggest-blow-in-the-history-of-farc-santos/
http://www.elpais.com.co/elpais/judicial/noticias/santos-anuncia-muerte-responsable-masacre-bojaya
http://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/10155940
http://www.cgfm.mil.co/CGFMPortal/faces/index.jsp?id=13439
http://www.canalrcnmsn.com/noticias/as%C3%AD_fue_atacado_por_la_fuerza_a%C3%A9rea_campamento_de_las_farc_en_choc%C3%B3
Super Tucano lijkt mij ook een stuk beter. Maar mij hoor je ook niet klagen als de Klu (als ze ooit een CAS/COIN kist nodig zouden hebben) voor de Scorpion kiest hoor je mij niet klagen.
Citaat van: Jellington op 13/12/2013 | 22:55 uur
Super Tucano lijkt mij ook een stuk beter.
Waar baseer je deze uitspraak op?
Ik heb namelijk werkelijk waar nog geen idee...
Citaat van: Ace1 op 13/12/2013 | 21:41 uur
Mijn voorkeur gaat uit van de plank kopen en daar is Super Tucano een geschikt toestel voor wat combat proof is.
Zelfs Poleme vindt dat.
Ik vind dat de Super Tucano een zeer geschikt toestel is om onze PC-7 te vervangen (op termijn), dan heb je een goede trainer met LAS capaciteiten.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2013 | 23:17 uur
Waar baseer je deze uitspraak op?
Ik heb namelijk werkelijk waar nog geen idee...
Misschien had ik woord beter niet moeten gebruiken. Ik bedoelde dat men de Super Tucano van de plank kan kopen, dat die erg goedkoop is in onderhoud en ook niet al te duur in aanschaf (zover ik heb gehoord). Bij de Scorpion moet dit allemaal nog blijken, het is bedoeld als een low-budget kist maar er kunnen nog genoeg problemen optreden (zoals met ongeveer elk product in ontwikkeling). Dus op dit moment vindt ik de Super Tucano meer geschikt dan de Scorpion, maar dit kan in de toekomst natuurlijk veranderen.
Citaat van: Jellington op 13/12/2013 | 23:38 uur
Misschien had ik woord beter niet moeten gebruiken. Ik bedoelde dat men de Super Tucano van de plank kan kopen, dat die erg goedkoop is in onderhoud en ook niet al te duur in aanschaf (zover ik heb gehoord). Bij de Scorpion moet dit allemaal nog blijken, het is bedoeld als een low-budget kist maar er kunnen nog genoeg problemen optreden (zoals met ongeveer elk product in ontwikkeling). Dus op dit moment vindt ik de Super Tucano meer geschikt dan de Scorpion, maar dit kan in de toekomst natuurlijk veranderen.
Het zal zeker nog moeten blijken bij de Scorpion. Eerst maar eens zien of er überhaubt een luchtmacht is die dit private initiatief wil omarmen.
Lockheed sees F-16 fighter jet production continuing through 2020
By Reuters | 14 Dec, 2013
TEXAS: Lockheed Martin Corp has enough orders to keep its F-16 fighter jet production line humming through the third quarter of 2017, and hopes to land additional orders that would keep the line running through 2020, company executives say. Around that time, the cost of Lockheed's new F-35 stealth fighter will have dropped so far that potential customers will likely opt for the newer jet, Bill McHenry, Lockheed's head of F-16 business development, told Reuters in a recent interview. But for n ..
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/27344092.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Ja, niks nieuws hoor.
Nieuwe airframes van de F16 zijn ook gewoon te koop en je kunt de F16 nog 30 jaar laten vliegen als het moet.
Na ons zullen ze in een ander land ook gewoon doorvliegen.
Wij zitten aan onze uren maar je kunt een kist laten 'Zero Hour' timen, dan wordt hij weer als nieuw gemaakt en opgebouwd met hier en daar nieuwe delen. Dit kost wel geld maar veel minder als een compleet ander toestel.
Om te mengen in de discussie, de A10 zou een idiote keuze zijn. Het is een kist met 1 taak en daar hebben wij te weinig aan.
Wij hebben niet het geld om een heel arsenaal aan vliegtuigen te hebben voor specifieke taken.
Wij moeten het hebben van multi role, simpel. Natuurlijk is een MR kist nergens echt heel goed in maar dat is de consequentie.
De F35 zal ook niet het gewenste resultaat leveren aangezien hij bepaalde taken wellicht minder of niet kan uitvoeren zoals we dat gewend waren. Maar goed de tijd zal het leren.
De keuze is 8 jaar geleden al gemaakt en het gaat gewoon door mensen. Het is een politieke keuze en zoals vaker heeft dat niet altijd te maken met het beste te kopen om de klus te klaren.
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 14/12/2013 | 12:26 uur
Ja, niks nieuws hoor.
Nieuwe airframes van de F16 zijn ook gewoon te koop en je kunt de F16 nog 30 jaar laten vliegen als het moet.
Na ons zullen ze in een ander land ook gewoon doorvliegen.
Wij zitten aan onze uren maar je kunt een kist laten 'Zero Hour' timen, dan wordt hij weer als nieuw gemaakt en opgebouwd met hier en daar nieuwe delen. Dit kost wel geld maar veel minder als een compleet ander toestel.
Om te mengen in de discussie, de A10 zou een idiote keuze zijn. Het is een kist met 1 taak en daar hebben wij te weinig aan.
Wij hebben niet het geld om een heel arsenaal aan vliegtuigen te hebben voor specifieke taken.
Wij moeten het hebben van multi role, simpel. Natuurlijk is een MR kist nergens echt heel goed in maar dat is de consequentie.
De F35 zal ook niet het gewenste resultaat leveren aangezien hij bepaalde taken wellicht minder of niet kan uitvoeren zoals we dat gewend waren. Maar goed de tijd zal het leren.
De keuze is 8 jaar geleden al gemaakt en het gaat gewoon door mensen. Het is een politieke keuze en zoals vaker heeft dat niet altijd te maken met het beste te kopen om de klus te klaren.
Na 2017 wellicht niet meer ook al spreekt LM een wens uit om tot 2020 deze kist te produceren, zonder nieuwe orders valt simpelweg het doek.
Zie in deze ook de discussie rondom de productielijn van de F18E/F/G, zonder nieuwe orders is het klaar met de nieuwbouw van deze kist, ook in 2017. De keuze over het openhouden van deze lijnen zal ergens volgend jaar gemaakt moeten worden, immers de long lead items zullen dan besteld moeten worden. (voor series vanaf 2018)
De resterende potentiële kandidaten voor nieuwe "teens" zie ik slinken als sneeuw voor de zon in het (nog) voordeel van EuroCanards en nieuwe eigen ontwikkelingen dan wel nieuwe Russen of Aziaten.
Jouw stelling dat er na ons, 30 jaar na de uitfasering van de F16 nog F16 zullen rondvliegen (2053) is vast correct, zeker als het een van de meest recente varianten is (block 52+), ik waag echter te betwijfelen dat er F16's van het eerste uur (A en B block 15) tegen die tijd nog in een operationeel leven zijn (die zijn dan 70+ jaar oud)
Vwb: de A10C (of ander CAS/COIN kist), die zie ik niet ipv de F16 maar hooguit, in een klein aantal, naast de F35A.
Vwb geld: dat is er wel degelijk, het zijn slechts politieke beslissingen (1 F35A per elk dagdeel gezondheidszorg x 365 dagen per jaar, om maar één voorbeeld te noemen)
Het ernaast hebben is gewoon een bezigheid die onze krijgsmacht niet aan kan. Je hebt dan weer extra materieel nodig, extra opleidingen, weer extra contracten, etc.
Gewoon niet rendabel voor een aantal specifieke kisten waar we niet altijd wat mee kunnen.
Afghanistan heeft ervoor gezorgt dat wij sinds hele lange tijd, zo niet voor het eerst, hebben operationeel kunnen 'mud moven' !
Die missie is straks echt klaar en is de kans aanwezig dat we voorlopig niks meer doen in die aard.
Een CAS kist pur sang is dan mijn inziens ook geen logische keuze, zeker niet als je die nu anno 2014 nog wenst aan te schaffen.
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 14/12/2013 | 13:46 uur
Het ernaast hebben is gewoon een bezigheid die onze krijgsmacht niet aan kan. Je hebt dan weer extra materieel nodig, extra opleidingen, weer extra contracten, etc.
Gewoon niet rendabel voor een aantal specifieke kisten waar we niet altijd wat mee kunnen.
Afghanistan heeft ervoor gezorgt dat wij sinds hele lange tijd, zo niet voor het eerst, hebben operationeel kunnen 'mud moven' !
Die missie is straks echt klaar en is de kans aanwezig dat we voorlopig niks meer doen in die aard.
Een CAS kist pur sang is dan mijn inziens ook geen logische keuze, zeker niet als je die nu anno 2014 nog wenst aan te schaffen.
Ik zie de noodzaak van een CAS kist pur sang wel degelijk al was het maar dat de F35 hier minder geschikt voor is, het hoeft geen A10 te zijn maar wel een kist met uithoudings- en incasseringsvermogen. Los van het feit dat de operationele kosten aanzienlijk aantrekkelijker zijn dan die van een uurtje F35.
Dat het geld kost is evident maar bezie dit in relatie tot een halvering (exclusief inflatie) van het defensiebudget sinds de jaren negentig van de vorige eeuw, een focus moet zijn om het pluche en het publiek te overtuigen dat defensie MINDER kost dan dat het oplevert zodat deze negatieve spiraal (die ons uiteindelijk geld kost) wordt doorbroken!
Even een andere vraag, kan de Super Tucano ook bijvoorbeeld MBT's uitschakelen? Of is die echt alleen maar effectief tegen "lichte" eenheden?
Citaat van: Jellington op 14/12/2013 | 14:07 uur
Even een andere vraag, kan de Super Tucano ook bijvoorbeeld MBT's uitschakelen? Of is die echt alleen maar effectief tegen "lichte" eenheden?
Natuurlijk. Dat ding kan 250&500 ponders meenemen. Tevens kunnen er diverse missiles op geïntegreerd worden.
Kijk CAS zoals een A10 kan je vergeten met welke kist dan ook.
De F35 is zeer waarschijnlijk nog minder CAS capable dan de F16 en dat is al geen superster op dat gebied maar we moeten het zoeken in een Multi Role plane.
Daar is de F35 uitgekomen (pure politiek) en daar moeten we het mee doen. Nogmaals, de beslissing is destijds al genomen en de rest is allemaal politiek toneelspel. Partijen die opeens net doen alsof ze tegen zijn puur om de achterban te behagen en voor de stemmen natuurlijk.
Mijn keuze was simpel geweest, gewoon splinternieuwe Super Hornets van de plank kopen en je kunt de komende 30 jaar weer op niveau vliegen.
0 hours, bewezen functionaliteit en techniek, dual engine, vele configuraties en op zijn taken berekent.
Tegen die tijd dat die oud wordt is de piloot in een gevechtskist verleden tijd en vrijwel volledig vervangen door bewapende drones.
Citaat van: Jellington op 14/12/2013 | 14:07 uur
Even een andere vraag, kan de Super Tucano ook bijvoorbeeld MBT's uitschakelen? Of is die echt alleen maar effectief tegen "lichte" eenheden?
Het is mogelijk om ook bommen en missiles te vervoeren met een Super Tucano
Outboard stations allow the loading and firing of short-range air-air missiles of the AIM-9 class.
All stations can be loaded with the Mk 81 or Mk 82 (conventional or equipped with guidance kits) bombs, SBAT-70/19 or LAU-68 rocket launchers.
http://www.embraerdefensesystems.com/english/content/combat/tucano_multi_role.asp
Citaat van: Ace1 op 14/12/2013 | 14:19 uur
Het is mogelijk om ook bommen en missiles te vervoeren met een Super Tucano
Outboard stations allow the loading and firing of short-range air-air missiles of the AIM-9 class.
All stations can be loaded with the Mk 81 or Mk 82 (conventional or equipped with guidance kits) bombs, SBAT-70/19 or LAU-68 rocket launchers.
http://www.embraerdefensesystems.com/english/content/combat/tucano_multi_role.asp
Handige kist dus! Waar wacht de Klu nog op vraag ik me dan af. :angel:
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 14/12/2013 | 14:16 uur
Mijn keuze was simpel geweest, gewoon splinternieuwe Super Hornets van de plank kopen en je kunt de komende 30 jaar weer op niveau vliegen.
0 hours, bewezen functionaliteit en techniek, dual engine, vele configuraties en op zijn taken berekent.
Tegen die tijd dat die oud wordt is de piloot in een gevechtskist verleden tijd en vrijwel volledig vervangen door bewapende drones.
Waarom ga je liever voor de Super Hornet dan bijv de F15SE?
Allebei geweldige kisten natuurlijk.
Simpel,
De F15 is stukken goedkoper en je zit in de F15 met 2 man. Wij zijn single seat kisten gewend dus dan vermijd je het hele gedoe tot omscholing of extra personeel.
Vergis je niet in het kosten plaatje... Een goedkopere kist zorgt voor meer aantallen voor hetzelfde buget.
Zo houd je je luchtmacht op niveau en kunnen de piloten ook vliegen.
Met straks 35 geplande kisten heb je er mischien 6 operationeel in Nederland in de lucht.
Je hebt er straks een paar in de USA voor training, een aantal in NL voor de opleidingen, een flink deel in onderhoud, een paar op missie ergens en gaanderweg verlies je er ook een aantal (is gewoon een feit).
Als je dan minder kwijt bent per exemplaar kan je er ook meer kopen en met alle downtime en verliezen houd je een acceptabel aantal operationeel in de lucht.
Het aantal van de JSF is bespottelijk en is wellicht nog aan de ruime kant (op basis van de huidige geschatte kosten), we weten allemaal dat de kans dat hij goedkoper wordt net zo groot is als het kwartje van Kok terug gegeven wordt aan de automobilist.
Kortom, als is de JSF alles wat de fabriek zegt en beloofd, je hebt er te weinig om er echt wat mee te kunnen.
Tel daar ook de geluids problematiek bij op (is ook veel om te doen) en het feest is compleet.
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 14/12/2013 | 14:39 uur
Simpel,
De F15 is stukken goedkoper en je zit in de F15 met 2 man. Wij zijn single seat kisten gewend dus dan vermijd je het hele gedoe tot omscholing of extra personeel.
De nieuwe F15SE was ingeschat rond de 100 miljoen doller p. stuk. Hoe duur is de Super Hornet dan wel niet? Dat we single seat kisten gewend zijn dat begrijp ik wel.
Citaat van: Jellington op 14/12/2013 | 14:44 uur
De nieuwe F15SE was ingeschat rond de 100 miljoen doller p. stuk. Hoe duur is de Super Hornet dan wel niet? Dat we single seat kisten gewend zijn dat begrijp ik wel.
Zo rond de 60 miljoen per stuk .... Scheelt aanzienlijk.
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 14/12/2013 | 14:48 uur
Zo rond de 60 miljoen per stuk .... Scheelt aanzienlijk.
Maar je had net gezegd dat de F15 stukken goedkoper was, tikfout neem ik aan. Het scheelt inderdaad erg veel, als het allemaal klopt wat je zegt dan zou NL 66 Super Hornet's kunnen kopen. Mij hoor je niet klagen. :angel:
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 14/12/2013 | 12:26 uur
Ja, niks nieuws hoor.
Nieuwe airframes van de F16 zijn ook gewoon te koop en je kunt de F16 nog 30 jaar laten vliegen als het moet.
Na ons zullen ze in een ander land ook gewoon doorvliegen.
Wij zitten aan onze uren maar je kunt een kist laten 'Zero Hour' timen, dan wordt hij weer als nieuw gemaakt en opgebouwd met hier en daar nieuwe delen. Dit kost wel geld maar veel minder als een compleet ander toestel.
Wat is de overeenkomst tussen een F-16 en een 2 CV / 'Lelijke Eend' ?
Het zijn beide verfijnde ontwerpen, waarbij de ontwerpers gingen voor een zo laag mogelijk leeg gewicht.
De ontwerpers van de 2 CV wilden dat, zodat de nuttige lading zo maximaal mogelijk zou zijn. Want men zag de Lelijke Eend vooral als utiliteit voertuig voor boeren. De F-16 ontwerpers streefden naar een maximale motor vermogen / gewicht verhouding en een zo groot mogelijk vliegbereik / vliegduur.
De relatief zeer goedkope F-16A/B is daarom ook niet bepaald robuust te noemen. En is oorspronkelijk ontworpen om na 20 dienstjaren / 4.000 vlieguren weggegooid te worden. Tijdens het Pacer Service Life Improvement Program in de jaren 90 zijn de F-16A/B casco's al herbouwd, waarbij de levensduur werd opgerekt tot theoretisch 8.000 vlieg uren, maar in de praktijk zal dat echter rond de 6.000 vlieguren liggen.
De F-16C/D block 40 en hoger is een andere vogel. Deze heeft een leeg gewicht dat ca. 1.600 kg hoger ligt dan dat van de F-16A/B block 15. En heeft ook een standaard levensduur van 8.000 vlieguren. De US Air Force wil de levensduur van bepaalde jonge F-16C/D proberen te verlengen tot 10.000 vlieguren.
De F-15 Eagle is wel een zeer robuust, niet verfijnd 'recht toe, recht aan' vliegtuig met een ontwerp levensduur van 8.000 uren. De F-15 Eagle is echter ontworpen met Periodic Depot Maintenance in het achterhoofd. Waarbij deze levensduur kan worden verlengd, door vervanging van bepaalde onderdelen.
Citaat van: Jellington op 14/12/2013 | 14:44 uur
De nieuwe F15SE was ingeschat rond de 100 miljoen doller p. stuk. Hoe duur is de Super Hornet dan wel niet? Dat we single seat kisten gewend zijn dat begrijp ik wel.
De US Navy betaalt heden voor een F-18E met motoren en Elektronische Oorlog Voering systemen rond de USD 51 miljoen en voor een F-18G Growler EOV variant legt men ca. USD 60 miljoen op tafel. Omdat het US DoD al de ontwikkelingskosten heeft betaald, zitten die uiteraard niet meer in deze aanschaf prijzen. Export klanten betalen deze wel in een Direct Customer Sale, maar bij een Foreign Military Sale via State Department komen deze ontwikkelingskosten niet in de aanschaf prijs.
Australia kocht in 2007 24 F-18E/F Super Hornets voor toen omgerekend USD 2,39 miljard, USD 99,6 miljoen per Super Hornet.
Onze LANTIRN, RecceLite en Litening verkenning en doelaanwijs pods zijn echter niet gecertificeerd voor de F-18E/F. Australia vloog al met Litening pods onder hun F-18C/D's. Maar vond toch dat het beter (minder risico) was om nieuwe pods te kopen.
Levensduurkosten (100%) = aanschaf (30%) + exploitatie (70%).
De Cost Per Flight Hour van de lichtere en kleinere F-18C Hornet bedragen al 50% meer dan die van de F-16C. De CPFH van de F-18E liggen gelijk of iets hoger dan die van de F-18C als die vanaf landbases opereert.
De F-16C heeft met 2x 2000 ponders en 2 AIM-120 of AIM-9 luchtdoelraketten een bereik van 1,255 kilometer. De F-18E Super Hornet haalt met 4x 1000 ponders en 2 AIM-120's of AIM-9 Sidewinders slechts 676 kilometer = 46% minder bereik. F-18E/F ops boven Afghanistan hebben laten zien dat deze ver van een thuis basis kan opereren, maar wel met genereuze tanker ondersteuning. Echter, tank vliegtuigen zijn schaars en deze extra ondersteuning komt bovenop de directe exploitatie kosten.
Citaat van: Poleme op 14/12/2013 | 15:56 uur
De US Navy betaalt heden voor een F-18E met motoren en Elektronische Oorlog Voering systemen rond de USD 51 miljoen en voor een F-18G Growler EOV variant legt men ca. USD 60 miljoen op tafel. Omdat het US DoD al de ontwikkelingskosten heeft betaald, zitten die uiteraard niet meer in deze aanschaf prijzen. Export klanten betalen deze wel in een Direct Customer Sale, maar bij een Foreign Military Sale via State Department komen deze ontwikkelingskosten niet in de aanschaf prijs.
Australia kocht in 2007 24 F-18E/F Super Hornets voor toen omgerekend USD 2,39 miljard, USD 99,6 miljoen per Super Hornet.
Onze LANTIRN, RecceLite en Litening verkenning en doelaanwijs pods zijn echter niet gecertificeerd voor de F-18E/F. Australia vloog al met Litening pods onder hun F-18C/D's. Maar vond toch dat het beter (minder risico) was om nieuwe pods te kopen.
Levensduurkosten (100%) = aanschaf (30%) + exploitatie (70%).
De Cost Per Flight Hour van de lichtere en kleinere F-18C Hornet bedragen al 50% meer dan die van de F-16C. De CPFH van de F-18E liggen gelijk of iets hoger dan die van de F-18C als die vanaf landbases opereert.
De F-16C heeft met 2x 2000 ponders en 2 AIM-120 of AIM-9 luchtdoelraketten een bereik van 1,255 kilometer. De F-18E Super Hornet haalt met 4x 1000 ponders en 2 AIM-120's of AIM-9 Sidewinders slechts 676 kilometer = 46% minder bereik. F-18E/F ops boven Afghanistan hebben laten zien dat deze ver van een thuis basis kan opereren, maar wel met genereuze tanker ondersteuning. Echter, tank vliegtuigen zijn schaars en deze extra ondersteuning komt bovenop de directe exploitatie kosten.
Bedankt voor de informatie! Weet je hoe dit zit met de F15? Bedankt!
Citaat van: Poleme op 14/12/2013 | 15:56 uur
Echter, tank vliegtuigen zijn schaars en deze extra ondersteuning komt bovenop de directe exploitatie kosten.
EDA & EATC hebben een intiatief wvb AAR (http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/frisian_flag_2014-t25836.0.html;msg323079#new) genomen.
Citaat van: Poleme op 14/12/2013 | 15:56 uur
De US Navy betaalt heden voor een F-18E met motoren en Elektronische Oorlog Voering systemen rond de USD 51 miljoen en voor een F-18G Growler EOV variant legt men ca. USD 60 miljoen op tafel. Omdat het US DoD al de ontwikkelingskosten heeft betaald, zitten die uiteraard niet meer in deze aanschaf prijzen. Export klanten betalen deze wel in een Direct Customer Sale, maar bij een Foreign Military Sale via State Department komen deze ontwikkelingskosten niet in de aanschaf prijs.
Australia kocht in 2007 24 F-18E/F Super Hornets voor toen omgerekend USD 2,39 miljard, USD 99,6 miljoen per Super Hornet.
Onze LANTIRN, RecceLite en Litening verkenning en doelaanwijs pods zijn echter niet gecertificeerd voor de F-18E/F. Australia vloog al met Litening pods onder hun F-18C/D's. Maar vond toch dat het beter (minder risico) was om nieuwe pods te kopen.
Levensduurkosten (100%) = aanschaf (30%) + exploitatie (70%).
De Cost Per Flight Hour van de lichtere en kleinere F-18C Hornet bedragen al 50% meer dan die van de F-16C. De CPFH van de F-18E liggen gelijk of iets hoger dan die van de F-18C als die vanaf landbases opereert.
De F-16C heeft met 2x 2000 ponders en 2 AIM-120 of AIM-9 luchtdoelraketten een bereik van 1,255 kilometer. De F-18E Super Hornet haalt met 4x 1000 ponders en 2 AIM-120's of AIM-9 Sidewinders slechts 676 kilometer = 46% minder bereik. F-18E/F ops boven Afghanistan hebben laten zien dat deze ver van een thuis basis kan opereren, maar wel met genereuze tanker ondersteuning. Echter, tank vliegtuigen zijn schaars en deze extra ondersteuning komt bovenop de directe exploitatie kosten.
Ja ok, maar projecteer die kosten nu eens op die van de JSF en niet op een F16 uit de Jaren 70/80.
Op geen enkel punt zullen er besparingen zijn zoals het er nu uitziet en zeker niet op cost per flight hour en vwb het tanken laat het zich ook eenvoudig raden aangezien de JSF niet bepaald een bluemotion is ....
En nogmaals, er is nog niets bewezen qua prestaties en er zijn inmiddels al doelstellingen naar beneden bij gesteld, en is het maar de vraag of je ook dat gaat krijgen waar je voor betaald ....
Heel gevaarlijk dat kopen van iets wat nog in ontwikkeling is, zeker met het huidige rampen traject.
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 14/12/2013 | 18:26 uur
Ja ok, maar projecteer die kosten nu eens op die van de JSF en niet op een F16 uit de Jaren 70/80.
Op geen enkel punt zullen er besparingen zijn zoals het er nu uitziet en zeker niet op cost per flight hour en vwb het tanken laat het zich ook eenvoudig raden aangezien de JSF niet bepaald een bluemotion is ....
En nogmaals, er is nog niets bewezen qua prestaties en er zijn inmiddels al doelstellingen naar beneden bij gesteld, en is het maar de vraag of je ook dat gaat krijgen waar je voor betaald ....
Heel gevaarlijk dat kopen van iets wat nog in ontwikkeling is, zeker met het huidige rampen traject.
Ook niet vergeten dat de Amerikanen de "echte" F35 krijgen en de andere landen de export versie.
Gepubliceerd op 13 dec 2013
On Friday, Dec. 13, 2013, Lockheed Martin unveiled the 100th F-35, known as AF-41, at a ceremony for employees, elected officials and customers. AF-41 is a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft, and it will be the first of 144 F-35s delivered to "Fighter Country" at Luke Air Force Base (AFB) in Glendale, Ariz.
video zie link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgaRaZP_w8&feature=youtu.be
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 14/12/2013 | 18:26 uur
Ja ok, maar projecteer die kosten nu eens op die van de JSF en niet op een F16 uit de Jaren 70/80.
Op geen enkel punt zullen er besparingen zijn zoals het er nu uitziet en zeker niet op cost per flight hour en vwb het tanken laat het zich ook eenvoudig raden aangezien de JSF niet bepaald een bluemotion is ....
En nogmaals, er is nog niets bewezen qua prestaties en er zijn inmiddels al doelstellingen naar beneden bij gesteld, en is het maar de vraag of je ook dat gaat krijgen waar je voor betaald ....
Heel gevaarlijk dat kopen van iets wat nog in ontwikkeling is, zeker met het huidige rampen traject.
De F-35A zal voor ons per stuk tussen de USD 165 - 235 miljoen (inclusief toebehoren) gaan kosten. De geschatte Cost Per Flight Hour staat nu op USD 35.500, maar kan gemakkelijk groeien richting USD 40.000 per vlieguur. Dit betekend dat we maar 20 - 24 F-35A's kunnen aanschaffen en exploiteren bij deze kosten.
Twee motorige jachtvliegtuigen a la F-18E Super Hornet, Rafale en Typhoon zijn en blijven aanzienlijk duurder dan een motorige jachtvliegtuigen en hebben ook een aanzienlijk grotere logistieke staart. Een eventuele aanschaf van dit soort kisten, betekend dat we maar een vloot van rond de 40 jachtvliegtuigen kunnen vormen. Gezien het feit dat de inzetbaarheid van wapensystemen in de gehele Nederlandse krijgsmacht om te huilen is.
Beschouw ik deze vloot van 40 jachtvliegtuigen als te klein. En ga ik voor een grotere vloot van ca. 68 nieuwe F-16 Advanced (bijvoorbeeld F-16V of F-16E/F block 60) of Gripen C/D's of -E's. Met deze grotere vloot kan je meer toekomstige scenario's aan, dan alleen het huidige ambitie niveau of je kunt toekomstige bezuinigingen beter opvangen met deze relatief goedkoper te gebruiken jachtvliegtuigen.
Citaat van: Poleme op 15/12/2013 | 01:54 uur
De F-35A zal voor ons per stuk tussen de USD 165 - 235 miljoen (inclusief toebehoren) gaan kosten. De geschatte Cost Per Flight Hour staat nu op USD 35.500, maar kan gemakkelijk groeien richting USD 40.000 per vlieguur. Dit betekend dat we maar 20 - 24 F-35A's kunnen aanschaffen en exploiteren bij deze kosten.
Twee motorige jachtvliegtuigen a la F-18E Super Hornet, Rafale en Typhoon zijn en blijven aanzienlijk duurder dan een motorige jachtvliegtuigen en hebben ook een aanzienlijk grotere logistieke staart. Een eventuele aanschaf van dit soort kisten, betekend dat we maar een vloot van rond de 40 jachtvliegtuigen kunnen vormen. Gezien het feit dat de inzetbaarheid van wapensystemen in de gehele Nederlandse krijgsmacht om te huilen is.
Beschouw ik deze vloot van 40 jachtvliegtuigen als te klein. En ga ik voor een grotere vloot van ca. 68 nieuwe F-16 Advanced (bijvoorbeeld F-16V of F-16E/F block 60) of Gripen C/D's of -E's. Met deze grotere vloot kan je meer toekomstige scenario's aan, dan alleen het huidige ambitie niveau of je kunt toekomstige bezuinigingen beter opvangen met deze relatief goedkoper te gebruiken jachtvliegtuigen.
Hebben we alleen 1,4 mjd (1.400.000.000,-) euro in de prullenbak gegooid voor de JSF (F-35A), waar we niets mee gaan doen.
Report: France Loses Out on Brazil Fighter Jet Contract
France will lose out in its bid to win a multi-billion-dollar fighter jet contract with Brazil, the Folha de Sao Paulo daily reported Saturday.
The newspaper set France's $4 billion proposal for 36 Rafale fighter jets, from a consortium led by French giant Dassault, will be shot down for cost reason. It did not say who would be the likely winner of the highly prized contract.
.....
het gehele artikel via de link
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131215/DEFREG01/312150010/Report-France-Loses-Out-Brazil-Fighter-Jet-Contract
Citaat van: www.defensenews.com Vandaag om 07:42
It did not say who would be the likely winner of the highly prized contract.
Als het al zo is dan zou dit maar zo de belangrijke en wellicht levensreddende doorbraak voor de Gripen E kunnen betekenen, immers als de Fransoos te kostbaar blijkt dan is daar ook nog eens de rel met de Amerikanen die de F18E/F op een achterstand heeft gezet.
We gaan het zien, al begrijp ik dat een definitieve keuze niet voor 2015 valt te verwachten.
Citaat van: ridivek op 15/12/2013 | 16:05 uur
Hebben we alleen 1,4 mjd (1.400.000.000,-) euro in de prullenbak gegooid voor de JSF (F-35A), waar we niets mee gaan doen.
Maakt niet uit, die zijn we toch al kwijt. Kijk waar we nu staan, wat we nu nog hebben, en kijk wat we daarvoor nog kunnen krijgen.
Ik bemerk enig verzet bij de forumleden omtrent de keuze voor de F-35.
Die komt er, er komt geen gripen, f-18 of frans tuig.... het wordt gewoon de F-35, dat is de realteit.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 16/12/2013 | 14:01 uur
Ik bemerk enig verzet bij de forumleden omtrent de keuze voor de F-35.
Die komt er, er komt geen gripen, f-18 of frans tuig.... het wordt gewoon de F-35, dat is de realteit.
Exact!
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 16/12/2013 | 14:01 uur
Ik bemerk enig verzet bij de forumleden omtrent de keuze voor de F-35.
Die komt er, er komt geen gripen, f-18 of frans tuig.... het wordt gewoon de F-35, dat is de realteit.
Dit is een zeer kwalijke zaak. Net als de keuze voor maar 37 kisten.
Maar meer van dit type toestel is enorm duur en bovendien niet echt wat we zoeken, de F-35 voldoet wat mij betreft niet als F-16 vervanger.
Vandaar de eigenlijke noodzaak dit toestel aan te vullen met een budget toestel dat geschikt is als goedkope bombtruck en QRA kist.
Van de F-35 zullen er maar 6 beschikbaar zijn, dit is te weinig. De vlieguurkosten zijn bovendien erg hoog voor wat wij er mee willen doen.
Tot slot is er geen tweezits versie, dit maakt een andere kist ook noodzakelijk. Ik geloof niet in simulators, ik vind het hoogst onverantwoord om een piloot van een simulator ineens in een eenzitter te plaatsen. Ik ben dan wel een leek maar als je praat over kisten van 160 tot meer dan 200 miljoen per stuk en mensenlevens dan mag ik toch hopen dat men meer veiligheid in acht neemt.
Maar goed, als we meer kisten willen gaat dat geld kosten. Dat is jammer maar waar. De keuze voor de F-35A heeft de luchtmacht en ook de rest van Defensie enorm beschadigd en zorgt voor een groot zwart gat in de begroting. Nu die dingen er komen moeten we ze maar gebruiken ook maar we moeten de taken van de krijgsmacht daarbij niet uit het oog verliezen: de realiteit is nog steeds dat 6 kisten inzetbaar te weinig is en de landmacht nu niet in staat is tot conventionele oorlogsvoering.
Daar moet de prioriteit liggen: het opplussen van de vloot met kisten anders dan de F-35A (ik heb liever 37 F-35's dan meer van die ondingen), het herintroduceren van tanks bij de zware brigade alsmede het zoeken van een adequate invulling van het gemotoriseerde concept.
Ik weet dat er bij de marine ook een chronisch tekort aan schepen is en zo maar de schepen die er zijn zijn in elk geval adequaat, vandaar dat de lucht- en landmacht prioriteit dienen te krijgen bij extra investeringen.
Via Google translate
Brazil closer Gripen purchase
Published: Today at 16:25
Economy Telegram Brazil has stepped up negotiations with Sweden for the purchase of the JAS Gripen aircraft from Saab , according to Brazilian press .
The Swedish fighter plane is reported to be the clear favorite .
Ever since August, when it became known through the whistle- blower Edward Snowden that the U.S. has been spying on including Brazil and its government , the Brazilian Ministry of Defense has increased the pace of its negotiations with Sweden for the purchase of 36 JAS Gripen aircraft from Saab , writes the respected newspaper Folha de São Paulo on Monday.
The same newspaper revealed this weekend that the country intends to abstain from combat aircraft Rafale , made by Dassault of France , because it is considered too expensive by President Dilma Rousseff . The information has not been confirmed .
This means that the Swedish Jas Gripen is left as one of two candidates. The other is the American Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet . The newspaper does not believe in any final decision before 2015, after the Brazilian presidential elections in October 2014.
Other sources on a Brazilian defense site signifies your Gripen as the clear favorite in the Brazilian Air Force's procurement. It's President Dilma Rousseff herself who will take the final decision, it is said . In an overview report from the Air Force , which has not yet been published, highlights the Gripen also as the best option .
Saab wants to TT did not comment on the findings .
Zie link voor het originele Zweedse artikel
http://www.vk.se/1065576/brasilien-allt-narmare-gripen-kop
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 16/12/2013 | 14:01 uur
Ik bemerk enig verzet bij de forumleden omtrent de keuze voor de F-35.
Die komt er, er komt geen gripen, f-18 of frans tuig.... het wordt gewoon de F-35, dat is de realteit.
Ja dus ?
Als het de realiteit is en het discusieren geen zin meer heeft dan kunnen we het forum wel opdoeken.
Dat het doorgaat is een feit, maar dan nog kunnen mensen hier over discussieren en van gedachten wisselen.
Met de dagelijkse politiek doen we niet anders, daar kletsen we ook dagelijks over terwijl we prima weten wat de realiteit is.
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 16/12/2013 | 18:10 uur
Ja dus ?
Als het de realiteit is en het discusieren geen zin meer heeft dan kunnen we het forum wel opdoeken.
Dat het doorgaat is een feit, maar dan nog kunnen mensen hier over discussieren en van gedachten wisselen.
Met de dagelijkse politiek doen we niet anders, daar kletsen we ook dagelijks over terwijl we prima weten wat de realiteit is.
Dit is natuurlijk onzin en als je dat leest in mijn post raad ik je aan hem nog eens door te nemen want dan heb je me niet begrepen.
Er is over vanalles te discussiëren. De fata morgana topics zijn op dit forum ook ruim vertegenwoordigd dus als we een potje willen skywalken is dat geen probleem. Het punt is echter dat hier de realiteit gewoon linea recta aan de kant wordt gezet en met een fictionele versie wordt verdergegaan. Er is besloten, klaar..accepteren. Zo zit het.. of het leuk is of niet is wat anders, maar kom op zeg.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 16/12/2013 | 21:04 uur
....
Er is besloten, klaar..accepteren. Zo zit het.. of het leuk is of niet is wat anders, maar kom op zeg.
sorry...maar er is een "maar" ingebouwd in de keuze als ik het goed heb begrepen. Men in 2015 nog eens kijkt naar het project. Als voor die tijd de regering valt en er een anti-JSF regering komt dan kan het nog steeds einde oefening zijn voor de JSF. Zeker als ene meneer Wilders nogal inspraak krijgt in die regering. Ik denk niet dat het gebeurd, maar uitgesloten is het nog niet.
welnee... dit is allemaal al in clausules vastgelegd. In kannen en kruiken. Kom op zeg.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 16/12/2013 | 21:20 uur
welnee... dit is allemaal al in clausules vastgelegd. In kannen en kruiken. Kom op zeg.
je weet wat Wilders van clausules e.d. vindt en er mee wil doen ;). Maar ik ga er ook vanuit dat het rond is nu. En ga er geen energie meer in steken. Wel zal ik betrokkenen houden aan hun beloften en toezeggingen. Maar voor de rekening opmaken is het nog te vroeg.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 16/12/2013 | 21:20 uur
welnee... dit is allemaal al in clausules vastgelegd. In kannen en kruiken. Kom op zeg.
Ondanks dat ik er van overtuigd ben dat deze kist er gaat komen, denk ik dat het recent genomen besluit daar maar een zeer beperkte rol in speelt. Hoewel de kans op aanschaf nu zeer groot is, dwz, nagenoeg 100%, heb ik niet het idee dat die dat voor het nemen van het besluit níet was. Denk dat de kandidatenvergelijking de laatste kans was. Toen daar niet werd doorgepakt. Maar ondertussen is het contract nog niet getekend. En dat gebeurt voorlopig niet, want dan moet de minister met de billen bloot.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/12/2013 | 17:30 uur
Via Google translate
Brazil closer Gripen purchase
Published: Today at 16:25
Economy Telegram Brazil has stepped up negotiations with Sweden for the purchase of the JAS Gripen aircraft from Saab , according to Brazilian press .
The Swedish fighter plane is reported to be the clear favorite .
Ever since August, when it became known through the whistle- blower Edward Snowden that the U.S. has been spying on including Brazil and its government , the Brazilian Ministry of Defense has increased the pace of its negotiations with Sweden for the purchase of 36 JAS Gripen aircraft from Saab , writes the respected newspaper Folha de São Paulo on Monday.
The same newspaper revealed this weekend that the country intends to abstain from combat aircraft Rafale , made by Dassault of France , because it is considered too expensive by President Dilma Rousseff . The information has not been confirmed .
This means that the Swedish Jas Gripen is left as one of two candidates. The other is the American Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet . The newspaper does not believe in any final decision before 2015, after the Brazilian presidential elections in October 2014.
Other sources on a Brazilian defense site signifies your Gripen as the clear favorite in the Brazilian Air Force's procurement. It's President Dilma Rousseff herself who will take the final decision, it is said . In an overview report from the Air Force , which has not yet been published, highlights the Gripen also as the best option .
Saab wants to TT did not comment on the findings .
Zie link voor het originele Zweedse artikel
http://www.vk.se/1065576/brasilien-allt-narmare-gripen-kop
Mocht Saab de Gripen NG verkopen aan Brazilie dan is de kans vrij groot dat de Sea Gripen de A4 Skyhawk bij de Braziliaanse marine vervangt.
http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.nl/2013/10/saab-offers-sea-gripen-carrier-borne.html
Citaat van: Ace1 op 16/12/2013 | 22:09 uur
Mocht Saab de Gripen NG verkopen aan Brazilie dan is de kans vrij groot dat de Sea Gripen de A4 Skyhawk bij de Braziliaanse marine vervangt.
Als.... dan liggen alle opties voor de Gripen E open, daarnaast is het genoemde aantal van 36, als verondersteld, een eerste serie.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 16/12/2013 | 22:09 uur
Mocht Saab de Gripen NG verkopen aan Brazilie dan is de kans vrij groot dat de Sea Gripen de A4 Skyhawk bij de Braziliaanse marine vervangt.
http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.nl/2013/10/saab-offers-sea-gripen-carrier-borne.html
De Gripen gaat wel vliegen als die door de Amerikanen in dienst wordt genomen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 16/12/2013 | 22:14 uur
De Gripen gaat wel vliegen als die door de Amerikanen in dienst wordt genomen.
Dat zal
niet gebeuren, je doelt immers op de samenwerking tussen Boeing en Saab in het kader van de T-X competitie, inmiddels is duidelijk geworden dat het hier zal gaan om een "clean sheet" ontwerp.
Even sorry, maar ik geloof dus echt niet dat de vervanging F-16 in kannen en kruiken zit.
Als de scenario's die hier worden beschreven over de JSF waarheid worden,
- één F-35A kost 165 in plaats van 65mln, (ik denk dat 80 a 90 mln euro realistisch is)
- Van de 4,5Mjd kunnen niet de benodigde 37 toestellen worden aangeschaft (35 erbij), maar b.v. maar 24. Waardoor we maar bv. 2 toestellen kunnen uitzenden voor een korte periode. En Nederland dus door gebrek aan lucht overwicht maar om het jaar een kleine missie kan draaien.
- De exploitatie is vééél duurder (350mln/jaar i.p.v de 270mln die nu genoemd wordt (en de kosten liggen al hoger).
Dan denk ik toch echt dat er opnieuw een evaluatie gaat komen naar de biggest Bang for the fewest bucks. (het meeste gevechtskracht voor zo min mogelijk geld) (Hierbij hebben de concurrenten van de F-35 wel een achterstand van 1,4 Mjd, want deze kosten maken we in ieder geval voor de F-35.)
O en dan ben ik de tegenvallende prestaties / onbruikbaarheid van de F-35 doordat Stealth niets voorsteld, en de vele compromissen die ervoor zijn gedaan.
Voor mij wordt dit dan een Europeaan met één motor, de Saab (/Boeing) Gripen E (of C/D). Okee je zal deze na 20 i.p.v. 40 jaar moeten vervangen.
Maar bij de F-35 zit ook het vervangen van het duurste onderdeel: de motor in het programma. En de sensoren worden toch om de zoveel jaar vervangen omdat de techniek zoveel verbeterd is. Ik denk dat met slim ontwerp en hergebruik van sensoren, en/of de updates samen laten gaan met de vervanging, het best zo zou kunnen zijn dat Nederland meer capaciteiten overhoud voor minder geld. (want het budget is bindend, of je nu wil of niet. [en Ja dit is een politieke keuze, waar je het mee oneens kunt zijn.]).
Over op speculatieve modus:
Wat was er gebeurd wanneer alle Europese straaljager bouwers 10 a 15 jaar geleden gezamenlijk één familie van 5 typen straaljagers hadden ontwikkeld. De vijf types: (of meer als je Stealth geoptimaliseerd en minder stealth meerekent)
Drie met één motor: CTOL, Carrier en STOVL (als hier echt behoefte aan is), en Twee met twee motoren, CTOL en Carrier.
Als er voor deze straaljagers één of twee motoren waren ontwikkeld. En alle vijf types dezelfde sensoren en wapens hadden kunnen gebruiken.
(En er geen landspecifieke afwijkingen waren geweest)
Als het project prestatie gericht (er wordt betaald voor een ontwikkelde technologie/ onderdeel, niet voor de gewerkte uren) was geweest.
Als Europa volledig voor eigen opleidingen en trainingen had gezorgd. En onafhankelijk van de VS zou zijn.
Had Europa dan voor dezelfde kosten als er nu aan de 4 straaljager types (Eurofighter, Raffel, Gripen en JSF) dezelfde, zo niet meer capaciteiten gehad? Had de VS een volwaardige partner aan Europa gehad in NATO verband? Had iedereen niet beter en goedkoper af geweest?
(alleen is dit natuurlijk weer een Utopie, want Europees samenwerken is nogal moeilijk, door de vele verschillende belangen, en de starre houding van bepaalde landen (Frankrijk, Italie, Duitsland)).
NEW SELEX ES EXPENDABLE ACTIVE DECOY 'BRITECLOUD' SELECTED BY SAAB FOR GRIPEN FIGHTER.
Selex ES, a Finmeccanica company, launched its BriteCloud Expendable Active Decoy (EAD) on November 6th at the Churchill War Rooms in London.
BriteCloud is a manifestation of new design concepts and technologies being applied to decoy RF-guided missiles and fire control radars away from fighter aircraft. The same size and shape as a flare, dispensed from a standard 55mm flare cartridge and powered by batteries, BriteCloud draws threats away from the host platform, generating large miss distances. With the technology behind BriteCloud already proven in tests, the system is scheduled for a number of qualification missions and flight trials to guarantee full operational capacity.
Selex ES also announced that defence and security company Saab will be the first partner to offer the new decoy as an optional electronic warfare enhancement for all versions Gripen, both new and existing.
"Having assessed its capability, BriteCloud will increase the survivability of Gripen, further enhancing the fighter's attractiveness to customers." said Pete Forrest, VP marketing and sales for electronic warfare at Selex ES, adding; "We're working with Saab towards flight tests of the BriteCloud on Gripen which are expected to take place in 2014."
BriteCloud is the technological successor to previous generations of RF decoys such as repeaters and Towed Radar Decoys (TRD). When a pilot launches a BriteCloud, the decoy searches for and counters priority threats using advanced DRFM technology. Incoming radar pulses are received and the BriteCloud's on-board computer copies these pulses and uses them to simulate a 'false target' so convincing that the threat system cannot detect the deception. By doing this, the BriteCloud can seduce even the most modern threats away from the platform.
As an off-board jamming device, BriteCloud avoids the 'home-on-jam' vulnerabilities of on-board devices and allows it to put significant distance between itself and the fighter after launch, minimising any risk of incoming missiles detonating close to the platform. Other benefits include savings in cost and training compared to other systems with each unit significantly cheaper than equivalent TRD technology and easy to use and store.
http://www.selex-es.com/-/britecloudlaunch
Citaat van: ridivek op 16/12/2013 | 22:56 uur
* Heel verhaal
ja, sorry.. ik denk het toch echt wel, ik denk ook dat jij nog heel verbaasd gaat worden in de nabije toekomst dan.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 16/12/2013 | 23:02 uur
ja, sorry.. ik denk het toch echt wel, ik denk ook dat jij nog heel verbaasd gaat worden in de nabije toekomst dan.
In 2015 wordt er braaf getekend immers de kosten t.o.v. LRIP 6 en 7 zullen (al dan niet cosmetisch) dalen in zowel aanschaf als exploitatie en dat valt (als aanname) binnen deze kabinetsperiode dus voldoet deze kist aan de voorwaarde.
Laten we nu eens ophouden met gemierenneuk over bezuinigingen want als we doorgaan op de huidige voet, dan hebben we in 2025 een discussie over een jet trainer, die dan al te duur is, we kunnen ons beter druk maken om een budget verhoging.
Lockheed Looks To Push F-35 Production Rate
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
Source: AWIN First
December 16, 2013
Lockheed Martin is considering all options to continue increasing the production rate of the multinational F-35, though officials are not yet to the point where they must draw on company funds to forward finance the manufacturing line.
"Anything and everything has been looked at," says Lorraine Martin, executive vice president of the company's F-35 program. "If [the production rate] doesn't increase, that is going to be difficult. We have been flat for four years."
Still, company officials expect to overtake their so-called fourth-generation competitors – including Boeing's Super Hornet – in cost as early as 2019.
The company delivered 13 of the single-engine, stealthy fighters in 2011, 30 in 2012 and 36 in 2013. Early in the program's development phase, company officials hoped to increase the production rate by at least 50% year over year to gain enough volume to reduce the per-unit price. These hopes have dissipated, though, in the face of a string of program shifts culminating in 2010 with a major restructuring that slowed production until development gets closer to completion in 2016.
Now, the Pentagon – by far the largest F-35 customer – is facing major budget cuts that could force the production rate to stay lower than planned for the fighter. The Air Force is looking at cutting as many as 24 aircraft over the next five years due to budget pressure, and the Navy is looking at far more drastic scenarios.
Though companies have in the past financed portions of production as they anticipate forthcoming contracts – Boeing did this repeatedly with the C-17 production facility in Long Beach, Calif. – there is "no need to do that right now" for the F-35, said Orlando Carvalho, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.
Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is "all in" on helping to reduce the aircraft's per-unit price. CEOs from the top F-35 manufacturers have joined together in a council to tackle the problem; no specific initiatives have yet been identified by the council for cost reductions. But Martin says they are looking at options.
Martin says she expects the per-unit cost of the F-35A in 2019 – when full-rate production begins – to be $85 million in then-year dollars, or $75 million in current dollars. This includes an aircraft with the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine and all mission systems, she says.
Martin claims this pricing will be better than competitors at the time. Boeing said that in today's money, an F/A-18E/F would cost $50 million. However, Boeing is facing a production rate reduction by as much as half from 48 annually
The target cost for aircraft in low-rate initial production lot 7 is just less than $100 million based on the most recent contract agreement between Lockheed Martin and the Penatgon. An LRIP 8 deal is expected to be signed next spring, Martin says.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_16_2013_p0-647173.xml&p=2
Upgrade Of F/A-18 Fuel Tank Gains Ground
As the U.S. Navy ponders future purchases of the F/A-18, it is showing growing interest in the comprehensive structures, systems and propulsion upgrade package proposed by industry earlier this year that would extend the combat life of the current fleet.
One element of Boeing's Advanced Super Hornet plan receiving close attention is large conformal fuel tanks (CFT). In flight tests, they have shown the potential for marginal drag reduction and other benefits over the unmodified aircraft, despite their size and capacity. With the ability to hold 3,500 lb. of fuel, the tanks could add 260-nm combat range to the Super Hornet and, in the case of the EA-18G Growler electronic-attack version, would extend time on station and bring-back weight.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.defensetech.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FAdvanced-Super-Hornet.jpg&hash=53d9b49d3c04b3048a8a5703fb4b9e91b26d2263)
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_16_2013_p28-645490.xml
standaard combat-range = ca. 390 nm (700 km) door toevoeging van rugtanks wordt de range vergroot met 260 nm, dus 650 nm ( 1200 km)
Citaat van: Harald op 17/12/2013 | 16:43 uur
Upgrade Of F/A-18 Fuel Tank Gains Ground
As the U.S. Navy ponders future purchases of the F/A-18, it is showing growing interest in the comprehensive structures, systems and propulsion upgrade package proposed by industry earlier this year that would extend the combat life of the current fleet.
One element of Boeing's Advanced Super Hornet plan receiving close attention is large conformal fuel tanks (CFT). In flight tests, they have shown the potential for marginal drag reduction and other benefits over the unmodified aircraft, despite their size and capacity. With the ability to hold 3,500 lb. of fuel, the tanks could add 260-nm combat range to the Super Hornet and, in the case of the EA-18G Growler electronic-attack version, would extend time on station and bring-back weight.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_16_2013_p28-645490.xml
standaard combat-range = ca. 390 nm (700 km) door toevoeging van rugtanks wordt de range vergroot met 260 nm, dus 650 nm ( 1200 km)
Procentueel gezien een interesante ontwikkeling.
De range is voor de (super)Hornet altijd wel een van de zwakste punten geweest.
Denk dat je gaat schrikken als uiteindelijk de daadwerkelijke actieradius bekend wordt van de F35 .... :glare:
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 17/12/2013 | 21:24 uur
Denk dat je gaat schrikken als uiteindelijk de daadwerkelijke actieradius bekend wordt van de F35 .... :glare:
ja maar daar verzinnen ze vast wat op...dan wordt het..de "ongeziene" actieradius ;)
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 17/12/2013 | 21:24 uur
Denk dat je gaat schrikken als uiteindelijk de daadwerkelijke actieradius bekend wordt van de F35 .... :glare:
Uit de afdeling: bevooroordeeld en negatief
Nee hoor, ik berust het op de feiten die op dit moment bekend zijn en kijkende naar de performance specs, gewicht en andere factoren die een rol spelen.
De performance eisen zijn niet voor niets aangepast.
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 17/12/2013 | 23:51 uur
Nee hoor, ik berust het op de feiten die op dit moment bekend zijn en kijkende naar de performance specs, gewicht en andere factoren die een rol spelen.
De performance eisen zijn niet voor niets aangepast.
Zoiets als 5 km te kort komen op de specificatie?
News Analysis: Japan's MOD eyes F-35 multirole stealth jets as ASDF's mainstay fighter
English.news.cn 2013-12-18
by Jon Day
TOKYO, Dec. 18 (Xinhua) -- Japan's Ministry of Defense (MOD) on Wednesday said it is mulling to increase the number of Lockheed Martin F-35 multirole stealth fighters it plans to add to its Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF) contingent, with an eye to making the fifth-generation jet its mainstay fighter.
Following approval by the Cabinet on Tuesday to broaden the scope of Japan's defense and security guidelines, the MOD is considering focusing more of its attention on achieving what it has described as "superior air-combat capability," as five year mid-term and longer-term defense and security protocols and the allocation of funds become pivotal focal points for the Cabinet and the MOD henceforth.
The MOD's new consideration is to possibly replace the ASDF's aging mainstay F-15 fighters with the F-35's, officials said, adding that they had already decided to retire the force's F-4 fighters and replace them with 42 F-35's.
The U.S. Pentagon-led F-35 operation, its biggest arms program, has, however, been mired with problems, including technical glitches and production delays, which have pushed up costs to as much as 70 percent over initial estimates, but defense officials here confirmed that orders should be received as early as fiscal 2016 and that prices are coming down due to increasing international orders.
The fifth-generation multirole, stealth fighter jets, have been selected by Japan's MOD as they offer superior stealth capabilities, second only to that of the U.S. F-22 Raptor, with a radar cross-section roughly equal to the size of a metal golf ball, making the jet largely undetectable to radars.
Japan's defense ministry also said it has been impressed with the jet's data link system that can share information with the latest radars.
Moreover, however, the Japanese government, in light of its controversial plans to possibly ease its decades-old ban on weapons exports, wants companies here to be involved in the production of the jet and provide superlative technical and logistical support as Japan's aviation industry is widely regarded as being in a technical league of its own.
The move, despite an inevitable backlash from opposition parties and the public, who are widely against lifting the export ban, would also provide a myriad of much-needed economic opportunities at a time when Japan is battling to rein in its public debt at more than twice the size of GDP and the worst in the industrialized world.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., has been earmarked to be involved in work on the F-35's mainframe structures, while IHI Corp. will provide its expertise on the jet's engines and related systems, sources familiar with the matter said.
In addition, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., for its part, has been slated to be involved in the production of the jet's highly sensitive mission-related avionics.
Lockheed Martin has said that Japan could feasibly become " global suppliers to the F-35 stealth fighter program," with Japanese contractors being in a position to bid for a myriad of lucrative defense contracts in the U.S. and elsewhere, once the ban is eased, defense analysts here said.
They added that Japan could utilize its domestic manufacturers to tap-into foreign markets and make further cost-effective purchases of military hardware, including ships, aircraft carriers, jets, helicopters, missiles and next-generation electronic and laser-based weapons, through wholesale purchases and production- affiliated subsidies.
The defense analysts noted however that due to Japan's increasingly disenfranchised electorate and citizens, who have baulked at the build-up in planned defense and security spending, for both economic and political reasons, a backlash against Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's bolstering of military hardware and personnel could potentially delay Japan's planned F-35 program.
Nevertheless, the Pentagon has heralded Japan's plans to bolster its air force with the U.S.-made fighter and has said that the new affiliation will further aid Japan and the U.S. with joint security-related endeavors in the Asia Pacific region.
Lockheed Martin, in conjunction with Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney and BAE Systems, is keen to work with a myriad of international partners, including Japan, on the F-35 program, and the jet is being developed with additional support from Britain, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Turkey, Australia and Canada.
A great deal of interest in the program has also been shown from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil and India, according to defense analysts with knowledge of the matter, with eight country's committed to buying the jets, including the Netherlands, Britain, Italy, Australia, Norway, Israel, Japan and, more recently, South Korea.
Japan's MOD is particularly eyeing two of the F-35 models for their vertical and short take off and landing ability, and officials here have said that the jet could be used along with ground troops and amphibious vehicles for rapid deployment operations to remote islands off Japan.
The next-generation stealth fighter can also be configured for air-to-air engagements, according to defense analysts, as well as air-to-ground and air-to-sea engagements, and developments have been underway for the fighter to carry next generation weaponry, including the possibility of a solid state laser and a High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW), which is a hypersonic missile, defense experts said.
But the F-35 program has not been without its drawbacks. Structural issues have reportedly affected the plane's ability to land on aircraft carriers and reports have also stated that the jet can not properly deploy British-made air-to-air missiles and has difficulty operating in icy conditions, according to experts.
However, despite ongoing concerns about the jet's initial glitches, Japan's defense ministry is confident in the program and officials here have said that the newly lowered 75 million U.S. dollar per unit price tag - making it more affordable than any fourth-generation fighter - such as the Gripen, Rafale, MiG-35, F- 15 Eagle, or the European Typhoon, is an added incentive to choose the F-35 to be the Air Self-Defense Force's mainstay fighter going into the future.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-12/18/c_132978121.htm
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/12/2013 | 10:07 uur
Japan's MOD is particularly eyeing two of the F-35 models for their vertical and short take off and landing ability, and officials here have said that the jet could be used along with ground troops and amphibious vehicles for rapid deployment operations to remote islands off Japan.
Dus ze hebben wel oog voor het gebruik van de F-35B van hun schepen, maar stond niet in hun toekomstige aanschafvisie lijst
Citaat van: Harald op 18/12/2013 | 10:24 uur
Dus ze hebben wel oog voor het gebruik van de F-35B van hun schepen, maar stond niet in hun toekomstige aanschafvisie lijst
Het vervangen van de F15 door de F35 ook niet. Wat is er gebeurd met de Japanse ambitie rondom een eigen ontwikkelde 5e generatie kist?
Mitsubishi ATD-X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_ATD-X
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/12/2013 | 10:29 uur
Het vervangen van de F15 door de F35 ook niet. Wat is er gebeurd met de Japanse ambitie rondom een eigen ontwikkelde 5e generatie kist?
Mitsubishi ATD-X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_ATD-X
Ik denk dat die ontwikkeling wat op de lange baan geschoven is.
Er wordt wat op kortere termijn gedacht 5 a 10 jaar er wat daarvoor nodig is, ook in combinatie met dreiging van China.
Ik denk dat de ATD-X ontwikkeling nu door moet gaan als 6th Gen toestel dus voor 2025 en later
Citaat van: Harald op 18/12/2013 | 11:21 uur
Ik denk dat die ontwikkeling wat op de lange baan geschoven is.
Er wordt wat op kortere termijn gedacht 5 a 10 jaar er wat daarvoor nodig is, ook in combinatie met dreiging van China.
Ik denk dat de ATD-X ontwikkeling nu door moet gaan als 6th Gen toestel dus voor 2025 en later
Zou kunnen al moet de Mitsubishi F-2 ook een keer vervangen gaan worden en mis ik bij de F35 de fighter pur sang kwaliteiten.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/12/2013 | 11:27 uur
Zou kunnen al moet de Mitsubishi F-2 ook een keer vervangen gaan worden en mis ik bij de F35 de fighter pur sang kwaliteiten.
Japan gaat met zo'n beslissing om ook de F-15's te vervangen door de F-35 zeker in fighter capaciteit er op achteruit, ik weet zo niet wanneer de F-2 op de nominatie staat om uit gefaseerd c.q. vervangen te worden, maar als ik kijk naar de intrede in 2000 en een leversduur van 30 jaar dan zouden ze in 2030 vervangen moeten worden.
Er zijn nu nog 63 stuks aanwezig binnen de JASDF, de F-2 is eigenlijk een vergrote F-16, dus een Multi-roll toestel.
Dus zullen de F-2 eerder door de F-35 vervangen worden, waarschijnlijk in een 2de of 3de aankoop batch door Japan in 2025.
De Japanners hebben veel F-15's in hun bezit, ik geloof niet dat die 1 op 1 vervangen zullen worden door de F-35.
Voor mijn gevoel zal de F-15 zeker nog lang blijven vliegen bij de JASDF als fighter pur sang en later gedeeltelijk wel vervangen worden door de nieuw te ontwikkelen ATD-X in 2025
Omtrent de ATD-X project wordt er geschreven dat er volgend jaar (2014) een testtoestel komt, testvlucht in 2015 ??, of dit werkelijk gebeurt ??
Citaat van: Harald op 18/12/2013 | 11:53 uur
Omtrent de ATD-X project wordt er geschreven dat er volgend jaar (2014) een testtoestel komt, testvlucht in 2015 ??, of dit werkelijk gebeurt ??
Het zou mooi zijn want persoonlijk geloof ik niet dat ze in Japan zullen inzetten op alleen de F35A/B, mede gezien de benodigde figter capaciteit versus de te verwachten tegenvoeters in de regio (SU-35, PAK-FA/T-50, J-20 en J-31 etc)
Citaat van: Harald op 18/12/2013 | 11:21 uur
Ik denk dat die ontwikkeling wat op de lange baan geschoven is.
Er wordt wat op kortere termijn gedacht 5 a 10 jaar er wat daarvoor nodig is, ook in combinatie met dreiging van China.
Ik denk dat de ATD-X ontwikkeling nu door moet gaan als 6th Gen toestel dus voor 2025 en later
Ho Ho,
Voordat we aan de 6de generatie kunnen moeten we eerst nog een 5de generatie toestel ontwerpen. En een 5th+, 5++ en 5.5th generation.
Mission satisfaction: Rafale offers proven capability
by Matthew Smith (from Aug/Sep 2013) on September 11, 2013
As defence contractors await the results of the Canadian government's evaluation of options to replace the RCAF's fleet of CF-188s, many are readying themselves for the potential competition of an acquisition program. Dassault Aviation, for one, used the recent Paris Air Show in June to highlight how the Rafale, an aircraft Canadian pilots worked with in Libya, might meet the country's future needs.
Unsurprisingly, Yves Robins is bullish about the aircraft's capabilities. "Rafale meets all of the air power requirements of the six missions set out by the Canada First Defence Strategy, sometimes even exceeding them," said Dassault's senior vice-president for European Union and NATO affairs, and the lead on any future Canadian competition. "For the air defence of Canada within the NORAD alliance, we consider [that] the Rafale meets the mission perfectly. It has a very long range – much longer than other aircraft that are currently considering the risk assessment."
Robins notes that the Rafale has already demonstrated its ability to operate with Canada's main security partner, the United States. "Rafale is the only non-American aircraft [that] is capable of operating from U.S. carriers. It has operated for several weeks from the USS Carl Vincent and the Enterprise," he said. "In Afghanistan, Rafale was engaged in coalition operations including close air support missions for ground troops. We don't think that the United States would have entrusted the safety of its ground troops to a foreign aircraft should they have the slightest doubt about its ability to interoperate with those ground troops."
Recent operational performance, especially combat operations in Mali, Libya and Afghanistan, have demonstrated the aircraft's ability to meet the Canadian brief, he said, pointing out that in Libya the Canadian military had a first-hand view of the Rafale's capabilities as it was placed under the command of LGen Charlie Bouchard, commander of NATO's Operation Unified Protector. Bouchard, says Robins, "expressed his total satisfaction with regard to the missions."
One of the key elements to the Rafale's capability offering is its ability to operate in a networked environment, both in coalition operations and in domestic anti-terror and civil emergency missions. "Rafale has been designed right from the origin to be inserted into global C4I networks," Robins explains. "It's vast communication and network warfare capability, as well as its firepower, should provide authorities with the capabilities they need."
During the Paris Air Show, Dassault boss Eric Trappier identified three areas where he believes the Rafale can out-point the F-35 should the competition be restarted, suggesting that the Rafale had a compelling proposition in terms of its price, build schedule and cost of operation. Robins concurs with his CEO and suggests the common theme linking the three is the absence of risk.
"The benefits of those three points come mainly from one common denominator: there is no risk. This is because the elements are three demonstrated things that are publicly available with absolutely no risk of price escalation. They are guaranteed by the manufacturer.
"We are currently producing one Rafale a month which means [the aircraft] is immediately available. Usually the production time for a combat aircraft of that type is about three years, so this means that Rafale is an immediately available solution, at a fixed cost, with no risk involved, and fits within Canada's budgetary constraints."
While Dassault is unwilling to talk in detail about the aircraft price for commercial reasons, it is keen to point out that Rafale's operational costs have been baselined by the operations in Mali. "The French air force has stated that during the Mali operations one hour of combat missions with the Rafale cost €14,000 (around CAD$19,000). That is the cost at its maximum operational tempo flying combat missions. It would be lower for training schedules or for peacetime operations."
While the Rafale may seem to be at a disadvantage in its ability to integrate with Canada's existing logistical and support infrastructure, Robins says there would be no "real problem in fitting an aircraft like Rafale in any logistical structures."
According to Dassault, the aircraft is compatible with all standard NATO unguided "dumb" bombs and laser guided munitions. Although the air-to-air weapons are next-generation (MICA beyond visual range intercept and self-defence missiles and METEOR long-range 'Ramjet' missiles), the Rafale's stores management system is Mil-Std-1760 compliant which provides easy integration of customer-selected weapons. Dassualt also has government support to transfer technology and IP to Canadian companies, so this work could be done in Canada.
"We have the full backing of the French government and the French air force for our export activity," Robins explains. "It is our intention to provide Canada and Canadian industry with the full support capability for the Rafale so it will not need to leave Canadian territory for support, maintenance or upgrade. What we want to do is completely open the Rafale's technology to Canadian industry so they can accompany the aircraft throughout its operational life – which could be 30 to 40 years – without any French interference."
The willingness to transfer the maximum possible technology is a unique proposition and anticipates the likely Canadian requirement for industrial participation should the fighter competition be re-opened. According to Robins, "the fundamental approach is that the minimum value Canada will get through industrial participation is the value of the whole Rafale package, plus whatever it can do with technology."
In its most recent questionnaire to industry, the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat asked for information on possible industrial benefits. Although there is, as yet, no formal call for proposals, Robins believes Dassault's approach and French government policy that permits technology transfer of a major defence system puts it in a "privileged position."
"That means we are in a position to open completely the Rafale to Canadian aerospace industry," he says. "First of all, Canadian industry will be able to completely support the Rafale – it will be able to modify it, to get into the heart of the system and to have access to the source code. And the Canadian air force will be able to modify the aircraft to integrate other weapons should they wish to do so and to adapt the aircraft to future threats and future available technology."
"The keyword is 'Canadianization'," he adds. "The defence industry will have the capability to master completely the aircraft throughout its service life."
The offset package will also include production of the Rafale and potentially of other Dassault aircraft. "Obviously, we would commit ourselves to guarantee that there would be a cooperation and production package for the Rafale," Robins says. "We can also potentially associate Canadian industry with the production of Falcons and other civil projects.
"Furthermore, Dassault is not alone in the aircraft. There will be a huge array of opportunities to assist Dassult's partners on the Rafale, Safran and Thales. There is no obstacle to anything. It will really be up to the Canadians to define what they would like. There is an economic balance to achieve between the benefits you get by producing something in Canada and the investment you have to make for the production capability. So all of this has to be taken into account by the Canadians themselves and we are open to all of it."
Matthew Smith is an independent defence analyst and writer with experience as an industry strategist and as an editor and contributor for Jane's Information Group and Shephard Media (www.defenceinsight.co.uk).
http://vanguardcanada.com/mission-satisfaction-rafale-offers-proven-capability/ (http://vanguardcanada.com/mission-satisfaction-rafale-offers-proven-capability/)
Braziliaanse presidente bevestigt koop van Gripens. Geen vertaling, maar voor diegenen onder ons die ook Zweeds lezen: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article18049226.ab
Citaat van: Oldenhave op 18/12/2013 | 19:21 uur
Braziliaanse presidente bevestigt koop van Gripens. Geen vertaling, maar voor diegenen onder ons die ook Zweeds lezen: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article18049226.ab
Vanmiddag om 1700 uur lokale tijd volgt een pers conferentie.
36 Gripens E voor Brazilië is een ware doorbraak voor de Gripen E (en verwacht na de ruzie met de VS en de, voor Brazilië, te duur bevonden Rafale) en verzekerd hiermee het voortbestaan van deze Viking! (ook als Zwitserland in 2014 mocht afhaken in een volksraadpleging)
Saab gefeliciteerd!
Saab AB : Saab Receives Serial Production Order for Gripen E to Sweden
12/18/2013
Defence and security company Saab (STO:SAABB) has, within the framework of a previously signed agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for Gripen E, received a serial production order amounting to SEK16, 4 billion for operations during 2013-2026. The order includes modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E for Sweden with initial deliveries in 2018.
"The order from FMV is further proof of the Swedish Parliament's confidence in Gripen, its development potential and defence capacity. Furthermore, it is confirmation that the programme is proceeding according to plan," says Saab's president and CEO Håkan Buskhe. FMV has today placed an order for modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E with initial deliveries in 2018. This is the third order under the agreement with FMV for Gripen E that was made public on 15 February 2013. Other orders within the agreement are as follows:
• Development of Gripen E to Sweden during 2013-2023 - orders received on 15 February and on 22 March 2013.
• Mission-specific equipment and support and maintenance for Gripen E to Sweden, and;
• Delivery of 22 new Gripen E, and related equipment to Switzerland, if Switzerland decides to acquire Gripen E. During August and September 2013 both chambers of the Swiss Parliament voted yes to the procurement of Gripen E and a referendum on the procurement is expected in 2014.
Orders under the agreement are booked when each order is received and the remaining orders are expected in 2014.
"We continue to build on the success of Gripen. Gripen is unique in its ability to combine high technology and performance with cost efficiency and we note a strong interest for Gripen on the export market," says Lennart Sindahl, Deputy CEO and head of Saab's business area Aeronautics.
"The major performance improvements we are now performing will establish Gripen E as the fighter aircraft of the future - both for Sweden and for other countries. Our existing customers that operate the Gripen C/D version will also be able to take advantage of some of the development in their future upgrades."
Gripen E has significant performance improvements compared to previous versions, including a stronger engine, longer range, more weapons, new electronic radar and more advanced avionics. Today, Gripen is the backbone of five nations' air defences: Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. In addition, The Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK uses Gripen in its training programme for future test pilots.
Saab serves the global market with world-leading products, services and solutions ranging from military defence to civil security. Saab has operations and employees on all continents and constantly develops, adopts and improves new technology to meet customers' changing needs.
The information is that which Saab AB is required to declare by the Securities Business Act and/or the Financial instruments Trading Act. The information was submitted for publication on December 18 at 16.30.
This information was brought to you by Cision http://news.cision.com
Saab Press Centre
http://www.4-traders.com/SAAB-AB-6491624/news/Saab-AB--Saab-Receives-Serial-Production-Order-for-Gripen-E-to-Sweden-17624588/
36 stuks vliegtuig
Volgens defensie blogger Wiseman, dit zijn ongeveer 36 stuks Jas 39 Gripen voor een bedrag van circa 35 miljard euro.
Cruciaal voor president Dilma Rousseffs beslissing was Saab aanbod van technologie-overdracht aan lokale partners, zegt een regering bron tegen Reuters.
Om 17:00 lokale tijd, het land van de minister van Defensie Celso Amorim een persconferentie waar de deal wordt meer in detail, de krant.
Nou , wat een deal.
36 gripens voor 35 miljard euro ,typvout hoop ik.
President Dilma Rousseff Announces Brazil Is Buying Sweden's Saab Gripen Jet Fighters
By Patricia Rey Mallén
on December 18 2013
After a decade of discussion, Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff announced on Wednesday the acquisition of 36 Gripen NG fighter jets, from Sweden's Saab (STO:SAAB-B), for the FX-2 program of the Brazilian Air Force. Defense Minister Celso Amorim and General Juniti Saito, the air force's chief of staff, will hold a press conference at 2 p.m. EST, for the official announcement.
The decision puts an end to 10 years of speculation and delays on the transaction, which started as a plan under former President Luiz Inácio de Lula. Three contenders stepped up to the bid: France's Dassault (EPA:AM), with the Rafale model; Boeing Co (NYSE:BA) with the F/A-18 e/F Super Hornet; and the eventual winners, Saab with the smaller Gripen. In the early stages of the negotiation, Lula expressed preference for the Rafale, but the French contender fell out of favor at the end of Lula's second and last term in 2010, and was finally rejected on Tuesday due to its high cost.
Boeing was considered the stronger bid, but following the revelation that the U.S. National Security Agency had been spying on Brazilian officials and companies, including on the president herself, the relationship between Brazil and the U.S. frayed. Rousseff even canceled a visit to the White House, scheduled for September, as a show of protest.
Therefore, Gripen, which was initially criticized for its smaller size and for not being tested enough in combat, ended up getting the crown. The 36 planes were offered for $6 billion, but government officials believe the final cost can go down to $5 billion.
http://www.ibtimes.com/president-dilma-rousseff-announces-brazil-buying-swedens-saab-gripen-jet-fighters-1514060
35 miljard Zweedse Kronen is het volgens eerder vermeldde link naar Aftonbladet. Omgerekend ongeveer 3.9 miljard Euro. Kan aan mij liggen, maar zo goedkoop vind ik het niet.....
Citaat van: Oldenhave op 18/12/2013 | 19:57 uur
35 miljard Zweedse Kronen is het volgens eerder vermeldde link naar Aftonbladet. Omgerekend ongeveer 3.9 miljard Euro. Kan aan mij liggen, maar zo goedkoop vind ik het niet.....
Dat is niet alleen voor de jets, maar ook voor de ToT.
Het afluisterschandaal zal ook hieraan hebben bijgedragen.
Goed dat de Brazilianen durven op te staan tegen de Amerikanen.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 18/12/2013 | 20:08 uur
Het afluisterschandaal zal ook hieraan hebben bijgedragen.
Goed dat de Brazilianen durven op te staan tegen de Amerikanen.
De kans is vrij groot dat de Zweden niet beschikken over een dergelijk grote inlichtingendienst ja :lol:
Citaat van: Thomasen op 18/12/2013 | 20:01 uur
Dat is niet alleen voor de jets, maar ook voor de ToT.
Tot=?
Citaat van: Thomasen op 18/12/2013 | 20:11 uur
De kans is vrij groot dat de Zweden niet beschikken over een dergelijk grote inlichtingendienst ja :lol:
Nee maar Brazilië heeft dat destijds naar mijn weten sterk veroordeeld (daar waar wij ja en amen zeggen).
Citaat van: IPA NG op 18/12/2013 | 20:08 uur
Het afluisterschandaal zal ook hieraan hebben bijgedragen.
Goed dat de Brazilianen durven op te staan tegen de Amerikanen.
Tot het afluisterschandaal was de F18E/F volgens diverse bronnen favoriet.
Japan to replace 100 F-15s with stealth F-35s
DEC 18, 2013
Japan says it will build up its fighter jet fleet, amid a growing territorial row with its neighboring countries.
NHK reported Wednesday that Tokyo's Defense Ministry plans to replace roughly 100 planes in its F-15 fighter jet fleet with F-35s, which have stealth capabilities.
The move comes as the Cabinet on Tuesday agreed to raise its military budget by five percent over the next five years.
NHK said the plan is designed to allow Japan to demonstrate its military superiority, following China's unilateral decision to expand its aerial defense zone while the two countries are embroiled in a dispute over the sovereignty of a group of islands in the East China Sea.
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=154775
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/12/2013 | 20:24 uur
Tot het afluisterschandaal was de F18E/F volgens diverse bronnen favoriet.
Dat bedoelde ik.
8)
(Ontopic, dus niet in de youtubedump.)
Dat eerste jochie doet mij denken aan het type mensen die bij de Klu rondlopen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 18/12/2013 | 20:01 uur
Dat is niet alleen voor de jets, maar ook voor de ToT.
CitaatThe 36 planes were offered for $6 billion, but government officials believe the final cost can go down to $5 billion.
Dat is toch nog 166 miljoen dollar per kist...... Scheelt niet eens zo heel veel vergeleken met een F-35
Vianney Riller Jr @jrvianney 2m
Brazil FX-2: #Gripen is officially announced the winner of the competition. pic.twitter.com/gbMod2kS1S
bron twitter
Citaat van: www.arirang.co.kr Vandaag om 08:28
Japan to replace 100 F-15s with stealth F-35s
Dat worden dan 140+ F35A/B? voor Japan, daarmee zou Japan, na de VS (tot nu toe), de Grootste F35 gebruiker worden.
Citaat van: DvdW op 18/12/2013 | 20:42 uur
Dat is toch nog 166 miljoen dollar per kist...... Scheelt niet eens zo heel veel vergeleken met een F-35
Het is ook duurder dan de Zwitserse deal. Die staan op, verrekend, $150milj per kist.
Vraag me af of de Brazilianen een volledige licentie kopen. Kan me goed voorstellen dat de productie in Brazillie plaats gaat vinden.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 18/12/2013 | 21:20 uur
Het is ook duurder dan de Zwitserse deal. Die staan op, verrekend, $150milj per kist.
Vraag me af of de Brazilianen een volledige licentie kopen. Kan me goed voorstellen dat de productie in Brazillie plaats gaat vinden.
Bedenk dat 36 een eerste bestelling is, er wordt volgens diverse bronnen melding gemaakt van een aanzienlijke kans op uitbreiding waarbij ik ook verwacht dat een (groot) deel lokaal geproduceerd gaat worden.
Citaat van: DvdW op 18/12/2013 | 20:42 uur
Dat is toch nog 166 miljoen dollar per kist...... Scheelt niet eens zo heel veel vergeleken met een F-35
kun je nagaan hoe duur de F-35 uiteindelijk wordt...
Bedragen gaan alle kanten op. Met 6 miljard is ook 4,5 miljard genoemd. Helaas zijn de meeste Brazilliaanse bronnen niet te begrijpen.
Citaat
Vianney Riller Jr @jrvianney: Gripen wins F-X2 Brazil: 36 acfts, US$ 4,5 Billion, first delivery 2018. pic.twitter.com/1D0F5PEErk (http://pic.twitter.com/1D0F5PEErk)
Benieuwd of dat de scheme gaat worden.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 18/12/2013 | 20:12 uur
Nee maar Brazilië heeft dat destijds naar mijn weten sterk veroordeeld (daar waar wij ja en amen zeggen).
Toch apart. Ergens, dat Snowden in staat is om zo'n oproer te veroorzaken.
vwb dit onderwerp, de aanschaf van straaljagers, is de vermeende uitvoering van de raid op abootabat interesanter, omdat de Amerikaanse kennis en invloed op de Pakistaanse krijgsmacht van groot belang is geweest voor het succes van de operatie.
En voor een land als Brazillie is dat misschien wel helemaal niet zo'n fantastisch plan, als de Amerikanen bewust mee kunnen kijken met alles wat ze doen.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 18/12/2013 | 20:51 uur
Vianney Riller Jr @jrvianney 2m
Brazil FX-2: #Gripen is officially announced the winner of the competition. pic.twitter.com/gbMod2kS1S
bron twitter
BRASÍLIA — Swedish aerospace maker Saab won a $5 billion contract to equip the Brazilian air force with 36 new fighter jets, Defense Minister Celso Amorim announced Wednesday.
Voor meer zie link
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131218/DEFREG02/312180027/Brazil-Picks-Sweden-s-Gripen-Fighter-Jet
Brazilië koopt Zweedse straaljagers
BRASILIA -
Brazilië koopt 36 Gripen NG-straaljagers van de Zweedse vliegbouwer Saab AB. De Braziliaanse minsister van Defensie Celso Amorim heeft dat woensdag bekendgemaakt.
Over de order van zeker 4 miljard dollar is jarenlang onderhandeld. De Zweedse Gripen NG verslaat Amerikaanse en Franse concurrentie. Het Amerikaanse Boeing was in de race met de F-18E/F Super Hornet en het Franse Dassault met de Rafale.
De Gripen NG is een van de vliegtuigen die ook zijn genoemd als vervanger voor de F-16 van de Koninklijke Luchtmacht. Nederland geeft echter de voorkeur aan de F-35 (JSF) van het Amerikaanse Lockheed.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/22150346/__brazilie_koopt_zweedse_gripen_ng__.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=twitter (http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/22150346/__brazilie_koopt_zweedse_gripen_ng__.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=twitter)
Citaat van: Thomasen op 18/12/2013 | 23:12 uur
Brazilië koopt Zweedse straaljagers
BRASILIA -
Brazilië koopt 36 Gripen NG-straaljagers van de Zweedse vliegbouwer Saab AB. De Braziliaanse minsister van Defensie Celso Amorim heeft dat woensdag bekendgemaakt.
Over de order van zeker 4 miljard dollar is jarenlang onderhandeld. De Zweedse Gripen NG verslaat Amerikaanse en Franse concurrentie. Het Amerikaanse Boeing was in de race met de F-18E/F Super Hornet en het Franse Dassault met de Rafale.
De Gripen NG is een van de vliegtuigen die ook zijn genoemd als vervanger voor de F-16 van de Koninklijke Luchtmacht. Nederland geeft echter de voorkeur aan de F-35 (JSF) van het Amerikaanse Lockheed.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/22150346/__brazilie_koopt_zweedse_gripen_ng__.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=twitter (http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/22150346/__brazilie_koopt_zweedse_gripen_ng__.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=twitter)
Goed nieuws voor Saab.
22 + 36 + 60 = 138 Gripen E/F's.
Citaat van: Oldenhave op 18/12/2013 | 19:57 uur
35 miljard Zweedse Kronen is het volgens eerder vermeldde link naar Aftonbladet. Omgerekend ongeveer 3.9 miljard Euro. Kan aan mij liggen, maar zo goedkoop vind ik het niet.....
Sterker nog, het ligt in dezelfde ratio als onze aankoop. En dat voor een kist waar Brazilië zelf aan mee bouwt. Maar goed, hartstikke mooi voor Saab! En deze aankoop zal waarschijnlijk ook effect hebben op de bijbehorende bewapening en opleiding.
Ik had me minder gevoeld als het de Su-35 had geworden.
De prijs is in ieder geval inclusief opleiding en motoren.
Citaat van: DvdW op 18/12/2013 | 20:42 uur
Dat is toch nog 166 miljoen dollar per kist...... Scheelt niet eens zo heel veel vergeleken met een F-35
PAUC, APUC of URF.
Volgens het GAO JSF rapport in 2012, bedroeg de Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) voor 1 F-35A USD 161 miljoen. Dit is de kist zelf, al het toebehoren plus de totale ontwikkelingskosten gedeeld door de geplande / geschatte totale productie.
Dit GAO rapport geeft ook een voorspelling van de Average Production Unit Cost (APUC) a USD 137 miljoen. Dit is gemiddelde aanschaf prijs van de kist zelf, plus de toebehoren zoals specifieke gereedschappen, simulators, initiele opleidingen en initiele reserve-onderdelen voorraden. Alleen zit bij deze APUC prijs een paar adders onder het gras. Hier gaat men vanuit dat de VS, de JSF partner landen en Israel inderdaad 3.159 F-35's gaan kopen. Want, economy of scale, schaal grootte. Men gaat er ook vanuit dat er in de productie een leer-curve ontstaat, zodat door opgebouwde ervaring, F-35's in een kortere tijd kunnen worden gebouwd
De aanschaf prijs van de kist zelf wordt de Unit Recurring Fly away cost (URF). In dat zelfde rapport bedroeg de F-35A URF USD 78,7 miljoen.
En ook hier weer is deze URF gebaseerd op een veronderstelde productie van zeker 3.159 kisten.
Saab heeft een aanbieding aan Brazilie gedaan, waarbij de URF rond de USD 70 - 80 miljoen ligt.
Daarnaast ligt de Gripen APUC erg hoog door een zeer uitgebreid aangeboden pakket aan Integrated Logistical Support.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 19/12/2013 | 00:10 uur
22 + 36 + 60 = 138 Gripen E/F's.
En daarmee is deze kist nu uit de gevaren zone (los van de ontwikkeling)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/12/2013 | 07:29 uur
En daarmee is deze kist nu uit de gevaren zone (los van de ontwikkeling)
en daarbij komt nog dat Brazilië nu, waarschijnlijk, ook gericht gaat kijken naar de Naval JAS39E SeaGripen voor de vervanging van hun A4 Skyhawks.
12 stuks Skyhawks worden nu geupdate, uitfasering gepland in 2025
Petje af !! .. goed gedaan Saab
Citaat van: Poleme op 19/12/2013 | 00:58 uur
PAUC, APUC of URF.
Volgens het GAO JSF rapport in 2012, bedroeg de Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) voor 1 F-35A USD 161 miljoen. Dit is de kist zelf, al het toebehoren plus de totale ontwikkelingskosten gedeeld door de geplande / geschatte totale productie.
Dit GAO rapport geeft ook een voorspelling van de Average Production Unit Cost (APUC) a USD 137 miljoen. Dit is gemiddelde aanschaf prijs van de kist zelf, plus de toebehoren zoals specifieke gereedschappen, simulators, initiele opleidingen en initiele reserve-onderdelen voorraden. Alleen zit bij deze APUC prijs een paar adders onder het gras. Hier gaat men vanuit dat de VS, de JSF partner landen en Israel inderdaad 3.159 F-35's gaan kopen. Want, economy of scale, schaal grootte. Men gaat er ook vanuit dat er in de productie een leer-curve ontstaat, zodat door opgebouwde ervaring, F-35's in een kortere tijd kunnen worden gebouwd
De aanschaf prijs van de kist zelf wordt de Unit Recurring Fly away cost (URF). In dat zelfde rapport bedroeg de F-35A URF USD 78,7 miljoen.
En ook hier weer is deze URF gebaseerd op een veronderstelde productie van zeker 3.159 kisten.
Saab heeft een aanbieding aan Brazilie gedaan, waarbij de URF rond de USD 70 - 80 miljoen ligt.
Daarnaast ligt de Gripen APUC erg hoog door een zeer uitgebreid aangeboden pakket aan Integrated Logistical Support.
Altijd leerzaam zo'n forum :big-smile:
Dus als er 3.159 F-35's worden gebouwd ligt de prijs van de F-35 en de Gripen NG vrijwel op hetzelfde niveau? Immers de PAUC van de F-35 is 161 miljoen en die van de Gripen NG = 166 miljoen (ik ga er dan van uit dat de prijs van de Gripen NG de PAUC prijs is). En de URF van de F-35 is 78,7 terwijl die van de Gripen NG tussen de 70 en 80 miljoen ligt... Correct?
En is er ook wat zinnigs te zeggen wat er gebeurd als er minder F-35's worden afgenomen? De prijs stijgt, maar met hoeveel per kist?
Citaat van: Harald op 19/12/2013 | 09:16 uur
en daarbij komt nog dat Brazilië nu, waarschijnlijk, ook gericht gaat kijken naar de Naval JAS39E SeaGripen voor de vervanging van hun A4 Skyhawks.
12 stuks Skyhawks worden nu geupdate, uitfasering gepland in 2025
Petje af !! .. goed gedaan Saab
De vraag is of dat rendabel is. Twaalf is een klein aantal. Het zou zomaar goedkoper kunnen zijn om voor de maritime aviation een nieuw contract uit te schrijven voor een kist die het al kan, zijn er immers ook een paar van op de markt.
Maar de kans op een vervolg order lijkt mij aanzienlijk. Al zal het een paar jaar duren voor daar meer over duidelijk wordt. Ook zijn de kosten die gemoeid gaan met het WK en de OS groot.
Als de Gripen goed genoeg in elkaar zit dat de maritieme aanpassing relatief klein is, dan zouden landen met kleine carriers ook wel geinteresseerd kunnen zijn, omdat het mogelijke enige alternatief een dure F35B is.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 19/12/2013 | 10:24 uur
De vraag is of dat rendabel is. Twaalf is een klein aantal. Het zou zomaar goedkoper kunnen zijn om voor de maritime aviation een nieuw contract uit te schrijven voor een kist die het al kan, zijn er immers ook een paar van op de markt.
Maar de kans op een vervolg order lijkt mij aanzienlijk. Al zal het een paar jaar duren voor daar meer over duidelijk wordt.
Brazilie heeft grootste plannen voor uitbreiding op maritiem gebied, ook nieuwe vliegdekschepen.
en op de huidige carrier São Paulo (A12), daar zijn vliegen ze nu met 12 stuks vliegtuigen, maar er kunnen er wel 22 stuks vanaf opereren.
En ik denk dat gezien de planning van levering, start in 2018 tot 2026, dat er nog wel een 2de of 3de batch wordt besteld bij Saab, omdat ook hun F-5's dan vervangen moeten worden en ook hun AMX toestellen rondom 2025.
Citaat van: Harald op 19/12/2013 | 10:54 uur
Brazilie heeft grootste plannen voor uitbreiding op maritiem gebied, ook nieuwe vliegdekschepen.
en op de huidige carrier São Paulo (A12), daar zijn vliegen ze nu met 12 stuks vliegtuigen, maar er kunnen er wel 22 stuks vanaf opereren.
En ik denk dat gezien de planning van levering, start in 2018 tot 2026, dat er nog wel een 2de of 3de batch wordt besteld bij Saab, omdat ook hun F-5's dan vervangen moeten worden en ook hun AMX toestellen rondom 2025.
Er wordt idd al lang gesproken over een order die zou kunnen oplopen tot 100 eenheden.
Vwb de maritieme Gripen: ergens her op dit forum staat (als ik me niet vergis) dat Saab denkt een maritieme variant uit de Gripen NG te kunnen ontwikkelen voor 1 miljard dollar (additioneel).
Dus bij 20 maritieme Gripens mag je minimaal 50 mjn US dollar per kist op tellen
Citaat van: Enforcer op 19/12/2013 | 10:49 uur
Als de Gripen goed genoeg in elkaar zit dat de maritieme aanpassing relatief klein is, dan zouden landen met kleine carriers ook wel geinteresseerd kunnen zijn, omdat het mogelijke enige alternatief een dure F35B is.
Een gripen zal toch een STOBAR of CATOBAR kist worden. En laten we niet vergeten, zoveel landen zijn er niet in de wereld die zulke carriers hebben. De Spaanse carrier valt voor de Gripen dus af. De Italiaanse ook, want die gaan vrijwel zeker voor de F35B, dus welk land met kleine carriers kan dan geïnteresseerd zijn?
Ik zeg ook zeker niet dat het onmogelijk zal zijn om de Gripen om te bouwen. En als ze twee carriers gaan bouwen kan het allemaal anders zijn. Maar tussen grootse plannen en daadwerkelijke uitvoering zit ook een wereld van verschil. Vergeet niet dat deze 36 kisten eigenlijk al een paar jaar geleden in hadden moeten stromen. De Brazilianen staat nog wat te wachten aan investeringen. Onmogelijk is het allerminst. Maar ik zou voorlopig mijn geld er nog niet op inzetten.
Brazilian F-X2 deal gives fresh impetus to Saab's Sea Gripen concept
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
18 December 2013
Brazil's decision to procure the Saab JAS 39 Gripen E to satisfy its F-X2 fighter replacement programme has breathed new life into the company's Sea Gripen concept, a source told IHS Jane's on 19 December.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the deal for 36 aircraft for the Brazilian Air Force "opens up a whole new realm of possibilities" for the Sea Gripen, with the Navy having a notional requirement for 24 aircraft to operate from its Sao Paulo aircraft carrier.
Having targeted the concept at Brazilian and Indian naval requirements, Saab now has a programmatic and industrial presence in one of those countries giving it an invaluable foothold with which to promote its Sea Gripen.
Further to the opportunities afforded by the F-X2 deal, the source told IHS Jane's that discussions with India have been taking place behind the scenes. "There has been a conversation with the Indian Navy, which is looking at the Sea Gripen separate to the [Indian Air Force] MMRCA [Medium MultiRole Combat Aircraft requirement]," he said, adding: "The Indian Navy [interest in Sea Gripen] never went away."
First revealed by Saab in 2010, the Sea Gripen concept features a number of navalised enhancements to the baseline Gripen E fighter to make it suitable for carrier operations. These include a strengthened undercarriage, bigger brakes, and a beefed-up tail hook.
The standard Gripen already has a large number of the attributes for carrier operations, such as a high precision landing capability, a high pitch and roll rate authority and precision glide slope control, a reinforced airframe and enhanced anti-corrosion protection. Its undercarriage and airframe is already capable of a sink rate of 15 ft/s, though this would need to be increased to about 25 ft/s for carrier operations.
As Saab is pitching the Sea Gripen for 'short take-off, but arrested recovery' (STOBAR) operations, it does not need to be equipped with the nosewheel-mounted launch bar required for 'catapult-assisted take-off, but arrested recovery' (CATOBAR) ships. As such, it could operate from both types of carriers, making it a suitable option for the Indian Navy's STOBAR ships INS Viraat and INS Vikramaditya , and future indigenous carrier; as well as the Brazilian Navy's CATOBAR Sao Paulo (it should be noted that the lack of a 'ski jump' on this ship might present issues in terms of the Sea Gripen's maximum take-off weight).
According to the source, Saab has completed all of the feasibility studies for the Sea Gripen and now just requires a launch customer to fund further development and production. While Brazil's F-X2 announcement does not yet provide this, its implications could be very fortuitous for the concept. As the source put it to IHS Jane's ; "The Brazilian deal currently changes nothing [for the Sea Gripen], but could change everything."
zie link voor het plaatje
http://www.janes.com/article/31778/brazilian-f-x2-deal-gives-fresh-impetus-to-saab-s-sea-gripen-concept
Why the A10 is not essential:
The Air Force is apparently planning to retire all 343 of its A-10 Warthog close air support jets starting in 2015—a move the House of Representatives, some key senators and a legion of A-10 boosters oppose.
Proponents of the low- and slow-flying Warthog argue that the flying branch needs the ungainly plane with the massive 30-millimeter cannon in order to attack enemy ground forces in close proximity to friendly troops.
But there are many—both inside and outside the Pentagon—who disagree. There are other ways to do close air support, they say. Some argue that precision weapons and high-tech sensors can largely replace the A-10's firepower. Others insist that a propeller-driven light attack plane could do the same mission for cheaper.
The debate has heated up in the past several weeks as A-10 pilots and their supporters in the Congress have spoken out to save the venerable attack aircraft from the budget axe. As of now, the Air Force has not made a final decision—and officials at the Pentagon are preparing multiple spending plans because of no one knows how much money Congress will actually appropriate.
Nonetheless, Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute on Dec. 11 that divesting the A-10 would save $3.7 billion. The service is required to provide $12 billion in savings every year under the sequestration law.
Meanwhile, House supporters of the A-10 have succeeded in inserting language into the body's version of the 2014 defense authorization act to preserve most of the A-10s through to the end of that year.
But any discussion on the divesting the A-10 is premature, says Mark Gunzinger, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. People have become attached to a particular platform and a particular way of doing things rather than embracing new technologies and new innovations, he says.
"There are a group of advocates for various platforms who believe 'we must continue to operate in the future as we did when I was in a war,'" says Gunzinger, a former B-52 bomber pilot.
As time goes on, technology advances, and as a result tactics evolve. "The history of war is about breaking previous practices and trying new technologies, new operational concepts and so forth to sustain an advantage over your enemy," Gunzinger says. "The A-10 was developed in an era and for a mission when, frankly, we were at the dawn of seeing an early generation of precision weapons entering the inventory."
Since that time, increasingly sophisticated precision-guided munitions—PGMs, for short—have revolutionized warfare. "You can achieve effects close to ground forces using precision weapons and other capabilities—unmanned aircraft delivering PGMs, rotary-wing aircraft delivering PGMs and so forth that didn't exist when the A-10 was first developed," Gunzinger says.
"I think the current precision weapons regime we're in today has given us significant new advantages compared to what we had back in the late '70s early '80s," he adds.
By the same token, the A-10's slow speed and low altitude capability may not be as important as they used to be given more and more capable weapons. "You don't necessarily need the very slow flying, low flying platforms," Gunzinger says. "And if you do need those kinds of platforms—danger-close delivery of weapons—then we have rotary-wing and we have unmanned vehicles."
But not everyone agrees with Gunzinger. Guns are the still the most popular weapons for those danger-close situations. A number of pilots have pointed out that those strafing runs have to be conducted at low altitude—and current unmanned aircraft have no gun at all.
But the real issue is not the aircraft flying the close air support mission—it is institutional knowledge and culture. "You can use most platforms for [close are support] quite well," says Air Force Reserve Col. Michael Pietrucha, a F-15E instructor weapons system officer. "The A-10 community is critical for CAS, but the reason is not because of the aircraft. The reason is because they are all CAS all the time."
The A-10 community was the group that historically sustained the Air Force's institutional knowledge of close air support when the mission had fallen by the wayside in previous decades. "That is a critical aspect in that all the other guys are multi-role," Pietrucha says.
The F-15E, though capable of performing the CAS role very well, is a jet with many mission. Its crews spends a comparatively small part of their training time on close air support. "We did CAS in the '90s, and I instructed CAS and I even flew missions that were called CAS in Kosovo and over Bosnia, but we did not have the knowledge base that the A-10 guys had," Pietrucha says. "That is, strictly speaking, independent of their aircraft."
The A-10 expertise could be migrated onto another lower-cost airframe—something like a Beechcraft AT-6 for example, Pietrucha says. Such a low-cost manned plane can do the CAS role better than a heavy bomber or an unmanned aircraft because those machines lack a gun—bombs take time to get into the proper parameters to drop, he points out.
Like the A-10, a light attack aircraft could stay close to the friendly ground forces and re-attack very quickly, says Pietrucha, who has heavily involved in developing the Air Force's currently-unfunded OA-X light attack aircraft program. "I'm airframe agnostic," he says. "So if I were to talk OA-X, the Air Force should absolutely buy some."
An OA-X combined with the BAE Systems Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System—laser-guided 2.75-inch rockets—is one way the Air Force could replace the A-10 cheaply and still maintain its CAS expertise. The new weapon would also allow a light attack plane to take over much of the anti-tank role that A-10 pilots have traditionally performed with their 30-millimeter cannons and Maverick missiles.
"I would suggest to you now that with the APKWS, with the warhead designed for use against armor, basically give other fighter-attack aircraft the ability to carry the ordnance, bust a whole lot of tanks," Pietrucha says. "I think we've got potential to say the 30-millimeter cannon is not the only way to skin that cat."
That means if the Air Force were to buy a fleet of light attack aircraft for, say, $12 million per aircraft, each armed with four APKWS rocket pods plus guns, America would have a very potent CAS and anti-armor force for very low cost. "If I were to replace one A-10 with two light attack, I have a different flavor of capability, but I'm not completely giving up on the mission," Pietrucha says.
For the USAF, a light attack force could also relieve the burden on some of the multi-role fighter pilots who are currently flying CAS missions while losing their proficiency for other types of missions. Because of the Air Force's focus on CAS during the wars over Iraq and Afghanistan, the F-15E and F-16 communities have lost critical skills such as how to suppress and destroy enemy air defense. That skill would be needed during any high-tech conflict, Pietrucha says.
The Marine Corps tends to be able to overcome any deficit imposed by flying multi-role jets because of the way the service trains its aviators. Essentially all Marine pilots are CAS specialists and spend most of their time preparing for that one mission. The Marines "really have a far superior system for training their guys," Pietrucha says.
The Marines demonstrate that close air support is mostly about training people. It's not about the A-10 ... or any other particular aircraft.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/aa126472f419 (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/aa126472f419)
Saab Receives Order for Integration Support of Weapon System for Gripen E
(waarschijnlijk zullen er diverse ontwikkelingen in een stroomversnelling gaan, nu Brazilië gekozen heeft voor de Gripen E)
Defence and security company Saab has received an order from Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for the integration of the weapon system Meteor on Gripen E. The total order value amounts to approx. SEK 186 million and concerns operations during 2013-2023.
The received order is an addition to the agreement with FMV, announced on 15 February 2013, which includes the development and modification of Gripen E for Sweden during the period 2013-2026.
"The additional order secures the implementation of integration of the weapon system Meteor for Gripen E. It also confirms Gripen's position as the leading fighter system with a flexible design that offers great possibilities to integrate new capabilities," says Ulf Nilsson, Head of Saab's product unit Gripen.
Meteor is a Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) developed to enable engagement of airborne targets at long distances. The missile is the result of a European collaborative project involving Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Great Britain. At the end of June 2013 Saab in cooperation with FMV conducted the first test firing of the serial production configuration of Meteor.
Gripen was thereby the first combat fighter system in the world with the capability to fire this version of Meteor that has been developed for Gripen, Eurofighter and Rafale.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/150374/saab-wins-order-for-meteor-integration-on-gripen.html
Saab Receives Serial Production Order for Gripen E to Sweden
Defence and security company Saab has, within the framework of a previously signed agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for Gripen E, received a serial production order amounting to SEK 16.4 billion for operations during 2013-2026. The order includes modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E for Sweden with initial deliveries in 2018.
"The order from FMV is further proof of the Swedish Parliament's confidence in Gripen, its development potential and defence capacity. Furthermore, it is confirmation that the programme is proceeding according to plan," says Saab's president and CEO Håkan Buskhe.
FMV has today placed an order for modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E with initial deliveries in 2018. This is the third order under the agreement with FMV for Gripen E that was made public on 15 February 2013.
Other orders within the agreement are as follows:
-- Development of Gripen E to Sweden during 2013-2023 – orders received on 15 February and on 22 March 2013.
-- Mission-specific equipment and support and maintenance for Gripen E to Sweden, and;
-- Delivery of 22 new Gripen E, and related equipment to Switzerland, if Switzerland decides to acquire Gripen E. During August and September 2013 both chambers of the Swiss Parliament voted yes to the procurement of Gripen E and a referendum on the procurement is expected in 2014.
Orders under the agreement are booked when each order is received and the remaining orders are expected in 2014.
"We continue to build on the success of Gripen. Gripen is unique in its ability to combine high technology and performance with cost efficiency and we note a strong interest for Gripen on the export market," says Lennart Sindahl, Deputy CEO and head of Saab's business area Aeronautics.
"The major performance improvements we are now performing will establish Gripen E as the fighter aircraft of the future - both for Sweden and for other countries. Our existing customers that operate the Gripen C/D version will also be able to take advantage of some of the development in their future upgrades."
Gripen E has significant performance improvements compared to previous versions, including a stronger engine, longer range, more weapons, new electronic radar and more advanced avionics. Today, Gripen is the backbone of five nations' air defences: Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. In addition, The Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK uses Gripen in its training programme for future test pilots.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/150378/saab-wins-%242.5bn-swedish-order-for-gripen-e-production.html
F.A.Q. on Acquisition of Gripen-NG for the Brazilian Air Force (FAB)
1 - What motivated the choice of Swedish Gripen fighters to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB)?
The motivation was technical in character. From its analysis, the FAB came to the conclusion that the Swedish aircraft was the best option, both from an operational standpoint and from the point of view of cost. Of the three finalists in the competition, the Swedish fighter had the best price. Also weighed in the selection technology transfer considerations and the commercial counterparts (offsets) offered by the Swedish manufacturer.
Here is what has the National Defense Strategy (SND) has to say on the subject:
"A consideration that may be crucial is the need to choose the option that minimizes the dependence on technology or policy in relation to any supplier that could, by controlling components needed to purchase of upgrade the aircraft, inhibit or influence defense policies or initiatives decided by Brazil."
2 - How many fighters will be purchased and what is the total value of the acquisition?
The winning bid covers the supply of 36 (thirty six) aircraft. The investments are in the order of US$4.5 billion, according to a disbursement schedule will last until 2023.
3 - How and when will contract negotiations take place, and disbursements begin?
Today's decision opens the way for discussions relating to commercial contracts and to logistical support. Details of the offset agreement between FAB and the successful company will also be negotiated. In parallel, we will begin the negotiations relating to the financing agreement, which will cover the entire acquisition. The deadline for this first step is nine to twelve months. Therefore, there will be no immediate disbursement of budgeted funds.
4 - When should the purchase agreement be signed, and when will the Air Force receive the first aircraft?
The first aircraft is expected to arrive around 48 months after the signature of the financing agreement, which should occur in December 2014. If all deadlines are met, the first aircraft will be incorporated into the FAB in late 2018.
5 - And how will that change Brazil's air defense?
Until the arrival of the Gripen NG, air defense will be mainly in charge of F-5M fighters that were recently modernized by Embraer. In addition, there is the possibility that the winner of the FX-2 program will make available to the FAB, as an intermediate solution, a number of Gripen C/D model fighters to reinforce the protection of the Brazilian airspace, under conditions and terms to be defined.
(waarschijnlijk dus een extra batch Gripen E, na de eerste levering van 36 stuks, voor de vervanging van de F-5M en de AMX. En bij eerdere uitfasering gebruik van C/D versie's)
6 - The acquisition agreement only covers the purchase of the aircraft?
The contract will cover the initial logistics, training of pilots and mechanics and the acquisition of flight simulators. The agreement also covers, as noted above, technology transfer and offset issues, aligned with the requirements of the National Defense Strategy (SND).
7 - The contract covers the development of fighter planes 5th generation?
The 5th generation already exists in some countries, but development costs are naturally higher. The important thing is that the planes are being purchased under the FX-2 project fully meet the needs of air defense of our country. Obviously, Brazil will be attentive to developments in this field, including with regard to potential partners.
8 - What is the function of the new fighters in the context of the Brazilian air defense?
The primary task of the FAB, in the broader context of national defense, is to maintain sovereignty over national airspace to defend the country and to prevent the use of national airspace for hostile acts contrary to national interests. To accomplish this task, the Air Force must have the capacity to monitor, control and protect of airspace with the capabilities of detection, interception and destruction that implies. The Gripen NG fighters are supersonic airplanes that fulfill several missions, such as interception, interdiction and eventual destruction of targets that can undermine national sovereignty. The aircraft are designed for use in air-to-air, air-to-sea and air-to-ground missions. They are also equipped with an in-flight refueling system that will allow the defense of the airspace in even the most remote parts of Brazil.
9 – Does the aircraft already exist? What other countries to operate?
The Gripen exists today in A, B, C and D versions. The Gripen NG (New Generation) is a technological evolution of these last two versions. The development of the NG version should provide various Brazilian industries with benefits arising from the transfer of new technology for the aerospace sector. One aspect to be highlighted in this field is opening the sources of weapons systems to be used in aircraft. Among the countries whose air forces already operate with the Gripen are Sweden, Hungary, Czech Republic, South Africa and Thailand.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/150379/brazil-chooses-gripen-e%2C-will-buy-36-in-%244.5-bn-deal.html
Verstandige jongens, die Brazilianen!
De C ombouwen naar E?
Dat is wel een beetje vreemd want de E heeft iets andere afmetingen...
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 20/12/2013 | 10:35 uur
Verstandige jongens, die Brazilianen!
Gezien de prijs die de Brazilianen betalen, hadden wij er dus 56 kunnen kopen voor het geld dat nu naar de F35 gaat.
Ik denk dat ze inderdaad een slimme zet hebben gedaan door realistisch hun behoeftes in te vullen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 20/12/2013 | 13:49 uur
Gezien de prijs die de Brazilianen betalen, hadden wij er dus 56 kunnen kopen voor het geld dat nu naar de F35 gaat.
Ik denk dat ze inderdaad een slimme zet hebben gedaan door realistisch hun behoeftes in te vullen.
Maar wij hebben geen behoefte aan vergaande ToT zodat Embraer er aan kan gaan sleutelen.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/12/2013 | 13:41 uur
De C ombouwen naar E?
Dat is wel een beetje vreemd want de E heeft iets andere afmetingen...
Dat is toch al heel lang een bekend feit, noem het een Zweedse MLU (de Zwitsers en de Brazilianen krijgen na de handtekening nieuwe airframes), Ik blijf dan ook bij mijn voorspelling dat de Zweden 20 jaar na invoering van de C NG een opvolger gaan kopen en laat dat nu enigszins in de pas lopen met de Turkse en/of Aziatische (Saab) co-productie voor een 5 generatie kist. Toeval?
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/12/2013 | 13:41 uur
De C ombouwen naar E?
Dat is wel een beetje vreemd want de E heeft iets andere afmetingen...
Een C blijft een C als toestel, maar met de extra's van een E
Dus een E in een C .. ;)
Citaat van: Harald op 20/12/2013 | 14:10 uur
Een C blijft een C als toestel, maar met de extra's van een E
Dus een E in een C .. ;)
Dat denk ik dus ook.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/12/2013 | 14:17 uur
Dat denk ik dus ook.
Dus niets anders dan een MLU en we noemen het een E (voor Zweden)
Via Google Translate
Brazil wants 100 new planes
Stockholm Published December 20, 2013
Scanpix Stefan Kalm / SAAB
Brazil's purchases of military aircraft could become much larger than the 36 Gripen aircraft announced this week. It may involve more than 100 new Gripen aircraft to the Air Force, said the defense sources in the capital Brasilia to Rio newspaper O Globo.
According to the source containing Defense Department planning for renewal of FAB, the Brazilian Air Force, the purchase of more than 100 aircraft over the next few decades. Having now decided to go for 36 copies of the Gripen is Saab and Sweden is best to for future decisions on other planes, writes O Globo.
The newspaper points out, however, that it remains unclear how much space will be available in Brazil's state budget for such purchases.
Saab would not comment on the data.
Voor het originele bericht, zie link
http://hd.se/ekonomi/2013/12/20/brasilien-vill-ha-100-nya-plan/
Om in de Gripen stemming te blijven ;)
Wel... Ik ben best blij met het feit dat de Gripen in Brazilie een afnemer gevonden heeft.
Dat biedt weer wat ademruimte voor de Zweedse constructeur, maar - vooral - ook bij potentiele afnemers.
En daaronder hoop ik - alsnog- de Belgen te kunnen tellen.
Want een F-35A zie ik echt niet haalbaar, noch financieel en zeker niet politiek (vooral door het kostenplaatje).
Er zijn dan wel partijen die (hoogstwaarschijnlijk) niet te vinden (zullen) zijn voor de aankoop van een vervanger van de F-16,
maar een toestel als de Gripen is in mijn ogen wel haalbaar.
Nog steeds afwachten dus...
Maar ik ben nu toch al iets positiever gestemd dan enkele maanden geleden (toen een vervanger van de F-16 nog niet eens ter sprake kwam).
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 21/12/2013 | 03:03 uur
Wel... Ik ben best blij met het feit dat de Gripen in Brazilie een afnemer gevonden heeft.
Dat biedt weer wat ademruimte voor de Zweedse constructeur, maar - vooral - ook bij potentiele afnemers.
En daaronder hoop ik - alsnog- de Belgen te kunnen tellen.
Want een F-35A zie ik echt niet haalbaar, noch financieel en zeker niet politiek (vooral door het kostenplaatje).
Er zijn dan wel partijen die (hoogstwaarschijnlijk) niet te vinden (zullen) zijn voor de aankoop van een vervanger van de F-16,
maar een toestel als de Gripen is in mijn ogen wel haalbaar.
Nog steeds afwachten dus...
Maar ik ben nu toch al iets positiever gestemd dan enkele maanden geleden (toen een vervanger van de F-16 nog niet eens ter sprake kwam).
Als het de F35 wordt dan zal het hooguit een handje vol zijn, de Gripen zou in het kader van een verdergaande samenwerking tussen NL/BE wel een high end / low end luchtmacht opleveren.
Bij alleen F35:
NL 37+ 5? (op termijn) = 42 + BE 18 = 60 F35 voor de Benelux luchtmacht
Bij high end / low end:
NL NL 37+ 5? (op termijn) = 42 + BE 42 Gripens = 84 fighters.
Of als Poleme zijn voorspelling uit komt:
NL 24 F35
waar ik aan toevoeg: 12 of 0 F35 voor de Belgen (en geen ander type fighter)
Wellicht komt er ook nog een order uit Denemarken voor de Gripen?
http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/Campaigns/GRIP-209_P-Sheet_DK_120530.pdf
Citaat van: Ace1 op 21/12/2013 | 10:24 uur
Wellicht komt er ook nog een order uit Denemarken voor de Gripen?
http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/Campaigns/GRIP-209_P-Sheet_DK_120530.pdf
Voor Denemarken gok ik op:
1. Eurofighter
2. F35
Analysis: Lost Brazil order raises threat to Boeing fighter jets
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON Fri Dec 20, 2013
(Reuters) - Brazil's decision to buy Swedish fighter jets instead of F/A-18 Super Hornets from Boeing eliminates its most promising foreign-sales prospect just as the U.S. company faces critical decisions about extending the jet's production line past 2016.
The loss of the $4.5 billion contract for 36 planes is the latest blow to Boeing's defense division, whose F-15 fighter jet last month lost a potential 60-plane order from South Korea to Lockheed Martin Corp's next-generation F-35 fighter.
Without new orders, both programs, based in St. Louis, Missouri, could fold in several years, effectively putting Boeing out of the fighter-jet business until a next-generation plane is developed, a decade or more in the future. The closures would follow the shuttering of Boeing's C-17 military transport plane production, in Long Beach, California, set for 2015, also because of sagging sales.
All these prospects present a near-term threat to Boeing's defense business. Fighters and C-17s accounted for 40 percent of Boeing's military aircraft deliveries so far this year. Military aircraft sales totaled $11.5 billion in the first nine months of 2013, down from $11.9 billion a year ago. (Boeing does not break down revenue by product line.)
Spokesman Conrad Chun said Boeing was disappointed about the loss in Brazil but remained confident about the Super Hornet's prospects in Europe and the Middle East.
The outlook for new domestic or foreign contracts is also diminished by budget cuts in the United States and financial constraints abroad, leading to delays in contract decisions in some key foreign markets.
Without fighters and the transport planes, Boeing's military aircraft business would be largely reliant on Apache and Chinook helicopters and the P-8 antisubmarine plane.
Boeing's lucrative after-sale market would be undermined as well. More than 80 percent of the money earned on a fighter jet comes from sales of spare parts, upgrades and support services over the jet's lifespan of 30 years.
SLOWING PRODUCTION TO MAKE ORDERS LAST
Boeing executives deny they are in a dogfight with Lockheed's F-35, and say the two jets will be compatible for defense needs on board U.S. aircraft carriers for decades.
But even before the Brazil loss, Boeing was boosting its lobbying efforts to get U.S. lawmakers to buy more F/A-018s or EA-18G electronic attack planes, known as "Growlers."
It also is cutting costs on the production line, investing in automation and slowing output of the F/A-18 to make the orders last longer as it tries win more sales against the F-35.
Boeing still has orders for 73 more F/A-18s and 45 more EA-18Gs, which will carry it to the end of 2016. For Saudi Arabia it is building 84 F-15s, enough to keep production running through 2018.
F/A-18 production is slowing from four planes a month to three to preserve the line, said Mike Gibbons, F/A-18 program manager. Boeing needs to build around two planes a month to maintain it, he said. [ID:nL2N0JT03T] That would require orders for 60 additional planes from the Navy to carry production through 2020, when countries in the Middle East and others such as Canada and Denmark would need to replace their jets.
Boeing had hoped orders from Brazil, Malaysia and other countries could fill the gap. Now Brazil is a lost cause, and Malaysia recently said it was postponing its fighter competition.
The Gulf holds promise, but Boeing's F/A-18 could face rivalry there from the F-35 around 2020, when the Pentagon is considering allowing sales to the region.
The U.S. Navy is a different story. Officials laud the jet's performance and the ease of maintenance. They say Boeing's reliable F/A-18 deliveries have allowed the fleet to maintain enough fighters on carriers to cover delays in the F-35C, which is not slated to be ready for operational use until 2018 or 2019.
They say they are studying options to keep the Super Hornet line running, although there is no formal requirement to replace older Hornets and no money to pay for new planes.
That is why Boeing is turning to lawmakers to add funding for extra F/A-18 planes, which they have done in the past.
DEFENSE HAWKS DOWN
Behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, congressional aides briefed on the program say Boeing is pushing a proposal to replace 44 of the 280 F-35 C-models the Navy plans to buy with Super Hornets, a move it argues could save the Navy $2.3 billion over several years.
Boeing has stepped up marketing activities over the past year, bringing a trailer-sized simulator to Capitol Hill, showcasing the Hornet at a variety of foreign air shows and helping organize a 35th anniversary party for its first flight at a Maryland naval air base this month.
The company is also promoting what it calls the "Advanced Super Hornet," a package of upgrades that would improve the plane's range, avionics and other capabilities. But company officials say upgrades alone will not support the production line.
Earlier this month, Randy Forbes, a Virginia Republican and member of the House Armed Services Committee, urged Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to keep the F/A-18 line running, calling reliance on a single tactical aviation supply line too risky. [ID:nL2N0JL00N] Other lawmakers have sent similar letters.
How much traction the Boeing proposal will ultimately get in Congress remains unclear.
U.S. lawmakers, keen to maintain well-paying jobs in their home districts, have often added funding to weapons programs, frequently defying the Pentagon's wishes and even an occasional presidential veto threat. Such earmarks have grown rarer, however, in the current budget environment, and military officials say training, maintenance and staffing shortages are putting lives at risk.
Boeing's support in Congress has also waned in recent years after the deaths of some key backers, including Senator Ted Stevens and Representative John Murtha. Others lost their seats to Tea Party candidates who care more about cutting federal deficits.
F-35 PICKING UP MOMENTUM
Another obstacle is the Pentagon's $392 billion commitment to the F-35 fighter and its efforts to lock in U.S. and foreign orders that will help drive down the cost of the most expensive U.S. arms programs.
The new warplane is several years behind schedule, and its cost is nearly 70 percent higher than projected, but government officials say Lockheed is now making progress, completing flight tests and resolving technical problems. The Marines are slated to start using the plane in combat in 2015.
Pentagon leaders have made clear that the F-35 is their top acquisition priority, and that they will resist any Navy moves to order more legacy warplanes like the F/A-18.
The cost of the F-35 is also dropping, according to program manager Lorraine Martin. Last week she said a conventional takeoff A-model would cost around $75 million in 2019, putting it on par with current planes like the F/A-18 and negating one of Boeing's key selling points.
Boeing says the F/A-18 costs about $51 million, including engines and radar, but congressional aides say the price is closer to $70 million when targeting pods and other equipment that is standard on the F-35 are added.
In the end, one of Boeing's biggest problems may be one faced by all companies as they near the end of production of a product, said one industry executive.
"When buyers think you are wounded they run away. No one wants to be the last buyer of any particular airplane."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/21/us-boeing-fighters-analysis-idUSBRE9BK03420131221
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 10:01 uur
Of als Poleme zijn voorspelling uit komt:
NL 24 F35
waar ik aan toevoeg: 12 of 0 F35 voor de Belgen (en geen ander type fighter)
Ik ga nu van dit scenario uit. :sick:
Pentagon, suppliers draft plan to lower F-35 cost - Pratt
December 21, 2013, 8:11 am
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department and top suppliers on the $392 billion F-35 fighter program are developing a plan to drive down the cost of the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program, the head of enginemaker Pratt & Whitney told Reuters.
The project uses an "innovative" new mechanism to encourage companies to invest their own funds to lower production costs, Dave Hess, president of Pratt & Whitney, told Reuters in an interview on Thursday, ahead of his retirement at the end of the month. Pratt is a unit of United Technologies Corp
He said the effort is spearheaded by F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp and its chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, but drew lessons from Pratt's own "war on cost" that used government- and company-funded investment to drive the engine price 40 percent lower in recent years despite a slowdown in U.S. orders.
Hess said the CEO-level effort is due to be unveiled early next year, with details still to be worked out. It's "a concrete plan with more concrete targets," he said, declining to elaborate.
Lockheed is building three models of the F-35 for the U.S. military and eight countries that helped fund its development: Britain, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. Israel and Japan have also ordered the jet.
Pratt builds the single F135 engine that powers the jet, while Northrop Grumman Corp and Britain's BAE Systems Plc are key subcontractors on the airplane.
The Pentagon estimates that it will cost $392 billion to develop the new planes and buy 2,443 jets over coming decades, about 70 percent more than initial projections. However, top Pentagon officials have said repeatedly that the cost of the program must come down from those levels, given tighter military spending budgets and other acquisition priorities.
Lorraine Martin, Lockheed's F-35 program manager, last week said all the companies involved in the program and the government were working on a "blueprint for affordability" to lower the cost of the new warplanes. She said the cost of the F-35 conventional takeoff A-model would be around $75 million in 2019, and possibly even lower, putting it on par with the cost of current fighter jets like the F/A-18.
One source familiar with the F-35 program said the target cost for the F-35 would be in a range around that price level.
Hess initiated Pratt's own "war on cost" after Ashton Carter, the Pentagon's acquisition chief at the time, challenged him during a high-level F-35 meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, asking "Why does the F135 engine cost so much?"
The question galvanized Hess, who had just taken over as president of Pratt a few months earlier, and he quickly launched a two-month effort to develop a plan for lowering the cost of the F135 engine.
ORDER DELAYS AFFECT COST CUTTING
As he prepares to leave Pratt, Hess said the concerted effort to drive down the cost of the F135 engine was one of the company's biggest accomplishments during his tenure.
He said Pratt had executed "nearly perfectly" on the cost reduction plan, but conceded that U.S. government decisions to delay a ramp-up in production had affected the company's ability to lower costs as quickly as expected.
"There's an impact when volumes get pushed to the right," he said, adding, "But we've got a plan to get back on the learning curve."
Hess said Pratt would also be able to apply new technology developments to the F135 engine, which could increase the engine's thrust and fuel efficiency by about 5 percent.
Pratt will deliver 56 F135 engines by the end of the year, and has built over 130 in total. The cost of the engine has come down 40 percent since the first engine was built.
Deliveries will rise slightly in 2014, and ramp up more significantly in 2015 and 2016, Hess said, noting that the company also expected to deliver its first F135 engine from a new line established at the company's West Palm Beach, Florida, facility by the end of the year.
The company hopes to complete negotiations with the Pentagon by the end of the year on operations and maintenance of the next batch of engines, with a larger contract for actual production to follow early next year.
Company officials have said they expect to match or beat the 2.5 percent reduction achieved on 32 of 38 engines that were included in a $1 billion contract for a sixth batch of jets. The company completed those negotiations with the Pentagon in August. It is now negotiating about the seventh and eighth batches of jets, each with about 40 jets.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/20429933/pentagon-suppliers-draft-plan-to-lower-f-35-cost-pratt/
Citaat van: Ace1 op 21/12/2013 | 10:24 uur
Wellicht komt er ook nog een order uit Denemarken voor de Gripen?
http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/Campaigns/GRIP-209_P-Sheet_DK_120530.pdf
Ook voor hen gok/hoop ik alsnog op een Gripen order.
Bij zeer geringe aantallen als vervanger van F-16 moeten 'kleinere' landen tweemaal nadenken voordat ze op de F-35 kar springen.
En dat alleen nog maar uit financiele overwegingen.
Belgie heeft zo'n "high tech" kist echt niet van doen voor de operaties waaraan het deelneemt of (nog zal) wil(-len) deelnemen.
Dan hoeft daarin ook niet geinvesteerd worden.
Brazil's Gamble on Gripen Offsets
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Dec. 20, 2013)
By Giovanni de Briganti
PARIS --- If the rampant triumphalism of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy finally proved as catastrophic to Rafale's chances in Brazil as it did in the United Arab Emirates, it cannot alone explain why Brazil dropped its long-standing preference for a twin-engined fighter to go for the low-cost, single-engined option. The reasons, unsurprisingly, have nothing to do with military requirements or with aircraft performance.
Sarkozy's brashness, and his complete ignorance of diplomatic niceties, convinced him that both countries had committed to Rafale just because their leaders hadn't refused his offers point-blank, and had not publicly contradicted his wildly optimistic claims. Moreover, Sarkozy had ruffled so many Brazilian feathers that lame-duck former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva felt unable to sign a Rafale contract before leaving office, and passed the decision to his more skeptical successor, Dilma Roussef.
A left-wing trade unionist who had a very bad time under Brazil's military dictatorship, Roussef has little time for the military in general, and would have been quite content to let the FX-2 fighter competition wither quietly away. However, air force commander Gen. Juniti Saito has been repeating since the summer that Brazil's dozen ex-French air force Mirage 2000C fighters, that he says are too old to keep flying, must be retired. Coincidentally, they will in fact be officially retired today, Dec. 20.
Saito, incidentally, is no fan of the French, and given the Mirage 2000's robust airframe and engine he may well have painted a blacker picture than their condition really warrants, just to get a new fighter buy rolling. Saito, incidentally, has been air force commander since 2007 -- an abnormally long time to hold such a position -- and shows no sign of relinquishing it.
Roussef is no fan of the US, either, which at the time backed the military dictatorship, but was tilting towards the Super Hornet when the NSA spying scandal broke. This caused her to abruptly cancel an official visit to Washington, and is widely interpreted as having killed off the Super Hornet's chances.
Strange timing
Few expected Brazil to buy a new fighter in the next year or two, since it faces huge economic problems compounded by inordinately high expenses to host the football World Cup. There also was no expectation that Sweden would let its own Gripen contracts this year.
Yet, on Dec. 18, Saab announced the Swedish government had awarded the Gripen E's $2.5 billion full-scale development contract, followed a little later by a separate contract to integrate the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile on Gripen.
It was only after these contracts had been made public that Defense Minister Amorim and air force commander Saito together announced that Gripen had won the FX-2 competition.
You don't need a crystal ball to understand that there was a lot of behind-the-scenes activity, and that phone traffic between Brazil and Sweden must have hit a peak. What is still unclear, however, is what made President Dilma Roussef change her mind about the timing of the fighter buy; why the announcement took place at the Ministry of Defense instead of the Presidential palace; and why Roussef didn't show up. Was she sulking?
The obvious conclusion is that she was forced into the decision against her will, but this is pure speculation. It will take some time for the truth to out.
Vague selection criteria
Amorim on Dec. 18 told reporters that Gripen E won the competition for three main reasons: performance, technology transfer and lower acquisition and operating costs.
"The final choice was based on these three factors," he said, while Saito stressed that offsets offered by Saab weighed in its favor: "Several industries that have offered to contribute to the development of the aircraft. At the end of development, we will have access to all the technology of the aircraft." Roussef, whose decision this was reputed to be, did not show up.
In terms of cost, there is no doubt that Gripen is far less costly to buy and operate than both Rafale and its US-made rival, the Boeing F-18E Super Hornet – both twin-engined aircraft half as large again as Gripen. Unofficial reports from Brazil claiming that Gripen costs about half as much as the other two are very plausible.
And there's more. Senator Ricardo Ferraço, chairman of the Brazilian Senate's Foreign Affairs committee, was quoted by the O Globo newspaper on Dec. 19 as saying that Saab is providing customer finance for the deal to the extent that Brazil will only start paying after it receives the 36th and final aircraft.
A far bigger prize?
Or will the 36th Gripen really be Brazil's final one? O Globo also says that Brazil's total requirement is for 100 or more fighters, and Gripen E will be the natural choice if it can demonstrate satisfactory performance and availability.
In terms of capability, there is no doubt that Gripen is outclassed by the other two in terms of range, payload and weapons, although the question here must be "how much is enough" for Brazil rather than "what is the absolute best."
In its "Question and Answers" release (our translation here), Brazil's MoD noted that the Gripen NGs are "supersonic airplanes that fulfil several missions, such as interception, interdiction and eventual destruction of targets....The aircraft are designed for use in air-to-air, air-to-sea and air-to-ground missions [and] are also equipped with an in-flight refueling system that will allow the defense of the airspace in even the most remote parts of Brazil."
Nothing unique to Gripen there, of course, but it all sounds very impressive to people who have no knowledge of military aviation, i.e. the average voter.
Gripen E good enough
If one can believe the Swiss air force's evaluation of Gripen F, (PDF, see page 6--Ed.) and there is no reason not to, its official conclusions as to the future fighter's military performance are of interest.
On a scale of 1 to 9, the Swiss air force graded the two-seat Gripen F at 5.81 ("barely sufficient") for operational effectiveness; 6.87 ("satisfactory") for operational aptitude, 7.37 (satisfactory") for "cooperation," with a global mark of 6.36 ("satisfactory").
Brazil is not Switzerland, however, and flying over long stretches of thick jungle, or over the maritime approaches known locally as the "Pre-Sal," in a single-engine fighter would make many pilots nervous. Many think that the added safety of a second engine, and possibly a second crewman as well, would make much sense for such a large country.
But, in the final analysis, this did not count for much compared to the fact that both Rafale and the Super Hornet would have been financially exorbitant for Brazil's current circumstances.
So, technology transfer and direct offsets were clearly a major boost for Gripen, and Amorim told reporters that Saab's willingness to hand over intellectual property rights to the aircraft's technology was what had tipped the balance in its favor. Brazil's overall economic policies and its National Defense Strategy both have the goal of modernizing national industry and, specifically, its aerospace and defense sector, so the Swedish commitment to tech transfer is a big deal.
Much of Gripen E's technology, however, belongs not to Saab but to its partners and subcontractors in the United States, United Kingdom and European countries. Also, given that Saab has made similar promises to Swiss industry, it is unclear how much technology Brazil will, in fact, end up with.
Brazil has also been promised exclusive rights to market the Gripen in South America, according to local press reports, but again it is unclear why its neighbors would buy combat aircraft from the regional power, rather than Sweden, and even less clear why Brazil would provide them, thereby giving away whatever technological edge Gripen E can provide.
France's biggest mistake in Brazil
Apart from Sarkozy's antics, French industry made a serious mistake in Brazil when it sold the 20% equity stake that Dassault and its Rafale partners acquired in Embraer, the Brazilian state-owned aircraft manufacturer, when it was privatized in 1994.
French manufacturers enjoyed good relations with Mauricio Botelho, Embraer's first post-privatization chief executive, but when he left in 2007 relations turned frosty with his successors. This seriously complicated France's bid, as thus lost its most influential local ally. And this was disastrous, as inevitably, Embraer became the local FX-2 prime contractor.
Embraer's new management considered that development of the Rafale was too far along for Brazilian industry to gain any meaningful benefit in terms of new technologies and advanced R&D work. The ambitious Brazilians thought the Gripen E, which is still largely in development, would offer far greater scope for them than would Rafale, and they have been largely proven right.
Today, Rafale is already flying with an AESA radar and the new equipment required for the final, F3 version. The next development step, its mid-life upgrade, is well over a decade away.
Gripen E, on the other hand, requires several more years of development work – initial deliveries to Brazil are tentatively scheduled for 2018 – and here Brazil can, in theory, obtain both new technology and high-tech involvement for its industry.
Ironically, had Brazil bought Rafale in 2010, its industry would have been able to play a significant role in the development of the French fighter's uprated version, but since then the program has advanced, and technological windows of opportunity have closed.
Brazil sold an offset dummy?
Needless to say, given that it is approaching the end of its production life, the Super Hornet could offer little in the way of tech transfer, and only direct offsets in assembly and some metal-bashing, things that Brazil would shun as bringing little or no technological added value.
Rumors floating around that the Super Hornet was the air force's dream fighter are as far-fetched as those claiming that Brazil will now support Saab's pipe dream of developing a Sea Gripen carrier version.
But it is precisely in respect of tech transfers that lobbying by the Brazilian air force and Embraer in favor of Gripen E is difficult to understand.
First of all, as already noted, many of Gripen E's major systems and components are supplied by the United States or the United Kingdom, which not only leaves Brazil vulnerable to embargoes and/or remote interference by its suppliers, but also means that little or no sensitive US technology will be provided because such is not the American way.
The Gripen E's engine, the F414G turbojet, is made by General Electric, its AESA radar is made by the English side of Selex ES, and several other US and UK companies are already involved in the program.
Furthermore, while Switzerland has a smaller order (22 aircraft planned), it has had a head-start in negotiating a role in Gripen E for its industry; all this adds up to a less significant role than Brazilian industry might feel it deserves. So, if Brazil chose Gripen because it offers technological windows of opportunity for its industry, it got it wrong. In reality, these windows are now largely closed because the most lucrative work has already been awarded.
There is no question that, for its cost, Gripen E is a perfectly respectable combat aircraft, with soon a high-performance weapons range while users of previous versions appear satisfied. Still, Brazilian explanations of their surprise choice make little sense.
Brazilian officials say they chose Gripen E for its price (credible), for its performance ("barely sufficient") and for its industrial offsets (dubious end result). Brazil and Saab have allowed 12 months to complete negotiations on the contract and on related offsets, so there is plenty of time to see whether the two parties, with an offset-fixated Switzerland looking over their shoulder, can come up with an offset package that is mutually acceptable both in dollar volume and in technological content.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/150426/brazil%E2%80%99s-gamble-on-gripen-offsets.html
Het wat negatief schrijven over de prestaties van de Gripen lijkt me in schril contrast tot de prestaties die Gripen heeft neergezet tijdens de red flag oefening eerder in de VS....
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 21/12/2013 | 13:16 uur
Het wat negatief schrijven over de prestaties van de Gripen lijkt me in schril contrast tot de prestaties die Gripen heeft neergezet tijdens de red flag oefening eerder in de VS....
Ik vindt het wel verfrissend, immers bij alleen maar Gripen Hallelujah weet je ook dat er aandachtpunten zijn en de lofzang komt m.i. alleen voort uit (low)budget overwegingen.
In Zwitserland en Brazilië is blijkbaar de prijs doorslaggevend en erkennen beiden dat o.a. de Rafale op alle fronten beter is... Je zal toch in een toekomstig conflict verzeild raken waar je:
1. geen beroep kan doen op pappie (VS)
2. een tegenstander treft die niet voor een dubbeltje op de eerste rang wil zitten..
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 13:34 uur
Ik vindt het wel verfrissend, immers bij alleen maar Gripen Hallelujah weet je ook dat er aandachtpunten zijn en de lofzang komt m.i. alleen voort uit (low)budget overwegingen.
In Zwitserland en Brazilië is blijkbaar de prijs doorslaggevend en erkennen beiden dat o.a. de Rafale op alle fronten beter is... Je zal toch in een toekomstig conflict verzeild raken waar je:
1. geen beroep kan doen op pappie (VS)
2. een tegenstander treft die niet voor een dubbeltje op de eerste rang wil zitten..
Slagkracht.
Ik verwacht zomaar dat je met 56 Gripens dingen kunt waar je met 24 F35's alleen maar van kan dromen. En omgekeerd ook natuurlijk. Zo werkt het.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 21/12/2013 | 14:17 uur
Slagkracht.
Ik verwacht zomaar dat je met 56 Gripens dingen kunt waar je met 24 F35's alleen maar van kan dromen. En omgekeerd ook natuurlijk. Zo werkt het.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChU-mGeBaM
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 13:34 uur
Ik vindt het wel verfrissend, immers bij alleen maar Gripen Hallelujah weet je ook dat er aandachtpunten zijn en de lofzang komt m.i. alleen voort uit (low)budget overwegingen.
In Zwitserland en Brazilië is blijkbaar de prijs doorslaggevend en erkennen beiden dat o.a. de Rafale op alle fronten beter is... Je zal toch in een toekomstig conflict verzeild raken waar je:
1. geen beroep kan doen op pappie (VS)
2. een tegenstander treft die niet voor een dubbeltje op de eerste rang wil zitten..
De Mirage 2000 gaat veel minder snel stuk dan een F-16. Dus heeft dus een betere inzetbaarheid.
De Mirage 2000 is per saldo wendbaarder dan een F-16. De Mirage 2000 heeft een grotere radar antenne dan de F-16, dat komt van pas bij Beyond Visual Range luchtgevechten. De Mirage 2000 heeft een uitstekend geintegreerd Elektronisch Oorlog Voering systeem. Welke door vliegers beter wordt beoordeeld dan onze externe ALQ-131 EOV pod (gondel). De Mirage 2000 had echter wel een 10.000 voet / 3.050 meter lange startbaan nodig, vanwege zijn deltavleugel met 50 graden pijl hoek.
Conceptueel gezien, kan je de Mirage 2000 classificeren als een mini F-15 Eagle. Terwijl de F-16 conceptueel gezien een verbeterde F-5 Freedom Fighter is, met een aanzienlijk groot vlieg bereik.
Toch werden er van die betere Mirage 2000 maar 601 exemplaren gebouwd. Terwijl er meer dan 4.500 F-16's van de band rolden.
Naast politieke redenen, vielen heel wat potentiele Mirage 2000 klanten af, ... vanwege de aanschafprijs !
In de jaren 90 koste een F-16 ca. USD 20 miljoen - 30 miljoen. Terwijl de Mirage 2000 toen USD 39 miljoen deed.
Feit is en blijft dat de F-16 Fighting Falcon het meest kosten-effectieve hedendaagse jachtvliegtuig. In andere woorden: het levert de meest bang for the buck.
Veel landen die Franse jachtvliegtuigen kopen, willen helemaal niet afhankelijk zijn van de VS. Brazilie heeft nadrukkelijk aangegeven, dat zij niet afhankelijk willen, van welk land dan ook en met nadruk op de VS.
Citaat van: DvdW op 19/12/2013 | 09:42 uur
Altijd leerzaam zo'n forum :big-smile:
Dus als er 3.159 F-35's worden gebouwd ligt de prijs van de F-35 en de Gripen NG vrijwel op hetzelfde niveau? Immers de PAUC van de F-35 is 161 miljoen en die van de Gripen NG = 166 miljoen (ik ga er dan van uit dat de prijs van de Gripen NG de PAUC prijs is). En de URF van de F-35 is 78,7 terwijl die van de Gripen NG tussen de 70 en 80 miljoen ligt... Correct?
En is er ook wat zinnigs te zeggen wat er gebeurd als er minder F-35's worden afgenomen? De prijs stijgt, maar met hoeveel per kist?
Dat productie aantal van 3.159 is nu een puur theoretisch getal. Al 10 jaar geleden gaf het Pentagon al aan dat er waarschijnlijk maar 800 - 1.200 F-35A's voor de US Air Force worden aangeschaft, in plaats van het huidige plan getal van 1.763.
In het congres circuleren al 10 jaar Fighter Road Maps. Waarin gesproken wordt over een USAF F35A vloot van 850 kisten. Maar er zijn vloot scenario's waarbij de USAF slechts 325 tot 480 F-35A's tot haar beschikking kan hebben. Idem dito bij de JSF Partnerlanden, Canada ging al van 80 naar 65 F-35A's, het VK ging van 138 naar slechts 40 - 66 F-35's en de KLu ging van 85 naar nu 37 F-35A's.
In het Pentagon en congres schat men dan ook in dat de F-35A PAUC tussen 2016 - 2024 tussen de USD 165 - 235 miljoen komt te liggen.
De F-35A URF komt dan tussen de USD 99 - 141 miljoen te liggen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 14:45 uur
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChU-mGeBaM
Wat wil je hier mee zeggen? Dat de Chinezen een tijdreismachine hebben uitgevonden?
Citaat van: Thomasen op 21/12/2013 | 16:09 uur
Wat wil je hier mee zeggen? Dat de Chinezen een tijdreismachine hebben uitgevonden?
Nee, het verschil in 2030-40 tussen een Gripen MLU en een hele rits aan 5e generatie gevechtsvliegtuigen van Russische, Aziatische en Amerikaanse makelij.
Zelfs Saab zet in met haar FS2020 concept met de Turken op een 5 gen. kist, waarbij het mij niet zal verbazen als ze hun opgepoetste MLU kisten (noem het E) na 20 jaar gaan vervangen.
Moraal van dit verhaal: ik vind de Gripen een prima interim kist die in 2030/35 aan vervanging toe is of daarna alleen als kist kan worden ingezet tbv CAS/COIN nadat het luchtoverwicht behaald is.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 16:25 uur
Nee, het verschil in 2030-40 tussen een Gripen MLU en een hele rits aan 5e generatie gevechtsvliegtuigen van Russische, Aziatische en Amerikaanse makelij.
Zelfs Saab zet in met haar FS2020 concept met de Turken op een 5 gen. kist, waarbij het mij niet zal verbazen als ze hun opgepoetste MLU kisten (noem het E) na 20 jaar gaan vervangen.
Moraal van dit verhaal: ik vind de Gripen een prima interim kist die in 2030/35 aan vervanging toe is of daarna alleen als kist kan worden ingezet tbv CAS/COIN nadat het luchtoverwicht behaald is.
Dat is toch prima. Over 20 jaar moet een beetje fighter wel mach 3 kruisen. Kom je aanzetten met je F35?
Citaat van: Thomasen op 21/12/2013 | 16:33 uur
Dat is toch prima. Over 20 jaar moet een beetje fighter wel mach 3 kruisen. Kom je aanzetten met je F35?
En dan brullen we hier over de kosten...? (2 x een fighter in een periode van 40 a 50 jaar)
Laten we dan de Gripen en F35 gedachte maar helemaal los laten, over de plint er mee! Meteen de Advanced Super Hornet bestellen en bij Boeing als level one partner instappen in de ontwikkeling van de FA/XX, dan zijn we klaar tot 2060-2070.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 16:42 uur
En dan brullen we hier over de kosten...? (2 x een fighter in een periode van 40 a 50 jaar)
Laten we dan de Gripen en F35 gedachte maar helemaal los laten, over de plint er mee! Meteen de Advanced Super Hornet bestellen en bij Boeing als level one partner instappen in de ontwikkeling van de FA/XX, dan zijn we klaar tot 2060-2070.
Je hebt een behoorlijke glazen bol staan als je denkt in de wereld van 2070 te kunnen kijken.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 21/12/2013 | 16:44 uur
Je hebt een behoorlijke glazen bol staan als je denkt in de wereld van 2070 te kunnen kijken.
Tel het maar uit, als Boeing begint met de FA/XX dan is deze de beoogde opvolger van de F18E, die zal niet eerder operationeel kunnen zijn dan medio jaren dertig, tel er dertig jaar bij en je zit rond 2065.
Nu weet ik ook wel dat als er een grootschalig en langdurig conflict uit breek in deze periode dat de kaarten weer volledig anders geschud zullen worden.
Maar wat ik wel zie is dat een Gripen het niet gaat redden in de wereld van: PAK-FA/T-50, J-20, J-31 en nog een aantal 5e gen kisten op de tekentafel.
Iets wat niet alleen geldt voor de Gripen maar voor alle EuroCanards, de hoogste tijd dat men in Europa het besluit neemt om door de 3 fabrikanten 2 vervangende kisten te gaan ontwikkelen, een één en een twee pitter.... maar nee, hier blijft het akelig stil en dreigt men de boot volledig te missen.
Al is Saab met haar FS2020 op de goede weg!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 13:34 uur
Ik vindt het wel verfrissend, immers bij alleen maar Gripen Hallelujah weet je ook dat er aandachtpunten zijn en de lofzang komt m.i. alleen voort uit (low)budget overwegingen.
Opvallend dat we in NL "low budget" ongeveer heilig hebben verklaard, behalve dan voor de F16-vervanger...
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 21/12/2013 | 17:02 uur
Opvallend dat we in NL "low budget" ongeveer heilig hebben verklaard, behalve dan voor de F16-vervanger...
Het heilig verklaren van low budget heeft dan ook tot gevolg dat het vertrouwen zo goed als verdwenen is en dat wij het hier ons zelf moeilijker maken dan het hoeft te zijn.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 21/12/2013 | 17:02 uur
Opvallend dat we in NL "low budget" ongeveer heilig hebben verklaard, behalve dan voor de F16-vervanger...
Naast dat battle proven nu ook helemaal niet meespeelt...en bij een ander groot project juist het beslissende argument was...
Citaat van: Elzenga op 21/12/2013 | 17:07 uur
Naast dat battle proven nu ook helemaal niet meespeelt...en bij een ander groot project juist het beslissende argument was...
Tja dan waren F35 en Gripen beiden afgevallen (ik tel een paar rondjes vliegen voor de Gripen C/D in de omgeving van Lybië echt niet mee)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 16:52 uur
Tel het maar uit, als Boeing begint met de FA/XX dan is deze de beoogde opvolger van de F18E, die zal niet eerder operationeel kunnen zijn dan medio jaren dertig, tel er dertig jaar bij en je zit rond 2065.
Nu weet ik ook wel dat als er een grootschalig en langdurig conflict uit breek in deze periode dat de kaarten weer volledig anders geschud zullen worden.
Maar wat ik wel zie is dat een Gripen het niet gaat redden in de wereld van: PAK-FA/T-50, J-20, J-31 en nog een aantal 5e gen kisten op de tekentafel.
Iets wat niet alleen geldt voor de Gripen maar voor alle EuroCanards, de hoogste tijd dat men in Europa het besluit neemt om door de 3 fabrikanten 2 vervangende kisten te gaan ontwikkelen, een één en een twee pitter.... maar nee, hier blijft het akelig stil en dreigt men de boot volledig te missen.
Al is Saab met haar FS2020 op de goede weg!
60 jaar in de toekomst kijken. Kijk even 60 jaar terug en vraag je af wie toen juist voorzien heeft in welke situatie we ons nu bevinden.....
Citaat van: Thomasen op 21/12/2013 | 17:16 uur
60 jaar in de toekomst kijken. Kijk even 60 jaar terug en vraag je af wie toen juist voorzien heeft in welke situatie we ons nu bevinden.....
Ik begrijp je argument! 60 jaar gelden kochten we nog elke 10 jaar een nieuwe fighter, dat is nu een utopie mede gezien de ontwikkelingstijd van een nieuwe kist.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 17:11 uur
Tja dan waren F35 en Gripen beiden afgevallen (ik tel een paar rondjes vliegen voor de Gripen C/D in de omgeving van Lybië echt niet mee)
je hebt daar nog steeds een verkeerd beeld van vind ik. De F35 is helemaal nieuw...de Gripen NG gebruikt verschillende reeds uitvoerig geteste en gebruikte middelen..zoals..heel belangrijk..de motor. De Gripen was dus niet afgevallen...de F35 wel. En dat was dus niet de bedoeling..dus draaide men de argumentatie gewoon om. En was state-of-the-art opeens weer leidend.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 21/12/2013 | 17:22 uur
je hebt daar nog steeds een verkeerd beeld van vind ik. De F35 is helemaal nieuw...de Gripen NG gebruikt verschillende reeds uitvoerig geteste en gebruikte middelen..zoals..heel belangrijk..de motor. De Gripen was dus niet afgevallen...de F35 wel. En dat was dus niet de bedoeling..dus draaide men de argumentatie gewoon om. En was state-of-the-art opeens weer leidend.
Hierin verschillen we dan heel duidelijk van mening. (ook de succesvolle F16 aanschaf betrof een non combat proven kist, het is toch aardig goed gekomen)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/12/2013 | 16:42 uur
En dan brullen we hier over de kosten...? (2 x een fighter in een periode van 40 a 50 jaar)
Laten we dan de Gripen en F35 gedachte maar helemaal los laten, over de plint er mee! Meteen de Advanced Super Hornet bestellen en bij Boeing als level one partner instappen in de ontwikkeling van de FA/XX, dan zijn we klaar tot 2060-2070.
LockheedMartin heeft een historie in de militaire vliegtuigbouw als ontwerper en bouwer van hoofdzakelijk zeer gespecialiseerde zeer dure high end toestellen zoals de U-2 Dragon Lady en SR-71 Blackbird, die gebouwd werden in kleine aantallen. Naast de F-22A Raptor heeft LockheedMartin 50 jaar geleden de F-104 Starfighter gebouwd. De '104' werd bij de US Air Force in vrij kortstondige dienst gesteld, omdat LockheedMartin bereid was om de introductie van het '104' bul ruimhartig te 'smeren'. Dit deed men overigens ook bij export klanten. ;)
Het vroegere McDonnell Douglas heeft veel meer jachtvliegtuigen/-bommenwerpers op haar CV staan. De Joint Strike Fighter F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle, F-18 Hornet en A-12 Avenger II Advanced Tactical Attack aircraft. zie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II
De A-12 werd in 1991 geannuleerd door de defensie minister Dick Cheney. Volgens hem zouden de kosten van de A-12 volledig onbekend zijn en liepen McDonnell Douglas en General Dynamics te ver achter op het ontwikkeling schema en zou de kist te zwaar worden.
Dick Cheney eiste zijn geinvesteerde ontwikkeling geld terug en begon een rechtszaak. Eerst kreeg hij gelijk, maar toen er nieuw feiten materiaal opdook. Ging McDonnell Douglas in de tegen aanval en won uiteindelijk. Insiders zeggen weleens (off the record) dat General Dynamics en McDonnell Douglas (MD) geen defensie werk meer krijgen. En dit is waarschijnlijk de reden dat de MD fabriek in St. Louis nooit een subdivisie van Boeing is geworden. En de voormalige General Dynamics fabriek in Fort Worth LockheedMartin's andere jachtvliegtuigen fabriek is geworden. Naast die andere kleinere jachtvliegtuigen fabriek in Georgia. De F-35 werd echter ontworpen in de Skunk Works in Palmdale, California, waar ook de U-2 en SR-71 werden ontworpen.
McDonnell Douglas en nu Boeing hadden in de Skunk Works een tegenhanger, die Phantom Works wordt genoemd.
Boeing heeft ook een fatsoenlijke bedrijf cultuur, zoals eerder gemeld is Lockheed Martin veel eerder geneigd om de grenzen van fatsoen en wetten te overschrijden.
Boeing heeft echter niet de pecunia en interesse om voldoende in The Phantom Works te investeren. Naast haar grote belangen in de civiele vliegtuigbouw en in een tijd van grote bezuinigingen op Defensie.
Grumman, wat vroeger ook veel vliegtuigen ontwikkelde voor de marine. Is nu samen gegaan met Northrop en bouwt geen vliegtuigen meer. Maar houdt zich alleen bezig met de ontwikkeling van vliegtuig software en de integratie van elektronica in vliegtuigen.
De Northrop tak van Northrop Grumman is nu bezig met de X-47B Unmanned Carrier LAunched Surveillance and Strike. Mocht de US Navy overgaan tot aanschaf van deze X-47B, deze heeft al bewezen vanaf een vliegdekschip te kunnen opereren, de F-35C nog niet.
Dan zie ik de USN in toekomst, zeg tussen 2020 en 2050 gaan voor een combi van X-47B UCLASSen en F-35C's of Advanced Super Hornets en geen F/A-XX at all.
Instappen als level 1 ontwikkeling deelnemer in een 2 motorig, veel steelser F/A-XX? Dan moet je veel meer meebrengen dan die USD 800 miljoen die we als level 2 deelnemer in het JSF project stopten. Onze luchtvaart industrie en luchtmacht zijn veel te klein voor een level 1 deelname.
En de F/A-XX wordt te capabel en te duur voor ons ambitie niveau.
De F-18E/F Super Hornet is slechts marginaal beter dan de legacy F-18C/D Hornet en is ruim 1,5 x duurder in gebruik dan een F-16AM/BM.
Citaat van: Poleme op 22/12/2013 | 02:02 uur
De Northrop tak van Northrop Grumman is nu bezig met de X-47B Unmanned Carrier LAunched Surveillance and Strike. Mocht de US Navy overgaan tot aanschaf van deze X-47B, deze heeft al bewezen vanaf een vliegdekschip te kunnen opereren, de F-35C nog niet.
Dan zie ik de USN in toekomst, zeg tussen 2020 en 2050 gaan voor een combi van X-47B UCLASSen en F-35C's of Advanced Super Hornets en geen F/A-XX at all.
Instappen als level 1 ontwikkeling deelnemer in een 2 motorig, veel steelser F/A-XX? Dan moet je veel meer meebrengen dan die USD 800 miljoen die we als level 2 deelnemer in het JSF project stopten. Onze luchtvaart industrie en luchtmacht zijn veel te klein voor een level 1 deelname.
En de F/A-XX wordt te capabel en te duur voor ons ambitie niveau.
De F-18E/F Super Hornet is slechts marginaal beter dan de legacy F-18C/D Hornet en is ruim 1,5 x duurder in gebruik dan een F-16AM/BM.
Mee eens dat de FA/XX een concept is wat het zal moeten gaan opnemen tegen de combinatie X-47B en ASH en/of F35C, het ontwerp is in het RFI stadium en of deze ooit naar een demo fase gaat is nu nog de grote vraag...
Boeing zal in 2014 een keuze moeten maken (als zich in tussen tijd geen export klanten aandienen) over het wel of niet openhouden van de F18E/F/G productielijn en zoals de kaarten nu liggen denk ik dat de lijn opdroogt en is het in 2016/17 exit nieuwe (A)SH al zijn diverse scenario's denkbaar om de "lijn" langer open te houden, er wordt inmiddels heftig gelobbyd op The Hill voor een vervolg order voor de USN van de Super Bug ten koste van de F35C
De USN zelf is happy met de SH, zeker i.c.m. de X-47B en zit niet te springen om de F35C al spreekt men "openlijk' wel van commitment voor deze kist. De combi ASH en X-47B zou de F35C zo goed als overbodig maken.
Boeing zit dus in een spagaat en staat aan de vooravond van een decennium of meer zonder nieuwe fighter productie, al biedt de recente samenwerking met Saab eventueel een uitkomst voor de +/- 350 T-X. Als dit verstandshuwelijk de order krijgt dan zijn ze op dat vlak uit de brand maar er zijn nog een aantal kapers (3) op de kust.
De uitkomst kan zijn dat Lockheed Martin de enige resterende actieve fighter producent is voor de komende decennia met louter de F35A/B/C en de F-X (opvolger van de F22A) op de tekentafel en in de RFI fase.
Een monopolie voor LM lijkt mij strategisch en economisch een onwenselijke en zelfs uitermate risicovolle situatie die uiteindelijk alleen maar zal leiden tot gereduceerde innovatie en kostenstijgingen en uiteindelijk het verlies van het Amerikaanse luchtoverwicht.
Wat mij betreft is een gewenste uitkomst:
USN: Vervanging van de F18C/D door de F35C met als aanvulling de X-47B.
Vervanging van de F18E/F/G en op termijn de X-47B door de FA/XX
V.w.b. Nederlandse deelname: L1 partner is wellicht te ambitieus maar L2 lijkt mij meer dan haalbaar, dat vervolgens een interim keuze voor de ASH zou worden gemaakt vind ik verdedigbaar. Daarmee neem ik de hoger exploitatiekosten (t.o.v. de F16 MLU) en de marginale verbeteringen t.o.v. de F18C voor lief, mede omdat ik verwacht dat de ASH tot 2030/35 een redelijke tot goede houdbaarheidsdatum heeft.
"De F/A-XX wordt te capabel en te duur voor ons ambitie niveau"
Dat is "slechts" een politieke beslissing.
Voor Nederland is deze gedachte een gepasseerd station, we zullen het de komende decennia moeten doen met enkele tientallen F35A waarbij er hopelijk op termijn ruimte is voor een extra batch (goede bronnen laten mij weten dat de NL industrie inzet op 37 + een kleine additionele batch van 5 tot 10 exemplaren).
Om wille van slagkracht en innovatie en ter voorkoming van een LM monopolie mag ik hopen dat de FA/XX meer wordt dan alleen een papieren ontwerp!
It's all about the money!
"De F/A-XX wordt te capabel en te duur voor ons ambitie niveau". Of de Saab, F-35, Rafale of wat dan ook. In hoeverre staat men nog stil bij de vraag: Wie is eigenlijk mijn opponent in een mogelijk conflict en hoe groot is de kans dat het ook gaat gebeuren ? Ik schop nu waarschijnlijk tegen een antal schenen, maar hoe groot is de kans op een echte oorlog tussen landen van enige betekenis ? Ik stel het eigenlijk met het afstoten van onze tanks in het schterhoofd.
Citaat van: Ros op 22/12/2013 | 11:55 uur
"De F/A-XX wordt te capabel en te duur voor ons ambitie niveau". Of de Saab, F-35, Rafale of wat dan ook. In hoeverre staat men nog stil bij de vraag: Wie is eigenlijk mijn opponent in een mogelijk conflict en hoe groot is de kans dat het ook gaat gebeuren ? Ik schop nu waarschijnlijk tegen een antal schenen, maar hoe groot is de kans op een echte oorlog tussen landen van enige betekenis ? Ik stel het eigenlijk met het afstoten van onze tanks in het schterhoofd.
De geschiedenis heeft de neiging zich te herhalen en gezien de mensheid sinds ze uit een Afrikaanse boom kropen elkaar de hersen inslaan is het niet aannemelijk dat de evolutie in enkele jaren hier een einde aan heeft gemaakt.
Azië is/wordt een kruitvat, het Midden Oosten is dat al, de Noordpool staat op de nominatie het te worden etc. etc.
Als ik een bookmaker zou zijn, dan zou ik inzetten op: 100 tegen 1 dat het in de komende halve eeuw behoorlijk mis zal gaan, de aanstaande geschiedenis zal het uitwijzen.
Ik hou het op de geschiedenis vanaf het moment dat de Koude Oorlog begon. De situatie is sindsdien niet veel veranderd in de zin van een algehele oorlog. De toekomst durf ik ook niet voor 100% te voorspellen maar wat betreft een WO III durf ik wel een weddenschap aan te gaan dat het niet gaat gebeuren. Strubbelingen met/rond sommige landen zal best wel voorkomen zoals nu in Afrika. Veel erger dan dit verwacht ik niet.
Daarom vraag ik mij af of het slim is te investeren in hoge technologishe wapensystemen die niet of beperkt inzetbaar zijn in de huidige conflicten.
Citaat van: Ros op 22/12/2013 | 14:13 uur
Ik hou het op de geschiedenis vanaf het moment dat de Koude Oorlog begon. De situatie is sindsdien niet veel veranderd in de zin van een algehele oorlog. De toekomst durf ik ook niet voor 100% te voorspellen maar wat betreft een WO III durf ik wel een weddenschap aan te gaan dat het niet gaat gebeuren. Strubbelingen met/rond sommige landen zal best wel voorkomen zoals nu in Afrika. Veel erger dan dit verwacht ik niet.
Daarom vraag ik mij af of het slim is te investeren in hoge technologishe wapensystemen die niet of beperkt inzetbaar zijn in de huidige conflicten.
Die weddenschap durf ik niet aan te gaan, gezien de schreeuwende honger naar basis behoeftes (water) in combinatie met een te kort een voedings-en grondstoffen in een explosief ongezonde mondiale bevolkingsaanwas.
En dit nog los van politieke ambities van (opkomende)grootmachten die wel begrijpen dat economie en (militaire)macht onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden zijn.
De lont zit in het kruitvat de vraag is niet of deze wordt aangestoken maar wanneer, de voedingsbodem is alom aanwezig, wat nog steeds niet hoeft te leiden tot WWIII maar wel tot een brandend zuid oost Azië en het volledig instorten van de wereldeconomie gevolgd door niet te stoppen vluchtelingen stromen naar regio waar wel water en voedsel is.
P.s. Sinds de (eerste) koude oorlog begon (een tweede lijkt aanstaande) heeft de wereld diverse keren op de rand van WWIII gestaan.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/12/2013 | 14:28 uur
Die weddenschap durf ik niet aan te gaan, gezien de schreeuwende honger naar basis behoeftes (water) in combinatie met een te kort een voedings-en grondstoffen in een explosief ongezonde mondiale bevolkingsaanwas.
En dit nog los van politieke ambities van (opkomende)grootmachten die wel begrijpen dat economie en (militaire)macht onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden zijn.
De lont zit in het kruitvat de vraag is niet of deze wordt aangestoken maar wanneer, de voedingsbodem is alom aanwezig, wat nog steeds niet hoeft te leiden tot WWIII maar wel tot een brandend zuid oost Azië en het volledig instorten van de wereldeconomie gevolgd door niet te stoppen vluchtelingen stromen naar regio waar wel water en voedsel is.
P.s. Sinds de (eerste) koude oorlog begon (een tweede lijkt aanstaande) heeft de wereld diverse keren op de rand van WWIII gestaan.
WW3 lijkt mij ook onwaarschijnlijk. Tijdens de KO is het een aantal keer zéér dicht bij geweest, maar de vernietiging is uitgebleven. Hoewel Azie instabiel is, en de stabielere landen met elkaar overhoop liggen, kan er zeker worden gesproken over een situatie die er lijkt op het begin van 'de' koude oorlog. Veel mensen in het vakgebied IB zien de kans op een conflict dan ook als zeer groot, al zal deze niet de vorm van een WWIII hebben, maar zal het eerder een beperkte oorlog zijn, zoals er ook de afgelopen 60 jaar velen zijn gevoerd.
Maar een aantal factoren zijn ook anders. Google maar eens op Brinkmanship, een term die je bij het bestuderen van de politieke processen in de KO tegen komt, maar die in Azie voorlopig nog weinig aanhang ondervind. En gelukkig, want als je de randen opzoekt, kun je er makkelijk een keer overheen, gewild of ongewild.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 22/12/2013 | 15:25 uur
Google maar eens op Brinkmanship, een term die je bij het bestuderen van de politieke processen in de KO tegen komt, maar die in Azie voorlopig nog weinig aanhang ondervind. En gelukkig, want als je de randen opzoekt, kun je er makkelijk een keer overheen, gewild of ongewild.
China is aardig op weg!
En ook hier geldt: een (bedoeld/onbedoeld) ongeluk(je) zit in een klein hoekje.
Als sommige mensen denken dat er geen (grote) oorlog meer zal komen.
Dan kun je defensie beter helemaal omvormen als peacekeepers.
Deze gedachte (over)heerste ook de tijd na de eerste wereldoorlog. (Lijkt mij zeer ongewenst)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/12/2013 | 15:33 uur
China is aardig op weg!
En ook hier geldt: een (bedoeld/onbedoeld) ongeluk(je) zit in een klein hoekje.
Het hangt ook of of de Chinese fighters ook een goede bouw kwaliteit hebben, dat moeten ze nog bewijzen.
Citaat van: Harald op 22/12/2013 | 15:45 uur
Als sommige mensen denken dat er geen (grote) oorlog meer zal komen.
Dan kun je defensie beter helemaal omvormen als peacekeepers.
Deze gedachte (over)heerste ook de tijd na de eerste wereldoorlog. (Lijkt mij zeer ongewenst)
En voor de eerste wereldoorlog dacht men ook dat de tijd van grote oorlogen voorbij was. Het lijkt mij naïef om erop te vertrouwen dat er geen grote oorlogen meer komen.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 22/12/2013 | 15:50 uur
Het hangt ook of of de Chinese fighters ook een goede bouw kwaliteit hebben, dat moeten ze nog bewijzen.
Ook hier lijken ze aardig op weg, veel jatwerk maar nu blijkbaar toch ook met "eigen" innovaties (J-20 en J-31) die zich lijken te kunnen meten met westerse alternatieven nog los van kwantiteit.
Citaat van: Harald op 22/12/2013 | 15:45 uur
Als sommige mensen denken dat er geen (grote) oorlog meer zal komen.
Dan kun je defensie beter helemaal omvormen als peacekeepers.
Deze gedachte (over)heerste ook de tijd na de eerste wereldoorlog. (Lijkt mij zeer ongewenst)
Dat zet juist de sluisdeuren wagenwijd open.
Dat zou m.i. werken als de hele wereld deze mening is toegedaan en ook daadwerkelijk nastreeft, laten we dat Utopia noemen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/12/2013 | 15:55 uur
Ook hier lijken ze aardig op weg, veel jatwerk maar nu blijkbaar toch ook met "eigen" innovaties (J-20 en J-31) die zich lijken te kunnen meten met westerse alternatieven nog los van kwantiteit.
Dit bedoel ik met bouwkwaliteit.
http://www.autoblog.nl/archive/2010/11/24/landwind-cv9-haalt-slechts-2-sterren-in-crashtest
Citaat van: Ace1 op 22/12/2013 | 16:01 uur
Dit bedoel ik met bouwkwaliteit.
Goede vraag, hier moet ik het antwoord op schuldig blijven al lijkt het of de Chinezen dit met kwantiteit zullen oplossen, ergens heb ik het idee dat in het huidige China een mensenleven niet echt hoog gewaardeerd wordt. Chinezen genoeg.
Een interessant document van de Congressional Research service. Licht een tipje van de sluier op over waar de Amerikanen zoal mee bezig zijn.
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and
Appropriations
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43323.pdf (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43323.pdf)
Hier geplaatst ivm de gegevens die er in staan over de fighter procurement:
Eric Palmer heeft het al een beetje uitgezocht.
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/f-35c-on-its-way-to-being-half-billion.html (http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/f-35c-on-its-way-to-being-half-billion.html)
F-35C on its way to being a half-billion dollar jet
The Congressional Research Service has put out this report (PDF) on the 16th of December of what things actually cost for the FY2014 Defense budget (H/T-to a Dutch friend for finding this). What does this mean for the F-35? That any hope of LM's claim of the F-35 costing near that of a current 4th-gen fighter aircraft by the end of the decade has a very long haul. It isn't anywhere near being a finished combat-ready aircraft with significant knowns.
Hope, faith, whatever you want to call it; this is what the F-35 fan-base depends on.
Now the reality; page 82 of the report:
FY2014 budget
F-35A $223.2M each
F-35B $313.8M each
F-35C $441.1M each
These costs are for procurement and R&D. Also for this budget, there are $369M worth of "F-35 Fighter Mods".
Wat mij het meest verbaasd is dat de F35B blijkbaar een stuk goedkoper is dan de C. Dat terwijl er vaak is gesteld dat de B de duurste variant zou zijn.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 22/12/2013 | 16:12 uur
Een interessant document van de Congressional Research service. Licht een tipje van de sluier op over waar de Amerikanen zoal mee bezig zijn.
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and
Appropriations
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43323.pdf (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43323.pdf)
Hier geplaatst ivm de gegevens die er in staan over de fighter procurement:
Eric Palmer heeft het al een beetje uitgezocht.
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/f-35c-on-its-way-to-being-half-billion.html (http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/f-35c-on-its-way-to-being-half-billion.html)
F-35C on its way to being a half-billion dollar jet
The Congressional Research Service has put out this report (PDF) on the 16th of December of what things actually cost for the FY2014 Defense budget (H/T-to a Dutch friend for finding this). What does this mean for the F-35? That any hope of LM's claim of the F-35 costing near that of a current 4th-gen fighter aircraft by the end of the decade has a very long haul. It isn't anywhere near being a finished combat-ready aircraft with significant knowns.
Hope, faith, whatever you want to call it; this is what the F-35 fan-base depends on.
Now the reality; page 82 of the report:
FY2014 budget
F-35A $223.2M each
F-35B $313.8M each
F-35C $441.1M each
These costs are for procurement and R&D. Also for this budget, there are $369M worth of "F-35 Fighter Mods".
Wat mij het meest verbaasd is dat de F35B blijkbaar een stuk goedkoper is dan de C. Dat terwijl er vaak is gesteld dat de B de duurste variant zou zijn.
2 F35A's voor de prijs van 1 F35C?!
Citaat van: Enforcer op 22/12/2013 | 16:37 uur
2 F35A's voor de prijs van 1 F35C?!
Als dat in 2020/25 nog zo is, dan zou dat wat mij betreft pleiten voor een USN met SH + X47B en vanaf medio jaren dertig de invoering van de FA/XX waarmee de F35C effectief ten grave wordt gedragen.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 22/12/2013 | 16:37 uur
2 F35A's voor de prijs van 1 F35C?!
1 F35C voor de Prijs van een LCS?!
Wat ik zo door het report lezend ook nog tegenkwam (naast heel veel dingen die hier off-topic zijn)
- $379.4 million to develop a new, stealthy bomber slated to enter service in the
mid-2020s.
- direct the President to sell 66 F-16C/D fighters to
Taiwan (pagina 49)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/12/2013 | 16:55 uur
Als dat in 2020/25 nog zo is, dan zou dat wat mij betreft pleiten voor een USN met SH + X47B en vanaf medio jaren dertig de invoering van de FA/XX waarmee de F35C effectief ten grave wordt gedragen.
In 2014 worden als ik het dus goed lees 21 EA18G's gekocht, en worden long leads gekocht om in 2015 24 F/A18E/F's te kopen.
Op pagina 58:
In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee opposed
DOD's decision to end F/A-18E/F production,
noting that the plane would be the "backbone" of the Navy's carrier air wings for the next 25
years. Keeping the F/A-18E/F in production would maintain the U.S. fighter production base and
would hedge against the risk that the F-35 might be delayed, the committee said.
En gemiddeld moeten de F35's dus voor 3,7 miljoen per stuk verspijkerd worden. Als dat elk jaar zo gaat over de komende 5 jaar wordt dat een kostbare aangelegenheid.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 22/12/2013 | 17:30 uur
En gemiddeld moeten de F35's dus voor 3,7 miljoen per stuk verspijkerd worden. Als dat elk jaar zo gaat over de komende 5 jaar wordt dat een kostbare aangelegenheid.
Dat moet natuurlijk vanaf LRIP 9 tot het verleden behoren.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/12/2013 | 17:39 uur
Dat moet natuurlijk vanaf LRIP 9 tot het verleden behoren.
vanaf LRIP 9 heb je de full production versie (goedkope versie) en tevens softwarematig de beoogde versie (tot nu toe bekend)
Citaat van: Harald op 22/12/2013 | 18:02 uur
vanaf LRIP 9 heb je de full production versie (goedkope versie) en tevens softwarematig de beoogde versie (tot nu toe bekend)
Tevens de serie voor de eerste KLu F35A's
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/12/2013 | 18:14 uur
Tevens de serie voor de eerste KLu F35A's
Wat doet men de eerste 2 Klu F35A's, deze zijn geen LRIP 9 ?
Citaat van: Ace1 op 22/12/2013 | 19:27 uur
Wat doet men de eerste 2 Klu F35A's, deze zijn geen LRIP 9 ?
Naar mijn weten worden deze 2 alleen voor testing en opleidingen worden gebruikt. Dus zullen (denk ik) wel de software ge update worden, maar nooit op het niveau van LRIP9.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 22/12/2013 | 19:27 uur
Wat doet men de eerste 2 Klu F35A's, deze zijn geen LRIP 9 ?
Ik neem aan dat deze op de zelfde standaard gebracht zullen worden. (F-35 concurrency costs)
Concurrency's Costs: An F-35 Example
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/concurrencys-costs-an-f-35-example/
Can the F-35 Win a Dogfight?
The Air Force says it will have no choice but to send the sluggish stealth fighter into aerial battle
Dave Majumdar in War is Boring
In order to maintain its fighter squadrons, the U.S. Air Force needs the entire planned buy of 1,763 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. That's in part because the flying branch was allowed to buy fewer than planned F-22 Raptors from Lockheed.
The F-35 will have to complement the F-22. But can the smaller, slower, less nimble F-35 hack it as an air-to-air fighter?
The Air Force has just 186 F-22s, of which only 123 are "combat-coded" and immediately available for war, according to Air Combat Command. The service had originally wanted 750 of the stealthy air-superiority fighters, but eventually settled on a requirement for 381 Raptors before the program was further truncated by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the early 2000s.
But even 381 F-22s proved to be an unfulfilled dream. Ultimately, the Raptor program was terminated by Rumsfeld's successor, Robert Gates. The last F-22 rolled off the assembly line in Georgia in 2011.
In the aftermath of the F-22's cancellation, the Air Force was forced to alter its plans and press-gang the F-35—originally meant as a ground-attack aircraft—into service as an air-to-air fighter. It was the only way for the flying branch to keep enough dogfighters in the air.
"Operationally, we have to have it," says Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh. "The decision to truncate the F-22 buy has left us in a position where even to provide air superiority [we need the F-35], which was not the original intent of the F-35 development."
To be clear, the F-35 has always had some air-to-air capability. But that latent dogfighting ability was mostly meant for self-defense—not for aggressively challenging another country's fighters in the air.
But now the Air Force has no choice but to put the F-35 on the aerial front lines. "You have to have the F-35 to augment the F-22 to do the air superiority fight at the beginning of a high-end conflict to survive against the fifth-generation threats we believe will be in the world at that point in time," Welsh says.
Both China and Russia are developing these so-called fifth-generation fighters, which feature high speed, maneuverability and radar-evading stealth. The Chinese have their Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 prototypes. Russia is working on the Sukhoi T-50. Both the Russian and Chinese aircraft might have the potential to match certain aspects of the Raptor's performance.
By contrast, there are troubling questions as to how well the F-35 would fare against the new foreign fighters. While the F-35 has air-to-air sensors and can carry air-to-air missiles, it does not have the kinematic performance of the F-22. It's simply sluggish in comparison.
The Raptor was designed from the outset as an air-to-air killer par excellence—the F-35 was not. The Raptor combines a very stealthy airframe with a high altitude ceiling and supersonic cruise. Further, the F-22 possesses excellent maneuverability for close-in visual-range dogfights.
Combined with the integrated avionics, which correlate all of the aircraft's sensor data into one coherent display, the F-22's stealth and kinematics make it arguably the most lethal fighter ever built.
The F-35 does have integrated avionics—in some ways more advanced than even the Raptor's—and it has stealth. But the F-35 lacks aerodynamic performance. U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability.
Whereas a four-ship flight of Raptors cruising at high supersonic speeds in the rarified atmosphere above 50,000 feet can effectively choose when and where to fight, a flight of slower, lower-flying F-35s might find themselves forced to react to better-performing enemy planes if they are not careful.
Moreover, the F-35 does not have the speed or altitude to impart as much launch energy to the AIM-120 air-to-air missile as the Raptor can, which means the missiles will have less range when fired from a JSF. Nor can the F-35 carry as many air-to-air missiles.
Close in, the F-35 does not have the maneuverability of the Raptor, but it does still have very good low-speed high-angle-of-attack performance. An F-35 pilot should carefully exploit the strengths of his aircraft, using the jet's stealth and sensors to engage enemy fighters from beyond visual range.
If forced into a dogfight, an F-35 pilot's best option would likely be to exploit the jet's high-angle ability, turning quickly to get a first shot against the enemy. That's how the Navy uses its F/A-18.
But even if the F-35's aerodynamic performance is roughly comparable to the F-16 or F/A-18, the aircraft's stealth and sensors make it more survivable against future Chinese- and Russian-built fighters than older aircraft like the F-15. "Our legacy fighters against the new-generation fighters will not survive," Welsh says. "Operationally, it's just a fact."
As such, Welsh argues that the Air Force must continue with the F-35 program despite defense budget cut backs. "I don't believe this is a good time to talk about truncating the buy, capping it at some number," Welsh says.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/95462ccd6745
Russia's Stealth Fighter Could Outfly, Outshoot American Jets
T-50 is fast, long-ranged and has fearsome new weapons
David Axe in War is Boring
Since its public debut four years ago, Russia's first stealth fighter has quietly undergone diligent testing, slowly expanding its flight envelope and steadily working out technical kinks. But for all this hard work there have been precious few indications just how many copies of the Sukhoi T-50 Moscow plans to build ... and how it means to use them.
Until now.
Fresh reporting from Aviation Week's Bill Sweetman, one of the world's top aerospace writers, offers tantalizing hints regarding Moscow's intentions for the big, twin-engine T-50, an answer to America's F-22 stealth fighter.
If Sweetman is correct—and he usually is—the angular warplane with the 50-foot wingspan could be bought in small numbers and used as a sort of airborne sniper, elusively flying high and fast to take down enemy radars and support planes using powerful, long-range missiles.
The T-50's design and apparent weapons options seem to lend themselves to this niche role, which could exploit critical vulnerabilities in U.S. and allied forces and level the air power playing field for the first time in a generation.
Especially considering the Chinese are apparently taking the same approach with their own new stealth fighter.
Missile clues
At the MAKS air show near Moscow this week, some of the five T-50 test models possessed by Sukhoi made appearances—and manufacturers also showed off missiles that could be fitted into the T-50's voluminous weapons bays or under its wings and fuselage.
But Sweetman, wandering the show, detected restraint on the part of the stealth fighter's boosters. He declared the T-50 exhibits "tamer than some people hoped."
"I suspect that the fighter won't be in service for some years, except possibly in the form of a small test squadron," Sweetman noted. Indeed, Moscow recently pushed back the T-50's first frontline use from 2015 to 2016.
But when it does enter service, even in limited numbers the T-50 could have a big impact on rival forces. Scanning the missiles on display at MAKS, Sweetman concluded that the T-50 could be armed with two powerful main weapons: a version of the Kh-58UShE anti-radar missile and the new RVV-BD air-to-air missile.
Both nearly 15 feet long, the Kh-58UShE and RVV-BD can hit targets 120 miles away or farther. The Kh-58UShE homes in on enemy radars; the RVV-BD is for destroying other warplanes.
The smaller AGM-88 anti-radar missile and AIM-120 air-to-air missile are the American analogues of the new Russian weapons. Both several feet shorter and hundreds of pounds lighter than their Russian counterparts, the U.S. munitions reflect a specifically American air-warfare philosophy. American stealth jets including the B-2 bomber, the F-22 and the still-in-development F-35 carry relatively small, lightweight weapons with short ranges.
The B-2's main munition is a 2,000-pound, satellite-guided gravity bomb. For attacking ground targets the F-22 and F-35 rely on a 500-pound, winged guided bomb that can glide up to 60 miles under optimal conditions.
And the F-22 and F-35's AIM-120 air-to-air missile, 12 feet from tip to tail, has a range of probably only 50 miles or so, although the precise distance is classified. Remarkably, no American stealth jets can carry anti-radar missiles like the T-50 probably can.
The differences in weapons-loadouts point to opposing U.S. and Russian concepts for using stealth planes. With the exception of the F-22, American radar-evading jets are not particularly fast and must constantly sneak around in order to use their lighter, shorter-range weapons—therefore they need all-around stealth that makes them hard to detect from any angle.
The B-2 can fly thousands of miles but the F-22 and F-35 have modest fuel loads, forcing them to frequently refuel from aerial tankers.
The T-50, on the other hand, is apparently being designed to blast through defenses in a fairly straight line, relying on front-only stealth features, high altitude, sustained speed and long range to swiftly fire long-reaching missiles at vulnerable targets deep behind enemy lines—without the help of aerial tankers, of which Russia possesses few.
Which is not to say the T-50 isn't also highly maneuverable when it needs to be.
The Russian fighter's preferred targets might include spy planes, Airborne Warning and Control System/Airborne Early Warning and Command (AWACS/AEW&C) aircraft, tankers and ground-based radars—in other words, all those vital systems that comprise the pricey, high-tech back-end in any U.S.-led air campaign.
Snipe the support systems and their crews and you hobble the enemy's aerial war effort.
Moscow is not alone if indeed that is its approach to defeating its rivals in technological battle. China, too, has a new stealth fighter, the J-20. It's big, heavy and potentially fast like the T-50, likewise concentrates its stealth features up front and also has apparent new weapons.
According to the Air Power Australia think tank, the J-20 could be "employed offensively, to punch holes through opposing air defenses by engaging and destroying defending fighter combat air patrols, AWACS/AEW&C aircraft and supporting aerial refueling tankers."
It's a sound strategy. A 2008 war game conducted by the U.S. Air Force-sponsored think tank RAND pitted F-22s against older Chinese Su-27-style fighters in a hypothetical air battle over Taiwan. After Chinese bombardment of American airfields, just six F-22s were available to fight 72 Chinese jets.
Backed by support planes, the defending F-22s got in close and shot down 48 Su-27s, but the remaining Chinese planes managed to power through and destroy six tankers, two AWACS, four P-3 patrol planes and two Global Hawk spy drones, effectively crippling the U.S. force. With no tankers to refuel them, the F-22s crashed for lack of gas despite surviving the missile exchanges.
If older Su-27s firing older weapons could do that, newer and better T-50s and J-20s with longer-range missiles might inflict even more devastating losses with fewer casualties of their own.
With these methods, it wouldn't take many of the new Russian or Chinese jets to make a huge difference in any future air war. So Sweetman's prediction that the T-50 won't be built in large numbers any time soon is cold comfort. With its powerful performance and weapons, Russia's new warplane could tip the balance of power in the air.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9edbae7da1ee
Citaat van: Elzenga op 21/12/2013 | 17:22 uur
je hebt daar nog steeds een verkeerd beeld van vind ik. De F35 is helemaal nieuw...de Gripen NG gebruikt verschillende reeds uitvoerig geteste en gebruikte middelen..zoals..heel belangrijk..de motor. De Gripen was dus niet afgevallen...de F35 wel. En dat was dus niet de bedoeling..dus draaide men de argumentatie gewoon om. En was state-of-the-art opeens weer leidend.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/142927/the-long-history-of-f_35-engine-problems.html
De F-135 motor van de F-35 heeft nogal eens last van gebroken turbine bladen. Dit is geen Foreign Object Damage, ontstaan door in de motor gezogen voorwerpen. Productie fouten schijnen ook niet de oorzaak te zijn. Verschillende tests hebben uitgewezen dat de turbine bladen braken door thermische overbelasting en trillingen. In 2008 werd de zeer sterke F-135 motor voor een deel her ontworpen. Hierna bleven de problemen echter bestaan.
In de jaren 70 en 80 had een ander Pratt & Whitney product ook al grote problemen met de betrouwbaarheid.
F-15A/B Eagles maakten toen jaarlijks gemiddeld 15 landingen met 1 uitgevlamde motor. Het probleem: als de naverbrander werd ingeschakeld, dan ontstak die soms het zeer rijke peut mengsel niet op tijd. Gevolg, er ontstond een wolk met onverbrande kerosine en als die uiteindelijk ontbrande dan vlamde de motor door de ontstane schokgolf uit. Ik kan mij nog steeds de F-16A, die probeerde op te stijgen van Vlb. Leeuwarden voor de geest halen. Heel het romp voorstuk was van de kist gebroken en belande in het weiland, dit was de tweede F-16 die we verloren. De eerste F-16 dook overigens in de grond, door desorientatie van de vlieger. Een F-16A/B block 5 deed gemiddeld NLG 22 miljoen / EUR 10 miljoen (Unit Recurring Fly-away prijs).En we kochten er maar liefst 213 exemplaren van. De F-35A zal zeer waarschijnlijk USD 120 miljoen URF doen. En we kopen er zeer waarschijnlijk maar 24 stuks van.
Pratt & Whitney loste het probleem uiteindelijk op met de inbouw van een Digital Engine Control. Ze moesten wel, want het congres vond dat de General Electric F-110 als Alternative Fighter Engine de motor producenten mooi scherp kon houden, door concurrentie.
Oorspronkelijk was voor de F-135 dan ook een alternatief voorhanden met de General Electric F-136. Kortzichtige politici vonden deze concurrentie echter te duur en annuleerden de F-136.
Citaat van: Harald op 22/12/2013 | 18:02 uur
vanaf LRIP 9 heb je de full production versie (goedkope versie) en tevens softwarematig de beoogde versie (tot nu toe bekend)
Wel wat voorbarig, LockheedMartin heeft zelf al aangegeven dat de F-35 productie kosten pas na 1.600 kisten zullen stabiliseren !
Daarnaast moet het grootste en moeilijkste deel van de software nog getest worden. Dus gaan er software blocks verwaterd worden.
Ik denk dat men rond 2025 een goed werkend software pakket in de F-35 zal hebben.
Citaat van: Poleme op 22/12/2013 | 23:18 uur
Wel wat voorbarig, LockheedMartin heeft zelf al aangegeven dat de F-35 productie kosten pas na 1.600 kisten zullen stabiliseren !
Daarnaast moet het grootste en moeilijkste deel van de software nog getest worden. Dus gaan er software blocks verwaterd worden.
Ik denk dat men rond 2025 een goed werkend software pakket in de F-35 zal hebben.
Staat wel tegenover dat een upgrade in de software doorgaans makkelijker en dus goedkoper is door te voeren dan een structurele/mechanische aanpassing.
Op pagina 82 of CRS-76 van Eric palmers' pdf zie ik staan:
Procurement R&D
F-35A Joint Strike #19 $3,424.5 $816.3
Fighter and Mods,
AF (conventional
takeoff version)
Daar trek ik uit dan 1 toestel $180m kost bij oplevering in 2014.
Welke LRIP is dat?
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fericpalmer.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F08%2Flripdeliveriesgif.gif&hash=e635c306a6cb06ffe22dddcd3ce4f8e335c79f11)
In welke aantallen per jaar?
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightglobal.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe-dewline%2F2011%2F09%2F15%2FF-35%2520production%2520profile.jpg&hash=cb061929828f22a3384778117eac6798e3791859)
In 2014 komen er 118 , van 2017 tot 2019 komen er 230 van de lijn.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/12/2013 | 20:17 uur
Russia's Stealth Fighter Could Outfly, Outshoot American Jets
Wel een interessant artikel.
Wijst wel een paar dingen aan, namelijk dat de rol van de 4de generatie toestellen nog lang niet is uitgespeeld, iets dat we in het westen niet echt willen geloven. Bewapening en doctrine zijn ook erg belangrijk. We moeten de vijand zeer goed in de gaten houden. En zelf ook beschikken over stand-off wapens.
Rusland is dus de "vijand" ?
Citaat van: Ros op 23/12/2013 | 11:55 uur
Rusland is dus de "vijand" ?
Al bijna 70 jaar 8) Al begint China ook op die positie te azen ;)
Citaat van: DvdW op 23/12/2013 | 11:58 uur
Al bijna 70 jaar 8) Al begint China ook op die positie te azen ;)
Juist....en daarom gaat onze familie Balkonscene daar op bezoek en gaan wij daar fijn sporten. Dan heb ik ander beeld wie de "vijand" is. De VS en haar sidekicks zijn een groter risico voor de wereldvrede, als je het mij vraagt. China heeft er geen belang bij om op de positie te azen. Die is gewoon op weg om de grootste economische bedreiging te worden. En daar is geen enkele fighter tegen bestand.......
Citaat van: Ros op 23/12/2013 | 12:14 uur
Juist....en daarom gaat onze familie Balkonscene daar op bezoek en gaan wij daar fijn sporten. Dan heb ik ander beeld wie de "vijand" is. De VS en haar sidekicks zijn een groter risico voor de wereldvrede, als je het mij vraagt. China heeft er geen belang bij om op de positie te azen. Die is gewoon op weg om de grootste economische bedreiging te worden. En daar is geen enkele fighter tegen bestand.......
Fijn voor je, ik reageerde niet voor mijzelf. Maar het is geen geheim dat Rusland en in toenamende mate China gezien worden als potentiële vijanden. Waarom wordt de F-35 anders constant vergeleken met bijv. de PAK-FA en J-20? Zeker op het gebied van bijv. dogfights.... :angel:
Citaat van: Ros op 23/12/2013 | 11:55 uur
Rusland is dus de "vijand" ?
Misschien wel de "vijand" ja, maar niet "Dé vijand".
Hoe mooi een utopisch en nutsmaximaliserende wereld zou zijn, waarin iedereen naar eigen kracht en kunnen bijdraagd aan het welzijn van iedereen, waar er geen concurerende overheden en volken zijn, maar waar iedereen in vrede samenleeft, het is er niet.
China is een machtscentrum. Rusland ook. Een status quo is goed, maar die is er op dit moment zeker niet. Er is van alles in beweging, en dat betekend dat je ze inderdaad kunt zien al tegenstrevers. Zelfs als ze dat nu niet zijn, is onmogelijk om te zeggen of ze dat over 10 jaar nog steeds niet zijn. Bedenk dat Duitsland in 1932 een 'normaal' land was, in '36 wat kritiek kreeg wegens een zorgelijke dictatuur en toenemend racistisch beleid. De militarisering van het Rijnland werd nauwelijks beantwoord. In '38 ontstond een dreiging door de bezetting van het Sudetenland en de Anschluss. Een jaar later was een wereldoorlog uitgebroken en rolden de Panzer divisies door Europa.
Begin 20ste eeuw zagen de Britten in de Fransen hun voornaamste dreiging. En toch lagen ze een paar jaar later samen in de Loopgraven. Wie heeft dat zien aankomen in 1906? Een plan maken voor over 20 jaar of voor 2070 zoals sommigen doen is wel leuk en aardig, maar de geschiedenis leert dat zover vooruit kijken helemaal niet kan. Althans, zolang je accepteert dat de 'mensen van toen' geen totale idioten waren.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 23/12/2013 | 13:57 uur
Een plan maken voor over 20 jaar of voor 2070 zoals sommigen doen is wel leuk en aardig, maar de geschiedenis leert dat zover vooruit kijken helemaal niet kan. Althans, zolang je accepteert dat de 'mensen van toen' geen totale idioten waren.
Niemand kan lang vooruitkijken en een strategie van vandaag zal morgen ingehaald zijn door de realiteit. Een 100K ton Carrier moet in principe 50 jaar mee maar met steeds groter worden waarschijnlijkheid is de super carrier, net als het slagschip van weleer, uiteindelijk gedoemd van het toneel te verdwijnen (al wordt er momenteel driftig in geïnvesteerd).
In de periode van 1900 tot 1945 had je elke paar jaar een nieuw gevechtsvliertuig, tegenwoordig duurt alleen de ontwikkeling van een nieuwe kist al minimaal 15 á 20 jaar voordat het een operationeel succes genoemd kan worden (if ever)
Alle mooi langdurige plannen gaan zo de prullenbak in als de wereld wordt geconfronteerd met een high tech conflict op grote schaal, en zullen innovaties, uit noodzaak geboren, elkaar in een hoog tempo opvolgen.
Geld is dan immers van ondergeschikt belang!
Dit topic is toch voor discussie betreffende internationale fighter ontwikkelingen?
Brazil can buy up to 120 Gripen fighters
In het Portugees.
http://opiniaoenoticia.com.br/brasil/brasil-pode-comprar-ate-120-cacas-gripen-e-pagar-so-em-2023/#.Urh6KxWozHk.twitter
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/12/2013 | 19:02 uur
Brazil can buy up to 120 Gripen fighters
In het Portugees.
http://opiniaoenoticia.com.br/brasil/brasil-pode-comprar-ate-120-cacas-gripen-e-pagar-so-em-2023/#.Urh6KxWozHk.twitter
maybe, het zou mooi zijn voor ons.
Het artikel linkt nog door naar wat andere punten, zoals dat de Gripen voor een groot deel gebruik maakt van Amerikaanse apparatuur. En wat de Amerikaanse invloed dan zal zijn.
Poland picks M-346 for training deal
By: Craig Hoyle London
December, 23/2013
Poland's defence ministry is expected to sign a contract in early 2014 to acquire eight Alenia Aermacchi M-346 advanced jet trainers (AJT).
The Italian company on 23 December announced that it has been formally selected for the Polish air force's AJT requirement, saying that a deal is expected to value €280 million ($384 million). Also covering the supply of ground-based training equipment, personnel training services and logistics support, the deal also includes an option to later acquire four more of the aircraft.
"The contract is scheduled to be signed in the first months of 2014," says Alenia Aermacchi, which has also previously received production orders for the twin-engined type from Israel, Italy and Singapore.
Warsaw's selection follows its late November disclosure of bid details from Alenia Aermacchi and rivals BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin UK, which had respectively been offering the Hawk and the Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed T-50. This revealed that the Italian manufacturer had tabled the lowest-price offer.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/poland-picks-m-346-for-training-deal-394407/?cmpid=SOC%7CFGFG%7Ctwitterfeed%7CFG_Aircraft&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Jongens jongens, snappen jullie het na al die jaren nou nog steeds niet ?????
De vijand komt al jaren uit DEN HAAG, en wordt ieder sterker terwijl wij zwakker worden.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/12/2013 | 20:10 uur
Poland picks M-346 for training deal
By: Craig Hoyle London
December, 23/2013
Poland's defence ministry is expected to sign a contract in early 2014 to acquire eight Alenia Aermacchi M-346 advanced jet trainers (AJT).
The Italian company on 23 December announced that it has been formally selected for the Polish air force's AJT requirement, saying that a deal is expected to value €280 million ($384 million). Also covering the supply of ground-based training equipment, personnel training services and logistics support, the deal also includes an option to later acquire four more of the aircraft.
"The contract is scheduled to be signed in the first months of 2014," says Alenia Aermacchi, which has also previously received production orders for the twin-engined type from Israel, Italy and Singapore.
Warsaw's selection follows its late November disclosure of bid details from Alenia Aermacchi and rivals BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin UK, which had respectively been offering the Hawk and the Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed T-50. This revealed that the Italian manufacturer had tabled the lowest-price offer.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/poland-picks-m-346-for-training-deal-394407/?cmpid=SOC%7CFGFG%7Ctwitterfeed%7CFG_Aircraft&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Mooie zet voor de M346.
Ben wel benieuwd of het toestel ooit nog een light atack role gaat krijgen. Als trainer voor straks dus in ieder geval 4 landen staat het ding best stevig in de markt.
Brazil May Lease Gripen Cs As Mirages Retire
Brazil is interested in leasing or buying second-hand Gripen C/D fighters until the new-generation Gripen E it has selected as its new fighter enters service in 2018. Initial deliveries will go to Sweden, however, and first deliveries to Brazil are not expected until two years later, in 2020, contrary to earlier reports.
The fighter lease was most recently discussed by Brazilian Defense Minister and his Swedish counterpart, Karin Enstrom, during a Dec. 20 telephone call, according to a news release posted on the Brazilian air force's website.
The used Gripens, provided by the Swedish air force, would replace the air force's Mirage 2000C fighters which were ceremonially retired Dec. 20 and will cease operations on Dec. 31. Their air-defense and air police missions will be taken up by Brazil's newly-upgraded Northrop F-5EM fighters, three squadrons of which are in service and based at Rio de Janeiro, Manaus and Canoas. (See separate Dec. 23 item—Ed.)
Enstrom confirmed "the industrial, technological and military partnership between the two countries" and told Amorim that "in early 2014 Sweden will give the Brazilian government concrete proposals on early delivery of fighters, and the training of Brazilian Air Force (FAB) to operate the new aircraft," according to the FAB statement.
Sweden currently has about 50 mothballed Gripen A/B aircraft, the initial production version, and these could be upgraded to C/D standard and leased to Brazil and to other prospective customers, such as Slovakia.
The Swedish minister invited Amorim to make a working visit to Stockholm during the first half of 2014 for an initial assessment of the course of bilateral negotiations.
Also on Dec. 20, an initial meeting was held at the Ministry of Defence with representatives of Saab. Coordinated by the Secretary General of the Ministry, Ari Matos Cardoso, the meeting was attended by representatives of the company, including its vice president, Dan Jangblad, and representatives of the Brazilian air force's Coordinating Committee of Combat Aircraft Program (COPAC).
The FAB proposed a schedule for preparing the contracts for the Gripen purchases, which will now be considered by the company. It is expected that the purchase contract is will be signed by the end of 2014.
The Defence Ministry set up a working group to follow up the progress in the negotiations. The group will also include representatives of the Ministries of Planning and Finance.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/150475/brazil-may-lease-gripen-cs-as-mirages-retire.html
Die Brazilianen en Zweden laten zien hoe je e.e.a. smooth regelt. En wij maar onszelf bezig houden met een peperdure zeepbel....
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 24/12/2013 | 14:44 uur
Die Brazilianen en Zweden laten zien hoe je e.e.a. smooth regelt. En wij maar onszelf bezig houden met een peperdure zeepbel....
Lange termijn weddenschap: De zweden zullen hun 60 Gripens C MLU (hier naar te noemen E) 20 jaar na invoering vervangen (wellicht door een Zweeds -Turks en/of Aziatische co-productie)
Inzet: goed fles wijn.
F-22 will provide targeting for submarine based Tomahawk cruise missiles
Dec 24 2013 - By David Cenciotti
In an interview General Hawk Carlisle gave to Breaking Defense, the PACAF commander provided several interesting examples of how Pacific Defense is reshaping around capabilities becoming available across the different services.
One of them, sees 5th generation aircraft to provide forward target identification for strike missiles launched from a surface warship or submerged submarine.
Indeed, Carlisle "described the ability of advanced aircraft, in this case the F-22, to provide forward targeting through its sensors for submarine based T-LAMS (cruise missiles) as both a more effective use of the current force and a building block for the emergence of the F-35 fleet in the Pacific."
Leveraging cross-domain sinergy, Air Force and joint assets can provide greater capability within a "distributed strike package" that would see the multi-role stealthy Raptors as "electronic warfare enabled sensor-rich aircraft" that will have to fulfill several different tasks. Including, targeting and information gathering.
The current focus is on exploiting advanced war tech to get a better picture of the target (and hit it surgically) as well as moving assets in place as quickly as possible: the U.S. Air Force has already developed a new Rapid Raptor deployment concept to deploy a package of four F-22s (hardly trackable because of the small footprint) within 24 hours of deploying orders with the aim to have them where needed while preventing adversaries from knowing from which airbases they will be launched.
http://theaviationist.com/2013/12/24/f-22-targeting-tlams/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/12/2013 | 14:57 uur
Lange termijn weddenschap: De zweden zullen hun 60 Gripens C MLU (hier naar te noemen E) 20 jaar na invoering vervangen (wellicht door een Zweeds -Turks en/of Aziatische co-productie)
Inzet: goed fles wijn.
Lijkt me een verstandige zet. Wij zullen niet in staat zijn om onze F35 na 20 jaar te verkopen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 24/12/2013 | 15:42 uur
Lijkt me een verstandige zet. Wij zullen niet in staat zijn om onze F35 na 20 jaar te verkopen.
In een dergelijk scenario had ik voor de Gripen kunnen zijn, dan zou deze kist als interim kunnen fungeren en hadden we mee kunnen doen aan de eventuele (door)ontwikkeling van het FS2020 concept.
De vraag alleen of dit financieel aantrekkelijker was geweest over een periode van 40 jaar zal voorlopig nog wel onbeantwoord blijven.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 24/12/2013 | 14:44 uur
Die Brazilianen en Zweden laten zien hoe je e.e.a. smooth regelt. En wij maar onszelf bezig houden met een peperdure zeepbel....
Ik heb mijn bedenkingen bij de luchtwaardigheid van de Braziliaanse Mirage 2000C's. Het lijkt er op dat door het politieke uitstellen de opleidingsprocedure voor Gripen C/D nu versneld gestart moet worden.
Citaat van: Zeewier op 24/12/2013 | 17:18 uur
Ik heb mijn bedenkingen bij de luchtwaardigheid van de Braziliaanse Mirage 2000C's. Het lijkt er op dat door het politieke uitstellen de opleidingsprocedure voor Gripen C/D nu versneld gestart moet worden.
Zie: Antwoord #343 Gepost op: Vandaag om 01:56
"The air force's Mirage 2000C fighters which were ceremonially retired Dec. 20 and will cease operations on Dec. 31. Their air-defense and air police missions will be taken up by Brazil's newly-upgraded Northrop F-5EM fighters, three squadrons of which are in service and based at Rio de Janeiro, Manaus and Canoas."
Citaat van: Zeewier op 24/12/2013 | 17:18 uur
Ik heb mijn bedenkingen bij de luchtwaardigheid van de Braziliaanse Mirage 2000C's. Het lijkt er op dat door het politieke uitstellen de opleidingsprocedure voor Gripen C/D nu versneld gestart moet worden.
Ik denk dat Brazilie vanwege het WK in 2014 en de OS in 2016 extra fighters nodig hebben om het luchtruim te bewaken.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/12/2013 | 14:57 uur
Lange termijn weddenschap: De zweden zullen hun 60 Gripens C MLU (hier naar te noemen E) 20 jaar na invoering vervangen (wellicht door een Zweeds -Turks en/of Aziatische co-productie)
Inzet: goed fles wijn.
JAAAA, wat dacht je van een lekkere La Fleurie Combien, een van de betere beaujolais wijnen uit de streek Fleurie. Deze ogenschijnlijk Frans klinkende naam komt overigens van de Romeinse generaal Floricum.
Feit is dat de Zweedse industrie bij de ombouw van Gripen C naar Gripen E, bar weinig onderdelen gaat hergebruiken van de C variant.
Ik zie het FS 2020 concept ook niet leiden tot een Turks-Zweedse of Zuid-Koreaanse co-product. Dat deze bijna nieuwbouw Gripen E na al 20 jaar gaat vervangen.
Citaat van: Zeewier op 24/12/2013 | 17:18 uur
Ik heb mijn bedenkingen bij de luchtwaardigheid van de Braziliaanse Mirage 2000C's. Het lijkt er op dat door het politieke uitstellen de opleidingsprocedure voor Gripen C/D nu versneld gestart moet worden.
De bevelhebber van de Braziliaanse luchtmacht heeft zich nogal negatief uitgelaten over de inzetbaarheid van zijn Mirage 2000C's.
Helaas politiek spel, hij wil van deze robuuste airframes met hun eveneens robuuste motoren per direct vanaf, zodat deze luchtmacht zich uiteindelijk kan richten op haar eigen voorkeur kandidaat: de Gripen.
Citaat van: Poleme op 24/12/2013 | 20:25 uur
JAAAA, wat dacht je van een lekkere La Fleurie Combien, een van de betere beaujolais wijnen uit de streek Fleurie. Deze ogenschijnlijk Frans klinkende naam komt overigens van de Romeinse generaal Floricum.
Feit is dat de Zweedse industrie bij de ombouw van Gripen C naar Gripen E, bar weinig onderdelen gaat hergebruiken van de C variant.
Ik zie het FS 2020 concept ook niet leiden tot een Turks-Zweedse of Zuid-Koreaanse co-product. Dat deze bijna nieuwbouw Gripen E na al 20 jaar gaat vervangen.
Prima keuze!!
Ik zou het een goede zet vinden van de Zweden als ze het wel zullen doen, daarmee zouden ze de (tot nu toe) enige Europese fighter fabrikant zijn met reeds een afzet markt, hebben ze de kosten aardig weten te delen en heeft Zweden de beschikking in 2040 over een kist die wellicht wel kan mee komen met de meest recente Russische en Aziatische ontwikkelingen.
De rest van Eurocanard producenten heeft dan een achterstand en het zou voor Saab kunnen beteken dat ze dé Europese één pitter kunnen leveren naast de ruimte die zal ontstaan voor één model twee pitter van de concurrentie.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/12/2013 | 14:57 uur
Lange termijn weddenschap: De zweden zullen hun 60 Gripens C MLU (hier naar te noemen E) 20 jaar na invoering vervangen (wellicht door een Zweeds -Turks en/of Aziatische co-productie)
Inzet: goed fles wijn.
Deal alleen als ik win wil ik daar een kratje warsteiner voor terug en als jij win krijg je een fles goede wijn.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 24/12/2013 | 21:18 uur
Deal alleen als ik win wil ik daar een kratje warsteiner voor terug en als jij win krijg je een fles goede wijn.
Ik begrijp hieruit dat jij denkt dat het niet zo is.
Kratje Warsteiner it is!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/12/2013 | 21:30 uur
Ik begrijp hieruit dat jij denkt dat het niet zo is.
Kratje Warsteiner it is!
Als een gewaardeerd forumlid als Poleme de uitdaging met jou aan durft, dan durf ik dat ook, mijn motto is No Guts No Glory.
Hebben jullie wel rekening gehouden dat de accijnsverhoging van 5,75% per 01012014? :angel:
Citaat van: Ace1 op 24/12/2013 | 22:20 uur
Als een gewaardeerd forumlid als Poleme de uitdaging met jou aan durft, dan durf ik dat ook, mijn motto is No Guts No Glory.
Ok
Citaat van: Lex op 24/12/2013 | 22:37 uur
Hebben jullie wel rekening gehouden dat de accijnsverhoging van 5,75% per 01012014? :angel:
Het duurt nog wel een "paar" jaar voordat iemand zijn/haar gelijk krijgt.
Ik gok op een maand voorraad :angel:
Citaat van: Lex op 24/12/2013 | 22:37 uur
Hebben jullie wel rekening gehouden dat de accijnsverhoging van 5,75% per 01012014? :angel:
Lex, bij onze Zuiderburen doen ze niet aan accijnsverhoging ;)
Citaat van: Ace1 op 24/12/2013 | 23:05 uur
Lex, bij onze Zuiderburen doen ze niet aan accijnsverhoging ;)
Okay. Stel voor on-topic te gaan.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 22/12/2013 | 23:41 uur
Staat wel tegenover dat een upgrade in de software doorgaans makkelijker en dus goedkoper is door te voeren dan een structurele/mechanische aanpassing (in een jachtvliegtuig).
"It's only software that we have to change! That's easy".
De Northrop F-20 Tigershark is het eerste volledig digitale jachtvliegtuig.
Toen de ingenieurs aan de ontwikkeling van de Tigershark begonnen, dachten zij dat er een droom was uitgekomen. Omdat men niet meer complexe analoge elektronische apparatuur fysiek hoefde aan te passen. Hoefde men nu alleen maar in een kantoor de digitale programma's aan te passen en klaar.
In de loop van het ontwikkeling proces bleek inderdaad dat veranderingen aanbrengen in software eenvoudig is. Maar de software moet ook geimplementeerd (ingevoerd) worden in het wapensysteem.
Oh my god, it won't require any software changes, will it?
En dat bleek nou moeilijker te zijn dan fysieke veranderingen invoeren in apparatuur.
Want die eenvoudige software wijzigingen kunnen leiden tot 1 of meerdere bugs (software fouten). Software wijzigingen kunnen ook leiden tot andere wisselwerkingen met andere aan boord aanwezige software. Bij de ontwikkeling van de Tigershark bleek implementatie / invoering van de digitale programmatuur een monster taak met ongehoorde moeilijkheidsgraad te zijn.
Met als resultaat, dat sinds invoering van digitale programmatuur in luchtvaartuigen, dit de oorzaak is dat de ontwikkeling tijd aanzienlijk langer is geworden.
Hebben die software problemen ertoe geleid dat de F-20 een crash ratio van 66,67% had?
Even iets wat me opgevallen is mbt Gripen C/E en X-35/F-35. Een van de grootste zichtbare veranderingen van de Gripen E is het verplaatsen van het landingsgestel van de body, naar de vleugel. Zo ontstaat er meer ruimte voor interne brandstof, maar zorgt wel voor een "bobbel" bij de overgang van body naar wing.
Warempel! Bij de X-35 en F-35 speelt hetzelfde! De X-35 heeft het landing gear in de body zitten, en bij de F-35 komt dit uit een zelfde "bobbel" in de vleugel. Heeft Saab dit netjes afgekeken?
De X-35 met het landingsgestel duidelijk uit de body van het toestel:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.defenceindustrydaily.com%2Fimages%2FAIR_F-35B_STOVL_Hover_Front_lg.jpg&hash=ef94d0f15d73aeb21f5c5c7720e9fc8d774c33a1)
Dan nu de F-35 met het landingsgestel duidelijk uit de vleugel:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.militaryfactory.com%2Faircraft%2Fimgs%2Flockheed-f35-lightning-ii_2.jpg&hash=7994dcda83a9ce4c8efe0073c46c24b7880ccf36)
En de Gripen C met het landingsgestel duidelijk uit de body van het toestel:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hottail.nl%2Fbasevisits%2F2008%2F0627-Landivisiau%2FImages%2FCzechRepublic%2FJAS39D-9819-C070.jpg&hash=34e7e0df45885476dee536081577937d550486aa)
En de Gripen NG met het landingsgestel duidelijk uit de vleugel:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Faviation-photos%2Fphotos%2F3%2F5%2F1%2F2243153.jpg&hash=96d4264388415455cf0f28e78f03bc0ff1051eed)
'Body' klinkt zo lelijk, zeg dan romp of als het echt Engels moet 'fuselage'.
Taalpurist. 8)
Swedish Government Looks to Add Value to Gripen-E Sale Talks
Dec. 24, 2013 | By GERARD O'DWYER
The Swedish government is working on a joint strategy with Saab to extend the Gripen-E combat fighter offer to Brazil to include a radically up-scaled industrial dimension that would see Brazil become the primary production base for future Gripen-E sales to South America and Africa through a joint venture development and profit sharing partnership with Embraer.
Zie voor de gehele tekst:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131224/DEFREG01/312240006/Swedish-Government-Looks-Add-Value-Gripen-E-Sale-Talks?odyssey=nav%7Chead
Citaat van: Strata op 25/12/2013 | 01:16 uur
Even iets wat me opgevallen is mbt Gripen C/E en X-35/F-35. Een van de grootste zichtbare veranderingen van de Gripen E is het verplaatsen van het landingsgestel van de body, naar de vleugel. Zo ontstaat er meer ruimte voor interne brandstof, maar zorgt wel voor een "bobbel" bij de overgang van body naar wing.
Warempel! Bij de X-35 en F-35 speelt hetzelfde! De X-35 heeft het landing gear in de body zitten, en bij de F-35 komt dit uit een zelfde "bobbel" in de vleugel. Heeft Saab dit netjes afgekeken?
De X-35 met het landingsgestel duidelijk uit de body van het toestel:
Saab heeft helemaal niets afgekeken men heeft nog eens goed gekeken naar de Saab Viggen waar de landing gear in de vleugel zit. Saab is Saab en is eigenzinnig.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F59%2FSeptemberleucharsviggen.jpg%2F800px-Septemberleucharsviggen.jpg&hash=35fffdcf75908415dd8ab7afb62b746ec1c4c269)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerospaceweb.org%2Faircraft%2Ffighter%2Fviggen%2Fviggen_21.jpg&hash=68c09a6b1f674ec45e80022a539d354715568e53)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerospaceweb.org%2Faircraft%2Ffighter%2Fviggen%2Fviggen_25.jpg&hash=4eb6cc23f2bea7b2115c8417f0d1c954775ebc4a)
Eigenzinnig idd, maar uiteindelijk moet je iets hebben wat proven is ...
Allemaal leuk hoor maar ook de Grippen heeft geen enkele combat experience.
Kies voor de komende 20 jaar gewoon voor iets wat je NU kan kopen en wat versatile is en zichzelf bewezen heeft (en nog dagelijks) doet.
Super Hornet FTW !
Citaat van: Ace1 op 24/12/2013 | 21:18 uur
Deal alleen als ik win wil ik daar een kratje warsteiner voor terug en als jij win krijg je een fles goede wijn.
Om te beginnen gaan jullie al de fout in dat er staat dat de Gripen C naar E een MLU is. Dit is feitelijk onjuist. Ook de Zweedse GripenE toestellen zullen nieuw gebouwde Airframe's worden. Ik heb begrepen dat men om binnenlandse politieke redenen er voor kiest om het woord "upgraden" te gebruiken.
Men gebruikt enkele onderdelen en systemen van gebruikte GripenC/D toestellen maar dat is alles.
Saab biedt overigens wel de mogelijkheid aan voor een Gripen C/D+ en het nieuwe model de Gripen E/F.
Gripen C/D+ krijgt enkele deelsystemen waaronder AESA radar, IRST (nieuwe boordcomputer? weet ik niet zeker zou samen met nieuwe cockpit zijn) Wat er niet bij inzit is de nieuwe GE 414 motor en extra brandstoftanks. de GripenC/D+ zouden gewoon blijven vliegen met de GE404 RM12 van Volvo Aero....
Voor de rest succes met de weddenschap:)
Citaat van: Chrisis op 25/12/2013 | 13:16 uur
Voor de rest succes met de weddenschap:)
Hoe mooi zou het zijn als ik hem win, dan heeft Europa zomaar een "eigen" 5e generatie ontwikkeling (los van UCAV's) immers EADS en Dassault houden zich de komende jaren nog wel bezig met het upgraden van hun bestaande systemen al zou je haast wel verwachten dat deze organisaties na de productielijn sluiting zich zullen (moeten) richten op een nieuw product.
Lang dacht ik dat Saab het onderspit zou delven (op het fighter vlak) maar gezien de positieve ontwikkelingen van de laatste tijd zou dat maar zo een andere Europeaan kunnen zijn.
Drie is, na mijn verwachting, één te veel.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/12/2013 | 13:35 uur
Hoe mooi zou het zijn als ik hem win, dan heeft Europa zomaar een "eigen" 5e generatie ontwikkeling (los van UCAV's) immers EADS en Dassault houden zich de komende jaren nog wel bezig met het upgraden van hun bestaande systemen al zou je haast wel verwachten dat deze organisaties na de productielijn sluiting zich zullen (moeten) richten op een nieuw product.
Lang dacht ik dat Saab het onderspit zou delven (op het fighter vlak) maar gezien de positieve ontwikkelingen van de laatste tijd zou dat maar zo een andere Europeaan kunnen zijn.
Drie is, na mijn verwachting, één te veel.
Dassault kan iig niet, die laat la France nooit ten onder gaan.
Citaat van: Flyguy op 25/12/2013 | 14:02 uur
Dassault kan iig niet, die laat la France nooit ten onder gaan.
Ik denk eerder dat Dassault over gaat genomen worden door EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company moederbedrijf van Airbus) gezien het feit dat EADS ook belangen heeft in de Eurofighter Typhoon en op deze manier schakel je ook een concurrent uit. Overigens bezit EADS nu al 46,32 % van de aandelen in Dassault Aviation.
Citaat van: Flyguy op 25/12/2013 | 14:02 uur
Dassault kan iig niet, die laat la France nooit ten onder gaan.
Dan zullen ze toch ook rap met een nieuwe visie moeten komen, zonder export orders is het exit productielijn in 2019. Indien India de deal formaliseert dan zullen slechts enkele Rafales in Frankrijk geproduceerd worden en de resterende 100+ in India. Gelukkig voor Dassault lijken haar kansen aanzienlijk te zijn toegenomen in het Midden Oosten.
Of Frankrijk/Dassault de opvolger van de Rafale autonoom zal ontwikkelen en bouwen is voor mij nog een groot vraagteken immers het huidige project heeft de Franse staat (volgens Wikipedia) een aanzienlijk bedrag gekost: Program cost €44.2 billion (FY2011)
Het zou mij niets verbazen als EADS en Dassault bij de opvolger van zowel de EF als de Rafale (voor een twee pitter) het weer gezamenlijk (moeten) proberen, wat uiteraard geen garantie is voor een gezamenlijk uitkomst, mede gezien de ervaringen uit het verleden.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 25/12/2013 | 14:16 uur
Ik denk eerder dat Dassault over gaat genomen worden door EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company moederbedrijf van Airbus) gezien het feit dat EADS ook belangen heeft in de Eurofighter Typhoon en op deze manier schakel je ook een concurrent uit.
Vermoedelijk zal de Europese commissie hier een stokje voor steken, maar in dit dossier met heel zwaar wegende politieke belangen weet je het maar nooit, een overname is één, een joint venture voor een nieuwe fighter is twee.
Citaat van: Flyguy op 25/12/2013 | 01:00 uur
Hebben die software problemen ertoe geleid dat de F-20 een crash ratio van 66,67% had?
Nee, beide F-20 Tigersharks zijn gecrasht vanwege Gravity-induced Loss Of Consciousness. In Nederlands: de vlieger raakte bewusteloos door de snel toenemende G(ravity), zwaartekracht en verloor zo de macht over het toestel.
Citaat van: Strata op 25/12/2013 | 01:16 uur
(Even iets wat me opgevallen is mbt Gripen C/E en X-35/F-35. Een van de grootste zichtbare veranderingen van de Gripen E is het verplaatsen van het landingsgestel van de body, naar de vleugel. Zo ontstaat er meer ruimte voor interne brandstof, maar zorgt wel voor een "bobbel" bij de overgang van body naar wing.)
Warempel! Bij de X-35 en F-35 speelt hetzelfde! De X-35 heeft het landing gear in de body zitten, en bij de F-35 komt dit uit een zelfde "bobbel" in de vleugel. Heeft Saab dit netjes afgekeken?
De X-35 met het landingsgestel duidelijk uit de body romp van het toestel:
Dan nu de F-35 met het landingsgestel duidelijk uit de vleugel:
De fotootjes bij de X-35 en F-35 laten iets interessants zien. De X-35 heeft geen interne wapen ruimen !
LockheedMartin heeft zelf al aangegeven dat deze wapen schachten relatief zeer zwaar zijn ten opzicht van externe wapen pylons.
Opvallend, want de Boeing X-32 had al wel interne wapen ruimen. En die had dus last van overgewicht.
Toen de X-32 STOVL tests moest ondergaan, moesten er dus onderdelen verwijderd worden om dit mogelijk te maken.
De X-35 won, maar de F-35 is een heel andere vogel. In 2004 bleek de F-35B 1.361 kg te zwaar en volgde er een jaar lang streng dieet.
Dit dieet had tot gevolg dat de F-35 veel kwetsbaarder werd voor oorlogsschade en blikseminslag, aanzienlijk duurder om te bouwen en een niet robuust genoeg airframe (casco). Vorig jaar had de F-35 een flinterdunne leeg gewicht marge van slechts ca. 0,94%. En toen moesten er al concessies worden gedaan aan bereik, wendbaarheid en acceleratie. Overigens werd er in 2003 al een poging gedaan om het F-35 leeg gewicht te verminderen. Alleen kwam dit nooit in de (mainstream) media.
Voordat het JSF programma van start ging, was er in de jaren 90 al kortstondig een Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter programma geweest.
Onderzoek in het kader van het CALF programma, bracht aan het licht dat een eventuele STOVL jachtvliegtuig een maximaal leeg gewicht van 24.000 pond / 10.886 kg mocht hebben, als deze CALF een F-119 motor, zoals toegepast in de F-22A Raptor, zou hebben.
De F-119 heeft een military power / 'droog' (zonder naverbrander) van 26.430 lbs en 39.645 lbs 'wet', dus met naverbranding.
De F-135 van de F-35 haalt ca. 28.000 lbs droog en 43.000 lbs wet, is slechts 8,46 % meer vermogen.
Dus de F-35B zou maximaal een leeg gewicht mogen hebben van 1,0846 x 24.000 lbs = 26.031 lbs / 11.808 kg.
Volgens de officiele LockheedMartin cijfers bedraagt het F-35B leeggewicht echter 32.300 lbs / 14.651 kg. Is een 24% hoger leeggewicht dan volgens de CALF studie wijs is.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 25/12/2013 | 14:16 uur
Ik denk eerder dat Dassault over gaat genomen worden door EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company moederbedrijf van Airbus) gezien het feit dat EADS ook belangen heeft in de Eurofighter Typhoon en op deze manier schakel je ook een concurrent uit. Overigens bezit EADS nu al 46,32 % van de aandelen in Dassault Aviation.
Dassault is net zoals Saab en Heineken een familiebedrijf en de familie heeft een hekel aan overheidsingrijpen/sturing. Dat maakt een fusie geregiseerd door de franse overheid lastig en kan voor veel problemen zorgen.
Citaat van: mandaje op 25/12/2013 | 18:09 uur
Dassault is net zoals Saab en Heineken een familiebedrijf en de familie heeft een hekel aan overheidsingrijpen/sturing. Dat maakt een fusie geregiseerd door de franse overheid lastig en kan voor veel problemen zorgen.
Dassault mag dan een familiebedrijf zijn, zonder de Franse overheid bestond het gewoonweg niet meer.
Of toch zeker de 'Defense' afdeling.
Zonder de Marine Nationale en Armée de l'Air bestellingen van de Rafale zou niemand dit toestel gekocht hebben.
Het ziet er dan wel naar uit dat de het met de bestelling van de Indiers (en mss van de Qatari) de productielijn wat sneller mag lopen,
maar zonder overheidsbestelingen...
Citaat van: Ace1 op 25/12/2013 | 12:18 uur
Saab heeft helemaal niets afgekeken men heeft nog eens goed gekeken naar de Saab Viggen waar de landing gear in de vleugel zit. Saab is Saab en is eigenzinnig.
Deze manier vind ik toch anders. Ik vind dat de methodes verdacht veel op elkaar lijken?
En dan dit...
"Venezuelan interest would be focused on the Dassault Rafale"
(Spaanstalig, zie Google translate)
http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2013/12/26/noticia-venezuela-interesada-rafale-dentro-planes-fortalecimiento-aereo.html
Citaat van: Harald op 13/12/2013 | 14:53 uur
Textron AirLand Announces Successful First Flight of Scorpion ISR/Strike Aircraft
Het bedrijf is actief op het overname pad. Zie: http://www.flyingmag.com/news/report-textron-buying-beechcraft-14-billion
Citaat van: Lex op 26/12/2013 | 12:14 uur
Het bedrijf is actief op het overname pad. Zie: http://www.flyingmag.com/news/report-textron-buying-beechcraft-14-billion
Goed bezig!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/12/2013 | 09:52 uur
En dan dit...
"Venezuelan interest would be focused on the Dassault Rafale"
(Spaanstalig, zie Google translate)
http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2013/12/26/noticia-venezuela-interesada-rafale-dentro-planes-fortalecimiento-aereo.html
Ik dacht dat Venezuela voor nieuwe Sukhoi's zou gaan?
Dit is ook geen slechte keus, ookal is die nog niet gemaakt.
Citaat van: Jellington op 26/12/2013 | 13:47 uur
Ik dacht dat Venezuela voor nieuwe Sukhoi's zou gaan?
Dit is ook geen slechte keus, ookal is die nog niet gemaakt.
We ze ook (mogen) kiezen, als een van beide keuzes door zou gaan dan zou deze keuze een interessante uitdaging voor de KLu kunnen betekenen, uiteraard mede afhankelijk van Venezolaanse ambities.
Maat goed, stel Venezuela roept "boe" dan brullen wij heel hard om "pappie" (VS).
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/12/2013 | 13:55 uur
We ze ook (mogen) kiezen, als een van beide keuzes door zou gaan dan zou deze keuze een interessante uitdaging voor de KLu kunnen betekenen, uiteraard mede afhankelijk van Venezolaanse ambities.
Maat goed, stel Venezuela roept "boe" dan brullen wij heel hard voor "pappie" (VS).
Die nieuwe president heeft tot nu toe toch geen gekke dingen lopen roepen of doen? (zo ver ik weet)
Maar je weet het inderdaad maar nooit met dat soort landen.
Citaat van: Jellington op 26/12/2013 | 13:47 uur
Ik dacht dat Venezuela voor nieuwe Sukhoi's zou gaan?
Dit is ook geen slechte keus, ook al is die nog niet gemaakt.
Men heeft interesse in de Su35. gezien de Su30 die men heeft is de aankoop van de Su35 goedkoper daaraan moet je denken opleiding van piloten, onderhoudspersoneel en dezelfde wapens die men kan gebruiken.
http://www.eluniversal.com/2008/02/21/en_pol_art_russia-to-promote-su_21A1376761
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120719/174673843.html
Citaat van: Jellington op 26/12/2013 | 13:57 uur
Die nieuwe president heeft tot nu toe toch geen gekke dingen lopen roepen of doen? (zo ver ik weet)
Maar je weet het inderdaad maar nooit met dat soort landen.
Ik zou voorstander zijn van een F35 detachement op Sint Maarten (+ tanker) na 2020.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/12/2013 | 14:02 uur
Ik zou voorstander zijn van een F35 detachement op Sint Maarten (+ tanker) na 2020.
:crazy:
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/12/2013 | 14:02 uur
Ik zou voorstander zijn van een F35 detachement op Sint Maarten (+ tanker) na 2020.
Welke F35's? :angel:
Laten we er dan maar van uit gaan dat NL wat extra F35's heeft gekocht, dan lijkt mij het ook wel een goed idee om er een aantal te plaatsen op Sint Maarten of een van die andere eilanden.
Citaat van: Jellington op 26/12/2013 | 14:12 uur
Welke F35's? :angel:
Laten we er dan maar van uit gaan dat NL wat extra F35's heeft gekocht, dan lijkt mij het ook wel een goed idee om er een aantal te plaatsen op Sint Maarten of een van die andere eilanden.
Ik ga (hoopvol) uit van 37 + 5 á 10
De bovenwindse eilanden lijkt mij dan een plaatsing bij uitstek, plaatsing benedenwinds levert vrijwel nihil reactietijd.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/12/2013 | 14:21 uur
Ik ga (hoopvol) uit van 37 + 5 á 10
De bovenwindse eilanden lijkt mij dan een plaatsing bij uitstek, plaatsing benedenwinds levert vrijwel nihil reactietijd.
Zijn die bovenwindse eilanden niet een beetje te ver? Is toch een aardig lange afstand.
Citaat van: Jellington op 26/12/2013 | 14:24 uur
Zijn die bovenwindse eilanden niet een beetje te ver? Is toch een aardig lange afstand.
St Maarten - Curacao is +/- 900 km. Afstand Curacao-Venezule +/- 60 km
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/12/2013 | 14:21 uur
Ik ga (hoopvol) uit van 37 + 5 á 10
De bovenwindse eilanden lijkt mij dan een plaatsing bij uitstek, plaatsing benedenwinds levert vrijwel nihil reactietijd.
Waarom?
We hebben eerst fatsoenlijke militaire MPAs nodig voor in de West, wat heb je aan een F-35A? De kans dat Venezuela aanvalt is nihil en die dingen kosten een godsvermogen om in de lucht te houden, helemaal als je ze vanaf een uit de grond te stampen FOB (niet eens een reeds bestaande FOB) op een retedruk vliegveld op een miniscuul eiland wil laten opereren.
Welcome to TNCM:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airport-data.com%2Fimages%2Fairports%2Fsmall%2F031%2F031667.jpg&hash=97fecac7a7d35d93764640da97841c937ea171c8)
Prop daar maar een tanker en 4 F-35s tussen.
We hebben er helemaal niets aan. Het is een leuk uitje voor de klu vliegers en grond mensen, maar strategisch levert het vrij weinig op.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/12/2013 | 14:26 uur
St Maarten - Curacao is +/- 900 km. Afstand Curacao-Venezule +/- 60 km
Pff 900km, vandaar ook met die tanker zeker?
Citaat van: Flyguy op 26/12/2013 | 14:29 uur
Waarom?
Afhankelijk van Venezolaanse ambities. Zolang die zijn zoals ze nu zijn dan zijn een aantal MPA's op HATO (Cur) voldoende.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/12/2013 | 14:34 uur
Afhankelijk van Venezolaanse ambities. Zolang die zijn zoals ze nu zijn dan zijn een aantal MPA's op HATO (Cur) voldoende.
Als Venezuela ooit op de oorlogstrommels gaat slaan, en dat gaan ze écht niet, kunnen we mooi heel TNCM vorderen en er een detachement stationeren. Het lijkt mij tot die tijd erg overbodig om daar 24/7 4 kisten + tanker klaar te hebben staan. Mochten we ooit geld teveel hebben én beschikken over een high-end/low-end mix, kunnen we best nog een stel goedkope kisten op Curacao neerzetten om interessant te doen.
Als we het over het Caribisch gebied hebben, breng eerst maar even alle lokale land eenheden op orde en bij elkaar. Het is nu een beetje een zooitje. Ook zou het misschien handig zijn om ook (militaire) MPAs present te hebben op de bovenwindse eilanden en om de Pelikaan te vervangen met een groter schip á la HMNZS Canterbury, maarja da's een andere discussie.
Vzke on-topic te blijven. Voor de uitdaging NL-Antillen versus Venezuela bestaat een separaat topic.
Lex
Algeheel beheerder
Citaat van: Flyguy op 26/12/2013 | 14:09 uur
:crazy:
2013 wensjaar is bijns afgelopen, nog even goed gebruik van maken dus...
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/12/2013 | 09:52 uur
En dan dit... "Venezuelan interest would be focused on the Dassault Rafale"
(Spaanstalig, zie Google translate)
http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2013/12/26/noticia-venezuela-interesada-rafale-dentro-planes-fortalecimiento-aereo.html
So What !!!!
In de jaren 80 en eerste helft van de jaren 90, tot en met 1998, was de Venezolaanse luchtmacht uitgerust met Mirage III's, CF-5 Freedom Fighters en F-16's. De US Air Force nodigde deze luchtmacht als eerste van het Westelijk Halfrond uit, om mee te doen aan Red Flag oefeningen. Want de Venezolaanse luchtmacht was toen zeer capabel. Zo richtte de Venezolanen een Air Force Academy op, 30 jaar eerder dan de US Air Force deed.
Nu vliegen ze naast de F-16's ook met 24 Sukhoi-30MK2's. Gelukkig voor ons, is de huidige Venezolaanse luchtmacht qua vaardigheden een schim van die in de jaren 80.
In 1992 probeerde ene Hugo Chavez een coup te plegen, die toen mislukte. Later dat jaar volgde een tweede gewelddadige coup poging, die hoofdzakelijk geleid werd door de Venezolaanse luchtmacht. In die november maand vochten diverse Venezolaanse gevechtsvliegtuigen zelfs tegen elkaar!
Het was het begin van een aftakeling, die de laatste 14 jaar zelfs versnelde. Omdat Hugo Chavez de officieren als bedreiging zag.
Ging hij over tot massa promotie van onderofficieren en zelfs niet-officieren tot officieren. Competentie doet er niet toe, zolang je maar loyaal aan hem en zijn partij was. En zo kon het gebeuren dat crewchiefs en monteurs vrij snel een hogere rang bereikten dan de vliegers. Officieren die niet loyaal zijn, of het niet eens zijn met deze politieke promoties, worden er uit gewerkt.
Je materiaal is zo goed als je personeel is.
Dus is de Venezolaanse luchtmacht waarschijnlijk beter af met bijvoorbeeld de Pakistaanse JF-17.
Citaat van: Poleme op 26/12/2013 | 15:40 uur
Je materiaal is zo goed als je personeel is.
Dat is natuurlijk waar!
Citaat van: DvdW op 26/12/2013 | 15:38 uur
2013 wensjaar is bijns afgelopen, nog even goed gebruik van maken dus...
Dat dan weer wel, maar er is ook nog zo iets als goed voornemens!
Citaat van: Jellington op 26/12/2013 | 14:31 uur
Pff 900km, vandaar ook met die tanker zeker?
Niet zo'n Probleem voor een Rafale of SU35. Tussen de 1600-3000 en 1500-3600km zitten ze beide wel goed. Als een 5th gen het niet verdriedubbelt zeker verdubbelen, aangezien een 5th gen een véél groter bereik heeft.
Citaat van: Poleme op 25/12/2013 | 00:53 uur
"It's only software that we have to change! That's easy".
De Northrop F-20 Tigershark is het eerste volledig digitale jachtvliegtuig.
Toen de ingenieurs aan de ontwikkeling van de Tigershark begonnen, dachten zij dat er een droom was uitgekomen. Omdat men niet meer complexe analoge elektronische apparatuur fysiek hoefde aan te passen. Hoefde men nu alleen maar in een kantoor de digitale programma's aan te passen en klaar.
In de loop van het ontwikkeling proces bleek inderdaad dat veranderingen aanbrengen in software eenvoudig is. Maar de software moet ook geimplementeerd (ingevoerd) worden in het wapensysteem.
Oh my god, it won't require any software changes, will it?
En dat bleek nou moeilijker te zijn dan fysieke veranderingen invoeren in apparatuur.
Want die eenvoudige software wijzigingen kunnen leiden tot 1 of meerdere bugs (software fouten). Software wijzigingen kunnen ook leiden tot andere wisselwerkingen met andere aan boord aanwezige software. Bij de ontwikkeling van de Tigershark bleek implementatie / invoering van de digitale programmatuur een monster taak met ongehoorde moeilijkheidsgraad te zijn.
Met als resultaat, dat sinds invoering van digitale programmatuur in luchtvaartuigen, dit de oorzaak is dat de ontwikkeling tijd aanzienlijk langer is geworden.
Ja zeker waar. Verwacht dat er software matig ook nog wel aardig wat uitdagingen zitten. Maargoed, gevechtskracht is niet belangrijk, als LM maar winst maakt.
Wat ik bedoelde is echter dat deze kosten uit een ander potje worden gemaakt. Nu is het voornamelijk een development probleem. Als de juiste software ooit wordt geschreven, is deze relatief makkelijk te implementeren in de geproduceerde kisten. Tenzij de boordcomputer aangepast moet worden. Maar dat is makkelijker dan dat ze nu achter een ernstig probleem in de vleugels komen, en alle geproduceerde kisten van nieuwe vleugels moeten worden voorzien.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 26/12/2013 | 16:41 uur
Niet zo'n Probleem voor een Rafale of SU35. Tussen de 1600-3000 en 1500-3600km zitten ze beide wel goed. Als een 5th gen het niet verdriedubbelt zeker verdubbelen, aangezien een 5th gen een véél groter bereik heeft.
Is dat laatste serieus?
Citaat van: Jellington op 26/12/2013 | 17:13 uur
Is dat laatste serieus?
Een 5th gen is superieur in alles, vraag het maar aan de KLu.
Bovendien mogen er geen externe tanks aan, want kost je je RCS reductie, dus hebben ze een grote interne tank. Maar die 2200km ferry flight red een F16 ook nog wel, weinig bijzonder dus. De F18 en Eurofighter zijn prima kisten, maar hebben wel een beperking in de zin dat ze een 'storend' kort bereik hebben. De nieuwe generatie lost dat op.
Vliegt verder, sneller, hoger dan een 4th gen kist.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 26/12/2013 | 17:26 uur
Een 5th gen is superieur in alles, vraag het maar aan de KLu.
Bovendien mogen er geen externe tanks aan, want kost je je RCS reductie, dus hebben ze een grote interne tank. Maar die 2200km ferry flight red een F16 ook nog wel, weinig bijzonder dus. De F18 en Eurofighter zijn prima kisten, maar hebben wel een beperking in de zin dat ze een 'storend' kort bereik hebben. De nieuwe generatie lost dat op.
Vliegt verder, sneller, hoger dan een 4th gen kist.
Dat is dus ook de reden dat de F35 zo dik is? Komt waarschijnlijk ook doordat die wapenruimen in zijn "buik" heeft zitten.
Ik had ergens gelezen (weet niet meer waar) dat de Rafale een zeldzaam ver bereik had/heeft. Het praatje van 5th gen is superieur in alles geloof ik trouwens (nog) niet.
The proof is in the Pudding !
Met andere woorden, eerst zien dan geloven.
Tot op de dag van vandaag is er nog niets bewezen omtrent de superioriteit en niks verloopt volgens schema.
Ik denk dat dat genoeg zegt anno 2014.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/12/can-the-.html
Can the F-35 Replace the A-10?
Posted by The Editors
by Nickolai Sukharev
One of the big decisions the United States Air Force has considered over the last few months is whether to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet as a cost saving measure while developing and procuring the F-35A Lightening II. Given the Budget Control Act caps on Pentagon spending and the need to better allocate funds, officials have expressed their preference to prioritize multi-mission platforms in the inventory. But the problem is that the F-35A is not a replacement for the A-10's close air support. The reason is simple: it lacks comparable capabilities despite a higher operating cost.
Given the constrained budgetary environment, the comparative cost to maintain and operate the two aircraft should be a decisive consideration. The A-10 is a significantly cheaper aircraft to maintain, costing about $17,564 per flight hour. In contrast, the F-35A nearly doubles that with a hefty $35,200 per flight hour. Accounting for this difference are facts like the A-10's 1:5 fuel consumption ratio. To put that into monetary context, the DoE's Energy Information Administration estimates that current aviation jet fuel prices average at approximately $2.87 per gallon. The A-10 carries approximately (11,000 pounds) of internal fuel compared to the F-35A's (18,250 pounds). Using a conversion calculator we can convert fluid weight into gallons. That comes out to approximately 1,647 gallons for the A-10, and 2,733 gallons for the F-35A. By multiplying the gallons by the average price, the fuel cost for a mission requiring a full tank would be $4,726.89 for the A-10 while the F-35A would be an astounding $7,843.71. These costs render it financially impractical for the F-35A to perform close air support operations of the A-10 in a tight fiscal environment.
Not only is the F-35A more costly to operate, but also it buys less close air support capability. The A-10 was designed from the start to be a close air support platform as a replacement for the Vietnam era A-1 Skyraiders. Close air support heavily depends on the aircraft's loiter time. Loiter time is defined as the ability to cruise at slow speeds over a small area. Loiter range is, in part the function of range – the greater the range, the longer it can spend over an area of interest, where ground support may be needed. Compared to the F-35A, which has a range of about 1,200 nautical miles, the A-10 out flies its potential successor by about twice the distance, reaching a distance of 2,240nm. That additional range allows the A-10 to loiter above areas of battlefield activity further from its takeoff origin without the need to refuel.
Moreover, an aircraft providing close air support has to be survivable and fly at low altitudes to deliver a coordinated ground attack in support of friendly forces. This often means being engaged by small arms fire and anti-aircraft artillery. In terms of durability, the pilot of an A-10 is protected by inch and a half thick armor dubbed a "titanium bathtub" and can rely on redundant hydraulic systems to maintain flyability in case of major damage. The story of Air Force Captain Kim Campbell is a prime example of Thunderbolt's survivability. After flying a close air support mission over Baghdad in April 2003, she was called to assist troops who had been encircled by Iraqi forces. After sustaining major damage to her vertical stabilizers, she was able safely return to her base in Kuwait. Winslow Wheeler, Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information, described the F-35A as too vulnerable and too fast. Writing in Foreign Policy magazine in April 2012, he stated "it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat." Further outlining the drawbacks of the F-35A, Wheeler specified in the Huffington Post: "It is too fast to independently find and identify tactical targets; too fragile to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces in ground combat for the sustained periods they need."
There is also a major disparity between the armament loads the two aircraft can carry. The F-35A simply does not nearly pack the same kind of punch as the A-10. The former has an internal payload of only about 5,000 pounds. While, it has the ability to carry weapons externally, but that would eliminate its stealth and would be less than the A-10's 16,000-pound payload. By comparison, the F-15E, F-16, and F/A-18 have approximate payloads of 29,000, 12,000, and 17,000 pounds respectively.
Furthermore, the A-10 has one ground support weapon that the F-35A lacks: the iconic GAU-8 Gatling gun. This seven-barreled rotary cannon with 1,350 30mm rounds is instrumental in close air support missions when providing precise heavy firepower against small targets. By comparison, the F-35A falls desperately short, possessing a similar gun but with just four barrels fed by only 180 25mm rounds. The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan showed the importance of the A-10's firepower in support of ground operations. One of the best-known examples occurred in Afghanistan on July 24, 2004 when a column of American troops encountered an ambush in a valley. Desperately outnumbered, a B-1 long-range bomber attempted to provide support but was unable to. Shortly after, two A-10s arrived and prior even establishing radio contact, they were able to visually discern friendly from enemy forces and lay down effective cover fire, forcing the ambushers to withdraw.
Taking the comparison provided above, this prompts the question: how much sense does it make for the Air Force to replace the A-10's close air support capability with the F-35A? Given the parameters outlined above, the F-35A simply does not cover the same mission scope to justify replacement. That is unless, Air Force strategic planners want to spend more and get less.
December 03, 2013 at 09:34 AM | Permalink
Will the F-35 Dominate the Skies?
Robert Farley | December 27, 2013
What are we to make of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)? Over the past several months, several pieces of good news about the program have emerged. The Royal Netherlands Air Force just became the second partner organization to operate the F-35. While new reports note a deal is not finalized, a South Korean purchase of the plane looks likely and with Japan already committed the plane looks set to soar in Asian skies. Indeed, while several partners have reduced their commitment over the last year, none have backed out fully. The F-35 Lightning II will, eventually, fly in the service of around a dozen major allied air forces.
We're Stuck
The classic death spiral describes a process in which rising costs cause political and military authorities to cancel part of an aircraft purchase. As the total numbers drop, the price-per-unit appears to increase, as research, development, and startup costs are included in the numerator. The apparent increase in price then produces a political firestorm, producing more cancellations, further cost increases, a reduced fleet, and difficulties with international partners.
But the problem in this case is that the death spiral won't lead to the actual death of the F-35. The fighter has, effectively, become unkillable. In the wake of negative experiences with the B-2 Spirit, the F-22 Raptor, and several other programs, Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon worked very hard to ensure that no one could kill the F-35. Three US services committed to acquiring substantial numbers of Joint Strike Fighters, with only minimal hedging with respect to alternatives. International partners bought in, often at considerable political cost. The result is an aircraft that perhaps should undergo a "death spiral," but cannot; no matter how expensive the cheap alternative to the F-22 becomes, it cannot be killed. It is what it is, and we're stuck with it.
That stark reality aside, what would a wiser policy with respect to the JSF have looked like? The hope that the plethora of existing warplanes could be economically replaced by a single airframe was deeply misplaced; the operational costs of new F-35s will exceed that of older aircraft for quite some time. The F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and A-10 remain more than capable of accomplishing most missions that the F-35 will conduct. Indeed, for many of the missions associated with the modern practice of airpower, A-1 Skyraiders and F-4 Phantom would perform perfectly well. The best hedge against failure of the F-35 program would have been investment in modernized versions of legacy aircraft, which could perform the traditional missions that do not require the specialized capabilities of the F-22 or F-35. Sadly, the attractiveness of this option to Congressional budget hawks meant that the Pentagon had to close the door on it as tightly as possible.
Designing Fighters in Peacetime
The F-35 is designed to excel in contexts that emphasize Beyond Visual Range (BVR) aerial combat in a highly networked, information-intensive environment. The capabilities of the aircraft are truly remarkable, if they work as promised and if the Lightning II is purchased in sufficient numbers to take advantage of its cooperative nature. Critics of the F-35 point out that it comes up short on many basic "fighter" characteristics, but if it works properly it doesn't need those traits. However, at this point it is not obvious that the F-35 will ever operate in the role that its designers have intended.
Historically, fighter aircraft are often pressed into roles other than what they were designed for. This is especially true of fighters developed in peacetime. Designers and political decision-makers only rarely manage to make the right guess with respect to what the next war will look like, or what the next fighter will need. The P-40 Warhawk, which became one of the finest attack aircraft of World War II, was initially designed as an air superiority fighter. The P-51 achieved its greatest success as an escort for daylight bomber raids over Europe, a mission which the Army Air Forces considered unnecessary when the Mustang first entered production. Conversely, the legendary Messerschmitt Me 262 Swallow was initially designed as a fighter bomber, before being pressed -- very successfully -- into an interceptor role.
Similarly, most early American fighters during the Cold War were designed to hunt and kill Soviet bombers approaching the United States. In practice, they were forced into air superiority and fighter-bomber roles, with moderate success. The F-15 and F-16, also designed for air superiority, have more often acted in strike roles. Even the F-14 Tomcat was eventually re-equipped for strike. The Harrier was intended for a nuclear context, in which fixed runways would be destroyed by Soviet tactical warheads.
Moreover, the previous generation of fighter and attack aircraft, including the Eagle, Viper, and Warthog, emerged as the lessons of Vietnam were still fresh in memory (the legendary F-86 Sabre was designed under similar conditions). Pilots and designers approached the aircraft of the 1970s with an understanding of how the previous aircraft had failed, and of how critical improvements could be made. The F-35 has been developed under fundamentally dissimilar conditions; the F-15 and F-16 have not failed, but we are trying to envision how they might fail in the future, in order to solve problems that are necessarily conjectural.
The point is that the F-35 will likely be used under conditions that its developers do not currently envision. It is, if anything, a second-order peacetime aircraft, designed primarily around an imaginary -- if plausible -- vision of what future air combat might look like.
The Future of the F-35
The F-35 will have a future. A different question is whether the type of warfare embodied in the F-35 will ever become central to U.S. strategic interests. High-intensity combat against a peer competitor opponent, or into the teeth of an advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) system, may not occur within the lifetime of the airframe. But if the opportunity comes to demonstrate the F-35's quality, the result could very well be magnificent, or magnificently disastrous. Similarly, the F-35B has the potential to be a 'game changer' in its own right; the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Lightning II may give several countries the capability to operate a modern, supersonic fighter from small carriers. As the Falklands War demonstrated, even Harriers could pose a significant problem for aggressor air forces seeking to strike deployed naval units.
Even if the F-35 faces problems, they will be in great part covered up by the other advantages that the United States military enjoys:
Training: Although China's People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and other air forces have undoubtedly increased their ability to recruit and develop human capital, it is unlikely that any country will match the ability of the United States to recruit and train pilots. Great pilots can make up for inferior airframes.
Reliable Equipment: America's greatest contribution to military history is, in large part, its logistical genius. Complexity notwithstanding, the F-35 is likely to always have the weapons, spares, maintenance, and aircrew it needs to operate at its maximum effectiveness.
The Joint Fight: Evaluating the independent contribution of the F-35 will be difficult, because it will always act as part of a team. The F-22, the Long-Range Strike Bomber, the USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000), and numerous other platforms will contribute to winning whatever fight the F-35 becomes engaged in.
Choosing Our Fight: Finally, the United States enjoys the advantage of almost always being able to choose its fight. If the U.S. military and political leadership really doubt the capacity of the F-35 to win air superiority and strike in hostile conditions, it is unlikely that the F-35 will be asked to do so.
Conclusion
The F-35 Lightning II (or whatever more helpful name is eventually attached to it) will become, along with the Typhoon and the Rafale, the premier fighter fielded by the 'West' for the next fifty years. The battle against the F-35, at least in the domestic context, was lost before anyone beyond Lockheed Martin thought about fighting it. We'll build it, and for better or worse we'll have to live with it. This is a lesson that Congress and the Pentagon should take to heart when considering the Next-Generation Bomber, the Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyer, and a variety of other major procurement programs. In retrospect, the United States should have hedged by devoting more attention to the F-22 (a position that this author, to his discredit, opposed at the time) or to legacy platforms. But the future of air warfare is hard to predict, and the F-35 may yet do extraordinary things.
Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Information Dissemination and The Diplomat. Follow him on Twitter: @drfarls.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/will-the-f-35-dominate-the-skies-9618?page=2
December 26, 2013
Saab best for UK aircraft carriers
From Mr Edward Longinotti.
Sir, The recent success of the Gripen in Brazil (report, December 19) highlights the potential this aircraft has to resolve the paradox at the heart of the UK's carrier programme: the decision to construct the world's second largest floating runways but to operate performance-compromised "short take off, vertical landing" (STOVL) aircraft that do not need runways.
This contradiction was supposed to be resolved by the 2010 switch to "cats and traps" and the F35C, with its greater range and payload. However, in 2012 the UK reverted to the STOVL F35B because the cost of the catapults had risen to £2bn. The navalised Gripen is designed to be "short take off, but arrested recovery" (STOBAR). As a result, it offers the superior range and payload of the F35C but without the accompanying need for the prohibitively expensive catapults.
The navalised Gripen, with the same 28 per cent UK content as the standard Gripen, was developed by Saab's London office with Brazil's Navy in mind and is clearly well placed to win a follow-on order for Saab. However, on its own merits it is the optimum choice for the UK as it is much less expensive than either F35, contributes more to the UK economy and it would allow the UK to enable the operation of an uncompromised naval aircraft without the need for catapults.
Edward Longinotti, Lach Dennis, Cheshire, UK
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013.
Major Work to Replace Navy's Super Hornet to Start in 2015
By: Dave Majumdar
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Boeing artist's conception of a potential design for F/A-XX. Boeing Photo (ZIE LINK)
The U.S. Navy expects to undertake an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for its F/A-XX next-generation replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet starting in fiscal year 2015.
The new aircraft and its associated "family of systems" would be expected to become operational around 2035.
"We're doing study work right now to neck down what it is that we're going to spend our money on in the analysis of alternatives," Rear Adm. Mike Manazir told USNI News on Dec. 20.
"But at the beginning of fiscal year '15, we will start that analysis of alternatives, which will then start the acquisition process to get an airplane in 2030."
The Navy does not yet know what kind of aircraft the F/A-XX will be, but the service is working on defining exactly what capabilities it will need when the Super Hornet fleet starts to exhaust their 9,000-hour airframe lives around 2035.
"Right now our effort is take the F/A-18E/F off and list everything you lose," Manazir said. "Now, how do you service that?"
For example, the Super Hornet is regularly used as a tanker. But if another jet like the Navy's future Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft can fulfill that role—and sufficient numbers of that aircraft are procured—the F/A-XX would not be required perform the aerial refueling tanker mission.
Though the Navy does not yet have a concrete vision for what the F/A-XX might ultimately turn out to be, there are certain attributes the service must have.
"You have to have something that carries missiles, you have to have something that has enough power and cooling for directed energy weapons and you have to have something that has a weapons system that can sense the smallest radar cross-section targets," Manazir said. The F/A-XX family of systems might also incorporate the use of cyber warfare capabilities at a tactical level.
The Navy would develop the F/A-XX having fully understood the capabilities the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter and UCLASS bring to the carrier air wing.
"We're looking to replace the F/A-18E/F with an understanding already of what the F-35C has brought to the air wing, what the UCLASS mission set is," Manazir said.
The Navy is working very closely with the U.S. Air Force—which is working on its own F-X replacement for the Lockheed F-22 Raptor–on developing the F/A-XX.
"We're completely stitched together with the Air Force," Manazir said. "We're looking at joint capabilities and cooperative capabilities that would be the same in the airframe."
The Air Force and Navy aircraft would share weapons and sensor technologies, even if they are different airframes. One particular area of close cooperation is aircraft propulsion where the two services are collaborating on advanced variable-cycle engine technology.
"We're very cooperative on engine technology," Manazir said. "Of course, they want to go long distances very fast, and so their airframe looks a little different from ours. We want to have those same attributes, but we have to get in on and off the carrier."
But ultimately whatever the F/A-XX turns out to be, it will be designed defeat most dangerous of adversaries anywhere on the globe.
"We definitely need to maintain overmatch of the adversary by bringing those effects to the battlespace with whatever is on the aircraft carrier," Manazir said.
http://news.usni.org/2013/12/26/major-work-replace-navys-super-hornet-start-2015
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 27/12/2013 | 10:17 uur
December 26, 2013
Saab best for UK aircraft carriers
From Mr Edward Longinotti.
Mmmmh, lijkt me een interessante visie. :)
De UK heeft echter ook tunnel vision wanneer het op defensieaankopen komt.
Ofwel moet het van eigen bodem komen (best begrijpelijk met een eigen industrie) of het komt van trouwe bondgenoot (of baasje, al naargelang je indruk) USA.
Wat Mr Longinotti niet vermeldt, is dat er nog helemaal geen Navalised Gripen beschikbaar is.
De Gripen is ook een eenmotorig toestel (wat ook geldt voor alle F-35 versies en ik kan me best voorstellen dat de navy piloten liever een tweemotorig toestel hebben).
Feit is dat de carriers nu gewoon afgebouwd worden met de F-35B in het achterhoofd en dat er dus een skijump komt.
Ik zie de Royal Navy de F-35B bestelling niet annuleren om dan te gaan voor een Sea Gripen.
Interessant is dan de recente keuze van Brazilie voor de... Gripen...
Gezien eerst gedacht werd dat een tweemotorig toestel als de Hornet en vooral de Rafale het ging halen is de keuze voor de Gripen een interessante.
En gezien Brazilie een carrier heeft en ambities heeft om minstens een nieuwe te (laten) bouwen kan de Sea Gripen mss alsnog het daglicht zien...
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 27/12/2013 | 12:09 uur
Ik zie de Royal Navy de F-35B bestelling niet annuleren om dan te gaan voor een Sea Gripen.
Dat zie ik ook niet gebeuren en het is nog maar de vraag of de Sea Gripen het levenslicht gaat zien.... maar een interessante gedachte zou kunnen zijn een high end / low end mix voor
beide UK carriers.
Bijvoorbeeld per carrier: 12 F35B en 24 SG....
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 26/12/2013 | 19:43 uur
The proof is in the Pudding !
Met andere woorden, eerst zien dan geloven.
Tot op de dag van vandaag is er nog niets bewezen omtrent de superioriteit en niks verloopt volgens schema.
Ik denk dat dat genoeg zegt anno 2014.
Absoluut.
Wat mij echter opvalt, en dat al heel lang geleden deed, is de gebruikte methodes om dat ding te verkopen.
Die geven aan dat de advocates van de F35 er ook niet zo zeker van zijn dat ze hun praatjes waarmaken.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 27/12/2013 | 12:16 uur
... maar een interessante gedachte zou kunnen zijn een high end / low end mix voor beide UK carriers.
Bijvoorbeeld per carrier: 12 F35B en 24 SG....
Dat zou idd een optie kunnen zijn.
Voor zover ik weet is men bijlange nog niet zeker vwb het aan te schaffen F-35B's.
Het zijn zeer dure toestellen.
En het zou ook belachelijk ogen dat met zo'n grote carriers bouwt en dan met moeite 20 toestellen aanschaft.
De RAF zou de A versie aanschaffen en dan zitten ze met een mix met de Typhoon.
Ook hier is nog niets beslist qua aantallen.
Me dunkt dat heel dat F-35 project zo stilletjesaan heel wat (potentiele) afnemers met de handen in de haren laat zitten.
Hun huidige toestellen naderen "einde loopbaan"...
Hoe ga je dan een CATOBAR Gripen opereren vanaf een STOVL carrier???
Citaat van: Flyguy op 27/12/2013 | 14:57 uur
Hoe ga je dan een CATOBAR Gripen opereren vanaf een STOVL carrier???
STOBAR ... of carriers ombouwen naar CATOBAR.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 27/12/2013 | 15:01 uur
STOBAR ... of carriers ombouwen naar CATOBAR.
Als daar in het ontwerp geen rekening mee is gehouden gaat dat moeilijk worden...
Citaat van: Elzenga op 27/12/2013 | 15:01 uur
STOBAR ... of carriers ombouwen naar CATOBAR.
De QE is al bijna klaar, ombouwen naar CATOBAR zou zeer kostbaar worden. STOBAR is waardeloos.
STOBAR is waardeloos want ????
Citaat van: Elzenga op 27/12/2013 | 15:01 uur
STOBAR ... of carriers ombouwen naar CATOBAR.
CAT -> da's definitief een NO GO.
Misschien is BAR wel nog een optie, maar dat dient dan gerefit te worden, want als ik me niet vergis is de assemblage van de grote blokken nu beeindigd en is men bezig met het outfitten van het interieur.
Overschakelen naar een STOBAR kist zoals de Sea Gripen (als die er al komt) zou een verlies van tussen 33 en 50% in take-off load met zich meebrengen t.o.v. CATOBAR.
Maar 'waardeloos' zou ik een STOBAR kist ivm een F-35B niet durven noemen :)
Volgens een vriend die een tijdje in Barrow (Astute project) en ook te Rosyth gewerkt heeft en die ik vorig WE tegen het lijf gelopen ben, lopen momenteel alle scheepsbouwprojecten grote vertraging op. Hij nam zelfs de woorden 'disastrous' en 'shameful' in de mond (en dan vooral bij de Astutes).
Dat heb je dan wanneer je bijna geen seriebouw-effect meer hebt en er gaten van decennia zitten tussen scheepstypes en de bouw ervan.
De praktijk-werfervaring gaat telkenmale verloren. En ook tussen einde Type 45 en begin Type 26 zal er opnieuw een gat zitten.
Citaat van: Fuse71 op 27/12/2013 | 16:15 uur
STOBAR is waardeloos want ????
De lading die gevechtsvliegtuigen zo kunnen meevoeren is lager dan bij CATOBAR. Staat wel tegenover dat de toestellen zelf minder zwaar uitgevoerd hoeven te worden...
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 27/12/2013 | 16:22 uur
CAT -> da's definitief een NO GO.
Misschien is BAR wel nog een optie, maar dat dient dan gerefit te worden, want als ik me niet vergis is de assemblage van de grote blokken nu beeindigd en is men bezig met het outfitten van het interieur.
Overschakelen naar een STOBAR kist zoals de Sea Gripen (als die er al komt) zou een verlies van tussen 33 en 50% in take-off load met zich meebrengen t.o.v. CATOBAR.
Maar 'waardeloos' zou ik een STOBAR kist ivm een F-35B niet durven noemen :)
Volgens een vriend die een tijdje in Barrow (Astute project) en ook te Rosyth gewerkt heeft en die ik vorig WE tegen het lijf gelopen ben, lopen momenteel alle scheepsbouwprojecten grote vertraging op. Hij nam zelfs de woorden 'disastrous' en 'shameful' in de mond (en dan vooral bij de Astutes).
Dat heb je dan wanneer je bijna geen seriebouw-effect meer hebt en er gaten van decennia zitten tussen scheepstypes en de bouw ervan.
De praktijk-werfervaring gaat telkenmale verloren. En ook tussen einde Type 45 en begin Type 26 zal er opnieuw een gat zitten.
Voor zover ik weet wordt er bij de bouw van beide carriers rekening mee gehouden dat er op termijn katapulten kunnen worden ingebouwd...niet de oude op stoom..maar elektro-magnetische.
de koers van de aandelen van Saab, zo te zien moeten we het voorbeeld van IPA NG volgen? ;)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkets.ft.com%2FRESEARCH%2Fuploadhandler%2Fz03850f0aze50f896e730e4c218c1ef57a0308d17c.png&hash=57c2fc2bcc4bdca53402f82521ff26de3548a0d2)[
http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=SAAB%20B:STO
Citaat van: Ace1 op 27/12/2013 | 19:38 uur
de koers van de aandelen van Saab, zo te zien moeten we het voorbeeld van IPA NG volgen? ;)
;D Even wachten op het Zwitserse gepeupel die menen dat ook de aanschaf van een (type) fighter een volks aangelegenheid moet zijn... wellicht genereerd het een dip (zoals het er nu naar uit ziet in mei 2014) in de koers, het moment van aankoop!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 27/12/2013 | 19:59 uur
;D Even wachten op het Zwitserse gepeupel die menen dat ook de aanschaf van een (type) fighter een volks aangelegenheid moet zijn... wellicht genereerd het een dip (zoals het er nu naar uit ziet in mei 2014) in de koers, het moment van aankoop!
Je vergeet 100 Gripen NG in de toekomst for the boys from brazil. :P
Citaat van: Ace1 op 27/12/2013 | 20:04 uur
Je vergeet 100 Gripen NG in de toekomst for the boys from brazil. :P
Nee juist niet, bij een eventueel Zwitsers nee volgt een korte dip, waarna het weer snel aan trekt.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVRO_CF-105_Arrow
Dat deze kist destijds niet ontwikkeld is, is echt een gemis. Maar ik geloof niet dat het vandaag de dag nog wat gaat worden.
Alleen de kosten die gemaakt zullen moeten worden voor het her-ontwerpen zijn al te groot. En dan vraag ik me af, hoewel het toestel vast een aantal superieure specificaties zou kunnen hebben, of je echt met een toestel op de proppen komt dat echt zoveel beter is.
Hier kan je zo de ruimte mee in !
:devil:
Citaat van: Thomasen op 28/12/2013 | 12:05 uur
Dat deze kist destijds niet ontwikkeld is, is echt een gemis. Maar ik geloof niet dat het vandaag de dag nog wat gaat worden.
Alleen de kosten die gemaakt zullen moeten worden voor het her-ontwerpen zijn al te groot. En dan vraag ik me af, hoewel het toestel vast een aantal superieure specificaties zou kunnen hebben, of je echt met een toestel op de proppen komt dat echt zoveel beter is.
Redesign op alle aspecten is iets wat Canada (alleen) zich wellicht niet kan veroorloven, jammer dat het destijds om politieke reden (waaronder zware Amerikaanse druk) is afgeschoten.
Was dat niet gebeurd.... wat dan?
Maar die zelfde vraag mag je stellen: what if als de Fokker D-24 daadwerkelijk het levenslicht had gezien (en operationeel had gevlogen voor de KLu)
http://www.dutch-aviation.nl/index5/Military/index5-1%20D24.html
Citaat van: Thomasen op 28/12/2013 | 12:05 uur
Dat deze kist destijds niet ontwikkeld is, is echt een gemis. Maar ik geloof niet dat het vandaag de dag nog wat gaat worden.
Alleen de kosten die gemaakt zullen moeten worden voor het her-ontwerpen zijn al te groot. En dan vraag ik me af, hoewel het toestel vast een aantal superieure specificaties zou kunnen hebben, of je echt met een toestel op de proppen komt dat echt zoveel beter is.
De Avro CF-105 Arrow is wel ontwikkeld er waren 6 toestellen geleverd helaas werd het programma geannuleerd, ik begrijp dat er nog tekeningen van bestaan, dus je hoef niet helemaal het toestel opnieuw te onwerpen, gewoon de tekeningen scannen en in Cad zetten en je kan ontwerpen aanpassen dat hoeft niet duur te kosten. Het bereik van de Avro CF-105 Arrow is groter dan de F35.
De Avro CF-105 Arrow was het eerste toestel met interne weapons bay.
CF-XX Super Arrow
http://www.hooler.com/superarrow/about.html
Citaat van: Ace1 op 28/12/2013 | 12:15 uur
De Avro CF-105 Arrow is wel ontwikkeld er waren 6 toestellen geleverd helaas werd het programma geannuleerd, ik begrijp dat er nog tekeningen van bestaan, dus je hoef niet helemaal het toestel opnieuw te onwerpen, gewoon de tekeningen scannen en in Cad zetten en je kan ontwerpen aanpassen dat hoeft niet duur te kosten. Het bereik van de Avro CF-105 Arrow is groter dan de F35.
De Avro CF-105 Arrow was het eerste toestel met interne weapons bay.
Zie link naar website: CF-XX Super Arrow.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/12/2013 | 12:27 uur
Zie link naar website: CF-XX Super Arrow.
Zo te zien een mix van de Avro Arrow en YF23?
Die Canadezen kunnen dat ding echt niet vergeten. ;D
Experts to Study F-35 Software Delays
The U.S. Defense Department's top weapons buyer is assembling a team of independent experts to study the F-35 fighter jet's software development delays.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, was ordered to put together a group to study the issue and submit a report to Congress by March 3 as part of 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy goals and spending targets for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
President Barack Obama signed the legislation into law today while vacationing with his family in Hawaii.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who oversees the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's most expensive weapons acquisition program, and auditors from the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, have identified the aircraft's software development "as an area of risk because of its complexity," according to an earlier version of a report accompanying the legislation.
The F-35, which is made by Lockheed Martin Corp., requires more than 8 million lines of code, compared with about 2 million for the F-16 and less than 1 million for other fourth-generation fighter aircraft, according to Steve O'Bryan, vice president of F-35 program integration and business development at the Bethesda, Md.-based defense contractor.
O'Bryan in June said Lockheed reassigned some 200 engineers to work on the F-35's software, many from outside the aeronautics division, with specialties in space, ship-board and sensor technology, O'Bryan said. The company also invested about $100 million to build a second laboratory where the employees work in shifts around the clock to write, test, and verify the code, he said.
By using a more limited version of the software, the Marine Corps plans to begin operational flights of the fighter jet in 2015, followed by the Air Force in 2016 and the Navy in 2019.
The full software package, known as 3F, is designed to support a suite of internal and external weapons, including the GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition, laser-guided Paveway II bomb, Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, and infrared Sidewinder missile.
It wasn't immediately clear how many or which experts would conduct the software study.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/12/26/experts-to-study-f-35-software-delays/#ixzz2omDLk3bW
Defense.org
Citaat van: Flyguy op 28/12/2013 | 14:25 uur
Die Canadezen kunnen dat ding echt niet vergeten. ;D
Zoals wij met Fokker. Of de VOC.
Een heel on-kapitalistisch idee, maar het geeft toch wat nationale trots.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 28/12/2013 | 14:41 uur
Zoals wij met Fokker. Of de VOC.
Een heel on-kapitalistisch idee, maar het geeft toch wat nationale trots.
Pfffff Iedereen is Fokker al vergeten, behalve een mafkees die de naam even omdraait en zo denkt een succes te worden.
Wel een mooi Nationaal initiatief door en voor Canada, maar of het een kans van slagen heeft ?? .. :hrmph:
Ik moet zeggen dat het wel een mooi ontwerp is, maar ook dit ontwerp zal de nodige uitdagingen hebben en ontwikkelingstijd kosten.
Citaat van: Flyguy op 28/12/2013 | 14:44 uur
Pfffff Iedereen is Fokker al vergeten, behalve een mafkees die de naam even omdraait en zo denkt een succes te worden.
Ik vraag me af of het aantal mensen dat een warm gevoel krijgt bij de naam Fokker echt zoveel kleiner zou zijn als dat AVRO dat in Canada doet.
En ik heb het niet over Rekkof of Stork, maar het Fokker dat we zijn verloren. We hadden wat, we waren wat, en nu kunnen we in Nederland vrij weinig op dat gebied. Net als de vergane scheepsbouwcapaciteiten. Hoewel de sector nog springlevend is, is deze een heel stuk kleiner dan deze vroeger was. De dood van RDM was daarin de laatste stuiptrekking. Het is gewoon zonde om dergelijke bedrijven uit je nationale bedrijvenlandschap te zien verdwijnen, en hun plek ingenomen ziet worden door buitenlandse multinationals.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/12/2013 | 13:35 uur
Hoe mooi zou het zijn als ik hem win, dan heeft Europa zomaar een "eigen" 5e generatie ontwikkeling (los van UCAV's) immers EADS en Dassault houden zich de komende jaren nog wel bezig met het upgraden van hun bestaande systemen al zou je haast wel verwachten dat deze organisaties na de productielijn sluiting zich zullen (moeten) richten op een nieuw product.
Lang dacht ik dat Saab het onderspit zou delven (op het fighter vlak) maar gezien de positieve ontwikkelingen van de laatste tijd zou dat maar zo een andere Europeaan kunnen zijn.
Drie is, na mijn verwachting, één te veel.
Om er toch nog even op terug te komen, drie is natuurlijk in principe niet teveel. Voor de Europese markt. Het is vooral dat deze 'vervuild' is waardoor slechts een beperkt deel overblijft. Met 1800-2500 kisten is er ruimte zat. Bovendien zullen er sowieso 8 verschillende moderne kisten in het luchtruim vliegen, met nog een stuk of 10 geupgrade modellen. De vraag is, willen we het effectief besteden en inrichten? Sommige modellen vullen elkaar aan, maar er is veel overlap.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/12/2013 | 12:02 uur
Om er toch nog even op terug te komen, drie is natuurlijk in principe niet teveel. Voor de Europese markt. Het is vooral dat deze 'vervuild' is waardoor slechts een beperkt deel overblijft. Met 1800-2500 kisten is er ruimte zat. Bovendien zullen er sowieso 8 verschillende moderne kisten in het luchtruim vliegen, met nog een stuk of 10 geupgrade modellen. De vraag is, willen we het effectief besteden en inrichten? Sommige modellen vullen elkaar aan, maar er is veel overlap.
Kijk wat er in Amerika, als die niet uitkijken dan blijft er één producent. Meest efficiënt is denk ik idd behoeftes beter op elkaar afstemmen zodat in Europa (net als in de VS, Rusland en China) na 2035 2 types geproduceerd worden in de verhouding:
Eurofighter vs Gripen
F15 vs F16
F22 vs F35
J20 vs J31
T50 vs (recent aangekondigde stealth één pitter)
De toekomst zal het laten zien, maar in Europa zullen ze wel de neuzen in dezelfde richting moeten.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2013 | 12:20 uur
Kijk wat er in Amerika, als die niet uitkijken dan blijft er één producent. Meest efficiënt is denk ik idd behoeftes beter op elkaar afstemmen zodat in Europa (net als in de VS, Rusland en China) na 2035 2 types geproduceerd worden in de verhouding:
Eurofighter vs Gripen
F15 vs F16
F22 vs F35
J20 vs J31
T50 vs (recent aangekondigde stealth één pitter)
De toekomst zal het laten zien, maar in Europa zullen ze wel de neuzen in dezelfde richting moeten.
Inderdaad...en dan helpt het niet als Nederland de F-35 koopt :angel: ;D ;)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2013 | 12:20 uur
Kijk wat er in Amerika, als die niet uitkijken dan blijft er één producent. Meest efficiënt is denk ik idd behoeftes beter op elkaar afstemmen zodat in Europa (net als in de VS, Rusland en China) na 2035 2 types geproduceerd worden in de verhouding:
Eurofighter vs Gripen
F15 vs F16
F22 vs F35
J20 vs J31
T50 vs (recent aangekondigde stealth één pitter)
De toekomst zal het laten zien, maar in Europa zullen ze wel de neuzen in dezelfde richting moeten.
ATM:
We (gaan)vliegen met:
- Eurofighter (T1, T2, T3)
- Rafale B/C
- Rafale M
- Gripen C/D
- Gripen NG
- F16 MLU
- F16 >block 52
- F35A
- F35B
- Mig 29
- AMX
- Tornado IDS
- Tornado ECR
- Harrier
- F/A-18
- Mirage 2000 (III, F1)
En de binnenkort of kort geleden uitgestroomde:
- Su22
- Su25
- Mig21
- Super Etendart
- A7 Corsair
Citaat van: Elzenga op 30/12/2013 | 12:21 uur
Inderdaad...en dan helpt het niet als Nederland de F-35 koopt :angel: ;D ;)
Ik ben niet tegen in interim oplossing voor de KLu van Europese makelij echter dan moeten er nu al wel concrete pannen zijn voor de EuroCanards opvolgers en helaas, er zijn nog geen enkele intenties zichtbaar en zolang er wordt gesproken over een Eurofighter '45 heb ik zo mijn twijfels of Europa niet de volgende generatie boot mist.
Ook Dassault lijkt de komende 15 jaar nog door te borduren op de Rafale voordat men überhaubt wil denken over een opvolger, tel daar 15 jaar ontwikkeltijd bij en we zitten ook ergens rond 2045.
Meest positieve ontwikkeling is nog het Saab FS2020 concept, maar of dit ooit het levenslicht ziet is de vraag.
Dus laat de opvolger van de KLu F35 maar een uitontwikkelde Europeaan zijn, iets in de trend van EUFX-tranche 2.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/12/2013 | 12:23 uur
ATM:
We (gaan)vliegen met:
- Eurofighter (T1, T2, T3)
- Rafale B/C
- Rafale M
- Gripen C/D
- Gripen NG
- F16 MLU
- F16 >block 52
- F35A
- F35B
- Mig 29
- AMX
- Tornado IDS
- Tornado ECR
- Harrier
- F/A-18
- Mirage 2000 (III, F1)
En de binnenkort of kort geleden uitgestroomde:
- Su22
- Su25
- Mig21
- Super Etendart
- A7 Corsair
Het is idd een hele waslijst, maar verdeel ze nu eens in klasses, dan reduceer je het aanzienlijk. Kijken naar leeftijd dan kan je vanaf 2030 zowie zo een hele rits van het lijstje halen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2013 | 12:20 uur
Kijk wat er in Amerika, als die niet uitkijken dan blijft er één producent. Meest efficiënt is denk ik idd behoeftes beter op elkaar afstemmen zodat in Europa (net als in de VS, Rusland en China) na 2035 2 types geproduceerd worden in de verhouding:
Eurofighter vs Gripen
F15 vs F16
F22 vs F35
J20 vs J31
T50 vs (recent aangekondigde stealth één pitter)
De toekomst zal het laten zien, maar in Europa zullen ze wel de neuzen in dezelfde richting moeten.
Dat zal moeten.
Maar bedenk dat de Amerikanen naast hun F35 en F22 ook nog met F15's, F16's en F18's vliegen. Niet alle kisten worden vervangen door de F35, een deel zal de F35 'overleven' en vervangen worden door de opvolger van de F35.
Ook in China. Hoewel de J20 en J31 natuurlijk opvallen, bestaat de kern van de PLAAF de komende decenia uit kisten als de J10 (270 and counting), J11 (160+70 and counting), SU27/30 (200), J15 (onbekend), J16 (onbekend). En dat zijn de kisten die qua technische levensduur de komende 20/30 jaar blijven. Vervangen worden eerst de verouderde J7, J8, JH7, Q5, wat er bij elkaar een paar honderd zijn. (lijkt me althans, ben niet privvy tot de PRC plannen)
India werkt natuurlijk wel aan de gevreesde PAK-FA/T50/HAL FGFA (200 stuks), maar heeft de komende 30 jaar ook nog een stapel SU30's (190+80), MIG29 (60 and counting), Mirage 2000 (50), HAL TEJAS (8+32, and counting), Sepecat jaguar (150), en werkt daarnaast aan de HAL AMCA. Plus dus nog een lading Mig21 (260, 2025) en mig 27 (90, 2017) die uitgefaseerd worden.
Voor de Russen ga ik het niet uitzoeken, je snapt het punt wel. Ook voor die landen, die zogenaamd niks om budget geven, kopen zogenaamd totaal nutteloze toestellen om de kern van hun luchtmacht te vormen, bij een technische levensduur van 30 jaar, en dat er nog 100den 4de generatie worden geproduceerd en de komende 20/30 jaar de kern zullen vormen voor de grootste luchtmachten is voor mij dan ook wel een teken dat de rol helemaal niet is uitgespeeld, ongeacht wat de fantasten van LM en aanhang ons willen doen geloven.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2013 | 12:49 uur
Het is idd een hele waslijst, maar verdeel ze nu eens in klasses, dan reduceer je het aanzienlijk. Kijken naar leeftijd dan kan je vanaf 2030 zowie zo een hele rits van het lijstje halen.
Heb ze ingedeeld naar type en rol, uit de losse pols.
Een Rafale M is een andere kist dan een Rafale B/C, omdat deze een totaal andere rol heeft, en ook wat andere uitrusting. Zelfde geld voor een Tornado IDS en ECR, zijn kisten met andere taken, die die niet zomaar van elkaar kunnen overnemen, of een F35A of F35B. Hoewel je dat ook kunt stellen voor de Eurofigter (T1 Air superiority, T3 Multirole). Ach, gaat om het idee. En ja, voor 2030 gaat er veel gebeuren, maar de lijst blijft lang, minimaal 8 kisten (met sub varianten) lijken te blijven. En in dat licht van 3 fabrikanten best mee. Zeker als je bedenkt dat ze nu al niet volledig zelfstandig zijn, maar afhankelijk van elkaar (of andere partners).
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/12/2013 | 12:54 uur
Ook voor die landen, die zogenaamd niks om budget geven, kopen zogenaamd totaal nutteloze toestellen om de kern van hun luchtmacht te vormen, bij een technische levensduur van 30 jaar, en dat er nog 100den 4de generatie worden geproduceerd en de komende 20/30 jaar de kern zullen vormen voor de grootste luchtmachten is voor mij dan ook wel een teken dat de rol helemaal niet is uitgespeeld, ongeacht wat de fantasten van LM en aanhang ons willen doen geloven.
Natuurlijk is de rol van het 4e gen jachtvliegtuig de komende decennia niet uitgespeeld, mijn punt is dat ze aanvullend zijn op de 5e generatie kisten die nu vliegen of in ontwikkeling zijn. Europa loopt gillend achter en de vraag is of we niet de boot missen.. en over 2 decennia niet hopeloos achter lopen...
In de VS wordt nu al gestudeerd op de F22 vervanging en wordt reeds nagedacht over: wat na de F35, hier is het stil, willen we onze eigen broek in de toekomst kunnen ophouden dat moet er toch echt wel iets gebeuren.
Vooralsnog is Europa het enige mondiale machtsblok zonder eigen 5e gen ontwikkeling.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2013 | 13:03 uur
Natuurlijk is de rol van het 4e gen jachtvliegtuig de komende decennia niet uitgespeeld, mijn punt is dat ze aanvullend zijn op de 5e generatie kisten die nu vliegen of in ontwikkeling zijn. Europa loopt gillend achter en de vraag is of we niet de boot missen.. en over 2 decennia niet hopeloos achter lopen...
In de VS wordt nu al gestudeerd op de F22 vervanging en wordt reeds nagedacht over: wat na de F35, hier is het stil, willen we onze eigen broek in de toekomst kunnen ophouden dat moet er toch echt wel iets gebeuren.
Vooralsnog is Europa het enige mondiale machtsblok zonder eigen 5e gen ontwikkeling.
Omdat we afhankelijk zijn van de Amerikanen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/12/2013 | 13:14 uur
Omdat we afhankelijk zijn van de Amerikanen.
"willen zijn" (lekker goedkoop, maar ook dit zal de komende periode wellicht gaan veranderen)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2013 | 13:03 uur
Natuurlijk is de rol van het 4e gen jachtvliegtuig de komende decennia niet uitgespeeld, mijn punt is dat ze aanvullend zijn op de 5e generatie kisten die nu vliegen of in ontwikkeling zijn. Europa loopt gillend achter en de vraag is of we niet de boot missen.. en over 2 decennia niet hopeloos achter lopen...
In de VS wordt nu al gestudeerd op de F22 vervanging en wordt reeds nagedacht over: wat na de F35, hier is het stil, willen we onze eigen broek in de toekomst kunnen ophouden dat moet er toch echt wel iets gebeuren.
Vooralsnog is Europa het enige mondiale machtsblok zonder eigen 5e gen ontwikkeling.
en het is maar de vraag of de zo gezegde 5e generatie wel datgene is wat je moet hebben....daar zijn deskundigen het niet over eens krijg ik de indruk. Dus misschien doorontwikkelingen naar de echt 5e generatie of 6de generatie.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 30/12/2013 | 13:25 uur
en het is maar de vraag of de zo gezegde 5e generatie wel datgene is wat je moet hebben....daar zijn deskundigen het niet over eens krijg ik de indruk. Dus misschien doorontwikkelingen naar de echt 5e generatie of 6de generatie.
Dat is waar, maar met alleen praten kom je er ook niet, zie ook de US initiatieven om te kome tot de F22 en Super Hornet opvolger, respectievelijk de F/X en de FA/XX en of dit nu een 5 of 6 generatie marketing term is... de toekomst zal het laten zien.
Maar het feit (zoals publieke bekend) is dat het in Europa ijzig stil is, met uitzondering, de onenigheid rondom UCAV ontwikkelingen....
Als het anders is, dan hoor ik dat uitermate graag!
Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet
By: Dave Majumdar
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be the eyes and ears of the fleet inside highly contested airspace when it enters the U.S. Navy's arsenal in large numbers in the 2030s.
"Let's say we're in an anti-access environment and we're going to go deep, we would launch all the airplanes off, get them all set, and we would push the F-35C way inside," Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy's director of air warfare told USNI News on Dec. 20. "He would go in there using his X-band stealth technology, and go in there and he would get radar contacts and surface contacts and would ID them for us."
Under the service's forthcoming Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) network, Manazir said targets discovered by the F-35C's advanced sensor suite would be passed back to a Northrop Grumman E-2D to be shared with the rest of the carrier strike group. Further, F-35Cs flying deep inside enemy territory would also play a key role in providing terminal guidance for long-range stand-off weapons launched by other platforms such as Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or a warship.
However, the F-35C will need some data-link modifications, which are expected for the jet's Block IV configuration, to perform the role the Navy intends for it. While the current version of the Link-16 data-link does not have enough of a low probably of intercept capability that would allow it to be used inside highly contested airspace, the Navy is working on a solution.
"They're working right now, because it is a follow-on development item, Lockheed Martin is working with other contractors to make that capability happen," Manazir said. "We need to have that link capability that the enemy can't find and then it can't jam."
In order to extend the F-35C's range, the Navy hopes to refuel the stealthy new fighter from the service's future Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft, Manazir said. While the UCLASS would not be as stealthy as the F-35C, it could accompany the JSF into some of the more modestly contested high threat environments.
But the Navy has never operated a stealthy aircraft with the kinds of sensors found onboard the F-35C before. In order to learn how to best utilize the new fighter, one of the first units to receive the F-35C will be the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC)—which is the home of the Navy's famous TOPGUN school.
"One of the earliest places we're going to put Joint Strike Fighter is at NSAWC," Manazir said. "We'll operate them out at [Naval Air Station] Fallon [Nevada] and be able to develop those tactics real-time on the range with Block II AESA [Active Electronically Scanned Array] F/A-18Es and Fs and F-35Cs."
Moreover, because all three F-35 variants have the same mission systems, the Navy is working very closely with the U.S. Marine Corps to develop tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) for the JSF. Manazir noted that the USMC would operate the F-35C from the Navy's Nimitz and Ford-class supercarriers in addition to the F-35B, which will be operated from amphibious assault ships.
"We'll be able to exploit the advantages of both kinds of aircraft," Manazir said.
Right now the Marines are ahead of the Navy in developing the concepts of operation for the F-35.
Manazir described a recent long-range air dominance simulation exercise in which there were Marine Corps weapons officers flying the F-35C.
"They're kind of at the leading edge of tactics development," Manazir said. "They're helping us into the future."
http://news.usni.org/2013/12/31/f-35c-will-eyes-ears-fleet
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 31/12/2013 | 18:54 uur
Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet
Mini MPA? 8)
CitaatThe Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be the eyes and ears of the fleet inside highly contested airspace when it enters the U.S. Navy's arsenal in large numbers in the 2030s.
Als je het dan over outdated hebt...
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/01/2014 | 12:30 uur
Als je het dan over outdated hebt...
Wat natuurlijk niet voor een (huidig) alternatief geldt.... :cute-smile: (Met dan EU basis ontwerpen van meer dan een halve eeuw oud, maar dat is vast anders)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/01/2014 | 12:53 uur
Wat natuurlijk niet voor een (huidig) alternatief geldt.... :cute-smile: (Met dan EU basis ontwerpen van meer dan een halve eeuw oud, maar dat is vast anders)
Het toont maar aan wat een ontzettende bullshit argumenten de JSF kliek op ons neer doet komen. Een 5 tot 15 jaar oud toestel is ' absoluut outdated' en zal volledig vernietigd worden door hypermoderne JF17's en zelfs boeren met kalasnikovs. Om vervolgens zelf met een 25 jaar oud toestel aan te komen zetten....
Thursday, January 2, 2014
EXCLUSIVE! MMRCA- New Year Tidings
Neelam Mathews
While nothing can ever be confirmed in the world of defense procurement in India till the ink dries on paper, it is becoming increasingly clear that a basic contract will be signed with Dassault Aviation in the next 45 days for the MMRCA. This is simply because the 45 day election morotarium starts on Feb 15, we are being told.
HAL will be in the picture as the RFP clearly says, and we are also hearing some large private companies are in the picture for supplying aerostructures.
Even as the AgustaWestland deal has been cancelled, a source tells us: "The government wants to ensure Dassault gets the contract so that the deal cannot be questioned by subsequent governments." We are also hearing internal discussions on the basic contract have been completed by the IAF.
http://aerospacediary.blogspot.fr/2014/01/exclusive-mmrca-new-year-tidings.html?utm_content=india+aerospace&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/01/2014 | 12:47 uur
Thursday, January 2, 2014
EXCLUSIVE! MMRCA- New Year Tidings
Neelam Mathews
While nothing can ever be confirmed in the world of defense procurement in India till the ink dries on paper, it is becoming increasingly clear that a basic contract will be signed with Dassault Aviation in the next 45 days for the MMRCA. This is simply because the 45 day election morotarium starts on Feb 15, we are being told.
HAL will be in the picture as the RFP clearly says, and we are also hearing some large private companies are in the picture for supplying aerostructures.
Even as the AgustaWestland deal has been cancelled, a source tells us: "The government wants to ensure Dassault gets the contract so that the deal cannot be questioned by subsequent governments." We are also hearing internal discussions on the basic contract have been completed by the IAF.
http://aerospacediary.blogspot.fr/2014/01/exclusive-mmrca-new-year-tidings.html?utm_content=india+aerospace&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Zou goed nieuws zijn.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 02/01/2014 | 13:33 uur
Zou goed nieuws zijn.
Zeker, als het mee zit gevolgd door een of meerdere orders uit het midden oosten, waarna de Amerikanen een beetje buikpijn zullen hebben, immers het afscheid van de nieuwbouw "teen fighters" komt steeds dichterbij.
Washington | 12/23/2013
2013 Was The Year Everything Went Right For Lockheed Martin's F-35 Fighter
Thirteen is looking like the F-35 fighter's lucky number. After struggling for a dozen years to make program realities match government expectations, in 2013 prime contractor Lockheed Martin LMT -1.37% saw everything come together. Technical risks were retired. Flight testing progressed rapidly. The price-tag for each plane continued declining. And a new management team discovered that its government customers weren't so hard to get along with after all. So when the history of the Pentagon's biggest weapon program is written, 2013 is going to look like the point at which the effort really took off — the year doubts melted away and the F-35 became unstoppable.
(Disclosure: Many of the companies participating in the F-35 program, including lead contractor Lockheed Martin, contribute to my think tank; some are consulting clients.)
The program's growing success has huge consequences for America and its allies. Three U.S. military services — the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps — are counting on the F-35 to provide the bulk of their tactical air power through mid-century. A total of 2,443 planes will be purchased to secure hostile air space, precisely destroy enemy targets, and gather diverse reconnaissance. It is no exaggeration to say that the success of U.S. military operations in future wars hinges on the availability of the F-35, and the plans of many allies do too. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Turkey and the United Kingdom have all signed up to make F-35 their next-generation fighter.
Despite its popularity, though, the program has faced political headwinds for much of its history. Because it was conceived to replace most of the Cold War fighter fleet, the effort had to produce three distinctly different variants for each U.S. military service buying the plane that were nonetheless sufficiently similar to afford economies of scale in development, production, and operations. For instance, the Marine version must be able to take off and land vertically, the Navy version must be able to withstand the stresses of catapult launches and arrested landings on pitching carrier decks, and the Air Force version must be flexible enough to meet the needs of numerous overseas allies.
The end result will be a fleet of "fifth-generation" fighters — affordable aircraft with unprecedented survivability, situational awareness, versatility, maintainability and connectivity to the rest of the joint force. The affordability part is crucial if the F-35 is to dominate the global market for tactical aircraft the way Lockheed Martin's F-16 did, and the company now projects that if production of F-35s ramps up as expected for the remainder of the decade, an Air Force version of the fighter will cost no more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the latest F-16 does today. That's for a plane that will perform far better than the world-class F-16 in air-to-air, air-to-ground, and reconnaissance missions.
Making this all happen, along with the development of advanced training and sustainment systems, isn't just a big engineering challenge. It is the biggest challenge in the history of military innovation, with a price-tag to match. If Lockheed Martin had faltered in the years after it was awarded the development contract on October 26, 2001, the company's future prospects would have been diminished for a generation to come. So would the prospects of key suppliers such as Northrop Grumman, which provides much of the on-board electronics, and the Pratt & Whitney unit of United Technologies, which manufactures the engines.
But as 2013 draws to a close, it is increasingly clear that Lockheed and its team-mates have succeeded. Let's briefly consider some of the milestones the program has achieved in the year now ending.
Testing. Rigorous testing provides the most important measure of whether the F-35 program is meeting its performance objectives, and collectively the three variants of the plane will be subjected to over 8,000 flight tests. In September, the program surpassed 10,000 hours of flight testing, matching in less than a year the amount of airborne testing conducted in the previous six years. Half of the flight-test schedule has now been completed with no major problems identified, meaning that fears of commencing production before testing was completed have proven to be unfounded. The Marine variant has accomplished over 500 vertical landings, proving that it will be able to operate safely in forward locations where there are no airstrips.
Production. Production of the F-35 is gradually ramping up, with 11 planes delivered in 2011, 30 in 2012 and 36 in 2013. All three U.S. military services have now begun using operational versions of the fighter at training bases, and the first deliveries to allies have occurred (for the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, both of which are flying them). On December 13, the hundredth plane rolled out of the mile-long F-35 assembly plant in Fort Worth, and company officials say they expect rollout next year of the first F-35 from the final assembly facility in Italy where most European F-35s will be completed. Among the first hundred F-35s produced, 44 were Air Force variants, 42 were Marine variants, and 14 were Navy variants; five went to allies.
Cost. Cost trends are crucial in determining whether the joint force can acquire all the F-35s it needs and overseas allies remain engaged. The "unit recurring flyaway cost" of the F-35, meaning the incremental cost of producing each additional plane, has declined in each of seven successive production lots, so that it now stands at half of what it was in the first lot. Industry has repeatedly delivered F-35 airframes and engines for less than what the government estimated they would cost. As the program progresses, the government has begun shrinking its projections of what it will cost to operate all 2,443 F-35s across a 50-year life-cycle. The latest estimate cuts the sustainment cost from $1.1 trillion in "then-year" dollars to $857 billion.
Teamwork. Relations between Lockheed Martin and government overseers of the F-35 have improved in the last year, thanks in part to smooth progress in the flight-testing program and in part to the installation of a new management team by the prime contractor. Although progress in retiring risk and reducing cost was already well under way before Lorraine Martin was made program manager and Orlando Carvalho head of the aeronautics unit in March, the tenor of the relationship has advanced markedly on their watch (some insiders give Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson credit for the shift towards a more customer-friendly approach). Senior Pentagon officials say previous tension in the relationship has largely dissipated.
Orders. The F-35 program began as a joint development effort between three U.S. military services and overseas allies willing to provide funding. Despite delays and a global recession, none of the participants has backed out of the program and additional countries like Israel and Japan have joined. In November of this year South Korea became the latest ally to order the F-35, citing its stealthy design and other survivability features as a key factor in maintaining the regional military balance. It appears F-35 is well on its way to becoming the "gold standard" of tactical aviation in the Western Pacific, and press reports at year-end indicated Persian Gulf allies are now clamoring for access to the plane.
With the F-35 fighter successfully achieving new milestones every month, there is only one really big issue still confronting the program: whether budget constraints will allow the government to ramp up annual production to truly economical rates. The original business plan assumed big cost savings by accelerating production fast to a level where sizable economies of scale would be feasible, but as Lockheed Martin program manager Lorraine Martin pointed out the day the hundredth F-35 rolled off the line, rates have been flat at 30-36 planes for the last four years. Initially the rates were restrained by concerns about program maturity, but the issue now is government spending constraints.
Program manager Martin says getting the cost of F-35 down to where it matches the price-tag of existing, fourth-generation fighters requires higher annual rates of production. That isn't just a view that contractors find congenial; aerospace engineers have been writing since the 1930s that the cost of aircraft is intimately connected with the rate of production and the accumulation of experience. This dynamic is widely recognized across the manufacturing sector (Moore's law in the semiconductor industry is a special application of the same principle). So as the F-35 program accomplishes its performance goals, the biggest question left is whether taxpayers and warfighters will get the full benefits of the world's most advanced fighter by acquiring it at a sensible pace.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/12/23/2013-was-the-year-everything-went-right-for-lockheed-martins-f-35-fighter/
UAVs and the F-35: Partners in Air Power?
What role will drones play in planning for high intensity war in the Pacific?
By Robert Farley / January 03, 2014
What role will drones play in planning for high intensity war in the Pacific? A recent report from the USNI indicates that the Navy is planning to use the UCLASS UAV, an F-14-sized piece of equipment with some stealth characteristics, as a potential missile truck. Although knowledge that drones had a role to play in air superiority had become more or less widespread within the national security community, this is one of the best descriptions of how, specifically, the Navy envisions integrating its drones into its air defense system.
The question of how UAVs will contribute to air superiority goes to the core of the utility not just of the UCLASS, but also of the F-35C. If we envision the JSF as the centerpiece of a networked system-of-systems that includes subsurface, surface, and unmanned aerial assets, part of a chain of capabilities between see-er and shooter, it begins to look like a much more formidable weapon, its drawbacks as a fighter notwithstanding.
The practical objections to the use of UAVs for air superiority are well known. UAVs lack the situational awareness of piloted aircraft, and are extremely vulnerable to electronic counter-measures that can disrupt communications with their operators. Even a few seconds delay in relaying commands can prove fatal for a UAV. At the same time, developing drones sufficiently autonomous to manage themselves in air-to-air combat is genuinely scary; no one wants a drone that can kill on its own.
But if we evaluate the contribution of the drone not in isolation, but rather as part of a system-of-systems for air dominance, its utility becomes clearer. Stealthy F-35s operate in contested environments, identifying and tracking targets, with the UAVs supplying the missiles that the JSFs can't carry on their own. Even the payload challenged F-35B can contribute in this context; having as many F-35s in the air as possible increases the clarity of the picture offered to pilots and commanders.
Indeed, this is precisely the type of aerial warfare that the developers of the F-35 envisioned. Although this vision has been part of the Joint Strike Fighter program for some time, it has not, for whatever reason, been articulated clearly to the public. Our public conversation still struggles to conceptualize specific weapons as part of a larger system, rather than with respect to their individual characteristics. This hardly means that programs such as the F-35 or the UCLASS should be above criticism, but it does suggest ways to add nuance to the critique.
It's not a stretch to argue that the F-35C and the UCLASS UAV will structure American naval aviation for the foreseeable future. These reports give us a better indication of how the capabilities can be expected to work together, and help illuminate the utility of both programs.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/uavs-and-the-f-35-partners-in-air-power/?utm_content=buffer3c466&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
The death of European fighters?
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/the-anglo-french-variable-geometry-afvg-fighter-and-what-it-says-about-european-military-aircraft-projects-today/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/01/2014 | 13:30 uur
The death of European fighters?
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/the-anglo-french-variable-geometry-afvg-fighter-and-what-it-says-about-european-military-aircraft-projects-today/
Leuk artikel eigenlijk. Al deel ik de conclusie zeker nog niet.
CitaatThe F-35, combined with the high cost of the Typhoon and Rafale has killed Europe as a fighter maker.
Hoewel de F35 een groot gevaar is voor de Europese productie, de Typhoon en Rafale ontwikkeling inderdaad duur is gebleken, moeten we ook 1 ding niet vergeten, het is gewoon duur om een fighter te ontwikkelen. Als daar kosten bij komen vanwege inefficiency.... Er zijn niet veel landen in de wereld die momenteel volledig zelfstandig fighters bouwen. De 'light fighters' niet meegerekend, eigenlijk alleen de VS, Frankrijk, Rusland en misschien China en later India, kleine club.
Het is een self fullfilling profecy, maar als de Europese leiders niet tot elkaar gaan komen gaat deze wel uit komen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 03/01/2014 | 15:04 uur
Het is een self fullfilling profecy, maar als de Europese leiders niet tot elkaar gaan komen gaat deze wel uit komen.
Vandaar ook mijn opmerking dat de Europeanen de neuzen in de zelfde richting moeten gaan krijgen want met het alleen maar opwaarderen van EuroCanards tot 2045 plus, wellicht tegen een zeer been, daar reken ik ook de Gripen E toe, dreigt Europa de slag na de huidige generatie volledig te missen.
Generational Changes Important to Air Dominance
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 2014 – The last time American soldiers or Marines came under aerial attack was during the Korean War.
The fact that it has been more than 60 years since an enemy launched a successful aerial attack against Americans did not happen by accident.
U.S. airpower strategy is based on having air dominance in any conflict. Air dominance means marrying the best pilots in the world with the best aircraft, and tying them together with the best tactics.
The current plan to field variants of a fifth-generation aircraft is one arm of that strategy.
Just the idea of a fifth-generation aircraft is a relatively new concept. It really only cropped up when the U.S. Air Force called for what became the F-22 Raptor. As the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps develop the Joint Strike Fighter – the F-35 Lightning 2 – there is more discussion of fifth-generation capabilities.
The idea of generations of aircraft "really came around with the F-22," said Lt. Col. Brian Stahl, an airpower strategist with the Air Force. "As we looked at past aircraft, the main thing we were looking at were generational changes and improvement in capabilities. So as you looked at the first jet aircraft like the P-80 and into the F-86s move into the F-4s with air-to-air missiles and into the fourth generation aircraft you have better avionics, increased maneuverability, specialized mission sets. As you move into the F-22 it is a linear progression of all these things."
But what are the previous generations of jet aircraft that have maintained aerial dominance since Korea?
The first generation of jet aircraft began in World War II. The German Messerschmitt 262 was the first jet aircraft that saw widespread combat in the war. American and British designers were concurrently working on jets, but none saw combat.
The P-80 Shooting Star was the most successful American jet. It was a trailblazer for the U.S. Army Air Forces. The straight-wing aircraft first flew in 1943, and was built by the Lockheed Skunk Works in 143 days. The aircraft first flew with a British engine. It did not see combat during World War II, but was a workhorse in the early days of the Korean War. The Air Force and the Navy flew what became known as F-80 aircraft into the 1970s. The T-33 training aircraft was a variant of the F-80 and served in that role into the 1980s.
The Bell P-59 Airacomet and Republic F-84 Thunderjet are also considered first-generation aircraft.
In Korea, the F-80 was clearly outclassed by the MiG-15. This swept-wing aircraft produced by the Soviet Union flew at least 100 mph faster than the F-80s.
Enter the North American F-86 Sabre. This swept-wing fighter bridged the gap between first-generation fighters and the second generation.
The F-86 more than held its own against the MiG-15. The aircraft cruised at more than 600 mph. In a dive, it could break the sound barrier. The F-86 gave United Nations forces in Korea air superiority – not air dominance – over the battlefield. North Korea launched a night air attack against U.S. forces on April 15, 1951, killing two soldiers. They were the last American ground casualties from an aerial attack.
Designers of second-generation aircraft took lessons learned in Korea and incorporated them into the aircraft of the so-called Century series of aircraft. This generation roughly runs from the mid-1950s to 1965.
Technological advances made this era a hothouse of aviation growth. Designers built aircraft with swept wings, delta wings and area-ruled fuselages. Engine breakthroughs enabled second-generation fighters to sustain supersonic speeds in level flight.
Advances in radar, missile technology and changes in tactics defined this generation of aircraft. The thinking at the time was that dogfighting was a thing of the past. Designers built aircraft that would climb quickly, fly fast and, using only missiles, shoot down intercontinental bombers.
The first aircraft of the Century series was the F-100 Super Sabre. The jet, also built by North American, was an outgrowth of the F-86. It was capable of sustained supersonic flight. Introduced in 1954, the F-100 started as an air-superiority fighter and segued into a close-air support platform in Vietnam. Other aircraft of the Century series are the McDonnell F-101 Voodoo, the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, the Republic F-105 Thunderchief and the Convair F-106 Delta Dart.
The McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom 2 is the finest U.S. example of the third generation of fighters. Developed for the Navy and Marine Corps, the aircraft was also adopted by the Air Force in 1963. The Phantom is a two-seat, twin-engine, all-weather, long-range supersonic jet interceptor fighter/fighter-bomber. The many-hyphenated designation means the aircraft was one of the most capable in the inventory. It is still serving in air forces around the world.
Fourth-generation aircraft are the workhorses of American air power today. The F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon are the Air Force fourth-gen aircraft. The Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet is a fourth-generation aircraft. The now retired F-14 Tomcat is also considered a fourth-gen aircraft.
All these jets were designed in the mid to late 1970s and took the lessons learned from the Vietnam War. The emphasis was again on maneuverability. Dogfighting, stealth and radar avoidance came to the fore. The aircraft have been continually updates with new targeting pods, new radars, new materials. The classic example of this is the F/A-18 Super Hornet that while based on a 1970s airframe, is one of the most capable aircraft in the world.
Currently, the United States has the only fifth-generation fighters. Russia and China are working to catch up. The Lockheed-Martin F-22 Raptor is operational and capable of worldwide deployment. Lockheed-Martin also designed the F-35 Lightning 2 and that will be used by the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allied nations.
The aircraft are the most advanced in the world and their capabilities are being kept purposely vague. They incorporate the latest in stealth technology, the latest avionics, communications, sensors and weaponry. These are all fused together giving pilots improved situational awareness, while reducing the workload.
Stahl says the biggest change from fourth-gen to fifth-gen is stealth. Fifth-generation fighters use the latest stealth technology.
Another difference is the way information is gathered, processed and used. Stahl flew F-16s and F-22. In the fourth-gen aircraft, the pilot is a system operator, he said. "An F-16 or F-15 pilot is constantly working the radar or working the targeting pod; all of these different sensors that require input from the pilot," he said.
"In the F-22, all that is integrated and you have a synthesis of the data," he continued. "Where the pilot was the operator before, now the jet is doing the integration and operation of the sensors. The pilot can now spend less time operating the systems, and more time actually processing the data."
In other words, the pilot becomes more a tactician, instead of just trying to ensure the right information out of the systems on board.
Each generation of aircraft costs more. The F-80 cost about $110,000 a copy. The F-86 ran about $220,000. An F-100 Super Sabre ran about $700,000, while the F-4C Phantom was about $2.5 million. An F-15 Eagle ran about $30 million a copy. The F-22 Raptor costs about $133 million, with the F-35A coming in around the same range.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welch said that he doesn't ever want a fair fight. In a fight between fourth-generation fighters and fifth generation aircraft, he noted, the fourth-generation fighters would be shot down before their pilots even knew the fifth-gen fighters were in the air.
This is at the heart of the need for fifth-generation capabilities, he says.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121427
Trouble for the Twin-Engine Giants?
Jan. 4, 2014 | By ANDREW CHUTER, AARON MEHTA and PIERRE TRAN
LONDON, WASHINGTON AND PARIS — When Brazil selected Saab's Gripen fighter last month for the F-X2, it underscored just how little remaining market space remains for the highly capable, but highly priced, dual-engine fighters from Boeing, Eurofighter and Dassault.
For countries looking to upgrade their fighter capabilities, there are seven major competitors from the Western market — the Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Boeing's F-15 Strike Eagle and F/A-18 Super Hornet, and Lockheed Martin's F-16 Falcon and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Voor de rest van het artikel, zie link:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140104/DEFREG/301040008?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Military to flesh own fighter jet plan
Delivery of 120 F-16 class aircraft targeted for 2023
By Kang Seung-woo / 2014-01-05
The military is set to decide the airframe and type of engine for the long-delayed indigenous fighter program, codenamed KF-X, with the goal of deploying the aircraft from 2023.
Twenty billion won ($18.9 million) from the defense budget for 2014 has been appropriated for deciding its design ㅡ a derivative of an airplane or a clean-sheet, brand-new airplane ㅡ and engine ㅡ one with a single engine and the other with two ㅡ seen as the final intersection ahead of kick-starting the KF-X.
The defense ministry, Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) will submit their recommendation to the military decision-making committee as early as next month.
The KF-X program, aimed at building F-16-class fighter jets with the help of global defense contractors to fill the fighter gap over the next decade, has been delayed due to budget constraints and questions over its feasibility.
"The system development for KF-X that will produce about 120 home-grown combat planes will be on full display from this year," said a high-ranking military official.
"We have set sights on delivering the first aircraft in 2023 and getting the rest of them to enter service for seven or eight years."
The program, initiated by the late former President Kim Dae-jung in March 2001, had its basic strategy resolved in April 2010 and the state-run Agency for Defense Development (ADD) conducted a final study on the feasibility of the KF-X development program between 2011 and 2012.
"It is time for the government to take action rather than still seeking advice," said an official of DAPA, the nation's arms procurement agency.
"As we have reached a certain level of producing an indigenous fighter jet because the design for the KF-X program can be based on the FA-50."
The FA-50, manufactured by Korea Aerospace Industries, is a light attack aircraft that will replace the Air Force's F-4 and F-5 when the aging fighters are retired.
In November last year, JCS confirmed the required operational capability (ROC) for the indigenous fighter jet except for its design and engine.
Should a twin-engine aircraft be picked, Korea is expected to go with a plan to manufacture a clean-sheet airplane, with the selection of a single-engine leading to a FA-50-based fighter jet.
"A twin-engine plane would require more development cost and postpone the timeline, but we will see aircraft with stronger jet thrust," a military official said.
Korea plans to take advantage of technology transfer from its F-X III in the purchasing of 60 next-generation fighter jets for the KF-X.
Lockheed Martin, whose F-35 stealth jet is the only legitimate candidate, has made a comprehensive offer through its offset package including technology transfer and engineering expertise.
European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), touting its Eurofighter Typhoon, is also offering to fund the KF-X program if the Eurofighter is bought.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2014/01/116_149209.html
JuVi @SciteCito 4m
PAF (Philippine Air Force) preparing to acquire the #Saab #Gripen?
http://opinion.inquirer.net/68913/another-new-year-another-afp-chief
F-35 Price Fixing (een serie van 5 artikelen, verschenen in Time U.S.)
By Winslow Wheeler
1) The New Era of Good F-35 Feelings
http://nation.time.com/2013/06/03/the-new-era-of-good-f-35-feelings/
2) Alphabet Soup: PAUCs, APUCs, URFs, Cost Variances and Other Pricing Dodges
http://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/alphabet-soup-paucs-apucs-urfs-cost-variances-and-other-pricing-dodges/#ixzz2VFqhiLWj
3) The Deadly Empirical Data
http://nation.time.com/2013/06/05/the-deadly-empirical-data/
4) Different Planes, Common Problems
http://nation.time.com/2013/06/06/different-planes-common-problems/
5) On Final Approach to Fighter Fiscal Sanity
http://nation.time.com/2013/06/07/on-final-approach-to-fighter-fiscal-sanity/
The Latest Word on F-35 Unit Costs
(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued Jan. 02, 2014)
(by Winslow Wilson, Straus Military Project)
There have been some wild assertions about F-35 unit cost recently. See the Lockheed claims as reported in Breaking Defense, Defense News and others that we should expect F-35A costs to be $85 million in 2019. None of these articles acknowledged that there are ways to measure F-35 unit cost other than by mouthing Lockheed and/or Joint Program Office prognostications for the future. If you are interested in what they didn't report, see a five part analysis of F-35 costs in Time magazine from last June, summarized here. (zie artikelen in eerdere posting)
However, as the great seer Yogi Berra said, "Predictions are hazardous, especially about the future." Lockheed-Martin predictions, especially without balance from the press, are more than hazardous; they are toxic, and they come with an agenda.
Try instead, empirical data from as recently as last month from sources that typically work hand-in-glove with the Pentagon. They would be the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Their National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was squirted through the Senate and signed into law on December 26. On questions like funding for high priority weapons, like the F-35, they virtually never act without consulting closely with the Pentagon, even if they don't always cough up every penny requested.
For their 2014 bill, they did indeed take a few nicks out of the F-35 program, but the numbers, released in their "Joint Explanatory Statement" for the 2014 NDAA, give a more revealing view of F-35 unit costs than what Lockheed and some uninquisitive articles asserted at the end of 2013.
The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force's F-35A, are the following: (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)
The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the "long lead" money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.
To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for "modification of aircraft" for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.
None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to.
The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier.
For the Marines B, or STOVL, model, the authorized 2014 buy is six (6) aircraft for $1.267 billion in 2014 procurement, $106 million in 2013 long lead money, and $147 million in 2014 aircraft procurement modifications. That calculates to $252.3 million for each one.
For the Navy's C, carrier-capable (but not yet), model, we get four (4) aircraft for $1.135 billion, plus $32 million in long lead, plus $31 million in modifications. That means $299.5 million for each one.
Actual F-35 unit costs are today multiples of what Lockheed says they will be. If you think it is reasonable to expect them to plummet to the $85 million Lockheed glibly promises (thanks to the ubiquitous "learning curve" and other manipulations), please consider a somewhat different analysis, also in Time, available here.
The cost data from the 2014 NDAA is not the last word. Authorization bills actually have little to do with real money, but the House and Senate Armed Services Committees like to conform their bill to whatever the latest DOD data happens to be. Keep an eye out for the 2014 appropriations bill, due out as early as next week. That is the real money bill, and it will contain not just the latest word on F-35 costs but all the money the 2014 F-35 program will see. My guess is that it will differ little from the NDAA, but if the numbers are different, they will likely show a cut to both total dollars and the number of aircraft bought. That is not good news for F-35 idolaters: cuts to the F-35 top line will almost surely mean deeper proportional cuts to the number bought, and the unit cost will go up.
Lockheed claims on F-35 unit costs are easy fodder for ridicule, but for some reason the press I have seen reporting on those claims did not report any data from an available alternate source. Because they didn't, I am.
Keep an eye out for the actual F-35 costs in the 2014 appropriations bill and how the press reports on them. After that, keep an eye out for what DOD puts in its 2015 budget request for the F-35. It is a real question whether those data will calculate to a lower unit cost for the F-35 or a higher one, learning curve prognostications notwithstanding.
Treat Lockheed's predictions with all the respect they deserve. Consider similarly press reports on those predictions that do not give you more reliable data or any wider perspective.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/150606/the-latest-word-on-f_35-unit-costs.html
Canada Preparing to Replace its CF-18 Hornets (4 typen geselecteerd, maar geen Gripen E NG)
Jan 2/14: Paperwork in
According to documents posted on a federal website on Thursday, the Canadian Forces have already prepared draft reports to the "National Fighter Procurement secretariat" on the price, the technical capabilities and the strategic advantages of the 4 fighter jets considered (F-35A, Eurofighter, Rafale, Super Hornets). Actually, the price isn't included, except as a rough order of magnitude. That information wasn't forthcoming from all manufacturers, and even Boeing would likely be quoting an Advanced Super Hornet model that isn't being bought under its current multi-year Navy contract. A competition would be necessary in order to really know, and the key question from the start has been whether the Conservative government has ever had any genuine interest in a competition.
The RCAF is also reportedly finishing up its "Integrated Mission Risk Assessment," though the quality of their work has been less than stellar in the past. Source: The Globe and Mail, "Military's fighter-jet reports to put ball in Ottawa's court on F-35s".
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-preparing-to-replace-its-cf-18-hornets-05739/
The Textron AirLand Scorpion Jet – Audio Episode Show Notes
http://traffic.libsyn.com/airspeed/AirspeedScorpion.mp3.
Last week, Textron AirLand flew its prototype Scorpion Jet for the first time. The first flight lasted 1.4 hours and concentrated mostly on slow-speed handling. We took advantage of the occasion to talk to Bill Anderson (president of Textron AirLand and SVP of Cessna Military Business Development) and Dale Tutt (the Scorpion program chief engineer). This episode contains the full interview covering everything from the aircraft generally to the development process to the first flight. And we talked about the plans to market and build the production version.
Apart from the interview, my impressions are as follows.
Somewhere among the capabilities of aircraft like the the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper UAVs, the A-10 Thunderbold II (Warthog) attack aircraft, and the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet series multi-role fighters, there's a gap that Textron AirLand wants to fill. A manned cockpit to provide local eyes (both human and electronic) on targets. The ability to fly both low and in the flight levels. Slow-speed performance to support imaging missions and small-aircraft intercept. Fuel efficiency to allow longer flights out and back with mission-enabling loiter time over the target. And plug-and-play capability that allows rapid configuration for different mission types. If the Scorpion Jet turns out to be everything it was designed to be, it will fill all of those gaps and more.
It looks like an A-10, an F/A-18, and an F-8 Crusader somehow conspired to jointly have offspring. It has a payload bay in the belly and will have six hard points (two wet), plus enough electrical power and auxiliary wiring to handle the instrumentation and weaponry to support widely-varied missions. Anderson and Tutt say that test pilot Dan Hinson reported that it was fun to fly. (Yeah, I asked.)
Beyond functionality, Textron AirLand wants to deliver a jet that's economical to acquire and operate. If the company's business case pans out, it will be able to deliver copies for less than $20 million each. For reference, a new A-10 in 1994 went for $19 million in 2013 dollars and a new MQ-1 Predator went for just over $4 million in 2010. (Although it's a little far afield to bring fighters into the comparison, let's just note that a legacy F/A-18A/B/C Hornet started at around $34 million in 2013 dollars without the floor mats and mag wheels.)
The company says that the hourly cost to operate is likely to be around $3,000. Comparable with a C-130 or a helicopter if you buy NORAD's numbers. There's really nothing cheaper unless you count a CAP aircraft (about $130 per flying hour and great for what CAP does, but not very useful for putting warheads on foreheads or launching or operating the heavier sensor packages).
This is a US-based project. The design and build came together here in the states, mostly in Wichita. It remains to be seen if the production copies are built here in the states. It would be nice to see an all-American aircraft in this role. Being fond of the T-6A/B and having time in the T-6A, it hurt a little when Hawker Beechcraft was shut out of the USAF Light Air Support (LAS) process in favor of the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, even though the Super T will be built in Jacksonville.
Lastly, this aircraft appeals to me because I'm a pilot. I know that it takes certain skill to fly a UAV. And I know that there are missions that don't make sense for manned aircraft. But, at the end of the day, no automated system will ever equal a pilot's eyeballs, hands, feet, and heart in the cockpit over the battlefield. When it really matters, you want a pilot in the ship and the Scorpion Jet is one of an increasingly scarce number of platforms that leverage our favorite stick-throttle interconnect: The pilot.
Textron AirLand is continuing flight test operations and is actively courting customers. We'll stay close to the story and bring you updates as they occur.
http://www.scorpionjet.com/textron-airland-scorpion-jet-audio-episode-show-notes/
Textron had a surprise unveiling of its new strike jet, the Scorpion, at the AFA conference, and Military.com was there to get a first peek.
Filmpje met interview :
http://www.military.com/video/forces/air-force/afa-spotlight-textron-scorpion/2678762860001/
Citaat van: Harald op 07/01/2014 | 09:07 uur
(4 typen geselecteerd, maar geen Gripen E NG)
Het was natuurlijk al lang bekend dat Saab pas op de plaats heeft gemaakt in het Canadese VF18 programma.
Rafale en EF doen feitelijk mee voor spek en bonen en zullen het om politieke reden nooit gaan redden, blijft over de F18E/F/G en de F35A.
Nu verwacht ik dat de Canadese beslissing wordt uitgesteld tot minimaal 2015 en laat nu net 2014 het jaar zijn (dit voorjaar) waarin Boeing moet bepalen of ze de productie in 2016 stoppen of niet..... Brazilië is net verloren en de USN lijkt niet te gaan voor een extra serie, kortom: als de Canadezen niet snel beslissen voor de F18E dan rest alleen nog de F35A.
Citaat van: Harald op 07/01/2014 | 09:21 uur
Textron had a surprise unveiling of its new strike jet, the Scorpion, at the AFA conference, and Military.com was there to get a first peek.
Filmpje met interview :
http://www.military.com/video/forces/air-force/afa-spotlight-textron-scorpion/2678762860001/
Mooie bak hoor, en lekker betaalbaar! Dat lijkt me een goedkope CAS bak. Zijn er wel meer opties in deze klasse, jammer dat de Klu dit niet wil overwegen. Het zou toch voor een stuk meer capaciteit zorgen. Zullen vooral de extra piloten wel erg duur zijn, maarja, je houdt ze dan wel, en wellicht ook tegen minder kosten dan wanneer ze hun trainingsuren in een F16 of F35 moeten onderhouden. Natuurlijk gaat de politiek voor zo min mogelijk... :crazy:
Citaat van: Lynxian op 07/01/2014 | 12:49 uur
Mooie bak hoor, en lekker betaalbaar! Dat lijkt me een goedkope CAS bak. Zijn er wel meer opties in deze klasse, jammer dat de Klu dit niet wil overwegen. Het zou toch voor een stuk meer capaciteit zorgen. Zullen vooral de extra piloten wel erg duur zijn, maarja, je houdt ze dan wel, en wellicht ook tegen minder kosten dan wanneer ze hun trainingsuren in een F16 of F35 moeten onderhouden. Natuurlijk gaat de politiek voor zo min mogelijk... :crazy:
Wat mij betreft een prima aanvulling op de F35, je kan 12 Scorpions laten vliegen voor 1 F35 (vlieguurkosten) en prima geschikt voor CAS/COIn lijkt mij zo...
37 x F35 + 24 x Scorpions voor de KLu lijkt mij een prima oplossing.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/01/2014 | 12:41 uur
Het was natuurlijk al lang bekend dat Saab pas op de plaats heeft gemaakt in het Canadese VF18 programma.
Rafale en EF doen feitelijk mee voor spek en bonen en zullen het om politieke reden nooit gaan redden, blijft over de F18E/F/G en de F35A.
Nu verwacht ik dat de Canadese beslissing wordt uitgesteld tot minimaal 2015 en laat nu net 2014 het jaar zijn (dit voorjaar) waarin Boeing moet bepalen of ze de productie in 2016 stoppen of niet..... Brazilië is net verloren en de USN lijkt niet te gaan voor een extra serie, kortom: als de Canadezen niet snel beslissen voor de F18E dan rest alleen nog de F35A.
Als het op een eerlijke manier gaat in de beslissingsmomenten en vergelijkingen, dan denk ik dat de Rafale (in het Franstalige deel van Canada zal deze kist misschien een streepje voor hebben) een kans maakt.
Maar ben wel met je eens dat het meest waarschijnlijke is dat het een beslissing tussen de F-18E en F-35 zal worden.
Wat wel een voordeel voor Canada is dat het wel waarschijnlijk is dat de USN extra Block III pakketten voor hun F-18E/F;'s zullen gaan aanschaffen, waaronder de rugtanks, dit geeft de F-18E/F wel een nodige upgrade in range. Welke voor Canada zeker belangrijk is en het is een 2-motorige kist.
Tevens de overgang van hun huidige CF-18 naar de F-18E/F zal ook makkelijker zijn.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/01/2014 | 13:17 uur
Wat mij betreft een prima aanvulling op de F35, je kan 12 Scorpions laten vliegen voor 1 F35 (vlieguurkosten) en prima geschikt voor CAS/COIn lijkt mij zo...
37 x F35 + 24 x Scorpions voor de KLu lijkt mij een prima oplossing.
+1 ... kan ik me prima in vinden
Zeker als er missie's blijven zoals Afganistan, Mali e.d. om daar CAS te verlenen aan je grondtroepen.
Citaat van: Harald op 07/01/2014 | 13:20 uur
Als het op een eerlijke manier gaat in de beslissingsmomenten en vergelijkingen, dan denk ik dat de Rafale (in het Franstalige deel van Canada zal deze kist misschien een streepje voor hebben) een kans maakt.
Maar ben wel met je eens dat het meest waarschijnlijke is dat het een beslissing tussen de F-18E en F-35 zal worden.
Wat wel een voordeel voor Canada is dat het wel waarschijnlijk is dat de USN extra Block III pakketten voor hun F-18E/F;'s zullen gaan aanschaffen, waaronder de rugtanks, dit geeft de F-18E/F wel een nodige upgrade in range. Welke voor Canada zeker belangrijk is en het is een 2-motorige kist.
Tevens de overgang van hun huidige CF-18 naar de F-18E/F zal ook makkelijker zijn.
Als Canadees zou ik voor de Rafale zijn. Maargoed, de F18 en F35 hebben natuurlijk wel wat streepjes voor.
Citaat van: Harald op 07/01/2014 | 13:20 uur
Wat wel een voordeel voor Canada is dat het wel waarschijnlijk is dat de USN extra Block III pakketten voor hun F-18E/F;'s zullen gaan aanschaffen, waaronder de rugtanks, dit geeft de F-18E/F wel een nodige upgrade in range. Welke voor Canada zeker belangrijk is en het is een 2-motorige kist.
Tevens de overgang van hun huidige CF-18 naar de F-18E/F zal ook makkelijker zijn.
Zonder extra orders valt het doek voor nieuwbouw F18E/F/G hoogstwaarschijnlijk in 2016, een keuze voor de bestelling voor long lead items moet in het voorjaar van
dit jaar gemaakt worden... dus de keuze duur is zeer beperkt.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 07/01/2014 | 13:36 uur
Als Canadees zou ik voor de Rafale zijn. Maargoed, de F18 en F35 hebben natuurlijk wel wat streepjes voor.
Ik persoonlijk ook, maar dat zie ik dom weg, gezien de politieke en militaire verhoudingen met de VS niet gebeuren.
Defense Ministry looking to replace aging F-5 tiger fighter aircraft
Tue, January 7 2014
Jakarta (ANTARA News) - The Indonesian Defense Ministry announced its plan to replace the F-5 Tiger fighter aircraft with the latest generation of jet fighters such as the Russian Sukhoi Su-35.
"We have received proposals from several jet fighter manufacturers for replacing the F-5 Tiger fighter aircraft. We are in the process of evaluating which jet fighter will best suit our requirements, whether the aircraft is from Russia, USA, or other countries," stated Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro, here on Tuesday.
Purnomo spoke about the plan after holding a meeting with Indonesian Military Commander General Moeldoko and Indonesian Air Force Chief of Staff Marshall Ida Bagus Putu Dunia, here on Tuesday.
The minister pointed out that they have at least 5 to 6 options of jet fighters to replace the aging F-5 Tiger fighter aircraft, which has been in service for over three decades.
He urged several officers to weigh all their available options to zero down upon which jet fighter meets the specifications to replace the "Tiger".
The minister hoped that the officers can arrive at a decision soon, so that the requisition plan can be included in Indonesias Strategic Plan II 2015 to 2020.
"I hope the finalized next-generation jet fighter is capable of carrying long-range missiles," Purnomo added.
Meanwhile, General Moeldoko remarked that the Indonesian Air Force has conducted a study on several jet fighters such as the Russian Sukhoi Su-35, the American F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the Swedish Fighter SAAB JAS 39 Gripen.
"We are still evaluating the options. It depends on Indonesias financial position," Moeldoko stated.
Ida noted that the Indonesian Air Force is willing to have a squadron of 16 new jet fighters to replace the aging F-5 Tiger.
"We will follow the Strategic Plan. We will also revise the decision in line with the command of the Indonesian Military Commander and Defense Minister as well as taking into consideration the state finances," Ida claimed.
Marshall stated that the Air Force can substitute the old jet fighter in the Strategic Plan in order to defend Indonesian sovereignty.(*)
http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/92116/defense-ministry-looking-to-replace-aging-f-5-tiger-fighter-aircraft
Voor de hand zou liggen 12 Su-35 voor de luchtmacht van Indonesie, omdat men 5 Su-27 en 11 Su-30 toestellen heeft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force#cite_note-JakartaGlobe311211-39
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/01/2014 | 21:40 uur
Voor de hand zou liggen 12 Su-35 voor de luchtmacht van Indonesie, omdat men 5 Su-27 en 11 Su-30 toestellen heeft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force#cite_note-JakartaGlobe311211-39
Antwoord #487 Vandaag om 06:09
"Ida noted that the Indonesian Air Force is willing to have a squadron of
16 new jet fighters to replace the aging F-5 Tiger"
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/01/2014 | 21:50 uur
Antwoord #487 Vandaag om 06:09
"Ida noted that the Indonesian Air Force is willing to have a squadron of 16 new jet fighters to replace the aging F-5 Tiger"
Klopt keek te veel naar het aantal van 12 F5's
dat zijn er weinig.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 07/01/2014 | 22:37 uur
dat zijn er weinig.
Ze hebben een project lopen met Zuid-Korea, mogelijk dat daar groei uit gaat komen. Maar ondanks alles hebben de Indonesiers gewoonweg niet genoeg geld om de krijgsmacht die ze eigenlijk willen te onderhouden. wel plannen ze er langzaam naar toe.
Een aanvulling nu van SU35 (op de varianten die ze al hebben), of extra F16's, is dus vooral een interim oplossing, totdat hun project eens los komt, als dat al ooit wat wordt.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 07/01/2014 | 22:37 uur
dat zijn er weinig.
Waarbij ik me kan voorstellen dat ze dan tevens het handjevol SU-27 en SU-30 samen met de F5 vervanger op één standaard zullen brengen hierbij zou de SU-35 een voor de hand liggende keuze kunnen zijn. Daarnaast zijn er dan nog 24 F16 en +/- 50 toekomstige (if ever) KF-X (samen met Z Kor)
October 11, 2013
Google reveals F-35 is dangerously over-exposed
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhushkit.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F10%2F2012_12_121020-f-zz999-910.jpg%3Fw%3D650&hash=c4ef7a5bd0ce73ce24640d7cede1417945364b73)
As can be seen in this photograph, the F-35 has no reflection. This is because it is a vampire.
Internet giant Google revealed yesterday that the F-35 was dangerously over-exposed in terms of media coverage. A USAF spokesman commented "With over 200 articles a week published on the F-35 program, there is a very real danger that some of this rhetoric will bounce off the airframe rendering it dangerously visible to enemy radars"
The F-35's airframe, which is shaped to reduce visibility to auditors, is 60 per cent caviar, 15 per cent mink and 25 per cent cocaine. The aircraft is even more vulnerable from detection by obsolete search engines such as Ask.com, ChaCha and Boogami which operate on a different wavelength. A US Navy think tank has been studying the so-called 'Swarm 'effect, whereby one reputable website produces a story on the JSF and thousand reverse-engineered drone stories follow it. The think tank noted that many of these drones were poorly produced with little regard for production quality.
The Gray Slag
The aircraft is powered by the sunk cost fallacy and with a loaded weight of 50,000 lb it is considered too big to fail. While critics suggest a unit price upwards of $170 million, Lockheed Martin have pointed out that once you deduct the cost of the engine, materials and electronics in the jet this figure goes down. This figure can further be reduced by removing other numbers. Proponents of the F-35 are keen to point out that everything is fine and it is brilliant. Meanwhile, critics of the $500 trillion project are keen to point out that everything is fucked and it's awful. Arthur Koala, head of Public Affairs for the American taxpayer is quoted in this article as saying "The first priority for any nation is defense, and we remain committed to the defense of Lockheed Martin."
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhushkit.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F10%2Fbar-graph-fruit.gif%3Fw%3D240&hash=233801301391e2bbb25ca685f008398ac743ecf6)
A graph yesterday.
Wonga.com, who are in charge of finalising contracts with export nations are confident in future sales. Their head of sales noted "The partner nations and export customers are of course free to walk away from the program, though they may find Hillary Clinton refusing to talk to them again. But if they are comfortable with a bad relationship with the world's greatest super power they are free to leave...terms and conditions apply."
The Australian Minister of Defence, Senator the Honourable David Johnston said he shared Canada's blind faith in the dumpy fighter and would buy it however expensive, late or ineffective it was. British Secretary of State for Defence Richard 'The Hamster' Hammond has fought hard to ensure that Britain has the minimum amount of F-35s at the maximum price. He noted that "By making sure our biggest defence contractor is making tail-planes for a US design we have ensured that Britain will never again be able to make a front-line military aircraft by itself. Following the rather mental Nimrod MRA.4, this is considered a good idea" .
Britain's force of four F-35Bs will enter service in 2022 and will replace the Typhoon, A400M, Grob Tutor and take over the role of Joey in The Only Way is Essex.
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/google-reveals-f-35-is-dangerously-over-exposed/ (http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/google-reveals-f-35-is-dangerously-over-exposed/)
Hahaha, geweldig geschreven, maar helaas wel een paar goede punten.
Hungary takes over Slovenian air policing
Hungary has taken over responsibility for policing Slovenia's airspace, it was announced on 3 January.
Under the arrangement, Hungarian Air Force Saab JAS 39 Gripen C/D fighter aircraft will provide air policing coverage of Slovenian airspace.
Since Slovenia's accession to NATO in 2004, Italy has provided air policing of Slovenian airspace with Italian Air Force aircraft based in Italy. The policing of Slovenian airspace is one of three extant NATO air policing missions.
Hungary's Gripen fighters are deployed with the 59th Tactical Fighter Wing's 1st Tactical Fighter Squadron at Kecskemét Air Base in central Hungary. The entirety of Slovenian airspace will fall within the Gripen's combat radius when operating from Kecskemét.
Hungary first announced it would take over the Slovenian air policing mission under a November 2012 agreement. In July 2013 a subsequent agreement confirmed that the Hungarian air policing role would begin in 2014.
Alongside the Slovenian air policing mission, NATO members took responsibility for the air policing of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (under the Baltic air policing mission) when they joined NATO with Slovenia in 2004. NATO launched another air policing mission in 2009 when Albania joined the alliance. Unlike the Slovenian and Albanian missions, which are conducted on an essentially permanent basis (respectively by Italy and now Hungary; and Italy and Greece jointly), the Baltic mission is conducted on four-month rotations.
NATO nations have also deployed aircraft to Iceland under a NATO mandate since 2008, following the end of regular US aircraft deployments to the country in 2006, although in January 2013 the status of this deployment was changed to a training, rather than air policing, footing.
Nicholas de Larrinaga, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
06 January 2014
Slovakia to replace Mig29s with Swedish JAS39
Wednesday, 08 January 2014
Slovakia is considering ordering Swedish JAS-39 Gripen jets to replace its fleet of Russian MiG-29s, local media reported Wednesday.
Although U.S. F-16 remains an option, the Slovak Defense Ministry appears to be inclined toward Gripen, because the European jet is cheaper and less demanding in maintenance, said the SME newspaper.
Another factor favoring Gripen is Slovakia's plan to create a joint squadron with the neighboring Czech Republic, which has rented 14 Gripens for nine years and is preparing to extend the contract, it said.
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/24476/53/
Zou in veel opzichten een slimme zet zijn van de slowaken. Voor de Zweden zou het ook mooi zijn, alhoewel kleine gebruikers, beginnen ze zo een flinke schare gebruikers te krijgen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 09/01/2014 | 15:01 uur
Zou in veel opzichten een slimme zet zijn van de slowaken. Voor de Zweden zou het ook mooi zijn, alhoewel kleine gebruikers, beginnen ze zo een flinke schare gebruikers te krijgen.
De occasion kisten zijn een keertje op.... wellicht heeft de E toch een betere toekomst dan ik dacht.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 09/01/2014 | 15:01 uur
Zou in veel opzichten een slimme zet zijn van de slowaken. Voor de Zweden zou het ook mooi zijn, alhoewel kleine gebruikers, beginnen ze zo een flinke schare gebruikers te krijgen.
inderdaad..en het bevestigt mij dat de Gripen E inderdaad de eenmotorige "behoefte" binnen Europa kan invullen. (op wat eigenwijze landen na die weer anders willen ;) )
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 09/01/2014 | 15:55 uur
De occasion kisten zijn een keertje op.... wellicht heeft de E toch een beter toekomst dan ik dacht.
Natuurlijk volgen die landen de ontwikkeling. Sterker, de braziliaanse en Zwitserse keuzes zouden wel eens de nodige invloed gehad kunnen hebben. De landen hebben alleen niet voldoende kracht, op dit moment, om het ontwikkel traject te dragen. Maar ik verwacht dat als de eerste E kosten vliegen, begin 20's, dat de kans groot is dat ze 'upgraden' . Maar het blijft zonde dat Polen de F16 heeft verkozen en niet ingestapt is op de Gripen. Dat zou een zeer belangrijke overwinning zijn geweest.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 09/01/2014 | 18:16 uur
Natuurlijk volgen die landen de ontwikkeling. Sterker, de braziliaanse en Zwitserse keuzes zouden wel eens de nodige invloed gehad kunnen hebben. De landen hebben alleen niet voldoende kracht, op dit moment, om het ontwikkel traject te dragen. Maar ik verwacht dat als de eerste E kosten vliegen, begin 20's, dat de kans groot is dat ze 'upgraden' . Maar het blijft zonde dat Polen de F16 heeft verkozen en niet ingestapt is op de Gripen. Dat zou een zeer belangrijke overwinning zijn geweest.
Met een gezonde mix aan: Gripen E, Eurofighter, F35A/B en Rafale geeft m.i. een prima Europese mix aan capaciteiten vanaf de jaren twintig al mis ik wel een volbloed fighter op het niveau F22 en PAK-FA.
F-35 Gains More Market; Rivals Push Upgrades
With the first F-35 customer—the U.S. Marine Corps—set to declare operational capability with the single-engine, stealthy fighter in as little as 18 months, the Lockheed Martin jet continues to dominate the global fighter market.
However, its competitors—the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen—are all continuing with upgrade plans for a diverse set of customers, some of whom will eventually buy the F-35 and others who cannot afford it.
The F-35's edge was affirmed in November when Seoul bypassed its own procurement agency's recommendation to purchase 60 semi-stealthy Boeing F-15 Silent Eagles in order to buy fewer F-35s within a set budget of 8.3 trillion won ($7.7 billion). South Korea's decision follows Japan's choice in late 2011 of the F-35, which both countries have been willing to buy at a premium, sacrificing tail numbers in their force structures for stealth and integrated avionics.
Seoul's decision likely buries Boeing's ambitions to sell the Silent Eagle variant of its venerable F-15; both the Strike Eagle and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler are built at the company's facility in St. Louis. The Silent Eagle was to include conformal weapons bays and employ fly-by-wire controls. It is unclear whether the company will snag more F-15 sales beyond those to Saudi Arabia; Riyadh's last aircraft is scheduled to roll off the line in 2018.
Boeing officials say the Silent Eagle options—including the stealthy weapons bay, the fly-by-wire controls and digital electronic warfare system—will remain as options for legacy F-15 customers choosing to retrofit their fleets.
For the twin-engine Super Hornet/Growler line, Boeing officials are upbeat about further buys from the U.S. Navy, which has always been the last of the three Pentagon services to buy the F-35 in volume. Ship trials slated for 2014 could jolt it out of its lukewarm stance, however. The company must decide by March whether to use its own funding to keep long-lead Super Hornet and Growler production activities in play. Boeing officials are anticipating another Navy order in the fiscal 2015 budget, which is expected to go to Congress in February; that would likely trigger Boeing funding for the line until the contract is solid, says Mike Gibbons, Boeing's Super Hornet vice president.
"Boeing financially has the ability to keep this line going," Gibbons notes. The company has cash on hand largely because of its balanced defense and space portfolio and hearty commercial aircraft backlog.
Boeing received another blow in December when Brazil selected Saab's JAS39E/F Gripen over the Super Hornet (and Dassault Rafale) for a 36-aircraft order. The F/-18E/F had been leading the long-running FX-2 competition until revelations of U.S. spying on Brazilian officials, and the Rafale was rejected as too costly. Gibbons says there is still interest in the Super Hornet in Canada, Denmark, Kuwait, Malaysia and unnamed Middle Eastern countries. But decisions that could provide confidence in future orders are not expected in the near term.
New and potential orders notwithstanding, the heyday of Super Hornet/Growler production is likely in the past. Gibbons says the current annual production rate of 48 aircraft is likely to be cut by 25% next year and eventually lowered again, to 24 annually. Company officials are looking for lessons from a similar rate reduction in the C-17 transport, aiming to keep the per-unit Super Hornet price at $37 million (not including engines and electronic-warfare systems) while reducing the production rate. Including all government-furnished equipment, Gibbons says the Navy pays a $50 million flyaway price for the Super Hornet. A Growler is expected to cost about $9 million more.
The Eurofighter consortium is expected to face a similar decision for its Typhoon production infrastructure, with the last fighter scheduled to come off of the line in 2017. The Tranche 3 Typhoon had its first flight in early December, incorporating improved avionics computing power; fuel-dump and provisions for an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar; high-speed data network; fiber-optic weapons bus, and conformal fuel tanks. A Typhoon package with an improved radar is expected for delivery at the end of 2015.
Meanwhile, Saab is under contract to develop the JAS 39E production version of the Gripen NG demonstrator, first flown in 2008, and to modify 60 Swedish Gripen Cs to Gripen Es. Switzerland is expected to buy 22 Gripen Es in 2014. The upgraded fighter features an AESA radar, General Electric F414 engine and increased fuel and weapon loads.
Although losing in Brazil, the Rafale was selected as India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) and France's modernization program. The contract for India's largest single defense buy to date, for 126 fighters, is not likely to be issued until April. At the same time, France has begun to take delivery of its latest, fourth-tranche, two-seat Rafales. They include the RBE2 AESA radar and upgraded missile-warning capability. An earlier version of the Rafale was instrumental in French operations in Mali, where the aircraft conducted aerial surveillance and ground-attack missions. The Rafale and Typhoon were also being eyed by the United Arab Emirates, but the UAE put Eurofighter negotiations on ice in December, and the status of Rafale talks was not clear.
Despite this activity, Paris has proposed slowing Rafale production to 26 aircraft over six years, from the current 11-aircraft annual rate.
Not unlike the Rafale, Lockheed Martin's F-16 is being modernized by several customers as well. Singapore will upgrade at least some of its F-16s while it considers purchasing the F-35. Singapore is expected to follow Taiwan and the U.S. in pursuing an AESA radar for the F-16. Northrop Grumman's Scaled Agile Beam Radar (SABR), based on the radars employed by the F-22 and F-35, has been selected by prime contractor Lockheed Martin for the F-16. The U.S. Air Force is also considering structural upgrades to get more flying hours out of its F-16s.
As these programs are relying largely on upgrades, the F-35 footprint continues to grow. In 2013, Italy officially started work at its final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility at Cameri Air Base in the country's northern industrial sector. The Italian government invested roughly $1 billion to construct the state-of-the-art FACO there, which is being operated under the leadership of Alenia Aermacchi.
Defense officials hope to establish a regional maintenance, repair and overhaul facility for European and Middle Eastern F-35s with some of the facility's excess capacity. The first F-35 from the FACO is expected to be delivered to Amendola Air Base in Italy in 2016.
Another FACO facility will be built by Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, according to an agreement signed last summer.
The F-35 took a major step in overcoming a thorny technical shortfall in October when the U.S. Joint Program Office ended its contract with BAE Systems to provide an alternative to the primary helmet-mounted display being built by Vision Systems International (VSI) (a joint venture between Elbit Systems and Rockwell Collins). The Pentagon started the alternative design, which would have employed a less sophisticated helmetmounted display, in 2011 due to persistent problems with jitter and the night-vision capability in high-stress conditions.
The fixes to VSI's original helmet will be incorporated into the so-called Gen-3 helmet and tested in the coming months. The Gen-3 helmet will be incorporated into the production system with low-rate, initial-production Lot 7 aircraft being delivered in 2016.
F-35 weapons testing is also moving forward: The three weapons required for the U.S. Marine Corps initial operational capability (IOC) decision have been dropped. They are the 500-lb. laser-guided bomb, 1,000-lb. Joint Direct Attack Munition and the AIM-120. F-35 program officials will continue to expand weapons testing, including guided test flights and more stressing conditions. They are hoping to wrap up testing for this trio of weapons in March 2015, to meet a possible IOC declaration in the summer of 2015.
For the most part, looking ahead to 2014, the fast-jet trainer market remains in largely the same shape as in recent years. This is primarily due to the U.S. Air Force's decision to delay buys of a T-38 replacement until 2015 or beyond; the slip was prompted by funding cuts imposed on the Pentagon. The service says it will buy 350 or more of the aircraft, and it hopes to keep costs down, possibly by purchasing an off-the-shelf option. As the lead-in trainer for the F-22 and F-35, the Air Force is looking for an integrated training system incorporating the cutting edge in ground-based simulation as well as airborne elements. Budget pressure in Washington is forcing the service to look for a low-cost option.
This could come from Boeing and Saab, which announced in late 2013 that they are teaming to design and build a brand-new aircraft for the forthcoming requirement. Though the design will not be a Gripen, team officials say it will draw on lessons from that aircraft in addition to Boeing's extensive fighter work.
The pair will take on a well-established field of competitors for the T-X program, including Northrop Grumman/BAE, offering the Hawk; General Dynamics/Alenia Aermacchi, offering the M-346 and Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin, proposing the T-50.
Iraq announced in December that it will buy 24 F-50s, fighter versions of the T-50, in a deal valued at $1.1 billion. The Philippines is expected to order the type as well.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_30_2013_p58-647430.xml&p=1
DASSAULT AVIATION : RAFALE "F3 R" standard launched
01/10/2014
Mérignac, 10th January 2014 - Today, Mr Jean-Yves le Drian, Minister for Defense, handed Mr Eric Trappier, Chairman and CEO of Dassault Aviation, the "F3 R" standard development contract for the RAFALE combat aircraft. This event took place today on the occasion of Mr Le Drian's visit to the Dassault Aviation Mérignac plant. The contract was notified by the French defense procurement agency (DGA) on 30th December last.
The F3 R standard is an evolution of the RAFALE "F3" standard. It is part of the ongoing process to continuously improve the aircraft in line with operational requirements. It will enable Dassault Aviation to integrate the following equipment and weapons onto the RAFALE:
•The European Meteor long-range air-to-air missile produced by MBDA. This high-performance missile will achieve maximum effectiveness thanks to the "active array" radar which equips all production RAFALE aircraft delivered since mid-2013[1]:
#ftn1.
•The Thales PDL-NG new-generation laser designator pod. Primarily used for air-to-ground strikes, in daylight or darkness, this pod will further enhance the high degree of precision that the RAFALE has achieved since its first engagements (in 2007 in the Afghan theatre).
•The laser homing version of the Sagem AASM Air-to-Ground Modular Weapon[2]:
#ftn2. This family of weapons, with GPS primary guidance and an additional booster, is unmatched. It was used by the RAFALE during operations in Libya (2011) to destroy targets at ranges of several tens of kilometers with metric precision. The laser homing version is particularly adapted to moving targets.
F3 R will also include upgrades to RAFALE sensors and to systems ensuring total interoperability.
The launch of the F3 R standard:
•guarantees that French forces will continue to have a high-performance aircraft adapted to their requirements.
•reinforces the strong points of the RAFALE in export competitions.
•contributes to maintaining the competences of the design bureaux of Dassault Aviation and its industrial partners at a world-class level.
•confirms the ongoing improvement process and opens the way to future developments for France and export customers.
Validation of the F3 R standard is scheduled for 2018.
Dassault Aviation and the 500 French firms associated with the RAFALE program thank the Ministry of Defense, the DGA, the French Air Force and the French Navy for their confidence.
About the RAFALE
The only totally "omnirole" aircraft in the world, able to operate from a land base or an aircraft carrier, capable of carrying 1.5 times its weight in weapons and fuel, the RAFALE has been designed to perform the full spectrum of combat aircraft missions:
•Interception and air-to-air combat using a 30-mm gun, Mica IR/EM missiles and Meteor missiles (as of 2018).
•Close air support using a 30-mm gun, GBU-12/24 laser-guided bombs, AASM and GBU-49 GPS-guided bombs (used in Afghanistan, Libya and Mali).
•Deep strike using Scalp-Storm Shadow cruise missiles (used in Libya).
•Maritime strike using the Exocet AM39 Block 2 missile and other air-to-surface weapons.
•Real-time tactical and strategic reconnaissance using the Areos pod (used in Afghanistan, Libya and Mali).
•Buddy-buddy in-flight refueling
•Nuclear deterrence using the ASMP-A missile.
The RAFALE entered service with the French Navy in 2004 and with the French Air Force in 2006, gradually replacing the seven types of previous-generation combat aircraft. Of the 180 aircraft ordered by France to date, 126 have been delivered. The RAFALE fleet currently totals almost 120,000 flight hours, including 16,000 in operations. Since mid-2013, production RAFALE aircraft are equipped with an active array RBE2 AESA radar from Thales.
http://www.4-traders.com/DASSAULT-AVIATION-5215/news/DASSAULT-AVIATION--RAFALE-F3-R-standard-launched-17780852/
RAFALE "F3 R" standard, wordt dat nu de "standaard" voor India ?
Ik kan me voorstellen dat Dassault dit niet alleen voor Frans gebruik ontwikkeld en test
Frankrijk pompt miljard in gevechtsvliegtuig
Frankrijk gaat nog eens 1 miljard euro investeren in het Rafale-gevechtsvliegtuig. Dat maakte het Franse ministerie van Defensie vrijdag bekend.
Het ministerie liet weten ervoor te willen zorgen dat de Rafale ,,zijn toppositie in de wereld" kan behouden. Het toestel is een concurrent van onder meer de Amerikaanse JSF en de Eurofighter.
De Rafale wordt voornamelijk gebouwd door Dassault, maar ook het eveneens Franse Safran en het internationale Thales leveren belangrijke onderdelen.
Bron: RD.nl
PAK FA stealth features patent published
Piotr Butowski, Poland - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
09 January 2014
Details of the Sukhoi Design Bureau's work on the stealthy aspects of the T-50 PAK FA fighter aircraft emerged in late December 2013, when the company's patents were published.
According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10-15 m 2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1-1 m 2 ".
In common with other low observable aircraft designs, this reduction is achieved throught the use of radar-absorbing and radar-shielding materials and coatings, panel shaping (especially around the air intakes) and in the design of the junctions between moving elements, such as flaps and hatches.
In particular, the patent spells out the benefits of internal weapons carriage, s-shaped engine air ducts, (which were considered but are actually not implemented in the production PAK FA), and the use of radar blockers. It adds that the inlet guide vanes of the engines' compressors generate "a significant portion [up to 60%] of the radar cross-section of the airframe-powerplant system in the forward hemisphere" and that this is reduced by using radar-blocking devices and radar-absorbing coatings in the walls of the air ducts.
The shape of the airframe reduces the number of directions that radar signals are reflected in with the angles of sweep of the wings and the tail plane's leading and trailing edges, the edges of the air intakes and hatch covers being reduced and deflected from the aircraft's axis. Viewing the aircraft from the flank, the fuselage sides, lateral edges of the air intakes and vertical empennage are all deflected at the same angle.
Some openings and slots on the airframe's surface - such as the boundary-layer bleeds on the sides of the air intakes and the openings on the upper fuselage immediately aft of the cockpit - are covered with a thick grid, featuring a mesh of less than one quarter of the wavelength of a search radar, which reduces the reflections from these uneven surfaces. Gaps between the airframe elements are filled with conducting sealants, while the glazing of the cockpit canopy is metallised.
The surfaces of the PAK FA's own five radar arrays are also angled off from the vertical plane, helping to 'deflect' enemy radar signals. The covers of the radar arrays are selective, letting through their own signals, but blocking other frequencies. Additionally, the array compartments are edged with radar-absorbing 'curtains' to reduce possible leaks of these amplified signals.
Antennas are recessed from the surface of the skin to reduce protuberances (the vertical empennage serves as a communications antenna), while the turret of the aircraft's nose-mounted infrared search-and-track (IRST) sight is rotated backwards into a cruise position, exposing its rear hemisphere, which is covered with a radar-absorbing coating.
The release of this list of patents follows the July 2013 release of documentation covering the configuration of the fighter's integrated avionics suite.
There are currently five T-50 prototypes - the latest, T-50-5, first flew on 27 October 2013 - supporting the development programme and they are believed to have undertaken over 300 sorties to date.
In the 'Schedule of Activity for the Russian Ministry of Defence for 2013 to 2020' published in mid-2013, the PAK FA's Initial Operational Capability and the launch of full-scale series production is scheduled for 31 December 2016. The Russian National Armament Programme stipulates that 60 production PAK FA fighters will be delivered between 2016 and 2020.
The assembly of aircraft T-50-6-1 is nearing completion and three further aircraft (T-50-6-2, T-50-7 and T-50-8) are in build. One of the T-50-6 aircraft is intended for static trials and the other one is intended for flight testing.
The PAK FA's designers have paid close attention to stealthy features, which include the use of radar-absorbent coatings on the reverse of the nose-mounted IRST, the widespread use of baffles and the use of absorbent coatings in the air intakes and at the junctions between moving surfaces. (Sukhoi)
http://www.janes.com/article/32190/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published
Daarmee zou het niet eens heel veel verschillen van de geclaimde getallen over de Eurofighter of Rafale. Voor zover dergelijke getallen uberhaupt vergelijkbaar zijn.
Norway says F-35 jet on track; keeping eye on costs
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON Thu Jan 9, 2014
(Reuters) - Norway's defense minister on Thursday said the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter program is on the right track after a major restructuring in 2010, with the cost of the new stealth warplane coming down and most technical issues solved.
But Ine Eriksen Søreide, who became defense minister in October, told Reuters that Norway was keeping a close eye on the program's costs, software development, prospects for industrial participation by Norwegian industry, and how the planes will be serviced once they are delivered to Europe.
"We have concluded that these planes are the best ones for us. There is nothing in the development over the past couple of years that has shaken that decision," she said. "At the same time, it's a huge investment and it's definitely also something that will have consequences for the rest of our armed forces."
Norway is one of eight countries that helped the United States develop the new radar-evading warplane. Norway has ordered 16 of the 52 jets it plans to buy in coming years, with the first jets to be delivered in 2017, a year earlier than planned, Soreide told Reuters during a visit to Washington.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the Pentagon's costliest arms program. The U.S. military plans to spend $392 billion to develop the plane and buy 2,443 jets for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy over coming decades, although many analysts expect that number to decline amid budget cuts.
Soreide said she hoped that the United States and the other countries developing the F-35 would decide to adopt Norway's Joint Strike Missile for use on later versions of the plane.
She said a decision should be made over the next year to 18 months about integration of the missile, which the Norwegian government and its lawmakers hope will give Norwegian firms a bigger stake in the overall F-35 program.
Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, the F-35 program chief, told Soreide during a meeting on Thursday that Norway was making good progress on developing and testing the missile, and it could be among the first partner-developed weapons to be integrated into the plane, spokesman Joe DellaVedova said.
He said a decision on whether to adopt the Norwegian missile for the jet would be made by the United States, Norway and the other partners on the program: Britain, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Denmark, Canada and the Netherlands.
Soreide said most of the technical issues facing the F-35 had been or were being solved, but additional problems could arise in software and other areas as the new warplane wraps up development and testing.
She said the program also needed to work out plans for maintaining and repairing the planes on a regional basis once they were delivered. Britain and Norway have signed an agreement to work on servicing the planes together, but are still working out the details, she said.
"We can't depend on going to the United States each time to sustain the planes," she said. "If this is not in place, many partners will have trouble phasing in the new planes."
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-; Editing by Leslie AdlerEsa)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-lockheed-fighter-norway-idUSBREA0903B20140110
January 9, 2014
The top ten dog-fighters of 2014 (WVR fighter assessment)
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/the-top-ten-dog-fighters-of-2013-wvr-fighter-assessment/
Vreemd dat de (Super) Hornet nog zo hoog aangeschreven staat.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 11/01/2014 | 18:37 uur
Vreemd dat de (Super) Hornet nog zo hoog aangeschreven staat.
Mee eens, het is een F/A en niet een bijzonder goede (WVR) Fighter, zeker, vanuit mijn optiek, niet beter dan de Eurofighter of Rafale om maar iets te noemen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 11/01/2014 | 18:54 uur
Mee eens, de F-18 Hornet is een Fighter /Attacker en niet een bijzonder goede (Within Visual Range) Fighter, zeker, vanuit mijn optiek, niet beter dan de Eurofighter of Rafale om maar iets te noemen.
Er zijn nogal wat F-16 die hetzelfde dachten over de F-18 Hornet, voordat ze ooit een dogfight met dit type hadden gedaan.
De F-15 en F-16 van de US Air Force en Typhoon en Rafale hebben een hoge wendbaarheid. Die gebaseerd is op de (kinetische & potentiele) energie manoeuvre theorieen van o.a. John Boyd. Dus ontwerp je een jachtvliegtuig met een lage vleugelbelasting en een zo hoog mogelijke verhouding tussen motorvermogen en gewicht en een zo laag mogelijke totale luchtweerstand. Dit zorgt er voor dat je jachtvliegtuig met een zo hoog mogelijk aantal graden per seconde een bocht kan maken.
De totale luchtweerstand van de F-18C Hornet is maar liefst 1,5 x zoveel als de grotere F-15 Eagle! Dus die Air Force vliegers denken dat ze aan de F-18 Hornet een makkelijke prooi hebben.
De F-18 Hornet moet vanwege gebruik op vliegdekschepen echter ook zeer goed bestuurbaar zijn bij lage snelheden. De US Navy trok daarnaast een andere conclusie uit analyses van (WVR) dogfights. Het gaat volgens de USN niet om maximale energie. Maar om een lage minimum snelheid en een goede handelbaarheid bij hoge invalshoeken (Angle of Attack). Dit zorgt niet voor snel gemaakte bochten. Maar maakt dat je jachtvliegtuig snel zijn neus en dus zijn wapens snel op zijn tegenstander kan afvuren. Een ander jachtvliegtuig zit conceptueel hetzelfde in elkaar als de F-18 Hornet: de iconische MiG-21. En beide types kunnen op lage snelheid en op lage hoogte andere vierde en 4.5de generatie jachtvliegtuigen zeer goed aan.
Citaat van: Poleme op 12/01/2014 | 19:54 uur
De F-18 Hornet moet vanwege gebruik op vliegdekschepen echter ook zeer goed bestuurbaar zijn bij lage snelheden. De US Navy trok daarnaast een andere conclusie uit analyses van (WVR) dogfights. Het gaat volgens de USN niet om maximale energie. Maar om een lage minimum snelheid en een goede handelbaarheid bij hoge invalshoeken (Angle of Attack). Dit zorgt niet voor snel gemaakte bochten. Maar maakt dat je jachtvliegtuig snel zijn neus en dus zijn wapens snel op zijn tegenstander kan afvuren. Een ander jachtvliegtuig zit conceptueel hetzelfde in elkaar als de F-18 Hornet: de iconische MiG-21. En beide types kunnen op lage snelheid en op lage hoogte andere vierde en 4.5de generatie jachtvliegtuigen zeer goed aan.
Weer wat geleerd, Thx!
Klinkt alsof dit ook geldt dat ook voor de F35A.... ?
Singapore to buy upgrade for its F-16 fighter jets
Washington — Singapore is ready to invest $2.43 billion to modernize its F-16 fighter jets in an arms deal with the United States, the Pentagon said on Tuesday.
The Defense Department informed Congress of the planned sale that would involve new radar, navigation systems, missiles and other advanced equipment for Singapore's aging fleet of F-16s.
The deal would provide new systems that project a display onto a pilot's helmet visor, allowing the F-16 pilot to aim sensors and weapons where he or she is looking.
The deal also would deliver a number of different precision-guided bombs for testing, according to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees foreign arms sales.
"The proposed upgrade will improve both the capabilities and the reliability of the Republic of Singapore Air Force?s (RSAF) aging fleet of F-16s," the agency said in a statement.
"The proposed sale will improve the security of a strategic partner which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Asia Pacific region," it said.
The modernization of Singapore's F-16 aircraft will buy the country more time as it weighs a possible purchase of the costly F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will eventually replace all of America's fighter jets.
During a visit to Washington in December, Singapore's defense minister, Eng Hen, confirmed his government was in no rush to make a final decision on the F-35 aircraft.
"We're in no particular hurry, because our F-16s are still very operational, and they're due for upgrades," he said on December 12.
"But it is a serious consideration."
The United States, concerned about China's growing military might, has touted a strategic "rebalance" to the Asia-Pacific and has made a point of promoting arms sales to the region as well as rotational deployments of ships and aircraft to Singapore and elsewhere.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVX46t-FVDPRfgLnlB_WpmKZgzWA?docId=5352114a-3572-4f04-adb7-06ca513213e0
Extra info omtrent de upgrade van/voor : Singapore - F-16 Block 52 toestellen :
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress January 13 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Singapore for an upgrade of F-16 block 52 aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.43 billion.
The Government of Singapore has requested an upgrade of 60 F-16C/D/D+ aircraft. The upgrades will address reliability, supportability, and combat effectiveness concerns associated with its aging F-16 fleet. The items being procured in this proposed sale include:
70 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars (AESA)
70 LN-260 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (GPS/INS)
70 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)
70 APX-125 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Combined Interrogator Transponders
3 AIM-9X Block II Captive Air Training Missiles
3 TGM-65G Maverick Missiles for testing and integration
4 GBU-50 Guided Bomb Units (GBU) for testing and integration
5 GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions for testing and integration
3 CBU-105 (D-4)/B Sensor Fused Weapons for testing and integration
1 AIS Interface Test Adapters for software updates
1 Classified Computer Program Identification Numbers (CPINs)
4 GBU-49 Enhanced Paveways for testing and integration
2 DSU-38 Laser Seekers for testing and integration
6 GBU-12 Paveway II, Guidance Control Units
Also included are Modular Mission Computers, a software maintenance facility, cockpit multifunction displays, radios, secure communications, video recorders; a Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); maintenance, repair and return, aircraft and ground support equipment, spare and repair parts, tool and test equipment; engine support equipment, publications and technical documentation; aerial refueling support, aircraft ferry services, flight test; personnel training and training equipment, site surveys, construction, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.43 billion.
The proposed upgrade will improve both the capabilities and the reliability of the Republic of Singapore Air Force's (RSAF) aging fleet of F-16s. The improved capability, survivability, and reliability of newly upgraded F-16s will enhance the RSAFs ability to defend its borders and contribute to coalition operations with other allied forces
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4829.html
T-50 Fighter To Feature Higher Stealth Capabilities
Source : Our Bureau ~ Dated : Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Sukhoi Aircraft has introduced the new design solutions to increase the stealth capabilities of T-50 by managing to greatly reduce the effective surface scattering of the fighter, which is the basic element for visibility on aircraft radars.
An average value of this indicator for the T-50 fighter is between 0.1 and 1 square meter.
In order to achieve this level of stealth, designers moved all weapons to the inside of the plane and also changed the shape of the air intake channel, also lining its walls with a material that absorbs radio waves.
The company claims that this new design has increased the capabilities of T-50, comparing the visibility of the American fifth-generation F-22 fighter which is 0.3-0.4 square meters, according to PAK FA chief designer Alexander Davidenko.
Rostec enterprises produced the main parts of the T-50. The company Radioelectronic Technologies created the avionics and other radio-electronic needs for the fifth-generation aircraft.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/9835/T_50_Fighter_To_Feature_Higher_Stealth_Capabilities#.UtfWtrCA1jp
Eurofighter in lead to sell 28 planes to Kuwait: Report
By AFP | 16 Jan, 2014, 03.42PM IST
PARIS: The European Eurofighter consortium has signed a draft agreement to sell 28 of its fighter planes to Kuwait, online French newspaper La Tribune reported on Thursday.
Of the 28 outline sales, which are not yet binding, four are covered by options to purchase, the report said.
The report, citing various sources, said that Alenia Aermacchi, a subsidiary of Italian group Finmeccanica which is a member of the consortium, had obtained Kuwait's signature on the agreement a f ..
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/28889579.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Citaat van: Harald op 16/01/2014 | 11:29 uur
Extra info omtrent de upgrade van/voor : Singapore - F-16 Block 52 toestellen :
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress January 13 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Singapore for an upgrade of F-16 block 52 aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.43 billion.
The Government of Singapore has requested an upgrade of 60 F-16C/D/D+ aircraft. The upgrades will address reliability, supportability, and combat effectiveness concerns associated with its aging F-16 fleet. The items being procured in this proposed sale include:
70 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars (AESA)
70 LN-260 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (GPS/INS)
70 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)
70 APX-125 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Combined Interrogator Transponders
3 AIM-9X Block II Captive Air Training Missiles
3 TGM-65G Maverick Missiles for testing and integration
4 GBU-50 Guided Bomb Units (GBU) for testing and integration
5 GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions for testing and integration
3 CBU-105 (D-4)/B Sensor Fused Weapons for testing and integration
1 AIS Interface Test Adapters for software updates
1 Classified Computer Program Identification Numbers (CPINs)
4 GBU-49 Enhanced Paveways for testing and integration
2 DSU-38 Laser Seekers for testing and integration
6 GBU-12 Paveway II, Guidance Control Units
Also included are Modular Mission Computers, a software maintenance facility, cockpit multifunction displays, radios, secure communications, video recorders; a Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); maintenance, repair and return, aircraft and ground support equipment, spare and repair parts, tool and test equipment; engine support equipment, publications and technical documentation; aerial refueling support, aircraft ferry services, flight test; personnel training and training equipment, site surveys, construction, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.43 billion.
The proposed upgrade will improve both the capabilities and the reliability of the Republic of Singapore Air Force's (RSAF) aging fleet of F-16s. The improved capability, survivability, and reliability of newly upgraded F-16s will enhance the RSAFs ability to defend its borders and contribute to coalition operations with other allied forces
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4829.html
Grappig om te zien dat zij voor een upgrade van 60 fighters 70 stuks radar en IFF aanschaffen.
Hier in NL zouden we er 50 aanschaffen en dan herverdelen als een eenheid er een paar meer nodig heeft.
Hoe vaak het bij de Baas al niet is stukgelopen of bijna stukgelopen als het om herverdeling ging.....
Citaat van: tentara71 op 16/01/2014 | 14:57 uur
Grappig om te zien dat zij voor een upgrade van 60 fighters 70 stuks radar en IFF aanschaffen.
Hier in NL zouden we er 50 aanschaffen en dan herverdelen als een eenheid er een paar meer nodig heeft.
Hoe vaak het bij de Baas al niet is stukgelopen of bijna stukgelopen als het om herverdeling ging.....
Voor de HN-90 is dit ook reeds gebeurd: .....
As not all twenty NH90-NFHs will be operationally used at the same time, the choice was made to start an equipment pool and buy thirteen ISAR sea scan radars (twelve complete and one spare)Dit even als sidestep.
Switzerland Sets May 18 Vote on $3.4 Billion Gripen Jet Purchase
By Robert Wall and Catherine Bosley January 17, 2014
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-17/switzerland-sets-may-18-vote-on-3-dot-4-billion-gripen-jet-purchase
Russia can't deliver on Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft: IAF
The Indian Air Force alleges Russians reluctant to share critical design information, besides technical and cost issues
Ajai Shukla | Mumbai January 21, 2014
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has done a stunning about-turn, sharply criticising the showpiece Indo-Russian project to co-develop a futuristic Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). Even as New Delhi and Moscow finalise a $6 billion deal to co-develop an FGFA with capabilities tailor-made for India, the IAF has alleged the Russians would be unable to meet their promises about its performance.
So vital is the FGFA considered for the IAF's future that Defence Minister A K Antony has publicly rejected any prospect of buying the American fifth generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, declaring the FGFA would suffice. In 2007, New Delhi and Moscow highlighted the fighter's criticality by signing an Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) placing the project above MoD procurement rules. Moreover, Indian scientists say the expertise gained from the FGFA will provide crucial momentum for developing an all-Indian fifth generation fighter, designated the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
Yet, with so much riding on the FGFA, the IAF has taken aback the MoD with its complaint that it would not be good enough. On December 24, in a meeting in New Delhi chaired by Gokul Chandra Pati, the secretary of defence production, top IAF officials argued the FGFA has "shortfalls... in terms of performance and other technical features."
Business Standard has reviewed the minutes of that meeting. The IAF's three top objections to the FGFA were: (a) The Russians are reluctant to share critical design information with India; (b) The fighter's current AL-41F1 engines are inadequate, being mere upgrades of the Sukhoi-30MKI's AL-31 engines; and (c) It is too expensive. With India paying $6 billion to co-develop the FGFA, "a large percentage of IAF's capital budget will be locked up."
On January 15, the IAF renewed the attack in New Delhi, at a MoD meeting to review progress on the FGFA. The IAF's deputy chief of air staff (DCAS), its top procurement official, declared the FGFA's engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered, India's work share too low, and that the fighter's price would be exorbitant by the time it enters service.
Top MoD sources suspect the IAF is undermining the FGFA to free up finances for buying 126 Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for an estimated $18 billion, an acquisition that has run into financial headwinds because of budgetary constraints. In October 2012, then IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, announced the IAF would buy only 144 FGFAs instead of the 214 that were originally planned. Having cut the numbers, the IAF is now questioning the very benefit of co-developing the FGFA with Russia.
Fifth-generation fighters are qualitatively superior to current "Generation 4.5" fighters like the Sukhoi-30MKI. They are designed for stealth, which makes these near-invisible to radar; they "supercruise", that is, fly at supersonic speed without lighting engine afterburners (which some current fighters like the Rafale also do); and they have futuristic avionics and missiles.
The MoD and HAL have countered the IAF's objections to the FGFA. Russian officials have clarified that the current prototype's engine, the AL-41F1, is a temporary solution to let the flight-test programme continue. A new engine being developed in Russia will eventually power both the FGFA and PAK-FA.
Officials also say the FGFA programme involves co-developing radar far superior to the one on current prototypes. The Russian Air Force wants conventional radar for its version of the FGFA, which looks only towards the front. The IAF wants two additional radars that look side-wards, allowing the pilot vision all around. Now the Russians are evaluating a similar requirement.
Asked for comments, the IAF has not responded. The MoD and HAL, who were requested for comments via email, have also remained silent.
While the MoD, HAL and the IAF continue discussions, Russia has gone ahead with developing a fifth-generation fighter. The Sukhoi Design Bureau has designed and done 300 test-flights of the T-50, the stealth fighter Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) plan to refine into the FGFA in about eight years. The Russian Air Force, which has less ambitious specifications than the IAF, plans to induct into service its own version of the T-50, the PAK-FA (Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii, or 'Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation') by 2017-18.
After the IGA of October 2007, a General Contract was signed in December 2008 between HAL and Rosoboronexport, Russia's defence exports agency. This laid out general principles of cooperation, such as work share, cost sharing and sale of the FGFA to third countries. In December 2010, a Preliminary Design Contract was signed, which led to the FGFA's basic configuration and selection of its systems and equipment. With that completed in June 2013, the crucial R&D contract is now being negotiated. This will encompass the actual design and development of the FGFA.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/russia-can-t-deliver-on-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-iaf-114012100059_1.html
Is Precision the Future of CAS ?
WASHINGTON — With budgets slashed due to sequestration, the US Air Force is eyeing vertical cuts — the removal from service of single-mission aircraft to save money that can be invested toward readiness and modernization.
One target is the A-10, a decades-old plane designed for close-air support (CAS) missions. But supporters of the plane have rallied against the service, and Congress inserted language into last month's National Defense Authorization Act prohibiting the Air Force from cutting the platform.
While the fate of the A-10 is unclear, the battle has created discussion about the future of CAS and how best to perform the mission. Proponents of using other platforms for CAS point to precision weaponry.
..................
But the service will likely never move away from the gun entirely.
"I've switched up attack runs that were supposed to be bombs to use the gun because it was too close to our troops or civilian structures," the F-15E pilot said. "I don't think you can build a bomb small enough to match the gun."
One veteran A-10 pilot argued that the time between launch and impact of precision weapons can be taken advantage of by enemies on the ground.
"I've watched guys drop GBUs from medium altitude on a group of bad guys, only to have the group split up or move, and the GBU, with a long time of fall, miss the target completely," the pilot said. "Smart enemies move."
That lag time diminishes the closer the plane is to the ground, but just how low an F-15, B-1 or, in the future, F-35, would go during a firefight could limit use of the weaponry. He also points out that high-tech weaponry is reliant on data links that could fail at a critical time for American forces on the ground.
"New technology doesn't change the tactics," the A-10 pilot said.
het gehele artikel :
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140121/DEFREG02/301210018/Is-Precision-Future-CAS-?odyssey=mod_sectionstories
Swiss Fury Over Saab 'Meddling' In Gripen Vote
Swedish defence contractor Saab has been slammed over claims of attempting to influence a referendum in Switzerland that could determine whether or not the Swiss air force purchases 22 new JAS Gripen fighter jets.
Swiss Social Democratic MP Evi Allemann claims that Saab has been quietly financing campaigners in favour of the deal, worth an estimated 3.1 billion Swiss francs ($3.47 billion).
While Saab's support of the pro-Gripen campaign may not be technically illegal, Allemann sees the Swedish firm's behaviour as bordering on scandalous.
"We don't have any clear rules for referendum campaigns, as a result, foreign companies feel they can shamelessly get involved in national decisions," she told the TT news agency.
Saab has neither confirmed nor denied the accusations, citing Swiss rules which "also include refraining from comment on campaign financing".
But the accusations of Saab's involvement has also caused concern among those who support the deal, with the leader of the liberal FDP party, Philpp Müller, calling such actions "counterproductive".
"It makes it harder for us centre-right politicians to convince people of the importance of the Gripen purchase," Müller told Swiss newspaper Blick.
The developments come following a decision taken last week that a referendum on the deal would be held on May 18th. Opponents submitted over 100,000 signatures seeking a referendum, with campaigners hoping to block the Gripen deal.
Under Switzerland's system of direct democracy, citizens can have the last word on a huge array of issues if campaigners muster enough signatures from voters in order to force a plebiscite. Polls have shown that a majority of voters oppose the Gripen deal.
Approved by the government in 2011 and backed by parliament last year, it cannot be blocked as such.
But opponents have been able to contest the law that allows the purchase to be funded by drawing an annual 300 million Swiss francs from the army's budget over 10 years.
The coalition campaigning against the deal is steered by the left-leaning Socialists and Greens, as well as anti-militarists, but also includes economic liberals opposed to the price tag.
The opponents also argue that the model of Gripen chosen by the authorities only exists on paper, as its maker, Sweden's Saab, is still developing it.
Last month, Saab's Gripen beat the Rafale, made by France's Dassault, and the F/A 18 Super Hornet built by US company McDonnell Douglas (Boeing, not McDD—Ed.) in the race to sell 36 planes to Brazil. The estimated value of the Brazil deal is $5 billion.
The air force of neutral Switzerland currently has 32 Super Hornets in service, purchased in 1996.
There are currently 166 Gripen fighters in service globally, with 100 in Sweden, 26 in South Africa, 14 each in the Czech Republic and Hungary, and 12 in Thailand, according to Saab.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/151031/saab-faulted-for-meddling-in-swiss-gripen-vote.html
The Department of Defense Should Avoid a Joint Acquisition Approach to Sixth-Generation Fighter
Never again: In case its previous report was not clear enough, the Rand Corp has issued a follow-up in which it tells the Pentagon to avoid a joint acquisition approach to a future 6th-Gen fighter.
Incorporating different service requirements in a single joint aircraft design can lead to greater program complexity, increased technical risk, and weight in excess of what an individual service needs, and these factors can increase program costs.
History suggests that when the Department of Defense (DoD) considers sixth-generation fighter aircraft capabilities, some will argue that a single joint acquisition program would cost less than multiple service-specific programs. Joint aircraft programs, in which two or more services participate in the development, procurement, and sustainment of a single baseline design, are thought to save life-cycle costs by eliminating duplicate research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) efforts and by achieving economies of scale in procurement and operations and support (O&S).
Yet, the need to accommodate different service requirements in a single design or common design family can lead to greater program complexity, increased technical risk, and common functionality and weight in excess of what is needed by an individual service. These factors can increase the overall cost, despite the efficiencies gained from a joint approach.
RAND Project Air Force (PAF) research shows that historical joint aircraft programs have not saved money, have caused services to accept unwelcome design compromises, have contributed to the shrinking of the industrial base, and have increased strategic and operational risk. Consequently, unless the participating services have identical, stable requirements, DoD should avoid taking a joint approach to acquiring future fighter and other complex aircraft.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151030/rand-cautions%3A-no-joint-acquisition-for-next-fighter.html
Full RAND report 5 bladzijden (interessant stuk) :
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9700/RR9759/RAND_RB9759.pdf
New Budget Could Help Keep Boeing Super Hornet In St. Louis
January 22, 2014
ST. LOUIS, Mo. (KMOX) - Congress is making a move that may help keep the Boeing Super Hornet assembly line funded and open here in St. Louis.
The Super Hornet employes approximately 4,000 people in St. Louis, but it only has orders to keep the line open through 2016.
Now, the latest budget signed into law late last week contains a down payment of $75 million for 22 of the Super Hornets the Navy hasn't ordered.
The idea is to give the Navy the option this year of spending as much as $2 billlion for the extra planes, as back up in case an order of Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighters is delayed.
Missouri Senators McCaskill and Blunt are both pushing the Navy to pull the trigger on the extra Super Hornets. Blunt has warned of fighter jet shortfalls on aircraft carriers.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/01/22/new-budget-could-help-keep-boeing-super-hornet-in-st-louis/
Citaat van: stlouis.cbslocal.com Vandaag om 08:23
New Budget Could Help Keep Boeing Super Hornet In St. Louis
Goed verkocht door the boys van Boeing!
Nu maar afwachten of de Navy (dit jaar) daadwerkelijk over gaat tot een additionele bestelling (ten koste van de F35C) en of er nog internationale bestellingen in het vat zitten.
Zo niet.... huize avond rood is nabij.
Promising the Sky: Pork Barrel Politics and the F-35 Combat Aircraft (en dit gebeurt ook in NL)
Lockheed Martin claims that the development and construction of the F-35 combat aircraft sustains 125,000 jobs in 46 states. The company describes the F-35 as "the single largest job creator in the Department of Defense program." Lockheed Martin's numbers have been routinely reported in the media, and have become a mainstay of the debate over the fate of the F-35 program.
There's just one problem with Lockheed Martin's assertions about F-35 job creation. They are greatly exaggerated, as documented in this report.
According to William D. Hartung, the report's author, Lockheed Martin's claim of 125,000 F-35-related jobs is roughly double the likely number of jobs sustained by the program. The real figure, based on standard estimating procedures used in other studies in the field, should be on the order of 50,000 to 60,000 jobs.
Similarly, the company's claim that there is significant work being done on the F-35 in 46 states does not hold up to scrutiny. Even by Lockheed Martin's own estimates just two states – Texas and California – account for over half of the jobs generated by the F-35. The top five states, which include Florida, Connecticut and New Hampshire – account for 70% of the jobs.
Given the uncertainties surrounding the F-35 program, which has been identified as a possible budget-cutting target by a wide range of non-governmental and governmental bodies, it makes sense for communities that are looking to the F-35 as an important part of their economic futures to develop fallback plans that can be implemented in the event of the cancellation or scaling back of the F-35 program.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/151053/lockheed-overstates-f_35-jobs%3A-report.html
Click here for the full report (40 PDF pages) on the CPI website.
http://www.ciponline.org/research/entry/promising-the-sky-pork-barrel-politics-and-the-f-35-combat-aircraft
Opinion: No Time For Inaccuracy On JSF Costs
When a Rand Corp. report concluded in December that the Joint Strike Fighter program would cost more than the total of three separate ones, Lockheed Martin responded sharply, accusing the authors of overstating the figures by a factor of two. But the company could not provide a source for its own numbers (AW&ST Jan. 6, p. 18).
This was not the first time that Lockheed Martin recently tried to discredit Rand. Backup slides for a summer-2008 Rand briefing cast doubt on the JSF's ability to survive against faster and more heavily armed adversaries. Program leaders responded by touting the F-35's superiority over all comers. The business development vice president, Steve O'Bryan, has characterized the 2008 brief's authors—both fighter aviators—as people "with no airplane experience." A Lockheed Martin spokesman dismissed questions about O'Bryan's disparaging comments as "silliness."
The numbers used to attack the latest Rand report are not the only questionable comparisons coming out of Fort Worth. JSF general manager Lorraine Martin said on Dec. 17 that the F-35A would cost $75 million in full production, or "less than any fourth-generation fighter in the world." Later, the company clarified that number as a unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) for a fighter ordered in 2018 and delivered in 2020, expressed in 2012 dollars.
The cost projection is not new—it's what Pentagon accountants have predicted since 2011. Even so, a projected (if everything goes right until 2018) $75 million is not lower than the historic (that's what the Pentagon actually spent) $54 million URFC of the F/A/-18E/F Super Hornet, as quoted by Boeing.
One reporter who spotted this difference was assured by "congressional aides" that the Super Hornet needed a targeting pod and other equipment, standard on the F-35, that would cost an additional $17 million. Pods cost about $2 million, and the anonymous aides are not available to explain the missing $15 million.
Last time Lockheed Martin had to quote a real price, in South Korea, the F-35 bid was undercut by the F-15 Eagle and the nobody's-idea-of-cheap Typhoon (AW&ST Aug. 26, p. 18). Yes, the Korea deliveries would arrive earlier than 2020, but those in 2017-19 would come off a line running at 60-120 aircraft a year.
Still, the company and its representatives argue, the F-35A price has come down by half since production started. It's technically correct, but the starting point is two mega-expensive aircraft in Lot 1. The curve is much flatter from Lot 2 onward, so much flatter that four years ago, the Lexington Institute's Loren Thompson (a consultant for Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors) could make exactly the same point ("The cost of each aircraft fell 50% between the first and fourth production lots"). Air Force budget documents say that the Fiscal 2013 flyaway price for the F-35A (at a total JSF rate of 35 aircraft) is just 15% less than the six aircraft in Lot 2.
Historically, the JSF program has had a problem with accepting bad news. Six years ago, the Government Accountability Office warned that the program was likely to overrun its budget and schedule, which at the time called for full initial operational capability in 2012-14. Lockheed Martin countered that "the F-35 program is on schedule" and the Pentagon program manager, USAF Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, asserted: "We do not agree with that estimate, there is no basis for that estimate, and we do not support it." Three years of drift went by before it was officially accepted that the GAO's fears had been conservative.
Program leadership under U.S. Navy Vice Adm. David Venlet and USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan has set a much better example of candor. Bogdan may need to have words with his contractor: Credibility and accuracy are more important than ever, because critical, irreversible decisions are close at hand. Pentagon leaders seem determined to stick with the planned JSF production ramp-up, which triples U.S. buys in four years. But high costs and stagnant budgets mean more and more programs will have to be sacrificed to pay the bill. F-15 and F-16 upgrades are at risk, along with the option to sustain the F/A-18 line.
But what if even these cuts are not enough, or if international partner sales slide under cost pressure, and the rate and price projections cannot be met? Lockheed Martin can excuse itself by saying the Pentagon undermined its cost-reduction goals by shorting their budget, but programs that have been sacrificed will be beyond recovery, partners will be cutting back their fighter fleets to barely realistic levels—as the Netherlands has done—and the USAF fleet will be on the depressing trend line identified by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Affairs' Todd Harrison: "smaller, older and more expensive."
This is a time for realism, not marketing.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_20_2014_p16-654936.xml&p=1
French Fighter-Jet Maker Pushes Ottawa for Decision On Fleet (Franse druk in Canada)
(Source: The Globe and Mail; published Jan. 22 2014)
OTTAWA --- A French fighter-jet manufacturer is urging Ottawa to quickly launch a competition to find a replacement for its fleet of CF-18s, stating billions of dollars of work in Canada are at stake.
Yves Robins, a vice-president at Dassault Aviation, said the Canadian government's evaluation of the options to replace the CF-18s is nearing completion, meaning Ottawa could decide this year whether to launch a full and open competition. The alternative for the government would be to continue with its previous choice – stalled by a 2012 report by the Auditor-General – to buy a fleet of F-35 fighter jets directly from Lockheed-Martin.
"The only reason for procrastinating for the opening of a competition might be an internal policy reason," Mr. Robins said in an interview, pointing to potential political considerations. "I think that nowadays, the Canadian government has enough information to make its judgment within four to six months."
In addition to the F-35, the Canadian government is looking at the cost and capabilities of three other fighter jets: Dassault's Rafale, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon. Government officials said they will look closely at the economic spinoffs when they decide how to proceed, while keeping in mind that Canada's current fleet of CF-18s is set to be phased out between 2017 and 2023. (end of excerpt)
French Aircraft Manufacturers Say Rafale Fighter Can Provide Canada with Lower Long-Term Support Costs
(Source: the Canadian Press; published January 22, 201
OTTAWA – French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation is offering the deficit-conscious Harper government lower long-term support costs if its Rafale fighter is chosen as the new air force jet.
The offer, which is being studied by government officials, includes the unrestricted transfer of technology, such as software source codes for servicing the planes, said Yves Robins, Dassault's senior vice-president of NATO affairs.
That could shave hundreds of millions of dollars off the life-time price tag to operate and upgrade the fighter, which is already in service with the French air force and was recently selected by India. .../...
Robins says the Royal Canadian Air Force's current fleet is due to retire around 2020.
"A decision sooner than later is always better," he said in an interview.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151051/dassault-presses-canada-on-fighter-bid.html
Citaat van: www.defense-aerospace.com Vandaag om 03:48
French Fighter-Jet Maker Pushes Ottawa for Decision On Fleet (Franse druk in Canada)
Met 1 tegen 100 kans dat de Canadezen gaan voor de Rafale, het zou met bijzonder positief verrassen.
Mijn verwachting:
Canada staat in de komende weken/maanden voor de keuze of doorgaan met de F35A of een nieuwe competitie. Bij een nieuwe competitie zijn de enige echte (politieke en strategische) kanshebbers de F35A en de F18E/F.
Bij een nieuwe competitie, eigenkijk politiek gezien de meest voor de hand liggende optie, zal dit veel tijd consumeren zeker meer dan één jaar waarmee de kansen voor de F18E aanzienlijk afnemen, tot vorige week was de kans dan nihil, maar het US congres heeft deze week 75 mjn USD aan Boeing gedoneerd als aanbetaling op een serie van
eventueel 22 extra Super Bugs voor de USN.
Dit geeft Boeing een jaar extra tijd, met een gereduceerde productie, om de lijn open te houden maar ook dit heeft zijn grenzen (tenzij er nieuwe export orders genoteerd worden.... maar bij wie?)
Zal de USN de extra 22 F18E's kopen ten nadelen van de F35C?
Als de Canadezen uiteindelijk kiezen voor een competitie, dan zullen ze dit moeten doen in een on-Canadees tempo, zo niet dan is de F35A automatisch de winnaar.
De vraag is dan, blijven het er 65 of volgt men het Nederlandse voorbeeld?
Dassult completes first test flights of new 'heavily armed' Rafale
By: Dominic Perry
London, january 23 - 2014
Dassault has completed the first test flights of its Rafale combat type in what it describes as a "heavily armed" configuration, featuring a number of new weapons and larger fuel tanks.
During the preliminary evaluation sorties, the aircraft carried six Sagem AASM Hammer air-to-surface missiles, four medium- and long-range MBDA MICA air-to-air missiles and a pair of Meteor beyond-visual-range munitions on 12 of its 14 its external hard points. Additionally the aircraft was equipped with three 2,000 litre fuel tanks.
The self-funded effort is being conducted in collaboration with the French DGA procurement agency and will "eventually lead to a complete clearance of the flight envelope", says Dassault.
The airframer says the work to enhance the type's capabilities highlights the Rafale's versatility. It argues that a pair of the aircraft "represent the same potential as six Mirage 2000-class aircraft".
Dassault on 10 January was awarded a separate €1 billion ($1.3 billion) contract by DGA to bring the Rafale to a new F3R standard, which will include the full integration of the new laser-guided version of the Hammer munition. It is anticipated to be validated in 2018.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dassult-completes-first-test-flights-of-new-39heavily-armed39-395166/
F-35 awaits capability boost from Block 4 software
By: Jon Hemmerdinger
Washington DC, january, 23 - 2014
Testing will soon begin on the next-generation Block 4 software expected to provide a significant capability boost to Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
On 16 January, the US Navy announced – via a posting on the federal government's procurement website – that the F-35's joint programme office intends to award multiple contracts to Lockheed Martin to develop Block 4 software, with the first contract expected to be awarded in October 2014.
The contracts will include "assessments and evaluations" to ensure Block 4-equipped aircraft meet "future operational requirements", it says.
When completed, Block 4 software will provide the F-35 with improved radar and electronic warfare systems, and allow the aircraft to carry additional weapons used by both the US military and other F-35 customers.
A document posted on the website of the US Embassy in Norway – a customer for the conventional take-off and landing F-35A – provides more details, however.
This states that aircraft with the Block 4 software package will be able to carry joint stand-off cruise missiles – including Kongsberg's Joint Strike Missile – all variants of small-diameter bombs and Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II air-to-air missiles.
Additionally, the iterative development will add an automated ground collision avoidance system, better protection from hacking and improvements to power and thermal management, to avoid issues that have been raised over the JSF's integrated power package since at least 2007. These culminated in a grounding of the F-35 fleet in 2011.
Block 4 upgrades will also give F-35s the ability to carry speed-reducing drag chutes deployed at landing, which will allow the aircraft to land on icy runways – a critical capability for F-35 partners like Norway.
It will also have streaming video from its electro-optical targeting system and an improved ability to identify targets, the document states.
The contracts are likely to call for development of a prototype to test systems, upgrades to hardware, engineering and design work and for the acquisition of technical, administrative and financial data, the navy's notice says.
The F-35 programme office says Lockheed is likely to build prototypes of subsystems and components, but not a dedicated Block 4 test aircraft.
The Block 4 software has only received funding in the 2014 fiscal year. The US Department of Defense will spend $6 million on the project in this fiscal period, including $1.5 million from the USN, $3 million from the US Air Force and $1.5 million from the US Marine Corps, the programme office says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-awaits-capability-boost-from-block-4-software-395125/
Twitter: Dassault Aviation @Dassault_OnAir 23h
Pic of the week: A Rafale in a new heavily-armed configuration with missiles on third wing station © @anthonypecchi pic.twitter.com/tEes8xP40j
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BeqfzrOCUAA4tTO.jpg)
The RAFALE further improves its versatility ( nice ... :big-smile:)
Saint-Cloud, January, 23, 2014 – The RAFALE has successfully completed its first test flights in a new heavily-armed configuration, comprising six air-to-ground precision AASM Hammer missiles, four medium and long range air-to-air missiles from the MICA family, two very long range METEOR missiles, as well as three 2,000 liter fuel tanks.
By increasing the capabilities of its fourteen hard points, including eight under the wings, the RAFALE is the only fighter aircraft in the world capable of carrying 1.5 times its own weight. Its "omnirole" capability responds to the needs of countries requiring, at a controlled cost, an operational and versatile tool capable of fulfilling all missions more effectively, whilst mobilizing fewer resources. Two RAFALE aircraft represent the same potential as six MIRAGE 2000 class aircraft.
This new configuration, unmatched in the versatility and firepower it represents, has been made possible thanks to the open architecture of the aircraft designed from the outset to perform all of the missions previously assigned to seven different types of aircraft in France. As a veritable "force booster", the RAFALE is a tool for rationalizing armies.
This new development, which combines great autonomy with the versatility of the weapons system, demonstrates the power and operational superiority of the RAFALE, which already has a unique range of configurations, including the unique ability to strike deeply, with two Scalp cruise missiles and three 2,000 liter fuel tanks, as used by the French armed forces during Operation Harmattan in Libya in 2011.
Thanks to this new technical performance, Dassault Aviation is again demonstrating, a few days after being awarded the contract for the F3-R standard by the French Minister for Defense, Mr. Jean-Yves Le Drian, that the RAFALE is part of a continuous improvement process to meet users' requirements.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/dassault-aviation/press/press-kits/rafale-improves-versatility
Heat from F-35, MV-22 Continue to Plague Big Deck Amphibs
The Navy is continuing to wrestle with landing deck issues aboard its amphibious ships, tied to flight operations with the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and MV-22 Osprey.
Naval Sea Systems Command have drafted a plan to cope with the problem, using a combination of limited operations and deck modifications to allow the JSF and Osprey to fly off the service's large deck amphibious warships.
Program leaders are working through 14 different ship modifications aboard the USS America (LHA-6), the first ship in the Navy's new class of large-deck amphibs, designed to preserve the warship's landing deck, Capt. Chris Mercer, head of Navy's amphibious warfare shop, said Tuesday.
Along with those modifications, Navy leaders are also limiting the number of flight operations being conducted off of America, as part of deck preservation plan, Mercer said during a briefing at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium in Crystal City, Va.
But Mercer did note the strategy in place for the America will not be necessary for the next two of the LHAs in the class.
USS Tripoli (LHA-7) and the yet-unnamed LHA-8, "will be able to carry out "complete unrestricted operations" with the F-35 and MV-22, Mercer said.
The B variant of the F-35 is a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft that produces much more heat when it lands and takes off than the current AV-8B Harrier fighters currently flown off of big decks. Likewise, the exhaust heat from the nacelles of the Osprey has damaged flight decks in the past.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151082/heat-from-f_35%2C-mv_22-plagues-big-deck-amphibs.html
Ook wel treurig eigenlijk.
Exclusive: Pentagon Report Faults F-35 On Software, Reliability (nieuwe vertragingen, met 13 maanden in software-ontwikkeling)
WASHINGTON --- A new U.S. Defense Department report warns that ongoing software, maintenance and reliability problems with Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter could delay the Marine Corps' plans to start using its F-35 jets by mid-2015.
The latest report by the Pentagon's chief weapons tester, Michael Gilmore, provides a detailed critique of the F-35's technical challenges, and focuses heavily on what it calls the "unacceptable" performance of the plane's software, according to a 25-page draft obtained by Reuters.
The report forecast a possible 13-month delay in completing testing of the Block 2B software needed for the Marine Corps to clear the jets for initial combat use next year, a priority given the high cost of maintaining current aging warplanes.
Gilmore, director of operational test and evaluation for the U.S. Defense Department, has long been critical of the $392 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's costliest weapons program, and the latest report is no exception.
The report, due to be sent to Congress this week, said the aircraft is proving less reliable and harder to maintain than expected, and remains vulnerable to propellant fires sparked by missile strikes.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151091/pentagon-reports-%E2%80%9Cunacceptable%E2%80%9D-f_35-software-performance.html
Click here for the full story, on the Reuters website
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-usa-lockheed-fighter-idUSBREA0M1L920140123
What's the Latest Word on F-35 Unit Cost?
F-35 Unit Cost Continues to Rise...
The 2014 "Omnibus" appropriations act, now signed into law, gives us further insights into the unit cost of the F-35. The fine print in the "Omnibus," or actually in its "Joint Explanatory Statement," also suggests the possibility of turbulence in the F-35 program beneath the successful, affordable exterior advocates would have us believe. Other recently available information, including new DOD documents, reinforce that it's not efficiencies but more cost and delay that are likely to occur.
The F-35-specific data in the Omnibus' Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) calculate to a unit cost for a generic F-35 (only counting procurement costs, not research and development) at $185 million, each. The Air Force's F-35As are $159 million, each; the Marines' F-35Bs are $214 million, each, and the Navy's F-35Cs are $264 million, each. But none of that is the whole story; these calculations may well be undercounts of what F-35s will cost in fiscal year 2014.
The table below shows all the F-35 program actions the Omnibus revealed in its "Joint Explanatory Statement." Several things are salient:
-- Congress reduced F-35 procurement in 2014 by a total of $652 million from the $6.014 billion requested. (These amounts include money for "modification of aircraft," a subaccount in procurement.)
-- Despite the eleven percent reduction, not a single aircraft was removed from planned 2014 procurement.
-- "Long Lead," or advance procurement (AP), funding for 2015 was reduced $40 million (7 percent), and the number of 2015 aircraft was reduced by three aircraft (7 percent) from the 42 planned.
-- Overall Research and Development (R&D) funding for system development (such as for software and testing) was reduced by $408 million (22 percent) from the $1.896 billion requested.
tabel funding voor 2014 :
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151088/f_35-unit-cost-continues-to-rise.html
Except for some obtuse phrases (such as describing the various reductions as money being requested "ahead of need," cuts due to "cost growth," and "program decrease for forward financing") the JES is silent on the meaning and impact of these reductions.
Accepting-for the moment-the premise that the full request of 29 F-35s can and will be bought for $652 million less than the $6.0 billion requested for procurement, we have a new unit production cost of a generic F-35 at $185 million: F-35As are $159 million each; F-35Bs are $214 million each, and F-35Cs are $264 million each. This new calculation compares to the absurd $75 million per unit cost that a senior Lockheed Martin manager recently asserted. Real world costs for a useable airplane are literally multiples of that.
It is not plausible that a $1.1 billion (13 percent) cut in a $8.4 billion program will not have an impact.
The $652 million reduction in the $6.0 billion request just for procurement is a good place to start wondering what is actually going on.
When we see the 29 aircraft produced and delivered for the reduced amount of $5.4 billion (not the $6.0 requested), we can accept the possibility that due to the hard driving, cost conscious approach of F-35 program managers and the Lockheed-Martin Corporation, the unit costs of generic F-35s (and of each individual model) are indeed coming down from the amount originally requested for 2014. There has been rhetoric about that; the data could bear it out, if that is actually the case. We shall see.
There are also other possibilities. There may be a reduction in the numbers to be produced that we have not yet been informed of. Something similar may have already happened in 2013: sequestration and congressional cuts took over $1 billion out of the 2013 program. DOD took actions to restore some amount of that money, but we have not seen what the final, actual dollar amounts are for 2103, and we have not seen exactly how many aircraft will actually be bought with that: the press reported speculation inside DOD that five aircraft might fall out of the 2013 buy.
That speculation might be cleared up in the 2015 DOD budget when we see it in March. The new budget's justification materials will include data for 2013 and 2014 (in addition to 2015); we should see more up to date numbers for 2013 and presumably 2014. On the other hand, because these production authorizations take up to three years to result in delivered aircraft, it may be that we get the revised spending amounts only, not yet the numbers of the aircraft to actually be delivered. The number authorized and the number to be delivered could turn out to be different. The data in the 2015 budget request may clear things up, or they may not.
We can get further insight into what is actually happening in the F-35 program by also looking at the cuts Congress exacted out of the R&D portions of the F-35 program for 2014. Total R&D was reduced from $1.896 billion to $1.488 billion, a $408 million (21 percent) reduction. One source explained to me that the Joint Program Office (JPO) is rolling expenses out of 2014 into subsequent fiscal years: System development is behind schedule, and costs (and delays) are being rolled forward--rather than efficiencies allowing the costs to come down.
There is independent documentation to substantiate that characterization. The Navy's COMNAVAIRFOR recently sent a message to the Chief of Naval Operations in the context of the Navy's 2016 budget preparations. Among various program issues, the F-35C was described to be "severely underfunded" for "simulator operations, depot overhauls, engineering, maintenance, ALIS support, etc." If "the current shortfall" is not funded to minimum levels, testing and other activities will fall behind and "the planned IOC will become unexecutable." That shortfall was estimated at $96 million in 2016 and at $1.2 billion over the next five years in the Future Year Defense Program (FYDP). Given that the data in the message preceded the reductions extracted from Navy R&D in the Omnibus (a reduction of $190 million to a request of $1.0 billion, or 18 percent less), the delays and cost increases in future years for the F-35C can only be exacerbated.
Moreover, new DOD information leaked to Reuters, indicates that progress for the Marines F-35B is also behind schedule and presumably will need more funding, not less, to get back on track-if it can.
In sum, the information coming out of the Pentagon on the F-35 program would seem to indicate that it's not efficiencies that are occurring in the program but alterations that can only have the impact of further delays and cost increases. The reductions Congress exacted from the program in 2014 will surely have an effect, but in the absence of more details and actual events it is unwise to assume that the trend is toward less cost, or a fulfilled schedule.
The unit costs that one can currently calculate from Congress' 2014 "Omnibus" (namely, $185 million each across all three models; $159 million for an F-35A; $214 million for an F-35B, and $264 million for an F-35C) are clearly unrealistic-unrealistically low.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151088/f_35-unit-cost-continues-to-rise.html
JSF Cockpit
Pilots' comments (anonymous, of course, given the status of the JSF project):
"The claims about the F-22 and F-35 attached to the picture are nonsense. If the F-22 was so good, there would be nothing to stop us from fitting it with the same electronics as those that can not be made to work with the F-35.
Remember, in order to be network centric you have to emit, which means you can be detected, tracked and targeted."
"You give me an F-14 with twice the gas and twice the T/W and a new AESA radar etc. and I can really do something with that puppy – no questions asked. {N]ote that when asked the F-35 the faster-farther-higher arguments go away and it is a better self-target generator . [Y]awn, I like satellites and cruise missiles for that stuff... And who are we gonna bomb except civilians[?]"
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t31/1658256_10151845175986046_1878469807_o.jpg)
Facebook VNCC
https://www.facebook.com/VNC.communication.counsel (https://www.facebook.com/VNC.communication.counsel)
United Arab Emirates - Equipment in Support of a Direct Commercial Sale of F-16 Block 61 Aircraft
WASHINGTON, Jan 24, 2014 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on Jan 23 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for equipment in support of a Direct Commercial Sale of F-16 Block 61 Aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $270 million.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has requested a possible sale of equipment in support of its commercial purchase of 30 F-16 Block 61 aircraft and to support the upgrade of its existing F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Major Defense Equipment includes: 40 20mm M61A Guns; and 40 Embedded GPS Inertial Navigation Systems. Also included: Identification Friend or Foe Equipment; Joint Mission Planning System; night vision devices; Cartridge Activated Device/Propellant Activated Devices; Weapons Integration; spare and repair parts; tools and test equipment; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documentation; International Engine Management Program-Component Improvement Program; repair and return; aerial refueling support; ferry maintenance and services; site surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $270 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by to improve the security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve the UAE's capability to meet current and future regional threats. The UAE continues host-nation support of vital U.S. forces stationed at Al Dhafra Air Base; plays a vital role in supporting U.S. regional interests; and has proven to be a valued partner and an active participant in overseas contingency operations.
The sale of additional F-16s to the UAE is consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. The UAE will have no difficulty absorbing this additional equipment and support into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of equipment, services, and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Ft. Worth, Texas. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this sale will require the assignment of additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the UAE. The actual number required to support the program will be determined in joint negotiations as the program proceeds through the development, production, and equipment installation phases.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/united-arab-emirates-equipment-support-direct-commercial-sale-f-16-block-61
UAE raises possible deal for "Block 61" F-16
By: Stephen Trimble
Washington DC / january, 25 - 2014
A routine disclosure by the US Department of Defense reveals the UAE has increased the size and scope of a potential Lockheed Martin F-16 order, which now includes a mysterious "Block 61" designation.
The UAE government is continuing to negotiate a direct commercial sale with Lockheed, but the number of fighters in discussion has increased from 25 to 30, according to a Defense Security Cooperation Agency notice to Congress posted on 24 January.
The DSCA normally does not become involved in commercial sales, but the potential F-16 deal with the UAE could include support equipment that must be covered under a foreign military sale that requires congressional notification. The $270 million price tag of the proposed support equipment pales in comparison to the value of the commercial sale of the fighters.
Last April, a senior defence official who briefed reporters said that a sale of 25 F-16s to the UAE could be worth slightly less than $5 billion.
The UAE is now negotiating to buy 30 F-16s, the new DSCA notice says. If the average cost of the fighters remains about $200 million, the value of the deal could rise by nearly $1 billion with five more aircraft.
The DSCA notice describes the new F-16s as "Block 61" aircraft. Lockheed was not immediately available to describe how the Block 61 is different than the 80 F-16 Block 60s purchased by the UAE more than a decade ago.
The Block 60 is configured with General Electric F110-GE-132 engines, Northrop Grumman APG-80 agile beam radars and a Northrop electronic warfare system
Lockheed and now BAE Systems are now offering upgraded F-16 configurations that include two options for an active electronically scanned array (AESA) – the Northrop scaleable agile beam radar (SABR) and the Raytheon active combat radar (RACR).
The DSCA notice also notes that the proposed commercial sale includes an upgrade package for the UAE's existing F-16 Block 60 fleet, but does not provide any details.
The UAE had selected Dassault to supply the Rafale fighter to replace more than 60 Mirage 2000s. As pricing negotiations dragged on, the UAE was understood to split the order between the Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon and a second batch of F-16s.
Eurofighter confirmed recently that the Typhoon is no longer in consideration by the UAE, leaving only the Rafale in the running to claim the majority of the Mirage 2000 replacement.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uae-raises-possible-deal-for-quotblock-61quot-f-16-395235/
Russian rubbish? India reportedly disappointed with stealth fighters from Moscow
By Maxim Lott/
Published January 24, 2014
FoxNews.com
Is the Russian arms industry getting soft?
Despite initial high expectations, the Indian Air Force appears to be souring on a joint development deal with Russia for a new fifth-generation fighter jet, according to the Business Standard, a major Indian business publication. The Russian prototype is "unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered," said Indian Air Force Deputy Air Marshall S Sukumar at a Jan. 15 meeting, according to minutes obtained by the Business Standard.
That contrasts sharply with high hopes voiced by the Indian government when the joint project, to which the Indian government has contributed $6 billion, began.
"[The new plane] will have advanced features such as stealth, supercruise, ultra-maneuvrability, highly integrated avionics suite, enhanced situational awareness, internal carriage of weapons and Network Centric Warfare capabilities," the Indian government said in a December 2010 press release. Those are all hallmarks of "fifth generation" aircraft.
"Clearly they want to go more Western because they recognize that the Russian stuff just isn't up to the western standards."
- Robbin Laird, consultant to the Marine Corps and Air Force
The Indian Air Force did not respond to a request for comment.
But it is hardly surprising that the invisible-to-radar Russian fighter planes don't quite live up to the billing, according to defense experts reached by FoxNews.com.
"The Russians are certainly not up to speed in avionics," Robbin Laird, who has served as a consultant to the Marine Corps and Air Force and started the website Second Line of Defense, told FoxNews.com. "For them to pull off a stealth airframe, and for it to actually be stealthy, the engine technology has to be very good. Americans have done it with the F-22 and F-35. But it's not easy to do. No one has done it but ourselves."
India is the largest arms importer in world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and its military import large amounts from both Russia and western countries.
"The Indians for a long time have split their fighter industry between western work and Russian work," Laird said.
"Clearly they want to go more Western because they recognize that the Russian stuff just isn't up to the western standards. You only have so much money to go around, and like everybody else they've got financial pressures," he added.
Other security experts said that India has a history of incompetence when it comes to military procurement, and so it did not necessarily reflect badly on Russia.
"India has had so many problems absorbing modern equipment and supporting it that it's difficult to know whether it says anything about the Russian systems at all," Anthony Cordesman, who has served as a consultant for the State and Defense departments and who holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FoxNews.com.
Laird said that the Indians may be souring on the Russian deal in part to save funds so they can build more French-designed Dassault Rafale fighter jets, which can be built relatively quickly, unlike the still-to-be-designed "fifth-generation" planes under development with the Russians.
"The Rafale is a very nice aircraft, and they'll look at all the stuff the French are putting on that aircraft, and they'll look at the Russian stuff and say, why am I going down that path? Do I trust the Russians really are going to reach to the standards we set?"
Laird said that India would be best off purchasing the already-developed fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 – but that the United States government had not given permission for such a sale, even though Indian officials had asked several times to be able to consider the plane.
"If they get a chance to really look at the F35, they would want it," Laird said. "The Indians have requested 3 times to talk to people about the F-35B, which is the true revolutionary aircraft -- and the administration never answered the mail, they've blown them off, it's typical of the Obama administration. We love our allies except if you want anything."
He added that India may in fact not be at the level where it should be trusted with F-35s, however, so the administration would be right to turn them down. But he argued that the F-35 is ahead of what Russia has.
"The Russians are good aircraft designers, and they know how to build an agile aircraft, and [the new plane they are working on] is a step forward the path of more agility and flexibility, but the problem is -- it's not all about the frame, it's about what your put in it. The F35 can see around itself, 360 degrees, can see a missile take off 820 miles away, it has a radar that's extraordinary, and the systems are integrated. The Russians I think are nowhere near that at this point."
Laird admitted that there was a kind of "ho-hum" aspect to those types of features, but said that the information they provide to pilots and commanders would pay off in a combat situation.
Cordesman also said that he was unsurprised by the Indian complaints, given what he knew about Russian air capabilities.
"They're very good at building airplanes," Cordesman said. "The problem that Russia, since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, has been putting out the military equivalent of show cars. They look good, but it isn't always clear how practical they are and how many of the specifications they can actually meet."
The author of the piece can be reached at maxim.lott@foxnews.com or on twitter at @maximlott
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/24/russian-rubbish-india-reportedly-disappointed-with-stealth-fighters-from-moscow/
Turkey Likely To OK Indigenous Fighter Program
Jan. 25, 2014 | By BURAK EGE BEKDIL
ANKARA — Turkey's government, procurement and industry officials widely expect Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to approve an ambitious program to build the country's first indigenous fighter aircraft, amid doubts that Ankara could afford to buy it alongside theF-35 joint strike fighter.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140125/DEFREG03/301250026/Turkey-Likely-OK-Indigenous-Fighter-Program?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp
dna exclusive: 100% price escalation on Rafale fighter aircraft to Rs 1.75 lakh crore likely to dent IAF's strike capability
Sunday, Jan 26, 2014 | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA
India's biggest deal of procuring 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for $18 billion (Rs90,000 crore) has hit rough weather. Two years after French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation bagged the deal for its Rafale fighter jets on account of being the lowest bidder, its cost has now shot up by 100 per cent.
In January 2012, when Rafale was declared the winner, its price was quoted between $60-65 million (Rs373-Rs400 crore). A top defence ministry official said the price of a fighter jet made by Dassault could now cost $120 million (Rs746 crore). The second bidder, Eurofighter, had quoted $80-85 million (Rs497-Rs528 crore).
The price hike would mean that the deal would cost India nothing less than $28-30 billion (Rs1.75 lakh crore-Rs1.86 lakh crore)," said an Indian Air Force (IAF) official, who is privy to discussions of the cost negotiation committee.
The defence ministry headed by AK Antony has developed cold feet after the cost doubled compared to the original estimate. With the general elections just months away, Antony is unsure about the fate of the deal, a defence ministry official said. "As the negotiations continue, the cost is spiralling out of hand. It is a major worry," he said.
An IAF official said that in 2007, when the tender was floated, the cost of the programme was $12 billion (Rs42,000 crore). When the lowest bidder was declared in January 2012, the cost of the deal shot up to $18 billion (Rs90,000 crore).
Eighteen of the 126 planes will be purchased directly from Dassault, while Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will manufacture the other 108 under a licence, at an upcoming facility in Bangalore.
The IAF, which is fighting its depleting combat strength, was banking on Rafale as this was going to be the force's leading fighter plane for the next four decades. "With chances of the MMRCA deal getting inked appearing dim, there seems to be no
solution to the immediate problem of shrinking squadron numbers as existing aircraft are forced into retirement," said another IAF official.
The air force is seeking to replace its ageing MiG-21s with a modern fighter and MMRCA fits between India's high-end Sukhoi-30MKIs and its low-end Tejas LCA lightweight fighter. The IAF has a sanctioned strength of 45 fighter jet squadrons. However, it only has 30 squadrons operational as old aircraft have been retired.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-dna-exclusive-100pct-price-escalation-on-rafale-fighter-aircraft-to-rs-1-75-lakh-crore-likely-to-dent-iaf-s-strike-capability-1957107
Production of the F-16 will likely continue through 2020
Lockheed Martin has enough orders to keep its F-16 fighter jet production line humming through the third quarter of 2017. They are also pursuing additional orders and upgrades in the Middle East, South America and other markets that would keep the line running through 2020.
Around that time, the cost of Lockheed's new F-35 stealth fighter will have dropped so far that it will make more sense for potential customers to procure F-35s rather than F-16s. Last Friday Lockheed Martin marked completion of its 100th F-35 fighter.
Lockheed has produced over 4,500 F-16s since the program began in 1975, making the F-16 the best-selling fighter jet in history. The jets are flown by 26 countries, including 15 that have placed follow-on orders, Bill McHenry, Lockheed's head of F-16 business development, said in in an interview with Reuters.
The United Arab Emirates is weighing new F-16 orders and possible upgrades, but failed to announce an order at the Dubai air show as some experts had expected.
Lockheed has dramatically scaled back production of the F-16 at its facility in Fort Worth, Texas, to about one plane a month now - from a peak production rate of 30 planes a month in June 1987, said spokesman Mark Johnson. At the moment, the company is completing work on the last one of 20 F-16s it built for Egypt. That jet and seven others are being stored at the Fort Worth plant after the United States announced it would withhold most military aid due to concerns about democracy and human rights.
It is also working on 12 F-16s for Oman, several of which are in varying states of completion at the slimmed-down F-16 production line in Building 8, also known as the "Falcon's Nest," plus a total of 36 jets ordered by Iraq. One of the 145 jets being upgraded for Taiwan is also in the factory, its nose cone already open for insertion of the new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. McHenry said Lockheed saw additional opportunities to upgrade existing F-16s to the new F-16V configuration, which includes the AESA radar, embedded global positioning, updated electronic warfare equipment and avionics systems.
He acknowledged that other companies, including Britain's BAE Systems, were trying to capture some of that upgrade work, but said Lockheed offered lower costs and greater economies of scale given the breadth of its existing work with the 26 countries that already operate the jet. The Pentagon last month approved a deal under which BAE will upgrade 134 older F-16 fighter jets for South Korea, a move that could pressure Lockheed to compete more aggressively in the hunt for upgrade deals.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4810.html
United Arab Emirates to purchase 30 F-16s Block 61?
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on Jan 23 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the United Arab Emirates F-16 Block 61s and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $270 million.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f-16.net%2Fg3%2Fvar%2Fresizes%2Ff-16-photos%2Falbum07%2Falbum42%2F3018_001.jpg%3Fm%3D1371935483&hash=189790d845f2d7a9e548fefe058c1091fd29e246)
UAEAF F-16F block 60 #3018 is parked on the tarmac at Nellis AFB during Red Flag 12-4 on July 30th, 2012.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has requested a possible sale of equipment in support of its commercial purchase of 30 F-16 Block 61 aircraft and to support the upgrade of its existing F-16 block 60 aircraft.
Major Defense Equipment includes:
40 20mm M61A Guns;
and 40 Embedded GPS Inertial Navigation Systems.
Also included:
Identification Friend or Foe Equipment;
Joint Mission Planning System;
Night vision devices;
Cartridge Activated Device/Propellant Activated Devices;
Weapons Integration;
Spare and repair parts; tools and test equipment;
Personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documentation;
International Engine Management Program- Component Improvement Program; repair and return;
Aerial refueling support;
Ferry maintenance and services;site surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services;
and other related elements of logistics and program support.
The estimated cost is $270 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by to improve the security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. The proposed sale will improve the UAE's capability to meet current and future regional threats. The UAE continues host-nation support of vital U.S. forces stationed at Al Dhafra Air Base; plays a vital role in supporting U.S. regional interests; and has proven to be a valued partner and an active participant in overseas contingency operations. The sale of additional F-16s to the UAE is consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. The UAE will have no difficulty absorbing this additional equipment and support into its armed forces.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Ft. Worth, Texas. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
The UAE and Lockheed Martin have reportedly been in talks about an F-16 sale for at least a year and a half, particularly since an offer by France to sell an advanced version of its Rafale combat jet to the UAE didn't work out.
Last October the UAE requested munitions and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support from the US under a possible FMS worth a total of $4 billion.
Specifically the UAE was seeking 5000 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) with BRU-61 carriage systems; 8 SDB Guided Test Vehicles for aircraft integration; 16 SDB Captive Flight and Load Build trainers; 1200 AGM-154C Joint Stand Off Weapon (JSOW); 10 JSOW CATMs; 300 AGM-84H Standoff Land Attack Missiles-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER); 40 CATM-84H Captive Air Training Missiles; 20 ATM-84H SLAM-ER Telemetry Missiles; 4 Dummy Air Training Missiles; and 30 AWW-13 Data Link pods.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4830.html
Hier een discussie over het verschil tussen blok 60 en blok 61.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25074
Lockheed Martin supports Japanese F-2 Restoration Program
n cooperation with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), Lockheed Martin has delivered the first F-2 aft and leading edge flaps as part of a restoration plan to replenish Japan's F-2 fleet. Eighteen Japanese F-2B fighter aircraft based at Matsushima Air Base were destroyed during a tsunami that hit the nation in March 2011.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f-16.net%2Fg3%2Fvar%2Fresizes%2Ff-16-photos%2Falbum11%2Falbum36%2F03-8104.jpg%3Fm%3D1371902986&hash=bd9d9f633da7401ade740964a033ef24463af328)
JASDF F-2B (03-8104) from the Air Development and Test Squadron seen on landing approach at Gifu AB in November of 2006.
The F-2 program is a joint Japan/U.S. development, production, and sustainment program. MHI is the prime contractor and Lockheed Martin is the principal U.S. subcontractor. Production began in 1996, with the first delivery in 2000.
Based on the design of the Lockheed Martin F-16C/D Fighting Falcon, the F-2 was designed to meet the unique requirements of the JASDF. Although capable of both air-to-air and air-to-surface roles, the F-2 emphasizes the air-to-surface role because its primary mission is protection of Japan's sea lanes.
The F-2 has a wing area that is enlarged approximately 25 percent over the F-16 wing area. The larger wing allows more internal fuel storage and two more weapon store stations than the F-16. Japan elected to fabricate the wing substructure using graphite epoxy and by applying state-of-the-art co-cured composite technology to maximize the strength while minimizing the weight. In addition to the larger wing area, the F-2 fuselage is approximately 17 inches longer than that of the F-16. The horizontal tails are also larger.
Lockheed did not disclose how many aft and leading edge flaps it is producing for the fleet restoration plan.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4814.html
Citaat van: Ace1 op 26/01/2014 | 12:31 uur
Production of the F-16 will likely continue through 2020
Lockheed Martin has enough orders to keep its F-16 fighter jet production line humming through the third quarter of 2017. They are also pursuing additional orders and upgrades in the Middle East, South America and other markets that would keep the line running through 2020.
Around that time, the cost of Lockheed's new F-35 stealth fighter will have dropped so far that it will make more sense for potential customers to procure F-35s rather than F-16s. Last Friday Lockheed Martin marked completion of its 100th F-35 fighter.
Alsof elk land dat F16's vliegt ook F35's mag vliegen.
Indonesie is nog steeds op zoek naar een vervanger voor de F5 Tiger, maar de Luchtmacht hoopt dat voor 2015 een besluit wordt genomen. Het zou gaan om ongeveer 16 toestellen. De voorkeur van de Luchtmacht is:
1: SU35
2: SAAB Gripen
3: (F16)
4 (6): F15 Strike Eagle.
In totaal liggen er 5 tot 6 voorstellen.
http://id.berita.yahoo.com/tni-au-belum-putuskan-pengganti-f-5-tiger-074147594.html (http://id.berita.yahoo.com/tni-au-belum-putuskan-pengganti-f-5-tiger-074147594.html)
Laten we het eens over strategie en keuzes hebben.
Nu weet ik dat er in het Baarnsche Bos weinig tot geen drugscriminelen rondhangen (buiten wat opgeschoten pubers) maar toch blijkt wel hoe ver je kan komen met een beetje nadenken.
En guess what? Nederland wordt ook genoemd.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9eea17dedf55 (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9eea17dedf55)
Indian Air Force not happy with Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA/FGFA
by Nischitha Sharath on January 27, 2014 | |
India – Unhappy with Pak-FAIndian Air Force (IAF) has now announced that it would not linger its association with Russia over the PAK-FA. This news came in as shock as the collaboration had aimed to develop a futuristic Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). IAF has decided to pull the chords down due to the loop holes that are now perceptible in the niche. Statements made by the Indian Air Force officials said that Russians would not be able to fulfill their deal with regard to the performance and the operations of the Sukhoi FGFA.
Besides the performance issues that may arise in future, the Sukhoi made stealth jet is of an exorbitant price and the architecture itself is poor and below the acceptable mark. The jet is powered by old and poor quality engines making it an unreliable and irrational weapon in the parade of the Indian Air Force.
India entered into the deal with Russia so as to strengthen India's armory with the fifth generation stealth fighter and some other technology exchanges but magnified complaints, unacceptable engineering and greasy development of the stealth jet has brought the IAF to conclude the deal though New Delhi and Moscow has finalized a $6 billion bill to jointly develop the FGFA customized to suit the requirements of IAF.
problems-with-Sukhoi_HAL_FGFA_T-50_Su-PAKFA
The sketch of the warplane on a white sheet seem to be an easy task compared to welding the different parts of the engine to build one and then get it working as per the specifications put forward by the Indian Air Force. The collaboration with Russia for the Sukhoi /HAL FGFA was considered to suffice to IAF's future and therefore Defence Minister A. K Anthony had rejected the purchase of the American Fifth Generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Indian scientists had also stated that this collaboration will provide the required push for the development of the all-Indian fifth generation fighter, titled the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
However all the above said facts and figures do not seem to be applicable at the moment for the Indian Air Force has withdrawn the MoD with a complaint that the collaboration may not live up to the expected norms put forth at the time of proposal.
Sukhoi is working on T-50 versions one for Russian use and the other for Indian use, the whole plan of the development of the T-50 is solely dependent on India's investment without which there would not be a T-50 in the picture at all. The Russian version of the T-50 is simpler than the Indian version. The Russian version comprises of the Indian Avionics along with an assorted range of compatible weapons. The Indian model on the other hand is still being sketched on paper. This is not the only cause of the disappointment as reported by Business Standard. The short falls with the FGFA has been observed at different sectors like performance, quality of the materials used, poor engineering of the engines and the technical features.
Indian_Air_Force_not_happy_Sukhoi_T-50_PAK-FA_FGFA
IAF's has several reasons to close down the MoD with the Russian FGFA, but the top three reasons as recorded in the minutes of the meeting were as follows:
1) Russians' reluctance to share the design information with India and Indian Air Force
2) The engines of the fighter AL-41F1 are not as appealing as they just the upgraded versions of Sukhoi's 30 MKI AL-31's engines.
3) The exorbitant expenses involved in the project, a whopping $6 billion is what India is shelling out to co-develop the project, which would mean that a large part of IAF capital would remain locked up.
The Russian officials did have their counter arguments where they mentioned that the radar and the Al-41F engine is temporary and they would be developed eventually.
There were more short falls put forward by the IAF like the problems encountered with the quality control, the unpatched wings that may fall apart in cases of stressed maneuvers and the delay in the commencement of the architecture. When all these points are put together, the entire amount of the $6 Billion is relatively huge to pay up.
The reports have just summed up that PAK-FA MoD may be let down by the IAF. New Delhi is now looking forward for the new Rafale fighters from France and better prospects of the Indian Air Force.
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/01/indian-air-force-not-happy-with-sukhoi-t-50pak-fafgfa.html?utm_content=buffer7a00d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Citaat van: tentara71 op 27/01/2014 | 21:09 uur
Laten we het eens over strategie en keuzes hebben.
Nu weet ik dat er in het Baarnsche Bos weinig tot geen drugscriminelen rondhangen (buiten wat opgeschoten pubers) maar toch blijkt wel hoe ver je kan komen met een beetje nadenken.
En guess what? Nederland wordt ook genoemd.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9eea17dedf55 (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9eea17dedf55)
Weet niet of dit artikel hier al eens gestaan heeft, maar kende ik al. Geeft inderdaad een nieuwe kijk op de sommige zaken.
In Nederland denken we gewoon niet na, of te weinig. In ieder geval gaat dat op voor de politieke leiding. En dat heeft niet alleen een link met het F35 dossier.
Some Embarrassing Details From the Pentagon's Latest Stealth Fighter Report
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2ef94297330d (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2ef94297330d)
- gereedheid van slechts 35%, t.o.v. 75% voor huidige kisten, en 69% voor de F22, met steeds minder kansen om dit te verbeteren.
- Inertiele Navigatie werkt niet, als GPS uitgeschakeld, gejammed of gespoofed wordt is de kist dus verdwaald.
- GPS bommen werken niet, maar wordt aan gewerkt, AIM-120 werken ook niet, en niemand weet waarom.
- Beschermingsysteem werkt niet. DAS maakt nog geen onderscheid tussen een Flare en een inkomende missile, waardoor er bij afwerpen van een flare meer missiles worden gezien, en dus meer flares worden uitgegooid, tot het op is.
- een kleine scherf of fragment kan de liftfan ernstig beschadigen, waardoor de F35B niet meer kan landen.
Some Embarrassing Details From the Pentagon's Latest Stealth Fighter Report
Delayed, over-budget F-35 still riddled with flaws
David Axe in War is Boring
The Pentagon's latest weapons testing report is not kind to the $400-billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the military's biggest and arguably most troubled program. The annual report by the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation includes 20 pages listing the Lockheed Martin-built JSF's ongoing problems.
A jack-of-all-trades radar-evading jet meant to replace no fewer than 2,400 existing fighters in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, the F-35 has been dogged by budget overruns, schedule delays and redesigns. Overly complex in order to satisfy the diverse needs of three military branches, the F-35 is slower, less durable and less reliable than many of the planes it's slated to replace.
Most damningly, the 2013 test report predicts months of delays in the development of the F-35's millions of lines of software, which could cause the Marine Corps and Air Force to miss their planned first deployments of combat-ready JSFs in 2015 and 2016, respectively.
But the DOT&E report also includes lots of other embarrassing details.
Only one third of F-35s are flight-ready
The military manages to keep around three quarters of its warplanes ready for flight at any given time. Even the Air Force's devilishly complex F-22 stealth fighter—another Lockheed product—is ready 69 percent of the time.
But the roughly 50 F-35s in test or training squadrons in Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona are ready just a third of the time, on average. That's because the jets need frequent design fixes and because Lockheed's automated supply system isn't working.
Now, it's not uncommon for a new warplane to start out a tad unreliable and get more ready over time. But the F-35 has been flying in one form or another off and on for 14 years. "The design is becoming more stable and opportunities for reliability growth are decreasing," the report notes.
"While the relatively low number of flight hours shows there is still time for program reliability to improve," the report continues, "this is not likely to occur without a focused, aggressive and well-resourced effort."
Which is to say, making the JSF more flight-ready is going to also make its development more expensive.
The F-35 will get you lost
The JSF is designed to fly and fight against the most determined foe—even a foe capable of jamming or destroying America's Global Positioning System satellites, depriving U.S. forces of their preferred way of knowing exactly where they are in the world.
But the F-35's independent "inertial" navigation gear—which determines the plane's position by constantly computing starting point, direction, speed and time—is off by a few degrees. That's just enough to make it useless in combat. "These errors prevent accurate targeting solutions for weapons employment in a GPS-denied environment," the Pentagon warns.
A software fix is in the works, but "further flight testing will be required." Again, that takes time and money.
The JSF's main air-to-air missile doesn't fully work—and it's not clear why
The F-35 needs three basic weapons in order to be cleared for combat in 2015: a laser-guided bomb, a satellite-guided bomb and the AIM-120 air-to-air missile.
The nav system problems slowed the addition of the satellite bomb—basically, the munition didn't know where to land. That, at least, was a known unknown—and engineers were able to solve it with a "fix in the mission systems software," according to the report.
But the AIM-120 isn't working on the F-35, either. And in contrast to the bomb problem, testers have not been able to resolve the missile issue because they can't quite duplicate it. "Problems involving integration of the AIM-120 medium-range missile have been difficult to replicate in lab and ground testing," the report notes.
It is, in other words, an unknown unknown. And who can say what the solution is.
The F-35 confuses itself
To defend against increasingly sophisticated Russian- and Chinese-made air defenses, the JSF includes a cluster of high-tech cameras and sensors able to detect incoming missiles—and automatically deploy heat-generating flares or radar-foiling chaff to spoof the enemy guidance.
But the so-called "Distributed Aperture System" doesn't work. "The DAS has displayed a high false alarm rate for missile detections during ownship and formation flare testing," the testing report reveals. Basically, the system cannot tell the difference between an enemy missile and one of the F-35's own hot flares.
Imagine the feedback loop that could result. An F-35's DAS detects an incoming missile and pops flares. DAS then mistakes those flares for another missile and pops more flares, then still more flares to spoof them. So on and so on until the F-35 runs out of countermeasures ... and is defenseless.
It takes just one bullet fragment to shoot down an F-35B
The Marines' F-35B variant includes a built-in vertical lift fan—basically, a downward-blasting engine—to allow the plane to take off of and land on the Navy's small amphibious assault ships. But adding a bulky lift fan made the JSF heavier, more complex and easier to shoot down.
That's especially true for F-35Bs flying low to support Marine infantry on the ground. A lone enemy soldier firing a single bullet could seriously damage an F-35B. "Analysis showed that fragment-induced damage could result in the release of more than 25 percent of a single lift fan blade, resulting in a catastrophic ... system failure," the DOT&E report warns.
And if the F-35B has to fly through high-tech air defenses in order to reach the beachhead, it's even more likely to get shot down. "More severe threats, encountered at low altitude or in air-to-air gun engagements, will likely cause catastrophic damage."
All this means that even if the JSF manages to meet its 2015 deployment deadline, it could fly into combat unreliable, confused, defenseless, toothless and vulnerable.
Dit gaat met de jaren alleen maar mooier worden. :'(
Navigatie als 70 jaar terug, mark I eyeball en papieren terreinkaarten. :crazy: mogen ze wel een extra opbergvak maken voor de kaarten .. :lol:
Anti F-35 System - AK47TALIB7.62 :angel:
1 Talibanner + AK47 + 1 x 7.62 mm pieper.
Laat mij denken aan de eerste auto's met electroniische snufjes. Stonden meer in de garage dan op de weg.
Report: F-35 Cracks in Tests, Isn't Reliable (... :hrmph: .. niet weer vertragingen, zou niet goed zijn voor de levering en inzetbaar zijn van de F-35)
The U.S. Defense Department's newest and most advanced fighter jet has cracked during testing and isn't yet reliable for combat operations, the Pentagon's top weapons tester said in new report.
The entire F-35 fleet was grounded last February after a crack was discovered in a turbine blade of an F-35A. While the order was subsequently lifted, more cracks have been discovered in other areas and variants of the Lockheed Martin Corp.-made plane, according to the latest annual report by J. Michael Gilmore, director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
Durability testing of the F-35A, the Air Force's version of the plane designed to take off and land on conventional runways, and the F-35B, the Marine Corps' model that can take off like a plane and land like a helicopter, revealed "significant findings" of cracking in engine mounts, fuselage stiffeners, and bulkhead and wing flanges, according to the document. A bulkhead actually severed at one point, it states.
"All of these discoveries will require mitigation plans and may include redesigning parts and additional weight," Gilmore wrote in the report.
The F-35C, the Navy's version of the plane designed to take off and land on aircraft carriers, has also had cracks in the floor of the avionics bay and power distribution center and, like the F-35B, in the so-called jack point stiffener, according to the document.
The hardware problems, along with ongoing delays in software development, among other issues, led Gilmore to conclude that the fifth-generation fighter jet's "overall suitability performance continues to be immature, and relies heavily on contractor support and workarounds unacceptable for combat operations."
He added, "Aircraft availability and measures of reliability and maintainability are all below program target values for the current stage of development."
The Joint Strike Fighter program is the Pentagon's most expensive acquisition effort, estimated last year to cost $391 billion to develop and build 2,457 F-35 Lightning IIs. The single-engine jet is designed to replace such aircraft as the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B.
The Pentagon this year plans to spend $8.4 billion to buy 29 F-35s, including 19 for the Air Force, six for the Marine Corps, and four for the Navy. The funding includes $6.4 billion in procurement, $1.9 billion in research and development, and $187 million in spare parts. The department in fiscal 2015 wants to purchase 42 of the planes.
The Marine Corps had expected to begin operational flights of the aircraft in 2015, followed by the Air Force in 2016 and the Navy in 2019.
The Corps' schedule depends on using a more limited version of the software, known as Block 2B, designed for use with such precision-guided weapons as the AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, GBU-32/31 Joint Direct Attack Munition and GBU-12 Paveway II bomb.
The first operational flights, however, will probably be delayed because the aircraft's software won't be ready in time due to ongoing glitches, according to the report.
"Initial results with the new increment of Block 2B software indicate deficiencies still exist in fusion, radar, electronic warfare, navigation, EOTS [Electro-Optical Targeting System], Distributed Aperture System (DAS), Helmet-Mounted Display System (HMDS), and datalink," it states. "These deficiencies block the ability of the test team to complete baseline Block 2B test points, including weapons integration."
Lockheed has reassigned more engineers to improve the software, and the Pentagon has assembled an outside team of experts to study the issue.
Even so, the report touches on other problem areas.
The aircraft remains vulnerable to "ballistically-induced propellant fire from all combat threats," such as missile strikes, according to the document; its computer-based logistics system, the Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, was fielded with "significant deficiencies;" and the program has a "significant risk" of failing to mature modeling and simulation technology, known as the Verification System, or VSim, according to the document.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2014/01/29/report-f-35-cracks-in-tests-isnt-reliable/#ixzz2rxk8vavG
Defense.org
En dan te bedenken dat die dingen volgend jaar in oorlogsgebieden moeten kunnen vliegen........
Ik heb nog wat twijfels :crazy:
Citaat van: Thomasen op 31/01/2014 | 09:57 uur
En dan te bedenken dat die dingen volgend jaar in oorlogsgebieden moeten kunnen vliegen........
Ik heb nog wat twijfels :crazy:
Nope, net als bijvoorbeeld de CV90 wordt hij wel in dienst genomen, maar volgt er een heel programma aan gereedstelling en dergelijke.
Uitzending en in dienstneming zijn nog altijd twee verschillende zaken ;) , helaas...
Loose Canons
Debbie Does USAF
The cheating scandal is huge—and there's more.
By Jed Babbin – 2.3.14
Poor Deborah Lee James. She's only been Secretary of the Air Force for about six weeks but she's been handed the problems of a huge cheating scandal, a $400 billion fighter aircraft that can't fly in combat and an air force that not only has made some enormous mistakes in the past decade, but seems eager to make another by retiring an attack aircraft the force can't do without.
She's a natural for the job, at least by Obama administration standards. She spent 20 years of her 30-year career as a House Armed Services Committee staffer and a Clinton administration Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. Her last ten years were spent at SAIC (a large Beltway consulting firm). She's not a warrior by any standard, but she reportedly met one once. It's not your father's Air Force anymore (or mine, for that matter).
The question is whether her qualifications and experience will enable James to deal with some enormous challenges that face the force. So far, the outlook is pretty bleak.
The cheating scandal is not the ordinary mess that occurs in one of the service academies every few years. This one involves at least 92 officers who are implicated in cheating on their proficiency examinations to qualify (or requalify) for missile duty. These are the men and women who are put in charge of intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads and the job requires not only proficiency but a psychological balance that's not easy to achieve or maintain.
Ms. James said that there are "systemic problems within the force," and apparently believes she knows how to fix them. With TLC and sympathy.
She's quoted as saying that the airmen assigned to the nuclear missile mission live with "undue stress and fear." She added, "I believe that a very terrible irony in this whole situation is that the missileers didn't cheat to pass, they cheated because they felt driven to get 100 percent. Getting 90 percent or 95 percent was considered a failure in their eyes."
She's obviously wrong in that, and more. Of those suspected cheats retested so far, 22 have flunked the exam.
Let's be clear and sympathetic only when sympathy is due. All of those who are found to have cheated should be kicked out of the Air Force, without tea and cookies or another chance to pass the test. Those men and women have forfeited their chance to serve. There is no "right" to serve: it's a privilege that has to be earned every day.
For those who didn't cheat and still can pass their exams, some re-examination of their lives and careers is necessary. Sitting hundreds of feet below ground, waiting for an order that would mean Armageddon on the surface above, has to be one of the most stressful existences known to man. Missileers are usually on duty for 24-hour stretches ten times a month. That's why their psychological fitness is monitored closely and their command atmosphere has to take the stress the job causes into account.
If there's a systematic problem in the force, and there apparently is, commanders have to be held accountable. The Air Force's nuclear enterprise has not been functioning well for about a decade, and reports of security lapses have recurred for about a year. MGen. Michael Carey, who was in charge of the nuclear arsenal, was fired last year for unspecified misconduct.
A "security lapse" on a nuke can be anything from the most minor — like the failure to keep a maintenance log correctly — to the most serious like losing a bomb. (That happened in 2007 when six warheads were mistakenly mounted on cruise missiles before the missiles were flown from North Dakota to Louisiana. There, they sat on the aircraft for about 36 hours until someone discovered the nukes were missing.) Mistakes like that cannot be tolerated and aren't. Cheating on proficiency exams can't be tolerated either.
Nor should aircraft that can't fly. Ms. James has a real problem in the F-35.
The F-35 "Lightning II" is the most expensive defense procurement program ever. It's going to cost more than $400 billion to buy and, according to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, about $1 trillion for the Air Force to own and maintain over its life. For that kind of money, you'd assume that the damned thing would work. But it doesn't, even in its thirteenth year of "development," as I've written before.
A lot has happened since last June when that article appeared. Suffice it to say that there are about 125 companies each writing software for the F-35 because so many of its systems are computer-controlled. And, if you believe the latest reports from the Defense Department's Office of Test and Evaluation, the combined skills of those software writers is equaled only by those who created the Obamacare website.
Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine used to be nicknamed "Aviation Leak" for the currency of its news. Every week for too long, it's been the place to get the latest bad news on the F-35. This week, the report is really depressing. The F-35's software is keeping its flight availability to 37%. Think about that: the 37% availability means it can't fly at all for 63% of the time, and having no IOC, it means that it can fly precisely 0% of the time in combat. (The "IOC" is the "initial operational capability" date, which is the first day an aircraft is tested sufficiently to be cleared to fly combat missions. After IOC, will the availability soar as high as 50? I doubt it.)
The Marines, having suffered along with their comrades the multi-billion-dollar overruns and yearlong-delays (the contract was awarded in 2001), want an IOC date in 2015. The latest from the OT&E guys says that plan could suffer yet another delay of thirteen months or more.
Ms. James has to figure out that it's time to slow or stop the F-35 in favor of an interim buy of combat-ready F-15 Silent Eagles (or an Air Force version of the Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet, or both) and save a few tens of billions in the process. The objection is that the F-15s aren't as stealthy as the F-35 in theory. But the F-35 loses much of its stealthiness the moment you hang a missile or bomb on an external bomb rack (and its wingtips reportedly make contrails visible to the naked eye from miles away.) I'm confident she will neither delay the F-35 nor decide to buy the essential gap-fillers that could be produced at very low cost and in little time.
Nobody needs to buy the venerable A-10 "Warthog," which has been a combat-dependable close air support (CAS) and strike aircraft since 1979. It's armored, ugly, and packs the wallop of almost every sort of bomb and missile as well as a 30-mm cannon. Except for its big brother, the slower AC-130, it is unsurpassed in the close air support mission. It also can linger over the target area longer than anything except the AC-130. (Just think of what one of either could have done orbiting Benghazi on the night of September 11, 2012.)
But the A-10 is old, and the F-35 is sucking so much money out of the continuously cut budget that the Air Force wants to retire the A-10 this year. One former Navy official stupidly suggested that the Army take over A-10 operation.
Not only can't the Army afford the A-10 (it's preoccupied, as always, with tanks, helicopters, and the lessons of the Battle of Stalingrad) but it's really not a good idea to split the Air Force's structure and let its strategies, doctrines, schools, and training forget the CAS mission. With the AC-130 and the A-10, the Air Force has a unified strategy and doctrine for the CAS mission. Which it's performed perfectly — yes, perfectly — since 1953. April 1953, for those who need reminding, was the last time an American ground soldier was killed by an enemy aircraft. Protecting and supporting the ground pounders with close-in fire support with the A-10 and AC-130 and high protection from enemy fighter and bomber aircraft is something the Air Force does mighty well. James should find a way — even if the F-35 program has to be cut — to save the A-10 and preserve the ability to provide high cover.
The F-35 will break the Air Force's back. The program should be cut drastically and a plan emplaced to fill the years of gaps in the fighter force it has caused and will cause in the future with an advanced Air Force version of the Navy F/A-18 and the F-15 Silent Eagle. That way, our national security needs will be met regardless of how long the F-35 takes to be ready for combat. Ms. James should make that decision. But you can take this to the bank: she won't.
http://spectator.org/articles/57633/debbie-does-usaf
Washington | 2/03/2014
Five Reasons The Latest Pentagon Testing Report On The F-35 Fighter Doesn't Matter
Two weeks ago the annual report of the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test & Evaluation was leaked to the Reuters news agency in advance of its public release. The subsequent dissemination of its contents has afforded critics of the tri-service F-35 fighter program the opportunity for a new round of complaints about the supposed mis-steps of those engaged in developing the plane.
(Disclosure: Many of the companies working on the F-35 program including prime contractor Lockheed Martin LMT -2.1% contribute to my think tank; so do companies building rival planes.)
For example, I read one commentary about the test report posted on the influential RealClearDefense web-site that stated the F-35 "could fly into combat unreliable, confused, defenseless, toothless and vulnerable." That claim reveals such abysmal ignorance about the status of the program that it discredits anything else the author might choose to say on the subject. It echoes the irresponsible critics of earlier generations who warned that programs like the F-15 fighter, Abrams tank and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor would be battlefield disasters. In fact, all three went on to become world-class combat systems.
The reality of the F-35 program is that it is making steady progress in retiring risk and reducing costs; that Pentagon officials are increasingly pleased with its performance; and that most of America's key allies have signed up to buy the plane despite the availability of impressive alternatives (most recently Japan and South Korea). Nonetheless, the fact that program critics level such sweeping denunciations has to have a demoralizing effect on the thousands of workers engaged in building what Senator John McCain has said "may be the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world." With that in mind, I would like to offer five reassuring reasons why the F-35 program is going to do just fine.
1. The problems were already known. The test director's report did not identify any new problems with the fighter. As the head of the F-35 joint program office observed in response to the report's release, "There were no surprises in the report; all of the issues mentioned are well-known to us, the F-35 international partners and our industry team." That was predictable because the report relied on information generated by the program office as it conducts a rigorous testing regime that includes over 8,000 flights. With half of flight testing now completed, no show-stoppers have been found and the program is developing fixes for each instance where aircraft performance fails to match goals. Program executive officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan states that finding such problems is typical of what happens at this stage in a development program: "This is the time we want to discover issues through testing so we can implement solutions and provide an extremely capable and lethal aircraft to the warfighter."
2. Program progress has been understated. To read some accounts of what the test chief reported, you would think the F-35 is making little progress. In fact, the very first sentence in the report's executive summary states, "Flight test teams operating the 18 test aircraft assigned to the developmental flight test centers nearly matched or exceeded flight test sortie goals through October 2013." During 2013, the program conducted 1,153 flights and completed more than 9,000 separate test points (tasks). Accomplishment of some test points has been delayed due to lagging software development and other issues, but the program executive officer says, "the basic design of the F-35 is sound and test results underscore our confidence in the ultimate performance" of the planes. He says software issues will not slow the operational debut of the Marine Corps variant, scheduled for next year.
3. The severity of problems has been exaggerated. In discussing issues cited by the report, critics have omitted important context and qualifiers. For instance, peeling of stealth coatings on the tail is described without including report language that it was caused by "extended use of the afterburner not expected to be representative of operational use." Buffeting and "trans-sonic roll off" (wing drop) is noted without mention of the fact that this is common in many fighters and may not impact mission capability. Engine susceptibility to damage is cited without including report language that testing results "were consistent with results from prior legacy engine tests." Problems with the pilot's helmet-mounted display are detailed without recounting the various fixes that have improved performance to the point where plans for a backup system could be canceled.
4. The testing chief always finds problems. If you read through the full report of the Director for Operational Test & Evaluation, it becomes clear he has questions of one sort or another about every weapons program the Pentagon is pursuing. For instance, the report complains about radar deficiencies, electronic countermeasure shortfalls and inadequate weapons testing on the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet, even though that plane is generally regarded as the most capable carrier-based aircraft in history. Pentagon officials were downright dismissive of the test chief's complaints about a new Navy patrol aircraft. Those officials recognize that the testing community is seldom satisfied with the performance of combat systems because it benefits from doing testing. As the joint force's biggest development program, the F-35 offers an especially lucrative target for bureaucrats who never want to stop testing.
5. Outsiders seldom understand fighter development. Few people have actually read the F-35 chapter in the test director's annual report, and fewer still have understood it. To grasp the full significance of what it says, you would first need to have some grounding in aeronautical engineering and operational testing. It would also be helpful to have some historical knowledge of how other major weapons systems have fared during development. Most of the reporters who cover the F-35 don't have those insights, and so they tend to rely on other people to explain to them what documents like the test report indicate. Since the joint program office and contractors seldom are forthcoming on that front, journalists turn to the critics who, shockingly enough, render unduly alarming interpretations of what it all means.
The F-35 program may be the most complicated project in the history of military technology. It entails development of three distinctly different aircraft for domestic military services and a host of foreign allies, along with sophisticated training and sustainment systems. Much of the hardware and software incorporated into the airframes is secret — secret because it is the key to preserving global air dominance through mid-century. It was inevitable there would be challenges in engineering and integrating such systems. The Director of Operational Testing & Evaluation has illuminated some of the challenges that remain to be resolved, but one by one they will be overcome as they must be if America is to retain its role as guarantor of global security.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/03/five-reasons-the-latest-pentagon-testing-report-on-the-f-35-fighter-doesnt-matter/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/02/2014 | 08:00 uur
Washington | 2/03/2014
Five Reasons The Latest Pentagon Testing Report On The F-35 Fighter Doesn't Matter
....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/03/five-reasons-the-latest-pentagon-testing-report-on-the-f-35-fighter-doesnt-matter/
Ik dacht, zo zo, dat een gerespecteerde nieuwsorganisatie zo'n artikel plaatst.. Dan moeten ze vast nieuwe feiten boven tafel hebben gekregen...
Maar wie anders dan Loren Thompson had dit kunnen schrijven? Je wist vast (niet) dat dit de Mat Herben van de VS is? duidelijk genoeg?
Citaat van: Chrisis op 04/02/2014 | 10:24 uur
Ik dacht, zo zo, dat een gerespecteerde nieuwsorganisatie zo'n artikel plaatst.. Dan moeten ze vast nieuwe feiten boven tafel hebben gekregen...
Maar wie anders dan Loren Thompson had dit kunnen schrijven? Je wist vast (niet) dat dit de Mat Herben van de VS is? duidelijk genoeg?
Het is opvallend hoe het anti kamp reageert, het is opvallend dat er in sommige periodes een ware hetze ontstaat...
Goed of slecht... dit oordeel zal je mij horen geven zodra de kist volledig operationeel ingezet kan worden al ben ik de eerst die toegeeft dat de manier van ontwikkelen 'niet handig" is maar je zelf blind staren op doorontwikkelingen op Europese kisten vindt ik te kortzichtig.
Laat ze dan in Europa het initiatief nemen om te komen tot een gezamenlijk ontwikkeling, van mij part in een één en twee pitter variant, van een volgende generatie kist.... maar nee, hier wordt de industrie en het militaire complex langzaam maar zeker de nek omgedraaid.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/02/2014 | 11:32 uur
Het is opvallend hoe het anti kamp reageert, het is opvallend dat er in sommige periodes een ware hetze ontstaat...
Goed of slecht... dit oordeel zal je mij horen geven zodra de kist volledig operationeel ingezet kan worden al ben ik de eerst die toegeeft dat de manier van ontwikkelen 'niet handig" is maar je zelf blind staren op doorontwikkelingen op Europese kisten vindt ik te kortzichtig.
Laat ze dan in Europa het initiatief nemen om te komen tot een gezamenlijk ontwikkeling, van mij part in een één en twee pitter variant, van een volgende generatie kist.... maar nee, hier wordt de industrie en het militaire complex langzaam maar zeker de nek omgedraaid.
Dat heeft er ook mee te maken dat we klem zitten met de F35.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 04/02/2014 | 11:49 uur
Dat heeft er ook mee te maken dat we klem zitten met de F35.
Dat is ook waar.
Ik ben nog steeds voor een high end / low end mix, het mogen van mij best 37 F35 en 37 Gripen E zijn. het zou zelfs mijn voorkeur genieten om toch tot een respectabel aantal te komen...
Maar helaas, meer dan max 40+ en 50- kisten (ongeacht het type) zie ik er niet van komen.
:angel: tenzij we het over een volledig andere boeg gaan gooien.... de krijgsmacht wordt voor het grootste deel maritiem, met in het hart 2 kleine (tot 45K ton carriers), elk met een sqn Sea Gripens.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/02/2014 | 11:32 uur
Het is opvallend hoe het anti kamp reageert, het is opvallend dat er in sommige periodes een ware hetze ontstaat...
Goed of slecht... dit oordeel zal je mij horen geven zodra de kist volledig operationeel ingezet kan worden al ben ik de eerst die toegeeft dat de manier van ontwikkelen 'niet handig" is maar je zelf blind staren op doorontwikkelingen op Europese kisten vindt ik te kortzichtig.
Laat ze dan in Europa het initiatief nemen om te komen tot een gezamenlijk ontwikkeling, van mij part in een één en twee pitter variant, van een volgende generatie kist.... maar nee, hier wordt de industrie en het militaire complex langzaam maar zeker de nek omgedraaid.
+1, ik had het zelf niet beter kunnen verwoorden. Ontwikkeling tijdens LRIP doen is inderdaad niet handig, het probleem van eerst ontwikkeling en daarna LRIP is tijdsdruk. Zo'n proces zou makkelijk 10+ jaar kunnen vergen vanaf t moment dat er met testen begonnen wordt. Om dat tegen te gaan hebben ze gekozen voor simultane ontwikkeling en LRIP.
Europa is en blijft, gezien het aantal ontwerpen van Europese origine, hopeloos verdeeld. EF en Rafale hebben dezelfde voorouder.... Hadden ze de splitsing destijds niet doorgevoerd was misschien wel het resulterende ontwerp van dat programma gekozen door de KLu. Het is en blijft koffiedik kijken natuurlijk.
Citaat van: slaydo op 04/02/2014 | 12:47 uur
+1, ik had het zelf niet beter kunnen verwoorden. Ontwikkeling tijdens LRIP doen is inderdaad niet handig, het probleem van eerst ontwikkeling en daarna LRIP is tijdsdruk. Zo'n proces zou makkelijk 10+ jaar kunnen vergen vanaf t moment dat er met testen begonnen wordt. Om dat tegen te gaan hebben ze gekozen voor simultane ontwikkeling en LRIP.
Europa is en blijft, gezien het aantal ontwerpen van Europese origine, hopeloos verdeeld. EF en Rafale hebben dezelfde voorouder.... Hadden ze de splitsing destijds niet doorgevoerd was misschien wel het resulterende ontwerp van dat programma gekozen door de KLu. Het is en blijft koffiedik kijken natuurlijk.
Politiek, das alles.
Europa is niet hopeloos verdeeld met 3 toestellen, Europa is verdeeld met 20 kisten, en hoewel dat afneemt, zal het wel blijven.
"we" kochten en kopen recentelijk Eurofighters, Rafale's, Gripens, F35A's, F35B's, F18's en F16's.
Als de Rafale en de Eurofighter bij elkaar waren gebleven had dat niks uitgemaakt. Het heeft twee goede kisten opgeleverd, maar beide zijn niet Amerikaans. Het zijn keuzes.
De Europese fighter industrie is wel te redden, maar alleen als we samenwerken. En dat betekend dat sommigen een beetje moeten inleveren, anderen wat meer krijgen, maar als we het niet doen raken we de technologische basis kwijt, de kennis, ervaring en productiecapaciteiten, niet te vergeten exportproducten, militaire zelfstandigheid en een paar honderd duizend banen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 04/02/2014 | 12:58 uur
Politiek, das alles.
De Europese fighter industrie is wel te redden, maar alleen als we samenwerken. En dat betekend dat sommigen een beetje moeten inleveren, anderen wat meer krijgen, maar als we het niet doen raken we de technologische basis kwijt, de kennis, ervaring en productiecapaciteiten, niet te vergeten exportproducten, militaire zelfstandigheid en een paar honderd duizend banen.
Dat is ook zo, maar dan zouden ze gister al met een intentie verklaring hebben moeten komen en fondsen beschikbaar stellen om te beginnen met een concept ontwikkeling.
Nu kan het mij ontgaan zijn, maar voorlopig zie ik alleen maar gekissebis over een één of meerdere Europese UAV/UCAV's en dat was het dan wel zo ongeveer...
Neem "all in" 20 jaar voor de ontwikkeling tot een operationele kist.... 2014 + 20 is 2034... laat dat nu de periode zijn waar de eerste Eurocanards vervangen moeten worden... (al begint nu pas de levering van de EF tranche 3A en de Rafale F3F)
Het is ijzig stil....
Citaat van: Thomasen op 04/02/2014 | 12:58 uur
Politiek, das alles.
Europa is niet hopeloos verdeeld met 3 toestellen, Europa is verdeeld met 20 kisten, en hoewel dat afneemt, zal het wel blijven.
"we" kochten en kopen recentelijk Eurofighters, Rafale's, Gripens, F35A's, F35B's, F18's en F16's.
Als de Rafale en de Eurofighter bij elkaar waren gebleven had dat niks uitgemaakt. Het heeft twee goede kisten opgeleverd, maar beide zijn niet Amerikaans. Het zijn keuzes.
De Europese fighter industrie is wel te redden, maar alleen als we samenwerken. En dat betekend dat sommigen een beetje moeten inleveren, anderen wat meer krijgen, maar als we het niet doen raken we de technologische basis kwijt, de kennis, ervaring en productiecapaciteiten, niet te vergeten exportproducten, militaire zelfstandigheid en een paar honderd duizend banen.
Tja en die politieke verdeeldheid is elke keer de boosdoener mbt knopen doorhakken qua programmas. Ik had het over GEN 4.5 vliegtuigen die in Europa gemaakt/ontwikkeld worden zoals EF, Rafale en Gripen...... Niet het amerikaanse spul..... lezen is tech. We vliegen idd met veel verschillende typen rond maar dat is wat anders.
Zolang Europa Europa blijft blijven we verdeeldheid houden en zal nooit verdwijnen.... En maar blijven zaniken over samen dit en samen dat. DOE het dan ook. Ik zie alleen maar intentie dit en intentie dat. Vervolgens komt het toch vool toch weer partners zijn die liever deze optie hebben of toch een andere raket eronder zoals bij de EF.... Dit veroorzaakt alleen maar vertraging en uiteindelijk verdeeldheid.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/02/2014 | 13:06 uur
Dat is ook zo, maar dan zouden ze gister al met een intentie verklaring hebben moeten komen en fondsen beschikbaar stellen om te beginnen met een concept ontwikkeling.
Nu kan het mij ontgaan zijn, maar voorlopig zie ik alleen maar gekissebis over een één of meerdere Europese UAV/UCAV's en dat was het dan wel zo ongeveer...
Neem "all in" 20 jaar voor de ontwikkeling tot een operationele kist.... 2014 + 20 is 2034... laat dat nu de periode zijn waar de eerste Eurocanards vervangen moeten worden... (al begint nu pas de levering van de EF tranche 3A en de Rafale F3F)
Het is ijzig stil....
Dat is dus lastig, zelfs als 'we' zouden willen, is het geld de oceaan over gestroomd.
Daar komt dan de politieke problematiek nog bij.
Als we alleen al even kijken naar de kosten van de F35:
Ontwikkeling:
UK: 2.5 miljard
Italie: 2 miljard
NL: 1 miljard
No: 150 miljoen
Dk: 100 miljoen
5.75 miljard aan ontwikkelingsgeld.
Daarnaast gaan we volgens de huidige planning ongeveer 254 kisten kopen. Niemand weet wat dat gaat kosten.
Maar bij de geplande 35 miljoen per kist kom je op een totaal van 8.9 miljard. Bij de geclaimde 200 miljoen per kist kom je op 50.8 miljard.
En dat is bij de huidige planning. De bedoeling was dat er meer kisten gekocht zouden worden, namelijk 436. Dat is een kwart van de Europese jachtvliegtuig vloot. De kosten daarvoor bedragen tussen de 15.3 miljard en 87.2 miljard.
En dat zijn alleen de directe gevolgen. De indirecte gevolgen, doordat er minder export van Europese systemen is, er banen (en belastinginkomsten) verloren gaan enz, is er ook nog een fiks indirect effect. Globaal kun je dan dus stellen dat de F35 'ons' tussen de €50 en €150 miljard kost. Dan hebben we het nog niet over de F18 ('90's: Finland, '90's Spain) en F16 ('00's Griekenland, '06 Polen, '96 Portugal, (Roemenië)).
Niet alleen vloeien er Miljarden Euro's van het continent af, gaat de industriële basis verloren, maar ook maakt het de producten minder aantrekkelijk voor export, wat wederom miljarden kost.
Is het erg? Misschien. Maar het is in ieder geval een bewuste keuze.
Speltheorie at work. Werken we samen, of gaan we samen ten onder?
Citaat van: Thomasen op 04/02/2014 | 13:50 uur
Dat is dus lastig, zelfs als 'we' zouden willen, is het geld de oceaan over gestroomd.
Daar komt dan de politieke problematiek nog bij.
Als we alleen al even kijken naar de kosten van de F35:
Ontwikkeling:
UK: 2.5 miljard
Italie: 2 miljard
NL: 1 miljard
No: 150 miljoen
Dk: 100 miljoen
5.75 miljard aan ontwikkelingsgeld.
Daarnaast gaan we volgens de huidige planning ongeveer 254 kisten kopen. Niemand weet wat dat gaat kosten.
Maar bij de geplande 35 miljoen per kist kom je op een totaal van 8.9 miljard. Bij de geclaimde 200 miljoen per kist kom je op 50.8 miljard.
En dat is bij de huidige planning. De bedoeling was dat er meer kisten gekocht zouden worden, namelijk 436. Dat is een kwart van de Europese jachtvliegtuig vloot. De kosten daarvoor bedragen tussen de 15.3 miljard en 87.2 miljard.
En dat zijn alleen de directe gevolgen. De indirecte gevolgen, doordat er minder export van Europese systemen is, er banen (en belastinginkomsten) verloren gaan enz, is er ook nog een fiks indirect effect. Globaal kun je dan dus stellen dat de F35 'ons' tussen de €50 en €150 miljard kost. Dan hebben we het nog niet over de F18 ('90's: Finland, '90's Spain) en F16 ('00's Griekenland, '06 Polen, '96 Portugal, (Roemenië)).
Niet alleen vloeien er Miljarden Euro's van het continent af, gaat de industriële basis verloren, maar ook maakt het de producten minder aantrekkelijk voor export, wat wederom miljarden kost.
Is het erg? Misschien. Maar het is in ieder geval een bewuste keuze.
Speltheorie at work. Werken we samen, of gaan we samen ten onder?
Als ik kijk naar de programma kosten van alleen de Rafale en de EF kijk dan gaan we fluitend over de 100 mjd euro.
Feit is dat men in de VS, Rusland, Azie en zelfs in Turkije bezig is met een eigen ontwikkeling van een volgende generatie, waarbij de Amerikanen reeds voorzichtig aan het kijken zijn voor de opvolger van de F22.
Nu zullen alle conceptprogramma's niet tot ontwikkeling komen en zullen vast een aantal sneuvelen nog voor de prototype fase, het probleem is dat in er in de jaren dertig/veertig voldoende 5e en zelfs 6e generatie programma's zijn dat het niet meer lonend is straks zelf nog een te ontwikkelen, hooguit voor de eigen Europese markt tegen toren hoge kosten, maar zeker niet voor export.
Als we niet uitkijken dan missen we de boot na de EuroCanards volledig.
Positief lichtpunt (voor zover publiekelijk bekend) is Saab die de Turken en eventueel de Z Koreanen ondersteund met hun 5e generatie kist (hoogstwaarschijnlijk valt de Turkse beslissing binnen enkele weken en ik begrijp dat het één pitter Saab concept de "front runner" is van de Turkse luchtmacht)
Indien Saab met de Turken succesvol is, dan halen ze een concurrent voor hun Gripen E in eigen huis.
Citaat van: Chrisis op 04/02/2014 | 10:24 uur
Ik dacht, zo zo, dat een gerespecteerde nieuwsorganisatie zo'n artikel plaatst.. Dan moeten ze vast nieuwe feiten boven tafel hebben gekregen...
Maar wie anders dan Loren Thompson had dit kunnen schrijven? Je wist vast (niet) dat dit de Mat Herben van de VS is? duidelijk genoeg?
Dat schijnt inderdaad zo te zijn:
Arms Manufacturers Pay This Man to Mock Journalists
Loren Thompson makes a lot of money being mean
David Axe in War is Boringhttp://medium.com/war-is-boring/16b6285ae3ec (http://medium.com/war-is-boring/16b6285ae3ec)
UK to approve bulk F-35B buy in 2017
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
06 February 2014
BK-3 is one of three OT&E/training aircraft that the UK has received to date. A fourth is due to be signed for shortly, as are the first 14 operational jets. Financial approval for the UK's outstanding operational requirement is set for 2017. Source: Lockheed Martin
Financial approval for the UK's main procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) is expected in the next three years, a government minister disclosed on 5 February.
Answering questions in the House of Commons, Philip Dunne, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support, and Technology, said that the financial approval for this main buy, known as Main Gate 5, should be granted in 2017.
"The UK F-35 programme is scheduled to seek financial approval for its fifth and final main gate in 2017. At this point the overall cost of the programme will be published," Dunne noted.
With three main gates already passed (Main Gates 1-3 dealt with overall programme strategy and procurement of the initial operational test and evaluation aircraft), Main Gate 4 for the procurement of the first 14 operational aircraft is set to be approved in the coming days.
To date, the UK has received two operational test and evaluation (OT&E) aircraft (BK-1 and BK-2), and one training aircraft (BK-3). Another OT&E aircraft (BK-4) is expected to be signed for in the coming months. Once all have been delivered, BK-1, BK-2, and BK-4 will transfer from Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida to Edwards AFB in California later in 2014, where they will stand up as 17 (Fighter) Squadron for OT&E duties (BK-3 will remain at Eglin AFB as part of the wider training fleet).
The 14 aircraft to be procured under Main Gate 4 will be delivered in 2016 and handed over to 617 'Dambusters' Squadron when it is reactivated at Beaufort Pilot Training Center at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, South Carolina. At this time BK-3 will also be transferred over to the squadron.
In April 2018, 617 Sqn will transfer its aircraft and personnel back to RAF Marham in Norfolk, UK, and in December 2018 the UK will declare initial operating capability - land (IOC - Land) for its F-35B force. A yet-to-be-designated operational conversion unit is expected to be stood up at RAF Marham in 2019.
The second F-35B unit for the UK has been named as 809 'Immortals' Naval Air Squadron (NAS). Despite their separate Royal Air Force and Royal Navy identities, both 617 Sqn and 809 NAS will be operated as combined units, with a mix of service personnel and pilots.
In 2018, operations from the first of the UK's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will commence, with a full operating capability (land and maritime) for the F-35B set to be declared in 2023. A decision on whether both carriers will be fielded will be announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review [SDSR] in 2015. While the programme of record remains at 138 aircraft, no firm numbers will be announced until the SDSR in 2015.
http://www.janes.com/article/33540/uk-to-approve-bulk-f-35b-buy-in-2017
Italy Could Halve F-35 Order, May Prefer Eurofighter Variant
(alleen B-versie voor de Marine, luchtmacht met Eurofighter 3B als Tornado en AMX vervanger, dus 1 type toestel ??)
Italian Lawmakers Consider New Cuts to JSF Purchase
(Source: Defense News; posted Feb 09, 2014)
ROME --- Eight months after the Italian parliament suspended new orders of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), members of the country's biggest political party may try to halve the total purchase.
A source within the center-left Democratic Party said the members were preparing a policy document for approval in parliament which could seek to cut Italy's planned purchase of JSFs from 90 to around 45. The country has already reduced its total buy from the originally planned 131 aircraft.
But a second source said that debate inside the party is still continuing, and that the final document may merely threaten a cut if Italy does not obtain better conditions on the U.S.-led program.
Both sources said the document — which could be ready this month — would strive to make Italy invest in the multirole, ground attack version of the Eurofighter. Italy, a partner in the Lockheed Martin JSF program, has hitherto shown relatively little interest in the European plane.
"We are really looking to push for European defense integration," said the second source.
.../...
The first source said that 75 percent of Democratic Party members of parliament want to scrap the JSF program altogether as Italy struggles through an economic crisis. Recent criticism by the Pentagon's top testing office has also spurred opposition to the program, he said.
The final report, he said, could call for a "drastic cut" in F-35 orders, potentially as much as half.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151465/italy-could-halve-f_35-order%2C-may-prefer-eurofighter-variant.html
Lang artikel te lezen hier, zie Link
Italian Lawmakers Consider New Cuts to JSF Purchase
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140209/DEFREG01/302090010/Italian-Lawmakers-Consider-New-Cuts-JSF-Purchase
Verstandige keuze.
S. Korea Weighs Designs for KF-X
Feb. 10, 2014 - 12:15PM | By JUNG SUNG-KI
SEOUL — A decadelong effort by South Korea to develop its own fighter aircraft has finally received approval, yet the feasibility of the ambitious indigenous project, dubbed KF-X, is still in debate.
Zie link voor de tekst en de plaatjes.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140210/DEFREG/302100034?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/02/2014 | 19:19 uur
S. Korea Weighs Designs for KF-X
Feb. 10, 2014 - 12:15PM | By JUNG SUNG-KI
SEOUL — A decadelong effort by South Korea to develop its own fighter aircraft has finally received approval, yet the feasibility of the ambitious indigenous project, dubbed KF-X, is still in debate.
Zie link voor de tekst en de plaatjes.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140210/DEFREG/302100034?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Als je beide typen bekijkt dan lijken beide wel doorontwikkelde F-15SE en F-16's.
Heel simpel gezegd : de basis blijft hetzelfde met een andere vleugels, neus en cockpit
Beide ontwerpen hebben zo te zien geen inwendige weaponsbay en hebben hun pods en wapens onder de romp en vleugels
Citaat van: Harald op 10/02/2014 | 19:50 uur
Beide ontwerpen hebben zo te zien geen inwendige weaponsbay en hebben hun pods en wapens onder de romp en vleugels
Volgens de tekst zijn inwendige weaponsbays voorzien in block 2 en meer stealth eigenschappen vanaf block 3.
Eerst maar eens zien welke variant het gaat worden en of deze ook daadwerkelijk het levenslicht ziet.
Citaat van: Harald op 10/02/2014 | 15:35 uur
Italy Could Halve F-35 Order, May Prefer Eurofighter Variant
(alleen B-versie voor de Marine, luchtmacht met Eurofighter 3B als Tornado en AMX vervanger, dus 1 type toestel ??)
Italian Lawmakers Consider New Cuts to JSF Purchase
Halvering van de order. Zou het nog effect kunnen hebben op de industriële balans tussen Finmeccanica, Kongsberg en Fokker Technologies? Alle drie dingen nog naar extra industriecontracten.
Citaat van: Harald op 10/02/2014 | 19:50 uur
Als je beide typen bekijkt dan lijken beide wel doorontwikkelde F-15SE en F-16's.
Heel simpel gezegd : de basis blijft hetzelfde met een andere vleugels, neus en cockpit
Beide ontwerpen hebben zo te zien geen inwendige weaponsbay en hebben hun pods en wapens onder de romp en vleugels
Harald, ik zie hier een een mix van een F15SE en een YF22
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcmsimg.defensenews.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcsi.dll%2Fbilde%3FSite%3DM5%26amp%3BDate%3D20140210%26amp%3BCategory%3DDEFREG%26amp%3BArtNo%3D302100034%26amp%3BRef%3DAR%26amp%3BMaxW%3D300%26amp%3BBorder%3D0%26amp%3BS-Korea-Weighs-Designs-KF-X&hash=2faf92c59470f04d913223546abd79481ae138df)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff1%2FYF-22.jpg%2F800px-YF-22.jpg&hash=f6b2cd0337a0164d453736cfc8ed8cda17687cf9)
Citaat van: Zeewier op 10/02/2014 | 21:59 uur
Halvering van de order. Zou het nog effect kunnen hebben op de industriële balans tussen Finmeccanica, Kongsberg en Fokker Technologies? Alle drie dingen nog naar extra industriecontracten.
Ik zou me dat kunnen voorstellen... al krijgt Italië natuurlijk een productielijn, een mager lijntje ipv het oorspronkelijk beoogde (plan) aantal van NL85 + IT131 (van 216 naar - eventueel - 82), waarbij ik niet weet welke andere Europese landen hun F35 in Italië zullen laten produceren.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 10/02/2014 | 18:34 uur
Verstandige keuze.
ik heb het lang geleden al eens als optie genoemd in dit topic. En niet alleen voor Italië, al zitten. De Britten in een heel andere situatie inmiddels.
of het verstandig is, als het door gaat, zal de geschiedenis moeten leren. Maar in ieder geval worden risico's uitgesloten.
overigens krijgen zij geen productielijn, maar een assemblage lijn. Denigrerend gezegd mogen ze de vleugels er op schroeven en kijken of alles werkt. Productie is in de USA.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/02/2014 | 20:34 uur
Volgens de tekst zijn inwendige weaponsbays voorzien in block 2 en meer stealth eigenschappen vanaf block 3.
Eerst maar eens zien welke variant het gaat worden en of deze ook daadwerkelijk het levenslicht ziet.
De 2 motorige KF-X zal volgens de huidige planning 2 Eurojet EJ-200's krijgen en die leveren een maximale stuwkracht van 20.250 pond.
Wapen schachten kosten veel gewicht, dat geeft LockheedMartin ook toe. En maken de KF-X 'molliger' zoals de F-35A en Buccaneer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Buccaneer) of langer zoals een F-105 Thunderchief.
Meer stealth eigenschappen vergelijkbaar met de F-35 vanaf KF-X block 3? Op de F-35A zit maar liefst circa 650 kg aan radar absorberend materiaal.
Deze configuratie wordt te zwaar, te groot en te duur in aanschaf en exploitatie.
Als de Zuid-Koreanen wijs zijn, dan kiezen ze voor een gebalanceerde steelsheid, vergelijkbaar met de F-18E/F Super Hornet. Dus geen wapen schachten en ca. 150 kg aan radar absorberend materiaal. Gecombineerd met een Elektronisch Oorlogs Voering systeem, dat qua vaardigheden gelijk of beter is als dat van de Rafale.
Is troubled F-35 caught in a 'death spiral'?
By Michael F. Cochrane
Posted Feb. 10, 2014, 02:50 p.m.
The controversial F-35 program took another blow last week when the Navy requested a break from producing F-35C, its variant of the faulty and expensive Joint Strike Fighter.
Congressional sources said officials with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) worry the 3-year break will lead to a permanent end to the program, according to Politico. Critics have targeted the program in recent years because of high costs and technical problems during development and testing. Last month, a Pentagon report revealed "significant findings" of cracks developing in multiple locations on two of the test aircraft. Fixes may require redesigned parts, which could add additional weight—already a concern for the fighter jet. Also, the report said "measures of reliability and maintainability are all below program target values for the current stage of development."
The F-35 program has cost nearly $400 billion since its inception in 1996. Estimates of the 55-year lifecycle cost for the entire F-35 fleet range from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, making it the most expensive weapons program in history.
But how much does a fighter jet really cost? The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorized the procurement of 19 F-35As (the Air Force variant and the least expensive) in fiscal year 2014 at a cost of $2.989 billion. That amounts to $157.3 million for each aircraft. But procurement is only one component of total lifecycle cost. The program has already spent millions of dollars on research, development, and testing. The bulk of the lifecycle budget will be spent on maintaining and operating the planes.
By comparison, the true cost of owning a $20,000 car for 10 years could be as high as $62,000 when taking into account fixed costs, fuel, and maintenance.
Fear of rising costs and concern over concurrent development, testing, and production has Pentagon officials recommending reducing the number of aircraft it plans to buy. But that can also increase the per-aircraft cost, leading to what The Economist warned could be a "death spiral" in which cuts in the number of aircraft ordered would lead to even further cost increases.
The F-35 program could learn some lessons from the F-16, according to Gordon England, a former deputy secretary of defense under Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both programs had similar objectives and both experienced their share of early development problems. However, England attributes much of the F-16 program's success to its commitment to high rates of production, which drove down per-aircraft cost, as well as continuous upgrades during its production life. He argues that the Defense Department needs to change its F-35 management philosophy.
"Production capability has been proved by actual deliveries," England said. "The F-35 is being artificially confined to low production rates at a point when the F-16 was already roaring ahead."
http://www.worldmag.com/2014/02/is_troubled_f_35_caught_in_a_death_spiral
IAF will buy 14 Tejas squadrons, lowering costs
Indian fighter well-placed for global market for 3,500 light fighters
Ajai Shukla | New Delhi February 11, 2014
India's own fighter, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), is playing a growing role in protecting Indian airspace. On December 20, when the Tejas was cleared for operational service in the Indian Air Force (IAF), Defence Minister A K Antony declared 200 Tejas fighters would eventually enter combat service. Today, that figure quietly swelled to well above 300, with the government indicating the IAF would have at least 14 Tejas squadrons.
Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 comprise 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, two twin-seat trainers and three reserve aircraft to make up losses in a war.
In a written statement tabled in the Lok Sabha on Monday, Antony's deputy, Jitendra Singh, stated, "The MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircrafts of the IAF have already been upgraded and currently equip 14 combat squadrons. These aircraft, however, are planned for being phased out over the next few years and will be replaced by the LCA."
So far, the IAF has committed to inducting only six Tejas squadrons — two squadrons of the current Tejas Mark I, and four squadrons of the improved Tejas Mark II. In addition, the navy plans to buy 40-50 Tejas for its future aircraft carriers.
Since the programme began in 1985, about Rs 7,000 crore have been spent on the Tejas Mark I, which obtained Initial Operational Clearance in December, allowing regular IAF pilots to fly it. By the end of this year, when it obtains Final Operational Clearance, it would have consumed a Budget of Rs 7,965 crore.
An additional Rs 2,432 crore has been allocated for the Tejas Mark II, which takes the total development cost of the IAF variant to Rs 10,397 crore.
Separately, Rs 3,650 crore were sanctioned for developing the naval Tejas, which is ongoing. That means the Aeronautical Development Agency will spend Rs 14,047 crore on the entire Tejas programme, including the IAF, naval and trainer variants.
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which manufactures the Tejas, has quoted Rs 162 crore a fighter as its latest price. Amortising the entire development cost on the envisioned 344 fighters (IAF: 294; Navy: 50), the Tejas would cost Rs 209 crore ($33.5 million) per fighter.
In comparison, the IAF's Mirage 2000 fighters, bought in the 1980s, are currently being upgraded for $45 million per aircraft. IAF pilots that test-fly the Tejas Mark I find it qualitatively superior to the Mirage 2000.
The heavier Sukhoi-30MKI costs more than Rs 400 crore ($65 million) each. And the Rafale, which is currently being negotiated with Dassault, is pegged at Rs 750-850 crore ($120-140 million) per fighter.
Aerospace expert and historian, Pushpindar Singh, points out that ordering more Tejas would bring down the price further, making it enormously attractive for air forces across the world that are replacing some 3,500 MiG-21, Mirage-III, early model F-16 and F-5 fighters that are completing their service lives.
"With these air forces facing severe budget pressures, the Tejas has only one rival in this market — the JF-17 Thunder, being built by China in partnership with Pakistan. They are marketing the JF-17 aggressively in every global air show, but India is completely ignoring the Tejas' potential," said Singh.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/iaf-will-buy-14-tejas-squadrons-lowering-costs-114021001237_1.html
Slimme zet van de Indiërs. Ook zij begrijpen dat nummers nodig zijn. Zeker gezien de complexe omgeving waarin ze zich bevinden.
Making the Scorpion :
http://www.scorpionjet.com/gallery/discovery-channel/ (http://www.scorpionjet.com/gallery/discovery-channel/)
Zwitserland had vandaag geen toestellen beschikbaar om het gekaapte toestel op te vangen. Frankrijk en Italië hebben ondersteund. Dit zou zomaar van invloed kunnen gaan zijn op de Gripen vote.
http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/story/Die-Schweiz-hatte-keine-Kampfjets-bereit-19722028 (http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/story/Die-Schweiz-hatte-keine-Kampfjets-bereit-19722028)
Navy F-35C Prepares for Ship Trials, Faces Headwinds
By Sandra I. Erwin / 17 feb 2014
Naval aviators plan to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from an aircraft carrier at sea this fall. Pilots who have operated the aircraft say they are cautiously optimistic about its future despite a string of technical setbacks.
During carrier tests scheduled for October, officials will have an opportunity to examine the performance of the airplane following a recent redesign of the arresting hook that catches the airplane when it lands on the carrier deck. Aviation commanders also hope the tests will provide early answers to questions about the role of the F-35C as part of an air wing.
The F-35C faces several more years of tests before it is ready to join carrier air wings. Whereas the Marine Corps is determined to start operations with its vertical-takeoff F-35B as early as 2016, the Navy is in less of a hurry. At the earliest, the Navy has said the F-35C would be operational in 2019, although that goal appears to be in flux.
"We are only half way through the initial development plan," says Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks, a test pilot with 150 hours in the cockpit of the F-35C and B.
Flight tests are planned through 2017, and operational-level trials would begin later. The $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter program includes three variants: one for the Air Force, one for the Marine Corps and one for the Navy.
The priorities for the Navy's F-35C are to finish software development and to fix glitches in the helmet-mounted displays, Burks says during a recent industry conference in San Diego. Then the Navy will have to decide how to incorporate the F-35C into an already crowded air wing.
"There will be some challenges integrating the F-35 on the carrier. Most have been identified," he says. A carrier air wing typically has anywhere from 44 to 54 fighter jets. The Navy expects that for the foreseeable future, most of the fighters in the air wing will be Super Hornets, and that the F-35C will have a niche role as an airborne intelligence nerve center.
The F-35C will be predominantly an "information collector and distributor in the air wing," says Burks. As the Navy's only "stealth" aircraft that can fly undetected by radar, it will be prepared to "go alone into highly contested areas," he adds. But most of the time it will serve as the hub of a "network centric" air wing.
"It may not matter what weapon we have on board," Burks says. F-35 pilots will pass information over the network that would allow other aircraft to engage targets. "I may pull the trigger in the cockpit but the weapon may come from a different platform," he explains.
Routine aircraft operations and maintenance aboard the carrier will change dramatically when the F-35C joins the fleet, says Burks. The high-tech materials that give the F-35 stealth properties require special care. "There will have to be a paradigm shift ... in the grimy flight deck environment," he says. "Maintainers are going to have to come into the 21st century when it comes to maintaining these technologies," says Burks. "No longer can we allow our aircraft to get grubby and grimy from wear and tear, and wash them once a month. They will require daily support, the effort of the entire squadron, especially on cruise," he says. "That's different from the current mindset when we let the airplanes get dirty because of the operational environment." In test squadrons, aircraft are kept indoors and in hangars, so maintenance problems at sea have yet to be experienced.
Another issue will be coping with louder than usual engines. "It is a very noisy jet," Burks says of the F-35C. "We are looking at having to use noise-cancellation headsets for maintainers" and other operators.
The Pentagon's Director of Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore says in his 2014 annual report that engine noise is a "potential risk to personnel on the flight deck and one level below the flight deck." Projected noise levels one level below the flight deck will require at least single hearing protection, he says. On most carriers this is a berthing area, but on the new carrier CVN-78 this is a mission planning space, Gilmore says. "Personnel wearing hearing protection in mission planning areas will find it difficult to perform their duties."
A more significant concern is the performance of the redesigned tail hook, which has been tested six times so far. "It's a bit early to say we have definitely nailed this problem," says Burks. "The tail hook has been a major issue for the development of this airplane. It was unexpected until it was discovered in 2011." The first problem was not being able to catching the arresting wire. There was also a structural flaw that caused excessive stress to the bulkhead where the tail hook attaches to the airframe. The redesign took a year and a half. Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. has so far delivered one F-35C with the new tail hook at the Navy's test site at Patuxent River, Md.
Gilmore says the arresting hook system "remains an integration risk as the JSF development schedule leaves no time for new discoveries." He cautions about the "potential for gouging of the flight deck after a missed cable engagement due to an increase in weight of 139 pounds and the potential for sparking from the tail hook across the flight deck because of the increased weight and sharper geometry of the redesigned hook."
One of the most anticipated features of the F-35C is an automated landing system called "delta flight path" that would take the pressure off aviators to nail landings on moving ships. "The delta flight path for the F-35C will make carrier landing so easy," Burks says. "It will be a new era of carrier aviation. ... Night landings will not be the number one task to focus on." The system has been tested ashore but has yet to be tried at sea.
The glitches of the $500,000 F-35 pilot helmet have been well documented, but problems have yet to be fixed. Having a helmet-mounted display is central to how air warfare will be conduced with the F-35 because it eliminates the heads-up display in the cockpit, and everything is projected on the visor of the helmet.
"When it gets to the fleet and it's working right, it will provide a great capability," says Burks. It would allow for a smooth transition from day to night, with no need for night vision goggles. The pilot would have a 360-degree view of his surroundings from the cameras around the aircraft. The helmet, though, has been plagued by the jitters. When the display is fixed to the aircraft, it is easy for the human eye to compensate for head motion. "It so happens now that your head is bobbing around when you're pulling G's, it's not quite as easy to stabilize the symbology on the visor," he says. "We've been through many fixes." The contractor built a tiny electronic device to sense aircraft vibration and buffeting. "It turns on filters in different regimes of flight to filter out the noise we're seeing in the display," says Burks.
The redesigned helmet is now undergoing tests. The helmet's night camera also will require major changes. "It continues to be a show stopper at night," he says. One problem is that it leaks light at night when the pilot is trying to dim the display down. "You get a lot of leakage of light in the optics around the eyes. It's distracting," says Burks. He predicts the transition from cockpit to helmet-mounted displays will be hard for most pilots. "It took me about 50 flying hours to adjust."
William Gigliotti, F-35 test pilot at Lockheed Martin Corp., says glitches are to be expected in any major weapon development. During a panel discussion at the Navy's West 2014 conference in San Diego, Gigliotti suggests that "nits" in the F-35 program get blown out of proportion. "It's the most scrutinized program around," he says. "We can't afford to hide anything."
Being in the middle of the flight test program, he says, "our job is to stress the aircraft, find problems and fix them."
He says Lockheed engineers have come up with novel ideas for how to maintain sensitive stealth aircraft at sea. "When we go to the carrier this year, we have to see the normal wear and tear."
A potential weakness of the F-35 is not the aircraft but its weapons, Gigliotti says. He worries about future conflicts where U.S. aviators may have to engage in dogfights against well-equipped enemies. "We have air-to-air missiles. But it's important we acknowledge that in the United States we need a new AIM 120," he says referring to the newest air-to-air weapon used by the U.S. military. "We need a longer range air-to-air weapon. ... As an industry, we need to get active in supplying a longer and more kinematic air-to-air weapon," Gigliotti says. "That is a current limitation under some scenarios. ... It is the Achilles' heel across the U.S. Fighter fleet. We need better kinematics."
The Pentagon plans to buy nearly 100 F-35s of the three variants by 2018. When the program's schedule collapsed in 2009 and its costs started to soar, Pentagon officials halted development and directed all branches of the military to beef up the testing program to ensure problems were fixed before more airframes were produced.
The projected price tag of $391.2 billion for an eventual fleet of 2,443 F-35s is a 68 percent increase from the estimate in 2001. The officer in charge of the F-35, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, says in a 60 Minutes interview that the price tag of at least $115 billion per aircraft is too high, but the Pentagon intends to stick with the plan. "I don't see any scenario where we're walking back away from this program."
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1415
The F-35B Design Is Leaking Fuel (aanpassing van hoeveelheid brandstof om gewichtsprobleem te compenseren ? ... ten kosten van range)
(Source: ELP blog; posted Feb 18, 2014)
PARIS --- A prolific, Australia-based blogger who closely tracks the F-35 program has spotted some intriguing changes in the internal fuel figures for the F-35B variant provided by prime contractor Lockheed Martin.
In 2010, he says, a Lockheed presentation stated the F35B's internal fuel as 14,000 lbs.
By 2013, an unspecified British briefing paper stated the fuel capacity as 13,500 lbs.
Today, he notes, Lockheed's website puts the fuel capacity at 13,100 lbs.
The loss of 900 lbs of fuel has not been publicly announced or commented. Having 6.5 percent less fuel on board will likely reduce the F-35B's combat radius by a similar factor, thus reducing it by 30 nautical miles, to 420 miles.
Grafiek :
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.95190711.1392737223.UwN7x38AAAEAAD4fU2kAAAA6&prod=151683&nommod=produit_zoom
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151683/f_35b-loses-900-lbs-of-fuel-in-4-years.html#
24 Million Lines of Code to Secure? I'm Not Sure We Can Do That, Dave
The new F-35 Fighter Jet is an impressive war machine. The Lockheed Martin aircraft has a 1,200 mph top speed and a range of almost 1,400 miles. It is the result of a $400 billion program that makes it the most expensive weapons system in history. It is not only an impressive piece of aeronautical engineering.
It is also a phenomenally sophisticated software lab, with an integrated control system that uses complicated algorithms to help it carry out its mission no matter what adversity it encounters. The computer system includes a carry-on laptop-like device that stores the details of the mission and communicates over a dedicated network with ALIS, or Autonomic Logistics Information System.
According to the Lockheed Martin website, "ALIS provides the IT backbone and capabilities to support current and future Warfighters across the U.S. services and the world." ALIS communicates with the plane as it flies, monitoring its health and scanning for potential problems related to logistics, health, and maintenance. Between the mission-specific on-board laptop and the ALIS backbone, 24 million lines of code keep the plane in the air and on its mission.
That's a lot of code, not to mention a lot of opportunities for bugs and security flaws.
A conservative estimate of the number of software bugs is one per every thousand lines of code. Even if the software powering the F-35 has a bug rate of one-tenth that figure, we can expect 2,400 bugs in its software. Some of those bugs are likely to be exploitable by software hackers. Can there be any more enticing a target for state-sponsored hackers than a US fighter jet?
And here's an even more sobering shocker: the human pilot cannot override the wishes of the computer captain. ALIS has final say regardless of what the pilot wants to do. This isn't Star Wars; this is HAL from 2001 Space Odyssey. They've seen that movie, right?
A 60 Minutes segment on the F-35 and its potential software Achilles heel doesn't exactly give one the warm-and-fuzzies. The commander seems like he's trying unsuccessfully to convince himself that the system won't be hackable.
Unfortunately, the statistics don't support even his tentative optimism. Complexity is the enemy of security and reliability. Take the human out of the loop, and you've relinquished all control to the complexity you should be avoiding. This simply does not compute.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/151691/expert-questions-f_35-software-security.html
Ze zullen daar bij Lockheed ongetwijfeld veel betere programmeurs in dienst hebben dan ikzelf en mijn collega's, maar toch kan ik gerust zeggen dat ze die ene bug per 10.000 regels code niet gaan halen hoor. Die cijfers heeft die reporter uit een zeer donkere plek getrokken. Met zoveel software dat integraal is voor dat vliegend huzarenstukje, vrees ik dat er heel wat JSFjes gaan neerstorten. 't Gaat mij echt niets verbazen als de hoeveelheid verliezen door softwarefalen groter gaan zijn dan die van de F104. Maar ik laat me graag verbazen. :cute-smile:
Als hun programmatuur écht zo goed is, dan is de grootste zorg voor de Amerikaanse defensie de komende jaren niet enige buitenlandse mogendheid, maar headhunters die hun uitstekende programmeurs wegkapen.
Citaat van: Lynxian op 18/02/2014 | 22:39 uur
Met zoveel software dat integraal is voor dat vliegend huzarenstukje, vrees ik dat er heel wat JSFjes gaan neerstorten. 't Gaat mij echt niets verbazen als de hoeveelheid verliezen door softwarefalen groter gaan zijn dan die van de F104. Maar ik laat me graag verbazen. :cute-smile:
Je zou zo maar gelijk kunnen hebben, maar ga je nu niet uit van een negatief vooroordeel?
Dan krijg je als vlieger dat ene popup'je op je scherm te zien....."hit any key to continue" of "neem contact op met uw systeembeheerder" :cute-smile:
Deze is ook een aardige: "And here's an even more sobering shocker: the human pilot cannot override the wishes of the computer captain. ALIS has final say regardless of what the pilot wants to do"
Citaat van: Harald op 18/02/2014 | 16:40 uur
24 Million Lines of Code to Secure? I'm Not Sure We Can Do That, Dave
Een probleem voor alle avionische softwareontwikkelaars, militair en civiel.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/02/2014 | 22:46 uur
Je zou zo maar gelijk kunnen hebben, maar ga je nu niet uit van een negatief vooroordeel?
Programmeren is mijn beroep, dus nee, geen vooroordeel, maar werkervaring.
Citaat van: Ros op 18/02/2014 | 23:13 uur
Dan krijg je als vlieger dat ene popup'je op je scherm te zien....."hit any key to continue" of "neem contact op met uw systeembeheerder" :cute-smile:
Deze is ook een aardige: "And here's an even more sobering shocker: the human pilot cannot override the wishes of the computer captain. ALIS has final say regardless of what the pilot wants to do"
Schietstoel activeren gaat dan zeker ook niet meer?!
Germany Cancels Order for 37 Eurofighter Jets Worth $5 Billion -- Officials
By Andrea Thomas And Daniel Michaels
Feb. 19, 2014
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579393103247459842?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303636404579393103247459842.html
BAE Systems agrees Eurofighter pricing with Saudi Arabia
19 February 2014
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26254561
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/02/2014 | 19:44 uur
Germany Cancels Order for 37 Eurofighter Jets Worth $5 Billion -- Officials
By Andrea Thomas And Daniel Michaels
Feb. 19, 2014
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579393103247459842?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303636404579393103247459842.html
Was al een tijd aangekondigd. Maar een slechte zet. Zowel voor de EF als voor de Luftwaffe.
Citaat van: online.wsj.com
Germany Cancels Order for 37 Eurofighter Jets Worth $5 Billion -- Officials
En weer 37 nieuwe kisten van de Europese sterkte..... of zou het zo kunnen zijn dat er een productie batch wordt doorverkocht aan Denemarken (gezien de krachtige lobby voor de EF van de voormalige Deense mindef).
Een andere mogelijkheid is dat de Italianen idd kiezen voor een halvering van de F35 order en slechts 45 F35B aanschaffen om hun luchtmacht te versterken met extra EF (waar sprake van is/zou kunnen zijn)
Of het biedt extra snelle ruimte voor een volgende batch naar het Midden Oosten?
Deutschland: 143 Eurofighter sind genug
http://wirtschaftsblatt.at/home/nachrichten/Europa/1564989/Deutschland_143-Eurofighter-sind-genug
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/02/2014 | 19:59 uur
En weer 37 nieuwe kisten van de Europese sterkte..... of zou het zo kunnen zijn dat er een productie batch wordt doorverkocht aan Denemarken (gezien de krachtige lobby voor de EF van de voormalige Deense mindef).
Een andere mogelijkheid is dat de Italianen idd kiezen voor een halvering van de F35 order en slechts 45 F35B aanschaffen om hun luchtmacht te versterken met extra EF (waar sprake van is/zou kunnen zijn)
Of het biedt extra snelle ruimte voor een volgende batch naar het Midden Oosten?
Dat is ook precies wat ik dacht.
Ik denk zeker, dat de Italianen hun F35 order zullen wijzigen en alleen de B-versie zullen aanschaffen voor hun carriers. Dus zullen ze wel extra Typhoons bestellen, ze hebben er nu 71 en nog 25 in order staan. Tevens zullen ze zeker (gedeeltelijk) hun typhoons opwaarderen naar Tranche 3 om hun Tornado's (en AMX) te vervangen.
Extra info Typhoon :
http://www.eurofighter.com/files/pdf/Eurofighter_World_Nov_13.pdf
Citaat van: Harald op 19/02/2014 | 21:20 uur
Dat is ook precies wat ik dacht.
Ik denk zeker, dat de Italianen hun F35 order zullen wijzigen en alleen de B-versie zullen aanschaffen voor hun carriers. Dus zullen ze wel extra Typhoons bestellen, ze hebben er nu 71 en nog 25 in order staan. Tevens zullen ze zeker (gedeeltelijk) hun typhoons opwaarderen naar Tranche 3 om hun Tornado's (en AMX) te vervangen.
Extra info Typhoon :
http://www.eurofighter.com/files/pdf/Eurofighter_World_Nov_13.pdf
Enig idee wat een beetje de leverdata van de Tornado's zijn?
Want de UK en Duitsland hebben ook nog een berg Tornado's. De Spanjaarden de F18. Dat zou in de toekomst ook extra EF's kunnen betekenen. Echter, als die kisten meegaan tot 2030 is het de vraag of het de EF is die ze gaat vervangen.
Scorpion Jet February Test Flights
Textron AirLand's Scorpion Completes Additional Test Flights and Participates in Industry ConferencesWICHITA, Kan.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Textron AirLand, LLC, a joint venture between Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) and AirLand Enterprises, LLC, today announced that the Scorpion Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)/Strike aircraft completed additional test flights in January and February. The most recent test flight occurred on February 13.
The Scorpion team is planning to conduct several hundred hours of additional flight tests in 2014, each flight targeting specific objectives pushing the aircraft's airspeed, altitude, and performance envelope. "Overall, we've had very positive results through the initial test flights. In these early flights, we have evaluated the aircraft performance and tested a wide range of mechanical and electronic systems. The Scorpion is a very agile platform and I'm confident in the airframe as we continue through the test and evaluation phase," commented Dan Hinson, chief test pilot for the Scorpion team and 23-year veteran Navy pilot.
Most of the test flights will be conducted at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, and the team is planning numerous flights outside of the area.
Textron AirLand is pursuing sales opportunities with US military branches as well as a number of US partner nations. The company is seeking market license and export approvals for additional opportunities, driven by early interest from specific US partner nations.
Textron AirLand is showcasing the Scorpion at major defense industry exhibitions across the globe. In February, Scorpion was featured in a static display at the Singapore Airshow, recognized as Asia's largest air show, and at DefExpo 2014, India's largest annual defense conference. At the Air Force Air Warfare Symposium on February 20th, the Scorpion will be discussed as part of an "Adapting for the Future" forum in which Textron CEO Scott Donnelly and other senior aviation executives will serve as the forum's panelists; and in March, Scorpion will be represented at FIDAE 2014, Chile's leading defense solutions exposition, attracting military leaders from many Latin American countries.
http://www.scorpionjet.com/textron-airlands-scorpion-completes-additional-test-flights-participates-industry-conferences/
Citaat van: Thomasen op 19/02/2014 | 21:22 uur
Enig idee wat een beetje de leverdata van de Tornado's zijn?
Want de UK en Duitsland hebben ook nog een berg Tornado's. De Spanjaarden de F18. Dat zou in de toekomst ook extra EF's kunnen betekenen. Echter, als die kisten meegaan tot 2030 is het de vraag of het de EF is die ze gaat vervangen.
Er wordt gesproken over een Typhoon 45... en nog geen enkele intentie om de EuoCanards en Tornado's te vervangen door een nieuw concept en de ontwikkelingen richting Europese UCAV dekken vermoedelijk de behoefte niet en zijn hooguit aanvullend (al gaat de techniek snel).
De UK Tornado's worden (tot nu toe) in principe vervangen door de F35.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 19/02/2014 | 21:22 uur
Enig idee wat een beetje de leverdata van de Tornado's zijn?
Want de UK en Duitsland hebben ook nog een berg Tornado's. De Spanjaarden de F18. Dat zou in de toekomst ook extra EF's kunnen betekenen. Echter, als die kisten meegaan tot 2030 is het de vraag of het de EF is die ze gaat vervangen.
Volgens mij in de UK zal de laatste in 2019 vervangen worden door Typhoons en F-35B en in Italie zullen de laatste ECR's in 2025 uitgefaseerd/vervangen worden, de andere typen dus eerder.
En Duitsland in 2020.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/02/2014 | 21:49 uur
Er wordt gesproken over een Typhoon 45... en nog geen enkele intentie om de EuoCanards en Tornado's te vervangen door een nieuw concept en de ontwikkelingen richting Europese UCAV dekken vermoedelijk de behoefte niet en zijn hooguit aanvullend (al gaat de techniek snel).
De UK Tornado's worden (tot nu toe) in principe vervangen door de F35.
De F35 zou toch de Harriers vervangen?
De Yak-130 & M-346 Master hebben betere prestaties dan de Scorpion Jet. Maximum Take-off Weight & snelheid maken het verschil door gebruik te maken van hoger vermogen turbofans.
Citaat van: Zeewier op 19/02/2014 | 22:58 uur
De Yak-130 & M-346 Master hebben betere prestaties dan de Scorpion Jet. Maximum Take-off Weight & snelheid maken het verschil door gebruik te maken van hoger vermogen turbofans.
De Scorpion Jet kan gezien worden als een moderne versie van de F-5 Freedom Fighter of de A4 Skyhawk, low tech maar dan wel betaalbaar en betrouwbaar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_technology
De Scorpion is erg langzaam. Het is een jet versie van een typische turboprop COIN kist.
Een toestel als de M-346 is sneller, kan als trainer worden ingezet en is misschien niet eens kansloos in een lucht-lucht gevecht met de wat oudere Sovjet kisten.
EDIT:
Een handje vol L-159A's met lage kilometerstand moeten voor een appel en een ei op te kopen zijn.
En de productielijn heropenen is een mogelijkheid (voor bijvoorbeeld gemoderniseerde tweezitters).
Door de rechte vleugels misschien meer geschikt voor CAS dan de M-346.
Will Silent Eagle Get Kicked out of the Nest?
Posted by Amy Butler on Feb 19, 2014
With Boeing adjusting from its blistering loss to Lockheed Martin's F-35 for the sale of 60 fighters to Seoul, the company has yet to officially sentence the so-called Silent Eagle moniker to death.
But, maybe it is time?
"The pieces are there ... whether we will continue to call it that moniker," Chris Raymond, vice president of business development and strategy for Boeing Defense, Space and Security, told Aviation Week. "That [name] was unique to that offering."
The Silent Eagle was unveiled to the press in 2009, when an F-15E demonstrator was mocked up with nonfunctioning stealthy, canted tails and outfitted with a conformal weapons bay, which was showcased for the media during a ground-based demonstration. These upgrades were designed to reduce the frontal radar cross section brought on by the Strike Eagle, thus making it more "silent" to enemy air defenses. The Silent Eagle, and a similar upgrade package for the F/A-18E/F, is being offered to customers as potential alternatives to Lockheed Martin's stealthy F-35.
In 2009 the F-35 was in a much more precarious position than it is today. It was nearing a $4.6 billion restructuring, which was done in 2010. Now, however, the Pentagon is pledging its seemingly endless support for the single-engine F-35; the remaining question for the program is one of cost and how many fighters the Pentagon and foreign customers can ultimately afford.
Boeing was careful to never publicly position itself as pitching the Silent Eagle for the U.S. Air Force, which has staunchly pursued a policy for years of purchasing only so called fifth-generation F-22s and F-35s, both produced by Lockheed Martin. This moniker, coined by Lockheed Martin marketers and later adopted by the Pentagon, refers to the combination of stealthy shape and coatings, integrated avionics and mission processing.
At the rollout, Brad Jones, who then led the Silent Eagle effort, said the aircraft was intended for foreign customers, namely Israel and South Korea. However, both of these loyal F-15 buyers passed on it. And, their support for the F-35 was so strong, they compromised in order to be able to buy it. In the case of Tel Aviv, officials opted for fewer F-35s upfront than originally planned. Likewise, Seoul has compromised on initial numbers owing to cost and selected the F-35 even though Boeing's bid was the only once that was compliant with its competition plan.
The Silent Eagle package is more than just external features optimized for a reduced radar cross section. Also included are options for an active, electronically scanned array radar, digital electronic warfare system and enhanced weapons loadout with the use of wing stations 1 and 9. These developments are being paid for by Saudi Arabia, which is buying the most advanced version of the F-15 for its military. The Saudi order will carry the line through 2018; a buy from South Korea would have extended production by another three years, according to Steve Winkler, who heads F-15 business development, last year.
Also available for the F-15 is the addition of fly-by-wire flight controls and an updated core processor and larger, multifunction cockpit displays.
Boeing launched an AIM 120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam) from the Silent Eagle conformal fuel tank carried by the F-15 demonstrator in 2010, Winkler said. At the time, the demonstrator did not have the canted tails.
Boeing officials are mum today on whether design teams are continuing work on the Silent Eagle enhancements, especially those associated with the stealth features intended to take on the F-35. "We don't comment on activities of our workforce," said Karen Fincutter, a Boeing spokeswoman. "The demonstrator is still available and Boeing is working with the Air Force to determine its future use to the program."
What may never be fully known is just why the Silent Eagle didn't take flight. Perhaps it was timing; if it had come on the scene earlier, while F-35 was far less mature, could it have gotten a few orders? Perhaps.
Or, perhaps, it was ultimately a function of cost. Company officials never cited a clear flyway figure. However, Jones cited a ballpark under $100 million at the unveiling, but the official bid to South Korea was not made public. Low-rate initial production lot 5 F-35As, which are on the final assembly line at Lockheed Martin now, are being produced with an intended target cost of $105 million. The total including an engine is estimated to be up to $124 million. It could be that allies are just willing to pay more and wait a little longer to buy into the JSF club.
During last year's briefing on the Silent Eagle, Winkler hinted that the company had a growth path for the Strike Eagle beyond the Silent Eagle package, though he declined to outline its specifics.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A7be0b993-f208-47ef-8f3e-0f3eaaf3cdd7
February 19, 2014, 5:44 p.m. ET
.
Germany's Decision to Cancel Eurofighter Jet Order Narrows Field of Buyers -- 2nd Update
By Andrea Thomas and Doug Cameron
The decision by Germany to cancel a multibillion-euro order for Eurofighter Typhoon jets on Wednesday leaves Europe's largest defense program even more reliant on a shrinking band of potential buyers in the Middle East and Asia.
Germany had initially pledged to buy up to 250 of the advanced fighters but, like others in the four-nation consortium that funded the jet, has opted to cut orders because of domestic budget pressures.
The makers of the Eurofighter, including BAE Systems PLC, Airbus Group NV and Finmeccanica SpA, hope to win orders from countries including Saudi Arabia and Malaysia to keep their production lines going beyond 2018.
BAE said Wednesday that it had secured a long-awaited deal with Saudi Arabia on the final pricing of 72 Typhoons ordered in 2007, raising hopes for a follow-on deal for more aircraft.
The Eurofighter consortium is waging an intense battle for overseas orders with jets made by Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and France's Dassault Aviation SA, alongside makers of cheaper fighters such as Sweden's Saab AB, which last year beat its larger rivals to win a $4.5 billion order from Brazil.
Germany and the U.K. originally planned to each buy 250 Eurofighters, but have steadily reduced their commitments and alongside partners Italy and Spain agreed in 2009 to split their final orders into two tranches.
Stéphane Beemelmans, Germany's deputy defense minister, told a parliamentary meeting on Wednesday that Germany has canceled the second tranche of 37 jets valued at EUR3.5 billion, according to a parliamentary official who attended the meeting and declined to be identified. A government official confirmed the decision. Germany flies 107 Eurofighters and has another 36 on order.
Eurofighter and Airbus Group, which handles the German Eurofighter contract, said they hadn't been told of a government decision, and other suppliers such as engine maker Rolls-Royce PLC declined to comment.
"I wouldn't hold my breath for more orders from the four [consortium] nations," said Douglas Barrie at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank.
BAE announced the long-awaited deal with Saudi Arabia on the eve of its 2013 earnings report Thursday. Europe's largest defense contractor by revenue said the pact would keep its 2013 results broadly in line with previous guidance for double-digit growth in underlying earnings for the full year.
Analysts remain doubtful whether Saudi Arabia will buy more Typhoons after opting not to set up a domestic assembly line for the jets and signing a larger-than-expected deal to acquire Boeing F-15 fighters.
"When they decided not to build an in-country line, that probably capped the total at 72," said Richard Aboulafia, analyst at the Teal Group, a U.S. aerospace consultant.
--Daniel Michaels and Marietta Cauchi contributed to this article.
Write to Andrea Thomas at andrea.thomas@wsj.com and Doug Cameron at doug.cameron@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140219-715453.html
Eurofighter Typhoon
Feb 9/14: Italy
Italian party wants to buy Tranche 3B Typhoons instead of F-35s
The center-left Democratic Party is reportedly preparing a policy document that would cut F-35 buys from the current reduced plan for 90 F-35A/Bs to around 45 planes, while trying to make Italy invest in Eurofighter's Tranche 3B buy.
Significant reductions in planned buys by Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. will all hit Italy's own F-35 Final Assembly and Check-Out plant. Part of the party's push despite this incentive is ideological, reflecting a bias that's in favor of European defense programs and less friendly toward the USA. Part of it reflects a level of general uneasiness with F-35 costs, capabilities, and delivery dates. Sources: Defense News, "Italian Lawmakers Consider New Cuts to JSF Purchase".
Feb 19/14: Germany.
News reports are describing a German decision to cancel 37 Eurofighters, based on Deputy Defense Minister Stephane Beemelmans' testimony before their the parliamentary defense committee. That isn't quite true.
What it means is that Germany doesn't intend to pay for a Tranche 3B, which would have included 37 fighters to finish their agreed purchases. A Tranche 3B offer was reportedly extended to the core countries by Eurofighter on June 9/10, but Europe's financial woes have left the core partners uninterested. Indeed, Germany ended their plans for a Tranche 3B order back in 2011 (q.v. Oct 21/11). 2014 was supposed to be a year of decision for the core countries, but with Germany and Britain on the sidelines, Spain or Italy become that much more difficult to convince.
The wording of the July 31/09 Tranche 3A agreement, and of the broader Eurofighter partnership agreements, determine how much the decision costs Germany in cancellation fees. Britain found a way to disclaim any Tranche 3B buy the moment the Tranche 3A contract was signed, but they appear to have done so by shifting Saudi exports under their own account, which avoids any penalties.
Unless Eurofighter GmbH finds additional orders somewhere, the production line will begin shifting toward upgrades and maintenance only in 2015 (q.v. Jan 25/11). Sources: Reuters, "Germany cancels delivery of last 37 Eurofighter jets: source".
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/eurofighters-eur-9b-miltinational-tranche-3a-contract-05674/
Is the F-35's Computer R2-D2 or HAL?
A recent "60 Minutes" segment on the Defense Department's F-35 focused on some of the high-tech features of the future fighter jet.
The Pentagon's most advanced — and most expensive — acquisition program isn't just another stealth aircraft with angled lines and sharp contours. It's a "flying computer," with 24 million lines of software code and a $500,000-plus helmet-mounted display that lets pilots see through the floor of the cockpit, according to the report.
"The helmet itself is Star Wars," Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, said in an interview with David Martin, a national security correspondent for CBS News. "It's what you see in a Star Wars movie."
The system, which includes the custom-fitted helmet and a computer that receives data from the plane's radar, cameras and antennae, will allow pilots to see an enemy aircraft at far greater distances than today's fighters, officials touted on the program.
But like other parts of the plane, it doesn't always work. When the news team visited the Marine Corps station in Yuma, Ariz., for instance, "a malfunction caused a scheduled flight to be scrubbed," according to the report. And even when it does work, some pilots reportedly complain of being bombarded with too much information.
"The new ... helmets are a hoot," Neil Jones of England wrote in a comment on the program's website. "They made [Royal Air Force] pilots who used them dizzy, due to information overload. The night vision capability is awful, so pilots are flying virtually blind. We have swapped back to the helmet used by pilots who fly the Eurofighter."
Arguably the most interesting footage came in an extra segment, titled "Can the F-35 be Hacked?" — with another Star Wars reference. The correspondent compared the aircraft's automated parts-replacement system, known as the Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS (pronounced "Alice"), to the film's beloved robot, R2-D2.
"Think of ALIS as the R2-D2 of the F-35," Martin said, "because it really does control what the F-35 can do ... She looks basically like a laptop computer and the pilot carries it out to the plane and sticks it in a slot right next to him in the cockpit and that contains all the information about the mission he's going to fly."
The servers that process the information take up an area the size of a shipping container, Martin said. When it was given to the military, however, the system had incorrect parts numbers in the database and, as a result, has erroneously recommended grounding the aircraft, he said.
"Even though the maintenance person knew what part he needed to put on it, ALIS was telling him, 'No, you needed this other part,'" said Air Force Col. Rod Cregier, who runs the F-35 test program, during the taping. "ALIS thinks she knows everything about the airplane. She won't let you do anything counter to herself."
Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle agreed. "We need to have the ability to override the algorithms that are built into that system to determine whether an aircraft is safe to fly or not," he said during the interview. "I didn't design ALIS. I didn't develop ALIS. I'm trying to do everything I can to make ALIS work for us."
The rigidity of the system invited comparisons not to the friendly robot R2 of Star Wars, but to the more menacing machine HAL 9000 of the science-fiction flick, "2001: A Space Odyssey."
In addition, the plane's reliance on software and information technology makes it a target for hackers, Schmidle said. "It's kind of like you using your smart phone to do banking," he told Martin. "You are taking a greater risk than if you walk down to the teller at the bank and say, 'Hey, this is what I wanted to do."
While Schmidle said he's "confident" that the military will be able to protect the aircraft's data networks, he also acknowledged that "it's not going to be easy and it's not going to happen overnight."
Stephen Welby, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary of defense for systems engineering, is leading a 13-member team of independent experts in reviewing the F-35's software problems. The work is expected to be completed next month.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2014/02/19/is-the-f-35s-computer-r2-d2-or-hal/#ixzz2twqTaBlR
Defense.org
The F-35B design is leaking fuel
Gepubliceerd door Christiaan Meinen om 10:29 onder Global F35 News
Reposted with permission from Eric Palmer blog. (with thanks)
The internal fuel capacity of the F-35B STOVL aircraft design has sprung a leak.
2010 LM Brief - 14,000lbs of fuel:
Next... a 2013 UK brief (based on LM 2012 figures) - 13,500lbs of fuel.
Now, today, LM website - 13,100lbs of fuel.
How this aircraft will meet its combat radius specified in the operational requirement document will be interesting to see.
To be fair, the F-35C, which is overweight 15 percent compared to its 2002 design configuration, has lost 800 pounds of internal fuel carry since 2010.
Nieuwe berichten op JSFNieuws.nl
Does JSF has serious consequences for capabilities of all Defense branches? -http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=1041 (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=1041)
The F-35B design is leaking fuel - http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=1040 (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=1040)
Lockheed F-35 for Marines Delayed as Test Exposes Cracks
On-the-ground stress testing for the U.S. Marine Corps version of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 jet may be halted for as long as a year after cracks were found in the aircraft's bulkheads, Pentagon officials said.
Testing of the fighter's durability was stopped in late September after inspections turned up cracks in three of six bulkheads on a plane used for ground testing, said Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 program office.
The previously undisclosed suspension of the stress testing may increase scrutiny of the Marine Corps' F-35B, the most complex of the three versions of the plane, during congressional hearings on the Defense Department's fiscal 2015 budget. The department plans to request funds for 34 F-35s, eight fewer than the 42 originally planned, according to officials. Six of those planes would be for the Marines.
"We consider this significant but by no means catastrophic," Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's undersecretary for acquisition, said in an e-mailed statement. While the program office is still performing an assessment, "based on preliminary analysis, a redesign" of some F-35B structures will be required, said Kendall, who has a master's degree in aerospace engineering.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151788/cracks-have-stopped-f_35b-tests-since-september.html
Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada – Part 1
February 23, 2014
Editor's note: Last week Defence Watch ran a three part series on why the F-35 wasn't the right aircraft for Canada. This week Defence Watch runs a three part series on why the F-35 is essential for Canada. The article is written by Edward Wu, who is based in Vancouver. He answered the Defence Watch request to pen a defence of the F-35. He noted that he is not associated with any defence or aerospace contractors, nor any political parties or government.
By Edward Wu
Defence Watch Guest Writer
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been much maligned in the press recently, some of it fairly, and some of it unfairly. In order to separate what is important to Canada, one does need to take a step back and look at the empirical evidence to make an accurate assessment of the choices available to Canada.
Speed
The F-35 was designed primarily to replace the mainstay of the USAF and USN tactical aviation fleet; namely, the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet. A number of criticisms take issue with the F-35's supposed lack of speed. It should be noted that the F-35's top speed of Mach 1.6 is achievable while carrying a militarily useful load; meaning that a F-35A that's configured with a pair of 2000lb bombs, two air to air missiles, and enough fuel to fly to a target 300nm out and back will be able to achieve its top speed.
Other legacy fighters, such as the F/A-18, F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15, Gripen, etc cannot achieve their top speeds with any external ordinance. The reason for this is that external ordinance creates parasitic drag, degrading aircraft performance. Furthermore, the top speeds of many legacy fighters can only be achieved for very short durations because of the low internal fuel fraction of these aircraft. The F-35, as a percentage of its maximum take-off weight, can carry over 26% of its maximum take-off weight as fuel internally, meaning that the F-35 can sustain its top speed for longer.
Acceleration
A number of criticisms have been leveled against the F-35 for missing acceleration performance targets. It should be noted that the acceleration performance targets were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet, meaning an aircraft with no weapons or any external fuel tanks or ordinance.1 When flying with the F-16 chase aircraft, some test pilots have reported that the F-35 will out accelerate the F-16 chase aircraft while flying in the high subsonic range.2 Other pilots have reported that the F-35's acceleration is comparable to an F-16 Block 50 as well.3
Furthermore, stealth fighters, such as the F-22 and F-35 carry their weapons and their fuel internally compared to legacy aircraft. This means that the F-22 and the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, thus rendering any comparison to a legacy aircraft invalid because a legacy fighter's configuration drastically changes when loaded with weapons, external fuel, targeting and jamming pods.
Thus, from the information that can be gathered, the F-35 acceleration performance is on par or superior to the F-16, and thus is competitive compared to other legacy fighters.
Maneuverability
The F-35 has been unfairly criticized regarding its ability to maneuver as well as many of its opponents. The truth is that the F-35's performs just as well as any legacy fighter today.
The F-35's Performance Parameters laid out in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) sheds light on the exact performance requirements that are being demanded from the F-35.
The requirement for all three variants is to provide a platform that will have a positive exchange ratio during air combat maneuvering (ACM) engagements against "high performance threats that employ helmet mounted cueing and high off-boresight weapons."4 Furthermore, the ORD goes on to state that the JSF must further possess high angle of attack (AOA) capabilities "similar in nature to (or better than) the F-18C."5
In particular, the F-35A is being required to meet a threshold requirement for a 9.0 G capability at 60% fuel and no air-to ground ordnance remaining. In addition to the high-end requirement, the USAF also provides for a more realistic scenario of high altitude, large payload performance.
In addition, reports from operational test pilots have shed some light on the performance of the F-35. One test pilot, Billie Flynn, mentioned that if one "were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35′s, It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there." 6
There has been some criticism in regards the Billie Flynn's statement here. It should be noted that Billie Flynn is a highly qualified test pilot. He is the director of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots,7 and thus has staked his reputation on being an objective test pilot, having worked with NASA, the Canadian Forces, Lockheed Martin, the USAF and the Eurofighter consortium. Flynn also has the experience to make such a statement, with extensive experience flying the F/A-18, F-16, and the Eurofighter Typhoon as a test pilot in either operational or in an testing environment.
Thus, if we believe his statement (and we have no reason not to), it appears that the F-35 is at the very minimum, comparable with other legacy jet fighters flying today.
The F-35A is being required to have the capability of performing a 30 degree bank turn while still maintaining a 1000 foot per minute climb at 30,000 feet with a combat load-out of two external 370 gallon fuel tanks, two external 2000lb JDAM, two internal 2000lb JDAM, two internal AIM-120 missiles, and a fully loaded gun at standard military thrust at Mach 0.9 as it's must meet performance requirement. Furthermore, the F-35 is being desired to achieve to have the capability of performing a 45 degree bank turn while still maintaining a 2500 foot per minute climb at 30,000 feet with the same payload as above as its objective performance requirement.
Another problem is that the test parameters actually are unfairly negative to both the F-22 and the F-35 because they both have significantly increased internal fuel capacity compared to most other fighter aircraft. The F-35 carries internally roughly the same amount of fuel as an F-16 with full drop tanks. The issue is that the test parameters are set at a set % of internal fuel capacity. This means that the F-35 (and likewise the F-22) are carrying significantly more payload weight than comparable aircraft in this metric.
One cannot make blanket statements regarding the maneuverability of the F-35 without looking at the context, and the exact load out of the aircraft in question. As an example, if were to look at the F-16C flight manuals, one would be lead to think that the F-16 is a more maneuverable aircraft all around compared to the F-35.
However, closely look at the F-16's performance charts, one can see it states that the F-16 can only achieve its highest turn rate with nothing hanging off the aircraft per the drag index (no weapons, external tanks, etc), and at a gross vehicle weight of 20,000 lbs at maximum afterburner. Considering that the empty weight of a F-16C is around 18,900lbs, there's only about 1,100lbs of weight left for everything else, including fuel, the pilot and any stores. At this weight, a F-16C per this chart will do roughly 17 deg/s in an instantaneous turn at 15,000lbs and Mach 0.8.
Other data indicates what happens if you increase speed or weight. An F-16C with 4,500lbs of fuel and a pair of AIM-120′s will tip the scale at over 24,000lbs. Per the data, you loose roughly 4 deg/s at that increased weight and fuel. Thus, any comparison between the performance of the F-35 and any current legacy fighter is technically invalid until one can normalize the load outs between the aircraft involved otherwise it would be comparing apples to oranges.
Part 2 Will Appear on Tuesday morning
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/23/why-the-f-35-is-essential-for-canada-part-1/
Time Running Out on Europe's Typhoon Orders
Feb. 23, 2014 - 07:15PM | By ANDREW CHUTER
LONDON — Governments and industry are in discussions over the fate of the final order of Eurofighter Typhoon combat jets for the four partner nations involved in the program amid Germany's plan to end its purchases early.
"The Eurofighter industrial partners have given nations until mid-2014 to decide whether they wish to order Tranche 3B aircraft or not,"
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140223/DEFREG01/302230014/Time-Running-Out-Europe-s-Typhoon-Orders
Citaat van: www.defensenews.com Vandaag om 07:28
Time Running Out on Europe's Typhoon Orders
Het zijn "zonnige" tijden voor de westerse types, zonder verrassingen uit de hoge hoed.
Als we niet uitkijken dan is het dit decennium exit (productie) van:
F15, F16, F18, Eurofighter en Rafale...
Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada Part 2
February 25, 2014 • Section: Defence Watch
Editor's note: Last week Defence Watch ran a three part series on why the F-35 wasn't the right aircraft for Canada. This week Defence Watch runs a three part series on why the F-35 is essential for Canada. The article is written by Edward Wu, who is based in Vancouver. He answered the Defence Watch request to pen a defence of the F-35. He noted that he is not associated with any defence or aerospace contractors, nor any political parties or government.
Wing Loading
Many critics cite the wing loading of the F-35 as being particularly weak, and thus have proclaimed the F-35 as being unmaneuverable. The main issue is that wing loading is a particularly poor way of measuring aircraft performance today. Wing loading was a useful metric decades ago when fighters were basically designed as tubes with wings attached to them. Today, more advanced research has resulted in designs that employ lifting body research into the basic design of fighter aircraft, and the F-35 is no exception to that.
Situational Awareness
Compared to any fighter in existence today, save for the F-22, the F-35 has unparalleled situational awareness compared to its opponents.
The F-35 is equipped with the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 AESA radar. This radar is a development of the F-22's AN/APG-77 radar, with many features and systems of the AN/APG-81 radar back fitted to the F-22's radar. Unlike the radars of the three European fighters, the AN/APG-81 is not a mechanical or an PESA radar retrofitted with an AESA antenna. Furthermore, F/A-18 Super Hornet's AN/APG-79 radar according to the most recent DOT&E report, has issues with software instability that has plagued the radar's reliability for over seven years, and has not yet demonstrated its capabilities to perform an end-to-end multi-AIM-120 missile shot to take on multiple opponents.8
The AN/APG-81 has demonstrated its capabilities and maturity during the Northern Edge 2011 exercise onboard the BAC 1-11 test aircraft. The radar demonstrated its electronic protection, electronic attack, passive maritime and experimental modes, and data-linked air and surface tracks capabilities, and searched the entire 50,000 square- mile Gulf of Alaska operating area for surface vessels, and accurately detected and tracked them.9
The F-35 is the first fighter to incorporate a 360 degree, spherical situational awareness system in the form of the AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System. This system, composed of six infra-red sensors placed strategically around the aircraft, is capable of providing the pilot with unobstructed spherical sensor coverage, allowing the pilot to literally see through the aircraft. This means that an F-35 pilot can literally see and detect any object in the general vicinity of his aircraft and track it.
The AN/AAQ-37 has also demonstrated a number of advanced capabilities, such as the ability to detect and track ballistic missiles to ranges exceeding 800 miles,10 and be able to detect and track hostile ground fire.11
As a result, with F-35, there is absolutely no way for an enemy to try to sneak up, take a shot at it, and NOT be detected and tracked immediately. The range of AN/AAQ-37 is likely far enough, to where the F-35 will know of an enemy aircraft, before a missile is fired (especially when combined with third party information, and the advanced AN/ASQ-239 ESM system, which is based off the F-22's ESM system), and be able to respond to the threat accordingly.
The F-35's key advantage is its sensor fusion capabilities. Basically, an F-35, much like the F-22, can take information from a variety of data sources, either from the aircraft's own sensors or off board from other platforms, and integrate the information into a unified picture for the pilot to see on either the contiguous 8 x 20- inch colour display or on the helmet's display itself.
The pilot does not have to choose what sensor he wants to look at, nor does the pilot have to look at multiple sensors independently and create a picture of the battlefield around him in his head.12 This will enhance a F-35 pilot's ability to make better combat decisions in the battlefield due to superior situational awareness.
While this advantage may not seem obvious at first, it is very important to stress that air combat is the art and science of 'situation awareness'. This can be defined as knowing what the enemy is doing and denying the enemy similar information. 75% of air combat is decided because the target did not see what shot them down. Adolf Galland once said that having the initiative in aerial combat (being able to decide when to engage, under what conditions, and how) is one of the most important aspects of aerial combat. By reducing the ability of your opponent to detect you first, you remove from him the ability to set the terms of a battle, thus robbing him of the initiative.
The Royal Australian Air Force Air Marshal, Geoffrey Brown, made the following remarks regarding situational awareness and the important need for it in testimony to the Australian Parliament:13
Air Marshal Brown: Let me go through what 'situational awareness' is because it is actually the key advantage of fifth-generation fighters. It has been the key advantage in combat for quite a deal of time, even as far back as World War II. Air crew with the most situational awareness will normally win the day. But rarely since World War II has close-in combat been the actual determining factor because situational awareness is really that combination of things—of understanding what has happened, what is happening and the ability to say what will happen into the future. This is where fifth-generation aeroplanes have an unprecedented advantage over fourth-generation types. The rearward visibility—when you look at those pilots—it depends on which aeroplane you fly.
Air Marshal Brown: Let me get back to my example again. In all those cases, neither turning performance nor speed were the factors that caused us to die in those five simulated engagements. In any practice engagement I have had in the last 20 years where I have turned with another aeroplane in a bigger picture environment—rather than the static one by ones, two by twos or four by fours—every time I have tried to do that I have ended up being shot by somebody else who actually is not in the fight. As soon as you enter a turning fight, your situational awareness actually shrinks down because the only thing you can be operating with is the aeroplane you are turning with. The person who has the advantage is the person who can stand off, watch the engagement and just pick you off at the time. So you got to be really careful about how you use those KPIs.
Air Marshal Brown: They are going down that road, but let me tell you I do not think they have the level of stealth that is available in US fifth-generation aeroplanes—and it is by a significant factor that they are still not there. So I still think there are significant advantages with an F35. You have got to remember that PAK-FA, J20 and J31 are possibly where we were in excess of 10 to 12 years ago in their development time frames at the moment—so all those aeroplanes have still got a long way to go. I am not sure they will have the degree of sensor fusion that is available with the JSF. To me that is key: it is not only stealth; it is the combination of the EOS and the radar to be able to build a comprehensive picture. In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God's-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter—and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pod, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements.
Industrial Participation
Much has been debated regarding the industrial participation that is being offered by Lockheed Martin to Canadian industry.
Boeing in its offer of the F/A-18 Super Hornet to Canada offered 100% offsets for the procurement of the fighter. However, it is unlikely that the industrial offsets offered by Boeing will be substantive contracts as the F/A-18 Super Hornet is at the end of its production life. Instead much of the offsets will most likely be indirect, and likely involve a large proportion of purchases from Canadian component manufacturers in civil aerospace that already support Boeing.
SAAB in the past has offered 120% of contract value into a country as part of an offset package in previous competitions.14
In addition, the company has offered to provide complete technology transfer and the option to establish production lines in Canada.
The issues surrounding SAAB's offer are very similar to Boeing; it is unlikely that the industrial offsets offered by Boeing will be substantive contracts and be directly related to Gripen NG purchased for Canada, as SAAB has a very small industrial presence in Canada. Furthermore, the offers of technology transfers and a Canadian production line are of very limited use for Canada. Building equipment under license in Canada is not very cost effective, as domestic production will just serve to drive up the per- unit costs, as a Canadian line would only manufacture aircraft for the RCAF and never really achieve efficiencies that the Swedish line would.
As an example of the cost increases that are caused by licensed production, a past Canadian example will provide some history. When Canada purchased the Iltis jeep a few decades ago, had the Canadian government purchased the jeeps from Germany off the already established assembly line, it would have cost $26,000 per jeep. However, since Canada elected to license build the Iltis jeep in Canada, costs skyrocketed and the end result was the per unit cost of a Canadian-built Iltis jeep ended up to be around $81,000.15
The offer of technology transfer is also of limited use since the technology transferred would only be valuable in relation to the Gripen program, and thus have very little use outside of the program.
In comparison, Lockheed Martin with the F-35 is offering real, substantive contracts for Canadian industry that will push Canadian industry to be more innovative and provide money to invest in their own research and development, which then enhances Canadian industrial competitiveness on the world stage. Furthermore, the contracts will be with a number of the top Canadian aerospace firms who are now gaining access into the US defence market.
While Lockheed Martin's offer does not fully comply with the Industrial Regional Benefits policy, it is however substantially better in the long run for Canada, as the value of the contracts pays out over the entire production length of 30+ years. That's much preferable to a contract that pays out funds over a shorter period of time under the IRB policy, as the IRB policy of requiring the benefits to be provided within a year of the final delivery date is highly market distorting.
The reason why IRB benefits are market distorting is because due to the short timeframe for the benefits to be provided, a Canadian firm will need to quickly ramp up production, and then with a year or two, the contract ends with no follow through. Also the buys are often for current technologies and goods so there is really no industrial innovation going on.
According to Industry Canada, the identified opportunities with the F-35 project for Canadian industry are close to $9.264 billion dollars USD per the latest estimates in 2013.16 Based upon the most recent reports to Industry Canada, the value of contracts plus identified opportunities for companies in Canada could be up to $9.752 billion USD. On the F-35 acquisition, the offset requirement required from Lockheed Martin would be around $7 billion USD. On the basis of the opportunities and contracts awarded. Canada could stand to receive almost 140% of the value reinvested back into Canada on what would be considered to be quality, meaningful work to the Canadian aviation industry directly related to the F-35 program.
Part 3 runs Wednesday morning
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/25/why-the-f-35-is-essential-for-canada-part-2/
Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada Part 3
February 26, 2014 Section: Defence Watch
Editor's note: Last week Defence Watch ran a three part series on why the F-35 wasn't the right aircraft for Canada. This week Defence Watch runs a three part series on why the F-35 is essential for Canada. The article is written by Edward Wu, who is based in Vancouver. He answered the Defence Watch request to pen a defence of the F-35. He noted that he is not associated with any defence or aerospace contractors, nor any political parties or government. This is the final installment of his series.
Procurement Costs
The biggest issue that has many Canadians worried is cost. However, it should be noted that no modern fighter is cheap. Using the most reliable figures that are publically available, there is no real cost savings from choosing another fighter compared to the F-35. Furthermore, as much information regarding how an particular aircraft costs is kept secret, it is very hard to determine accurately the costs from reliable sources.
Based upon the current figures available from public sources, the fly away costs of the following fighters are below:
Gripen NG: $110 million USD for a Gripen E per the Swiss evaluation17
Eurofighter Typhoon: $120 million USD per latest German contract and the British National Accounting Office.18
Rafale: Depends on the report. The French government says $88.8 million excluding VAT,19 but if the latest Indian reports are to be believed, it is as high as $120 million dollars USD.20
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet: The last Selected Acquisition Report for the Super Hornet (FY 2011) provides definitive guidance on costs. The per- unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically the aircraft with no ancillary equipment or spares), comes to $82.88 million per the last SAR.21 This however does not include the foreign military sales and research and development fees levied by the US government on exports of fighters.
F-16 Block 60: When the UAE bought their Block 60′s, they paid about $6.4 billion for 80 aircraft back in 2000, or roughly $80 million dollars in year 2000 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, a brand new Block 60 would cost $108.23 million dollars today.22
F-35A: The latest Selected Acquisition Report for FY2012 for the F-35 provides guidance on the costs on the F-35. Per the report, the Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) was around $108 million dollars, while the Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) was $88 million as an average of the costs of the three variants of the F-35 as of FY2012.23 As the production rate increases, the target price for an F-35A in 2019 is expected to be around $83.4 million USD.24
Armament
There are a number of criticisms that are being leveled against the F-35. Namely, these criticisms surround internal weapons carriage and weapons variety.
In regards to internal weapons carriage, the F-35 current is able to carry four medium range air to air missiles internally in a typical air superiority configuration. This configuration it should be stressed, is identical to the primary legacy fighter it is replacing, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and in comparison to Gripen. A planned upgrade will allow F-35 to carry six internal medium range air to air missiles internally, making F-35 more than competitive with many other fighters available.25
Furthermore, F-35 has a tremendous external weapons carriage capability which is available in a low threat environment. In addition to the four internal mounts, F-35 has another six external stores located on the wing, for a total of 18,000 pounds of ordinance on the aircraft:
More critically, F-35 does not have to sacrifice weapons payload for fuel unlike other fighters, meaning that F-35 can fly further with more heavy ordinance than many legacy fighters today.
Regarding weapons selection, F-35 is being designed and cleared for a variety of weapons. In addition to the AIM-120 medium range air to air missile , F-35 will be capable of using two different short range air to air missiles (AIM-9X and AIM-132 ASRAAM), six different air to surface missiles, two different anti-shipping missiles, and nine different types of guided and unguided bombs.
Furthermore, F-35 will be the first fighter introduced into service from the start with a revolutionary software integration package called the Universal Armaments Interface (UAI).26 UAI allows new weapons to be integrated onto F-35 without requiring the need to have a major development program requiring the need to reprogram the aircraft's computers, do extensive software verification tests, and then physical integration and clearance tests, which creates risks and increases costs. Essentially, UAI will allow for the first time, plug and play weapons.
Stealth
There have been a number of commentators suggesting that stealth or low observability will not be needed in the future because of future technological advancements. The main issue is that those arguments also work against legacy fighters as well. If future technological advancements allow low observable aircraft to be more easily detected, it also stands that legacy aircraft that do not have low observable features will be even easier to detect from a much greater distance.
The F-35's stealth coating is designed to be sustainable in the long term unlike the F-117, B-2 and F-22. The F-35 is the first fighter where low observability is a key feature being manufactured into the aircraft, not applied as an afterthought.27 As an example, the stealth coating in the B-2, F-22, and F-117 are applied as an parasitic application of a multiple stack-up of material systems done in final finish after the actual airframe is built and completed. The F-35's stealth coating is in comparison, built straight into the aircraft from the beginning.
This means that the low observability coatings are much more durable and easier to maintain than on previous aircraft. As an example of the durability, at the LO repair facility in Fort Worth, TX, there is a door mat that is a representation of the F-35's skin complete with its low observability coating. 28 Any time someone walks into the lab and back out, they step on the mat, and on occasion, the lab takes the mat for tests to check to see if the mat has suffered any electrical or mechanical degradation. With over 25,000 steps across the mat, the reports are that the mat has suffered no degradation whatsoever.
Additional criticism is also leveled at the F-35 for supposedly being designed against X-band radars only. It is difficult to determine from public sources if this is true. However, even if the F-35 low observability features was only designed against X-band radars, it should be noted that the X-band frequency is a very popular radar band for military applications like airborne radars for performing the roles of interceptor, fighter, and attack of enemy fighters and of ground targets, as it has excellent resolution while allowing for a fairly small antenna that are portable and lightweight.29
As the vast majority of radars designed for use on fighters, and air defence systems rely on X-band radars for targeting and tracking, defeating X-band radars will prevent an opponent from reliably engaging the F-35 with their weapons.
Furthermore, many commentators have used the shoot down of an F-117 during Operation Allied Force as a prime example of how one can defeat a low observable target. However, one must place context into the downing of the F-117 and the circumstances behind it. First, the position of the F-117 was compromised from the start because the Serbs had setup a network of observers that tracked the F-117 as it flew overhead. Second, the US commanders flew their strike missions over Serbia using predictable routes, meaning that the Serb commander had an easier time anticipating where the F-117 was. Finally, it was reported that the weapons bay door of the F-117 was open, meaning that the radar signature of the F-117 was compromised from the start.
It is very difficult to apply the situation that occurred with the F-117 shoot down to any potential vulnerabilities of the F-35. First, the F-117 is a first generation stealth aircraft. It is not particularly maneuverable, nor is it well equipped with self-protection systems, such as jammers. The F-35 is, as mentioned earlier, is a highly maneuverable aircraft, on par with existing legacy fighters such as the F-16 and F/A-18, and is equipped with the AN/ASQ-239 'Barracuda' ESM system, meaning that the F-35 has the ability to detect hostile radars and using the both the ESM system and the electronic warfare capabilities of the AN/APG-81 radar, attack the hostile radar electronically and jam it.30
Operational Costs
The main issue regarding comparing operational costs is that this cost can vary depending on how the user operates its aircraft, and how one calculates operational costs. Costs Per Flight Hour (CPFH) cost estimates are completely different in methodology compared to the calculations of "unit costs." One CPFH cannot be directly compared to another unless one is aware of how one did the calculation, or the costs involved were done using the same methodology.
Even operators of the same type of aircraft will report different CPFH's due to different usage scenarios and planned usage. Also, within countries method of calculation can change over time or depending on the reason it is being calculated.
Thus, each 'cost' is valid for a certain comparison at a certain time and should not be used out of context or without understanding of the calculations involved, as it is extremely easily and convenient for manipulation than just about anything else. The problem becomes when someone who is unaware of how these numbers are derived, and in what context they are be derived from, comes across these numbers and see that the CPFH of the F-35A is ~$24,000 and read on that the CPFH of the Gripen is $4,700 USD and makes an assumption regarding the operational costs of an certain aircraft.
The true fact of the matter is that these numbers are not equivalent representations of the true/actual CPFH of the aircraft in question unless the operational profiles are either known or are identical for the aircraft being compared.
Capabilities
Any replacement fighter for the current fleet of CF-18 Hornets should at the very minimum, offer either the same capabilities, and hopefully, offer additional capabilities as well. Looking at the various options, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon offers fairly equivalent capabilities to our current fleet of CF-18's to varying degrees.
The Gripen NG on the other hand represents a step backwards in terms of capabilities. In the Swiss Air Force evaluation, the Swiss determined that the Gripen was significantly less capable than the Rafale and Eurofighter, and had trouble intercepting the F/A-18 Hornet target plane with enough fuel reserves to safely land in a typical air policing configuration.31 This has serious consequences for Canada.
The most critical issue surrounding the legacy aircraft is survivability in a high threat environment. While all four legacy contenders have some low-observability features, they will continue to be vulnerable in a contested environment against ground-based air defence systems and hostile fighters.
Upgradability is also another major concern with the Gripen NG, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter. All of these aircraft have very limited user bases, which mean that the costs for any future upgrades will be placed on a smaller number of users. Furthermore, for a number of these aircraft, support from the primary user is questionable over the long term.
This could mean that Canada may be on the hook for the entire cost and risk of any unique upgrade deemed essential for maintaining combat effectiveness. Canada needs to ensure that any fighter selected would remain sustainable and survivable throughout the expected service life, which means that Canada needs to select a fighter that is going to be supported for the life of the design by its primary user.
When Canada chose the CF-18 Hornet as its new, primary fighter back in the late 1970's, the CF-18 was chosen because it represented a significant leap in capabilities over the fighter jets it was replacing, it was a brand new aircraft that was just entering service with its primary user, and had the backing of a large, important user (the US Navy and US Marine Corps) to provide long term support and defray the costs of upgrades.
Canada has the exact same opportunity here again with F-35, as it represents a significant leap in capabilities over the CF-18, while having the backing of three of the major US Armed Forces (USAF, US Navy, and US Marine Corps), plus many international partners.
Interoperability
Canada has historically chosen weapon systems that allow for our forces to be easily integrated in multinational coalition operations, often with its biggest ally, the United States. Many nations that are either allied or are partners to Canada and the United States have selected the F-35 as its primary fighter to replace or augment their existing aircraft fleets. These nations include, South Korea, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Norway, and Israel. Many more nations are expected to join this list, including Denmark, Singapore and Belgium.
Increasingly, multinational coalition operations are increasingly aware that many partners are not as capable and are more difficult to integrate compared to what force commanders are expecting and requiring, and thus increasingly are asking that nations that are less capable be left out of coalition operations. Thus, the reality is in the future, multinational coalition operations will be increasingly 'come as you are parties' and thus Canada, if it chooses another fighter, could be left out of multinational operations in the near future.
Long Term Issues
It should be noted that whatever Canada chooses as its next fighter, the long term sustainability of the aircraft chosen must be a key consideration in the selection process.
Many of the current and proposed alternatives to the F-35 are just nearing the end of their production lives. The F/A-18 Super Hornet's production line is expected to end in 2016, barring no immediate future orders.32 The Rafale's French production line is only expected to have enough aircraft on order to sustain its current rate of for another two years at a reduced rate of production, due to the issues surrounding the proposed Indian order.
The same issues also surround Eurofighter's production lines as well, as a lack of export orders will lead the production line to be closed within a decade.
Purchases of large, complex equipment such as fighter aircraft requires significant lead time, often two to three years to allow for long term lead items to be manufactured if the production line is either idle or is running low on orders. Sometimes, existing customers are willing to allow new customers to take their slots in exchange for deliveries further down in the production line for an in production aircraft, but that is dependent on the goodwill of those customers.
From the timelines being offered regarding the Canadian decision, it would be very likely that a number of the proposed solutions will no longer be in production by 2017, and thus Canada would be on the hook for any costs associated with restarting production if we choose a fighter that is no longer in production.
Conclusion
What does all of this mean? For Canada, when it comes to the decision to replace our CF-18 Hornets, the following issues need to be considered;
1. Availability. Of the fighters being considered, (Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen NG, F/A-18 Super Hornet, F-35 ;Lightning II), only two of the five options will be or is expected to be in production when Canada decides to purchase its replacement. The options will be F-35 and Gripen NG.
2. Capability. Of the two that remain, only F-35 represents either similar capabilities or superior capabilities to the CF-18 Hornet. The Gripen NG, even with the most optimistic figures of its capabilities, will represent a downgrade compared to the CF-18.
3. Interoperability. Of the choices available, only F-35 will allow Canada to remain fully interoperable with its allies for decades to come.
4. Cost. Of the choices available, only F-35 represents the best value when you compare its capabilities to its cost.
5. Benefit to Canadian Industry. Of the options available, only F-35 represents any significant value to Canadian industry that is worth pursuing.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/26/why-the-f-35-is-essential-for-canada-part-3/
Citaat van: Edward Wu
Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada – Part 1
Speed
The F-35 was designed primarily to replace the mainstay of the USAF and USN tactical aviation fleet; namely, the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet. A number of criticisms take issue with the F-35's supposed lack of speed. It should be noted that the F-35's top speed of Mach 1.6 is achievable while carrying a militarily useful load; meaning that a F-35A that's configured with a pair of 2000lb bombs, two air to air missiles, and enough fuel to fly to a target 300nm out and back will be able to achieve its top speed.
Other legacy fighters, such as the F/A-18, F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15, Gripen, etc cannot achieve their top speeds with any external ordinance. The reason for this is that external ordinance creates parasitic drag, degrading aircraft performance. Furthermore, the top speeds of many legacy fighters can only be achieved for very short durations because of the low internal fuel fraction of these aircraft. The F-35, as a percentage of its maximum take-off weight, can carry over 26% of its maximum take-off weight as fuel internally, meaning that the F-35 can sustain its top speed for longer.
hmm, het is wel een aardig artikel, maar het gegeven dat de schrijver in paragraaf 1 al moeite heeft is telling.
26% klinkt hier heel spannend, maar een F22 heeft 29% en een Eurofighter heeft 31%. Dus die FuelFraction van 26% is nu ook niet echt een enorme ontwikkeling. Een Panavia Tornado heeft 26%, en staat er om bekend een te klein bereik te hebben.
Dat een F35 zijn topsnelheid kan halen met bewapening zegt ook nog weinig. Supercruisen wil niet echt lukken, en als de concurenten hun top hier halen, is dat minder erg, ze hebben meer ruimte om mee te spelen. De SU35 of F22 zijn sowieso 30% sneller (mach 2.2).
Daar komt dan nog bij dat de eurofighter de A2A missiles op speciale stations kan plaatsen, waardoor heel weinig extra luchtweerstand ontstaat.
zoals hier goed te zien:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fd4%2FEurofighter_Typhoon_FGR4_4_%25285969145285%2529.jpg&hash=c762f19391d5b7f8e0311d63d55df7e2fe83145e)
Natuurlijk, zo erg is het allemaal niet, en er komen goede argumenten naar voren, maar al met al, het valt gewoon op dat al de eerste paragraaf een beetje 'opvallend' is geschreven.
Turkey likely to order Lockheed F-35 fighters in 2015
Published February 27, 2014 | By Marcel van Leeuwen
(Reuters) – Turkey is likely to start ordering F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp from 2015 onwards and it will start with two orders initially, Turkey's undersecretary for state-run defence industries Murad Bayar said on Thursday.
"We will start F-35 orders either this year or the next. Right now, it is likely to be next year," Bayar told reporters. "We will initially order two. The delivery time will be, depending on the orders, probably in 2017-2018."
Turkey had already announced it plans to buy 100 F-35 jets for $16 billion. Bayar said he expected the deliveries of 100 aircraft to be completed within 10 years.
The F-35, considered to be the world's most expensive weapons programme at $396 billion so far, was designed to be the next-generation fighter jet for the U.S. forces.
It is being built by the United States, Britain and seven other co-development partners – Italy, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.
Separately, Bayar said Turkey was aiming to achieve results in April on its talks with China over the purchase of long-range missile defence systems, a move highly criticised by Turkey's NATO allies.
In September Turkey chose China's FD-2000 missile-defence system over rival offers from Franco-Italian Eurosam SAMP/T and U.S.-listed Raytheon Co. It said China offered the most competitive terms and would allow co-production in Turkey.
U.S. and NATO officials have raised concerns with Turkish officials about the decision to buy the system from CPMIEC, a company hit by U.S. sanctions for sales of items to either Iran, Syria or North Korea that are banned under U.S. laws to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
"Our talks with China are ongoing. We have extended the bidding until the end of April. We are aiming to get results in early April on this," Bayar said.
SOURCE REUTERS
http://www.aviationnews.eu/2014/02/27/turkey-likely-to-order-lockheed-f-35-fighters-in-2015/
F-35 2007 memorandum of understanding (De leverings-voorspelling zoals gedacht in 2007)
Zie tabel in Link:
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.nl/2014/02/f-35-timeline-2007.html
Nederland zou er volgens de prognose van 2007 nu in 2014, 19 stuks F-35 hebben.
De werkelijkheid is anders
Citaat van: Harald op 28/02/2014 | 21:33 uur
F-35 2007 memorandum of understanding (De leverings-voorspelling zoals gedacht in 2007)
Zie tabel in Link:
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.nl/2014/02/f-35-timeline-2007.html
Nederland zou er volgens de prognose van 2007 nu in 2014, 19 stuks F-35 hebben.
De werkelijkheid is anders
31 volgens de tabellen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/02/2014 | 21:45 uur
31 volgens de tabellen.
Klopt als je 2014 erbij telt, het jaar 2014 is net begonnen, dus eind 2013 zouden er 19 stuks geleverd zijn.
Citaat van: Harald op 28/02/2014 | 21:52 uur
Klopt als je 2014 erbij telt, het jaar 2014 is net begonnen, dus eind 2013 zouden er 19 stuks geleverd zijn.
:angel:
Tja....het zijn er 2
As Poland Pursues Stealth Jets, Eurofighter Flies Into Picture
Mar. 1, 2014 - 03:22PM | By JAROSLAW ADAMOWSKI
WARSAW — Poland is scrapping previous plans to buy F-16 fighter jets in five years, but what it will buy instead is up in the air.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140301/DEFREG01/303010023/As-Poland-Pursues-Stealth-Jets-Eurofighter-Flies-Into-Picture
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/03/2014 | 09:26 uur
As Poland Pursues Stealth Jets, Eurofighter Flies Into Picture
Mar. 1, 2014 - 03:22PM | By JAROSLAW ADAMOWSKI
WARSAW — Poland is scrapping previous plans to buy F-16 fighter jets in five years, but what it will buy instead is up in the air.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140301/DEFREG01/303010023/As-Poland-Pursues-Stealth-Jets-Eurofighter-Flies-Into-Picture
Go Typhoon!
Citaat van: Thomasen op 02/03/2014 | 10:41 uur
Go Typhoon!
Het zou verrassend zijn en zeker goed voor het Europese programma als ze besluiten om nieuwe tranche 3B aan te schaffen ipv occasions.
Time will tell.
Bogdan Warns Of Possible Six-Month F-35 Slip After Development Ends
F-35 activities planned to take place after the program's development phase ends in 2016 could slip by up to six months, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer for the stealthy fighter.
Work leading up to completion of development of the multinational, $398 billion program is largely on track, he told an audience hosted by Credit Suisse/McAleese & Associates Feb. 25. "I'm measuring the days I'm off in those milestones by days and weeks," he said.
The Marines are slated to declare initial operational capability with the F-35B, optimized for short-takeoff and vertical landing, as early as June 2015, with the U.S. Air Force to follow as early as August 2016. Both require the 2B software while only the Air Force is awaiting delivery of new processing hardware with the 3i package for its declaration. Thus, if such a delay does take place, it will have the most dramatic effect on the Navy, which is slated to declare IOC as early as August 2018.
Bogdan's warning is twofold. A potential choke point in testing the software is what is concerning him. In the 3F package, Lockheed Martin is required to deliver an unprecedented level of fusion among various data feeds for the aircraft. Among them are inputs from offboard sensors, including other aircraft and satellites.
Even if the 2B/3i work is finished as planned, Bogdan is worried that the time it takes to outfit the test aircraft, labs and simulators with the new 3F software will eat into time needed to actually test it. This was a concern pointed out in the fiscal 2013 testing report provided to Congress by Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's chief tester.
But it is the "complexity of the software that worries us the most," Bogdan says. "Software development is always really, really tricky," he says. "We are going to try and do things in the final block of this capability that are really hard to do." Among them is forming software that can share the same threat picture among multiple ships across the battlefield, allowing for more coordinated attacks.
Meanwhile, Bogdan says the latest software release for the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) has addressed some of the data shortfalls of the earlier version; these forced maintainers to handle too much information manually, resulting in excessive time to turn around sorties of the single-engine jet.
Previous adds to ALIS were taking "one step forward and two steps back," he said. "This time we took a step forward and didn't take a step back."
However, shortcomings with ALIS are prompting Bogdan to consider overturning an earlier decision that restricts maintainers from releasing a jet for duty without concurrence from ALIS, which handles all parts, system diagnostics and mission planning for the fleet. The feature is at times allowing for errant holds on sorties. "It is not the font of all knowledge about the airplane" as expected, Bogdan says.
"Do we need to start doing that [and allowing maintainers an override]? Yeah, we have to start thinking about doing that ... in a measured way," he says. This is possible because the maintainers have been training with the aircraft for three years, giving them a level of expertise needed for such a measure.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_26_2014_p0-666863.xml
Design of long-delayed KF-X still in debate
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2014/03/180_152615.html
A Giant Step In India's Jet Deal with France, 18 Rafale Planes to Arrive In 'Fly Away' Condition
NEW DELHI --- India will acquire 18 of the 126 Rafale fighter jets it is buying from France in "fly away" condition, and the rest will be manufactured by the government's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited or HAL.
French aerospace major Dassault Aviation and HAL have sealed a work share agreement almost two years after negotiations began - HAL will build 70 per cent of the aircraft, sources said.
The final contract, though, is still far from being signed. For one, India's Ministry of Defence has no money in the current financial year that ends this month, for initial payment. Also, general elections are due by May and the final contract will only be signed by the next government, if it chooses to go ahead on the same terms and conditions.
Dassault Aviation had won the contract to supply 126 Medium, multi-role combat aircraft or MMRCA in 2012. The massive contract is pegged anywhere between 12 to 15 billion dollars.
Dassault has had reservations over HAL's capacity to absorb complex technology and wanted to rope in other private sector companies for manufacturing the jets in India. The Defence Ministry, however, told the French company that HAL would remain the lead player.
Sources said the deal is complex and requires both sides to be in sync on commercial factors, logistics and HAL's ability to assemble the Rafale.
For instance, the radar on the Rafale jet is to be manufactured by Bharat-Electronics Ltd (BEL) in Bangalore. The Radome (the protruding snub nose on the aircraft) would, however, be manufactured by HAL at its Hyderabad facility. Dassault wanted clarity on how the two units would coordinate their activities.
Now, HAL has apparently agreed to set up a new facility close to the one that BEL has in Bangalore.
Dassault's officials are simultaneously negotiating with different divisions of HAL based in cities like Lucknow, Nashik, Bangalore and Hyderabad.
The French and Indian governments are also working on an agreement for a sovereign guarantee that Dassault will supply, service and maintain the Rafales over the next 40 years.
This is an important provision in the Indian defence procurement procedure, designed to ensure that manufacturers don't renege on their commitment.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/152042/dassault%2C-hal-sign-rafale-workshare-agreement.html
Chuck Hagel's A-10 Legacy
When he spoke about next year's defense budget on February 24, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel addressed his decision to go along with the Air Force and retire all existing A-10 close air support aircraft. In that statement, he made the following assertions:
"To fund these investments [the new long range bomber, the new tanker and the F-35], the Air Force will reduce the number of tactical air squadrons including the entire A-10 fleet. Retiring the A-10 fleet saves $3.5 billion over five years and accelerates the Air Force's long-standing modernization plan - which called for replacing the A-10s with the more capable F-35 in the early 2020s."
"The 'Warthog' is a venerable platform, and this was a tough decision. But the A-10 is a 40-year-old single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield. It cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft or air defenses. And as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, the advent of precision munitions means that many more types of aircraft can now provide effective close air support, from B-1 bombers to remotely piloted aircraft. And these aircraft can execute more than one mission."
"Moreover, the A-10's age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain. Significant savings are only possible through eliminating the entire fleet, because of the fixed cost of maintaining the support apparatus associated with the aircraft. Keeping a smaller number of A-10s would only delay the inevitable while forcing worse trade-offs elsewhere."
Many of these statements are questionable; several are poorly informed; at least one of them is materially incorrect.
..../....
interessant artikel
voor het gehele artikel :
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2014/chuck-hagels-a-10-legacy.html
Citaat van: Harald op 21/02/2014 | 16:30 uur
Lockheed F-35 for Marines Delayed as Test Exposes Cracks
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151788/cracks-have-stopped-f_35b-tests-since-september.html
Extra info/pdf omtrent de testen en de scheurvorming
http://cfile231.uf.daum.net/attach/26035D49510758FA0453E1
Een ontdekte scheurvorming in een rib van de vliegtuigromp is ontstaan na 1471 uur (zie blad 18/28)
Deze rib zit om de F135 motor met aansluiting van de vleugels, rib nummer FS 496
F-35 glass cockpit - How to fly and drop bombs (Real Sim) (hoe simpel kan het zijn ?.. ;) )
oude promo film voor/door Australie
US Navy to Order 33 Fewer F-35s Than Planned In Next 5 Years (zou dit betekenen dat er extra F-18E/F gekochten gaan worden ? )
Source: Reuters; published March 3, 2014)
WASHINGTON --- The U.S. Navy is set to order 33 fewer Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets than originally planned over the five years starting in fiscal 2015 due to budgetary pressures, a defense official said Monday.
In a move that will sharply slow work on the F-35 model built to land on aircraft carriers, the Navy will ask Congress to fund 36 F-35Cs instead of 69, said the official, who could not speak publicly ahead of Tuesday's release of the 2015 budget request.
The Air Force is also deferring orders for four conventional landing F-35 A-models in fiscal 2015, but is expected to resume its planned orders for the jet in 2016 and beyond, said a second source familiar with the plans. It plans to order 238 in total.
The Marine Corps, which expects to start using its F-35 B-model jets in combat from mid-2015, is sticking to its projected orders of 69 jets for the period, the sources said.
That adds up to 343 F-35s to be funded by the U.S. military through fiscal 2019, excluding three Marine Corps jets that could be added to the Pentagon's war funding request, which will be submitted in April or May.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/152086/us-navy-to-cut-f_35-order-by-33-aircraft.html
gehele artikel van Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/lockheed-fighter-idUSL6N0M101N2014030
Citaat van: Harald op 04/03/2014 | 17:04 uur
(zou dit betekenen dat er extra F-18E/F gekochten gaan worden ? )
Er wordt driftig gelobbyd door Boeing voor enkele tientallen extra, voor zover bij mij bekend is er geen budget opgenomen in het aanstaande budgetjaar voor extra F18E/F/G. Geen extra (of export) zou exit productielijn inhouden vanaf 2016, of bij vertraagde productie vanaf 2017.
Het ligt nu aan "The Hill" of deze wel of niet ten voordele van Boeing en extra F18 kiest, er is immers veel werkgelegenheid mee gemoeid.
Persoonlijk denk ik dat het klaar is voor de F18, immers ook de USN zal moeite hebben om zowel de F35C als de gewenste UCAV's te financieren en de stekker uit de C (waar de US Navy niet rauwig om zal zijn) brengt de rest van het F35 programma in ernstige financiële moeilijkheden.
Export: welk land wel een nieuwe kist hebben uit de vermoedelijk laatste productie serie?
Ik vind het overigens verdacht stil rondom de Boeing FA/XX, de RFI was (publiekelijk) voor zover ik weet het laatste nieuws en ik hoop niet dat het daarbij blijft want een Fighter monopolie voor LM is voor niemand (behalve LM) gunstig.
De F-35C heeft nog steeds niet bewezen te kunnen starten en landen van een vliegdekschip.
Daarvoor zitten het hoofd landingsgestel en vanghaak te dicht bij elkaar. Dat krijg je nu eenmaal als je vliegtuig ontwerp gedicteerd wordt. Omdat er ook een Short Take Off Vertical Landing variant van dit ontwerp mogelijk moet zijn.
De F-35C had ca. 3 - 5 jaar geleden al een zeer kleine marge in de minimum landingssnelheid, om aan boord te geraken van een 'dikke boot'.
Het leeggewicht van de F-35C bedroeg in 2002 13.630 kg, in 2006 was dit gestegen tot 14.548 kg (+ 6,74 %).
In 2013 was dit leeggewicht gestegen tot 15.691 kg, of te wel 2.061 kg groei in massa is 15,12 % meer tot nu toe vergeleken met 2002.
In de US Navy beseft men ook dat een (semi) steelse F-35C huid aan boord van een vliegdekschip dagelijks moet worden schoon gemaakt.
In plaats van om de zoveel weken een wasbeurt. Dit bakbeest proper houden gaat echter aanzienlijk veel meer man-uren en inzetbaarheid kosten.
Dus probeert de US Navy om de F-18E/F Superbug zo lang mogelijk in productie te houden. En ze hopen natuurlijk stilletjes dat het JSF project aan hen voorbij mag gaan.
The Rafale As Canada's Next Fighter – Part 1
March 5, 2014 • Section: Defence Watch
Editor's note: As part of its ongoing coverage of the CF-18 fighter aircraft replacement, Defence Watch has published a number of articles from authors supporting various aircraft. This week Defence Watch will be running a three-part series that looks at the Rafale filling the role as Canada's next fighter jet. It is written by Yves Pagot, PhD
ParisTech Institute, and a
reservist in Armée de l'Air. (i.e. reservist with the French Air Force, he is in a parachute unit). Pagot notes that he does not have any connection to Dassault or the firms involved in the Rafale production.
By Yves Pagot
Defence Watch Guest Writer
During the last months, three interesting articles were released on this blog about incoming replacement of Canada's CF-18. One was touting Gripen as the right choice for Canada, the other questioning the value of the F-35 as a candidate for Canada's new fighter and the third, waves the F-35 flag. Interestingly, all dismiss Dassault's Rafale for the wrong reasons:
Firstly they said that Rafale is not compliant with many US weapons and operations; secondly that there is only one operator, and third, they continue to lump the Rafale into the "legacy" or "4th Gen." arena. I would like to debunk these urban legends.
Rafale already use several several air-to-ground US-made weapons (GBU 12, 24, 49, as well as unguided weapons). More importantly, its weapon bus is fully compliant with NATO Stanag 3910/1553.
Therefore, there is no technical hurdle to integrate any NATO weaponry. Furthermore, during operation "Harmattan" in Libya (Canada called it Operation Mobile – later Operation Enduring Freedom under NATO), French armed forces used the Raytheon wireless system to integrate GBU 49s on their Rafale.
France isn't involved in the F-35 program, therefore the French armed forces have no plan "B". Considering the strategic willingness of France as a permanent member of UN Security Council (and the inclusion of the Rafale as a nuclear vector is this scheme), it will be maintained as a high-end aircraft.
Recently, many positive signs emerged indicating a probable quick conclusion to the long and complex MMRCA contract negotiations, in which India will buy 126 (+63 options) Rafales2. Already 1 billion euros has been provisioned in the French budget to implement the next F3R standard incoming in 2018 (contract announced the 10th January), and a fifth production tranche was announced18. All in all, the Rafale's future looks quite bright.
What are Canadian operational requirements? They are detailed in the Request for Information document issued by the government1.
Although this document is way too long to be fully addressed here, six main missions are cited: Defensive Counter Air (DCA), Offensive Counter Air (OCA), Strategic Attack, Close Air Support, Land Strike, Tactical Support to Maritime operations (TASMO) and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.
Two main strategic situations emerge:
· Defense of sovereignty, be it in Air, -Land or Sea. For the sake of simplicity, I'll include a strategic "hit back" (deep penetration) strategic capability here.
· Participation in offensive missions within a coalition.
Canada's specific geography (huge size, remote areas and cold environment) dictates some of the plane characteristics:
· It must have a long range, persistence and reliability;
· In flight refueling is mandatory and buddy-to-buddy refueling desirable;
· Time-to-target considerations above long distances make supercruise capability very important;
· Dual engines for reliability offer resistance to the "goose factor" (ingestion of a bird by an engine) and resilience against combat damages;
· Due to the possible duration of missions, a twin-seater version is preferable.
I'll use the very same order as was already used about Gripen aircraft at the previous Defence Watch postings3. I will emphasize Rafale advantages as pro and cons of other planes have already been extensively discussed already.
Factor 1 : Cost
Many incorrect price figures have been seen in press (including French press), but recently, the actual fly away official cost was released on the French Senate site4. These prices include VAT. For export, the fly away cost is 57.5M euros ($83M CAD) for the C variant and 61.9 Meuros for the B variant (twin-seater).
The Cost of Flight Per Hour (CFPH) was $19,000 CAD during war operations in Mali and should be lower during peace time5.
Dassault is ready to fully open the technology to Canada, even source codes, letting thus Canada to modify the plane as for their will. They stated that Canada would be able to fully produce the aircraft, and even that some of the Falcon production line could be moved to Canada5. This is an important point for sovereignty as Canada would be fully independent (if it wishes to) from French upgrades and decide by itself for the evolution of its planes.
Factor 2 : Performance:
Kinematics :
Rafale is operationally limited to Mach 1.8 (although it reached mach 2+ during qualification tests15) and 55,000 feet which is as good or more than most considered types. Its sunning agility demonstrated during air shows is due to its engines power and its ability to sustain 9g turns, and regularly hit more than 10g during display flights6. Furthermore, a Rafale, fully loaded with 6,000 liters of external fuel in three tanks, four air-to-air mica missiles and two SCALPs (1,300 kg heavy cruise missile) is able to maintain 5.5/6g sustained turn rate7,15.
Interestingly, Rafale was flown by several independent test pilots: Chris Yeo7, David M. North15, Pete Collins8 and Vianney Riller Jr. 9. All of them highly praised its kinematic capabilities and flawless FCS (Flight Control System), but to a common reader, the most convincing proof about the aircraft kinematic capabilities is certainly a recently leaked dogfight picture where one can see a Rafale chasing a F-22 in Basic Flight Manoeuvers10.
Powered by two Snecma M88 engines with 7.5T thrust (with afterburner) each, the Rafale is capable to climb up to 40,000ft. in under two minutes and power the aircraft with an incredible payload (see below). Pete Collins, Flight International test pilot, quoted its acceleration as "brutal," giving a value of 30 Kts. -2 with one 1250L centerline tank. M88-4E, the last iteration of the engine, is composed of 21 inline replaceable modules for ease of maintenance. The high number of Tactical Air Cycles (4,000) between inspections results in excellent availability. This modularity and ability to do so much front line maintenance without the need for a test bench essentially means there is no concept of Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) with the M88, so engines are basically never sent back for time-consuming depot level overhauls, further increasing availability.
rafale copy
Moreover, Rafale has a unique capability to automatically follow the ground using both numeric maps and SAR radar capabilities, limited at 100 feet, 540 Kts (and 5.5g)8.
Range and Supercruise:
Both are crucial capabilities for Canada considering the large size of Canadian territory. Range for obvious reason, supercruise in order to allow aircraft to reach operational zone quickly without using too much fuel. Rafale has a huge combat radius of 1,850 kms (+ loitering/fighting time) in air superiority configuration33 without refueling. Supercruise was achieved with six MICA air-to-air missiles at 1.4 Mach13.
Payload :
Rafale, with a 10 ton empty weight, can carry up to 24.5 tons fully-loaded (a world record rate for a fighter), on 14 hardpoints. Among these, five are wet/heavy weight points. This means that it is able to perform a variety of missions during a single flight from sea attack to ground attack, reconnaissance and air defense. Indeed, during the Advanced Tactical Leadership Course (ATLC) exercise in 2009, a "Red" Rafale shot six AASM "HAMMER" (air-to-ground ammunition) and three mica missiles on "Green" aircrafts in less than one minute. Recently Dassault aviation unveiled a configuration under test, with 3x2000L subsonic drop tanks, 6×250 Kg stand-off AASM bombs, 2 Meteor and 4 MICA missiles34. The FCS system is so sophisticated that it will automatically recognize loadings and adapt flight rules and limitations. This is a very important feature as the plane do not need to be reconfigured according to the mission.
Part 2 to be published Thursday
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/03/05/the-rafale-as-canadas-next-fighter-part-1/
White House budget could nix Super Hornet fighter jet, 900 El Segundo Northrop Grumman plant jobs
By Muhammed El-Hasan, Daily Breeze / Posted: 03/04/14
The F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet was excluded from President Barack Obama's budget request Tuesday, which could spell the end of the program and cost Northrop Grumman Corp. 900 jobs at its El Segundo plant.
The $3.9 trillion fiscal year 2015 budget request to Congress includes no new orders for the aircraft carrier-based Super Hornet and its electronic warfare version known as the EA-18G Growler.
Without more Super Hornet orders, whether from the Navy or foreign nations, the El Segundo plant could close by the end of 2016.
"What you're looking at is the end of California as a fixed-wing manufacturer," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at Teal Group Corp. in Fairfax, Va. "It's been coming for some time and, sadly, there are not a lot of possibilities for changing that outcome."
Boeing Co., F/A-18's prime contractor, assembles the plane in St. Louis. However, Northrop builds the center aft fuselage, about 40 percent of the plane, in a 1-million-square-foot facility in El Segundo.
The exclusion of Super Hornet orders represented another blow to Southern California's former high-flying aerospace industry, which has been greatly diminished by the end of the Cold War, industry consolidation and severe government budget constraints.
The Obama administration chose to end the Navy's Super Hornet purchases as the Pentagon prepares to transition to Lockheed Martin Corp.'s new F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, despite the plane's technical delays and budget overruns.
Boeing expressed disappointment in the exclusion of the F/A-18 in the budget request, but did not give up hope for the plane.
In a statement, Boeing said: "Given the importance of maintaining a robust tactical naval aviation fleet, Boeing intends to work with the Congress to add such funding during Capitol Hill consideration of the (fiscal year 2015) budget. The Super Hornet and Growler are the backbone of the Navy's carrier air wings today and will be through at least 2040. If funding to extend production of those aircraft isn't provided, unique industrial capabilities will be lost and the U.S. will be solely dependent on one tactical aircraft manufacturer for years to come."
Northrop officials declined to comment Tuesday, deferring to Boeing.
"This is likely to turn into a big lobbying battle between Boeing and Lockheed Martin," said aerospace analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. "But Northrop Grumman will probably sit out the fight because it makes pieces of both planes."
While about 900 Northrop employees work on the F/A-18 in El Segundo, the company's F-35 work accounts for about 1,950 jobs in California, including more than 1,500 in Los Angeles County.
Much of that work involves high-level engineering in the South Bay that may disappear once the F-35's initial development phase is completed. However, Northrop produces the center fuselage in Palmdale for the Lightning II — formerly known as the Joint Strike Fighter — and that work will only increase as the plane enters full-scale production.
Thompson said Boeing has a "fairly good chance of getting additional funding" for the F/A-18, especially in the face of further delays for the Navy version of the F-35.
A top Boeing executive recently said that the company was considering continuing Growler production at a slower rate to keep the line operating in hopes of more Navy orders.
The Super Hornet's plight is reminiscent of that of Boeing's C-17 Globemaster III airlifter built in Long Beach. Through allies in Congress who fought for more C-17 orders as well as purchases from foreign countries, Boeing was able to extend the Long Beach line a few years. However, the C-17 factory is scheduled to close by the end of 2015.
By contrast, the Super Hornet faces a much tighter federal budget.
"I don't think Congress is going to be able to add cash for another procurement batch," Aboulafia said. "In this budget environment, it's not inconceivable but it is going to be difficult."
Persuading Congress to fund another 24 Growlers at a cost of $1.8 billion to $2 billion is a long shot, he said.
Boeing may be able to find foreign buyers for the Super Hornet beyond its only non-U.S. customer, Australia. But even that may not be enough or come in time to save the plane, Aboulafia said.
"The Super Hornet has a chance but a lot of possibilities don't add up to one definite and they need one definite," he said.
Congress still needs to agree on the 2015 budget details.
Reasons On Why We Shouldn't Buy The Gripen
Posted on March 5, 2014 by hafizuddinsulaiman
The global fighter market nowadays is a crampy and tightly fought turf with a dozen of fighter aircraft to choose from but too few customers to buy them. The situation was made even worser by the ever shrinking defence budgets which causes some air forces to resort to several alternatives. These include acquiring second hand aircraft, buying sub-standard equivalent or leasing rather than buying these fighter platform.
Nevertheless, despite the dire situation of the market due to smaller than expected procurement volume as well as more let ups in terms of pricing in order to maintain competitiveness, the number of bidders in most of global fighter competition that have being going on in the South American countries, the Middle East and Asia Pacific region, are overwhelmingly large.
The fight for MMRCA contract in India for example has attracted six aircraft manufactures from Russia, the US, Sweden and France. In Brazil, the FX-2 program saw contenders coming from the same countries that bid for the lucrative contract in India. South Korea's F-X-3 program, due to its stealth requirement has attracted three candidates from the UK and the US with Swedish Gripen withdrew from the bidding process.
What's more interesting is that despite the fact that the second MRCA cum Mig-29N/NUB replacement program embarked by the Malaysian Government envisaged between 12 to 18 fighters to be procured, it has attracted six candidates from Russia, the US, the UK, France and Sweden to vie for the on again, off again contract.
And things got even more interesting these days with UK candidate, the Eurofighter Typhoon, proposed by BAe Systems, is being offered to Malaysia under some sort of leasing package. The very same approach has been brought forward by SAAB a few years earlier to Malaysia for its JAS-39 Gripen proposal.
Both Typhoon and Gripen have been contesting each other in various turf over the past few years. This include in India and Sweden. It's quite an irony considering that BAe Systems had once collaborate with SAAB to promote the Gripen in global market. Well, I guess things does not go on as planned, it seems.
In India, the Gripen went on head-to-head with the Dassault Rafale as well as the Typhoon. Despite offering transfer of technology (ToT) package 60% more than those stipulated in the requirement as well as being five out six fighters that had not had issues while restarting their engines at high altitude airbase, the Gripen has failed to advance into the final stage where only the Typhoon and Rafale are being shortlisted. In the end, the Rafale emerge as winner on the grounds that the omnirole fighter has lower unit cost and lower overall lifecycle cost when compared to its rival.
The three types of aircraft later went on to have yet another head-to-head fight vying for the Swiss contract. While Gripen emerge as winner, this does not means that the Swedish aircraft was meant to win it due to technical and combat superiority. According to a leaked document, Gripen has failed to meet the Minimum Expected Capabilities and has been in third place in all but two out of five role categories that were assessed. This means that, when comparing to its two other shortlisted rivals, the Typhoon and the Rafale, the Gripen was the least effective option.
For the very beginning, the Rafale has been the preferred choice by the Swiss pilot. The fighter has emerge the top of the flight in Mission Essential Task requisite by the Swiss which include air policing, defensive counter air, escort, recce and strike missions. Rafale's biggest advantages is its superior sensors such as PESA radar, SPECTRA EW suites as well as the OSF optronic.
Nevertheless, the Typhoon does has its advantage in Mission Essential Task in terms of engagement, aircraft performance and pilot workload. Swiss media earlier reported that the Eurofighter offer was about $4.3 billion, and the Rafale in the middle range between the Typhoon and the Gripen.
swiss
In the end, being the leading contender does not ensure its success. The Gripen emerge as the winner on the ground that it offered lowest acquisition and maintenance cost compared to its two rivals.
It was a wholly different game in Brazil though. The JAS-39 Gripen was among five contenders in 1999 as stop-gap replacement of the FAB's Mirage III fighters. Other contenders include Mirage 2000-5, Su-25, F-16C/D and Mig-29. Nevertheless, Brazil chooses Mirage 2000 over other contenders and the the 12 delta shaped fighters were known as the F-2000 in FAB service.
When Brazil initiate the F-X-2 competition, the French made Rafale was initially selected as the preferred candidate. Nevertheless, the program was put on hold until finalised decision was made recently. The new requirement saw three candidates being considered. This include the Gripen, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Rafale.
With an allocated budget of USD 8 billion for the procurement of up to 36 fighters, the Gripen was nevertheless emerge victorious, partly due to it being the lowest bidder and partly due to the espionage scandal that rocks the bilateral relationship between the US and Brazil. The Swedish offer was said to be around USD 6 billion, the US at USD 7.7 billion while the French-made Rafale was offered at USD 8.2 billion.
brazil
Dassault response to the competition was straightforward but nevertheless a revelation to other countries currently considering similar types of aircraft to fill in their respective MRCA requirement. SAAB Gripen nevertheless is a platform that uses third party origin equipment. This include most of US-made weapon system as well license produce powerplant which is based on the General Electric F404, the very same engine which powers the Super Hornet!!!
Having had a lot of third party origin equipment means that an operator country is vulnerable to diplomatic contraint and could be subjected to arms embargo with the equipment's country of origin. The F404 engine for example powered the HAL Tejas LCA. Nevertheless, due to sanctions imposed on the engine due to India nuclear test, the limited numbers of available engine has delayed the progress of the fighter aircraft significantly.
Brazil is definitely another 'jackpot' for Gripen. Beside from the 36 fighters that it would supplied to the FAB, there is a great chance that 12 leased Gripen of the earlier variant could be leased as stop-gap until the eventual deliveries of the Gripen NG. Similar approach has been taken by the Swiss through the leasing of 11 Gripen C/D between 2016 and 2020 before the deliveries of 22 Gripen NG.
While Gripen operators now ranges from South East Asia, Africa as well as South America, there is an open question whether the Swedish aircraft maker being based at one of the most far-fetched European country is able to support the Gripens in equally distant regions such as those mentioned above ? Timely logistical support, deep maintenance, training etc. These are among key issues that has yet to be solved.
dist
In 2012, almost all of the Gripen operators have participated in Ex Lion Effort 2012. Nevertheless, this could be the last time, countries such as South Africa and Thailand could benefit with considering that it took such a huge logistic and financial effort in order to participate in such exercise. Sweden has mulled on setting up a Weapon Tactical Center in either South Africa or in South East Asia. Unfortunately, the two regions are far apart to attract current Gripen operators such as Hungary and the Czech Republic as well as future operators such as Brazil and Switzerland.
After sales service matters pertaining Gripen also include the issues of aircraft maintenance services. The South African Air Force (SAAF) has had issues pertaining the maintenance of its fleet of 24 Gripen C and Ds which causes the grounding of half of its fleet. Air policing operation over World Cup Venue in 2010 saw the SAAF flying more Hawks rather than the Gripens. (here) The Hawk is seen as more financially viable rather than flying the so-called cost effective Gripen on CAP mission during the event.
One should remember that in case a full blown hostilities occured over the highly contested South China Sea, being cheap would not guarantee the success of a fighter. It is true that in the yesteryear, the cheap F-5 has been an important deterrent against the Domino Theory in South East Asia considering the fact that the Chinese at that time operates rudiment, crude and substandard Soviet fighter copies. But China has evolved, expanded and developed into a very credible and potent threat. So much dangerous that the US military has now considered any conflict between them in the South China Sea as well as the East China Sea with China as a 'near peer' conflict.
Therefore, let us ask ourselves whether we could be very confident and assured to engage in a conflict with China with the cheap, cost effective SAAB Gripen?
http://malaysiaflyingherald.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/reasons-on-why-we-shouldnt-buy-the-gripen/
Citaat van: hafizuddinsulaiman op 05/03/2014 | 10:18 uur
Reasons On Why We Shouldn't Buy The Gripen
After sales service matters pertaining Gripen also include the issues of aircraft maintenance services. The South African Air Force (SAAF) has had issues pertaining the maintenance of its fleet of 24 Gripen C and Ds which causes the grounding of half of its fleet. Air policing operation over World Cup Venue in 2010 saw the SAAF flying more Hawks rather than the Gripens. (here) The Hawk is seen as more financially viable rather than flying the so-called cost effective Gripen on CAP mission during the event.
One should remember that in case a full blown hostilities occured over the highly contested South China Sea, being cheap would not guarantee the success of a fighter. It is true that in the yesteryear, the cheap F-5 has been an important deterrent against the Domino Theory in South East Asia considering the fact that the Chinese at that time operates rudiment, crude and substandard Soviet fighter copies. But China has evolved, expanded and developed into a very credible and potent threat. So much dangerous that the US military has now considered any conflict between them in the South China Sea as well as the East China Sea with China as a 'near peer' conflict.
Therefore, let us ask ourselves whether we could be very confident and assured to engage in a conflict with China with the cheap, cost effective SAAB Gripen?
Daarin zit dan juist wel de les, alleen kun je die op twee manieren uitleggen.
Zuid-Afrika had te weinig geld, maar een duurdere fighter had dat niet opgelost. Juist doordat ze een goedkope fighter hadden konden er air patrols gevlogen worden.
Hetzelfde geld voor Maleisië. Natuurlijk, het liefst heb je een vloot zoals de US. Maar dat kan alleen de US betalen.
Verschillende bronnen spreken elkaar tegen, maar de Wiki ligt weer eens mooi in het midden. De Maleisische luchtmacht heeft 70 toestellen, waarvan gepoogd wordt om er 49 actief te houden, 13 in reserve, en 8 worden gekannibaliseerd. Het betreft een collectie van 5 verschillende typen (SU30, MIG-29, F/A-18, BAe Hawk, F5 II) Daar komen dan nog 14 jet trainers bij (MB339, Hawk, Mig29, F5).
Als je weinig geld hebt, en geen single source luchtmacht wilt, dan is een high en low end mix een effective oplossing. De Gripen kan daarin een rol spelen, die zal een fikse capaciteitsboost geven tov de verouderde Mig29, maar eventueel ook Hawk en F5 kisten.
CitaatDassault response to the competition was straightforward but nevertheless a revelation to other countries currently considering similar types of aircraft to fill in their respective MRCA requirement. SAAB Gripen nevertheless is a platform that uses third party origin equipment. This include most of US-made weapon system as well license produce powerplant which is based on the General Electric F404, the very same engine which powers the Super Hornet!!!
Dat lijkt me de grootste zwakte voor de Gripen, en is het enige echt relevante counter argument dat gesteld wordt.
The Rafale As Canada's Next Fighter – Part 2
March 5, 2014 • Section: Defence Watch
Editor's note: As part of its ongoing coverage of the CF-18 fighter aircraft replacement, Defence Watch has published a number of articles from authors supporting various aircraft. This week Defence Watch will be running a three-part series that looks at the Rafale filling the role as Canada's next fighter jet. It is written by Yves Pagot, PhD
ParisTech Institute, and a
reservist in Armée de l'Air. (i.e. reservist with the French Air Force, he is in a parachute unit). Pagot notes that he does not have any connection to Dassault or the firms involved in the Rafale production.
By Yves Pagot
Defence Watch Guest Writer
Factor 3 : Compatibility and Weapons Capacity.
As stated above, Rafale can carry any NATO standardized weapon (although some are not integrated yet for the French air force, there is no technical difficulty to it). Considering its "French ecosystem" as a requisite is a false opinion as stated above. It would be much more interesting to evaluate which original weapons Rafale would bring to CAF.
First, the Meteor missile is a Ramjet missile and the most modern, lethal, air-to-air weapon in the NATO arsenal. The upcoming AMRAAM missile latest version will have a near similar range (above 100 Kms), but with a much smaller No Escape Zone (NEZ). Missile manufacturer MBDA is also working on integrating the Meteor on the F-35 so there can be no incompatibility argument. The Rafale is one of the earliest adopters and will have it deployed ahead of the F-35 or Eurofighter Typhoon, which is only beginning testing this year.
Second, the MICA missile (Missile d'Interception et de Combat Aérien or interception and aerial combat missile). This missile has both IR and EM capabilities, and a unique IR Beyond Visual Range (BVR) capabilities which the Sidewinder 9X Blk2 is only trying to match. Its relatively small size and thrust vectoring make it a very agile missile, with a range of 500m to 65+ Km. It is a "fire and forget" missile with LOAL (Lock After Launch) and can be shot "over the shoulder" (rearwards). In 2010, MBDA stated a remarkable 93% successful shots out of 240 trials11. An over the shoulder fire of MICA on a target illuminated by a second Rafale (third party targeting) was demonstrated in 200724. MBDA is presently developing a Mica "NG" missile which, using the same body, that will offer more range, a dual boost engine dramatically increasing NEZ and even more precise seekers25. It should also bring a new datalink capability allowing a buddy plane to guide the missile independently from the shooting plane (presently it is needed to guide the missile via the shooting plane datalink)
Third, the AASM SBU38 (Smart Bomb Unit) "HAMMER." Probably (although expensive) the most advanced NATO Air-to-Ground weapon-so much so, that it's amazing capabilities saw NATO dub it "The Magic Weapon" during the Libyan conflict. The HAMMER is a kit added to Mk 82 250 Kg bombs consisting in a rocket propeller and a guiding system. The guidance system comprises INS/GPS, INS/GPS Laser or INS/GPS Infrared options. It has off-boresight capabilities (it can be shot at 50 Km from the target at medium altitude and 15 Km of the target during very low penetration flight). Using it, a Rafale is able to destroy six different ground targets across a wide area simultaneously. The HAMMER is advertised by its manufacturer in 125, 250, 500 and 1,000 Kg versions36.
Fourth, the SCALP/Storm Shadow Long Range Stand Off Munition (LRSOM) "cruise" missile. France's Rafale is the first of the latest generation fighter jets to qualify and use this long-range cruise missile in combat. It was successfully deployed during the French Air Force's "first-in" missions in Libya, taking out critical targets. The Typhoon is only commencing initial tests this year and from an interoperability perspective, it is also to be incorporated into the F-35 a number of years from now.51
Rafale can also come with Reco NG dual band reconnaissance pod (known as AEROS for export), allowing extremely sharp images to be transmitted in real time via a highly directional broadband datalink. It is capable of blending images from near IR and visible bands to create very high resolution 3D images, even from very long distances35.
Several other European weapons are qualified for the Rafale: Exocet antiship missile, ASMP-A nuclear ramjet missile (although this won't be available for export, it demonstrates the capability of the plane to resist nuclear electromagnetic flash). The nuclear mission of the Rafale is a testimony to penetrate heavily defended enemy areas.
Finally, Rafale can be refueled using the "probe and drogue" method already used by RCAF, avoiding a costly adaptation of the CC150 Polaris refuellers. This technique was quoted in a US report to congress as more efficient for fighter refueling as it allows to refuel two planes simultaneously19. It is of note that the Rafale also has a "buddy-to-buddy" refueling capability, allowing it to perform even longer range missions in the absence of a refueller.
Factor 4 : Sensors and Situational Awareness
Apart from stealth (to be discussed further), the sensor suite and data fusion is described by Lockheed as one of the main features of the so called "5th Gen." aircraft. And they are right – in a US context. Amongst "4th Gen." US aircrafts, only the future (if ordered, otherwise the production line will shut down in 2016) FA/18 "Advanced" Super Hornet will feature a sensor fused display, as this is more or less a common feature to "Eurocanards".
Aboard Rafale, data from all sensors, Radar, Front sector optronics (FSO), Electronic Warfare suite (SPECTRA), IFF (identify friend or foe), IR MICA missiles and datalinks are merged into a clear unified visual symbolism on situational awareness display9. This capability was highly praised in a recent test evaluation by Vianney Riller Jr, who has also flown latest versions of F-18 E/F and SAAB Gripen9. Besides all subsystems are virtualized and independent, the heart of the system is the MDPU (Modular Data Processing Unit), composed of 19 LRUs (line replacement units), each of them 50 times more powerful than previous generation aircraft computers. The architecture of the system allows flawless upgrade of processors, and a second bay is provisioned to receive another MDPU. This type of architecture also eases maintenance and upgrades of the whole combat system. The system is able to "create" tracks using fragmented data from several sensors.
Visualization can be integrated into the tactical head level display, an original feature with its screen collimated to infinite in order to prevent vision accommodation delays between the screen and the HUD/pilot outer vision. Virtually every sensor including "plugged ones" like a reconnaissance pod or Data sent from JTACs (Joint Tactical Air Controllers) will be fused in the tactical presentation given to the pilot.
dassault rafale large
On the subject of displays, Rafale is available with a fully-integrated helmet-mounted display developed by Thales, although the French forces have not ordered it as yet.53
Rafale's sensor suite includes:
· RBE2 AA radar. It is a state-of-the-art AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar composed of roughly 1,000 GaAs modules 12. It incorporates an original "cloud concept" architecture allowing future GaN made modules and conformal antennas to be added without changing the overall architecture of the radar14. With an average input power of 10 kW, it s described as very similar to F-18 E/F AN/APG 79 radar in terms of technology and maturity22. Although its exact range is classified, the "Centre d'Expériences Aériennes Militaires" (CEAM, the unit qualifying new materials), stated several times that the range was "doubled" as compared to the previous PESA radar. Dassault's CEO, Eric Trappier, once stated "more than 200 Km." It is able to track 40 planes or other targets and engage eight of them simultaneously within a 140° angular domain15. It features a "non cooperative" identification system and can generate high resolution Synthetic Aperture maps40 and comes with an automated supplementary follow-ground terrain mode.
· OSF-IT Front sensor optronics. The OSF posseses a powerful TV channel allowing the pilot to identify a target at more than 50 Km. This function is particularly useful, with very restrictive engagement rules. The system also features a laser telemeter.
· IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) the proposed version of Rafale (F3R) features latest IFF (mode 5/S);
· Three Laser Warning Receivers covering 360° around the plane, with angular location of laser emitter capabilities;
· Infrared Search and Track (IRST). This is accomplished through a combination of systems. Détecteur de Départ de Missiles Nouvelle Génération ("DDM NG" or new generation missile departure detector) comprises two "fish eye" passive imaging infrared detectors. These are more than just a missile approach warning system (MAWS). Their high level of accuracy for IR threat detection contributes to comprehensive situation awareness in a similar manner to F-35 EODAS9,16 with a 360-degree spherical coverage. In fact they are precise enough to be compatible with the future use of DIRCMs (Direct Infrared Counter Measures). The infrared versions of the MICA missiles are also integrated into the situational awareness picture providing a far IR channel together with or independent of the targeting pod. The MICA IR sensors provide full IR capability throughout the duration of the mission as the sensors do not rely on short-duration nitrogen canisters for cooling, as do most U.S. infrared missiles.
· Three Radar Warning Receivers. These three antennas (120° coverage each) are located on the tail fin base and canard roots. These systems use interferometry calculation methods in order to locate threats allowing a less than 1° accuracy and over a 200 Km range 15,17. This precision allows them to passively (without using active sensors) give firing solutions. During ATLC 2009, they were able to locate radars that had stayed unnoticed to a specialized aircraft configuration, F16 CJ20.
· The three latter sensors are part of the famous "SPECTRA" EW suite, which is also capable of self learning (and real time deeding its own threat databank) and ELINT/SIGINT tasks using recorders.
Factor 5 : Stealth and SPECTRA.
In the early'80 s, the DGA (French procurement agency) and Armée de l'Air started studied the self protection system of the future combat aircraft.
Future threat analysis as well as cost considerations (acquisition and maintenance) led to a compromise between high kinematic abilities and the different parries to theses threats.
· Preventive avoidance led to full spectrum signature reduction features, automatic very low altitude and very high-speed terrain following ground system and adaptation of pathways using a sophisticated mission preparation system.
· In-flight detection of threats and adapted course change, allowing real time adaptation of preventive avoidance.
· Avoidance by neutralization – jamming, decoying and ultimately destroying threats.
Whole Spectrum Signature reduction measures are obtained by several means, mostly classified, some documented. In the IR spectrum for example (heat detection), there is a supplementary cool air channel around the engine exhaust. In the radar spectrum, extensive use of composites (1/3rd of the plane mass, 70% of the wet surface (that is roughly to the same extent as the future Pak-Fa Russian fighter)), and RAM coatings, presence of serrated "saw-tooth" patterns on canards and wing trailing edges, as well as inside air intakes. Instead of deflecting incoming radar waves to an angle away from the emitter, they are channeled towards "spike" points heavily treated against reflection. Dassault engineers do not claim their plane to be "stealthy", but very discreet or "sneaky." All in all, the Rafale has a radar cross section reduction by 20 times compared to the Mirage 200015.
Avoidance of known threats is obtained either by mission planning (and the data will appear on the tactical display) or in real time, via Link 16 or detection by any of the plane sensors. In the latter cases, SPECTRA is able to propose actions vs. emerging threat, be it bypassing via recommending a new route to the pilot in order to avoid lethal areas (sophisticated enough to take into account the characteristics of the threat and topography), jamming, decoying or destroying the threat.
Here lies the origin of the SPECTRA concept, which most modern EW suites are only now emulating. Far from being a simple "situation Awareness" suite, SPECTRA is capable of offensive actions. It has 3 AESA highly directional jamming antennas allowing deception jamming. The possible types of jamming involved have been extensively discussed on the net and are highly classified. We know it uses a DRFM (Digital Radio Frequency Memory) chain and "intelligent" jamming instead of "brutal jamming". False range targets, velocity gate pull-off, and narrow band Doppler noise created by using digital RF memory (DRFM) are the common coherent EA techniques which can be used effectively against LPI radars23. Simply put, it is able to feed enemy radar with wrong data about presence, location and number of planes. It acts as an illusionist instead of using noisy, blinding "projectors" ("broadband white noise jammers"). Furthermore, depending on conditions, SPECTRA is able to detect and localize potential threats accurately enough to allow a shooting without using active (detectable) sensors. Some interesting results nevertheless leaked to specialized press, here are some:
· While flying over Libyan air defenses (before the Libyan air defense system was suppressed by tomahawk salvo), Rafales planes "poofed" from enemy radars31.
· During NATO Mace XIII exercise in Slovakia, a Rafale B flew unmolested over a S300 radar (and was the only type engaged in the exercise able to do it)21
· During Joint warrior 2013-1 exercise, rumours say SPECTRA literally gave headaches to Eurofighter's Captor M radar, preventing it from tracking visible and detectable Rafales.
· During his test flights in 2012, DefesaNet test pilot Vianney Riller Jr. could shoot, entirely relying on aircraft passive sensors, a plane attacking him in his 6 o'clock position from way over 10 NM. At the moment, as far as I know, Rafale is the only operational plane able to perform such a shot.
· In a 2011 technical presentation brochure at Le Bourget, "virtual stealth technology" is stated27.
SPECTRA is completely integrated to the airplane (and will react differently according to the plane configuration). This is a very important feature as the suite wasn't added to the plane like a jamming pod would, but was designed for the plane as a coherent system (with exact radar behavious, IR signatures and loads in mind).
This advanced, integrated EW capability is another area where the Americans are actually playing catch-up. The Rafale is the only aircraft delivering this advanced combat capability on the market today. The Boeing EA-18G Growler, the electronic warfare variant of the F-18 Super Hornet, will only be getting this capability in a next generation external jamming pod from Raytheon on 2020. In order to have the air-to-air, air-to-ground AND EW capabilities at once, you need to fly both the SuperHornet and Growlers – two jets compared to one Rafale.48
In conclusion, instead of relying completely on a stealthy shape, Rafale relies on a smart avoidance system and highly sophisticated sensor suite, real time mission planning and top end AESA jammers. It is noticeable that in 2014, a Rafale demonstrator will fly with gallium-nitride (GaN) made SPECTRA antennas, a world first, demonstration the involvement of French state in constantly upgrading the aircraft. Again, this will be six years ahead of the Growler getting that capability and only promised on the F-35.48
Part 3 runs Friday morning.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/03/05/the-rafale-as-canadas-next-fighter-part-2/
USA budget 2015: again fewer F-35's than planned
Summary of US Department of Defense budget proposals Fiscal Year 2015, as presented yesterday by the Pentagon:
Orders next 5 years, 2015-2019 (when no new cuts are proposed next year):
- US Air Force: 238 F-35A jets, 4 cancelled in 2015 budget
- US Marine Corps: no change in planned purchase of 69 F-35B jets
- US Navy: 36 F-35Cs instead of 69,
- US Navy: next couple of years no any orders, waiting for outcome of carriers tests
- Total US buys planned between 2015-2019: 343 F-35s
(average of 68 per year, against 170 original planning in 2002)
- Foreign Sales between 2015-2019 down from 73 to 57.
A lower than planned order intake will have an upward pressure on the price level and a negative effect on the return on investment of production facilities around in the global supply chain of the F-35.
Source (read more):
Nationdal Defense Magazine; Dan Parsons; 4-Mar-2014 Navy 2015 Budget Nearly Halves LCS, F-35 Buys
Reuters; 04-mar-2014; "US Navy to order 33 fewer F-35s than planned next 5 years"
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/
Wat heeft de verlaagde afname van de VS voor invloed op de prijs, met name voor Nederland ?
Citaat van: Ros op 06/03/2014 | 09:57 uur
Wat heeft de verlaagde afname van de VS voor invloed op de prijs, met name voor Nederland ?
Dat de aanschafprijs van de JSF toestellen duurder worden.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 06/03/2014 | 19:33 uur
Dat de aanschafprijs van de JSF toestellen duurder worden.
Kan, maar hoeft natuurlijk niet als de nu minder bestelde kisten gecompenseerd worden door extra VS bestelling op een later tijdstip of worden ingevuld door export orders.
Citaat van: Ros op 06/03/2014 | 09:57 uur
Wat heeft de verlaagde afname van de VS voor invloed op de prijs, met name voor Nederland ?
Als er in plaats van 923 slechts 397 worden gekocht, zal dat een aanzienlijke invloed kunnen hebben. Maar er zal wel eoa reden zijn dat dat niet zo is, en dat gaat de minister vast uitleggen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/03/2014 | 19:42 uur
Kan, maar hoeft natuurlijk niet als de nu minder bestelde kisten gecompenseerd worden door extra VS bestelling op een later tijdstip of worden ingevuld door export orders.
Met export ga je het niet redden, daar is het verschil te groot voor.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 06/03/2014 | 19:43 uur
Als er in plaats van 923 slechts 397 worden gekocht, zal dat een aanzienlijke invloed kunnen hebben. Maar er zal wel eoa reden zijn dat dat niet zo is, en dat gaat de minister vast uitleggen.
Jij maakt er ook een drama van...
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/03/2014 | 19:45 uur
Jij maakt er ook een drama van...
Dat is toch wat er staat?
Citaat van: Thomasen op 06/03/2014 | 19:43 uur
Als er in plaats van 923 slechts 397 worden gekocht, zal dat een aanzienlijke invloed kunnen hebben. Maar er zal wel eoa reden zijn dat dat niet zo is, en dat gaat de minister vast uitleggen.
Met export ga je het niet redden, daar is het verschil te groot voor.
Dat verschil zie ik ook, vooralsnog, in de komende 10 jaar ook niet weg gewerkt worden met export. (export buiten de party deelnemers)
Citaat van: Thomasen op 06/03/2014 | 19:47 uur
Dat is toch wat er staat?
Zeker, belangrijker vind ik de productie vanaf 2019 en dat Nederland zich per jaar productie committeert en niet in 2015 een batch van 35 exemplaren besteld. (maar zich wel verplicht tot minimaal 35 tenzij de prijs explodeert, iets wat vast zou kunnen gebeuren als de USN volledig zou afzien - wat niet geheel ondenkbaar is - van de F35C)
Het is zaak dat de mindef goede afspraken maakt met de us en lm over kosten, planning en levering.
Zodat er zekerheid komt hierover. Tevens afspraken over opleiding, onderhoud en onderdelen. En ook over de upgrade programma.
Hierdoor krijg je zekerheid en weet je waar je aan toe bent met je exploitatiekosten en ook je te kunnen aanschaffen aantal toestellen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/03/2014 | 19:58 uur
Zeker, belangrijker vind ik de productie vanaf 2019 en dat Nederland zich per jaar productie committeert en niet in 2015 een batch van 35 exemplaren besteld. (maar zich wel verplicht tot minimaal 35 tenzij de prijs explodeert, iets wat vast zou kunnen gebeuren als de USN volledig zou afzien - wat niet geheel ondenkbaar is - van de F35C)
De ontwikkelingen tussen nu en dan kunnen grote gevolgen hebben voor de stuksprijs en volwassenheid in 2019. Met een verschil van ruim 500 kisten is de kans best aanwezig dat je dat gaan 'merken', onder meer in de prijs.
Bovendien heb je tzt volgens LM en de KLu een zeer verouderde fighter, maar dat terzijde.
Citaat van: Harald op 06/03/2014 | 20:46 uur
Het is zaak dat de mindef goede afspraken maakt met de us en lm over kosten, planning en levering.
Zodat er zekerheid komt hierover. Tevens afspraken over opleiding, onderhoud en onderdelen. En ook over de upgrade programma.
Hierdoor krijg je zekerheid en weet je waar je aan toe bent met je exploitatiekosten en ook je te kunnen aanschaffen aantal toestellen.
Volgens de oorspronkelijke plannen zouden er nu enkele honderden F-35's rond moeten vliegen. Waarvan enkele tientallen bij de KLu.
Volgens oorspronkelijke prijs 'calculaties' zouden deze slechts een aanschafprijs van iets minder dan USD 38 miljoen hebben.
Ha-le-luja, amen.
Rond de F-35A hangen nu en nog zeker 5 a 10 jaar verder volop vraagtekens betreffende kosten, productie plannen, prestaties, vaardigheden etcetera, etcetera. Afspraak praatjes vullen deze gaten niet.
Citaat van: Poleme op 07/03/2014 | 01:47 uur
Volgens de oorspronkelijke plannen zouden er nu enkele honderden F-35's rond moeten vliegen. Waarvan enkele tientallen bij de KLu.
Volgens oorspronkelijke prijs 'calculaties' zouden deze slechts een aanschafprijs van iets minder dan USD 38 miljoen hebben.
Ha-le-luja, amen.
Rond de F-35A hangen nu en nog zeker 5 a 10 jaar verder volop vraagtekens betreffende kosten, productie plannen, prestaties, vaardigheden etcetera, etcetera. Afspraak praatjes vullen deze gaten niet.
Dus dan wachten tot 2020 ?
Dan pas bekijken hoe eea uitgaat pakken ?
Dat wordt nog interessant !
The Rafale As Canada's Next Fighter – Part 3
March 7, 2014 Section: Defence Watch
Editor's note: As part of its ongoing coverage of the CF-18 fighter aircraft replacement, Defence Watch has published a number of articles from authors supporting various aircraft. This week Defence Watch has been running a three-part series that looks at the Rafale filling the role as Canada's next fighter jet. Below is the third and final part. It is written by Yves Pagot, PhD
ParisTech Institute, and a
reservist in Armée de l'Air. (i.e. reservist with the French Air Force, he is in a parachute unit). Pagot notes that he does not have any connection to Dassault or the firms involved in the Rafale production.
By Yves Pagot
Defence Watch Guest Writer
Factor 6 Battle Proven
Quite understandably, Air Force operators tend to prefer aircraft that have shown their capabilities during war operations.
The Rafale was engaged in three main war theaters: Afghanistan, Libya and Mali. During Afghanistan, it operated numerous Reconnaissance or CAS (Close Air Support) missions within the coalition, demonstrating its excellent capability to co-operate with other NATO nations.
During the Libyan conflict, it was the "first in" plane, several days before suppression of Libyan defenses using massive tomahawk strikes, and used a large array of ammunition. During the first three months, Rafales accumulated 700 sorties for 3,800 flight hours, shot 182 AASM, 116 GBU and 10 SCALP. Some planes reached 35 hours of flight per week. The average availability during the conflict was 95%, with only three mechanics per plane26. In Libya, the Rafale demonstrated its versatility performing a whole range of missions – air interdiction, strike, reconnaissance, air dominance within a single mission.
Mali demonstrated another capability of the Rafale very relevant to Canada: Its capability to perform extremely long missions. The first mission (four Rafales) flew no less than 9h41mins over more than 6,000 km. Twenty Four bombs were delivered. There's a very interesting report (in French) of this mission described by one of the pilots 28. The planes took off from St Dizier (North of France), bypassed Algeria, flew over Morocco and Mauritania, delivered their weapons over Mali and finally landed in Chad.
During these three operations, the Rafale demonstrated an excellent reliability in war operations, its versatility during a single mission (reconnaissance, air-to-air and air-to-ground) and full interoperability with other NATO nation aircrafts. It is noticeable that the Rafale is the only foreign fighter qualified to operate from US carriers29.
Another critical importance is understanding Canada's needs which include, both an all-altitude air-to-air superiority aircraft and a very flexible air-to-ground fighter, with a complete EW, IRST and C4ISR capability in a networked environment. What is not mentioned in Canada is most of other nations looking at the F-35 are not buying it as their sole aircraft – why? They have determined the F-35 is not one-size fits all and they are maintaining a mixed fleet, mostly to ensure they have air-superiority because this was not an intended role for the F-35 as its name implies. It is a Joint Strike Fighter – a ground attack fighter. The U.S. has the F-22 as its air superiority aircraft and without it, "the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22," said Gen. Michael Hostage, Chief of U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command.52 Both the UK Royal Air Force and Italian Air Force while acknowledging the air to ground capabilities of the F-35, are still keeping their Typhoons for the foreseeable future. "The JSF does not have a high-end air-to-air capability," according to Col. Vito Cracas, commander of the air force's 36th Fighter Wing We need to have both aircraft." 49 Canada obviously doesn't have another aircraft to complement the F-35, so the question remains as to why would we want to buy an expensive aircraft that can only do half the job, when a Rafale, with its advanced sensor and EW technology, agility and outstanding weapons capability can do all the missions?
Factor 7 : Growth Factor
The Rafale is a constantly evolving weapon system. Since the induction of the purely air-to-air first software standard F1 (a pre-series aimed at filling the gap caused by Marine Nationale retirement of antiquated Crusaders) in 2001 (operational in 2004), the program was much developed, and in a fully retrofitable way. The French air force received its F2 Rafales, with air to ground capabilities. The induction of F3 standard in 2009 brought nuclear and anti-ship capabilities.
The present standard is F3.3′, with some minor updates to come in 2015 for a F3.4 standard (terrain-following system improvement, crash-avoidance system, emergency-braking power management, MICA release)37. The contract for the next standard F3R was officially awarded the Jan 10th buy French MoD Jean-Yves Le Drian. F3R standard will see in 2018 the induction of METEOR missile and the full integration of laser guided HAMMER version, developments of the AESA radar, of the SPECTRA suite as well as a new designation pod, IFF mode 5/S and a new buddy-to-buddy refueling device. Again, the coherence of the evolutions should be noted, for example the AESA radar, with an extended range allowing the use of the METEOR missile full capabilities was inducted in a compatible time frame with the development of the missile38.
Several studies, known as "Plan d' Etude Amont" are currently underway to further improve the Rafale capabilities in a F4 standard scheduled around 2023. Although the exact contour of this future evolution isn't defined, known PEAs give a good idea of how the Rafale will evolve, ranging from enhancing radar and sensor performance even further, advancing the SPECTRA EW system ahead of new anticipated threats, and continued efforts to ensure the lowest possible RCS of the Rafale.
Hardly a futureless fighter as some tried to describe it. In fact, only now is the U.S. waking up to the fact that the evolutionary nature of the Rafale is a far better route than the lock-in path of physical stealth, according to Raytheon executive Michael Garcia, who recently said much of the U.S. defense community "has lost sight of reality" as to what stealth means. The "essence of stealth is that the Blue circles [for detection and weapon range] impact Red before Red can detect," and that jamming, sensors and weapons affect that calculation ... The level of RCS has not been improving ... It is time-stamped with whatever date it came out of the factory." 50
The most important lesson for prospective buyers of the Rafale, is in the ability of Rafale International (Dassault-Aviation, Thales and Snecma) to deliver these new capabilities throughout the aircraft's life. Through the first three tranches (or blocks), all promised capabilities have been delivered on time and on budget, from the date of contracting by the French government. That is a record unmatched by any other fighter jet manufacturer.
Conclusion
All odds are that Canada may choose the Lockheed F-35 in a near future. However, cost escalation led the Canadian government to set up for a new, fair competition. The competitors are the F-35, a new advanced version of the F-18, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the SAAB Gripen (presently resigned) and the Dassault Rafale.
Canada needs on one side, a fighter able to defend its sovereignty in Air, Land and Sea. On the other hand, as recent history showed it, the chosen aircraft must be able to perform Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground missions within a coalition.
In other words, the variety of missions the plane will have to perform point at a truly multirole airplane.
The huge size of the country and the limited number of aircrafts to be procured point at a long range and fast fighter, with a good payload and able to perform in cold conditions.
The possible crisis theaters point at good Air-to-Ground capabilities and ability to operate in hot environment, with a limited logistic footprint.
In every cases, it must be able to operate in a highly networked environment (be it NORAD or a coalition).
The aircraft is supposed to be used for 40 years, so it must have a good evolution potential. It must be affordable, with reasonable acquisition cost and furthermore controlled ownership costs. It is preferable for Canada to select an operational and combat proven aircraft.
In my sincere opinion, only the Rafale complies with all of these requirements.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/03/07/the-rafale-as-canadas-next-fighter-part-3/
Exclusive: U.S. Navy aims to put 22 Boeing fighters on 'unfunded' list - sources
Thursday, March 06, 2014
By Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy plans to add 22 Boeing electronic attack jets to a list of "unfunded" priorities requested by Congress, but the document must still be vetted by senior Pentagon officials, who have underscored their commitment to Lockheed Martin Corp's next-generation F-35 fighter jet, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the military services in a memo on Thursday they could respond to the House Armed Services Committee's request, but said the lists should be coordinated with his office and that of General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to a defense official.
The defense official and multiple other sources spoke on Wednesday and Thursday on condition of anonymity because the unfunded priorities lists have not yet been formally submitted to Congress.
Given that shrinking budgets are leaving the services with myriad unmet needs, Hagel does not intend follow the lead of former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who tried to block the lists from being sent to Capitol Hill, the official said.
"This is a different time. We've had to make tough choices, and budgets are coming down. Part of what we want to do is demonstrate to Congress that our military has needs that are not fulfilled by sequestration," the official said.
At the same time, the department's priorities were clearly outlined in its 2015 budget plan and the separate $26.4 billion "growth fund" set up by the White House, the official said.
And those priorities, said two of the sources, did not include more Boeing Co F/A-18 Super Hornets or EA-18G Growlers, which will end production in 2016 unless more orders come in.
The Navy did not seek funding for either plane in its budget, or in its part of the separate "growth" fund. But it plans to add 22 Growlers to its unfunded priorities list, said four sources familiar with the issue.
A Navy spokesman declined to comment, saying only that the service was still finalizing its unfunded priorities list.
The document also includes eight P-8A surveillance planes built by Boeing for $1.1 billion, and restores funding for continued operation of the USS George Washington carrier and its associated air wing, said one source familiar with the Navy list.
The document put the cost of the extra planes at $2.14 billion and said they would let the Navy expand each Growler squadron on a carrier to seven jets from five, offering more electronic attack capabilities for the joint force, the source said.
The document also referenced ongoing studies by the Navy and the Defense Department that pointed to increasing threats.
A second source said the Navy's request for more Growlers was likely to meet resistance from senior defense officials, given competing demands for resources, a strong commitment to the F-35, which includes a carrier-based model for the Navy, and a general shift away from single-purpose aircraft.
"There is no validated requirement," said the source.
Navy and senior U.S. defense officials have repeatedly said they have no plans to extend Boeing's F/A-18 and EA-18G production line in St. Louis, which is due to shut after 2016.
Boeing spokeswoman Karen Fincutter urged Congress to add funding for the Growlers to keep the production line going.
"The Super Hornet and Growler are the backbone of the Navy's carrier air wings today, and will be through at least 2040. If funding to extend production of those aircraft isn't provided, unique industrial capabilities will be lost and the U.S. will be solely dependent on one tactical aircraft manufacturer for years to come," she said.
Congress already added $75 million in funding for advanced procurement for 22 EA-18G jets to the Navy's fiscal 2014 budget, but those funds have not yet been released.
Congressional aides say lawmakers need evidence of the Navy's interest in extra Growlers to justify adding funding to the fiscal 2015 budget, but caution that finding $2 billion for 22 more EA-18G jets would mean cuts elsewhere.
"It means you have to slaughter somebody else's ox," said one aide who was not authorized to speak publicly.
Boeing has said it can slow production of the jets to around two planes a month without a big impact on pricing. It said it could stretch production into mid-2017, if the Navy agrees to a slower delivery rate of jets already on order.
That means Congress could fund about half the 22 Growlers and still allow the production line to keep running through 2017, said one source familiar with the matter.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon last month asked the services, combatant commanders and National Guard to submit a list of programs that did not get included in the budget. He left the door open to a number of programs, asking for those needed to meet a "validated requirement" or other military priority, as well as items for which requirements emerged after the budget was drafted.
The sources said the Marine Corps was also expected to ask for six F-35 fighter jets as part of its unfunded priorities list. It plans to ask for one F-35 B-model jet, which can land like a helicopter, and five F-35 carrier models, to replace six Harrier jets destroyed in Afghanistan.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Richard Chang)
http://whtc.com/news/articles/2014/mar/07/exclusive-us-navy-aims-to-put-22-boeing-fighters-on-unfunded-list-sources/
Mocht om welke rede dan ook de F35A voor de KLu niet doorgaan, dan gaat mijn voorkeur sterk uit naar het Franse alternatief.
MiG working on a new interceptor, capable of Mach 4
Mar 05 2014 / By Jacek Siminski
The Russian Armed Forces are working on the Mig-41, a new supersonic fighter based on the Mig-31 Foxhound.
According to the famous experimental pilot Anatoliy Kvochur, the MiG-41 is to be capable of reaching speeds above Mach 4, even Mach 4,3. That would make the plane faster than the (now retired) American SR-71 Blackbird. Currently, the Foxhound is capable of flying at speeds of Mach 2.8.
Nevertheless, while developing a Mach 4+ replacement for the Foxhound, the Russians will to continue the modernization program of the Foxhounds, overhauling over 100 aircraft.
MiG-31 is an interceptor based on MiG-25 Foxbat, with a combat radius of 720 km. A group of four Foxhounds is able to control an area that is 1000km wide; 190 MiG-31s are currently in service within the Russian Air Force, 100 of those are still flyable.
Jacek Siminski for TheAviationist
http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/05/mig-41-mig-31-replacement/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/03/2014 | 10:09 uur
MiG working on a new interceptor, capable of Mach 4
Mar 05 2014 / By Jacek Siminski
The Russian Armed Forces are working on the Mig-41, a new supersonic fighter based on the Mig-31 Foxhound.
According to the famous experimental pilot Anatoliy Kvochur, the MiG-41 is to be capable of reaching speeds above Mach 4, even Mach 4,3. That would make the plane faster than the (now retired) American SR-71 Blackbird. Currently, the Foxhound is capable of flying at speeds of Mach 2.8.
Nevertheless, while developing a Mach 4+ replacement for the Foxhound, the Russians will to continue the modernization program of the Foxhounds, overhauling over 100 aircraft.
MiG-31 is an interceptor based on MiG-25 Foxbat, with a combat radius of 720 km. A group of four Foxhounds is able to control an area that is 1000km wide; 190 MiG-31s are currently in service within the Russian Air Force, 100 of those are still flyable.
Jacek Siminski for TheAviationist
http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/05/mig-41-mig-31-replacement/
Reden te meer of uit het JSF programma de stekker eruit te trekken.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 08/03/2014 | 10:28 uur
Reden te meer of uit het JSF programma de stekker eruit te trekken.
En dan?
Vooropgesteld dat het waar is.... dan zou het pleiten voor een nieuwe westerse ontwikkeling waarbij mij het gemakkelijkst lijkt om de YF-23 plannen uit de kluis te halen om dit als basis te gebruiken voor een nieuwe ontwikkeling of misschien houdt men al rekening met meer snelheid in de beoogde F22 opvolger (de F/X van LM).
Taiwan Faces Tough Choices After US Cancels F-16 Upgrade
Mar. 8, 2014 - 01:52PM
The US assured Taiwan's MND that the CAPES program was "guaranteed" to go forward and that there was zero risk," an MND source said.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140308/DEFREG03/303080020 (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140308/DEFREG03/303080020)
Amerikanen, garantie en zero risk, ik ken er nog wel één.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 09/03/2014 | 13:22 uur
Amerikanen, garantie en zero risk, ik ken er nog wel één.
:angel: wie weet... misschien biedt het kansen voor een Eurocanard....
145 F16 Block20 vervangen zie ik niet zo snel gebeuren.
Wellicht dat Bea Systems de F16 gaat moderniseren, dan niet in de VS maar in Europa of in Australie?
http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.nl/2011/09/taiwans-f-16-mid-life-update-package.html
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_163866/south-korea-finalizes-agreement-for-bae-systems-to-perform-f-16-upgrades
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_23_2013_p0-650208.xml
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140215/DEFREG03/302150024/BAE-Targets-Lockheed-Asia-s-F-16-Upgrade-Wars
En wellicht dat SELEX Galileo nog wel een radar kan leveren aan Taiwan?
http://pdf.edocr.com/fbabbb590c0c0b157d620de0c1aadc0263c5a0b4.pdf
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/farnborough-air-show/2012-07-08/selex-galileo-leads-europes-e-scan-drive
http://www.selex-es.com/domains/air/radar
This is what happens when MiG-29 Fulcrum's wheel brake anti-skid controls fail
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FMig-29-braking-failure.jpg&hash=185471c8e57f5ce233df41991f43ef03fe4ea35b)
Anti-skid lockup on a Mig-29 documented by these stunning photos.
Taken at Kecskemet airbase in Hungary in 2003, when the Hungarian Air Force operated the Fulcrum fighter jets (later replaced by the SAAB Gripen), the following images shows a single-seat Mig-29 experiencing a wheel brake anti-skid controls lockup on landing.
As you can see, in spite of yawing to the left, the aircraft finished its landing run within the runway. As a consequence of the antiskid failure, there were burst/exploded tyres with subsequent damage to the wheel-rims.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FMig-29-wheelhub-685x513.jpg&hash=083332f7b0d72541ac6e743debbd623a04721847)
This explains the importance of the anti-skid system and why some military aircraft have to check the antiskid activation and radio the check to the TWR before landing (the F-104 was one of those when it flew with the Italian Air Force).
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FMig-29-nose-wheel-685x513.jpg&hash=6b47e1a100b01bea4f8bd2a185216aceef82f275)
Here's a detail of a burst tyre of the main landing gear.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FMig-29-tyre-685x513.jpg&hash=0087a94b3fbb17df8642f06f4ed6f0d952f9bfe6)
http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/10/mig-29-antiskid-failure/
Tony Abbott to approve Australia's biggest ever military purchase of stealth fighter jets
THE Abbott Government is set to give the green light to the nation's biggest ever military purchase allowing Defence to order up to 86 American made stealth fighter jets for the RAAF.
The planes will cost about $90 million each when they roll off the assembly line between 2018 and 2020 and the overall project will cost some $14 billion during the 30-year life of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
It is understood that a submission to buy will be presented to Cabinet's National Security Committee for approval within weeks.
The head of the Pentagon's largest ever defence project to buy 2400 of the "fifth generation'' fighters has assured Australia that the controversial project was "back on track'' and that Australian jets would be delivered on time and on cost.
US Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan told News Corp Australia in Sydney that apart from some "trust and credibility'' issues with the prime contractor Lockheed Martin and engine maker Pratt and Whitney, the JSF program was hitting all of its milestones.
"The leadership of Lockheed Martin doing a much better job of listening to the customer, which is us,'' he said.
The US will purchase 2443 of the fighters including 1763 conventional 'A' models for the air force, 360 'B' or vertical landing versions for the US Marine Corps and 360 'C' or carrier models for the US Navy.
The JSF was one of the few military programs to escape cuts under so-called US budget sequestration.
"I have not lost a single penny in terms of development, in terms of getting it done on time,'' General Bogdan said.
The first two RAAF 'A' model jets are on the production line at Lockheed's Fort Worth factory and the first aircraft are due to arrive at RAAF base Williamtown in 2018 with the first operational and training squadrons online during 2020.
The JSF will replace the fleet of ageing F/A-18 Hornet fighter planes and will give the RAAF a major edge over any regional force apart from those allies such as Singapore who will also buy the jet.
At the end of 2013 the JSF had flown 12,000 hours over 8000 flights and there were 59 operational planes and 20 test jets in the air.
"War fighters love flying it, technical challenges are being overcome and we are just starting to see the real capability of the aircraft,'' he said.
At a Williams Foundation air power seminar in Canberra yesterday, RAAF fighter pilot Squadron Leader Matt Harper and US Marine Corps fighter pilot Lieutenant Colonel Chip Berke both sang the praises of the super computerised, fully networked stealth aircraft.
Squadron Leader Harper was the first Australian to fly the fifth generation F-22 Raptor and Lieutenant Colonel Berke is the only pilot to fly both the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
"Stealth makes you unstoppable and reduces an adversaries situational awareness to almost zero,'' Squadron Leader Harper said.
"The jet provides an exponential increase in survivability, reduces mission risk and increases the probability of mission success.''
Lieutenant Colonel Berke said the old mantra of "speed is life, more is better'' had been replaced by "information is life, more is better''.
"Information is far more valuable than speed,'' he said.
"The F-35 has no peer in terms of information dominance and the sharing of that information.''
Australian companies are signed up for more than $300 million worth of work on the JSF and there is potential for more than $2 billion over the life of the program.
news.com.au,
March 12, 2014 12:00AM
The Great American Warplane Cull Is About to Begin
Air Force wants to cut hundreds of aircraft by 2019
David Axe in War is Boring
The U.S. Air Force has announced a plan to retire more than 500 older warplanes over the next five years, while adding just 200 new planes over the same period.
If Congress approves the scheme, the Air Force will drop from 5,194 planes to 4,814 between now and 2019. It will still be the biggest and most powerful air arm in the world ... by a large margin.
But the flying branch will lose some of its current fighting abilities, despite Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's assurance that the post-2019 Air Force will be "a smaller and more capable force."
The warplane cull is part of the Pentagon's five-year spending plan, which military leaders sent to Congress in early March along with the $575-billion 2015 defense budget. Congress ultimately decides how much money the Pentagon spends—and on what—so the brass' plan remains just that, a plan.
Still, the proposed plane cuts are indicative of the military's thinking as it struggles with federally-mandated "sequestration" budget reductions. And they could preview a much smaller Air Force, one with fewer drones, attack jets, dogfighters and electronic warfare planes.
Goodbye A-10s, hello F-16s
The five-year scheme retires all of the roughly 340 A-10 Warthog attack jets in the active Air Force, Air Force Reserve and state-controlled Air National Guard. The Warthogs account for the majority of the planned warplane cuts.
The twin-jet, gun-armed A-10s disappear from their main active-duty strongholds in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and South Korea in 2015 and 2016. Reserve and Guard squadrons in Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Maryland surrender their A-10s more gradually between 2015 and 2019.
Cutting the low- and slow-flying Warthogs leaves a big gap in the Air Force's ability to support ground troops and destroy enemy tanks. Forces in South Korea could feel the loss most acutely, as they must be ready to defeat potentially thousands of North Korean armored vehicles streaming over the Demilitarized Zone in the event of war between the Koreas.
Under the plan, only the Guard and Reserve get any fresh fighters to compensate for the grounded A-10s. Squadrons in Arizona, Indiana and Missouri receive F-16s in 2018 and 2019. Presumably, the F-16s are former active-duty models displaced by new F-35 stealth fighters.
The Air Force has around 1,000 F-16s and plans to keep most of them in service past 2019. The flying branch had planned to give 300 or so of the single-engine jets major radar and avionics upgrades, but ended that multi-billion-dollar update this year in favor of a cheaper program that keeps the F-16s structurally flightworthy but does not enhance their fighting abilities.
If the Air Force gets it way, in the 2020s and 2030s it will retire all the F-16s, too—and replace them with more than 1,700 new F-35 stealth fighters. But the late, over-budget F-35 is still in testing. And the news has not been good.
Fewer F-15s, better F-22s
The plane-reduction scheme cuts around 70 of the Air Force's roughly 250 remaining F-15C Eagle air-to-air fighters. Guard squadrons in Massachusetts, Florida, Louisiana and California each give up a few of their twin-engine F-15s in 2015 and 2016—and one of the Oregon Guard's two Eagle squadrons shuts down entirely.
Most surprisingly, the plan also shutters an overseas, active-duty F-15 squadron. The active Air Force has three Eagle units abroad—one in England and two in Japan. The Air Force isn't saying yet which of the three squadrons will turn out its lights, but it's hard to imagine the Pentagon will cut forces in the Pacific. Just two years ago the military said it would "pivot" toward Asia to counter a rising China.
That leaves the England-based Eagles, which are part of a wing that also includes ground-attack F-15Es. In early March, 10 of these F-15Cs deployed to Lithuania as a response to Moscow's bloodless invasion of Ukraine's Crimea region. After 2016, the Air Force in Europe could have fewer fighters with which to respond to Russian incursions.
The cuts leave 175 F-15Cs in the inventory. The Air Force wants to spend $740 million in 2015 adding new radars to all 219 F-15Es and 175 F-15Cs. After 2016, the flying branch envisions an air-superiority fighter force of around 350 planes, split roughly evenly between F-15Cs and stealthy F-22s. The Pentagon plans to spend more than $500 million in 2015 enhancing the F-22s' sensors and weapons.
Bye bye, spy planes
Specialist aircraft take a big hit. More than 150 reconnaissance, radar and electronic-jamming planes head to the boneyard.
Active and Guard squadrons in North Dakota, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and California give up 119 MQ-1 Predator drones between 2015 and 2017, replacing them with just 36 new MQ-9 Reapers, which are bigger and carry more weapons. By 2019, the Air Force wants to be able to maintain 55 continuous drone combat air patrols, each with three Reapers.
All 33 U-2 manned spy jets will disappear from California in 2016 and most of the flying branch's MC-12 surveillance turboprops, also in California, will transfer to the Army. Six of the 16 Georgia-based E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System planes decommission in 2015 and 2016.
The JSTARSs are converted Boeing 707 airliners with underslung ground-scanning radars for tracking enemy troops. The Air Force wants a new ground-scanning sensor fitted to a smaller, cheaper business jet. The warplane plan adds two of the new JSTARS back to Georgia in 2019.
The scheme removes seven of the active Air Force's 33 E-3 Sentry radar planes in Oklahoma in 2015 and seven of the 14 EC-130 Compass Call radar-jammers in Arizona in 2016. The remaining E-3s and EC-130s get expensive upgrades to improve their sensors and electronics.
Consolation prizes
The same five-year plan that cuts some 500 existing planes also adds back hundreds of newly-built aircraft. Between 2015 and 2019 the Air Force wants to buy 238 F-35s and 69 new KC-46 tankers plus scores of Reaper drones and C-130 airlifters—not to mention an undisclosed number of secret RQ-180 spy drones.
Not all the new planes the flying branch purchases by 2019 will actually enter service before that year, as it usually takes a couple years to manufacture and introduce each new aircraft.
In any event, Congress is sure to alter the Air Force's warplane plan. If history is a guide, lawmakers will add money to keep older planes flying longer than the military says it wants. In fact, budget drills like the current aircraft-retirement scheme could actually represent deliberate efforts to squeeze cash from lawmakers.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2bde2d6dce25 (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2bde2d6dce25)
Saab reveals full Gripen E design, cost savings
By: Craig Hoyle / march 13, 2014
Saab has started fuselage assembly work on its first of three Gripen E test aircraft and revealed its detailed design for the future variant, which it says will beat the development and operational cost performance of the C-model fighter now flown by five air forces.
Decisions in favour of the Gripen E from the governments of Sweden, Switzerland and Brazil in recent months have prompted a surge of fresh interest in the development, says Saab deputy chief executive and head of aeronautics Lennart Sindahl. "Wherever we go, we see a good situation," he says. The company is confident of a "yes" vote in a Swiss public referendum on 18 May over a planned 22-aircraft procurement, and also of closing out talks with Brazil for its 36-unit F-X2 deal by late this year.
asset image
Saab
"For almost 16 years we have been in discussion with Brazil, and one thing is clear – they want the Gripen," Sindahl says. Ongoing talks following the nation's December 2013 selection include aspects such as the requested development of a two-seat Gripen F – a model not required by either the Swedish or Swiss air forces. "Is it for training purposes, or for an advanced rear seat? We have started that discussion," he adds.
Saab is adopting a stand-off strategy with regard to the Swiss Gripen Fund Law referendum, says campaign director Richard Smith. The Swiss air force project has a fixed price of just over Swfr3.1 billion ($3.6 billion), with Saab's stake worth Swfr2.2 billion, and a weapons and sensors package valued at Swfr300 million. Offsets linked to the purchase will total Swfr2.5 billion, to be placed within 10 years of a deal being signed.
Switzerland's Armasuisse procurement agency has so far approved offset proposals worth Swfr250 million, against an agreed pre-contract goal of Swfr300 million. Saab has recently contracted RUAG Aviation to manufacture electronic warfare pylons for installation on the wing leading edge, and this year also wants to select Swiss-based suppliers for the Gripen E's rear fuselage, tail cone and airbrakes. "We've delivered a good offset package, and I believe we'll get the majority we need," says Smith.
asset image
Saab
Both Brazil and Switzerland are also being offered bridging solutions using Gripen C/Ds to be sourced from the Swedish air force. If advanced – and combined with the conversion of 60 of the service's C-model aircraft to the E standard from later this decade – such arrangements could pose a challenge to Stockholm, says chief of staff Maj Gen Micael Byden. "There will be consequences, but we can handle them," he adds.
The Swedish air force – which has so far received around 95 aircraft from an eventual 100 C/Ds converted from the A/B standard – also retains an aspiration to increase its eventual Gripen E fleet to 80, Byden says. It expects to keep all its D-model trainers until the last new fighters arrive around 2025 or 2026, he adds.
Saab has meanwhile started assembling fuselage parts for test aircraft 39-8 and static test article 39-83 at its Linköping site, and also is producing the first components for flight test asset 39-9.
First flight of the lead test aircraft is scheduled for the second half of 2015, with the single-seat asset to be used primarily for airframe and flight control system testing. The next example will be flown in the first half of 2016, and will support tactical systems work. Any required adaptations will be embodied with flight test instrumentation-equipped aircraft 39-10, which will join the test campaign in early 2017 to prove the final E-model configuration.
A first production example will follow close behind, with Saab targeting military type certification in early 2018, clearing the way for deliveries to Sweden and then Switzerland later the same year, in the MS21 software standard.
Once at full rate, the company aims to be able to deliver a new-build aircraft within 18 months of a contract award, or to convert existing airframes within a year.
Sweden's remanufactured aircraft will retain almost none of the previous airframe, but will reuse parts of its fuel and air systems, plus its ejection seat, windshield, canopy and outer wing elevons.
asset image
Saab
While externally similar, the slightly larger E will have five through-fuselage, aluminium-lithium frames at the heart of its structure, which will support its airframe through to its inner-wing weapons pylons. Its tail section has been redesigned to accommodate the General Electric F414G-39E turbofan engine, and a new intake has been added at the base of the tail for a second environmental control system, which is needed to cool its Selex ES Raven ES-05 active electronically scanned array radar and electronic warfare equipment.
The Gripen's air intake design has also been enlarged, and new landing gear installed. The latter includes a larger, single nose wheel and main gear which retracts into the wing, freeing fuselage space and enabling a 40% increase in internal fuel capacity. Two additional weapon stations have also been introduced beneath the fuselage.
Maximum take-off weight will be 16.5t, with the aircraft's empty weight accounting for just 20% of this, at around 3t.
Referring to the aircraft's sensor configuration, which also includes the Selex Skyward-G infrared search and track (IRST) turret and an advanced interrogation friend-or-foe suite, Saab's Sindahl says: "It will be the best in the world when we ship the first one in 2018. We have really picked the best things."
Risk-reduction work is being conducted using a modified Gripen D demonstrator, now referred to as aircraft 39-7. This should be flown with the IRST sensor later this month, while a new version of its ES-05 radar (file image below) is currently being shipped to Linköping.
asset image
Selex ES
First flown in May 2008, the test platform has now completed around 300 flights totalling 260h, says Mats Lundberg, head of flight test and verification. It is also currently being used to test the Gripen E's digital head-up display.
Lars Ydreskog, Saab's head of aerospace operations, says the company's use of a model-based design technique based around Dassault Systemes' CATIA software is generating huge benefits for the E project. "You can show the operator how they will do something in 2023, before you've done anything in the development," he notes. Combined with a reduced parts count – for example, a single machined part is now used to construct the radar frame, versus more than 20 on the C – and reduced lead times, the new version will be cheaper to produce. Compared against 2009 prices, "it's going to be a 50% productivity increase", Ydreskog says. The E-model demonstrator activity using aircraft 39-7 has also been performed for just 40% of its initial projected cost, he adds.
Saab has also driven increased efficiency through its experience in the Gripen's conversion from the A/B to C/D standards, as well as through manufacturing parts for Airbus and Boeing commercial products, and design and production work for the Dassault-led Neuron unmanned combat air system technology demonstrator. The company's aeronautics unit now has around 3,000 engineers, 800 of which were recruited in the last two to three years.
"We're pushing the performance more than we've ever done, and pushing the costs down," says Sindahl, while Ydreskog comments: "We are never satisfied – we are always challenging ourselves." This experience is also now being drawn on by Saab with Boeing, with the companies working together in pursuit of the US Air Force's potentially 350-aircraft T-X jet trainer requirement.
The increased use of design- and flight test-modelling for the Gripen E also means that while almost 4,000 sorties were required to prepare the C/D model, the three new test platforms should fly only a combined 1,200 times.
The global fleet of Gripens now operated by the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa, Sweden and Thailand has logged 203,000 flight hours, according to Saab. The Swedish air force lists its current per-hour operating cost with the type as being around SKr48,000 ($7,560).
In addition to its current favoured position in Brazil and Switzerland, Saab is also currently offering the Gripen to Malaysia, either for buy or lease, and believes Thailand could acquire a further batch to expand its 12-strong fleet. Further sales prospects listed by Sindahl include Belgium, Botswana, Estonia, Finland, Indonesia, Latvia, Lithuania, Peru, the Philippines, Portugal and Slovakia.
The company also expects the Czech Republic to sign a contract in April to extend its lease deal for 14 C/Ds until at least 2026, mirroring a decision approved by Hungary in 2011.
Longer term, the manufacturer has set a target to sell 350-400 units over the next 20 years. Pointing to the current level of international interest in the programme, Sindahl says: "I think 350-400 aircraft is really feasible".
ZIE VOOR DE PLAATJES:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-reveals-full-gripen-e-design-cost-savings-396977/
Citaat van: www.flightglobal.com Vandaag om 07:50
The Swedish air force lists its current per-hour operating cost with the type as being around SKr48,000 ($7,560).
De $4,700,- die door de Gripen E fanclub graag wordt voorgerekend kan hiermee de prullenbak in, de E (en misschien F) zal zeker op een hoger bedrag uitkomen al is het aanzienlijk minder dan elke concurrent.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/03/2014 | 20:39 uur
De $4,700,- die door de Gripen E fanclub graag wordt voorgerekend kan hiermee de prullenbak in, de E (en misschien F) zal zeker op een hoger bedrag uitkomen al is het aanzienlijk minder dan elke concurrent.
Als jij Janes de fanclub noemt prima ;)
Het bedrag was volgens mij ookal door Poleme uit de doeken gedaan, die kwam ongeveer op het zelfde uit. Nog altijd een stuk goedkoper dan zijn concurrenten natuurlijk.
Citaat van: bergd op 13/03/2014 | 20:50 uur
Als jij Janes de fanclub noemt prima ;)
Het bedrag was volgens mij ookal door Poleme uit de doeken gedaan, die kwam ongeveer op het zelfde uit. Nog altijd een stuk goedkoper dan zijn concurrenten natuurlijk.
Het verhaal is Janes was (bevestigd) gesponsord door.... Saab.
Natuurlijk goedkoper dan de concurrentie al wordt maar al te graag gebruik gemaakt van de "vermeende $4.700 per vlieguur, het liefst vertaald naar de E terwijl dat een onjuiste vergelijking is.
De E zal duurder per vlieguur zijn dan de C, laten we dit voor het gemak rond (aanname) $10K per vlieguur plaatsen en ja iedereen heeft gelijk, dat is per eenheid een aanzienlijk verschil.
Een ander geluid komt uit Zwitserland (gesponsord door Dassault) die aangeeft dat 3 Rafales (rond $14K per vlieguur) een gelijkwaardige capaciteit gebben van 5 Gripen E.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/03/2014 | 21:46 uur
De E zal duurder per vlieguur zijn dan de C, laten we dit voor het gemak rond (aanname) $10K per vlieguur plaatsen en ja iedereen heeft gelijk, dat is per eenheid een aanzienlijk verschil.
Ik denk zelf dat die $10K te rooskleurig is.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/03/2014 | 21:46 uur
Een ander geluid komt uit Zwitserland (gesponsord door Dassault) die aangeeft dat 3 Rafales (rond $14K per vlieguur) een gelijkwaardige capaciteit gebben van 5 Gripen E.
Ik vind eigenlijk als zoiets geroepen wordt dat het ook onderbouwd moet worden, het zo natuurlijk makkelijk scoren. De tegenargument en dan ga ik ook maar even wat roepen is dat je voor 3Rafales ook 5 E's kunt aanschaffen.
Begrijp me niet verkeerd ik ben best een fan van de Rafale maar mijn mening is als er niet veel meer geld naar de defensiebegroting gaat dan is de F35A en de Rafale(om zijn 2 motoren) te hoog gegrepen voor Nederland.
Maargoed dat is mijn bescheiden mening, niet dat die van enige waarde is :angel:
Citaat van: bergd op 13/03/2014 | 22:40 uur
Begrijp me niet verkeerd ik ben best een fan van de Rafale maar mijn mening is als er niet veel meer geld naar de defensiebegroting gaat dan is de F35A en de Rafale(om zijn 2 motoren) te hoog gegrepen voor Nederland.
Maargoed dat is mijn bescheiden mening, niet dat die van enige waarde is :angel:
Natuurlijk heb je een punt, het budget is onverantwoord laag en als het nogmaals met een substantieel bedrag gekort wordt dan is elke fighter te duur...
Gelukkig is men in Den Haag zover dat investeringen in defensie nu ook door het CPB en het CBS worden gezien als investeringen met een rendement ipv een louter kostenpost zonder rendement.... dus wie weet is er hoop op meer geld voor defensie, al zal het nog de nodige overredingskracht voor het pluche vergen om dit te begrijpen.
P.s. "te hoog gegrepen voor Nederland", voor het gemak vergeten we dat Nederland nog steeds, desondanks de crisis, een financiële grootmacht is.
Citaat van: bergd op 13/03/2014 | 20:50 uur
Als jij Janes de fanclub noemt prima ;)
Het bedrag was volgens mij ookal door Poleme uit de doeken gedaan, die kwam ongeveer op het zelfde uit. Nog altijd een stuk goedkoper dan zijn concurrenten natuurlijk.
Als we dat afzetten tegen onze F16 die nu naar verluid $27.000 doet, zou het behoorlijk schelen ja.
Stolen F-35 Secrets Now Showing Up in China's Stealth Fighter
Design data on F-35 stolen in 2007
BY: Bill Gertz
March 13, 2014 4:59 am
A cyber espionage operation by China seven years ago produced sensitive technology and aircraft secrets that were incorporated into the latest version of China's new J-20 stealth fighter jet, according to U.S. officials and private defense analysts.
The Chinese cyber spying against the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II took place in 2007 under what U.S. intelligence agencies codenamed Operation Byzantine Hades, a large-scale, multi-year cyber program that targeted governments and industry.
Defense officials said the stolen data was obtained by a Chinese military unit called a Technical Reconnaissance Bureau in the Chengdu province. The data was then passed to the state-run Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC).
An AVIC subsidiary, the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, used the stolen data in building the J-20, said defense and intelligence officials familiar with reports of the illicit tech transfer.
Newly unveiled J-20 / Chinese websiteThe newly unveiled J-20 jet fighter / Chinese website
Pentagon technology security officials in 2011 opposed a joint venture between General Electric and AVIC over concerns that U.S. fighter jet technology would be diverted to AVIC's military aircraft programs. The Obama administration ignored the concerns and instead has since promoted the systematic loosening of technology controls on transfers to China.
The Office of Director of National Intelligence is known to have details of AVIC's past involvement in illicit arms transfers and its role in obtaining sensitive F-35 technology through cyber espionage, the officials said.
The F-35 data theft was confirmed after recent photographs were published on Chinese websites showing a newer version of the J-20. The new version of the radar-evading aircraft had incorporated several design upgrades since the first demonstrator aircraft was revealed in 2011.
According to the officials, the J-20 has progressed from prototype to demonstrator. One of its most significant weapons enhancements is a new electro-optical targeting system under its nose.
Additionally, protruding engine nozzles seen in the earlier version have been hidden, an attempt to further reduce the jet's radar signature. The newest J-20 also appeared with a different radar-absorbing coating.
Photos of the newer J-20 were first posted online on Chinese military forums on Jan. 17.
The Pentagon's Defense Science Board revealed earlier this year that system design information on the F-35 was obtained from cyber attacks.
The new Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile defenses, along with many other systems, were compromised through cyber espionage, the board said in a report.
Most details of the Chinese cyber espionage campaign to obtain F-35 technology remain secret.
However, the Chinese probably obtained the F-35 secrets from Lockheed Martin, its subcontractors, or U.S. allies involved in the development program. Allies that took part in the F-35 program include the United Kingdom, Israel, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Turkey.
A Chinese Academy of Military Sciences official, Du Wenlong, told Chinese state television on Feb. 20 that the new J-20's shortened exhaust nozzles, along with tail and vertical fin modifications, are designed to reduce radar detection.
Du also said that a "revolutionary" breakthrough allowed the twin engines to increase both power and reliability.
China's inability to manufacture quality jet engines has been a weakness of its aircraft manufacturing programs.
Du also said that the electro-optical targeting system provides better surveillance and strike capabilities against both land and sea targets.
The J-20 also has a larger weapons bay than the U.S. F-22, which allows it to carry more powerful missiles that can be used against "aircraft carrier and foreign AEGIS ships," Du said.
U.S. officials said the new J-20 had undergone ground tests, but it had not been flight tested as of early March.
Richard Fisher, a specialist on Chinese weapon systems, said the new J-20 was flight tested on March 1 and demonstrated the enhanced fifth generation jet fighter features.
Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said it is "very curious" that the new J-20 featured its new electronic targeting system under its nose. That location increased its field of view and is similar to the targeting system on the F-35.
"This targeting system and a set of distributed high-power infrared sensors give the F-35 a previously unrivaled 'situational awareness,' but the now it is clear that the J-20 will have a similar targeting system and its own set of distributed sensors," Fisher said.
"If as part of their espionage, China had also gained engineering insights into the F-35′s very advanced sensor systems, that could prove disastrous to its combat potential barring a rapid redesign and improvements before entering service," Fisher added.
Advanced sensors on the F-35 were intended as insurance for the jet not having the best capabilities for maneuvering in flight, he said.
"But if the Chinese, via cyberespionage, have gained insights into its sensor system, then it is to be expected that China is also working on ways to jam or otherwise degrade its advantage," Fisher said.
The J-20 targeting system indicates that the Chinese plan to use the jet for ground attack and air superiority missions like the F-35, he said, adding that it now appears the J-20 will be comparable to the more capable F-22.
"We can be assured that J-20 production will significantly exceed that of the 187 F-22 fighters cut off by the Obama Administration in 2010," he said.
China's Communist Party-affiliated Global Times reported Jan. 20 that China obtained key technologies from the F-35 and incorporated them into the J-20
The newspaper did not admit stealing the technology, but stated that China "completely obtained the six key technologies" from the F-35.
Those features include the electro-optical targeting system and a diverterless supersonic inlet, a thrust-vectoring jet nozzle, and a fire-control array radar system.
The Global Times disclosures about F-35 technology acquisition were first reported in the Washington Times.
http://freebeacon.com/stolen-f-35-secrets-now-showing-up-in-chinas-stealth-fighter/
http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/f-35-secrets-in-chinas-j-20/
Russian rubbish? India reportedly disappointed with stealth fighters from Moscow
march, 14/2014
Is the Russian arms industry getting soft?
Despite initial high expectations, the Indian Air Force appears to be souring on a joint development deal with Russia for a new fifth-generation fighter jet, according to the Business Standard, a major Indian business publication. The Russian prototype is "unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered," said Indian Air Force Deputy Air Marshall S Sukumar at a Jan. 15 meeting, according to minutes obtained by the Business Standard.
That contrasts sharply with high hopes voiced by the Indian government when the joint project, to which the Indian government has contributed $6 billion, began.
"[The new plane] will have advanced features such as stealth, supercruise, ultra-maneuvrability, highly integrated avionics suite, enhanced situational awareness, internal carriage of weapons and Network Centric Warfare capabilities," the Indian government said in a December 2010 press release. Those are all hallmarks of "fifth generation" aircraft.
The Indian Air Force did not respond to a request for comment.
But it is hardly surprising that the invisible-to-radar Russian fighter planes don't quite live up to the billing, according to defense experts reached by FoxNews.com.
"The Russians are certainly not up to speed in avionics," Robbin Laird, who has served as a consultant to the Marine Corps and Air Force and started the website Second Line of Defense, told FoxNews.com. "For them to pull off a stealth airframe, and for it to actually be stealthy, the engine technology has to be very good. Americans have done it with the F-22 and F-35. But it's not easy to do. No one has done it but ourselves."
India is the largest arms importer in world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and its military import large amounts from both Russia and western countries.
"The Indians for a long time have split their fighter industry between western work and Russian work," Laird said.
"Clearly they want to go more Western because they recognize that the Russian stuff just isn't up to the western standards. You only have so much money to go around, and like everybody else they've got financial pressures," he added.
Other security experts said that India has a history of incompetence when it comes to military procurement, and so it did not necessarily reflect badly on Russia.
"India has had so many problems absorbing modern equipment and supporting it that it's difficult to know whether it says anything about the Russian systems at all," Anthony Cordesman, who has served as a consultant for the State and Defense departments and who holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FoxNews.com.
Laird said that the Indians may be souring on the Russian deal in part to save funds so they can build more French-designed Dassault Rafale fighter jets, which can be built relatively quickly, unlike the still-to-be-designed "fifth-generation" planes under development with the Russians.
"The Rafale is a very nice aircraft, and they'll look at all the stuff the French are putting on that aircraft, and they'll look at the Russian stuff and say, why am I going down that path? Do I trust the Russians really are going to reach to the standards we set?"
Laird said that India would be best off purchasing the already-developed fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 – but that the United States government had not given permission for such a sale, even though Indian officials had asked several times to be able to consider the plane.
"If they get a chance to really look at the F35, they would want it," Laird said. "The Indians have requested 3 times to talk to people about the F-35B, which is the true revolutionary aircraft -- and the administration never answered the mail, they've blown them off, it's typical of the Obama administration. We love our allies except if you want anything."
He added that India may in fact not be at the level where it should be trusted with F-35s, however, so the administration would be right to turn them down. But he argued that the F-35 is ahead of what Russia has.
"The Russians are good aircraft designers, and they know how to build an agile aircraft, and [the new plane they are working on] is a step forward the path of more agility and flexibility, but the problem is -- it's not all about the frame, it's about what your put in it. The F35 can see around itself, 360 degrees, can see a missile take off 820 miles away, it has a radar that's extraordinary, and the systems are integrated. The Russians I think are nowhere near that at this point."
Laird admitted that there was a kind of "ho-hum" aspect to those types of features, but said that the information they provide to pilots and commanders would pay off in a combat situation.
Cordesman also said that he was unsurprised by the Indian complaints, given what he knew about Russian air capabilities.
"They're very good at building airplanes," Cordesman said. "The problem that Russia, since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, has been putting out the military equivalent of show cars. They look good, but it isn't always clear how practical they are and how many of the specifications they can actually meet."
http://indiandefence.com/threads/russian-rubbish-india-reportedly-disappointed-with-stealth-fighters-from-moscow.43963/
Meer goed nieuws voor de Zweden.
Prague extends lease of Swedish Gripen fighters till 2027
By Agence France-Presse on Friday, March 14th, 2014
The Czech government on Wednesday renewed its lease on 14 Swedish fighter jets until 2027, its defence minister said.
The Czech army has been using the Gripen one- and two-seaters since 2005 under a 10-year contract worth around 20 billion koruna (730 million euros, $1 billion).
"From now on Prague will pay an annual 1.7 billion koruna," Defence Minister Martin Stropnicky said of the lease that kicks in next year.
He added that the aircraft would be upgraded under the contract. Sweden would also train 25 Czech pilots and 90 technicians.
A total of 166 Gripen fighters are used around the world, including 100 in Sweden, according to data from Swedish manufacturer Saab.
Prague extends lease of Swedish Gripen fighters till 2027
By Agence France-Presse on Friday, March 14th, 2014
The Czech government on Wednesday renewed its lease on 14 Swedish fighter jets until 2027, its defence minister said.
The Czech army has been using the Gripen one- and two-seaters since 2005 under a 10-year contract worth around 20 billion koruna (730 million euros, $1 billion).
"From now on Prague will pay an annual 1.7 billion koruna," Defence Minister Martin Stropnicky said of the lease that kicks in next year.
He added that the aircraft would be upgraded under the contract. Sweden would also train 25 Czech pilots and 90 technicians.
A total of 166 Gripen fighters are used around the world, including 100 in Sweden, according to data from Swedish manufacturer Saab.
http://www.defencetalk.com/prague-extends-lease-of-swedish-gripen-fighters-till-2027-59012/
Italië overweegt minder JSF's aan te schaffen
ROME -
De regering van Italië overweegt minder toestellen van het gevechtsvliegtuig de F-35, de Joint Strike Fighter, aan te schaffen dan nu in de bedoeling ligt. Het is een van de maatregelen die de regering van premier Matteo Renzi mogelijk neemt om te bezuinigen op de overheidsuitgaven.
Renzi zei zondagavond laat in een interview met de tv-zender Canale 5 dat de regering de komende 3 jaar 3 miljard euro wil bezuinigen op de defensiebegroting. Niet alleen worden er mogelijk minder JSF's gekocht, maar ook zullen kazernes worden gesloten.
Italië wilde aanvankelijk 131 F-35's aanschaffen, maar dat aantal was al teruggebracht tot 90. De Nederlandse regering heeft besloten 37 toestellen te kopen.
Telegraaf, ma 17 mrt 2014, 09:47
New Gripen Aims For Low Cost, High Capability
Saab, its Swedish air force customer and Selex-ES have disclosed new details of the JAS 39E Gripen fighter, which has been in full development for just over a year following a six-year risk-reduction and demonstration effort. The JAS 39E is a new aircraft in detail, with only a few structural or systems components in common with the current JAS 39C/D, but it shares enough with its predecessor to take full advantage of weapon-integration experience and uses an evolved version of the C/D's software.
Compared with earlier Gripen variants, the JAS 39E has a higher gross weight and can carry 2,400 lb. more internal fuel, mostly due to a redesigned main landing gear that retracts into underwing bulges rather than the body. The nose gear has also been changed, from a twin-wheel unit to a larger single wheel that is compatible with emergency arrester cables on runways. The main structure has been redesigned with continuous wing-fuselage frames that extend to the inboard wing pylons, where the outer wings are attached, and the fuselage contours have been changed, partly to accommodate more fuel. However, the redesign has reduced the airframe's proportion of the empty weight, boosting useful load.
The JAS 39E will be able to engage stealth targets with a fused, multispectral sensor suite (see article below), according to program officials. It will be able to cruise at Mach 1.25 without using afterburner, and will enter service in 2018 with a full suite of weapons including the MBDA Meteor ramjet-powered air-to-air missile (which enters service next year on the JAS 39C/D). The Swedish air force's fixed-price contract for 60 complete aircraft, converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure, equates to a flyaway price of $43 million.
The JAS 39E is not a classically stealthy aircraft, but the development contract stipulates a significantly lower radar cross-section (RCS) than the JAS 39C. In conjunction with the all-new Saab-developed electronic warfare system, which uses gallium nitride antenna technology and is described as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor in its own right, and the new Selex-ES Brite Cloud expendable active decoy, the reduced RCS is expected to allow the fighter to survive against advanced threats, including the Sukhoi T-50 fighter and "double-digit" surface-to-air missiles, while avoiding the cost and risk of an F-35-type stealth configuration.
The first customers, Sweden and Switzerland, are buying only single-seat aircraft, but codevelopment of the two-seat JAS 39F is being discussed with Brazil, which selected the new Gripen to reequip its fighter force in December.
The JAS 39E is intended to have a lower acquisition cost than the JAS 39C, despite its greater capability, and to have a lower operating cost than any other fighter. The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel. For development costs (also covered by a fixed-price contract), Saab's goal is to spend only 60% as much as it would have cost using the same tools and processes that were used on the JAS 39C.
The program has some important events pending this year. On May 18, Switzerland will hold a referendum on its order for 22 JAS 39Es. Saab executives acknowledge that the referendum will be a close vote. Another key goal is to negotiate and close a contract for Brazil's 36 aircraft by the end of the year.
The risk that neither deal will close is seen as small, but it is a threat because Sweden's parliament approved the JAS 39E program on the condition that at least one international partner must be found. On the other hand, the program is well advanced and the air force need is established: The force's requirement for 60-80 JAS 39Es was approved by a joint-service team headed by an army officer, according to Maj. Gen. Micael Byden, air force chief of staff.
Saab's commercial goal for the JAS 39E is to export 300-450 aircraft over the next 20 years, according to Lennart Sindahl, executive vice-president and head of aeronautics. This represents 10% of the "accessible market," he says, accounting for nations to which Sweden bans major arms exports. Gripen, Sindahl says, has won 50% of its competitions since exports started.
Active campaigns include Denmark, which is expected to start a formal competition in April with the release of a "request for binding information," and a long-running contest in Malaysia. Brazil's order is regarded by Saab as the first of three tranches, with the JAS 39E in a strong position to replace F-5s and Alenia-Embraer A-1s.
The first of three JAS 39E development aircraft (known as 39-8, 39-9 and 39-10) will fly in the first half of 2015, the company says. 39-9 will follow about nine months later, and 39-10—basically a full-production aircraft but fitted with flight-test instrumentation—will fly in 2017.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_17_2014_p28-671785.xml&p=2
Citaat van: Lex op 17/03/2014 | 09:54 uur
Italië overweegt minder JSF's aan te schaffen
ROME -
De regering van Italië overweegt minder toestellen van het gevechtsvliegtuig de F-35, de Joint Strike Fighter, aan te schaffen dan nu in de bedoeling ligt. Het is een van de maatregelen die de regering van premier Matteo Renzi mogelijk neemt om te bezuinigen op de overheidsuitgaven.
Renzi zei zondagavond laat in een interview met de tv-zender Canale 5 dat de regering de komende 3 jaar 3 miljard euro wil bezuinigen op de defensiebegroting. Niet alleen worden er mogelijk minder JSF's gekocht, maar ook zullen kazernes worden gesloten.
Italië wilde aanvankelijk 131 F-35's aanschaffen, maar dat aantal was al teruggebracht tot 90. De Nederlandse regering heeft besloten 37 toestellen te kopen.
Telegraaf, ma 17 mrt 2014, 09:47
Italy prepared to cut order for F-35 jetsAGI) Rome, March 16 - Italy will not hesitate to make major cuts in its spending on war planes, Defence Minister Roberta Pinotti said in a television interview. Pinotti referred in particular to an order for 90 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning jets. But before making cuts, she specified, "we must ask ourselves: do we want an air force? What kind of defence do we want, what kind of protection do we need? The government is awaiting the result of an inquiry into these questions before taking a decision."
http://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201403161333-pol-ren1010-italy_prepared_to_cut_order_for_f_35_jets
Gezien de berichten kunnen we met enige zekerheid zeggen dat de order van 90 stuks F-35 zeker verlaagd gaat worden naar een stuk of 45. Waarbij ik denk dat er alleen het B-type zal worden aangeschaft voor het gebruiken vanaf hun schepen, carriers.
Dus geen landversie (A-type), deze zal waarschijnlijk dan wel opgevuld worden door de Typhoon
Citaat van: Harald op 17/03/2014 | 11:14 uur
Gezien de berichten kunnen we met enige zekerheid zeggen dat de order van 90 stuks F-35 zeker verlaagd gaat worden naar een stuk of 45. Waarbij ik denk dat er alleen het B-type zal worden aangeschaft voor het gebruiken vanaf hun schepen, carriers.
Dus geen landversie (A-type), deze zal waarschijnlijk dan wel opgevuld worden door de Typhoon
Dat verwacht ik ook. De vraag is dan of ze additionele Eurofighters zullen/mogen bestellen (denk aan de gecancelde batch 3a kisten voor de Duitsers) of dat men moet roeien met de riemen die men heeft.
Indien het laatste dan is dat een kwalijke zaak, immers wederom enkele tientallen moderne fighters uit het Europese arsenaal.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/03/2014 | 11:20 uur
Dat verwacht ik ook. De vraag is dan of ze additionele Eurofighters zullen/mogen bestellen (denk aan de gecancelde batch 3a kisten voor de Duitsers) of dat men moet roeien met de riemen die men heeft.
Indien het laatste dan is dat een kwalijke zaak, immers wederom enkele tientallen moderne fighters uit het Europese arsenaal.
misschien dat ze toch versneld afscheid nemen van hun Tornado's en ze hebben nog (niet geleverde) typhoon orders lopen, dat ze deze in Tranche 3 laten bouwen/upgraden.
Citaat van: Harald op 17/03/2014 | 11:38 uur
misschien dat ze toch versneld afscheid nemen van hun Tornado's en ze hebben nog (niet geleverde) typhoon orders lopen, dat ze deze in Tranche 3 laten bouwen/upgraden.
In dat geval zou de conclusie zijn: meer met nog minder.... klinkt ergens bekend, helaas.
Is het niet gewoon het resultaat van de economische en politieke stilstand in Italië? Liever bestaande contracten en belangen (banen in het Eurofighter consortium) aanhouden in plaats van nieuwe aan te gaan?
Ja ik zou het niet erg vinden als een F-35 productielijn naar Nederland verplaatst wordt. Of de contracten herverdeeld tussen Nederland, Noorwegen, GB en de instappende Belgen.
Citaat van: Zeewier op 17/03/2014 | 12:23 uur
Ja ik zou het niet erg vinden als een F-35 productielijn naar Nederland verplaatst wordt. Of de contracten herverdeeld tussen Nederland, Noorwegen, GB en de instappende Belgen.
Helemaal mee eens!
Citaat van: Zeewier op 17/03/2014 | 12:23 uur
Is het niet gewoon het resultaat van de economische en politieke stilstand in Italië? Liever bestaande contracten en belangen (banen in het Eurofighter consortium) aanhouden in plaats van nieuwe aan te gaan?
Ja ik zou het niet erg vinden als een F-35 productielijn naar Nederland verplaatst wordt. Of de contracten herverdeeld tussen Nederland, Noorweg
en, GB en de instappende Belgen.
Productielijn naar NL ?? .... nee dat zal zeker niet gebeuren
Het hoogst haalbare voor NL zou een onderhoudscontract kunnen zijn voor de motoren .. al zou ik dat ook onlogisch vinden, omdat ze in Italie een gehele nieuwe fabriek hebben gebouwd voor de assemblage van de F-35.
Ik zie het niet gebeuren dat deze fabriek in NL wordt gebouwd
We winnen er denk ik niets mee, alleen maar verliezers bij minder aantal verkochte F-35.
Citaat van: Harald op 17/03/2014 | 12:29 uur
Productielijn naar NL ?? .... nee dat zal zeker niet gebeuren
Het hoogst haalbare voor NL zou een onderhoudscontract kunnen zijn voor de motoren .. al zou ik dat ook onlogisch vinden, omdat ze in Italië een gehele nieuwe fabriek hebben gebouwd voor de assemblage van de F-35.
Ik zie het niet gebeuren dat deze fabriek in NL wordt gebouwd.
We winnen er denk ik niets mee, alleen maar verliezers bij minder aantal verkochte F-35.
Natuurlijk, de assemblagehallen van Finmeccanica vallen niet te evenaren. Wel heeft Philips Machinefabrieken (VDL) in het verleden voor de F-16 de straalpijp geproduceerd. En ik meen ook turbineschoepen maar dat weet ik niet 100% zeker.
Edit: wat zit ik te lullen man. Philips Aerospaces maakt al fancases voor de F136 engine. :lol:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rolls-royce-awards-jsf-contract-to-philips-aerospace-73753092.html
En een Italiaanse orderverlaging is nooit goed.
Italy to Cut F-35 Buy, But Not Pull Out: Prime Minister
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published March 17, 2014)
PARIS --- Three weeks after taking office, the new Italian government of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has decided to reduce defense spending by at least 1 billion euros per year, and will reduce the number of F-35 fighters it buys.
Renzi told TG5 television news on March 16 that "the [F-35] program will continue, but it will be revised," implying that the number of aircraft will be reduced. "Minister Pinotti is right to say that we will save a lot of money on defense – about 3 billion euros over the next 3 years. Not all on the F-35....but let me be clear: we will continue our international programs, we will continue with a strong air force, but the program will be revised" downwards.
Earlier on March 16, incoming Defense Minister Senator Roberta Pinotti said in a separate interview with Sky News that "regarding the F-35, it is legitimate to imagine that it could be re-thought, it could be cut or it could be reviewed." This was the first time a government minister has mentioned the possibility of further cuts or even a cancellation of Italy's participation in the F-35 program.
"I understand that everyone is wondering about financing the F-35, because in our collective imagination it's a fighter-bomber, and that means an aircraft used for aggression," Pinotti continued, adding that "there is a commitment by the government [to review defense plans] so let's wait until the end before we take a decision."
Initially due to buy 131 fighters, Italy has already reduced its planned offtake to 90 because of financial constraints, but Renzi's new coalition government, which took office on Feb. 19, plans a wide-ranging defense review that could further cut F-35 procurement. Renzi's party, the reformed leftist Partito Democratico (PD), of which Pinotti also is a member, has in the past often criticized the F-35's cost, and questioned whether it is suited to Italy's needs.
A PD party resolution last year called for pulling out of the F-35 program, and using its budget to complete development of the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon, of which Italy holds a 21% share, and buy it instead of the F-35. Crucially, one of the reasons is that Eurofighter guarantees a proportional return on investments, while the F-35 does not, and Italian parliamentarians prefer to finance jobs in Italy rather than in the United States or elsewhere.
"It's like waiting for a bus – the more you've waited, the less likely you are to give up and walk," one source said to describe why Italy is unlikely to pull out at this late state.
The PD's mooted solution – develop the far more capable Eurofighter to final Tranche 3B capability and buy it instead of the F-35, thereby supporting Italian jobs – is likely to prove unrealistic as further development of the Eurofighter would require the agreement of the other three partners – Britain, Germany and Spain. Italy has already spent 2.5 billion euros on the F-35 program, and would lose the entire amount by pulling out now.
Another issue is Eurofighter's operating cost, which Gen. Domenico Esposito, Director of Aeronautical Armaments at the ministry of defense, has estimated at 40,000 euros per flight hour. Italy's leased F-16s, he said, cost less than $16,000 per flight hour to operate.
Reducing number of F-35s is likely to be resisted by the Italian air force, which needs to replace its Tornado strike fighters and AMX attack fighters in the next decade and by the navy, which is determined to replace its AV-8B STOVL fighters and keep a fixed-wing combat component despite its being of dubious operational use. One source said the Navy could later buy F-35Bs off the shelf at much lower prices.
The F-35 program also is supported by Italian President Napoletano, who wields considerable influence even though his constitutional powers are very limited, and by Finmeccanica, the state-controlled industry group which owns Alenia Aermacchi, the lead Italian company on the F-35 program. However, Finmeccanica CEO Alessandro Pansa's term expires in mid-April, and it is unlikely he will risk being replaced by opposing government policy. A round of nominations at many state-controlled industries is due to be announced April 19.
Some details of the new quantities may emerge after a March 19 meeting of the Supreme Defense Council called by President Giorgio Napolitano. The meeting is expected to decide a radical review of Italy's defense with a view to substantially reducing the armed forces' capabilities to defense missions only.
The meeting also is expected to decide whether to amend a law which currently gives Parliament a strong say over how defense budgets are spent, but which Napolitano believes infringes on executive powers. Known as Law 244, the text was used by Parliament last summer to forbid the government from buying any F-35 fighters without its approval, but which according to Italian press reports was immediately ignored by the previous government, which ordered 12 additional aircraft without any public announcement.
The debate about whether law exceeds Parliament's constitutional powers in fact hides a long-running debate over the cost and necessity of the F-35 program, of which Italy is the second-largest foreign partner and in which it has already invested 2 billion euros.
As to Eurofighter Tranche 3B, Britain has implied that it will not fund it, and the German government in December told Parliament it would also not proceed, so the viability of Eurofighter option is far from being assured.
But F-35 costs are such that few believe Italy can afford them in its current financial straits. Also at issue is the fact that the Italian government has invested about $900 million to set up the F-35's Final Assembly and Check-Out (FACO) facility at Cameri, near Novara. The Italian government has also contributed $1,028 million to the F-35's development to date, and according to Gen. Esposito had spent a total of $2.5 billion on the program as of July 2013.
Esposito said in a July 2013 interview still posted on the defense ministry's website that Italy is slated to spend another $16.1 billion on the F-35 program over the next 15 years, of which just over half to buy the aircraft. At the time, he said that it expected to buy 60 F-35A CTOL variants at an average unit cost of €74 million (then worth $97.7 million) and 30 F-35B STOVL variants at €88 million ($116.1 million) each – it is not clear whether these figures include the engines, which in the F-35 program are counted separately.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/152466/italy-to-revise%2C-cut-f_35-buy.html
Nog twee andere interessante opmerkingen....werkgelegenheid...en prijs. Ach ja die laatste weten we in Nederland nog niet eens (zeker)...
Italy to Cut F-35 Buy, But Not Pull Out: Prime Minister
.......
A PD party resolution last year called for pulling out of the F-35 program, and using its budget to complete development of the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon, of which Italy holds a 21% share, and buy it instead of the F-35. Crucially, one of the reasons is that Eurofighter guarantees a proportional return on investments, while the F-35 does not, and Italian parliamentarians prefer to finance jobs in Italy rather than in the United States or elsewhere.
............
Esposito said in a July 2013 interview still posted on the defense ministry's website that Italy is slated to spend another $16.1 billion on the F-35 program over the next 15 years, of which just over half to buy the aircraft. At the time, he said that it expected to buy 60 F-35A CTOL variants at an average unit cost of €74 million (then worth $97.7 million) and 30 F-35B STOVL variants at €88 million ($116.1 million) each – it is not clear whether these figures include the engines, which in the F-35 program are counted separately.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/152466/italy-to-revise%2C-cut-f_35-buy.html
US Navy to request additional Boeing E/A-18G Growlers
By: Jon Hemmerdinger
Washington DC / Source: Flightglobal.com /March, 17-2014
The US Navy has confirmed it wants to buy additional Boeing E/A-18G Growler aircraft – a move the service says will protect the nation's industrial base and provide it with the electronic warfare capability it will need in the coming decades.
"I see a growing Growler need," Chief of Naval Operations Adm Jonathan Greenert told lawmakers during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on 12 March. "We are at the minimum requirement as we know it."
"Today we have the minimum numbers [of Growlers] in each squadron," adds USN secretary Ray Mabus.
The navy, which did not immediately respond to a request for additional information, currently has five Growlers per squadron, Mabus says. "Looking in the future, we don't think electronic attack is going to get any smaller," he adds.
The comments come days after news that the USN is seeking to include 22 additional Growlers in its "unfunded" requirements request for fiscal year 2015. That document, which must be approved by military leaders, includes items that were not in the military's FY2015 budget request, released earlier this month.
In his committee testimony, Greenert calls the request a "hedge and risk-reduction" effort, adding that the navy is "very mindful of the industrial base".
The US government is also "working on things like foreign military sales to keep that [Boeing] line in business", Greenert adds.
Boeing's Super Hornet and Growler production line in St Louis, Missouri will run out of work in the third quarter of 2016, if the company does not receive additional orders from the US government or foreign militaries.
The manufacturer says its twin-seat Growler can provide the electronic jamming capability needed to ensure other fighters – like Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter – are most effective.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-to-request-additional-boeing-ea-18g-growlers-397099/
GERUCHT : Huffington Post reports that F-35's to be cut to 45; Aircraft Carrier sold...
The cuts in the spending review could not not lose heart, even on military expenditure. According to early rumors, it is important cuts: there is even talk to divest and sell Garibaldi Italian first aircraft carrier to enter service after the ban imposed by the peace treaties. And to cut spending for the purchase of F35 fighter jets, for which the government wants to halve the level inherited from the past government: 12 but not more than 6 billion to be spent over the course of 12 years. 90 but not more than 45 aircraft, with savings expected to be around half a billion a year.
The idea, then, is not to exit the Joint Strike Fighter , to which Italy contributes actively with Alenia Aermacchi (a Finmeccanica subsidiary in charge of producing the wings of the F35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and assemble). Rather, it is yet to revise downward the number of fighter jets to buy (which at the beginning had to be 131).
Notice the diplomatic wording? They're not exiting the program, but simply cutting numbers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.it/2014/03/18/f35-il-governo-pensa-di-dimezzare-gli-acquisti_n_4983533.html?utm_hp_ref=italy
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.nl/2014/03/huffington-post-reports-that-f-35s-to.html
Dat had ik ook wel verwacht...
Het niet doorgaan van de carrier is wel een aderlating voor de Nato.
Alweer....
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 18/03/2014 | 12:47 uur
Dat had ik ook wel verwacht...
Het niet doorgaan van de carrier is wel een aderlating voor de Nato.
Alweer....
Het schip is inmiddels al bijna 30 jaar in dienst en was toch zo'n beetje rijp voor vervanging.
Maar je hebt een punt, wellicht weer een kapitaal schip minder voor de NAVO maar meer in het bijzonder voor de Europese defensie.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/03/2014 | 13:08 uur
Het schip is inmiddels al bijna 30 jaar in dienst en was toch zo'n beetje rijp voor vervanging.
Maar je hebt een punt, wellicht weer een kapitaal schip minder voor de NAVO maar meer in het bijzonder voor de Europese defensie.
kan tegenover staan dat de aanschaf van de twee LHD's wel door gaat. Heb ik nog niets over gelezen tot nu toe. Italie neemt Mistral's over van de Russen?!
Citaat van: Elzenga op 18/03/2014 | 14:33 uur
kan tegenover staan dat de aanschaf van de twee LHD's wel door gaat. Heb ik nog niets over gelezen tot nu toe. Italie neemt Mistral's over van de Russen?!
Ik begrijp dat op 19/3 meer info naar buiten komt.
Het lijkt mij dat de twee geplande LHD's gewoon doorgaan en de Mistral's ovenrmen is een aardige gedachte, maar dan voeg je meteen 1 of 2 kapitale schepen toe aan de exploitatiekostenpost inclusief dat je ze in een keer mag aftikken...
Verhoud zich vast lastig tot de beoogde 3 mjd aan voorgenomen bezuinigingsplannen voor de komende paar jaren.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 18/03/2014 | 14:33 uur
kan tegenover staan dat de aanschaf van de twee LHD's wel door gaat. Heb ik nog niets over gelezen tot nu toe. Italie neemt Mistral's over van de Russen?!
Kruip aub een keer onder die steen vandaan Elzenga. Ze gaan 3 miljard euro bezuinigen.
Die LHD's komen niet.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 18/03/2014 | 15:22 uur
Kruip aub een keer onder die steen vandaan Elzenga. Ze gaan 3 miljard euro bezuinigen.
Die LHD's komen niet.
tegenover bezuinigingen staan ook vaak nieuwe investeringen...al komen die meestal ten goede aan de eigen (defensie)industrie. Dus zo gek is mijn vraagteken nog niet in deze dunkt mij.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 18/03/2014 | 17:26 uur
tegenover bezuinigingen staan ook vaak nieuwe investeringen...al komen die meestal ten goede aan de eigen (defensie)industrie. Dus zo gek is mijn vraagteken nog niet in deze dunkt mij.
tegenover bezuinigingen staan ook vaak nieuwe investeringen?
Af en toe vraag ik me echt af van welke planeet jij komt...
F-35's French rival pitches 'Canadianized' fighter jet
By Terry Milewski, CBC News Posted: Mar 18, 2014
Dassault Aviation of France is making an aggressive bid to sideline the F-35 and to sell its own jet fighter to Canada, offering to transfer technology, create jobs and share billions of dollars in business if Canada buys its Rafale fighter to replace its outdated fleet of CF-18s.
Dassault leads the French consortium that makes the twin-engined Rafale for the French air force. The Rafale, unlike the F-35, has been combat-tested in Afghanistan, Libya and Mali. Although not yet sold outside France, India has announced plans to buy the Rafale on the strength of pledges to transfer the technology. The agreement provides that 108 out of 126 Rafales will be built in India, not France.
■F-35 rivals anxious for verdict on stealth fighter program
■Dassault Aviation ramps up CF-18 replacement pitch
■Analysis: Lockheed Martin launches PR campaign for F-35
■Analysis: Military defeated in war over procurement reform
A similar deal with Canada would allow major components to be manufactured here, according to Dassault's vice-president, Yves Robins.
"Should the Canadian industry wish to assemble or produce part of the Rafale in Canada, we are fully open to it," Robins told CBC News in Montreal.
Robins said the "intellectual property" associated with the Rafale would be part of any sale, including the source codes for the fighter's computer system as well as the know-how to adapt and update the aircraft — both hardware and software — throughout its lifespan.
Yves Robins of Dassault Aviation
Dassault Aviation's Yves Robins says the 'intellectual property' associated with the Rafale fighter jet would be part of any sale to Canada. (CBC)
"The Rafale will be Canadianized," said Robins.
This would mean, he said, "transfer of technology to the Canadian industry, creating high-value jobs and integrating the Canadian industry in the global supply chain."
Robins said the jobs created in Canada would far exceed those that would flow from a purchase of the F-35.
The Rafale's backers dismiss concerns that a French plane will not work well with U.S. forces, saying it did just that in both Afghanistan and Libya. They add that its attachment points for bombs and missiles are built to NATO standards.
Contest comes down to earth
Even so, the Rafale offer suggests the contest for billions of dollars in fighter sales to Canada is increasingly focused on the spinoff benefits — meaning, jobs on the ground — and less on how the competing planes perform in the air.
All the rival fighters claim to be fully capable of conducting sovereignty patrols in the Arctic, as well as combat missions such as the overthrow of Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi in 2011. Canada's CF-18s took part in that operation, but are due to retire over the next five years.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's governing Conservatives had picked Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighter to replace them, until the government's lack of candour about the cost provoked a political storm and a scathing report by the auditor general in 2012. That forced the government to retreat, saying it would "hit the reset button."
After years of delays and cost overruns, the F-35 program is still in its early stages. Canada's fighter purchase is now going nowhere as the government tries to decide whether to stick with the F-35 or to hold a competition with some or all of its rivals — the Boeing Super Hornet, Dassault's Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Saab Gripen.
Jobs, jobs, jobs
By coincidence or not, the Dassault bid comes a month after the Canadian government announced a new procurement strategy emphasizing the creation of jobs.
Discussing the plan in Vancouver last week, Public Works Minister Diane Finley said, "The whole idea behind it is, anyone who is competing on the procurements, the various ones, has to make sure that they are investing in Canada — that Canada's getting benefits."
Dassault says that's exactly what it is doing, and that it already has a supplier network in Canada, led by Thales, a French multinational specializing in aerospace and defence hardware. The Thales plant in Montreal produces actuators that move the flaps on the wings of the Rafale.
Thales Canada CEO Mark Halinaty told CBC News that the company employs 1,300 Canadians, and that an influx of French military technology could be exploited for growth in many other fields. Already, Thales makes control systems for commercial aircraft, railroads and the Canadian Forces.
"It's not just about transferring technology and know-how for a particular program," said Halinaty.
"What that does is provide us with the expertise which allows us to develop our own Canadian-originated projects, which we can then export."
Not just a chance to bid, but a 'guarantee'
Robins, the Dassault VP, added that "we are not only limiting this offer to the Rafale."
Robins said that Dassault's partnerships with hundreds of other French companies will allow it to include Canadian industry in other high-tech projects — in space, unmanned drones and avionics. This, he said, would be "a guarantee of activity amounting at least to the equivalent of the procurement budget for the aircraft — and going much further later on."
To date, the Canadian government has budgeted $9 billion for the purchase. Robins said Dassault would promise in writing to invest that much in Canada.
F-35
Lockheed Martin's F-35 has been the leading choice to replace Canada's fleet of CF-18s, but has run into political turbulence over escalating costs. (Samuel King Jr./U.S. Air Force/Canadian Press)
"This is a commitment. A contractual commitment, even with penalties written in the contracts. We are not saying the Canadian industry could potentially, maybe go up to $10 (billion) or $11 billion by bidding for such-and-such contracts. We are saying we guarantee this return to the Canadian industry. It's a totally different philosophy from some of our competitors."
That's a direct shot at Lockheed Martin, which says it will offer Canadians the chance to bid on "$11 billion in opportunities" over the life of the F-35 program. There's no guarantee that Canadian firms would win those contracts.
Even so, Lockheed Martin vice-president Steve O'Bryan says he has already signed $600 million in contracts to build parts of the F-35 in Canada.
"These are real contracts ... all before Canada has even decided on a single airplane," O'Bryan told CBC News.
"This isn't mundane work. This is software, this is avionics, this is composite work. These are the technologies in the aerospace industry you need for years to come."
From stealth fighters to windmills
In the Ottawa suburb of Gloucester, a small company called GasTOPS is one of Lockheed Martin's 70 Canadian suppliers. Having developed a specialized sensor for another stealth fighter — the top-secret F-22 — GasTOPS now makes an updated version for the F-35. It's an early-warning system that checks the oil flow for microscopic pieces of metal which might indicate a looming engine failure.
Although the devices are worth $5,000 each, the F-35 production line is still not rolling at full speed and Lockheed Martin has only bought 500 of the sensors so far. But GasTOPS has expanded into a much larger market for the same sensor: for wind turbines, which are in use all over the world.
Dave Muir, the CEO of GasTOPS, says "the key thing is these are knowledge-based, what you would call highly qualified, professional jobs. These are jobs that are hard to come by. They're hard to create."
Of course, Dassault is not Lockheed Martin's only rival. Although the Eurofighter and Saab bids are not seen as strong contenders at the moment, Boeing's Super Hornet, like the Rafale, has combat experience and lower operating costs than the F-35. It's an updated version of the CF-18s Canada currently uses, which Boeing says implies an easier learning curve for Canadian pilots. The U.S. has bought dozens of Super Hornets to bridge the gap until the F-35 reaches full-rate production.
As a global aviation company, Boeing also has a network of 200 suppliers in Canada and, like Dassault, dismisses Lockheed Martin's offer on jobs as inferior.
For now, though, all the fighter companies interested in Canada's business can only wait for the government to make a decision: will it hold a competition, or not? And will its decision reflect the commitment to Canadian jobs, or not?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s-french-rival-pitches-canadianized-fighter-jet-1.2577234
First Typhoon Flight With AESA Could Open Door to Exports
Mar. 18, 2014 - 02:38PM | By TOM KINGTON
ROME — A Eurofighter Typhoon combat jet is due to fly for the first time with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar later this year, marking a crucial milestone in the drawn-out development of the fighter's new sensor.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140318/DEFREG01/303180028
Gripen Sensors Claim Counter-Stealth Performance
New sensors being developed for the JAS 39E and close to starting flight tests on the JAS 39-7 Gripen Demo testbed will be able to detect low-radar-cross-section (RCS) targets, and will provide the pilots in a Gripen formation with a new level of situational awareness, according to Bob Mason, Selex-ES marketing director for advanced sensors.
The JAS 39E will have three Selex-ES sensors. The Raven ES-05 active, electronically scanned array radar (AESA), developed by the company's Edinburgh unit, will be the first production AESA to be mounted on a "repositioner," a rotating mount that gives the radar a ±100-deg. field of view around the nose. The Skyward-G infrared search and track (IRST) system (from Nebbiano, Italy) is based on experience with the Eurofighter Typhoon's Pirate IRST and Selex-developed land- and sea-based IRSTs. The fighter also has a new identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system with three electronically steerable antenna arrays, which matches the radar's range and field of view.
The three main sensors will cue one another automatically to display to pilots a fused picture of airspace around the fighter; it will also be fused with the JAS's new electronic-warfare system. Finally, sensor data can be shared between Gripens in a flight via data link.
The IRST is capable of detecting low-RCS targets at distances compatible with a beyond-visual-range missile launch, Mason says. "We have seen them," he responds when asked if Selex IRSTs have tracked low-RCS targets. "We are looking at very small delta-Ts [temperature differences between the target and the background]. Some infrared absorbent paints cause more friction than standard surfaces, and that causes kinetic heating that the IRST will pick up." Skyward-G does not depend on a supersonic target—"skin heating at 300-400 knots is significant"—and detects heat radiating through the aircraft's skin from the engine, as well as skin friction and the exhaust plume.
The IRST uses a long-wave focal plane array sensor (a dual-band system, adding mid-wave capability, is a potential upgrade) with three fields of view. In its long-range search mode, the system is an IR telescope with a fast-moving scanning mirror (located in a transparent dome in front of the windshield) and "step-scans" through its search sector. It also has a single-target track mode, and in wide-field mode it provides a night-vision image on the head-up display. As a passive system, IRST does not have inherent range data, but it can perform "kinetic ranging"—the aircraft performs a weaving maneuver and the range is determined by the change in azimuth angle to the target—or the IRSTs on two aircraft can triangulate the target over the TAU-Link.
IRST hardware—the optics, detector and processor—has been improved since the development of Pirate started, but (according to Mason and other industry sources) the most important change has been the development of algorithms, based on operational experience and the analysis of real-world imagery, that look at IR signatures in detail, including variations of color and brightness within the target, in order to filter out false alarms caused by everything from birds to barbecue grills.
The IRST can give the radar a very accurate azimuth and elevation to the target, which allows it to focus its energy and increase the probability of achieving detection and track on a low-RCS target, Mason says. The AESA provides virtually instantaneous beam-steering within its ±70-deg. scan, but the repositioner is slower. One concept to be demonstrated will be the use of two Gripen radars and the TAU-Link to provide a wide-angle picture to both targets.
The new IFF is designed to provide low-latency coverage over the radar's entire field of view and to its maximum range, and is independent of the radar. That approach has been selected to furnish the best possible information on cooperating targets (such as friendlies and commercial traffic), allowing the IRST and radar to concentrate on potentially hostile aircraft.
Selex-ES is now delivering what it calls "C-model" sensors to Saab for installation on the Demo and the three JAS 39E development aircraft. These units are built to production standards, Mason says, but have not undergone the full range of tests required for full qualification. The C-Model IRST is expected to fly on the Demo imminently, the radar is being delivered to Linkoping and the IFF will arrive later in the year.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_17_2014_p28-671791.xml&p=1
Pentagon Contract Announcement (reserve-onderdelen e.d. voor 2 stuks Nederlandse F-35 ter waarde van € 1,2 miljoen Euro)
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded an $118,875,655 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-12-C-0004) for the repair and replenishment of government-owned Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft assets.
These JSF aircraft assets include spare parts on JSF jets, training devices, support equipment and Autonomic Logistics Information System equipment.
Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (35 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (25 percent); Warton, United Kingdom (20 percent); Orlando, Fla. (10 percent); Nashua, N.H. (5 percent); and Baltimore, Md. (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2014.
Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance funds from the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, and international partner funds in the amount of $76,399,406 are being obligated on this award, of which $71,494,560 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Air Force ($51,980,743; 43.7 percent), U.S. Marine Corps ($43,784,064; 36.8 percent), the U.S. Navy ($15,822,614; 13.3 percent); and the governments of the United Kingdom ($5,741,235; 4.9 percent);the Netherlands ($1,546,999; 1.3 percent).
The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/152531/lockheed-wins-%24235m-for-f_35-repairs%2C-special-work-for-israel%2C-japan.html
F/A-18 Fleet Receives Advanced Targeting Sensor (Infrared Search and Track, or IRST)
The Navy is in the early phases of outfitting 170 F/A-18E/F Block II fighter jets with a next-generation infrared sensor designed to locate air-to-air targets in a high-threat electronic attack environment, service officials said.
The Infrared Search and Track, or IRST, system will be installed in coming years by operational squadrons flying F-18s, Navy officials said.
"The IRST system is a passive, long-range sensor that searches for and detects infrared emissions. The system can simultaneously track multiple targets and provide a highly effective air-to-air targeting capability, even when encountering advanced threats equipped with radar-jamming technology," Capt. Frank Morley, program manager, F-18 and EA-18 Growler said in a written statement.
The IRST technology was specifically engineered with a mind to the fast-changing electromagnetic warfare environment and the realization that potential future adversaries are far more likely to contest U.S. dominance in these areas.
"The IRST provides the Super Hornet an alternate air-to-air targeting system in a high threat electronic attack environment. The requirement for an IRST on the Super Hornet is the direct result of recent advancements of threat electronic warfare systems," Morley said.
The IRST system — which recently completed its first flight on board an F-18 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. — is passive and therefore harder to detect than some radar technologies which give off radiation, Navy officials said.
The IRST technology, designed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is designed to search for heat signals over long distances, providing the aircraft with key targeting information.
"We continually evolve the aircraft to outpace future adversaries," Tim Adrian, IRST F/A-18 program manager, Boeing, said in a written statement. "When radar isn't an option, this upgrade allows operators to locate targets and deploy the best weapon for the mission."
The IRST system is being developed under a $135 million contract awarded in 2011 and is currently planned to be deployed by 2017, a Boeing statement said.
The technology was tested last year on a Boeing King Air Test Aircraft, the statement added.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2014/03/18/fa-18-fleet-receives-advanced-targeting-sensor/#ixzz2wbGU31ea
Defense.org
Waarschijnlijk gaat het om de onderstaande pod, een brandstof tank met IRST :
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feaglet.skr.jp%2FMILITARY%2FPICTURE%2FFA-18EF_IRST.jpg&hash=47b0681621225a07247220b2602d35baed551a5d)
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 18/03/2014 | 20:17 uur
tegenover bezuinigingen staan ook vaak nieuwe investeringen?
Af en toe vraag ik me echt af van welke planeet jij komt...
Toch klopt het, hoewel het vaak nog steeds een afbraak van capaciteiten betreft, ook NL koopt nog steeds nieuw materieel.
In het geval van Italië zouden 3 huidige LHD's en een carrier vervangen worden door 2 grote LHD's. Een bezuiniging en een investering. Of het zover komt is de vraag. Maar niet echt relevant voor dit topic. Tenzij de LHD's een secundaire capaciteit krijgen om de F35B te opereren, zoals de Juan Carlos class.
Lockheed Martin Says F-35 Will Get Cheaper In Next Five Years
(Source: Yonhap News Agency; published March 21, 2014)
FORTH WORTH, Texas --- South Korea will benefit from economies of scale when production of the F-35 stealth jet goes into full swing in the next five years if it signs a contract for 40 aircraft for delivery starting from 2018, a senior Lockheed Martin official said.
Seoul is set to confirm a plan to buy 40 F-35As through the U.S. foreign military sales (FMS) program without open bidding, while the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) and the finance ministry are currently deliberating the total budget.
Gary North, vice president for customer requirements for Lockheed Martin, suggested South Korea is in a good position to profit from economies of scale as his company is expected to start full-scale production between 2017 and 2018.
"As the number of the airplanes goes up over the years, the cost is coming down. Once it reaches the full rate production, the cost will flatten out as a function of the economics," North told Korean reporters during their visit to the F-35 production line in Fort Worth, Texas.
South Korea had initially planned to buy 60 advanced jets to replace the aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s, but it reduced the number after rejecting Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle, the only aircraft that met the previous competition's budget of 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion), leaving open the possibility of 20 more jets in the future.
Lockheed Martin fell short of providing an estimated budget for the South Korean deal as the FMS conditions require a foreign government to pay the amount specified by the U.S. government. Instead, North pointed to a recent cost projection by the Pentagon's F-35 program chief.
Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan said during a visit to Australia last week that the cost of the F-35B conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant will fall to US$80-85 million.
"Lockheed Martin agrees with Lt. Gen. Bogdan's assessment that the cost of the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80-85 million," said Randy Howard, the director of F-35 Korea business development.
"This projected price includes the aircraft, avionics and mission systems, and the engine" as well as logistics support and a flight simulator, he said.
But Korean acquisition officials, who grappled with budget issues in the past program, warned the company's projection may be too rosy.
"It seems like the most optimistic price estimation made under the premise that international sales of 3,200 F-35s will go ahead as planned," a senior DAPA official said, asking for anonymity. "There is a gap between the estimated cost and the real contract price as the F-35 is sold through the FMS program for all purchasers."
Another Seoul official said the cost for the total package, including armament and maintenance support, could be higher than the Pentagon's estimate for the unit flyaway cost.
An earlier state-sponsored study estimated that 40 F-35A would cost about 7.4 trillion won for delivery between 2018 and 2021.
Regarding concerns over software problems identified in a recent Pentagon report, North promised to provide F-35As with Block 3F software that is fully operable for the South Korean Air Force.
The U.S. Air Force plans to declare the F-35A operational in 2016, while the Block 3F software is expected to be ready in 2017.
"Our company is confident that we will deliver the 3F software to the customers, to the nations and services, to meet their operational requirements," said the retired U.S. Air Force four-star general who served as commander of Pacific Air Forces.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=152593&shop=dae&modele=release
Citaat van: www.defense-aerospace.com Vandaag om 06:52
"Lockheed Martin agrees with Lt. Gen. Bogdan's assessment that the cost of the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80-85 million," said Randy Howard, the director of F-35 Korea business development.
Als ze het waar maken, het zou mooi zijn: $80-85 million versus wisselkoers van vandaag is: €57,99-61,61 mjn.
Ook Italië worstelt met aanschaf JSF
vrijdag 21 mrt 2014
Italië koopt de komende jaren minder exemplaren van het nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuig JSF dan het van plan was. Het land wil zo miljarden bezuinigen op defensie, meldt het Italiaanse weekblad l'Espresso.
Volgens het blad zet de Italiaanse regering de rem op de bestellingen van de peperdure Joint Strike Fighter. In 2019 wil Italië maar 29 toestellen aanschaffen, in plaats van de geplande 40. Premier Renzi vindt dat hij het geld hard nodig heeft om zijn economische plannen uit te voeren.
Italië heeft nu een optie op 90 straaljagers. De contracten voor deze bestelde toestellen worden per jaar getekend. Door de bestellingen flink te vertragen, maar voorlopig niet af te zeggen, hopen de Italianen de Amerikaanse regering niet voor het hoofd te stoten. Italië zit met onder meer met de VS, Groot-Brittannië en Nederland in het consortium dat het toestel ontwikkelt.
Vertraging
De ontwikkeling van de JSF loopt al jaren vertraging op en de kosten worden steeds hoger. Vooral regeringspartij Partito Democratico (PD) van premier Renzi vindt dat de prijs per toestel op termijn onbeheersbaar dreigt te worden.
Renzi wil nu eerst weten hoeveel defensiematerieel het land de komende jaren nodig heeft. Hij wil dat Defensie met een witboek naar buiten komt. Met dat rapport in de hand moet het Italiaanse parlement eind dit jaar opnieuw over de aanschaf van toekomstig materieel beslissen. Tot het zover is, is een aantal betalingen aan vliegtuigfabrikant Lockheed bevroren.
Huiverig
De Hoge Raad voor Defensie keerde zich inmiddels tegen plannen om te snijden in de beoogde aantallen JSF's. De Raad vreest voor de werkgelegenheid, aangezien het gevechtsvliegtuig de komende jaren juist in Italië in elkaar wordt gezet. Ook is er huiver voor een ruzie met de VS over de kwestie en de eventuele reacties van de deelnemende landen: ook die zouden kunnen beslissen minder exemplaren te kopen.
Al eerder werd bekend dat door de bezuinigingsoperatie van de regering de komende jaren kazernes sluiten en tienduizenden personeelsleden van de landmacht, de marine en de luchtmacht hun baan verliezen.
Bron: NOS
JSF purchases reasonable: report
AAP | March 24, 2014
Australia is likely to push ahead with the acquisition of its first operational F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, according to a report by an independent defence think tank.
In a report released on Monday, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says it makes most sense for the federal government to commit to spending between $8 billion and $10bn on 58 of the fighters, which are expected to enter service in 2020.
Report authors Andrew Davies and Harry White say the F-35 is a capable fighter with an ability to penetrate sophisticated air defences, but note that other factors, including political relations, point towards a likely buy.
"Because we're an international program partner on the JSF, the economies of scale for other buyers -- including the US -- will be reduced if we don't purchase the aircraft," they say.
Start-up costs to take on the JSF are predicted to be $2bn, with a ongoing annual cost of about $200 million.
"In the final analysis, the government seems likely to be prepared to pay a moderate premium to maintain a high-end air-combat capability, and to preserve the other benefits to industry and the alliance with Washington," the report says.
"On balance, that looks like a reasonable decision for Australia."
As the government keeps a watchful eye on Australia's budget, the report suggests an option of reducing the F-35 order to 50, thus saving about $800m on the initial cost.
Australian industry has secured contracts worth more than $US300m ($A332.54m) to manufacture F-35 components, with the injection to the economy possibly reaching $US5bn over the lifetime of the program.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/jsf-purchases-reasonable-report/story-e6frg90f-1226862761459
South Korea formally decides on 40 F-35As
By: Greg Waldron
Source: Flightglobal.com / march, 24 -2014
South Korea has formally decided to obtain 40 Lockheed Martin F-35As to fill its long running F-X III requirement.
"We are honoured by and appreciate the trust and confidence the Republic of Korea has placed in the 5th Generation F-35 to meet its demanding security requirements," says Orlando Carvalho, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.
"We look forward to supporting the discussions between the Republic of Korea and U.S. governments in support of a final agreement this year. This decision strengthens and extends our long-standing security partnership while enhancing regional stability across the greater Asia Pacific theatre."
Lockheed's statement follows a formal announcement by South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Executive Committee in Seoul earlier today.
If the acquisition proceeds as planned, deliveries will start in 2018.
A source familiar with South Korean defence acquisitions says Seoul will now issue a formal letter of request to the US for the aircraft and other elements of the programme, such as offset arrangements associated with the deal.
Media reports from South Korea indicate that the country hopes to conclude negotiations for the fighters by the third quarter of 2014.
Seoul's decision follows a November 2013 report carried by South Korea's official news agency quoting the nation's joint chiefs of staff as saying that Seoul would buy 40 F-35As, with deliveries to start in 2018.
That report mentioned that Seoul would also obtain an option for an additional 20 F-35As, but today's announcements from South Korea and Lockheed make no mention of this.
After Australia and Japan, South Korea will be the third Asia Pacific nation to order the type. Australia, a partner in the F-35 programme, could obtain up to 100 F-35As. Japan is obtaining 48 aircraft under the US Foreign Military Sales mechanism, through which Seoul will also acquire its aircraft.
Among other regional powers, Singapore has expressed strong interest in the programme, apparently leaning toward the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B variant.
The F-X III requirement, originally for 60 aircraft, was hotly contested between the Lockheed aircraft, as well as the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle and Eurofighter Typhoon. The F-15SE appeared to have secured the win last summer, but Seoul abruptly decided to change the terms of the requirement to favour a stealthy aircraft.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-korea-formally-decides-on-40-f-35as-397315/
South Korea boosts air defenses with about $6.8 billion budget for F-35s
By Joyce Lee
SEOUL Mon Mar 24, 2014
(Reuters) - South Korea expects to pay around 7.34 trillion won ($6.79 billion) for 40 Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets, two sources with knowledge of the matter said on Monday, as Seoul boosts its air defenses amid simmering tensions in the region.
South Korea also confirmed plans to buy four Northrop Grumman (NOC.N) Global Hawk unmanned aircraft to monitor its prickly neighbor North Korea. The drones will cost about 880 billion won and will be delivered starting 2018, one of the sources said.
The defense deals also come as ties between Japan, China and South Korea have chilled over the past year, and the region's three powers look to beef up their defensive capabilities.
Seoul's arms procurement agency reported the estimated budget of around 7.34 trillion won to buy the radar-evading F-35s plus support systems to a committee overseeing military purchases earlier on Monday, the second source said.
The sources declined to be identified as they were not authorized to speak to media.
South Korea says the F-35 deal will be finalized in the third quarter, with the first delivery in 2018.
The budget has received the final approval of the finance ministry, Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) spokesman Baek Youn-hyeong said.
Lockheed said in a statement it welcomed South Korea's announcement and it would support discussions between Seoul and Washington to finalize the order this year.
South Korea decided to redraw the terms of a 8.3 trillion won tender to buy 60 fighters last year after dropping an option to buy Boeing Co's (BA.N) F-15s in favor of purchasing a fighter with stealth capabilities.
In December, Seoul reduced the purchase to an initial 40 jets.
"Lockheed Martin agrees ... that the cost of the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80-85 million," said Randy Howard, Director of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Korea Business Development in an emailed statement last week.
A separate South Korean military source briefed on the buy cautioned that although F-35 flyaway cost is expected to fall between now and first delivery, Lockheed's projections might not fully apply to South Korea as the estimate "paints a rosy picture" that appears to presuppose "the best scenario" for the progress of the F-35 program.
The announcement provided some good news for Lockheed after a spate of critical reports on challenges with software development for the fighter, the emergence of additional bulkhead cracks during long-term durability testing, and news that Italy could further scale back its plans to buy 90 F-35s.
Italy had already cut its planned order by 30 percent two years ago.
South Korea is the 10th country to make a firm commitment to buy the new Lockheed fighter, joining the United States, Britain, Australia, Norway, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Israel and Turkey.
Canada and Denmark, which help fund development of the F-35, are still deciding whether to buy F-35s or other fighters. Singapore has also expressed interest in the planes.
South Korea was the eighth largest importer of major weapons in the world between 2009 and 2013, with 80 percent of the imports supplied from the United States, according to think tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). ($1 = 1080.2500 Korean won)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/24/us-korea-jets-idUSBREA2N07220140324
Growler Advocates Outline Stealth Vulnerabilities (interessant artikel over EW en Stealth)
Despite a squeeze on investment accounts, the Pentagon's fiscal 2015 budget strategy prioritizes funding for the stealthy F-35—but at what cost, some in industry ask.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has made clear the spending plan is a result of making hard choices and trades.
However, this virtually singular focus is jeopardizing U.S. dominance in electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, according to some industry officials, who note that even a stealthy aircraft like the F-35 requires some protective jamming support to penetrate the "bubble" of protected enemy air space. A pinch on research, development and procurement funding coupled with a necessary focus on addressing counterinsurgency threats for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for more than a decade have contributed to a loss of focus at the Pentagon on EW planning, they say. "We stopped doing some campaign analysis," acknowledges Al Shaffer, acting assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering.
Critics of the Pentagon's EW strategy point to the fiscal 2015 budget's termination of the U.S. Navy's ties to Boeing's Super Hornet production line. The service likely will buy only its planned 138 EA-18G Growlers, the Pentagon's newest airborne EW system, and deploy five to each carrier air wing. Navy officials have put funding for 22 more Growlers on their fiscal 2015 wishlist, but without relief from the spending constraints of the Budget Control Act, Boeing will be on its own to continue building the aircraft, unless the Navy can buy more Growlers. Congress approved funding for 21 ship sets of EA-18Gs in the fiscal 2014 budget.
Meanwhile, the Air Force is also planning to mothball seven, or half, of its EC-130 electronic attack aircraft in fiscal 2013, saving $315.8 million. Air Force Maj. Gen. Jim Jones, director of operations, plans and requirements, says that the service "can't afford to program to a no-risk force, [and further investment in stealth] is a piece of that. . . . All of these capabilities add up to a more survivable capability." When questioned about whether the Air Force would backfill the lost EC-130s with some other capability, Jones declines to provide information, acknowledging that this is likely an "unsatisfying" answer. This could point to a capability being developed in the classified world.
Much of the concern of skeptics is centered on the emergence of very-high-frequency (VHF) radars, which uniquely can be used to detect stealthy aircraft. "All 'stealth' means is delayed detection in [a specific] frequency," says one industry official. With a VHF system, "you are essentially the size of your aircraft from long range," the official notes. The concern is that these long-range radars can pass data to fire-control systems—including active, electronically scanned array radars—that are capable of launching air defense weapons. The integration of the two could compromise the advantage stealth brings, which is to make the aircraft hard to target rather than making it invisible.
"We are starting to see the emergence of some stressing capabilities to our conventional forces," Shaffer says. That "other countries are going out of band is a threat and is a challenge to our systems. Make no mistake about it," he says.
"VHF radar can't do fire-control, but they can see you," says Mike Gibbons, Boeing vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18G programs. "With low-frequency radars, they can tell which way to look, and they can scramble their super-cruising aircraft out to you. At that point, stealth isn't going to help you."
As it shifts focus away from counterinsurgency operations, the Pentagon is planning to dust off and update its campaign plans for more stressing engagements, such as addressing the anti-access, area-denial problem posed by new air defenses being developed and fielded by Russian and Chinese manufacturers. In doing so, the Pentagon likely will adjust its force structure plans for EW, including a possible increase in the number of Growlers needed, as well as ongoing work for the F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System (Epaws), Raytheon Miniature Air Launched Decoy-Jammer (Mald-J) version and podded or towed decoy options. The Navy, for example, is investing in podded Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jammer systems through the Filthy Badger and Filthy Buzzard projects.
Fleet structure studies are done annually, and any changes would be briefed to Pentagon leadership for possible adjustment in the fiscal 2016 budget this summer, Shaffer says.
"All aircraft can be seen by certain radars. The trick is to disrupt the [kill] chain when someone can lock weapons on you. We are talking about the 'perishability' of stealth," Gibbons says.
Growler advocates argue that the EA-18G, with its wide-spectrum EW and electronic-attack capabilities should be the "quarterback" for future strike packages, with the electronic-warfare officer in the backseat essentially managing the electronic battle.
During a flight demonstration last summer, Boeing showed that two EA-18Gs were capable of passively detecting a threat emitter and passing "very accurate" targeting data for a strike within "minutes." Company analysis suggests adding another Growler to the engagement would allow for generating target coordinates in seconds. This operational concept could condense the time element of the kill chain and get at the "counter-shutdown" problem for air defenses, when threat emitters intermittently radiate and then shut down to avoid being targeted by radar-seeking weapons such as the AGM-88E Advance Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.
In its campaign to restore funding for the Growler, Boeing will have to walk a careful line. The company has to make the case that without more Growlers, even the stealthiest aircraft in the Pentagon's fleet are vulnerable to emerging air defenses. This is a thorny and challenging argument to make as it quickly veers into classified territory. And its Pentagon customer is loath to acknowledge that its multibillion-dollar investment in stealth aircraft could be made vulnerable by comparatively small investment in networked air defenses. Boeing is already aggressively engaging Congress to lobby for more Growler money and has launched a grass-roots advocacy campaign website.
Although F-22s and F-35s are the most capable platforms at penetrating air defenses, they are not silver bullets and still require capable escorts to standoff at the edge of a hostile range to control the electronic battlefield, Growler advocates say. They suggest doubling the number of Growlers in each carrier air wing to 10. There is "plenty of room" on the future carrier deck to accommodate the additional aircraft, the industry official says.
While carrying the most advanced and fused avionics available, the F-35 is able to influence only the electronic battle within the frequency of its own Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 radar. But if an F-35 encounters a threat not in its database or outside its own radar band, it likely would not address it—whereas an electronic-warfare officer on an EA-18G could discern its capabilities and suppress it, if needed, the industry official says.
A final fleet determination has not yet come out of the Navy for Growlers, but Shaffer says the plans in place are sufficient for now. "We maintained our EW focus and in some cases have been looking to accelerate," he says, noting investments in Mald-J and Epaws and hinting that classified work may be underway.
During a March 12 hearing, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said he sees a "growing need" for more Growlers. The questions are: When it will be announced? And when will it be funded?
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_24_2014_p24-674336.xml
GAO: Software Delays Could Jeopardize F-35 Timeline (eigenlijk geen nieuw nieuws van het F-35 ontwikkelingsfront)
Software testing delays could slow achievement of operational capability for the F-35 joint strike fighter, according to a new report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).
..../....
The GAO's report touches on concerns raised by the US Defense Department's Office of Test and Evaluation in its annual report. It warned that deployment of the F-35B, the jump-jet variant built for the US Marine Corps, could be delayed by up to 13 months if software development does not stay on track.
..../....
"f software testing continues to be delayed, if funding falls short of expectations, or if unit cost targets cannot be met, DoD may have to make decisions about whether to proceed with production as planned with less capable aircraft or to alter the production rate," inspectors wrote.
..../....
"Software continues to remain our number one technical risk on the program, and we have instituted disciplined systems engineering processes to address the complexity of writing, testing and integrating software,"
..../....
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140324/DEFREG02/303240030/GAO-Software-Delays-Could-Jeopardize-F-35-Timeline
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/03/2014 | 17:42 uur
South Korea boosts air defenses with about $6.8 billion budget for F-35s
By Joyce Lee
SEOUL Mon Mar 24, 2014
(Reuters) - South Korea expects to pay around 7.34 trillion won ($6.79 billion) for 40 Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets, two sources with knowledge of the matter said on Monday, as Seoul boosts its air defenses amid simmering tensions in the region.
Zuid Korea : 40 stuks voor 6,8 miljard US Dollar = $ 170 miljoen USD per stuk = € 130 miljoen Euro per stuk (deal tussen US en ZK)
NL : 37 stuks voor € 4 miljard Euro = € 108 miljoen Euro per stuk (hierbij moet gezegd worden dat het een intensie is om 37 toestellen te kopen)
Als de prijs van ZK wordt aangehouden als leidend, dan kun je voor 4 miljard Euro , 30 stuks toestellen aanschaffen.
Hierbij hopende dat door een late bestelling van de F-35 order per jaar en niet ineens dat de prijs in 2020 zodanig gezakt is dat er wel meer toestellen aangeschaft kunnen worden en later een 2de batch.
Ik zie nog wel gebeuren dat een volgend(links) kabinet de stekker eruit trekt. Ben ik het overigens niet "geheel" mee oneens, als er maar een goed altenatief tegen over staat.
En dan bedoel ik een fatsoenlijke kist (rafale of gripen)in redelijke aantallen.
Ik geloof echt niet dat wij juist de F35 nodig hebben. Voor een land met zo'n bescheiden krijgsmacht als de Hollandse kunnen we het best af met een oudere generatie toestel.
Zolang we maar ons eigen luchtruim kunnen beveiligen en indien nodig op internationaal niveau luchtsteun kunnen bieden aan............
Maw voldoende voortzettings vermogen.
Citaat van: Zander op 25/03/2014 | 09:31 uur
Ik zie nog wel gebeuren dat een volgend(links) kabinet de stekker eruit trekt. Ben ik het overigens niet "geheel" mee oneens, als er maar een goed altenatief tegen over staat.
En dan bedoel ik een fatsoenlijke kist (rafale of gripen)in redelijke aantallen.
Ik geloof echt niet dat wij juist de F35 nodig hebben. Voor een land met zo'n bescheiden krijgsmacht als de Hollandse kunnen we het best af met een oudere generatie toestel.
Zolang we maar ons eigen luchtruim kunnen beveiligen en indien nodig op internationaal niveau luchtsteun kunnen bieden aan............
Maw voldoende voortzettings vermogen.
Begint dit gezwam over die F-35 nu weer?
Heb jij erin gevlogen ofzo? Dat je zo zeker bent dat dit geen fatsoenlijke kist is?
Waar baseer je in hemelsnaam je mening op? Wat internetpagina's?
bla
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 25/03/2014 | 13:46 uur
Begint dit gezwam over die F-35 nu weer?
Heb jij erin gevlogen ofzo? Dat je zo zeker bent dat dit geen fatsoenlijke kist is?
Waar baseer je in hemelsnaam je mening op? Wat internetpagina's?
bla
Inmiddels hebben 10 landen (waarvan 3 die niet in de mee ontwikkel club zijn vertegenwoordigt) voor de F35 hebben gekozen... allemaal dom dom dom (volgens dé "experts")
Domst van allemaal, de niet mee ontwikkelclub natuurlijk.... zo hebben landen als Israël, Zuid Korea en Japan geen flauw benul.... toch?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/03/2014 | 14:53 uur
Inmiddels hebben 10 landen (waarvan 3 die niet in de mee ontwikkel club zijn vertegenwoordigt) voor de F35 hebben gekozen... allemaal dom dom dom (volgens dé "experts")
Domst van allemaal, de niet mee ontwikkelclub natuurlijk.... zo hebben landen als Israël, Zuid Korea en Japan geen flauw benul.... toch?
Wel landen met een groot belang om dit Amerikaanse product af te nemen. Israël krijgt ze daarbij zo goed als. Dus tja...
Citaat van: Elzenga op 25/03/2014 | 17:14 uur
Wel landen met een groot belang om dit Amerikaanse product af te nemen. Israël krijgt ze daarbij zo goed als. Dus tja...
Zeker, maar, om maar een voorbeeld te noemen, met had in Zuid Korea straffeloos voor de F15SE kunnen kiezen...
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/03/2014 | 17:37 uur
Zeker, maar, om maar een voorbeeld te noemen, met had in Zuid Korea straffeloos voor de F15SE kunnen kiezen...
Klopt..maar er ligt niet zo'n grote Amerikaanse druk op als bij de F-35. Daar is het belang van orders uit andere landen dan Amerika het grootst denk ik. Het is namelijk ook wel iets gek dat de Koreanen zeggen de F-35 voor de luchtverdedigingstaak nodig te hebben. Terwijl het bij uitstek een jachtbommenwerper is. Ook dat zegt mij iets over de grote druk vanuit Amerika om vooral de F-35 te kiezen.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 25/03/2014 | 17:44 uur
Klopt..maar er ligt niet zo'n grote Amerikaanse druk op als bij de F-35. Daar is het belang van orders uit andere landen dan Amerika het grootst denk ik. Het is namelijk ook wel iets gek dat de Koreanen zeggen de F-35 voor de luchtverdedigingstaak nodig te hebben. Terwijl het bij uitstek een jachtbommenwerper is. Ook dat zegt mij iets over de grote druk vanuit Amerika om vooral de F-35 te kiezen.
Daar heb je een punt al denk ik dat de Koreanen voldoende ruimte hebben voor de luchtverdedigingstaak middels de huidige F15 en hun aanstaande eigen ontwikkeling.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 25/03/2014 | 13:46 uur
Begint dit gezwam over die F-35 nu weer?
Heb jij erin gevlogen ofzo? Dat je zo zeker bent dat dit geen fatsoenlijke kist is?
Waar baseer je in hemelsnaam je mening op? Wat internetpagina's?
bla
Zit jou tampon scheef of zo?
het betreft hier mijn mening. Die ik hier vrij mag delen met iedereen die wil. En als je wil weten waarom ik die.mening heb dan is dat jammer voor jou want ik heb geen zin om me te moeten verantwoorden.
Niets verkeerds over de F-35 (okay, eigenlijk wel, ik deel de kritiek van de Rand Corporation en mensen als Sprey) maar hierbij in elk geval een recent artikel dat ik nog niet als link had gezien...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/24/the-planet-s-best-stealth-fighter-isn-t-made-in-america.html
Dus tegen beter weten in: switch minister, het is nog niet te laat. Laat de F-35 gaan, voer de Gripen E/F in en koop een squadron gebruikte (en nu toch uitgefaseerde) A-10's van de V.S. met de vraag om ze te mogen moderniseren en opnieuw produceren. Goed voor de Nederlandse technologie en industrie, maar vooral voor defensie, want de A-10 laat niet alleen de F-35, maar ook de Super Tucano en Textron Scorpion ver achter zich in CAS, wat een belangrijke taak is in de toenemende asymmetrische oorlogvoering.
He, wat heerlijk om af en toe je mening te kunnen geven ... ;)
Citaat van: pitbone45 op 26/03/2014 | 07:28 uur
Niets verkeerds over de F-35 (okay, eigenlijk wel, ik deel de kritiek van de Rand Corporation en mensen als Sprey) maar hierbij in elk geval een recent artikel dat ik nog niet als link had gezien...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/24/the-planet-s-best-stealth-fighter-isn-t-made-in-america.html
Dus tegen beter weten in: switch minister, het is nog niet te laat. Laat de F-35 gaan, voer de Gripen E/F in en koop een squadron gebruikte (en nu toch uitgefaseerde) A-10's van de V.S. met de vraag om ze te mogen moderniseren en opnieuw produceren. Goed voor de Nederlandse technologie en industrie, maar vooral voor defensie, want de A-10 laat niet alleen de F-35, maar ook de Super Tucano en Textron Scorpion ver achter zich in CAS, wat een belangrijke taak is in de toenemende asymmetrische oorlogvoering.
He, wat heerlijk om af en toe je mening te kunnen geven ... ;)
Met het A10C gedeelte ben ik het helemaal eens, ik heb al vaker geroepen: neem 24 van de USAF over voor een appel en een ei en jouw toevoeging spreekt mij aan. (al vinden de spreadsheet liefhebbers dit ook maar niets)
Saab: no way... wat is deze adoratie toch voor een kist die ook nog in ontwikkeling is, waarvan de eerste testkist(en) het luchtruim nog moeten kiezen.... alsof we allemaal boekhouders zijn.
Bedenk dat waar de Gripen E de competitie heeft gewonnen (Zweden niet mee gerekend) deze kist nooit de eerste militaire keuze was (versus EF, Rafale en F18E).
Budgettair nr 1 dat dan weer wel.... (al zal blijken dat de E vwb exploitatie ook in prijs zal stijgen, aanzienlijk meer dan waar de fans graag mee schermen).
Exclusive - U.S. set to approve international debut of F-35 fighter
Wednesday March 26, 2014
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department is poised to approve the first trans-Atlantic flight of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet in July, when the new warplane is expected to take part in two international air shows near London, according to multiple sources familiar with the issue.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is "very close" to a decision that would allow two or three F-35s to fly at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT), an annual military air show held outside London, and the larger Farnborough air show, held every two years, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.
Britain, which contributed $2 billion (1.2 billion pounds) to the development of the new radar-evading fighter jet and plans to buy 138 F-35s in coming years, asked for the jet's participation to help showcase the increasing maturity of the new radar-evading plane. Britain was also the first international partner on the program.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Ros Krasny and Sandra Maler)
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2014/03/26/Exclusive--US-set-to-approve-international-debut-of-F35-fighter-sources/
Are Fighters the New Capital Ships?
Air war has, in effect, become as costly as naval war. What are the implications for strategy?
By Robert Farley / March 27, 2014
Admirals are notoriously conservative regarding their capital ships. By the early twentieth century, the cost of a battleship and the time required for construction demanded extraordinary care with respect to the survival of the vessels. Capital ships do not simply represent or implement national power; because of their great cost and the long periods of construction, they effectively constitute national power. The loss of a battlefleet represented a catastrophic expenditure of national treasure, not to mention blood. This logic was on the minds of the German and British commanders at Jutland, as well as dear to the Japanese admirals who so desperately husbanded their strength into 1944.
Air forces have not, historically, conceived of air frames in the same way. Cheaper, with quicker production times, and carrying fewer personnel, generals have viewed aircraft as more expendable. Even as late as Vietnam, the USAF suffered the loss of over 2,000 aircraft across the course of the conflict.
But over time, the cost calculus has changed. In 1944, the relative costs of fighters, bombers, and aircraft carriers ran very roughly as follows:
F6F Hellcat: $35,000
B-29 Superfortress: $700,000
Essex-class aircraft carrier $70,000,000
An aircraft carrier was worth 100 heavy bombers, each of which cost roughly as much as 20 carrier-borne fighters. These are (roughly) the expected cost numbers for the next generation of fighter, bomber, and aircraft carrier for the United States
F-35: $150 million
LRS-B: $810 million
CVN-78: $12.8 billion
The ordinal relationship remains the same, but the ratios have changed; an aircraft carrier costs 15.8 bombers, while a bomber cost 5.4 fighters. In effect, aircraft are no longer expendable; they now rival major naval vessels in terms of expense. For example, the loss of the B-2 Spirit of Kansas resulted in the destruction of nearly 5 percent of the fleet; the immense expense of reconstructing the Spirit of Washington remedied the loss of another 5 percent.
The implications of this shift are worth considering, especially in light of South Korea's decision to purchase 40 F-35s, each at a cost roughly equal to one-fourth to one-half of a Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship. First, the idea that casualty aversion presents a major impediment to conventional great power conflict may be wrong; cost aversion may present just as large of an impediment. Few believe, for example, that the Marine Corps will be as risk-acceptant with respect to its new F-35Bs as it has been with its Harrier jumpjets.
Another is that anti-access strategies need not threaten to completely destroy an attacker; effective deterrence can threaten simply to destroy enough aircraft to significantly damage an enemy's air force. This logic is already operant, of course, with respect to capital ships; no one expects the United States Navy to deploy an aircraft carrier into an area in which it faces a substantial chance of serious damage or sinking. But wiping out the USAF's incredibly expensive and virtually irreplaceable F-22 Raptor force would have the same effect.
However, this logic also applies to the anti-access system itself. Flankers and J-10s are cheaper than F-22s and F-35s, but hardly as expendable as the MiG-19s the PLAAF deployed a generation ago. For example, the infamous strategy described by a 2010 RAND report, in which Chinese Flankers engaged in virtually suicidal tactics to defeat American Raptors, is likely implausible; victory would leave the PLAAF too battered to accomplish any other national goals.
Air war has, in effect, become as costly as naval war. The next offensive counter-air campaign between a pair of dedicated, technologically advanced opponents could result in the complete destruction of two enormous mountains of national wealth, regardless of who "wins."
http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/are-fighters-the-new-capital-ships/
Why The Navy Really Wants 22 More Growlers
By Colin Clark on March 26, 2014
CAPITOL HILL: After several years of appearing to dislike the F-35C, or at least appearing lukewarm to buying it, the Navy today finally revealed why it wants to buy more F-18Gs from Boeing.
Basically, it all boils down to the fact that the F-18G, known as the Growler, emits a broader set of electronic warfare frequencies than does the F-35, Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, told reporters after today's House Armed Services air and land force subcommittee hearing. The two planes flying together are a much more effective strike package, according to Navy analysis, than either one flying on its own. The F-18G "supplements and complements" the F-35, he said. In fact, Manazir said the new planes were not needed for strictly naval missions but for joint forces, including fighting alongside our allies.
f-35c-taking-off
The F-35 is targeted against a narrower array of frequencies and emits only in a fairly narrow swath in front of the aircraft, according to Manazir. (The F-35 is the only US aircraft designed to defeat the most advanced Russian anti-aircraft systems such as the S-400 so the guess is that the JSF emits in frequencies designed to confuse and disable the radar systems that feed those.) The Growler can engage in electronic warfare not only as it flies forward but continues to emit even after it begins to return to base. I asked Manazir whether the F-18′s lack of stealth meant the Growler would have to fly separately and far behind the stealthy F-35, but he said the Growler generates enough power to blanket the area ahead of the F-35s so they can act in a complementary fashion.
Manazir said the Navy has determined that using EA–18Gs reduces the length of a "campaign and increases our effectiveness," good reasons to buy the aircraft. And this is with the current Growler, not ones that will use the Next Generation Jammer. Those aircraft, he said, would be even more capable.
The Navy, as my colleague Andrea Shalal at Reuters has reported, wants an additional 22 Growlers and put them in its unfounded requirements list, which is presently in the hands of the Office of Secretary of Defense. Now we know why. It wasn't a conspiracy hatched by an ever-hungry Boeing and a Navy that didn't really want the F-35C. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, the subcommittee's ranking member, raised the issue during the hearing and said she would have to consider Manazir's remarks before making any commitments about the Navy's unfunded requirement. It would, of course, require both Armed Services authorizers and appropriators to approve the new planes.
Why it took the Navy so long to discuss this and lay to rest the many rumors that have floated about the real reasons the service wanted more Growlers is another question, one I can't answer.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/why-the-navy-really-wants-22-more-fa-18gs/
Feds to delay F-35 decision until after next federal election
The government has delayed its current schedule to sign a contract for an initial delivery of Lockheed-Martin F-35 stealth fighter jets to Canada until after the 2015 federal election year, The Hill Times has learned.
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2014/03/26/feds-to-delay-f-35-decision-until-after-next-federal-election/37978?page_requested=1
Citaat van: www.hilltimes.com Vandaag om 08:21
Feds to delay F-35 decision until after next federal election
Als dan na de verkiezingen van 2015 ook nog eens wordt besloten tot een nieuwe competitie dan vallen alle ander kandidaten af (immers vrijwel zeker exit productielijn van diverse kandidaten) en wordt het automatische de F35A.
De Eurocanards maken in Canada (vooralsnog) geen schijn van kans al doet Dassault aardig zijn best.
Navy Contracts -- March 25, 2014
Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $698,032,385 fixed-price-incentive, firm target, advanced acquisition contract to procure long lead parts, materials and components in support of 57 Low Rate Initial Production Lot IX F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, including: 26 F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) aircraft for the Air Force; six F-35B Short Takeoff Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft for the Marine Corps; two F-35C Carrier Variant aircraft for the Navy; six F-35A CTOL aircraft for the government of Norway; one F-35A CTOL for the government of Italy; seven F-35A CTOL aircraft for the government of Israel; two CTOL aircraft for the government of Japan; six F-35B STOVL for the United Kingdom, and one F-35B STOVL aircraft for the government of Italy. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in May 2015. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy funds and international partner funds in the amount of $698,032,384 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-14-C-0002).
http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/36201
Defense Minister (Zweden) Calls for More JAS Gripen to Counter Russian Threat
Sweden should buy 10 additional Gripen E fighters, and budget more training to improve its defenses, Swedish defense minister Karin Enstrom said in the wake of the Crimea crisis.
Sweden's Defense Mininster Karin Enstrom says the military should get a total of 70 new JAS Gripen combat aircraft, ten more than Parliament had earlier decided.
Enstrom's comments came in the wake of the crisis in Ukraine and also of widely publicized Russian military flight incidents last year, when Moscow attack aircraft flew practice missions over Sweden.
Those flights and the ongoing insecurity in Ukraine has alarmed Swedish officials.
"Russia's actions in and around Ukraine has led to uncertainty in Europe. What happened in the past has made it really necessary to strengthen Sweden's defense," Enstrom told the Swedish daily newspaper, Dagens Nyheter.
Parliament had already agreed to purchase 60 Jas Gripen's, which are made and designed by Saab AB, but Enstrom believes that 10 more should be bought.
Any purchase would be preceded by proper procurement and pricing protocols to ensure fairness and transparency, she said.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/152982/swedish-minister-wants-more-gripens.html
Saab Successfully Completes Flight Test with IRST for Gripen E
Defence and security company Saab has successfully performed the first flight with the new sensor IRST (Infra Red Search and Track) which will feature in Gripen E, according to schedule. The IRST does not emit a signal and can, without revealing the aircraft's own position, silently detect, track and identify all types of targets.
"The first flight in the Gripen E test aircraft with IRST has been performed with very good results. Multiple targets were detected, tracked and identified and the system works perfectly as expected. IRST is a new sensor on Gripen, which allows pilots to see great distances in several directions," says Saab's Wing Commander Flying Hans Einerth.
The purpose of the test flight was to verify IRST functions and the integration onto the Gripen E aircraft. The integration and development work is progressing according to schedule.
IRST is a new sensor and located in the front of the aircraft. It does not emit a signal and can, without revealing the aircraft's own position, silently detect, track and identify all types of targets and is very useful against aerial targets with low radar cross section, such as stealth aircraft. The sensor is looking forward in a wide sector registering heat emissions from other aircraft, helicopters and from objects on the ground and sea surface.
Gripen E has significant performance improvements compared to previous versions, including a stronger engine, longer range, more weapons, new electronic radar and more advanced avionics. Today, Gripen is the backbone of five nations' air defences: Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. In addition, The Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK uses Gripen in its training programme for future test pilots.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/152977/saab-test_flies-irst-for-gripen-e.html
Zwitserland, Saab Gripen E, referendum en een plan B voor het geval het volk "neen" brult.
Laten we hopen dat ze dit soort referenda nooit in Nederland zullen invoeren, immers, dan weet je bij voorbaat al de uitslag als het gaat om een investeringsprogramma van enige omvang bij defensie.
Wij zijn een narcistisch volk geworden.
Lees via de link het Duitstalige artikel:
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/So-soll-der-Gripen-am-Volk-vorbeigeschmuggelt-werden/story/20212748
Canada: No F-35 Buys Before 2018
Canada has told the US government it won't be in a position to purchase the F-35 fighter jet until 2018, a move that critics of the aircraft say intentionally delays the controversial procurement until after the next federal election.
..../....
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140406/DEFREG02/304060010/Canada-No-F-35-Buys-Before-2018
Gripen NG flight-tests Skyward-G IRST
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.janes.com%2Fimages%2Fassets%2F437%2F36437%2Fp1515663.jpg&hash=3e65efbe71ad24aad0b81f71ca26326528b0d688)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gripenblogs.com%2FLists%2FPhotos%2FGripen-IRST-001%2520%282%29.jpg&hash=20c5d6884446a787e7c4ae1473275ef3b7a66958)
The Skyward-G infrared search-and-track (IRST) system was successfully flown on the Saab Gripen NG technology demonstrator aircraft for the first time on 31 March, Saab announced on 4 April 2014.
Skyward-G, mounted just ahead of the canopy windscreen, is able to detect heat emissions to track and identify all types of targets, will be one of the new sensors on the Gripen E.
...../.....
http://www.janes.com/article/36437/gripen-ng-flight-tests-skyward-g-irst
Citaat van: www.defensenews.com Vandaag om 09:56
Canada: No F-35 Buys Before 2018
Met deze uitspraak is de "concurrentie" in Canada geëlimineerd en wordt het de F35A, de enige verrassing die nog uit de hoge hoed zou kunnen komen is de Rafale, al acht ik die kans minimaal.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/04/2014 | 10:11 uur
Met deze uitspraak is de "concurrentie" in Canada geëlimineerd en wordt het de F35A, de enige verrassing die nog uit de hoge hoed zou kunnen komen is de Rafale, al acht ik die kans minimaal.
Ik denk dat dat een juiste conclusie is.
Als we dan toch over die hoge hoed hebben, Gripen E/F van de plank kan dan eventueel ook, maar deze is nu ook al geen optie.
En in 2018 zijn de eerste Rafale toestellen voor India alwel geleverd, dus deze Rafale-versie, zou dan ook van de plank gekocht kunnen worden.
Maar over 4 jaar is er veel meer bekend omtrent de voortgang van de F-35 ontwikkeling en kan de economische en/of wereld situatie weer heel anders zijn.
Stealth and Mission Accomplishment
ComNavOps just finished reading a fairly detailed article on another blog that debated the merits of the F-35 and the Advanced Super Hornet being proposed by Boeing. One of the points that was made was that the F-35 was stealthier by some factor and, therefore, superior. That got me to thinking ... Why is a given level of stealth better than another level? Proponents of various platforms (and I'm talking about aircraft, now) argue vehemently about the levels of stealth that their favorite aircraft possesses, or does not.
Let's take a momentary side trip to dip our toe into the water of stealth. Stealth is commonly expressed as Radar Cross Section (RCS) and in units of square meters, the smaller the better. That's intuitively obvious and understandable. The smaller the RCS, the harder it is to detect the stealth object. The problem is that the numbers are meaningless. An aircraft has an RCS of 1.0 sq.m., for example. OK, so what? What does that mean in terms of detection? How far away can that aircraft be detected and under what conditions? I think it's safe to say that none of us have the training to translate the RCS into actual detection criteria. Add to that the fact that RCS depends on what facet (angle) of the aircraft the detecting radar is looking at, what frequency the radar is using, backscatter, backscatter detection capability by the detecting radar, ambient interference, and a host of other factors and it's clear that meaningful stealth discussions are well beyond most of us. What we fall back on are arbitrary numbers. Aircraft A has an RCS of 1.0 sq.m. and aircraft B has an RCS of 1.5 sq.m. so we conclude that aircraft A is 33% better than aircraft B. That's numerically correct but operationally meaningless to us.
Sure, there are arbitrary levels of "visibility" assigned to various RCS: Low Observable, Very Low Observable, etc. but how do they relate to real world operations?
What we should be looking at is stealth as it relates to mission accomplishment. Is the level of stealth possessed by a given aircraft sufficient to allow it to accomplish its mission? If a given level of stealth is sufficient then having a greater degree of stealth is pointless and simply adds cost.
Here's a simple example. Instead of aircraft, let's consider a person who is trying to walk up to within rifle range to shoot me. If I see him before he does so, he fails. If his rifle has a range of 100 m and I can see him at 120 m, he fails. If, on the other hand, I can't see him until 90 m, because he's wearing camouflage (stealth), and his rifle range is 100 m, he can accomplish his mission and shoot me. That's simple but here's the key point ... If he has additional camouflage that prevents me from seeing him until 50 m, he doesn't gain anything. He still accomplishes the mission and the extra camouflage didn't help. If the mission happens to be to close within 50 m then the extra camouflage is needed. You see? The required degree of stealth is related to the mission.
The point is that once the necessary degree of stealth has been achieved, extra stealth is pointless.
Let's take it back to aircraft. If an RCS of 1.0 sq.m. is sufficient to accomplish the types of missions that the aircraft is intended for, an RCS of 0.5 or 0.01 or 0.0000001 doesn't gain anything and simply adds to cost.
Let's take it back to JSF and Hornet which is what everyone gets all wound up about. What level of stealth does the JSF need to accomplish its mission set? I don't know and neither do any of you. Does the base Hornet have sufficient stealth to accomplish the mission set? Again, I don't know and neither do you. Does the Super Hornet have enough? Does the Advanced Super Hornet have enough? Supporters and detractors of each aircraft sling RCS numbers back and forth without having any idea of what it means in terms of mission accomplishment.
Again, someone is going to comment that extra stealth will allow the given aircraft to get even closer to the target or maybe fly in formation with enemy aircraft and laugh because they can't see us even though we're wingtip to wingtip. Well, if that's the mission then the extra stealth is necessary. If that's not the mission then the extra stealth is waste. Remember, stealth is like the extra knot of speed in a surface ship: each knot above around 20 kts comes at an exponentially increasing cost (I'm looking at you, LCS). Likewise, each "ounce" of additional stealth comes at an enormous cost. Therefore, stealth needs to be assessed relative to mission accomplishment.
There is no public data relating stealth to mission accomplishment that I'm aware of. The JSF is supposed to be stealthier than the Super Hornet but does the difference matter in terms of mission accomplishment? My gut feeling is that the Super Hornet is sufficiently stealthy to accomplish all but the most demanding missions. Is that difference sufficient to justify the mind-boggling cost of the JSF program? I don't know. I think the Navy could accomplish its strike fighter missions with the Super Hornet (and maybe adopt the Advanced Super Hornet). Remember, stealth can be achieved through electronic countermeasures, optimized tactics, deception, and other means. It doesn't all have to come from the aircraft's airframe. Indeed, the Navy's rather tepid endorsements of the JSF suggest that they feel the same. Given the cost of the JSF, I'd like to see the Navy drop the F-35C and continue with Super Hornets and Advanced Super Hornets long enough to go back to the drawing board and design a new, dedicated, optimized Navy strike fighter that isn't a compromised disaster and doesn't depend on non-existent, PowerPoint wishful thinking technology – a plane that has a laser focus on the required mission set and nothing more. Whether that requires stealth, networking, 360 degree sensor fusing, Mach+ speed, etc. should be determined strictly by the mission requirements not by the fact that someone thinks it would make for a nifty PowerPoint slide.
http://navy-matters.blogspot.nl/2014/04/stealth-and-mission-accomplishment.html?spref=bl
Toch geen Zwitsers plan B?
In het Duits, dus.... klikken maar...
http://www.suedostschweiz.ch/politik/plan-b-fuer-gripen-erneut-kritisiert
Without New Orders, Boeing's F/A-18 Line Will Shut Down Within Two Years
By Dan Parsons / 4/7/2014
U.S. Navy procurement of the E/A-18 Growler electronic warfare aircraft ends in fiscal year 2014, and Boeing expects to deliver existing orders of Super Hornets and Growlers as early as 2016.
The Navy did not allocate funds for future procurement of the aircraft in its fiscal year 2015 budget request to Congress. Unless more orders are placed, The Boeing Co. will have to shutter the F/A-18 production line within two years, a company executive said April 7.
The service did put 22 Growlers on its wish list of unfunded procurement requests, part of the military's $26 billion "opportunity, security and growth initiative."
"With those 22 Growlers, we can keep the [production] line open until 2017," said Mike Gibbons, vice president of F/A and E/A-18 programs for Boeing. Gibbons briefed reporters on the program at the 2014 SeaAirSpace conference at National Harbor, Md.
"The end of 2016 is what we have without the 22 Growlers, " he said.
Though reports have suggested Boeing would slow down delivery of current orders for the aircraft in its various iterations, Gibbons said there was no plan to lengthen the current schedule, which runs through 2014. The company also will not preemptively close production lines in order to shave cost, he said.
The company's St. Louis-based production facility also builds F-15 Strike Eagles for the Air Force.
The F/A-18, the Navy's primary carrier-based aircraft, is competing for funding with the F-35 joint strike fighter that is still in development. But as that aircraft continues to suffer delays, Boeing and Navy officials plan to stretch the service life of the F/A-18 in its many variants.
Growlers are seen as complementing the F-35. The aircraft carry sophisticated electronic warfare equipment that can find and disrupt enemy communications and radar. It also is meant to provide targeting data and other vital information to JSF and other fighters during battle.
"Growler is a necessary complement to the F-35 in the future," Gibbons said. "It is the only aircraft that has full-spectrum capability."
The Navy has identified a need for more aircraft with electronic warfare capabilities and Pentagon officials have stressed the need for the inclusion of EW equipment on current and future aircraft.
An exercise called Trident Warrior, hosted by the Navy last year, demonstrated the strategic need for increasing the F/A-18's ability to perform electronic warfare and other upgrades, said Navy Capt. Frank Morley, F/A-18 program manager..
"Trident warrior is an example of the calculus that is ongoing," he said. "We found out you could use a lot of them. That's what is behind the unfunded list."
Negotiations are nearing completion on a 12-Growler order from Australia, said Morley. With a fleet of 24, that nation is the only country other than the United States that owns F/A-18s.
Growlers provide a large piece of what the Navy calls the "blue kill chain," which consists of finding, identifying and providing targeting information on enemy positions and weapons, Morley said.
The Navy wants to have more Growlers in each carrier air wing. The additional 22 aircraft would allow the service to increase the number of E/A-18Gs from five to seven per squadron, Morley said.
Earlier versions of the F/A-18, designated models A through D, are nearing the end of their 8,000-hour service lives, Morley said. A life extension program is underway to extend their service by at least another 1,000 hours. The A-D models are expected to be in use through at least 2030, Morley said.
"The long-term usage is with the Marine Corps," he said. "The bulk of the fleet is hitting 8,000 flight hours over the next several years. Keeping them until 2030 is the plan right now.
More than 100 aircraft have undergone the overhaul and systems upgrades and returned to active service, he added. A service life assessment program for the Super Hornet is underway to keep them viable through 9,000 flight hours. Boeing also is pitching a suite of modular additions to the existing fleet that would extend their range and capabilities.
The so-called Advanced Super Hornet is seen as a way to give a cost-conscious Navy options in upgrading its F/A-18s for high-end warfare. The add-ons include an updated digital cockpit, conformal fuel tanks and an exterior weapons pod.
Morley said the Navy is considering a new General Electric engine, but no program of record is on the horizon.
Bob Kornegay, business development senior manager for the F/A-18 and E/A-18, previously told National Defense that installing all of the available upgrades would cost around $10 million per aircraft.
When asked what the Navy expects to pay for the upgrades, if desired, Morley declined to comment given ongoing budget negotiations on Capitol Hill. He also said that the Navy could pick and choose which upgrades to purchase. Therefore the price per aircraft could vary, he said.
Because the additions are modular and retrofittable, it gives decision makers in the Navy and Congress options on what to fund, Morley said.
Both Boeing and the Navy are counting on foreign military sales to help decrease the per-aircraft cost of the F/A-18, he said. Foreign nations also are being offered the upgrade package and Growler variant.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1463
U.S. Deputy Program Manager Outlines F-35 Fixes
by Bill Carey
April 8, 2014
F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin will retrofit early production lots of F-35Bs delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps with modified bulkheads to address cracking issues that came to light during durability testing of ground articles last fall. It will build redesigned bulkheads into the fighter beginning with low-rate production (LRIP) Lot 9, said Rear Adm. Randy Mahr, deputy program manager with the Pentagon's F-35 joint program office (JPO).
"The repair for that bulkhead for the [F-35Bs] that are out there in the fleet is known, it's understood, and we'll be retrofitting LRIP Lots 1 through 7," Mahr told the Navy League Sea-Air-Space conference on April 7. "On LRIP Lot 9 and forward, we have the redesign finished. We're working on some of the final detailed design. The forgings for that design are already done and are sitting waiting for permission to start machining," which the JPO expects this summer. Mahr said the aluminum structures for LRIP 8 have been already manufactured, requiring the program to "find a way to retrofit those bulkheads before the aircraft are delivered—that's the goal."
The F-35B short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) is built with aluminum bulkheads to save weight; the F-35A and C models have titanium bulkheads. In an annual report the Pentagon delivered to Congress in January, the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation described cracking issues with all three F-35 variants, identified during stress testing of ground articles. Cracks discovered in F-35B bulkheads in early 2013 had grown by September, when the testing reached 9,000 estimated flight hours, exceeding the fighter's planned 8,000-hour airframe life. "The cracks continued to grow during subsequent testing until at 9,056 (estimated flight hours), at the end of September, the bulkhead severed and transferred loads, which caused cracking in the adjacent FS518 bulkhead," the office said. The JPO subsequently suspended durability testing. It has said, and Mahr reiterated, that the retrofits will not delay the Marine Corps from declaring initial operational capability of the F-35B in 2015.
Mahr said engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney is redesigning a blisk fan blade in the F135 engine to address cracking that was revealed during engine ground testing in December. "We're not concerned about the fleet," he added. The fan blade retrofit "can be managed comfortably" when the fighter returns to the depot for maintenance.
The initially deficient tail hook of the F-35C carrier variant has been redesigned and proven at the Navy's carrier suitability test site in Lakehurst, N.J., without requiring structural changes to the airframe, Mahr said. The redesigned tail hook catches an arresting wire "comparable to that of legacy airplanes, including the F-18," he said. "Nobody catches the wire every time, but we're in the high 90-percent [range]. The hook works." The Navy plans to fly an F-35C for the first time to an aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, this fall.
The F-35 still falls short of reliability targets for mean flight hours between critical failure of parts or systems. Later production Lots 5 and 6 have shown improvement over earlier lots. "The F-35 is not yet a reliable airplane. It's getting there," Mahr said. "We're learning the nuances of maintaining the F-35, all three variants...We've stood up a reliability team [that] is focused every day, looking at what parts are failing, why they're failing and what we can do about it. It's not just reliability of individual parts; we're looking at the entire supply chain posture, when a part fails how quickly can we get [a replacement] to the flight line." He added: "These [fighters] are being flown by operational units. They're not being babied."
http://www.ainonline.com/comment/10006
F-35′s Stealth, EW Not Enough, So JSF And Navy Need Growlers; Boeing Says 50-100 More
By Colin Clark on April 10, 2014
WASHINGTON: Stealth is being outpaced by software, radar and computing power, so electronic warfare and cyber attacks are growing in importance. While the F-35 may possess excellent — if circumscribed — electronic attack and cyber capabilities, it needs help from the Navy's EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft.
That means, Boeing and the Navy are arguing, that the Navy needs more of the electronic attack versions of the F-18, known as the Growler, to fly with the F-35 on the first day of combat to protect the F-35 and to help protect the service's precious carrier strike groups.
"The Growlers were highlighted as a priority need by the Chief [of Naval Operations, EW enthusiast Adm. Jonathan Greenert] in his request to Congress. Our assessment is that the DoD needs 50 to 100 additional Growlers, so we will continue to work with Congress to add 22 Growlers to the Fiscal Year 2015 budget and later with the Navy for future Growlers to be inserted into the baseline Fiscal Year 2016 budget in the next cycle," Mike Gibbons, the Boeing vice president in charge of the F/A-18 and EA -18G programs, said in a statement.
I spoke with an industry source about the assertions we've heard from senior Navy and Boeing officials that the F-35 fleet cannot expect to fly its attack mission at the start of a war and survive without help from Growlers.
f-35-twice-over-mountain
"The notion they can go in alone and unafraid is just plain wrong," said this source. "The threat is doing two things. Their search radars are at VHF [frequencies] and getting lower, and with computer processing power they are getting much better. They can see them [fifth generation attack aircraft] hundreds of miles away, just like any other aircraft."
Infrared sensors, low and variable frequency radar, and networked radar and other sensor systems built or used by Russia and China make spotting a stealthy aircraft a virtual certainty, this source said.
This certainly doesn't jibe with what one hears from allied officials and from JSF proponents who argue the F-35, especially working closely with the F-22, can penetrate virtually any defense and is best suited to handling the daunting anti-access/area denial environment. I reported back in 2009 that the F-35 is the only US aircraft built to the requirement that it be able to defeat the most advanced air defense systems, such as the Russian's S-400s. But the industry source said that the F-35 would be vulnerable to sophisticated ground-based systems — unless accompanied by Growlers, who would be able to use their powerful wide-frequency emitters to blanket a wider spectrum of threats.
F-35s "can jam X-band frequencies, but once they do, that's all they're focused on," leaving them vulnerable to detection by infrared, ELF and lower spectrum radar, the industry source said.
So the Navy has already indicated it wants another 22 Growlers, having put them in its unfunded wish list. But the service did not possess the conviction necessary to add more money to its regular budget to get them. So, while Boeing argues that the Navy and the Air Force need more Growlers — and Congress has certainly seemed relatively willing to supply some — the basic question arises, If these aircraft are needed so badly, then why is the Navy only now going public with the arguments to justify their purchase? (OK, it could be that some highly classified war games done as part of Air-Sea Battle planning demonstrated the need, or classified research done by Boeing using government data might have.) But if the Navy really needs these aircraft then they should make them part of their regular budget request.
Meanwhile, Boeing and Lockheed's supporters on the Hill have drafted competing letters arguing for either the Growler or the F-35. If the Navy and Boeing are right about the Growler's complementary capabilities, then this should not be a zero sum game for either side. Congress should consider pulling money from other programs if this really is a question of America winning in a serious wide-spectrum conflict.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/f-35s-stealth-ew-not-enough-so-jsf-and-navy-need-growlers-boeing-says-50-100-more/
Should New Jets Or Neighbours Defend Swiss Skies?
The hijacking of an Ethiopian airliner to Geneva two months ago highlighted shortcomings in Switzerland's capability to protect its airspace. The incident came ahead of a nationwide vote on the planned purchase of new fighter aircraft.
In the early hours of February 16 an Ethiopian Airlines passenger plane bound for Rome was hijacked. Seeking asylum in Switzerland, the co-pilot flew the plane further northwest.
The airliner was intercepted by Italian Eurofighter jets, then handed over to the French Air Force before it landed at Geneva airport. The Swiss Air Force did not intervene, because it is only operational during office hours.
The drama ended without bloodshed but made the Swiss a laughing stock around the world.
Denis Froidevaux, president of the Association of Swiss Military Officers, is not in the mood for jokes. "The situation in Geneva could have gone terribly wrong. I hope politicians have learnt their lesson," he told listeners of Swiss public radio, RTS.
For his part, Defence Minister Ueli Maurer has blamed a lack of finances for the inability to guarantee a round-the-clock intervention of Swiss fighter jets to protect the airspace. He said plans were underway to set up comprehensive coverage in cases of an emergency following a decision by parliament in 2010 to attribute more financial means to the Air Force.
The system is to be operational from 2020 as time is needed to recruit and train an additional 100 military personnel, including fighter pilots and ground staff.
Maurer added that time and money – CHF30 million ($33.8 million) annually – are not the only things needed. He called for the purchase of new Swedish Gripen fighter jets – the issue of a nationwide vote on May 18.
"They will help ensure a greater ability of the Air Force to intervene in the long run," he said.
The 22 JAS-39 aircraft, made by the Swedish Saab aerospace company, are to replace the fleet of F-5 Tiger jets which will be decommissioned by 2017 after more than 30 years.
Policing duty
During a visit to the Payerne air base at the end of last month Maurer took his message up a notch.
"Our airspace will become very vulnerable from 2030 at the latest if we do not acquire new fighter jets," he told journalists.
Opponents of the Gripen purchase have refused to follow Maurer. They say the fleet of 32 F/A-18 jets is more than sufficient to police Swiss airspace.
It is virtually the only task the Air Force has – and will have – according to campaigners against the Gripen purchase, as there is hardly any risk that Switzerland will be attacked by a foreign enemy force or that Swiss fighter jets will attack targets outside the country.
"We do not need new fighter jets for round-the-clock air protection. The existing fleet is enough by far," said Daniel Vischer of the Green Party.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/153121/should-gripens-or-neighbors-police-swiss-skies%3F.html
Swiss voters set to reject Saab fighter jet deal, poll shows
A majority of Swiss voters are against the purchase of 22 Gripen fighter jets from Swedish defense firm Saab (SAABb.ST), a poll showed on Sunday, raising the possibility that a popular vote due in May could scupper the $3.4 billion deal.
Around 62 percent of voters would reject the proposal to replace Switzerland's aging fleet of Northrop F-5 Tiger fighters with the Gripen jets, according the survey conducted by polling institute Leger and published in Swiss newspaper SonntagsBlick.
The poll, which questioned more than 1,000 people, showed 32 percent of those who planned to vote were in favor of the deal.
The Gripens are unpopular with some in Switzerland, which has not fought an international war for 200 years, because the deal will require cost cuts in other areas, such as education.
Switzerland's upper and lower houses voted in favor of the purchase of the jets in September, but Swiss interest groups can secure referendums on new laws if they collect a sufficient number of signatures.
The vote on the jet purchase is scheduled for May 18, the same day as a popular vote on whether to adopt the world's highest minimum wage.
The poll showed 52 percent of voters were in favor of introducing a minimum wage of 22 Swiss francs ($25.25) an hour, or 4,000 francs a month.
Around 42 percent of voters said they would reject the initiative, which the government said last month would hurt competitiveness and lead to job cuts.
Swiss voters generally have a history of rejecting proposals that they feel could hurt the economy.
However, last month they unexpectedly backed a proposal to cap immigration from the European Union, despite warnings from the business and political elite that it could be detrimental to the economy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/16/us-swiss-gripen-idUSBREA2F0LW20140316
Citaat van: www.defense-aerospace.com Vandaag om 08:07
"We do not need new fighter jets for round-the-clock air protection. The existing fleet is enough by far," said Daniel Vischer of the Green Party.
Rood/Groen, overal het zelfde... narcisten pur sang. :sick:
Citaat van: www.reuters.com Vandaag om 08:10
Swiss voters set to reject Saab fighter jet deal, poll shows
Het lijkt vooralsnog een nee te worden voor de Gripen in Zwitserland, Saab zal vreselijk blij zijn met de Viking keuze door de Brazilianen.
Hoe ironisch: het Zwitserse ja heeft vermoedelijk de Zweed gered met als uiteindelijk resultaat een Zwitserse luchtmacht zonder Gripen.
Why the Eurofighter Typhoon Is the Best Fighter for Canada... Right Now – Part 1
April 14, 2014. 12:41 am • Section: Defence Watch
Editor's note: Doug Allen operates the two blogs bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca and gripen4canada.blogspot.ca as well as their corresponding Facebook groups. He notes he has no professional connection to the military or any aerospace manufacturer, but adds that he is a "base brat" with deep family ties in the military.
By Doug Allen
Defence Watch Guest Writer
It seems odd that with all the attention paid to the alternatives to the F-35 Lightning II, the Eurofighter Typhoon seems to be left out.
The Boeing Super Hornet has the benefit of being the "default" alternative, likely due to its status of being an American sourced upgrade to our current CF-18 model.
The Saab Gripen is the popular "underdog" choice, thanks to its low cost.
Even the Dassault Rafale seems to have a dedicated following thanks in no small part to Dassault's Yves Robins' promise of full open-source architecture and technology transfer.1
By comparison, a push for the Eurofighter Typhoon, or "Tiffie" seems to be rather muted. Perhaps this is due to the fact that two of the Eurofighter consortium partners, BAE Systems and Alenia Aermacchi (with a controlling interest of 54%2), also happen to be active partners in the JSF program34. Perhaps this is due to the Typhoon's pricey reputation, or due to controversy surrounding its development5.
Whatever the reason for its "Dark Horse" status, the Eurofighter Typhoon certainly deserves consideration. In fact, the Eurofighter Typhoon is the best fighter solution for Canada, right now.
Why the focus on "right now"? With tensions rising in the Ukraine, as well as the Asian Pacific region, there is the very real chance that things might escalate to something far worse in the very short term6. RCAF CF-18s may be able to hold there own for a while longer, but the truth is, they are near the end of their life and would not be viable for any prolonged campaign7. RCAF brass fretted over the sending tired CF-18s to Libya, raising questions about the CF-18s usefulness in higher risk use or more prolonged mission.
Why the Typhoon? It's a simple process of elimination.
The F-35 is not ready, and likely will not be fully ready until almost 2020. Yes, the USMC is stating it will have F-35B's flying in "initial operating capability" (IOC) in 2016. It should be noted that this "IOC" is done using limited Block 2B software that does not allow for full operational use.
Recent events have made this IOC appear to be rather optimistic8. Full war fighting capability brought on by mature Block 3F software will likely have to wait until 2019. When combined with the slow down in F-35 production thanks to budget cuts in the USA9 and other countries10, fully functional F-35s may not even be available until the 2020s. Even then, it will be an immature platform.
The Dassault Rafale seems like a good choice. It is a mature platform, combat tested over Libya and Mali. It would certainly be an upgrade over our tired CF-18s, and Dassault's promise of an "open source" platform would allow the RCAF to "Canadianize" it without worry11.
This would certainly be an advantage in the long-term, but there would be a few issues to deal with first. The Rafale is currently only outfitted with French developed missiles and bombs. It's integration into the RCAF would require either purchasing those same weapon systems, or converting it to more common NATO weapons like the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9 Sidewinder.
The Rafale also currently lacks a helmet mounted display (HMD), something found in the current CF-18 fleet. "Canadianizing" the Rafale with a NATO standard weaponry and an HMD would likely be easy enough, but it would still take a fair amount of time and money.
What about the Saab Gripen? While the Gripen E/F (aka the Gripen NG) looks promising, especially from a performance vs. cost perspective, the hard truth is that is that it is still a few years away12. If Canada delays fighter acquisition to the 2020 timeframe, the Gripen may in fact be best choice, but it is sadly not a good short term option.
This leaves two fighter aircraft that are included on Canada's list of F-35 alternatives, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon. Both are currently in production, but in danger of ending said production if they do not get additional orders soon. Both are fielded by NATO allies, and both have proven themselves in combat operations. They are both even fielded in similar numbers; between 500 and 600.
A Royal Air Force eurofighter typhoon flies out of Italy in support of the campaign in Libya
Photograph: Sgt Pete Mobbs/UK Ministry of Defence
While the Super Hornet seems to be the natural choice to replace Canada's legacy Hornet fleet, the Eurofighter Typhoon makes more sense for Canada. Why?
PERFORMANCE:
The Typhoon is roughly the same size and weight as the CF-18, yet has roughly the same power as the considerably larger and heavier Super Hornet. Optimized for transonic and supersonic speeds, the Typhoon's top speed is superior to the F-35, Rafale, and the Super Hornet. It's rate of climb, (65,000ft/min) is also superior to the Rafale's and Super Hornet (the F-35's is "classified). It's service ceiling, 65,000 feet, is also higher. It's range, both expressed as combat radius and ferry range is comparable, if not outright superior to the others.
While the perceived safety concern about single engine fighters may no longer be relevant with today's more advanced and reliable engines, the Typhoon is a twin-engine design.
The Typhoon is also capable of supercruise, the ability to fly supersonic without afterburners. It shares this trait with the Rafale and the vaunted F-22 Raptor. The Gripen E/F will also likely be capable of supercruise. The F-35 and Super Hornet were never designed as such, however, being optimized for lower speeds and altitudes. Both were designed as "strike fighters", with a focus on attacking ground targets while aircraft like the F-22 Raptor kept the skies clear. Moreover, weapon stores and external fuel seems to have little effect on the Typhoon's aerial performance.
USMC F/A-18 Hornet pilot, Maj D.R. 'Ged' Miller, had this to say about the Typhoon after flying it as part of an exchange program: "The brute strength of the Typhoon places it in a league of its own... Thought potent in the right hands, F-16s and F-15s are not comparable and most often find themselves executing defensive break turns and and guns jinks when pitted against a savvy Typhoon pilot. Moreover, pylon configuration and external fuel stores are of no consequence to the BFM arena for the Typhoon; you don't even notice it. In fact, one of the most emphasized skill sets Typhoon Operational Conversion Unit instructors instill in the students is managing the awesomeness."13
Christian Worning, Eurofighter Project Test Pilot, confirmed the Typhoon's performance while equipped with heavy external fuel tanks while delivering testimony to the House of Commons in 2010: "If we put extra fuel tanks on the airplane—they are supersonic fuel tanks, and the airplane will fly at Mach 1.8 with three tanks... I have done above Mach 1.6 for a total of 15 minutes with three tanks on, but that was with heavy maneuvering in between."14
If that was not enough, when pitted against the ruling "King of the Skies" F-22 Raptor at a Red Flag exercise, the Typhoon proved to be superior in WVR (within visual range) combat. One German Typhoon pilot was quoted as saying: "yesterday, we had a Raptor salad for lunch."15
Clearly, the Eurofighter's performance is not an issue, outfitted with external stores or not.
Part 2 will be published Tuesday morning
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/04/14/why-the-eurofighter-typhoon-is-the-best-fighter-for-canada-right-now-part-1/
Canada : F-35 decision back in government's court as air force completes major study
The countdown on a decision over the F-35 has begun now that air force officials have completed a highly anticipated study of the controversial stealth fighter and its competitors.
The Harper government accepted the "options analysis" report late last week, officially putting the issue back in their laps after more than a year-and-a-half with the Defence Department.
Officially, the government doesn't have to rush on deciding what to do about the jet fighter; Canada has already missed its window to order F-35s this year. It will now have to wait until January 2015, at the earliest, if it does decide to go ahead with a purchase.
However, the schedule could be tighter if the government decides to hold an open competition – hoped for by the F-35′s competitors as well as opposition parties – since that could take years to conduct.
In either situation, delivery of the first new aircraft won't happen until around three years after an order is placed.
Canada's existing CF-18 fighter jets are set to be completely retired by 2020, unless the government decides to invest to keep them flying longer.
Complicating matters is next year's federal election. The F-35 was an issue in the last election in 2011, although that was before Auditor General Michael Ferguson released a scathing report about the project and turned it into a true political hot potato. Any future decision will require cabinet approval and prompt widespread political attention, both in Canada and abroad.
Canada is one of nine international partners involved in developing and purchasing the F-35, and each partner's decisions affect the price and schedule of the others.
The options analysis recently concluded by defence officials was actually the second review of the F-35 and its competitors.
Ferguson issued his report in April 2012. It identified serious flaws in an earlier study in which defence officials said the F-35 was the only aircraft capable of meeting Canada's requirements.
Ferguson's report, along with revelations that the purchase and operation of 65 F-35s would cost $46 billion, prompted the government to order defence officials back for a second look, in December 2012.
Lockheed Martin, the company that builds the F-35, as well as its competitors, has largely praised the new review, which had been quietly going on since last year.
However, anything less than an open competition is sure to set off another firestorm of controversy by prompting allegations the study was a paper exercise designed to justify a decision to go with the F-35.
lberthiaume(at)ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/leeberthiaume
Some developments in the past 18 months:
–Progress has been made on the design and more planes are being produced for the U.S. and some other allies, even though the aircraft is still in development years after it was supposed to have been completed.
–There are signs the cost of purchasing the aircraft is coming down, though U.S. congressional auditors say there are still significant concerns about the long-term costs of owning and operating the jet fighter.
–While South Korea recently announced it would buy 40 F-35s, a number of other partners have either postponed or reduced their own plans to purchase the stealth fighter. That affects the price and schedule for all other countries.
Decision Time: key dates to watch on the F-35 dilemma:
January to March 2015: The next window for Canada to order the F-35. Canada was supposed to place an order for four aircraft this year, but missed that opportunity. Delivery is three years after an order is placed.
Oct. 19, 2015: The scheduled date for the next federal election. Whether the government decides to go with the F-35, hold an open competition or put off a decision, the stealth fighter is expected to be an election issue.
2017: Canada's existing CF-18 jet fighters were supposed to start being retired at this point. Now they will have to continue flying at least one more year. The impact will likely be minimal at first, but gradually increase as long as a replacement isn't obtained.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/decision+back+government+court+force+completes+major/9734296/story.html
Denmark Starts Fighter Evaluation Process to Replace F-16
On April 10, 2014, the Danish Ministry of Defense issued a Request for Binding Information (RBI) to four combat jet manufacturers, as the next step in the evaluation of candidates for the replacement of its current fleet of 30-year old Lockheed F-16AM/BM fighters. Only 30 Danish air force F-16s are currently operational.
The four candidates included in the selection process for the future Danish fighter are:
- Eurofighter Typhoon
- Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet ( ?? dat hier specifiek de 2-zitter wordt benoemd ? of een type-foutje .. ?)
- Lockheed F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
- Saab Gripen E.
Request for Binding Information (RBI)
The RBI had been planned in the Defence Planning 2013-2017 and it consists of a questionnaire with approximately 950 questions, a total of 1000 pages and it contains four chapters for each of the areas of evaluation:
-- Strategic issues will include focus on the relationship between the candidates and the overall Danish security and defense policy objectives. It is partly about security aspects, and partly on the military strategic aspects in relation to cooperation with other countries.
-- Military issues will focus on candidates' ability to provide operational power and if the aircraft is future proof with questions about life expectancy and risks associated with each candidate.
-- The Economic evaluation focuses on a comparative assessment of the candidates' life cycle costs, including costs associated with the acquisition and ongoing operation and maintenance (O&S costs).
-- The questions about industrial cooperation focus on how the procurement of the candidates' aircraft may support the Danish Industry and Danish security interests.
Selection process: final decision end 2015
The candidates received the RBI on April 10, 2014 and are expected to submit their response to the request in July 2014 to the Director of the Nyt Kampfly Program (New Combat Aircraft Program).
It then will be analyzed, validated and eventually additional information will be gathered from the manufacturers. As a result, an evaluation report will be provided to the Minister of Defense as a basis for procurement proposals at the political level. Planning calls for a final decision in mid-2015, followed by Parliamentary approval and, if obtained, negotiations with the selected manufacturer.
Director of New Combat Aircraft Program, Lone Lindsby said about the RBI:
"I am pleased that we are sending the request for information, because it is an important milestone in the program. We are trying to keep the planned schedule, and we are very focused on providing a clear and transparent decision support that provides the best possible conditions for the final decision in this fighter procurement process. "
Quality assurance by RAND and Deloitte
The quality of the Evaluation Process will be assured externally by Deloitte Denmark (part of the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited DTTL) in cooperation with RAND Europe (an US-owned company). This should help ensure that the process is conducted in accordance with the principles of traceability, transparency, integrity and equality.
Royal Danish Air Force - some background
Kongelige Danske Flyvevabnet (Royal Danish Air Force) has a fleet of about 90 aircraft and helicopters and 3,400 personel operating from 3 airfields.
A transport squadron is based at Aalborg (C130H and Challenger); a helicopter wing (3 squadrons) is based at Karup (AW101, Lynx, Eurocopter Fennec), together with the training school (Saab MFI17). The sole fighter wing is based at Skrydstrup with 2 squadrons, Esk.727 and Esk.730, each with 15 F-16AM/BM. At this moment 15 other F-16s are in storage.
In total the Royal Danish Air Force received 77 F-16's (60x F-16A; 17x F-16B).
The first batch of 46 F-16As and 12 F-16Bs was built by SABCA in Belgium (1980-1983. A second batch was buuilt by Fokker, The Netherlands (1987; 8x F-16A; 4x F-16B). Finally, between 1994 and 1997 Denmark received 6x F-16As and 1x F-16B from US Air Force surplus stocks.
In 2002 Denmark decided to participate in the Development of the F-35 and signed the MOU-SDD as a Tier 3 partners (contribution about US$ 125 million). The original requirement was 48 F-35s, however the current combat fighter fleet is about 30 aircraft, so a replacement of between 24-30 new fighters may be expected.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/153219/denmark-launches-fighter-competition.html
Voor de hoeveelste keer?
ook byebye geloofwaardigheid voor Denemarken :angel:
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 14/04/2014 | 18:09 uur
Voor de hoeveelste keer?
ook byebye geloofwaardigheid voor Denemarken :angel:
Ach, ze houden tenminste hun opties open. Wat mij betreft doen ze 't een stuk beter dan Nederland. Ze kunnen nog alle kanten op en hun defensiebudget stelt ze tenminste nog in staat om iets te doen.
Citaat van: Lynxian op 14/04/2014 | 22:15 uur
Ach, ze houden tenminste hun opties open. Wat mij betreft doen ze 't een stuk beter dan Nederland. Ze kunnen nog alle kanten op en hun defensiebudget stelt ze tenminste nog in staat om iets te doen.
En jij denkt dat...
De Gripen kan het schudden, Boeing zal dit jaar besluiten om de F18E/F/G productie lijn te sluiten (tenzij het congres Boeing 22 extra exemplaren gunt, dan redden ze het nog een extra productie jaar) blijft over de Eurofighter en de F35....
Eurofighter heeft een sterke lobby in Denemarken en in de F35 zit al aardig wat Deens geld.
De competitie zal gaan tussen de (24-30) F35 en de EF.
Waarom staat de Dassault Rafale er niet tussen?
Of hebben de Denen dezelfde mening als Huzaar over Frans materiaal? (niet negatief bedoeld :P)
Citaat van: Jellington op 14/04/2014 | 23:09 uur
Waarom staat de Dassault Rafale er niet tussen?
Of hebben de Denen dezelfde mening als Huzaar over Frans materiaal? (niet negatief bedoeld :P)
Geen idee, wat mij betreft is de Rafale het beste Europese alternatief (tenzij de EF tranche 3B* uit ontwikkeld wordt maar zoals het er nu naar uit ziet, gaat dat niet gebeuren).
*na verwachting minimaal even duur of duurder in aanschaf en exploitatie dan een F35A
Why the Eurofighter Typhoon Is the Best Fighter for Canada... Right Now – Part 2
April 14, 2014
Editor's note: Doug Allen operates the two blogs bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca and gripen4canada.blogspot.ca as well as their corresponding Facebook groups. He notes he has no professional connection to the military or any aerospace manufacturer, but adds that he is a "base brat" with deep family ties in the military.
By Doug Allen
Defence Watch Guest Writer
ARMAMENT:
The Typhoon is currently operated using missiles and bombs similar to Canada's current CF-18 fleet. AIM-120 AMRAAM radar guided BVR (beyond visual range) air-to-air missiles, AIM-9 infrared guided WVR (within visual range) Sidewinders, AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and GBU-10/16/24 Paveway guided bombs. In the short term, the only new munitions needed for a RCAF Typhoon would be rounds for its 27mm Mauser cannon.
In the long term, the Eurofighter shows excellent promise for more advanced weaponry. Foremost is the MBDA Meteor BVR air-to-air missile16. Similar to the AMRAAM, the Meteor uses a ramjet instead of a rocket motor. This gives it the advantage of always having controlled thrust. Rocket powered missile have a short burst of speed, then need to "glide" after a certain point. This gives the ramjet powered Meteor a much better probability of kill (pK) over its entire range and a larger "no escape zone"17. The Typhoon can carry 4 Meteors conformally, without the need for pylons, reducing drag and radar cross section. The Typhoon also shares a 2-way data-link with the Meteor, updating targeting info on the fly. This feature is shared with the Gripen, while the Rafale only has a 1-way data link. While the Super Hornet and F-35 may one day field the Meteor as well, plans to do so have not yet left the concept stage18.
Also available in the Typhoon arsenal is the IRIS-T IR WVR missile, which can actually target incoming missiles defensively19. It can utilize both the Taurus KEPD 350 and Storm Shadow air launched cruise missile (ALCMs), as well as the ALARM and AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles. For close-air support (CAS) the Typhoon can carry the Brimstone air-to-ground missile, a weapon that improves greatly on Canada's current AGM-65 Maverick anti-tank missile20.
SENSORS:
If the Eurofighter Typhoon has a "weak point" currently, it is its mechanically scanned CAPTOR-M radar. There is nothing particularly wrong about the CAPTOR-M per se, in fact, the CAPTOR-M is praised as matching the performance of the F-15C Eagle's21. The Rafale, Super Hornet, and F-35 are all available with a more modern AESA radar, however. AESA offers superior performance with less chance of being detected by enemy sensors. This has yet to be proven however, as a recent DOT&E report on the USN Super Hornet stated that: "The APG-79 AESA radar provides improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar; however, operational testing did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment..."22
A new, "CAPTOR-E" AESA radar is in the works, however, that promises to bring Typhoon in line with the others, if not outright blow them away. The Typhoon's large nose enables it to house a much larger dish, accommodating a larger number of transmit-receive (T/R) modules; possibly up to 1,500. By comparison, The F-35, Super Hornet, and Gripen NG radars house about 1,000. The Rafale is even less than that, somewhere between 800-900. More impressively, the CAPTOR-E will utilize a "repositioner" that rotates the sensor plate to accommodate a larger field of view, about 100°.23 This would give it a radar roughly equivalent to that found in the F-22 Raptor, only with a wider field of view.
The Typhoon is also equipped with the PIRATE24 infrared search and track (IRST), which passively detects and tracks other aircraft. Even stealthy aircraft like the F-22 Raptor are visible to IRST systems.25 IRST uses heat, not radar waves, and there is only so much that can be done to reduce the heat signature of an aircraft flying at supersonic speeds with a hot jet engine in the back. Using sensor fusion with the Typhoon's radar, it projects targeting information on to a helmet mounted display (HMD). This allows the Typhoon pilot to take advantage of high off bore sight (HOBS) missiles. In essence, if the pilot can see it, it can be targeted and shot at. While the Typhoon's Striker Helmet Mounted Display may lack the sophistication of the F-35's troubled HMD, it does offer many of the same features, such as being able to "look through the aircraft". It also has the advantage of being fully operational at this time.26
The Eurofighter Typhoon also has all the requisite radar warning receivers (RWR)s, laser warning receivers, IFF (identify friend or foe) sensors, and NATO standard LINK-16 data link. It also has the ability to equip external ground targeting pods like the LITENING. Not yet ready to eschew the "tried and true", the Typhoon still has a traditional HUD (head's up display) and a large, bubble canopy and excellent visibility for use of the "Mark One eyeball". The Typhoon's cockpit ergonomics and voice activated controls have been praised by pilots for their ease of use.
INTEROPERABILITY:
Much has been said about the need to be "interoperable" with allies, implying the need for similar, if not identical, military equipment. Former RCAF CF-18 pilot and current Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn stated: "The next time we go to war ... you will not be allowed to play unless you have the same capability as everyone else,"27
Ignoring the cringe inducing analogy of going to war as "play", it is very important that any new RCAF must be able to work alongside our NATO partners and other allies. The natural inclination would be to simply purchase whatever the USA uses. The problem with this, however, is that the USA's military is a much different entity to what we have in Canada. The American defense budget is 35 times greater than Canada's.28 Even adjusted for population, the USA spends over triple the amount on defense based on GDP; 4.4% vs 1.3%.
While the Pentagon has made its support for the F-35 abundantly clear, it is important to remember that the Lightning II will fly alongside F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, F-15E Strike Eagles, and F-22 Raptors. USAF General Michael Hostage has even gone so far as to call the F-35 "irrelevant" without "upgraded" F-22s.29
The USA is far from Canada's only NATO partner however. The Typhoon is the predominant fighter aircraft for much of Europe. Used by the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, and Italy, the Typhoon is very much a NATO aircraft. Both the UK and Italy flew combat missions with the Typhoon as part of NATO's Operation Unified Protector over Libya in 2011. Two of these nations, Britain and Italy, plan on supplementing their force with F-35s, but these will mostly be F-35Bs for STOVL carrier operations. Meanwhile, the Typhoon will soon be the only fighter aircraft in use by Germany and Spain.
The Typhoon is also used by non-NATO Austria, Saudi Arabia, and the Oman. Altogether there are over 400 Eurofighter Typhoons, with many more planned.30 By the numbers, the Eurofighter Typhoon has enjoyed a similar production run to the Super Hornet, but it is used by many more nations. The Super Hornet is used only by the US Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force, with only a small number for the RAAF as an "interim" fighter. Given that the F-35 is not yet in service, the Eurofighter Typhoon is actually the most "interoperable" option for Canada right now.
It should also be noted that the Typhoon's "probe-and-drogue" aerial refueling system is the type used by Canada's current CF-18 fleet and will be compatible with the RCAF CC-150 Polaris, the USAF KC-46 Pegasus, KC-135 Stratotanker, and KC-10, and the Airbus A330 MRTT used by the RAF, RAAF, and others.
Part 3 to be published Wednesday
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/04/14/why-the-eurofighter-typhoon-is-the-best-fighter-for-canada-right-now-part-2/
F-35 Fleet Surpasses 15,000 Flying Hours
FORT WORTH, Texas, April 15, 2014
FORT WORTH, Texas, April 15, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- The Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) F-35 Lightning II fleet recently surpassed 15,000 flight hours, marking a major milestone for the program.
"Flying 15,000 hours itself demonstrates that the program is maturing, but what I think is even more impressive is the fact that operational F-35s accounted for more than half of those flight hours," said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin's vice president for F-35 Test & Verification. "While the fleet continues to train, we are actively flight testing the software and mission systems that will enable the Marine Corps to declare Initial Operational Capability (IOC) next year as planned."
As of April 7, operational F-35s had flown 8,050 hours while System Development and Demonstration aircraft had accumulated 7,123 flight hours. In 2014, F-35A test aircraft have flown 328 hours; F-35B test aircraft have accumulated 191 hours; and F-35C test aircraft have flown 91 hours. In comparison, operational F-35As have flown 963 hours, while their F-35B and F-35C counterparts have accumulated 1,012 and 98 hours respectively for the year.
"Following successful AIM-120 AMRAAM Weapons Delivery Accuracy (WDA) tests in February and March, we're looking forward to executing additional WDAs in the 2nd quarter," said McFarlan. "In another clear sign of program maturation, reliability metrics are trending upward as the operations tempo picks up – recently 60 F-35 sorties were flown in one day."
The U.S. Marine Corps plans to declare IOC in 2015, while the U.S. Air Force and Navy intend to declare IOC in 2016 and 2018, respectively.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/15/tx-lmt-f-idUSnPnw2XNz+46+PRN20140415
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/04/2014 | 23:05 uur
En jij denkt dat...
De Gripen kan het schudden, Boeing zal dit jaar besluiten om de F18E/F/G productie lijn te sluiten (tenzij het congres Boeing 22 extra exemplaren gunt, dan redden ze het nog een extra productie jaar) blijft over de Eurofighter en de F35....
Eurofighter heeft een sterke lobby in Denemarken en in de F35 zit al aardig wat Deens geld.
De competitie zal gaan tussen de (24-30) F35 en de EF.
Waarom kan de Gripen het schudden? Zoals ik het zie, zijn er drie realistische opties en een vierde optie-optie (de F-18, waarvan de productielijn ook prima open gehouden kan worden voor de Denen, mits ze genoeg kopen).
Citaat van: Lynxian op 15/04/2014 | 22:27 uur
Waarom kan de Gripen het schudden? Zoals ik het zie, zijn er drie realistische opties en een vierde optie-optie (de F-18, waarvan de productielijn ook prima open gehouden kan worden voor de Denen, mits ze genoeg kopen).
Vwb De F18E/F/G voor deze kist ligt het lot in de handen van het US congres. Als de USN niet haar niet gebudgetteerde 22 F18G krijgt dan kunnen ze de lijn met gereduceerde productie een jaartje langer open houden.
Bij een nee valt het doek in 2017, je zou zeggen tijd genoeg... echter de "long lead items" worden al zo'n 3-4 jaar voor de eindproductie besteld bij de toeleveranciers, dus links om of rechts om het Boeing management zal dit jaar moeten besluiten om de lijn open te houden of, als de navy haar extra kisten krijgt, ergens begin 2015. (indien in tussentijd nog een export klant wordt gevonden, dan veranderd het verhaal.... maar wie gaat de keuze voor de F18 binnen 12 maanden maken en welk land zal willen investeren in de laatste productieserie.
Vwb de Gripen E, laat ik het anders verwoorden, het zou mij uitermate verbazen als ze als enige west Europees NAVO land voor deze optie zouden kiezen, daarnaast zijn de Denen al jaren betrokken bij het F35 project en ik verwacht aansluiting bij Nederland en Noorwegen.
Als enige bedreiging voor de F35A in Denemarken zie ik de EF, dit wegens een pittige Duitse lobby en een interne lobby van de voormalige Deense minister van defensie, die in dit dossier veel medestanders heeft. Bedenk dat de Duitsers net hun laatste productie serie van 37 stuks geannuleerd hebben tegen een aanzienlijke boete bepaling.... en laat die laatste productieserie nu volledig passen in het Deense te verwachten aantal van 24-30 exemplaren.
Why the Eurofighter Typhoon Is the Best Fighter for Canada... Right Now – Part 3
April 16, 2014.
Editor's note: Doug Allen operates the two blogs bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca and gripen4canada.blogspot.ca as well as their corresponding Facebook groups. He notes he has no professional connection to the military or any aerospace manufacturer, but adds that he is a "base brat" with deep family ties in the military.
This is the last part of a three-part series.
By Doug Allen
Defence Watch Guest Writer
STEALTH:
While the Typhoon is not a "stealth" aircraft like the F-35, it was designed with a focus on reducing its radar cross section (RCS). Constructed of 80% composite material, the Typhoon is stealthier than the current CF-18, and roughly equivalent to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.31
Stealth is more than RCS however. While emphasis on materials and shaping can increase an aircraft's "passive" stealth, the use of active measures can also be effective. For this, the Typhoon is equipped with electronic countermeasures (ECM) and a towed decoy, allowing it to fool or outright overpower enemy radar systems.32 Unlike passive stealth designs as used in aircraft like the F-35, active stealth measures can be upgraded over time.
COST:
The Eurofighter Typhoon does have a reputation as a rather expensive fighter aircraft, both in acquisition cost and cost per flight hour (CPFH). Indeed, the Typhoon is almost as controversial as the the infamous F-35 Lightning II in this regard.33 Its development overlapped the end of the Cold War, along with the sharp decrease in defense spending that came along shortly after. The Eurofighter partner nations, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, and Italy have also been left reeling from austerity measures resulting from the global recession.
It might not be so bad, however. Especially when placed in context with the other fighters.
A recent study by IHS Jane's compared operating costs between the F-35, Typhoon, Rafale, F-18E/F Super Hornet, F-16 Fighting Falcon, and Saab Gripen. The Eurofighter was placed between the F-35A and Rafale in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH)34. While the Super Hornet's cost per flight hour was substantially lower as flown by the USN, operating costs for the Super Hornet as seen by the RAAF were much higher, likely due the smaller fleet. This puts the Typhoon roughly equivalent to both the Rafale and Super Hornet, when used in smaller (i.e. not USA sized) numbers. It is more affordable than projected costs for the F-35. It should be noted that the Jane's study "normalizes" costs by factoring differences in technician pay, fuel costs, etc. It is a useful benchmark, but those costs should not be compared directly to other sources that use different methods.
As far as acquisition cost goes, the Typhoon may not be as expensive as its reputation suggests. India's acquisition of Dassault Rafale has been relatively stalled due to disagreements in price, with some reports stating that the actual cost of the Rafale is double that originally quoted.35 The RAAF's acquisition of 24 Super Hornets is said to cost US $3.7 billion ($154 million/each)36.
To get an approximation of the Eurofighter Typhoon's cost, the best example is South Korea's FX-III fighter competition. While Eurofighter's bid was rejected for not including enough two-seaters, it was able to offer 60 Typhoons within the US $7.43 billion budget. ($124 million each)37. In the end, South Korea chose against the Typhoon and F-15SE "Silent Eagle" in favor of the F-35A Lightning II. This, despite the fact that the F-35 was initially disqualified for not being able to come in under budget. Instead, South Korea chose to acquire 40 F-35s at the cost of US $6.8 billion ($170 million each) and study options for the other 20.
In the end, while the Typhoon may have a reputation as an expensive aircraft, it is still more affordable than the F-35, an aircraft already announced as Canada's CF-18 replacement.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS:
Typhoon development and production is shared between its four partner nations; Britain, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Eurofighter itself is made up of BAE Systems, Airbus Defense & Space, and Alenia Aermacchi. Collectively, these European aerospace giants are responsible for airliners, naval ships, UAVs, military transports, and countless other defense and civilian hardware. Historically, one can trace the Typhoon's lineage back to legendary aircraft like the Concorde, the Supermarine Spitfire, and even the Messerschmitt Me262.
While the Typhoon itself is a fully developed fighter with established parts suppliers, Eurofighter has offered to set up final assembly in Canada38. This includes technology transfer, similar to that offered by Dassault for the Rafale. It would also look to local support for any new additional modifications and upgrades. Canada would have "full sovereignty"39 over the Typhoon's systems.
Andrea Nappi, Head of Eurofighter Export, stated the following the House of Commons in 2010: "For the development of these additional requirements, we would most likely rely on the support and help of local industry. This would include, therefore, a lot of transfer of technology and transfer of information on the product, which I think is a unique asset making the Eurofighter Typhoon different from most of the other platforms available in the world."40
Future plans for the Eurofighter Typhoon include a new AESA CAPTOR-E radar, conformal fuel tanks, 3D vectored thrust engine nozzles, and increased electronic warfare capabilities41. As a partner in the Typhoon program, Canada would have the chance to help develop these new systems.
While the F-35 is a much larger program in scope, it is much more limited in practice. Intellectual property is strictly under control of the U.S. Government and Lockheed Martin. Future upgrades, depot work, and life extensions, like those being performed on the CP-140 Aurora by Halifax based IMP42, will be done in the U.S.
Canada is already an industrial partner in the JSF program. This gives Canadian industry the ability to bid on F-35 related contracts and become part of the supply chain. While words like "opportunity" and "potential" are often used, there is no guaranteed amount. There is also no stipulation that Canada is required to purchase the F-35 in order to stay on as industrial partner. Conversely, there is no stipulation that Canada will receive further work if it does continue with its F-35 purchase43. In essence staying with the F-35 is a gamble. It could pay off, go bust, or break even. A traditional, guaranteed offset deal would make more economic sense, ensuring that Canadian tax-dollars stay in Canada.
CONCLUSION:
The Eurofighter Typhoon has very impressive air-to-air capabilities. Its air-to-ground capabilities are certainly adequate and improving. While it is not a "5th generation" stealth aircraft, it offers similar, if not superior performance and detection capability. It is compatible with the latest, most advanced missile technology.
It is in use by several NATO and other allies and will be the predominant, if not only, fighter aircraft of those countries for decades to come. It is a mature, combat proven platform, yet it still has plenty of upgrade potential and should prove useful for decades to come.
RCAF Typhoons could be assembled in Canada, with the ability to upgrade and modify them as we see fit. There are also the various other offsets and economic benefits of partnering with Europe's aerospace giants.
The F-35 may indeed surpass its troubled development to become a technological wunderkind, there is no doubt it is years away from being suitable. The Saab Gripen NG could very well offer a substantial bargain offering near Typhoon-level performance at a substantially reduced cost. Like the F-35 however, it is still years away. Meanwhile, the Super Hornet and the Rafale may not be that much of a bargain. As it stands right now, the Eurofighter Typhoon is the most logical replacement for the CF-18 Hornet.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/04/16/why-the-eurofighter-typhoon-is-the-best-fighter-for-canada-right-now-part-3/
NIFARP / F35.nl @nifarp · 4 min.
Reuters: Pentagon geeft toestemming voor 1e trans-Atlantische vlucht #F35 JSF. Kist gaat in juli deelnemen aan luchtshows in UK.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/04/2014 | 17:11 uur
NIFARP / F35.nl @nifarp · 4 min.
Reuters: Pentagon geeft toestemming voor 1e trans-Atlantische vlucht #F35 JSF. Kist gaat in juli deelnemen aan luchtshows in UK.
De deelname zal zijn aan RIAT en Farnborough in juli.
Lockheed Preparing For F-35 U.K. Deployment
By Anthony Osborne
April 16, 2014
Lockheed Martin, with officials from the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.K. defense ministry (MoD), are putting the finishing touches on plans for the F-35's international debut in the U.K. this summer.
The plans — approved by U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on April 16 — are already well advanced and should see the Joint Strike Fighter make its international public debut at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) at RAF Fairford July 11-13, with aircraft taking part in both the flying display and potentially also the static display at the military air show.
The aircraft will also take part in the Farnborough air show, but only in the flying display, flying in from Fairford, where it is understood the aircraft will be based.
Marine Corps aircrews have put together a display sequence for the aircraft, debuting it at the MCAS Yuma Air Show in Arizona on March 15.
The deployment is expected to involve three short-take-off-and-vertical-landing F-35B variants — two from the U.S. Marine Corps and a single British F-35B, which will be flown by a British pilot.
The deployment could be one of the toughest trials yet for the program, testing the F-35's ability to deploy away from its main operating base for several weeks, as well as flying over long distances using aerial refueling, although whether this will be provided by Marine Corps assets such as the KC-130J Hercules or U.S. Air Force tankers such as the KC-135 or KC-10 is not yet clear.
Also unclear is whether one of the deployed aircraft will play a role in the July 4 christening and launch of the U.K.'s new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth in Scotland.
The U.K. currently has three F-35s with a fourth on order. A long-awaited order for an additional 14 jets — dubbed Main Gate 4, which was due in fall 2013 — is still to be announced.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_04_16_2014_p0-679080.xml
Japanese Future Stealth Fighter Force vid (propaganda). (... Japanse F-3A ... Boeing FA-XX achtige toestellen (0:28-0:38) .... en carriers ? ... met F-35C (0:38 - 1.00)
Japan's indigenous stealth jet prototype 'to fly this year'
Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera has reaffirmed the nation's plan for a 2014 first flight of the Advanced Technology Demonstrator-X (ATD-X) fighter: a prototype for a future fighter to replace the Japan Air Self-Defence Force's Mitsubishi F-2.
"In February I myself visited at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' (MHI's) Komaki Minami plant where the ATD-X is being built," Onodera told the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of the Upper House on 10 April. "There I was briefed that the first flight will take place this year."
The ATD-X, also known as Shinshin ('Heart of God'), is being developed by the ministry's Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI), with the main contractor of the project being MHI. It has been designed to be a stealthy air-superiority fighter with enhanced manoeuvrability.
...../.....
http://www.janes.com/article/36713/japan-s-indigenous-stealth-jet-prototype-to-fly-this-year
Die Japanse ATD-X i doet mij een beetje denken aan de YF22.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.janes.com%2Fimages%2Fassets%2F713%2F36713%2F1440964_-_main.jpg&hash=dac2532e78a91449c495376f98b7de08d0762bff)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F5c%2FTwo_Lockheed-Boeing-General_Dynamics_YF-22s.jpg%2F750px-Two_Lockheed-Boeing-General_Dynamics_YF-22s.jpg&hash=bfd47b0c8073f11a06e7077aa611c96761208777)
Citaat van: Harald op 17/04/2014 | 09:29 uur
Japanese Future Stealth Fighter Force vid (propaganda).
(... Japanse F-3A ... Boeing FA-XX achtige toestellen (0:28-0:38) .... en carriers ? ... met F-35C (0:38 - 1.00)
Hier een paar foto's/impressies van de Boeing FA-XX achtige toestellen : (zien er wel erg gaf uit !)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-oWURBaK4J9I%2FU0-oocFLexI%2FAAAAAAAA8Ko%2FyqomlAX3VGE%2Fs1600%2Fjapanese%2Badvanced%2Bstealth%2Bfighter.png&hash=b68e6be95f777297a38b54b36bff3ceb75fdbcd6)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-_UcHCeJHMZQ%2FU0-ooXs3qOI%2FAAAAAAAA8Kg%2FTS6wRwtIwQU%2Fs1600%2Fjapanese%2Badvanced%2Bstealth%2Bfighter%2B1.png&hash=5b9a879455583e6f25a395bafe482e6dbb8d5a30)
In het Pools, Polen lijkt te gaan voor de F35
http://www.polskieradio.pl/42/273/Artykul/1105475,Polska-kupi-F35-najlepsze-mysliwce-swiata
Australia to buy 58 Joint Strike Fighters
Australia will make one of its biggest ever military purchases with a $12 billion order for 58 Joint Strike Fighters in a move that will lift the nation's air combat power to among the world's most advanced.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott will announce the planned purchase in Canberra on Wednesday, confirming that Australia will join the United States and a select few other countries in adopting the fifth-generation stealth fighter as the backbone of its air combat power.
On top of the two fighters that Australia has already paid for, and a further 12 that have been ordered, the large new purchase will deliver the Royal Australian Air Force three squadrons of the planes and cement its place as the dominant air power in the region.
The government is keeping open the option of buying another squadron of up to 24 fighters, taking Australia's fleet of the cutting-edge planes close to 100.
The first Joint Strike Fighter – also called the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II – will be delivered in 2018 and begin service with the RAAF in 2020.
"The fifth-generation F-35 is the most advanced fighter in production anywhere in the world and will make a vital contribution to our national security," Mr Abbott will say on Wednesday.
"Together with the Super Hornet and Growler electronic warfare aircraft, the F-35 aircraft will ensure Australia maintains a regional air combat edge. The F-35 will provide a major boost to the Australian Defence Force's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities."
The lifetime cost of the new batch of fighters, which includes maintenance, weapons and spares, will reach $12.4 billion, making it one of Australia's most expensive ever military acquisitions alongside the Collins Class submarine and the long-retired aircraft carriers.
The announcement is also a win for the RAAF bases at Williamtown in NSW and Tindal in the Northern Territory, which will be the home bases for the squadrons. They will need about $1.6 billion in new facilities and infrastructure, Mr Abbott will announce.
The JSF will replace the ageing Hornet F/A-18, which is due to be retired from 2022. It means the RAAF will have a mixed fleet of fighters for the foreseeable future, with the JSF operating alongside 24 Super Hornets and 12 Growler radar-jamming aircraft.
The purchase continues the direction set out by the previous Labor government's 2013 Defence White Paper, which foreshadowed three operational squadrons beginning from 2020.
While most experts say the Joint Strike Fighter is set to be the most advanced fighter for years to come, critics have pointed out the many flaws, delays and cost overruns that have emerged during its development.
The Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter boss, Lieutenant-General Chris Bogdan, said during a recent visit to Australia that many problems were still being ironed out, particularly the complex software – requiring more than eight million lines of code – which he said was ''still a risky, risky business''.
He also said the planes were still unreliable and needed too much maintenance, with "pieces and parts ... coming off the airplane way too regularly because they are breaking".
Critics have also pointed out the new stealth fighters are actually less manoeuvrable than some older planes, though supporters say it will never need to turn sharply because it will have shot down any enemy plane before it is seen.
Defence Minister David Johnston said the purchase would also provide a boost to the Australian defence industry.
"As a result of the Howard government's decision to join during the development phase, the Australian defence industry has been awarded over $355 million in work and stands to win well in excess of $1.5 billion in JSF-related production and support work over the life of the programme – creating long-term advanced manufacturing and engineering jobs," he said.
KEY FACTS
Maker Lockheed Martin
Cost per plane about $95 million, not including weapons
Strengths steath capability, advanced computer power, able to talk to all allied military systems around it
Weaknesses Not particularly manoeuvrable, faced problems flying during lightning storms
Weapons guided bombs, sidewinder missiles, radar-jamming electronic warfare capabilities
Special exterior features radar absorbing outer skin
Sydney Morning Herald, April 23, 2014 - 12:15AM
'Italië koopt helft minder JSF's'
ROME -
De Italiaanse regering zet flink het mes in de aanschaf van Amerikaanse F-35's, de Joint Strike Fighter. Volgens een geheim plan van het kabinet-Renzi wordt de helft minder toestellen gekocht, 45 in plaats van 90.
De regering in Rome wil de Amerikanen voorzichtig van het plan op de hoogte stellen, meldt de Italiaanse krant la Repubblica dinsdag. Het kabinet vreest dat er minder compensatieorders komen als Italië minder JSF's koopt.
Dan zou een grote fabriek die speciaal voor de JSF voor meer dan 800 miljoen euro is gebouwd in het Noord-Italiaanse Cameri, onrendabel kunnen worden. Italië hoopte dat daar de Italiaanse en de Nederlandse JSF's zouden worden gebouwd.
Telegraaf, di 22 apr 2014, 17:08
Halvering lijkt de norm te worden. Ik denk dat ook de VS die kant op zal gaan. Handhaving huidige aantal gewoon te duur. Dat zal impact hebben op de prijs per toestel. Ook voor Nederland.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 22/04/2014 | 18:20 uur
Halvering lijkt de norm te worden. Ik denk dat ook de VS die kant op zal gaan. Handhaving huidige aantal gewoon te duur. Dat zal impact hebben op de prijs per toestel. Ook voor Nederland.
Het is natuurlijk veel dramatischer dan deze halvering gezien de oorspronkelijk plannen.. Australië maakt morgen weer het e.e.a. goed door een bestelling van 58 stuks (naast de bestelde en gekochte kisten) en een optie op 24. (maar ook dat haalt de beoogde 100 net niet) (96)
Het zal me benieuwen wat de Italiaanse samenstelling van de resterende F35's zal zijn.... alleen A's, B's of een mix.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 22/04/2014 | 18:20 uur
Halvering lijkt de norm te worden. Ik denk dat ook de VS die kant op zal gaan. Handhaving huidige aantal gewoon te duur. Dat zal impact hebben op de prijs per toestel. Ook voor Nederland.
Uitzonderingen bevestigen de regel? :angel:
Citaat van: Lex op 22/04/2014 | 18:32 uur
Uitzonderingen bevestigen de regel? :angel:
zeker...dus snap best dat de Koude Oorlog in de VS al weer flink wordt opgestookt.. ;)
Ik heb het idee dat Putin z'n acties voor hem uiteindelijk een averechts effect zullen hebben.. Als hij zo door gaat zal er geld gevonden worden voor hogere defensie uitgaven en dus voor meer wapentuig a la F35. Als voorstander van een sterke defensie kan ik alleen maar blij zijn hiermee. En tegen al die mensen die uitgaven aan defensie maar niets vonden: Zie je wel!!
PM confirms RAAF order for 58 F-35As
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/04/pm-confirms-raaf-order-for-58-f-35as/
;D
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/04/2014 | 23:43 uur
PM confirms RAAF order for 58 F-35As
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/04/pm-confirms-raaf-order-for-58-f-35as/
Zie #775.
Citaat van: Lex op 22/04/2014 | 23:47 uur
Zie #775.
Vandaar alleen de kop...
in 775: Prime Minister Tony Abbott will announce
in 782: PM confirms
Egypt interested in buying 24 MiG-35s from Russia
Apr 22, 2014
The arms deal discussed between Cairo and Moscow has been increasing in recent months, but its financing is far from secure, analysts say
The Russian United Aircraft Corporation has been offering the MiG-35 to a number of international customers, but sofar this 'super Fulcrum' failed to gain international orders. The Russian Air Force is expected to place the first order by 2016, if it fails to secure funding for more sophisticated and stealthy 'light advanced fighter'. Photo: RAC
The Russian United Aircraft Corporation has been offering the MiG-35 to a number of international customers, but sofar this 'super Fulcrum' failed to gain international orders. The Russian Air Force is expected to place the first order by 2016, if it fails to secure funding for more sophisticated and stealthy 'light advanced fighter'. Photo: RAC
Russia has acknowledged an Egyptian request to procure a squadron of MiG-35 advanced fighter aircraft, to include up to 24 fighter jets at a cost of US$3 billion. The fulfilment of this package could be delayed though, as this specific type of aircraft hasn't reached a production stage. The manufacturer, Russian Aircraft Corporation (UAC) through its subsidiary Russian Aircraft Corp (RAC) has failed to gain international orders for the aircraft and is currently awaiting an initial order from the Russian Air Force to kickstart production by 2016. However, Moscow could try to secure an Egyptian order with an earlier model that could utilize the current production line, namely the new-built MiG-29M/M2, which share commonality with the MiG-29K model recently supplied to Indian Navy.
By approaching Moscow, Egypt is regaining international support, after getting a cold shoulder from Washington, following the military coup d'état that toppled the controversial, yet democratically Mohamed Morsi, and his moslem Brotherhood party. .
The $3 billion arms package could include up to 24 MiG-29/35 fighter jets, Mi-35 helicopter gunships, air and coastal defense systems, firearms and ammunition
The arms package has been negotiated since November 2013 but no contract has been signed yet. The framework of that deal was originally proposed during a visit by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to Cairo in November 2013. In February the arms package was agreed in principle between Field Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, then defense minister and the Russian president Vladimir Putin during Sisi's visit to Moscow in February 2014. It was Sisi's first trip abroad, following his seizure of power in a coup in August 2013.
Moreover, financial sources for the deal are unclear, particularly with the Saudi reluctance about Cairo's moving closer with Moscow. As Egypt's economy is in standstill for several years, with empty national treasury empty, and US financial support diminishing, how can Egypt afford such spending? The deal is reportedly to be funded mainly by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) but following deteriorating relations between Riyadh and Moscow, particularly over the Russian support to the Syrian regime, wholehearted fulfilment of such obligation is questionable.
The commercial side of the deal is casting more optimism; UAC CEO Sergei Korotkov confirmed that negotiations are ongoing but said the number of aircraft Egypt will eventually get has been changing constantly. According to Russian industry sources the arms package would include the MiG fighter jets, Mi-35 helicopters, air defense missile systems, coastal defense (shore-based anti-ship) missiles, as well as firearms and ammunition.
http://defense-update.com/20140422_egypt-interested-buying-24-mig-35s-russia.html#.U1d6cmeKBjo
Finland's Minister of Defence rejects call to buy Gripen
Finland's Minister of Defence has rejected the proposal by the Speaker of the Parliament to buy Saab's Gripen fighter.
"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish JAS fighters when we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," Carl Haglund said.
http://alert5.com/2014/04/23/finlands-minister-of-defence-rejects-call-to-buy-gripen/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Foutje:
"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish JAS fighters when if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," Carl Haglund said.
Citaat van: Strata op 23/04/2014 | 12:14 uur
Foutje:
"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish JAS fighters when if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," Carl Haglund said.
Ik zag het net.. "if" is hier wel het sleutelwoord.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/04/2014 | 12:18 uur
Ik zag het net.. "if" is hier wel het sleutelwoord.
Inderdaad.. draait de zaak helemaal om.
Citaat van: Strata op 23/04/2014 | 13:11 uur
Inderdaad.. draait de zaak helemaal om.
We gaan het zien... wanneer zij de Finse F18's eigenlijk toe aan vervanging?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/04/2014 | 13:17 uur
We gaan het zien... wanneer zij de Finse F18's eigenlijk toe aan vervanging?
Volgens mij is dat in 2025-2030
http://www.defencetalk.com/finland-to-upgrade-f-18-hornet-fighter-aircraft-27983/
The Italian Government's Plan to Halve its F-35 Order (uitgebreide info)
(.. waarschijnlijk zal deze keuze/bezuiniging grote gevolgen hebben voor de F-35 assemblage fabriek in Cameri ... meer dan de helft minder toestellen, Noorwegen zegt onderhoudscontract op .... of er moeten extra Europese F-35 orders komen voor, bijv. Denemarken, Polen, Belgie , maar de beslissende keuze momenten duren nog wel even )
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published April 23, 2014)
(Adapted & translated from a story published by La Repubblica)
PARIS --- Italy's new government has decided to halve its procurement f F-35 fighters, from 90 to 45, but will stretch out its implementation to limit any losses of related work for its aerospace industry, the Rome daily La Repubblica reported April 22.
If confirmed, the 45 remaining aircraft would be slightly less than the 131 that Italy initially planned; a previous government had already cut 41 aircraft from its planned order in 2012.
In an April 18 decree, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said that savings from the F-35 program would contribute to a 10-billion euro tax cut, and that the program would be "remodulate." This year, the only change to the program is a reduction of 153 million euros, the decree stated.
According to La Repubblica, Renzi will not change the six-aircraft order planned for 2014, but will reduce the number of aircraft ordered by 2019 from 40 to 29. This will allow savings of over 2 billion euros, which the government finds irresistible.
To date, Italy has only ordered six aircraft, and Renzi plans to reduce the next order from 8 to 5 aircraft. Despite the air force's strong backing for the F-35, the fact is that Italian defense plans have no requirement for a stealthy strike fighter, and this will be explicitly stated, La Repubblica reports, in the new defense white paper whose publication, originally expected by year-end, will now be brought forward to the summer. The La Repubblica story has not been denied by the government, 24 hours after publication.
These low-key, stretched-out cuts do not, however, convince all Italian politicians, and the 5-Star and SEL parties note that the 153 million euro cut planned for 2014 is worth little more than "a single aircraft and half a wing." Skeptics see the plan leaked to La Repubblica as a sop to program opponents while the government looks for other ways to find the funds to buy 90 F-35s, perhaps by stretching orders out over an extra decade.
Renzi and Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti plan to formally inform the United States of the change in plans during this year, and will seek to avoid any cuts in production orders for the Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility in Cameri, in Northern Italy.
Financed by the Italian government to the tune of over 800 million euros, and operated under contract by the Alenia Aermacchi unit of Finmeccanica, the Cameri facility already seems a badly judged investment. It was originally sized to assemble 131 Italian and 85 Dutch F-35s, to produce wings for all F-35s, and to subsequently maintain F-35s of the Italian, Dutch, Norwegian, Turkish and Israeli air forces, and possibly of other European operators as well.
However, the combined Italian and Dutch orders have been reduced from 216 to 82 (37 Dutch and now 45 Italian aircraft), which badly dents its business model. Furthermore, Norway has canceled its training and MRO agreement with Italy and the Netherlands, and has instead decided to cooperate with the UK, further reducing the number of aircraft that might be supported at Cameri.
The Renzi government's fear is that Lockheed will compound Cameri's financial woes by cutting back its production contracts for wings and other minor components proportionately with the reduction in the Italian F-35 order. It plans to ask the US government to help in this respect, arguing that the US had suffered no penalties when it decided to cancel the Presidential Helicopter contract that had been awarded to AgustaWestland, another unit of Italy's Finmeccanica.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/153411/italy-to-halve-f_35-order-to-45%3A-report.html
Citaat van: Harald op 23/04/2014 | 13:23 uur
Volgens mij is dat in 2025-2030
http://www.defencetalk.com/finland-to-upgrade-f-18-hornet-fighter-aircraft-27983/
Dan zou het maar zo kunnen dat de Finnen een "generatie" over slaan of gaan voor een doorontwikkelde F35A.
Citaat van: Harald op 23/04/2014 | 22:06 uur
The Italian Government's Plan to Halve its F-35 Order (uitgebreide info)
(.. waarschijnlijk zal deze keuze/bezuiniging grote gevolgen hebben voor de F-35 assemblage fabriek in Cameri ... meer dan de helft minder toestellen, Noorwegen zegt onderhoudscontract op .... of er moeten extra Europese F-35 orders komen voor, bijv. Denemarken, Polen, Belgie , maar de beslissende keuze momenten duren nog wel even )
Niet zo handig van de Italianen....
Als ze nu zouden kiezen voor extra EF in de nog verder te ontwikkelen Tranche 3B versie dan zou ik het geen al te onhandige beslissing vinden (en dan uitsluitend F35B voor de Italiaanse marine)...
Alleen vrees ik dat ook dat niet het geval zal zijn en wordt Europa weer een beetje zwakker.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/04/2014 | 22:22 uur
Niet zo handig van de Italianen....
Als ze nu zouden kiezen voor extra EF in de nog verder te ontwikkelen Tranche 3B versie dan zou ik het geen al te onhandige beslissing vinden (en dan uitsluitend F35B voor de Italiaanse marine)...
Alleen vrees ik dat ook dat niet het geval zal zijn en wordt Europa weer een beetje zwakker.
Ik ben dan ook benieuwd van welk type de eerste batches Italiaanse F35's zijn.
New Growler construction may depend on upcoming Navy exercise
By Chuck Raasch / april, 24 - 2014
WASHINGTON • The Navy will conduct a battle exercise off the West Coast next month that could help determine whether another 22 more EA-18G Growler aircraft will be built at a Boeing factory in St. Louis.
The Navy's Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group will conduct three days of exercises to see whether seven or eight Growlers on an aircraft carrier — rather than the five currently assigned — would provide better support for attacks from fighter jets and ground forces. A Navy vice admiral said that paper analysis indicated the higher number was more effective and that exercises off the Carl Vinson would be conducted to verify it.
zie link voor de rest van het verhaal.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-growler-construction-may-depend-on-upcoming-navy-exercise/article_d1c75fb7-aed3-507b-a951-11c9e6554f81.html
Waar ik ook voor pleit: cruise missile capability. Het vreemde is dat in Noorwegen en Zweden de arbeiders partijen sinds jaar en dag vóór defensie uitgaven (in eigen industrie) zijn. Of eigenlijk: de PvdA is stiekem altijd voor de JSF-industrie geweest, de achterban blieft het niet. Opgehitst en vol gestopt met morele veroordelingen door de media dat vóór zijn not done is.
Sweden to arm fighter jets with cruise missile 'deterrent'
By Editor on Friday, April 25th, 2014
The Swedish government defended plans Thursday to equip fighter jets with cruise missiles capable of striking targets in Russia, days after announcing a military spending hike linked to the Ukraine conflict.
"In the future the ability to combat longer range targets can be important," Defence Minister Karin Enstroem told public broadcaster Sveriges Radio, adding that the missiles would have "a high precision which acts as a deterrent".
"So it would raise our collective defence capabilities and thus raise the threshold effects of our defence."
On Tuesday the center-right government announced plans for a 5.5 billion kronor (604 million euros, $835 million) rise in annual defence spending by 2024 — on top of the current annual budget of close to 50 billion kronor — including an additional 10 Swedish-made Saab Gripen fighter jets, bringing an airforce fleet upgrade to 70 planes.
In a statement the government referred to the "deeply unsettling development in and around Ukraine" and Russia's occupation of "parts of a sovereign state".
The Swedish defence forces have argued for longer range missiles to deter Russia from destroying Swedish weapons from a distance. The new missiles — to be fitted on Gripen jets — would have double the current range at 1,000 kilometers (620 miles).
"It shows a potential opponent that we can fight at long distances and therefore we believe it is a deterrent," Colonel Johan Hansson told Sveriges Radio.
"If we are detected early we must be able to have a firing range that is much longer than what we've previously been used to."
The new approach by the government marks a departure from the traditional defensive stance by the non-aligned and previously neutral country.
As late as late 2013 Foreign Minister Carl Bildt wrote that cruise missiles had never been considered part of the country's defence.
Sweden's second opposition party, the Greens, criticized the announcement, warning that it marked a departure from the country's defensive stance that could "influence other parties" and encourage rearmament in the region.
However the shift towards a more offensive military force had the support of Sweden's largest opposition party the Social Democrats, who sought to play down speculation of a confrontation with Russia.
"We have no such ambitions. In an acute situation there can be a need for different options, but we are not a country that is out to attack anyone else," Peter Hultqvist, the Social Democrat chairman of the parliament's defence committee, told news agency TT.
Russia caught the Swedish military off-guard in a simulated air strike exercise with fighter planes over the Baltic Sea in March 2013, sparking a heated debate on national defence.
At the time the head of the armed forces controversially claimed that Sweden could not defend itself in a military attack that lasted more than a week.
A major review of the country's defences is due for completion in mid-May.
http://www.defencetalk.com/sweden-to-arm-fighter-jets-with-cruise-missile-deterrent-59389/
Eurofighter Typhoon with conformal fuel tanks
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FTyphoon-model-with-conformal-fuel-tanks-in-the-BAE-Systems-wind-tunnel-.jpg&hash=60dd9e3d40d9f0be3cba76c235f2288ecaa1e5fb)
A Typhoon model fitted with conformal fuel tanks
CFTs (Conformal Fuel Tanks) have always been one of the features Eurofighter was thinking about since the Typhoon was pitched for the Indian MMRCA (Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft) and UAE fighter deals.
It looks like BAE Systems has eventually started the testing that will help to accelerate the clearance process by assessing the aerodynamic characteristics of carrying two fuselage mounted conformal fuel tank at the company's world class high speed wind tunnel facility in the UK.
Actually, a mock up Typhoon was already fitted with CFTs and showcased at several exhibitions and airshows around the world, including Al Ain, earlier this year, where photographer Luigi Sani took the image below.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FTyphoon-CFT-Al-Ain-685x385.jpg&hash=69d1531ed899c0b2ac8e2e54b6861f77fb56c6d1)
The Typhoon is not only getting the CFTs: testing has also started to integrate air-launched cruise missiles, like the Storm Shadow and the Taurus.
http://theaviationist.com/2014/04/22/eurofighter-typhoon-cft/
New U.S. Stealth Jet Can't Hide From Russian Radar
America's gazillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to go virtually unseen when flying over enemy turf. But that's not how things are working out.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—the jet that the Pentagon is counting on to be the stealthy future of its tactical aircraft—is having all sorts of shortcomings. But the most serious may be that the JSF is not, in fact, stealthy in the eyes of a growing number of Russian and Chinese radars. Nor is it particularly good at jamming enemy radar. Which means the Defense Department is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to a fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft that protect non-stealthy—"radar-shiny," as some insiders call them—aircraft today.
These problems are not secret at all. The F-35 is susceptible to detection by radars operating in the VHF bands of the spectrum. The fighter's jamming is mostly confined to the X-band, in the sector covered by its APG-81 radar. These are not criticisms of the program but the result of choices by the customer, the Pentagon.
To suggest that the F-35 is VHF-stealthy is like arguing that the sky is not blue—literally, because both involve the same phenomenon. The late-Victorian physicist Lord Rayleigh gave his name to the way that electromagnetic radiation is scattered by objects that are smaller than its wavelength. This applies to the particles in the air that scatter sunlight, and aircraft stabilizers and wingtips that are about the same meter-class size as VHF waves.
The counter-stealth attributes of VHF have been public knowledge for decades. They were known at the dawn of stealth, in 1983, when the MIT's Lincoln Laboratory ordered a 150-foot-wide radar to emulate Russia's P-14 Oborona VHF early-warning system. Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth division—makers of the F-35—should know about that radar: they built it.
Making a plane VHF-stealthy starts with removing the target's tails, as on the B-2 bombers. But we did not know how to do that on a supersonic, agile airplane (like the F-35 is supposed to be) when the JSF specifications were written.
Neither did the technology to add broadband-active jamming to a stealth aircraft exist in 1995. Not only did stealth advocates expect jamming to fade away, but there was an obvious and (at the time) insoluble problem: To use jamming you have to be certain that the radar has detected you. Otherwise, jamming is going to reveal your presence and identify you as a stealth aircraft, since the adversary can see a signal but not a reflection.
We can be sure that onboard jamming has not been added to the F-35 since. Had the JSF requirements been tightened by one iota since the program started, its advocates would be blaming that for the delays and overruns.
What the JSF does have is a jamming function—also known as "electronic attack," or EA, in militaryese—in the radar. It also has an expendable radar decoy—BAE Systems' ALE-70. Both are last-ditch measures to disrupt a missile engagement, not to prevent tracking.
JSF's planners, in the mid-1990s, were close to correct when they calculated that low-band stealth and limited EA, combined with passive electronic surveillance for situational awareness, would be adequate at service entry. But they expected that the F-35 would reach squadrons in 2010, and China's military modernization was barely imaginable.
The threats of the late 2010s will be qualitatively different. Old VHF radars could be dealt with by breaking the kill chain between detection and tracking: they did not provide good enough cueing to put analog, mechanically scanned tracking radars on to the target. Active electronically scanned array (AESA), high-power VHF radars and decimeter- and centimeter-wave trackers are more tenacious foes.
Last August, at an air show near Moscow, I talked to designers of a new, highly mobile counterstealth radar system, now being delivered to the Russian armed forces. Its centerpiece was a 100-foot-wide all-digital VHF AESA, but it also incorporated powerful higher-frequency radars that can track small targets once the VHF radar has detected them. More recently, however, it has emerged that the U.S. Navy is worried because new Chinese warships carry the Type 517M VHF search radar, which its maker says is an AESA.
None of this is to say that stealth is dead, but it is not reasonable to expect that the cat-and-mouse game of detection and evasion in air combat has stopped, or that it ever will. EA and stealth still do not coexist very comfortably on the same platform, but offboard EA and stealth are synergistic: the smaller the target, the less jamming power is needed to mask it.
But the threat's demonstrated agility drives home the lesson that there is no one winning move in the radar game. Excessive reliance on a single-point design is not a good idea, and using fictitious secrecy to quash the debate is an even worse one.
This column also appears in the April 28 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/28/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-hide-from-russian-radar.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/28/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-hide-from-russian-radar.html)
Ik denk dat als de F-35's stealth niet werkt ( wat voor NL één van de redenen was om het toestel te kopen ), je net zo goed een ander toestel kan kopen. Mocht het nou wel werken, oké dan is het nog ergens goed voor.
Mijn keuze blijft bij :
(50) Eurofighters
of
(50) F/A 18E Advanced Super Hornets (al hebben we geen ijsklimaat, soms, alleen in de Zomer :P)
of
85 Saab Gripen NG's
En de reden voor een NEE tegen deze toestellen van de regering was, een verouderd toestel, dateert uit jaren '80....., worden allemaal nog nieuw gemaakt. En de 2 motoren ( zouden te duur zijn ), ik geloof dat de 2 motoren nog goedkoper in onderhoud zijn dan de eenmotorige F-35.
Maarja niks aan te veranderen..
Citaat van: NLTactical op 29/04/2014 | 19:56 uur
Ik denk dat als de F-35's stealth niet werkt ( wat voor NL één van de redenen was om het toestel te kopen ), je net zo goed een ander toestel kan kopen. Mocht het nou wel werken, oké dan is het nog ergens goed voor.
Mijn keuze blijft bij :
(50) Eurofighters
of
(50) F/A 18E Advanced Super Hornets (al hebben we geen ijsklimaat, soms, alleen in de Zomer :P)
of
85 Saab Gripen NG's
En de reden voor een NEE tegen deze toestellen van de regering was, een verouderd toestel, dateert uit jaren '80....., worden allemaal nog nieuw gemaakt. En de 2 motoren ( zouden te duur zijn ), ik geloof dat de 2 motoren nog goedkoper in onderhoud zijn dan de eenmotorige F-35.
Maarja niks aan te veranderen..
Mocht de begroting significant stijgen dan vind ik de mix gedachte een interessante: 2 sqn F35A en 2 sqn Gripen E of 2 sqn F35 en 12-24 F18G.
Natuurlijk gaan alle Zeeuwse meisjes nu hun 12 cm naaldhakjes uit de kast halen, deze over de volle lengte in de grond rammen en brullen dat dit weer veel te duur wordt....
Boeing, Ready to Bite, "Growls" at Lockheed's F-35
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/04/29/Boeing-Ready-Bite-Growls-Lockheed-s-F-35
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 29/04/2014 | 20:08 uur
Mocht de begroting significant stijgen dan vindt ik de mix gedachte een interessante: 2 sqn F35A en 2 sqn Gripen E of 2 sqn F35 en 12-24 F18G.
Natuurlijk gaan alle Zeeuwse meisjes nu hun 12 cm naaldhakjes uit de kast halen, deze over de volle lengte in de grond rammen en brullen dat dit weer veel te duur wordt....
Boeing, Ready to Bite, "Growls" at Lockheed's F-35
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/04/29/Boeing-Ready-Bite-Growls-Lockheed-s-F-35
Snap dit niet. "mocht de begroting significant stijgen" dan kunnen we gewoon die 85 F35's aanschaffen zoals oorspronkelijk gepland. Waarom dan die Gripen of F18G erbij? maakt het alleen maar duurder ipv goedkoper.
Trouwens, momenteel hebben we heen vaste squadron grootte meer. Aantal jaren geleden was dat nog wel zo (18 dacht ik?). tegenwoordig schommelt het rond de 15 of minder. De operationele squadrons krijgen een aantal toestellen ter beschikking dat is afgestemd op hun takenpakket van dat moment. Squadrons die bijvoorbeeld belast zijn met QRA of waarvan toestellen worden ingezet in Afghanistan, krijgen meer toestellen toegewezen dan squadrons die dergelijke taken op dat moment niet hebben.
The Planet's Best Stealth Fighter Isn't Made in America
Bill Sweetman
The U.S. military likes to think it makes the world's most sophisticated combat aircraft. Think again.
In 2005, Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35, the stealthy new jet they were building for the Pentagon, as a "fifth-generation" fighter. Ironically, it was a term that they had borrowed from Russia to describe a different stealthy fighter, the F-22. But the term caught on. Some of Lockheed's rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that "fourth-generation" was just as capable—whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.
But if "fifth-generation" means more than "the ultimate driving machine," a sixth generation will emerge. Saab—yes, that Saab—can argue that it has built the first such aircraft. The Swedish plane has got a mouthful of a name: the JAS 39E Gripen. But it could well be the future of air combat.
The concept behind the "fifth generation" of fighters is almost 30 years old. It dates to the final turning point in the Cold War, when the Reagan administration accelerated the arms race, believing (correctly) that the Soviet economic engine would throw a rod first. The F-22 was designed for a challenging but simple war: if you were in a NATO fighter and the nose was pointed east, pretty much everyone headed your way was trying to kill you.
Defense technology led aerospace in those days, and aerospace drove many other technologies. Today's gaming, simulation and movies are descended from 1980s military simulators.
The world has changed a bit. Operation Allied Force in 1999 presaged the air campaigns of the 2000s, where targets were soft but hard to find, and harder yet to pick out of the civilian environment. We can say little for certain about the nature of future conflict, except that it is likely to be led by, and revolve around, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). For the individual pilot, sailor or soldier, that means having better sense of the conflict zone is key.
Demographics and economics are squeezing the size of the world's militaries—nations with more than 100 combat aircraft are few and getting fewer. There are no blank checks for overruns.
Much of the technology of 1995, let alone 1985, has a Flintstones look from today's perspective. (My 1985 computer boasted 310 kB of storage and communicated at a screaming 300 bits per second.) Software is no longer what makes machines work; an iPhone is hardware that is valued because of the apps that it supports. This technology is characterized by development and deployment cycles measured in months. In aerospace, the lead in materials and manufacturing has gone to the commercial side.
The conundrum facing fighter planners is that, however smart your engineering, these aircraft are expensive to design and build, and have a cradle-to-grave product life that is far beyond either the political or technological horizon.
The reason that the JAS 39E may earn "sixth generation" tag is that it has been designed with these issues in mind. Software comes first: the new hardware runs the latest Mission System 21 software, the latest roughly-biennial release in the series that started with the earlier, A and B models of the aircraft.
Long life requires adaptability, both across missions and through-life. The Gripen was designed as a small aircraft with a relatively large payload. And by porting most of the software to the new version, the idea is that all of the C and D models' weapons and capabilities, and then some, are ready to go on the E.
The Swedes have invested in state-of-the-art sensors, including what may be the first in-service electronic warfare system using gallium nitride technology. It's significant that a lot of space is devoted to the system used to pick out friendly from hostile aircraft; a good IFF ("identification friend-or-foe") system is most important in a confused situation where civilian, friendly, neutral, questionable and hostile actors are sharing the same airspace.
Sweden's ability to develop its own state-of-the-art fighters has long depended on blending home-grown and imported technology. Harvesting technology rather than inventing it becomes more important as commercial technology takes a leading role and becomes more global. The JAS 39E engine is from the U.S., the radar from Britain and the infra-red search and track system is from Italy. Much of the airframe may be built in Brazil.
However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a "sixth generation" tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world's fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: "The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way"—and neither can many others.
It's an ambitious goal, and it is the first time that Sweden has undertaken such a project in the international spotlight. But if it is successful it will teach lessons that nobody can afford not to learn.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/24/the-planet-s-best-stealth-fighter-isn-t-made-in-america.html
Citaat van: Strata op 29/04/2014 | 20:26 uur
Snap dit niet. "mocht de begroting significant stijgen" dan kunnen we gewoon die 85 F35's aanschaffen zoals oorspronkelijk gepland. Waarom dan die Gripen of F18G erbij? maakt het alleen maar duurder ipv goedkoper.
85 F35A is wat mij betreft ook prima, ik noemde specifiek de F18G aanvulling gezien het enthousiasme waarmee de RAAF en de USN reageren (als enige gebruikers) waarbij ik me terdege realiseer dat hier ook een aanzienlijk aantal Boeing marketeers aan het werk zijn die "wij van WC eend" prediken...
De Gripen E vind ik persoonlijk alleen interessant in een high/low end mix en zeker niet als primaire kist, al zou ik me deze kist in een maritieme variant kunnen voorstellen op de "mini carriers" voor de KM uit een ander topic.
Een KLu squadron bestand (tot voor kort) uit 18 kisten.
Bij een ruimer budget is het een onderzoek waard.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 29/04/2014 | 20:08 uur
Mocht de begroting significant stijgen dan vindt ik de mix gedachte een interessante: 2 sqn F35A en 2 sqn Gripen E of 2 sqn F35 en 12-24 F18G.
Natuurlijk gaan alle Zeeuwse meisjes nu hun 12 cm naaldhakjes uit de kast halen, deze over de volle lengte in de grond rammen en brullen dat dit weer veel te duur wordt....
Boeing, Ready to Bite, "Growls" at Lockheed's F-35
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/04/29/Boeing-Ready-Bite-Growls-Lockheed-s-F-35
Het verbaast me niets als de levenscyclus kosten van een combi van 2 squadrons F35 & 2 squadrons Gripen lager zijn dan 2-3 squadrons F35. Voor QRA en veel Verwegistan missies kun je dan Gripens gebruiken. En aangezien een leger op de maag marcheert zal het sturen van Gripens snel heel veel pegels schelen.
Het mooiste zou zijn als ze samen met de Belgen worden aangeschaft waarmee je dan veel samen kan doen opgebied van opleiding en onderhoud. Bovendien zou dit goed de druk houden op Lockheed om de kosten te beheersen. Bovendien zijn de F16's compleet gemummificeerd met duct tape op moment dat de F35 instroomt en kun je dan alvast wat Gripens leasen van de Zweden voor bijvoorbeeld de QRA-taak en de luchtpatrouilles van de Baltische staten en IJsland.
Citaat van: mandaje op 29/04/2014 | 20:37 uur
Het verbaast me niets als de levenscyclus kosten van een combi van 2 squadrons F35 & 2 squadrons Gripen lager zijn dan 2-3 squadrons F35. .
En een mooi compromie voor veel mensen denk ik.
Citaat van: NLTactical op 29/04/2014 | 19:56 uur
Ik denk dat als de F-35's stealth niet werkt ( wat voor NL één van de redenen was om het toestel te kopen ), je net zo goed een ander toestel kan kopen. Mocht het nou wel werken, oké dan is het nog ergens goed voor.
Het werkt wel, maar op de manier waarop het is ontworpen. Het is niet bedoeld als allround stealth.
Het wordt door LM en de KLu wel verkocht als een wondermiddeltje, maar dat is het niet. Een Rafale en EF hebben trouwens ook veel kleinere radar signatuur dan hun voorgangers.
Het probleem is wel dat we met een silver bullet zitten die niet werkt. Iets dat de USN oplost door er EAG18's achteraan te laten vliegen. Maar die hebben wij ook niet in huis. Probleem.....
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/04/2014 | 01:03 uur
Het werkt wel, maar op de manier waarop het is ontworpen. Het is niet bedoeld als allround stealth.
Het wordt door LM en de KLu wel verkocht als een wondermiddeltje, maar dat is het niet. Een Rafale en EF hebben trouwens ook veel kleinere radar signatuur dan hun voorgangers.
Het probleem is wel dat we met een silver bullet zitten die niet werkt. Iets dat de USN oplost door er EAG18's achteraan te laten vliegen. Maar die hebben wij ook niet in huis. Probleem.....
Hier mogen ze van mij wel eens wat kamervragen over stellen.
En maar roepen de de F35 zo duur is!
In het Duits een verhaal over de verdubbelde Eurofighter kosten: 140 kisten met een totaal plaatje van 60 miljard euro
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/bericht-des-bundesrechnungshofs-die-kosten-fuer-den-eurofighter-verdoppeln-sich-auf-60-milliarden-12916237.html via @faz_net
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/04/2014 | 09:11 uur
En maar roepen de de F35 zo duur is!
In het Duits een verhaal over de verdubbelde Eurofighter kosten: 140 kisten met een totaal plaatje van 60 miljard euro
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/bericht-des-bundesrechnungshofs-die-kosten-fuer-den-eurofighter-verdoppeln-sich-auf-60-milliarden-12916237.html via @faz_net
De Eurofighter heeft dus de twijfelachtige eers ongeveer net zo duur te zijn als de F35.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/04/2014 | 10:34 uur
De Eurofighter heeft dus de twijfelachtige eers ongeveer net zo duur te zijn als de F35.
Waarbij deze toch uit de ontwikkelfase is en een doorontwikkeling naar tranche 3b niet is meegerekend. Met de 3b, die ideale EF versie voor de komende jaren (als de ontwikkeling doorgaat) komen er dus nog een paar euro's bij.
De kosten van de F35 gaan langzaam maar zeker naar beneden (tenzij iedereen - aanzienlijk - minder dan het beoogde aantal besteld)
F-35 is Liaoning's worst nightmare, says Global Times
Staff Reporter 2014-04-29
The US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is capable of combating China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, reports Huanqiu, the website of China's nationalistic Global Times tabloid.
In a hypothetical aircraft carrier battle between China and the United States, the main fighter jets would include the United States' F-35C fifth-generation multirole fighter developed by Lockheed Martin and China's J-15 carrier-based jet developed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation.
The F-35 is equipped with extremely powerful offensive capabilities for both land and sea combat, with a weapons load of eight tonnes and the capacity to carry four AIM20C and AIM-9X mid-range and short-range air-to-air missiles.
In an attack on the Liaoning the F-35 could carry joint strike missiles developed in Norway, which have a range of 290 kilometers. The J-15, on the other hand, could carry two YJ8-3 anti-missiles with a range of only 180 km.
In terms of radar technology, the US has the clear upper hand with its AN/APG-81 AESA radar developed by Northrop Grumman, which has a thousand transceivers with the ability to simultaneously search for 23 moving targets, including 19 targets in just 2.4 seconds, after which it would turn to tracking mode.
Even against China's J-20, the stealth, twin-engine fifth-generation fighter aircraft prototype being developed by Chengdu Aerospace Corporation, the F-35 would still be the first to detect its opponent due to its superior radar.
Observers are asking whether the Japan Air Self-Defense Force will make modifications to its F-35A jets to use the domestically developed AAM-4 and AAM-5 medium-range active radar-guided air-to-air missiles or if they will use US missiles given the differences in dimensions.
The problem for Japan is the cost of the F-35A, which could mean fewer aircraft if the price continues to rise. The price of the F-35A was US$111.6 million back in 2010, while the F-35B cost US$109.4 million and the F-35C was priced at US$142.9 million; since then the average price of one F-35 has risen to as high as US$228 million, according to some sources.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140429000104&cid=1101&MainCatID=11
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/04/2014 | 10:39 uur
Waarbij deze toch uit de ontwikkelfase is en een doorontwikkeling naar tranche 3b niet is meegerekend. Met de 3b, die ideale EF versie voor de komende jaren (als de ontwikkeling doorgaat) komen er dus nog een paar euro's bij.
De kosten van de F35 gaan langzaam maar zeker naar beneden (tenzij iedereen - aanzienlijk - minder dan het beoogde aantal besteld)
Hangt er vanaf wat die kost. Heb ergens gelezen dat de ontwikkeling 1 miljard zou zijn. Een kleine investering. Zeker als je bedenkt dat de Tornado's toch een keer vervangen moeten worden.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/04/2014 | 10:43 uur
Hangt er vanaf wat die kost. Heb ergens gelezen dat de ontwikkeling 1 miljard zou zijn. Een kleine investering. Zeker als je bedenkt dat de Tornado's toch een keer vervangen moeten worden.
Zeker.... al begin ik het donker bruine vermoeden te krijgen dat dit niet meer gaat gebeuren al zou de huidige roep om meer Europese defensie (niet alleen in Nederland) hier een positieve bijdrage aan kunnen leveren.
9000 Flight Hours for Italian AMXs in Afghanistan
(Source: Italian air force; issued April 28, 2014)
(Issued in Italian only; unofficial translation by Defense-Aerospace.com)
ISAF uses Italian air force AMX light fighters mainly for ISR and close air support missions in Herat. (Italian AF photo)
The four Italian Air Force AMX fighter aircraft deployed in Afghanistan have passed the milestone of 9,000 flight hours, in over 3,000 missions, since they were deployed to Herat as part of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) on November 7, 2009.
The aircraft, from the 51st Squadron, based at Istrana and the 32nd Squadron, based at Amendola, are part of the "Black Cats" flight group of the Joint Air Task Force, commanded by Colonel Francesco Saverio Agresti. Their missions are predominantly intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) in support of Regional Command West, the regional command based on the "Sassari" brigade, and which is in charge of ISAF operations in the west of the country.
For the "Black Cats", commanded by Major Alberto Faccini, this milestone, which sets a new record for Italian military aircraft on foreign deployment since the end of World War II, is a very significant step as it was reached in a very difficult environment, and was only possible because of the professionalism of the ground support personnel who carry out the maintenance of the aircraft.
"These aircraft," said the commander of Regional Command West, General Manlio Scopigno, "is a resource of fundamental importance for the operational effectiveness of the Italian-led multinational contingent, and is of special strategic value for their tactical and close air support missions which benefit ground forces."
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=153531&shop=dae&modele=release# (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=153531&shop=dae&modele=release#)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/04/2014 | 10:46 uur
Zeker.... al begin ik het donker bruine vermoeden te krijgen dat dit niet meer gaat gebeuren al zou de huidige roep om meer Europese defensie (niet alleen in Nederland) hier een positieve bijdrage aan kunnen leveren.
Er moet in ieder geval vervanging komen. En of dat Gripen met EJ220 worden, of EF's, F35's of een nieuw te ontwikkelen kist, opties zijn er. Maar een Luftwaffe van 140 toestellen zou wel erg treurig zijn. Het veruit grootste (inwoners) en sterkste (BNP) land van Europa, en dan daarmee op de proppen komen. Nog even los van de kleinere marine en kleine landmacht.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/04/2014 | 11:56 uur
Er moet in ieder geval vervanging komen. En of dat Gripen met EJ220 worden, of EF's, F35's of een nieuw te ontwikkelen kist, opties zijn er. Maar een Luftwaffe van 140 toestellen zou wel erg treurig zijn. Het veruit grootste (inwoners) en sterkste (BNP) land van Europa, en dan daarmee op de proppen komen. Nog even los van de kleinere marine en kleine landmacht.
Op dit punt zijn we het volledig eens!
Gripen E Production Is Fully Under Way
(Source: Saab AB; issued April 29, 2014)
Employees from virtually every part of Saab are involved in the Gripen E project. Agreements have also been struck with more than 30 major development suppliers that are helping to realise Gripen E.
"What we are doing now is unique," says Lars-Erik Svedlund, Programme Manager for Gripen E/F. "We received the order from the Swedish state back in February 2013 and since then we have been working to assemble and trial the 39-7 test aircraft.
"When it comes to the suppliers we work with, we expect them to believe in the project and so they must be prepared to make their own investments," explains Lars-Erik Svedlund. "Here we have also been pleasantly surprised by the response. Many companies, both in Sweden and abroad, are investing heavily in order to work with Gripen E.
"It is great to know that only a few countries and companies in the world are capable of doing what we are doing right now," says Lars-Erik Svedlund proudly.
One motivating factor for everyone involved is that production has begun. It is simply more tangible and substantial now. The assembly of the first fuselage sections for test aircraft 39-8 started before the summer of 2013 and the design department and the workshops are fully engaged in developing and producing components for Gripen E.
Facts: major milestones
-- 2014: the various Gripen E parts will be assembled to form a complete aircraft.
-- 2015: the first test flights are planned for 39-8, the first aircraft built according to Gripen E specifications.
-- 2018: the first series-produced aircraft delivered under contract.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/153588/saab-launches-gripen-e-production.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 11:51 uur
Al gelezen dat de 140 EF de Duitsers 60 miljard euro gaat kosten?
60.000/140=428 miljoen per kist.
Het voordeel is, je weet in ieder geval waar je aan toe bent. Voor de F35 weet niemand het. Als de F35 in aanschaf inderdaad €35 miljoen gaat kosten zullen de totale levensduurkosten ook aanzienlijk dalen, en kom je waarschijnlijk nooit op de €428 miljoen.
Echter, terwijl Canada rekent op F35's van $45 miljoen, zou de realiteit wel eens anders kunnen zijn. In 2014 kostte een F35A $225 miljoen. En dat is voor de VS, die natuurlijk al sterke infrastructuur hebben.
De huidige schatting voor Canada, 65 jets, is $56 miljard, maar dit kan oplopen, als het echt uit de hand loopt, tot:
CitaatUnder the worst-case scenario, the report by University of British Columbia academic Michael Byers predicts, the full lifetime bill for F-35 Lightning jets would hit $126-billion – about $81-billion higher than Ottawa's working estimate of $45.8-billion.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35-costs-could-double-over-programs-life-expert-says/article18325378/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35-costs-could-double-over-programs-life-expert-says/article18325378/)
m.a.w. :
Volgens de officiele Canades plannen zijn de kosten 45.800/65=704miljoen/€507 miljoen --> 18.5% duurder
Volgens het rapport komen de kosten waarschijnlijk op: 56.000/65=861miljoen/€620M --> 45% duurder
In een worst case scenario (Italie koopt geen 138, NL geen 85, etc etc) 126.000/65=1938miljoen/€1395 miljoen --> 226% duurder
En dan komt de volgende interesante vraag. In theorie schiet een F35 op grote afstand alle Eurofighters dood en gaat naar huis. Maar doet het dat in de praktijk ook? Gezien de prijs komt het toestel een overmacht tegen.
6 F35's tegen 9 Eurofighters
2/totaal 12 Amraam 4/totaal 36 Meteor
2/12 Sidewinder 4/36 IRIS-T
De F35 wint als deze inderdaad al zijn Amraams af kan schieten voor deze is gezien door de EF, en een hit-kill van 75% haalt.
Maar wat als ze ze niet op tijd zien? Stel ze zien elkaar gelijk, en vuren 4 missiles af van beide worden er 2 geraakt. EF heeft nog minimaal 24 Meteors over, maximaal 28. De F35 heeft nog minimaal 4 en maximaal 8 AMRAAM's over.
En dan is de vraag hebben de EF nog zin om verder te gaan, zo ja, vliegen 7 EF op 4 F35 af, een 75% overwicht, of maken zich al Supercruisend uit de voeten.
http://defense-update.com/20140103_much-f-35-really-costs.html#.U2IkRlf-stU (http://defense-update.com/20140103_much-f-35-really-costs.html#.U2IkRlf-stU)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 12:55 uur
Er zal idd niet zoveel verschil zitten in aanschaf en exploitatie tussen een EF en een F35A, mijn punt is dat de EF door velen de hemel in geprezen wordt vanwege de prijs kwaliteit verhouding maar met name omdat deze zoveel goedkoper zouden zijn....
Ik heb daar mijn twijfels bij, in ieder geval op dit forum zijn er niet veel die dat ding de hemel inprijzen (pun intended)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 12:55 uur
Bij de Gripen E is het helemaal "prays to the viking", een interessante constatering gezien deze als origineel gebouwd exemplaar pas in 2015 het luchtruim kiest om aan zijn test periode te beginnen.
Een hypermoderne kist dus in vergelijking met die 15 jaar oude F35 8)
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/05/2014 | 13:20 uur
Ik heb daar mijn twijfels bij, in ieder geval op dit forum zijn er niet veel die dat ding de hemel inprijzen (pun intended)
Een hypermoderne kist dus in vergelijking met die 15 jaar oude F35 8)
Leuk verhaal... maar zo lust ik er nog wel één, eerste vlucht Gripen 1988 :silent:
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/05/2014 | 13:20 uur
60.000/140=428 miljoen per kist.
Het voordeel is, je weet in ieder geval waar je aan toe bent. Voor de F35 weet niemand het. Als de F35 in aanschaf inderdaad €35 miljoen gaat kosten zullen de totale levensduurkosten ook aanzienlijk dalen, en kom je waarschijnlijk nooit op de €428 miljoen.
Echter, terwijl Canada rekent op F35's van $45 miljoen, zou de realiteit wel eens anders kunnen zijn. In 2014 kostte een F35A $225 miljoen. En dat is voor de VS, die natuurlijk al sterke infrastructuur hebben.
De huidige schatting voor Canada, 65 jets, is $56 miljard, maar dit kan oplopen, als het echt uit de hand loopt, tot:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35-costs-could-double-over-programs-life-expert-says/article18325378/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35-costs-could-double-over-programs-life-expert-says/article18325378/)
m.a.w. :
Volgens de officiele Canades plannen zijn de kosten 45.800/65=704miljoen/€507 miljoen --> 18.5% duurder
Volgens het rapport komen de kosten waarschijnlijk op: 56.000/65=861miljoen/€620M --> 45% duurder
In een worst case scenario (Italie koopt geen 138, NL geen 85, etc etc) 126.000/65=1938miljoen/€1395 miljoen --> 226% duurder
En dan komt de volgende interesante vraag. In theorie schiet een F35 op grote afstand alle Eurofighters dood en gaat naar huis. Maar doet het dat in de praktijk ook? Gezien de prijs komt het toestel een overmacht tegen.
6 F35's tegen 9 Eurofighters
2/totaal 12 Amraam 4/totaal 36 Meteor
2/12 Sidewinder 4/36 IRIS-T
De F35 wint als deze inderdaad al zijn Amraams af kan schieten voor deze is gezien door de EF, en een hit-kill van 75% haalt.
Maar wat als ze ze niet op tijd zien? Stel ze zien elkaar gelijk, en vuren 4 missiles af van beide worden er 2 geraakt. EF heeft nog minimaal 24 Meteors over, maximaal 28. De F35 heeft nog minimaal 4 en maximaal 8 AMRAAM's over.
En dan is de vraag hebben de EF nog zin om verder te gaan, zo ja, vliegen 7 EF op 4 F35 af, een 75% overwicht, of maken zich al Supercruisend uit de voeten.
http://defense-update.com/20140103_much-f-35-really-costs.html#.U2IkRlf-stU (http://defense-update.com/20140103_much-f-35-really-costs.html#.U2IkRlf-stU)
Wanneer een F-35 2 AMRAAMs en 2 Sidewinders draagt heeft het 2 daarvan sws aan de vleugel, want er passen 2 bommen en 2 sidewinders in het weaponsbay ( geloof ik ) wanneer die andere 2 aan de vleugels hangen is je toestel niet meer ''glad'' en naar mijn idee niet meer stealth dus de EF zullen de F-35 zien.Daarnaast is het afwachten of een F-35 wendbaar is, voor nu, wint de Eurofighter.
Citaat van: NLTactical op 01/05/2014 | 13:30 uur
Thomasen
Je had dit allemaal getypt en toch even mijn reactie erop (over luchtgevecht) :
Wanneer een F-35 2 AMRAAMs en 2 Sidewinders draagt heeft het 2 daarvan sws aan de vleugel, want er passen 2 bommen en 2 sidewinders in het weaponsbay ( geloof ik ) wanneer die andere 2 aan de vleugels hangen is je toestel niet meer ''glad'' en naar mijn idee niet meer stealth dus de EF zullen de F-35 zien.Daarnaast is het afwachten of een F-35 wendbaar is, voor nu, wint de Eurofighter.
Ja, was daar m.i. off-topic, dus maar hier geplaatst, waar deze discussie al een aantal keer gevoerd is ;)
Voor zover ik weet moet een F35 2 AMRAAM en 2 Sidewinder intern kunnen dragen.
Een EF kan 4 AMRAAM of 4 Meteor dragen in de 'semi-conformal'(5,6,8,9) posities:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-1T_6cfCzbGE%2FT2nZSvZb-YI%2FAAAAAAAAAxE%2FlmC2ckAZNts%2Fs1600%2FF35%2Bhardpoints.bmp&hash=1f4919298a716ba1aa49c5fab653d230d567019a)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi146.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr279%2Fsampaix%2Ftyphoonpylons.jpg&hash=ab6c60eb81874676c42aa9e9cd07127b53096c60)
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/05/2014 | 13:36 uur
Ja, was daar m.i. off-topic, dus maar hier geplaatst, waar deze discussie al een aantal keer gevoerd is ;)
Voor zover ik weet moet een F35 2 AMRAAM en 2 Sidewinder intern kunnen dragen.
Een EF kan 4 AMRAAM of 4 Meteor dragen in de 'semi-conformal'(5,6,8,9) posities:
New (still quite secret) Hit-to-Kill missile for the F-35 unveiled: the Lockheed Martin "Cuda"
http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 13:42 uur
New (still quite secret) Hit-to-Kill missile for the F-35 unveiled: the Lockheed Martin "Cuda"
http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/
First question you ask when meeting a guy with a 'Cuda: "Does it have a Hemi?"
https://www.google.nl/search?q=hemi+mopar&client=firefox-a&hs=WqE&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=88DaM4w0KmGOpM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRoxhn3dpb6s4_gey006rRTPuxUDH_-kRrSQVRxQqq5Rq0GaHqj%253B598%253B483%253BXWtbwzx0U8xoEM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.magnumforce.com%25252Fmagnumforce_161062_motorplate.asp&source=iu&usg=__dQY2obklY0dC-66ZdClbQ71fJWA%3D&sa=X&ei=cWFiU53rI8aJPYTYgJgN&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAQ&biw=1280&bih=736 (https://www.google.nl/search?q=hemi+mopar&client=firefox-a&hs=WqE&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=88DaM4w0KmGOpM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRoxhn3dpb6s4_gey006rRTPuxUDH_-kRrSQVRxQqq5Rq0GaHqj%253B598%253B483%253BXWtbwzx0U8xoEM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.magnumforce.com%25252Fmagnumforce_161062_motorplate.asp&source=iu&usg=__dQY2obklY0dC-66ZdClbQ71fJWA%3D&sa=X&ei=cWFiU53rI8aJPYTYgJgN&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAQ&biw=1280&bih=736)
Citaat van: tentara71 op 01/05/2014 | 17:01 uur
First question you ask when meeting a guy with a 'Cuda: "Does it have a Hemi?"
Vanwaar dit cynisme?
Citaat van: tentara71 op 01/05/2014 | 20:15 uur
Cynisme????
Dan ontgaat mij de vraag: "Does it have a Hemi?" :cute-smile:
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 20:18 uur
Dan ontgaat mij de vraag: "Does it have a Hemi?" :cute-smile:
Google even op Barracuda of 'Cuda. AND Hemi erachter, en je hoort engelen zingen.
http://musclecarwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/70-plymouth-hemi-cuda-148.jpg (http://musclecarwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/70-plymouth-hemi-cuda-148.jpg)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 13:42 uur
New (still quite secret) Hit-to-Kill missile for the F-35 unveiled: the Lockheed Martin "Cuda"
http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/
Ook goed, Sidewinder, Cuda, maakt niet zoveel uit.
Citaat van: tentara71 op 01/05/2014 | 20:21 uur
Google even op Barracuda of 'Cuda. AND Hemi erachter, en je hoort engelen zingen.
;D done... net iets anders dan the sound of freedom... maar oor-strelend en net iets anders dan mijn dieseltje.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 20:18 uur
Dan ontgaat mij de vraag: "Does it have a Hemi?" :cute-smile:
Uitleg wat een Hemi motor is.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hemi.htm
Moderne auto met Hemi motor.
http://www.dodge.com/en/charger/
Citaat van: NLTactical op 01/05/2014 | 13:34 uur
Wanneer een F-35 2 AMRAAMs en 2 Sidewinders draagt heeft het 2 daarvan sws aan de vleugel, want er passen 2 bommen en 2 sidewinders in het weaponsbay ( geloof ik ) wanneer die andere 2 aan de vleugels hangen is je toestel niet meer ''glad'' en naar mijn idee niet meer stealth dus de EF zullen de F-35 zien.Daarnaast is het afwachten of een F-35 wendbaar is, voor nu, wint de Eurofighter.
Een deel is feitelijk onjuist en het andere deel is enorm kort door de bocht. Het BVR luchtgevecht gaat er om wie ''the longest stick'' heeft. Als jij je vijand op een grotere afstand aan kunt grijpen dan hij jou ben je enorm in het voordeel. Belangrijke factoren voor de lengte van je ''stok'' zijn de capaciteiten van je lucht-lucht wapens, radar en RCS.
Stealth is geen afgebakend begrip en een enigszins vreemde term. Daarom kun je ook niet stellen dat een F-35 met een externe AMRAAM niet meer stealth is en dus gezien wordt. Die F-35 wordt sowieso gezien, de vraag is alleen op welke afstand.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 01/05/2014 | 20:43 uur
Een deel is feitelijk onjuist en het andere deel is enorm kort door de bocht. Het BVR luchtgevecht gaat er om wie ''the longest stick'' heeft. Als jij je vijand op een grotere afstand aan kunt grijpen dan hij jou ben je enorm in het voordeel. Belangrijke factoren voor de lengte van je ''stok'' zijn de capaciteiten van je lucht-lucht wapens, radar en RCS.
Stealth is geen afgebakend begrip en een enigszins vreemde term. Daarom kun je ook niet stellen dat een F-35 met een externe AMRAAM niet meer stealth is en dus gezien wordt. Die F-35 wordt sowieso gezien, de vraag is alleen op welke afstand.
De JSF wordt inderdaad gezien.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ausairpower.net%2FVVS%2FSu-30MK-BVR-2.jpg&hash=c2f8f599d8ff1dfc35f7b3ccd5ad46ce0b725b7a)
Citaat van: Ace1 op 01/05/2014 | 22:16 uur
De JSF wordt inderdaad gezien.
Mooie kleurplaat, maar dit zegt helemaal niets. De belangrijkste informatie ontbreekt en van de informatie die er wel op staat is volstrekt onduidelijk of deze klopt.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 01/05/2014 | 23:05 uur
Mooie kleurplaat, maar dit zegt helemaal niets. De belangrijkste informatie ontbreekt en van de informatie die er wel op staat is volstrekt onduidelijk of deze klopt.
De info komt van een onafhankelijke defensie denktank.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html
Citaat van: Ace1 op 01/05/2014 | 22:16 uur
De JSF wordt inderdaad gezien.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ausairpower.net%2FVVS%2FSu-30MK-BVR-2.jpg&hash=c2f8f599d8ff1dfc35f7b3ccd5ad46ce0b725b7a)
Fantastisch, werkelijk waar.. ik geniet altijd van dit soort dingen.
Er zijn nu denk ik 20 man in de gehele fukking wereld op miljarden mensen opgeleid om in de f-35 te vliegen.
Het productie, ontwikkel en test team is een besloten groep met een militaire geheime classificatie waarvan alleen mensen iets weten die het dienen te weten.Het toestel is nog niet in productiefase, het is nog niet af, 99,99 procent van de meningen en zogenaamde 'argumenten gepresenteerd als feiten' is gebaseerd op horen/zien/geruchten/verhalen van derden.
Toch op miraculeuze wijze verschijnen grafieken, vergelijkingen, eindoordelen en meningen over presteren van een vliegtuig wat nog niet eens wordt gemaakt voor de markt maar nog in ontwikkeling is.
Fascinerend.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 01/05/2014 | 23:19 uur
Fantastisch, werkelijk waar.. ik geniet altijd van dit soort dingen.
Er zijn nu denk ik 20 man in de gehele fukking wereld op miljarden mensen opgeleid om in de f-35 te vliegen.
Het toestel is nog niet in productiefase, het is nog niet af, 99,99 procent van de meningen en zogenaamde 'argumenten gepresenteerd als feiten' is gebaseerd op horen/zien/geruchten/verhalen van derden.
Toch op miraculeuze wijze verschijnen grafieken, vergelijkingen, eindoordelen en meningen over presteren van een vliegtuig wat nog niet eens wordt gemaakt voor de markt maar nog in ontwikkeling is.
Fascinerend.
De Auteur heeft in de simulator van de JSF gevlogen
Prima.. dan nog.
Allen gewoon afwachten op de praktijk. Theorie is speculeren.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 01/05/2014 | 23:18 uur
De info komt van een onafhankelijke defensie denktank.
Heb je toevallig ook bekeken hoe oud deze info is? Kijk eens naar de kleine lettertjes aan de onderzijde van de laatste grafiek.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 01/05/2014 | 23:19 uur
Toch op miraculeuze wijze verschijnen grafieken, vergelijkingen, eindoordelen en meningen over presteren van een vliegtuig wat nog niet eens wordt gemaakt voor de markt maar nog in ontwikkeling is.
Fascinerend.
En laten we vooral niet die mensen vergeten die er en belang bij hebben dat de F35 niet het verwachte succes wordt of liever zien dat het budget ergens anders voor gebruikt wordt.
De ontwikkel methode, daar heb ik ook zo mijn vraag tekens bij, wellicht was het slimmer geweest om de US "teens" te vervangen door 3 verschillende modellen, voor het gemak: F35, F36 en F38....
Als ze dat gedaan hadden dan was de cumulatie van ontwikkeling, aanschaf en exploitatie (ook gerekend naar 50 jaar) minimaal net zo hoog, wellicht hoger dan die van het F35 programma.
Een triljard dollar is natuurlijk altijd leuk om aan te vallen zeker als er partijen zijn met onrealistische getallen voor een concurrent, neem het voorbeeld van een concurrent met een de aangegeven US$4.700 per uur aan exploitatie kosten... puur BS.
P.s. zie alleen Duitsland, waar de becijferde totaal kosten voor de EF (blijkbaar) uitkomen op 60 miljard euro voor 140 kisten.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 23:39 uur
De ontwikkel methode, daar heb ik ook zo mijn vraag tekens bij, wellicht was het slimmer geweest om de US "teens" te vervangen door 3 verschillende modellen, voor het gemak: F35, F36 en F38....
Maar als het nu zo'n groot succes is, waarom zou je het volgende keer dan anders doen? Don't fix what ain't broke.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 23:39 uur
Als ze dat gedaan hadden dan was de cumulatie van ontwikkeling, aanschaf en exploitatie (ook gerekend naar 50 jaar) minimaal net zo hoog, wellicht hoger dan die van het F35 programma.
Dat is mogelijk, maar niet noodzakelijk. Het is goed mogelijk dat de kosten dan lager zouden zijn.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/05/2014 | 23:39 uur
Een triljard dollar is natuurlijk altijd leuk om aan te vallen zeker als er partijen zijn met onrealistische getallen voor een concurrent, neem het voorbeeld van een concurrent met een de aangegeven US$4.700 per uur aan exploitatie kosten... puur BS.
Voor dat bedrag kan kun je WW2 nog eens overdoen, als je er zin in hebt.
Financial Cost of World War II1
1 U.S. $341 billion in 1945
2 Germany $272 billion in 1945
3 Soviet Union $192 billion in 1945
4 Britain $120 billion in 1945
5 Italy $94 billion in 1945
6 Japan $56 billion in 1945
Total $1.075 trillion in 1945
http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.nl/ (http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.nl/)
Citaat van: Thomasen op 01/05/2014 | 23:57 uur
Maar als het nu zo'n groot succes is, waarom zou je het volgende keer dan anders doen? Don't fix what ain't broke.
Dat is mogelijk, maar niet noodzakelijk. Het is goed mogelijk dat de kosten dan lager zouden zijn.
Voor dat bedrag kan kun je WW2 nog eens overdoen, als je er zin in hebt.
Financial Cost of World War II1
1 U.S. $341 billion in 1945
2 Germany $272 billion in 1945
3 Soviet Union $192 billion in 1945
4 Britain $120 billion in 1945
5 Italy $94 billion in 1945
6 Japan $56 billion in 1945
Total $1.075 trillion in 1945
http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.nl/ (http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.nl/)
1. Ik denk niet dat ze het nog een keer zo over doen, het levert toch een aantal specifieke problemen op, die opgelost zullen worden, daarnaast had ik liever een YF serie gezien gevolgd door productie.
2. kan in beide gevallen... kort om we weten het niet, veel referentie is er niet. (maar als ik de EuroCanards bij elkaar tel dan gaat het ook aardig in die richting)
3. in de jaren dertig/veertig kocht je een groot vrijstaand huis voor tienduizend gulden
Jump jets for Australia?
2 mei 2014
It has just been pointed out to me that in his press conference of 23 April announcing the decision to buy 58 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) for the Royal Australian Air Force, Prime Minister Abbott made a tantalising reference to future additional purchases of the JSF. If it means what I think it means, it could be highly significant. I'm sure readers will let me know if anyone else has picked up on this quote, but as far as I can see, no one has. Here it is, with my emphasis:
We are certainly retaining the option to purchase an additional squadron — a further 18 Joint Strike Fighters and we haven't decided precisely what type it might be — that will be something that will be looked at in the context of the coming Defence white paper.
Why is the reference to 'type' significant? The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter comes in three versions: A, B and C. The A version is built for air forces, because it's designed to take off and land on normal runways. The C version is built for the US Navy; it has a larger wing, a 'tailhook' and other associated gear so that it can take off and land on US aircraft carriers with short runways.
Then there's the B version, the 'jump jet' which is built for the US Marine Corps, UK Royal Navy, and the Italian Navy. It is also designed to take off and land on carriers, but not the carriers used by the US Navy. America's super carriers use 'catapults' to fling fighters off the bow of the ship at high speed. Landing is also at high speed, with a 'tailhook' at the back of the plane catching on an arresting wire, which slows the plane down as soon as it lands.
But the Marines, Royal Navy and Italian Navy don't operate that type of carrier. They have smaller ships with no catapults or arresting wires, meaning fighters need to be able to take-off without the help of a catapult and land vertically, because there is no arresting gear to slow them down.
So when Mr Abbott talks about the 'type' of F-35 we might buy in future, he can't be talking about the C version; only the US Navy needs them. He can only be suggesting that his government is examining the possibility of buying the F-35B jump jet, which presumably we would operate off the Royal Australian Navy's new 'flat tops', the Canberra and Adelaide.
These two ships can be equipped to operate fast jets; Spain flies Harrier jump jets off its almost-identical flat-tops, and both Canberra and Adelaide will have a 'ski jump' to assist take-off of such jets. Nevertheless, it would represent a substantial policy change. The ADF has always said that the Canberra and Adelaide would operate helicopters only, that the ski jumps were being left on just because it would cost more to remove them, and that Australia had no intention of buying the F-35B.
Judging by Mr Abbott's comments, we will learn more once the White Paper is published. But in the meantime, it looks as if the Australian Government is considering re-entering the aircraft carrier club, of which we have not been a member since HMAS Melbourne was retired in 1982. That would be a big strategic shift which will reverberate throughout the region
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/05/02/f35-Jump-jets-for-Australia-aircraft-carrier.aspx?COLLCC=1023752357&
Gripen E
Questions and Answers
1. What is Gripen E?
Gripen is Saab's multi-role fighter aircraft, it is a proven performer and has been in service since the 1990s. The Gripen chosen by Switzerland is the next-generation version featuring state-of-the-art technology. It is capable of performing any Air-to-Air, Air-to-Surface and reconnaissance mission employing the most modern weapons, radar, and defence systems available today.
2. Why 'E'?
A/B was the first generation of Gripen and was designed to defend Sweden during the Cold War. 'A' designated the single seat version, 'B' the twin seat. The generation which followed, Gripen C/D, and which was sold internationally, followed the same format: 'C' single seat, 'D' twin seat. 'E' is the single seat version of the next-generation Gripen Saab is developing.
3. Who flies Gripen today?
It is a proven, multi-role fighter and the current C/D version is operated by five air forces; Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. The Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK also uses Gripen in its training programme for future test pilots.
4. Is there a strong interest in Gripen?
Yes. There is a strong interest in the next-generation version of Gripen, which Sweden, Switzerland and Brazil have all selected, as well as the C/D version already in use.
5. Why create a new version of Gripen, why not start from scratch with a paper plane?
The Gripen next-generation test-aircraft (39-7) showed that continued development of Gripen was possible and that new requirements sought after by air forces could be met by evolving Gripen C/D; increasing the range, sensor performance, counter measures, communication and weapons load. At the same time, Saab could see that the aircraft's performance could be improved and life cycle cost reduced. Development risk is also reduced by using a proven fighter platform.
6. Why did Switzerland select Gripen?
The Swiss Federal Council – backed by both chambers of the Swiss Parliament - selected Gripen as the preferred candidate to replace their current fleet of F-5 aircraft because it fulfilled all the requirements. In addition to Gripen being a high-tech fighter with excellent operational performance, it is also a cost-efficient option – on acquisition and across its whole lifecycle. This combination makes Gripen unique compared to its competitors.
7. Switzerland and Sweden have a joint procurement. Will they receive the same fighters?
Yes. Sweden and Switzerland will both receive Gripen E and in the same configuration. The Gripen Es for Switzerland will be brand new aircraft, whilst the Swedish Air Force decided to reuse some components from their existing Gripen fleet.
8. How much will Gripen cost Switzerland?
Switzerland has officially stated 3.126 billion Swiss Francs (BCHF) is the total procurement programme, this includes for example, the aircraft package with simulators, logistical support etc., as well as the procurement of weapons and other stores. Sweden's contract value is 2.2 BCHF with Saab's offset obligation 100%, i.e. 2.2 BCHF.
9. How does the cost of Gripen compare to other fighters?
As noted by Jane's, the highly regarded defence analysts, Gripen is by far the most cost-effective fighter among its peers, including F-35, Eurofighter and Rafale.
Gripen's hourly operating costs are around one third of the two engine fighters, such as Eurofighter and Rafale.
According to Janes' the operating costs of 12 aircraft, flying 200 hours per year, for 30 years would be:
Gripen 3.4 billion US dollars
Rafale 12 billion US dollars
Eurofighter 13 billion US dollars
10. Other company's fighter costs often spiral. Could the cost of Switzerland's Gripens rise?
The sale of Gripen to Switzerland is state-to-state, Sweden-to-Switzerland. According to the Swiss and Swedish authorities Switzerland's share of the development costs are included in the fixed price.
11. How does Gripen's performance compare to other fighters?
Today's Gripen C/D is commonly recognised by international experts as being a strong performer in all areas, and with an operational capability that is highly rated. Gripen E will be a most modern and unique fighter. It is important to look at the performance of the entire system, and even take into account factors like reliability, maintainability, operating costs, agreed development programmes even the number of operators.
12. How developed is Gripen E? Is it just a paper plane?
The Gripen NG test-aircraft (39-7) which is the flying platform that is being used to test and develop the new technologies and features to be incorporated into the Gripen E has been flying since 2008 and 93% of the new functions in Gripen E have been implemented or validated.
13. Will other test-aircraft be produced? What do they focus on? When are their first flights?
Yes. Saab has four test-aircraft in total; 39-7 is already flying and the focus is primarily validation of design, risk mitigation, sensor integration, avionics systems. In 39-8 it is airframe and general systems, 39-9 concentrates on tactical systems and 39-10 the production airframe is tested. 39-8, 39-9 and 39-10 fly in 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively.
14. When will Switzerland receive its Gripen E fighters?
2018 onwards.
15. How can you guarantee 2018 as a delivery date?
Saab and The Swedish Government have more than 30 years of experience with Gripen. The programme has been successful and cost-effective and the Swedish authorities have been successful in keeping the budget and schedule, which is a proof of our success. The Gripen E programme builds on that heritage.
16. Does Saab make all of the components in Gripen?
Saab has a complete life-cycle commitment for Gripen, including design, engineering, testing and production – Saab is involved from start to finish and for the lifetime of the fighter. Saab both designs Gripen and also produces many of the cutting-edge components found in the aircraft, including onboard systems such as avionic computers.
Many important subsystems are also procured on the global market or supplied from partners to Saab. Saab works with the best, and the components - also called Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) - include the AESA radar produced by Selex ES, the most modern of its kind.
17. Why does Saab procure COTS, rather than making everything itself?
Many important components in Gripen E are procured on the global market or supplied by partners to Saab. That is one of the best things with Gripen. Sab is building a fighter which meets the latest requirements, and Saab does this by working with the world's best suppliers, selecting, adapting and incorporating them in Gripen. Saab does this instead of reinventing the wheel on every component: it keeps risks and costs low and quality high.
18. Will Switzerland produce parts for Gripen E?
Yes. Suppliers are sought or have been found for the rear fuselage, pylons (weapons stations), tail cone, air brakes and the external 'drop' tanks – important parts of Gripen E.
19. How can Saab guarantee the quality of Gripen?
Saab has built a reputation for quality over 75 years and through the production of some 5000 aircraft. Saab's guarantee is a complete life-cycle commitment for Gripen, including design, engineering, testing and production – Saab is involved from start to finish and for the lifetime of the fighter.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-and-Switzerland/Questions--Answers/Gripen-E-Switzerland/
Boeing sees contract soon for 47 more F/A-18, EA-18G fighters
Boeing Co has reached agreement with the U.S. Navy on a multibillion-dollar contract for 47 more F/A-18 fighter jets and EA-18G electronic attack planes funded in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and is "very close" to signing a contract, a top company executive said Monday.
Mike Gibbons, Boeing's program manager for both fighter jets, said the contract would include 11 F/A-18 Super Hornets funded in fiscal 2013, 21 EA-18G "Growlers" funded in fiscal 2014, 12 Growlers for Australia and three additional EA-18G planes included in a legal settlement with the U.S. government.
He said the contract could be finalized and signed within the next two months. Gibbons gave no details on the total value of the contract.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-boeing-sees-contract-soon-for-47-more-f/a-18-ea-18g-fighters-2014-05#ixzz30uuDNsm3
Turkije koopt eerste JSF-toestellen
ANKARA -
Turkije heeft besloten om te beginnen twee F-35's of 'Joint Strike Fighters' van de Amerikaanse vliegtuigfabrikant Lockheed Martin te kopen. Dit meldden de Turkse autoriteiten dinsdag. De Turkse luchtmacht is na die van de VS en Groot-Brittannië de grootste van de NAVO-landen.
Het vliegtuig is nog in ontwikkeling en kampt met tal van technische problemen. Die hebben de F-35 of 'JSF' omstreden gemaakt. Tal van landen hebben plannen het toestel te kopen opgegeven of het aantal beoogde vliegtuigen flink teruggeschroefd. Turkije was van plan er 100 aan te schaffen, maar het is niet duidelijk of het zo ver komt.
Nederland wil nu 37 van deze toestellen kopen om in 2019 de F-16 te vervangen.
Telegraag, di 06 mei 2014, 20:40
Of wil Turkije de toestellen kopen om er van te leren voor hun eigen project?! beproefde methode!
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/05/2014 | 22:34 uur
Of wil Turkije de toestellen kopen om er van te leren voor hun eigen project?! beproefde methode!
Voorlopig staat de Turkse "wens" op 100, jouw punt is zeker interessant om in de gaten te houden immers 100 F35's kopen is één, daarnaast nog een autonome (wellicht in samenwerking met Saab) 5e generatie kist ontwikkelen tot een operationeel concept in een interessant en betaalbaar aantal is twee.
Dat zal de U.S natuurlijk voorkomen.
Je koopt hem, of niet.
Wordt er een aankoopprocedure afgebroken zie ik het voor me dat al geleverde toestellen desnoods teruggekocht worden met Amerikaanse staatssteun. Ze zijn niet gek natuurlijk. Ik weet dat dit in het verleden heeft plaatsgevonden.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 06/05/2014 | 22:45 uur
Dat zal de U.S natuurlijk voorkomen.
Je koopt hem, of niet.
Wordt er een aankoopprocedure afgebroken zie ik het voor me dat al geleverde toestellen desnoods teruggekocht worden met Amerikaanse staatssteun. Ze zijn niet gek natuurlijk. Ik weet dat dit in het verleden heeft plaatsgevonden.
waarschijnlijk...maar ook in het verleden is het landen gelukt om ook Amerikaanse technologie te kopen en/of te kopiëren. Best een succesvolle formule blijkt...als je eigen defensieindustrie wilt opbouwen. En die ambities heeft Turkije overduidelijk.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/05/2014 | 22:34 uur
Of wil Turkije de toestellen kopen om er van te leren voor hun eigen project?! beproefde methode!
Turkije heeft ook een nevenbelang; Vwb de P&W motoren willen zij een onderhoudslijn gaan openen met als doel het totale onderhoud binnen te halen.
Citaat van: Lex op 06/05/2014 | 22:48 uur
Turkije heeft ook een nevenbelang; Vwb de P&W motoren willen zij een onderhoudslijn gaan openen met als doel het totale onderhoud binnen te halen.
Nederland ook.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/05/2014 | 23:06 uur
Nederland ook.
Yep; daarom wordt het interessant wat hieromtrent gaat gebeuren.
Citaat van: Lex op 06/05/2014 | 22:48 uur
Turkije heeft ook een nevenbelang; Vwb de P&W motoren willen zij een onderhoudslijn gaan openen met als doel het totale onderhoud binnen te halen.
interessant. Motoren zijn altijd een belangrijk aspect (en bv. voor China nog steeds een probleem om ze goed zelf te ontwikkelen). Interessant ook hoe dit inderdaad afloopt gezien ook Nederlandse plannen. Eens kijken aan welke bondgenoot de Amerikanen meer belang hechten.. ;)
Waarschijnlijk degene die wel zijn verzekeringspremie netjes betaald. :crazy:
Citaat van: Elzenga op 07/05/2014 | 09:42 uur
interessant. Motoren zijn altijd een belangrijk aspect (en bv. voor China nog steeds een probleem om ze goed zelf te ontwikkelen). Interessant ook hoe dit inderdaad afloopt gezien ook Nederlandse plannen. Eens kijken aan welke bondgenoot de Amerikanen meer belang hechten.. ;)
De Amerikanen zijn wat minder blij met de Turken nu deze toch serieus het bed met de Chinezen lijken te willen delen als het gaat om de aanschaf van een nieuw grondgebonden luchtverdedigingssysteem.
Het worden zeker interessante tijden, ook spannend voor de Woensdrecht omgeving.
Tot hoever zijn de Nederlandse JSF aantallen gezonken? Ik herinner 37 te hebben gelezen, ergens.
edit, heh ik heb blijkbaar een nieuwe bril nodig :)
37 toestelletjes, geen tanks, een paar howitzers tjonge er blijft niet veel over. We hebben weer een gebroken geweer legertje, lijkt wel als of de geschiedenis herhaald.
We kunnen er beter ook gewoon mee stoppen.
( no pun intended )
Defence Committee Says Cut F-35 Fighter Jet Program
(van 131 -> 90 -> 45 stuks en ik kan me voorstellen dat de Italianen met dit aantal helemaal voor het B-type gaan en geen A maar aanschaffen, wel duurder in aanschaf maar 1 type toestel, voor onderhoud, onderdelen e.d. En alle toestellen inzetbaar vanaf zowel land als vliegdekschepen en LPD, LHD's)
(Source: Gazzetta del Sud; published May 7, 2014)
ROME --- The Lower House defence committee on Wednesday okayed a controversial 50% cut to the government's budget for the F-35 fighter jet.
Allies, including the United States, have urged Italy to maintain its plans to buy 90 of the aircraft which cost an estimated $200 million each. Later, aerospace manufacturer Lockheed Martin said in a statement that it estimates the cost of the aircraft at about $108 million each, engine included.
The [committee's] decision was split, as members of ex-premier Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia (FI) party voted against the cuts, members of Premier Matteo Renzi's Democratic Party (PD) voted in favor, and some committee members abstained.
The committee has been reviewing the overall defence budget, as Renzi's government looks for ways to reallocate its spending from lower-priority to higher-priority areas.
Earlier this week, John R. Phillips, the United States ambassador to Rome, said that because Italy has a strategic role in regional defence, it must go ahead with its F-35 fighter-jet purchase plan
In March, the Italian government froze spending on the fighter program and said that as a cost-cutting measure, it was considering reducing the number of F-35s it will purchase. The aircraft are among the costliest jet fighters in the world and are developed jointly by a number of allied nations including Italy.
If the government decides to cut the F-35 program, it would mark the second time Italy has reduced the number of these Lockheed Martin fighters, a budget item which is currently worth about 11.8 billion euros over 45 years beginning in 2015.
Italy in 2012 announced plans to cut its order to 90 from the 131 jets originally agreed to in 2002, saving the country some five billion euros.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The committee's vote does not bind the government in any way but, as reported by Reuters, "it underlines the political pressure on Renzi to cut the program as part of a broader squeeze on public spending."
But the Italian daily Repubblica reported that "there is an agreement between the PD [party of Prime Minister Renzi] and the government on a "drastic cut" to the F-35 procurement program.
The PD's recommendation, which the committee approved, says that "the F-35 does not guarantee industrial gains for Italy," Reuters added, "and cites the repeated technical difficulties and cost overruns of the program as reasons to reduce the order.").
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/153781/defense-committee-halves-italy%E2%80%99s-f_35-buy.html
Citaat van: Harald op 08/05/2014 | 13:20 uur
(van 131 -> 90 -> 45 stuks en ik kan me voorstellen dat de Italianen met dit aantal helemaal voor het B-type gaan en geen A maar aanschaffen, wel duurder in aanschaf maar 1 type toestel, voor onderhoud, onderdelen e.d. En alle toestellen inzetbaar vanaf zowel land als vliegdekschepen en LPD, LHD's)
Dat verwacht ik ook.
Maar de Italianen hebben hiermee wel een probleem, een kostbare productielijn opgezet voor NL+IT kisten voor het oorspronkelijk plangetal 131+85 (216 kisten) en dat worden er nu 45+37 (82) (en heel misschien nog een kleine 2e batch extra van 5 á 10 kisten voor NL)
Duurder kunnen de Italianen het voor Nederland niet maken, want dan stappen we over op de US productielijn.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/05/2014 | 13:38 uur
Dat verwacht ik ook.
Maar de Italianen hebben hiermee wel een probleem, een kostbare productielijn opgezet voor NL+IT kisten voor het oorspronkelijk plangetal 131+85 (216 kisten) en dat worden er nu 45+37 (82) (en heel misschien nog een kleine 2e batch extra van 5 á 10 kisten voor NL)
Duurder kunnen de Italianen het voor Nederland niet maken, want dan stappen we over op de US productielijn.
Ik kan me dan ook voorstellen dat de Italianen hun eigen B's assembleren in hun eigen fabriek en geen A's gaan maken en wij onze A's uit de VS krijgen.
Maar dat op deze manier de rendabiliteit van een fabriek op basis van de verwachte productie en nu de waarschijnlijke (ver naar beneden bijgestelde) productie, ver te zoeken is .
Want de A's voor Noorwegen en de B's voor UK zullen beide uit de VS komen. De Turken zullen ook eisen hebben omtrent eigen productie. Dus veel extra toestellen uit Europa zal er niet inzitten.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/05/2014 | 13:38 uur
Dat verwacht ik ook.
Maar de Italianen hebben hiermee wel een probleem, een kostbare productielijn opgezet voor NL+IT kisten voor het oorspronkelijk plangetal 131+85 (216 kisten) en dat worden er nu 45+37 (82) (en heel misschien nog een kleine 2e batch extra van 5 á 10 kisten voor NL)
Duurder kunnen de Italianen het voor Nederland niet maken, want dan stappen we over op de US productielijn.
Als LM en de US gelijk krijgen, dan worden er nog honderden F35's verkocht in Europa, dus kansen zat voor de Italianen. Bovendien, ze hebben vzv ik weet geen productielijn, alleen een assemblagelijn. Misschien dat ergens begin '20's nog een Spaanse bestelling binnenkomt voor een handjevol kisten. En een extra Italiaanse order kan ook voor de toekomst niet uitgesloten worden.
Bij een dergelijk aantal is volledig overgaan op de B misschien wat duurder, maar het geeft wel meer operationele flexibiliteit. Lijkt me een verstandige zet.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 08/05/2014 | 14:16 uur
Als LM en de US gelijk krijgen, dan worden er nog honderden F35's verkocht in Europa, dus kansen zat voor de Italianen. Bovendien, ze hebben vzv ik weet geen productielijn, alleen een assemblagelijn. Misschien dat ergens begin '20's nog een Spaanse bestelling binnenkomt voor een handjevol kisten. En een extra Italiaanse order kan ook voor de toekomst niet uitgesloten worden.
Bij een dergelijk aantal is volledig overgaan op de B misschien wat duurder, maar het geeft wel meer operationele flexibiliteit. Lijkt me een verstandige zet.
:angel: Zelfs de Duitsers (heb ik uit zeer betrouwbare bron) zijn al diverse keren bij LM op de koffie geweest, immers ze stoppen nu bij 140 EF en (een deel van) de Tornado vloot zal toch ook wellicht een keer vervangen moeten worden...
In Europa zie ik verder op termijn nog een x aantal F35A/B verkocht worden aan: Spanje, Polen, België, Denemarken en wellicht ooit aan Portugal en Finland.
Er is zowaar nog hoop op een goede afloop van het F-35 drama.
Via http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/ bij het volgende uitstekende en recente stuk uitgekomen:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Pietrucha.pdf?source=GovD
Zeer aanbevolen.
Citaat van: pitbone45 op 08/05/2014 | 23:32 uur
Er is zowaar nog hoop op een goede afloop van het F-35 drama.
Via http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/ bij het volgende uitstekende en recente stuk uitgekomen:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Pietrucha.pdf?source=GovD
Zeer aanbevolen.
Wij van WC-eend keuren vandaag....... WC-eend... :angel:
Citaat van: pitbone45 op 08/05/2014 | 23:32 uur
Er is zowaar nog hoop op een goede afloop van het F-35 drama.
Via http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/ bij het volgende uitstekende en recente stuk uitgekomen:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Pietrucha.pdf?source=GovD
Zeer aanbevolen.
Met dit verhaal ga je het m.i. niet redden in de wereld van 2025+, was er een grotere focus op high end/low end, dan zou het meer acceptabel zijn.
In deze form is het een kansloos verhaal.
Het was de eerste keer dat ik een reëel en dermate uitgewerkt alternatief voor de volledige uitrol van de F-35 zag en dan ook nog door een kolonel uit de USAF. Dat is in elk geval dapper van de man zelf en mogelijk ook een teken aan de wand.
Citaat van: pitbone45 op 09/05/2014 | 00:12 uur
Het was de eerste keer dat ik een reëel en dermate uitgewerkt alternatief voor de volledige uitrol van de F-35 zag en dan ook nog door een kolonel uit de USAF. Dat is in elk geval dapper van de man zelf en mogelijk ook een teken aan de wand.
Dapper zeker, en ik zag ook hele goede elementen in zijn verhaal. Hij benoemd m.i. terecht de zorgen en uitdagingen waar de USAF voor staat.
Twijfel over de continuïteit over Saab en de Gripen.
In het Duits.
http://www.solothurnerzeitung.ch/schweiz/neue-zweifel-an-saab-droht-dem-gripen-hersteller-ein-grounding-127958488
Citaat van: pitbone45 op 09/05/2014 | 00:12 uur
Het was de eerste keer dat ik een reëel en dermate uitgewerkt alternatief voor de volledige uitrol van de F-35 zag en dan ook nog door een kolonel uit de USAF. Dat is in elk geval dapper van de man zelf en mogelijk ook een teken aan de wand.
Dat ben ik wel met je eens, gisteren had ik het stuk gelezen, ik denk dat zijn basis gedachte aan dit alles is dat de toekomstige toestellen, steeds duurder en onderhoudstechnisch moeilijker worden dus ook meer gaan kosten en dus veel zwaarder drukken op het budget.
Daarom zijn gedachte om technologie van F35 in te bouwen in bestaande /nieuwe toestellen zoals de F-16 en F-15 geen rare gedachte, alleen is dit een interim oplossing. Tot aan 2030 zal/kan dit verhaal nog opgaan, maar daar na niet meer dan moet er vernieuwing komen.
Ook zijn gedachte van de ontwikkeling van een F-15G is goed om de weasel-functie (SEAD/EW) weer goed op te kunnen vullen.
Waar het nu mak gaat (mijn inziens) is dat er een te grote focus is geweest op 1 type toestel wat alles moet gaan kunnen en daar loopt de US nu tegen aan.
De F-35 is geen vervanger voor de F-15. De F-22 is wel een vervanger voor de F-15, maar hier is de productie van stop gezet.
Dat was (denk ik) een fout van de US welke in de komende tig jaren op zal gaan breken. De F-22 had doorontwikkeld moeten worden met een FB-22 als 2-zitter, welke de taken van de F-15 op termijn had over kunnen nemen en ook de SEAD/EW taken had kunnen oppakken.
Want door het uitfaseren van zowel de (E)F-111 en de F-4G Wild Weasel is er een gat ontstaan.
Misschien moeten ze dat alsnog wel gaan doen
HASC OKs $600B in 2015 DoD Spending, Nixes A-10 Retirement Plans ( nog geen uitfaseren van de A-10 )
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) early Thursday unanimously approved a measure that would authorize just over $600 billion in 2015 US defense spending and block plans to retire the A-10 attack plane.
..../....
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140508/DEFREG02/305080017/HASC-OKs-600B-2015-DoD-Spending-Nixes-10-Retirement-Plans
Citaat van: Harald op 09/05/2014 | 09:11 uur
De F-35 is geen vervanger voor de F-15. De F-22 is wel een vervanger voor de F-15, maar hier is de productie van stop gezet.
Dat was (denk ik) een fout van de US welke in de komende tig jaren op zal gaan breken. De F-22 had doorontwikkeld moeten worden met een FB-22 als 2-zitter, welke de taken van de F-15 op termijn had over kunnen nemen en ook de SEAD/EW taken had kunnen oppakken.
Want door het uitfaseren van zowel de (E)F-111 en de F-4G Wild Weasel is er een gat ontstaan.
Misschien moeten ze dat alsnog wel gaan doen
Slim zou zijn om de F22 lijn opnieuw te starten (dat kan in dit geval omdat de volledige lijn is opgeslagen) en deze verder te ontwikkelen in diverse variante, een C, een FB/E en eventuele G.
F35A afnemen in een gereduceerd aantal en een paar honderd F16 en F15's moderniseren zodat ze operationeel mee kunnen tot begin jaren dertig. Tevens ruimte creëren voor een x aantal F22 en beginnen met de ontwikkeling van de F15/F16 opvolger.. de F/X
F35B zoals gepland.
De nog te ontwikkelen T/X gebruiken als trainer en home guard kist (aangevuld met F15/F22)
F35C cancel, extra F18E en UCAV voor de vloot en versneld de FA/XX in ontwikkeling om de eerste F18E begin/medio jaren dertig te vervangen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/05/2014 | 23:43 uur
Met dit verhaal ga je het m.i. niet redden in de wereld van 2025+, was er een grotere focus op high end/low end, dan zou het meer acceptabel zijn.
In deze form is het een kansloos verhaal.
Alleen als je er vanuit gaat dat over tien jaar elk apenland met een 6de generatie kist rondvliegt.
De praktijk is dat de US een zeer groot aantal vliegtuigen heeft, waarvan het meerendeel steeds ouder wordt. Er moet veel geld bij om alles te vervangen, en aangezien dat niet waarschijnlijk is, zal er dus ofwel doelmatiger omgegaan moeten worden met het geld, of het aantal actieve squadrons flink terugdringen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 09/05/2014 | 14:08 uur
Alleen als je er vanuit gaat dat over tien jaar elk apenland met een 6de generatie kist rondvliegt.
De praktijk is dat de US een zeer groot aantal vliegtuigen heeft, waarvan het meerendeel steeds ouder wordt. Er moet veel geld bij om alles te vervangen, en aangezien dat niet waarschijnlijk is, zal er dus ofwel doelmatiger omgegaan moeten worden met het geld, of het aantal actieve squadrons flink terugdringen.
Zie mijn voorgaande post.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 09/05/2014 | 12:19 uur
Slim zou zijn om de F22 lijn opnieuw te starten (dat kan in dit geval omdat de volledige lijn is opgeslagen) en deze verder te ontwikkelen in diverse variante, een C, een FB/E en eventuele G.
Dat ding is extreem duur. Doe maar niet.
Citaat
F35A afnemen in een gereduceerd aantal en een paar honderd F16 en F15's moderniseren zodat ze operationeel mee kunnen tot begin jaren dertig. Tevens ruimte creëren voor een x aantal F22 en beginnen met de ontwikkeling van de F15/F16 opvolger.. de F/X
F35B zoals gepland.
De nog te ontwikkelen T/X gebruiken als trainer en home guard kist (aangevuld met F15/F22)
F35C cancel, extra F18E en UCAV voor de vloot en versneld de FA/XX in ontwikkeling om de eerste F18E begin/medio jaren dertig te vervangen.
Voor de rest wel mee eens maar ik zou gewoon nieuwe F-16's en F-15 bestellen. Ik bedoel je kunt prima systemen uit de JSF zoals IDAS in een F-15 hangen. Sprey zei het al; zelfs in een F-16.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 09/05/2014 | 16:56 uur
Dat ding is extreem duur. Doe maar niet.
Ergens in dit topic (geen idee welk deel) is gesteld dat dit reuze mee valt als de lijn heropen wordt, verbaas je dan niet als de prijs in de buurt komt van de F35 of zelfs daar onder. (moet het natuurlijk wel om een interessant aantal gaan).
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 09/05/2014 | 17:01 uur
Ergens in dit topic (geen idee welk deel) is gesteld dat dit reuze mee valt als de lijn heropen wordt, verbaas je dan niet als de prijs in de buurt komt van de F35 of zelfs daar onder. (moet het natuurlijk wel om een interessant aantal gaan).
Het gaat mij dan ook meer om het onderhoud. Dat is extreem duur en bovendien heeft hij erg veel onderhoud nodig.
Hetzelfde bezwaar heb ik tegen de F-35. Misschien leuk en aardig op papier maar tijdens langdurige inzet moet je een kist wel operationeel kunnen zouden. Vandaar dat ik liever een low-end aanvulling zie dan meer F-35A's.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 09/05/2014 | 17:03 uur
Het gaat mij dan ook meer om het onderhoud. Dat is extreem duur en bovendien heeft hij erg veel onderhoud nodig.
Hetzelfde bezwaar heb ik tegen de F-35. Misschien leuk en aardig op papier maar tijdens langdurige inzet moet je een kist wel operationeel kunnen zouden. Vandaar dat ik liever een low-end aanvulling zie dan meer F-35A's.
Het is blijkbaar niet voor niets dat LM bezig is (in conceptfase) met haar F/X om de F22 in de jaren dertig te kunnen vervangen.
Ik zou een low end aanvulling, zoals bekend, toejuichen niet als het om 5-10 extra kisten gaat, dan zie ik liever een aanvulling op de geplande/beoogde "vloot" van 37 F35 maar indien er meer budgettaire ruimte zou ontstaan, dan zou je mij niet horen klagen met 2 extra squadrons Girpen E , F16 block 60+ of zelfs Scorpions.
Software F-35 status ten opzichte van LRIP
F-35 program status update.
2B is everything. It is the hurdle.
For now.
What kind of combat manuals will operational testers produce from 2B? What true value? Will USMC IOC be a gimmick or will it produce something a joint combat commander wants? For example, helping out in Eastern Europe, or the hot spots in the Pacific? When will the F-35B be ready for a sea cruise as opposed to a simple, long, runway?
Austere airfield ops?
ALIS (the main maintenance software) being another question mark.
"The SDD fleet achieving more than 150 flights in one month speaks to the quality of this aircraft and the commitment of this team," said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin's vice president for F-35 Test & Verification. "We're nearly complete with Block 2B software flight science testing on the F-35As, and we'll move forward with Block 3 software testing this summer. The SDD program is scheduled to complete Block 2B testing for the F-35B this year in support of the U.S. Marine Corps' Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2015 with its F-35B fleet."
Note the press release stated "Block 3".
Very clever marketing-speak. Which Block 3? The first part, Block 3I is just a 2B that runs on the newer computer/combat system hardware (known as TR-2) that comes with LRIP-6 jets and up. LRIP-5 and below need a refurb to run any Block 3 software.
(https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/rbi-blogs/wp-content/uploads/mt/flightglobalweb/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/03/F-35%20Master%20Plan.jpg)
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.nl/
The F-15 Silent Eagle as Canada's Next Fighter – Part 1
May 15, 2014
Editor's note: Defence Watch reader Kristofer D. Lorelli writes in support of the F-15 Silent Eagle as a candidate for replacing Canada's CF-18s. Lorelli was an editor for two popular U.S. online publications and has had his articles and interviews appear on sites such as Real Clear Politics.
By Kristofer D. Lorelli
Defence Watch Guest Writer
The Canadian F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program has maturated into the most controversial and widely investigated defense department procurement processes in Canadian history. This is said with the consideration of many more months, if not years of development work ahead for the newly formed NFPS (National Fighter Procurement Secretariat).
Setting -aside the criticism fuelled by political gamesmanship or analysis provided by technophobes who are entering the public procurement debate for the first time, we have been provided with excellent investigative journalism and deliberation surrounding the technical and performance requirements of Canada's next fighter jet and the projected acquisition and ownership costs of the plan.
That said, the thousands of opinions and analysis on the muddling program have failed to ask the most important question related to the decision of the NFPF to engaged and release an industry questionnaire to Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter, Saab and Lockheed Martin.
Who at the NFPS decided on these specific defense companies and their associated fighter aircraft to engage in the Industry Questionnaire? Specifically, why what appears to be the decision by the NFPS to engage Boeing over their F/A-18E/F and not the Boeing F-15 Strike Eagle or the most updated version, the Silent Eagle?
The performance capabilities of the current production F-15E is superior in most land based fighter categories to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, although both aircraft share some commonality in production quality and deployed radar and communication technologies.
Geopolitical and supply chain factors would most certainly have ruled out Shenyang, Chengdu, HAL, Sukhoi and Mikoyan as partners, but this debate has been devoid of the fact that the most successfully modern day strike fighter, currently in Production by one of Canada's largest aerospace firm, with committed future R&D from private and public sources is not being considered by the NFPS for Canada's next fighter.
Without speculating on the factors that led to the exclusion of the Boeing F-15E or F-15SE from consideration in the industry questionnaire, let's analyze a potential offer of the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle in place of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet while keeping in consideration the PBO (Parliamentary Budget officer) March 10th fiscal impact report on Canada's acquisition of the F-35.
Boeing vs Boeing:
A reoccurring argument from Boeing and its supporters is that the Super Hornet's performance and survivability in terms on its ability to safely patrol and return from Arctic airspace is superior to the F-35. The same argument has been made by those who favour the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon.
There is merit to this argument as not since the Korean War has Canadian fighters performed any other role than defense of sovereignty, patrol and air interdiction missions. As a result, a portion of the debate has revolved around survivability, but very little has been discussed on the Super Hornet's range, speed and deep air support capability.
Boeing advocates argue that regardless of the advanced engine technology in the F-35's F135 engine (such as enhanced protection from foreign object damage) historically twin engine fighters provide increased odds for pilot/plane survivability. The Silent Eagle and Super Hornet both lack the F-35's FOD engineering, but are twin engine aircraft.
What is perplexing to say the least is that based on these arguments promoted by Boeing and its cheerleaders, it is the F-15E (or F-15SE) not the Super Hornet that is the optimal fighter for the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Max. range, max. cruising altitude, cruising speed (short and long range), Mach speed, rate of climb and landing and take-off field length, the Strike Eagle is superior to the Super Hornet in each category. What is troubling for Boeing is that the twin engine fighters proposed by European defense companies are also superior to the Super Hornet in most of these categories but not the F-15E or F-15SE.
The range, speed and survivability of the F-15 was a factor in the USAF's decision to select this aircraft to replace the F-4 for U.S. Arctic air sovereignty missions based out of Alaska. Ironically enough these aircraft currently perform the same mission on behalf of Canadian Arctic sovereignty – regularly intercepting Russia T-95 bombers high above the Canadian Arctic.
Could this not be considered as an obvious suggestion on which fighter jet Canada should procure? Is the American Arctic sovereignty experience not one to factor in a potential fighter replacement competition?
WATCH FOR PART 2 COMING ON FRIDAY
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/05/15/the-f-15-silent-eagle-as-canadas-next-fighter-part-1/
Volgens mij weten de Canadezen op dit moment ook niet wat ze willen, je ziet steeds een andere fighter in de Canadese media opduiken als alternatief voor de JSF.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 15/05/2014 | 16:52 uur
Volgens mij weten de Canadezen op dit moment ook niet wat ze willen, je ziet steeds een andere fighter in de Canadese media opduiken als alternatief voor de JSF.
Er is een hele serie waarin alle (potentiële) kandidaten de revue passeren, maar iets vertelt mij dat de Canadezen het over de verkiezingen tillen dan resteert nog maar één echte kandidaat en die is Amerikaans.
De F15SE komt niet op het CA kandidatenlijstje voor en na verwachting zal deze er ook nooit op verschijnen, dit terwijl ik dit het best mogelijke alternatief vind. (ook voor de KLu) :angel:
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/05/2014 | 17:05 uur
Er is een hele serie waarin alle (potentiële) kandidaten de revue passeren, maar iets vertelt mij dat de Canadezen het over de verkiezingen tillen dan resteert nog maar één echte kandidaat en die is Amerikaans.
De F15SE komt niet op het CA kandidatenlijstje voor en na verwachting zal deze er ook nooit op verschijnen, dit terwijl ik dit het best mogelijke alternatief vind. (ook voor de KLu) :angel:
Ben het met je eens de De F-35 is te langzaam (1216 mijl ten opzichte van 1900 mijl )voor de F-15 Silent Eagle
Overigens een poll in Canada daar is 62% voor de F-15 Silent Eagle
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-canada-buy-one-f-15-silent-eagle
The F-15 Silent Eagle as Canada's Next Fighter – Part 2
May 16, 2014
Editor's note: Defence Watch reader Kristofer D. Lorelli writes in support of the F-15 Silent Eagle as a candidate for replacing Canada's CF-18s. Lorelli was an editor for two popular U.S. online publications and has had his articles and interviews appear on sites such as Real Clear Politics.
By Kristofer D. Lorelli
Defence Watch Guest Writer
Another argument made by Super Hornet enthusiasts is that although it is not classified as a stealth aircraft, the F/A-18E/F has a lower observable radar cross section than many other contemporary fighters. The argument made against the F-15 Strike Eagle is that is has a conventional observable frontal radar cross section, primarily based on its 30 year old exterior design and large size.
But the advantage shifts when comparing the frontal radar cross section of the Super Hornet to the new Silent Eagle.
Boeing has referred to the Silent Eagle as a stealth aircraft, but a more accurate description would be low observable radar cross section or 'stealth fighter from a frontal view' (which is important when approaching a potential aggressor aircraft or strike target). An internal weapons carriage, new angled canted tails and radar absorbent coatings bring stealth features to the aircraft – but overall will produce a limited reduced signature from the side or rear.
Although the exact size of the Silent Eagles cross section has not been released to the media, Boeing has produced an aircraft design that appears to be vastly superior in stealth to the Super Hornet. This is a critical point as the Canadian DND specified low radar cross section as a requirement for its next fighter.
Performance and USAF Arctic sovereignty experience aside, a proven track record of survivability must be factored by the NFPS when deciding on a potential list of fighter candidates if the Canadian government decides against the single-sourced F-35 procurement project. The survivability aspect of the F-15 has been proven since the early 1980's, most famously when an IAF pilot returned to base and landed his F-15 on a single wing after a near-fatal crash with a an A-4 during a training exercise. During the Iraq war only a single F-15E crashed and during Operation Desert Shield/Storm only two of 48 aircraft were lost while completing 2,200 sorties.
Acquisition and Ownership Costs:
A lot has been debated over the projected costs of the F-35 fighter program with different estimates provided by the DND, the PBO, competing defense companies and progressive think-tanks. Most likely all will be incorrect with their estimates. Significant fluctuations in currencies, inflation on production and raw materials, rising fuel costs, and the lack of historical maintenance data on new or newer 4.5 and 5 generation aircraft mean that we will not know the true lifecycle costs of all the fighters for at least another decade.
In terms of the two Boeing fighters currently in Production, there are five considerations which bring both clarity and further uncertainty to the true TCO of the Super Hornet and the F-15SE.
The first is a common opinion that the F-15 Strike Eagle is a far too expensive aircraft to operate. This opinion may have been formed due to the paucity of detailed CPFH information on war-torn airframes that are 25-40 years in age. A more accurate account would have to be obtained from the younger and updated F-15E's in the ROK, Saudi or Singapore air forces.
A recently leaked IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense consulting report stated that the Australian F/A-18E/F's cost per flight hour exceeded that of the Eurofighter, Dassault, Saab and F-35A fighters. If correct this means that the Boeing argument that the Super Hornet is the low operational cost choice for the Canadian forces will fall flat during an open competition.
Compare these figures to the July 2009 F-22 Assertions and Facts Report produced by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. The report identifies the total cost per flight hour and the variable cost per flight hour of the aged F-15 (variable excludes many one-time costs such as new weapons deployment and base standup costs). The CPFH number for the aging and battle fatigued F-15 fleet was $30,000 and $17,000. This places the older F-15 aircraft in relative similarity to the new Australian F/A-18E/F CPFH.
In an 2008 article written by Sydney Feedberg, he quoted Maj. Joe Harris, commander of the Air National Guard's 142nd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron as stating, "In my 10 years with the F-15, the cost per flying hour has doubled", referring to F-15 aircraft that were approaching 30 years in service. That would place new build F-15's at a CPFH lower than that of the F-35 and the Australian Super Hornet. This would lead the most casual of observers to question what the true CPFH of the Super Hornet will be after 30 years of service. Could it accelerate at the same rate as the F-15's?
This cost per flight hour (CPFH) highlighted by Sen. Hatch informs us that the costs for F-15 are at least equal to the F-35 and only marginally higher than the new-build Australian Super Hornet CPFH published by IHS Jane's Defense. Jane's did not include data on new build Strike Eagles recently built for Saudi Arabia, Singapore and South Korea which are far from the maximum airframe flying time of 6,000 hours.
There is one CPFH estimate on the new-build F-15 Strike Eagle that has been made public by engine producer General Electric. New build F-15K's produced for the ROKAF included the newly designed F110-GE-129 engines. GE stated these engines "are to provide up to a 25% improvement in cost-per-flying-hour, a significant time-on-wing increase, and elimination of special inspections".
Another factor which inflates the F-15 Strike Eagles CPFH even further is the fact that there is no single-seat variant. Single-seat fighter variants are cheaper to produce and maintain (including not training and paying a WSO). The Saudi Government was blocked by the US Congress in the 1990's when it attempted to obtain a single-seat variant of the F-15E. Could a potential F-15 Silent Eagle solution include a single-seat version along with its reduced radar cross section, conformal weapons bay and updated electronics?
PART 3 WILL BE PUBLISHED SATURDAY
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/05/16/the-f-15-silent-eagle-as-canadas-next-fighter-part-2/
The F-15 Silent Eagle as Canada's Next Fighter – Part 3
May 16, 2014.
Editor's note: Defence Watch reader Kristofer D. Lorelli writes in support of the F-15 Silent Eagle as a candidate for replacing Canada's CF-18s. Lorelli was an editor for two popular U.S. online publications and has had his articles and interviews appear on sites such as Real Clear Politics. Here is the third and final installment of the article:
By Kristofer D. Lorelli
Defence Watch Guest Writer
The fourth consideration (one argued by the pro F-35 lobby) is the value placed on continued R&D and active production of the fighter aircraft. Aircraft need to be upgraded and replacements will need to be acquired with such a small quantity by of 65. Only Saab and Lockheed have production lines scheduled beyond 2019. The Super Hornet production line is scheduled to be shut down in 24 months with no R&D funding offered in the most recent US Federal Budget.
From this perspective the F-15SE offers the Royal Canadian Air Force the greatest opportunity outside of Saab and the F-35. Boeing has been self-funding enhancements to the Silent Eagle program, while international partners such as Saudi Arabia have been funding upgrades to the electronic warfare suites fitted on existing F-15 Strike Eagles.
This new R&D investment combined with dozens of new build F-15 Strike fighters entering the international market and the recent announcement by the US Government that they plan to continue flying the F-15's beyond 2030 means there will be no funding gap in the supply chain. Future enhancements of this aircraft will be assured for at least another 20 years.
Silent-Eagle-3-300x260
With so many recent export orders for the F-15 Strike Eagle an order placed by the Canadian NFPS would extend the production line well into the 2020's, giving Boeing a greater opportunity for further orders in future competitions. Aerospace companies such as Boeing must order certain raw materials 2-4 years in advance of production in order to sustain fighter assembly lines.
This commitment to the F-15 Silent Eagle would also allow Canada to order replacement aircraft well into the next decade to offset fighter losses during training exercises and military missions. Canada would also have the option to defer the procurement of some of the 65 aircraft to keep the up-front acquisition costs lower. This is a decisive sustainability argument especially if the Federal Government continues its commitment to balancing the budget by 2015, but would not exist if NFPS selects the Super Hornet as a Canadian next fighter. The fact that the Super Hornet has not been able to win a single export order in an open competition leads many defense analysts to the conclusion that Boeing has very little chance to extend the production line without a Canadian order.
Another TCO argument in favour of the new Silent Eagle is that it would promote partnerships with other F-15 users for future stealth and radar enhancement projects. Post-sequestration, the U.S. Government will have to engage Boeing on potential F-15 enhancements if they do in fact plan on flying the F-15 into the 2030's. Similar to the upgrades made to the CF-188 Hornet, Canada will be able to rely on available upgrade packages to its fighter jet with most or all of the funding coming from allies and the U.S. government.
The final consideration for determining true procurement and operational fighter costs is to study previous fighter procurement projects in nations with developed or developing aerospace industries. This would allow Canadian defense analysts to better estimate industrial offsets and true acquisition costs. The Korean FX (I, II, III), Brazilian F-X2, Indian MMRCA, and Singapore's MINDEF fighter projects each involved competitive bids from Boeing and European Aerospace companies.
Media and government reports from the each of these fighter procurement projects produced results that favoured the Boeing Strike Eagle (except Brazil and India where Boeing offered the Super Hornet). Range and deep strike interdiction capabilities placed the Strike Eagle ahead of Eurofighter. On price it placed the F-15E head of the F-35 and Eurofighter. The Super Hornet received average to low ratings in these fighter competitions.
During the Korean FX III competition, the Boeing Silent Eagle was the only bid under the $.7.7 Billion USD budget which required the sale of 60 jets at least 15 of which had to be two-seaters. Both the Eurofighter and F-35 were initially disqualified for not meeting Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) budget until quickly altered its criteria for the minimum number of fighter to allow the F-35 to win the right to negotiate with the ROK government.
A similar bid by Boeing for the Canadian requirement of 65 aircraft would result in a lower acquisition price than the stalled F-35 program's $9 billion maximum purchase price. As one of the largest defense aerospace companies in North America, Boeing possesses the infrastructure and the experience with the Canadian forces (C-17, CH-147 and original Hornet) to match industrial offsets benefits offered by Lockheed Martin and the F-35 program.
The most recent high profile fighter competition decision was the Brazilian F-X2 program. Despite all the narratives resulting from the Brazilian decision to purchase the Saab Gripen (bribery and spying allegations); the decision was essentially based on price and industrial offsets. Brazil has a comparable aerospace sector to Canada which positioned it to receive generous industrial benefits from Saab. This may well influence the NFPS to move away from the original F-35 single-source decision, but not necessarily into the cockpit of the Super Hornet.
Boeing claims that procurement in Canada of 65 Super Hornet would be roughly half the acquisition price than that of the F-35 and overall would be $23 billion cheaper when factoring operating costs. This claim may not be entirely accurate when reviewing Boeing's F-X2 bid and the sale of Super Hornets to Australia. The offer to Brazil was estimated at $5.4 billion USD for 36 aircraft, a per unit acquisition price of $150 million USD. When factoring in Australia's recent single-sourced purchase of 12 Super Hornet and 12 of the Growler Electronic attack version for $3.7 Billion and the HIS Jane's Defense report of Australia's Super Hornet CPFH, it's hard to believe that the Boeing cost of ownership claim is credible.
Further to Previous Fighter Procurement Projects:
Aside from cost and industrial benefits, other factors such as performance, geopolitical issues and bribery influence fighter acquisition projects.
One fact previously mentioned is that the Super Hornet has not won a single competitive export fighter competition even though they have competed in several (for that matter either has Dassault's Rafale although they were selected the winner of India's MMRCA program, but remain without a contract two years later).
The F-15E has won orders from Israel, Korea (twice), Saudi Arabia (twice) and Singapore. By the time the current production run for the most recent Saudi contract ends there will nearly 500 of this aircraft in inventories around the globe. There are also hundreds of early model F-15 air superiority fighters in service with the United States and our other allies.
The advantage for the F-15E in recent fighter competitions is the proven performance of the aircraft combined with a price low enough to compete with the twin-engine European fighters. Other advantages include an influential parent in The Boeing Company and significant and ongoing investments in technology and engineering to keep the aircraft modern and lethal.
The Super Hornet on the other hand offers extremely limited improvements over the existing CF-188 fleet in terms of range, speed, stealth and aerodynamic performance. The U.S. Government has refused to fund upgrades to the aircraft and the production line will be shut down within 24 months, which will result in Canadian being forced to fund most or all of the upgrades to the fleet itself. Was this factored as part of Boeing's operational costs analysis?
An open fighter competition would place Boeing in an extremely competitive position in Canada. They are an American firm with a significant industrial footprint in Canada with the funds and bureaucratic relationships to drive an aggressive marketing campaign to influence a Defense department publically humiliated by repeated procurement mismanagement.
Similar to Saab and Lockheed, Boeing can offer a fixed price with significant industrial offsets and deliver a fighter on time, saving the Canadian government from having to invest funds to extend the life of the current fleet of Hornets.
The question for Boeing is; will they offer a slightly cheaper aircraft that will score low in nearly all performance categories, that is a marginal upgrade to the existing Hornet fleet and that lacks the street credibility of winning fighter competitions?
Or, will Boeing also offer the NFPS a second alternative? A fighter that competes with the European fighters in terms of price, that provides a true generational leap in stealth, range and strike capability and which is being acquired by nations who reside in extremely unstable regions of the world?
If Boeing does offer the Super Hornet it would mean their roadmap to victory in an open competition would strictly be based on price and a high Euro currency exchange. My assumption is that the desperation of one of either Eurofighter or the Dassault will drastically reduce its price, guarantee generous industrial offsets and local assembly to squeeze the acquisition price gap while relying on their performance advantage over the Super Hornet.
An incorrect decision by Boeing could result in its complete expulsion from the fighter assembly market by 2019.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/05/16/the-f-15-silent-eagle-as-canadas-next-fighter-part-3/
Warplanes: South Korea Upgrades To F-16E
May 16, 2014: South Korea is spending several hundred million dollars to upgrade most (96 percent of) their 140 KF-16 fighters. These were assembled in South Korea from 1994 to 2004 under license and are going through a mid-life upgrade in the United States. This will involves installing a more powerful AESA radar, new electronics (displays, sensors and computers) as well as new cabling and other related components f0r 134 KF-16s. The upgrades will begin in 2014 and the first completed aircraft will be ready by 2019. Because not all the new features have been decided on yet the exact price is not yet known but will be at least $4 million per aircraft. The most time consuming aspect will be removing and replacing much of the cabling. The interior of an F-16 is a very crowded place and it's a tedious effort getting in there to do major upgrades.
The AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radars are becoming standard equipment in modern warplanes. AESA is more reliable and, increasingly, no more expensive than the older mechanical (a small dish that moves around inside a dome) radar. AESA is also easier and cheaper to maintain, which makes a more expensive AESA cheaper, over its lifetime, than a cheaper (to buy) mechanically scanned radar. AESA type radars have been around a long time, popular mainly for their ability deal with lots of targets simultaneously, and produce a more accurate picture of what is out there. AESA radar consists of thousands of tiny radars that can be independently aimed in different directions. An AESA radar made the U.S. E-8 JSTARS aircraft possible, as it enabled it to locate vehicles moving on the ground. An innovative and much smaller MP-RTIP AESA radar for the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV can also spot smaller objects on the ground. Alas this AESA radar is used at high altitude (over 10 kilometers/31,000 feet), too far for a high-energy (electronics destroying) signal. But other UAVs, like Reaper, are cheaper and fly lower, low enough to zap ground targets with the electronics-destroying beam. For heavily defended or very distant targets the cruise missile approach, while more expensive, would get the job done. While AESA makes fighters much more effective, it's the many other uses of AESA that make this technology so attractive to warplane designers. For example, the U.S. Air Force has been equipping some of its fighters with the ability to focus the high-powered microwave (HPM) effects found in AESA radar technology. AESA is able to focus a concentrated beam of radio energy that can damage electronic components of a distant target. The air force won't, for obvious reasons, discuss the exact "kill range" of the various models of AESA radars on American warplanes (the F-35 and F-22 have the most powerful ones). However, it is known that "range" in this case is an elastic thing. Depending on how well the target electronics are hardened against EMP, more electrical power will be required to do damage. Moreover, the electrical power of the various AESA radars in service varies as well. The air force has said that the larger AESA radars it is developing would be able to zap cruise missile guidance systems up to 180 kilometers away.
The U.S. F-16 is one of the most modified jet fighters in service. While most are still called the F-16C, there are actually six major mods, identified by block number (32, 40, 42, 50, 52, 60), plus the Israeli F-16I, which is a major modification of the Block 52. The F-16D is a two seat trainer version of F-16Cs. The various block mods included a large variety of new components (five engines, four sets of avionics, five generations of electronic warfare gear, five radars and many other mechanical, software, cockpit and electrical mods.)
Meanwhile South Korea and Indonesia agreed in 2010 to jointly develop a new fighter, the KFX. This would be an aircraft with capabilities somewhat beyond the top-line American F-16 Block 60. The best example of this is a special version of the Block 60 developed for the UAE (United Arab Emirates). The UAE bought 80 "Desert Falcons" (the F-16E) which is optimized for air combat. It is a 22 ton aircraft based on the Block 52 model (which the KF-16 was originally), but with an AESA (phased array) radar and lots of other additional goodies (what the upgraded KF-16 will largely be).
KFX development is expected to take ten years and cost $2 billion. South Korea hopes to build on the work it did to develop its T-50 jet trainer. This is a 13 ton, two seat, single engine aircraft that is also available as a combat model (the F-50), which carries a 20mm autocannon and up to three tons of bombs and missiles. The KFX would weigh twice as much, have one or two engines, a single seat and the ability to carry twice as much weight in weapons. The KFX is expected to look more like the Eurofighter Typhoon, than the T-50 or F-16. The KFX is also expected to cost $50 million each, have advanced electronics (including an AESA radar). Indonesia will provide 20 percent of the development costs and buy fifty of the KFX's. South Korea will buy 150-250 of the new aircraft, to replace its current fleet of elderly American F-4s and F-5s. This is an ambitious undertaking, and success is not certain, especially when the timeline, budget and aircraft performance are concerned. The KFX is still officially in the works but is delayed for the moment over political opposition to the escalating costs. KFX may be cancelled if another aircraft (like the French Rafale or the multinational Eurofighter) are offered with equivalent capabilities and a lower price. That is where this is headed at the moment.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20140516.aspx
Jump jets on Defence radar
Nick Butterly Canberra The West Australian
May 17, 2014
Australia could buy "jump-jet" Joint Strike Fighters to base aboard new landing ships, giving the nation its first aircraft carrier since the early 1980s.
Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West _the Government was considering buying the "B" model of the F-35 - a specialised variant of the stealth jet being built to operate from aircraft carriers.
Last month, Australia committed to buying 72 of the conventional model F-35s from US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin at a cost of almost $20 billion.
But the Government has left the door open to buying more F-35s and the minister says the F-35B will be considered.
"Now that aircraft is more expensive, does not have the range but it's an option that has been considered from day one," Senator Johnston said.
The F-35B has a shortened take-off distance and can land vertically, just like the legendary Harrier jump jet.
The British Navy and the US Marines are buying the F-35B to station aboard aircraft carriers.
Australia is soon to bring into service two large ships called landing helicopter docks. Though they resemble small aircraft carriers, the Government has maintained until now they would be used only to deploy helicopters and troops.
Senator Johnston said stationing the F-35 aboard an LHD would be costly and technically challenging, but it could be done.
"The deck strength is there for such an aircraft," he said.
The Hawke government mothballed Australia's last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, in 1982.
Commissioning an aircraft carrier is considered a significant strategic statement of military might by a country.
China recently launched its first aircraft carrier. The sea trials are being watched closely.
The F-35B has less range than the conventional F-35 owing to the complex systems of jets used to allow it to land vertically.
The B variant has been the most trouble-plagued of the three F-35 models. Testing was stalled this year after cracks were discovered in the aircrafts' bulkheads.
The F-35 will replace Australia's fleet of F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet aircraft, due to be withdrawn in 2022.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/23583014/jump-jets-on-defence-radar/
RAF's £70 million F-35 fighter 'may be cancelled because of poor performance'
Many fear that the F-35's stealth technology has already been overtaken by sophisticated new radar
By Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent / 18 May 2014
Britain's long-delayed £70 million stealth fighter may have to be cancelled because of its poor performance, according to analysis by a senior US Air Force officer.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being built for British and US forces is based on outdated ideas of air warfare, it is claimed. The aircraft could be unable to evade enemy radar and be too expensive for long campaigns.
The critique in the US Air Force's own journal concludes that the new fighter may even have "substantially less performance" than some existing aircraft.
Britain is preparing to buy at least 48 of the Lockheed Martin aircraft to replace its scrapped Harrier jump jets; the US military is expected to order more than 2,400.
The £235 billion programme is the most expensive weapons system in history at a time when defence budgets on both sides of the Atlantic are being cut.
The analysis in the Air and Space Power Journal states: "Even if funding were unlimited, reasons might still exist for terminating the F-35.
"Specifically, its performance has not met initial requirements, its payload is low, its range is short, and espionage efforts by the People's Republic of China may have compromised the aircraft long in advance of its introduction."
Advances in Russian and Chinese radar defences mean it is not clear that the stealth technology will still work, the analysis warns, adding: "The F-35 might well be the first modern fighter to have substantially less performance than its predecessors."
The author, Col Michael Pietrucha, suggests the F-35 programme should be put on hold and the US Air Force should instead look at a mix of fighters for the future.
If America pulled out of the programme, Britain would have to follow, analysts said.
Col Pietrucha told The Sunday Telegraph: "All fighter programmes have developed problems. This one is particularly troubling, not necessarily because the aircraft is inherently bad, but because ... they are being bought before they have been proven. They have not been tested outside a computer simulation."
Britain originally said it would buy 138 of the fighters, but has now committed itself to only 48 of the jump jet variant, spread between the RAF and Navy. The first are due to enter service in 2018.
Edward Hunt, a senior aerospace analyst at IHS Jane's, said the F-35's performance was the subject of widespread debate in military aviation circles.
"It's very difficult to peel back what's being said because lots of people have an axe to grind," he said.
"The whole F-35 programme hinges on US orders, so any significant cuts ... would have significant knock-on effects for partner nations."
Elizabeth Quintana, senior research fellow for air power at the Royal United Services Institute, said there was a debate to be had about whether it was wise to rely exclusively on a fleet of high-end stealth fighters when a mix of high-end and cheaper, light attack or remotely piloted aircraft could give more options for a range of future battlefields.
The Ministry of Defence defended the F-35 as the "most advanced combat jet in the world", "designed to be updated ... so it can benefit from new technology to counter emerging threats".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10838453/RAFs-70-million-F-35-fighter-may-be-cancelled-because-of-poor-performance.html
Citaat van: www.telegraph.co.uk Vandaag om 10:55
RAF's £70 million F-35 fighter 'may be cancelled because of poor performance'
Voor de RAF zou dat een uitkomst kunnen zijn, de RN heeft geen alternatief meer, die krijgt haar F35B.
Mocht dit een uitkomst zijn voor de RAF dan is er een eventuele toekomst voor de EF tranche 3B, maar beter nog zou zijn vanuit mijn optiek om vol in te zetten op een nieuwe Europese
gezamenlijk EuroCanard vervanger voor de jaren dertig en in tussentijd (voor de RAF) om in te zetten op een interim oplossing.
Swiss Reject $3.5 Billion Gripen Purchase in Blow to Saab
May 18, 2014
May 18 (Bloomberg) -- Swiss voters rejected a 3.1 billion- franc ($3.5 billion) order for Gripen fighter jets, a setback to Swedish defense company Saab AB.
The 22-plane contract, which Switzerland awarded 2 1/2 years ago, was opposed by 53.4 percent of voters, the government in Bern said on its website today. That's in line with the latest survey ahead of the vote, which showed some 51 percent of people polled opposed the transaction.
"The people have spoken," said Susanne Leutenegger Oberholzer, a Social Democrat member of parliament. "We surely don't have the money for such unnecessary acquisitions."
Gripen opponents had argued that the planes would cost 10 billion francs over their lifetime, money that could be deployed elsewhere. The fighter plane's supporters said neutral Switzerland needs the Gripen to defend its airspace. That claim got undermined in February with the forced landing of an Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise plane in Geneva. The hijacked plane had to be escorted by French and Italian jets as the Swiss air force doesn't operate to protect the country's airspace outside of business hours.
The result is "negative for Saab, but not exactly unexpected given the opinion polls," Mats Liss, an analyst at Swedbank AB in Stockholm, said in an e-mailed response to questions today. While a Brazil order is more important than the Swiss one, a rejection by Swiss voters means there will be "a period of uncertainty until the Brazil order is finalized," he said.
'Not the End'
"Today's result requires a thorough analysis," Defense Minister Ueli Maurer told reporters in Bern today, without saying what solution for the protection of Switzerland's air space may look like. "An initial one this evening would be premature." The Swiss Defense Ministry, which initiated the Gripen purchase, has repeatedly said that it will honor the vote's results.
Saab clinched a three-way contest to replace Switzerland's fleet of Northrop Grumman Corp. F-5 Tigers in November 2011, edging out offers from France's Dassault Aviation SA and from the Eurofighter consortium of BAE Systems Plc, Airbus Group NV and Italy's Finmeccanica SpA.
Chairman Marcus Wallenberg told Switzerland's Tages- Anzeiger earlier this week that a rejection of the Gripen deal by Swiss voters "won't mean the end of the Gripen's development."
The Swedish Defence and Security Export Agency FXM, which is responsible for the Gripen negotiations with Switzerland, said what happens next is a question for the Swiss government.
Swedish Engineering
"The evaluation that preceded the referendum was in itself an excellent testimony to Swedish engineering skills and Swedish industry," FXM Director-General Ulf Hammarstroem said in a statement on the agency's website today. "We have had very good cooperation with Switzerland during the more than two years of negotiations and I am sure that our close cooperation will continue in many areas."
According to mechanical- and electrical-engineering trade group Swissmem, the no-vote will deprive the Swiss economy of 2 billion francs of orders. The compensation deals tied to the Gripen contract "would have secured jobs in Swiss companies," Swissmem said.
Saab beat Boeing Co. last year to develop fighters for Brazil's air force in a deal worth $4.5 billion through 2023. Saab is pushing the Gripen against rival offerings from companies also including Lockheed Martin Corp., the world's biggest defense contractor, just as tighter military spending makes U.S. and European orders harder to come by.
Reworking Unlikely
It aims to sell around 400 Gripens over the next 20 years, said Lennart Sindahl, head of the Saab Aeronautics unit. Saab is in "serious talks" with 10 nations which could yield agreements in the near term and "a very significant country" recently made an approach, he said.
Switzerland and Brazil are the first nations after Sweden to pick the next-generation Gripen E, whose development is contingent on an export order of at least 20 aircraft. Thailand and South Africa operate older C-model jets made by the manufacturer of Gripen, which is the Swedish word for griffin.
Sindahl said on May 8 that while the Swiss deal is "a great opportunity" and that missing out would be "very unfortunate," delivery of 60 Gripen E's to Sweden and 36 to Brazil would still represent "a very successful start" to the development program.
Sindahl said that a reworked deal with Switzerland is unlikely if voters reject it. "That is up to the Swiss to answer, but I can't see it happening," he said.
The Swiss purchase was put up for a plebiscite after opponents collected the required 50,000 signatures needed for a national referendum to cancel a recently passed law. Turnout averages about 40 percent, though it sometimes is higher for controversial measures.
Swiss voters today also rejected the world's highest national minimum wage, striking down a proposal for an hourly minimum of 22 francs ($25).
To contact the reporters on this story: Niklas Magnusson in Stockholm at nmagnusson1@bloomberg.net; Niclas Rolander in Stockholm at nrolander@bloomberg.net; Catherine Bosley in Zurich at cbosley1@bloomberg.net To contact the editors responsible for this story: Tasneem Hanfi Brogger at tbrogger@bloomberg.net Zoe Schneeweiss, Jan Schwalbe
bloomberg
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/business/Swiss_Reject_$3.5_Billion_Gripen_Jet_Purchase_in_Blow_to_Saab.html?cid=38607010
Citaat van: www.swissinfo.ch Vandaag om 07:09
Swiss Reject $3.5 Billion Gripen Purchase in Blow to Saab
Fijn hé.... een referendum over een onderwerp waar het volk weer geen bal verstand van heeft.... Zweden mag blij zijn met haar Braziliaanse reddingsboei en wij hier in Nederland dat we niet overal een plas over willen/mogen doen...
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/05/2014 | 19:19 uur
Fijn hé.... een referendum over een onderwerp waar het volk weer geen bal verstand van heeft.... Zweden mag blij zijn met haar Braziliaanse reddingsboei en wij hier in Nederland dat we niet overal een plas over willen/mogen doen...
Precies, bij bepaalde onderwerpen is zo'n referendum ideaal... maar we kunnen beter de mensen met wat meer verstand van zaken erover laten beslissen, als je een een land woont met veel iwab's.
Is het nu de bedoeling dat heel de aanbestedingsprocedure over moet of is dit het?
Blijkbaar zijn de Zwiters niet onder indruk van de gebeurtenissen in de Oekraïne.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/05/2014 | 19:09 uur
"The people have spoken," said Susanne Leutenegger Oberholzer, a Social Democrat member of parliament. "We surely don't have the money for such unnecessary acquisitions."
Dat is nou eenmaal wat de gemiddelde Zwitserse burger denkt (en Nederlandse misschien ook wel).
Citaat van: Ace1 op 18/05/2014 | 19:23 uur
Is het nu de bedoeling dat heel de aanbestedingsprocedure over moet of is dit het?
Voor zover ik het begrijp is het nu simpelweg
exit Gripen E voor de Zwitsers en zullen ze het met de resterende F18's moeten doen, misschien dat de Gripen aan het begin van het volgende decennium weer de revue passeert als de oude Hornets aan vervanging toe zijn.
Zonder de Braziliaanse
voorgenomen order zou het nu wellicht ook exit Gripen E/F zijn!
Citaat van: Jellington op 18/05/2014 | 19:25 uur
Dat is nou eenmaal wat de gemiddelde Zwitserse burger denkt (en Nederlandse misschien ook wel).
Hier zouden ze de gehele krijgsmacht offeren voor de rollator etc.
Gaat de aankoop van 20 Pilatus PC-21 door Zweden nu nog door?
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-pilatus-to-pitch-pc-21-trainer-to-sweden-397615/
Citaat van: Jellington op 18/05/2014 | 19:25 uur
Dat is nou eenmaal wat de gemiddelde Zwitserse burger denkt (en Nederlandse misschien ook wel).
Misschien? Ik weet het wel zeker!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/05/2014 | 19:19 uur
Fijn hé.... een referendum over een onderwerp waar het volk weer geen bal verstand van heeft....
Hier spreekt de ervaringsdeskundige?
Citaat van: Lex op 18/05/2014 | 21:29 uur
Hier spreekt de ervaringsdeskundige?
Zeker niet, maar je hebt ook nog zoiets als logisch nadenken.
Deze uitkomst heb ik reeds voorspeld bij het uitschijven van het referendum, je hoeft er niet voor gestudeerd te hebben, de uitkomst in Nederland zou het zelfde zijn (ongeacht het type).
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/05/2014 | 22:05 uur
Zeker niet, maar je hebt ook nog zoiets als logisch nadenken.
Deze uitkomst heb ik reeds voorspeld bij het uitschijven van het referendum, je hoeft er niet voor gestudeerd te hebben, de uitkomst in Nederland zou het zelfde zijn (ongeacht het type).
Nederland buiten beschouwing latend, denk ik dat je opmerkingen hier niet gerelateerd zijn aan hetgeen zich ter lande afspeelt, maar gebasserd zijn op hetgeen je graag wil zien.
Misschien dat het raadzaam zou zijn jezelf te verdiepen in het totaal?
Citaat van: Strata op 18/05/2014 | 19:21 uur
Precies, bij bepaalde onderwerpen is zo'n referendum ideaal... maar we kunnen beter de mensen met wat meer verstand van zaken erover laten beslissen, als je een een land woont met veel iwab's.
BS! Als er een referendum komt dan is het aan de voor/- tegenstanders hun mening te verkondigen adhv hun inzet omtrent het referendum.
En afhankelijk van hun inzet/overtuigingsvermogen zal er een uitslag komen. Dat is democratie.
Citaat van: Lex op 18/05/2014 | 22:27 uur
Nederland buiten beschouwing latend, denk ik dat je opmerkingen hier niet gerelateerd zijn aan hetgeen zich ter lande afspeelt, maar gebasserd zijn op hetgeen je graag wil zien.
Misschien dat het raadzaam zou zijn jezelf te verdiepen in het totaal?
Sorry Lex, je slaat de plank volledig mis, ik zie graag dat Saab met haar Gripen E in Zwitserland succesvol is, al was het maar om een Europese producent levensvatbaar te houden.
Ik heb de Zwitserse discussie met bijbehorende sentimenten nauwkeurig gevolgd en ben van mening dat dit soort beslissingen nimmer aan het volk moeten worden voorgelegd, maar het systeem in Zwitserland biedt nu eenmaal dit soort mogelijkheden.
Jouw suggestie is derhalve dzz uitgevoerd.
Citaat van: Lex op 18/05/2014 | 22:35 uur
BS! Als er een referendum komt dan is het aan de voor/- tegenstanders hun mening te verkondigen adhv hun inzet omtrent het referendum.
En afhankelijk van hun inzet/overtuigingsvermogen zal er een uitslag komen. Dat is democratie.
Wat mij betreft is het een politieke keuze om te kiezen voor het behoud van een krijgsmacht en daar kan per referendum een antwoord op gegeven worden. De invulling valt wat mij betreft daar buiten.
Als de Zwitserse krijgsmacht beluit om Prodent tandpasta in te kopen voor haar militairen en de bevolking vindt dat maar niets dan kunnen ze dat, mits voldoende handtekeningen, per referendum tegen te houden.
Democratie... je kan ook doorslaan.
Citaat van: Lex op 18/05/2014 | 22:35 uur
BS! Als er een referendum komt dan is het aan de voor/- tegenstanders hun mening te verkondigen adhv hun inzet omtrent het referendum.
En afhankelijk van hun inzet/overtuigingsvermogen zal er een uitslag komen. Dat is democratie.
Ik heb het hier over een bindend referendum. Democratie gaat wat mij betreft tot bepaalde grenzen :)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/05/2014 | 22:46 uur
Wat mij betreft is het een politieke keuze om te kiezen voor het behoud van een krijgsmacht.................
Dus vanaf nu niet meer mopperen op Den Haag en vragen om meer geld, tanks en andere nuttige toestanden....het is dan ook een politieke keuze om niet te gaan voor het behoud van een krijgsmacht :devil:
Even een aanvulling, ik zeg "bepaalde grenzen", omdat de politiek door de burger gekozen is. Dus is feite is het dan nee stemmen tegen je volksvertegenwoordiging waar je eerst wel voor gekozen hebt.
Citaat van: Strata op 18/05/2014 | 23:47 uur
Even een aanvulling, ik zeg "bepaalde grenzen", omdat de politiek door de burger gekozen is. Dus is feite is het dan nee stemmen tegen je volksvertegenwoordiging waar je eerst wel voor gekozen hebt.
Klopt maar de keuze voor de Gripen is niet door de huidige coalltie gemaakt. Het is dus geen kwestie van eerst voor stemmen en dan weer tegen. Niet zoals in Nederland waar de PvdA volledig tegen de aanschaf van de F-35 was en eenmaal met de kont op het pluche "onder gespeelde protest" akkoord ging met de aankoop. Daarmee kiezers en partijleden schofferend. Was/is mij wel een volksraadpleging waard :cute-smile:
Citaat van: Ros op 19/05/2014 | 00:28 uur
Klopt maar de keuze voor de Gripen is niet door de huidige coalltie gemaakt. Het is dus geen kwestie van eerst voor stemmen en dan weer tegen. Niet zoals in Nederland waar de PvdA volledig tegen de aanschaf van de F-35 was en eenmaal met de kont op het pluche "onder gespeelde protest" akkoord ging met de aankoop. Daarmee kiezers en partijleden schofferend. Was/is mij wel een volksraadpleging waard :cute-smile:
In NL was het debat van de "experts" inmiddels zo hoog opgelopen dat
afhankelijk van de vraagstelling gekozen was voor een alternatief, zelfs de minimaal net zo dure of duurdere Eurofighter (tranche 3A) had een goede kans gemaakt en hier had het mij niet verbaasd als gekozen was, net als in Zwitserland, voor geen vervanging.
P.s. de PvdA was en is natuurlijk voor de aanschaf van de F35 zie ook het vurige pleidooi van kabinet Kok.... dat er daarna weer krokodillentranen gehuild werden is en was een feestje voor de achterban... nauwelijks verschil met de jaren zeventig van de vorige eeuw ten tijde van de beslissing rondom de aankoop van de F16.
Citaat van: Ros op 18/05/2014 | 23:39 uur
Dus vanaf nu niet meer mopperen op Den Haag en vragen om meer geld, tanks en andere nuttige toestanden....het is dan ook een politieke keuze om niet te gaan voor het behoud van een krijgsmacht :devil:
Zie opmerking van Strata.
Het is mijn keuze om dit wel te doen... en als Den Haag in al haar "wijsheid" besluit tot het afschaffen van de krijgsmacht, dan zal ik mij inzetten zodat de volgende lading pluche plakkers deze beslissing hersteld.
Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada – Part 1
By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen May 18, 2014
Editor's note: Last week Defence Watch ran a three part series on why the F-35 wasn't the right aircraft for Canada. This week Defence Watch runs a three part series on why the F-35 is essential for Canada. The article is written by Edward Wu, who is based in Vancouver. He answered the Defence Watch request to pen a defence of the F-35. He noted that he is not associated with any defence or aerospace contractors, nor any political parties or government.
By Edward Wu
Speed
The F-35 was designed primarily to replace the mainstay of the USAF and USN tactical aviation fleet; namely, the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet. A number of criticisms take issue with the F-35's supposed lack of speed. It should be noted that the F-35's top speed of Mach 1.6 is achievable while carrying a militarily useful load; meaning that a F-35A that's configured with a pair of 2000lb bombs, two air to air missiles, and enough fuel to fly to a target 300nm out and back will be able to achieve its top speed.
Other legacy fighters, such as the F/A-18, F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15, Gripen, etc cannot achieve their top speeds with any external ordinance. The reason for this is that external ordinance creates parasitic drag, degrading aircraft performance. Furthermore, the top speeds of many legacy fighters can only be achieved for very short durations because of the low internal fuel fraction of these aircraft. The F-35, as a percentage of its maximum take-off weight, can carry over 26% of its maximum take-off weight as fuel internally, meaning that the F-35 can sustain its top speed for longer.
Acceleration
Furthermore, stealth fighters, such as the F-22 and F-35 carry their weapons and their fuel internally compared to legacy aircraft. This means that the F-22 and the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, thus rendering any comparison to a legacy aircraft invalid because a legacy fighter's configuration drastically changes when loaded with weapons, external fuel, targeting and jamming pods.
Thus, from the information that can be gathered, the F-35 acceleration performance is on par or superior to the F-16, and thus is competitive compared to other legacy fighters.
Maneuverability
The F-35's Performance Parameters laid out in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) sheds light on the exact performance requirements that are being demanded from the F-35.
The requirement for all three variants is to provide a platform that will have a positive exchange ratio during air combat maneuvering (ACM) engagements against "high performance threats that employ helmet mounted cueing and high off-boresight weapons."4 Furthermore, the ORD goes on to state that the JSF must further possess high angle of attack (AOA) capabilities "similar in nature to (or better than) the F-18C."5
In particular, the F-35A is being required to meet a threshold requirement for a 9.0 G capability at 60% fuel and no air-to ground ordnance remaining. In addition to the high-end requirement, the USAF also provides for a more realistic scenario of high altitude, large payload performance.
In addition, reports from operational test pilots have shed some light on the performance of the F-35. One test pilot, Billie Flynn, mentioned that if one "were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35′s, It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there." 6
There has been some criticism in regards the Billie Flynn's statement here. It should be noted that Billie Flynn is a highly qualified test pilot. He is the director of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots,7 and thus has staked his reputation on being an objective test pilot, having worked with NASA, the Canadian Forces, Lockheed Martin, the USAF and the Eurofighter consortium. Flynn also has the experience to make such a statement, with extensive experience flying the F/A-18, F-16, and the Eurofighter Typhoon as a test pilot in either operational or in an testing environment.
Thus, if we believe his statement (and we have no reason not to), it appears that the F-35 is at the very minimum, comparable with other legacy jet fighters flying today.
The F-35A is being required to have the capability of performing a 30 degree bank turn while still maintaining a 1000 foot per minute climb at 30,000 feet with a combat load-out of two external 370 gallon fuel tanks, two external 2000lb JDAM, two internal 2000lb JDAM, two internal AIM-120 missiles, and a fully loaded gun at standard military thrust at Mach 0.9 as it's must meet performance requirement. Furthermore, the F-35 is being desired to achieve to have the capability of performing a 45 degree bank turn while still maintaining a 2500 foot per minute climb at 30,000 feet with the same payload as above as its objective performance requirement.
Another problem is that the test parameters actually are unfairly negative to both the F-22 and the F-35 because they both have significantly increased internal fuel capacity compared to most other fighter aircraft. The F-35 carries internally roughly the same amount of fuel as an F-16 with full drop tanks. The issue is that the test parameters are set at a set % of internal fuel capacity. This means that the F-35 (and likewise the F-22) are carrying significantly more payload weight than comparable aircraft in this metric.
One cannot make blanket statements regarding the maneuverability of the F-35 without looking at the context, and the exact load out of the aircraft in question. As an example, if were to look at the F-16C flight manuals, one would be lead to think that the F-16 is a more maneuverable aircraft all around compared to the F-35.
However, closely look at the F-16's performance charts, one can see it states that the F-16 can only achieve its highest turn rate with nothing hanging off the aircraft per the drag index (no weapons, external tanks, etc), and at a gross vehicle weight of 20,000 lbs at maximum afterburner. Considering that the empty weight of a F-16C is around 18,900lbs, there's only about 1,100lbs of weight left for everything else, including fuel, the pilot and any stores. At this weight, a F-16C per this chart will do roughly 17 deg/s in an instantaneous turn at 15,000lbs and Mach 0.8.
Other data indicates what happens if you increase speed or weight. An F-16C with 4,500lbs of fuel and a pair of AIM-120′s will tip the scale at over 24,000lbs. Per the data, you loose roughly 4 deg/s at that increased weight and fuel. Thus, any comparison between the performance of the F-35 and any current legacy fighter is technically invalid until one can normalize the load outs between the aircraft involved otherwise it would be comparing apples to oranges.
Part 2 Will Appear on Tuesday morning
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Essential+Canada+Part/9852115/story.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/05/2014 | 19:28 uur
Voor zover ik het begrijp is het nu simpelweg exit Gripen E voor de Zwitsers en zullen ze het met de resterende F18's moeten doen, misschien dat de Gripen aan het begin van het volgende decennium weer de revue passeert als de oude Hornets aan vervanging toe zijn.
Is deze "Nein" ook een daadwerkelijke "Nein" voor aanschaf van vervangers voor de Luchtmacht van Zwitserland ?
Weegt deze stem van het volk dan zwaarder dan bijvoorbeeld "de veiligheid van de staat" ?
Rond 2020 zouden de F-5's vervangen zijn door de Gripen E, met de eerste levering van de Nieuwe Gripens in 2018. Tot die tijd zouden er C en D-versie geleasd worden voor training en opleiding.
Met nu geen vervanging van de F-5 in het vooruitzicht, zullen de 54 F-5's waarschijnlijk vanaf 2016 uitgefaseerd worden en zullen alle taken op de "schouders" rusten van de 32 stuks F-18's binnen de Zwitserse Luchtmacht.
De huidige F-18Cen D's krijgen nu een MLU, maar zullen met een jaar of 10 wel aan vervanging toe zijn, met de uitfasering van de F-5 zal er meer gevlogen worden op de F-18's zodat er meer gevergd zal worden van het airframe en de vlieguren op de toestellen, waardoor het vervangingstijdstip ook eerder zal zijn, dan gepland.
Ik denk, dat de vervanging van de F-18's over 4 jaar zeker op de agenda zal komen te staan.
Dus de "Nein" van nu zal in de toekomst dubbel zo hard aankomen, zowel voor de Zwitserse defensie als financieel.
Een "Ja" voor nu was voor de vervanging van de F-18's en toekomst beter geweest en hadden ze over een jaar of 8 a 10 prima een extra batch van 28 Gripen E/F kunnen kiezen, met een totaal aantal toestellen van rond de 40 stuks.
Zodat er binnen de Zwitserse luchtmacht met 1 type toestel gevolgen wordt.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/05/2014 | 22:42 uur
Sorry Lex, je slaat de plank volledig mis, ik zie graag dat Saab met haar Gripen E in Zwitserland succesvol is, al was het maar om een Europese producent levensvatbaar te houden.
Ik heb de Zwitserse discussie met bijbehorende sentimenten nauwkeurig gevolgd en ben van mening dat dit soort beslissingen nimmer aan het volk moeten worden voorgelegd, maar het systeem in Zwitserland biedt nu eenmaal dit soort mogelijkheden.
Jouw suggestie is derhalve dzz uitgevoerd.
Met de ervaringen van de laatste jaren is het de vraag of de beslissing wel zoveel veiliger is in handen van Politici.
Democratie kent vele vormen. Perfectie bestaat niet. Daarom is staatsinrichting ook zo lastig, en iets waar je niet teveel mee moet klooien als het redelijkerwijs werkt.
Citaat van: Harald op 19/05/2014 | 10:08 uur
.....
Een "Ja" voor nu was voor de vervanging van de F-18's en toekomst beter geweest en hadden ze over een jaar of 8 a 10 prima een extra batch van 28 Gripen E/F kunnen kiezen, met een totaal aantal toestellen van rond de 40 stuks.
Zodat er binnen de Zwitserse luchtmacht met 1 type toestel gevolgen wordt.
Ik heb begrepen dat Zwitserland bewust 2 type toestellen in dienst heeft en houdt. Om als neutraal land niet geheel afhankelijk te zijn van 1 model/fabrikant/land.
De discussie over nut en of noodzaak van referenda sla ik dit keer eens over ...
Citaat van: Elzenga op 19/05/2014 | 10:51 uur
Ik heb begrepen dat Zwitserland bewust 2 type toestellen in dienst heeft en houdt. Om als neutraal land niet geheel afhankelijk te zijn van 1 model/fabrikant/land.
Dan heeft "het volk" waarschijnlijk dat standpunt ook onbewust gelijk de nek omgedraaid ! ;) .... want de kans dat er straks met de F-18 vervanger gekozen wordt voor 1 type toestel binnen de Zwitserse Luchtmacht is nu 99,9 %.
Citaat van: Harald op 19/05/2014 | 11:08 uur
Dan heeft "het volk" waarschijnlijk dat standpunt ook onbewust gelijk de nek omgedraaid ! ;) .... want de kans dat er straks met de F-18 vervanger gekozen wordt voor 1 type toestel binnen de Zwitserse Luchtmacht is nu 99,9 %.
De vraag is nu vooral, hoe nu verder? Want de vraag is of het nog nut heeft de F5's in dienst te houden.
Oosterijk heeft ook al QRA gevlogen met Pilatus PC7's, kan zomaar dat Zwitserland gaat volgen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 19/05/2014 | 11:14 uur
De vraag is nu vooral, hoe nu verder?
Zwitserland heeft wel een probleem, nu er een "nein" gegeven is.
The People Said No to GripenOn 18 May 2014 the Swiss electorate rejected the law on the Gripen fund. The Federal Council and Parliament must now consider alternatives to address security shortfalls.
The people did not support the project of the Federal Council on the acquisition of 22 Gripen E combat aircraft.
"This decision has the effect of creating security gaps," says Federal Councillor [defence minister—Ed.] Ueli Maurer. "We will make every effort to address these gaps in time in this difficult context.
During the coming months, we must consider different options to find the best solution for our military readiness." This analysis and the political process will require some time before proposals can be made to provide air protection after the F/A-18 are retired, currently scheduled for 2025.
The Federal Council and Parliament will decide how to fill security gaps that will have emerged.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/154018/official-reactions-to-swiss-gripen-vote.html
Citaat van: www.defense-aerospace.com Vandaag om 03:35
This analysis and the political process will require some time before proposals can be made to provide air protection after the F/A-18 are retired, currently scheduled for 2025.
Redelijke kans de de Zwitsers in 2020 opnieuw kiezen voor de Gripen E, nu als F18 vervanger, wellicht een optie om gegund werk van Saab alsnog te mogen uitvoeren zonder dat het naar bijvoorbeeld Brazilië wordt overgeheveld.
Veel westerse nieuwbouw keuzes zijn er in/na 2020 wellicht niet meer, immers dan zijn de lijnen (zoals het er nu uit ziet) van LM (F16), Boeing (F15 en F18), Airbus (Eurofighter) gesloten.
Dassault levert dan misschien nog nieuw (in afwachting van de Indiase handtekening) en verder is er dan nog Saab (gripen E/F?) en LM (F35)
Wellicht dat in 2020 een of meerdere Aziaten het levenlicht hebben gezien (Turkije, Z-Korea/Indoniesië en Japan), maar dat zien we tegen die tijd dan wel weer....
Nieuwe Amerikanen (als ze dan zo ver zijn) de Boeing FA/XX en de LM F/X zullen na verwachting zeker geen Zwitsers referendum kunnen doorstaan.
CitaatCol Pietrucha told The Sunday Telegraph: "All fighter programmes have developed problems. This one is particularly troubling, not necessarily because the aircraft is inherently bad, but because ... they are being bought before they have been proven. They have not been tested outside a computer simulation."
Dat is onzin. Er wordt al jaren uitvoerig getest. Op dit moment staan het afwerpen van de intern meevoerbare wapens op het program: de GBU-32 en AIM-120. Wat Pietrucha bedoelt is wellicht uitslagen in oefenmissies tegen opponenten. Dat hij nu oppert dat de F-35 niet geschikt zou zijn zal vast een politieke reden hebben, want deze tests komen nog. Wat dat betreft heeft het voor de F-22 ook jaren geduurd eer er serieus dogfights mee uitgevoerd werden.
Oeps, voor de duidelijkheid ik refereer aan het artikel van Jurrien Visser.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10838453/Britain-should-consider-scrapping-F-35-stealth-fighter.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/05/2014 | 15:54 uur
Redelijke kans de de Zwitsers in 2020 opnieuw kiezen voor de Gripen E, nu als F18 vervanger, wellicht een optie om gegund werk van Saab alsnog te mogen uitvoeren zonder dat het naar bijvoorbeeld Brazilië wordt overgeheveld.
Veel westerse nieuwbouw keuzes zijn er in/na 2020 wellicht niet meer, immers dan zijn de lijnen (zoals het er nu uit ziet) van LM (F16), Boeing (F15 en F18), Airbus (Eurofighter) gesloten.
Dassault levert dan misschien nog nieuw (in afwachting van de Indiase handtekening) en verder is er dan nog Saab (gripen E/F?) en LM (F35)
Wellicht dat in 2020 een of meerdere Aziaten het levenlicht hebben gezien (Turkije, Z-Korea/Indoniesië en Japan), maar dat zien we tegen die tijd dan wel weer....
Nieuwe Amerikanen (als ze dan zo ver zijn) de Boeing FA/XX en de LM F/X zullen na verwachting zeker geen Zwitsers referendum kunnen doorstaan.
Misschien maakt de Rafale nog een comeback. In ieder geval is iedere optie naast de Saab Gripen E duurder. Ben benieuwd wanneer dat indaalt bij de Zwitsers. In Zwitserland gebeurd precies het zelfde als hier, de media slaagt er niet in een uitvoerig en afgewogen beeld te schetsen van alle kandidaten zodat de burger goed geïnformeerd haar stem kan uitbrengen. Geen wonder dat de burger zich door iedereen gepiepeld voelt en boos het bordspel van tafel kiepert. En daarom is wat de Ottawa Citizen doet zo uniek. Hadden wij maar zo'n krant die meer tijd in defensie steekt dan strikt noodzakelijk.
Helaas leven we in een tijd dat veel potentiële kiezers hun krantenabonnement opzeggen en zich amper nog inlezen in belangrijke kwesties. Er zijn te veel websites die de informatiefunctie van kranten overnemen, maar de burger liever naar de mond praten dan tegenspreken. De F-35 als een foutenfestijn afschieten is leuker dan serieus het defensielandschap van de toekomst schetsen en daarop projecteren wat de beste keuze is. En als daaruit blijkt dat de Rafale of F-15SE de beste is, vind ik dat ook prima.
Citaat van: Zeewier op 19/05/2014 | 17:44 uur
Misschien maakt de Rafale nog een comeback. In ieder geval is iedere optie naast de Saab Gripen E duurder. Ben benieuwd wanneer dat indaalt bij de Zwitsers. In Zwitserland gebeurd precies het zelfde als hier, de media slaagt er niet in een uitvoerig en afgewogen beeld te schetsen van alle kandidaten zodat de burger goed geïnformeerd haar stem kan uitbrengen. Geen wonder dat de burger zich door iedereen gepiepeld voelt en boos het bordspel van tafel kiepert. En daarom is wat de Ottawa Citizen doet zo uniek. Hadden wij maar zo'n krant die meer tijd in defensie steekt dan strikt noodzakelijk.
Helaas leven we in een tijd dat veel potentiële kiezers hun krantenabonnement opzeggen en zich amper nog inlezen in belangrijke kwesties. Er zijn te veel websites die de informatiefunctie van kranten overnemen, maar de burger liever naar de mond praten dan tegenspreken. De F-35 als een foutenfestijn afschieten is leuker dan serieus het defensielandschap van de toekomst schetsen en daarop projecteren wat de beste keuze is. En als daaruit blijkt dat de Rafale of F-15SE de beste is, vind ik dat ook prima.
Mee eens, ook met de alternatieven mocht iets gebeuren waarvan ik de kans minimaal acht.
P.s. de Saab Gripen wordt nu ongetwijfeld een stukje duurder.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/05/2014 | 18:01 uur
Mee eens, ook met de alternatieven mocht iets gebeuren waarvan ik de kans minimaal acht.
P.s. de Saab Gripen wordt nu ongetwijfeld een stukje duurder.
Dat is de vraag, prijs was gebaseerd op Zweden + Zwitserland, en nu Zweden + Brazillie, waarbij ook de Zweedse order is/wordt verruimd.
Daarbij komen er nog een aantal projecten in Zuid-Amerika aan, waarbij Brazillie de Gripen mag pushen, wat in dat politiek landschap wel eens goed uit zou kunnen pakken.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 19/05/2014 | 18:11 uur
Dat is de vraag, prijs was gebaseerd op Zweden + Zwitserland, en nu Zweden + Brazillie, waarbij ook de Zweedse order is/wordt verruimd.
Daarbij komen er nog een aantal projecten in Zuid-Amerika aan, waarbij Brazillie de Gripen mag pushen, wat in dat politiek landschap wel eens goed uit zou kunnen pakken.
De plannen begonnen bij 40 geconverteerde Zweedse Gripens, liepen op naar 60 + 22 nieuwbouw Gripens naar nu 70+36= 106, waarbij er nog gesproken word over mogelijk 84 extra kisten voor Brazillie op een later tijdstip.
Als de huidige situatie Zweden er toe beweegt een NATO land te worden, is het interessant om te zien of dat wat betekend voor de potentiële opties.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 19/05/2014 | 18:11 uur
Dat is de vraag, prijs was gebaseerd op Zweden + Zwitserland, en nu Zweden + Brazillie, waarbij ook de Zweedse order is/wordt verruimd.
Daarbij komen er nog een aantal projecten in Zuid-Amerika aan, waarbij Brazillie de Gripen mag pushen, wat in dat politiek landschap wel eens goed uit zou kunnen pakken.
Hier heb wellicht een punt, maar wat voor de F35 geldt, geldt natuurlijk ook voor de Gripen als het plan getal wordt verminderd.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 19/05/2014 | 18:20 uur
De plannen begonnen bij 40 geconverteerde Zweedse Gripens, liepen op naar 60 + 22 nieuwbouw Gripens naar nu 70+36= 106, waarbij er nog gesproken word over mogelijk 84 extra kisten voor Brazillie op een later tijdstip.
Als de huidige situatie Zweden er toe beweegt een NATO land te worden, is het interessant om te zien of dat wat betekend voor de potentiële opties.
De Gripen E (F?) is gelukkig ook niet extit, ik denk nu dat de Zweden er nog een verrassend aantal van gaan verkopen.
Persoonlijk verwacht ik geen verkoop successen aan west Europese landen, in het oosten van Europa zie ik wel een paar gegadigden inclusief de huidige Gripen gebruikers.
Kleine Aziatische landen en Zuid Amerika lijken ook een goede mogelijkheid naast het, op termijn, opwaarderen of vernieuwen van de Z-Afrikaanse vloot.
Czechs sign lease deal for Saab's Gripen fighters
The Czech Republic signs lease arrangement for Saab jet fighters.
By Richard Tomkins | May 16, 2014 at 4:55 PM
LINKOPING, Sweden, May 16 (UPI) --The Czech Republic is to continue leasing Saab Gripen fighter aircraft for a dozen years under a government-to-government agreement signed Friday, Saab said.
The air force of the Czech Republic flies 14 Gripen C/D jets under a 2006 lease from Sweden, which expires next year.
Lees verder: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2014/05/16/Czechs-sign-lease-deal-for-Saabs-Gripen-fighters/6011400272663/#ixzz32CcaaLAL
Australia: We want shipborne F-35s!
The Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force will operate a shipborne version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealthy fighter jet. Australia's Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West the second week of May 2014 that the government is considering buying the B-model, the same variant as the US Marine Corps is getting.
A yet to release number of F-35s are preliminary planned to fly from HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, the new Landing Helicopter Ships (LDHs) that are currently starting to mark Australia's come-back into the more strategic maritime role since the country stopped using the HMAS Melbourne in 1982.
Other sources within the Australian government confirm that a shipborne version of the F-35 has been considered for the LHDs from the moment the order for the vessels went out.
Despite all the pro-talk, if and when the Canberra and/or Adelaide will house the first Australian stealthy fighter jump jets is much subject to pricing and budget of course. For now the official order is "only" for 72 conventional F-35As for the RAAF, but like a government spokesperson confirmed – the door is open for more.
http://airheadsfly.com/2014/05/17/australia-we-want-shipborne-f-35s/
Citaat van: airheadsfly.com Vandaag om 08:53
Australia: We want shipborne F-35s!
Down under begrijpen ze het tenminste....
Ik blijf pleiten voor een (KM) LPD vervanger (in het volgende decennium) door een LHD (één of beide) wat ook de NL krijgsmacht deze mogelijkheid kan bieden, zeker als de industrie haar zin krijgt met een beperkte F35 uitbreiding.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/05/2014 | 09:01 uur
Down under begrijpen ze het tenminste....
Ik blijf pleiten voor een (KM) LPD vervanger (in het volgende decennium) door een LHD (één of beide) wat ook de NL krijgsmacht deze mogelijkheid kan bieden, zeker als de industrie haar zin krijgt met een beperkte F35 uitbreiding.
Als de industrie haar zin krijgt wordt het ding gewoonweg nog drie keer zo duur. Meer winst bij zelfde werk.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 20/05/2014 | 10:11 uur
Als de industrie haar zin krijgt wordt het ding gewoonweg nog drie keer zo duur. Meer winst bij zelfde werk.
Winst is natuurlijk voor elk commercieel bedrijf de primaire doelstelling, maar je kan je zelf ook uit de markt prijzen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/05/2014 | 10:16 uur
Winst is natuurlijk voor elk commercieel bedrijf de primaire doelstelling, maar je kan je zelf ook uit de markt prijzen.
Als je maar 1 klant hebt, een klant die je niet overhaald door een goede prijs of een goed product, maar door goede bijdragen aan de campagnekas, zul je jezelf niet snel uit de markt prijzen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 20/05/2014 | 16:22 uur
Als je maar 1 klant hebt, een klant die je niet overhaald door een goede prijs of een goed product, maar door goede bijdragen aan de campagnekas, zul je jezelf niet snel uit de markt prijzen.
In dit opzicht ben ik het zeker met je eens, De Amerikanen maken dan ook een kapitale fout door Boeing in de fighter "koelkast" te plaatsen en één monopolist te creëren waarbij voorstander ben en blijf van meerdere producenten die diverse types afleveren van een min of meer zelfde generatie.
Zoals het voorbeeld: F14, F15 en F16.
Citaat van: Harald op 19/05/2014 | 15:35 uur
"This decision has the effect of creating security gaps," says Federal Councillor [defence minister—Ed.] Ueli Maurer. "We will make every effort to address these gaps in time in this difficult context. During the coming months, we must consider different options to find the best solution for our military readiness."
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/154018/official-reactions-to-swiss-gripen-vote.html
Is het misschien een optie voor de Zwitsers om te gaan leasen? Wat zegt het referendum daarover?
Citaat van: bergd op 20/05/2014 | 18:57 uur
Is het misschien een optie voor de Zwitsers om te gaan leasen? Wat zegt het referendum daarover?
Het was een ja/nee verhaal, het is ze simpelweg het geld niet waard.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/05/2014 | 19:53 uur
Het was een ja/nee verhaal, het is ze simpelweg het geld niet waard.
Dat is nog geen antwoord op mijn vraag.
Referendum gaat toch over de aankoop van de Gripens, en voorziet niet in leasen? Dus meest simpele oplossing ga ze leasen.
Citaat van: bergd op 20/05/2014 | 19:59 uur
Dat is nog geen antwoord op mijn vraag.
Referendum gaat toch over de aankoop van de Gripens, en voorziet niet in leasen? Dus meest simpele oplossing ga ze leasen.
Het antwoord is dat de Zwitsers nu geen koop/huur/cadeau/lease alternatief krijgen voor de F5 en dat men nu moet gaan onderzoeken hoe men verder moet/kan/mag.
De Gripen komt weer in beeld in 2020 als de Hornet vervangen moet worden. In de Zwitserse pers wordt aangegeven dat dan wederom de EF, de Rafale en jawel..... ook de F35 wellicht een gooi naar die vervanging zullen gaan doen.
In Zwitserland gaat de show verder met: de F18 opvolger in 2025.
Wordt vervolgd: zie Duitstalig artikel via de link.
http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/story/Stimmen-wir-bald-ueber-den-Eurofighter-ab--29457860
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/05/2014 | 07:43 uur
In Zwitserland gaat de show verder met: de F18 opvolger in 2025.
Wordt vervolgd: zie Duitstalig artikel via de link.
http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/story/Stimmen-wir-bald-ueber-den-Eurofighter-ab--29457860
Precies, alle optie's zijn open, als het toestel maar van de plank gekocht kan worden. Dus over 4 a 5 jaar een nieuwe vergelijking met een winnaar en dan kan het volk weer stemmen.
Over 5 jaar zullen er productielijnen gesloten zijn, zoals de F-18E/F, Eurofighter. Maar ook nieuwe geopend zijn, zoals de Gripen E, F-35.
Maar ik denk dat er door Zwitserland ook zeker gekeken zal worden naar waarmee de buren vliegen en zal 2de hands (goedkopere optie) ook waarschijnlijk wel een optie zijn.
Turkey Wins F-35 Engine Assembly Plant
Turkish Ministry of National Defense - Undersecretariat for Defence Industries (SSM) and Pratt & Whitney signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) today for the establishment of a National-level F135 Final Assembly and Check- Out and Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul and Upgrade Capabilities in Turkey.
Upon the receipt of related approvals from US Government, this LOI is an important milestone of a long-term cooperation between SSM and P&W and also shows Turkey's commitment to Joint Strike Fighter Program, as well as Pratt & Whitney's trust in Turkish capabilities.
Turkey has a long-lasting experience in fighter engine final assembly and maintenance, repair, overhaul and update operations from F-16 Program and has a long term vision to sustain this experience and provide benefit to the F-35 program.
Turkey believes that the capabilities to be established in Turkey will result in mutual benefits for both parties. Turkey wishes this LOI will accelerate the efforts and lead to the successful establishment of the subject capabilities.
Turkey's primary aim is to provide benefit to the program by assembling F135 engines and providing service to the F-35 users in the region via these facilities to be established.
Turkey, which is in the JSF program from Concept Development Phase phase, has contributed to System Development and Demonstration and Production Sustainment and Follow on Development phases as a partner nation.
Turkey has recently placed the order for the first two F-35 jets of an overall 100 F-35A fleet on 6 May 2014 and plans to deploy the aircraft in Turkey by 2019.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/154093/turkey-wins-f_35-engine-assembly-plant.html
Eurofighter Unveils Major Upgrade Package
Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH chose the 2014 ILA Berlin Air Show to unveil details of a major capability enhancement package which secures the Eurofighter Typhoon's position as the most powerful and reliable swing-role/multi-role combat aircraft currently available.
Briefing media and delegates at the German air show, former RAF Pilot Paul Smith, now a 'Capability Manager' for Eurofighter said: "What we are showcasing at ILA here in Germany represents a paradigm shift in the capability of the Eurofighter Typhoon as a series of major enhancements are introduced to our customers.
"The second element of the Phase 1 Enhancements package known as 'P1Eb' takes Typhoon multi-role capability to a new level. This allows Typhoon to realise both its air-to-air and air-to-ground capability to full effect. It is a significant advancement for the Programme."
The enhancements feed in lessons from the operations in Libya, significantly enhancing the air-surface capabilities and completely revise the Human Machine interface for multirole operations. These enhancements allow the pilot to switch seamlessly between air-to-air and air-to-ground modes.
Smith added: "This package also paves the way for the Eurofighter to deploy deep strike stand-off weapons that can target high value highly protected surface targets. We are already deep into the integration and flight test of the Storm Shadow stand-off weapon. Storm Shadow has a proven combat record of penetrating the most highly defended target areas. The stealth is in the weapon; minimising the risk to pilot and aircraft.
Smith, who worked on several capability enhancements for the Eurofighter Typhoon, said: The underlying advantage of the Eurofighter Typhoon is that it is a hugely powerful and agile platform. Ally this significant kinetic advantage with the most advanced sensors and the most potent weapons and that delivers a combat advantage that really counts. This is why we are integrating the uniquely potent Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM)."
The Meteor BVRAAM has a much higher average speed than legacy missiles and when combined with Eurofighter's kinetics this delivers a 'no escape zone' greater than three times that of comparable weaponry. The P1Eb enhancement package for the Eurofighter also brings a suite of capability upgrades for the aircraft's Defensive Aids Sub System (DASS) and the latest interoperability updates for the fighter's Multifunction and Distribution Systems (MIDS) which together help ensure that the Eurofighter Typhoon is the most effective flying partner for allied aircraft.
Alberto Gutierrez, the CEO of Eurofighter GmbH said: "We are proud to be showcasing these enhancements at ILA. This is an important time in the evolution of the Programme and the capability roadmap for Eurofighter continues to deliver. Anyone who takes the time to study what this enhancement package means will understand exactly why we are proud to be producing such an amazing aircraft."
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/154092/eurofighter-unveils-major-upgrade-package.html
Textron making changes in Scorpion tactical jet, will fly it to airshow in England
Textron AirLand's new tactical jet, the Scorpion, is taking a short break from flight testing to undergo some significant modifications, including changes so it can fly over the ocean to the Farnborough International Airshow this summer.
The intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance strike aircraft has been flying for five months.
The program called for incremental improvements to be made in the test plane along the way.
But after Textron officials decided to exhibit the Scorpion at the Farnborough airshow in England in July, the schedule was revised, and the changes are being made now, said Dale Tutt, chief engineer on the program.
The Scorpion will fly about 4,700 nautical miles from Wichita to the show, which will be a good place to market it to potential customers, he said.
"It's safe to say that a lot of potential international customers we've been talking to are excited to see the airplane at Farnborough," Tutt said. At other shows, attendees have seen only a model of the airplane.
"This will be a nice place to see it in person," he said.
Modifications to add capabilities to the plane began after the Scorpion's latest flight on May 1, he said.
For example, mechanics added an engine inlet ice protection system and replaced a composite leading edge of the inlet with a metal one to allow the plane to fly in a broader range of weather conditions.
They also added a cockpit ladder so the flight crew won't have to rely on a ground crew with a ladder to get in and out of the jet.
And they've made some major improvements to the electrical and environmental control systems.
"We're activating the onboard oxygen-generating system to be used in place of oxygen bottles," Tutt said. "It provides a continuous supply of oxygen to the pilots." And the oxygen bottles won't have to be refilled at every stop.
A number of small, non-urgent items were also addressed, some of them as simple as the nomenclature on a switch, Tutt said.
Mechanics are finishing up, and the plane should be back in the air this week. It will be flown to Cessna Aircraft in west Wichita at the end of the week to be painted. Once that is done, it's expected to resume flying about June 1, Tutt said.
It's been a lot of work in a short period of time.
"We've been very pleased with how smoothly it's gone," Tutt said.
As the airplane comes out of modification, "everything is looking pretty stable," Tutt said. "We're excited about the fact that we get a good solid month of flying (in June). I'd be surprised if we didn't put at least 30 hours on the airplane in the next month and be on our way to Farnborough."
In order to get from design to flight in two years, some tradeoffs were made in the Scorpion's design.
"This catches us up on a few major systems that we traded off on in order to go that fast," said Dan Hinson, the Scorpion's chief test pilot. "We knew about these for a long time. We were just looking for the right time to do them. When we decided to go to Farnborough, that drove the time frame."
With the scope of the changes, the readiness of engineering, parts manufacturing and manpower to integrate the parts is impressive, Hinson said. "I'm watching the team work. I think it's historic, the speed and the accuracy of what they're integrating."
In all, the Scorpion has made 41 test flights and has flown 76.4 hours.
The airplane has been flying reliably, Tutt said.
"We tend not to cancel flights due to mechanical or unscheduled maintenance issues," he said. "We've had a number of flight cancellations due to weather."
Textron announced the Scorpion in September as a demonstration plane designed to accommodate the budget restraints of shifting mission requirements of the U.S. Department of Defense and allies abroad.
The prototype was designed from scratch and built at a Cessna facility in east Wichita in secrecy, beginning in early 2012.
It was designed to take on a diverse set of missions, such as irregular warfare, border patrol, maritime surveillance, emergency relief, counternarcotics and defense operations, Textron said.
The Scorpion is being built by a new Textron division, Textron AirLand, a joint venture with AirLand Enterprises.
Low-volume production is slated for 2015. Testing and early production will be done in Wichita, company officials said.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2014/05/19/3464090/textron-making-changes-in-scorpion.html#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1400594111597&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kansas.com&pfname=&rpctoken=92286590#storylink=cpy
Sweden May Fund Gripen-E Even Without International Partner
May. 22, 2014
HELSINKI — The Swedish government has signaled it is ready to roll back a stipulation in its 2012 agreement with Saab that required an international partner to be in place before funding could continue for the Gripen-E project.
The government's new, softer line, reinforced by the Ministry of Defense, puts the Gripen-E project into the category of "too big to fail."
Via de link, de rest van het verhaal.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140522/DEFREG01/305220042/Sweden-May-Fund-Gripen-E-Even-Without-International-Partner
Sweden's Ultra-Cheap Fighter Jet Still Isn't Cheap Enough for Switzerland
By Douglas A. McIntyre / May 22, 2014
Last year, America's biggest defense contractor, Boeing (NYSE: BA), suffered a terrible blow. Down (way) south of the border in Brazil, the government suddenly accelerated planes to choose a new fighter jet to replace its aging fleet of French Mirage 2000 jets. The winner, however, was not Boeing, which had offered its most advanced version of the F/A-18 fighter bomber to the Brazilians.
Rather, the winner was Sweden's Saab, which sold the Brazilians on the merits of its bargain-basement-priced "Gripen NG" fighter — priced at just $6 billion, including 30 years' worth of maintenance costs, for a total of 36 jets.
A billion here, a billion there...
Pricing its planes at $6 billion, Saab undercut Boeing's F/A-18 bid by more than 22%, snatching victory with a price that just couldn't be beat. But earlier this week, Saab found itself just that — beat.
Two years ago, you see, Switzerland's military had agreed to become Saab's first foreign customer for the new Gripen, buying 22 units of the fighter jet for $3.5 billion, a price very similar to the one Brazil will pay, about $159 million a plane. But despite having a contract inked, Saab lost its Swiss sale this week when the citizens of Switzerland voted in a referendum on whether they really wanted to pay the $3.5 billion price tag their government had negotiated for them.
Turns out they did not.
By a vote of 53.4% against, 46.6% for, Swiss voters elected this week to reject the Saab fighter jet buy. Why? News reports suggest Swiss voters rebelled over suggestions that the cost of maintaining and operating the Gripens could add $7.8 billion to the initial purchase price, making the true cost of the fighters something like $11.3 billion (10 billion Swiss francs). Even if that was the best price available at the time, it seems the Swiss no longer want to pay it.
What does it mean to investors?
If a contract falls in the Swiss Alps, does it make a sound? You might not think that a contract falling through across the pond has any practical effect on investors in U.S. defense contractors, but in fact Saab's pain may turn out to be American defense contractors' gain. Here are just three companies that could benefit from Saab's misfortune:
Boeing: Believe it or not, this is good news for Boeing. Saab, you see, was counting on its Swiss sale to help build volume and cut development costs on the new Gripen "E" version of its jet, of which Sweden itself intends to buy 60 units. Now, initial volume production of this plane will be cut by about 25%, making it harder for Saab to hit its eventual sales target of 400 Gripens sold globally over the next 20 years. This in turn will make it hard for Saab to keep prices low, or undercut Boeing on future fighter jet contract bids. So for Boeing's contract negotiators, life just got a little bit easier.
Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT): Similarly, the fact that Saab is now going to have trouble keeping costs low benefits Lockheed Martin, whose F-35 stealth fighter jet regularly outprices the competition in international fighter jet "beauty contests." As was seen in Korea lat year, sometimes the technical superiority of the F-35 enables Lockheed to win these head-to-head contests despite its fighter plane's higher price tag. But still, every little bit helps, and the likelihood that Gripen prices will rise as volume falls is a boon to Lockheed Martin's contract negotiators as well.
Textron (NYSE: TXT): The biggest (potential) winner of all here, though, is Textron. As you may have heard, Textron recently began marketing a new, self-developed fighter jet called the TextronAirLandScorpion. Priced at an estimated $25 million or less, Textron's fighter has the potential to strafe the heck out of Gripen's sales pitch on its own $160 million warbird. What's more, Textron recently purchased Beechcraft, maker of the even cheaper AT-6 Texan II turboprop fighter plane.
While neither plane boasts the technical capabilities of Saab's Gripen – much less the prowess of Boeing's F/A-18 or Lockheed's F-35 — both of Textron's budget-priced marquee military aircraft offer undeniable bang for the buck. The Scorpion in particular was not available when bidding began on the Brazil contract last year. But the first time it's sent up against the Gripen in a sales pitch, Textron's planes could give Saab a real run for their money.
Will Saab's contract loss open it up to repeated stings from Textron's Scorpion? It might.
Read more: Sweden's Ultra-Cheap Fighter Jet Still Isn't Cheap Enough for Switzerland - Textron, Inc. (NYSE:TXT) - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2014/05/22/swedens-ultra-cheap-fighter-jet-still-isnt-cheap-enough-for-switzerland/#ixzz32T1qumfd
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook
New Chinese 5th Generation Fighter Jet--J31 Performs More Flight Tests
•By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer
•Posted 05.22.2014
The J-31 continues flight testing at a Shenyang Aircraft Corporation research facility in northern China. As China's second fifth generation fighter, the J-31 makes China the second nation in the world, after the United States, to have flown two fifth generation fighters. With a length of about 17 meters and an 11.5m wingspan, the J-31 is about the size of the F-35 Lightning II and smaller than the F-22, J-20 and PAK-FA. A large model of the J-31, designated as "F-60", appeared at the Zhuhai 2012 Airshow, indicating a Chinese willingness to export the J-31 as a international competitor to the F-35. Once it enters service, the J-31 is likely to be serve alongside less numerous J-20s as part of a "high/low" combination, similar to the F-35/F-22 mix in the US Air Force. The J-31 is also likely to serve aboard future Chinese aircraft carriers, greatly enhancing their capabilities. Pakistan is likely to be the first export customer for the J-31, as Islamabad hopes to counter the Indian purchase of Russian FGFA stealth fighters.
The J-31 "Gyrfalcon" stealth fighter reportedly uses technology from the J-19, Shenyang's failed bid for the Chinese heavy 5th generation fighter (which the Chengdu J-20 won). The J-31 has conducted at least six test flights in Shenyang since fall 2012 and a second prototype is under assembly. Compared to censorship of some J-20 photos, there is less secrecy about the J-31's development.
To save weight, the J-31 uses an immense number of of 3D laser printed components, including titanium wing spars. Compared to the F-35, the J-31 uses two smaller Russian RD-33 engines instead of a larger engine like the AL-31 or WS-10. This gives the J-31 a flatter fuselage than the F-35; which suggests a more pronounced air superiority focus for the J-31, since a flatter fuselage results in a smaller weapons bay but improves fuel efficiency and speed by decreasing drag. It is likely that the J-31 could carry larger missiles like the YJ-12 anti-ship missile under its wings, but like with the F-35, at the cost of stealth. Vladimir Barkovsky, chief of the Russian MiG aircraft design bureau, has praised the J-31 as a "well done indigenous design" and "good machine" resulting from China's ambitious aviation industry.
Zie link voor de plaatjes.
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/new-chinese-5th-generation-fighter-jet-j31-performs-more-flight-tests
ILA: Roketsan, Airbus sign defence pact
Turkish company Roketsan has linked up with Airbus Defence & Space to investigate collaboration on several military aerospace projects, including the projected TFX fighter programme.
Under the terms of a memorandum of understanding signed at the show, the organisations will initially exchange technical and business information to define possible areas of co-operation.
Roketsan president and chief executive Selcuk Yasar says he looks forward to exploring a range of opportunities, including integrating weapons systems such as Turkey's Stand-Off Missile on existing Airbus military aircraft, as well as on future combat systems.
Airbus Defence & Space's head of military aircraft Domingo Ureña says his company hopes to expand its "excellent relationship with Turkish industry".
The big prize for Airbus would be a role in Turkey's fifth-generation TFX project. If the aircraft goes ahead, it will replace the nation's Lockheed Martin F-16 force, which currently numbers around 150 aircraft. Turkey wants to partner one or more foreign companies on the programme.
Ankara has already decided to replace its elderly McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms with Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and has recently confirmed plans to order the first two of what is due eventually to be a 100-strong fleet.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ila-roketsan-airbus-sign-defence-pact-399540/
Sunday, 25 May 2014
Kirk Webber's fighter comparison
For those of you out there who like to crunch numbers, here's one for you.
Reader Kirk Webber has compiled this excellent spreadsheet filled with information on modern western fighters that could be potential CF-18 replacements. This information includes information pertaining to the current CF-18 Hornet (as a baseline), as well as for the F-22 Raptor (as a comparison).
I have not tampered with the data in anyway, but I did modify the format somewhat (fonts, colored columns, etc) in an attempt to make it more "readable". There is A LOT of data here, and I haven't been able to confirm all of it.
Numbers alone do not tell a complete story, of course. Factors like reliability, commonality, ergonomics, and others are hard to express as a simple numerical value. Other factors need to valued depending on context. For example, stealth is much more useful as a first-day strike capability than it is for performing close-air-support over uncontested airspace. As usual, I encourage my readers to make their own decisions.
Modern Fighter Comparison (via de link)
I am going to invite Mr. Webber to monitor this page so that he can answer any questions you might have regarding sources or methodology.
Thanks again Kirk! Your work here is greatly appreciated.
http://gripen4canada.blogspot.nl/2014/05/kirk-webbers-fighter-comparison.html?spref=fb
Unprecedented Strength: Israel's Air Force Capabilities to Increase 400%
According to the Israel Air Force chief, the IDF's offensive capabilities will quadruple by the end of 2014. In a single day, Israeli planes can strike thousands of terror targets and exceed the IDF's achievements during extended operations.
Major General Amir Eshel, Commander of the Israel Air Force, spoke last week at the Tenth Annual Conference for National Security on the contribution of air power to Israel's strategic capabilities. Maj. Gen. Eshel discussed the air force's attack and defensive capabilities during times of war and routine operations.
"I believe our capabilities are only second to the United States – from both an offensive and defensive standpoint," the IAF commander said, referring to a significant leap in capabilities over the past two years. The commander based his assessment on an evaluation of IDF abilities and conversations with officials from foreign militaries.
"We have an unprecedented offensive capability, which allows us to accurately strike thousands of targets in one day. We have doubled our abilities twice in the past two years. By the end of 2014, we will see an improvement of 400 percent to our offensive capabilities relative to the recent past, as a result of a long improvement process."
To illustrate Israel's advancements, the IAF Commander compared the air force's new efficacy to other achievements in recent years. "The air force at the end of 2014, in less than 24 hours, can do what it did in three days during the Second Lebanon War, and can do in 12 hours what it did in a week during Operation Pillar of Defense."
Maj. Gen. Eshel stated that "Israel can not afford lengthy attacks. We need to win quickly. A short time, in my opinion, is a few days. I do not believe in conducting long wars."
The air force chief argued that accurate and quality firepower is the main variable in achieving victory. To do so, he said, "It's not enough to have just technical ability – we need to adopt an approach. We're talking about an operation with full power, all of the air force, all encompassing, from the opening of the offensive effort in order to strike as powerfully as possible and shorten the war."
"We can destroy the military capabilities and infrastructure that support the activities of Hezbollah on a scale that would require decades to rebuild. [We could achieve] a direct hit on the terror organization and all that supports it on an unimaginable scale," the IAF commander said.
"Unfortunately Hezbollah took its assets and moved them into the cities," he added. Hezbollah terrorists position themselves deep within urban areas, where they use homes and civilians as shields against Israeli counterattacks. In recent years, they have also mastered the technique of disappearing underground.
"This is a very significant challenge because we do not want to hurt innocent bystanders. We've more than once that houses that are inhabited by citizens will be harmed...These are military targets that support their war effort."
In the face of these challenges, the IDF uses precision strikes to eliminate terror targets – a method which also prevents operations from spiraling into wars. "What characterizes [our] air power is our ability to control its impact, and this is very important during incidents of combat between wars," Maj. Gen. Eshel explained. "Everything is flexible and subject to change. This is the advantage of the air force: the ability to take the hammer that was made for wars and use it in a more limited capacity."
http://www.idfblog.com/2014/05/27/unprecedented-strength-air-israels-capabilities-increase-400/ (http://www.idfblog.com/2014/05/27/unprecedented-strength-air-israels-capabilities-increase-400/)
F-35B Vertical Landings In Doubt For U.K.
The British public may be disappointed if, after enduring traffic mayhem and paying for their Fairford and Farnborough show tickets, they expect to see the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter emulate the vertical landings (VL) that the AV-8 Harrier family has made routine since the Beatles were playing dodgy nightclubs in Hamburg.
U.S. Marine Corps aviation boss Brig. Gen. Matthew Glavy has said there are no plans for the F-35B to perform VLs in the U.K., because the program staff has not finished testing the matting that is needed to protect the runway from exhaust heat. (The program office, Marines and Lockheed Martin did not return emails about any part of this story.) It may sound like a simple issue, but it pops the lids off two cans of worms: the program's relationship with the truth, and the operational utility of VL.
In December 2009, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navfac) issued specifications for contractors bidding on JSF construction work. The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. "Spalling" occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface.
Lockheed Martin was dismissive. The specifications were out of date and based on worst-case assessments, the company said, and tests in January 2010 showed that "the difference between F‑35B exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant Conops [concept of operations] changes."
Navfac ignored Lockheed Martin and commissioned high-temperature-concrete VL pads at four sites. At the Navy's Patuxent River, Md., flight-test center, F-35Bs perform VLs on a pad of AM-2 aluminum matting, protecting the concrete from heat and blast. Why didn't the January 2010 tests result in a change to the specifications? How were those tests performed? The Navy has referred those questions to Lockheed Martin, which has repeatedly failed to answer them.
This isn't the only instance where Lockheed Martin has tried to shoot the messenger on the basis of weak facts. When a Rand Corp. report last year concluded that the JSF will cost more than three single-service programs, Lockheed Martin accused Rand of using "outdated data" but founded that criticism on numbers that were not in the report.
After the fiscal 2011 Selected Acquisition Report showed the F-35A cost per flight hour to be 40% higher than the F-16's, program leaders asserted that the Pentagon's accountants had misinterpreted their own numbers. Two reports later, the numbers have barely budged.
The bigger issue is that the Pentagon bought the F-35B for two reasons: it can land on an LHA/LHD-class amphibious warfare ship, and it can operate from an improvised forward operating location (FOL), created around a 3,000-ft. runway. The capabilities are complementary. Without an FOL, the amphibious force is limited to six fighters per LHA (unless essential helicopters are off-loaded). But a short runway is of little value unless you can use it twice.
And what Navfac calls "standard airfield concrete" is military-grade, made with aggregate and Portland cement. Many runways are built with asphaltic concrete—aggregate in a bitumen binder—which softens and melts under heat.
The Marines could use AM-2 landing pads. But AM-2 is not a friend to the agility that justifies the F-35B over other forms of expeditionary airpower. An Air Force study calls it "slow to install, difficult to repair, [with] very poor air-transport-ability characteristics." A single 100 X 100-ft. VL pad weighs around 30 tons and comprises 400 pieces, each individually installed by two people.
Rolling or creeping vertical landings can spread the heat load over a greater area. But there is no sign that they have been tested on concrete, asphalt or AM-2 over asphalt. What about multiple, close-together landings? Will hot asphalt debris stay off the fighter's low-observable skin?
Nobody seems willing to say when such tests will be conducted—which is odd, because we conduct flight tests to prove an aircraft can meet requirements. How was the requirement for the F-35B to VL on a non-standard runway framed? Indeed, was that requirement formally defined at all?
At least $21 billion of the JSF's research and development bill—including the F135 engine and the crash weight-reduction program of 2004 as well as the powered-lift system—is directly attributable to the F-35B, which also has the highest unit cost of any military aircraft in production. The design compromises in the F-35B have added weight, drag and cost to the F-35A and F-35C. It would be nice to know that—air shows aside—it will deliver some of its promised operational utility.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-f-35b-vertical-landings-doubt-uk
Ach, echt verbaasd zijn we niet natuurlijk.
Spain Drops Plan to Buy F-35B, Will Upgrade AV-8Bs Instead
(..... de UK had dat ook beter kunnen doen, eerst upgraden van de Harriers en later kunnen kopen ipv alles verkopen aan de USMC )
Adios F-35 Purchase: Spain Extends the Life of Its Harriers
One of the biggest concerns of the Spanish navy about its future -- the 'expiration' of the Harrier fighters and their complicated succession – has now been solved by a 70-million euro plan to extend their service life beyond 2025. Their intended replacement, the American F-35B, must wait "until it becomes financially accessible" for Spain.
Spain has secured the future of its naval air wing, after years of uncertainty about what vertical takeoff fighters it would operate after 2020.
After the loss of the aircraft carrier 'Principe de Asturias' -- an ideal platform for STOVL fighters, but which has now been retired -- the Navy had begun a process of reducing its Harrier force. Four of them were 'retired' after having been modernized at a total cost of about 11 million euros (about 3 million euros each) as no economic resources were available to operate and support them.
However, the picture changed dramatically after the May 23 meeting of the Council of Ministers, when the government announced an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding for the Harrier's lifecycle support, and which was to expire next December.
With an outlay of 70 million euros-spread over ten years, Spain has gained access to the equipment and spare parts necessary to ensure that its fleet of AV-8B Harrier Plus fighters continue flying beyond 2025.
The F-35: parked
Today, the only short/vertical takeoff aircraft that fits the requirements of the Spanish navy is the US-made F-35B Lightning, an aircraft that the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy, which, together with Spain, are the leading world-wide operators of the Harrier, have already written into their acquisition plans.
According to Spanish Navy sources consulted by El Confidential Online, the F-35B "continues to be an unattainable aspiration in economic terms." In 2010, the Navy headquarters announced that it intended to procure 15 to 20 of these aircraft. These plans have now been parked indefinitely.
However, according to the navy sources, the Navy command nonetheless managed to outline a financial plan that would have allowed it to buy a few F-35Bs, but it was finally shot down by the Defence staff because of its cost.
One of the options being considered for the future is that, once the US takes these STOVL aircraft into service, it could hand over a few of them to Spain until the Spanish economy improves enough to allows the purchase of an F-35B package of its own. Today, the cost of an F-35B would be approximately EUR 130 million each (and that price does not include the engine, which costs over $28 million each—Ed.)
Poor planning
Given the economic inaccessibility of the F-35B, whose costs increase as the program advances, the Navy has been criticized for what some call "poor planning" on the Harriers.
Some years ago, the UK retired its own fleet of Harriers, and these would have been an n "almost inexhaustible" source of equipment and spare parts that would have allowed the Spanish Harrier fleet to be maintained for over a decade. And, above all, at an "affordable price," critics say.
These critics say Spain negotiated with the United Kingdom to purchase some of the Harrier inventory, but the conditions stipulated by Spain were rejected by London, which eventually sold more than 70 Harrier aircraft and a full spare parts inventory to the main operator of the Harrier: the US Marine Corps, which "which had predicted well before that the F- 35B not arrive in time."
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Other Spanish media report that the Council of Ministers has authorized the defense ministry to extend the Memorandum of Understanding on the life-cycle support of the AV-8B Plus for another 10 years, until December 2024.
The US, UK, Italy and Spain are the MoU's signatories, and it is managed by a Joint Program Office set up in 1990, when the four countries first began to explore the joint design, development and support of a radar-equipped Harrier variant.
The MoU's extension has been made possible because the USMC plans to extend the service life of its own AV-8Bs to keep them in service until the F-35B is finally delivered.
Spain will pay a total of 70.3 million euros for the MoU's extension period, or about $10 million per year.)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/154245/spain-drops-plan-to-buy-f_35b%2C-will-upgrade-av_8bs-instead.html
Citaat van: Harald op 28/05/2014 | 14:44 uur
Spain Drops Plan to Buy F-35B, Will Upgrade AV-8Bs Instead
(..... de UK had dat ook beter kunnen doen, eerst upgraden van de Harriers en later kunnen kopen ipv alles verkopen aan de USMC )
Adios F-35 Purchase: Spain Extends the Life of Its Harriers
One of the biggest concerns of the Spanish navy about its future -- the 'expiration' of the Harrier fighters and their complicated succession – has now been solved by a 70-million euro plan to extend their service life beyond 2025. Their intended replacement, the American F-35B, must wait "until it becomes financially accessible" for Spain.
Spain has secured the future of its naval air wing, after years of uncertainty about what vertical takeoff fighters it would operate after 2020.
After the loss of the aircraft carrier 'Principe de Asturias' -- an ideal platform for STOVL fighters, but which has now been retired -- the Navy had begun a process of reducing its Harrier force. Four of them were 'retired' after having been modernized at a total cost of about 11 million euros (about 3 million euros each) as no economic resources were available to operate and support them.
However, the picture changed dramatically after the May 23 meeting of the Council of Ministers, when the government announced an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding for the Harrier's lifecycle support, and which was to expire next December.
With an outlay of 70 million euros-spread over ten years, Spain has gained access to the equipment and spare parts necessary to ensure that its fleet of AV-8B Harrier Plus fighters continue flying beyond 2025.
The F-35: parked
Today, the only short/vertical takeoff aircraft that fits the requirements of the Spanish navy is the US-made F-35B Lightning, an aircraft that the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy, which, together with Spain, are the leading world-wide operators of the Harrier, have already written into their acquisition plans.
According to Spanish Navy sources consulted by El Confidential Online, the F-35B "continues to be an unattainable aspiration in economic terms." In 2010, the Navy headquarters announced that it intended to procure 15 to 20 of these aircraft. These plans have now been parked indefinitely.
However, according to the navy sources, the Navy command nonetheless managed to outline a financial plan that would have allowed it to buy a few F-35Bs, but it was finally shot down by the Defence staff because of its cost.
One of the options being considered for the future is that, once the US takes these STOVL aircraft into service, it could hand over a few of them to Spain until the Spanish economy improves enough to allows the purchase of an F-35B package of its own. Today, the cost of an F-35B would be approximately EUR 130 million each (and that price does not include the engine, which costs over $28 million each—Ed.)
Poor planning
Given the economic inaccessibility of the F-35B, whose costs increase as the program advances, the Navy has been criticized for what some call "poor planning" on the Harriers.
Some years ago, the UK retired its own fleet of Harriers, and these would have been an n "almost inexhaustible" source of equipment and spare parts that would have allowed the Spanish Harrier fleet to be maintained for over a decade. And, above all, at an "affordable price," critics say.
These critics say Spain negotiated with the United Kingdom to purchase some of the Harrier inventory, but the conditions stipulated by Spain were rejected by London, which eventually sold more than 70 Harrier aircraft and a full spare parts inventory to the main operator of the Harrier: the US Marine Corps, which "which had predicted well before that the F- 35B not arrive in time."
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Other Spanish media report that the Council of Ministers has authorized the defense ministry to extend the Memorandum of Understanding on the life-cycle support of the AV-8B Plus for another 10 years, until December 2024.
The US, UK, Italy and Spain are the MoU's signatories, and it is managed by a Joint Program Office set up in 1990, when the four countries first began to explore the joint design, development and support of a radar-equipped Harrier variant.
The MoU's extension has been made possible because the USMC plans to extend the service life of its own AV-8Bs to keep them in service until the F-35B is finally delivered.
Spain will pay a total of 70.3 million euros for the MoU's extension period, or about $10 million per year.)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/154245/spain-drops-plan-to-buy-f_35b%2C-will-upgrade-av_8bs-instead.html
Even inhaken op dit bericht, het zou mij niets verbazen als de Spaanse harriers tot 2030 in dienst blijven.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marine-corps-studying-harrier-enhancements-386224/
Citaat van: Ace1 op 29/05/2014 | 01:26 uur
Even inhaken op dit bericht, het zou mij niets verbazen als de Spaanse harriers tot 2030 in dienst blijven.
Waarna ze alsnog overstappen op de F35B (wegens gebrek aan alternatief) of hun capaciteit aan de wilgen hangen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 29/05/2014 | 09:34 uur
Waarna ze alsnog overstappen op de F35B (wegens gebrek aan alternatief) of hun capaciteit aan de wilgen hangen.
Dan is de aanschafprijs van de F35B wellicht een stuk goedkoper dan nu?
Qatar nears exclusive talks on buying Rafale fighter
May 29, 2014
Paris: Qatar could firm up its interest in buying French Rafale fighter planes when its new Emir, Sheikh Tamim Ben Hamad Al Thani visits Paris on June 23, the La Tribune financial website reported Wednesday.
The contract is of vital importance to the Dassault Aviation group which builds the plane and to the French government.
Dassault has had difficulty in selling the aircraft abroad, despite successful high-profile combat missions in Libya and Mali.
La Tribune, citing various sources, said that the Emir might announce during his visit that Qatar had opted for the Rafale and would open exclusive talks with Dassault Aviation.
Negotiations would last about a year but the contract would be less complex than one signed with India, a source close to the matter told La Tribune.
France, which expects to slow down the rate of production of the planes owing to a lack of export orders, and Qatar resumed talks on the matter in March.
The Rafale is in competition with the Eurofighter built by British group BAE Systems, Finmeccanica of Italy and by the defence arm of the European conglomerate Airbus Group.
In March, the head of Dassault Aviation, Eric Trappier, said that the company had reached an understanding with India on how to organise construction of the plane in India.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/qatar-nears-exclusive-talks-on-buying-rafale-fighter-report_935736.html
Citaat van: Harald op 28/05/2014 | 14:44 uur
Spain Drops Plan to Buy F-35B, Will Upgrade AV-8Bs Instead
(..... de UK had dat ook beter kunnen doen, eerst upgraden van de Harriers en later kunnen kopen ipv alles verkopen aan de USMC )
De UK had beter gelijk voor een CATOBAR gegaan, veel meer capaciteit, en meer keuze voor de wing, die nu behoorlijk beperkt is. Maar misschien was het ook wel een heel bewuste keuze om een plan-B onmogelijk te maken.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 29/05/2014 | 09:34 uur
Waarna ze alsnog overstappen op de F35B (wegens gebrek aan alternatief) of hun capaciteit aan de wilgen hangen.
Beide reëel. In ieder geval goed dat de Spanjaarden de beslissing uitstellen. Heb het idee dat ze daar nog wel serieus met hun defensie bezig zijn.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 29/05/2014 | 10:19 uur
De UK had beter gelijk voor een CATOBAR gegaan, veel meer capaciteit, en meer keuze voor de wing, die nu behoorlijk beperkt is.
Mee eens.
Maar helaas een gepasseerd station.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 29/05/2014 | 10:19 uur
De UK had beter gelijk voor een CATOBAR gegaan, veel meer capaciteit, en meer keuze voor de wing, die nu behoorlijk beperkt is. Maar misschien was het ook wel een heel bewuste keuze om een plan-B onmogelijk te maken.
Rond 2010 sprak ik met Britse test vliegers en die waren zeer kritisch op de F-35B STOVL. De subsonische Harrier heeft al een niet zo beste nuttige lading - bereik verhouding. Bij de supersonische en semi-steelse F-35B is die nuttige lading - bereik verhouding nog slechter.
Volgens de officiele cijfers heeft de F-35B een bereik van 450 zeemijlen tegenover 700 zeemijlen voor de F-35C vliegdekschip versie.
De F-35B is volgens de marketing mensen juist nuttig / noodzakelijk, om vanaf Forward Operating Locations te worden ingezet.
Tijdens de Golfoorlog van '91 vlogen 86 AV-8B Harriers gemiddeld per dag 78 sorties vanaf FOL's zoals Tanajib, nog geen 65 kilometer vanaf de Koeweiti grens. Dat betekend per Harrier per dag gemiddeld 0,9 sorties. Zij waren bewapend met een 25mm kanon gondel en 4 500 ponders.
Stel je voor, dat we 2 'viertjes' / secties + 1 logistieke en 1 operationele reserve kist op een FOL onderbrengen.
Ze vliegen 9 sorties per dag x 14.000 lbs / 6.350 kg / 8.152 liter peut = 57.150 kg / 73.368 liter peut nodig per dag. Een tankauto van het formaat oplegger neemt tussen de 22.000 en 33.000 liter peut mee. Een terrein vaardige bowser (tankauto) neemt slechts 17.000 liter mee.
Er zijn ook 9 x 4 =36 x 585 lbs zware 500 ponders nodig = 21.060 lbs = 9.553 kg aan alleen al bommen.
F-16C's die vanaf veel verder gelegen vliegbases opereerden hadden een hogere sortie generatie rate dan deze Harrier vloot. En konden ook nog eens doelen aanvallen met 2x 2.000 ponders en verder weg.
Het Britse MinDef stapte over van de F-35C naar de F-35B. Omdat men bang was dat de US Navy deze F-35C zou annuleren. En de Britse industrie kan met de F-35B beter 'haar ei kwijt', want een veel groter werk aandeel, in o.a. de liftfan. De F-35C kan nu overigens ook niet op een vliegdekschip landen. Want de afstand tussen vanghaak en hoofd landingsgestel is simpel weg te kort. Daarnaast is de minimum landing snelheid van de F-35C inmiddels al bijna te hoog. Dat gaat nog leuk worden, als de F-35C zwaarder gaat worden.
Citaat van: Poleme op 29/05/2014 | 15:26 uur
De F-35C kan nu overigens ook niet op een vliegdekschip landen. Want de afstand tussen vanghaak en hoofd landingsgestel is simpel weg te kort. Daarnaast is de minimum landing snelheid van de F-35C inmiddels al bijna te hoog. Dat gaat nog leuk worden, als de F-35C zwaarder gaat worden.
Het zal mij dan ook niet echt verbazen als de C geannuleerd wordt in het voordeel van een aantal nieuwe F18E/F/G + UCAV's en een MLU voor haar jongste F18C's waarmee de USN haar tijd zal kunnen/moeten uitzitten totdat de Boeing FA/XX haar intrede zal doen ergens in de jaren dertig.
Bijkomend voordeel: hiermee voorkom je tevens een fighter monopolie van Lockheed Martin.
Citaat van: Poleme op 29/05/2014 | 15:26 uur
Rond 2010 sprak ik met Britse test vliegers en die waren zeer kritisch op de F-35B STOVL. De subsonische Harrier heeft al een niet zo beste nuttige lading - bereik verhouding. Bij de supersonische en semi-steelse F-35B is die nuttige lading - bereik verhouding nog slechter.
Volgens de officiele cijfers heeft de F-35B een bereik van 450 zeemijlen tegenover 700 zeemijlen voor de F-35C vliegdekschip versie.
De F-35B is volgens de marketing mensen juist nuttig / noodzakelijk, om vanaf Forward Operating Locations te worden ingezet.
Tijdens de Golfoorlog van '91 vlogen 86 AV-8B Harriers gemiddeld per dag 78 sorties vanaf FOL's zoals Tanajib, nog geen 65 kilometer vanaf de Koeweiti grens. Dat betekend per Harrier per dag gemiddeld 0,9 sorties. Zij waren bewapend met een 25mm kanon gondel en 4 500 ponders.
Stel je voor, dat we 2 'viertjes' / secties + 1 logistieke en 1 operationele reserve kist op een FOL onderbrengen.
Ze vliegen 9 sorties per dag x 14.000 lbs / 6.350 kg / 8.152 liter peut = 57.150 kg / 73.368 liter peut nodig per dag. Een tankauto van het formaat oplegger neemt tussen de 22.000 en 33.000 liter peut mee. Een terrein vaardige bowser (tankauto) neemt slechts 17.000 liter mee.
Er zijn ook 9 x 4 =36 x 585 lbs zware 500 ponders nodig = 21.060 lbs = 9.553 kg aan alleen al bommen.
F-16C's die vanaf veel verder gelegen vliegbases opereerden hadden een hogere sortie generatie rate dan deze Harrier vloot. En konden ook nog eens doelen aanvallen met 2x 2.000 ponders en verder weg.
Enige uitzondering is wanneer je geen mogelijkheid hebt om vanaf verdergelegen bases te opereren, zal niet vaak sprake van zijn, maar kan wel. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan een Falkland scenario, of een nieuwe campaign in de Pacific.
Ik geloof ondertussen wel dat het desondanks een waste of money is. Er komen aanzienlijk uitdagingen bij kijken, we hebben het dus over >75 ton aan verbruiksgoederen, dat wordt een uitdaging. Ik denk dan, was het geld in kleine escort carriers gestoken had het veel meer gerendeerd.
Citaat van: Poleme op 29/05/2014 | 15:26 uur
Het Britse MinDef stapte over van de F-35C naar de F-35B. Omdat men bang was dat de US Navy deze F-35C zou annuleren. En de Britse industrie kan met de F-35B beter 'haar ei kwijt', want een veel groter werk aandeel, in o.a. de liftfan.
Ooit gehoord of behalve het annuleren van de F35C, ook de keuze voor een alternatieve kist (Rafale/F18) door een nieuwe Britse regering als serieuze bedreiging werd gezien als voor een CATOBAR was gekozen? Dat plan B is ook uitgesloten met de keuze voor de F35B, waarmee Britse deelname redelijk verzekerd was. Over het graf regeren. Zoals ook onze regering deed/werd gedwongen te doen door als Tier2 partner mee te doen.
Citaat van: Poleme op 29/05/2014 | 15:26 uur
De F-35C kan nu overigens ook niet op een vliegdekschip landen. Want de afstand tussen vanghaak en hoofd landingsgestel is simpel weg te kort. Daarnaast is de minimum landing snelheid van de F-35C inmiddels al bijna te hoog. Dat gaat nog leuk worden, als de F-35C zwaarder gaat worden.
En met tot nog toe maar 1 klant, dus eigenlijk de kist die serieus in de gevarenhoek zit.
Pentagon proves 4th- to 5th-gen combat aircraft comms
Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
28 May 2014
Key Points
•The development effort was sponsored by the OSD and the USAF
•Jetpack can be installed inside a weapons bay or pod-mount
A new communications capability enables fifth-generation combat aircraft to share information with fourth-generation aircraft, prime contractor Northrop Grumman announced on 27 May.
The Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) programme, known as the Jetpack JCTD, allows the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter to communicate directly and securely with fourth-generation combat aircraft such as the F-15, F-16, and F-18. Northrop Grumman demonstrated Jetpack during a series of operational flight tests in late March at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, and in early April at Edwards Air Force Base, California, according to the company.
Previously, F-22s and F-35s had to communicate with fourth-generation aircraft through an intermediary system - either an Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft or a communications satellite - in order to maintain their stealthiness.
The development effort was sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the US Air Force Air Combat Command, Pacific Command, and OSD's Defense Microelectronics Activity.
During the April flight tests, Jetpack validated the ability to simultaneously link and translate both the F-35's Multifunction Advanced Data Link and the F-22's Intra-Flight Data Link to common Link 16 messages. Link 16 is a jam-resistant, high-speed digital data link used by NATO.
Jetpack is built for application in internally-mounted or pod-mounted installations. Honeywell provides Jetpack's dual-band advanced tactical data link antennas to Northrop Grumman as part of the system. Northrop Grumman began demonstrating fifth-to-fourth generation communications capabilities during a series of joint operational exercises in April 2010.
http://www.janes.com/article/38441/pentagon-proves-4th-to-5th-gen-combat-aircraft-comms
Citaat van: Thomasen op 29/05/2014 | 15:49 uur
Enige uitzondering is wanneer je geen mogelijkheid hebt om vanaf verdergelegen bases te opereren, zal niet vaak sprake van zijn, maar kan wel. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan een Falkland scenario, of een nieuwe campaign in de Pacific.
Ik geloof ondertussen wel dat het desondanks een waste of money is. Er komen aanzienlijk uitdagingen bij kijken, we hebben het dus over >75 ton aan verbruiksgoederen, dat wordt een uitdaging. Ik denk dan, was het geld in kleine escort carriers gestoken had het veel meer gerendeerd.
Ooit gehoord of behalve het annuleren van de F35C, ook de keuze voor een alternatieve kist (Rafale/F18) door een nieuwe Britse regering als serieuze bedreiging werd gezien als voor een CATOBAR was gekozen? Dat plan B is ook uitgesloten met de keuze voor de F35B, waarmee Britse deelname redelijk verzekerd was. Over het graf regeren. Zoals ook onze regering deed/werd gedwongen te doen door als Tier2 partner mee te doen.
En met tot nog toe maar 1 klant, dus eigenlijk de kist die serieus in de gevarenhoek zit.
De Britten hadden tijdens de Flakland oorlog een tekort aan jachtvliegtuigen. Men leerde toen dat de 22.000 ton metende HMS Invincible veel te klein was en dus niet doelmatig en doeltreffend genoeg. In de jaren 90 ging men al uit van een nieuwe klasse vliegdekschepen die toen 50.000 ton zouden moeten meten. Later werd dat zelfs vergroot naar 65.000 ton.
De Britten hebben inderdaad naar de CATOBAR F-18E en een Typhoon carrier variant gekeken. De Sea Typhoon is te riskant en de extra ontwikkelingskosten moeten over een zeer klein aantal kisten worden verdeeld. Keuze voor de F-35B sluit alternatieven als F-18E inderdaad uit.
De F-35C wordt niet alleen aangeschaft door de US Navy, maar ook door de US Marine Corps. De US Navy is niet echt gecharmeerd van de F-35. En laat het USMC nou budgettair onder de US Navy vallen. Die US Navy heeft overigens ook voldoende dek ruimte over op haar vliegdekschepen, voor US Marines jachtbommenwerpers. Circa 3 a 4 jaar geleden bood LockheedMartin zelf aan, om de F-35A luchtmacht versie te leveren aan het USMC. Want een groot deel van de US Marines TacAir ops vinden plaats vanaf land bases.
F-35 Achieves Three Major Flight Milestones on Same Day
Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. and Naval Air Systems Command, Md. // May 29, 2014
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. and NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, Md,May 29, 2014 – In three separate flight tests on May 27th, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II aircraft demonstrated air-to-air combat capability, completed the first flight test with the next level software load and accomplished a landing at the maximum test speed and drop rate.
In the Point Mugu Sea Test Range airspace off the Central California coast, an F-35B demonstrated the jet's air-to-air combat capability when it sequentially engaged two aerial targets with two AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) during a Weapon Delivery Accuracy mission.
Test pilot Lt. Col. Andrew 'Growler' Allen tracked two maneuvering drone targets, making the very first dual AMRAAM shot from any F-35 variant, and the first live AMRAAM shot from the F-35B Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant.
"The U.S. Marine Corps, which operates F-35Bs, will be the first military service branch to attain combat-ready Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2015," said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin's vice president for F-35 Test & Verification. "This Weapon Delivery Accuracy test highlighted the air combat capability that will give Marine aviators a decisive combat edge in contested airspace."
The F-35's internally-carried AIM-120 AMRAAMs are a beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile capable of all-weather day-and-night operations and considered a "fire-and-forget" missile using active target radar guidance.
Flying from Edwards Air Force Base, an F-35A flew a 1.9 hour mission with the first-ever load of Block 3i hardware and software. Block 3i is the next level of capability and is planned to support U.S. Air Force F-35A IOC in 2016.
The F-35C, designed for aircraft carrier operations, completed a landing at its maximum sink speed to test the aircraft's landing gear, airframe and arrestment system at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. "Five sorties were conducted, building up the maximum sink rate test condition of 21.4 feet per second, which represents the maximum sink speed planned for this test," McFarlan said. During the tests, the F-35C did three arrestments, several touch and goes and one bolter. The landings were to demonstrate structural readiness for arrested landings on an aircraft carrier at sea.
Fleet-wide, the F-35 has, to date, amassed more than 17,000 flight hours. All three F-35 variants at the F-35 Integrated Training Center at Eglin AFB, Florida, surpassed the 5,000 sorties milestone this week.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-achieves-three-major-flight-milestones-on-same-day?sf3109543=1
Citaat van: Poleme op 29/05/2014 | 15:26 uur
-....-
De F-35C kan nu overigens ook niet op een vliegdekschip landen. Want de afstand tussen vanghaak en hoofd landingsgestel is simpel weg te kort. Daarnaast is de minimum landing snelheid van de F-35C inmiddels al bijna te hoog. Dat gaat nog leuk worden, als de F-35C zwaarder gaat worden.
Geretweet door JuVi
Gareth Jennings @GarethJennings3 4 u
.@LockheedMartin F-35C catches the wire during max sink-rate trials at @NASPaxRiverPAO Nothing wrong with the hook...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bo3dW5XIYAAgte2.jpg:large)
Lockheed Wins $90M to Fix F-35 EW System
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $90,914,168 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price-incentive-fee contract (N00019-12-C-0004) to incorporate the updated system architecture into the original Diminishing Manufacturing Sources redesign activity for the Electronic Warfare System in support of the F-35 Lot VII effort for the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marines and the governments of the F-35 International Partners.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/154420/lockheed-wins-%2490m-to-fix-f_35-ew-system.html
Exclusive: Canadian review will recommend buying Lockheed F-35 fighter jet - sources
By Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON Thu Jun 5, 2014
(Reuters) - Canada is poised to buy 65 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, sources familiar with the process told Reuters, marking a major renewal of Canada's fighter fleet and helping contain costs of the expensive defense program.
An 18-month review of Canada's fighter jet needs has concluded that the government should skip a new competition and proceed with the C$9 billion ($8.22 billion) purchase, three sources said.
The decision must still be finalized by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet. The government is likely to face fierce criticism from opposition politicians concerned that the contract is being awarded without an open competition. Similar concerns over sole-sourcing and costs derailed the purchase two years ago.
A spokesman for Harper's office said there was nothing to announce yet.
However, the sources said the recommendation was expected to lead to formal approval of the F-35 purchase. They said Harper and key cabinet members supported the decision.
Canada's planned purchase is the 6th-largest by a country and would further safeguard the $399 billion program. Its rising costs had sparked fears of a "death spiral," in which countries cut plane orders, driving up the price of remaining planes and triggering further cancellations. (Full Story)
The Pentagon recently estimated the average price per plane at $139 million, about twice the original estimate in 2001, but said the projected cost to operate and maintain the jets was down 9 percent from earlier estimates.
Ottawa announced in 2010 it would buy 65 jets but scrapped the decision in late 2012 after an official watchdog said Canadian officials had grossly downplayed the high cost of maintaining and operating the jets.
The Canadian government then launched a multi-agency examination to determine whether to buy the F-35 or launch a new competition. That review has found that the F-35 is the only warplane that meets the government's needs, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.
A four-member panel of outside experts set up to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of the Canadian review also is expected to give its blessing to the process in coming weeks and may make its own recommendation that Ottawa proceed with buying the F-35, said one of the sources.
ANNOUNCEMENT DUE SOON
The Canadian government has said it will make an announcement in coming weeks, around the time the Canadian Parliament is dismissed for the summer.
Public Works Minister Diane Finley declined comment on Tuesday about the timing of a decision.
"Once we have made a decision we will announce it, and the reports will be released," she said.
The opposition New Democratic Party decried the review as secretive and designed to provide cover for the original decision to buy the plane.
"We have a public tendering process in this country, and sole-sourcing is not part of it," NDP Member of Parliament Jack Harris said. "We want a transparent process. This is not a transparent process."
The recommendation to proceed with the F-35 purchase was expected, the sources said, in part because the cost of each plane has recently declined. Other factors seen as influencing the outcome of the review was the decision by Japan, South Korea and other countries to buy the jet. Canadian firms could win up to $11 billion in potential business orders linked to the program, they said.
Canada would be the 11th country to buy the jet. It was one of the original nine partners on the F-35 program, contributing $150 million to its development costs.
One of the reports completed as part of the review showed that a new tender would take three years to complete, which would force the Canadian Air Force to spend about $20 million per plane to keep its fleet of older Boeing CF-18 "Hornets" flying, according to a source familiar with the findings.
Russia's annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine, which has created tensions with European countries, the United States and Canada, also underscored Canada's need for a fifth-generation stealth fighter, said two of the sources.
The F-35 is designed to be the next-generation fighter jet for decades to come. No other new fighters are in the pipeline and the warplane fleets of the United States and Canada are aging.
Canada's participation in the program would help Washington drive down costs, which U.S. officials say are finally heading lower after rising 70 percent over initial estimates.
The total cost of the F-35, the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program, is now estimated at $1.42 trillion, down about 6 percent from $1.50 trillion from last year, including research, development, procurement and operations through 2065.
A spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office said officials were awaiting Canada's decision and understood the country's need to revisit the decision process.
A spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office said officials were awaiting Canada's decision and understood the country's need to revisit the decision process.
But it would spell more bad news for rival bidders, including Boeing Co BA.N, which is urgently looking for orders to keep its F/A-18 production line running past 2016. Boeing argued that its fighter would be cheaper for Canada to buy and operate. The Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale fighters, both European planes, were also in the running.
Lockheed spokesman Mike Rein said the company supports the Canadian government's process in determining the best way to replace its CF-18s.
Boeing declined to comment.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Additional reporting by David Ljunggren and Randall; Palmer in Ottawa; Editing by Alwyn Scott and Ross Colvin)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/05/us-lockheed-martin-canada-f-idUSKBN0EG2P820140605?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637
Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts
By Colin Clark on June 06, 2014
For years, the news about the most expensive conventional weapons system in US history, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has been driven by its soaring costs, technical problems and schedule screw-ups. The government and Congress and the public rarely speak about what the F-35 will do, how effectively it could destroy an enemy's air defenses, shoot down an enemy plane, or find and strike other high value targets.
As the first variant to be ready for combat, the Marine Corps F-35B, approaches what is known as its Initial Operating Capability and prepares to make its first flights outside the United States in the UK this July, Air Force Gen. Mike Hostage, who will command the largest group of F-35s in the world, sat down in his office at Langley Air Force Base to discuss what the F-35 can do in the first 10 days of war — within the constraints of what is classified — and in the case of this weapon, much of what it does remains highly classified.
spoke with dozens of experts in the government, the defense industry and academia about likely scenarios for the F-35 and to flesh out some of its capabilities. This is the main piece we're running this week about the F-35, based on my interview with Gen. Hostage and those other experts. The second piece deals with the cyber and electronic warfare capabilities of the F-35.
The issue of how effective the F-35 would be in a classic dogfight often arises. Gen. Hostage noted during our interview that the F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has either made a mistake or been very unlucky. Shooting down other planes using kinetics is only one role of the F-35. Perhaps air forces around the world are going to have to come up with a new honor other than ace to define those who fly the F-35. What should a pilot be awarded for outsmarting the best air defense systems in the world or injecting something like Stuxnet into the enemy's command and control system? So much of what this aircraft will do has nothing to do with shooting down another pilot that we may need a new term.
Voor het volledige verhaal: zie link
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/06/2014 | 09:39 uur
Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts . By Colin Clark on June 06, 2014
For years, the news about the most expensive conventional weapons system in US history, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has been driven by its soaring costs, technical problems and schedule screw-ups. The government and Congress and the public rarely speak about what the F-35 will do, how effectively it could destroy an enemy's air defenses, shoot down an enemy plane, or find and strike other high value targets.
As the first variant to be ready for combat, the Marine Corps F-35B, approaches what is known as its Initial Operating Capability and prepares to make its first flights outside the United States in the UK this July, Air Force Gen. Mike Hostage, who will command the largest group of F-35s in the world, sat down in his office at Langley Air Force Base to discuss what the F-35 can do in the first 10 days of war — within the constraints of what is classified — and in the case of this weapon, much of what it does remains highly classified.
spoke with dozens of experts in the government, the defense industry and academia about likely scenarios for the F-35 and to flesh out some of its capabilities. This is the main piece we're running this week about the F-35, based on my interview with Gen. Hostage and those other experts. The second piece deals with the cyber and electronic warfare capabilities of the F-35.
The issue of how effective the F-35 would be in a classic dogfight often arises. Gen. Hostage noted during our interview that the F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has either made a mistake or been very unlucky. Shooting down other planes using kinetics is only one role of the F-35. Perhaps air forces around the world are going to have to come up with a new honor other than ace to define those who fly the F-35. What should a pilot be awarded for outsmarting the best air defense systems in the world or injecting something like Stuxnet into the enemy's command and control system? So much of what this aircraft will do has nothing to do with shooting down another pilot that we may need a new term. Voor het volledige verhaal: zie link
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/
;D Daar hebben we hem weer. Vele capaciteiten / vaardigheden van de F-35 zijn geheim! Hoe ga je export vergunningen krijgen voor zo een jachtbommenwerper vol met geheimen ?
Volgens de oorspronkelijke planning van de JSF System Development and Demonstration fase, wordt maar slechts 17% van het F-35 wapensysteem in testvluchten uit geprobeerd. De overige 83 % wordt getest in het laboratorium op testbedden, simulaties of zelfs bureau studies.
Dat is inmiddels uitgedraaid op een hele grote ontdekkingsreis, waarbij men van het ene probleem naar het andere probleem loopt.
En dan moet men de moeilijkste testen nog uitvoeren. In dit opzicht heeft Hostage wel gelijk, vele capaciteiten zijn (nog) geheim, of beter gezegd on ontdekt. Of worden nooit ontdekt.
Voor elektronische / cyber oorlogsvoering a la Stuxnet heb je helemaal geen F-35's voor nodig. Israelische F-15's en F-16's deden het al in het echie. Zeer waarschijnlijk hebben Rafale's en Gripens ook al de beschikking over mogelijkheden om bij de tegenvoeter elektronisch rel te schoppen a la Stuxnet.
En de Active Electronic Scanning Array radar's aan boord van onze LCF's, M-fregatten en OPV's zijn in principe ook geschikt of geschikt te maken voor zulk soort aanvallen.
US F-35 fighter jet susceptible to hacking: Report
by Guest Authors on 08/06/2014
The US military's newest and most expensive fighter jet, F-35, might be susceptible to hacking through its $500,000 helmet, according to a report.
The sophisticated computer-driven helmet will give US fighter pilots new capabilities when the aircraft enters the American fleet in the coming years, CBS News reports
The helmet is run by a computer named ALIS which functions as the "brain" of the fighter jet.
"She looks basically like a laptop computer, and the pilot carries it out to the plane and sticks it in a slot right next to him in the cockpit. That contains all the information about the mission he's gonna fly," said correspondent David Martin who tried on the helmet for "60 Minutes" program.
But ALIS has a security problem. "This is a juicy, juicy target for a hacker," said Martin. "If your adversary can hack into all that software that's running [the mission], then they've essentially defeated the plane."
Lockheed Martin's F-35 has proven to be a controversial program. Even though the Pentagon has spent almost $400 billion to buy 2,400 aircraft, the program is 7 years behind schedule and $163 billion over budget.
The Aviation Week reported that US warplanes, under the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, are incapable of escaping Russian and Chinese radars.
"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter... is not, in fact, stealthy in the eyes of a growing number of Russian and Chinese radars," the report said.
Early this year, the US Defense Department waived laws that banned the use of Chinese-made components on US weapons, including on F-35 fighter jets.
Chief US arms buyer Frank Kendall allowed two F-35 suppliers to use Chinese magnets for the new fighter jet's radar system, landing gears and other hardware, according to Pentagon documents reviewed by Reuters.
Without the waivers production of F-35 jets could have faced further delays.
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2014/06/05/us-f-35-fighter-jet-susceptible-to-hacking-report/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29
- De helm is niet eens af, niet eens in-flight getest en nu al wordt met de grootste stelligheid beweerd dat de helm met ALIS gehackt kan worden.
- De Helm heeft een aansluiting met de F-35. Dus van de helm kan alle missie data gedownload worden? Wat een stelligheid.
- De Russische en Chinese radars zijn zo geweldig "goed" zonder ook maar een spoortje bewijs daarvan. Laat staan tegen de 5e generatie stealth technologie. Misschien hebben de Russen ook wel een radar te verkopen? Waarom zou ik hun verkooppraatje geloven?
- Er zit een magneet in van Chinese makelij. Nou en? Dan stop je dat contact. Er zijn zat andere fabrikanten. En dan was ook de bedoeling achter deze ophef: dat de fabricatie van deze specifieke magneten aan een Amerikaanse subcontractor toebedeeld zou moeten worden.
Die hele website pakalertpress.com gaat over Illuminati, het Main Stream Media complot, WO3 en het bestaan van de antichrist onder ons. Dat komt al te samen erg overeen met het geloof van Jehova-getuigen en Zevende Dag-adventisten. Lees kortom lekker je buikje rond met Jehovaverhalen nieuwe stijl.
F-35, Prompted By PRC Stealth Jets, Others, Starts Next-Gen Threat Planning
By Colin Clark / on June 13, 2014
WASHINGTON: The F-35 is barely out of the stable and hasn't been ridden hard yet, but the Pentagon is already beginning work on the next generation of improvements to the Joint Strike Fighter, with a close eye on the Chinese J-20 and J-31 stealth aircraft — and other capabilities.
Frank Kendall, the Defense Department's head of acquisition, told reporters that the foreign program partners and the United States have begun discussions about planning upgrades to the aircraft and its weapons systems. The partner nations – Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,Turkey, the United Kingdom – met this week to discuss the program and Kendall was briefing us on the meetings.
Navy F-35C flight text over Patuxent River
Kendall has been pushing work on this — and on the early work for a sixth generation fighter (whatever that will be) — for more than year, when he pushed DARPA to set up its air dominance initiative. When it was announced it sounded more like a study group — big brains trying to come up with glimmers of what the next threat would be and how to counter it. DARPA put eight program managers from a wide variety of areas to work with Air Force and Navy experts.
But Kendall's comments yesterday — though they were fairly thin on details — seemed to indicate that the appearance of the two Chinese aircraft in less than two years, combined with other technologies the Chinese, Russians and other possible competitors are hard at work on, has prompted the program to step up its efforts to ensure the F-35 has the right mix of weapons, software, Electronic Warfare capabilities and processors.
When I asked him about this. Kendall said the US and its partners are looking at what comes after Block 3F, the final software version the Navy is waiting for before it declares its version of the JSF, the F-35C, ready for combat. That version will includes the full version of the plane's much-touted "fusion engine," designed to take all sensor and threat data and make sense of it.
"We've got to be thinking already about the next round of improvements once we get to block 3F," Kendall told me. "This is," as all who follow this know, "a game that never ends."
In other comments, Kendall largely repeated that the program is on track to deliver aircraft to all three services for their Initial Operating Capability dates. The Block 3F software is about six months behind schedule and Kendall and program head Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan said they plan to do their utmost to press Lockheed to catch back up in the three-plus years before the Navy's IOC date in late 2018.
Kendall also mentioned the possibility of a multi-year purchase of F-35s, but made clear this would not happen until after the plane reaches full production, as is standard for the US military.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/f-35-prompted-by-prc-stealth-jets-others-starts-next-gen-threat-planning/
Zo'n F-35C op zee. Je blijft zout was afwassen, water afnemen en RAM-panelen bijtippen. Ook het op dek in de zon laten laten staan lijkt me minder waarschijnlijk dan bijvoorbeeld met de F-18's. Met stealth UCAV's heb je het zelfde euvel. Je kiest wel bewust voor meer onderhoudsuren en langere turnaround time.
Turkey Looks To Have Dual Fighter Fleet by 2023
Jun. 15, 2014 | By BURAK EGE BEKDIL
ANKARA — Turkey's procurement and military officials are hoping to build a new generation, dual fighter jet fleet by their country's centennial — 2023 — comprising F-35s and indigenous aircraft Ankara has been designing.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140615/DEFREG01/306150007/Turkey-Looks-Dual-Fighter-Fleet-by-2023?odyssey=nav%7Chead
Citaat van: www.defensenews.com Vandaag om 08:13
Turkey Looks To Have Dual Fighter Fleet by 2023
Het zal mij benieuwen of de Turken hun ambitie met 100 F35A en eigen 100-150 TF-X kunnen waarmaken.
Net zo nieuwsgierig ben ik naar welk model de Turken gaan kiezen, wordt het een één of een twee pitter?
F-35 Fighter Jets Temporarily Grounded by Engine Problems
Oil Leak on One Plane Leads to Inspection of 104-Jet Fleet
The Pentagon temporarily grounded the entire F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet at the start of the weekend after one of the advanced jets suffered an engine oil leak and declared an in-flight emergency.
While the suspension of flight and ground testing on Friday was described by F-35 program officials as a precautionary move, it is the second time in 16 months that engine problems have grounded the entire fleet. It comes just two weeks before the plane is due to make its first international appearance.
Engine maker Pratt Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, said most of the 104-jet fleet had been cleared to resume flying by late Saturday following the safety inspections mandated by the F-35 managers on Friday. The F-35 program office said these revealed potential problems on two more jets.
The incident on June 10 involved an F-35B jet, which can take off and land vertically. The pilot declared an in-flight emergency after being alerted to an engine oil problem, and landed safely back at base at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona.
Pentagon officials on Friday ordered engines on all three models of the F-35 to be inspected before they could resume flights.
Pratt Whitney said in a statement that it was working to identify the cause of last week's problem, with jet-by-jet inspections taking around 90 minutes each. Program officials have pointed to problems with an oil-flow-management valve.
The F-35B is one of three variants of the jet built by Lockheed Martin Corp. and scheduled to be the first to be declared combat ready. Program officials last week expressed confidence that it will be ready for the Marine Corps as scheduled in July 2015.
The F-35B is expected to make its international debut on July 4 in a fly-past at the naming ceremony for the British Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier at a dockyard in Scotland. It is also scheduled to perform at two military air shows in the U.K. later in July. A spokesman for the F-35 program office said the jet is still expected to appear at the air shows.
WSJ, June 15, 2014 1:43 p.m. ET
No Fighter Jet Replacement Contract Before 2018: Government Guide
(Source: The Canadian Press; published June 16, 2014)
A contract to replace the country's aging fleet of jet fighters won't be final until at least 2018.
The Harper government today released its long-anticipated defence acquisition guide, which is meant to give industry a snapshot of the military's expected equipment needs over the next two decades.
Defence Minister Rob Nicholson told defence contractors a couple of weeks ago that the guide is not a commitment to buy and that it's meant to start a dialogue with manufacturers. (end of excerpt)
Click here for the full story, on the CBC website.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/no-fighter-jet-replacement-contract-before-2018-government-guide-1.2677290
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Taken at face value, the defence acquisition guide released June 16 says the contract for a new fighter will not be finalized until 2018 (see extract below). Additionally, mention of the issuance of a request for proposals in 2017 to 2019 seems to confirm that Canada plans to compete the contract rather than simply order the Lockheed Martin F-35, but both of these assumptions fly in the face of the government's previous plans to such an extent that they appear dubious.
The government has promised a decision during the summer.)
(ends)
Future Fighter Capability: Replace Existing Systems
(Source: Canadian Department of National Defence; issued June 16, 2014)
(The following is excerpted from the DND's new Defence Acquisition Guide, released June 16, 2014)
Objective:
This project will seek to provide a capability to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to conduct control of Canadian Airspace and contribute to Alliance/Coalition operations where/when directed after the retirement of the CF-188 currently planned for the 2020 timeframe.
Requirements:
The Future Fighter Capability project will provide the mandated Government of Canada aerospace and force employment capabilities necessary to apply airpower in multi-role operations, both nationally and internationally.
This includes precision Air-to-Air (A/A), Air-to-Ground (A/G) and Air-to-Surface (ASu) capabilities, and non-traditional Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) in the defence of Canada, North America and expeditionary operations.
Preliminary Estimate:
More than $1.5 billion
Anticipated Timeline:
-- 2015 to 2017: Definition Approval
-- 2017 to 2019: Request for Proposal Release
-- 2018 to 2020: Implementation Approval & Contract Award
-- 2026 to 2035: Final Delivery
5th-To-4th Gen Fighter Comms Competition Eyed In Fiscal 2015
(.. "communicatie-problemen" tussen F-22 met F-35 en met F-16, F-18, F-15 en anderen, zorgen dat er extra aanpassingen/investeringen gedaan moeten worden om de gegevensoverdracht/communicatie onderling te waarborgen. Dit is natuurlijk niet alleen van toepassing tussen vliegtuigen onderling, maar straks ook met grondtroepen, schepen, commandocentrales e.d.
Dus het "praatje" van de vele info-overdracht en het delen van de info door de F-35 voor een algehele superieure SA, heeft dus nog wel haken en ogen en investeringen/aanpassingen nodig bij de andere wapensystemen )
The U.S. Air Force is planning to request proposals from industry to finally provide needed communications connectivity between fifth- and fourth-generation fighters.
The service has long projected a need for so-called "5th to 4th" capability. This need is made even more urgent as the timeline for fielding the stealthy, fifth-generation F-35 has stretched out due to technical challenges in development and funding limitations at Air Force headquarters. And the service acquired far fewer stealthy F-22s from Lockheed Martin than originally planned, making the ability to connect each one to larger networks critical for campaign planning in future operations.
Though called "5th to 4th," a major long-term issue is how to allow for the F-22 and F-35 to communicate without using Link 16 alone, which would compromise their stealthy operations. Though both are manufactured by Lockheed Martin to meet Air Force needs, they were designed in different eras. F-22s can essentially only "talk" to other F-22s through a dedicated, low-probability-of-detection/low-probability-of-intercept system. The F-35, by contrast, uses the Multi-function Advanced Datalink (MADL) system, which employs a different waveform; the F-35 is slated for its Air Force operational debut as early as August 2016.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh highlighted the need for a 5th to 4th system in his speech at the annual Air Force Association conference in Orlando, Florida, in February. But Air Combat Command has not articulated what, specifically, is required. The command declined a request for an interview on the subject.
Underscoring the need for a quick program is the fact that communications are a limiting factor to using F-22s operationally. They were considered for use in the Libya campaign in 2011, but planners were stymied by an inability to deliver data collected by the F-22s back to other forces, according to one industry source.
The service has proposed a program, the Multi-Domain Adaptable Processing System (MAPS), to address this need with what will likely be a pod to act as a gateway between the two stealthy fighters. It is likely this will be placed on fourth-generation fighters such as the F-16 and F-15 families, thus putting a reliance on the involvement in these older systems to support communications requirements.
The operational concept would be for the stealthy fighters to penetrate behind the "bubble," or threat zone, of air defenses, and communicate with one another by transmitting data through the MAPS system.
Though it enhances the communications among combat air forces, this operational concept is dependent upon the availability not only of the stealthy platforms to penetrate forward in a fight, but also on the presence of a fourth-generation fighter orbiting within range to support communications; this will likely add cost to execute certain campaign plans.
The service plans to issue a draft request for proposals for MAPS by the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2015, or March 2015, says Col. Anthony Genatempo, the director for the aerial, space and nuclear networks division at the Air Force's Electronic Systems Center, which will head up the MAPS procurement. He hopes to announce competitive awards by the end of fiscal 2015.
Requirements for MAPS, however, are still being finalized.
In addition to the communications gateway, the service is planning to potentially include an infrared search and track sensor (IRST) in the final MAPS hardware, he says. Air Force planners are hoping to spend less than $100 million developing MAPS, though a final cost has yet to be refined.
MAPS will build off experience that the Air Force gained through the Talon Hate program, which aims to field four pods in the middle of fiscal 2015 to provide inflight datalink (IFDL) connectivity from the F-22 to fourth-generation fighters. This will allow for fourth-generation pilots in the rear of an air campaign to benefit from the tactical picture collected by the F-22 as it operates forward in a battle. Boeing is building these pods for use on the F-15C, which it manufactures.
At an estimated weight of 1,800 lb., the Talon Hate pods are expected to be about 17 ft. long. They will include the IRST, a Multifunctional Information Distribution System (similar to Link 16) capability, a satellite communications capability and an air-to-ground link.
Talon Hate is being spearheaded by the Air Force's Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities office, a congressionally mandated program designed to foster fielding capabilities across various service offices. Air Combat Command declined an interview request on Talon Hate but provided a data sheet on the subject. Boeing deferred all questions on the system to the Air Force.
Ultimately, the Air Force wants to have the ability for stealthy fighters to communicate among themselves, potentially independent of an external gateway, a capability notionally referred to as an advanced data link. For MAPS, though, "We are talking about a similar capability to Talon Hate in a different fashion – trying to reduce the size, weight and power of the components," Genatempo said. "It may be a pod, it may be partially in a pod. It may not be in a pod at all."
Both the F-22 and F-35 can receive Link 16 signals, but doing so might compromise their location if operations require stealth. So one question being addressed by Air Force officials is how to provide connectivity that is LPI/LPD while fifth-generation fighters are in the most dangerous airspace, where they were designed to operate.
Genatempo says the service is open to taking incremental steps toward the ultimate goal of fielding a direct link between the F-22 and F-35. He says cost is a key concern. "The biggest part I am trying to keep a cost control on is the development piece," he says. Production numbers would ultimately be dictated by the available budget.
The service hopes to eventually network the stealthy fighters and fourth-generation combat forces with other Pentagon assets, such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft and satellites, Genatempo says, although this is not a firm requirement.
Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin are all expected to submit concepts for MAPS. Northrop Grumman has demonstrated a similar gateway capability through the Jetpack joint capability technology program. Jetpack is designed to translate F-22 and F-35 messages into Link 16 messages to distribute the data to fourth-generation fighters (or forces operating on Link 16).
Lockheed Martin, by contrast, has demonstrated the ability to use a new waveform developed by L-3 Communications called Chameleon for direct communications among F-22s and F-35s without the use of a gateway. Lockheed Martin demonstrated Chameleon during flight trials in December; officials say signal strength remained under the detection threshold for an anti-access environment and the waveform can be transmitted via L-band antennas already on both platforms and only used for operations now at test ranges.
Lockheed Martin has spent its own internal research and development funding to develop the system, dubbed Project Missouri. What is unique about Project Missouri is its ability to allow for data to go back and forth using the Chameleon waveform without revealing the location of the stealthy aircraft, a plus for operations in highly defended airspace.
Lockheed officials are hoping the Air Force will provide funding for further demonstrations of Project Missouri.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/5th-4th-gen-fighter-comms-competition-eyed-fiscal-2015
Bloomberg News
Dassault Said to Close in on Rafale Contract to Lift Exports
By Helene Fouquet and Andrea Rothman June 19, 2014
Dassault Aviation SA (AM) is poised to win a contract from Qatar for 72 Rafale jets, a French government official said, indicating the jet may have its first export contract before India signs a commitment for 126 units.
A contract would probably come in two batches of 36 aircraft, the official said. The topic will be discussed when Qatar ruler Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani visits France next week, as negotiations continue. The Qatari Ministry of Defense and Dassault Aviation had no comment.
Sales abroad are critical to European and U.S. defense contractors as they look overseas to offset declining domestic spending and keep production alive. France's only maker of fighter planes has so far failed to clinch any export order for the Rafale, even as its prior fighter saw three quarters of sales from export orders. India is in exclusive talks with Dassault, though it has yet to seal a deal.
"State visits typically produce 'agreements' or 'understandings' that signal the opening of negotiations," said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. "Dassault hasn't had problem opening Rafale negotiations. It has had a huge problem closing them."
Dassault sees prospects for sales to Canada and Malaysia, Chief Executive Officer Eric Trappier has said. Dassault's Rafale had been considered a likely contender in the United Arab Emirates, though in 2011, the region's ruler declared the French offer "uncompetitive" and restarted talks with rivals.
French President Francois Hollande has been discussing the sale of the jets with Qatar for more than a year. Hollande told journalists on a visit to Qatar's capital, Doha, a year ago, that as much as three quarters of Qatar's military hardware comes from France.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-19/dassault-said-to-close-in-on-rafale-jet-contract-to-lift-exports
Textrons Scorpion .... armed and ready ??
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fintercepts.defensenews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FHigh_Res_Armed_Scorpion-FinalFarnborough_6-19-14.jpg&hash=3587d066a91be310957f4db582fba89f4fcfd5ff)
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/06/first-look-at-armed-textron-scorpion/
high res. foto :
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/High_Res_Armed_Scorpion-FinalFarnborough_6-19-14.jpg
Citaat van: Harald op 20/06/2014 | 08:38 uur
Textrons Scorpion .... armed and ready ??
[
Ik blijf het een ideale kist voor de KLu vinden, 24 stuks als aanvulling op 37-40 F35A's, een meer dan uitstekende oplossing voor zandbakmissies en nog betaalbaar ook.
Lockheed's F-35 gets boost in House-passed defense bill
June 20, 2014
*The House Friday passed a $570 billion Pentagon spending measure in that would reject Air Force plans to retire the war-tested A-10 aircraft
*Provide $975 million for 12 radar-jamming Boeing Growlers that the Pentagon didn't request. The Navy told Congress that it has an unfunded priority for 22 more Growlers built in St. Louis, Missouri.
*Increase money for Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, funding 38 planes in fiscal 2015, four more than the Pentagon requested.
Voor her gehele bericht zie link
http://fwbusinesspress.com/fwbp/article/1/5868/Breaking-News/Lockheeds-F-35-gets-boost-in-House-passed-defense-bill.aspx#.U6Wvymn4z4A.twitter
Citaat van: fwbusinesspress.com
*Provide $975 million for 12 radar-jamming Boeing Growlers that the Pentagon didn't request. The Navy told Congress that it has an unfunded priority for 22 more Growlers built in St. Louis, Missouri.
Hiermee kan de F18E/F/G productielijn een paar maanden lager open blijven.... wellicht te kort voor de diverse kompetities.
JSF's aan de grond na brand
dinsdag 24 jun 2014
De Amerikaanse luchtmacht houdt 26 Joint Strike Fighters aan de grond. In een van de toestellen brak gisteren tijdens de start brand uit. Zolang niet duidelijk is wat daarvan de oorzaak is, mogen de straaljagers niet de lucht in.
Het gaat om 26 toestellen van het type F-35A, die zijn gestationeerd op een basis in Florida. Het Pentagon, fabrikant Lockheed Martin en motorenbouwer Pratt & Whitney doen onderzoek naar de brandoorzaak.
Vlammen
De JSF-piloot ontdekte tijdens de start dat er vlammen uit het achterste deel van zijn toestel kwamen. Hij brak de start onmiddellijk af. De vlieger bleef ongedeerd.
De brand is het tweede incident met een JSF in korte tijd. Anderhalve week geleden werd bij een toestel een olielek geconstateerd. Daarop moesten alle 97 Amerikaanse JSF's voor onderhoud aan de grond blijven.
Nederland
Nederland heeft 37 Joint Strike Fighters besteld. Die worden naar verwachting vanaf 2019 geleverd en gaan de verouderde F-16's vervangen. Andere landen die met de ultramoderne straaljager gaan vliegen zijn Groot-Brittannië, Israël, Italië, Noorwegen, Turkije, Australië, Japan en Zuid-Korea.
Bron: NOS
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/06/2014 | 18:32 uur
*The House Friday passed a $570 billion Pentagon spending measure in that would reject Air Force plans to retire the war-tested A-10 aircraft
*Provide $975 million for 12 radar-jamming Boeing Growlers that the Pentagon didn't request. The Navy told Congress that it has an unfunded priority for 22 more Growlers built in St. Louis, Missouri.
*Increase money for Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, funding 38 planes in fiscal 2015, four more than the Pentagon requested.
Dikke, dikke staatssteun. Socialist B. Obama? Kapitalist W. Bush? Whatever.
Amerikaanse JSF's vliegen weer
woensdag 25 jun 2014
De Amerikaanse luchtmacht gaat de Joint Strike Fighter weer inzetten. Sinds maandag werden alle toestellen aan de grond gehouden, nadat brand was uitgebroken in een van de gevechtsvliegtuigen.
De oorzaak van de brand is nog onduidelijk, maar het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie zegt dat het een losstaand incident was. De andere straaljagers kunnen daarom volgens de Amerikanen gewoon weer de lucht in.
Het is de tweede keer in korte tijd dat er iets mis is met een JSF. Anderhalve week geleden was er een olielek bij een toestel.
Nederland krijgt ook JSF's. Er zijn 37 toestellen besteld. Zij moeten de F-16 vervangen. De gevechtsvliegtuigen worden vanaf 2019 geleverd.
Bron: NOS
Japan to deploy F-35 fighters at Misawa Air Base from fiscal 2017
AOMORI – Next-generation F-35 fighter jets will be deployed at Misawa Air Base in Aomori Prefecture from fiscal 2017, Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said Wednesday.
"We will coordinate with the U.S. side so local residents will not have to feel concerned," Onodera told Aomori Gov. Shingo Mimura in a meeting in the city of Aomori.
Asked by Mimura to take steps to prevent accidents or other incidents involving the aircraft that could endanger the public, Onodera pledged efforts to ensure safety.
About 20 F-35 jets will be deployed at the Air Self-Defense Force's Misawa base, the defense chief told reporters after the meeting.
The deployment plan for the stealth fighter aircraft was revealed following the launch of temporary operations early this month of U.S. Global Hawk surveillance drones at the U.S. Misawa base on the same site.
The Japan Times, June 25, 2014
Eurofighter: new aerodynamics set for 2014 test flight
By: Dan Thisdell / Munich / Source: Flightglobal.com
25/june/2014
Eurofighter will by year-end make is final proof-of-concept test flight on an aerodynamic modification kit that promises to improve the combat aircraft's subsonic turn rate by 15%.
Adding leading edge root extensions and extended trailing edge flaps, and reshaping the side-of-cockpit ILS antennae covers as 70° delta strakes should improve the aircraft's agility for close-quarters combat.
Laurie Hilditch, head of future capabilities at Eurofighter, says the modification kit should give the aircraft the sort of "knife-fight in a phone box" turning capability enjoyed by rivals such as Boeing's F/A-18E/F or the Lockheed Martin F-16, without sacrificing the transonic and supersonic high-energy agility inherent to its delta wing-canard configuration.
Speaking at Airbus Defence & Space's Manching Eurofighter final assembly and maintenance facility near Munich, Hilditch says the root extensions – or LERX – have already flown and show significant improvement in the subsonic airflow over the wings. And, changing the shape of the ILS antennae cover to resemble a delta strake does the same for the vertical tail fin. The canards, he adds, act as strakes but not throughout their range of movement.
A further boost to agility could also come from the addition of thrust vectoring, which Hilditch likens to an extra control surface. Eurofighter, he says, has done quite a bit of work on the concept and could move forward with customer interest.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurofighter-new-aerodynamics-set-for-2014-test-flight-400762/
Boeing plots hybrid Super Hornet/Growler future
By: Stephen Trimble / Washington DC / Source: Flightglobal.com
June, 25/2014
Boeing is formulating a concept for a hybrid variant of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet equipped with the electronic signal detection capabilities of the EA-18G Growler as it seeks to attract orders for new aircraft and upgrades to older models.
The resulting aircraft would resemble an E/A-18G that lacks ALQ-99 jamming pods for electronic attack, preserves the ALQ-218 electronic receiver and adds weapons now only carried by the F/A-18E/F, says Boeing vice-president Mike Gibbons.
"That hybrid just starts with the simple notion of take the sensor suite of the Growler and move it to a basically strike platform and then you grow that platform to take advantage of the fact that you can now see anybody that's emitting," Gibbons says.
The growth capabilities would be the addition of a long-range infrared search and track sensor and new air-to-air tracking modes for airborne systems.
Gibbons has recently taken charge of Boeing's F-15 but previously led the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G programmes.
As Gibbons briefed a group of reporters on both programmes in St. Louis, Missouri on 24 June, the hybrid Super Hornet/Growler concept emerged as he explained why Boeing is so confident that it can extend production of the combined production line for several years despite the current backlog running out at the end of 2016.
Last October, the US Navy prematurely released a draft solicitation document to buy up to 36 more E/A-18Gs, then withdrew the document after it gained attention. Instead, the USN tacked an order for 22 more E/A-18G onto the top of a wish list of unfunded priorities sent to Congress for Fiscal 2015. Congress has met the navy's request half-way, with the House of Representatives adding 12 E/A-18Gs to next year's appropriations bill. The Senate has yet to move on its version of the budget bill.
If the House version prevails, the added 12 E/A-18Gs would be combined with previous orders to keep the Boeing assembly line running at an optimal rate of two per month until the end of 2016.
The F/A-18E/F has recently lost bids for fighter deals in India and Brazil, but Gibbons says he remains optimistic that Boeing can attract enough new orders to keep reduction going until after 2020.
"There are a lot of countries flying legacy jets that are getting old – old from a capability standpoint and they need to upgrade to something like this," Gibbons says, adding, "or old from a fatigue life and they need to be replaced."
The hybrid concept comes on top of a broad range of upgrades that Boeing has previously proposed with the Advanced Super Hornet.
The upgrades include adding features such as conformal fuel tanks to extend the range, a podded weapons bay to reduce the aircraft's radar signature and additional sensors and weapons.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-plots-hybrid-super-hornetgrowler-future-400766/
Marine, Air Force JSF Flights Stalled; AETC Puts F-35A Under Lock, Key
By Colin Clark
on June 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM
WASHINGTON: The F-35A struck by fire as it took off from Eglin Air Force Base has been secured and is under armed guard in a secure hanger and the Air Force and Marines are not flying their versions of the Joint Strike Fighter program until they know more about the fire's causes.
"We will resume flying once we know more about the cause of the F-35A fire that occurred at Eglin AFB earlier this week," Capt. Richard Ulsh, a spokesman for Marine aviation, said in an email.
The 33rd Fighter Wing, responsible for F-35 training at Eglin Air Force Base, said Wednesday morning that its "commander has decided to continue the temporarily (sic) suspension of F-35A flights at Eglin in the interest of safety as we continue to investigate the cause of the mishap." First Lt. Hope Cronin said in an email to reporters that "We have no further information regarding the nature or extent of the damage" yet.
The fire-damaged plane, under the control of Air Education and Training Command, has been secured as if it were a production aircraft and this was a problem unlikely to affect the rest of the F-35 fleet. This is the first time all the commands and services have grappled with a potentially serious flight incident and it seems pretty clear from what I've heard that no one is sure what the protocols are for a plane that is both in the test phase and in low rate production — call it the curse of concurrency. The difficulty is that AETC's conduct — which appears to be exactly by the book and is designed to ensure that no one else can influence the investigation — means that neither the other services nor the Joint Program Office know much about what has happened to the aircraft.
Compounding this is the fact the Frank Kendall, head of Pentagon acquisition and the one man who could untie this knot with a single memo, is on vacation. Meanwhile, the JPO and the Air Force's 33rd Fighter Wing, the Marines and the Navy know almost nothing about what happened to the aircraft. It sounds as if someone at Kendall's office of acquisition, technology and logistics (ATL) may need to ensure that data, photos and other information from the aircraft is shared by AETC so that if there is a systemic issue that may affect the fleet everyone can know it as quickly possible.
Readers who may be wondering why you haven't seen the word grounded should know that grounding has a specific meaning for the military and these aircraft have not been grounded — yet. Grounded means the plane won't fly until further notice or the specific conditions that led to the plane being banned from flight is found and fixed. So far they're expecting to get the planes back in the sky as soon as they have some idea as to the fire's cause.
A congressional aide who follows the program said today that Hill staffers had received little new information from the services or the Joint Program Office about the plane's condition. The assumption is that a problem with the F135 engine, made by Pratt & Whitney, caused the fire. And the engine's core is the likeliest place for such a problem.
The program does not yet have an initial damage assessment. My understanding is detailed photos of the aircraft have not yet been received by the authorities.
Authorities are choosing subject matter experts to staff the Safety Investigation (SIB) and Accident Investigation boards (AIB) to identify the accident's causes and any measures need to protect the fleet and its pilots.
The SIB should convene "within days" and is expected to produce an assessment within 30 days.The AIB, said a program official, will begin "its investigation as soon as it can do so without interfering in the SIB investigation." It should be done in 60 to 90 days. Unless there are classified or personnel issues most of the reports should be released.
Breaking defense.com
Boeing Wins $22M for F-18E IRST Work...
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an undefinitized contract action against a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive Fee contract (N00019-11-C-0036) with a not-to-exceed value of $22,200,000 for production of F/A-18E/F Infrared Search and Track Engineering Development Model systems and support equipment.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/155048/boeing-wins-%2422m-for-f_18e-irst-work.html
Textron AirLand's Scorpion Makes Final Preparations for First Flight to Europe
WICHITA, Kan. --- Textron AirLand, LLC, a joint venture between Textron Inc. and AirLand Enterprises, LLC, has announced that its Scorpion aircraft is progressing on schedule toward a July departure from McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas.
The aircraft's first flight outside the US is planned to cover about 4,700 nautical miles from Wichita to RAF Fairford-Gloucestershire, 73 miles outside of London. Scorpion will participate in The Royal International Air Tattoo from July 11 to 13, immediately followed by Farnborough International Air Show from July 14 to 20.
The most recent test flights in May-June have gone smoothly, evaluating the aircraft's performance at speeds up to 455 KTAS. During a typical test flight, Scorpion's two test pilots execute a planned set of aerial maneuvers and system checks, as the data is automatically gathered and transmitted to the engineering team for analysis.
The latest tests have included:
-- Avionics and Electrical Systems Evaluations
-- Environmental and OBOGS System Evaluations
-- High and low speed flight characteristics
Scorpion completes endurance flight of 1,000 miles
On June 21, Scorpion completed its longest test flight to date— executing a flight plan that took it over 1,000 nautical miles from McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, KS to Oklahoma City, OK. The tandem-pilot team completed a few touch-and-go landings in the tower pattern upon arrival in Oklahoma City. Flight time for the test was 3.4 hours, reaching a new milestone of 100 total flight hours for the aircraft. The return flight was completed on June 23.
Looking sharp and ready to sting
In preparation for the July air shows, Scorpion's all-composite exterior has gone from a flat light gray to a two-tone dark gray over light gray paint scheme. The aircraft, in development for use as an jet trainer, surveillance platform or light strike aircraft, will appear on exhibit, displayed with several weapons models such as: Raytheon Griffin Missiles, Boeing JDAM and SDBs, Textron Systems Weapon & Sensor Systems G-CLAWs, Raytheon Enhanced Paveway 4, and Lockheed Martin Hellfire and DAGR.
Scorpion may be configured to accommodate various infrared air-to-air missiles and wing-mounted gun pods. The aircraft will be on display outside the Textron Chalet, alongside Textron Aviation's Beechcraft AT-6 light attack turbo prop, T-6 training platform, King Air 350ER—with the Cessna Grand Caravan EX joining the lineup at Farnborough.
Textron AirLand, LLC is a joint venture between Textron Inc. and AirLand Enterprises, LLC with the purpose of designing and manufacturing an affordable, capable jet platform based on commercially available technologies and processes for the tactical military jet aviation market.
AirLand Enterprises, LLC was formed by a group of experienced aerospace and defense executives dedicated to bringing an effective, low-cost, ISR/Strike jet to domestic and international military markets, replacing aging aircraft and complimenting high-end multi-role fighters.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/155059/textron-scorpion-fighter-prepares-for-farnborough.html
Nu ben ik een totale leek op ongeveer alles wat vliegt, maar is een vliegtuig zoals de Scorpion niet ideaal voor zo'n beetje alle taken waarvoor onze F-16's de afgelopen jaren in missiegebieden zijn ingezet?
Citaat van: Laurens op 01/07/2014 | 23:26 uur
Nu ben ik een totale leek op ongeveer alles wat vliegt, maar is een vliegtuig zoals de Scorpion niet ideaal voor zo'n beetje alle taken waarvoor onze F-16's de afgelopen jaren in missiegebieden zijn ingezet?
Laurens de taken van luchtsteun en foto opnames kan ook door Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano worden gedaan.
http://www.builtforthemission.com/jax/bftm.nsf/learn-more
Citaat van: Laurens op 01/07/2014 | 23:26 uur
Nu ben ik een totale leek op ongeveer alles wat vliegt, maar is een vliegtuig zoals de Scorpion niet ideaal voor zo'n beetje alle taken waarvoor onze F-16's de afgelopen jaren in missiegebieden zijn ingezet?
Ik vind de Scorpion een prima kist NAAST de F35 voor zandbak operaties dus wat mij betreft: + 1 squadron. (24 kisten welke zich heel snel terug verdienen in de exploitatiekosten)
Citaat van: Ace1 op 01/07/2014 | 23:35 uur
Laurens de taken van luchtsteun en foto opnames kan ook door Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano worden gedaan.
Ook met zweefvliegtuigen.... het moet nog goedkoper begrijp ik...
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/07/2014 | 23:39 uur
Ook met zweefvliegtuigen.... het moet nog goedkoper begrijp ik...
Ik las gister de telegraaf, toevallig een kort artikel over de inzet van de F-16 in Afghanistan. Een missie van 12 jaar met dik 24.000 vlieguren, zet dat af tegen iets van 3000 tot 5000 euro of 20/25000 euro per vlieguur.
Citaat van: Laurens op 01/07/2014 | 23:54 uur
Ik las gister de telegraaf, toevallig een kort artikel over de inzet van de F-16 in Afghanistan. Een missie van 12 jaar met dik 24.000 vlieguren, zet dat af tegen iets van 3000 tot 5000 euro of 20/25000 euro per vlieguur.
Een vlieguur van een Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano kost $900 per uur.
Citaat van: Laurens op 01/07/2014 | 23:54 uur
Ik las gister de telegraaf, toevallig een kort artikel over de inzet van de F-16 in Afghanistan. Een missie van 12 jaar met dik 24.000 vlieguren, zet dat af tegen iets van 3000 tot 5000 euro of 20/25000 euro per vlieguur.
Daarom vind ik een Scorpion ook een prima
aanvulling op de F35 in een zandbak scenario. (voor het gemak 8-10 Scorpions per 1 vlieguur van een F35A)
Direct operating costs are targeted at $3,000 per hour
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/low-cost-scorpion-fighter-starts-flight-tests-394085/
Ik ben het met Jurrien eens dat een type als de Scorpion een goede aanvulling is naast de F-35. De Scorpion is prima te gebruiken als licht aanvalstoestel, CION/CAS en als Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) toestel.
Een toestel zoals EMB 314 Super Tucano of Beechcraft AT-6c komt voor mij pas in beeld bij de NL als er een vervanging moet komen voor de PC-7 lestoestellen, want dan kun je met het toestel een dubbel-functie uitvoeren, lestoestelen en als licht aanvalstoestel.
Eigenlijk is een toestel zoals de Scorpion te vergelijken met de, door Cessna gemaakte, A-37 Dragonfly.
"The A-37 followed the KISS principle ('keep it simple, stupid'). It was well equipped for operations from primitive airfields and required little of the fancy, high-tech maintenance needed by more sophisticated warplanes like the F-4 Phantom II." ( lees nu : F-35)
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-a-37-dragonfly-in-vietnam/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/07/2014 | 23:38 uur
Ik vind de Scorpion een prima kist NAAST de F35 voor zandbak operaties dus wat mij betreft: + 1 squadron. (24 kisten welke zich heel snel terug verdienen in de exploitatiekosten)
Ik snap de hype rondom de Textron Scorpion niet zo. Voor CAS hebben we toch AH-64 Apache's?
Voor air policing, (photo)recon en training kan je kiezen voor de FA-50.
12 stuks voor $420 mil. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fa-50-buy-puts-manila-back-in-the-jet-business-397548/)
Citaat van: Zeewier op 02/07/2014 | 11:08 uur
Ik snap de hype rondom de Textron Scorpion niet zo. Voor CAS hebben we toch AH-64 Apache's?
Voor air policing, (photo)recon en training kan je kiezen voor de FA-50.
12 stuks voor $420 mil. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fa-50-buy-puts-manila-back-in-the-jet-business-397548/)
:angel: laat ik nu ook eens, voor deze keer het boekhouders petje opzetten, voor jouw genoemde $420 mil koop je een heel squadron (20+) Scorpions.
De FA-50 dan wel een volwaardige F-5 vervanger. De Scorpion is een net niks toestel.
India: MoD mulls downsizing Rafale contract
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
As the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius met Indian political leadership, including prime minister Narendra Modi, pressing for sealing the multi-billion Rafale combat aircraft deal, New Delhi has raised serious concerns over the cost escalation of the fighter jet deal. Struggling to pay the heavy cost of the deal, the ministry of defence (MoD) is considering an option of down-sizing the deal from 126 to 80 fighter jets.
According to officials, who are privy to the development, defence ministry has asked the French government to revise the price structure because the deal has gone much beyond the expected lines. And during course of negotiations with the Dassault, which manufactures Rafale jets, the defence ministry has been asking for price revision. Due to difference of opinion, the cost negotiation committee, which was set up in February 2012 to work out the modalities for the deal, has not been able reach conclusion and the committee is yet to submit its report to the ministry.
Officials claim that in 2007, when the tender was floated, the cost of the programme was $12 billion. When the lowest bidder was declared in January 2012, the cost of the deal shot up to $18 billion (Rs1.08 lakh crore). And now with inclusion of transfer of technology, life cycle cost and creating assembly line, the deal has virtually cross whopping $20 billion.
A top official told dna that if the government signs the deal in the next couple of months, it has to pay advance payment of at least $1.5-2 billion (Rs.9- 12,000 crore) to Dassault. And for the newly-elected BJP-led NDA government will have to compromise on other defence equipment, as major chunk of defence budget will go in for the advance payment. And it is also believed to understand that new government is also not comfortable with the life cycle cost method adopted by the previous UPA-II government and even a senior BJP leader and former finance minister Yashwant Sinha had objected to the life cycle criteria.
"Cost escalations and disagreements over production sharing with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited(HAL) has led to the delay in freezing the contract. French have been asked to re-look at the price factor,"said an officer.
IAF officials maintain even if the deal is signed by the end this year, first lot of Rafale aircraft will arrive India by 2017. And by the time, IAF has to phase out its MiG 21 squadrons.
The air force is seeking to replace its ageing MiG-21s with a modern fighter and MMRCA fits between India's hig-end Sukhoi-30MKIs and its low-end Tejas LCA lightweight fighter. The IAF has a sanctioned strength of 45 fighter jet squadrons. However, it only has 30 squadrons operational as old aircraft have been retired.
Eighteen of the 126 planes will be purchased directly from Dassault, while Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will manufacture the other 108 under a licence, at an upcoming facility in Bangalore.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-mod-mulls-downsizing-rafale-contract-1999002
Tja..als het India vooral om de technologische kennis te doen is zou ik het aantal ook niet te hoog maken. Hoe meer geld er overblijft voor het eigen project.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 02/07/2014 | 22:11 uur
Tja..als het India vooral om de technologische kennis te doen is zou ik het aantal ook niet te hoog maken. Hoe meer geld er overblijft voor het eigen project.
We gaan het zien.
Voor zover ik het begrijp is men ook zwaar ontevreden over het Russisch-Indiase project (op basis van de PAK-FA) en staat hier het aantal ook onder druk en lees ik berichten over een eventuele uitbreiding van het SU-30 bestand om de huidige tekortkoming in vliegtuigen, respectievelijk squadrons op te vullen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/07/2014 | 08:47 uur
We gaan het zien.
Voor zover ik het begrijp is men ook zwaar ontevreden over het Russisch-Indiase project (op basis van de PAK-FA) en staat hier het aantal ook onder druk en lees ik berichten over een eventuele uitbreiding van het SU-30 bestand om de huidige tekortkoming in vliegtuigen, respectievelijk squadrons op te vullen.
India zit al langer met die problemen ja..als ook het op sterkte krijgen van haar luchtmacht. Ook kwantitatief. Mogelijk kiest men ook daarom voor minder dure toestellen of minder van die dure.
Rockwell Collins Showcasing F-35 Lightning II HMDS At Farnborough Airshow 2014
In celebration of the F-35 making its international debut, the Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems F-35 Lightning II Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) will be in the spotlight at the Farnborough Airshow 2014.
The F-35 HMDS provides pilots with unprecedented situational awareness. All the information that pilots need to complete their missions – through all weather, day or night – is projected on the helmet's visor, an industry first. In addition, real-time imagery streamed from six infrared cameras mounted around the aircraft to the helmet, allows pilots to "look through" the airframe.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/155111/rockwell-exhibits-f_35-helmet-at-farnborough.html
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rockwellcollins.com%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FImages%2FNews%2520and%2520Events%2FNews%2F2014%2FRC%2FF-35-Gen-III-HMD-11.ashx&hash=42e1667b49ab2bf8962c0fceab7a4a8f283faca0)
DoD Grounds Entire F-35 Fleet; Plane Might Not Make UK Debut (.. Dus misschien geen F-35 in/op Farnborough Airshow 2014.. )
The European debut of the Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighter is now in question after the Pentagon grounded the entire fleet late Thursday based on the initial findings of an investigation into a fire that broke out on one of the jets last month.
The US Defense Department says it is still making preparations to send the jet to the Farnborough International Airshow and Royal International Air Tattoo in the UK, but would not make a final decision until "early next week."
The Pentagon says it is still investigating the cause of the June 23 fire the broke out in the rear of an Air Force F-35 during takeoff at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
DoD temporarily grounded the F-35 fleet and ordered inspections of all jets before returning the aircraft to flight testing.
"The root cause of the incident remains under investigation," DoD said in emailed statement late Thursday.
....../......
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140703/DEFREG02/307030026/DoD-Grounds-Entire-F-35-Fleet-Plane-Might-Not-Make-UK-Debut?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|World News|p
Citaat van: Harald op 04/07/2014 | 09:33 uur
DoD Grounds Entire F-35 Fleet; Plane Might Not Make UK Debut (.. Dus misschien geen F-35 in/op Farnborough Airshow 2014.. )
Dan gebruiken ze in de UK straks toch gewoon deze? :devil:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfxykH5O.jpg&hash=f1e41e4765e3c1a6658a656b18e8fbc5f66c7a84)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8ML6mf0.jpg&hash=40b90bd1bf01df2a738b58a58e1f716038a26f9d)
Best wel symbolisch..... :big-smile: :devil:
Wel een stuk goedkoper !
Gewoon het dek van een carrier volzetten met mock-ups ;D :lol:
Over prijs gesproken, hier een kleine update uit Zwitserland:
Systeemprijs per Gripen in Zwitserland: €117 miljoen
Daarnaast de vergelijking met de Oostenrijkse Eurofighter: systeemprijs: €110 miljoen
http://www.vorarlbergernachrichten.at/leserbriefe/2014/07/07/eurofighter-billiger-als-gripen.vn
Meeste JSF's geïnspecteerd
WASHINGTON -
De meeste van de bijna 100 F-35 straaljagers (JSF's ) zijn geïnspecteerd. De toestellen worden aan de grond gehouden na een motorbrand in een van de vliegtuigen, een F-35A, het type waar Nederland twee testtoestellen van heeft.
De VS, Groot-Brittannië en Nederland bekijken de uitkomsten en bepalen of en onder welke omstandigheden ze de vluchten hervatten. Volgens ingewijden is inmiddels duidelijk wat er met de Pratt & Whitney-motor van het pechvliegtuig is gebeurd, maar is nog onduidelijk waarom het is gebeurd.
Alle 97 F-35 Lightning II's mogen sinds vorige week niet meer de lucht in. De motor van de F-35A viel op 23 juni uit elkaar en vatte vlam toen de piloot zich opmaakte om op te stijgen van Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
Telegraaf, di 08 jul 2014, 10:09
New Avionics For Gripen, Typhoon And Rafale
Europe revamps fighter systems and sensors
Modernizing electronics is the most efficient way to upgrade a fighter design, and European governments and industry are investing in those areas to keep their programs competitive.
GRIPEN :
The most comprehensive fighter avionics program in Europe is the all-new sensor and processing suite for the Saab JAS 39E Gripen. Its main components are the Selex Raven ES‑05 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and Skyward-G infrared search and track (IRST) sensor (AW&ST March 17, p. 28) and Saab's all-new electronic warfare system (AW&ST May 26/June 2, p. 66), including AESA transmit/receive units using gallium-nitride (GaN) technology.
Selex asserts that its IRST technology—also used on Typhoon—has detected and tracked stealth aircraft and can do so at tactically useful ranges. The Raven radar will be the first operational AESA to use a "repositioner"—a rotating mount for the canted array, which provides a wider field of regard than a fixed AESA. The jamming system—which is regarded as a major technological advance and will not be fully installed before 2023—will be able to generate high-powered, agile jamming beams over a wide spectrum.
Saab also is building on its experience with datalinks to improve the already close connections that are possible within a flight of Gripens. This will include the ability of one aircraft to jam the target while the other tracks it, automated and unpredictable "hopping" of the radar transmission from one aircraft in the formation to another, and the use of multiple IRSTs for high-accuracy passive ranging and tracking.
RAFALE :
France has also announced big investments for Rafale. Dassault has already inducted the first of the French Navy Rafale F1-standard aircraft to begin an upgrade to the latest service configuration, F3-04T, which includes the active, electronically scanned array (AESA) version of the RBE2 radar and the DDM-NG missile-warning system. The program goal is to retain all the aircraft in service through rolling upgrades, the company says.
The DDM-NG, part of the Thales/MBDA Spectra defensive avionics suite, comprises two imaging infra-red sensors located on either side of the fighter's fin-tip pod, each with a hemispherical field of view and jointly providing full spherical coverage other than the area blanked by the fighter's wing. Its ability to detect and track other targets, such as aircraft, is classified, according to Dassault.
In January, the French defense ministry awarded Dassault a contract for the next major Rafale upgrade, known as F3-R. It includes more powerful processors and upgrades to the Multi-functional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal datalink and the automatic ground collision avoidance system.
For tactical and strategic reconnaissance missions, F3-R will include in-cockpit replay and analysis of imagery from the Thales Areos long-range oblique photography (Lorop) reconnaissance pod. The Rafale pilot or weapon system operator will be able to review imagery without interrupting the pod's collection process.
The upgrade will also see a series of improvements to Spectra. Developed by Thales and MBDA, Spectra is a fully automated system that provides electromagnetic detection, laser and missile warning, jamming and four chaff/flare dispensers. French industry sources say that during operations over Libya in 2011, Rafale literally disappeared from the radar screens of the Libyan air force, performing "soft kills" on enemy radar systems.
Bruno Carrara, director of the Rafale program at Thales, says the F3-R upgrade will involve a more advanced electromagnetic detection capability based on new digital wide-band-receiver technologies, improving the suite's spectrum analysis as well as its instantaneous interception capability.
Thales will also update Spectra's solid-state jamming subsystem, which was one of the first to use electronically steered phased-array antennas. Carrara says for F3R, Spectra will include more powerful antennas, while further increasing the power supply so that more threats can be jammed simultaneously. Like Saab, Thales will use GaN technology because of its power and efficiency.
Since the late 1990s, Spectra's designers have dropped hints that the system can perform "active cancellation"—receiving a radar signal and mimicking the aircraft's echo exactly one-half wavelength out of phase so the radar sees nothing. Carrara again implies that such a capability is in use: "There are other strategies, such as generating signals that will encompass or be higher than the echo from the aircraft, so that the radar threat will receive a signal that will mask the echo from the aircraft," Carrara says. "Instead of creating a false echo and drawing the radar to the wrong place, the idea is to produce a signal that will mask the echo of the aircraft, so the radar will be unable to detect the aircraft Spectra is protecting."
EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON :
So far, the Eurofighter Typhoon appears to be running third in the AESA race. This summer, the last Tranche 2 aircraft will be completed. Its successor, Tranche 3 provisions Typhoon for the AESA and adds enhanced on-board computing and additional fiber-optic cabling and video capability. "But a blindfolded pilot getting in there won't even see an additional switch," says BAE's chief test pilot, Mark Bowman. "For a pilot jumping from a Tranche 2 to a Tranche 3 aircraft there is that high level of concurrency."
It is now a firm part of Royal Air Force planning that Tranche 1 -Typhoons will be retired in 2019. For Tranche 2 and 3 jets, though, the focus is on software upgrades. The Phase 1 Enhancements (P1E) program has been split into two parts—P1E-A and P1E-B. The P1E-A product provides the aircraft with a basic set of air-to-ground capabilities, which P1E-B builds on (for example, it is via P1E‑B that Typhoon gains a full capability with the Paveway IV weapon).
"The software product isn't determined by whether it is a Tranche 2 or Tranche 3 aircraft," Bowman explains. "We've completed all the flying on P1E‑A, which is in service with the RAF and the Royal Saudi Air Force. And we've finished the P1E-B product now and aircraft are entering into service ahead of the U.K.'s requirement of April 1, 2015. Next up is P2E (Phase 2 Enhancements), which brings significant differences in HMI (Human--Machine Interface) such as better integration of the helmet, and so on."
This supports the multirole capabilities of the aircraft. "One of Typhoon's benefits, and a discriminator over other platforms out there at the moment, is the fact it can do air-to-air and air-to-surface at the same time," Bowman continues. "Where P2 takes it is to build even more on those philosophies, and [provisions for] introduction of new weaponry."
http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avionics-gripen-typhoon-and-rafale
Sweden concludes Gripen-Meteor integration firings
The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) and Saab have completed missile integration firings of the MBDA Meteor beyond visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) from the Gripen fighter, the company announced on 7 July.
These final firings, which were conducted earlier in the year, were geared at validating seeker performance and missile range. Two missiles were fired at remotely-controlled targets on 12 and 13 March, at FMV's Vidsel Test Range in northern Sweden, demonstrating safe separation from the aircraft and datalink functions between the aircraft and missile.
"The March 2014 trials parameters included firings at both low and high altitude and at speed while the launch aircraft was manoeuvring, as well as demonstrating a long engagement range, engagement of manoeuvring targets, aircraft/missile datalink functionality and missile seeker performance," the company said in a statement.
According to Saab, this was the last major trials task required to clear the missile for operational service on the Gripen C/D aircraft, with the company saying: "Full Meteor capability will be delivered as part of Gripen's latest MS20 (Materiel System 20) combat systems update for the Swedish Air Force [SwAF]. Once MS20 has been cleared for service, Sweden and Gripen will have the world's first and only functional Meteor BVRAAM capability."
Saab expects to deliver the final MS20 enhancement package to the FMV for operational test and evaluation by the end of 2014. It is due to enter SwAF service in 2015, making Sweden the first country to operationally field the 100 km+ Meteor BVRAAM.
Previously, a senior Saab executive had claimed that a single Meteor-armed Gripen flying over the Baltic could "immediately" change the balance of power in the region. In addition to the Swedish Gripen, the Meteor is also planned to enter service on partner nation Eurofighter Typhoons and French Rafale fighters.
http://t.co/VPFvVJppqG
Scorpion Jet arrives at the Royal International Air Tattoo (De ScorpionJet heeft de overtocht gemaakt via IJsland, Schotland naar RIAT )
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scorpionjet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FScorpion-Main4.jpg&hash=3150eab4dbbe796420851382faaa3e04ba61ff7d)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/s851x315/10476396_686729131401464_4936032129339340199_n.jpg)
ScorpionJet saying good morning from high above the Isle of Wight, U.K.!
https://www.facebook.com/ScorpionJet
Seoul Speeds Up Fighter Jet Development Plan
South Korea is accelerating its efforts to develop an indigenous warplane with a plan to give public notice of bids for the so-called KFX project as early as August.
The military plans to confirm its required operational capabilities for the project at the Joint Chiefs of Staff Council session in mid-July, and finalize the bidding plan during a session of the national defense acquisition program committee next month.
The KFX program, which includes both the development and production of the home-built warplane, is expected to cost nearly 20 trillion won ($19.7 billion). Under the project, Seoul seeks to deploy 120 fighters after 2023 to replace its aging fleets of F-4s and F-5s.
Since February, a Defense Ministry task force consisting of officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Program Acquisition Administration and Air Force has been conducting research for the development project.
The task force has had heated discussions particularly on whether to opt for a single- or double-engine platform. Sources said that the taskforce had chosen a double-engine platform.
The Agency for Defense Development and Air Force have demanded a double-engine type. They argued that a plane with two engines could carry more weapons and fuel, and improve the plane's mobility with a greater thrust. They also said the survivability of pilots would be raised given that one engine would still function should the other break down.
But those favoring a single-engine platform have maintained that the double-engine type carries a higher price tag, thus making it less attractive for foreign buyers. They also argued that thanks to current advanced engine technology, the chances of engine-related accidents were not high.
According to government research, the development of a single-engine platform would cost 6.4 trillion won, while the double-engine platform would cost 8.6 trillion won. (ca. € 6,25 miljard Euro)
Seoul's efforts to accelerate the development of the new fighter underscores growing concerns over the potential air security vacuum. The Air Force is expected to face a shortage of around 100 fighters in 2019 when almost all of the F-4s and F-5s will be decommissioned.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/155298/seoul-speeds-up-plans-to-develop-own-fighter.html
Makers of F-35 Combat Jets to Help Keep Cost of Fighter Plane at $80 Million
By Dow Jones Business News, July 10, 2014
By Robert Wall and Jon Ostrower
FAIRFORD AIR BASE, England-- Lockheed Martin Corp. and its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter industrial partners will spend $170 million over two years to help reduce the cost of each of the combat jets to below $80 million by the end of the decade.
Cost reductions will be achieved a year faster than planned, said Lorraine Martin, the Lockheed executive who heads the F-35 program. "This is really something novel," she said of the investment that is shared by others, including Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems PLC.
The Pentagon has been putting pressure on industry to bring down the cost of its most expensive weapons program. The U.S. government expects to pay about $399 billion for the F-35, including the purchase of 2,443 jets.
The companies will only see a return on their upfront spending if costs actually come down, Ms. Martin said. "We will look at each opportunity with cost reduction," she said.
Affordability of the jets is the biggest concern, said U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the government's F-35 program boss. He applauded the industry initiatives and said if they are successful the government may also put in funds to help lower costs.
Gen. Bogdan said the government's cost assumptions are more conservative at $80 million to $85 million per jet in 2019.
Lockheed Martin expects to beat the government figure, Ms. Martin said, though it will require some government investment, too.
A more near-term hurdle the program has to overcome, though, is returning to flight the fleet that remains grounded after a June 23 engine fire on the ground at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The investigation into the cause of the fire continues, Gen. Bogdan said.
The planes will return to flight as soon as possible without compromising safety, he said. "We will not rush the decision," the General said. A decision has not been made on whether the jet that sustained heavy damaged can be fixed.
"Problems like this are going to happen," Gen. Bogdan said. "This is not the last time we are going to have a problem with the F-35 in development."
The grounding has kept F-35s, which are due to make their air show debut in the U.K. this month, stuck in the U.S. If the return to flight clearance is given in time, the planes will make the trans-Atlantic hop, Gen. Bogdan said. "It is important for the international community to see that this is not a paper airplane," he said.
The grounding so far has not impacted the overall program schedule which has suffered repeated delays. The latest program plan had built in a schedule buffer in case problems such as the engine mishap arose.
The U.S. Marine Corps is scheduled to declare the jets operational in July 2015.
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/makers-of-f35-combat-jets-to-help-keep-cost-of-fighter-plane-at-80-million-20140710-00620#ixzz375dMkOtS
Why Euro-Canards Are Still A Factor
Modernizing Europe's premier combat aircraft
Jul 11, 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology
A version of this article appears in the July 7 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology.
Late last year, Lockheed Martin was still showing a chart to potential industrial partners that depicted all the so-called fourth-generation fighters going out of production well before 2020 and leaving the F-35 with a Western-world monopoly. That script is not playing out as written.
Zie link:
http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/why-euro-canards-are-still-factor
Eurofighter Describes Multi-Role Capability Status
by Chris Pocock
July 11, 2014
Multi-role functionality has been a long time coming for the Eurofighter Typhoon. But the four-nation industrial consortium building the combat jet says the Phase 1 Enhancements (P1E) package that is now entering service represents a "paradigm shift" in capability.
The commander of the UK Royal Air Force (RAF) Typhoon force, Air Cmdr. Gary Waterfall, said the new package allows the RAF to drop 500-pound Paveway IV "smart" bombs "at the moment of our choosing, on targets of our choosing, with a multitude of fuse settings, impact angles and arrivals."
Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter GmbH future capabilities manager, added, "The operator may want to use all six Paveway IVs during an attack mission–to hit a bomb dump, air traffic control [ATC], hangars and vehicles all in one pass. If the pilot receives a 'launch acceptable region' instruction in the cockpit advising him the targets are in range, one bomb could go straight down the chimney of the bomb-dump; the ATC can be hit with another bomb at a certain angle; and the radar taken out with an air burst."
The P1E package also includes integration of the 2,000-pound EGBU-16 Paveway II bomb, has adjustable fuse settings for the bombs after takeoff and includes functional enhancements to the Litening II laser designator pod. The package also incorporates a complete revision of the human-machine interface (HMI) for better pilot situational awareness, based on experience gained by the RAF during Operation Unified Protector over Libya in 2011.
The package is being introduced in two stages: P1Ea is now certified and was introduced on Tranche 2 RAF Typhoons in late 2013. Meanwhile, for P1Eb, flight tests have been completed and it will enter service in the next 6 to 12 months.
A separate set of improvements, known as Evolution Package 2 (EP2), was contracted by the four Eurofighter partner nations last October. They include an upgrade to the Defensive Aids Sub System (DASS), interoperability updates to the Multifunction and Distribution Systems (MIDS) and modifications to the jet's current Captor-M radar to allow firing of theMBDA Meteor Beyond-Visual-Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM).
Potent Combination
At a briefing during the ILA Berlin Airshow in May, two former RAF fighter pilots described the potency of the Meteor/Typhoon combination. Paul Smith, capability manager, Eurofighter, said the jet's thrust-to-weight ratio provides the energy needed to give the Meteor "maximum throw." Russ Martin, air weapons advisor, MBDA, said the Meteor has "stunning kinematics...unlike other missiles, it doesn't decelerate after the boost phase. It turns most of its fuel into energy at the target intercept phase. This gives a very large no-escape zone–three times the size of other BVRAAMs," he claimed. The Eurofighter can carry six Meteors, plus two short-range infrared-guided AAMs.
At the same briefing, Smith and Martin also looked forward to the integration of two more MBDA air-surface weapons on the Eurofighter. The Storm Shadow standoff missile "can penetrate highly defended targets," said Smith. "The stealth is in the weapon, which minimizes the risk to pilot and aircraft," he added. "It's very effective against C3I, airfields, SAMs, bunkers, bridges and industrial targets," he added.
Martin also described how the Brimstone weapon, with its dual-mode seeker (millimeter wave and semi-active laser), reduces pilot workload while increasing the likelihood of striking moving targets. Using only MMW guidance, "the pilot could launch six against a swarm of static and moving vehicles with only one button-push," said Martin, while he added, "We've perfected the algorithms."
Contracts Awaited
Despite the promises, the partner nations have not yet given Eurofighter a contract for the integration of the Storm Shadow or Brimstone weapons. They form part of the proposed Phase 2 Enhancements (P2E) package. More details may emerge during the Farnborough Airshow this week but, in the meantime, the consortium is believed to be using its own money, plus funding from Saudi Arabia, to move forward with the Storm Shadow integration. The weapon has flown on a Eurofighter in Italy and another Eurofighter has now flown about 18 times from Manching with the equivalent German weapon, the KEPD-350 Taurus.
At the same time, contract award is still under consideration for the E-scan version of the Captor radar, despite Eurofighter's best efforts to persuade the partner nations that this is essential for the export market. However, one instrumented production aircraft (IPA5) has now received the structural and systems modifications needed for E-Scan radar testing by BAE Systems in the UK. At Manching, meanwhile, Airbus Defence and Space is preparing IPA8 to fly by the end of the year with the necessary modifications.
Meanwhile, the first five Typhoons from the Tranche 3 production order are now flying at BAE's Warton facility. They have provisions for the E-Scan radar, conformal fuel tanks and other envisaged improvements. But the RAF is in no rush to receive them. Air Cmdr. Waterfall explained, "These 'future-proofed' aircraft may be coming off the production line, but I want to protect them so that we can reach the projected out-of-service date, which is not until 2030."
There is increasing speculation the RAF Tranche 3s will be flown into storage at RAF Scampton for the time being.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/farnborough-air-show/2014-07-11/eurofighter-describes-multi-role-capability-status
Japan's new stealth jet fighter has been officially unveiled
Jul 12 2014
By David Cenciotti
Mitsubishi ATD-X Shinshin stealth fighter has rolled out.
Last month, a leaked, blurry image provided an interesting preview of the first prototype of the Advanced Technology Demonstrator-X (ATD-X), the indigenous war plane that Japan Air Self-Defense Force will operate in the air defense role, replacing the ageing Mitsubishi F-2.
On Jul. 12, the first official photos of the ATD-X (serialled 51-0001) were released by the Japanese Ministry of Defense Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI), the Ministry of Defense's agency that has developed the Shinshin ("spirit of the heart", an early codename within the Japan Self Defense Force) for research purposes.
Indeed, the ATD-X will be used for the development of the F-3, Japan's next generation stealth jet.
Noteworthy, the "new" images were taken on May 8, 2014, when the painting of the canted vertical tails radar-evading air superiority fighter with enhanced maneuverability ended.
Zie link voor de foto's
http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/12/atd-x-officially-unveiled/
Hoever hebben de japanners gebruik mogen maken van de tekeningen van de YF22 voor de ontwikkeling van de Mitsubishi ATD-X?
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F07%2FATD-X-first-prototype-side.jpg&hash=4a2b02fbc82994b5660dd0889fdc5b549049e8a5)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5c%2FTwo_Lockheed-Boeing-General_Dynamics_YF-22s.jpg&hash=1d4ee9fb1f4b56cd87fc0b209ac31b5c298bea89)
Voor hen die de Japanse taal machtig zijn. :angel:
Het toestel heeft zo op het oog best een zwaar uitgevoerd landingsgestel..Lijkt dat maar zo? of daar in Japan reden voor?
Boeing Defense Head: Saab Team-Up Offers 'Forward Thinking Approach'
Jul. 13, 2014 - 03:56PM | By AARON MEHTA
LONDON — When Boeing and Saab unveil their co-design of a new trainer for the US Air Force, it will look different from the Swedish firm's Gripen fighter, the head of Boeing's defense arm said Sunday.
"I can unequivocally tell you it's not Gripen, or son of Gripen," Chris Chadwick said during a media briefing held at Boeing's London office ahead of this week's Farnborough International Airshow.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140713/DEFREG01/307130014/Boeing-Defense-Head-Saab-Team-Up-Offers-Forward-Thinking-Approach-
Live-stream van de presentatie op Farnborough International Airshow bekeken, erg interessant, gemiste kans voor NL.
Hier de PDF van de presentatie, Gripen E+, gemiste kans voor NL!
http://t.co/Scm6vCNwIC
F-35 Cleared To Fly, But Not To Farnborough Yet ( de eerste stap weer naar het vliegen, maar een oceaan oversteek ?? .. een stap te ver ? )
FARNBOROUGH -- The U.S. Air Force and Navy air worthiness authorities have approved the F-35 for a limited return to flight, though there has been no determination on whether the single-engine, stealthy jet will make it to the Farnborough air show here by its close July 20.
Pentagon officials say they are "hopeful" four F-35Bs can make the historic transit across the Atlantic Ocean for the $398 billion, multinational program's debut here after three weeks of a fleetwide grounding.
The clearance allows for "an engine inspection regimen and a restricted flight envelope," says Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby. The "restricted flight envelope ... will remain in effect until the root cause" is discovered.
An F-35A's Pratt & Whitney F135 engine burst into flames June 23 after excessive friction in the third stage fan of the integral bladed rotor (IBR), or blisk, in the cold section of the engine. Pratt & Whitney and F-35 program officials did not immediately respond to a request for information on how limited the flight envelope is.
However, the Pentagon's procurement chief said July 14 here that the root cause is not thought to be endemic to the fleet.
The three-stage IBR sits behind the front fan in the F135 and compresses the air before passing it into the high-pressure core. Each stage is separated by a stator and rotates within the casing, which is lined with an abradable strip to maintain tight clearances between the blade tips and the inner wall of the compressor casing. This enables tight tolerances while reducing pressure loss and some rubbing is acceptable.
In the engine for AF-27, the aircraft that caught fire, the blades were rubbing far in excess of the design, creating excessive heat and microcracking in the blades. The resulting high cycle fatigue failure forced the section to "come apart," Bogdan says, prompting the fire June 23 at Eglin.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-cleared-fly-not-farnborough-yet
FIA 2014 live Dinsdag
Tijd - type toestel
1415 - Airbus DA36 E-Star 2
1421 - Airbus E-Fan
1428 - Airbus A380
1436 - Airbus A350
1444 - Airbus A400M
1456 - Rotron Parajet
1505 - Red Devils
1516 - Trescal Starduster
1525 - Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet
1535 - TAI T129 ATAK
1545 - Blackshape BS100, Alenia Aermacchi M345 & M346
1608 - Eurofighter Typhoon
1620 - Boeing P-8-A Poseidon
1630 - Boeing 787-9
Citaat van: Harald op 15/07/2014 | 15:11 uur
FIA 2014 live Dinsdag
1525 - Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet
Mooie show !!!
Scorpion Jet .. low level flying ... what a view
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-YHkusQItskA%2FU8UDD5V1HII%2FAAAAAAAA-1s%2Fi28K_kgXaj0%2Fs1600%2F14673507983_f5a9b0807e_b.jpg&hash=89dd8f43631df03949b7fbc1c2a9ca85945e0939)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lmbO_uDPlEk%2FU8UDHW1vohI%2FAAAAAAAA-2I%2Fro63Fk_GEjc%2Fs1600%2F14653198272_c66ef34e09_b.jpg&hash=bf306022d25682c92996b1f51d34726296e1a0d8)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-w-sd5E5CwAg%2FU8UDGXYG2TI%2FAAAAAAAA-2A%2FlK5S5ZEFc60%2Fs1600%2F14650346791_df7aedb862_b.jpg&hash=54706a50d87ed3dbeaee72a3396a6f372d8d7b86)
JSF vliegt onder voorwaarden
dinsdag 15 jul 2014
Het Amerikaanse leger heeft besloten dat de JSF-straaljagers weer de lucht in mogen, zij het onder voorwaarden. Alle Joint Strike Fighters werden sinds begin deze maand aan de grond gehouden na een brand in een straalmotor.
Volgens een legerwoordvoerder is uit controles niet gebleken dat er een productiefout in de motor zit. Daardoor durven legerfunctionarissen het wel aan om het toestel weer te testen.
Tegenslag
Een van de voorwaarden is dat de straalmotor om de drie uur wordt gecontroleerd. Daardoor kan de Joint Strike Fighter de Atlantische Oceaan niet oversteken, en kan het toestel nog niet worden getoond op een vliegshow in Engeland, de Farnborough International Airshow.
Vorige week ontbrak het toestel ook al op de Royal International Air Tattoo in het Engelse Fairford vanwege de motorproblemen. Dat moest de eerste presentatie van de JSF buiten de VS worden. Het uitstellen van de Britse presentatie was een nieuwe tegenslag voor vliegtuigbouwer Lockheed Martin. Het project was namelijk al flink vertraagd en veel duurder dan oorspronkelijk geraamd.
Groot-Brittannië heeft 14 JSF's gekocht. Nederland heeft twee testtoestellen aangeschaft. Het vliegtuig wordt gezien als opvolger van de F-16.
Bron: NOS
Citaat van: Elzenga op 13/07/2014 | 13:02 uur
Het toestel heeft zo op het oog best een zwaar uitgevoerd landingsgestel..Lijkt dat maar zo? of daar in Japan reden voor?
Viel mij ook al op en ik associeerde deze gelijk met dat van de F-18 Hornet. De neus landingsgestellen van de Chinese J-31, deze Japanse jager en de F-18 hebben vele gelijkenissen. Hebben beide landen een toekomstig gebruik vanaf vliegdekschepen in het achterhoofd? Of wil men dat hun steelse kisten zogenaamde vlakke"no flare carrier" landingen kunnen maken a la Gripen ? Zodat men ook van korte en eventueel smallere startbanen kan gebruik maken, want bij "no flare carrier" landingen" heeft de kist een vlakkere invalshoek t.o.v. de horizon. Zodoende kan men nauwkeuriger landen, dan bij conventionele landingen, waarbij de invalshoek hoger is. En net als bij landingen op een vliegdekschip, is de verticale landing snelheid bij de no-flare carrier methode ook aanzienlijk hoger. Dus heb je een robuust landingsgestel nodig.
F-35 Lightning II Will Not Strike At Farnborough (.. Geen F-35 naar Europa ... gemiste kans ! )
After more than two weeks of espousing daily hope that four Lockheed Martin F-35Bs would make a historic debut in the U.K., the Pentagon has finally announced that the single-engine, stealthy fighters will be a no show, even though the fleet has been approved to resume limited flight operations.
..../....
http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/f-35-lightning-ii-will-not-strike-farnborough
Citaat van: Poleme op 15/07/2014 | 23:22 uur
Viel mij ook al op en ik associeerde deze gelijk met dat van de F-18 Hornet. De neus landingsgestellen van de Chinese J-31, deze Japanse jager en de F-18 hebben vele gelijkenissen. Hebben beide landen een toekomstig gebruik vanaf vliegdekschepen in het achterhoofd? Of wil men dat hun steelse kisten zogenaamde vlakke"no flare carrier" landingen kunnen maken a la Gripen ? Zodat men ook van korte en eventueel smallere startbanen kan gebruik maken, want bij "no flare carrier" landingen" heeft de kist een vlakkere invalshoek t.o.v. de horizon. Zodoende kan men nauwkeuriger landen, dan bij conventionele landingen, waarbij de invalshoek hoger is. En net als bij landingen op een vliegdekschip, is de verticale landing snelheid bij de no-flare carrier methode ook aanzienlijk hoger. Dus heb je een robuust landingsgestel nodig.
Het verhaal gaat de ronde dat de Japanners op termijn in zijn voor een echte carrier... we gaan het zien.
Het Japanse model is "slechts" een schaal- en studie versie voor de uiteindelijk F3 in het volgende decennium.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/07/2014 | 08:59 uur
Het verhaal gaat de ronde dat de Japanners op termijn in zijn voor een echte carrier... we gaan het zien.
Het Japanse model is "slechts" een schaal- en studie versie voor de uiteindelijk F3 in het volgende decennium.
Gezien de Chinese ontwikkelingen van hun Blue Water fleet zou het me verbazen indien de Jappanners mettertijd geen carriers in dienst zouden stellen.
De heisa rond de Hyuga "helicopter destroyer" in Japan zelf zal verstommen en indien de bevolking ginder wat verder dan hun eigen neus kijkt zal de tegenstand vwb carriers wel afnemen.
Citaat van: Poleme op 15/07/2014 | 23:22 uur
Viel mij ook al op en ik associeerde deze gelijk met dat van de F-18 Hornet. De neus landingsgestellen van de Chinese J-31, deze Japanse jager en de F-18 hebben vele gelijkenissen. Hebben beide landen een toekomstig gebruik vanaf vliegdekschepen in het achterhoofd? Of wil men dat hun steelse kisten zogenaamde vlakke"no flare carrier" landingen kunnen maken a la Gripen ? Zodat men ook van korte en eventueel smallere startbanen kan gebruik maken, want bij "no flare carrier" landingen" heeft de kist een vlakkere invalshoek t.o.v. de horizon. Zodoende kan men nauwkeuriger landen, dan bij conventionele landingen, waarbij de invalshoek hoger is. En net als bij landingen op een vliegdekschip, is de verticale landing snelheid bij de no-flare carrier methode ook aanzienlijk hoger. Dus heb je een robuust landingsgestel nodig.
Ja, beide opties zag ik ook al mogelijke reden voor het ogenschijnlijk zwaarder uitgevoerde landingsgestel. Voor beiden valt wat te zeggen..Japan is erg bergachtig..dus zou afweging kunnen zijn. Of toch die carrier op termijn?!
Farnborough Airshow 2014: Textron AirLand ScorpionF/A-18F Demo Farnborough Airshow 2014
Canada to supply decommissioned fighter aircraft to Ukraine
16.07.2014 | Source: Pravda.Ru
The Ukrainian combat aviation received reinforcements from Canada. The Canadian government proposes to deliver nearly 20 combat aircraft CF-18A to the Ukrainian military.
The information appeared on social networks. Russian English-language television channel Russia Today reported the same.
These 20 aircraft can be delivered to the Ukrainian side for free, as they had been written off from service at the Air Forces of Canada in connection with the purchase of new aircraft. In addition, Canada offers to send a dozen experts to Ukraine to train Ukrainian pilots and perform aircraft maintenance, the Press of Ukraine reports.
McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet is a multirole fighter of the Royal Canadian Air Force, developed on the basis of US fighter bomber F/A-18 Hornet. The plane was produced by McDonnell Douglas in 1982-88 years; 138 aircraft had been produced in total. The aircraft had taken part in combat operations during the Gulf War, the bombing of Yugoslavia and the international military operation in Libya.
The Canadian Air Force had lost the total of 18 CF-18 Hornet during operation, although there were no combat losses incurred.
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/16-07-2014/128061-canada_fighter_aircraft_ukraine-0/#.U8eDDmfCRjp
South Korea military chiefs endorse $8.2 billion development plan for home-built fighters
SEOUL Fri Jul 18, 2014
(Reuters) - South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed a plan on Friday for the country to design its own mid-level fighter jet, which a state think tank estimated will cost up to 8.5 trillion won ($8.24 billion) to develop.
Dubbed the KF-X program, the fighter jet is expected to be built by the country's sole jet builder, Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd (KAI), after being co-developed with Lockheed Martin Corp, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said.
The Joint Chiefs said in a statement that they had endorsed a twin-engine fighter jet to be developed for delivery starting in 2025.
KAI makes the T-50 family of jets, South Korea's first home-built light trainer and fighter, which was co-developed by Lockheed Martin. South Korea is also buying F-35 fighters from Lockheed Martin.
KAI sold 12 T-50 variants to the Philippines for around $420 million in March, after previously exporting the jets to Iraq and Indonesia.
South Korea's acquisition of 40 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets for around 7.34 trillion won is expected to be finalised in the third quarter. The deal's accompanying offset offer includes Lockheed Martin involvement in the KF-X program, the people said.
However, the scope of Lockheed Martin's involvement in the program is still being negotiated, the people added.
Indonesia also participated in earlier studies of the KF-X program and remains a potential partner, one of the people said.
State-run think tank Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) reported earlier this month that a twin-engine version of the fighter jet is expected to cost around 8.5 trillion won, the person told Reuters.
Both sources declined to be identified as details of defense requirements are confidential. Officials with Lockheed Martin could not be reached for comment.
KAI referred questions to the country's arms procurement agency, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), as companies have yet to be named for the program. DAPA referred questions to the Joint Chiefs, who reiterated their statement.
($1 = 1,031.60 Korean won)
(Reporting by Joyce Lee; Editing by Matt Driskill)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/us-southkorea-defence-fighterjets-idUSKBN0FN0N720140718
U.S. Navy is evaluating MBDA's Dual Mode Brimstone for its F/A-18 Super Hornet jets
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1907
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmbdainc.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2FF-18.png&hash=2402eb2c69f6f97118a6bb24a32981ed92cde8e5)
Saab stapt uit de Deense kompetitie.
In het Deens.
http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE2347426/sverige-opgiver-at-saelge-kampfly-til-danmark/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/07/2014 | 10:55 uur
Saab stapt uit de Deense kompetitie.
In het Deens.
http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE2347426/sverige-opgiver-at-saelge-kampfly-til-danmark/
Tja...weinig verrassend...
Citaat van: Elzenga op 21/07/2014 | 12:16 uur
Tja...weinig verrassend...
Hiermee wordt een eventuele keuze voor een Belgische Gripen nog meer onwaarschijnlijk.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/07/2014 | 19:31 uur
Hiermee wordt een eventuele keuze voor een Belgische Gripen nog meer onwaarschijnlijk.
Inderdaad...maar ook dat wisten we al van te voren. Men geeft liever teveel geld uit aan made in the USA dan aan een aantal toestellen dat operationeel wel nodig is. En dan zwijg ik over strategische afwegingen.
Ik denk trouwens dat de perikelen rond Oekraine en Koude-Oorlog-sentimenten hier ook een rol spelen. Snel weer schuilen achter grote broer de VS..bij gebrek aan visie en lef.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 22/07/2014 | 11:35 uur
Inderdaad...maar ook dat wisten we al van te voren. Men geeft liever teveel geld uit aan made in the USA dan aan een aantal toestellen dat operationeel wel nodig is. En dan zwijg ik over strategische afwegingen.
Ik denk trouwens dat de perikelen rond Oekraine en Koude-Oorlog-sentimenten hier ook een rol spelen. Snel weer schuilen achter grote broer de VS..bij gebrek aan visie en lef.
Ik hou het op 20 F35A voor de Belgen (vermits ze hun F16 überhaubt vervangen) al zou een aantal (occasion) Eurofighters tot de mogelijkheden behoren of een Franse verrassing.
De F18E/F acht ik kansloos.
Top Ten Carrier Fighters 2014
Carrier-borne fighters are a rare beast, with only the US boasting a sizeable force. Selection for a top ten was easy, as there's barely ten types in total! The ordering of these types was a lot harder and to some extent subjective, though the winner is certainly an extraordinary aircraft.
(zie url voor de lijst)
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/top-ten-carrier-fighters-2014/ (http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/top-ten-carrier-fighters-2014/)
Citaat van: Elzenga op 22/07/2014 | 11:35 uur
Inderdaad...maar ook dat wisten we al van te voren. Men geeft liever teveel geld uit aan made in the USA dan aan een aantal toestellen dat operationeel wel nodig is. En dan zwijg ik over strategische afwegingen.
Ik denk trouwens dat de perikelen rond Oekraine en Koude-Oorlog-sentimenten hier ook een rol spelen. Snel weer schuilen achter grote broer de VS..bij gebrek aan visie en lef.
vwb de Belgen kan het volgens mij nog alle kanten op. Waarbij 0 F16 vervangers ook nog een serieuze optie is.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 22/07/2014 | 11:50 uur
vwb de Belgen kan het volgens mij nog alle kanten op. Waarbij 0 F16 vervangers ook nog een serieuze optie is.
Mogelijk..maar ik proef ook daar toch een stevige F-35 lobby. Maar we zullen het zien. Het gaat ook om aantallen van niks..
Citaat van: Elzenga op 22/07/2014 | 12:03 uur
Mogelijk..maar ik proef ook daar toch een stevige F-35 lobby.
Gehinderd door een stevig tekort aan geld en de wil om er voor te zorgen. De kans dat de Belgen voor geen vervanging gaan kiezen is redelijk groot, denk ik. Daar zit geen PvdA die braaf bij het kruisje wil tekenen........
Citaat van: Ros op 22/07/2014 | 12:12 uur
Gehinderd door een stevig tekort aan geld en de wil om er voor te zorgen. De kans dat de Belgen voor geen vervanging gaan kiezen is redelijk groot, denk ik. Daar zit geen PvdA die braaf bij het kruisje wil tekenen........
Aan de andere kant kunnen ze door een stevige samenwerking met Nederland een heel eind komen. In Den Haag tellen ze denk ik de paar F-35s van België er graag bij op.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 22/07/2014 | 12:15 uur
Aan de andere kant kunnen ze door een stevige samenwerking met Nederland een heel eind komen. In Den Haag tellen ze denk ik de paar F-35s van België er graag bij op.
Ik blijf bij mijn voorspelling: BeNL luchtmacht: 37+20 = 57 F35A toestellen.... en 57 komt ergens bekend voor.... toch?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/07/2014 | 12:39 uur
Ik blijf bij mijn voorspelling: BeNL luchtmacht: 37+20 = 57 F35A toestellen.... en 57 komt ergens bekend voor.... toch?
het zou zo maar eens kunnen...
Citaat van: Ros op 22/07/2014 | 12:12 uur
... Daar zit geen PvdA die braaf bij het kruisje wil tekenen........
Klopt als een bus.
Wij hebben een PS en SP. die hoogstwaarschijnlijk niet tekenen...
tenzij het voor een Frans toestel is én de partijkas ermee gespekt kan worden (en de binnenzak van enkele top-partijleden...)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/07/2014 | 12:39 uur
Ik blijf bij mijn voorspelling: BeNL luchtmacht: 37+20 = 57 F35A toestellen.... en 57 komt ergens bekend voor.... toch?
;D Misschien moet je maar eens overwegen om zo een geheugen chipje te laten implanteren.
Ik heb de rekensom tientallen keren herkauwd. Een KLu F-35A vloot van 24 kisten en Belgie 0 tot ca. 15 nieuwe jachtvliegtuigen.
Citaat van: Poleme op 22/07/2014 | 23:16 uur
;D Misschien moet je maar eens overwegen om zo een geheugen chipje te laten implanteren.
Ik heb de rekensom tientallen keren herkauwd. Een KLu F-35A vloot van 24 kisten en Belgie 0 tot ca. 15 nieuwe jachtvliegtuigen.
Ik ken jouw sommetje (en ik weet dat deze alles behalve onrealistisch is) maar vooralsnog hou ik het bij een half vol glas.
Dit optimisme wordt gevoed door bronnen binnen de industrie, waarbij ik me realiseer dat dit wat anders is dan "onze" volksvertegenwoordigers.
"Magic Helmet" for F-35 ready for delivery
Software fixes, new sensors on helmet that let pilot see through plane ready for action.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/magic-helmet-for-f-35-ready-for-delivery/
Pratt, Norway Get Jump On Global Engine Sustainment Contest ( onderhoud Noorse F135 motoren in Noorwegen zelf ! ? )
Pratt & Whitney signed a depot activation contract agreement Thursday with Aerospace Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Norway for sustainment of its F135 engine, used to power the F-35 joint strike fighter.
The agreement covers "planning and management activities" required for depot standup; further contracts will cover the support required to activate the engine depot at Gardermoen, Norway by 2018.
..../....
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140717/SHOWSCOUT15/307170030/Pratt-Norway-Get-Jump-Global-Engine-Sustainment-Contest
BAE: New Helmet Makes Night Vision Goggles on Combat Helmets 'A Thing of The Past'
BAE Systems has launched a new helmet-mounted display that offers a night vision camera it claims will make night vision goggles "a thing of the past."
The firm's new Striker II helmet-mounted display, which it launched on Wednesday at the Farnborough International Airshow, updates its earlier Striker model, which is used by Eurofighter and Gripen pilots.
..../....
BAE said the new helmet also offered upgraded tracking that ensures the pilot's head and position and the aircraft's computer are constantly in sync with no delay, allowing for more accurate position of data on the visor.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140716/SHOWSCOUT15/307160038/BAE-New-Helmet-Makes-Night-Vision-Goggles-Combat-Helmets-Thing-Past-?odyssey=mod_sectionstories
How Much Does an F-35 Actually Cost? ( een Winslow Wheeler artikel )
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398
Some F-35 Restrictions Expected to Be Lifted By Fall
The head of the Pentagon's F-35 program has told a lawmaker that at least some of the flight restrictions stemming from a June engine fire will be lifted by early fall, a congressional aide tells Morning D.
In recent weeks, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan has visited Capitol Hill multiple times to brief House and Senate Armed Services staffers about the ongoing investigation into the cause of the fire, which occurred during an aborted takeoff at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
During one of his visits, he stopped by the office of Rep. Jim Moran, a senior appropriator who has been critical of the F-35 program and wrote to Bogdan last month to request a meeting. According to an aide to Moran, Bogdan assured the Virginia Democrat "that all issues related to the engine fire will be resolved and that the flight restrictions will be lifted by early fall."
But in a statement, Bogdan said he believes he was referring to the military's roughly 20 test F-35s - not the entire fleet that also includes 81 operational aircraft. His office said flight restrictions won't be lifted until the "root cause of the engine failure and the associated fix is identified."
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/156074/us-f_35-restrictions-to-continue-into-fall.html
:annoyed:
En in 2085 operationeel zeker.
:crazy:
Ik blijf het een vliegend stuk verdriet vinden.
Scorpion Jet Joins Guard Exercise ( Primeur, meedoen in een National Guard oefening )
The Textron AirLand Scorpion doesn't yet have a buyer, but that hasn't stopped the plane from taking part in a major National Guard training exercise this week.
Billed as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) plane with strike capabilities, the jet provided live video feed during Vigilant Guard 2014, which brought several Guard units to Kansas to run through various emergency scenarios.
A non-Guard plane as part of a major exercise? That's "a first for me," said Paul Weaver, a former head of the Air National Guard who is now an advisor on the Scorpion program.
.../...
In the first two days of the exercise, Scorpion logged over seven hours of mission activity, which largely focused on providing streaming overwatch video to commanders on the ground, Weaver said.
.../...
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140807/DEFREG02/308070019/In-Marketing-Coup-Scorpion-Joins-Guard-Exercise?odyssey=mod_sectionstories
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scorpionjet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F07%2FDSC2111.jpg&hash=bf29120125ca9366f781f3800cd48386f797264c)
Vigilant Guard 2014
From August 4-7, Scorpion will take part in Vigilant Guard 2014, a large-scale, multi-state disaster response exercise conducted in Kansas, sponsored by U.S. Northern Command and the National Guard Bureau. The training exercise tests the capabilities of emergency response agencies at all levels of government, both military and civil. More than 2,000 local, state, and federal personnel are expected to participate over the course of the six-day exercise at locations throughout Kansas, including Fort Riley, Overland Park, Salina, Crisis City and Smoky Hill Weapons Range near Salina, Topeka, and Wichita.
Scorpion's role in Vigilant Guard will be to provide aerial reconnaissance, transmission of full motion video and communications regarding mock threat scenarios, in tight coordination with other aircraft and ground stations.
http://investor.textron.com/newsroom/news-releases/press-release-details/2014/Textron-AirLands-Scorpion-ISRStrike-Jet-Readies-for-Upcoming-US-Events-and-Military-Exercises/default.aspx
Belgische F-16 programma eisen ambitieus ! deze gaan nog verder dan NL met aankoop van 37 toestellen voor 2 QRA en 4 on mission.
But one thing is certain: it wants to maintain its current level of ambition, namely the Quick Reaction Alert 24/7 with two to four aircraft. In addition, the Begian Chief of Staff wants to continue flight operations abroad with a maximum of ten aircraft with two locations as starting points.
http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/2014-global-news-worldwide-world-international-air-force-aviation/july-2014-global-news-worldwide-world-international-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-defence-/1099--belgian-mod-officially-announced-program-to-replace-its-fleet-of-f-16.html
Lockheed Martin Takes Aim at F-16 Future Upgrade Market
Lockheed Martin remains committed to delivering future upgrades for its 4th generation F-16 multi-role fighter aircraft. Speaking during Farnborough International Airshow 2014, head of business development for Lockheed's F-16, Bill McHenry, explained that his company has delivered 1,300 upgrade kits since the F-16 programme commenced forty years ago. Having delivered more than 4,500 F-16s to 28 customers, Lockheed Martin is well positioned when it comes to providing future upgrades due to its latest F-16V next generation programme and due to the company being the OEM. McHenry said: "The V configuration will be offered as an upgrade and as a new built aircraft. We offer a structural upgrade at the same time. Right now, we have a USAF aircraft in our laboratory and we will finish the lab tests this year. We believe that we can extend F-16's service life from 8,000 to 12,000 hours while upgrading avionics at the same time".
Being asked about competitors entering the F-16 upgrade market, McHenry was bullish about his company's prospects: "it's not rocket science, upgrades is where the money is. However, BAE is understating the value of the OEM. I believe we can win them all due to our low cost and low risk approach. We own the data on F-16 and have the engineers in place". On top of this, Lockheed Martin has been inserting expertise from the F-22 programme as its groups responsible for both fighters have been merged. Asked about near term potential customers for F-16 upgrades, McHenry pointed at Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Greece. Meanwhile, Taiwan has been the launch customer for the V-configuration upgrade for its F-16s. McHenry said: "two aircraft are going into the modification programme in Texas for kit proofing. Further kits will be installed in Taiwan". Flight tests will commence in 2015 with land tests planned for this year. Meanwhile, the F-16V's AESA radar has been flown on one of Lockheed's testbed aircraft.
Lockheed Martin currently has an order backlog of 41 aircraft, enough to keep the production line open until the third quarter of 2017. "Oman is getting additional F-16s this year, this being their second buy", McHenry said. The Iraq programme is meanwhile ongoing, and the first aircraft was handed over to the US government in June. Another airplane is to be delivered this month according to McHenry, who told the assembled media: "the aircraft are being delivered on time, on schedule". Part of an FMS contract, Iraq currently has 36 aircraft on order, two tranches of 18 each. McHenry also indicated that he is pursuing new export orders for F-16, such as in South America: "we are pursuing 25 to 50 aircraft there I would say".
Speaking on 5th generation fighters, Lockheed's F-16 chief emphasised that "no 4th generation aircraft can match the performance of 5th generation aircraft. Stealth, 5th generation will become the norm. However, some want to use the F-16 as a bridge to the F-35".
http://www.miltechmag.com/2014/07/fia14-lockheed-martin-takes-aim-at-f-16.html
Russia to Start Developing Replacement for MiG-31 in 2017
MOSCOW, August 11 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will start developing a replacement for its MiG-31 "Foxhound" interceptors in 2017, Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev, commander of the Russian Air Force, said.
"From 2017 we will start working on a new long-range interceptor to replace MiG-31," he said.
According to the official, the new aircraft is to enter service in 2025.
Bondarev said last year that the Russian Air Force is hoping to receive a new long-range fighter-interceptor by 2020 and retire its existing fleet of at least 122 MiG-31 interceptors by 2028.
The MiG-31 is a long-range supersonic interceptor. The two-seater aircraft can intercept targets up to 124 miles (200 kilometers) away thanks to its advanced radar and long-range missiles. It can operate efficiently in all weather conditions and is equipped with state-of-the-art digital avionics.
The MiG-31 entered service with the Soviet Air Force in 1981. Production of the aircraft ended in 1994 but MiG-31 jets remain in service in the Russian and Kazakh air forces.
On August 8, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin proposed to resume the production of the MiG-31 interceptors, saying they could be effective for another 15 years. Rogozin also stressed that the aircraft had no rivals.
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140811/191909247/Russia-to-Start-Developing-Replacement-for-MiG-31-in-2017.html
IOMAX offers Archangel light attack turboprop to the Philippines and UAE ( een doorontwikkeling van de AT-802 Airtractor, het heeft zelfs iets weg van de Duitse Junkers Ju 87 Stuka )
( Naar alle waarschijnlijk zal de UAE nieuwe block 3 Archangels aankopen en block 1 doorzetten naar Jordanie )
IOMAX has offered its Archangel Block 3 Border Patrol Aircraft (BPA) to the Philippine Air Force (PAF) as a replacement for its ageing Rockwell OV-10 Bronco counterinsurgency fleet, IHS Jane's was told on 2 June.
The US defence company has submitted a bid to the Philippine government, in which it is pitching the Archangel as a replacement for the PAF's nine remaining OV-10s, which were acquired second-hand in the 1990s, IOMAX CEO Ron Howard disclosed during a visit to the company's North Carolina headquarters.
"IOMAX has previously done signals intelligence in Southeast Asia, and so we know the region. The Philippine mission is very well suited to the Archangel," he said.
The Philippine requirement was formally launched in mid-May, when the Department of National Defense (DND) issued tender documents to acquire six close air support aircraft and an accompanying logistics support package for PHP4.968 billion (USD114 million).
In its documents, the DND noted that the selected bidder must have had prior experience of such programmes over the previous decade, and that the selected platform should already be in service with the armed forces of the country of origin or by the military of at least two other countries.
Although the Archangel BPA is regarded by some (the US Department of Defense included) as being an essentially new platform, it is in fact the third iteration (hence the Block 3 designation) of the Block 1 and Block 2 AT-802 that IOMAX developed and supplied to the United Arab Emirates (and which it still supports). Also, with the Block 1 also now in service with Jordan, the Archangel does fit the criteria for selection as laid down by the DND.
While the DND did not publically disclose aircraft specifications, IHS Jane's understands that they have been written up with the Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano in mind, with requirements that it be equipped with retractable undercarriage and ejector seats, among other things.
The Archangel currently features neither of these, but Howard told IHS Jane's that IOMAX has done studies with Martin-Baker on the feasibility of replacing the current crash-resistant seating and roll-cage with twin ejection-seats and bubble canopy, and that this is perfectly doable (the United Arab Emirates is also said to be interested in the canopy for a potential follow-on order of aircraft, but not the ejection-seats). As for retractable undercarriage, Howard said the mission did not require it, and the weight penalties and rough field limitations would outweigh any benefits over the current fixed undercarriage, and so this would not be offered.
As retractable undercarriage is not being offered as an option, Howard said the company's designers were looking at a number of aerodynamic improvements to the Archangel that would help it close the speed gap from its current 180 kt cruise speed to bring it closer to the 220 kt of platforms such as the Super Tucano.
From spinner to tail, these enhancements include the option of an enhanced propeller with a scimitar-style composite blade; a sleeker nose profile; angling the exhaust rearwards to provide about 200 lb of additional thrust; speed fairings on the main undercarriage and wheel struts; remodelled wing roots and tips; blending the rear of the cockpit to the tail section to reduce buffeting and drag; remodelled tail and stabiliser roots and tips; and a more generally cleaned-up fuselage, with as few protruding parts as possible. According to IOMAX's chief scientist, Ray Nielson, who is leading this improvement effort, these modifications should increase the aircraft's cruise speed to about 210 kt.
Even so, Howard was keen to note that speed is not everything, and that rival platforms had sacrificed much in terms of payload and range/endurance in order to go faster. With a typical mission profile of 175 kt outbound to a range of 1,350 n miles, six hours on station, and 175 kt inbound to base, and all with a maximum gross take-off weight of 6,715 kg, the Archangel can cover more of the Philippine's area of operations with a greater weapon load than any of its competitors. At just USD8 million per aircraft (without options), the Archangel is also cheaper than many of its rivals ( IHS Jane's All the World's Aircraft gives the Super Tucano a unit price of USD12-13 million).
With the DND's tender documents now released, all bids must be submitted by 11 June, with the selected platform expected to be with the PAF 18 months after contract signature. Besides the Archangel and Super Tucano, other platforms expected to compete include the Beechcraft AT-6 Texan II, and perhaps even the Pilatus PC-21.
http://www.janes.com/article/38800/iomax-offers-archangel-light-attack-turboprop-to-the-philippines
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.janes.com%2Fimages%2Fassets%2F800%2F38800%2F1522226_-_main.jpg&hash=551b33c8def2334dfbe30bb73d3ad003ea34f7b2)
Artist's concept of the IOMAX Archangel ISR and light strike aircraft modified with a bubble canopy, ejection seats, and speed fairings. The aircraft is currently being offered to the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates (pictured). Source: IOMAX
Extra info, block 3 heeft vaste gunpods :
IOMAX plans to integrate the GAU-19B 12.7 mm (.50 calibre) Gatling gun pod onto the Block III aircraft currently being developed for the UAE and other potential export customers; dubbed Archangel. The gun is being supported in the UAE by a number of former US Air Force Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II pilots who are now advising the UAE government.
Extra tech-info :
http://www.iomax.net/archangel/
Citaat van: Harald op 08/08/2014 | 23:09 uur
Belgische F-16 programma eisen ambitieus ! deze gaan nog verder dan NL met aankoop van 37 toestellen voor 2 QRA en 4 on mission.
But one thing is certain: it wants to maintain its current level of ambition, namely the Quick Reaction Alert 24/7 with two to four aircraft. In addition, the Begian Chief of Staff wants to continue flight operations abroad with a maximum of ten aircraft with two locations as starting points.
http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/2014-global-news-worldwide-world-international-air-force-aviation/july-2014-global-news-worldwide-world-international-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-defence-/1099--belgian-mod-officially-announced-program-to-replace-its-fleet-of-f-16.html
Mwa, na wat politiek handjeklap zal het ongeveer op het zelfde aantal en één thuisbasis uitkomen.
Overigens heeft defensieforum een België-topic waar Belgje ons goed op de hoogte houdt van de laatste stand van zaken.
http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/belgiee_de_crem_bereidt_aankoop_joint_strike_fighter_voor-t25578.0.html
Further Restrictions Lifted for F-35 Test Fleet
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter test fleet will be able to fly six hours between engine inspections for weapon test and refueling missions, as restrictions on the fifth-generation fighter continue to ease.
..../....
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140813/DEFREG02/308130024/Further-Restrictions-Lifted-F-35-Test-Fleet-Army-Awarded-Contract?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|World News|p
Development of Sukhoi FGFA well on course, full-scale development contract being drafted
Dailybhaskar.com | Aug 16, 2014
Moscow/ New Delhi: The front-end engineering design of Sukhoi FGFA, the fifth generation fighter plane being jointly developed by Russia and India for Indian Air Force has been completed.
http://daily.bhaskar.com/news/NAT-TOP-development-of-sukhoi-fgfa-well-on-course-full-scale-development-contract-being--4714977-NOR.html
US Air Force Grounds 82 F-16Ds After Cracks Discovered
WASHINGTON — The US Air Force has grounded over half of its F-16D Fighting Falcons, the service's Air Combat Command (ACC) announced Tuesday.
The initial damage, described in a Pentagon release as "canopy sill longeron cracks found between the front and rear pilot seats," was discovered after a routine post-flight inspection on one of the jets. The discovery of cracks led to a fleet-wide inspection order.
Of the 157 F-16Ds in the fleet, 82 were found to have cracks and have been ordered to stand down. The remaining 75 have been cleared to resume normal activities. The Air Force is working with Lockheed Martin engineers to discover the cause of the cracks and what repair options there are.
...../.....
Top Air Force generals, including ACC commander Mike Hostage, have said they must keep an eye on the wear and tear on the F-16s. That tradeoff is part of the reason the Air Force decided to fund an F-16 service-life extension program (SLEP) over the combat avionics programmed extension suite (CAPES) program in its FY 2015 budget request.
"Honestly, I wish I had enough money to both refurbish my legacy fleet and continue to keep the replenishment on track because what I would like to have is the 1,763 F-35 fleet and then whatever residual legacy fleet I still have would still be tactically capable and be aerodynamically capable," Hostage said in January. "In other words, there is SLEP and CAPE."
"If I could only do one, [SLEP] is the one I would do because I would still have something to fly; it is just going to be tactically nonviable sooner because I did not do the CAPE," Hostage said. "If I do the CAPE only and do not do the SLEP, then it becomes unsafe to fly long before it becomes tactically nonviable.
"So, if I am going to do one or the other, I would do SLEP first. I can fly with lesser capability, but I have just become that much more dependent even sooner on a strong fifth [generation] fleet."
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140819/DEFREG02/308190027/US-Air-Force-Grounds-82-F-16Ds-After-Cracks-Discovered?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|World News|p
Wel een aardige uiteenzetting waarom (in dit geval voor Canada) de F18 E/F een beter alternatief is dan de F35, Typhoon, Rafale of Gripen E/F.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-right-fighter-for-canada-is-the-super-hornet-not-t-1587492909
Pentagon Tells International Partners to Inspect F-16B Fleet for Cracks
WASHINGTON — As the Pentagon works to analyze and repair widespread cracks in its F-16D fleet, it is recommending that partner nations closely inspect their F-16B and D models.
Meanwhile, the US Air Force is bracing for a potential delay in training if the majority of its F-16D fleet is grounded for a significant period .
Cracks were first discovered on an F-16D model on July 31, and a Time Compliance Technical Order — a directive from the service — was quickly issued ordering the inspection of the entire F-16D fleet. That resulted in 82 of the service's 157 F-16D models being grounded.
That inspection order applies to F-16B and F-16D models used around the world, an Air Force spokesman confirmed. While the US Air Force no longer operates the B model, Turkey, Israel, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Denmark and Norway are among customers who would need to inspect their fleet.
A Pentagon news release referred to the damage as "canopy sill longeron cracks found between the front and rear pilot seats." That is part of the frame of the aircraft that surrounds the cockpit area of the jet. When the canopy is lowered, it rests on the longeron.
Both the F-16B and F-16D are two-seat variants of the jet.
...../.....
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140820/DEFREG02/308200035/Pentagon-Tells-International-Partners-Inspect-F-16B-Fleet-Cracks?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|World News|p
Scheurtjes in romp van drie Belgische F-16's
In drie Belgische F-16's zijn scheurtjes vastgesteld in de romp van het toestel. Dat meldt de Belgische luchtmacht. Het gaat evenwel enkel om opleidingstoestellen, waar twee piloten in kunnen, en niet om de reguliere gevechtsvliegtuigen. Ons land heeft tien van die toestellen. De beschadigde toestellen zijn intussen hersteld.
Vorige maand hadden de Amerikanen bij hun toestellen dergelijke scheurtjes opgemerkt. Ze adviseerden landen met dezelfde tweezitstoestellen om hun vloot te controleren.
"We hebben de problemen geïdentificeerd bij drie toestellen en die zijn gerepareerd", zegt generaal Claude Van de Voorde van de luchtmacht. "Nu is er voor de hele F-16-vloot een opvolgingsprogramma: om de 20 uur worden de vliegtuigen extra geïnspecteerd."
Naast de tien opleidingstoestellen heeft ons land ook nog zo'n 50 gewone gevechtsvliegtuigen. De Belgische F-16's zijn gemiddeld 30 jaar oud.
Onder meer ook Nederland, Denemarken, Noorwegen en Israël zijn opgeroepen om hun vloot te inspecteren. De oorzaak van het probleem is nog niet bekend.
Bron: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/binnenland/1.2065576
Defensie onderzoekt F-16-tweezitters op scheurtjes
Defensie voert een nadere inspectie uit naar mogelijke scheurvorming bij de tweezitsvarianten van de F-16's.
Aanleiding daarvoor is een waarschuwing van de Amerikaanse fabrikant dat er scheurtjes kunnen ontstaan in de romp. Nederland heeft elf tweezitters in bezit die vooral voor opleiding en training worden gebruikt in de VS.
Defensie laat donderdag weten dat scheurvorming in het airframe van de jachtvliegtuigen een bekend probleem is, waar al goed op wordt gecontroleerd.
Inmiddels zijn acht Nederlandse F-16's nader onderzocht en daarbij werd geen probleem ontdekt of het is al gerepareerd. De andere drie straaljagers worden nog geïnspecteerd.
De Amerikanen ontdekten vorige maand kleine scheurtjes in hun toestellen. Uit een nadere inspectie van de vloot bleek dat het euvel bestond bij enkele tientallen toestellen.
http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/3857571/defensie-onderzoekt-f-16-tweezitters-scheurtjes.html
F-16V Completes Major Capability Milestone
FORT WORTH, Texas --- The newest configuration of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the F-16V, has reached a major capability milestone with the integration of a new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar.
"Completing this milestone on schedule demonstrates our ability to meet program commitments," said Roderick McLean, vice president and general manager of the F-16/F-22 Integrated Fighter Group at Lockheed Martin. "It proves once again why customers turn to Lockheed Martin to upgrade their F-16 fleets and advance the mission capability of the world's most effective 4th generation multi-role fighter."
The completion of this AESA radar Critical Design Review ensures Northrop Grumman's Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) design meets all specified U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin requirements. Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] will continue with follow-on activities such as development integration and ground and flight test for Taiwan's fleet of 144 Block 20 F-16A/B fighter jets.
With the upgrade to the new SABR and enhancements to the mission computer, vehicle systems, aircraft structure, cockpit and electronic warfare system, Taiwan moves forward as the launch customer for the new F-16V configuration.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/156339/upgraded-f_16v-with-aesa-radar-for-taiwan.html
The F-35 vs. The VHF Threat
Amid the debate over the F-35's effectiveness, Yugoslavia offers some interesting insights into the VHF threat.
By Guy Plopsky & Fabrizio Bozzato
August 21, 2014
The heated and ongoing international debate regarding the combat effectiveness of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in a highly contested environment has led many observers to question the fighter's survivability in the face of advanced Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems and very high frequency (VHF) radars. Yet, few have examined the issue closely using lessons drawn from the only incident in which a stealth aircraft was lost in combat; when USAF Lt. Col. Dale Zelko's F-117 – call sign "Vega 31" – was shot down by a Serbian S-125 (SA-3) SAM system over the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during Operation Allied Force on the night of March 27, 1999.
Electromagnetic radiation is known to scatter from bodies smaller than its wavelength. This phenomenon, known as Rayleigh scattering, is often used by F-35 critics to point out that the aircraft could be detected by enemy radar operating in the VHF range, given that some of the aircraft's geometrical features such as the wing and elevator edges are smaller than the 1-3 meter wavelength within which such radars typically operate. Reportedly, this is also how Colonel Zoltan Dani, then commander of the 3rd Battery of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's 250th Air Missile Defense Brigade, managed to detect, and later down, Lt. Col. Zelko's plane. According to The Aviationist, a series of in-field modifications carried out by the Yugoslavs further reduced the frequency of the 1960s vintage P-18 VHF acquisition radar under Dani's command, which enabled his men to detect Zelko's F-117 at a distance of 30 to 37 miles (50-60 km).
Because of their relatively long wavelength, VHF radars generally lack sufficient accuracy to guide a missile to a target on their own and are therefore used to cue higher frequency, shorter wavelength engagement radars to the approximate location of the target. Narrowband stealth aircraft such as the F-117, F-22 and F-35 were designed to be very low observable (VLO) in these higher frequencies in order to significantly limit the range at which they can be successfully detected by engagement radars. Consequently, despite inputs from the VHF acquisition radar, the S-band engagement radar of Dani's SA-3 battery was able to track the F-117 only at a distance of 8 miles (13 km), obtaining a lock and launching two missiles towards it only on the third attempt (the colonel would order his men to switch the engagement radar on for no more than 20 seconds for each attempt in order to avoid being targeted by NATO electronic warfare aircraft).
The advent of powerful, digital active electronically scanned array (AESA) VHF acquisition radars – for example, the Russian ground-based 3D Nebo SVU and Chinese ship-borne Type 517M – enables the detection of narrowband stealth aircraft such as the F-35 at greater ranges. These radars also offer faster and more accurate cueing of engagement radars, enhanced resistance to jamming and – in the case of ground-based systems – significantly improved mobility over their predecessors. Such systems therefore potentially pose a major challenge to the quick establishment of air superiority; however, a smart combination of the F-35's capabilities along with supporting platforms and systems could allow the JSF to maintain the upper hand.
Taking a closer look at the F-117 shoot-down incident, it becomes evident that Dani's successful attempt had a lot more to do with excellent command skills on his part and the appalling use of tactics on NATO's behalf than it did with the equipment at his battery's disposal. Apart from the strict emission control mentioned above, the Serbian colonel also frequently used decoys and changed the location of his battery, making it difficult for NATO aircraft tasked with suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) to locate and target it. On their part, NATO war planners and pilots made several critical mistakes that proved fatal. These included assigning F-117s the same flight paths on each mission and often using unencrypted frequencies to communicate. Taking advantage of these errors, the colonel would order his troops to monitor NATO communication channels, which, in turn, allowed the Yugoslavs to place the battery close enough to the approximate flight path of the stealth jet, detect it and obtain a lock. Despite being an obvious mistake, unsecure communications are still frequently used by pilots to this day.
Almost equally critical was the absence of effective standoff jamming support from electronic warfare (EW) aircraft during the mission. "The EA-6Bs were too far from the F-117, they may not have been properly aligned with the [enemy] radars..." noted a 2001 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report titled 'Electronic Warfare: EA-6B Aircraft Modernization and Related Issues for Congress' that cited David A. Fulgham from Aviation Week. This may come as a surprise to some as by 1999 joint cooperation between stealth platforms and EW assets was not a new concept: Although frequently being portrayed in the media as acting completely on their own, F-117s occasionally received very effective standoff jamming support from EF-111s when attacking targets in the heavily defended Baghdad area during the 1991 Operation Desert Storm. However, the integration of stealth platforms with EW assets into a standard operating procedure did not take place until after Operation Allied Force.
According to the above mentioned CRS report, this was because "the standard operating procedure [was] to withhold F-117s from Air Force exercises and experiments such as "Red Flag." Thus, important details regarding how EW assets should best be integrated with stealth platforms [were] not universally understood. For example, what frequencies should they work on? Where should the jamming aircraft be positioned relative to the stealth aircraft? Where in the formation should the [Heavy Anti-Radiation Missile] HARM-shooting aircraft fly?" Thus, the "...desire to classify and protect as much information about stealth technology as possible was most likely a factor in the F-117 loss and backfired on the services."
Nowadays, standoff jamming support for stealth platforms has become standard practice whether the aircraft requires it or not. The importance and benefits brought forth by combining stealth and EW capabilities are well understood and new operational concepts are being developed. Spearheading the development of such a cooperative engagement capability (CEC) is the U.S. Navy with their Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) concept. At the forefront of NIFC-CA is the sensor-rich F-35C acting as an Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) platform, channeling data back and providing terminal guidance to standoff missiles launched by other aircraft and warships. Supporting the JSF from a distance will be USN EA-18Gs and F/A-18E/Fs equipped with powerful standoff jammers and long-range missiles, respectively. These two non-stealthy platforms will use data received from the F-35 to jam and engage enemy targets while remaining beyond the reach of enemy SAMs. In the future, the strike package will also include the navy's low observable Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) platform which will provide the fighters with aerial-refueling as well as additional surveillance and strike capability.
Managing the strike package will be the task of one or more E-2D airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft relaying data back to the command and control center on the carrier, to Aegis equipped warships, and to submarines. All platforms are to be networked using secure data-links – these include advanced high-bandwidth, jam-resistant links currently under development –which will grant all members of the carrier strike group a clear and common view of the battlefield, enabling the joint detection and engagement of targets over hundreds of miles. Being able to effectively relay targeting data to standoff weapons through such a CEC would also allow the F-35 to partially compensate for its inability to carry most air-to-surface missiles internally due to the small size of its bomb bays (carrying the weapons externally would compromise the aircraft's stealth).
The U.S. Air Force is also working on its own CEC; however, the process is complicated since the USAF lacks a dedicated survivable standoff jamming platform of its own, as the slow and cumbersome EC-130Hs it currently operates are unsuited to highly contested environments. The idea that persisted through the 1990s of separating stealth and EW meant that the USAF did not pursue the development of a new dedicated jamming platform following the retirement of its last EF-111s in 1998. This compelled the Air Force to continue relying on the Navy – which did pursue a dedicated EW program as it lacked stealth aircraft of its own – for EW support. In addition to cooperating with the USN, the USAF could also employ its other stealth platforms such as the B-2 and, in the future, the LRS-B and VLO unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), to target strategic SAM systems as these platforms offer superior wideband stealth given their combination of geometrical features such as a large size and a tailless configuration, which enables them to maintain their VLO status when confronted by VHF radars.
CECs are not without disadvantages. Concepts such as NIFC-CA are potentially vulnerable to cyber attack and EW. Data-links could be jammed or hacked, Electronic Support Measures (ESMs) such as passive detection systems could attempt to locate aircraft based on their electronic emissions, and long-range anti-radiation missiles, which could be fielded in the 2020s, may be used to target critical assets such as the E-2D in NIFC-CA that channels data back and forth between the aircraft and warships in the carrier strike group. Nevertheless, the flexibility of "network-centric" cooperative engagement concepts allows additional systems and platform to be plugged or unplugged from them as required, offering increased survivability and a lot of growth potential. This means that as new methods of countering the above mentioned threats are developed, they could be easily integrated into new or existing concepts.
It is important to remember that the F-35 is no F-117. Designed with network-centric warfare and joint operations in mind, the JSF offers its pilot unprecedented situational awareness thanks to its ability to communicate and process data obtained from a multitude of both onboard sensors and those located on other platforms. Unlike the F-117, which had no radar, the F-35's powerful AN/APG-81 AESA is also capable of acting as a narrowband jammer that can be employed if necessary against engagement radars once the jet is deep inside enemy territory. These features make the JSF a key "team player"; its capabilities and potential must therefore be viewed in the context of a CEC or collective system rather than as a single platform. Dynamic, network-centric CECs such as NIFC-CA will become all the more vital over the next two decades as radars and SAMs become increasingly sophisticated. Cooperative engagement will also grow in importance as the U.S. Air Force and Navy improve their interoperability and U.S. allies begin fielding more F-35s and Aegis equipped warships. In a highly contested environment, teamwork and tactics are just as important as stealth.
Guy Plopsky is a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Technology, Tamkang University (Taiwan). Fabrizio Bozzato is a PhD Candidate at the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies, Tamkang University (Taiwan).
http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-f-35-vs-the-vhf-threat/
Lockheed, Suppliers Brainstorm How to Lower F-35 Operating Costs (excerpt)
Source: Reuters; published Aug 21, 2014
WASHINGTON --- Lockheed Martin Corp met with 90 key suppliers last week to brainstorm ways to lower the long-term cost of operating and maintaining the F-35 fighter jets from the Pentagon's current forecast of $1.02 trillion through 2065.
Top officials from the Pentagon's Defense Contracts Management Agency and the Defense Contracts Audit Agency were also on hand during two days of talks in Fort Worth, Texas.
Tom Owen, vice president of F-35 sustainment strategies for Lockheed, told Reuters the meeting was "an initial, early step" toward mapping out specific measures to cut the plane's hefty sustainment costs.
(.../...)
One idea discussed in Fort Worth was the use of multiple-year contracts, and eventual adoption of performance-based logistics contracts, under which the supplier would be responsible for maintaining weapons and ensuring certain reliability levels, rather than paying for item-by-item repairs.
Such deals give incentives to suppliers to drive costs down even further, Owen said.
Multi-year contracts would make it easier for suppliers to invest in process and hardware improvements, he said. (end of excerpt)
Click here for the full story, on the Reuters website.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/21/us-lockheed-fighter-suppliers-exclusive-idUSKBN0GL29020140821
(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is industry's first attempt to gain even more control of the F-35 program by playing on the Pentagon's fear of unaffordable operating costs.
Industry's answer is to assume total control of support operations though multiyear contracts, which is a disingenuous grab for power given the fact that these MY contracts are supposed to be unchangeable once signed.
Added to the over-arching control made possible by ALIS, Lockheed's proprietary sustainment system, MY contracts would take complete control of F-35 operations away from the owners and operators of the aircraft, leaving them with little freedom to operate and maintain the aircraft without Lockheed's intervention.
It should not be forgotten that Lockheed holds the intellectual property to the ALIS, which makes it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for the Pentagon to support its own aircraft without the company's cooperation.)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/156362/f_35-contractors-hope-to-lower-operating-costs.html
Singapore quietly expanding F-15 fleet
James Hardy, London and Lindsay Peacock, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
22 August 2014
Singapore appears to have quietly boosted the size of its F-15SG fleet from 24 aircraft to 40, according to Boeing financial statements, aircraft registration filings, and US congressional reports.
Singapore originally bought 12 F-15SGs - with an option for eight more - under a contract signed in December 2005. In October 2007 the city-state modified this option by buying 12 more to give it a total of 24.
These aircraft have all been confirmed as delivered and have US-type serial numbers running from 05-0001 to 05-0024. Several remain in the United States with the Republic of Singapore Air Force's (RSAF's) 428th Fighter Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base (AFB) in southwestern Idaho, while the remainder are active in Singapore with 149 Squadron.
Aircraft operating in Singapore use four-digit serial numbers in the 83xx sequence, starting at 8301, although these do not run consecutively.
In January 2014, several aircraft with new serial numbers - 05-0025, 05-0028, 05-0030, 05-0031, and 05-0032 - were seen at Mountain Home AFB. These had not been previously reported and suggest that Singapore has obtained another batch of eight aircraft.
Meanwhile, a 26 November 2012 letter from the US State Department to House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner under the Arms Export Control Act refers to the "sale, modification, and follow-on support of eight F-15SG aircraft to the Government of Singapore".
Figures released by Boeing show that eight F-15s were delivered to an unspecified customer in 2012.
Boeing financial data also shows that a total of 93 F-15s were delivered from 2005 to 2012. South Korea has confirmed that it received 61 and Singapore that it received 24 for a total of 85, leaving eight unaccounted for in public records.
Finally, on 5-6 August 2014, Boeing took out civil aircraft registrations for what it described as F-15SG aircraft: N361SG, N363SG, N366SG, N368SG, N373SG, N376SG, N378SG and N837SG.
Neither Boeing nor the Singapore Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) would confirm whether the city-state had acquired 16 more F-15s than previously disclosed, although they also did not deny it.
A Boeing spokesman told IHS Jane's that the company was "unable to discuss" the number of F-15s it had supplied to Singapore, while a MINDEF spokesman said: "The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) bases our procurement on the assessed long-term defence needs, and the RSAF has purchased sufficient F-15SGs to meet our defence requirements."
COMMENT
Singapore's reticence on its follow-on purchases of F-15s is unsurprising: it has long demurred on outlining the extent of its defence procurement and capabilities, instead preferring to quietly build up what is widely seen as the best equipped military in Southeast Asia.
One retired armed forces officer told IHS Jane's that this was a strategic decision to keep its neighbours guessing, and also because the country's leaders did not need to use military procurement as a populist crutch.
However, this refusal to confirm acquisitions can occasionally lead to surreal conversations with military and defence industry officials, such as at the 2012 Singapore Airshow, when Israeli officials would not confirm the sale of IAI Heron unmanned aerial vehicles to Singapore despite the presence of one on static display at the show.
http://www.janes.com/article/42235/singapore-quietly-expanding-f-15-fleet
China's Chengdu J-20 fighter to compete with Russia's T-50
Business Insider Aug 22, 2014
By Jeremy Bender
China is in the process of developing its own native fifth-generation fighter to compete with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and Russia's T-50. Although China has been secretive about the exact specifications of the aircraft, experts are warning that the plane could be a game-changer in East Asia's potentially fragile security environment.
Voor het gehele verhaal, zie link
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-08-22/news/53112525_1_the-j-20-stealth-fighter-chengdu-j-20
Russia's new air force is a mystery
Why is Moscow buying three very similar jet fighters?
By Thomas Newdick, War is Boring | august 25, 2014
The Russian air force has just introduced three new jet fighters. Not the much-publicized Sukhoi T-50 stealth fighter — which isn't ready yet — but three slightly different versions of the classic Su-27, all originating from the same Sukhoi design bureau but built by two separate manufacturers.
Yes, that's a bit odd — and potentially wasteful. The U.S. Air Force, for one, is buying just a single new fighter type, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The American air arm wants as many as 1,763 copies of the F-35A to replace most of its existing fighters and, in theory, maximize efficiency.
By contrast, Russia is acquiring just a few dozen each of the Su-30M2, Su-30SM, and Su-35S — each a different upgrade of the 1970s-vintage Sukhoi Su-27, known to NATO as the "Flanker." Moscow hasn't officially explained its jet fighter strategy, but it appears the purchases are meant to keep two factories in business amid a slump in warplane exports.
In any event, Russia is getting an interesting bunch of highly-capable new jet fighters to begin revamping the country's geriatric air force, composed mostly of planes built in the 1980s. As development of the stealthy T-50 dominates headlines, the introduction of these three new fighters has passed relatively unnoticed.
The Su-30M2 was the first to join the front-line ranks of the Russian air force — the first in-service photos appearing in December 2011, indicating deployment with the 6972nd Air Base at Krymsk in the southern region of Krasnodar.
The first three examples of the Su-30SM arrived at the 6982nd Air Base at Domna in November 2013. The Siberian base had as many as 10 Su-30SM fighters by the end of that year. A further 10 aircraft should arrive this year, equipping a full aviation regiment.
Meanwhile, this February the first operational Su-35S fighters entered service with the 23rd Fighter Aviation Regiment at the 6883rd Air Base at Dzemgi, in the Khabarovsk Territory in Russia's Far East.
Su-30M2
First of the new trio to enter operational service, the Su-30M2 is also the least sophisticated. It's a derivative of the two-seat, multi-role Su-30MKK developed for China by the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association, or KnAAPO, based in the Russian Far East.
The Su-30MKK is best understood as an upgrade of the existing two-seat Su-30 interceptor, albeit less sophisticated than the rival Su-30MK made by Irkut. It has provision for in-flight refueling and all-Russian avionics that bestow a multi-role capability, but it lacks the canard foreplanes and thrust-vectoring control engines of the Irkut Su-30MK.
After winning more Chinese orders — this time for the improved Su-30MK2 with anti-shipping capability — KnAAPO subsequently sold derivatives of the Su-30MK2 to Vietnam, Indonesia, Venezuela, and Uganda. A key recognition feature of the export Su-30MKK/MK2 and the Su-30M2 for home use are the flat-topped twin tailfins.
The Kremlin placed its initial order for the Su-30M2 in the summer of 2009. These aircraft share much in common with the Su-27SM3, a KnAAPO-built single-seat fighter with improved avionics, but otherwise having more in common with the first-generation Su-27.
The Defense Ministry ordered four Su-30M2s along with 12 Su-27SM3s, and we may presume that the two-seaters are meant to support their single-seat brethren in the combat training and, perhaps, all-weather strike roles.
Orders for the Su-30M2 apparently stand at 20 aircraft, although as of December 2013, only the first four jets have appeared in public.
Su-30SM
Very similar to the Su-30M2 in appearance, the Su-30SM is the product of a different and rival production plant — the Irkut Corporation, based at Irkutsk in Siberia and part of the United Aircraft Corporation that consolidates all of Russia's private and state-owned plane-makers.
The Su-30SM can best be seen as the Russian version of the Su-30MK, Irkut's runaway success on the export market that kicked off with sales to India, followed by orders from Malaysia and Algeria.
Compared to the Su-30MKK from KnAAPO, the Su-30MK was always a more capable proposition, incorporating not only a more advanced aerodynamic layout, but also the option of Western avionics. Export customers could take their pick from Russian, Ukrainian, French, Indian, and Israeli components.
Hallmarks of the Su-30MK that also appear in the Russian air force's Su-30SM include two seats, canard foreplanes and thrust-vectoring engines, both allied with a sophisticated fly-by-wire flight control system. Unlike the KnAAPO jets, the Irkut-built Su-30MK and Su-30SM feature distinctive cropped tail fins.
Russia's Defense Ministry placed a surprise order for the Su-30SM in March 2012. And in December that year the ministry doubled the initial request for 30 aircraft. Reports from the Russian media suggest that all 60 of these jets should be delivered by the end of 2015, although as of December 2013 only 16 aircraft had been handed over.
This February press reports indicted that the Defense Ministry plans to sign additional contracts worth $2 billion for the delivery of 50 more Su-30SMs. Interestingly, some, if not all, of these new fighters could end up in Russian navy service, with the first examples arriving before the end of 2015.
Compared to the export Su-30MKI, the "Russianized" Su-30SM replaces the Indian and Israeli avionics with Russian equivalents. Strangely however, most of the original French avionics — including the head-up display and navigation system — remain.
While the Su-30M2 uses the N001V radar — an evolution of the basic set in the original Su-27 — the Su-30SM has the far superior N011M Bars-R with passive electronically scanned array. One unique change compared to the export-optimized Su-30MK relates to the Su-30SM's ejection seats. These are stronger in order to cope with the heavier weight of Russian pilots.
Although we have yet to see the new-generation Sukhois carrying any truly advanced air-to-air weaponry in air force service, the Su-30SM should be able to launch the new RVV-SD beyond-visual-range missile and the short-range RVV-MD.
Su-35S
The Su-35S differs from the Su-30 family in being a single-seater. While its conceptual lineage traces back to Soviet efforts to improve the Su-27, today's Su-35 began development in the early 2000s.
In a bid to improve performance and combat capability, the KnAAPO-built Su-35 added a new airframe, avionics outfit, and powerplant. The Su-35 includes AL-41F1S engines with thrust vectoring, an advanced fly-by-wire system, and new optronic suite. The canard foreplanes are gone, since other aerodynamic refinements are sufficient to achieve super-maneuverability.
While Russia still hasn't introduced an active electronically scanned array radar — this will likely have to wait until the T-50 is ready — the Su-35S has the next best thing. The centerpiece of the avionics suite is the N135 Irbis, a follow-on to the Bars radar utilizing the same passive electronic technology.
Like the Russian air force's Su-30M2 and Su-30SM, the Su-35S was also originally meant as an export fighter, under the Su-35BM designation. The media has linked the Su-35 with a prospective sale to China, although in reality there is next to no evidence of any actual Chinese interest in such a deal.
Instead, Moscow stepped in and ordered the Su-35S version for its own air force in 2009. The Kremlin has received 22 aircraft as of February, 12 of which are with the first front-line unit at Dzemgi. Delivery of the first batch of 48 Su-35S fighters is likely to end in 2015. Another 48-aircraft order is likely. With its advanced equipment and capabilities, the Su-35S is perhaps the most realistic interim fighter pending the arrival of the stealthy T-50 in significant numbers. Reportedly capable of carrying the new 200-kilometer-range RVV-BD air-to-air missile, the Su-35S could also prove a viable successor to the Russian air force's aging fleet of MiG-31 interceptors.
A Russian enigma
Why does the Russian air force need three different variations on the advanced Flanker theme? It would be more efficient to focus on one version, but the fact that rival production centers are responsible for building the fighters complicates Moscow's calculations. As long as the Su-30 family was enjoying success on the export market, having two competing airframe-builders was not a problem. As the least capable of the three, the Su-30M2 demonstrates the least potential for future growth. Indeed, there have been suggestions that Russia acquired the Su-30M2 only after airframes became surplus following the collapse of a planned sale to China.
The Su-35 boasts more powerful engines, superior radar, and an advanced self-defense suite. On the other hand, the Su-30SM is more readily available, cheaper, and has the advantage of two crew members, rendering it suitable for more complex combat missions as well as advanced training.
And now, foreign sales are threatening to dry up entirely. The most significant export operators of the Su-30 series, India and China, are building up their fleets through licensed — in the case of China, unlicensed — production.
Malaysia has elected not to acquire more Su-30MKMs to meet its multi-role combat aircraft requirement and is now mulling a fighter lease option. Additional Indonesian orders are possible to replace veteran F-5s, but will not involve significant numbers.
Moscow has pushed domestic orders for the three different Sukhoi jets more than likely in order to prop up the business of Irkut and KnAAPO. At the same time, bringing these aircraft into Russian service could make them more attractive to foreign buyers. In particular, export sales of the Su-35 have long proved elusive.
Meanwhile, the Russian air force is badly in need of new fighters. The T-50 remains some years from service — and despite the highly positive media reports, there is little objective information on exactly how testing is going with the five flying prototypes.
Unlike with the American F-35, testing of the T-50 taking place outside of public view. But a recent leaked document discovered by long-term Russian aviation observer Piotr Butowski suggests that significant design revisions might be in the works.
The T-50's schedule has stretched farther and farther to the right. Originally planned for handover to the air force's Akhtubinsk flight test center for evaluation in 2014, recent announcements suggest this might now slip until the second half of 2016. This would derail plans to declare initial operational capability, and the start of full-scale production, at the end of 2016.
The best-case scenario would have seen 60 production T-50s delivered between 2016 and 2020, but this now seems a distant hope. As a result, the air force is badly in need of supplementary equipment.
Of the many hundreds of front-line fighters in Russian air force service, most are now seriously showing their age. The collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent economic crisis reduced production of combat aircraft to a trickle. Only in recent years has Moscow had the resources to buy meaningful numbers of new jets.
But while the three new Flankers represent a considerable advance in capabilities compared to their predecessors, the recent orders are still inadequate to wholly revamp the Russian air force. Even with dozens of new Su-30M2s, Su-30SMs, and Su-35Ss, the Kremlin's fighter fleet is simply too old.
The MiG-29, a lightweight complement to the Su-27, is in service in dwindling numbers, the most advanced examples being a single regiment of hand-me-down MiG-29SMTs rejected by Algeria. Heavyweight MiG-31s still occupy six front-line bases, but only a limited number have been upgraded to MiG-31BM standard — and there is no evidence that these have received their promised advanced new weapons.
With a planned upgrade for the MiG-29s having evaporated, and with a dedicated successor to the MiG-31 looking increasingly unlikely, it seems that the various products of the Sukhoi design bureau will have to defend Russian skies over the long term.
Whether Moscow will keep buying the Su-30M2, Su-30SM, and Su-35 at the same time remains to be seen. Russia's jet fighter future rests heavily on the fortunes of the T-50 project.
https://theweek.com/article/index/266870/russias-new-air-force-is-a-mystery
Nee de Amerikanen zijn slim bezig :cute-smile: .
Citaat van: IPA NG op 25/08/2014 | 22:58 uur
Nee de Amerikanen zijn slim bezig :cute-smile: .
Ik had absoluut liever verschillende VS ontwikkelingen gezien (minimaal 3) om de F15/F16/F18 te vervangen en een LM monopolie vind ik bij voorbaat slecht voor innovatie en concurrentie.
Ik hoop dan ook oprecht dat Boeing het met haar FA/XX concept gaat redden als gedroomde vervanger van de F18E/F.
Singapore getting more F-15SG aircraftLATEST UPDATE 23 AUGUST 2014 | Singapore is reported to have acquired more Boeing F-15SG aircraft than previously known, according to several media on Friday 22 August. The recent appearance of a number of F-15SG aircraft on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) registry, sparked interest into the Singapore F-15 fleet, which is now thought to be 40 strong instead of 24.
The designation F-15SH is unique to the Republic of Singapore Air Force F-15 Eagle aircraft. Eight F-15SGs were filed by Boeing for a US N-registration recently. Along with eight F-15 aircraft marked by Boeing as being delivered to an unspecified customer in the 2005 – 2012 timeframe, it is save to say Singapore is the buyer of these aircraft. The country is officially known to use 24 F-15SG fighter bombers, but the actual number therefore seems to be 40.
The F-15SG is a variant of the US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle, and the type was chosen by Singapore over the Dassault Rafale in 2005. Roll out of the first F-15SG was on 3 November 2008, with deliveries starting the year after. Singapore declared the new fighter operational in September 2013.
The additional Eagles – through US Direct Commercial Sale channels – were supported by a side-purchase of a 100 AIM-120C7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and 18 AN/AVS-9(V) Night Vision Goggles, announced in April 2013. The weapons were delivered by the US for 210 million USD.
http://airheadsfly.com/2014/08/22/singapore-getting-more-f-15sg-aircraft/
F-35 flight test program notches August milestones
By Gulli Arnason · August 26, 2014
The Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) said its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program has passed flight test milestones in August, including weapons separation, software compatibility and flight hours.
F-35A aircraft AF-1 accomplished its 400th flight during a successful GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition aircraft separation test on Aug. 13 at Edwards Air Force Base, California. This was the first GBU-31 Mark-84 (2,000-pound guided munition) separation demonstration from the F-35. Previous GBU-31 separations were with the BLU-109 bomb body.
F-35B aircraft BF-1 and BF-4 completed "Mode 4″ formation testing on Aug. 9, as required for Block 2B software capability. In Mode 4 operations, the short take-off/vertical landing propulsion system is engaged, the lift fan, roll post nozzle, and three-bearing-swivel nozzle are operating, and all propulsion system doors and inlets are open.
F-35B aircraft BF-3 completed the 2B software fleet release weapon separation requirements for the F-35B with two successful AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile Air Vehicle Instrumented separation flights on consecutive days, Aug. 14 and 15. The AIM-120 radar-guided missiles were launched over the Atlantic Test Range.
http://www.financial-news.co.uk/23704/2014/08/f-35-flight-test-program-notches-august-milestones-2014/
German-led European consortium comes up with a cheaper proposal for its Euro fighter Typhoon
Manu Pubby August 21, 2014 | UPDATED 09:28 IST
The Dassault Rafale Fighter Jet (Far left) and the Euro fighter typhoonThe Dassault Rafale Fighter Jet (Far left) and the Euro fighter typhoonThe world's biggest defence deal is in danger of becom-ing one of the slowest in his-tory. More than two years after India zeroed in on the French Rafale fighter jet-after a tor-tured 11-year selection process-to replace its ageing MiG-21s, the Ger-man-led European consortium which was the runner-up in the race has sought to restart the dogfight by offer-ing a new, cheaper proposal for its Eurofighter Typhoon. The Narendra Modi Government, INDIA TODAY has learnt, is studying the German proposal even as Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has been nego-tiating with France's Dassault, the maker of the Rafale, to finalise agree-ments to produce the aircraft in India. The Rafale deal for 126 jets is esti-mated to cost 20 billion euros (Rs 1.6 lakh crore) over the next decade and is considered the biggest global de-fence tender.
Representatives of the German government met leaders of the BJP regime in June, within weeks of the latter coming to power, and the talks culminated in a new commercial pro-posal that seeks to undercut the French bid. The new German offer could bring down the total value of the contract by Rs 20,000 crore over its 10-year duration. The scale of the "discount"-formally offered in early July to Defence Minister Arun Jait-ley-was substantial enough to create ripples at the very top of the Govern-ment, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi also being apprised about the development, sources said.
In terms of the net present value- the hypothetical cost of buying the entire fleet in one go at current pri-ces-the new offer is at a little more than 10.5 billion euros while the French price is estimated to be a billion euros more. Calculated on the basis of the firm fixed price-or the amount India has to pay over 10 years-the German price comes to 17.5 billion euros.
In 2012, it is believed the Euro-fighter was priced at more than 21 billion euros, a difference significant enough for the French to win the race. A long process of consultations has since been going on between Dassault and HAL to co-produce the fighter jet. Although these technical and com-mercial negotiations are learnt to be at an advanced stage, the contract has been hanging fire.
The German offer, which has come through Eurofighter manufac-turer Airbus Defence and Space, has raised doubts over the future of the Rafale deal even though there is no scope for a revised price offer in the defence ministry's procurement rules. Experts believe that while there is no room for renegotiating the con-tract under the rules, the size of the German discount would force the Government to take a fresh look at the price offered by France. The counter-offer is supposed to be the outcome of hectic diplomatic manoeuvring by major European powers that have a high stake in the contract due to its sheer value and the job creation potential that can boost the economy of consortium member nations.
One of the first indications that there could be room for a relook at the mega deal came, it is learnt, after German Ambassador to India Michael Steiner met top functionaries of the BJP Government shortly after it took over in June. After getting feelers that the new dispensation was keen to get an independent assessment of the contract value instead of going by the UPA government's agreement, Berlin is believed to have gathered the sup-port of Britain, Spain and Italy, major partners in the consortium, to be able to make a viable counter-offer. The new offer, significantly, rea-ched the Government in the first week of July, four days after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met Indian leaders in New Delhi and emphasised the importance Paris was giving the Rafale contract. However, the French side was disappointed by the lack of any commitment from India as it was merely informed that due process was on.
Also, a few days before the new offer, Jaitley made his first comment on the Rafale deal on June 24, com-ments that were seen as non-commit-tal at best. He said the government would take a "considered decision" on the contract, a departure from the line of the previous government that always acknowledged that negotia-tions with the French side were in an advanced stage.
It is also believed that one of the reasons the Rafale deal has not progressed rapidly was the reluc-tance of previous defence minister A.K. Antony to sign off on a controver-sial price calculation by the IAF that assumed inflation at a self-derived rate and showed the French bid as cheaper. The competitors in the deal have alleged that the French com-mercial offer was "incomplete" and the price arrived at by the Indian side was based on data presented by Dassault that had to be interpreted by Indian financial experts.
Experts, however, feel it would still be difficult for the Eurofighter to be back in contention due to the lack of renegotiation provisions. "I do not see any possibility proce-durally or politically for a change. The Government can of course do anything it wants but it will neither be practical nor expedient. It would also be difficult and embarrassing for the Government to keep the French side on hold for two years and go with someone else," says Amit Cowshish, a distinguished fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses and a former financial adviser (acquisi-tion) in the defence ministry.
India would also have to deal with pressure from Paris, given that Fra-nce has invested a lot of political cap-ital in the deal. France is India's third-largest supplier of defence equip-ment and major deals include the Scorpene submarine line and the up-grade of the Mirage 2000 fleet. But the counter-offer and its financial im-plications can create uncertainty for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Air-craft (MMRCA) project, the technical name of the Rafale deal. And that cannot be good news for the IAF as the project is already two years behind schedule and other replace-ment projects such as the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) with Russia and the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) have also been crawling.
While the FGFA project could see the jets arriving in the next six to eight years, the formal induction of combat-ready LCA fighters is likely to start next year. The first aircraft from the MMRCA contract would start arriving at least two years after the agreement is signed. The IAF believes the MM-RCA is a vital replacement and is needed at the earliest to maintain its conventional edge in the region.
"The LCA has still not got its full combat clearance," says retired air vice marshal M. Bahadur, a distinguished fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies. "Reversing the MMRCA process is very difficult and can be done only if it emerges that the process to arrive at the L1 cost itself in 2012 was faulty."
Clearly, the high-stakes deal has got a twist in the tale. But it would only be in India's interest to ensure this does not further prolong the modernisation of the air force.
Bron: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/german-led-european-cheaper-euro-fighter-typhoon/1/378279.html (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/german-led-european-cheaper-euro-fighter-typhoon/1/378279.html)
Nog meer Rafale:
Why Rafale is a Big Mistake
By Bharat Karnad Published: 25th July 2014 06:00 AM Last Updated: 25th July 2014 12:55 AM
Email34
Why would India buy the Rafale combat aircraft rejected by every other interested country—Brazil, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Singapore, and even the cash-rich but not particularly discriminating Saudi Arabia and Morocco?
The French foreign minister Laurent Fabius's one-point agenda when he visited New Delhi was to seal the deal for Rafale, a warplane apparently fitting IAF's idea of a Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) in the service's unique typology, which includes "light" and "heavy" fighter planes as well, used by no other air force in the world. Alas, the first whiff of corruption led the previous defence minister, A K Antony, to seize up and shut shop, stranding the deal at the price negotiation committee stage. It is this stoppage Fabius sought to unclog.
France's desperation is understandable. Absent the India deal, the Rafale production line will close down, the future of its aerospace sector will dim, and the entire edifice of French industrial R&D sector based on small and medium-sized firms—a version of the enormously successful German "Mittelstand" model—engaged in producing cutting-edge technologies could unravel, and grease France's slide to second-rate technology power-status.
More immediately, it will lead to a marked increase in the unit cost of the aircraft—reportedly of as much as $5-$10 million dollars to the French Air Force, compelling it to limit the number it inducts. With no international customers and France itself unable to afford the pricey Rafale, the French military aviation industry will be at a crossroads. So, for Paris a lot is at stake and in India the French have found an easy mark, a country willing to pay excessively for an aircraft the IAF can well do without.
Consider the monies at stake. Let's take the example of Brazil, our BRICS partner. For 36 Rafales the acquisition cost, according to Brazilian media, was $8.2 billion plus an additional $4 billion for short-period maintenance contracts, amounting to nearly $340 million per aircraft in this package and roughly $209 million as the price tag for a single Rafale without maintenance support. Brazil insisted on transfer of technology (ToT) and was told it had to pay a whole lot extra for it, as also for the weapons for its Rafales. But the Brazilian air force had doubts about the quality of the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar enabling the aircraft to switch quickly from air-to-air to air-to-ground mode in flight, and about the helmet-mounted heads-up-display. Too high a price and too many problems convinced the government of president Dilma Rousseff that the Rafale was not worth the trouble or the money and junked the deal, opting for the Swedish Gripen NG instead.
During the Congress party's rule the Indian government did not blink at the prospective bill for the Rafale, which more than doubled from $10 billion in 2009 to some $22 billion today, and which figure realistically will exceed $30 billion, or $238 million per aircraft, at a minimum. But India, unbeknownst to most of us, is apparently a terribly rich country, with money to burn! Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, an apparently poorer state or at least one more careful with its money, is blanching at the $190 million price tag for each of the 60 Lockheed F-35Bs (vertical take-off, technologically more complex, variant of the air force model)—a full generation ahead of the Rafale—ordered for the first of the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers.
The prohibitive cost of the French aircraft supposedly made finance-cum-defence minister Arun Jaitley apprehensive. He did the right thing, as is rumoured, of revising the order downwards from 126 aircraft to 80 or so Rafales. The IAF headquarters pre-emptively acquiesced in the decision to save the deal. However, if this change was affected in the hope of proportionately reducing the cost, it will be belied. Because in contracts involving high-value combat aircraft, the size of the order does not much affect the unit price, the cost of spares and service support, and of ToT! This is evident from the rough estimates of the per aircraft cost to Brazil of $209 million for 36 Rafales compared with the $238 million for 126 of the same aircraft to India!
Because New Delhi has been inclined to make India a military "great power" on the basis of imported armaments—a policy that's a boon to supplier states as it generates employment and new technologies in these countries, and sustains their defence industries, a confident French official told me with respect to another deal that "India will pay the price". Considering the various negatives of the proposed deal and the long-term national interest Jaitley would do well to nix the Rafale transaction altogether.
The bureaucratic interest of the IAF prompts it to exaggerate wrong threats and talk of declining fighter assets. But it will not tell the defence minister about the logistics hell routinely faced by frontline squadrons in operations owing to the mindboggling diversity of combat aircraft in its inventory, a problem only the Rafale acquisition will exacerbate and, hence, about the urgent need to rationalise the force structure, ideally to Su-30s, the indigenous Tejas Mk-1 for short-range air defence, Tejas Mk-II as MMRCA, and the Su-50 PAK FA as fifth-generation fighter. Nor will the department of defence production officials disclose to Jaitley that the ToT provisions in arms contracts are a fraudulent farce because, while the foreign suppliers pocket billions of dollars, no core technologies, such as source codes (millions of lines of software) and flight control laws, are ever transferred. And that the local defence industry monopolised by defence public sector units (DPSUs) is incapable of absorbing and innovating even such technology as is, in fact, relayed to it because it only assembles aircraft from imported kits.
Terminating the Rafale deal will be disruptive but sending the message to the military, the DPSUs, the defence ministry bureaucracy, and foreign companies salivating for rich, one-sided, contracts that the Narendra Modi government is determined to make a new start and conduct defence business differently, is more important.
Bron:http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Why-Rafale-is-a-Big-Mistake/2014/07/25/article2346825.ece (http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Why-Rafale-is-a-Big-Mistake/2014/07/25/article2346825.ece)
En een laatste:
Rafale fighter jet deal contract with France almost ready: Defence ministry
Monday, 18 August 2014 - 5:32am IST | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
Pradip R Sagar
The much-awaited multi-billion Rafale combat aircraft deal with France has moved a step further with the defence ministry finalizing a 'draft contract', according to top defence ministry officials.
Rafale was declared the lowest bidder in Janaury 2012 but the deal has not been inked so far on account of escalation in the cost. The Cost Negotiation Committee, which was set up in February 2012 to work out the modalities for the deal has not reached a conclusion after 30 months of negotiations.
The government raised its concerns over this last month, during the visit of French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to New Delhi.
"Yes, we are in the process of finalizing the draft contract for the deal. And we also expect the Cost Negotiation Committee to submit its report soon," said a senior defence ministry official, who was privy to the developments.
But the official refused to give a time frame for inking the deal. "It is very difficult to predict any date for signing the contract. But, it should happen in the next few months," the officer said, requesting anonymity.
The Indian Air Force (IAF), which is coping with a depleted combat strength, claims that even if the deal is signed by the end of the year the first lot of Rafale aircraft would arrive only by 2017, by which time the IAF would have to phase out its MiG-21 squadrons.
The likelihood of an early signing is encouraging. Besides, the ruling NDA government has promised to address all the needs of the armed forces to ensure defence preparedness.
According to officials privy to the development, the defence ministry has asked representatives of M/s Dassault Aviation – the French manufacturer of Rafale aircraft – to revise the price structure which has gone beyond expected estimates.
Officials claim that when the tender was floated in 2007 the cost of the programme was $12 billion (Rs42,000 crore).When the lowest bidder was declared in January 2012, the cost of the deal shot up to $18 billion (Rs90,000 crore). Now with the inclusion of transfer of technology, the life cycle cost and creation of an assembly line, the deal has climbed to a whopping $20 billion.
The air force is seeking to replace its aging MiG-21s with a modern fighter and the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) fits between India's high-end Sukhoi-30MKIs and the low-end Tejas LCA lightweight fighter. The IAF has a sanctioned strength of 45 fighter jet squadrons. However, only 30 squadrons are operational as old aircraft have been retired.
Eighteen of the 126 new aircraft are to be purchased directly from Dassault and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will manufacture 108 under a licence, at a new facility in Bangalore.
Defence minister Arun Jaitley informed parliament last week that "given the complexity of the procurement case, the process of negotiations with Dassault Aviation on various aspects of the commercial proposal and provisions of draft contract is on."
Dassault Aviation emerged as L-1 bidder for procurement of the MMRCA based on its quotation.
Bron:http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-contract-with-france-almost-ready-defence-ministry-2011489 (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-contract-with-france-almost-ready-defence-ministry-2011489)
Navy's Next Fighter Likely to Feature Artificial Intelligence
By: Dave Majumdar
Published: August 28, 2014
Artificial intelligence will likely feature prominently onboard the Pentagon's next-generation successors to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.
"AI is going to be huge," said one U.S. Navy official familiar with the service's F/A-XX effort to replace the Super Hornet starting around 2030.
Further, while there are significant differences between the U.S. Air Force's vision for its F-X air superiority fighter and the Navy's F/A-XX, the two services agree on some fundamental aspects about what characteristics the jet will need to share.
"I think we all agree that we have to work on PNT [Positioning, Navigation and Timing], comms, big data movement between both services," the official said.
It is unclear how advanced technology like artificial intelligence might help a tactical fighter accomplish its mission. But it is possible that the AI would be a decision aid to the pilot in a way similar in concept to how advanced sensor fusion onboard jets like the F-22 and Lockheed Martin F-35 work now.
However, the visions for both the Navy and Air Force are technologically ambitious and there are differences between the services that still need to be resolved.
On Aug. 27, Air Force Gen. Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command (ACC), hosted an "innovation summit" called Air Superiority: 2030 and Beyond at Moffett Field, California, near San Francisco.
The idea behind the summit was to come up with new ideas on how to conduct the air superiority mission.
Both the Navy and the Air Force are hoping to engage the technology industry in Silicon Valley to help overcome the technological challenges for their sixth-generation fighter efforts.
Meanwhile — even though the F/A-XX initial capabilities document (ICD) is caught in the Pentagon's bureaucracy — the Navy is proceeding full-steam ahead with preparation work for an analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the new fighter.
The AoA for F/A-XX is expected to start sometime in 2015.
http://news.usni.org/2014/08/28/navys-next-fighter-likely-feature-artificial-intelligence
T-50 PAK-FA fighter jet project with Russia hits turbulence
Gautam Datt | Mail Today | New Delhi, August 31, 2014
New Delhi is increasingly concerned about the sluggish progress in the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) project, a joint endeavour between India and Russia.
Driving India's worries is the fact that the Russians are neither explaining why a prototype aircraft caught fire during a technology demonstration earlier this year nor addressing other technical doubts expressed by India. In fact, the defence ministry is quite sceptical about reports from Russia that a final design contract for the next generation combat jet is on the cards.
New Delhi is particularly miffed with the fact that despite being an equal partner in the FGFA project in terms of financial contribution, Moscow is not keen to share technical details about its next generation stealth fighter PAK-FA, on which the Indian version of the combat jet will be based.
The Indian version, called the Prospective Multi-Role Fighter (PMF), is almost exactly the same as PAK-FA but with some variations. In fact, Indian money is key to keeping Russia's PAKFA programme alive. Russia has built six prototypes of PAK-FA and, after repeated requests from India, it agreed to hold a demonstration flight earlier this year for technical evaluation. The flight ended in a fire that embarrassed the Russians.
But much to the surprise of an Indian team present at the site, they were not allowed anywhere near the aircraft. India wanted to know the reasons for the fire but details were never shared, said sources. India has paid $295 million (Rs.1,785.19 crore) for the preliminary design, which was finalised last year, and it is only logical that Indian officials feel concerned about the status of the PAK-FA programme. The Indian side was not satisfied with the preliminary design and raised questions about maintenance issues, the engine, stealth features, weapon carriage system, safety and reliability. Sources said there could not be any progress until these issues were resolved.
But the queries remain unanswered even after a round of discussions between the two sides this month. The Russian side's common response to New Delhi's concerns has been: "Don't get emotional." Any further push on these issues results in talk of price escalation, sources said. For instance, the Indian Air Force had made it clear last year that it was not satisfied with the engine of the new fighter, which was based on the power plant for the Sukhoi-30. A change has been promised at an additional cost.
No Indian expert or pilot has had a long hard look at the PAK-FA jet to date. The Russians are not allowing Indian pilots to fly the aircraft, claiming foreign pilots are barred from flying in their airspace.
But India argues that such restrictions were not imposed when the Sukhois or MiG jets were extensively flown in Russia by Indian pilots. Already, India has been reduced from a joint collaborator to a financing partner in the FGFA project.
The Indian work share in the venture is a paltry 13 per cent though it is paying 50 per cent of the projected cost of $10.5 billion agreed on in 2011. In terms of work, India's state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will contribute only tyres, basic navigational instrument VOR-DME, coolant for the radar, laser designation pod and heads-up display.
Even within this 13 per cent, the actual indigenous items will be in single digits and the rest will be procured from abroad. The programme has been plagued by difficulties right from the start.
India initially wanted around 30 or 40 twin-seat aircraft to be used as trainers. But since PAK-FA was a single-seater, the Russians sought an additional $8 billion for the trainer version. The move was scrapped as India settled for training on simulators. After the signing of the final design contract, it will take 94 months to complete the development programme.
The delay in resolving technical issues has meant that the IAF will not have fifth generation fighters even by the next decade.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pak-fa-project-sukhoi-t-50-russia-india-ties-defence-ministry-iaf/1/380033.html
Rusland heeft trouwens paar maanden terug 16 nieuwe MiG-29SMT's besteld.
Slovakia Close To Acquiring Gripen Aircrafts
Source : Our Bureau ~ Dated : Wednesday, September 3, 2014
The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Sweden have signed a letter of intent agreeing to co-operate on using the Saab Gripen fighter paving the way for a potential Slovakian acquisition of the aircraft.
"Today's signing will lay the foundation for bilateral co-operation around a common airspace surveillance of Slovakia and the Czech Republic," the Swedish defence ministry said August 30.
Slovakia is looking to replace its RAC MiG-29s in the next couple of years.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/10987/Slovakia_Close_To_Acquiring_Gripen_Aircrafts#.VAbOC2fCRjp
French fighter jet deal close: IAF chief Arup Raha
Last Updated: Wednesday, September 3, 2014
New Delhi: Indian Air Force Chief has said conclusion of a $22 billion fighter jet deal with French company Dassault Aviation was imminent after missed deadlines and delays.
Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha told an Indian newspaper that the military could not afford any more hold ups of the 2012 deal to supply 126 French-made Rafale fighters.
Raha said a deadline for finalisation of the deal had not been set but added "it`s going to happen soon."
He also appeared to throw cold water on attempts to re-enter the race for the giant contract by a European consortium that makes the Eurofighter, a rival to the Rafale.
"It will not be appropriate to make any changes in the process," he said in an interview with an English daily published on Wednesday.
"The current government has set the pace of work and things are moving fast enough on the fighter deal."
The daily quoted a Defence Ministry official as saying "Rafale has run through the finish line."
"It`s too late in the day to parachute into the race. The door is closed," the unnamed official said.
Dassault won the right in 2012 to enter exclusive negotiations with India to supply 126 fighters after lodging a lower bid than Eurofighter for a tender with an estimated value of $12 billion.
Those negotiations have since been delayed, prompting Britain to raise the contract with Prime Minister Narendra Modi`s government in July, holding out hope for the Eurofighter.
India`s right-wing government, which swept to power in May, has pledged to streamline and speed up a major modernisation of the country`s military, and has lifted a cap on foreign investment in defence.
India`s defence procurement has traditionally been an opaque business, marred by postponements and repeated re-negotiations over cost.
AFP
http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/french-fighter-jet-deal-close-iaf-chief-arup-raha_1464359.html
The F-35: Savior of U.S. Airpower or Albatross of the Asia-Pacific?
Is the F-35 the future of American airpower or a trillion-dollar tragedy? You make the call.
Adam Lowther,Chris Wrenn
September 3, 2014
Debate over the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has reached a fever pitch in recent months as advocates and critics of the program battle it out in the pages of Beltway publications—all for the purpose of influencing congressional support of the program. With battle lines clearly drawn, it is worth taking an objective look at the key arguments raised by both sides.
Voor het uitgebreid artikel, zie link:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-f-35-savior-us-airpower-or-albatross-the-asia-pacific-11187
Eurofighter pitches Typhoon as Polish Su-22, MiG-29 replacement
By: Dominic Perry
London / Source: Flightglobal.com / september, 3-2014
The Eurofighter consortium believes it has put itself at the front of the line to answer a nascent Polish requirement for combat aircraft, to replace an air force fleet of ageing Soviet-era types.
Although a request for information has yet to be issued – and Eurofighter acknowledges that any contest may be years away – the company is keen to highlight the capability enhancements being introduced to the Typhoon. These include an active electronically scanned array radar and the integration of MBDA's Storm Shadow cruise missile and Brimstone 2 munitions.
Speaking at the MSPO defence show in Kielce, Poland, Joe Parker, director of export at the Eurofighter consortium, says the platform would offer Warsaw a number of advantages, including possible workshare – although not final assembly work – and technology transfer.
"For Poland, Typhoon would bring the operational performance and capabilities it needs, alongside the intellectual technology it would want," he adds.
Presently, the Polish air force inventory includes 36 Sukhoi Su-22s and 31 RAC MiG-29s, and the service has recently embarked on an upgrade programme for a number of both types.
Parker says the Typhoon would initially be offered as a replacement for the Su-22, but that its "swing-role" capability also renders it suitable to take on missions performed by the MiG-29 fleet.
Typhoon production presently stretches out until around 2017 or 2018, notionally giving Warsaw a very tight window in which to order the fourth-generation type. However, Parker is confident the successful conclusion of a number of export campaigns – including with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and several other undisclosed customers – will prolong production well into the 2020s.
"Poland is one of the countries that is in our export campaign base, and we will look at all the windows when they might potentially procure," he says.
Meetings have already taken place between Eurofighter representatives and Polish defence officials, the consortium says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurofighter-pitches-typhoon-as-polish-su-22-mig-29-403287/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/09/2014 | 10:17 uur
"Today's signing will lay the foundation for bilateral co-operation around a common airspace surveillance of Slovakia and the Czech Republic," the Swedish defence ministry said August 30.
Slovakia is looking to replace its RAC MiG-29s in the next couple of years.
Het zat er lang aan te komen. En het is een wijs besluit. Ook buurland Hongarije least de Gripen A/B.
Het is dan ook een goed toestel. Samen met de F-16 eigenlijk de enige betaalbare multi-role opties die er zijn.
De markt is erg schraal vandaag de dag...
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/09/2014 | 10:17 uur
Slovakia Close To Acquiring Gripen Aircrafts
Source : Our Bureau ~ Dated : Wednesday, September 3, 2014
The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Sweden have signed a letter of intent agreeing to co-operate on using the Saab Gripen fighter paving the way for a potential Slovakian acquisition of the aircraft.
"Today's signing will lay the foundation for bilateral co-operation around a common airspace surveillance of Slovakia and the Czech Republic," the Swedish defence ministry said August 30.
Slovakia is looking to replace its RAC MiG-29s in the next couple of years.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/10987/Slovakia_Close_To_Acquiring_Gripen_Aircrafts#.VAbOC2fCRjp
mi een wijs besluit. Zouden meer EUropese landen moeten doen..
Citaat van: Elzenga op 03/09/2014 | 18:27 uur
mi een wijs besluit. Zouden meer EUropese landen moeten doen..
Wel ja de hele Utopia oostgrens afdekken met Gripens... SU-35 have fun!
Citaat van: IPA NG op 03/09/2014 | 18:27 uur
De markt is erg schraal vandaag de dag...
Haha, de budgetten zijn schraal zul je bedoelen.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 03/09/2014 | 18:45 uur
Haha, de budgetten zijn schraal zul je bedoelen.
Moderne (Westerse) fighters zijn vooral erg duur voor tegenvallende prestaties.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/09/2014 | 18:42 uur
Wel ja de hele Utopia oostgrens afdekken met Gripens... SU-35 have fun!
Nog altijd minder kansloos dan de F-35A's ;)
Citaat van: IPA NG op 03/09/2014 | 18:50 uur
Nog altijd minder kansloos dan de F-35A's ;)
:lol: na verwachting... voorspelbaarheid is troef
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/09/2014 | 18:42 uur
Wel ja de hele Utopia oostgrens afdekken met Gripens... SU-35 have fun!
voor die paar Su-35s hebben we de Typhoons en Rafales....al zijn Su-35s geen partij voor Gripens die in hun netwerk opereren...
Daarbij...laten de crisissen op dit moment in de wereld opnieuw zien dat kwantiteit ook een kwaliteit op zich is. Een te klein aantal toestellen zal effectief optreden teveel beperken.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 03/09/2014 | 19:00 uur
voor die paar Su-35s hebben we de Typhoons and Rafales....al zijn Su-35s geen partij voor Gripens die in hun netwerk opereren...
Daarbij...laten de crisissen op dit moment in de wereld opnieuw zien dat kwantiteit ook een kwaliteit op zich is. Een te klein aantal toestellen zal effectief optreden teveel beperken.
Ze mogen voor mij zo de F35 over de plint kieperen als ze 68 Rafales voor de KLu bestellen...
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/09/2014 | 19:05 uur
Ze mogen voor mij zo de F35 over de plint kieperen als ze 68 Rafales voor de KLu bestellen...
Mijn voorkeur gaat uit naar 68 Typhoons met CFTs (Conformal Fuel Tanks).
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FTyphoon-model-with-conformal-fuel-tanks-in-the-BAE-Systems-wind-tunnel-.jpg&hash=60dd9e3d40d9f0be3cba76c235f2288ecaa1e5fb)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FTyphoon-CFT-Al-Ain-685x385.jpg&hash=69d1531ed899c0b2ac8e2e54b6861f77fb56c6d1)
Citaat van: Ace1 op 03/09/2014 | 19:22 uur
Mijn voorkeur gaat uit naar 68 Typhoons met CFTs (Conformal Fuel Tanks).
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FTyphoon-model-with-conformal-fuel-tanks-in-the-BAE-Systems-wind-tunnel-.jpg&hash=60dd9e3d40d9f0be3cba76c235f2288ecaa1e5fb)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FTyphoon-CFT-Al-Ain-685x385.jpg&hash=69d1531ed899c0b2ac8e2e54b6861f77fb56c6d1)
:angel: ach, met beide opties zijn we wellicht aanzienlijk meer geld kwijt dan voor 37-40 F35's
Ik weet niet hoe jullie dat zien maar is het niet wijs te kijken naar financiële mogelijkheden, politieke gevoeligheid langs de landsgrenzen, ambitieniveau en ervaring in luchtgevecht? Voor Slowakije zou ik eerder een interceptiejager als de Saab Gripen voorschrijven dan voor Polen. Daarnaast kan ik me voorstellen dat Wit-Rusland bij voorkeur geen stealth vliegtuig bij de Poolse buren ziet.
De ergernis (beter gezegd de jaloezie) van Rusland moet groot zijn geweest bij het zo massaal toetreden van Oost-Europese landen tot de Europese Unie en tot de NAVO. Naast politieke invloed zijn ze ook de militaire afzetmarkt voor goed kwijt geraakt.
Naar mijn weten is de Rafale verreweg superieur aan de EF.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 03/09/2014 | 20:30 uur
Naar mijn weten is de Rafale verreweg superieur aan de EF.
Volgens mij ook, zeker in het omni/Multi role spectrum in A2A denk ik dat de EF als winnaar uit de bus komt.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/09/2014 | 20:55 uur
Volgens mij ook, zeker in het omni/Multi role spectrum in A2A denk ik dat de EF als winnaar uit de bus komt.
Weet ik niet. Maar de Rafale heeft naar mijn weten superieure sensors en jamming middelen.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 03/09/2014 | 21:11 uur
Weet ik niet. Maar de Rafale heeft naar mijn weten superieure sensors en jamming middelen.
Ik dacht het ook, al weet ik niet of de EF dit recht trekt in tranche 3A/B
Exclusive: Canada seen buying fighter jets from U.S., not Europe - source
By Randall Palmer, David Ljunggren and Andrea Shalal
OTTAWA/WASHINGTON Thu Sep 4, 2014 4:41pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada is likely to choose between two major U.S. firms when it buys a new fleet of jet fighters, excluding two European competitors, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter.
The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter and Boeing Co's F-18 E/F Super Hornet were deemed more suitable for the variety of tasks the military has laid out.
That would mean the exclusion of Dassault Aviation SA's Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, jointly made by BAE Systems PLC, Finmeccanica SpA and Airbus Group NV.
The fighter selection has proven enormously problematic for Canada's Conservative government, which in 2012 scrapped a sole-sourced plan to buy 65 F-35s for C$9 billion ($8.3 billion) after a parliamentary watchdog savaged the decision.
Ottawa then set up a special secretariat to compare the merits of the four contenders. It is deciding whether to hold a competition or go ahead with the initial plan to buy F-35s, which would likely prompt accusations that it was acting in bad faith.
Polls show the Conservatives of Prime Minister Stephen Harper could lose the next federal election, which is set for October 2015.
The source said that while the F-35 had scored well on the various tests laid out by the secretariat, the Super Hornet was almost as capable and had the advantage of being cheaper.
The secretariat was not asked to make a recommendation about which jet to buy.
A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Finley, who has day-to-day responsibility for military procurement, said ministers were reviewing a number of reports, including information on fighter capabilities, industrial benefits, costs and other factors.
"Until a decision is taken, all options remain on the table," Alyson Queen said for the minister.
The $400 billion F-35 program, the largest in Pentagon history, is already late and well over budget. U.S. officials said on Wednesday they were nearing a fix for the engine that powers the F-35. The failure of Pratt & Whitney's F135 engine grounded the entire F-35 fleet for several weeks this summer. Flights have resumed but with certain restrictions on speed and other maneuvers.
A potential attraction for Canada is that Lockheed's bid offers Canadian industry some $11 billion in work building airplane components.
Three other sources familiar with the deliberations said Ottawa had been poised last month to announce it would buy the F-35s. That plan changed when Harper – concerned about the political fallout - suggested that Canada could wait since it did not need to replace its existing CF-18 jets until 2020.
One of the three sources, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said Harper could still announce in coming weeks Canada would buy the F-35 and skip a new competition but that "ultimately, it will be a political decision."
Boeing's bid would likely include more traditional offset agreements, giving contracts to Canadian firms. Dassault says it is prepared to eventually build the Rafale in Canada.
Analysts and opposition critics suspect the government will delay the decision until after the next election. If Canada puts off buying new planes for too long, it would likely have to upgrade its current fleet of aging CF-18s, which date back to 1982, at a cost that some analysts estimate could top $1 billion.
Lockheed said on Thursday it was continuing to support the Canadian government and the special secretariat as Ottawa weighed its options. A Boeing spokesman said the company continued to support the Canadian process.
Harper is in Wales for a NATO summit, where he is under pressure to boost Canada's defense spending in the face of instability in Ukraine and the Middle East.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/04/us-canada-defense-fighters-idUSKBN0GZ2MC20140904?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews
Citaat van: www.reuters.com Vandaag om 11:13
Exclusive: Canada seen buying fighter jets from U.S., not Europe - source
Zeer voorspelbaar en nauwelijks nieuws onder de zon te noemen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/09/2014 | 21:18 uur
Ik dacht het ook, al weet ik niet of de EF dit recht trekt in tranche 3A/B
Weet dat de Gripen is feite op alle punten gelijkwaardig is aan "de slechtste van de twee" (EF/Rafale).
Citaat van: IPA NG op 05/09/2014 | 12:33 uur
Weet dat de Gripen is feite op alle punten gelijkwaardig is aan "de slechtste van de twee" (EF/Rafale).
De Zwitserse competitie laat vwb de Gripen een ander beeld zien.... maar zoals altijd geldt in deze tak van sport "wat is waar?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 05/09/2014 | 13:08 uur
De Zwitserse competitie laat vwb de Gripen een ander beeld zien.... maar zoals altijd geldt in deze tak van sport "wat is waar?
In tegenstelling tot jou geliefde F-35A maakt de Gripen wel kans tegen de Super Flanker.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 05/09/2014 | 13:09 uur
In tegenstelling tot jou geliefde F-35A maakt de Gripen wel kans tegen de Super Flanker.
Een spitfire maakt kans tegen een Flanker.
Dat de F35 niet zo goed is als de prijs laat geloven, is een ander verhaal.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 05/09/2014 | 20:27 uur
Een spitfire maakt kans tegen een Flanker.
Dat de F35 niet zo goed is als de prijs laat geloven, is een ander verhaal.
Ik begrijp ook dat het geen air superiority fighter is en ooit zal worden (expert plaatsen de F35A in die rol tussen de F16C en de F18E) maar als geheel zie ik het uitgroeien tot een bovengemiddelde multirole kist.
Als alle tegenstanders van o.a. de F15 en F16 hun zin hadden gekregen, dan waar ze er nooit gekomen, het werd door velen gezien als een slecht en onwerkbaar programma in hun ontwikkelfase.
Ook ik vind dat de ontwikkeling geen "schoonheidsprijs" verdiend en ik had liever 3 totaal verschillende en toegewijde kisten gezien en ik denk ook niet dat een F35 en F22 opvolgers volgens een gelijksoortig traject zullen doorlopen.
Vooralsnog ga ik er van uit dat de partnerlanden + Japan, Israel en Z Korea niet achterlijk zijn.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 05/09/2014 | 20:43 uur
Ik begrijp ook dat het geen air superiority fighter is en ooit zal worden (expert plaatsen de F35A in die rol tussen de F16C en de F18E) maar als geheel zie ik het uitgroeien tot een bovengemiddelde multirole kist.
Als alle tegenstanders van o.a. de F15 en F16 hun zin hadden gekregen, dan waar ze er nooit gekomen, het werd door velen gezien als een slecht en onwerkbaar programma in hun ontwikkelfase.
Ook ik vind dat de ontwikkeling geen "schoonheidsprijs" verdiend en ik had liever 3 totaal verschillende en toegewijde kisten gezien en ik denk ook niet dat een F35 en F22 opvolgers volgens een gelijksoortig traject zullen doorlopen.
Vooralsnog ga ik er van uit dat de partnerlanden + Japan, Israel en Z Korea niet achterlijk zijn.
Een land hoeft niet achterlijk te zijn om zich toch zo te gedragen. De geschiedenis staat er vol mee. Het idee dat een land één geünificeerde actor is helpt bij het verklaren, maar is overduidelijk een model dat berust op sterke simplificatie.
Die F35 zal wel wat worden, en zo niet, na 20 jaar vervangen we hem toch.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 05/09/2014 | 21:57 uur
Die F35 zal wel wat worden, en zo niet, na 20 jaar vervangen we hem toch.
Zo denk ik er ook over.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 05/09/2014 | 22:45 uur
Zo denk ik er ook over.
Eerst miljarden aftikken en dan halverwege zijn levensduur al wegdoen?
Lekkere kapitaalvernietiging.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 11:06 uur
Eerst miljarden aftikken en dan halverwege zijn levensduur al wegdoen?
Lekkere kapitaalvernietiging.
De Gripen NG moet zeker na 20 jaar vervangen worden....
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/09/2014 | 11:13 uur
De Gripen NG moet zeker na 20 jaar vervangen worden....
Waarom?
Waarschijnlijk met een MLU is hij wel langer te gebruiken.
Het platform zelf is in ieder geval minder snel aan veroudering onderhevig als jou geliefde JSF.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 11:16 uur
Waarom?
Waarschijnlijk met een MLU is hij wel langer te gebruiken.
Het platform zelf is in ieder geval minder snel aan veroudering onderhevig als jou geliefde JSF.
Zie de historie van alle Saab fighters en daarnaast is het nog maar de vraag of de luchtvaart divisie van Saab het de komende decennia gaat redden.
"mijn geliefde JSF"? mijn voorkeur is de F15SE maar helaas is deze nooit opgenomen in het lijstje kandidaten, daarnaast zou ik bijzonder nieuwsgierig geweest zijn naar de F16X.
Ik zou best voor Saab hebben kunnen kiezen als ze niet voor gekozen hadden om de Gripen te laten evolueren naar de E maar de weg waren ingeslagen naar het GFF concept, in mijn ogen is de Gripen E hooguit een interim oplossing.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/09/2014 | 11:36 uur
Zie de historie van alle Saab fighters en daarnaast is het nog maar de vraag of de luchtvaart divisie van Saab het de komende decennia gaat redden.
"mijn geliefde JSF"? mijn voorkeur is de F15SE maar helaas is deze nooit opgenomen in het lijstje kandidaten, daarnaast zou ik bijzonder nieuwsgierig geweest zijn naar de F16X.
Ik zou best voor Saab hebben kunnen kiezen als ze niet voor gekozen hadden om de Gripen te laten evolueren naar de E maar de weg waren ingeslagen naar het GFF concept, in mijn ogen is de Gripen E hooguit een interim oplossing.
Kun je concreet aangegeven waarom de F-35A wel toekomstbestendig is en de Gripen niet? Ik snap je verhaal rondom de toekomst van het bedrijf aan sich. Maar bedenk ook dat SAAB een relatief grote speler is en actief is op verschillende markten. Als ze geen opvolger zullen gaan produceren lijkt met mij dat ze niet zomaar zullen stoppen met het doorontwikkelen.
Laten we het verhaal rondom het bedrijf an sich even buiten beschouwing laten in jouw antwoord.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 11:43 uur
Kun je concreet aangegeven waarom de F-35A wel toekomstbestendig is en de Gripen niet? Ik snap je verhaal rondom de toekomst van het bedrijf aan sich. Maar bedenk ook dat SAAB een relatief grote speler is en actief is op verschillende markten. Als ze geen opvolger zullen gaan produceren lijkt met mij dat ze niet zomaar zullen stoppen met het doorontwikkelen.
Laten we het verhaal rondom het bedrijf an sich even buiten beschouwing laten in jouw antwoord.
Toekomst bestendig is een groot woord... niemand had verwacht in 1979 dat er nu nog F16 geproduceerd zouden worden en dat er vermoedelijk nog exemplaren zullen rondvliegen in de jaren veertig van deze eeuw... of de houdbaarheid zich voortzet is een kristallenbol vraag die wellicht niemand kan beantwoorden.
Het te verwachten/gehoopte aantal is m.i. de grootse beperking voor de Gripen daarnaast zie ik zoveel nieuwe generatie initiatieven in de wereld die de Gripen E/F volgens mijn beperkte inzichten in 2030 als hoofd systeem totaal verouderd laat zijn (prima voor baarden jacht etc)
Of de F35 het 40-50 jaar gaat redden (vanaf 2020) is wat mij betreft ook twijfelachtig al zijn de Amerikanen voorzichtig bezig met hun gewenste FA/XX (gehoopte opvolger van de F18E/F) en de F/X als beoogd opvolger voor de F22A.
Indien beide programma's het in de VS gaan redden (invoer een van beide of beide systemen vanaf 2030) dan verwordt de F35 tot low end en de nieuwe kisten tot high end waardoor een mix als nu (F15/F16) in combinatie met voldoende aantal een theoretisch lang leven is beschoren.
Maar wie weet, het zou kunnen dat Saab het als autonome producent wél overleeft, immers vanaf (rond 2025) zijn er nog maar 2 westerse producenten met een open fighter productielijn, LM met haar F35 varianten en Saab met haar Gripen E, veel landen zullen in die periode hun oude vloten moeten vervangen en lang niet allemaal zullen ze in zijn voor een product van LM dan wel Russische of Aziatische makelij.
Het is de hoogste tijd voor een gezamenlijk Europees nieuw initiatief, anders mist Utopia volledig de fighter boot tegen die tijd dat de eendebekjes aan vervanging toe zijn.
Tot slot een voorspelling: als de VS kiest voor het nieuwe "clean sheet" T/X ontwerp van Boeing-Saab (keuze uit 4 opties), waar ik op hoop (al was het maar om Boeing in de fighter business te houden) dan wordt de fighter tak van Saab t.z.t. door Boeing overgenomen.
Boeing and Saab to team for USAF T-X requirement
http://www.janes.com/article/31245/boeing-and-saab-to-team-for-usaf-t-x-requirement
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/09/2014 | 12:09 uur
Toekomst bestendig is een groot woord... niemand had verwacht in 1979 dat er nu nog F16 geproduceerd zouden worden en dat er vermoedelijk nog exemplaren zullen rondvliegen in de jaren veertig van deze eeuw... of de houdbaarheid zich voortzet is een kristallenbol vraag die wellicht niemand kan beantwoorden.
Het te verwachten/gehoopte aantal is m.i. de grootse beperking voor de Gripen daarnaast zie ik zoveel nieuwe generatie initiatieven in de wereld die de Gripen E/F volgens mijn beperkte inzichten in 2030 als hoofd systeem totaal verouderd laat zijn (prima voor baarden jacht etc)
Of de F35 het 40-50 jaar gaat redden (vanaf 2020) is wat mij betreft ook twijfelachtig al zijn de Amerikanen voorzichtig bezig met hun gewenste FA/XX (gehoopte opvolger van de F18E/F) en de F/X als beoogd opvolger voor de F22A.
Indien beide programma's het in de VS gaan redden (invoer een van beide of beide systemen vanaf 2030) dan verwordt de F35 tot low end en de nieuwe kisten tot high end waardoor een mix als nu (F15/F16) in combinatie met voldoende aantal een theoretisch lang leven is beschoren.
Maar wie weet, het zou kunnen dat Saab het als autonome producent wél overleeft, immers vanaf (rond 2025) zijn er nog maar 2 westerse producenten met een open fighter productielijn, LM met haar F35 varianten en Saab met haar Gripen E, veel landen zullen in die periode hun oude vloten moeten vervangen en lang niet allemaal zullen ze in zijn voor een product van LM dan wel Russische of Aziatische makelij.
Het is de hoogste tijd voor een gezamenlijk Europees nieuw initiatief, anders mist Utopia volledig de fighter boot tegen die tijd dat de eendebekjes aan vervanging toe zijn.
Tot slot een voorspelling: als de VS kiest voor het nieuwe "clean sheet" T/X ontwerp van Boeing-Saab (keuze uit 4 opties), waar ik op hoop (al was het maar om Boeing in de fighter business te houden) dan wordt de fighter tak van Saab t.z.t. door Boeing overgenomen.
Boeing and Saab to team for USAF T-X requirement
http://www.janes.com/article/31245/boeing-and-saab-to-team-for-usaf-t-x-requirement
Een gezamenlijk initiatief? Je bedoelt zoals de F-35?
Waarom denk je dat projecten als de Gripen, de Rafale en de meeste Amerikaanse toestellen wel gewoon deugen en voor een min of meer normale prijs? Juist omdat ze NIET het product zijn van samenwerking. In Amerika zijn ze vaak zelfs het product van concurrentie geweest.
Schakelen we de concurrentie uit, geven we de bouwer een blanco cheque en een monopoliepositie en laten we meerdere landen inspraak hebben in het ontwerp met alle compromissen van dien en je ziet wat het resultaat is. De Typhoon, JSF, A400 ook in principe en de NH-90 zijn nou niet bepaald succesnummers te noemen, zeker niet wat betreft het ontwikkelingstraject.
Dus nee, laten we ervoor zorgen dat er meerdere producenten blijven bestaan, op beide continenten. Eigenlijk zou er een soort Nma/Ema moeten bestaan binnen de NAVO voor wapenproducenten :lol:.
Maar in feite heb je mijn vraag niet beantwoord.
Ik wil wel een voorzetje geven.
De F-35A heeft wendbaarheid, brandstofefficiëntie en dus ook bereik en daarnaast onderhoudsgemak opgeofferd voor beperkte LO eigenschappen. Namelijk steelsheid tegen x en s-band en beperkte steelsheid tegen l-band tussen 10 en 2 uur.
Dit is een van de selling points van de F-35. Het andere selling point zijn de sensors, waarvan het DAS systeem eruit springt als HET ding.
Echter heeft die steelsheid dus gezorgd voor veel beperkingen (te kleine wapenlast, en de voornoemde punten). Beperkingen die dus verbonden zijn aan het ontwerp van het toestel zelf. Als de steelsheid dus op de ene of andere manier tegen blijkt te vallen of wordt ingehaald door moderne technologie dan vervallen dus de voordelen en blijven de nadelen in stand. Dit is reden nummer 1 waarom ikzelf juist denk dat de F-35 snel zal verouderen.
Een conventioneel toestel heeft deze beperking niet. Het platform an sich is meer optimaal en het toestel moet het hebben van de ingebouwde elektronica in plaats van passieve steelsheid.
Dit bewierookte DAS systeem zou in principe geïnstalleerd kunnen worden in andere kisten. Vandaar dat er na 2030 waarschijnlijk toestellen gaan verschijnen die dit soort systemen (kinderziektevrij) in zich dragen zonder alle beperkingen die de F-35A kent vanwege haar ontwerp.
Daarom lijkt het mij zoveel verstandiger nu te kiezen voor een moderne variant van een conventioneel toestel. Ik beperk mij daarbij tot de F-16V of de JAS-39 E/F. En die laatste is verreweg superieur. (De Gripen met haar nieuwe radar en de Meteor zal gehakt maken van elke Flanker.)
Overigens heb ik het nog nagevraagd bij mijn Zweedse bron en die prijs van 100-120 miljoen dollar per stuk is inclusief de benodigde infrastructuur en opleiding. De prijs van het toestel an sich is bijna de helft daarvan. Ook als je een ander toestel gaat kopen moet je goed opletten of deze zaken in de prijs zijn inbegrepen.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 13:11 uur
(De Gripen met haar nieuwe radar en de Meteor zal gehakt maken van elke Flanker.)
Was het leven maar zo simpel >:(
Het lijkt me heerlijk om jou te zijn, de hele dag alleen maar zwart wit denken.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 13:27 uur
Was het leven maar zo simpel >:(
Het lijkt me heerlijk om jou te zijn, de hele dag alleen maar zwart wit denken.
Ik heb dit niet zelf verzonnen.
De Flanker heeft een grote RCS en de Gripen krijgt een van de modernste radars op de markt. De Gripen zelf heeft een kleine RCS. Het resultaat is dat de Gripen een goede kans zal maken een eerste wapen af te kunnen vuren.
Het wapen is een wezenlijke stap vooruit ten opzichte van de AMRAAM. Hij heeft een langer bereik en een hogere snelheid. Dit betekent dat de kans op een treffer hoger is dan bij de AMRAAM (en dus als het ding doet wat er op de verpakking staat boven de 46% zal liggen). Ook heeft de Meteor een twee-weg datalink en is dus niet afhankelijk van de radar van het toestel. Hij kan "stil" gelanceerd worden door gebruik te maken van de IRS-T of de radar van een ander toestel (datalink) terwijl de raket zelf wel zijn radar data terugstuurt naar het toestel dat het heeft af geschoten. Het is dus wel degelijk een game-changer.
Meteor is dus superieur aan de huidige AMRAAM en de Flankers zijn relatief simpel te detecteren.
Wat de radar betreft, die is dus op vele punten vooruitstrevend en bekend je dat de Gripen een grotere radardome heeft dan de Rafale bijvoorbeeld.
Ik begrijp dus niet precies waarom dit toestel zo slecht zou zijn en hoor graag de mening van jurrien visser daarover.
Wat de F-35A betreft. Als LM die rekken gaat maken waardoor er 6 AMRAAM's in passen en de AIM-120D doet wat wordt belooft dan zou dit waarschijnlijk een hoop problemen oplossen wat betreft de A2A capaciteiten. Wat Poleme zei over de VHF radars klopt, maar ik begrijp ook dat deze relatief makkelijke doelwitten zijn. Het grootste gevaar voor de F-35 is een IRS-T die de enorme F135 motor detecteert.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 13:11 uur
Een gezamenlijk initiatief? Je bedoelt zoals de F-35?
Mijn voorkeur zou zijn twee types, een één en een twee pitter in de verhouding als F16:F15 of Eurofighter:Gripen.
Als vertrekpunt voor de 1 pitter zou m.i. zeker de Saab GFF studie kunnen dienen en de toekomstige 2 pitter mag van mij best uit huize Dassault of BAE komen.
Uitgangpunt moet wat mij betreft wel zijn: 1 hoofaannemer per model en geen oeverloze compromis kisten.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 13:50 uur
Ik heb dit niet zelf verzonnen.
Het leven is niet zo simpel als: ''
De Gripen met haar nieuwe radar en de Meteor zal gehakt maken van elke Flanker'' Wanneer je zaken zo zwart/wit stelt zijn ze per definitie onzin.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 14:01 uur
Het leven is niet zo simpel als: ''De Gripen met haar nieuwe radar en de Meteor zal gehakt maken van elke Flanker'' Wanneer je zaken zo zwart/wit stelt zijn ze per definitie onzin.
Je hebt natuurlijk gelijk. Natuurlijk hangt alles af van het scenario. Wat ik wilde stellen is dat de Gripen op papier prima kans heeft tegen een Flanker en dat ik DUS de argumenten van jurrien niet helemaal begrijp. Zeker nadat al eens is geroepen dat de F-35A wel moeite zal gaan krijgen tegen de Flanker.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/09/2014 | 13:59 uur
Mijn voorkeur zou zijn twee types, een één en een twee pitter in de verhouding als F16:F15 of Eurofighter:Gripen.
Als vertrekpunt voor de 1 pitter zou m.i. zeker de Saab GFF studie kunnen dienen en de toekomstige 2 pitter mag van mij best uit huize Dassault of BAE komen.
Uitgangpunt moet wat mij betreft wel zijn: 1 hoofaannemer per model en geen oeverloze compromis kisten.
Persoonlijk denk ik dat het blijven bestaan van wat variatie op de markt opweegt tegen totale standaardisatie. Op dit moment zie je dat elk toestel in feite z'n eigen kwaliteiten heeft, in de toekomst zal dit wel net zo blijven.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 13:50 uur
Ik begrijp dus niet precies waarom dit toestel zo slecht zou zijn en hoor graag de mening van jurrien visser daarover.
Ik vind de Gripen helemaal niet slecht, ik vind het een prima kist tot 2030 daarna kan deze m.i. niet meer meekomen als hoofdsysteem. (wellicht prima als low end kist)
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 14:04 uur
Persoonlijk denk ik dat het blijven bestaan van wat variatie op de markt opweegt tegen totale standaardisatie. Op dit moment zie je dat elk toestel in feite z'n eigen kwaliteiten heeft, in de toekomst zal dit wel net zo blijven.
Deze mening delen we, ik ben dan ook helemaal niet bij met LM als enige producent in de VS. Ik hoop dan ook dat Boeing (met Saab) de T/X mag leveren en dat deze club het voor elkaar krijgt om de FA/XX geaccepteerd te krijgen als F18E/F vervanger.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/09/2014 | 14:05 uur
Ik vind de Gripen helemaal niet slecht, ik vind het een prima kist tot 2030 daarna kan deze m.i. niet meer meekomen als hoofdsysteem. (wellicht prima als low end kist)
Maar de F-35 wel?
Net zei je ook dat dit waarschijnlijk niet het geval zal zijn en het ding ook als low-end wordt ingezet.
Wat dat betreft zitten we nu dus in een tijdperk dat vele kisten moeten worden vervangen maar de echt goede opvolgers nog op zich laten wachten en we dus een stop-gat zoeken. Of zie ik dat verkeerd? Zoeken we een stop-gap dan lijkt met mij niet heel verstandig voor de F-35A te kiezen, of wel?
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 14:04 uur
Je hebt natuurlijk gelijk. Natuurlijk hangt alles af van het scenario. Wat ik wilde stellen is dat de Gripen op papier prima kans heeft tegen een Flanker en dat ik DUS de argumenten van jurrien niet helemaal begrijp. Zeker nadat al eens is geroepen dat de F-35A wel moeite zal gaan krijgen tegen de Flanker.
En niet alleen van het scenario. Er zijn zoveel factoren die wij niet mee kunnen nemen omdat we er simpelweg geen weet van hebben. Enige terughoudendheid is daarom op zijn plaats.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/09/2014 | 14:05 uur
Ik vind de Gripen helemaal niet slecht, ik vind het een prima kist tot 2030 daarna kan deze m.i. niet meer meekomen als hoofdsysteem. (wellicht prima als low end kist)
dat lukt tot 2040 ook wel...en dan is er ondertussen al wel een vervanger. Ik vind de wens tot high-end en first-in operaties trouwens helemaal niet bij Nederland passen. Leuk voor oefeningen, maar bij een conflict niet.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 14:16 uur
En niet alleen van het scenario. Er zijn zoveel factoren die wij niet mee kunnen nemen omdat we er simpelweg geen weet van hebben. Enige terughoudendheid is daarom op zijn plaats.
Wat je zegt ik correct. Ik feite kunnen wij alleen maar afgaan op de berichtgeving. En die is vaak gekleurd of beperkt vanwege alle geheimen.
Toch denk ik wel dat we bepaalde conclusies mogen trekken uit de info die we hebben.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 14:19 uur
Toch denk ik wel dat we bepaalde conclusies mogen trekken uit de info die we hebben.
Absoluut! Maar we moeten beseffen dat die conclusies dus altijd een enorme mate van onzekerheid bevatten. En dat mis ik hier nog wel eens.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 14:13 uur
Maar de F-35 wel?
Net zei je ook dat dit waarschijnlijk niet het geval zal zijn en het ding ook als low-end wordt ingezet.
Wat dat betreft zitten we nu dus in een tijdperk dat vele kisten moeten worden vervangen maar de echt goede opvolgers nog op zich laten wachten en we dus een stop-gat zoeken. Of zie ik dat verkeerd? Zoeken we een stop-gap dan lijkt met mij niet heel verstandig voor de F-35A te kiezen, of wel?
Of de F35 zal uitgroeien tot waardige F16 vervanger zal blijken na de ontwikkel periode en tijdens operationele inzet.
Als de Amerikanen in de jaren dertig het voor elkaar krijgen om zowel de F/X als de FA/XX als 6e generatie kist (what's in a name) operationeel te krijgen dan zal de F35 een generatie ouder zijn.
Aangezien ik nog niets meer gezien heb dan CGI van beide en er niet veel meer publiekelijk bekend is dan een RFI zal het vermoedelijk niet begin dertig zijn maar eerder aan het eind van dat decennium.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/09/2014 | 14:17 uur
dat lukt tot 2040 ook wel...en dan is er ondertussen al wel een vervanger. Ik vind de wens tot high-end en first-in operaties trouwens helemaal niet bij Nederland passen. Leuk voor oefeningen, maar bij een conflict niet.
Ik hoor hier een motivatie gedreven door huidige politieke keuzes en puur budget, beide zijn aan verandering onderhevig.
Ik zie te veel 5e generatie initiatieven in de wereld, als de helft hiervan werkelijkheid wordt en deze worden ook nog eens in aantallen aangeschaft dan is er in een hoog geweldsspectrum conflict geen plaats meer voor de Gripen als hoofd systeem.
Of Utopia mee kan komen is maar net de vraag, gelukkig zie ik een zeer pril initiatief om (eventueel) te komen tot een vervanger voor de EF en de Rafale.
Hopelijk snijdt het deze keer wel hout, en ze zullen iets moeten want de EF productie is exit voor 2020 en de Rafale ondergaat het zelfde lot tenzij de Indiase deal rond komt, dan worden er nog Rafales (in India) geproduceerd tot halverwege het volgende decennium.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 14:21 uur
Absoluut! Maar we moeten beseffen dat die conclusies dus altijd een enorme mate van onzekerheid bevatten. En dat mis ik hier nog wel eens.
Wat dat betreft vind ik de berichtgeving rondom de F-35A weinig rooskleurig. Als we dat bedenken en ook de prijs in ogenschouw nemen is wordt het al snel een weinig aantrekkelijke optie.
Los van de kwaliteiten van het toestel ben ik van mening dat 37 toestellen niet adequaat is omdat dit zal resulteren in weinig inzetbare kisten.
Ik zie liever wat meer goedkopere toestellen die minder onderhoudsgevoelig zijn (bijvoorbeeld een één op één vervanging, dus op dit moment zou dat denk ik 61 stuk zijn). Dat er niet een groep van 6 maar misschien 2 groepen van 6 tegelijk uitgezonden/ingezet kunnen worden. En als die toestellen dan iets minder geavanceerd zijn dan lijkt mij dat niet echt een probleem als we kijken naar wat we er meestal mee doen. Ook zou dit het voortbestaan van beide vliegbasissen rechtvaardigen, iets wat mij persoonlijk belangrijk lijkt omdat er van alles kan gebeuren op een basis waardoor toestellen niet inzetbaar zijn.
Gelukkig is de berichtgeving dan weer wel zo dat ik weinig vrees heb dat bijvoorbeeld de nieuwe Gripen een weinig capabel toestel zal worden.
Daaruit trek ik mijn conclusies en ik vertel daar ook graag bij waarom. Ik vraag dan jurrien om uit te leggen wat de grote voordelen van de F-35A zijn ten opzichte van de JAS-39E/F.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/09/2014 | 14:27 uur
Ik hoor hier een motivatie gedreven door huidige politieke keuzes en puur budget, beide zijn aan verandering onderhevig.
Ik zie te veel 5e generatie initiatieven in de wereld, als de helft hiervan werkelijkheid wordt en deze worden ook nog eens in aantallen aangeschaft dan is er in een hoog geweldsspectrum conflict geen plaats meer voor de Gripen als hoofd systeem.
Nee hoor, ik kijk ver vooruit. En zie dat die zogenaamde 5e generatie toestellen (velen zijn het niet eens..F35 ook niet volledig trouwens) die nu in verschillende stadia van ontwikkeling zijn..allemaal de route van de F-22 volgen. Namelijk dermate duur en complex dat er slechts een beperkt aantal van worden aangeschaft...naast een veel groter aantal 4, 4+, 4++ toestellen de basis en werkpaarden van deze luchtmachten vormen.
Waarom zou Nederland in dat dure topsegment moeten zitten? Dat is waar de grote(re) landen VS, UK, FR, DU e.d. in opereren. Nee, het leveren van een stevige bijdrage aan de basis van onze Westerse luchtstrijdkrachten past mijns inziens veel beter bij Nederland..nu, maar zeker ook in de toekomst. Zowel qua ambitie als qua wat bij onze "traditie" past. Want een krijgsmacht heb je voor oorlog, niet voor top-end oefenen en open dagen.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 14:34 uur
Ik vraag dan jurrien om uit te leggen wat de grote voordelen van de F-35A zijn ten opzichte van de JAS-39E/F.
Voornamelijk volume met alle voordelen en daarnaast een grote groep (NAVO) gebruikers.
Indien de USN zou afzien van de F35C en de USAF een beperkt aantal F35A zou aanschaffen in de rol van (als voorbeeld) de F117 dan zou dat (los van de prijs) voor mij een heroverweging zijn en zou ik naar Frankrijk kijken voor het alternatief.
Ik had het toegejuicht als LM, naast de F35 ook de F16 verder had doorontwikkeld, wellicht was de F16X de betere optie voor de KLu geweest.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article23.html
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/09/2014 | 14:35 uur
Waarom zou Nederland in dat dure topsegment moeten zitten? Dat is waar de grote(re) landen VS, UK, FR, DU e.d. in opereren. Nee, het leveren van een stevige bijdrage aan de basis van onze Westerse luchtstrijdkrachten past mijns inziens veel beter bij Nederland..nu, maar zeker ook in de toekomst.
Volgens deze redenatie kan ook de Marine flink gedowngraded worden. Fregatten eruit, korvetten erin.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/09/2014 | 14:35 uur
Zowel qua ambitie als qua wat bij onze "traditie" past. Want een krijgsmacht heb je voor oorlog, niet voor top-end oefenen en open dagen.
Welke traditie? In 1999 hebben we ook een ''top-end'' bijdragen geleverd in Joego.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 14:59 uur
Volgens deze redenatie kan ook de Marine flink gedowngraded worden. Fregatten eruit, korvetten erin.
Is denk ik een slechte vergelijking.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/09/2014 | 14:42 uur
Ik had het toegejuicht als LM, naast de F35 ook de F16 verder had doorontwikkeld, wellicht was de F16X de betere optie voor de KLu geweest.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article23.html
Wat wel een (voorzichtige) ontwikkeling is van LM is dat ze de V versie nu als interim en nieuw upgrade-model aanbieden.
Waarschijnlijk is dit puur om eventuele klanten al te binden aan LM om het langere test tijd en de huidige problemen de tijd te gunnen en de nieuwe klanten dan over te halen naar F-35 aankoop als van de plank.
Maar voor NL zou een X(L) versie met F-35 toepassing en voor mijn gevoel voldoende zijn.
Citaat van: Harald op 06/09/2014 | 15:56 uur
Maar voor NL zou een X(L) versie met F-35 toepassing en voor mijn gevoel voldoende zijn.
Maar.. helaas een gepasseerd station.
Als Boeing met haar X-32 had gewonnen dan was ongetwijfeld de F16X doorontwikkeld, nu zou LM een enorme en wellicht succesvolle concurrent voor het F35 programma in eigen huis halen, dus ondenkbaar.
Citaat van: Harald op 06/09/2014 | 15:56 uur
Wat wel een (voorzichtige) ontwikkeling is van LM is dat ze de V versie nu als interim en nieuw upgrade-model aanbieden.
Ik heb zo het idee dat als de laatste nieuwe Iraakse F16's de productielijn hebben verlaten dat het dan klaar is met de Viper (tenzij er nog enkele tientallen nieuwen worden verkocht, maar ik zie niet zo snel aan wie... misschien nog een handje vol aan de VAE)
Daarna zal de focus liggen op instandhouding en V updates voor de recentere versies.
Als Nederland de NF5 had vervangen door de F16C block 40 dan hadden we kunnen meedraaien in het V programma maar helaas is destijds gekozen voor de A en B block 15 variant.
Alle landen die nu 2de hands F-16s kopen of gekocht hebben de laatste 5 tot 10 jaar.
Een tussenmarkt. Kunnen geen nieuw spul kopen, maar willen wel graag de aansluiting houden.
Citaat van: Harald op 06/09/2014 | 16:19 uur
Alle landen die nu 2de hands F-16s kopen of gekocht hebben de laatste 5 tot 10 jaar.
Een tussenmarkt. Kunnen geen nieuw spul kopen, maar willen wel graag de aansluiting houden.
Dit houdt een V versie nog wel tot 2030 in de lucht, daarna wordt het ??
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 14:59 uurVolgens deze redenatie kan ook de Marine flink gedowngraded worden. Fregatten eruit, korvetten erin.
Nee hoor...want fregatten zijn volgens mij de basis van een marine. Zou gelden als wij hier zeg een destroyer als de Zumwalt zouden invoeren en in klein aantal.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 14:59 uur
Welke traditie? In 1999 hebben we ook een ''top-end'' bijdragen geleverd in Joego.
Dat is de vaak genoemde reactie..maar volgens mij de uitzondering op de regel. Nederland doet zelden mee in de eerste lijn en eerste aanvalsgolf op een land of organisatie. Past onze democratische wijze van besluitvorming ook niet bij. Daarom glimlachte ik ook wat toen ik Nederland zoveel initiatief zag nemen tav de NAVO-flitsmacht (al is dat ander topic).
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/09/2014 | 16:24 uur
Dit houdt een V versie nog wel tot 2030 in de lucht, daarna wordt het ??
De F16V is van een oudere generatie als de Gripen...maar bij de Amerikanen nog in beeld voor wat langere inzet. Dus de Gripen E/F zal het best goed doen tot minstens 2040.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/09/2014 | 17:28 uur
Nee hoor...want fregatten zijn volgens mij de basis van een marine. Zou gelden als wij hier zeg een destroyer als de Zumwalt zouden invoeren en in klein aantal.
Welnee, een LCF is een high-end fregat (Destroyer..?) met uitmuntende sensoren en potentie. Wil je alleen een ''basis marine'' kun je best met wat minder af, dus wat dat betreft zie ik wel degelijk een parallel.
Hier hebben we niet voor gekozen, en dat is maar goed ook. Dat geld wat mij betreft ook voor de KLu (en KL)
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/09/2014 | 17:28 uur
Dat is de vaak genoemde reactie..maar volgens mij de uitzondering op de regel. Nederland doet zelden mee in de eerste lijn en eerste aanvalsgolf op een land of organisatie.
Dat klopt, maar de KLu is hiermee wel het enige OPCO dat sinds Korea nog echt full-blown heeft geopereerd. Jou zienswijze verantwoord wat mij betreft niet een high-end marine en landmacht zoals we deze ambiëren.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 17:46 uur
Welnee, een LCF is een high-end fregat (Destroyer..?) met uitmuntende sensoren en potentie. Wil je alleen een ''basis marine'' kun je best met wat minder af, dus wat dat betreft zie ik wel degelijk een parallel.
Ik zie de parallel niet..LCF is een vast onderdeel van een gemiddelde marine. Dat had de F35 ook moeten worden voor een luchtmacht..maar dat plan is mislukt.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 17:46 uur
Dat klopt, maar de KLu is hiermee wel het enige OPCO dat sinds Korea nog echt full-blown heeft geopereerd. Jou zienswijze verantwoord wat mij betreft niet een high-end marine en landmacht zoals we deze ambiëren.
Dat laatste is een vorm van orientatie...en ik heb duidelijk gemaakt waar mijn voorkeur daar ligt. Maar ik pleit niet voor focus op (deel)taken die Nederland toch snel zal uitvoeren. Waarom zou ik een nu specialistische en dure F35 kopen als ik met een Gripen E/F prima alle taken prima kan uitvoeren die ik Nederland wel zie uitvoeren..welke wel passen binnen een mijns inziens realistisch ambitieniveau.
Het is volgens mij (en anderen) de omgekeerde wereld als je eerst een toestel kiest en dan het ambitieniveau en eisenpakket daarop gaat aanpassen...op toeschrijft. Een werkwijze van de KLu die ik naast bij de Apache nu ook bij de JSF/F35 heb mogen aanschouwen.
Een high-end luchtmacht heeft meer dan 37 kisten.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/09/2014 | 18:17 uur
Ik zie de parallel niet..LCF is een vast onderdeel van een gemiddelde marine.
Dat ben ik zeker niet met je eens. Ik denk dat wij met zowel de
kwalitatieve eigenschappen van zowel de LCF als van de hele Marine in onze handjes mogen klappen.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/09/2014 | 18:17 uur
Waarom zou ik een nu specialistische en dure F35 kopen als ik met een Gripen E/F prima alle taken prima kan uitvoeren die ik Nederland wel zie uitvoeren..
Daar is geen enkele reden voor, dat is ook niet ons meningsverschil. Echter, in een relatief recent verleden is gebleken dat wij dergelijke operaties wél uitvoeren. Het vermogen om dergelijke operaties uit te voeren is wat mij betreft ook het uitgangspunt voor de toekomst.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 18:39 uur
Dat ben ik zeker niet met je eens. Ik denk dat wij met zowel de kwalitatieve eigenschappen van zowel de LCF als van de hele Marine in onze handjes mogen klappen.
Dat staat buiten kijf. Maar de verdeling binnen een gemiddelde marine tussen luchtverdediging en ASW is niet bijzonder volgens mij. Zouden onze LCF's SM3 en Tomahawks hebben schuift de lijn al enigszins op.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 18:39 uur
Daar is geen enkele reden voor, dat is ook niet ons meningsverschil. Echter, in een relatief recent verleden is gebleken dat wij dergelijke operaties wél uitvoeren. Het vermogen om dergelijke operaties uit te voeren is wat mij betreft ook het uitgangspunt voor de toekomst.
Daar verschillen we dus qua mening en zienswijze/visie in. Blijft staan dat je eerst dreigingsbeeld en ambitieniveau vast stelt en dan pas passend wapensysteem kiest en koopt. En niet andersom.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/09/2014 | 18:52 uur
Blijft staan dat je eerst dreigingsbeeld en ambitieniveau vast stelt en dan pas passend wapensysteem kiest en koopt. En niet andersom.
Dat is niet helemaal waar. Dergelijke operaties heeft men altijd willen en (moeten) kunnen uitvoeren, heeft niets met de F-16 opvolger te maken. De Luchtmacht acht voor de toekomst de F-35 het meest capabel voor dit soort missies, en daar zit mogelijk de crux.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 18:39 uur
Echter, in een relatief recent verleden is gebleken dat wij dergelijke operaties wél uitvoeren.
Help me even herinneren welke operaties (meervoud) dat dan ook alweer waren.......
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 19:28 uur
Dat is niet helemaal waar. Dergelijke operaties heeft men altijd willen en (moeten) kunnen uitvoeren, heeft niets met de F-16 opvolger te maken. De Luchtmacht acht voor de toekomst de F-35 het meest capabel voor dit soort missies, en daar zit mogelijk de crux.
Dat is waar.... Maar waar men de nadruk op legt wil nog wel eens afhangen van de kwaliteiten van het systeem van voorkeur. Naast nog hele reeks eisen waarmee men wat kan schuiven in deze.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 06/09/2014 | 19:43 uur
Help me even herinneren welke operaties (meervoud) dat dan ook alweer waren.......
Een onterecht S-je idd ;) Hoe dan ook, de KLu ''was er van'' in 1999. En met name in het Haagse is dat belangrijk om bepaalde capaciteiten voor de toekomst veilig te stellen. Hoe terecht of onterecht ook.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 06/09/2014 | 19:44 uur
Dat is waar.... Maar waar men de nadruk op legt wil nog wel eens afhangen van de kwaliteiten van het systeem van voorkeur. Naast nog hele reeks eisen waarmee men wat kan schuiven in deze.
Ik was er niet bij, maar ik sluit het ook zeker niet uit.
Als de Klu denk haar taken te kunnen uitvoeren met zes inzetbare toestellen wens ik hen veel geluk. Ik vind alleen niet dat je het mij kwalijk kunt nemen dat ik dan vraagtekens heb of de juiste mensen op de juiste plek zitten bij de Klu.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 19:58 uur
Een onterecht S-je idd ;) Hoe dan ook, de KLu ''was er van'' in 1999. En met name in het Haagse is dat belangrijk om bepaalde capaciteiten voor de toekomst veilig te stellen. Hoe terecht of onterecht ook.
De KLu deed toen met 16 F16's mee. Dat tikt nog aan. Met de JSF hebben we er maximaal 4 ter beschikking. Poepoe.....
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 19:58 uur
Een onterecht S-je idd ;) Hoe dan ook, de KLu ''was er van'' in 1999. En met name in het Haagse is dat belangrijk om bepaalde capaciteiten voor de toekomst veilig te stellen. Hoe terecht of onterecht ook.
En laten we niet vergeten, als het er ooit echt op aankomt, zijn het niet wik die het ambitieniveau bepalen, maar de tegenstander.
Of gezamenlijk, hoogste bod wint.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 06/09/2014 | 21:23 uur
De KLu deed toen met 16 F16's mee. Dat tikt nog aan. Met de JSF hebben we er maximaal 4 ter beschikking. Poepoe.....
Ik ging nog uit van 6 :silent:
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 21:58 uur
Ik ging nog uit van 6 :silent:
Het is ook niet zeker of de 4 wordt gehaald :sick:
Citaat van: Jellington op 06/09/2014 | 22:13 uur
Het is ook niet zeker of de 4 wordt gehaald :sick:
Volgens mij is het huidige budget niet voldoende voor 37 stuks.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 06/09/2014 | 21:23 uur
De KLu deed toen met 16 F16's mee. Dat tikt nog aan. Met de JSF hebben we er maximaal 4 ter beschikking. Poepoe.....
Niet maximaal vier, minimaal vier, dat is het uitgangspunt.
Kun je vier vliegtuigen ''altijd'' garanderen dan moet je er voor een korte periode meer in kunnen zetten.
Tijdens Joego is men voor het groot onderhoud in ploegendiensten gaan werken om meer vlieguren te genereren, daar zit dus rek in.
Maar hoe dan ook, de aantallen van destijds zijn voorgoed verleden tijd.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 22:24 uur
Volgens mij is het huidige budget niet voldoende voor 37 stuks.
Lijkt mij ook niet, maar men rekent erop dat de prijs van de F35A nog zal dalen.
Maar ook als het er 37 worden is er twijfel over die 4 inzetbare kisten.
Citaat van: Jellington op 06/09/2014 | 22:51 uur
Lijkt mij ook niet, maar men rekent erop dat de prijs van de F35A nog zal dalen.
Dromen zal je bedoelen................als er minder toestellen verkocht en dus gemaakt worden, de ontwikkelingskosten nog verder oplopen en aan onze zijde.....een grote aankoop voor Defensie is nog nooit binnen het budget gebleven.
Citaat van: Jellington op 06/09/2014 | 22:51 uur
Lijkt mij ook niet, maar men rekent erop dat de prijs van de F35A nog zal dalen.
Maar ook als het er 37 worden is er twijfel over die 4 inzetbare kisten.
Die twijfels zijn er idd. Het zou mij niet verbazen dat Mindef er op gokt dat bij een ontoereikend aantal een 2e batch volgt.
Citaat van: Jellington op 06/09/2014 | 22:51 uur
Lijkt mij ook niet, maar men rekent erop dat de prijs van de F35A nog zal dalen.
Maar ook als het er 37 worden is er twijfel over die 4 inzetbare kisten.
Ik stoor me er mateloos aan dat de Klu dit zelf wil.
De Klu sloopt de Klu.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 23:17 uur
Ik stoor me er mateloos aan dat de Klu dit zelf wil.
Er is (was) een flinke lobby binnen de KLu om de F-35 aan te schaffen. Denk dat dit een beetje over is en men spijt heeft als haren..........
Citaat
De Klu sloopt de Klu.
Dat mag je Den Haag aanrekenen.
Citaat van: Ros op 06/09/2014 | 23:45 uur
Er is (was) een flinke lobby binnen de KLu om de F-35 aan te schaffen. Denk dat dit een beetje over is en men spijt heeft als haren..........
Maar is dat wel zo?
Citaat
Dat mag je Den Haag aanrekenen.
Toen de prijzen begonnen te stijgen en de geplande aantallen begonnen te dalen had men toch kunnen ingrijpen? Dan maar goedkopere kisten om de kwantiteit te waarborgen?
4-6 inzetbare kisten?! Waar praten we in godsnaam over...
Op naar een defensiebegroting van 2% van het BNP, op naar een tweede batch F35A in de jaren twintig, is het wellicht eindelijk klaar met de eeuwige pecunia discussie.
En dan is er ook nog voldoende ruimte over om andere wensen te vervullen.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 23:48 uur
Maar is dat wel zo?
Uit zeer betrouwbare bron weet ik dat de industrie zal inzetten op een (kleine) vervolg batch, denk aan 5 tot 10 exemplaren.
In het meest gunstige geval zou dat beteken: 37+10% plus marge = 3 + 10 is 50 exemplaren.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 01:59 uur
Uit zeer betrouwbare bron weet ik dat de industrie zal inzetten op een (kleine) vervolg batch, denk aan 5 tot 10 exemplaren.
In het meest gunstige geval zou dat beteken: 37+10% plus marge = 3 + 10 is 50 exemplaren.
Dit is nog steeds inadequaat.
Stork en de luchtmacht leiding verzieken de Nederlandse staatsveiligheid voor winsten en prestige en ik neem hen dat zeer kwalijk.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 01:40 uur
Op naar een defensiebegroting van 2% van het BNP, op naar een tweede batch F35A in de jaren twintig, is het wellicht eindelijk klaar met de eeuwige pecunia discussie.
En dan is er ook nog voldoende ruimte over om andere wensen te vervullen.
Die discussie is er ook in de USA, waar ze een budget hebben gelijk aan ~100% voor ons. Geeft maar aan hoe realistisch die discussie is.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 07/09/2014 | 02:29 uur
Dit is nog steeds inadequaat.
Stork en de luchtmacht leiding verzieken de Nederlandse staatsveiligheid voor winsten en prestige en ik neem hen dat zeer kwalijk.
Dat mag jij vinden, de toekomst zal leren of je goed zat met je bevinding(en).
Dat handje vol extra vliegtuigen als doelstelling voor de industrie geldt bij het huidige budgeten, indien we echt (wat ik zeer betwijfel, maar zeer zou toejuichen) naar een begroting gaan van 2% van het BNP dan zal het ook niet zo'n probleem zijn om de tweede batch uit een groter aantal te laten bestaan)
Daarnaast mocht men het streven naar een aanzienlijk reductie in aanschaf- en exploitatie kosten wel waarmaken, of de doelstelling benaderen dan zal de kritiek redelijk snel verstommen.... behalve dan bij gene waarbij het niet om het vliegtuig gaat maar puur om het geld wat ze voor andere doeleinden willen inzetten (zie de felle reactie nu in België, waarbij het niet gaat om de F35 of welk ander type dan ook.... daar zien velen het liefst dat elke euro de welvaartstaat ingepompt wordt)
Citaat van: Thomasen op 07/09/2014 | 07:08 uur
Die discussie is er ook in de USA, waar ze een budget hebben gelijk aan ~100% voor ons. Geeft maar aan hoe realistisch die discussie is.
Natuurlijk is er discussie over één programma waar niet alles (zacht uitgedrukt) op rolletjes loopt waar bij de geschatte kosten van het geheel over de totale looptijd de 1 biljoen dollar grens zal overschrijden... er is immers veel te halen.
Of het de 1 biljoen dolllar grens zal doorbreken is ook een discutabel onderwerp van zowel voor- als tegenstanders,
Ik mis in de vergelijking wat de kosten zouden zijn, gerekend over een gelijke periode, met geschatte inflatie cijfers over 3 verschillende programma's.... de vraag is zou dat meer, minder of gelijk zijn.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 06/09/2014 | 23:48 uur
Toen de prijzen begonnen te stijgen en de geplande aantallen begonnen te dalen had men toch kunnen ingrijpen? Dan maar goedkopere kisten om de kwantiteit te waarborgen?
In het begin is er in Den Haag een aantal van rond de 85 stuks genoemd, zonder echt een benul te hebben waar de stuksprijs op uit zou komen. Op een ander niveau is al vrij het aantal 36 - 48 stuks als haalbaar en wenselijk voor het Nederlands ambitieniveau genoemd. Den Haag zou natuurlijk een flater slaan in de VS als zij er in mee zouden gaan. Dat er nu een budget is voor 37 toestellen is wat mij betreft een aanname op n basis van niet voor 100% betrouwbare cijfers. De eis is om minimaal 4 toestellen in te kunnen zetten en daar is de aanschaf van minimaal 37 kisten voor nodig. Blijkt straks dat ons budget ontoereikend is om 37 stuks te kunnen kopen zal het dossier opnieuw open moeten. Budget naar boven aanpassen lijkt mij een hele kleine kans, eigenlijk nihil. Misschien nog belangrijker is dat er zo een ontsnappingskans op tafel komt voor de PvdA om het hoofd uit de strop te kunnen trekken. Deze partij is inmiddels, blijkt uit de laatste peiling, terug gezakt naar een schamele 12 zetels in de Tweede Kamer. Er is haast geboden om de partijstatus te herstellen voor 2017 en dat is gedoemd om te mislukken binnen de coalitie met de VVD.
Dreiging vanuit Rusland en hommeles in het Midden Oosten.......lekker belangrijk maar partijbelangen gaan voor als het echt menens dreigt te worden. Het zal de eerste keer niet zijn dat de PvdA een kabinet laat struikelen en vallen over een defensie aangelegenheid.
Citaat van: Ros op 07/09/2014 | 12:53 uur
Dreiging vanuit Rusland en hommeles in het Midden Oosten.......lekker belangrijk maar partijbelangen gaan voor als het echt menens dreigt te worden. Het zal de eerste keer niet zijn dat de PvdA een kabinet laat struikelen en vallen over een defensie aangelegenheid.
Nogmaals: het is een politiek gesloten hoofdstuk en de PvdA heeft wel andere zorgen aan het hoofd dan het peanutsbedrag wat defensie de BV Nederland kost, of dit nu 1.2 of 2% van het BNP is.....
Momenteel is zelfs de PvdA achterban bereid om in defensie te investeren, dus om nu "oude" defensie koeien uit de sloot te treken is alleen maar in het belang van partijen als SP, PvdD en GL en daarmee in het nadeel van de PvdA.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 13:04 uur
Nogmaals: het is een politiek gesloten hoofdstuk en de PvdA heeft wel andere zorgen aan het hoofd dan het peanutsbedrag wat defensie de BV Nederland kost, of dit nu 1.2 of 2% van het BNP is.....
Momenteel is zelfs de PvdA achterban bereid om in defensie te investeren, dus om nu "oude" defensie koeien uit de sloot te treken is alleen maar in het belang van partijen als SP, PvdD en GL en daarmee in het nadeel van de PvdA.
Ik durf er niet zo makkelijk overheen te stappen. Meer zorgen voor de PvdA klopt als een bus en die zorgen is met name te zoeken in het instorten van de partij in de peilingen. De bereidheid van de PvdA achterban om te investeren in Defensie is m.i. van korte duur. Als de crisis Rusland/Oekraine wat afgezwakt is en de tomatenexport weer op gang komt is dat weer snel over. En niet alleen bij de PvdA achterban, de anderen ook en zelfs in Den Haag :sleep:
Gesloten hoofdstukken zullen weer open (moeten) gaan als blijkt dat de doelstelling niet gerealiseerd kan worden. Kan er echt niet in geloven dat dit afgedaan kan en zal worden met...we zien wel waar het schip. Voor de PvdA is dit in ieder geval nog een 'issue'. Van de VVD verwacht ik alle druk om het JSF dossier door te schuiven naar het volgende kabinet.
Citaat van: Ros op 07/09/2014 | 13:38 uur
De bereidheid van de PvdA achterban om te investeren in Defensie is m.i. van korte duur. Als de crisis Rusland/Oekraine wat afgezwakt is en de tomatenexport weer op gang komt is dat weer snel over. En niet alleen bij de PvdA achterban, de anderen ook en zelfs in Den Haag :sleep:
Dat is ook mijn vrees.
Citaat van: Ros op 07/09/2014 | 13:38 uur
Gesloten hoofdstukken zullen weer open (moeten) gaan als blijkt dat de doelstelling niet gerealiseerd kan worden. Kan er echt niet in geloven dat dit afgedaan kan en zal worden met...we zien wel waar het schip. Voor de PvdA is dit in ieder geval nog een 'issue'. Van de VVD verwacht ik alle druk om het JSF dossier door te schuiven naar het volgende kabinet.
Dan hebben ze nog een minder dan 6 maanden, ergens in Q1/2015 zal Hennis de aankoop krabbel zetten (al weet ik niet of dit voor 35 exemplaren is of in batches)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 10:08 uur
Natuurlijk is er discussie over één programma waar niet alles (zacht uitgedrukt) op rolletjes loopt waar bij de geschatte kosten van het geheel over de totale looptijd de 1 biljoen dollar grens zal overschrijden... er is immers veel te halen.
Of het de 1 biljoen dolllar grens zal doorbreken is ook een discutabel onderwerp van zowel voor- als tegenstanders,
Ik mis in de vergelijking wat de kosten zouden zijn, gerekend over een gelijke periode, met geschatte inflatie cijfers over 3 verschillende programma's.... de vraag is zou dat meer, minder of gelijk zijn.
Er is niet discussie over 1 programma!
google eens op EFV, DDG1000 of seawolf. Of een ander willekeurig programma.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 07/09/2014 | 14:03 uur
Er is niet discussie over 1 programma!
google eens op EFV, DDG1000 of seawolf. Of een ander willekeurig programma.
Ik ken de discussies, maar geen van deze trekt zoveel aandacht als de hoofdprijs.
Voor alle duidelijkheid, ik vindt dat de absurde prijsstijgingen van (wapen) systemen moet worden omgebogen en als ik de Nederlandse marine als voorbeeld neem, dan kan ik met genoegen constateren dat de LCF's, weliswaar niet (volledig) volgens militaire specificaties gebouwd, een meer dan uitstekend prijs-kwaliteitsverhouding bieden en daarmee een geslaagd concept is waarmee een trend in omgebogen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 09:57 uur
Dat mag jij vinden, de toekomst zal leren of je goed zat met je bevinding(en).
Dat handje vol extra vliegtuigen als doelstelling voor de industrie geldt bij het huidige budgeten, indien we echt (wat ik zeer betwijfel, maar zeer zou toejuichen) naar een begroting gaan van 2% van het BNP dan zal het ook niet zo'n probleem zijn om de tweede batch uit een groter aantal te laten bestaan)
Daarnaast mocht men het streven naar een aanzienlijk reductie in aanschaf- en exploitatie kosten wel waarmaken, of de doelstelling benaderen dan zal de kritiek redelijk snel verstommen.... behalve dan bij gene waarbij het niet om het vliegtuig gaat maar puur om het geld wat ze voor andere doeleinden willen inzetten (zie de felle reactie nu in België, waarbij het niet gaat om de F35 of welk ander type dan ook.... daar zien velen het liefst dat elke euro de welvaartstaat ingepompt wordt)
Mijn conclusie komt vooral voort uit de gedacht dat je met 4 toestellen niets aan kunt vangen. Lijkt voor een rondje Afghanistan verder maar je kunt daar niet mee aan komen zetten aan de frontlinie natuurlijk. Net zoals de KL niet in Oekraïne aan kan komen met Bushmasters en G-Wagons.
Het probleem met de F-35A is vooral dat als we die dingen eenmaal hebben besteld en blijkt dat dit resulteert in te weinig inzetbare toestellen dat dit niet meer zomaar op te lossen is. Dan is de keuze nog meer van die dingen kopen tegen flinke kosten of een tweede low-end (hoewel ik de F-35A niet per se high-end zou durven noemen) type aanschaffen die wel een betere inzetbaarheid kent tegen lagere kosten, maar dat is ook iets wat ze in de Klu-top niet willen. (Kleine landen als Zwitserland, Singapore en dergelijke hebben er overigens geen problemen mee...)
Want dat is dus het scenario waar ik mij zorgen om maakt. Als we vele miljarden uit gaan geven aan te weinig en te weinig inzetbare kisten (met dubieuze prestaties) en we komen tot de conclusie dat er wat moet gebeuren. Wat dan? De geld is dan al op en het leed al geleden.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 07/09/2014 | 14:15 uur
Want dat is dus het scenario waar ik mij zorgen om maakt. Als we vele miljarden uit gaan geven aan te weinig en te weinig inzetbare kisten (met dubieuze prestaties) en we komen tot de conclusie dat er wat moet gebeuren. Wat dan? De geld is dan al op en het leed al geleden.
Ik deel die zorg, natuurlijk is he aantal absurd te noemen voor een financiële grootmacht... en hoop ik dat de LM club haar beloftes waarmaakt en van de F35 een formidabele multirole kist maakt tegen een prijs die acceptabel genoemd kan worden, waarbij het laatste ons in de gelegenheid stelt om er meer van aan te schaffen.
LM zal hard zijn best moeten doen willen ze het grootste deel van de taart naar binnen hengelen.. immers in 202? zijn er nog maar twee westerse productie lijnen open, die F35 familie en de Gripen E.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 14:26 uur
Ik deel die zorg, natuurlijk is he aantal absurd te noemen voor een financiële grootmacht... en hoop ik dat de LM club haar beloftes waarmaakt en van de F35 een formidabele multirole kist maakt tegen een prijs die acceptabel genoemd kan worden, waarbij het laatste ons in de gelegenheid stelt om er meer van aan te schaffen.
LM zal hard zijn best moeten doen willen ze het grootste deel van de taart naar binnen hengelen.. immers in 202? zijn er nog maar twee westerse productie lijnen open, die F35 familie en de Gripen E.
Ik hoop maar dat Brazilië de Gripen productie opschroeft tot die 120 stuks en dat ding gaat marketen in Zuid-Amerika. Dan blijft dat vooralsnog een optie.
----
Wat dat betreft vond ik nog een interessant plaatje:
http://www.refdag.nl/media/2008/20081216_spectrum_graphic.pdf
De kosten zijn niet meer actueel >:( .
Citaat van: IPA NG op 07/09/2014 | 14:29 uur
Ik hoop maar dat Brazilië de Gripen productie opschroeft tot die 120 stuks en dat ding gaat marketen in Zuid-Amerika. Dan blijft dat vooralsnog een optie.
Dat hoop ik ook, en zoals al eerder aangegeven, ik heb geen enkel bezwaar tegen een split buy, ik zou heel tevreden zijn met 24 F25A en 48 Gripen E.
Maar ik hoor de budgetpuristen, netjes aan de Haagsche leiband, al weer brullen dat dit veel te duur is.... (en dat is het ook met een budget van 1.2% van het BPN.... dus wie weet, als we binnen 10 jaar terug gaan naar het gewenste 2% budget)
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 06/09/2014 | 19:28 uur
Dat is niet helemaal waar. Dergelijke operaties heeft men altijd willen en (moeten) kunnen uitvoeren, heeft niets met de F-16 opvolger te maken. De Luchtmacht acht voor de toekomst de F-35 het meest capabel voor dit soort missies, en daar zit mogelijk de crux.
Perceptions about the future of naval aviation were mixed.
When asked if the Joint Strike Fighter was the "right aircraft for Naval Aviation," 60% "strongly disagreed" or "disagreed", and 22% were neutral. Only 10% "agreed" or "strongly agreed." Conversely, when asked if they would prefer an Advanced Super Hornet over the Joint Strike Fighter, 62% "strongly agreed" or "agreed," and 20% were "neutral." One commenter, a JSF pilot, noted that much of the community has yet to see the JSF in action, which — when coupled with years of negative press — may be one reason for the deep skepticism about the F-35.
zie: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/full-2014-navy-retention-study-is-out.html
IK heb vanaf het begin af aan twijfels gehad over het JSF concept.
Men probeert teveel enorm verschillende jachtvliegtuigen en (jacht)bommenwerpers te vervangen met 1 oplossing. A jack of all trades, but master of none.
En dan het tweede cruciale punt: aantallen. Een luchtmacht die zowel langdurige laag intensieve conflicten moet aankunnen, als wel korter durende, maar hoog intensieve conflicten. Bestaat uit minimaal 50 jachtvliegtuigen, met een inzetbaarheid rond de 66 - 70%.
De KLu heeft een jachtvliegtuig vloot van 61 - 68 kisten en kan deze met kunst en vliegwerk daarvan slechts 30% in de lucht houden.
Ik heb vele malen betoogt dat 37 F-35A's voor de KLu onhaalbaar zijn, ik ga uit van hooguit 24 kisten. Feit is ook, dat de KLu stilletjes rekening houdt met een F-35A vloot die QRA-only is a la de Oostenrijkse luchtmacht.
Een F-16 Advanced of Gripen C/D/E is een prima vervanger voor onze huidige F-16 vloot.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_o_no4M2xEPY%2FS-bvCPYnypI%2FAAAAAAAAKXU%2FUoCnGKcgMIY%2Fs1600%2Fsea%2Bgripen%2Bflier.jpg&hash=73d0445b3ee894fb070d30be030ccd6ed54be9d1)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gripenblogs.com%2FLists%2FPhotos%2FLAAD7.jpg&hash=e80cbd10a442f74297923168c89aa6fabad19e16)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gripenblogs.com%2FLists%2FPhotos%2FLAAD1.jpg&hash=69300047a16f8d39782421030bb88f67909f4f86)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gripenblogs.com%2FLists%2FPhotos%2FLAAD2.jpg&hash=8bf20dc6b564b128850dd2fd2fd27416e1a5430b)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gripenblogs.com%2FLists%2FPhotos%2FLAAD4.jpg&hash=67a4c038d9bd151a7bf659c6e1f32dcba8d16c83)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gripenblogs.com%2FLists%2FPhotos%2FLAAD9.jpg&hash=7ccd6b95d98fd4ae7e29b1ba1d87b203e504d914)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gripenblogs.com%2FLists%2FPhotos%2FLAAD10.jpg&hash=7bcfaf27422647cd0790cb2d55b62e0351e9ea37)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenceaviation.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2Fd2.jpg&hash=d2b91f362a3622bf520e52df54880a38e024a159)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gripenblogs.com%2FLists%2FPhotos%2FAESA2.jpg&hash=0992050f940a03b9bf9c5924b1ee6d57b73868a4)
Citaat van: Poleme op 07/09/2014 | 15:10 uur
Perceptions about the future of naval aviation were mixed. When asked if the Joint Strike Fighter was the "right aircraft for Naval Aviation," 60% "strongly disagreed" or "disagreed", and 22% were neutral. Only 10% "agreed" or "strongly agreed." Conversely, when asked if they would prefer an Advanced Super Hornet over the Joint Strike Fighter, 62% "strongly agreed" or "agreed," and 20% were "neutral." One commenter, a JSF pilot, noted that much of the community has yet to see the JSF in action, which — when coupled with years of negative press — may be one reason for the deep skepticism about the F-35.
zie: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/full-2014-navy-retention-study-is-out.html
IK heb vanaf het begin af aan twijfels gehad over het JSF concept.
Men probeert teveel enorm verschillende jachtvliegtuigen en (jacht)bommenwerpers te vervangen met 1 oplossing. A jack of all trades, but master of none.
En dan het tweede cruciale punt: aantallen. Een luchtmacht die zowel langdurige laag intensieve conflicten moet aankunnen, als wel korter durende, maar hoog intensieve conflicten. Bestaat uit minimaal 50 jachtvliegtuigen, met een inzetbaarheid rond de 66 - 70%.
De KLu heeft een jachtvliegtuig vloot van 61 - 68 kisten en kan deze met kunst en vliegwerk daarvan slechts 30% in de lucht houden.
Ik heb vele malen betoogt dat 37 F-35A's voor de KLu onhaalbaar zijn, ik ga uit van hooguit 24 kisten. Feit is ook, dat de KLu stilletjes rekening houdt met een F-35A vloot die QRA-only is a la de Oostenrijkse luchtmacht.
Een F-16 Advanced of Gripen C/D/E is een prima vervanger voor onze huidige F-16 vloot.
Jij lijkt mij de persoon hier met de meeste achtergrond kennis. Vandaar dat ik graag zou willen horen welke motivatie de mensen bij de Klu drijft tot dit (toch) zelfdestructieve gedrag. Ik kan niet begrijpen dat zij zichzelf zo willen marginaliseren.
ACE1 van mij mogen we, graag zelfs, naar een maritieme krijgsmacht met in het hart 2 "kleine" carriers van rond de 40K ton inclusief 24 Sea Gripens per carrier, we noemen de KLu MLD, handhaven 1 MOB als wal basis voor de Gripens + 1 squandron van 24 Seagripens voor training, onderhoud, rotatie en QRA.
72 seagripens hebben we het probleem aardig opgelost.... Tijd voor een nieuwe visie.
Doe maar niet...
Citaat van: IPA NG op 07/09/2014 | 15:23 uur
Doe maar niet...
het is ook nooit goed :cute-smile: laat me raden... te duur ;D
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 15:24 uur
het is ook nooit goed :cute-smile: laat me raden... te duur ;D
Aangezien je uit moet gaan van immer 1 operationele carrier, hoef je n.m.m. geen 72 toestellen te hebben. 60 lijkt me in dat kader een "redelijk" aantal.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/09/2014 | 15:28 uur
Doe maar wel...
Zoals bekend zou ik helemaal voor zijn, en ja dan mag de F35A van mij in een boek van de gebroeders Grimm.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/09/2014 | 15:31 uur
Aangezien je uit moet gaan van immer 1 operationele carrier, hoef je n.m.m. geen 72 toestellen te hebben. 60 lijkt me in dat kader een "redelijk" aantal.
Is wat voor te zeggen.
Daarnaast het voordeel dat de SeaGripen er nog niet is, deze zal ontwikkelt moeten worden en hier zie ik wel een goede toekomst mogelijkheid (ook voor de NL industrie) gezien het groeiende aantal carriers en het beperkt aanbod aan vliegtuigen (zeker na 2020).
Immers: de Harrier heeft niet het eeuwig leven en de productielijn van de F18E/F/G is in 2020 zeker gesloten en de lijn van de Rafale lijkt meer dan twijfelachtig.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/09/2014 | 15:31 uur
Aangezien je uit moet gaan van immer 1 operationele carrier, hoef je n.m.m. geen 72 toestellen te hebben. 60 lijkt me in dat kader een "redelijk" aantal.
Daar heeft Rob wel een punt mee ik ga trouwens uit van een carrier van 30000-35000 ton gebasseerd op de Enforcer 30000 om de kosten laag te houden en deze heeft dan de Smart L radar
Citaat van: IPA NG op 07/09/2014 | 15:14 uur
Jij lijkt mij de persoon hier met de meeste achtergrond kennis. Vandaar dat ik graag zou willen horen welke motivatie de mensen bij de Klu drijft tot dit (toch) zelfdestructieve gedrag. Ik kan niet begrijpen dat zij zichzelf zo willen marginaliseren.
Status en hoop op toekomstige investeringen. Bovendien zijn er veel knappe koppen die zeggen dat het allemaal niet uitmaakt, als het maar Amerikaans is, een soort buy-in, de Amerikanen verzorgen dan wel het echte werk.
Citaat van: Poleme op 07/09/2014 | 15:10 uur
Perceptions about the future of naval aviation were mixed. When asked if the Joint Strike Fighter was the "right aircraft for Naval Aviation," 60% "strongly disagreed" or "disagreed", and 22% were neutral. Only 10% "agreed" or "strongly agreed." Conversely, when asked if they would prefer an Advanced Super Hornet over the Joint Strike Fighter, 62% "strongly agreed" or "agreed," and 20% were "neutral." One commenter, a JSF pilot, noted that much of the community has yet to see the JSF in action, which — when coupled with years of negative press — may be one reason for the deep skepticism about the F-35.
zie: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/full-2014-navy-retention-study-is-out.html
Dit soort cijfers zijn niet zo interessant, dit geeft weer wat voor perceptie er binnen een organisatie heerst. Stap je daar in, ga je vanzelf zo denken. Doe een rondvraag bij de KLu en de cijfers zullen tegengesteld zijn.
Citaat van: Poleme op 07/09/2014 | 15:10 uur
IK heb vanaf het begin af aan twijfels gehad over het JSF concept.
Ik ook alleen zie ik het niet zo somber in als velen hier, maar de zorgen deel ik zonder meer.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 07/09/2014 | 15:14 uur
Jij lijkt mij de persoon hier met de meeste achtergrond kennis. Vandaar dat ik graag zou willen horen welke motivatie de mensen bij de Klu drijft tot dit (toch) zelfdestructieve gedrag. Ik kan niet begrijpen dat zij zichzelf zo willen marginaliseren.
1979, de F-16A/B wordt ingevoerd bij de KLu, de Fighting Falcon is 'een injectie die 20 jaar werkt'. Dus de F-16A/B had vanaf 1999 moeten worden vervangen. De invoering van een nieuw jachtvliegtuig is een complex en zeer ingrijpend proces. Dus moest 15 jaar voor de daadwerkelijke F-16A vervanging al begonnen worden met het zoeken naar een geschikte vervanger.
De KLu krijgt hier vaak het verwijt dat men alleen maar Amerikaans materieel wil. (Niet helemaal waar hoor, in de jaren 90 had men een voorkeur voor de Dauphin als SAR heli en wilde men Amerikaanse HAWK raketten vervangen door Franse Crotales.)
Paris... soleil, Paris ... soleil, 1985, op bezoek bij Dassault, want de KLu wil in de toekomst haar F-16's vervangen door .... Rafales.
Staatsecretaris Jan van Houwelingen ging o.a. met de directeur Materieel KLu en het Hoofd Sectie Lucht Ops (oud-testvlieger) naar Parijs.
Om te kijken of zij samen met Frankrijk en eventueel Noorwegen, Denemarken en Belgie de Rafale kunnen ontwikkelen.
Iedereen onder de indruk van de Rafale, behalve de oud test-vlieger. Hij vond dat de Rafale qua prestaties, maar marginaal beter of gelijk zou zijn aan de F-16A. Qua elektronica en capaciteiten was de Rafale wel beter, omdat deze moderner was.
De oud testvlieger stelde voor, om te wachten op de Amerikaanse F-16 vervanger, want deze zou naar zijn mening weer 10 jaar voor uit lopen op de Rafale. Dus werd er door hem een interim oplossing voorgesteld, waarbij de F-16A zou worden gemoderniseerd tot een multi-functioneel jachtvliegtuig. En werd toen dus qua prestaties en vaardigheden gelijk aan de Rafale.
Hij kreeg van van Houwelingen 2 weken de tijd om zijn plannen uit te werken. Vervolgens werden de European (F-16) Participating Air Forces Noorwegen, Denemarken en Belgie ingelicht en ook de US Air Force. Noorwegen en Denemarken waren vrijwel meteen voorstander van deze Mid Life Update. Belgie was niet enthousiast, want het was geen Franse oplossing voor de F-16A vervanger. Ook de USAF en de fabrikant stonden niet te trappelen om een MLU op wat oudere kisten uit te voeren, zij vervingen ze liever door nieuwe F-16C's.
Dus stelde de fabrikant General Dynamics voor om de KLu F-16's te vervangen door de Agile Falcon. Met een 25% grotere vleugel, sterkere motor en nieuwe elektronica werd deze te zwaar en te duur.
Toen stelde de KLu de USAF voor de keus: meewerken aan het interim jachtvliegtuig F-16AM(LU) of we vervangen onze F-16's rond de eeuw wisseling door een Europese kandidaat!
In 1986 ging de USAF overstag voor de F-16 Mid Life Update, dus was de keuze voor een Amerikaanse F-16 vervanger toen al gemaakt!
1994. LockheedMartin zoekt contact met de KLu betreffende een nieuw te ontwikkelen Joint Strike Fighter. De KLu reageerde zeer enthousiast hierop, want men had goede ervaringen met het F-16 programma opgedaan. Om dit grote en dure JSF programma door het congres te krijgen, koos men voor een strategie, waarbij de 'pork barrels' (werkgelegenheid en omzet) over zoveel mogelijk staten verdeeld zou worden. Export klanten zouden niet meer verleid worden door voor de VS te dure compensatie orders, maar via directe deelname in ontwikkeling en productie van het JSF.
De KLu besloot vervolgens om samen met het bedrijfsleven een lobby te starten voor industriele deelname en aanschaf van deze toekomstige F-16 vervanger.
Summer of 2002. Het Nederlandse kabinet bijt in het JSF aas van USD 8 miljard (LockheedMartin) tot EUR 11 miljard (Nifarp lobby club) aan verwachte omzet en '15.000 JSF banen'. Een deelname van USD 125 -150 miljoen aan het JSF System Development & Demonstration was logisch geweest. Maar men creeerde echter feiten op de grond, door een overenthousiaste deelname van USD 800 miljoen.
In feite betekende dit een de facto besluit door Den Haag, dat de F-16 zou worden vervangen door het JSF.
Dit de facto besluit werd nog eens steviger in de grond verankerd door aanschaf van 2 test F-35A's.
Vanaf dat moment waren Den Haag, Breda (KLu) en bedrijfsleven zwanger van het JSF project.
En geen enkele KLu (snor) haar die er dan over denkt, om dan te verklaren dat een JSF abortus beter is voor KLu, gehele krijgsmacht en de staatsveiligheid van Nederland. Want een terechte gedachte over abortus, zou wel eens een ongewilde abortus van je KLu / MinDef carriere kunnen betekenen. Meehuilen met de wolven in het bos is dan een beter idee. En kan ook zeer nuttig zijn in een post FLO leven, waar je je pecunia verdient in een bedrijf of universiteit dat meedoet aan dat JSF programma.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 07/09/2014 | 15:39 uur
Status en hoop op toekomstige investeringen. Bovendien zijn er veel knappe koppen die zeggen dat het allemaal niet uitmaakt, als het maar Amerikaans is, een soort buy-in, de Amerikanen verzorgen dan wel het echte werk.
Dat zal wellicht meespelen maar hooguit als bijzaak. Bij de KLu wordt de F-35 gezien als de enige serieuze F-16 vervanger en de enige kandidaat waarmee de KLu in de toekomst op het hoogste niveau mee kan doen. Niet enkel door de kwaliteit van het platform maar ook de deuren die opengaan wanneer je een Amerikaanse kist vliegt. En die gedachte is oprecht.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 15:23 uur
ACE1 van mij mogen we, graag zelfs, naar een maritieme krijgsmacht met in het hart 2 "kleine" carriers van rond de 40K ton inclusief 24 Sea Gripens per carrier, we noemen de KLu MLD, handhaven 1 MOB als wal basis voor de Gripens + 1 squandron van 24 Seagripens voor training, onderhoud, rotatie en QRA.
72 seagripens hebben we het probleem aardig opgelost.... Tijd voor een nieuwe visie.
Een schip van de America Class kan 20 F35's of 20 Harriers vervoeren en een schip van de Queen Elizabeth Class kan 40 F35B's vervoeren waarop baseer jij je dan dat een carrier van de rond 40k ton 24 Sea Gripens kan vervoeren ik ga uit van 20 Sea Gripens laten we dan vanuit gaan van een aanschaf van 35 Sea Gripens.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/09/2014 | 16:09 uur
Een schip van de America Class kan 20 F35's of 20 Harriers vervoeren en een schip van de Queen Elizabeth Class kan 40 F35B's vervoeren waarop baseer jij je dan dat een carrier van de rond 40k ton 24 Sea Gripens kan vervoeren ik ga uit van 20 Sea Gripens laten we dan vanuit gaan van een aanschaf van 35 Sea Gripens.
Modelletje Charles de Gaulle (R91)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 16:13 uur
Modelletje Charles de Gaulle (R91)
Daar zitten dan ook E-2C Hawkeyes en diverse heli's bij en die heb je waarschijnlijk niet meegerekend.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/09/2014 | 16:17 uur
Daar zitten dan ook E-2C Hawkeyes en diverse heli's bij en die heb je waarschijnlijk niet meegerekend.
UIt Wikipedia:
Aircraft carried: 28 – 40 aircraft
* Rafale M
* Super Étendard
* E-2C Hawkeye
* SA365 Dauphin
* EC725 Caracal
* AS532 Cougar
"12 Super-Étendard attack aircraft, 10 Rafale multi-role fighters"
Of het er nu 20, 22 of 24 zijn, dat maak mij niet zo heel veel uit
De Izumo klasse? 250 meter, 27k ton mits uitgerust met katapult is de moderne variant van de Clemenceau klasse.
Wat betreft high-end stealth op land ben ik er voorstander van, op zee een stuk minder. Het onderhouden van de stealth eigenschappen van de vliegtuighuid lijkt mij problematisch. Het vergt permanent onderhoud. Een land met supercarriers bemand door 3000 manschappen kan zich dat wellicht veroorloven. Heb ook mijn twijfels op de aerodynamische eigenschappen bij lage snelheden, ongunstige wind en andere weersomstandigheden. Op een supercarrier staan in dat geval alternatieven als de F-18 Super Hornet.
Wat betreft het één is géén principe gaat dat inderdaad op voor landen met grote overzeese gebieden die direct willen reageren op calamiteiten. Voor een kleiner land dat samenwerkt met partnerlanden in roulatie van inzetbaarheid en de onderhoudsperiodieken op elkaar afstemt is één schip toch zeker voor 70% een schip. Het maakt minder uit als het gezamenlijke belangen deelt. Hoe vaak treden Europese landen maritiem nog op buiten de NAVO of Europese verbanden?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/09/2014 | 15:24 uur
het is ook nooit goed :cute-smile: laat me raden... te duur ;D
Laat Team Amerika World Police de wereld maar verzieken met haar interventies hier, invasies daar. Laten wij ons alsjeblieft concentreren op conventionele oorlogsvoering in het Europese continent. Dus investeren in gemechaniseerde eenheden en een capabele luchtmacht.
Ik begrijp dat er een fregattentekort is dus laten we daar wat aan doen maar laten we het alsjeblieft niet te hoog in de bol krijgen met CATOBAR carriers en alles erop en eraan. Nu stoot ik de marinemensen hier vast tegen het been maar laten we in ieder geval concluderen dat er een evenwichtige krijgsmacht moet zijn, met jouw voorstel moeten de met Ministerie van Defensie hernoemen tot Ministerie van Marine...
Mij stoot je niet tegen het zere been. Ook ik ben voor een evenwichtige krijgsmacht, dus inclusief tanks en de beste straaljagers. Maar dan omdat, je zegt het zelf ook, we onszelf adequaat moeten kunnen verdedigen.
Echter hebben we te maken met politici die deze mening niet delen en er te weinig geld aan willen besteden. En in dat kader pleit ik dan voor opheffen KLu en de fightercapaciteit operationeel onder te brengen op zee. Dat is pas expeditionair en onafhankelijk van derden. En om dezelfde redenen heb ik geregeld gesteld dat de KL dan geen bestaansrecht meer heeft en als KMARNS+ verder zou moeten gaan. Dus idd, een maritiem ingerichte krijgsmacht waarmee Den Haag uiteindelijk juist krijgt wat het zegt te willen. Maar zich de reële consequenties zoals ik die logisch vind niet realiseert.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/09/2014 | 17:06 uur
Mij stoot je niet tegen het zere been. Ook ik ben voor een evenwichtige krijgsmacht, dus inclusief tanks en de beste straaljagers. Maar dan omdat we ons, je zegt het zelf ook, we onszelf adequaat moeten kunnen verdedigen.
Echter hebben we te maken met politici die deze mening niet delen en er te weinig geld aan willen besteden. En in dat kader pleit ik dan voor opheffen KLu en de fightercapaciteit operationeel onder te brengen op zee. Dat is pas expeditionair en onafhankelijk van derden. En om dezelfde redenen heb ik geregeld gesteld dat de KL dan geen bestaansrecht meer heeft en als KMARNS+ verder zou moeten gaan. Dus idd, een maritiem ingerichte krijgsmacht waarmee Den Haag uiteindelijk juist krijgt wat het zegt te willen. Maar zich de reële consequenties zoals ik die logisch vind niet realiseert.
Ik wil de offtopic-gang graag beperken maar even kort:
Ik begrijp best dat expeditionair optreden nuttig en noodzakelijk is, daarom vind ik het ook niet meer dan logisch dat de marine moet beschikken over transportcapaciteiten en dergelijke. Maar als we, wat jij eigenlijk ook zou willen, meer gaan investeren in het "repareren" van de KL en geen genoegen nemen met 4 (!) inzetbare jachtvliegtuigen en daarnaast ook de marine haar deel willen geven dan zijn er denk ik prioriteiten zoals het vervangen/aanvullen van het fregattenbestand, de Walrus opvolger en dergelijke. Dan moeten we geen miljarden gaan uitgeven aan De Gaulle achtige schepen, ook met een voor Nederland gezond defensiebudget (2-3%) zou dat niet allemaal tegelijkertijd haalbaar zijn.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 07/09/2014 | 16:56 uur
Laat Team Amerika World Police de wereld maar verzieken met haar interventies hier, invasies daar. Laten wij ons alsjeblieft concentreren op conventionele oorlogsvoering in het Europese continent. Dus investeren in gemechaniseerde eenheden en een capabele luchtmacht.
Ik begrijp dat er een fregattentekort is dus laten we daar wat aan doen maar laten we het alsjeblieft niet te hoog in de bol krijgen met CATOBAR carriers en alles erop en eraan. Nu stoot ik de marinemensen hier vast tegen het been maar laten we in ieder geval concluderen dat er een evenwichtige krijgsmacht moet zijn, met jouw voorstel moeten de met Ministerie van Defensie hernoemen tot Ministerie van Marine...
Die evenwichtige krijgsmacht is zoek, we zetten (helaas) in op niches en eventueel het vergroten van niches, de KM geldt m.i. (mijn blik is blauw gekleurd) als het KMD met de meeste potentie om dit waar te maken. Twee kleine carriers met SeaGripen zijn door ons zeker te bekostigen inclusief vlootuitbreiding (fregatten) en ja dit gaat ten koste van de KL en de KLu, maar (sorry voor de KLu en KL-ers) deze twee KMD mogen nog nauwelijks in de schaduw van het recente verleden staan.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 07/09/2014 | 16:56 uur
Laat Team Amerika World Police de wereld maar verzieken met haar interventies hier, invasies daar. Laten wij ons alsjeblieft concentreren op conventionele oorlogsvoering in het Europese continent. Dus investeren in gemechaniseerde eenheden en een capabele luchtmacht.
Ik begrijp dat er een fregattentekort is dus laten we daar wat aan doen maar laten we het alsjeblieft niet te hoog in de bol krijgen met CATOBAR carriers en alles erop en eraan. Nu stoot ik de marinemensen hier vast tegen het been maar laten we in ieder geval concluderen dat er een evenwichtige krijgsmacht moet zijn, met jouw voorstel moeten de met Ministerie van Defensie hernoemen tot Ministerie van Marine...
We raken wel een beetje off-topic. Als de ambities zijn om wereldwijd Globocop uit te gaan hangen dan hoeft het van mij ook niet. We moeten niet Amerikaanse schepen gaan aflossen in de Perzische Golf om wille van terrorismebestrijding of de vlag laten zien in de Chinese Zee. Dat zijn geen gedeelde belangen ook al zien ze dat in onze defensietop wel zo, en bij Shell ook.
IJsland had lange tijd bescherming van de Amerikaanse marine en een forse legerbasis. Die zijn daar inmiddels vertrokken vanwege de beleidsverandering genaamd Pivot to Asia. Daar beginnen nu toch echt de grenzen van Europa... Spitsbergen en Jan Mayen eiland idem.
@ IPA NG:
Dan moet je nog eens lezen wat ik stelde (of ik moet het duidelijker verwoorden), want bij een "normaal defensiebudget" wil ik 3 goed uitgeruste OPCO's en hoeft CZSK van mij geen carriers te krijgen.
Als we genoeg geld zouden hebben (althans, dat voor defensie uit zouden willen geven), zou de KLu w.m.b. zelfs JSF's mogen hebben.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/09/2014 | 17:06 uur
Mij stoot je niet tegen het zere been. Ook ik ben voor een evenwichtige krijgsmacht, dus inclusief tanks en de beste straaljagers. Maar dan omdat, je zegt het zelf ook, we onszelf adequaat moeten kunnen verdedigen.
Echter hebben we te maken met politici die deze mening niet delen en er te weinig geld aan willen besteden. En in dat kader pleit ik dan voor opheffen KLu en de fightercapaciteit operationeel onder te brengen op zee. Dat is pas expeditionair en onafhankelijk van derden. En om dezelfde redenen heb ik geregeld gesteld dat de KL dan geen bestaansrecht meer heeft en als KMARNS+ verder zou moeten gaan. Dus idd, een maritiem ingerichte krijgsmacht waarmee Den Haag uiteindelijk juist krijgt wat het zegt te willen. Maar zich de reële consequenties zoals ik die logisch vind niet realiseert.
In dit kader zijn we het eens.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/09/2014 | 17:18 uur
@ IPA NG:
Dan moet je nog eens lezen wat ik stelde (of ik moet het duidelijker verwoorden), want bij een "normaal defensiebudget" wil ik 3 goed uitgeruste OPCO's en hoeft CZSK van mij geen carriers te krijgen.
Als we genoeg geld zouden hebben (althans, dat voor defensie uit zouden willen geven), zou de KLu w.m.b. zelfs JSF's mogen hebben.
Ik begrijp het. Ben het ook met je eens verder op dat laatste punt na dan.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/09/2014 | 17:18 uur
@ IPA NG:
Dan moet je nog eens lezen wat ik stelde (of ik moet het duidelijker verwoorden), want bij een "normaal defensiebudget" wil ik 3 goed uitgeruste OPCO's en hoeft CZSK van mij geen carriers te krijgen.
*kuch* 4 OPCO's *kuch*
Citaat van: Laurens op 07/09/2014 | 20:31 uur
*kuch* 4 OPCO's *kuch*
Ik ga over mijn eigen wensen.... :devil:
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 07/09/2014 | 20:50 uur
Ik ga over mijn eigen wensen.... :devil:
ohh...als we het over wensen hebben....dan worden het er 5 ;-)..
Citaat van: Elzenga op 07/09/2014 | 21:06 uur
ohh...als we het over wensen hebben....dan worden het er 5 ;-)..
Landsweer heroprichten?
Citaat van: Elzenga op 07/09/2014 | 21:26 uur
....CSO...
Ik denk dat dit nu niet verkeerd is vormgegeven. Wellicht zou je de helikopters bij de KL kunnen herindelen, bijvoorbeeld organiek aan de LMB (1 bataljon is niet meer luchtmobiel dus dat zou er dan buiten moeten vallen).
Weet iemand trouwens of je de "stealth pods" die Boeing samen met de Advanced Super Hornet aan India voorstelde ook onder de Gripen kan hangen?
Zo kan je namelijk alsnog een soort van semi-stealth toestel maken.
Citaat van: Jellington op 07/09/2014 | 22:51 uur
Weet iemand trouwens of je de "stealth pods" die Boeing samen met de Advanced Super Hornet aan India voorstelde ook onder de Gripen kan hangen?
Zo kan je namelijk alsnog een soort van semi-stealth toestel maken.
Is niet nodig om de Gripen NG een kleiner toestel is dan de Super Hornet en de JSF.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/09/2014 | 23:04 uur
Is niet nodig om de Gripen NG een kleiner toestel is dan de Super Hornet en de JSF.
Bedoel je hiermee dat zulke pods weinig tot geen effect zouden hebben op de RCS van de Gripen?
Citaat van: Jellington op 07/09/2014 | 23:13 uur
Bedoel je hiermee dat zulke pods weinig tot geen effect zouden hebben op de RCS van de Gripen?
ja en de aktieradius van de Gripen NG
Wat die minimaal vier inzetbare kisten betreft. Hoe moet ik mij dat voor me zien? 2 kisten in de lucht, twee aan de grond voor onderhoud?
Citaat van: IPA NG op 08/09/2014 | 17:45 uur
Wat die minimaal vier inzetbare kisten betreft. Hoe moet ik mij dat voor me zien? 2 kisten in de lucht, twee aan de grond voor onderhoud?
Ik neem aan 4 kisten op uitzending voor langere duur?
Citaat van: IPA NG op 08/09/2014 | 17:45 uur
Hoe moet ik mij dat voor me zien? 2 kisten in de lucht, twee aan de grond voor onderhoud?
Dan heeft u de beschikking over 2x inzetbare kisten. ;D
Citaat van: Lex op 08/09/2014 | 17:54 uur
Dan heeft u de beschikking over 2x inzetbare kisten. ;D
Ik bedoel ze willen er vier op uitzending kunnen sturen, ja?
Op dat moment, hoe gaan ze dan ingezet worden?
Ik spraak hierover met een Zweedse connectie en hij zei dat dit (2 in de lucht, 2 aan de grond) een waarschijnlijke opzet zou zijn. Toen vertelde hij mij over de Zweedse inzet in Libië. Toen werden er 8 kisten uitgezonden. 4 de lucht in, 4 aan de grond. Toen werden er 3 naar huis gestuurd (bezuiniging) maar door het invliegen van extra personeel wisten ze 4 kisten in de lucht, 1 aan de grond te handhaven.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 08/09/2014 | 18:08 uur
Ik spraak hierover met een Zweedse connectie en hij zei dat dit (2 in de lucht, 2 aan de grond) een waarschijnlijke opzet zou zijn. Toen vertelde hij mij over de Zweedse inzet in Libië. Toen werden er 8 kisten uitgezonden. 4 de lucht in, 4 aan de grond. Toen werden er 3 naar huis gestuurd (bezuiniging) maar door het invliegen van extra personeel wisten ze 4 kisten in de lucht, 1 aan de grond te handhaven.
Dat kan ook de NL werkwijze zijn.
Citaat van: Lex op 08/09/2014 | 18:20 uur
Dat kan ook de NL werkwijze zijn.
Het is goed om dit soort dingen vaak te duiden en te vertellen. Want veel mensen denken..waaronder ook politici... dat je bij 37 JSFen er ook 37 kan inzetten. Weten niets over een 4 of 5 cyclus...en schatten grote noodzaak van onderhoud ook te laag in.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 08/09/2014 | 18:43 uur
Het is goed om dit soort dingen vaak te duiden en te vertellen. Want veel mensen denken..waaronder ook politici... dat je bij 37 JSFen er ook 37 kan inzetten. Weten niets over een 4 of 5 cyclus...en schatten grote noodzaak van onderhoud ook te laag in.
;D Batch 2, aantal 20.... hebben we 57 exemplaren, komt ergens bekend voor.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 08/09/2014 | 18:43 uur
Het is goed om dit soort dingen vaak te duiden en te vertellen. Want veel mensen denken..waaronder ook politici... dat je bij 37 JSFen er ook 37 kan inzetten. Weten niets over een 4 of 5 cyclus...en schatten grote noodzaak van onderhoud ook te laag in.
Hoe het heden ten dage is weet ik niet, maar vanuit het verleden kan ik je zeggen dat dit idd een vd items is, die tijdens briefings ter berde worden gebracht. Maar helaas wilde dat toen al niet doordringen tot de "botte hersenen" van de dames/heren politici. Voor hen moest het enkel en alleen zonneschijn zijn. O wee, als je aangaf, dat eventueel te verwachten personele verliezen volgens experts op 5% zou uit komen. Dan was Leiden helemaal in last, want dat zou politiek niet te verkopen zijn in dit land.
Tijdens de voorbereding van de missie UNMEE zijn er nogal wat clashes geweest, ondermeer omtrent de mee te nemen bewapening. Het was om je groen en geel te ergeren. En zoals reeds vaker vermeld, is er het onderscheid tussen de "werkvloer" en de hogere "echelons" die zich in allerlei bochten moesten wringen om hun loopbaan veilig te stellen en "geloofwaardig" over te komen richting werkvloer.
Misschien dat ik hard uitval richting de politiek, "tant pis" (jammer) zoals we in Frankrijk zeggen.
Indien off-topic mag een beheerder het verwijderen ;)
Citaat van: Lex op 08/09/2014 | 21:37 uur
Hoe het heden ten dage is weet ik niet, maar vanuit het verleden kan ik je zeggen dat dit idd een vd items is, die tijdens briefings ter berde worden gebracht. Maar helaas wilde dat toen al niet doordringen tot de "botte hersenen" van de dames/heren politici. Voor hen moest het enkel en alleen zonneschijn zijn. O wee, als je aangaf, dat eventueel te verwachten personele verliezen volgens experts op 5% zou uit komen. Dan was Leiden helemaal in last, want dat zou politiek niet te verkopen zijn in dit land.
Tijdens de voorbereding van de missie UNMEE zijn er nogal wat clashes geweest, ondermeer omtrent de mee te nemen bewapening. Het was om je groen en geel te ergeren. En zoals reeds vaker vermeld, is er het onderscheid tussen de "werkvloer" en de hogere "echelons" die zich in allerlei bochten moesten wringen om hun loopbaan veilig te stellen en "geloofwaardig" over te komen richting werkvloer.
Misschien dat ik hard uitval richting de politiek, "tant pis" (jammer) zoals we in Frankrijk zeggen.
...
duidelijk!
Engine issues mean China can't power J-15, J-16 fighters
Staff Reporter 2014-09-09
China is unable to produce advanced fighters such as the J-15 and the J-16 in large numbers because it lacks the proper engines to power the aircraft, according to the Moscow-based Military-Industrial Courier on Sept. 8.
According to Kanwa Defense Review, a magazine operated by military analyst Andrei Chang, also known as Pinkov, China is not even capable of producing J-11B fighters due to problems with Shenyang Liming Aircraft Engine Company's WS-10A engine. Similar problems led the People's Liberation Army Navy to cancel their plans to install the WS-10A in the J-15, a carrier-based fighter designed to serve aboard the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier.
Both the PLA Air Force and Navy Air Force have asked to replace the WS-10A with the more reliable Russian-built AL-31F engines, the magazine stated. China is unlikely to get enough AL-31F engines to power all of its J-15 and J-16 fighters when production starts on the aircraft however. The only option left for China is to stop producing more advanced fighters until it is capable of designing the engines the aircraft need.
Sources from the Chinese aviation industry told the Military-Industrial Courier that the PLA is losing its patience with the WS-10A engines. Without proper competition among state-run engine producers, the source said that China is unable to design the engines it needs to power its new aircraft. The Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China suggested that the PLA Air Force use domestic engines anyway to boost the economy.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140909000029&cid=1101
The Super Hornet is NOT the only F-35 alternative!
http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.nl/2014/09/the-super-hornet-is-not-only-f-35.html?spref=fb
Is dit hier al wel eens voorbij gekomen?
http://www.janes.com/article/41815/japanese-mod-denies-reports-of-2015-first-flight-for-atd-x-prototype
Citaat van: IPA NG op 09/09/2014 | 17:34 uur
Is dit hier al wel eens voorbij gekomen?
http://www.janes.com/article/41815/japanese-mod-denies-reports-of-2015-first-flight-for-atd-x-prototype
;D ik heb dit bericht wel op twitter gezet.
Navy's FA-XX Discussion Includes Modifying F-35C
by Bill Carey
September 9, 2014
Modifying the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter is part of what the U.S. Navy wants to discuss with contractors in a series of "technical interchange meetings" before it develops an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for a future carrier-based strike fighter.
In a September 9 solicitation, the Naval Air Systems Command (Navair) invited companies to participate in the meetings "for the purposes of trade space refinement" before it begins the AoA process next year. Navair said the solicitation is an addendum to the request for information (RFI) it issued in April 2012 for the FA-XX requirement to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and its EA-18G Growler derivative in the 2030 timeframe. The RFI described the future fighter as "complementary" to the F-35C carrier variant, which the Navy plans to declare operational in 2018, and an unmanned platform as envisioned by the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UClass) effort.
The RFI addendum states that technical meetings will focus on several areas, one of which is "modification of current platforms (F/A-18 and F-35C)." Among other areas of discussion will be a new start aircraft, recommended mission systems and future avionics technologies, and legacy versus new-start weapons.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-09-09/navys-fa-xx-discussion-includes-modifying-f-35c
SEA GRIPEN - SAAB and EMBRAER visit Carrier A-12 São Paulo
Visit by SAAB and EMBRAER Defesa & Segurança at Brazilian Navy Carrier NAe A-12 SÃO PAULO.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bxqjp5QIYAA852M.jpg:large)
On September 4th, 2014, a group of technicians of SAABand EMBRAER Defesa & Segurança visited Brazilian Navy Carrier NAe A-12 São Paulo, looking for verify "in loco" and exchange ideas with ship and Diretoria de Aeronáutica da Marinha (DAerM) teams, technical details for necessary modifications to adapt aircraft Gripen to Naval embarked operations.
Technical details collected will be analised and applied to current GRIPEN aircrafts, for in the near future, SAAB company can present to Brazilian Navy (MB) its findings and conclusions, confirming or not, that a Gripen Naval Version can operates, with safety, since carrier NAe São Paulo.
On September, 5th 2014 a group was received by Brazilian Navy Aeronautical Director, Rear-Admiral Carlos Frederico Carneiro Primo, that emphasized Project F–X2 importance, since means a real gain in National Defense. Also for Transfer of Technology, by means of deals, for defense industrial base and Brazilian autonomy in Defense. Also represents an important opportunity for generate new business in Brazil and in international markets.
Commented that developing (engineering project) of a Gripen Naval version would be the landmark in the process of Technology Transfer confirming the skills of National Defense Industry.
At the end, SAAB Director in Brazil, Mr. Andrew Wilkinson,thanked the opportunity to work in collaboration with Brazilian Navy, and manifested enthusiasm by the project.
Note DefesaNet
Important visit that mak public action between the SAAB and EMBRAER Defesa & Segurança companies as mais partners in Brazilian Program F-X2. See Communiqué below.
In past August a SAAB delegation visited carrier A-12 São Paulo. Gripen NG Program has ambition to meet the requirements of Brazilian Navy for a an aircraft operation embarked called SEA GRIPEN operation in the future carriers to be commissioned by Brazilian Navy.
http://t.co/zXhiPmuxfS
Dus zijn er serieuze ideeën van Saab om Brazilië een aanbieding te maken voor de Sea Gripen om hun vliegdekschip als vervanger voor de Skyhawks.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planobrazil.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2FJ391.jpg&hash=4d8a0cc712b18736da6e7bf3f71cc338b5679a56)
Citaat van: Harald op 17/09/2014 | 10:39 uur
Dus zijn er serieuze ideeën van Saab om Brazilië een aanbieding te maken voor de Sea Gripen om hun vliegdekschip als vervanger voor de Skyhawks.
Na verwachting, veel keuze hebben de Brazilianen niet meer nu definitief gekozen is voor de Gripen en ze de Amerikanen met hun F18 redelijk in de hoek gezet hebben en ze de Franse Rafale te kostbaar vonden.
De oude Sky Hawks moeten toch een keer met pensioen.
:angel: wat mij betreft mogen de Nederlandse F35A's zo over de plint als we de KM twee mini carriers geven met elk een dozijn of twee SeaGripens.... kan de industrie zich ook nog lekker manifesteren. In de Gripen E geloof ik niet, wel in de SeaGripen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/09/2014 | 10:46 uur
Na verwachting, veel keuze hebben de Brazilianen niet meer nu definitief gekozen is voor de Gripen en ze de Amerikanen met hun F18 redelijk in de hoek gezet hebben en ze de Franse Rafale te kostbaar vonden.
De oude Sky Hawks moeten toch een keer met pensioen.
:angel: wat mij betreft mogen de Nederlandse F35A's zo over de plint als we de KM twee mini carriers geven met elk een dozijn of twee SeaGripens.... kan de industrie zich ook nog lekker manifesteren. In de Gripen E geloof ik niet, wel in de SeaGripen.
De Brazilianen hebben (nu nog) alle keus. Dat de luchtmacht voor de Gripen heeft gekozen betekend niet dat de Marine dat ook moet. En de Rafale zal te kostbaar zijn om er 80 van te kopen voor de luchtmacht, maar een squadron voor de vloot is een minder omvangrijke investering. Daarbij zijn de Brazilianen wel westers georiënteerd, maar kunnen ook gewoon bij de Russen aankloppen voor de Mig-29K of misschien straks bij de Chinezen. Maar ondertussen is het nog steeds een land waar een groot deel van de >200 miljoen inwoners helemaal geen beeld heeft bij dergelijke uitgaven.
En Brazillie is een land waar de politie wel degelijk MRAP's nodig heeft, itt een aantal landen waar ze dat alleen maar denken.
Citaat van: Defenceworld op 03/09/2014 | 10:17 uur
Slovakia Close To Acquiring Gripen Aircrafts
Source : Our Bureau ~ Dated : Wednesday, September 3, 2014
The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Sweden have signed a letter of intent agreeing to co-operate on using the Saab Gripen fighter paving the way for a potential Slovakian acquisition of the aircraft.
"Today's signing will lay the foundation for bilateral co-operation around a common airspace surveillance of Slovakia and the Czech Republic," the Swedish defence ministry said August 30.
Slovakia is looking to replace its RAC MiG-29s in the next couple of years.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/10987/Slovakia_Close_To_Acquiring_Gripen_Aircrafts#.VAbOC2fCRjp
Daarmee nemen de kansen voor de Gripen in de aankomende Poolse competitie ook wat toe, al blijf ik de kans daar laag inschatten na het verliezen van de afgelopen competitie, al speelde daar het raketschild mee. Ook Roemenië lijkt een verloren kans nu er F16's in Portugal gekocht worden. Maar in Bulgarije en misschien Griekenland liggen nog kansen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 17/09/2014 | 12:52 uur
Daarmee nemen de kansen voor de Gripen in de aankomende Poolse competitie ook wat toe, al blijf ik de kans daar laag inschatten na het verliezen van de afgelopen competitie, al speelde daar het raketschild mee. Ook Roemenië lijkt een verloren kans nu er F16's in Portugal gekocht worden. Maar in Bulgarije en misschien Griekenland liggen nog kansen.
De Bulgaren zie ik wel in Gripens vliegen, de Grieken zie ik die keus niet maken gezien de inspiraties van hun aardrivaal.
Lockheed Martin Corp eyes 2-4 per cent cost reduction in next F-35 fighter jets contract
By Reuters | 19 Sep, 2014
WASHINGTON: Lockheed Martin Corp is close to signing a roughly $4 billion deal with the US Defense Department for 43 more F-35 fighter jets that will lower the cost of the jet's airframe by 2 to 4 per cent, sources familiar with the program said.
The reduction is part of a drive by the company and other key F-35 suppliers to slash the projected $400 billion cost of developing and building 2,457 US jets in coming years - and the $1 trillion in additional costs to operate and maintain t ..
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/42877274.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Boeing may end fighter jet program
Sep 19 2014, 07:39 ET | About: The Boeing Company (BA) | By: Yoel Minkoff, SA News Editor
As heavy cost-cutting and lower demand hits Boeing's (NYSE:BA) defense division, the company is planning the possibility of retiring its fighter jet program. Production of Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet could end in 2017.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1991475-boeing-may-end-fighter-jet-program
Report: Boeing Plans for Post-Fighter Future
By Brendan McGarry Friday, September 19th, 2014
Boeing Co. is planning for an era in which it no longer builds fighter jets, according to a news report.
The world's largest aerospace company may stop building the F/A-18 in 2017 and the F-15 in 2019 amid a slump in demand for the military aircraft in both the U.S. and abroad, according to an article published Thursday by Doug Cameron and Robert Wall of The Wall Street Journal.
Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing's defense, space and security unit, in October will begin implementing a business strategy that instead focuses on capturing more of the drone, bomber and trainer market, according to the article. "You have to face reality," he told the newspaper.
The shift comes despite the Navy's ongoing use of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to strike Islamic militants in Iraq and the company's ongoing lobbying campaign to persuade U.S. lawmakers to preserve funding for the fighter planes, both of which are built at its St. Louis plant.
Earlier this year at the Navy League's annual conference outside Washington, D.C., Boeing touted the effectiveness of its fourth-generation EA-18G electronic attack plane over Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 stealth fighter. In presentations and advertisements, the company argued the Growler is more equipped than the Joint Strike Fighter for operating in areas with sophisticated enemy air defenses, known in military parlance as anti-access, area-denial, or A2-AD, environments.
"Stealth is perishable; only a Growler provides full spectrum protection," stated a slide in a briefing given by Mike Gibbons, vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18G programs for Boeing, in a not-so-subtle dig at the radar-evading, fifth-generation jet made by Lockheed.
Boeing pressed lawmakers to add funding for 22 additional Growlers in the Defense Department's fiscal 2015 budget, which begins Oct. 1, citing analysis that shows the need for a total of 50 or 100 more EA-18Gs to meet joint and coalition requirements.
The Pentagon's budget request didn't include any funding for the EA-18G, a derivative of the F/A-18. What's more, it proposed retiring 51 F-15C Eagles, almost half of which are in Europe, due in part to automatic budget cuts known as sequestration.
The House of Representatives has passed its version of the annual defense spending bill that included more than $1 billion for a dozen EA-18G Growlers. The Senate hasn't yet adopted its version of the measure. Congress this week passed a short-term spending measure known as a continuing resolution, which will fund the government through mid-December.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/09/19/report-boeing-plans-for-post-fighter-future/
"Die oude Skyhawks" zijn nog niet eens in dienst.
Citaat van: Defesanet op 17/09/2014 | 10:39 uur
SEA GRIPEN - SAAB and EMBRAER visit Carrier A-12 São Paulo
(...)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planobrazil.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2FJ391.jpg&hash=4d8a0cc712b18736da6e7bf3f71cc338b5679a56)
Het is in ieder geval wel een sexy kist, die SeaGripen. 8)
Citaat van: Lynxian op 21/09/2014 | 16:58 uur
Het is in ieder geval wel een sexy kist, die SeaGripen. 8)
En m.i. ook best kansrijk immers de F18E/F/G houdt het voor gezien (zoals het er nu naar uit ziet in 2017) en de Rafale zal het moeten hebben van de Indiase handtekening.
De keuze in Westerse carrier kisten beperkt zich anders tot F35B/C
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/09/2014 | 17:44 uur
En m.i. ook best kansrijk immers de F18E/F/G houdt het voor gezien (zoals het er nu naar uit ziet in 2017) en de Rafale zal het moeten hebben van de Indiase handtekening.
De keuze in Westerse carrier kisten beperkt zich anders tot F35B/C
Ik zou nou toch niet willen zeggen dat we in Europa een glorieuze carriertoekomst tegemoet gaan. Frankrijk bouwt 't altijd zelf, de Engelsen
laten zich glorieus omkopen zijn overtuigd van de argumenten van de F35B en de Spanjaarden en Italianen lijken het Nederlandse virus te krijgen en hun defensies geleidelijk aan in de uitverkoop te willen gaan gooien. Dan moet de Sea Gripen het ook alleen maar hebben van een Braziliaanse deal.
Citaat van: Lynxian op 21/09/2014 | 23:22 uur
Ik zou nou toch niet willen zeggen dat we in Europa een glorieuze carriertoekomst tegemoet gaan. Frankrijk bouwt 't altijd zelf, de Engelsen laten zich glorieus omkopen zijn overtuigd van de argumenten van de F35B en de Spanjaarden en Italianen lijken het Nederlandse virus te krijgen en hun defensies geleidelijk aan in de uitverkoop te willen gaan gooien. Dan moet de Sea Gripen het ook alleen maar hebben van een Braziliaanse deal.
In Europa zie ik vooralsnog weinig toekomst voor een eventuele SG maar naast Brazilië zie ik (nog) mogelijkheden voor Thailand en India.
Fighter Jet Fight Club: Typhoon vs. Silent Eagle!
Friday, September 19, 2014
http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.nl/2014/09/fighter-jet-fight-club-typhoon-vs.html?spref=fb
Ik heb uit Zweedse bronnen vernomen dat de Thaise Gripen tijdens de Pitch Black 2014 oefening in Australië 167 uit 170 sorties wist te vliegen, dit is een nieuw record.
Foto ook interessant om afmetingen te vergelijken:
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmv.se%2FGlobal%2Fflyg%25C3%25B6vning.jpeg&hash=095fdfe5579ff2fb15e98b7629915d7b64c292a0)
http://www.fmv.se/Global/flyg%C3%B6vning.jpeg
Commentary: Right Choice for FA-XX
Sep. 22, 2014 - 11:34AM | By JERRY HENDRIX
The US Navy recently solicited an analysis of alternatives from the defense industry for an aircraft designated as FA-XX — the next carrier-borne aircraft.
The announcement states that industry should consider FA-XX either as an extension of the joint strike fighter design, the FA-18 Hornet series or as a new design. The questions are, what form should FA-XX take and why does the Navy need it?
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140922/DEFFEAT05/309220010/Commentary-Right-Choice-FA-XX?odyssey=nav%7Chead
Amerikanen zetten voor het eerst F-22 in
WASHINGTON -
Bij de luchtaanvallen op Islamitische Staat (ISIS) in Syrië heeft de Amerikaanse luchtmacht voor het eerst geavanceerde F-22-straaljagers ingezet tijdens een gevechtsmissie. Dat hebben Amerikaanse media dinsdag gemeld.
De F-22's zijn de duurste en modernste jachtvliegtuigen van de Amerikaanse luchtmacht. Net als de kleinere JSF (F-35) die nog in ontwikkeling is, hebben de F-22's stealth-eigenschappen, wat ze moeilijker zichtbaar maakt op de radar.
Bron: www.telegraaf.nl
Volgens mij vliegt dat ding toch al bijna 20 jaar.
Zuid-Korea koopt 40 Joint Strike Fighters
wo 24/09/2014 - Jos De Greef
Zuid-Korea heeft een contract getekend voor de aankoop van 40 Amerikaanse gevechtsvliegtuigen van het type F-35A. Het gaat om het grootste militaire contract ooit in het land en heeft te maken met de spanningen op het schiereiland.
Over het contract werd al sinds maart van dit jaar onderhandeld, maar nu is er een akkoord over de prijs. Zuid-Korea zal zeven miljard dollar betalen voor 40 toestellen van het type F-35A, een versie van de "Joint Strike Fighter" of ultramodern gevechtsvliegtuig.
De toestellen zullen tussen 2018 en 2025 geleverd worden en het gaat om de grootste militaire aankoop ooit door Zuid-Korea. Dat heeft natuurlijk te maken met de toegenomen spanningen met het communistische regime in Noord-Korea, maar tegelijk was de luchtmacht van Zuid-Korea de laatste jaren wat verouderd.
Ondanks het bestand uit 1953 zijn Noord- en Zuid-Korea officieel nog altijd in oorlog en de voorbije jaren is het een paar keer tot incidenten gekomen op het land en op zee waarbij telkens doden zijn gevallen.
Hoe dan ook is de Zuid-Koreaanse luchtmacht veel moderner dat die van de vijand. Zuid-Korea is een belangrijke bondgenoot van de Verenigde Staten die nog altijd 28.500 militairen in het land gestationeerd hebben.
Neusje van de zalm?
De F-35A is één van die types die voortgekomen zijn uit de "Joint Strike Fighter", het nieuwe type van Amerikaanse gevechtsvliegtuig dat 400 miljard dollar heeft gekost. De JSF -ook bekend als Lightning II- wordt ontwikkeld door een consortium onder leiding van vliegtuigproducent Lockheed Marten, maar ook Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney en het Britse bedrijf BAe Systems werken mee aan het project.
De VS verkopen de F-35 overigens niet aan iedereen, maar enkel aan betrouwbare bondgenoten. Eerder werden vliegtuigen van dat type ook al verkocht aan Groot-Brittannië, Israël, Italië, Australië, Canada, Turkije en Japan en nu dus ook aan Zuid-Korea. Ook ons land zou de F-35 kunnen aankopen als vervanger voor de verouderde F-16.
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/economie/140924-Korea-JSF
South Korea to Pay $7B for 40 F-35A Fighter Jets
( Voor $ 0,7 miljard USD meer, heb je 20 toestellen minder, in de vergelijking F-35A versus F-15SE voor Zuid-Korea, als je dit doortrekt met het NL budget van € 4 miljard dan zou het 30 stuks F-35A versus 40 stuks F-15SE zijn.)
South Korea will pay 7.3 trillion won ($7 billion) for 40 F-35A fighter jets under the terms of a deal with Lockheed Martin announced Wednesday by the state arms procurer.
( dus $ 7 miljard USD voor 40 F-35A = € 5,4 miljard Euro ... is ongeveer € 135 miljoen per toestel .. dit zou voor NL een maximale aanschaf betekenen van 30 stuks F-35A voor € 4 miljard Euro )
....
"The purchase price per unit is around 120 billion won," he was quoted as saying by Yonhap news agency.
South Korea wants to start deploying the new combat planes from 2018, he said.
....
The absence of a stealth capability was behind the military's decision in September last year to block a $7.7 billion deal to buy 60 of Boeing's F-15 fighters.
( $ 7,7 miljard USD voor 60 stuks F-15SE = € 5,9 miljard Euro .. ongeveer € 99 miljoen Euro per stuk Met het Budget van € 4 miljard euro, zou NL er 40 stuks F-15SE kunnen aanschaffen )
The Boeing aircraft was the only one to come in under the $7.7 billion budget approved by parliament.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140924/DEFREG03/309240033/South-Korea-Pay-7B-40-F-35A-Fighter-Jets
Mits we de F-35 van de plank kochten. Voor de Belgen gaat je rekensom vermoedelijk wel op.
F-35 jet combat ready next year despite engine fix: Lockheed
September 25, 2014
OSLO (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin expects the cost of the F-35 fighter jet to drop to its target level by 2019 and still sees the first version of the aircraft combat ready by mid-2015, despite an engine fire which still needs a fix, the firm said on Thursday.
A decision by South Korea on Wednesday to order 40 F-35s for around $7 billion further lowers the program's cost and Lockheed sees the per-unit cost down to $80-$85 million by 2019 from the current rate of around $115 million, Jeff Babione, Lockheed's deputy general manager for the F-35 program told reporters in Oslo.
Lockheed, engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp , and other suppliers are investing heavily to drive down the program's projected $400 billion cost, making it more affordable for cash-strapped governments looking to buy over 3,100 aircraft over the next decades.
"The cost reduction will come with the increase in orders," Babione told Reuters on the sidelines of a press conference.
"We anticipate that there's a market out there for 4,000 airplanes ... and the biggest risk to cost is if we don't get the orders we showed. That will significantly erode our ability to take advantage of economic order quantities and reduce cost."
The F-35 program was set back earlier this year when the Pentagon grounded its entire fleet after a June 23 fire on an Air Force F-35A jet, an all new aircraft with advanced stealth capabilities, improved maneuverability's and advanced sensors.
Lockheed is still investigating the issue and expects to determine the root cause this month or early October, and sees a fix implemented on aircraft already in service in early 2015, Chris Flynn, a Pratt & Whitney vice-president for the F-35 engine program said.
"We understand what fundamentally happened ... and we have tremendous confidences in the timeline," Flynn said. "We think it's a fairly straightforward fix."
Though no longer grounded, the fleet of over 100 F-35s already delivered, flies under restrictions, pending the engine fix.
Lockheed added it was also confident that the U.S. Marine Corps would declare the first version of the jet combat ready by mid-2015 and said that beside the engine issue, the integration of the communication systems and the subtle changes to flight controls were its main issues.
(Reporting by Balazs Koranyi; Editing by Mark Potter)
Copyright © 2014, Reuters
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sns-rt-us-lockheed-f35-20140925,0,1705096.story
IS F-35 heading for global fighter aircraft domination?
Source : Our Bureau ~ Dated : Thursday, September 25, 2014
The success of Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter in South Korea and its acceptance by several NATO partners could make it the world's dominant warplane in the coming years.
The fifth generation stealth warplane looks set to grab market share from rival 4.5 generation planes such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F-15, F18, the Dassault Rafale and the SAAB Gripen.
Till date 12 countries have ordered an approximate 3300 units of the F-35. The customers include US, UK, Australia, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Canada, South Korea, Japan and Israel.
After 2018, the F-35 is likely to capture over a 50 percent share of the global fighter jet market, says Richard Aboulafia, aerospace analyst for the Teal Group, in a February report. At about the same time, most U.S. and European fourth generation fighters are scheduled to end production, with many manufacturers exiting fighter jet production altogether. The F-35 is looking to have a very significant international presence that will probably suck up most of the orders from U.S. allies.
The United States is home to only two manufacturers of fighter jets — Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Under current plans, Lockheed's F-16 and Boeing's F-15 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will go out of production by 2020.
Boeing is considering closing down its stealth fighter program due to decline in military budgets, cost reduction in the U.S and other European nations, Bidnessetc website reported earlier this month. Orders for F/A-18 jets are declining as most investments are concentrated in F-35 joint fighter striker. The F-35 is widely regarded as the future of fighter aircraft, with ten countries partnering up for research and development, component manufacturing, and expense contribution.
The situation is not much brighter for European manufacturers. The Eurofighter Typhoon designed by a consortium of U.K.-based BAE Systems, Italian aerospace company Alenia Aermacchi and the Franco-German Airbus Group — will leave the market by 2018 unless there are further orders.
If France's Dessault retains its order from India, it could produce the Rafale until about 2025. Both companies do not have any plans of developing fifth generation fighters.
Only Sweden's Saab appears likely to survive as a fighter manufacturer, thanks to its contract from Brazil to purchase 36 aircraft and earlier orders in Thailand and South Africa.
The impact of the joint strike fighter on the European defense industry could be enormous. If the F-35's price decreases to about $85 million per unit, the F-35 may do to Europe's defense industry what the F-16 almost did.
Boeing may find itself pushed out of the fighter business by the end of the decade. The F-15 is scheduled to end production after deliveries to Saudi Arabia in 2019. The line for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and its electronic warfare variant, the E/A-18G Growler, is scheduled to shut down in 2016, but US orders for additional Growlers in the fiscal year 2015 budget could extend the line.
Boeing is keeping busy with international campaigns for both platforms, says Steve Nordlund, the company's director of global strike business development was quoted as saying in a report by International Business Times. Boeing recently submitted a bid to replace Denmark's fighter fleet. Its Super Hornet will face off against the F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon. The company would likely also offer the Super Hornet to Canada if it chooses to begin a fighter competition, he says.
The United Arab Emirates is considering buying the F-15, F/A-18E/F, Typhoon or Rafale to fill a requirement of 60 planes. However the country may just bide its time and buy the F-35 later on.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/11163/IS_F_35_heading_for_global_fighter_aircraft_domination_#.VCQhA2fCRjo
Allemaal zeer kwalijke ontwikkelingen.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 26/09/2014 | 00:34 uur
Allemaal zeer kwalijke ontwikkelingen.
De F35 familie vind ik geen probleem, wel een probleem vindt ik het gebrek aan (toekomstig) westers concurrentieaanbod met alle gevolgen van dien.
In 2025 heb je (als westers land) alleen de keuze uit F35A/B/C of Saab Gripen E/F of je moet je blik gaan richten op een Aziaat.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/09/2014 | 06:55 uur
De F35 familie vind ik geen probleem, wel een probleem vindt ik het gebrek aan (toekomstig) westers concurrentieaanbod met alle gevolgen van dien.
In 2025 heb je (als westers land) alleen de keuze uit F35A/B/C of Saab Gripen E/F of je moet je blik gaan richten op een Aziaat.
Ik verwacht dat er in 2025 in Europa al zicht is op een opvolger. Aangezien de F35 een andere cyclus is dan de EUropese modellen is het denk ik dus de vraag welke cyclus je volgt. Nederland heeft nu voor de Amerikaanse gekozen...ik pleit al langer voor de overstap naar de EUropese.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 26/09/2014 | 16:55 uur
Ik verwacht dat er in 2025 in Europa al zicht is op een opvolger. Aangezien de F35 een andere cyclus is dan de EUropese modellen is het denk ik dus de vraag welke cyclus je volgt. Nederland heeft nu voor de Amerikaanse gekozen...ik pleit al langer voor de overstap naar de EUropese.
Zicht is er misschien, maar ik heb toch een behoorlijke dosis twijfel zeker omdat er plannen zijn om de Tornado in Italië en Duitsland te laten rondvliegen tot ruim in de jaren dertig, de EF wellicht de veertiger jaren aan zal tikken en dat "we" (Frankrijk en Engeland) nog niet verder zijn dan de intentie om tot een gezamenlijke UCAV te komen welke aan de basis zou kunnen staan van een nieuwe fighter ontwikkeling.
Misschien dat recente ontwikkelingen leiden tot een verhoging van beschikbare budgeten en meer samenwerking.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 26/09/2014 | 16:55 uur
Ik verwacht dat er in 2025 in Europa al zicht is op een opvolger. Aangezien de F35 een andere cyclus is dan de EUropese modellen is het denk ik dus de vraag welke cyclus je volgt. Nederland heeft nu voor de Amerikaanse gekozen...ik pleit al langer voor de overstap naar de EUropese.
Ik geloof niet zo in die cycli. Maar te te ontkennen valt dat de markt aanzienlijk krimpt. En dus ook enorm onder druk staat door de tientallen miljarden die de Oceaan over gegooid worden.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 26/09/2014 | 17:47 uur
Ik geloof niet zo in die cycli. Maar te te ontkennen valt dat de markt aanzienlijk krimpt. En dus ook enorm onder druk staat door de tientallen miljarden die de Oceaan over gegooid worden.
Als ook dat bijvoorbeeld de Amerikaanse verkoop aan EUropese/NAVO lidstaten mijns inziens ook een belangrijke rol speelt in het strategische beleid van de VS tav de EU. Het gaat niet alleen om economische belangen.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 26/09/2014 | 18:58 uur
Als ook dat bijvoorbeeld de Amerikaanse verkoop aan EUropese/NAVO lidstaten mijns inziens ook een belangrijke rol speelt in het strategische beleid van de VS tav de EU. Het gaat niet alleen om economische belangen.
Dan snijden de Amerikanen zich zelf met het F35 programma
op termijn behoorlijk in de vingers, en hadden ze betere kunnen kiezen voor diverse modellen met een interval van een jaar of tien.
Door LM dé producent te maken verliest de concurrentie haar capaciteit, persoonlijk denk ik dat dit de rede zal worden waarom de T/X zomaar eens de Boeing-Saab zou kunnen worden en dat de F18E/F/G vervangen zal worden door de Boeing FA/XX en niet door de F35C.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/09/2014 | 19:24 uur
Dan snijden de Amerikanen zich zelf met het F35 programma op termijn behoorlijk in de vingers, en hadden ze betere kunnen kiezen voor diverse modellen met een interval van een jaar of tien.
Door LM dé producent te maken verliest de concurrentie haar capaciteit, persoonlijk denk ik dat dit de rede zal worden waarom de T/X zomaar eens de Boeing-Saab zou kunnen worden en dat de F18E/F/G vervangen zal worden door de Boeing FA/XX en niet door de F35C.
Ik denk dat je daar een goed punt hebt. Juist door verschillende fighters te hebben zou men de markt beter kunnen bedienen en daardoor enerzijds meer invloed hebben in andere landen, en anderzijds meer werkgelegenheid in eigen land. Dat hebben ze nog eens versterkt door met maar 1 motor door te gaan. Ze hebben hun geld gezet op 1 paard in plaats van voor een beheerste spreiding van risico's.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 26/09/2014 | 16:55 uur
Ik verwacht dat er in 2025 in Europa al zicht is op een opvolger. Aangezien de F35 een andere cyclus is dan de EUropese modellen is het denk ik dus de vraag welke cyclus je volgt. Nederland heeft nu voor de Amerikaanse gekozen...ik pleit al langer voor de overstap naar de EUropese.
Terwijl Boeing al via het FA-XX nadenkt over een zesde generatie bemand jachtvliegtuig. Zie ik in Europa tot nu toe helemaal niets gebeuren.
Je kunt je afvragen, of het wel zinnig is om een oorlogsvliegtuig te bouwen dat EUR 100 (Rafale) - 200 miljoen (F-35A) per stuk kost en per vlieguur een dik tot 2x modaal jaar salaris kost a EUR 36.000 - 72.000.
Om F-35A vliegers optimaal te laten oefenen om zodoende van alle vaardigheden gebruik te kunnen maken heb je een Jaarlijks Oefen Programma (JOP) nodig van 210 vlieguren.
Al 11 jaar beseft men bij de KLu dat een F-35A JOP van 210 uren financieel ongeacht de grote van het budget niet haalbaar is.
Dus moeten de F-35A vliegers oefeningen vliegen in F-35A surrogaat vliegtuigen. Dat kan een Boeing TX, M-346 of Pilatus PC-21 zijn, met eenzelfde stuurhut als in de F-35A.
Maar dan komt de oorlog naar ons toe. In plaats van veel minder dan 210 vlieguren, moeten de F-35's zeg 630 tot zelfs 840 uren per jaar aan de bak. Konden we een JOP van 210 vlieguren al niet betalen, 630 vlieguren kunnen we al helemaal niet financieel aan.
Het zo maar eens kunnen dat het jachtvliegtuig uitsterft, net als de grote en zware dinosaurussen, ridders en dreadnought's / slagschepen.
Misschien wordt er in de toekomst wel een pantser divisie uitgeschakeld door een zwermpje ScanEagle achtige UAV's, die boven de vijandelijke tanks nano-mechanische wespen loslaten, die met hun in ricine gedoopte angel de manschappen uitschakelen.
Citaat van: Poleme op 27/09/2014 | 13:27 uur
Terwijl Boeing al via het FA-XX nadenkt over een zesde generatie bemand jachtvliegtuig. Zie ik in Europa tot nu toe helemaal niets gebeuren.
Het is idd stil en als Utopia niet uit kijkt, dan prijst zij zich zelf uit de markt.
Citaat van: Poleme op 27/09/2014 | 13:27 uur
Het zo maar eens kunnen dat het jachtvliegtuig uitsterft, net als de grote en zware dinosaurussen, ridders en dreadnought's / slagschepen.
Misschien wordt er in de toekomst wel een pantser divisie uitgeschakeld door een zwermpje ScanEagle achtige UAV's, die boven de vijandelijke tanks nano-mechanische wespen loslaten, die met hun in ricine gedoopte angel de manschappen uitschakelen.
De (bemande) air superiority fighter zal, zoals ik het nu begrijp, voorlopig nog niet overbodig worden maar het aanvalsconcept zal voor het overgrote deel uit UCAV oplossingen gaan bestaan.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 27/09/2014 | 13:47 uur
Het is idd stil en als Utopia niet uit kijkt, dan prijst zij zich zelf uit de markt.
Niet 'zij' Jurrien, 'wij'!
Citaat van: Thomasen op 28/09/2014 | 00:37 uur
Niet 'zij' Jurrien, 'wij'!
Dat is de betere omschrijving!
Canada extends life of fighter jet fleet as it mulls replacements
OTTAWA, Sept 30, 2014
Reuters) - Canada, faced with a politically controversial decision over how best to upgrade its fleet of fighter jets, will extend the life of the existing planes to 2025, an official said on Tuesday.
Canada's ageing 80 or so CF-18s had been marked for retirement around 2020, but Ottawa's difficulty in making up its mind means they must now fly for longer. Some of the jets are more than 30 years old.
"We will be extending the life of our CF-18 fleet to 2025 to ensure that Canada has a multi-role, fighter-jet capability throughout the next decade," said a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Rob Nicholson.
She did not say how much the upgrade would cost.
In 2010, Canada's Conservative government announced a sole-source contract for 65 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35s but changed its mind in 2012 after a parliamentary watchdog roundly criticized the decision.
Ottawa then launched a more thorough study of the four most likely replacements and is in the process of deciding whether to hold an open competition or confirm the original decision to buy the F-35s.
The replacement file is particularly sensitive for the Conservatives, and critics suspect the government will put off its decision until after the next federal election, set for October 2015.
A source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters in early September that Canada would likely choose between the F-35 and Boeing Co's F-18 E/F Super Hornet.
That would mean the elimination of Dassault Aviation SA's Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, jointly made by BAE Systems PLC, Finmeccanica SpA and Airbus Group NV.
The $400 billion F-35 program, the largest in Pentagon history, is already late and well over budget. (Reporting by David Ljunggren; editing by Gunna Dickson)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/30/canada-defense-fighters-idUKL2N0RV25G20140930
Citaat van: uk.reuters.com Vandaag om 11:31
Canada, faced with a politically controversial decision over how best to upgrade its fleet of fighter jets, will extend the life of the existing planes to 2025, an official said on Tuesday.
Waarmee (zoals voorspeld) de laatste F35A concurrent in Canada, de (Advanced) Super Hornet de nek is omgedraaid.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/09/2014 | 06:55 uur
De F35 familie vind ik geen probleem, wel een probleem vindt ik het gebrek aan (toekomstig) westers concurrentieaanbod met alle gevolgen van dien.
In 2025 heb je (als westers land) alleen de keuze uit F35A/B/C of Saab Gripen E/F of je moet je blik gaan richten op een Aziaat.
Weet je, heel veel landen hebben niet de ambitie in het high end segment jachtvliegtuigen aan te schaffen. Puur speculatief denk ik dat heel veel Afrikaanse en Zuid-Amerikaanse landen dat leaseconcept van de Saab Gripen gaan omarmen of oude uitgefaseerde Amerikaanse F-18's danwel de ouwe Russische meuk overnemen. In ieder geval is de vierde (4+) generatie jachtvliegtuigen nog lang niet uit de tijd.
Van de Chinese low-budget J-10 en JF-17 moet ik het nog zien of het wat is. Al moeten we ze ook niet onderschatten. China is niet te beroerd armeluis vliegtuigen te produceren. En met de levering van militair materieel komt de economische macht.
Germany: Eurofighter Has Manufacturing Fault
Sep. 30, 2014 - By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
BERLIN — A manufacturing fault has been discovered in the Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes, Germany said Tuesday, announcing it was suspending deliveries of the sophisticated jets.
The news was another blow to the troubled and costly Eurofighter program — and raised concerns over the use of the planes.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140930/DEFREG01/309300045/Germany-Eurofighter-Has-Manufacturing-Fault?odyssey=nav%7Chead
China to buy 700 fifth-generation fighter planes
Dailybhaskar.com | Oct 01, 2014
New Delhi: Fifth generation fighter planes are going to be the future of armed forces across the globe.
According to a senior defence consultant Edward Hunt, several countries, including India, are pulling out all the stops to bolster their arsenal with the state-of-the-art machines.
Hunt, a consultant at Defence and Security, wrote in an article published in UK-based Jane's Defenc e weekly that China is planning to acquire close to 700 5th generation fighter planes.
US, with the only operation 5th generation fighter plane- F22 Raptor, is on the look out to purchase 2,616 fifth-generation fighter planes.
A major bulk of this purchase will be in the form of F 35 and F 22 manufactured by US-based Lockheed Martin.
Members of NATO including Great Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Turkey and Canada are planning to purchase a combined 600 F-35 fighters. In the Asia-Pacific region, Japan, South Korea and Australia will purchase an estimated 300 F-35s, the report said.
Russia, China and India are expected to increase their fifth-generation fighter aircraft strength by 1,500 jets.
The fifth-generation fighter aircraft will replace the ageing fleet of fourth-generation jets, like Su 27, Su 30 and Mig29.
Chinese aviation firms, Chengdu and Shenyang, are in process of developing their own fifth-generation fighter planes.
The report said that People's Liberation Army (PLA) will acquire 200 to 300 J-20 from Chengdu Aerospace Corporation and close to 400 J-31s from Shenyang Aircraft Corporation.
The procurement will help China counter threats posed by F 35 fighters of Korea and Japan in the South China Sea.
India's fifth-generation fighter program, FGFA, in collaboration with Russia, is well on course and it is expected to be complete by the end of this decade.
So far, USAF is the only defence force with an operational fifth-generation fighter
plane, F22 Raptor.
The Raptor made its debut recently as part of US-led military operations in Syria.
http://daily.bhaskar.com/news/WOR-china-to-buy-700-fifth-generation-fighter-planes-report-4762286-NOR.html
Citaat van: Zeewier op 01/10/2014 | 01:00 uur
Weet je, heel veel landen hebben niet de ambitie in het high end segment jachtvliegtuigen aan te schaffen. Puur speculatief denk ik dat heel veel Afrikaanse en Zuid-Amerikaanse landen dat leaseconcept van de Saab Gripen gaan omarmen of oude uitgefaseerde Amerikaanse F-18's danwel de ouwe Russische meuk overnemen. In ieder geval is de vierde (4+) generatie jachtvliegtuigen nog lang niet uit de tijd.
Van de Chinese low-budget J-10 en JF-17 moet ik het nog zien of het wat is. Al moeten we ze ook niet onderschatten. China is niet te beroerd armeluis vliegtuigen te produceren. En met de levering van militair materieel komt de economische macht.
Hier heb je een punt, westerse occasions zullen in grote getalen gedumpt worden in landen waar politieke invloed gekocht kan worden en de Amerikanen zullen vast niet schromen om oude F16/F18's cadeau te geven als ze daarmee een handvol Gripens e.d. uit de markt kunnen houden.
Oude 4e generatie kisten zullen nog tot diep in deze eeuw een rol spelen.
Boeing might stop Manufacturing Fighter Planes
September 30, 2014
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/09/boeing-might-stop-manufacturing-fighter-planes.html
Het zou een slechte zaak zijn als een bedrijf als Boeing stopt met het produceren van fighters, wellicht scoren ze de order voor trainers bij de US Airforce. Misschien moet Boeing een bedrijf als Saab overnemen zodat men de kennis opdoet om in de toekomst light fighters te bouwen?
Citaat van: Ace1 op 01/10/2014 | 11:00 uur
Het zou een slechte zaak zijn als een bedrijf als Boeing stopt met het produceren van fighters, wellicht scoren ze de order voor trainers bij de US Airforce. Misschien moet Boeing een bedrijf als Saab overnemen zodat men de kennis opdoet om in de toekomst light fighters te bouwen?
Misschien valt de F35 nog hard door de mand qua kwaliteit en kosten. Dan zou Boeing op die manier inderdaad in het gat kunnen springen.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 01/10/2014 | 11:00 uur
Het zou een slechte zaak zijn als een bedrijf als Boeing stopt met het produceren van fighters, wellicht scoren ze de order voor trainers bij de US Airforce. Misschien moet Boeing een bedrijf als Saab overnemen zodat men de kennis opdoet om in de toekomst light fighters te bouwen?
Als de combinatie Boeing-Saab de US T/X order (+/- 350 nieuwe traingsvliegtuigen vanaf een clean sheet) weet te scoren (waar ik op hoop) dan zou het mij niet verbazen dat de fighter divisie van Saab in een joint venture verder gaat met Boeing of dat Boeing het koopt.
Daarnaast: Ik verwacht dat Boeing zijn FA/XX mag ontwikkelen (ter vervaging van de USN F18E/F/G)
Een monopolie op fighters door LM is op alle fronten een slechte zaak.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 01/10/2014 | 11:02 uur
Misschien valt de F35 nog hard door de mand qua kwaliteit en kosten. Dan zou Boeing op die manier inderdaad in het gat kunnen springen.
Op misschien wordt in dit geval geen business case gebouwd en mocht het wel misschien zijn/worden dan is dat vast pas na sluiting van de F15/F18 productielijnen.
Ik zet mijn hoop voor Boeing op de T/X en de FA/XX
Russia "actively developing an unmanned sixth generation aircraft", said former Air Force commander
Posted: 09/29/2014
RT news is reporting today that Russia is "actively developing an unmanned sixth generation aircraft", according to a former Air Force commander.
Unlike NATO allies who will use American F-35 5Gs, "self-sufficiency is an absolute must for Russia", said the commander, "so 6G evolution is inevitable."
With a fifth generation PAK-FA heavy attack jet already developed and planned to enter service in 2016, Russian aviation is also "looking ahead to the future of air combat, conducting research and development for aircraft that can dominate airspace by the mid-21st century", said the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, Army General Pyotr Deynekin .
Ahead of the MAKS-2013 airshow due to start on August 27, the former , gave an interview to the RIA news agency, in which he made vague, yet far-reaching remarks about the future Russian Air Force.
According to RT news: "Deynekin admitted that work on the sixth generation long range assault jet is in "active phase" and "most probably" the aircraft will be unmanned.
While some NATO member countries are planning to 'forego' development of a fifth generation fighter jet, buying American F-35's instead and developing a sixth generation aircraft from scratch, Russia has no possibility to economize in that way, he said.
"We must do this serious undertaking on our own, so jumping over a [aircraft development] generation is hardly possible," Pyotr Deynekin told RIA.
http://groundreport.com/russia-actively-developing-an-unmanned-sixth-generation-aircraft-said-former-air-force-commander/
'Russia's after Sixth Generation unmanned attack jet'
Published time: August 26, 2013
http://rt.com/news/sixth-generation-unmanned-attack-jet-998/
Eurofighter zorgt voor nieuwe problemen bij Defensie
1-okt-2014
Bij de Eurofighter-jets van de Duitse Bundeswehr zijn ernstige productiefouten vastgesteld. Volgens de fabrikant is daardoor de levensduur van de toestellen gehalveerd. In plaats van 3000 kunnen nu nog maar 1500 vlieguren worden gemaakt. In het voorjaar werd al bekend dat de Duitse rekenkamer de kostenraming van de Eurofighter van 30 naar 60 miljard euro heeft bijgesteld. De Bundeswehr schort verdere afname van toestellen voorlopig op. Het is een nieuw probleem voor het ministerie van Defensie, dat al onder druk staat omdat het kampt met gebrekkig materieel en niet voldoende inzetbaar zou zijn voor buitenlandse missies. Lees meer bij Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung >>
http://www.duitslandweb.nl/mediaarchief/2014/40/problemen-met-eurofighter.html
Holy F*ck! Lekkere aankoop was die Typhoon! :silent:
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/10/2014 | 11:20 uur
Een monopolie op fighters door LM is op alle fronten een slechte zaak.
Daar zijn ze in de USA ook wel achter dat er nu teveel geleund wordt op de ontwikkelingen van LM, afhankelijkheid van 1 leverancier en maar 2 type toestellen (F-22, F-35) Als er iets met een toestel aan de hand is en wordt gegrounded dan heb je wel een groot probleem om je inzetbaarheid veilig te stellen.
Ook de monopolie omtrent de motoren-levering (F135) voor de F-35 door Pratt & Whitney is een niet wenselijke situatie. Ze hadden door moeten gaan met de ondersteuning van de ontwikkeling van de F136 van GE/RR.
Zoals ook voor de F-16 hebben we de PW F100 motoren, maar ook de GE F110 motoren
Axing The F-35's Alternative Engine Was An Incredibly Stupid Movehttp://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/axing-f-35s-alternative-engine-was-an-incredibly-stupid-1601589678
Citaat van: Harald op 01/10/2014 | 12:23 uur
Daar zijn ze in de USA ook wel achter dat er nu teveel geleund wordt op de ontwikkelingen van LM, afhankelijkheid van 1 leverancier en maar 2 type toestellen (F-22, F-35) Als er iets met een toestel aan de hand is en wordt gegrounded dan heb je wel een groot probleem om je inzetbaarheid veilig te stellen.
Ook de monopolie omtrent de motoren-levering (F135) voor de F-35 door Pratt & Whitney is een niet wenselijke situatie. Ze hadden door moeten gaan met de ondersteuning van de ontwikkeling van de F136 van GE/RR.
Zoals ook voor de F-16 hebben we de PW F100 motoren, maar ook de GE F110 motoren
Axing The F-35's Alternative Engine Was An Incredibly Stupid Move
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/axing-f-35s-alternative-engine-was-an-incredibly-stupid-1601589678
Precies en het annuleren van de F136 heeft voor Nederland ook nog eens een bijsmaak,
Het hele project heeft een nare bijsmaak....
Citaat van: Mourning op 01/10/2014 | 12:17 uur
Holy F*ck! Lekkere aankoop was die Typhoon! :silent:
tja... :sick:
Ongeloofelijk van die Typhoon! Nou, een voordeel bij een nadeel dat we daar nooit aan hebben meegedaan. (Maar om nou te zeggen dat de F35 dan zulk goed nieuws is...)
Saab deal met Gripen voor Brazilië is nog NIET in veilige haven!
Uit het Zweeds via Google Translate....
Griffin Business can fall - hot election issue in Brazil
In Brazil, the country's purchase of 36 Gripen aircraft has become an election issue for the presidential election on Sunday. The country's largest trade union CNM-CUT, warns that the deal could fall, if the incumbent President Dilma Rousseff loses and main opposition candidate Marina Silva wins.
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=5980797
De Braziliaanse marine heeft een voorkeur voor de SeaGripen.
In het Portugees:
http://www.diariodenautica.com/brasil-se-inclina-por-el-gripen-naval-para-dotar-al-sao-paulo/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/10/2014 | 13:15 uur
De Braziliaanse marine heeft een voorkeur voor de SeaGripen.
In het Portugees:
http://www.diariodenautica.com/brasil-se-inclina-por-el-gripen-naval-para-dotar-al-sao-paulo/
Wow, dat is een klap voor Dassault en de Franse overheid. Voor een habbekrats een boot zonder vliegend Frans product. Zo hadden ze het vast niet bedoelt. Ach, een volgende regering na Dilma Roussef ziet het allemaal weer anders.
Indonesia to co-develop $8 bln South Korea fighter jet project
Sun Oct 5, 2014
Oct 6 (Reuters) - South Korea's arms procurement agency said on Monday that Indonesia had agreed to pay 20 percent of the development costs of a mid-level fighter jet programme that some analysts said could cost up to $8 billion.
The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said in a statement that it signed a basic agreement to develop the "KF-X" or "Boramae" fighter jet with the Indonesian defense ministry.
The jets, to be delivered from 2025, are expected to be developed with the help of Lockheed Martin as part of an offset agreement.
Indonesia is currently the only foreign partner in the KF-X programme, which gained momentum in South Korea this year after repeated feasibility studies and debate over whether Korea should buy or develop its own mid-level jets to replace ageing F-4s and F-5s.
Indonesia first agreed to participate in early feasibility studies of the programme in 2010.
The planned twin-engine fighter jet was estimated to cost up to 8.5 trillion won to develop, according to a South Korean state-run think tank, while production cost is roughly expected to cost around 10 trillion won, a source with direct knowledge of the project told Reuters.
The source declined to be identified as not authorized to reveal cost details to media.
DAPA plans to choose a lead developer by December, with Korea Aerospace Industries and Korean Air Lines' aerospace division intending to compete, both companies' spokesmen said.
The Indonesian government will choose a local institution to work with the lead developer to co-develop the jet, a DAPA spokesman said, without elaborating. ($1 = 1,061.1000 Korean won) (Reporting by Joyce Lee; Editing by Miral Fahmy)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/06/southkorea-defence-indonesia-idUSL3N0S00Z820141006
Norway Paves The Way For F-35 Acquisition
Several times a year, business managers within the Norwegian defense ministry are crunching the numbers regarding acquisition and support of the F-35.
Basing their figures on the U.S. Presidential Budget and those from the F-35 Joint Program Office, the Norwegian government currently expects their future F-35 fleet to cost up to 20% more to operate than its current F-16 fleet, but that issue does not seem to generate concern here in Oslo.
The program might be Norway's largest and most expensive defense project to date, but officials say the new capabilities the F-35 will bring, such as enabling the country's air arm to carry out long-range strikes, make it a price worth paying. Since 2008, they note, the cost to Norway has increased by just 8% and currently stands around 248 billion krone ($38 billion) for the 56-year lifetime of the program as of January this year.
"Smaller forces require more modern equipment," says Lt. Col. Sigurd Fongen of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office speaking at last month's Joint Strike Fighter executive steering board meetings here. "Look at recent conflicts, the warning times are shorter, there is not much time to train or mobilize, these are 'come as you are' conflicts [and] we need to be able to counter that."
Norway has been a relative newcomer for the F-35, selecting the aircraft in late 2008 to replace its fleet of Fokker-built F-16 Fighting Falcons. However, it is projected to rapidly become one of Europe's largest operators. With plans to acquire 52 F-35As, Oslo has already approved the purchase of 16 aircraft, and this is likely to increase when the government budget is cleared in spring 2015. The country has accelerated its F-35 purchase as its 56 remaining F‑16s show their age. Norway's initial aircraft are on the production line in Fort Worth; the first is scheduled to be delivered in late 2015. Two more are due to arrive in 2016, followed by six every year until 2024.
Initial operating capability (IOC) is expected in 2019 and full operational capability by around 2024. The IOC is defined as having a fleet able to take on Norway's national defense missions. For several years, the country's remaining F-16s will operate alongside the F-35, but will be rapidly downsized in 2019‑20. The government wants to ensure against capability gaps, a process that will have to be managed carefully.
The Norwegian government has opted to position its F-35 fleet at a single location—Orland air base—near the coastal city Trondheim. Oslo is spending $96 million on new facilities for the aircraft, construction of which is due to begin during 2015. The F-35 force will comprise two large front-line squadrons, compared to three currently flying the F-16, split between the Orland and Bodo air bases.
New facilities will include eight full-mission simulators so pilots will be able to virtually train in tandem with colleagues who are flying the actual aircraft. The Royal Norwegian Air Force hopes to conducts 40% of its training synthetically compared to 20% on the F-16 currently. The airfield itself will receive tighter security; the installation of new fences and earth berms are just two of the measures that will be taken to meet U.S. security requirements.
Four of Norway's aircraft will remain in the U.S. to support pilot training; three more will be stationed at Evenes, near Narvik in the far north. There they will serve as NATO's quick-reaction alert to intercept unidentified, often Russian, aircraft flying close to Norwegian airspace.
Further investments may also be needed in terms of weaponry. A large portion of the program will be devoted to the introduction of the Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile (JSM) (see page 23), which will give Norway its first taste of a strategic stand-off capability. The country had hoped it could repurpose many of the weapons it uses on the F-16, but the IRIS-T—Norway's primary short-range air-to-air weapon—is not slated for integration onto the F-35, prompting Oslo to look at the AIM-9X Sidewinder. Officials are also considering the MBDA Meteor.
The search for potential partnerships with other JSF operators in Europe has already begun. Significant discussions have taken place with the U.K.; a preliminary pact was signed in March. At the center of this is the need for weapons training, says Col. Charles Svensson, program manager for operations in the Norwegian F-35 program office.
Norway works with other operators of the F-16 in Europe on the Fighter Weapons Instructor Training program, while the U.K. has its own Combined Qualified Weapons Instructor Course program. "We are discussing the similarities between these two exercises and discussing cooperation on maintenance training," Svensson says.
Perhaps the most significant change required by the Norwegians is the addition of a brake parachute to handle the enhanced braking capability needed during their harsh winters. The modification requires changes in the construction of the rear fuselage section to create a compartment to hold the parachute system. On top of this is a large canoe fairing, which will open on landing. Despite its large size, the fairing—designed to minimize any impact on the radar cross-section—is fitted between the two vertical tails.
The addition of the brake chute also requires cockpit modifications to deploy it on landing. Svensson says that when the brake chute is not needed the fairing could be removed and the compartment for the chute could potentially be used for other systems. Canadian company Airborne Systems is developing the braking parachute.
Norway is covering the cost of developing the system for the F-35A. Under a contract announced on Sept. 30, Norway will pay as much as $246.6 million to develop and test the installation. The cost includes some modifications to the airframe around the brake-chute pod. These will be incorporated as an in-line retrofit to early aircraft—starting with the first two Norwegian production aircraft and included in later aircraft from the start of manufacture. Norway will also receive a royalty on any F-35s sold to other air forces with the parachute installed; Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands are leading candidates.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/norway-paves-way-f-35-acquisition
Bulgaria Plans to Ground Its Russian-Made Fighter Jets
By Anna Dolgov
Oct. 07 2014
Bulgaria's military plans to stop using three dozen of its Russian-made fighter jets and bombers to reassert its independence from Moscow, the defense minister said, following the Bulgarian president's denouncement of Russia as a "nationalist, aggressive state."
The plan to get rid of all Russian-made aircraft is part of Bulgaria's military development program through 2020 to further integrate the former Soviet bloc nation into the Western NATO defense alliance, of which it is a member, Bulgaria's Trud newspaper reported Monday.
The military will present to parliament within six months a list of new airplanes to replace the 15 Russian-made MiG-29 and six MiG-21 fighters and 14 SU-25 bombers that remain in Bulgaria's air force, the report said.
The plan, which Defense Minister Velizar Shalamanov described as a bid to strengthen Bulgaria's independence from Russia, is expected to go ahead despite protests by pilots and maintenance workers who expect the replacement of aircraft to cost 300 jobs, Trud reported.
Russia's annexation of Crimea and its meddling in eastern Ukraine has prompted a series of moves from eastern European nations to boost their ties with NATO and strengthen defense against their former Moscow masters.
Poland's legendary Solidarity Movement leader, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former President Lech Walesa urged NATO to station nuclear missiles in Poland to deter a potential Russian threat in an interview with Italy's La Stampa published Monday.
"Putin is irresponsible and wants to sow havoc in Poland, as he did in Ukraine," Walesa was quoted as saying. "So we want NATO to give us the best missiles at its disposal, install them here and point them in the right direction."
In Bulgaria, President Rosen Plevneliev said in an interview with Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine published over the weekend that "Russia must learn to have partners, not vassals and subjects."
"We all want as a partner a country that has produced Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky," Plevneliev was quoted as saying. "But facts show that today we have to deal with another Russia — with a nationalist, aggressive state under a president who does not regard Europe as a partner, but as an opponent."
A recent survey by Russia's independent Levada Center pollster has indicated that years of President Vladimir Putin's rule have caused Russians to abandon their wish for a European future for their country.
Despite harsh anti-Western rhetoric by Russia's state-run television channels, the number of Russians who wanted their country at some point to join the European Union had remained in a comfortable majority during the initial decade of Putin's government, but went into a nosedive a few years ago and hit an all-time low of 16 percent last month, according to Levada Center polls.
Bulgaria's president told Frankfurter Allgemeine that "all Europeans have won with the fall of the Berlin Wall, gaining freedom, democracy, perspective."
"However, Vladimir Putin sees the fall of the Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union as a catastrophe, which leads to his interpretation of history that opposes Europe and its values as a matter of principle," Plevneliev was quoted as saying.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/bulgaria-plans-to-ground-its-russian-made-fighter-jets/508531.html
Citaat van: www.themoscowtimes.com Vandaag om 06:21
The military will present to parliament within six months a list of new airplanes to replace the 15 Russian-made MiG-29 and six MiG-21 fighters and 14 SU-25 bombers that remain in Bulgaria's air force, the report said.
Ik gok dat het lijstje een kort lijstje is met de voornaamste kanshebbers: occasion Gripen C/D of occasion F16C/D
Dat zou een fikse stroomversnelling van het programma betekenen. Maar gezien de Financiele situatie hoeft meer dan een 3e hands toestel ook niet verwacht te worden.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 07/10/2014 | 18:28 uur
Dat zou een fikse stroomversnelling van het programma betekenen. Maar gezien de Financiele situatie hoeft meer dan een 3e hands toestel ook niet verwacht te worden.
Laten we uitgaan van 20 tot 24 exemplaren, waarbij een lease constructie voor de hand ligt of een Amerikaanse dump om de Russen te pesten of om de Zweden dwars te zitten.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/10/2014 | 18:27 uur
Ik gok dat het lijstje een kort lijstje is met de voornaamste kanshebbers: occasion Gripen C/D of occasion F16C/D
Uiteraard hoop ik op een keus waar wij ook beter van worden. Hoewel beide opties zeker hoog op de lijst zullen staan, zou ik niet verbaasd zijn als er ook nog wat Mirage-2000 tevoorschijn komen. Maar tenzij die praktisch weggegeven worden verwacht ik daar weinig van.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/10/2014 | 18:32 uur
Laten we uitgaan van 20 tot 24 exemplaren, waarbij een lease constructie voor de hand ligt of een Amerikaanse dump om de Russen te pesten of om de Zweden dwars te zitten.
Met een defensiebudget van 562 miljoen euro (2012) is er weinig ruimte voor zelfs dergelijke constructies. Met een jaarlijks investeringsbudget van 22 miljoen Euro ben je een aardige tijd kwijt aan het aanbetalen en afbetalen van de aanschaf danwel lease constructie, zelfs voor 24 stuks.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 07/10/2014 | 18:33 uur
Uiteraard hoop ik op een keus waar wij ook beter van worden. Hoewel beide opties zeker hoog op de lijst zullen staan, zou ik niet verbaasd zijn als er ook nog wat Mirage-2000 tevoorschijn komen. Maar tenzij die praktisch weggegeven worden verwacht ik daar weinig van.
Het zou een verrassing zijn, al zijn de Fransen wel druk om een bestemming te vinden voor de Mirage 2000-9 van de VAE zodat ze daar hun Rafales kunnen verkopen, al denk ik dat dit te lang gaat duren en wellicht toch nog te ambitieus is.
CitaatPoland's legendary Solidarity Movement leader, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former President Lech Walesa urged NATO to station nuclear missiles in Poland to deter a potential Russian threat in an interview with Italy's La Stampa published Monday.
Plaatsing van nucleaire wapens in Polen zal onherroepelijk leiden tot militaire heropbouw in Wit-Rusland. Door Rusland. Waardoor het gevoel van dreiging niet minder wordt.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/10/2014 | 11:39 uur
Eurofighter zorgt voor nieuwe problemen bij Defensie, 1-okt-2014
Bij de Eurofighter-jets van de Duitse Bundeswehr zijn ernstige productiefouten vastgesteld. Volgens de fabrikant is daardoor de levensduur van de toestellen gehalveerd. In plaats van 3000 kunnen nu nog maar 1500 vlieguren worden gemaakt. In het voorjaar werd al bekend dat de Duitse rekenkamer de kostenraming van de Eurofighter van 30 naar 60 miljard euro heeft bijgesteld. De Bundeswehr schort verdere afname van toestellen voorlopig op. Het is een nieuw probleem voor het ministerie van Defensie, dat al onder druk staat omdat het kampt met gebrekkig materieel en niet voldoende inzetbaar zou zijn voor buitenlandse missies. Lees meer bij Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung >>
http://www.duitslandweb.nl/mediaarchief/2014/40/problemen-met-eurofighter.html
De ernstige productie fouten zeggen meer over de fabrikant, in dit geval het consortium Eurofighter en de oorspronkelijke klant(en) dan over het product Typhoon.
De Typhoon heeft / hoort eigenlijk een levensduur van 6.000 vlieguren (te hebben).
Amerikaanse jachtvliegers die tegen de Typhoon hebben geoefend zijn echter allemaal onder de indruk van de luchtverdediging prestaties van dit type. Als jachtbommenwerper is deze kist minder geslaagd, want een nogal kort bereik.
Bulgaria To Choose New Fighter Planes Within 6 Months Politics
October 7, 2014
Bulgaria must choose new fighter planes for its air force in the next six months, caretaker Defence Minister Velizar Shalamanov said during an international conference at Sofia's Defence Academy. The country can choose among three offers – new Gripen fighters, used Eurofighter from Italy or used F16 from Portugal – and according to Shalamanov nothing is predetermined. "The important decisions must be taken step by step in full and clear responsibility," Shalamanov said and added that Bulgaria's air force will be in much better condition than the current, if it can get 8-10 multi purpose fighter jets.
http://www.novinite.com/articles/163908/Bulgaria+To+Choose+New+Fighter+Planes+Within+6+Months#sthash.jn0rkheD.dpuf
Bij wie ze ook wegkomen, ik gok op 2de-hands F-16's voor Bulgarije, met hulp/druk uit de VS.
Bulgaria to refuse from use of Russian-made warplanes
..../....
The newspaper stressed that Defence Minister Velizar Shalamanov had motivated the government decision by saying that Bulgaria should be independent from Russia as far as its defence sector was concerned.
Instead of Russian-made aircraft, according to the defence minister, Bulgaria should buy eight new fighters, for which ends it needed about 300 million euro. Experts polled by the newspaper noted that this money would be enough to buy only old F-16 fighters, since new aircraft cost at least 100 million euro each.
"So far, it is not clear how to negotiate possible purchase of 'used' F-16 planes. In 2013, Bulgaria wanted to buy them from Portugal. There are at least two more options - to buy them directly from a United State mission or from Greece, which had bought new planes and now want to get rid of older machines," the newspaper wrote.
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/753032
Citaat van: Harald op 08/10/2014 | 08:59 uur
Bij wie ze ook wegkomen, ik gok op 2de-hands F-16's voor Bulgarije, met hulp/druk uit de VS.
[
Ik deel die gok, al sluit ik een kleine serie lease Gripens (C/D) niet uit.
Eigenlijk te triest voor woorden :
je hebt in aantallen :
15 stuks MiG-29 (aanschaf in 1990, deze zijn nu 24 jaar oud)
6 stuks MiG-21 (aanschaf in 1983, 1985 en 1990, de oudste zijn nu 31 jaar oud)
14 stuks SU-25
--------------------
35 stuks totaal (hoeveel vliegwaardig zijn, is niet bekend natuurlijk)
Deze zet je aan de grond en op non-actief en wil 8 stuks van een nadere te bepalen type-toestel kopen en je budget is 350 miljoen Euro.
8 stuks betekend dus dat er zo'n 2 a 3 stuks operationeel zijn voor "actie", deze worden dus gebruikt voor QRA.
Citaat van: Harald op 08/10/2014 | 09:19 uur
8 stuks betekend dus dat er zo'n 2 a 3 stuks operationeel zijn voor "actie", deze worden dus gebruikt voor QRA.
Mocht ooit echt de nood aan de man komen, dan zijn 2 SU-35 al voldoende om de a.s. Bulgaarse luchtmacht te elimineren.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/10/2014 | 09:30 uur
Mocht ooit echt de nood aan de man komen, dan zijn 2 SU-35 al voldoende om de a.s. Bulgaarse luchtmacht te elimineren.
Of de Bulgaarse luchtmacht is genoeg om twee su35 te elimineren.
Natuurlijk is het een te klein aantal. Dat geeft alleen maar weer aan waarom we winst kunnen halen uit specialisatie.
Daarbij een luchtmacht bestaande uit genoemde kisten, met waarschijnlijk nauwelijks updates is ook niet indrukwekkend.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/10/2014 | 09:30 uur
Mocht ooit echt de nood aan de man komen, dan zijn 2 SU-35 al voldoende om de a.s. Bulgaarse luchtmacht te elimineren.
Dan kan Poetin ook Sofia wel toevoegen als steden binnen de 2 dagen termijn vallen.. ;)
President Vladimir Putin privately threatened to invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic states, according to a record of a conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart.
"If I wanted, in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw and Bucharest," Mr Putin allegedly told President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, reported Süddeutsche Zeitung, a German newspaper.
If true, this would be the first time that Mr Putin has threatened to invade Nato or EU members. Any threat to send Russian troops into the capitals of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Romania would cause grave alarm among Western leaders.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 08/10/2014 | 09:41 uur
Of de Bulgaarse luchtmacht is genoeg om twee su35 te elimineren.
Natuurlijk is het een te klein aantal. Dat geeft alleen maar weer aan waarom we winst kunnen halen uit specialisatie.
Daarbij een luchtmacht bestaande uit genoemde kisten, met waarschijnlijk nauwelijks updates is ook niet indrukwekkend.
Zeker waar.
Greece poised to sell some of its F-16 fighters to Bulgaria
11 October 2014
Athens. Greece is in talks with the US and Bulgaria about selling some of its old F-16 fighter jets to Sofia and leasing new ones from Washington, Kathimerini understands, Greek eKathimerini writes.
NATO asked Bulgaria in February to update its air force's capability and the country's defense officials have approached Athens about the possibility of buying between six and eight Fighting Falcon planes, sources said. The issue was first discussed when the country's two defense ministers met in March.
Athens has approached Washington with regard to this issue and has received a positive response.
There is a precedent for such a deal as Portugal sold 12 of its F-16s to Romania for 880 million dollars in October 2013.
Sources said the Hellenic Air Force would like the jets sold to be replaced by Block 52s but the US does not want to lease these airplanes.
http://www.focus-fen.net/news/2014/10/11/351142/greece-poised-to-sell-some-of-its-f-16-fighters-to-bulgaria.html
Dus misschien ook maar eens in Stockholm gaan praten....
Citaat van: Elzenga op 11/10/2014 | 11:37 uur
Dus misschien ook maar eens in Stockholm gaan praten....
Mee eens, occasions in de vorm van F16 of Gripens zijn de enige logische keuze voor de Bulgaren alleen het aantal is belachelijk.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 11/10/2014 | 11:37 uur
Dus misschien ook maar eens in Stockholm gaan praten....
Als Griek of als Bulgaar?
Het zou mooi zijn als dit een win wordt voor Europa. Maar ik verwacht dat de F16 de beste papieren heeft. Hoewel de Typhoon prima is, met 6 tot 8 kisten kun je toch niet meer doen dan luchtverdediging, verwacht ik dat de beperkte A2G mogelijkheden van de aangeboden T1's een probleem zullen zijn. Lockheed heeft al sterke aanwezigheid in Griekenland, en binnen de HELBROC vliegen straks al twee landen met de F16 en Cyprus heeft geen luchtmacht. Bovendien kan voor de F16's ondersteuning van Task force East verwacht worden, die meerdere bases in Roemenië en Bulgarije hebben.
Een Europese keus zou mooi zijn, vooral met oog op de toekomst, maar heb er een hard hoofd in. Was Roemenië voor de Gripen gegaan had het anders gelegen. Maar die zien zichzelf ook al in F35's vliegen.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 11/10/2014 | 14:23 uur
Als Griek of als Bulgaar?
Het zou mooi zijn als dit een win wordt voor Europa. Maar ik verwacht dat de F16 de beste papieren heeft. Hoewel de Typhoon prima is, met 6 tot 8 kisten kun je toch niet meer doen dan luchtverdediging, verwacht ik dat de beperkte A2G mogelijkheden van de aangeboden T1's een probleem zullen zijn. Lockheed heeft al sterke aanwezigheid in Griekenland, en binnen de HELBROC vliegen straks al twee landen met de F16 en Cyprus heeft geen luchtmacht. Bovendien kan voor de F16's ondersteuning van Task force East verwacht worden, die meerdere bases in Roemenië en Bulgarije hebben.
Een Europese keus zou mooi zijn, vooral met oog op de toekomst, maar heb er een hard hoofd in. Was Roemenië voor de Gripen gegaan had het anders gelegen. Maar die zien zichzelf ook al in F35's vliegen.
Ging om de Bulgaren.... Maar denk dat beide landen via keuze voor F16s liever de steun van de VS "inkopen". Het vertrouwen in een meer EU achtige militaire opzet is nog niet sterk genoeg. Helaas. Kost tijd.
To confront US allies China needs 1,200 J-10B fighters: Russian media
Staff Reporter 2014-10-12
China will need to produce about 1,200 fourth-generation fighters to be able to confront the air forces of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, if the three nations are successful in their bids to acquire advanced American fighters, in any potential conflict, according to the Moscow-based Russian Military Analysis on Oct. 9.
Even though Taiwan maintains close economic ties with mainland China, the Russian-language newspaper said that the Taiwanese government under the leadership of Ma Ying-jeou has not given up its intention of purchasing advanced fighters from the United States such as the F-16C/D and even the F-35. Japan and South Korea, two major American allies in the region, are also upgrading their air forces as well by introducing new American-built jets.
China is speeding up the development of its fifth-generation stealth fighters such as the J-20 and the J-31, however, the country has still been unable to design domestic engines for the aircraft. Until it does, the People's Liberation Army will need to rely on the J-10 and the J-10B to confront the air forces of Taiwan, South Korea and Japan in the event of a conflict.
Originally, the J-10 was designed to compete against fighters like the French-built Rafale, the European-built Typhoon and the Russian-built MiG-29K. Equipped with AL-31 engines introduced from Russia, the thrust of the J-10 is more powerful than the American-built F-16C and the Typhoon, however, the combat radius of the J-10 is only 800 kilometers, which is a major weakness when compared with its US and European counterparts the newspaper said.
Equipped with the active electronically scanned array radar system on the domestic fighter, the J-10B fighter was developed by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group as an upgraded version of the J-10. The company said it has decided to produce at least 1,200 J-10 fighters with active electronically scanned array radars over the next 10 years. Under the coordination of early warning aircraft like the KJ-2000 and the ZDK-03, the J-10B could be a very deadly threat to nations using American-built fighters in the Far East.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20141012000011
De Chinezen houden er een defensiebudget op na dat ongeveer gelijk is aan dat van de EU-landen, en die J10 heeft een Russisch prijskaartje. 1200 van die dingen kunnen een behoorlijk effect hebben.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 12/10/2014 | 10:15 uur
De Chinezen houden er een defensiebudget op na dat ongeveer gelijk is aan dat van de EU-landen, en die J10 heeft een Russisch prijskaartje. 1200 van die dingen kunnen een behoorlijk effect hebben.
Gecombineerd met een behoorlijk aantal andere Russische klonen en na schatting +/- 700 J-20 en J-31 is het toch een luchtmacht om meer dan serieus rekening mee te houden.
Why the F-35 is a sitting duck for the Flankers
October 12, 2014 Rakesh Krishnan Simha
Outgunned by the Su-30 family of aircraft and suffering critical design flaws, the American F-35 is staring down the barrel of obsolescence – and punching a gaping hole in western air defences.
http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/10/12/why_the_f-35_is_a_sitting_duck_for_the_flankers_38959.html
Citaat van: WantChinaTimes op 12/10/2014 | 09:34 uur
To confront US allies China needs 1,200 J-10B fighters: Russian media
....
Laat denk ik ook goed zien hoe belangrijk 4+generatie nog is en zal zijn de komende 30 jaar. Als ook het belang van voldoende kwalitatieve kwantiteit. Dat gecombineerd met nu al "teveel" taken voor de beschikbare 11 F16s blijft mij vraagtekens zetten bij de Nederlandse keuze voor de F35. Voor grote landen kan ik die keuze begrijpen. Toplaag van 5de generatie met grote basislaag van 4+. Voor landen als Nederland lijkt mij bijdragen aan die basislaag van 4+ logischer.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 12/10/2014 | 14:24 uur
Laat denk ik ook goed zien hoe belangrijk 4+generatie nog is en zal zijn de komende 30 jaar. Als ook het belang van voldoende kwalitatieve kwantiteit. Dat gecombineerd met nu al "teveel" taken voor de beschikbare 11 F16s blijft mij vraagtekens zetten bij de Nederlandse keuze voor de F35. Voor grote landen kan ik die keuze begrijpen. Toplaag van 5de generatie met grote basislaag van 4+. Voor landen als Nederland lijkt mij bijdragen aan die basislaag van 4+ logischer.
Ik ben voor een KLu high end low end mix, en heb geen enkel bezwaar tegen 2 sqn F35A aangevuld met 2 sqn Gripen E/F
Ik zou ook kunnen gaan voor 1 sqn van 24 F35A aangevuld met 3 sqn Gripen E.
Dat oeverloze over klein.... met een budget van 1.6 - 2% van het BNP is het geen enkel probleem, we zijn klein in oppervlakte, dat zeker maar financieel horen we gewoon bij de groten, dat "we" andere keuzes maken is een ander verhaal.
Met 4 sqn, met elk 20-24 kisten zijn we numeriek nog steeds aanzienlijk kleiner dan in 1990.
Via Google translate, het origineel, via de link in het Portugees + interessant plaatje.
Gripen for Ukraine?
Posted on 12/10/2014 by LaMarca in Military
Ukraine is considering the Gripen as an option for the modernization of its Air Force.
Given the recent events in the region, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are in a very delicate position and need to be urgently updated. With the Air Force, the concern is huge!
Recently, technical Ukrainians fought a battle against time to bring back the active MiG-29 and Su-27, also produced in the Soviet era, which had been retired; however this was only a stopgap solution. Obviously the Ukraine in the near future, will need to upgrade its fleet, and an international tender should be performed. The focus will be to purchase a hunting multifunction and low operating costs. For this reason, the Ukrainian government, along with military commanders that country, returned to consider the Swedish Gripen as more viable option for this refit.
In 2005, the current president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, who at the time served as Secretary of National Security and Defence, announced an agreement with Sweden on a possible local production of the Gripen, under license, in the city of Lviv, where already there is an aircraft factory. On occasion, due to changes of power in the country, the project was frozen.
Now, this time as president, Poroshenko, raised the idea of using the Gripen. Would be considered two options: leasing of 21 aircraft (models C / D), modeled on the existing contracts with Hungary and the Czech Republic, and / or acquisition of new fighters, which would be produced locally under license.
273625_681727
In view of Petro Poroshenko, the Gripen would provide the Air Force their country an effective and low cost solution against possible threats. Poroshenko also highlights the fact that Sweden is not a NATO member and have the Gripen their primary line of defense.
"It's the cheapest of Western competitors (even in its latest version, NG), easy to maintain and can be operated from unprepared airfields."
There are also agreements between the two countries, Sweden and Ukraine, for local production of military equipment in general on Ukrainian territory, which is why a delegation of Swedish military experts is currently visiting the military industrial complex of the country.
SOURCE: Ukrop NEWS - Translation and editing: CAVOK
IMAGES: Internet
EDITOR'S NOTE: If you are to follow the Swedish model, I draw attention to the fact that in that country the Gripen is employed in larger numbers, with approximately 100 aircraft models C / D currently in operation, plus 60 new Gripen E that should be introduced until 2023.
http://www.cavok.com.br/blog/?p=79740
Gezien de grote Amerikaanse vinger in de Oekraïense pap de afgelopen jaren en maanden denk ik niet dat die erg blij zullen zijn met de aanschaf van Gripens. En waarschijnlijk een wapenpakket zullen aanbieden met daarin F-16s plus andere financiële voordelen. Hoewel Zweden via hun (voormalige) minister van buitenlandse zaken Bildt erg veel heeft gedaan ten bate van de Oekraïense regering verwacht ik niet dat het voldoende zal zijn. Hoezeer ik die Gripen aanschaf zelf toejuich.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 12/10/2014 | 19:20 uur
Gezien de grote Amerikaanse vinger in de Oekraïense pap de afgelopen jaren en maanden denk ik niet dat die erg blij zullen zijn met de aanschaf van Gripens. En waarschijnlijk een wapenpakket zullen aanbieden met daarin F-16s plus andere financiële voordelen. Hoewel Zweden via hun (voormalige) minister van buitenlandse zaken Bildt erg veel heeft gedaan ten bate van de Oekraïense regering verwacht ik niet dat het voldoende zal zijn. Hoezeer ik die Gripen aanschaf zelf toejuich.
Ik denk dat ook gekeken wordt naar de Russen en die zullen het politiek wel kunnen verdragen als er een Zweed wordt gekocht, liever dan een Amerikaan...
Ik zie ze zomaar de Gripen C/D leasen om deze na het lease contract te vervangen door lokaal geproduceerde Gripen E/F.
We gaan het zien, interessant om te vervolgen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/10/2014 | 19:26 uur
Ik denk dat ook gekeken wordt naar de Russen en die zullen het politiek wel kunnen verdragen als er een Zweed wordt gekocht, liever dan een Amerikaan...
We gaan het zien, interessant om te vervolgen.
Inderdaad.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/10/2014 | 19:26 uur
Ik denk dat ook gekeken wordt naar de Russen en die zullen het politiek wel kunnen verdragen als er een Zweed wordt gekocht, liever dan een Amerikaan...
Ik zie ze zomaar de Gripen C/D leasen om deze na het lease contract te vervangen door lokaal geproduceerde Gripen E/F.
We gaan het zien, interessant om te vervolgen.
Daarbij is het de vraag of Zweden hier wel zo happig op is. Ukraine is geen stabiel land, dus een lease zou een riskante onderneming zijn. Bovendien zullen de Russen het misschien beter verdragen dan een Amerikaanse kist, maar zullen er toch fiks unhappy mee zijn, en dan is de vraag, durven de Zweden dat?
Amerikanen verkopen hun nieuwste materieel ook niet aan Taiwan.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 12/10/2014 | 20:14 uur
Daarbij is het de vraag of Zweden hier wel zo happig op is. Ukraine is geen stabiel land, dus een lease zou een riskante onderneming zijn. Bovendien zullen de Russen het misschien beter verdragen dan een Amerikaanse kist, maar zullen er toch fiks unhappy mee zijn, en dan is de vraag, durven de Zweden dat?
Amerikanen verkopen hun nieuwste materieel ook niet aan Taiwan.
Veel interessante vraagtekens!
Ik zie voor Saab nog meer mogelijkheden, zoals een SAAB ERIEYE radar op een An-32 en daarnaast ook nog wat luchtafweer wapens.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 12/10/2014 | 20:21 uur
Ik zie voor Saab nog meer mogelijkheden, zoals een SAAB ERIEYE radar op een An-32 en daarnaast ook nog wat luchtafweer wapens.
Thomasen heeft een uitermate goed punt: "durven de Zweden dat?"
Citaat van: Ace1 op 12/10/2014 | 20:21 uur
Ik zie voor Saab nog meer mogelijkheden, zoals een SAAB ERIEYE radar op een An-32 en daarnaast ook nog wat luchtafweer wapens.
Dat is eigenlijk een verdomd goed idee. An-71 nieuw leven inblazen.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 12/10/2014 | 14:24 uur
Laat denk ik ook goed zien hoe belangrijk 4+generatie nog is en zal zijn de komende 30 jaar. Als ook het belang van voldoende kwalitatieve kwantiteit. Dat gecombineerd met nu al "teveel" taken voor de beschikbare 11 F16s blijft mij vraagtekens zetten bij de Nederlandse keuze voor de F35. Voor grote landen kan ik die keuze begrijpen. Toplaag van 5de generatie met grote basislaag van 4+. Voor landen als Nederland lijkt mij bijdragen aan die basislaag van 4+ logischer.
Je associeert de F-35 LightningII met een toplaag van de 5de generatie?
Medio jaren 90 ging men er nog vanuit dat de toekomstige JSF moest kunnen supercruisen, een kruisvlucht bij supersonische snelheid.
Helaas sneuvelde deze vereiste, want de JSF moest vooral een niet al te dure jachtbommenwerper worden, maar met een veel groter bereik dan de F-16C en F-18. De stealth vaardigheden moesten ook betaalbaar en exporteerbaar zijn, dus werden hier ook grote compromissen gemaakt.
Een jachtvliegtuig van de 5de generatie kan niet alleen supercruisen, maar is ook rondom steels tegen radars van meerdere golflengten.
De F-35 is dus ook een 4+ of 4,5 generatie jachtbommenwerper. En als men het gewicht enig zins in toom kan houden en diverse hardware en software problemen kan oplossen, dan wordt het het beste 4,5 generatie gevechtsvliegtuig.
En in de KLu gaat men graag voor het beste (fixatie) en helaas niet voor goed genoeg.
Citaat van: Poleme op 12/10/2014 | 22:53 uur
Je associeert de F-35 LightningII met een toplaag van de 5de generatie?
Medio jaren 90 ging men er nog vanuit dat de toekomstige JSF moest kunnen supercruisen, een kruisvlucht bij supersonische snelheid.
Helaas sneuvelde deze vereiste, want de JSF moest vooral een niet al te dure jachtbommenwerper worden, maar met een veel groter bereik dan de F-16C en F-18. De stealth vaardigheden moesten ook betaalbaar en exporteerbaar zijn, dus werden hier ook grote compromissen gemaakt.
Een jachtvliegtuig van de 5de generatie kan niet alleen supercruisen, maar is ook rondom steels tegen radars van meerdere golflengten.
De F-35 is dus ook een 4+ of 4,5 generatie jachtbommenwerper. En als men het gewicht enig zins in toom kan houden en diverse hardware en software problemen kan oplossen, dan wordt het het beste 4,5 generatie gevechtsvliegtuig.
En in de KLu gaat men graag voor het beste (fixatie) en helaas niet voor goed genoeg.
Als we daarbij de prijs mee rekenen, en dan niet de 35 miljoen die de F35 officieel zou kosten, maar de voorspelde 200 miljoen, dan betalen we 5x zoveel als de Chinezen of Russen voor hun tegenhanger kisten. Dat wordt mogelijk een fikse overmacht.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 13/10/2014 | 01:06 uur
Als we daarbij de prijs mee rekenen, en dan niet de 35 miljoen die de F35 officieel zou kosten, maar de voorspelde 200 miljoen, dan betalen we 5x zoveel als de Chinezen of Russen voor hun tegenhanger kisten. Dat wordt mogelijk een fikse overmacht.
Er zijn ook voorspellingen die aanzienlijk gunstiger zijn... we gaan het zien.
Wil de F35 echt succesvol zijn, dan zal er met de aanschafprijs en de exploitatie kosten iets moeten gebeuren en daar wordt hard aan gewerkt.
P.s. waar haal jij de getallen vandaan dat de T-50/PAK-FA, de J-20 en de J-31 1/5 van de prijs van een F35A zijn?
Boeing Company May Never Build Another Fighter Jet Again
By Rich Smith
October 12, 2014
Give credit where credit is due. DefenseNews.com called it.
Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported on Boeing's (NYSE: BA ) plans to "concede the fighter market" to Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) , shift the focus of its defense business away from building fighter jets, and focus on building "bombers, drones, and trainers" instead.
Voor het gehele verhaal, zie lonk:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/12/boeing-company-may-never-build-another-fighter-jet.aspx
Citaat van: Poleme op 12/10/2014 | 22:53 uur
Je associeert de F-35 LightningII met een toplaag van de 5de generatie?
Medio jaren 90 ging men er nog vanuit dat de toekomstige JSF moest kunnen supercruisen, een kruisvlucht bij supersonische snelheid.
Helaas sneuvelde deze vereiste, want de JSF moest vooral een niet al te dure jachtbommenwerper worden, maar met een veel groter bereik dan de F-16C en F-18. De stealth vaardigheden moesten ook betaalbaar en exporteerbaar zijn, dus werden hier ook grote compromissen gemaakt.
Een jachtvliegtuig van de 5de generatie kan niet alleen supercruisen, maar is ook rondom steels tegen radars van meerdere golflengten.
De F-35 is dus ook een 4+ of 4,5 generatie jachtbommenwerper. En als men het gewicht enig zins in toom kan houden en diverse hardware en software problemen kan oplossen, dan wordt het het beste 4,5 generatie gevechtsvliegtuig.
En in de KLu gaat men graag voor het beste (fixatie) en helaas niet voor goed genoeg.
Nee ik zelf niet nee...zie F35 als 4++ of 5-...om de redenen die je noemt. Maar elders wordt het als een 5e generatie toestel gezien..waarbij men vooral focust op de waarnemingsmiddelen en elektronica. Dus vandaar dat ik hem ook zo duidde. Het is voor mij alleen nog meer reden de balans te laten doorslaan naar de Gripen NG. Want het te kleine aantal F35s gaat ons echt opbreken.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 13/10/2014 | 10:21 uur
Het is voor mij alleen nog meer reden de balans te laten doorslaan naar de Gripen NG. Want het te kleine aantal F35s gaat ons echt opbreken.
Waar nog maar moet blijken of deze zal functioneren als geadverteerd en de teller staat op 60+10+36 (onder voorbehoud van handtekening) is dat 106 exemplaren. (exclusief de Braziliaanse optie van in totaal 100 exemplaren)
We hebben een echte basis voor succes.... :hrmph:
Saab heeft een geluk, zoals het er nu uitziet, zijn zij samen men LM de enige westerse fighter producenten in 2020, Als de combinatie Saab-Boeing de US T/X order wint, sta dan niet verbaasd te kijken als de fighter divisie van Saab wordt overgenomen door Boeing....
De Gripen E/F gebruiker is dan aan de goden overgeleverd.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/10/2014 | 10:47 uur
Als de combinatie Saab-Boeing de US T/X order wint, sta dan niet verbaasd te kijken als de fighter divisie van Saab wordt overgenomen door Boeing....
De Gripen E/F gebruiker is dan aan de goden overgeleverd.
Of niet, want dan hoeft de US government Saab niet langer meer te sarren, en zal er eerder medewerking komen. Als is het maar om ook wat werkgelegenheid in de US te houden, wanneer Boeing haar eigen fighter tak naast zich neerlegt.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 13/10/2014 | 10:51 uur
Of niet, want dan hoeft de US government Saab niet langer meer te sarren, en zal er eerder medewerking komen. Als is het maar om ook wat werkgelegenheid in de US te houden, wanneer Boeing haar eigen fighter tak naast zich neerlegt.
Tja.... ook hier heel veel of's
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/10/2014 | 07:16 uur
Er zijn ook voorspellingen die aanzienlijk gunstiger zijn... we gaan het zien.
Wil de F35 echt succesvol zijn, dan zal er met de aanschafprijs en de exploitatie kosten iets moeten gebeuren en daar wordt hard aan gewerkt.
P.s. waar haal jij de getallen vandaan dat de T-50/PAK-FA, de J-20 en de J-31 1/5 van de prijs van een F35A zijn?
Dat zijn geen backbones. Dat zijn de su35/j10/J11/mig29/JF17.
Dat zijn kisten die je koopt voor tussen de €15 en €50 miljoen.
Bij ons gaat de F35 de ruggengraat worden (of wat er voor door moet gaan).
Citaat van: Thomasen op 13/10/2014 | 11:27 uur
Dat zijn geen backbones. Dat zijn de su35/j10/J11/mig29/JF17.
Dat zijn kisten die je koopt voor tussen de €15 en €50 miljoen.
Bij ons gaat de F35 de ruggengraat worden (of wat er voor door moet gaan).
Als je het zo bekijkt, dan heb je gelijk. Ik ben en blijf voor een mixed buy (ook voor de KLu)
Citaat van: Thomasen op 13/10/2014 | 11:27 uur
Dat zijn geen backbones. Dat zijn de su35/j10/J11/mig29/JF17.
Dat zijn kisten die je koopt voor tussen de €15 en €50 miljoen.
Bij ons gaat de F35 de ruggengraat worden (of wat er voor door moet gaan).
de vraag hoe de Amerikanen dit gaan doen...wordt F35 hun backbone? of blijven F15s/F16s/F18s dat voorlopig? en worden F35 en F22 hun top end. Ik snap dat de Amerikanen dat voorlopig niet melden...gezien commerciële belangen rond de F35. Maar vind het wel jammer..want denk een belangrijke factor in de afwegingen van andere krijgsmachten. Die niet het geld op de plank hebben liggen om in beide categorieën te winkelen.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 13/10/2014 | 11:45 uur
de vraag hoe de Amerikanen dit gaan doen...wordt F35 hun backbone? of blijven F15s/F16s/F18s dat voorlopig? en worden F35 en F22 hun top end. Ik snap dat de Amerikanen dat voorlopig niet melden...gezien commerciële belangen rond de F35. Maar vind het wel jammer..want denk een belangrijke factor in de afwegingen van andere krijgsmachten. Die niet het geld op de plank hebben liggen om in beide categorieën te winkelen.
Hier heb je absoluut een punt.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 13/10/2014 | 11:45 uur
de vraag hoe de Amerikanen dit gaan doen...wordt F35 hun backbone? of blijven F15s/F16s/F18s dat voorlopig? en worden F35 en F22 hun top end. Ik snap dat de Amerikanen dat voorlopig niet melden...gezien commerciële belangen rond de F35. Maar vind het wel jammer..want denk een belangrijke factor in de afwegingen van andere krijgsmachten. Die niet het geld op de plank hebben liggen om in beide categorieën te winkelen.
Het zijn alle drie in mijn ogen zeer viable kisten. De F15 is dan wel veruit de duurste, maar heeft wel een aanzienlijk groter bereik dan de F35. Iets dat zeker in de pacific en in het hoge noorden van belang gaat zijn. Daarbij is er gewoon een grote massa nodig. De speer houd niet op bij de punt.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/10/2014 | 10:47 uur
Waar nog maar moet blijken of deze zal functioneren als geadverteerd en de teller staat op 60+10+36 (onder voorbehoud van handtekening) is dat 106 exemplaren. (exclusief de Braziliaanse optie van in totaal 100 exemplaren)
We hebben een echte basis voor succes.... :hrmph:
Saab heeft een geluk, zoals het er nu uitziet, zijn zij samen men LM de enige westerse fighter producenten in 2020, Als de combinatie Saab-Boeing de US T/X order wint, sta dan niet verbaasd te kijken als de fighter divisie van Saab wordt overgenomen door Boeing....
De Gripen E/F gebruiker is dan aan de goden overgeleverd.
Als grote Amerikaanse luchtvaartbedrijven het al niet overleven zie ik Saabs toekomst echt niet beter in, tenzij ze tot de max met subsidie overeind zullen worden gehouden, aanvankelijk niet meer concurrerend genoeg zullen zijn, een nog grotere kostenpost worden en uiteindelijk ook over de kop gaan.
Helaas.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 13/10/2014 | 20:38 uur
Als grote Amerikaanse luchtvaartbedrijven het al niet overleven zie ik Saabs toekomst echt niet beter in, tenzij ze tot de max met subsidie overeind zullen worden gehouden, aanvankelijk niet meer concurrerend genoeg zullen zijn, een nog grotere kostenpost worden en uiteindelijk ook over de kop gaan.
Helaas.
Dat is vooral een keuze van de Amerikaanse politiek.
Boeing blijft ook gewoon actief in de Defence and space market.
En ondertussen springen er overal in de wereld bedrijven uit de grond die juist fighters gaan produceren, danwel dat al deden en nu op grotere schaal (kwal/kwant) gaan doen.
Daarnaast is een groter bedrijf niet altijd effectiever en/of efficienter.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 13/10/2014 | 23:12 uur
Dat is vooral een keuze van de Amerikaanse politiek.
Boeing blijft ook gewoon actief in de Defence and space market.
En ondertussen springen er overal in de wereld bedrijven uit de grond die juist fighters gaan produceren, danwel dat al deden en nu op grotere schaal (kwal/kwant) gaan doen.
Daarnaast is een groter bedrijf niet altijd effectiever en/of efficienter.
+1
Mooi voorbeeld is Textron met de Scorpion.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 13/10/2014 | 23:12 uur
Dat is vooral een keuze van de Amerikaanse politiek.
Boeing blijft ook gewoon actief in de Defence and space market.
En ondertussen springen er overal in de wereld bedrijven uit de grond die juist fighters gaan produceren, danwel dat al deden en nu op grotere schaal (kwal/kwant) gaan doen.
Daarnaast is een groter bedrijf niet altijd effectiever en/of efficienter.
Het gaat om afname, simpel
Die is er bij Saab veel te weinig.
Conclusie: Saab gaat ook dood, net als als de Fransen.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 14/10/2014 | 12:40 uur
Het gaat om afname, simpel
Die is er bij Saab veel te weinig.
Conclusie: Saab gaat ook dood, net als als de Fransen.
De Fransen hebben iig nog een interessant ijzer in het vuur, India, wellicht gevolgd door de VAE.
Mijn conclusie: Wil de Europese fighter industrie het (gezamenlijk) ook na de eendenbekjes redden dan moeten ze nu beginnen met één of twee opvolger(s) zodat ze in 2035 ook één of twee volgende generatie producten hebben en niet een mod 19 van bestaande producten.
Het is stil.... (buiten wat UCAV inspiraties om)
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA601395
interessant rapport omtrent de ontwikkelingen rondom een 6th gen. fighter voor de USAF. ...... volgens het rapport zal rond 2030 er geen 6th generation zijn/komen, maar eerder een 5+ fighter.
Dit heeft allemaal te maken met geld, budget ! grote programma's als F-35, KC-46A tanker en long-range strike bomber slokken veel van het budget op
En daar komen nog andere programma's bij zoals T-X trainer vervanging, Helicopter vervangingsprogramma's e.d.
Dus het budget en de besteding / invulling ervan zal nog 10-talllen jaren de nodige problemen/keuzes/wijzigingen met zich mee brengen.
Citaat van: Harald op 14/10/2014 | 13:59 uur
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA601395
interessant rapport omtrent de ontwikkelingen rondom een 6th gen. fighter voor de USAF. ...... volgens het rapport zal rond 2030 er geen 6th generation zijn/komen, maar eerder een 5+ fighter.
Dit heeft allemaal te maken met geld, budget ! grote programma's als F-35, KC-46A tanker en long-range strike bomber slokken veel van het budget op
En daar komen nog andere programma's bij zoals T-X trainer vervanging, Helicopter vervangingsprogramma's e.d.
Dus het budget en de besteding / invulling ervan zal nog 10-talllen jaren de nodige problemen/keuzes/wijzigingen met zich mee brengen.
Het beschikbaar budget heeft altijd een rol gespeeld, en zal dat altijd doen. In ieder geval zolang we een op geld gebaseerde economie hebben.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 14/10/2014 | 14:18 uur
Het beschikbaar budget heeft altijd een rol gespeeld, en zal dat altijd doen. In ieder geval zolang we een op geld gebaseerde economie hebben.
je mini-economie van je portemonnee is dat ook ! .... ;)
Je haalt het budget uit de context ; de te realiseren vele grote programma's welke lopen in het budget van de USAF
Via Google Translate uit het Noors:
Finland can switch Hornet fighters against Russian Sukhoi and MiG
Finland's defense ministry has created an workgroups to find a fighter that could be used instead Hornet. The Finnish Air Force has spent Hornet since 1995.
The operating time for the current Hornet aircraft will expire in 2030 is planned to finalize the treatment of possible candidates to 2020.
Finland's defense ministry will choose between the Russian fighters Sukhoi and MiG and the F-35A Lightning II, Jas Gripen NG 39E, Dassault Rafale.
http://norwegian.ruvr.ru/news/2014_10_18/Finland-kan-bytte-jagerflyene-Hornet-mot-russiske-Sukhoi-og-MiG-7096/
Citaat van: Harald link=topic=25805.msg343279#msg343279 date=141328966
Je haalt het budget uit de context ; de te realiseren vele grote programma's welke lopen in het (*****)budget van de USAF
/quote]
(*****) nog op te stellen en goed te keuren..........zou er nog bij moeten staan en dat zou wel eens tegen kunnen vallen. The sky is the limit is voor de VS ook niet meer van toepassing.
(Zuid Korea's) F-35A Fighter Jets to Be Poorly Armed ....
(hoe is dat eigenlijk hier in Nederland, welke wapens A-A en A-G hebben wij nu en passen in een F-35 ?? .. of moeten we alle wapens nieuw kopen ?? zoals de Sidewinder-aankoop) .. :hrmph: ooo ja we hebben geen voorraden en reserves ... :mad:
Persoonlijk vindt ik dit wel een punt van aandacht. ... want als we onze bestaande wapens onder de vleugels gaan meenemen, dat is het aankoop/keuze-punt van Stealth namelijk verdwenen.
(Source: Chosun Ilbo; published Oct 17, 2014)
Only about half of the Air Force's next-generation F-35A fighter jet, which cost a hefty W121 billion, will be fully armed due to lack of combat weapons (US$1=W1,062).
Seoul decided to buy 40 F-35As at a total cost of W7.34 trillion last month and claimed that would allow the Air Force to "overwhelm" North Korea. But it has bought only half the weapons needed for the F-35As in a war, according to Air Force data submitted to Saenuri Party lawmaker Song Young-keun Wednesday.
The Air Force has secured a mere 45 percent of air-to-air missiles that would be used against North Korean fighter jets and only 75 percent of the required number of air-to-ground missiles.
This suggests that the Air Force could mobilize at most 18 F-35As for air-to-air combat and 30 for air-to-ground combat in a war.
Each F-35A is armed with various weapons, including AIM-120 and AIM-9 air-to-air missiles and GBU-12, GBU-31 and GBU-39 air-to-ground missiles.
"We couldn't afford to pay attention to how to arm the F-35As because we concentrated on buying 40 of them," an Air Force officer admitted.
Some 66 percent of the budget for the epically delayed fighter project were spent on buying the fighter aircraft, with a mere 8 percent spent on weapons and equipment.
The military is also under fire for deciding to buy only one backup engine for the 40 jets rather than the usual four to six or 10 to 15 percent spare.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/158059/f_35-cost-reduces-korea-weapons-buy.html
Er lopen projecten voor aanschaf van nieuwe wapens. De oude worden onbruikbaar. Staat in het meterieelprojectenoverzicht.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 18/10/2014 | 20:38 uur
Er lopen projecten voor aanschaf van nieuwe wapens. De oude worden onbruikbaar. Staat in het meterieelprojectenoverzicht.
Precies, de oude worden onbruikbaar !! .. onbruikbaar, om afgeworpen te worden vanuit de bay van een F-35
Dus dan moet je nieuwe kopen !!
Citaat van: Harald op 18/10/2014 | 20:41 uur
Precies, de oude worden onbruikbaar !! .. onbruikbaar, om afgeworpen te worden vanuit de bay van een F-35
Dus dan moet je nieuwe kopen !!
Nu is interne bewapening natuurlijk lang niet altijd een vereiste, zeker niet in een latere fase van een conflict en als ik Afghanistan als voorbeeld neem dan kan je de kist risicoloos volhangen... al is een F35 in een dergelijk scenario wellicht te veel van het goede.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 18/10/2014 | 20:38 uur
Er lopen projecten voor aanschaf van nieuwe wapens. De oude worden onbruikbaar.
Veel wapens welke nu in de schappen liggen zijn ook gewoon compatibel met de F-35.
Citaat van: Harald op 18/10/2014 | 20:41 uur
Precies, de oude worden onbruikbaar !! .. onbruikbaar, om afgeworpen te worden vanuit de bay van een F-35
Dus dan moet je nieuwe kopen !!
onjuist.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/10/2014 | 20:45 uur
Nu is interne bewapening natuurlijk lang niet altijd een vereiste, zeker niet in een latere fase van een conflict en als ik Afghanistan als voorbeeld neem dan kan je de kist risicoloos volhangen... al is een F35 in een dergelijk scenario wellicht te veel van het goede.
Precies, dit is precies het antwoord wat ik verwachte en ook door mezelf gaf.
Nog een reden temeer voor een high - low end combi, F-35 in high end en bijvoorbeeld Super Tucano, Scorpion (eventueel combi) als Low end.
En externe bewapening is niet goed voor de range van een F-35, externe bewapening geeft drag. F-35 is in de basis bedoeld en ontworpen zonder externe bewapening, maar kan deze natuurlijk wel meenemen aan de externe hardpoints.
info uit 2010 :http://dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADougHayward.pdf
Citaat van: Harald op 18/10/2014 | 21:02 uur
Nog een reden temeer voor een high - low end combi, F-35 in high end en bijvoorbeeld Super Tucano, Scorpion (eventueel combi) als Low end.
Ik vind een high end - low end mix voor de KLu haalbaar, betaalbaar en zinvol.
Citaat van: Nikehercules op 18/10/2014 | 20:49 uur
Veel wapens welke nu in de schappen liggen zijn ook gewoon compatibel met de F-35.
De SDB wel ja.
Paveway's onbekend, maar we weten door het debacle in Libya dat daar weinig meer van op voorraad is.
De rest:
Citaat van: MPO 2013
Het betreft de verwerving van boordkanonmunitie,
zelfbeschermingsmiddelen en wapenladers
voor de opvolger van de F-16. De
huidige middelen die worden gebruikt voor
de F-16 kunnen niet gebruikt worden voor
de opvolger van de F-16. Het boordkanon
van de F-35 heeft een ander kaliber dan dat
van de F-16. Dit geldt ook voor de huidige
zelfbeschermingsmiddelen van de F-16. Ten
slotte is de huidige wapenlader niet geschikt
voor het laden van wapens in de interne
wapenruimte van de F-35.
CitaatDaarmee is het een
randvoorwaarde voor het succesvol uitvoeren
van de operationele taken. De huidige
langeafstandraket voor de F-16 (AMRAAM)
wordt softwarematig niet geïntegreerd in
de F-35 en is bovendien te groot voor het
wapenruim van dit toestel. Hierdoor bestaat
behoefte aan een nieuwe middellange tot
lange afstand raket die aansluit bij de operationele
capaciteiten van de F-35.
CitaatDe huidige raketten
zijn echter operationeel verouderd en aan
het eind van de technische levensduur. Deze
dienen derhalve te worden vervangen door
verbeterde IR-geleide lucht-lucht raketten.
De nieuwe raketten dienen software- en
hardwarematig te zijn/kunnen worden
geïntegreerd op zowel de F-16 als op de
vervanger van de F-16.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 18/10/2014 | 21:17 uur
De SDB wel ja.
Paveway's onbekend, maar we weten door het debacle in Libya dat daar weinig meer van op voorraad is.
De rest:
Niet alleen de verschillende types Paveway en de SDB maar alle types GBU's / Mk80 serie zijn volgens mij gewoon compatible met de F-35.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/10/2014 | 21:15 uur
Ik vindt een high end - low end mix voor de KLu haalbaar, betaalbaar en zinvol.
Hopelijk zien ze dit ook in, in Den Haag, de MinDef en vooral de KLU zelf.
De exploitatiekosten van de F-35 moet geen molensteen worden om de nek van de KLU, en/of defensie. Maar ook niet ten koste gaan van inzetbaarheid van het wapensysteem. Als men inzetbaarheid / ondersteuning voor grondtroepen kunnen garanderen in een low end situatie als bijvoorbeeld Afghanistan door het gebruik van een low end -wapensysteem , dan lijkt me deze keuze niet zo moeilijk. Vooral als blijkt dat een high end wapensysteem in een low end situatie niet betaalbaar is, wordt en hierdoor zijn we weer bij het belangrijke inzetbaarheid en het kunnen garanderen in alle situaties , ook voor langere tijd.
Citaat van: Harald op 18/10/2014 | 21:54 uur
Hopelijk zien ze dit ook in, in Den Haag, de MinDef en vooral de KLU zelf.
De exploitatiekosten van de F-35 moet geen molensteen worden om de nek van de KLU, en/of defensie. Maar ook niet ten koste gaan van inzetbaarheid van het wapensysteem. Als men inzetbaarheid / ondersteuning voor grondtroepen kunnen garanderen in een low end situatie als bijvoorbeeld Afghanistan door het gebruik van een low end -wapensysteem , dan lijkt me deze keuze niet zo moeilijk. Vooral als blijkt dat een high end wapensysteem in een low end situatie niet betaalbaar is, wordt en hierdoor zijn we weer bij het belangrijke inzetbaarheid en het kunnen garanderen in alle situaties , ook voor langere tijd.
Dat lijkt mij ook, en budget technisch verdiend het low end systeem zich redelijk snel terug.
Dus als we nu de PC-7 vervangen door 40 Scorpions (of Super Tucano) met een F35 cockpit dan snijdt het mes aam alle kanten, van opleiding tot low end operaties.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/10/2014 | 22:33 uur
Dat lijkt mij ook, en budget technisch verdiend het low end systeem zich redelijk snel terug.
Dus als we nu de PC-7 vervangen door 40 Scorpions (of Super Tucano) met een F35 cockpit dan snijdt het mes aam alle kanten, van opleiding tot low end operaties.
In dat geval zou ik (in navolging van Israel) eerder voor een Alenia Aermacchi M-346 gaan. Mits de initiele en operationele kosten niet te veel hoger uitvallen uiteraard.
Er is trouwens ook wat nieuws te melden over de Gripen E: 2e helft 2015 zouden de eerste prototypes moeten gaan vliegen:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-gets-latest-gripen-e-development-contract-404889/
Interessant Gripen E (NG) nieuws uit een onverwachte hoek: 24 Gripen E voor Argentinië?
Via Google translate uit het Spaans, het origineel via de link.
Argentina wants to buy 24 supersonic fighters
(Sao Paulo, Brazil) .- The Government decided to open a negotiation with the administration of Dilma Rousseff to acquire 24 Saab Gripen aircraft in the program called FX 2 materialized Brazil to equip the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) with those 4th generation apparatus.
Today representatives of the two governments signed in San Pablo a joint declaration reaffirming the intention to Argentina to join the fleet renewal of interceptors launched by Brazil. This medium-term project which will replace the dilapidated Mirage of Argentina Air Force is linked to progress in complementation and integration of the aviation industry gained from incorporating Argentina Aircraft Factory (Fade) to process construction of transport aircraft designed by Embraer KC 390 for FAB.
The initiative aims to provide a solution to the country's need for adequate monitoring for aerospace supersonic aircraft, in conjunction with radar surveillance system equipment providing long range detection developed by INVAP called Primary Radar Argentino.
The Brazilian government launched a tender in 2001 amounted to 4,500 million dollars in order to replace the Mirage 2000 of the FAB. The Saab Gripen NG fighter competed with the F / A-18 Super Hornet of Boeing and Dassault Rafale of the French American. In late 2013 it was learned that the winner was Sweden's Saab Gripen NG with your device. One of the key points to determine who would be favored was the unrestricted transfer of technology to manufacture the aircraft in Brazilian territory and equip the country's defense industry.
Brazil plans to build those planes and promote the development of domestic industry and also reach other markets. Immediate bet is Latin America, Argentina appears as the first candidate after the joint statement was signed today.
The provisions of the contract between Sweden and Brazil indicate that the first Gripen NG will come to the Brazilian Air Force in 2018.
http://www.ambito.com/noticia.asp?id=763752
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 21/10/2014 | 20:07 uur
Interessant Gripen E (NG) nieuws uit een onverwachte hoek: 24 Gripen E voor Argentinië?
Gezien het aantal Engelse (vitale) onderdelen in de Gripen E/F (NG) zie ik nog wel een aantal beertjes op de Argentijnse weg, nog los van de huidige belabberde economische situatie.
Je zou haast denken dat ge-update occasion (koop/lease) Gripen C/D een meer realistische optie zou zijn en daar zijn rond 2020 voldoende van beschikbaar.
Wellicht nteressant om te volgen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 21/10/2014 | 20:07 uur
Interessant Gripen E (NG) nieuws uit een onverwachte hoek: 24 Gripen E voor Argentinië?
Minister: Argentina In Talks to Buy 24 Gripen NGs from Brazil Brazil and Argentina Sign Agreement to Strengthen Aviation CooperationGAVIAO PEIXOTO, SP. --- The defense ministers of Brazil and Argentina, Celso Amorim and Agustín Rossi, on Tuesday (Oct 21) signed an important bilateral cooperation agreement that will ensure the legal and policy basis for the expansion of joint projects in the aeronautical sector.
Called Aerospace Industry Strategic Alliance (Aliança Estratégica em Indústria Aeronáutica, AEIA, in Portuguese), the agreement aims to integrate and strengthen the military aviation industries of both nations. To stimulate the private sector of both countries, the document raises the possibility of various measures, such as identifying potential industrial alliances, developing new joint projects and expressing early requirements for products that can provide economies of scale.
The signing took place shortly after the launch ceremony (roll out) of the KC-390 military transport and tanker aircraft at Embraer's facility in Gaviao Peixoto, in São Paulo state. One of the most important strategic projects of Brazil's national defence, the KC-390 was designed by the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) and manufactured by Embraer with the participation of three other countries: Argentina, Portugal and Czech Republic.
In a statement made during the signing ceremony, the Argentine Defense Minister stressed the importance of the participation of his country's manufacturing industry in the Embraer's airlifter. He said that the investments made for the production of KC-390 parts at the Argentina Aircraft Factory (FAdeA) in Cordoba were essential to revitalize his country's aviation industry.
Minister Agustín Rossi also announced the decision of the Argentine government to begin negotiations to purchase 24 Swedish-designed Gripen NG combat aircraft that will be produced in Brazil. The conditions of purchase, as well as the eventual Argentine participation in the production of these aircraft, will be the subject of negotiations in the coming months between representatives of the two countries. (Emphasis added—Ed.) The contract for the acquisition and development of 36 Gripen NG by Brazil, should be signed by December this year.
Minister Celso Amorim celebrated the signing of the agreement with Argentina, classifying it as symbolic and "doubly strategic" because it unites the defense and aerospace sectors of the two countries. "Our willingness to cooperate with Argentina, our neighbor and ally, is total," he said.
Amorim said Brazil will explore "engagement with" the possibility of Argentine participation in the Gripen NG project. In his assessment, there is an extensive field to be explored in defense cooperation between the two countries. As an example, he cited the shipping industry, in the production of patrol ships and corvettes.
Brazil maintains close cooperation with Argentina on other projects in the field of defense. Within the Council of the South American Defense (CDS / UNASUR), the two countries are participating, along with other nations of the region, in the development of a basic military training aircraft and an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
Brazil and Argentina have also initiated an exchange of experiences in the cyber defense industry. Besides participating in the production of the KC-390, Argentina has already expressed its intention of purchasing six of the aircraft.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/158179/minister%3A-argentina-in-talks-to-buy-24-gripen-ngs-from-brazil.html
Lockheed Martin Teams with Roketsan of Turkey on New Standoff Missile for the F-35
ANKARA --- Roketsan and Lockheed Martin signed a teaming agreement today for collaboration on the SOM-J, a new generation air-to-surface Standoff Cruise Missile for the F-35 Lightning II.
The SOM system is an autonomous, long-range, low-observable, all-weather, precision air-to-surface cruise missile. The SOM-J variant is tailored for internal carriage on the F-35 aircraft. The companies will jointly develop, produce, market and support SOM-J for internal carriage on the F-35 aircraft or external carriage on other aircraft.
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Executive Vice President Rick Edwards and Roketsan Chairman of the Board Eyüp Kaptan signed the agreement.
"Lockheed Martin has a long history of partnership with the Republic of Turkey, and we look forward to working closely with Roketsan on this very important project," Edwards said. "SOM-J will provide the F-35 and other aircraft an exceptional capability to meet the most challenging mission requirements. We look forward to combining the skills and know-how of our two great companies to produce a world-class system to meet customers' expanding needs for long-range, survivable cruise missile technology."
"At Roketsan, we believe this teaming will increase the attention on SOM-J and present a superior solution to fulfill the requirements of anti-surface warfare capabilities on the F-35 aircraft," Kaptan said. "We value our partnership with Lockheed Martin and look forward to additional business opportunities in the future."
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/158216/turkey%E2%80%99s-roketsan%2C-lockheed-sign-f_35-missile-deal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOM_(missile)
Photo shows F-35 SOM-J Air-Launched Cruise Missile separation tests in wind tunnel
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2FF-35-ALCM-test.jpg&hash=7db0c29ea3ef40f31d59ab826457500c2151a0ca)
http://theaviationist.com/2014/10/22/f-35-som-j-tests/
Kleine missile eigenlijk. Ding is korter dan een NSM.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 24/10/2014 | 08:51 uur
Kleine missile eigenlijk. Ding is korter dan een NSM.
Je moet het ook niet met de NSM vergelijken maar met JSM.
JSM
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhtka.hu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F06%2Ff-35-joint-strike-missile.jpg&hash=5efed98b4592ae9b2ebf4a521c804ceb9db93a48)
SOM-J
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F--86kbDk180I%2FU35zi_Xt9kI%2FAAAAAAAA9Jc%2FpJmA7smMyQo%2Fs1600%2FF35_SOM-J.jpg&hash=05258837c22b2df52ab2d2da66d0130b3e9612bb)
Citaat van: Jooop op 24/10/2014 | 09:40 uur
Je moet het ook niet met de NSM vergelijken maar met JSM.
De Noren zullen vast niet staan te juichen van geluk met deze ontwikkeling.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 24/10/2014 | 10:29 uur
De Noren zullen vast niet staan te juichen van geluk met deze ontwikkeling.
De SOM is ouder, dus dat dit ging komen wisten ze al toen ze begonnen.
Lockheed Martin gaat op meerdere paarden wedden. Om zo een grotere afzetmarkt te hebben met verschillende mogelijkheden kwa bewapening.
Citaat van: Harald op 24/10/2014 | 11:10 uur
Lockheed Martin gaat op meerdere paarden wedden. Om zo een grotere afzetmarkt te hebben met verschillende mogelijkheden kwa bewapening.
Indien NL tot aanschaf van één van beide systemen over gaat, dan wat mij betreft Noors, de Turken vind ik inmiddels een onbetrouwbare defensie handelspartner.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 24/10/2014 | 11:25 uur
Indien NL tot aanschaf van één van beide systemen over gaat, dan wat mij betreft Noors, de Turken vind ik inmiddels een onbetrouwbare defensie handelspartner.
Toch is Turkije nog een van de grootste afzetmarkten voor onze Thales en dat zal in de nabije toekomst ook wel zo blijven sinds Europeanen blijven knippen in de uitgaven. Persoonlijk zou ik meer samenwerking willen met de Turken wat beter is voor onze defensie industrie als handelspartner.
Er zal zeker nog een US made alternatief komen. Dus straks zijn er nog wel keuze mogelijkheden.
Nog even wat andere ;
Zag net op tv nog Hennis in een vraaggesprek. We hebben nu 13 F-16 inzetbaar voor Irak en de Air Patroling in de Baltic. En straks maar 4 F-35 inzetbaar.
Ze ze het niet, maar er zal denk ik wel een 2de batch aangeschaft worden.
Citaat van: Harald op 24/10/2014 | 12:17 uur
Er zal zeker nog een US made alternatief komen. Dus straks zijn er nog wel keuze mogelijkheden.
Nog even wat andere ;
Zag net op tv nog Hennis in een vraaggesprek. We hebben nu 13 F-16 inzetbaar voor Irak en de Air Patroling in de Baltic. En straks maar 4 F-35 inzetbaar.
Ze ze het niet, maar er zal denk ik wel een 2de batch aangeschaft worden.
Hoeveel en ten koste van wat?...
Citaat van: Harald op 24/10/2014 | 12:17 uur
Ze ze het niet, maar er zal denk ik wel een 2de batch aangeschaft worden.
Ik hou daar sterk rekening mee. Zoals al vaker gesteld:
In een optimistisch scenario: aanschaf F35: 37+10% = 40. Industrie zal pitchen op een iig kleine vervolg serie van 5 tot 10 kisten waarmee we in het gunstigste geval uit komen op 50 exemplaren.
Citaat van: Strata op 24/10/2014 | 12:40 uur
ten koste van wat?...
De KL
Wat mij brengt bij de volgende vraag: In Wales zijn "afspraken" gemaakt en is het streven geformuleerd om weer te groeien met de defensie begroting richting 2% van het BNP en dat er zeker niet verder zou worden bezuinigd (daarnaast: 20% van het budget zou moeten gaan naar investeringen in nieuw materieel).
1. NL verhoogd de begroting structureel met 100 mjn, effectief 100 mjn minder bezuinigen op 1.3 mjd, dus nog steeds 1,2 mjd in de min sinds Rutte 1.
2. begroting blijf structureel dalen de komende jaren
De vraag is heeft iemand als iets van kamerleden gehoord met vragen en/of oplossingen hoe men ook denkt hier mee verder te gaan? (ik vind het n.l. stil rondom dit onderwerp, anders dan wat populistisch geblaat)
Algemeen zal defensie visie meer bericht zijn op de klu en km. En ja ten koste van de kl.
Hennis heeft de vraag over extra F-35 niet verbaal beantwoord. Maar juist het ontwijken van een antwoorden gezichtsuitdrukking zegt dat er al over gesprpken is op hoger niveau dat 4 stuks voor missies te weinig is. En NL wil meedoen en blijven doen zoals ze nu doen. Eigenlijk boven het ambitie niveau en wat we aankunnen.
Dit zal de nodige zorgen gaan geven. Financieel en inzetbaarheidsgarantie.
Citaat van: Harald op 24/10/2014 | 12:17 uur
Er zal zeker nog een US made alternatief komen. Dus straks zijn er nog wel keuze mogelijkheden.
Nog even wat andere ;
Zag net op tv nog Hennis in een vraaggesprek. We hebben nu 13 F-16 inzetbaar voor Irak en de Air Patroling in de Baltic. En straks maar 4 F-35 inzetbaar.
Ze ze het niet, maar er zal denk ik wel een 2de batch aangeschaft worden.
zou ik alleen voor zijn als dit niet ten kosten zou gaan van de andere krijgsmachtdelen en projecten..
Citaat van: Harald op 24/10/2014 | 13:20 uur
Algemeen zal defensie visie meer bericht zijn op de klu en km. En ja ten koste van de kl.
De KL heeft voor de politiek het potentiële risico van boots on the ground en deze kunnen uitermate slecht zijn voor hun carrière, wat weer iets totaal anders is dan het landsbelang, maar dat is een ander verhaal.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 24/10/2014 | 12:43 uur
Ik hou daar sterk rekening mee. Zoals al vaker gesteld:
In een optimistisch scenario: aanschaf F35: 37+10% = 40. Industrie zal pitchen op een iig kleine vervolg serie van 5 tot 10 kisten waarmee we in het gunstigste geval uit komen op 50 exemplaren.
Dat moeten we wel doen, terug krabbelen heeft geen zin meer het wordt de F-35 maar dan wel 50 stuks in twee squadrons, dan kunnen we nog een beetje aan onze verplichtingen voldoen. We praten dan wel over een extra 1.5 miljard euro he ....
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 24/10/2014 | 13:49 uur
Dat moeten we wel doen, terug krabbelen heeft geen zin meer het wordt de F-35 maar dan wel 50 stuks in twee squadrons, dan kunnen we nog een beetje aan onze verplichtingen voldoen. We praten dan wel over een extra 1.5 miljard euro he ....
Lukt wel als we de Apaches eruit doen....
Citaat van: Thomasen op 24/10/2014 | 14:17 uur
Lukt wel als we de Apaches eruit doen....
En dan verwachten dat de F35 CAS gaat geven... :crazy:
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 24/10/2014 | 13:49 uur
Dat moeten we wel doen, terug krabbelen heeft geen zin meer het wordt de F-35 maar dan wel 50 stuks in twee squadrons, dan kunnen we nog een beetje aan onze verplichtingen voldoen. We praten dan wel over een extra 1.5 miljard euro he ....
Tja.... mochten onze pluche goden zich aan hun internationale afspraken houden en we gaan terug naar een defensie budget van 2% van het BPP met daarbij een investeringsdoelstelling van 20% dan gebben we het over een jaarlijkse investering in nieuw materieel van 2,5 miljard euro.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 24/10/2014 | 14:17 uur
Lukt wel als we de Apaches eruit doen....
Ik blijf er op hameren, de KLu F-35A's gaan in de aanschaf rond de USD 200 miljoen kosten inclusief alle toebehoren.
Vergeet je KLu vloot van 37 F-35A's.
Een F-35A vlieguur kost nu al geschat maximaal USD 35.500 en zal zeer waarschijnlijk rond de USD 40.000 per uur komen te liggen.
Denk aan een vloot van circa 24 LightningII's.
Om alle F-35A capaciteiten te benutten hebben we een Jaarlijks Oefen Programma per combat ready vlieger nodig van 210 vlieguren.
Echter, daar is nu en in de toekomst geen pecunia voor, dus moeten 'surrogaat F-35A's' worden aangeschaft om deze JOP mogelijk te maken.
Apaches eruit?
Doeltreffende CAS wordt pas gegeven lager dan 1.500 voet / 458 meter en bij lage kruissnelheid.
De zeer effectieve A-1 Skyraider deed boven Vietnam zijn werk bij een kruissnelheid van slechts 120 knopen / 222 km per uur.
De Apache deed zij werk boven Irak en Afghanistan met ongeveer dezelfde kruissnelheid.
De Apache kan verticaal opstijgen en landen en bij heet weer moet hij een aanloop nemen, maar hij kan in ieder geval dichtbij zijn klanten worden gestationeerd.
Onze F-16's opereerden met tussenpozen van oktober 2002 t/m november 2004 boven Afghanistan.
Ze konden echter geen gebruik maken van velden in Afghanistan zelf, dus vloog men vanuit het 1.000 km / 1,5 vlieguur verder gelegen Manas in Kirgizie.
Want hun uit het Sovjet Unie tijdperk stammende startbanen waren te ruw aangelegd of te slecht onderhouden. Pas in 2006 begon de VS deze startbanen opnieuw te plaveiden, zodat F-16's er gebruik van konden maken.
A-10 Thunderbolts en Apaches hadden echter geen moeite om vanaf deze 'bare bases' te opereren.
Zodoende konden onze F-16's pas op november 2006 terecht op Kandahar.
Met 24 F-35 geen mogelijkheid voor missie's. Dus dan voldoen we niet aan de eisen voor inzetbaarheid van F-35 keuze.
Als we extra goedkopere surrogaat F-35 toestellen moeten gaan kopen om inzetbaarheid van de F-35 te kunnen garanderen en ook de geoefendheid van de piloten, dan kun je beter een surrogaat toestel aanschaffen welke ook als light-strike toe te passen is.
Eigenlijk een verkeerde ontwikkeling, maar hierdoor kun je wel een low-end en high-end systeem opbouwen. Hierdoor misschien een beter betaalbaar voor deelname aan missies en je inzetbaarheid wordt beter.
Citaat van: Harald op 25/10/2014 | 10:32 uur
Met 24 F-35 geen mogelijkheid voor missie's. Dus dan voldoen we niet aan de eisen voor inzetbaarheid van F-35 keuze.
Als we extra goedkopere surrogaat F-35 toestellen moeten gaan kopen om inzetbaarheid van de F-35 te kunnen garanderen en ook de geoefendheid van de piloten, dan kun je beter een surrogaat toestel aanschaffen welke ook als light-strike toe te passen is.
Eigenlijk een verkeerde ontwikkeling, maar hierdoor kun je wel een low-end en high-end systeem opbouwen. Hierdoor misschien een beter betaalbaar voor deelname aan missies en je inzetbaarheid wordt beter.
Ik heb geen enkel bezwaar tegen een gemengde vloot, 24 F35A aangevuld met 24 Scorpio (met een F35 cockpit) en 24 A10C uit de US mottenballenvloot.
Misschien is dan de combinatie met 24 Eurofighters (voor het luchtoverwicht), aangevuld met UCAV, Scopio en A10C de betere.
Duur? relatief begrip, de exploitatie kosten van de Scopio en A10 zijn peanuts is vergelijking tot de F35 en de EF en met een aantal van 3 x 24 kunnen we vast wel uit de voeten.
De logistieke voetafdruk die dit oplevert is enorm en echt niet financieel haalbaar.
Naast die F35 dient gewoon een flink aantal toestellen te zijn die zowel als les- als CAStoestel gebruikt kan worden, zowel qua opleidingen en logistiek heb je dan een kleine voetafdruk. Grote voordeel is dat je dan een grote hoeveelheid toestellen hebt die door elke piloot binnen de Krijgsmacht gevlogen kan worden. Dan heb je maximale operationele inzetbaarheid. En dat heb je nodig met de kleine hoeveelheid mensen, materiaal en centen.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 25/10/2014 | 10:58 uur
De logistieke voetafdruk die dit oplevert is enorm en echt niet financieel haalbaar.
Naast die F35 dient gewoon een flink aantal toestellen te zijn die zowel als les- als CAStoestel gebruikt kan worden, zowel qua opleidingen en logistiek heb je dan een kleine voetafdruk. Grote voordeel is dat je dan een grote hoeveelheid toestellen hebt die door elke piloot binnen de Krijgsmacht gevlogen kan worden. Dan heb je maximale operationele inzetbaarheid. En dat heb je nodig met de kleine hoeveelheid mensen, materiaal en centen.
Dan zou als aanvulling wat mij betreft de Scorpio een prima optie zijn.
Ik denk dat eerst bekeken moet worden hoe het hele luchtwapen systeem van de toekomst er uit moet gaan zien, en dan kijken wat daar het beste bij past. En ja de keuzes voor F35 en MQ-9 liggen al redelijk vast, dus dat beperkt helaas de verdere invulling.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 25/10/2014 | 11:13 uur
Ik denk dat eerst bekeken moet worden hoe het hele luchtwapen systeem van de toekomst er uit moet gaan zien, en dan kijken wat daar het beste bij past. En ja de keuzes voor F35 en MQ-9 liggen al redelijk vast, dus dat beperkt helaas de verdere invulling.
Lijkt me een prima onderwerp voor een nieuw (KLu) topic, waarin niet getornd wordt aan de nieuwe basis: F35 en MQ-9
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 25/10/2014 | 11:05 uur
Dan zou als aanvulling wat mij betreft de Scorpio een prima optie zijn.
Ben toch benieuwd waarom deze kist telkens weer opduikt. Afgezien van dat deze kist Amerikaans is, is er toch niet zoveel bijzonders t.o.v. De concurrenten?
Citaat van: Thomasen op 25/10/2014 | 11:27 uur
Ben toch benieuwd waarom deze kist telkens weer opduikt. Afgezien van dat deze kist Amerikaans is, is er toch niet zoveel bijzonders t.o.v. De concurrenten?
Voor de buget fetisjisten moet dit haast wel een natte droom zijn, prijs-prestatie verhouding lijkt me dik in orde en daarnaast
lijkt deze kist voor veel van de additionele wensen inzetbaar en is daarbij, in mijn ogen, esthetisch (niet dat het laatste een argument is)
Textron AirLand Scorpion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion
Citaat van: Thomasen op 25/10/2014 | 11:27 uur
Ben toch benieuwd waarom deze kist telkens weer opduikt. Afgezien van dat deze kist Amerikaans is, is er toch niet zoveel bijzonders t.o.v. De concurrenten?
Wat zijn de concurenten dan ? En in welke klassificatie valt hij dan ?
Is hij te vergelijken met een Super Tucano ?
Citaat van: Harald op 25/10/2014 | 12:11 uur
Wat zijn de concurenten dan ? En in welke klassificatie valt hij dan ?
Is hij te vergelijken met een Super Tucano ?
Natuurlijk is elk toestel zijn eigen, dus een klasse mag m.i. best ruim gedefinieerd worden. Een Super Tucano mag dan als concurrent.
Maar denk ook aan:
- Koreaanse KAI- T-50/FA-50
- M-346 Master
- BAe Hawk
- Textron Scorpion
- Aero L-159 Alca
- IA-63 Pampa
props:
- PZL 130 Orlik
- Pilatus PC21
- Hawker AT-6B
- A-67 Dragon
- Pucara 2.0 (alleen geruchten nog)
- OV-10X (Prototype)
- TAI Hurkus (prototype)
- KAI KT-1
- P51 Mustang/PA48 2.0 (Geruchten)
En dat is wat ik zo even kon vinden van niet-vijandige naties. Zelfs als niet van alle varianten een hypermoderne variant rondvliegt, valt het me gewoon op dat telkens de Scorpion weer boven komt drijven. Mooie kist, daar niet van.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 25/10/2014 | 12:53 uur
Natuurlijk is elk toestel zijn eigen, dus een klasse mag m.i. best ruim gedefinieerd worden. Een Super Tucano mag dan als concurrent.
Maar denk ook aan:
- Koreaanse KAI- T-50/FA-50
- M-346 Master
- BAe Hawk
- Textron Scorpion
- Aero L-159 Alca
- IA-63 Pampa
props:
- PZL 130 Orlik
- Pilatus PC21
- Hawker AT-6B
- A-67 Dragon
- Pucara 2.0 (alleen geruchten nog)
- OV-10X (Prototype)
- TAI Hurkus (prototype)
- KAI KT-1
- P51 Mustang/PA48 2.0 (Geruchten)
En dat is wat ik zo even kon vinden van niet-vijandige naties. Zelfs als niet van alle varianten een hypermoderne variant rondvliegt, valt het me gewoon op dat telkens de Scorpion weer boven komt drijven. Mooie kist, daar niet van.
Laat ik, ik weet het, het is verrassend.... eens naar het budget kijken en Israël als voorbeeld nemen:
Israel's New Jet Trainer Could Cost More Than $60 Million per plane, over 20 Years
http://defense-update.com/20130103_iaf_m346_life_cycle_cost.html#.VEuFjmccRjo
De Scorpion is voor mij net een klasse apart, waarom ?... Het toestel is in eerste plaats een ISR, maar is ten tweede een uitstekend light strike platform. Alles standaard meegnomen in het ontwerp. Tevens wordt hij nu aangeboden als trainer in de US compeditie.
Waarbij het kosten voor aanschaf en onderhoud zo laag mogelijk worden gehouden, dmv van de plank technieken.
Aanschaf : $ 20 miljoen USD, vlieguurkosten : $ 3000 USD
Alle (de meeste) andere zijn in de eerste plaats trainers en hebben light strike/attack capaciteiten, door de het toestel te upgraden.
Maar hebben geen ISR
De straalaangedreven alternatieven zijn duurder in aanschaf en missen de range/endurance, de props hebben het voordeel dat de aanschaf/onderhoud iets goedkoper is.
Allen missen het ISR platform, Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Een combinatie eenheid tussen Scorpion met een Super Tucano lijkt me nog beter
Citaat van: Harald op 25/10/2014 | 13:33 uur
De Scorpion is voor mij net een klasse apart, waarom ?... Het toestel is in eerste plaats een ISR, maar is ten tweede een uitstekend light strike platform. Alles standaard meegnomen in het ontwerp. Tevens wordt hij nu aangeboden als trainer in de US compeditie.
Waarbij het kosten voor aanschaf en onderhoud zo laag mogelijk worden gehouden, dmv van de plank technieken.
Aanschaf : $ 20 miljoen USD, vlieguurkosten : $ 3000 USD
Alle (de meeste) andere zijn in de eerste plaats trainers en hebben light strike/attack capaciteiten, door de het toestel te upgraden.
Maar hebben geen ISR
De straalaangedreven alternatieven zijn duurder in aanschaf en missen de range/endurance, de props hebben het voordeel dat de aanschaf/onderhoud iets goedkoper is.
Allen missen het ISR platform, Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Een combinatie eenheid tussen Scorpion met een Super Tucano lijkt me nog beter
Bouw in het toestel een F35 cocpit en we hebben er een platform bij wat dienst kan doen op vele fronten. De F35A voor de moeilijke klussen en zodra volstaan kan worden met de scorpion+ dan kunnen de F35 weer naar huis.
Voor het gemak: voor 1 F35 vlieguur kan je 12 Scorpions laten vliegen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 25/10/2014 | 13:15 uur
Laat ik, ik weet het, het is verrassend.... eens naar het budget kijken en Israël als voorbeeld nemen:
Israel's New Jet Trainer Could Cost More Than $60 Million per plane, over 20 Years
http://defense-update.com/20130103_iaf_m346_life_cycle_cost.html#.VEuFjmccRjo
Dat is toch hetzelfde als een Scorpion?
En zal vast niet veel verschillen met een hawk of ALCA.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 25/10/2014 | 13:44 uur
Dat is toch hetzelfde als een Scorpion?
En zal vast niet veel verschillen met een hawk of ALCA.
All prices are in 2009 US Dollars.
http://nationcreation.wikia.com/wiki/Modern_Day_Military_Pricing_List
Kan de Scorpion ook slecht geplaveide start/landingsbanen gebruiken? En wil je de dure F35 gaan gebruiken als QRA?
Citaat van: bergd op 25/10/2014 | 15:04 uur
Kan de Scorpion ook slecht geplaveide start/landingsbanen gebruiken? En wil je de dure F35 gaan gebruiken als QRA?
Of de Scorpio kan opereren van slechte start-en landingsbanen heb ik in diverse publicatie niet zo snel kunnen vinden. Natuurlijk wil ik de F35 niet alleen inzetten voor QRA maar ook in conflicten in een hoger geweldspectrum, en gedegen low end / high end mix die zorgt voor continuïteit.
De Scorpion is een inferieur toestel. Eigenlijk moeten we het zien als een jetversie van de Super Tucano.
Het is niet een toestel zoals de M-346 of de L-159, gelet op de prestaties.
In ieder geval kunnen we concluderen dat de F-35 de Klu vernietigt, ook al is 37 kisten haalbaar.
We zien nu duidelijk dat we voldoende toestellen moeten kunnen inzetten. We kunnen met moeite 8 kisten naar Irak sturen en hebben geeneens ruimte om er 4 naar de Baltische staten te sturen. Dit is op zichzelf al schandalig, maar het plan is dus dat in de toekomst slechts 4 kisten inzetbaar zullen zijn. Dit is nogmaals een reductie van 50%!
Dit is absurd. Als we de huidige F-16's 1 op 1 zouden vervangen met de JAS-39E/F (of bij voorkeur 68 stuks) dan zouden we wel 12 kisten inzetbaar kunnen hebben. Hier hebben we veel meer aan dan 24 F-35's die niet inzetbaar zijn. Of rare Scorpions die door Stingers gemakkelijk uit de lucht geknald kunnen worden.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 25/10/2014 | 20:15 uur
De Scorpion is een inferieur toestel. Eigenlijk moeten we het zien als een jetversie van de Super Tucano.
Het is niet een toestel zoals de M-346 of de L-159, gelet op de prestaties.
inferieur ... dat is een boute uitspraak en waar stoel jij deze bewering op ?
en dan een jetversie van de Super Tucano ... dat lees ik als een compliment voor de Scorpion
en nee de Scorpion is geen M-346, de M-346 is als een echte jet-trainer ontworpen. M-346 is iets sneller dan de Scorpion, maar als je naar bijvoorbeeld de range, stall-speed en weaponload kijkt dan is de Scorpion superieur.
De basis gedachte voor beide toestellen zijn heel verschillend en eigenlijk niet te vergelijken.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 25/10/2014 | 20:15 uur
Of rare Scorpions die door Stingers gemakkelijk uit de lucht geknald kunnen worden.
Hoezo ? .. zou de Scorpion als IRS, light attack niet uitgerust worden met EW en andere systemen tegen raketten e.d. ... ik weet het wel zeker van wel.
Even een paar opsommingen omtrent de Scorpion :
- The Scorpion demonstrator is a tandem-seat twin engine jet aircraft with an all-composite fuselage designed for light attack and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions
- Textron Airland refers to the Scorpion as an ISR/strike aircraft rather than a light strike plane.
- The Scorpion is designed to cheaply perform armed reconnaissance using sensors to cruise above 15,000 ft, higher than most ground fire can reach, and is still rugged enough to sustain minimal damage.
- The Scorpion is designed to be affordable, costing US$3,000 per flight hour, with a unit cost expected to be below US$20 million.
- Endurance is optimized for 5 hours.
- The Scorpion is to have a 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) payload of precision and non-precision munitions or intelligence-collecting equipment in a simplified and reconfigurable internal bay.
- The internal payload bay has a payload capacity of 3,000 lb (1,400 kg). The external hardpoints have a payload capacity of 6,200 lb (2,800 kg).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion#Specifications
Textrons deelname van de Scorpion als Trainer in de USAF competitie :
On 23 August 2014, Textron Airland confirmed that the Scorpion will be entered in the U.S. Air Force's T-X trainer program competition. Previously, the company had hinted that the Scorpion could fill the role but never formally confirmed it was entering. Only small modifications will be made to the design, including shortening the wings to less than 47 ft (14.3 m) and making them more aerodynamic, as well as increasing the thrust of the engine; the twin-engine, twin-tail design will be retained. The trainer variant could also help secure international orders. The Scorpion's per hour flight cost is relatively close to the $2,200 per hour cost of the T-6 Texan propeller trainer and international markets have a history of using one aircraft type to perform both training and light attack missions
Citaat van: IPA NG op 25/10/2014 | 20:15 uur
In ieder geval kunnen we concluderen dat de F-35 de Klu vernietigt, ook al is 37 kisten haalbaar.
We zien nu duidelijk dat we voldoende toestellen moeten kunnen inzetten. We kunnen met moeite 8 kisten naar Irak sturen en hebben geeneens ruimte om er 4 naar de Baltische staten te sturen. Dit is op zichzelf al schandalig, maar het plan is dus dat in de toekomst slechts 4 kisten inzetbaar zullen zijn. Dit is nogmaals een reductie van 50%!
Dit is absurd.
Hier ben ik het wel mee-eens, Met de 37 stuks F-35 kunnen we 4 stuks inzetbaar hebben voor missie's. De huidige 13 ingezette F-16's is met drukken en wringen doorgezet, maar kunnen we niet lang volhouden. Ik ben zeer benieuwd hoelang het duurt voordat er geluiden komen dat de F-16's op zijn, onderhoud moeilijk wordt, dat er een te kort aan reserve onderdelen is en dergelijke.
Als er straks maar 24 stuks F-35 aangeschaft kunnen worden, dan moeten er andere maatregelen getroffen worden en keuzes gemaakt worden.
Bijvoorbeeld ; extra aanschaf F-35 of een (goedkoper) alternatief ernaast
Beide keuzes zullen extra investeringen vragen.
Maar dit geldt ook voor als de politiek gaat beslissen dat er meer toestellen dan 4 beschikbaar moeten zijn voor missie's of als het ambitie niveau opgeschroefd gaat worden.
Saab and Brazil Sign Contract for Gripen NG
October 27, 2014 / LINKÖPING, Sweden--(BUSINESS WIRE)
Defence and security company Saab has signed a contract with the Brazilian Federal Government (Ministry of Defense through the Aeronautics Command, COMAER) covering the development and production of 36 Gripen NG fighter aircraft for the Brazilian Air Force. The total order value is approximately SEK 39.3 billion. Saab and COMAER have also signed an Industrial Co-operation contract to deliver substantial technology transfer from Saab to Brazilian industry.
On 18 December 2013 Brazil selected the Gripen NG to be its next-generation fighter aircraft, through the F-X2 evaluation programme. Since then all parties have negotiated to finalise a contract. Today's announcement marks the successful conclusion of that process.
Saab and COMAER have signed a contract for the development and production of 36 Gripen NG fighter aircraft, plus related systems and equipment. The programme comprises 28 single-seat and eight two-seat Gripen NG. The total order value is approximately SEK 39.3 billion.
Saab and COMAER have also signed a contract for industrial co-operation projects, including technology transfer to Brazilian industry, to be performed over approximately ten years.
"We are proud to stand side-by-side with Brazil in this important programme. There is already a long and successful history of industrial co-operation between our two countries, and this historic agreement takes that partnership to a new level", says Marcus Wallenberg, Chairman of Saab's Board of Directors.
The contract with COMAER for Gripen NG and the associated Industrial Co-operation contract will come into effect once certain conditions have been fulfilled. These include, among others, the necessary export control-related authorisations. All of these conditions are expected to be fulfilled during the first half of 2015. Gripen NG deliveries to the Brazilian Air Force will be undertaken from 2019 to 2024.
"The contract with Brazil validates Gripen as the most capable and modern fighter system on the market. It solidifies Saab's position as a world-leading fighter aircraft producer and strengthens our platform for growth," says Håkan Buskhe, President and CEO of Saab.
The contract with Brazil strengthens the ties between Saab and Brazilian industry. Embraer will have a leading role as the strategic partner in the F-X2 programme. As part of the technology transfer plan, Brazilian industry will have an important role in the development of, and be responsible for, the production of the two-seat Gripen NG variant for the Brazilian Air Force.
Brazil joins Sweden in becoming the launch customer for the next-generation Gripen, which shares the same smart design and innovative technology as today's Gripen versions. Gripen aircraft are currently in operational service with the Swedish, Czech, Hungarian, South African and Royal Thai Air Forces, and also with the UK Empire Test Pilots' School (ETPS).
The next-generation Gripen meets the market's demand for a sophisticated and flexible combat aircraft with sustainable costs. The aircraft provides more thrust, extended range and endurance, expanded weapons capacity, new sensors including an advanced AESA radar, highly effective electronic warfare systems and multi-function communications.
The Gripen NG for Brazil and Gripen E for Sweden share all the attributes of the next-generation Gripen design, but are also tailored to each country's specific national requirements. The commitments by Sweden and Brazil secure Gripen's industrial and operational future into the 2050 timeframe.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141026005080/en/Saab-Brazil-Sign-Contract-Gripen-NG#.VE3n_Gd0xjo
Citaat van: www.businesswire.com Vandaag om 07:40
Saab and Brazil Sign Contract for Gripen NG
Met de felicitaties voor Saab, de eerste export Gripen E order is binnen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 27/10/2014 | 08:13 uur
Met de felicitaties voor Saab, de eerste export Gripen E order is binnen.
En gezien dat de huidige president gewonnen heeft met de verkiezing zullen de huidige plannen de komende jaren verder uitgevoerd worden.
Dat is positief voor SAAB, Gripen E , SeaGripen en de Gripen-samenwerken met Argentinië
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/3913064/zittende-president-rousseff-wint-verkiezingen-brazilie.html
Citaat van: Harald op 27/10/2014 | 09:58 uur
En gezien dat de huidige president gewonnen heeft met de verkiezing zullen de huidige plannen de komende jaren verder uitgevoerd worden.
Dat is positief voor SAAB, Gripen E , SeaGripen en de Gripen-samenwerken met Argentinië
Exact, ik zie de SeaGripen er nu ook komen, zeker in het licht van een beperkte (westerse) keuzes als het gaat om carrier kisten immers na 2020 alleen nog keuze uit F35B/C en
misschien de Rafale M.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 27/10/2014 | 10:17 uur
Exact, ik zie de SeaGripen er nu ook komen,
Argentinië heeft geen carrier meer en omdat Argentinië nu gebruik maakt van de Sao Paulo (Brazilie) om carrier landingen en starts te oefenen, kan de samenwerking ook nog wel eens goed zijn voor de ontwikkeling van de SeaGripen met een levering aan Argentinië.
Argentine cooperation with Brazil has meant that the naval air wing has continued to operate from the deck of carrier NAe São Paulo during ARAEX exercises and/or touch-and-go landings on US Navy carriers when they are in transit within Argentine coastal waters during Gringo-Gaucho manoeuvres.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Veinticinco_de_Mayo_(V-2)
Argenintie vliegt nu nog met 10 a 11 stuks Super Étendards, deze zullen ook vervangen moeten worden
By March 2014, while the Argentine Navy continued to seek the upgrade kits for their ten of its eleven remaining Super Étendards, this ambition appears to have been complicated by several factors, France has been non-committal regarding the sought sale; critically, political developments between France and the UK may potentially allow the UK to obstruct the supply of military equipment to Argentina such as the upgrade kits and the Exocet missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault-Breguet_Super_%C3%89tendard#Argentina
Ik ben benieuwd of er nu elders ook snel knopen doorgehakt gaan worden wat betreft de Gripen NG.
Zou de Gripen als trainingsvliegtuig ingezet kunnen worden, of is die daarvoor te gecompliceerd?
Argentinie de Sea Gripen ?????...Dat land is compleet failliet ..ik zie hun niet zo snel moderne gevechtsvliegtuigen kopen.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 27/10/2014 | 14:17 uur
Ik ben benieuwd of er nu elders ook snel knopen doorgehakt gaan worden wat betreft de Gripen NG.
Zou de Gripen als trainingsvliegtuig ingezet kunnen worden, of is die daarvoor te gecompliceerd?
Ik zie niet zo snel waar de Gripen E momenteel echt serieus mee draait in een competitie.
Als trainingskist lijk mij deze te complex, het is niet voor niets dan Saab samen met Boeing bezig is met een clean sheet ontwerp voor een trainer voor de US T/X competitie.
Achtergronden rondom de Gripen deal van Brazilië: http://news.yahoo.com/saab-closes-multi-billion-gripen-fighter-deal-brazil-132357445.html
Most Spanish Eurofighter jets can't fly: report
Published: 27 Oct 2014
Sources inside Spain's military have reportedly told a Spanish newspaper that only a handful of the country's Eurofighter Typhoon jets are fully operational and that semi-retired F-18 aircraft are being called back into full service to meet NATO commitments.
According to Spanish daily El Confidencial Digital, unnamed military sources have warned that the Eurofighter Typhoon air fleet is crippled by breakdowns, lack of spare parts and delayed inspections.
The claims come just a day after Spain announced plans to pump €10 billion ($12.7 billion) into new defence programs after six years of cutbacks as a result of the economic crisis.
Eurofighters were not, however, named in the list of projects due to receive a funding boost.
The investment will instead go towards the new F-110 frigates, drones, and the infamous S-80 sinking submarines.
Only six Eurofighters in Spain's Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) service in bases at Morón de la Frontera and Albacete are currently capable of taking off, according to military insiders. These jets are kept ready to scramble 24 hours a day, year-round, to intercept suspicious aircraft in Spanish airspace.
The rest of Spain's Eurofighter planes have allegedly been grounded by breakdowns, missing spare parts and queues for inspections after reaching the maximum number of hours in the air.
The Eurofighter Typhoon was jointly developed by the UK, Spain, Germany and Italy.
Germany recently reported a manufacturing defect in the Eurofighter's fuselage which could lead to in-flight instability. It grounded its planes and launched an investigation but Spain chose instead to order its mechanics and pilots to perform pre-flight inspections.
In June, Spain's foreign minister José Manuel García Margallo claimed that four Eurofighters would be sent to the Baltic region as part of the country's NATO commitments. But because of the condition of the Eurofighter fleet, sources inside the military claim that ageing F-18 fighter jets were being prepared to be sent instead.
Official Ministry of Foreign Affairs sources denied this and insisted that Spain would still be able to send Eurofighters as originally intended. They also denied the existence of any shortage of spare parts
http://www.thelocal.es/20141027/only-6-of-spains-39-eurofighter-planes-can-fly
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 28/10/2014 | 08:21 uur
Most Spanish Eurofighter jets can't fly: report
Published: 27 Oct 2014
Sources inside Spain's military have reportedly told a Spanish newspaper that only a handful of the country's Eurofighter Typhoon jets are fully operational and that semi-retired F-18 aircraft are being called back into full service to meet NATO commitments.
According to Spanish daily El Confidencial Digital, unnamed military sources have warned that the Eurofighter Typhoon air fleet is crippled by breakdowns, lack of spare parts and delayed inspections.
The claims come just a day after Spain announced plans to pump €10 billion ($12.7 billion) into new defence programs after six years of cutbacks as a result of the economic crisis.
Eurofighters were not, however, named in the list of projects due to receive a funding boost.
The investment will instead go towards the new F-110 frigates, drones, and the infamous S-80 sinking submarines.
Only six Eurofighters in Spain's Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) service in bases at Morón de la Frontera and Albacete are currently capable of taking off, according to military insiders. These jets are kept ready to scramble 24 hours a day, year-round, to intercept suspicious aircraft in Spanish airspace.
The rest of Spain's Eurofighter planes have allegedly been grounded by breakdowns, missing spare parts and queues for inspections after reaching the maximum number of hours in the air.
The Eurofighter Typhoon was jointly developed by the UK, Spain, Germany and Italy.
Germany recently reported a manufacturing defect in the Eurofighter's fuselage which could lead to in-flight instability. It grounded its planes and launched an investigation but Spain chose instead to order its mechanics and pilots to perform pre-flight inspections.
In June, Spain's foreign minister José Manuel García Margallo claimed that four Eurofighters would be sent to the Baltic region as part of the country's NATO commitments. But because of the condition of the Eurofighter fleet, sources inside the military claim that ageing F-18 fighter jets were being prepared to be sent instead.
Official Ministry of Foreign Affairs sources denied this and insisted that Spain would still be able to send Eurofighters as originally intended. They also denied the existence of any shortage of spare parts
http://www.thelocal.es/20141027/only-6-of-spains-39-eurofighter-planes-can-fly
Dat zou betekenen dat ongeveer 15% van de kisten inzetbaar is. Gezien het problemen bij Spanje niet heel gek, dergelijke verhalen ook over de marine en landmacht eenheden gehoord. Is daar ook een bewuste en niet eens hele gekke keuze geweest. Maar kan niet eeuwig doorgaan. Vraag is wel in hoeverre dit waar is en waar dan de oorzaak ligt. Ik kan me voorstellen dat de benodigde reservedelen te duur zijn voor de Spanjaarden, zoals ook NL overal gebrek aan reservedelen heeft.
Daarbij moest de EF volgens mij niet de F/A-18 vervangen, maar de Mirage en dus naast de F18 opereren. Wat gegoogle op dit onderwerp levert trouwens ook geen consistent beeld op. Hoeveel van de F18 zouden retired worden, iemand enig idee?
Citaat van: Thomasen op 28/10/2014 | 15:35 uur
Dat zou betekenen dat ongeveer 15% van de kisten inzetbaar is. Gezien het problemen bij Spanje niet heel gek, dergelijke verhalen ook over de marine en landmacht eenheden gehoord. Is daar ook een bewuste en niet eens hele gekke keuze geweest. Maar kan niet eeuwig doorgaan. Vraag is wel in hoeverre dit waar is en waar dan de oorzaak ligt. Ik kan me voorstellen dat de benodigde reservedelen te duur zijn voor de Spanjaarden, zoals ook NL overal gebrek aan reservedelen heeft.
....
Inderdaad...en ik heb zo'n licht vermoeden dat de auteur van het stuk geen flauw idee heeft hoeveel toestellen er "normaal" operationeel inzetbaar zouden moeten zijn. Want dat is namelijk niet eens zoveel meer. Ik heb dat voorgelegd op Twitter maar nog geen reactie op gehad. Ik vermoed dat mijn vermoeden klopt ;)
UK to spend £2.5bn on (14) F-35 fighters
The UK is about to commit to the F-35 fighter project, a US-led effort to produce 3,000 aircraft which is set to cost more than £600bn globally.
The initial UK order for 14 F-35Bs will, with support costs added, cost about £2.5bn, Newsnight has learned.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the F-35B was an expensive plane, but one with an "incredible capability".
But critics have questioned Ministry of Defence suggestions that the jets will be combat capable by 2018.
The F35-B will be known as Lightning II in UK active service and is going to replace the already retired Harrier.
The aircraft - capable of vertical landing - will eventually be able to fly from new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The F-35 programme is central to the future of the Royal Navy and the military aerospace sector of the economy, but it has been plagued by development problems, is years late into service and the true cost to the UK is only just becoming clear.
At one stage, the US Marines had hoped to bring the F-35 into service in 2010, but they now hope to do so late in 2015. Many industry experts say this is hopelessly optimistic.
'Number one risk'
Newsnight has learned that Britain originally intended its F-35s to enter service in 2012.
With 8.4m lines of software, it is by far the most complex fighter ever built, but a Pentagon inspector's report stated that by last summer only 2% of that code was fully up to standard. Much of the plane's software, including that needed to aim and launch weapons, remains to be proven in tests.
Aircraftmaker Lockheed Martin argues that 7.4m lines of the aircraft's software have now been tested, but one senior source familiar with Britain's F-35 programme says continuing software problems are "the number one risk" to the UK bringing it into service on time.
Former Royal Navy chief Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, who now works with Lockheed Martin, believes the new aircraft is vital to maintaining Britain's status as a serious international player.
"By the end of the decade, we are going to have a credible air capability," he said, adding that the Ministry of Defence's original commitment to buying 48 jets "will certainly not be enough".
Worries about risk - financial and technological - have kept the British government from committing to bigger numbers.
Newsnight understands that the first 14 aircraft will be bought for £58m ($96m) apiece. However, once spares, maintenance and initial support are included, the price will be much higher.
'Basic weapons range'
There is concern in the MoD that observers will simply divide the approximate £2.5bn cost of this stage of the project by the 14 planes being ordered, whereas this price tag includes certain support costs for the entire, eventual UK fleet.
One Pentagon estimate last year for an aircraft plus support costs for the first few years came out at £154m ($253m) each.
( $253 miljoen USD = € 199 miljoen Euro)
In planning its own buy, Britain has shown a little more caution than the hard-charging US Marine Corps.
It's planned that the 14 aircraft will form the first operational squadron in 2018, and that by 2020 they will be able to fly from HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Justin Bronk, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, said that even by then, they might be capable only of "going through the motions" - taking off and landing - and not using the more advanced weapons in the RAF inventory.
People in the MoD say they are confident the aircraft will be "combat capable", with a basic range of bombs and missiles, by 2018, although they concede that getting some of the RAF's more advanced missiles to work with the F-35 will not happen before 2022.
However, others in the industry have suggested that 2025 might be a more realistic date for full combat capability, and that funding to "integrate" some of these weapons with the F-35 could come under threat at some future point.
'Air force backbone'
Mr Hammond said: "[The F-35] will be the world's most sophisticated fighter aircraft with a high level of stealth capability, so it will be able to penetrate enemy defences with very little radar signature, which makes it a very versatile and capable piece of equipment.
"And it will provide a backbone to our air forces, including our carrier power projection for many years to come."
He added of the software issues: "It would be a mistake to think of this as a software that will be completely written when the aircraft comes into service.
"There will be updates of software throughout the life of these aircraft, adding capability as well as dealing with any specific issues that arise when the aircraft is in use."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26124894
Despite tensions with US, Israel to purchase second batch of F-35 fighter jets
The move came after the previous Israeli government decided that the air force may buy up to three F-35 squadrons.
Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel finalized the terms of Israel's purchase of a second squadron of F-35 fighter jets in recent days.
The move came after the previous Israeli government decided that the air force may buy up to three F-35 squadrons.
The first batch of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets are due in Israel in 2016, and 19 jets will arrive in Israel by 2018. From 2019, the jets that will make up the second squadron are expected to begin arriving.
The purchase of the second squadron is conditional on the approval of the ministerial committee for defense purchases, defense sources said.
The Israel Air Force will set up its first F-35 squadron in Nevatim Airbase in the Negev desert, which currently houses F-16 squadrons and C-130 Hercules transport planes.
The F-35 will ensure Israel's regional qualitative edge in the first quarter of the 21st century, defense chiefs say.
Israel signed a $2.75 billion deal to purchase a squadron of 19 F-35s from Lockheed Martin in 2012, and received Pentagon approval to purchase an additional 75 platforms.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Despite-tensions-with-US-Israel-to-purchase-second-batch-of-F-35-fighter-jets-380035
Wordt weer betaald van de financiele miljardensteun van de VS (3+ mld) aan Israel in feiten. Van commercieel belang Amerikanen bij promotie F35.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 28/10/2014 | 22:27 uur
Wordt weer betaald van de financiele miljardensteun van de VS (3+ mld) aan Israel in feiten. Van commercieel belang Amerikanen bij promotie F35.
En... ergens steekt het je want ik hoor geen kritiek op 36 Gripen E/F voor Brazilië voor 4,28 miljard euro, een totaal ander onderwerp, maar toch, hier geen wanklank. (bedenk waar de Zweden de Gripen á 85 stuks voor aan Nederland hebben aangeboden)
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 28/10/2014 | 23:07 uur
En... ergens steekt het je want ik hoor geen kritiek op 36 Gripen E/F voor Brazilië voor 4,28 miljard euro, een totaal ander onderwerp, maar toch, hier geen wanklank. (bedenk waar de Zweden de Gripen á 85 stuks voor aan Nederland hebben aangeboden)
Bedenk dat daar ook technology transfer in zit. Iets wat NL vwb de F35 ook al een miljard heeft gekost.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 28/10/2014 | 23:11 uur
Bedenk dat daar ook technology transfer in zit. Iets wat NL vwb de F35 ook al een miljard heeft gekost.
Dat is waar maar extrapoleer het bedrag 36 naar 85 kisten inclusief tech. transfer je komt op ruim 10.1 miljard euro (inclusief diverse toeters en bellen) voor een periode van
20 jaar.
Ergens ruikt het bij Saab ook naar WC eend.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 28/10/2014 | 23:19 uur
Dat is waar maar extrapoleer het bedrag 36 naar 85 kisten inclusief tech. transfer je komt op ruim 10.1 miljard euro (inclusief diverse toeters en bellen) voor een periode van 20 jaar.
Ergens ruikt het bij Saab ook naar WC eend.
Dat bedrag van Brazilië valt niet te extrapoleren, omdat er juist zoveel ToT inzit. De deal die Saab NL aanbood was 4,8 miljard voor de aanschaf + 4,8 miljard voor 20+ jaar aan onderhoud(sonderdelen). En bij de Zweden is een man een man en een woord een woord. Einde gezeik.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 28/10/2014 | 23:19 uur
Dat is waar maar extrapoleer het bedrag 36 naar 85 kisten inclusief tech. transfer je komt op ruim 10.1 miljard euro (inclusief diverse toeters en bellen) voor een periode van 20 jaar.
Ergens ruikt het bij Saab ook naar WC eend.
Ze hebben wat contracten lopen, daar valt wat uit af te leiden. Ze proberen niet om bloembollen aan te merken als offset.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 29/10/2014 | 00:41 uur
Ze hebben wat contracten lopen, daar valt wat uit af te leiden. Ze proberen niet om bloembollen aan te merken als offset.
Dat is waar.
Citaat van: mandaje op 29/10/2014 | 00:39 uur
De deal die Saab NL aanbood was 4,8 miljard voor de aanschaf + 4,8 miljard voor 20+ jaar aan onderhoud(sonderdelen). En bij de Zweden is een man een man en een woord een woord. Einde gezeik.
Waarmee NL aanzienlijk minder dan de Zweden zou betalen... iets met naïef.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 28/10/2014 | 23:07 uur
En... ergens steekt het je want ik hoor geen kritiek op 36 Gripen E/F voor Brazilië voor 4,28 miljard euro, een totaal ander onderwerp, maar toch, hier geen wanklank. (bedenk waar de Zweden de Gripen á 85 stuks voor aan Nederland hebben aangeboden)
Zie reactie Thomasen...
En nee het steekt me niet. Omdat ik op vind ik zeer aannemelijke argumenten en afwegingen niet voor de JSF/F35 kies maar de Gripen zou prefereren voor Nederland.
Daarbij..en dat heb ik vaak herhaalt..kraak ik de F35 niet af om de F35 zelf. Vind het een mooi toestel. Ik geef alleen tegenwicht aan de mijns inziens veel te rooskleurige en vertekende beeldvorming die de F35 lobby en KLu presenteren van de F35.
Citaat van: TheWeek op 29/10/2014 | 07:59 uur
Falklands War 2? Argentina's new fighters a serious threat
Argentina has placed an order for 24 Saabs – and they're Top Gun aircraft not family saloons
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 29/10/2014 | 09:25 uur
Rond 2018 beginnen de sea triles incl F35B, dus reken op z'n vroegst 2019/2020 (met een beperkte hoeveelheid F35B)
Voor 2020 verwacht ik geen Argentijnse Gripen E (if ever)
Op zich en interessant oefen scenario Gripen E vs F35B
Nu is het maar een OpEd, maar het is toch grappig dat gesteld wordt dat ze zich zorgen moeten maken om een handjevol niet 5th gen fighters. Nu opeens weer wel....
En met een in-service van 2019 ben je erg optimistisch, zelfs de Britten zelf gaan uit van een IOC van 2020. De USMC kan volgend jaar de F35's naar Syrië sturen......zeggen ze.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 29/10/2014 | 12:04 uur
En met een in-service van 2019 ben je erg optimistisch, zelfs de Britten zelf gaan uit van een IOC van 2020. De USMC kan volgend jaar de F35's naar Syrië sturen......zeggen ze.
2019 is ook het nood-breek-wet scenario, zoals de Karel Doorman binnenkort wordt ingezet voor haar eerste operationele missie, zelfs nog zonder het predicaat: Zr.Ms.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 29/10/2014 | 12:04 uur
Nu is het maar een OpEd, maar het is toch grappig dat gesteld wordt dat ze zich zorgen moeten maken om een handjevol niet 5th gen fighters. Nu opeens weer wel....
;D als je er vanuit gaat de Argentijnen de Gripen E eerder hebben (if ever) dan de Britten hun F35B's (operationeel) en dat waag ik te betwijfelen, daarnaast lijkt mij de strijd: Gripen E vs Eurofighter tranche 3 ook best interessant.
De zorgen zitten meer het idee denk ik zo.
Latest CGI of the ATD-X ShinShin (F-3) (de Japanse Next Generation Fighter .... zier er wel erg gaaf uit trouwens )
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Gr14YLs-l_w%2FVFDBL7pTnWI%2FAAAAAAABDUI%2FAW4s6Hb5Wbk%2Fs1600%2F10644509_878782208799752_2540809085623065667_n.jpg&hash=7bfe55af94c0089fb416c9b174513cfdd47a8c54)
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.nl/2014/10/latest-cgi-of-atd-x-shinshin-f-3-via.html
Citaat van: Harald op 29/10/2014 | 14:21 uur
Latest CGI of the ATD-X ShinShin (F-3) (de Japanse Next Generation Fighter .... zier er wel erg gaaf uit trouwens )
Ziet er zeker spannend uit, op het oog een mix tussen F15 en F22
Citaat van: Harald op 29/10/2014 | 14:21 uur
Latest CGI of the ATD-X ShinShin (F-3) (de Japanse Next Generation Fighter .... zier er wel erg gaaf uit trouwens )
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Gr14YLs-l_w%2FVFDBL7pTnWI%2FAAAAAAABDUI%2FAW4s6Hb5Wbk%2Fs1600%2F10644509_878782208799752_2540809085623065667_n.jpg&hash=7bfe55af94c0089fb416c9b174513cfdd47a8c54)
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.nl/2014/10/latest-cgi-of-atd-x-shinshin-f-3-via.html
Wat hangt er onder de vleugel?
Citaat van: Thomasen op 29/10/2014 | 15:12 uur
Wat hangt er onder de vleugel?
Het lijkt verdacht veel op een UCAV
Of een kruisvluchtwapen...
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 29/10/2014 | 15:18 uur
Het lijkt verdacht veel op een UCAV
Het heeft de vorm van een UCAV Barracuda
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFQbX6vs.jpg&hash=3f760799a9153f6556d8764ac2c44b47cbb4514b)
Maar waarschijnlijk is het een stand-off wapen nog te ontwikkelen door Japan
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 29/10/2014 | 15:18 uur
Het lijkt verdacht veel op een UCAV
Ik denk de laatste UAV...ze hebben er nu ook die door F15J kan worden meegenomen..air launched UAV
Citaat van: mandaje op 29/10/2014 | 00:39 uur
Dat bedrag van Brazilië valt niet te extrapoleren, omdat er juist zoveel ToT inzit. De deal die Saab NL aanbood was 4,8 miljard voor de aanschaf + 4,8 miljard voor 20+ jaar aan onderhoud(sonderdelen). En bij de Zweden is een man een man en een woord een woord. Einde gezeik.
Jaja.. en waar heb je deze wijsheid vandaan?
Mensen die de F-35 afzeiken begrijp ik niet, je bent geen luchtvaartdeskundige, je weet echt helemaal niets van zakendoen op dat niveau, je bent geen eens een luchtvaart technicus, je moet het doen met internet pagina's en blog's en zelfuitgegeven persverklaringen. het toestel is nog niet eens operationeel....
Hoe er dan toch nog mensen zijn die conclusies gaan lopen trekken... dat begrijp ik niet.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 29/10/2014 | 18:19 uur
het toestel is nog niet eens operationeel....
Sterker nog, er vliegt nog geen enkele origineel gebouwde Gripen E, de eerste 2 prototypes kiezen ergens in 2015 voor het eerst het luchtruim.
Het enige huidig vliegende exemplaar is een omgebouwde Gripen D.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 29/10/2014 | 19:25 uur
Sterker nog, er vliegt nog geen enkele origineel gebouwde Gripen E, de eerste 2 prototypes kiezen ergens in 2015 voor het eerst het luchtruim.
Het enige huidig vliegende exemplaar is een omgebouwde Gripen D.
staat tegenover dat vrijwel alle belangrijke systemen gewoon getest zijn of al in gebruik zijn..zoals de motor. Enorm verschil met een toestel dat vrijwel helemaal uit nieuwe onderdelen is opgebouwd..waarvan verschillende nog in ontwikkeling of getest moeten worden...zoals de F35. Daarom vind ik deze reactie weinig overtuigend en appels met peren vergelijken.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 29/10/2014 | 20:14 uur
staat tegenover dat vrijwel alle belangrijke systemen gewoon getest zijn of al in gebruik zijn..zoals de motor. Enorm verschil met een toestel dat vrijwel helemaal uit nieuwe onderdelen is opgebouwd..waarvan verschillende nog in ontwikkeling of getest moeten worden...zoals de F35. Daarom vind ik deze reactie weinig overtuigend en appels met peren vergelijken.
Natuurlijk heb je een punt maar dat doet niets af aan het feit dat deze kist zich nog zal moeten bewijzen hoe graag jij ook appels met appel wil vergelijken.
Als we op basis van bewezen en bestaande concepten slechts beperkt zouden innoveren dan reden wij nu in het model T-Ford, bouwjaar 2014.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 29/10/2014 | 20:14 uur
staat tegenover dat vrijwel alle belangrijke systemen gewoon getest zijn of al in gebruik zijn..zoals de motor.
Vrijwel alle ..... 8)
Maar het kan ook zo zijn, dat als deze diverse componenten tezamen komen en een vliegtuig dienen te vormen, het fout gaat. :angel:
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 29/10/2014 | 20:27 uur
Natuurlijk heb je een punt maar dat doet niets af aan het feit dat deze kist zich nog zal moeten bewijzen hoe graag jij ook appels met appel wil vergelijken.
Als we op basis van bewezen en bestaande concepten slechts beperkt zouden innoveren dan reden wij nu in het model T-Ford, bouwjaar 2014.
Een goed voorbeeld is de Formule 1 Als het race seizoen voorbij is en de nieuwe bolides zijn nog niet gereed rijdt met met een gemodificeerde bolide rond met de elektronica, software en andere onderdelen daar alvast in zodat men de betrouwbaarheid kan testen en data kan verzamelen.
Nu zal iedereen zich afvragen wat heeft de Formule 1 met luchtvaart te maken, alle ontwerpers en technici hebben vaak in de luchtvaart gewerkt, voordat men in de Formule 1 aan de slag ging of gaat.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 29/10/2014 | 20:59 uur
Een goed voorbeeld is de Formule 1 Als het race seizoen voorbij is en de nieuwe bolides zijn nog niet gereed rijdt met met een gemodificeerde bolide rond met de elektronica, software en andere onderdelen daar alvast in zodat men de betrouwbaarheid kan testen en data kan verzamelen.
Zeker waar maar één seizoen is wat anders dan een kwart eeuw of meer.
Dat gebash op de f35 neemt zwarte piet vormen aan.
Het gaat niet meer om het vliegtuig maar om het gelijk halen.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 30/10/2014 | 00:15 uur
Dat gebash op de f35 neemt zwarte piet vormen aan.
Het gaat niet meer om het vliegtuig maar om het gelijk halen.
Soms is het moeilijk om de waarheid onder ogen te zien.
Hoe kan het dat de "on"deskundigen al jaren waarschuwen voor enorme kosten overschijdingen en de professionels uiteindelijk kleur moeten bekennen? (de prestaties even buiten beschouwing latend)
Citaat van: bergd op 30/10/2014 | 11:40 uur
Soms is het moeilijk om de waarheid onder ogen te zien.
Hoe kan het dat de "on"deskundigen al jaren waarschuwen voor enorme kosten overschijdingen en de professionels uiteindelijk kleur moeten bekennen? (de prestaties even buiten beschouwing latend)
Enkele decennia geleden hadden "we" de zelfde discussies, de F14, F15 en F16 waren slechte investeringen, slecht presterend en het zou nooit wat worden.
In ogen van veel 'experts' moeten de luchtmachten en regeringen van de partner landen en de landen die zich hier tot toe bij hebben aangesloten dom en naïef zijn om te kiezen voor een product die ze wellicht alleen maar kiezen om politieke reden.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 30/10/2014 | 11:59 uur
Enkele decennia geleden hadden "we" de zelfde discussies, de F14, F15 en F16 waren slechte investeringen, slecht presterend en het zou nooit wat worden.
In ogen van veel 'experts' moeten de luchtmachten en regeringen van de partner landen en de landen die zich hier tot toe bij hebben aangesloten dom en naïef zijn om te kiezen voor een product die ze wellicht alleen maar kiezen om politieke reden.
Of de F111. Dat is uiteindelijk ook een formidabele en betaalbare fighter geworden ;D
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/10/2014 | 12:09 uur
Of de F111. Dat is uiteindelijk ook een formidabele en betaalbare fighter geworden ;D
Een formidabele kist zeker en wellicht onovertroffen als aanvalskist, maar fighter...
Citaat van: bergd op 30/10/2014 | 11:40 uur
Soms is het moeilijk om de waarheid onder ogen te zien.
Hoe kan het dat de "on"deskundigen al jaren waarschuwen voor enorme kosten overschijdingen en de professionels uiteindelijk kleur moeten bekennen? (de prestaties even buiten beschouwing latend)
Nog 1 keer.
Er-is-geen-vliegtuig-om-over-te-oordelen
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 30/10/2014 | 11:59 uur
Enkele decennia geleden hadden "we" de zelfde discussies, de F14, F15 en F16 waren slechte investeringen, slecht presterend en het zou nooit wat worden.
In ogen van veel 'experts' moeten de luchtmachten en regeringen van de partner landen en de landen die zich hier tot toe bij hebben aangesloten dom en naïef zijn om te kiezen voor een product die ze wellicht alleen maar kiezen om politieke reden.
Ik zeg prestatie's buiten beschouwing latend,
Waarom zo te kijk laten zetten door een stelletje amateurs die al jaren lang roep toeteren over kostenoverschijdingen. Dit tot het uiterst bestreden en ontkend wordt door instanties. Ik vind het dan niet gek dat mensen achterdochtig worden en grote vraagtekens zetten. (koren op de molen)
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 30/10/2014 | 13:11 uur
Nog 1 keer.
Er-is-geen-vliegtuig-om-over-te-oordelen
Ik oordeel niet, alleen wat vraagtekens
Citaat van: bergd op 30/10/2014 | 13:30 uur
Ik oordeel niet, alleen wat vraagtekens
Wat doe je dan wel?
Je beoordeelt het vliegtuig al het gehele topic. Dat doe je als je hem goed vindt, of slecht vindt.
Vraagtekens plaatsen is heel wat anders.
Niemand, en dan ook maar niemand kan maar IETS zinnigs zeggen over de F-35.
Dat kan gewoon niet, ook experts niet. Het toestel is niet operationeel.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 30/10/2014 | 13:32 uur
Wat doe je dan wel?
Je beoordeelt het vliegtuig al het gehele topic. Dat doe je als je hem goed vindt, of slecht vindt.
Vraagtekens plaatsen is heel wat anders.
Niemand, en dan ook maar niemand kan maar IETS zinnigs zeggen over de F-35.
Dat kan gewoon niet, ook experts niet. Het toestel is niet operationeel.
Dan kun je beter een slotje op dit topic doen en het alleen gaan gebruiken om nieuws te brengen, en dit forum niet te gaan gebruiken om een mening te geven.. Komop zeg je mag toch wel vraagtekens zetten bij deze aankoop?
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 30/10/2014 | 13:32 uur
Niemand, en dan ook maar niemand kan maar IETS zinnigs zeggen over de F-35.
Dat kan gewoon niet, ook experts niet. Het toestel is niet operationeel.
Tuurlijk wel, jij kan er ook wat van vinden als een leopard3 een 90mm kanon krijgt, een bemanning van 2/3 personen of een motor van 750hp.
Daarnaast valt ook zeker wat te zeggen over de politiek omtrent het project, zeker met wat kennis van politicologie.
Ook valt er wat te zeggen op basis van de officiële rapporten, ook al spreken die elkaar vaak tegen. Zo weten we vrij zeker dat de €35 miljoen per kist niet gehaald gaat worden.
Citaat van: Thomasen op 30/10/2014 | 14:54 uur
Zo weten we vrij zeker dat de €35 miljoen per kist niet gehaald gaat worden.
:angel: daar kan je veilig vanuit gaan, voor 35 mjn koop je in 2015 hooguit een jet trainer met alle toeters en bellen.
Citaat van: bergd op 30/10/2014 | 13:48 uur
Dan kun je beter een slotje op dit topic doen en het alleen gaan gebruiken om nieuws te brengen, en dit forum niet te gaan gebruiken om een mening te geven.. Komop zeg je mag toch wel vraagtekens zetten bij deze aankoop?
Dus je oordeelt nu ineens wel?
Natuurlijk kun je spreken over het toestel, maar zonder dat het toestel überhaupt is ingevoerd wordt hij hier al neergeschoten.
Dat is apart. Veel spreken hier over een faal toestel terwijl de enige kennis die beschikbaar is komt van mensen die in boze blogs schrijven over hoe veel ze wel niet weten van luchtvaarttechniek en hoe slecht de F-35 moet gaan presteren. Volgens mij weet niemand hier dat zelfs exact van de F-16.
Dit is niet erg, dit is logisch.
A. Jachtvliegtuigen zijn zo ongeveer de duurste, meest ingewikkelde, geclassificeerde en meest krachtige machines die op aarde bestaan.
B. Informatie op het internet is per definitie niet te vertrouwen. Tenzij het uit eerste hand komt. Elk artikel in een krant of nieuwsprogramma is dat al. Laat staan over een gevoelig onderwerp als miljardenkostende deals waar iedereen graag iets van wil vinden.
C. Er zijn politieke, nationale, geografische, psycho sociale, Demografische en symbolieke factoren die meespelen, ongeacht het toestel. Gripen,F-35, Sukhoi of Rafale.
D. Alles wat bekend is en er toe doet wordt niet aan de buitenwereld bekend gemaakt. Al helemaal niet tijdens testfase.
Natuurlijk, betreft vele onderwerpen kan wel iets zinnigs worden gezegd. Waar rook is is vuur en er zijn genoeg problemen geweest gedurende het F-35 project. Herinnert iemand zich nog de F-16 projectfase? Nee, vast niet 90 procent was net als ik toen niet eens geboren. Ik was 6 toen de eerste vloog en iedereen er net als nu lyrisch over was. Ik kan je vertellen dat als je de artikels bekijkt het leek alsof de F-16 het grootste faalproject in de geschiedenis van de Luchtvaarttechniek zou worden. Had er destijds internet bestaan was het net zo gegaan als de F-35, er was notabene een nucleaire dreiging en mensen konden nog argumenten zoeken om over de F-16 te urineren. Als we nu allemaal even afwachten, aangezien de Amerikanen de F-35 als primair toestel gaan gebruiken zitten we wel gebakken. Die gaan er zoiezo iets van maken wat lukt, en ik heb gezien het verleden van Amerikaanse toestellen het volste vertrouwen. Het maakt me eigenlijk niet eens zoveel uit, zolang het maar geen Frans product is.
Citaat van: Lex op 29/10/2014 | 20:47 uur
Vrijwel alle ..... 8)
Maar het kan ook zo zijn, dat als deze diverse componenten tezamen komen en een vliegtuig dienen te vormen, het fout gaat. :angel:
klopt..maar dat wilden de Zweden voor zijn door ze al in het testtoestel bijeen te brengen en te testen.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 30/10/2014 | 16:22 uur
klopt..maar dat wilden de Zweden voor zijn door ze al in het testtoestel bijeen te brengen en te testen.
Waarbij het nog steeds een gemodificeerde D is en geen structureel vernieuwde F
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 30/10/2014 | 16:24 uur
Waarbij het nog steeds een gemodificeerde D is en geen structureel vernieuwde F
de verschillen tussen beide zijn niet zo groot. Ook het testtoestel heeft bijvoorbeeld al het nieuwe landingsgestel. Het te gebruiken type motor heeft al honderdduizenden draaiuren gemaakt in Super Hornets. Het is gewoon in weinig opzichten te vergelijken met de situatie bij de F35.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 30/10/2014 | 16:30 uur
de verschillen tussen beide zijn niet zo groot. Ook het testtoestel heeft bijvoorbeeld al het nieuwe landingsgestel. Het te gebruiken type motor heeft al honderdduizenden draaiuren gemaakt in Super Hornets. Het is gewoon in weinig opzichten te vergelijken met de situatie bij de F35.
Dat is waar.. toch kies ik voor innovatie en geen modernisering.
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 30/10/2014 | 16:06 uur
Dus je oordeelt nu ineens wel?
Wat ik opschreef was waarschijnlijk mijn mening maar als je mij vraagt zijn de kosten te hoog opgelopen om er een serieus aantal F35 (zolang er geen flnk budget bijkomt)van te gaan kopen? daar wil ik daar mijn oordeel wel even over geven.
Ik vind dat minder kortzichtig om bij voorbaat al de Fransen af te schrijven
Citaat van: bergd op 30/10/2014 | 17:11 uur
Wat ik opschreef was waarschijnlijk mijn mening maar als je mij vraagt zijn de kosten te hoog opgelopen om er een serieus aantal F35 (zolang er geen flnk budget bijkomt)van te gaan kopen? daar wil ik daar mijn oordeel wel even over geven.
Ik vind dat minder kortzichtig om bij voorbaat al de Fransen af te schrijven
Er is een dalende trend in de kosten van zowel aanschaf als exploitatie, laten we eens zien wat er gebeurd vanaf LRIP 9+
Brazil opens the door for Indian navy and Gripen
October 30, 2014
SAAB's Sea Gripen constitutes a new option as the INS Vikrant's light fighter. Ajai Shukla reports
Brazil's decision to buy the Swedish JAS-39E/F Gripen (or Gripen NG) has opened a tantalising possibility for India's defence ministry, which is frustrated after 33 months of negotiations with French company, Dassault on the proposed purchase of 126 Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft.
On Monday, Swedish defence giant, Saab, which builds the Gripen, announced Brazil had signed a contract for 36 Gripen NG fighters for $5.475 billion.
Brazil chose the Gripen NG over the Rafale (Dassault, France) and the F/A-18 Super Hornet (Boeing, USA).
Brazil will now ask Saab to develop the Sea Gripen, says defence analyst, INS Jane's. Twenty-four of these "navalised" fighters will equip Brazil's aircraft carrier, Sao Paulo.
IHS Jane's also highlights the Indian Navy's need for the Sea Gripen for two carriers that Cochin Shipyard is building -- the 40,000-tonne INS Vikrant and a larger, yet unnamed, successor referred to as the Future Indigenous Carrier.
So far, the Indian Navy had planned to fly a naval version of the indigenous light combat aircraft -- the Naval Tejas -- from these carriers. However, the Naval Tejas, which the Defence Research & Development Organisation is developing, may not be ready for service by 2018, when the Vikrant will be commissioned.
The Sea Gripen constitutes a new option as the Vikrant's light fighter. The navy already has a medium fighter, the MiG-29K, on order from Russia.
Indian analysts, like Manoj Joshi of Observer Research Foundation, say buying the Sea Gripen would let the DRDO engage Saab as a design partner for the Naval Tejas and Tejas Mark II, both advanced versions of the current Tejas Mark I.
In 2011, then DRDO chief V K Saraswat had approached Saab to collaborate in developing the Tejas Mark II. In 2012, the DRDO and Saab held detailed discussions. In January 2013, Saab was issued a Request for Proposal, which the DRDO examined and discussed. Yet, nothing came of it.
The DRDO's interest in Saab stems from the numerous technical parallels between the Tejas and the Gripen. Both are light fighters in the 14-tonne class.
Whilst developing the Gripen NG, Saab changed the engine to the more powerful General Electric F-414 turbofan, and added more fuel; which is exactly what the DRDO proposes for the LCA Mark II. Fitting the bulkier, heavier F-414 into the Tejas would require re-engineering of the fuselage; a problem that Saab has promised to solve.
"The greatest benefit to the Tejas Mark II could be from the Gripen's superb networking. Aerial combat is no longer about eye-catching aerobatics; it is about data links; networking, and cockpit avionics, which is Saab's strength," says Joshi.
The DRDO was also hoping to learn from Saab's maintenance philosophy, which has made the Gripen the world's most easy-to-maintain fighter. According to independent estimations, the Gripen requires three to five man-hours of maintenance per flight hour. That means, after an hour-long mission, 6-10 technicians require only 30 minutes to put the fighter back in the air.
In contrast, the Rafale is estimated to require 15 maintenance man-hours per flight hour; while the F-35 Lightening II requires 30-35 man-hours.
According to a Jane's study, the operating cost of the Gripen is $4,700 per hour. The Rafale is thrice as expensive, at $15,000 per hour.
"The Tejas Mark I has not been designed with operational availability in mind. It is a maintenance nightmare, with sub-systems inaccessible. The Tejas Mark II will need Saab's help in radically re-engineered these," says a DRDO engineer.
Senior Saab officials say, off the record, they are keen to partner India in developing the Tejas Mark II. They say the Tejas Mark II, built cheaply in large numbers, would eliminate the need for a heavy, costly, highly sophisticated fighter like the Rafale. Saab sees major profit in co-developing the Tejas Mark II.
Brazil's contract for 36 Gripen NGs comes on top of Stockholm's decision to buy 60 of these fighters for the Swedish Air Force.
In 2011, Switzerland too had selected the Gripen over the Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. However, in an astonishing, nationwide referendum on the proposed $3.5-billion purchase, the Swiss people voted to spend the money instead on education, transport and pensions.
The current version of the Gripen NG, the Gripen D, is currently in operational service with the Swedish, Czech, Hungarian, South African and Royal Thai Air Forces, and also with the UK Empire Test Pilots' School.
http://brazilbusiness.einnews.com/article/231899667
Citaat van: bergd op 30/10/2014 | 17:11 uur
Wat ik opschreef was waarschijnlijk mijn mening maar als je mij vraagt zijn de kosten te hoog opgelopen om er een serieus aantal F35 (zolang er geen flnk budget bijkomt)van te gaan kopen? daar wil ik daar mijn oordeel wel even over geven.
Ik vind dat minder kortzichtig om bij voorbaat al de Fransen af te schrijven
Geen Frans heeft te maken met een invloed m.b.t afhankelijkheid.
Als je Duits koopt zul je m.b.t buitenlands beleid niet veel vastzitten aan dat wat we zelf van plan zijn, bij de Amerikanen geld dat ook. Dit komt omdat Amerikanen niet in Europa zitten. De Fransen daarintegen gebruiken hun afhankelijkheidsrol als wapen in onderhandelingen. Daar zijn ze kampioen in.
Ik wil het gewoon niet. Maar je hebt gelijk, dat is mijn mening en die mag iedereen hebben.
New Strategy Would Cut F-35s, Boost Bombers and UAVs
The U.S.'s air-centered strategy has top-level backing
Oct 31, 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Today's U.S. power-projection forces, and those currently planned for the future, will not be able to operate effectively or efficiently against anti-access/area-denial (A2AD) weapons and doctrine being developed by China and other adversaries, according to a new report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) that details a new approach to defense strategy known as Third Offset.
Instead, the Pentagon should immediately refocus its development efforts on a global surveillance and strike (GSS) system based on long-range, very stealthy aircraft—including the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) and a new family of unmanned combat air systems (UCAS)—and submarines. Tactical fighter, surface combatant and heavy land-force programs should be cut back, the report suggests, to pay the bills and rebalance the force.
The CSBA report carries far more weight than usual because it was drafted under the leadership of deputy defense secretary Robert Work (AW&ST March 31, p. 20) and his senior advisers, according to a source directly involved in its production. It is intended to launch a detailed discussion of a major change in national strategy, inside and outside the Pentagon. Author Robert Martinage, a former senior Pentagon official, "can neither confirm nor deny" the extent of Work's involvement, he tells Aviation Week.
The CSBA paper details the roles of new and existing systems in the Third Offset strategy. It recommends a larger role for the Long-Range Strike Bomber, suggesting that the program could be "accelerated and expanded." Along with the B-2 and another proposed new weapon, a boost-glide missile launched from submarines, it is the only system able to deal with hard and deeply buried targets in a medium- to high-threat environment. According to the paper, too, it has a stand-in airborne electronic attack capability and can perform high-volume precision strike missions.
The biggest new program recommended in the report is the future UCAS family. Conceptually, Martinage says, this program's prototype is already flying in the form of the Northrop Grumman X-47B UCAS-D (demonstrator), which could lead directly to a Navy operational aircraft: the CSBA report outlines an N-UCAS with an 8-10-hr. unrefueled endurance and a 3,000-4,000-lb. payload. As a CSBA analyst, Work was a vigorous proponent of a "high-end" Navy UCAS, and his influence has played a part in stalling Navy plans for a less capable and less costly solution to the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike requirement.
The CSBA report revives an idea from UCAS-D's precursor program, the Joint UCAS: Because wingspan sets a cap on the payload and range of a carrier-based blended wing-body aircraft, a land-based version could benefit from being made larger. A U.S. Air Force version, identified as MQ-X, could handle double the payload, the report suggests, and have a 12-hr. unrefueled endurance. In a move that is unlikely to get strong support from the fighter community, the Air Force aircraft could be armed with air-to-air missiles for both offensive and defensive counter-air missions.
Persistence is a key advantage of UAVs, the report notes. A primary mission for the new UCAS in Third Offset is a "mobile and relocatable target killer," using a combination of unrefueled range and tanker support to fly 48-hr.-plus missions and remain on-station beyond the limits of human endurance. The UAVs would be nodes in an aerial communications network that would hedge against an adversary's counter-space activities—and thereby render anti-satellite operations less valuable. The report also cites an unpublished Northrop Grumman study showing that an unmanned replacement for the F/A-18E/F could save $56 billion over a 25-year service life, compared to a piloted aircraft.
Funding the new N-UCAS and MQ-X could call for "reduction in manned tactical aviation force structure" across all services and "scaled-back procurement of all F-35 variants—including possible cancellation of the F-35C, replaced with advanced Super Hornets and eventually N-UCAS." In July 2011, during Work's tenure as deputy Navy secretary, he directed the service to study alternatives to the F-35B/C.
The limits on the effectiveness of fighters—including the "semi-stealthy" F-35, so described to discriminate it from the wide-band, all-aspect stealth technology of the UAVs and LRS-B—include survivability and their dependence on tankers, which are vulnerable and difficult to protect. Martinage concurs with Aviation Week's assessment of the Chengdu J-20 as an offensive counter-air fighter aimed at tankers and other air assets. "With an extended-range air-to-air missile the J-20 can push the tanker 800-900 mi. back. [U.S.] fighters can't even make it to the beach."
Another unmanned vehicle recommended in the study is a "future" stealthy, high-altitude long-endurance UAV. However, the report notes that only three of the most important new GSS elements are not currently under development (MQ-X, N-UCAS and a towed payload module for submarines). The so-called future Hale UAV appears, in fact, to be the in-development but secret Northrop Grumman RQ-180 (AW&ST Dec. 9, 2013, p. 20). The report suggests that the RQ-180 has a light strike capability, possibly for targets of opportunity.
An important caveat is that the Third Offset still addresses lower-intensity conflicts. As the threat becomes less intense and far-reaching, current systems such as tactical fighters and permissive-airspace Reaper UAVs should be available. "The most dangerous cost-imposing strategy is the one we impose on ourselves," says Center for a New American Security analyst Ben FitzGerald. "It's taking out a HiLux truck with a $500,000 weapon." But a near-peer threat will be the driving factor. "You can't lose an advantage versus a near-peer," FitzGerald adds. "You don't come back from that position."
Martinage says that the CSBA report does not recommend specific numbers for new systems "because we did not intend this to be a budget drill." But as one example, the Northrop Grumman study cited in the report suggests that a Navy UCAS force could replace a two-times-larger force of manned aircraft.
Submarine warfare is seen as another area where the U.S. has a substantial and enduring lead. The Third Offset report advocates improving the firepower and flexibility of submarine forces by accelerating the development of unmanned underwater vehicles, developing a long-range boost-glide weapon for submarine launch, and developing towed payload modules. The latter could be 3,000-4,000-ton unmanned systems with up to 12 large-diameter launch tubes, which could be towed into position and remain on station for months. Again, there is a price to be paid: the scaled-back procurement of large surface combatants of the DDG-51 class.
In the Third Offset strategy, the use of special operations and counterterrorism land forces is favored over large military formations. Ground forces, however, would play a strong role in establishing "local area A2AD networks," particularly on the territory of threatened allies. Systems such as land-based anti-ship cruise missiles linked to aerostat-borne radars, for example, could both defend coastlines and inhibit an adversary's naval movements.
A version of this article appears in the November 3/10 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-strategy-would-cut-f-35s-boost-bombers-and-uavs?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20141031_AW-05_944&YM_RID=%27email%27&YM_MID=%27mmid%27&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&elq=%7E%7Eeloqua..type--emailfield..syntax--recipientid%7E%7E&elqCampaignId=%7E%7Eeloqua..type--campaign..campaignid--0..fieldname--id%7E%7E
UPDATE 1-Pratt wins $1.05 bln U.S. deal for 48 more F-35 engines
Thu Oct 30By Andrea Shalal
Oct 30 (Reuters) - Engine maker Pratt & Whitney on Thursday said it had won a contract to build an eighth batch of 48 engines for the F-35 fighter jet built by Lockheed Martin Corp, bringing the total value of the deal to $1.05 billion.
Pratt, a unit of United Technologies Corp, said the new contract was for $793 million, on top of $259 million in preliminary funds awarded and would lower the average cost of the engines between 3.5 percent and 4.5 percent.
Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, program executive officer for the Pentagon's F-35 program, welcomed the cost cuts in the new contract, which follow an average 4.4 percent cost reduction in the seventh batch of engines.
The cumulative reduction of about 9 percent in the two contracts showed Pratt's renewed commitment to the "war on cost" it initiated several years ago, Bogdan told reporters at the headquarters of the F-35 program. He said he would continue to press the company for further cuts in the cost of the F135 engine that powers the newest and most advanced U.S. warplane.
Neither Pratt nor the Pentagon disclosed the specific cost of each engine under the new contract.
Chris Flynn, who runs the F135 and F119 engine programs for Pratt, said the company and its suppliers remained focused on pushing the price even lower and meeting the goals outlined in the company's cost reduction initiative.
"Pratt & Whitney and our supply base remain focused on delivering the F135 propulsion system on or below the cost targets we committed to for our customer," Flynn said in a statement.
Bogdan said the Pentagon planned to negotiate separate contracts with both Lockheed and Pratt for the ninth and tenth batches of jets and engines in coming months, with a goal of reaching agreement with the companies by the fall of 2015.
He reaffirmed the program's goal of reaching a price tag of $80 million to $85 million per aircraft by 2019.
In addition, he said the Pentagon and Lockheed expected to generate "substantial" cost reductions in the F-35 fighter jets being sold to foreign countries by combining their cumulative orders instead of negotiating one year of orders at a time.
That meant that U.S. allies who participated in such a "block buy" could for a time see lower F-35 prices than the U.S. military, which must meet certain strict conditions set by Congress to enable multiyear purchases, Bogdan said.
In later years, once the F-35 reaches full-rate production, the U.S. military could also shift to multiyear contracts.
The changes could drive the cost of the aircraft even lower than the current target of $80 million to $85 million, he said.
Bogdan said he was confident that Pratt and the Pentagon had solutions in place that would allow the program to resume normal flight operations after a massive engine failure on June 23 that grounded the entire F-35 fleet for several weeks this summer. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Eric Walsh and Diane Craft)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/30/unitedtech-pratt-fighters-idUSL1N0SP36I20141030
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 30/10/2014 | 16:06 uur
Natuurlijk kun je spreken over het toestel, maar zonder dat het toestel überhaupt is ingevoerd wordt hij hier al neergeschoten.
Dat is apart. Veel spreken hier over een faal toestel terwijl de enige kennis die beschikbaar is komt van mensen die in boze blogs schrijven over hoe veel ze wel niet weten van luchtvaarttechniek en hoe slecht de F-35 moet gaan presteren. Volgens mij weet niemand hier dat zelfs exact van de F-16.
Dit is niet erg, dit is logisch.
A. Jachtvliegtuigen zijn zo ongeveer de duurste, meest ingewikkelde, geclassificeerde en meest krachtige machines die op aarde bestaan.
B. Informatie op het internet is per definitie niet te vertrouwen. Tenzij het uit eerste hand komt. Elk artikel in een krant of nieuwsprogramma is dat al. Laat staan over een gevoelig onderwerp als miljardenkostende deals waar iedereen graag iets van wil vinden.
C. Er zijn politieke, nationale, geografische, psycho sociale, Demografische en symbolieke factoren die meespelen, ongeacht het toestel. Gripen,F-35, Sukhoi of Rafale.
D. Alles wat bekend is en er toe doet wordt niet aan de buitenwereld bekend gemaakt. Al helemaal niet tijdens testfase.
Natuurlijk, betreft vele onderwerpen kan wel iets zinnigs worden gezegd. Waar rook is is vuur en er zijn genoeg problemen geweest gedurende het F-35 project. Herinnert iemand zich nog de F-16 projectfase? Nee, vast niet 90 procent was net als ik toen niet eens geboren. Ik was 6 toen de eerste vloog en iedereen er net als nu lyrisch over was. Ik kan je vertellen dat als je de artikels bekijkt het leek alsof de F-16 het grootste faalproject in de geschiedenis van de Luchtvaarttechniek zou worden. Had er destijds internet bestaan was het net zo gegaan als de F-35, er was notabene een nucleaire dreiging en mensen konden nog argumenten zoeken om over de F-16 te urineren. Als we nu allemaal even afwachten, aangezien de Amerikanen de F-35 als primair toestel gaan gebruiken zitten we wel gebakken. Die gaan er zoiezo iets van maken wat lukt, en ik heb gezien het verleden van Amerikaanse toestellen het volste vertrouwen. Het maakt me eigenlijk niet eens zoveel uit, zolang het maar geen Frans product is.
"Is dat 'em nou :hrmph: "
Ik zal het nooit meer vergeten toen ik voor het eerst een F-16A zag.
Een klein, licht, goedkoop en relatief eenvoudig jachtvliegtuig, dat geleerd had van de slechte ervaringen met te grote, zware, complexe en dure jachtvliegtuigen in de Vietnam oorlog.
En het deed mij direct weer verlangen naar het '104' raspaard met zijn robuuste motor, dat fouten niet vergaf. En in mindere mate de NF-5A 'horzel', een klein, gemakkelijk te vliegen en te onderhouden betrouwbaar brokje afschrikking.
De reden: een niet al te betrouwbare motor, zo maakten F-15A/B's in de jaren 70 en begin jaren 80 per jaar gemiddeld 15 landingen, waarbij een van de motoren door problemen uitgevlamd was. Ging de eerste KLu F-16 nog op zijn klep door des-orientatie van de vlieger.
De tweede crashte door een uitgevlamde motor in een weiland bij vlb. Leeuwarden. De F-100 motoren van die tijd, hadden een naverbrander die soms te laat ontstak. Dus eerst ontstond er een grote wolk onverbrande peut en als de naverbrander dan alsnog ontstak, dan vlamde de motor uit door de ontstane explosie. Het Amerikaanse congres was op een gegeven moment die onbetrouwbare F-100 motoren zat.
Ze besloten dit op te lossen door introductie van een alternatieve en dus concurrerende motor. De F-100 fabrikant werd nu scherp, ze verbeterden hun motor en de prijzen daalden aanzienlijk, om ueberhaupt orders binnen te halen.
De F-16 had als eerste jachtvliegtuig draadbesturing / fly-by-wire, dus geen kabel-, of stangen meer tussen stuurknuppel, pedalen en roeren, maar een viertal computers die een deels onstabiele kist in de lucht hielden. En de input van de vlieger eerst tegen het licht hielden en daarna doorstuurden naar de roeren en remmen.
Met als resultaat een kist die met 9x de zwaartekracht (G krachten) om het hoekie ging. Anders gezegd, dat ding draaide als een gek, terwijl je harses op dat moment 90 kg woog. F-16 vliegers waren dat toen nog niet gewend, dus grote kans op des-orientatie of G force Loss Off Conscience (knock-out). Hup, in de centrifuge met die 'witte sjalen' gasten en een speciale ademhalingstechniek ('strainen'). En zo werden die problemen ook weer opgelost.
De F-16 was voor zijn tijd in bepaalde opzichten dus ook innovatief. Maar de nieuwe technologieen waren tijdens de ontwikkeling en productie al wel rijp.
In de F-35 worden maar liefst 8 nieuwe maar NIET rijpe / volwassen technologieen toegepast.
De F-35 is ook revolutionair, vanwege het feit dat er ook een short take off vertical landing (STOVL) variant bestaat.
Helaas, deze F-35B STOVL variant bepaalt uiteindelijk ook hoe de conventionele land F-35A en F-35C vliegdek variant er uit zien.
En die betalen een hoge prijs in een enkele tonnen hoger leeggewicht en plompe romp vorm, want er moet een dikke verticale Lift fan voorin de romp kunnen passen.
2002. Ik zie voor het eerst de X-35. Het bakbeest, want net zo zwaar, groot en complex als de F-4 Phantom en F-105 Thunderchief, won van de te zware X-32. De X-32 had al wel relatief verdomd zware interne wapen schachten, maar de X-35 had deze nog niet. Ik was overwegend zeer positief over deze Joint Strike Fighter. Hier stond de toekomst en de daarnaast geparkeerde F-16 leek opeens een old timer. Een kist die aanzienlijk beter zou worden dan de Typhoon, Gripen of Rafale.
Eindelijk een kist waarmee je in (bijna) lek weer type en op lange afstand nauwkeurig klappen kon uitdelen.
Maar, ... ik had ook zo mijn bedenkingen, over het gewicht en het 'fits all sizes' / jack of all trades - master of none concept.
LockheedMartin kreeg opdracht om de F-35 met wapen schachten te ontwikkelen. En al snel moest de JSF twee maal op dieet. Een weinig bekend feit, want de media berichte alleen over het tweede, maar zeer ingrijpende dieet.
Met als resultaat een flinterdunne 0,94 % groot leeggewicht marge (2011). Maar ook een moeilijker, dus langer en duurder productie proces en een grote kwetsbaarheid voor gevecht schade.
Op de prestatie specificaties heeft men al moeten inboeten. En ook de capaciteiten / vaardigheden specificaties moet men naar beneden bijstellen.
Het kanon doet het nog steeds niet, problemen met de beeldscherm helm zijn zeer moeilijk op te lossen. Het Electro Optical Targetting System, niets anders dan een half interne en herverpakte variant van het Pantera doelaanwijsgondel, die nu gewoon onder de F-16C block 50/52 hangt, werkt niet helemaal naar behoren. Het Gatekeeper achtige 360 graden rondom kijkende camera Digital Aperture System werkt niet zoals het hoort. Een motor die al 7 jaar verschillende problemen kent. Maar een alternatieve concurrent is er niet meer !
Peut, die voorgekoelt dient te worden, omdat anders de temperatuur in de peut gekoelde avionica te hoog wordt. Etcetera, etcetera.
Huzaar, ik kom iets teveel mensen tegen die veel meer weten van het JSF, dan wij allen te samen. Opvallend is wel, dat bij velen van deze mensen de (al bestaande) twijfels de laatste 5 jaren flink zijn toegenomen.
En een flink aantal van deze lieden twijfelen (zeer) sterk of het JSF concept ooit nog zal gaan werken.
De grote, zware, complexe en dure F-4 Phantom's, F-105 Thunderchief's en F-111's maakten deel uit van een NAVO luchtvloot. Die ook bestond uit forse aantallen kleine lichte, goedkope tot niet al te dure; eenvoudige tot niet al te complexe Mirag III's, Starfighters,
A-7 CorsairII's, A-4 Skyhawks en (N)F-5's.
Bij invoering van 'flinke' aantallen F-35 LightningII's zal een toekomstige NAVO luchtvloot relatief veel zwaarder, groter, complexer en duurder zijn, dan nu of in het verleden.
WO 2, Vietnam en diverse luchtoorlogen in het Midden-Oosten hebben laten zien dat Big, Heavy and Complex absoluut niet beautyful zijn voor een overwinning.
Tsjah Poleme, ik snap wat je bedoelt. Maar dat er nieuwe technieken worden gebruikt zegt nog helemaal niets. Het is allemaal gissen vanaf de zijlijn.
Dat de vloot kleiner wordt, en duurder, en minder 'verbruikbaar' dat is een gegeven. Maar het is allemaal afwachten, je weet niet vanuit welke hoeken waar aan wordt gewerkt en door wie.
We weten niet op welke punten concessies zijn gedaan, waar ze in het project niet omheen konden, wat zwaar gewogen heeft bij het maken van beslissingen en wat nu werkelijk belangrijk is. Ik heb het nog nooit op hoeven nemen tegen de Russische/chinese counterpart. Ik hoop dat de ontwerpers van de F-35 dit wel hebben gedaan of mensen hebben aangetrokken die dit weten en op basis van hun ervaring hun input hebben gegeven.
Ik vind het simpelweg veel te vroeg om de F-35 neer te schieten. Nogmaals, dit gebeurde bij de F-16 ook.
Citaat van: Poleme op 02/11/2014 | 03:10 uur
.....
De grote, zware, complexe en dure F-4 Phantom's, F-105 Thunderchief's en F-111's maakten deel uit van een NAVO luchtvloot. Die ook bestond uit forse aantallen kleine lichte, goedkope tot niet al te dure; eenvoudige tot niet al te complexe Mirag III's, Starfighters,
A-7 CorsairII's, A-4 Skyhawks en (N)F-5's.
Bij invoering van 'flinke' aantallen F-35 LightningII's zal een toekomstige NAVO luchtvloot relatief veel zwaarder, groter, complexer en duurder zijn, dan nu of in het verleden.
WO 2, Vietnam en diverse luchtoorlogen in het Midden-Oosten hebben laten zien dat Big, Heavy and Complex absoluut niet beautyful zijn voor een overwinning.
Precies...en dat is waar het mij ook steeds om gaat. Kwantiteit is ook belangrijk. Mix zwaar/duur en licht/betaalbaar. En dan de vraag waar Nederland aan bij gaat dragen. Nu aan zwaar/duur met de F35. En dat lijkt me de verkeerde keuze. Al was het maar omdat we met 4 operationele F35s zo meteen gewoon niet meer de missies kunnen vliegen waar we als Nederland (politiek) aan mee willen doen. En ook dat lijkt me het verkeerde antwoord. Zeker gezien het strategische belang dat meedoen aan deze missies heeft voor Nederland.
Ik wijs de F35 an sich dus niet af. Verwacht dat het toestel..met voldoende financiële middelen..zijn beoogde werk zal doen. Alleen dat Nederland er voor kiest vind ik geen goed idee. Maar goed, dat is ander topic.
De hele kwantiteit discussie is overbodig, als we het over kwantiteit gaan hebben vraag ik me af hoe het dan met de Marine en landmacht zit. Daar is kwantiteit veel belangrijker en aangezien geen enkel Europees land nog over een strategische reserve zit kunnen we die discussie beter overboord zetten.
Niet dat kwantiteit niet belangrijk is, maar het ontbreekt simpelweg op elk vlak in praktisch elke westerse Krijgsmacht ( op de Amerikaanse na ).
Dus waarom zou kwantiteit in luchtmacht ineens moeten tellen als het op elk ander vlak ontbreekt?
Citaat van: Elzenga op 02/11/2014 | 12:47 uur
Precies...en dat is waar het mij ook steeds om gaat. Kwantiteit is ook belangrijk. Mix zwaar/duur en licht/betaalbaar. En dan de vraag waar Nederland aan bij gaat dragen. Nu aan zwaar/duur met de F35. En dat lijkt me de verkeerde keuze. Al was het maar omdat we met 4 operationele F35s zo meteen gewoon niet meer de missies kunnen vliegen waar we als Nederland (politiek) aan mee willen doen. En ook dat lijkt me het verkeerde antwoord. Zeker gezien het strategische belang dat meedoen aan deze missies heeft voor Nederland.
Ik wijs de F35 an sich dus niet af. Verwacht dat het toestel..met voldoende financiële middelen..zijn beoogde werk zal doen. Alleen dat Nederland er voor kiest vind ik geen goed idee. Maar goed, dat is ander topic.
Op naar 4 squadrons zou ik zeggen en een hogere defensie begroting die meer passend is bij de status van Nederland als financiële grootmacht.
:angel: Met een jaarlijks budget van 2% BNP en 20% hiervan als investeringsbudget voor nieuw materieel zie ik het probleem niet waarbij er ook meer dan voldoende investeringsruimte blijft voor de KM en de KL. (2,5 mjd euro per jaar)
Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 02/11/2014 | 12:53 uur
De hele kwantiteit discussie is overbodig, als we het over kwantiteit gaan hebben vraag ik me af hoe het dan met de Marine en landmacht zit. Daar is kwantiteit veel belangrijker en aangezien geen enkel Europees land nog over een strategische reserve zit kunnen we die discussie beter overboord zetten.
Niet dat kwantiteit niet belangrijk is, maar het ontbreekt simpelweg op elk vlak in praktisch elke westerse Krijgsmacht ( op de Amerikaanse na ).
Dus waarom zou kwantiteit in luchtmacht ineens moeten tellen als het op elk ander vlak ontbreekt?
het is maar net hoe je het bekijkt. Tellen we alle EU legers bij elkaar op dan hebben we een beste kwantiteit. Alleen werkt het mi niet zo. Omdat die EU legers nu eenmaal geen eenheid vormen zoals het federale Amerikaanse leger..en dat ook (hopelijk) nooit in die mate zullen vormen. Al denken bepaalde politici en politieke partijen daar dus anders over en rekenen zich nu al rijk (= verder bezuinigen op defensie)
Dus gaat het om, dreigingsbeelden, visie en ambitieniveau. En de vertaling daarvan naar in dit geval Nederland. Ik kom dan op een ambitieniveau en dus kwantiteit die simpelweg niet met de F35 is in te vullen. Of die nu goed is of niet. En dus krijg je door de keuze van de F35 dat niet je ambitieniveau het aantal toestellen bepaalt, maar het aantal toestellen je ambitieniveau. Verkeerde volgorde volgens mij.
En dat begint men in de VS ook in te zien..zeker in de huidige golf aan conflicten in de wereld. Kwantiteit blijft belangrijk...F35 waarschijnlijk niet de alleskunner zoals gepropageerd...en dus zie je ook daar bezinning en groeiende focus op blijvende mix van zwaar/duur en licht/betaalbaar.
Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 02/11/2014 | 12:54 uur
Op naar 4 squadrons zou ik zeggen en een hogere defensie begroting die meer passend is bij de status van Nederland als financiële grootmacht.
:angel: Met een jaarlijks budget van 2% BNP en 20% hiervan als investeringsbudget voor nieuw materieel zie ik het probleem niet waarbij er ook meer dan voldoende investeringsruimte blijft voor de KM en de KL. (2,5 mjd euro per jaar)
Zelfs als dat er niet komt kun je je afvragen of maar 4 operationele F35s straks (volgens Rekenkamer dat zelfs ambitieus!) wel acceptabel is binnen zelfs een bescheiden ambitieniveau...wat het huidige al is. Ook hier speelt de factor kwantiteit dus wel degelijk een rol lijkt mij. Met verpakt dat nu in termen als niche e.d....maar in feiten laat de huidige situatie en (al begrensde) Nederlandse inzet goed zien dat je daarmee niet weg komt.
Dit topic wordt hier (http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/internationale_fighter_ontwikkelingen_deel_5-t26504.0.html) vervolgd.